Greens and Fascism have much in common (Loony Free Version)

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Taking a few days off from the blog has at least given me a chance to finish reading Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. This book (buy here) was a bit of an eye-opener for me, setting out in mind-boggling detail the links - both historical and philosophical - between fascism and the ideas espoused by modern day liberals and progressives. The sheer weight of evidence is extraordinary - from welfare, to land reform, to greenery, to the worship of the state it's hard to find any other areas of public policy in which the two have so much in common. (Goldberg points out that anti-semitism was part of the Nazi creed, but not that of the Italian or Spanish fascists, and was therefore a policy of Hitlerism, but not really of fascism.)

But what struck me about the book was how often I noticed that there are also clear parallels between fascism and environmentalism. At a high level, both are alt-religions, which their adherents seek to impose on society with Jesuit fervour, spurred on by fear of impending disaster. Both are openly totalitarian, in the original sense of the word: in other words the creed is supposed to apply in every aspect of life, in every area of policy, and in the private sphere as much as in the public.

The methods are often the same too. Where fascists tried to generate an almost permanent sense of crisis in order to unite their country (Mussolini) or their volk (Hitler) around a share sense of national purpose, environmentalists try to create a permanent sense of ecological breakdown in order to unite society around their programme.

But at a detailed policy level too, the parallels are remarkable. From attempts to change diets, to the hijacking of the education system, it's the same thing. And the methods have remarkable similarities too, with guilt used as a tool, the language abused in service of political ends and the use of cod-psychologists to target dissenters. And even more sinister are the common history of fascism, environmentalism, population concerns and eugenics.

Goldberg is keen to point out that the liberal and progressive left of today do not share the violent tendencies of their fascist forebears: theirs is a gentler totalitarianism (again in the original sense of the word). The same case can be made for the greens. At least for now; it is hard to avoid observing that their rhetoric is becoming steadily more violent and the calls for unmistakably fascist policy measures are ever more common.
Watch with care.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/27/the-greens-and-the-fascists.html
 
Yet, you're ignorant enough to put it back on the "current events" board after being informed that this is the wrong board for this thread.

Are you that stupid?

Whoops!

Someone let CL in...

Well, so much for this supposedly being the "loony free" thread.
 
I have the twat on ignore, so I didn't see his crap until you appeared. He is totally wrong anyway as I requested that the thread be closed because of Desh's crap flooding.

I'm wrong, dipshit?

Your OP is not what is considered a "current event".

The only part that is a current event is that you just finished a fucking book.

Are you that stupid that you can't figure out the right board to put your little thread on?
 
I'm wrong, dipshit?

Your OP is not what is considered a "current event".

The only part that is a current event is that you just finished a fucking book.

Are you that stupid that you can't figure out the right board to put your little thread on?

Normally I ignore your lunatic ramblings, however I feel that I must respond on this one occasion. It is not for you to determine what is appropriate to a particular sub-forum, Damo is happy with it and that's good enough for me. Thanks for your input and fuck you very much!
 
The book "Liberal Fascism" is junk history. Desperate conservative attempts to link all political extremism as somehow rooted in the center left, and that the right is somehow free of any and all historical political sins, is just ridiculous wishful think for rightists with no basis in reality.
 
The Green movement is a revision of marxism, replacing the exploitation of the workers with exploitation of the environment. It's a rightist ideology, however, supported by wealthy upper class liberal westerners who never have to deal with poverty.
 
The Green movement is a revision of marxism, replacing the exploitation of the workers with exploitation of the environment. It's a rightist ideology, however, supported by wealthy upper class liberal westerners who never have to deal with poverty.

I refer you to two of the most vocal and loony disciples of the Green movement, namely Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Klein. Naomi Klein in particular has never made any secret of the fact that her support for all things Green is just a means to an end, which is full blooded Communism and a new world order.

Post-modernism is many things and its exact meaning is subject to argument, but I think most would agree that it explicitly rejects things like formalism and realism in favor of socially constructed narratives. In that sense, what I mean by "post-modern science" is not necessarily a rejection of scientific evidence, but a prioritization where support for the favored narrative is more important than the details of scientific evidence. We have seen this for quite a while in climate science, where alarmists, when they talk among themselves, discuss how it is more important for them to support the narrative (catastrophic global warming and, tied with this, an increasing strain of anti-capitalism ala Naomi Klein) than to be true to the facts all the time. As a result, many climate scientists would argue (and have) that accurately expressing the uncertainties in their analysis or documenting counter-veiling evidence is wrong, because it dilutes the narrative.

I think this is the context in which Naomi Oreskes' recent NY Times article should be read. It is telling she uses the issue of second hand tobacco smoke as an example, because that is one of the best examples I can think of when we let the narrative and our preferred social policy (e.g. banning smoking) to trump the actual scientific evidence. The work used to justify second hand smoke bans is some of the worst science I can think of, and this is what she is holding up as the example she wants to emulate in climate. I have had arguments on second hand smoke where I point out the weakness and in some cases the absurdity of the evidence. When cornered, defenders of bans will say, "well, its something we should do anyway." That is post-modern science -- narrative over rigid adherence to facts.

I have written before on post-modern science here and here.

If you want post-modern science in a nutshell, think of the term "fake but accurate". It is one of the most post-modern phrases I can imagine. It means that certain data, or an analysis, or experiment was somehow wrong or corrupted or failed typical standards of scientific rigor, but was none-the-less "accurate". How can that be? Because accuracy is not defined as logical conformance to observations. It has been redefined as "consistent with the narrative." She actually argues that our standard of evidence should be reduced for things we already "know". But know do we "know" it if we have not checked the evidence? Because for Oreskes, and probably for an unfortunately large portion of modern academia, we "know" things because they are part of the narrative constructed by these self-same academic elites.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/naomi-oreskes-and-post-modern-science.html

As an aside, don't you have to be a worker first before you can be exploited?
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous John Birch society talk (every part of the center left is somehow a hidden road to communism). Newsflash, socialism doesn't need to hide itself among rightists to defeat fascism.
 
Back
Top