← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Madrid burns
Thread ID: 8145 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-07-15
2003-07-15 21:37 | User Profile
Racial Preservation is Green
By Norman Lowell
The Greens! - One has to admire their idealism. You will find them campaigning for the preservation of the shark, the whale, a snake or spider in deepest Amazon, or some little known lizard in New Caledonia.
Yet, when it comes to the preservation of the White race, Greens are virulently anti-racialists, screaming abuse and chastising anyone who dares defend its preservation and its progeny. That White race which has given humanity everything; from the wheel to space ships and computers.
Greens are on the forefront of every anti-racist demonstration, always alongside the "down-trodden Blacks" - no matter what. Often, not even having the decency to check the ever-growing complaints of alleged "discrimination" - by Whites against Africans of course. A blindness, a self-hate seems to afflict the Greens. They have become today's leading ethno-masochists.
Greens do not mind the mixing of that most civilised and advanced race, the White race - with that most primitive of all races; the Negroid. In fact Greens remain unconcerned on the burning issue of unlimited immigration. Whenever they can, Greens actually promote and encourage racial miscegenation. And it is always the same; Black males with White women.
Vienna's mayoral-election of March 25th 2001 was a typical case. It was a concentrated and concerted campaign against the FPO, organised and orchestrated by the usual tribe, led by Ariel Muzicant. Haider's Liberal allies slyly participated in this political lynching while the Austrian Greens, showing the whole world how clever they are, fielded an African! Naturally, the ones that gained from all this were the Socialists.
Most of the Greens, as I said, are idealists. They go about in their wilful destruction of their own race out of ignorance. They are what Lenin used to call; "useful idiots!" However, a few, in leading positions within the party, know exactly what they are doing. They are the conscious tools of the international manipulators - our hidden, most implacable enemies. Always scheming behind the scenes for the destruction of the White race.
National Socialists
Many Greens do not know the origin of their Party. It may come as a bit of a surprise to them that the founder of the present-day Green party is non-other than August Haussleiter. A National Socialist of the old school, a veteran who stood by Hitler's side during the beer-hall putsch in Munich, at the start of Hitler's political career.
Haussleiter formed the Green party in 1974, organised it, was the first chairman, imbued it with the principles it now embraces - and was then booted out for his troubles due to his Nazi past! He was replaced by left-wing extremists and ex-communists of the Joschka Fischer type.
National Socialists were indeed the ultimate Greens. Their animal legislation, protecting animal rights, was the most advanced in the world. Hitler was a vegetarian since he could not bear the thought of slaughtered hens and cows. All those who knew him intimately or worked closely with him testify to this truth. He was a non-smoker and a teetotaller. A fanatic for the preservation of the countryside, a mere cottage spoiling a skyline or a valley would upset him. Rosenberg, the party ideologue was undoubtedly the worldââ¬â¢s first ââ¬ÅGreenââ¬Â, writing about the long-term effects on the race by increasing mechanisation and even skyscrapers! He advocated the de-industrialisation of Germany by concentrating industry in clearly defined and limited areas. He was first to tackle the problems of pollution and its effect on future generations ââ¬â this in the early 1920s! In 1944-45 Germany stood alone against the whole world. Bombed mercilessly by thousands of allied planes, its industry and economy crumbling, National Socialists still doggedly refused to send German women to work in factories - as the Americans and the British did. Germans had a noble, mystical view of womanhood; that of bearers of the race. They would not envisage German women performing a simple, mechanical operation for thousands of times a day. National Socialism was indeed the ultimate Green party.
Origins
Today's Western environmental movement didn't begin in the '60s; it actually took root in the late 19th century among individuals in Germany, who today would be targeted by watchdog groups dedicated to monitoring the "extreme right." Whatever their political orientation, these hopeful romantics were no less dedicated than their modern-day standard-bearers.
Perhaps the most influential of these pioneers was scientist Ernst Haeckel. Considered by many to be the father of modern environmentalism, this fierce German nationalist and avowed social Darwinist is credited with introducing the term "ecology" into public discourse. In 1866, he defined this new field of study as "the science of relations between organisms and their environment."
Haeckel published a number of books articulating his Darwinist view that humans were intrinsically tied to the soil. His ideas resonated beyond his borders and years; the celebrated British author D.H. Lawrence would consider Haeckel an early influence on his thematic development and naturalistic prose style.
Haeckel was highly critical of Christianity for exalting people above wildlife. He reverently believed that the magnificent forests of his beloved Germany provided an ethereal bridge to a higher state of awareness. Yet his contribution to environmental consciousness cannot be dismissed. In her remarkable work Ecology in the 20th Century, Dr. Anna Bramwell declares that the well-known naturalist "enabled ecology to become a viable political creed."
The First World War
Haeckel's earth-centred weltanschauung took on greater importance following the horrors of the First World War, which sent millions of soldiers to the graveyard or horrible permanent disability. It also left massive chunks of sublime countryside barren, pockmarked, and infertile from artillery barrages. Thus did the "war to end all wars" realise the worst fears of the environmentally minded. For many, technology was the villain in this Greek tragedy of international proportions. The horrifying combat debut of large-scale artillery fire, machine gun, hand grenade, land mine, poison gas and other manufactured instruments of death provoked a widespread distrust of both humankind and industry. By the 1918 armistice, many veterans, shell-shocked and reeling from the ghastly images of war, sought redemption the only way they knew how-by turning back the clock to the agrarian life of their grandparents.
This reaction to the war was manifested in Britain by the growth of many back-to-the-land movements, such as John Hargrave's crypto-fascist "Green Shirt" movement of the '20s and '30s. But after unsuccessfully attempting to gain support via the electoral process, the Green Shirts and other like-minded organizations were quickly doomed to obscurity.
This wasn't the case in Germany, where support for ecological views became widespread as salvation was sought in the anti-cosmopolitan, anti-technological "peasant movement."
Blood and Soil
Amidst the resentment and disillusionment that marked the inter-war Weimar Republic, a newly aroused Green awareness took hold. This loose amalgamation of new ecologists comprised a cross-pollination of Haeckel admirers, popular German youth movements, and adherents to Rudolph Steiner.
This new "peasant movement" took as its slogan a simple phrase: "Blut und Boden!" or "blood and soil," celebrating the virtues of heritage and the nobility of the pre-industrial agrarian way.
Steiner, an influential lecturer, firmly opposed artificial farming methods and served up eloquent encomiums celebrating the peasant's role in Germany's glorious future. His writings would greatly influence SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, Hitler confidante Rudolph Hess, and the man Bramwell considers the "Father of the Greens": German environmentalist Ricardo Walther Darr?.
Darre
Author of The Peasantry as Life Force (1928), and the seminal New Nobility from Blood and Soil (1929), the little-known figure quickly rose to prominence as leader of the post-war volkisch revolution. While he is now considered suspect at best for his pan-German racialism and links to groups supporting eugenics, Darr?'s environmental program is progressive even by today's standards. The World War I veteran wanted to see his world transformed into a planned society based on environmental ethics.
Charismatic and possessing a rare gift for organizational ability, Darr?'s radical influence among rural Germans quickly gained the attention of deputies of The National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) by the early '30s. Asked to promote National Socialism in the countryside, where Hitler then lacked popularity, Darr? completed this task with alacrity; his efforts easily gathered peasant support for the Nazi party in North and East Germany. His successes were rewarded in 1933, when he was named Minister of Agriculture and Reich peasant leader. Darr? set up a peasant capital in the town of Goslar with progressive measures that empowered the farmer while preserving the soil. By 1940 Darr? accepted Steiner's belief in biodynamic farming, and funded several such experimental farms. Darr? continued to espouse the benefits of organic vegetation and soil conservation, but he was soon muzzled.
In 1942, completely out of favour with Hitler's cadre of handpicked advisors, he lost his cherished position as Minister of Agriculture. Nevertheless, up until the end of the war, he continued to criticize German agricultural methods and spoke passionately of creating his envisioned peasant state. Darr? was subsequently tried at Nuremberg for his demands that his countrymen be allowed to occupy the newly conquered Polish countryside. He was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment by the tribunal, but he continued to urge the merits of organic farming up until his death in 1953.
His advocacy was not in vain; our ongoing concern with the detrimental effects of pesticides and artificial fertilizers apparently proves that not only was Darr? correct, he was ahead of the curve, espousing these beliefs some four decades before the issue became in vogue. As is to be expected, today's liberal-minded Greens show very little admiration for Darr?, although they continue to promote his collectivist beliefs and other elements of his agenda. The mere mention of his name provokes a combination of anger and resentment. However, even left-leaning environmentalists must grudgingly pay lip service to his contributions.
"It was largely Darre's influence in the Nazi apparatus which yielded, in practice, a level of government support for ecologically sound farming methods and land use planning unmatched by any state before or since," notes Peter Staudenmaier in his cautionary Ecofascism: Lessens from the German Experience. In a 1984 History today article that Staudenmaier describes as "repugnant," Dr. Anna Bramwell goes further, noting that without Darr?, "The ecological movement would have perished in his time and place."
The Future of our Mother Earth
"There's no way to preserve a species that's programmed to kill the planet," explains the manifesto of today's extreme Greens, represented by the Finnish Linkola. He advocates involuntary sterilisation likened the planet's population to a sinking ship clumsily attempting to seat 100 passengers on a lifeboat built for 10. "Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody. Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale," he ruthlessly advises.
To wield the axes, the onetime pacifist envisions the rise of a ruthless "Green Police" patrolling the wilderness, undeterred by what he derisively termed the "syrup of ethics." The fierce opponent of both Amnesty International and the Vatican advocates an end to economic aid for starving Third World nations and an immediate reversal of open-door immigration policies-specifically so that millions might perish.
Of course, this would constitute a mountain of human corpses unseen since the dark days of Hitler's Germany, Mao's People's Republic of China, or Stalin's Soviet Union. But to Lineal, a few million deaths are of little importance when the entire planet is at stake. "We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost," he admonishes.
Linkola outlines the central tenets of his credo: an unyielding scepticism of egalitarian democracy and an unwavering belief that unchecked overpopulation will kill our once-bountiful planet.
The latter contention is not without merit. Recent estimates by the United Nations Population Division project a growth of over 3 billion people within the next 50 years. If the acceleration of births continues at its current pace, by the year 2150, an additional 6 billion inhabitants will threaten our imperilled ecosystem and obviously limited resources. Therefore, Linkola would shed few tears if a few billion of us were to meet a quick demise. In the name of conservation, he consigns democracy, conventional humanism, and the principle of non-violence to the waste bin.
Child limit would be enforced on all households. A fierce anti-capitalist, Linkola insists fishing and organic farming constitute the two primary occupations. Manufacturing would be overseen by the state, which would openly discourage technological research, and ozone-killing automobiles would be confiscated so that roads could be cleared for additional forest growth. Consequently, bicycles, and limited public transportation would return as the most popular modes of locomotion. Products would be created to last several lifetimes, with no exports allowed. As he has often stated, individual rights would give way to the rights of the earth, with his "Green Police" punishing miscreants who violate his beloved Gaia.
Like the National Socialists, Linkola would strive for "A return, from unthinking consumption to a pre-industrial agrarian society". For most of today's Greens this is too violent a change to envisage.
Today, Linkola stands alone but determined. A one-man force of will who remains undaunted in his quest to end the desolation of the earth. Although branded an "eco-fascist" by detractors and openly despised by the more image-conscious activists, he is actually more of a traditional ecologist than his critics would care to admit.
From a historical perspective, Linkola's books and articles resurrect a legacy of environmental consciousness that began over a century ago in the dark forests of Germany-where the first systemic environmental philosophy was formulated.
Conclusion
In 1980, Rudolf Bahro, the East German dissident and later a leading exponent of Green views, discovered the positive side to Nazism and launched his idea that Europe needs an eco-dictatorship, an eco-Fascism - a Green Adolf! A Green party that would stand for the preservation of every species - including and most of all, the racial preservation of the White race. For one cannot be Green and not be a racialist. Unless that is, one is either incoherent or intellectually dishonest - or both.
Racial preservation is Green! Keep Healthy Norman Lowell
[url=http://www.maltafly.com]http://www.maltafly.com[/url]
2003-07-15 23:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by Madrid burns@Jul 15 2003, 21:37 * *Racial Preservation is Green
By Norman Lowell
The Greens! - One has to admire their idealism. You will find them campaigning for the preservation of the shark, the whale, a snake or spider in deepest Amazon, or some little known lizard in New Caledonia.
Yet, when it comes to the preservation of the White race, Greens are virulently anti-racialists, screaming abuse and chastising anyone who dares defend its preservation and its progeny. That White race which has given humanity everything; from the wheel to space ships and computers.
Greens are on the forefront of every anti-racist demonstration, always alongside the "down-trodden Blacks" - no matter what. Often, not even having the decency to check the ever-growing complaints of alleged "discrimination" - by Whites against Africans of course. A blindness, a self-hate seems to afflict the Greens. They have become today's leading ethno-masochists.
Conclusion
In 1980, Rudolf Bahro, the East German dissident and later a leading exponent of Green views, discovered the positive side to Nazism and launched his idea that Europe needs an eco-dictatorship, an eco-Fascism - a Green Adolf!
A Green party that would stand for the preservation of every species - including and most of all, the racial preservation of the White race.
For one cannot be Green and not be a racialist. Unless that is, one is either incoherent or intellectually dishonest - or both.
Racial preservation is Green! Keep Healthy Norman Lowell
[url=http://www.maltafly.com]http://www.maltafly.com[/url]**
Interesting article. Why do do we have these seeming contradictions between what "greenism" could be to far-rightists, and its actually positions as a bulwark of the far-left?
In reality, it is the fact "greenism" as with the environment movement in general, is ideologically completely a product of postmodernism, with its peculiar critique of modernism, science, and industrialism. Other competing critiques are quitely stomped out with the peculiar Frankfurt School mentality one would expect from the founders of postmodernism.
2003-07-16 00:06 | User Profile
*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 16 2003, 01:16 * **
Early environmentalists in Europe tended to be reactionary Romantics and Luddites - Ludwig Jahn is a case in point. These "green" rightists attacked both capitalism and Marxism for their materialism and their blind worship of industry and technology, and for the false separation these ideologies make between man and the natural world. One finds echos of these attitudes in most of the Nazi leadership (particularly Alfred Rosenberg, Rudolf Hess, and Adolf Hitler himself) and in Nazi sympathisers such as the biologist Konrad Lorenz and the writer Knut Hamsun. Lorenz's sympathies with the Nazis are particularly telling - as a biologist, Lorenz was concerned about both the decline of the natural world and the decline of the white race, both thoroughly "conservative" impulses on his part and consistent with his perspective as a Darwinist. **
Very true, in fact there is a leftist that mentions the reactionary and antimodernists roots of the green movement in a article called "Fascist Ideology: The Green Wing of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents" in the following link:
[url=http://www.spunk.org/library/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html]http://www.spunk.org/library/places/german...1630/peter.html[/url]
"Germany is not only the birthplace of the science of ecology and the site of Green politics' rise to prominence; it has also been home to a peculiar synthesis of naturalism and nationalism forged under the influence of the Romantic tradition's anti-Enlightenment irrationalism. Two nineteenth century figures exemplify this ominous conjunction: Ernst Moritz Arndt and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl."
He has also written a book on the topic.
2003-07-16 00:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jul 15 2003, 23:16 * > *Interesting article. Why do do we have these seeming contradictions between what "greenism" could be to far-rightists, and its actually positions as a bulwark of the far-left?
In reality, it is the fact "greenism" as with the environment movement in general, is ideologically completely a product of postmodernism, with its peculiar critique of modernism, science, and industrialism. Other competing critiques are quitely stomped out with the peculiar Frankfurt School mentality one would expect from the founders of postmodernism**
There is nothing inherently "postmodern" about environmentalism. Environmentalism and "greenism" has certainly been co-opted as an issue by the Frankfurt Schoolers, but it hasn't always been this way...............
How and why environmentalism became coopted by the far left is an interesting question, it need not have been because as noted above, the environmentalist impulse originally stemmed from the same political instincts as agrarianism other reactionary movements. An analogy can be made with how rightwing populist movements serving farmers and workers were coopted by Marxists and used as battering rams in their war against traditional society, when initially the farmers and workers had no such subversive aims in mind. Similarly, most leftists don't really care about the natural world (most of them are urban cosmopolitans who have never seen a forest or a field), but it's a convenient is dishonest excuse to attack "the white man" for (never mind the fact that colored third worlders devastate their environments far more than civilized westerners do).**
I don't know exactly of course how modern environmentalism became dominated by the Frankfurt Schoolish postmodernist far-left/new left. But I'm certain if you look at it it would be quite similar to the way other influential movements for social change/discontent have come to be dominated by the Jews. After all, Socialism, the entertainment industry/mass media, western higher education elites, finance, etc. were all originally gentile movements with gentile aims. They all came to the attention of Jews who saw their unique possibilities in these movements for cultural subversion and through achieving their own ends, as MacDonald describes.
It is not surprising that the modern environmental movement, as the darling of such Jewish elites in academia, media, and activist organizations, quickly came to reflect their values to the exclusion of gentile influences.
2003-08-02 15:32 | User Profile
Wow, Norman Lowell gets here. That is the only article I have read by the man and I must say that it is a good article. Mr. Lowell is banned from the media here in Malta and is regarded as a madman. I have seen him once on TV and he is quite abrasive and gets angry quite easily or at least he creates some commotion.
2003-08-02 23:30 | User Profile
Environmentalism is simply an outgrowth of Romanticism and in and of itself it should not be problematic to anyone that doesn't worship at the alter of totally unfettered markets. Of course almost all of the environmental movements of the last two generations are totally anti-Occidentals that simply are using fear mongering as a means to effect Bolshevism. Some of their concerns are fully justified obviously but the reality is that heavily biased computer models made by rabid statists is no more real science then Ares "sci-fi" blather about inorganic Europeans. In terms of sane Environmentalism I look to Walther Darre for inspiration but in terms of modern practical matters ecology Vs. economic considerations is a very complicated balancing act. Such compromises really do need a carefully crafted balance of relevant science, economics and cultural concerns rather then dogma from libertarians or "deep green" lunatics. I would recommend Jacob Stebisch's "Ecology: The Science of Balance"
2003-08-03 03:00 | User Profile
So the left stole enviromentalism from us nationalists? what else is new? They steal everything from us!
Folk and Faith does a good job describing how nationalist views on enviromentalism differs from those of conservatives and liberals.
[url=http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/racnat.html]http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/racnat.html[/url]
Note: RN means racial nationalism/nationalist in the article. Just so nobody is mistaken.
** To illustrate this point, we can look at how conservatives and liberals view the environmental issue. To the conservatives, preserving the environment is seen mostly in how environmental laws affect business. Ideally, to them all environmental laws should be eliminated, since they invariably increase the cost of doing business. Industrial plants, for example, are no longer allowed to dump untreated wastes into the nearest river and spew toxic smoke into the air. Conservatives connect the unrestricted polluting of the past with economic growth. Of course, they avoid thinking about the fact that that economic growth came at great cost to both the land and our people. In many areas of America, the effects of pollution caused decades ago by industry are just now beginning to diminish. There remain many streams polluted by mines which closed a generation ago and which still consequently can't support aquatic life. The generation of today are also burdened with the tremendous cost of cleaning-up thousands of waste dumps all over the country. Of course, we have had millions of industrial workers and their children over the years who suffered the effects caused by polluted and dangerous work environments.
So how does the left see the environmental issue? Their patented answer is massive state regulation, resulting in thousands of burdensome laws which do, to a large degree, stifle economic growth. But is their concern really the well-being of the people? Part of their motivation is inspired by Marxism's hatred of free enterprise and wealth, but by burdening business with a myriad of restrictions they actually harm the people by unnecessarily hindering the nation's economics, and thus foster greater dependance on government. Also the left sees any unequal distribution of wealth as unfair and enacts laws and policies to take money from one group and give it to another.
Fundamentally, this fits the Marxist economic theory economic equality and state regulation of the economy. However, another factor that underlines a significant element of leftist thought is demonstrated by their more extreme "animal rights" faction: the placing of human well-being below that of animals. To the extreme "animal rights" activists, people are an aberration of Nature, a danger to all other life, and the enemies of the Earth. To their minds, the world would be a better place if all people simply vanished.
So how would an RN government differ on the environmental issue? A large part of the problem would be prevented by the RN philosophy itself, since man would be viewed as an intrinsic member of the natural world; a manifestation of Nature.
RN stands in diametric opposition to the position of the conservatives which holds that man is master of the world and all land and animals are subjected to any individual's arbitrary will. RN also opposes the extreme leftist position that man is the destroyer of Nature and separate from the natural world.
The positions of both the right and the left are paradoxically based upon the anti-Nature view found in the Semetic religions of Judaism and Christianity that separates man from the rest of Nature. RN rejects this alien position. (FNF NOTE- Author obviously failed to see that True Christianity differs entirely from this Judaised version he makes reference to. With that we disagree obviously..)
RN recognizes personal responsibility and the desire of persons to have as much economic independence as possible. Thus it has no desire to destroy the free enterprise economic system, and we accept the unequal distribution of wealth as a fact of life. However, as was stated earlier, RN places the well-being of the people above that of economics; Economics is treated merely as a tool for the advancement of the racial community and not an end in itself. Thus, dangerous pollution and worker exploitation would be necessarily restricted, not from a desire to increase state control, but for the protection of the environment that is necessary for healthy living. We also recognize the danger posed by the ultra-wealthy and corporations who are able to manipulate government policy for their own selfish purposes, which in many cases are destructive: NAFTA, GATT, and lobbying for the free flow of cheap foreign labor; all of which undermines the wages of average working Americans.**
I also appreciate how Folk and Faith notes that the author is attacking phony christianity, as opposed to traditional christianity. Traditional christianity has full love and respect for nature!
2003-08-03 05:45 | User Profile
I think that folk & faith has lots of excellent articles (and a bit of crap as well) and is required reading for those serious about National Restoration. However, they are part of the "national anarchist" tendancy which is very odious indeed and I would strongly recomend that no have any active ties with such groups. If it appears that a few forum members are interested in that issue I will go into all the gory details.
2003-08-03 23:45 | User Profile
I'm interested.
2004-02-20 19:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]I think that folk & faith has lots of excellent articles (and a bit of crap as well) and is required reading for those serious about National Restoration. However, they are part of the "national anarchist" tendancy which is very odious indeed and I would strongly recomend that no have any active ties with such groups. If it appears that a few forum members are interested in that issue I will go into all the gory details.[/QUOTE]
Triskelon-
I am curious on your thoughts on Nationalist Anarchism. Please give us the gory details, and what particular articles did you not like on Folkandfaith.com? Did you ever send in any article or thoughts to them? They are always asking for help or contributions in any means possible including articles/book/movie reviews etc etc etc..
Please explain these. Thanks for your time.
2004-02-20 20:49 | User Profile
Excellent thread,
Ecological protection is of course a vital component of any folkish expression as you can not have "blood and soil" mean anything if the soil is poisoned. Unfortunately, the issue is not at all simple. Clearly for a nation to defend itself it needs industry and infastructure thathave as economists say "negative externalities" making the matter of balance very difficult from a pracitcal public policy way. In large measure it is a scientific issue best left to emperical matters rather then modeling or theorists. After all, National Restoration as related to ecology is not something that can be left to musing of ludites and would be "rightist" Pol Pot types. While I am not supportive of much of what the honourable Colin Jordan has to say his summation of Darre is excellent and recomended reading.
I note that some here have ask about Triskelion. As .O. left this forum months ago (see: [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11052&highlight=triskelion[/url] and is not coming back no anwser will be coming directly. Those that wish can send me a message and I will give you a means to contact him personally.