Talk:Ecofascism/Archive 1

Addition to article

One thing that the article strangely overlooks is pervasive phenomenon of ecological fascism around the world. Fascism, being defined historically as an economic system which is the "third way between capitalism and socialism" is present most noticibly in mainstream American environmentalism. Fascism implemented in economic terms being the system of a government-regulated market (state capitalism), fascism is quite pervasive in the sphere of all environmental efforts around the world. For example, the government subisdization of "green" technology is quite literally fascist. Any time the government interferes with, subsidizes, prohibits, etc any market activity is the manifestation of fascism for the sake of environmentalism, ergo, "ecofascism".

Because this phenomenon is so pervasive and obvious to the non-POV eye, I believe this qualifies for addition to the article with the necessary citings, etc.

Once this addition is made, it should be considered to remove the use of "ecofascism" as an epithet. The idea that it is an epithet originates from the lack of understanding / perception of the phenomenon of ecofascism. That "ecofascism" can be used as an epithet does not qualify it as an entry into the article since any politically charged term can be used as an epithet. Therefore its usage as an epithet is non-unique among political terms and thus not specifically interesting to this term.

If anyone would like to help include this new material into the article, please contact me at bryanedds@yahoo.com .71.146.67.91 (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this definition of ecofascism, it follows that the Democratic Party of the US is ecofascist. On balance, the Republican Party is merely fascist. One example of Democratic ecofascist legislation is Cash for Clunkers. The purpose of the program is to destroy automobile capital that is not congruent with the ecological hypotheses of AGW. Needless to say, this drives down the supply of automobiles, thus making cars and the individual independence they provide unavailable for America's poorest people.71.146.67.91 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A springboard for sources showing the overwhelming presence of ecofascism is this video - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870 71.146.67.91 (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This video sets up the premise for global ecofascism - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443&hl=en .71.146.67.91 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

See Discussion. If anyone cares to do this article in a intelligent way that is not 50% nazi quotes please feel free. The dangerous sides of ecoterrorism can be covered in the ecoterrorism article. And the nazi belief in animal rights can be covered in the Facism/ Nation socailist article, As are their beliefs in banning abortion and other issues valid to today's politcal landscape. I Hope someone with greater authority/knowledge of editing can remove this article as ti serves no purpose. Its topics are fragmented from others and is mroe a politcal rant then a intelligent non-bias article. All articles on wikipedia must be held up to a high degree of fareness. This article by showing one side and stating opinion as fact as breached this trust and untill someone can vastly rework it There is no reason for this to be in a encyclopedia. Please take this kind of arguement to a politics forum not a refrence source. See discussion. this page is (was) so incredibly biased and poorly written that I deleted the info. If anyone wants to edit it to be less of a rant and more of an article, go ahead.

Will anyone complain if I add the POV template? Sinatra Fonzarelli 07:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this page if someone wants to cover the dangerous sides of ecoterrorism they should do it in the eco terrorism article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.31.11.162 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to need some specific and actionable criticism from people willing to help work on the article if the dispute header is to stay... Sam Spade 15:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the Autobahn was conceived by the Nazis is directly contradicted on the Autobahn's wikipedia entry. Since there is no reference, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemoney12122112 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV template

I think some of the above have long been addressed and hopefully most of the others sorted. MacStep (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes section

As far as I can see the last two quotes listed (from the Earth First! Newsletter and the Stewart Brand Whole Earth Catalogue) aren't specifically related to Ecofascism, but rather to the misanthropic strands of deep ecology and the anti-technological beliefs of primitivism respectively. Both of these are often labelled as Ecofascist philosophies by opponents, but are, in my opinion, not strictly speaking relevant, and only serve to further cloud an already foggy issue. If no-one objects I will remove both of these quotes and replace them with more directly relevant quotations pertaining to Ecofascist philosophy. --Belzub, 22 April 2006, 17:02 (UTC)

Unsourced reference

Who are the "some" who have accused John Michell of ecofascism? If not sourced, this sentence should be deleted.Rodparkes 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has been on the left all of my life, I'm unaware of the the term "ecofascist" being used by bona fide leftists at all. It is purely a term of abuse coined by those favouring "business-as-usual" policies and warranting it under the rubric of "personal freedom".

Fascism was a quite specific social movement, foucesed on national pride, theories of race and blood, and most importantly, composed of armed and violent (and typically uniformed) gangs of thugs whose aim was to target those they saw as deviant with violent coercion. Ultimately, fascism underpinned a genocidal push to wipe out those seen as subhuman (Untermenschen). Making a portmanteau word by combining it with "eco" strips the word of its context in race-based demagoguery and actual violence and murder to make a claim about the political logic of a rival cultural group -- in this case environmentalists. It also trivalises survivors of the holocaust.

One might add too that even if it were lexically permissible to move from the privileging of ecology over civilisation as do some in the "Deep Ecology" to assertions of misanthropy and to reduce "fascism" to being aggressively insistent and impatient with rights based arguments about individual liberty -- as do rightists -- the usage of the word to tar all environmentalists by association would seriously mark the term as politically loaded.

Clearly it is as much a slogan as a word, and should only be used with scare quotes by those not themselves campaigning against environmental policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.150.124 (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV check, worldwide view

This article seems to be biased against environmentalists, and contains guilt by association and/or stereotyping of environmentalists as Nazis. It seems to proclaim associations that aren't true, and to make prejudicial insinuations. To provide an analogy, it reminds me of the derision of communism and the stereotyping of many things as being communist. I suggest this article be reviewed by both pro-environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. --Wykypydya 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need some sources for some of its assertions. Beyond that this appears a far more NPOV article than older versions, which were badly worded and may have implied that ecofascism and radical environmentalism were the same thing. The current version is more nuanced and gives a pretty accurate overview of what contexts the term is used, at least in the intro. Some of the specific examples of modern accusations need sources and there are some statements, such as the one that says the Nazis were at the forefront of conservation, that are debatable at best or possibly factually untrue. The main problem I can see other than that is the examples of modern accusations of ecofascism mix accusations coming from opponents of environmentalism on the right (who see deep ecology and concerns over population growth as ecofascist) and those coming from the political left (who see Third Way, David Icke etc. as ecofascist) without identifying the source of the accusations. Dragomiloff 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Discussion

The content of the article does not adequately analyze the topic. for example, the term "ecofacism" is never actually defined. A proper definition should include specific examples, such as how some environmentalists are using the government to impose their own beliefs on consumers(i.e. San Fransisco's Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance and California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs). It may also have been useful to note that radical environmentalism today has more hallmarks of communism than socialism. Many radical environmentalists advocate government control of industry and trade rather than allowing consumers to influence economic activity. Such additions/ alterations should be made immediately.

--Webchameleon 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is given two adequate definitions at the beginning of the article. The supposed 'impositions' you mention are irrelevant. Your observations concerning the similarities between communism and ecology are also irrelevant, and deeply inaccurate (the intersection between ecology and anarchism is well-attested and sufficient to counter claims of crypto-communism).Belzub 01:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle Droite

I'm leaving the link to the ND in the "See also" section, since it *is* worth mentioning, but I'm including some relevant information to clarify its relationship to fascism (and specifically ecofascism). The ND attracts the label of "fascist" by leftists constantly, and I don't want this article to be complicit in that, especially taking into account incidents like the time a group of young German 'anti-fascist' thugs physically attacked de Benoist, a middle-aged man of hardly intimidating build or appearance, back in the 90's. Belzub 15:58, 03 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "green libertarian nazis" and the A.N.U.S. can count as examples even if they seem to be just parodies?

The two groups (A.N.U.S. and the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party) mentioned apparently aren't even "real", but just parodies, just like that Landover Baptist Church. The A.N.U.S. article does not even states anything about environmentalism. This seems to be yet another joke. I'll consider as so, and remove for while, until proven otherwise.--Extremophile (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not parodies. They are insane and consist only of a few weirdoes hanging out on the internet, but they are not parodies. What kind of evidence are you actually looking for? None of the site founders have ever indicated that they were joking, none of the present day followers either. The LNSGP seems absurd at first glance, but looking at the history of ecology and fascism, far stranger combinations have developed.

The ANUS article is one of a couple that mention ecofascism on the site. That is the topic of this article so I think it's fairly relevant. I've not seen any convincing evidence that either of these websites are parodies, and I've done a fair bit of research on the subject. I've conversed with several ANUS/LNSGP types online, and they are serious to the point of being quite humourless. I'm gonna put this section back in unless you can provide some serious evidence - and I'm talking site founders explicitly stating that their sites are parodies - otherwise. Belzub 21:28, 05 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and put it back in, but as a compromise I've mentioned that some view it as being a parody. Belzub 21:33, 05 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bad wording

"The term is also used as a political epithet by political conservatives to discredit deep ecology, mainstream environmentalism, and other left and non-left ecological positions, and less frequently by political leftists to discredit environmental movements they see as non-left such as deep ecology."

This honestly sounds like a conservapedia quote (reversed of course). It sounds more like a rant than a description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, it cites (by reference) the Oxford English Dictionary definition of eco-fascism, which actually just says: 'depreciative radical environmentalism of a type perceived as excessive, intolerant, or authoritarian'.Sdoerr (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

really bad wording

"Their concept of racial hygiene was seen as cleansing the human genetic stock, much as ecology cleans the environment"

Could we please do something about the "ecology cleans the environment" wording? It is good for a laugh but has been in the article for how many years now? Ecology, the complex interrelationship among species, habitats, ecosystems, and resources, does not "clean" anything, and "the environment" is such a nebulous concept it almost qualifies as a weasel word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.204.229 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive video

I have reverted attempted deletions of a reference to a violent and obscene video made by ecofascists posted briefly on Youtube. Could there be any clearer view of the way ecofascists try to denigrate and malign any opposing view to their highly biased opinions? Peterlewis (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious labels such as fascism (eco or otherwise) should not be thrown around lightly (see WP:LABEL). Listing any group under the Existing ecofascist groups section requires multiple sources indicating that the group is "widely considered" ecofascist. The single reference provided does not even mention fascism or ecofascism. 10:10's No Pressure video was undoubtedly tasteless, but calling the organization ecofascist is hyperbolic and libelous. Gobonobo ^T ^C 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So making a very nasty video involving blowing kids apart is not ecofascist? You should try reading up about fascism and nazism. Peterlewis (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you or I believe it's ecofascist or not, there should be reliable sources to back up any claims made in the article. Otherwise it is only original research. As it stands, the only reference here states nothing about fascism or ecofascism. Perhaps we should bring in another editor for a third opinion? In the meantime, since this material is potentially libelous, I think it should not remain in the article. Gobonobo ^T ^C 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056586/eco-fascism-jumps-the-shark-massive-epic-fail/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.178.10 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not a reliable source. Again, per WP:LABEL contentious labels such as fascism should be avoided "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". I see no evidence of wide use or reliable sources. Gobonobo ^T ^C 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is not contentious since this was a recognised political movement in the 1930s. Fascist behaviour inclu8ded much brutal violence against opponents, and taken to the extreme, by killing them. So to say that a film of opponents to environmentalism being killed is quite clearly ecofasism. I have therefore restored the unfairly deleted text. Peterlewis (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis appears to be original research and you have not addressed the lack of reliable sources or the concerns that were raised over breaches of WP:LIBEL. There need to be reliable sources (not blogs) that can verify claims made in the article. Without those, it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. [1] Gobonobo ^T ^C 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, it's not up to you, Peter, to decide what is ecofascism. You need a reliable source which says that this is: that would be OK if it really was reliable, but your personal conclusion is not OK. Keeping putting that piece of text back in, with a reference which fails to support it, is not going to change this. 94.175.5.253 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unofficial response to a third opinion request. I started looking through this discussion before I removed the request (to indicate I was responding to it), and CordeliaNaismith beat me to it. Unless I am missing something major, the solution here is a no-brainer. For any label whatsoever, whether neutral or non-neutral, contentious or otherwise, reliable sources are required. The labeling of 10:10 as ecofascist was challenged; if certain users want to include it, they need to use reliable sources. In addition, any label that includes the word fascism is inherently non-neutral, so labeling a particular group ecofascist requires atypically widespread recognition of the group's status as such and careful attention to the overall neutrality. As present, such recognition hasn't been demonstrated. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 23:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My computer just unplugged and I lost what I was writing, so I'm especially happy to see that someone else has weighted in here. Here's a fourth opinion though. Dmyersturnbull, I agree with what you've said--applying a contentious label always requires impeccable sourcing, and this hasn't been demonstrated here. A minor point is that statements like "Group X has been accused of Y" should generally be avoided. As described in WP:ALLEGED, it's important to specify precisely who has accused Group X of Y. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hilarious

I nominate this article for deletion. Nazism and environmental protection have nothing to do with each other. The "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" does not actually exist. It is a joke/sockpuppet website that some people set up that apparently fooled all the editors of this ridiculous article. Not all policies of a government are related to one another and constitute an ideology. Hitler's policy of discrimination against jews and gypsies had nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of national forest conservation program he might have also had. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split? MacStep (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis were more about killing Jews and destroying capitalists and communists. Part of that is environmentalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.26.110 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazism and environmental protection have nothing to do with each other."

They ordinarly don't but some views put forward by apparent environmentalists do tend towards a form of fascism. See Talk:Ecofascism#Population_reduction_or_eradication_.3F . --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Have removed: Ernst Lehmann comment - says he was an airship captain,

"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. 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."

Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934

MacStep (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against Social Ecology

This article reeked of bias towards Deep Ecology, so I rectified it. 68.57.179.148 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards improving this article

In its current form, a rather strange, unbalanced article, verging on a List of accusations of ecofascism. More development is needed of the basic concept itself, and its history, from a variety of perspectives. Some of the accusations themselves may be problematic, presenting only the charge without the response, including for living persons. Ideally, in my opinion, the accusations and responses should be used as illustrations or examples rather than making up the bulk of the article. A difficult encyclopedia topic to write well, but an important one. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a thing?

I read the article, with an open mind, and I'm not convinced this is really happening in any notable way. Cahpcc (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.103.15 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding The Book 'Haze' As Literary Example

The book Haze by author Modesitt JR should be added as a literary example of this concept of Ecofascism. ISBN 9780765362902 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.103.15 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population reduction or eradication ?

Could this be classified under the term ecofascism ?

On one hand there is the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement which is an apparently benign movement encouraging people to stop having children.

On the other there are views that the human population should be reduced beyond this or even eradicated. Claims are something along these lines:

I equally dislike all variations of humans as a species.. they an aborent animal. Kill and eat them first and allow all other species to sort out their own shit

I have not found a source to support this as of yet but feel free to follow up with some links if this is relevant. --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]