Green Facists?

Crafedog · March 19, 2004, 1:39am

does anyone know what Green Facists are? what their policies are like, how they are seen in the world and examples of them? i heard the term recently and i havent been able to find much on it

thanks

Theoria · March 19, 2004, 7:39am

I’m not sure that you would find anyone within the Green movement calling themselves facists. Probably what you saw were critics of the movement - especially of the deep ecologists - trying to paint Greens as facists because they want to stop people from destroying Gaia. If you want to hinder my ‘freedom’ to engage in an act, namely the destruction of the environment, usually for private profit, then you are a facist. That’s the best I can think of.

Cheers.

Metavoid · March 19, 2004, 4:31pm

Are you talking about the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party? Here’s
the Wikipedia site on them, it has a list of their principles and a link, I don’t feel comfortable linking to sites promoting racial hatred.

hermes_the_thrice_gr · May 1, 2004, 9:02pm

Actually ecology in the West is rooted In the same Nationalistic soil that sprooted National Socialism. The original “tree huggers” were-proto nazis.

there are some papers online that document this movement fairly well.

spunk.org/library/places/ger … peter.html

the fellow that wrote that article and others, Peter Staudenmaier, is knocked by kooks trying to defend such intellectual crap as theosophy, but is generally a reliable and non-ideologically biased writer (as much as would be possible).

For a bit of an intellectual backdrop check out Heidegger’s Introduction to Metaphysics. They are selections from his lecture at the University of Freiburg in 1935. Towards the end, the Big H explains how national socialism stands against the evils of the industrializing world, and how only national socialism clears the ground for man’s enjoyment of Being or Dasein. Good ol’ Heidegger.

These fascist roots have been used as reasons why environmental policy will always lead us astray and how the EPA is unamerican, viewpoints I tend to write off as unexamined crap. Yet it does put the Green movement in a much more multicolored light.

               Enjoy

H3M

ben · May 1, 2004, 10:09pm

From Wikipedia:

And there website is called nazi.org and has a big swastika logo and a picture of soldiers marching with swastika banners. And they want us to believe they do not promote racial discrimination?

either the person who wrote the article is a member of the party and tries to be politically correct by denying that his party is made up racist bigots or he needs to put down the crackpipe.

A gem from their “non-racist” forum:

dear me.

ben

Rafajafar · May 1, 2004, 11:32pm

Separation of the races:
Isolation of all distinct racial groups to historical home continents
Creation within New World continents of geographically isolated “mixed” areas
Celebration of ethnic nationalism and racism in each and every race
Equal rights of all races to disassociate with others
Dissolution of international trading as a regulated industry
Local governmental rights to all ethnically- and culturally-distinct populations
Forced relocation of those on the wrong continents
Forced separation of mixed-race couples
Redefinition of “nation” to mean ethnic group/tribe
Reparations to American blacks and repatriation to Africa
Uniting of Native American tribes in separate Nation within America
Recognition of miscegenation as racist bias in favor of mixed-race tribes
Jews, Christians and Muslims recognized as middle eastern race

Race is the most controversial subject in world politics today.
In ancient civilizations, race was seen as the measurement of a people, not national boundaries as today. To be a German meant to look like, act like and share the same values as, your neighbors.

While it is currently in fashion to argue that racial differences are skin deep, many of the greatest thinkers of every race have seen the issue differently, thus making it useful to analyze the construct that is “race.”

Race is a means of measuring separate evolutionary strains of the homo sapiens population; whether these groups became divergent after a single common ancestor or a series of parallel developments in ancestry is for another concern. This article attempts to analyze race in its current context in society.

The first point of knowledge advanced here on this topic is that of measurement of the validity of race. Currently it is fashionable to argue that since genetic differences between races show up as “only” 1-10% of the DNA data we can measure between individuals, race is a “social construct” and has no bearing on individuals or groups or social planning. To anyone with experience in looking at complex systems realizes, even 1/10 of 1% difference in fundamental data makes a huge difference. For example, change a few bits in a computer program and it may fail entirely to do that for which it was once intended.

Since linear attacks on the concept of race such as these are innumerable in potential variants, it is wisest to demonstrate that simple comparisons between data will not explain or deconstruct the theory of race; they can at best attack it as concept or as a local anomaly. Like medical tests and statistics, a single point of observation does not reveal the heart of the matter, but luckily there has been an ongoing experiment of multiple variables for quite some time.

We call this history. In the historical view, the idea that race is not “real” is absurd. What inventions did native Africans produce for themselves? Why do both oriental and occidental populations have a social hierarchy with the lighter creatures on top? Why did the Egyptian and Roman dynasties collapse after the introduction of laborers and other darker population within the boundaries of their empires?

To live in the sterile mindset we have today, we must believe that Africans in America and Africa and Europe were so badly treated by Europeans that they lost all impetus toward developing a written language, buildings above one story or any kind of technological or philosophical systems. We have to look at Central American Hispanics as being so unduly put upon by the European man that they, the remnants of the Indian tribes enslaved by the Maya and Aztec empires, mixed with part-Moorish Spaniards and African slaves, have never mounted a credible cultural, political or technological revival. Examples go on, but the point has been made: dogma is re-writing history in a new and inaccurate context to avoid the stigma of dividing populations by race.

A theory regarding race which supports both the historical theory and the racial theory of the LNSG, “parallel evolution,” is codified under something known around here as Race-Culture Theory. This theory states that race and culture influence one another through development of a civilization; one might paraphrase it by saying that cultural norms determine what traits survive, and race is a record of the traits a culture has chosen; further, the implicit corollary is that a culture will be changed by the introduction of a new race within its population, as these people having been conditioned with different genetic determiners of survival will have been developed to exist in their culture, and will recognize living outside of that ruleset will bring ambiguity and death.

In this concept, races do not exist on a purely linear construction; they are the evolving populations of humanity which arose in parallel and each carry distinct traits which are handily specific to the culture and civilizations which produced each race. A few more steps of analysis suggests that race-mixing produces then a step back in evolution for members of all races, as they will have replaced specific traits - characterists rendered by thousands of years of evolutionary pressure toward a cultural ideal - with generic traits, or compromises between potential traits in their genetic profiles.

Thus the basis of the LNSG’s position on race is formed: race is culture is memory is values systems, and these are sacred to every population. While we are pro-White, and acknowledge no goals other than preservation of nature and our own tribe, we are committed to honorable treatment of other populations and above all else, honorable separation of the races and injunctions against miscegenation (race-mixing), population-mixing and most of all use of other races for chattel slavery and/or hired labor alike.

These rigid separations, deplored in the sentiment of mass culture, are essential to preserving the uniqueness of each population. To insist that mixing the races together will produce a super-race is evident folly, as is the idea that mixing races and thus reducing unique traits which could be cause for contention among disparate populations. To join us into a common race is conformist, and a norming factor that reduces “diversity” as seen in a political sense, and will destroy characteristics mirroring the long and hard-fought exertions of millennia of ancestors in every race.

They’re racist, but equal-opportunity racists. They want to separate the races into individual nations and have them duke it out, it seems LOL.

Seems logical… fucked up… but logical.

Just as logical as mixing races into one super-race that posseses the best attributes of all other races.

I’d like to tan instead of burn, run fast, be super-asian smart, hold my breath like a spanish pearl-diver, have a HUGE schlong, and be socially elite like the white man.

They’re like Darwinism gone apeshit.