1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14296/dropping-the-mask-of-ecofascism/

Dropping the Mask of Ecofascism

October 19, 2010 by

The new ecofascist short film “No Pressure” is a beautiful example of the environmentalist movement’s dropping its pleasant-looking mask and joking about its true authoritarian nature. People explode into a bloody mess when they decline to participate. FULL ARTICLE by Ben O’Neill

{ 20 comments }

Tim G. October 19, 2010 at 9:32 am

The “Green Police” Super Bowl ad is still my favorite example of this.

Dave Albin October 19, 2010 at 9:34 am

It really is scary what some of these environmentalists profess to believe. It falls into some sort strange religion for most of them – just have faith that all these horrible things will come true. The strange thing is that they don’t understand that we have the best prescription for environmental “problems” right here – private-property rights and some way to collect damages (legal system or mediation).

Pierre Desrochers October 19, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Good piece. If you wonder what environmentalists were actually like during (the real) and immediately after the fascist era (hint: they were much more open about the fact that there were too many brown, black and yellow people), I have touched upon the subject in the following essay http://www.ejsd.org/docs/THE_POST_WAR_INTELLECTUAL_ROOTS_OF_THE_POPULATION_BOMB_-_FAIRFIELD_OSBORNS_OUR_PLUNDERED_PLANET_AND_WILLIAM_VOGTS_ROAD_TO_SURVIVAL_IN_RETROSPECT.pdf

Rick October 19, 2010 at 3:25 pm

Earth uber alles. I’ve had it with environmentalists, even the so-called moderates.

Matt October 19, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Brilliant! I always enjoy your articles Ben. Keep ‘em coming!

Eike October 19, 2010 at 4:34 pm

I almost want to mock them, but the utterly disgusting nature of their ideology makes it hard to do. Even as a relatively young person, I can’t believe the “skinhead” kid thinks he’s supporting a good cause in that kind of manner. At least with the children in the 10/10 campaign, they seem young enough to fool (nevermind that the adult actors apparently took no issue with the content either).
As a conservative, I never respected the opinions of these environmentalist nutjobs, but fully appreciating what they mean by this kind of thing has just made ecofascism even more sickening.
I can tolerate wanting to clean up (even though I think it matters little in terms of “global warming”), but this kind of disregard for human life is beyond being tolerable.

Paul Stephens October 19, 2010 at 5:27 pm

I looked in vain for one name, one real environmentalist organization, or one law, rule, and/or agency which fits the definition of “eco-fascist,” here. All you’ve referenced is one obscure British group, and a couple of youtube videos! So, this refutes all the Green Parties, environmental protection laws and agencies, etc.? You do mention the organization Greenpeace, which is known as a radical (fundamentalist, direct-action) environmental group, but it only represents or speaks for a miniscule percentage of those who want to ecologically “save the planet.”
Are you a global warming/climate change denier? Here, again, that position is held by only a handful of actual PhD scientists, and most of them have little or no background in climate science.
Some of us Green Libertarians agree that much of the existing environmental legislation is misguided or counter-productive. All the more reason to use real economic science and general rules, rather than micromanaging everyone’s business and personal lifestyle choices.
Thus, a “carbon tax” (really a tax on greenhouse gas production, whether carbon-based or not) is much preferable to some sort of mandated percentage reductions, “cap and trade,” etc.
Such “Pigouvian” taxes on externalities are very old and proven. Sweden now has a carbon tax of ~$150/tonne, increased gradually since the 1990′s. This allows for the correct cost-minimizing pricing strategies to be adopted by all players in the economic/energy field. It’s very simple and respectable. Are you for it, or are you going to argue that corporations have the “right” to maximize their profits, while we don’t have the right to breathe or live on soon-to-be flooded coastal plains and islands?
You really don’t need to bring polar bears and seals into the equation to come up with the correct answers.

Capn Mike October 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm

Are you a gooey peanut butter suffocation denier? I have heard NO ONE explicitly dispute it’s dangers. Therefore, you cannot morally oppose my proposed 100% tax on peanut butter.

Inquisitor October 19, 2010 at 7:31 pm

“Are you a global warming/climate change denier? Here, again, that position is held by only a handful of actual PhD scientists, and most of them have little or no background in climate science.”

*sigh* Appeal to authority even after the Climategate scandal should’ve eviscerated the faith of some envirodogmatists in their religion. No. We don’t deny GW. We deny the tripe called AGW.

“Some of us Green Libertarians agree that much of the existing environmental legislation is misguided or counter-productive. All the more reason to use real economic science and general rules, rather than micromanaging everyone’s business and personal lifestyle choices.”

Indeed. Taxes are still groping in the dark. They’d be less objectionable if paid to those aggrieved. They’re still objectionable altogether, over the free market solution of letting the aggrieved sue for damages… and allow for market negotiation to transpire.

“Such “Pigouvian” taxes on externalities are very old and proven. ”

Correct ones? Old and proven? Hell no. The correct ones are those that’d be adopted in a free market order. Not some arbitrarily set, artificial tax level. They’re merely better than other statist alternatives.

Gil October 19, 2010 at 9:35 pm

I s’pose this is where people here would point out reality of “Mother Nature” in the “Rainforest Schmainforest” episode of South Park where everyone’s perception of the “wild” would quickly change if they actually had to live in it for a while without modern amenities. Such a situation mirrors the stories of a couple of centuries ago where a Westerners who get marooned in a far away land and want to desperately get back to civilisation instead of “enjoying organic living”.

Ben O'Neill October 19, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments on my article. I will try to address a couple of comments that have come up. (Apologies if I miss responding to any important points.)

Tim G: The “Green Police” advertisement is certainly a chilling look at a projected enviro-fascist future, and is also a good example of authoritarian environmentalist ideals on display. However, the reason I didn’t include this one in the article is that it was made by a car company (Audi) rather than an environmentalist group, and so, it does not provide an example in which an actual environmentalist organization has put forward an authoritarian vision highlighting the authoritarian aspects of its own philosophy.

Presumably Audi were trying to play up their environmentalist credentials with the “Green Police” ad, and so even this suggests that they see this vision as being one that is conducive to appealing to the “green” market. Although that is certainly disturbing, it is not the same self-inflicted wound as the examples in the article.

Paul Stephens: Thanks for commenting on the article. However, I think there are quite a few problems with what you are saying.

First of all, you say you “looked in vain for one name, one real environmentalist organization” in the article. But then you go ahead and name two of them, both mentioned in the article, and one of which is a very large and influential environmentalist group. Perhaps you mean that you looked in vain for three names? Maybe four? Or perhaps these were not “real” environmentalist organizations (i.e., you take refuge in the no-true-Scotsmen fallacy).

In any case, the paucity of organizational names in this regard is merely an issue of delimiting the subject of the article to those organizations that have made adverts like these ones. Any good article must have a delimited subject, and this one looks at specific adverts or games that reveal the authoritarian nature of the environmentalist movement. (For broader critiques of environmentalism and discussion of specific fascist programs and ideals within environmentalist movements, you should consult other works. The term “eco-fascism” comes from the clear fact that many environmentalist groups advocate vesting large amounts of coercive regulatory power in the State, and forming “partnerships” between the State and “private” business to attain allegedly beneficial environmental outcomes, both of which are quintessentially fascistic positions.)

Your assertion that there are only a handful of PhD scientists who dispute the AGW hypothesis is false, and by a wide margin. There are actually very large numbers of PhD accredited scientists who have signed petitions or other statements explicitly stating this (see e.g., The Petition Project). Moreover, many of those scientists who have been most active in disputing AGW are physicists, geologists and statisticians, whose specialty areas are directly relevant to assessing the evidence of AGW. The alleged requirement that these PhD scientists need a “background in climate-change” is virtually synonymous with requiring them to have government funding for climate-change research, and therefore a required agreement with the AGW hypothesis. (But that kind of biasing requirement is the whole purpose of this kind of bullshit “consensus” talk.)

Of course, there are also many other PhD scientists who dispute AGW but who have not signed petitions on the matter or publicly demonstrated their skepticism. Speaking as a PhD accredited researcher myself (my PhD is in statistics) I can say that I am one of the “handful” of thousands (maybe more) who don’t buy it.

(I notice also that you choose to ask whether I am a “global warming/climate change denier” thereby misstating the main hypothesis that is under dispute. Your chosen term also hints at the inconvenient fact that AGW proponents have recently been trying to delicately change their hypothesis from “global warming” to “climate change” and hoping nobody would notice.)

As to your claim to be a “Green Libertarian” it’s real’ simple: if you advocate taxation (i.e., robbery) and talk about this being the “respectable” position then you are not a libertarian. (If you are simply saying that a statist carbon-dioxide tax is preferable to a statist cap-and-trade system then that is another matter, but I think you are saying more than this.)

Despite our disagreements on this issue, thanks anyway for your comments. I don’t mean to be too hard on you, because I do genuinely appreciate hearing some disagreement in the comments. However, I think there is a lot of loose talk in your comment that reveals a lack of any genuine engagement with what AGW skeptics are actually saying.

Cheers,
Ben.

Tim G. October 19, 2010 at 11:47 pm

Understood. The Audi ad is not really a direct hit. One could interpret it as saying: “Whether you are an environmentalist or not, this will be our future, so you’d better get used to it now. Try looking into our line of vehicles that the fascists probably won’t tax extra, fine, or ban in the near future.” Anyway, I enjoyed the article, and thanks for the response!

Ben O'Neill October 19, 2010 at 9:54 pm

Sorry, I mistyped the hyperlink in my comment: This one should work .

jason October 20, 2010 at 2:17 am

I have read enironmental socialist thought for years on and off. It seems to me, that the whole eco thing was nothing more than a cover to promote socialist thought. This seems to be true especially after the fall of communism appx 1989. This is a religious movement co-opted by statists for a socialst agenda.

PLEASE check out the website below, you will find these ideas are everywhere.
https://www.adbusters.org/abtv/all

Vanmind October 27, 2010 at 1:10 am

Yeah, Adbusters is filthy propaganda. I applied there once for a high-level editorial role with the intent of culture-jamming along to the magazine racks as many pro-market ideas as I could before they fired me. A guy can dream.

Patrick Barron October 20, 2010 at 5:56 am

In the Western U.S. environmentalists have resorted to viiolence, burning down resorts, ski lifts, etc. Their activities, and others like it, were endorsed by Outside Magazine; therefore, I cancelled my subscription.

My local school district held an “energy fair” in which children were “instructed” about recognizing “energy hogs”. Of course, the energy fair had nothing to do with generating energy, a modern technological miracle that is the very essence of modern life. This fair was pure propaganda. The children were instructed to go home and find energy hogs in their own homes and nag their parents to end using so much energy. I complained about this misuse of the young, which reminded me of the Nazi Youth movement in which children were recruited to notify authorities when their parents did not support the party line. I believe the same thing happened in the Soviet Union. Of course, I received the cold shoulder from the school district and hate mail from the ecofascists.

Ben O'Neill October 20, 2010 at 5:28 pm

A reader pointed out another video with a similar theme: Greenpeace Climate Crime Unit

Douglas Chalmers October 22, 2010 at 7:08 pm

NOTE that this topic is also being commented on @ http://www.facebook.com/mises.institute under the same title…..
But it is unfair that the material being put forward as “Exhibits A, B + C” (yes, O’Neill IS a lawyer, duh) is dishonest as well as being mis-labelled in a slanderous manner…..
As regards “Exhibit B: The Greenpeace Skinhead-Thug-in-Training Video”, its creator, GREENPEACE, is a reputable organization which in no way condones violence or fascism + the “Skinhead-Thug” tag supposedly applying to the boy in a hood is solely O’Neill’s (biased) handiwork…..
As regards “Exhibit A: The “No Pressure” Short Film”, it has been withdrawn by its makers altho it still appears on YouTube:-
STATEMENT BY EUGENIE HARVEY, DIRECTOR OF 10:10 UK
Last week, 10:10 made available a short film. Following the initial reaction to the film we removed it from our website and issued an apology on Friday 2 October.
Subsequently there has been negative comment about the film, particularly on blogs, and concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change. We are very sorry if this has distracted from their efforts.
We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.
We will learn from this mistake. Today I have written to supporters and stakeholders explaining that we will review processes and procedures to make sure it cannot happen again. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board….. http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

Mr Whipple October 22, 2010 at 9:49 pm

Eco-fascists? We need anarcho-fascism. People need to have freedom forced upon them.

/sarcasm

Ben O'Neill January 14, 2011 at 2:31 am

Douglas Chalmers: You allege that the labelling of the exhibits in my article is dishonest, taking particular exception to my labelling of Exhibit B. In particular, you state that the description of the video as being about a “skinhead thug” is nothing but my own “biased handiwork”. You give no argument for this position, so I must assume that you believe that one or both of these descriptors inaccurately (indeed, dishonestly) describes the boy in the video. So, let me clear this up for you:

Skinhead: (n.) A person with a shaved head.
Thug: (n.) A person disposed to violence; a ruffian; a hoodlum.

As stated in footnote [2] of the article, the boy in the video either has a shaved head or is lighted in the video to look like this. Hence the descriptor “skinhead” is accurate. As is also painfully clear from the video, the young boy’s rant is a thinly veiled threat of violence, if his demands are not met, and hence, the descriptor “thug” is also accurate. Hence their conjunction, “skinhead thug” is entirely accurate and honest, based on the material in the video. (Incidentally, I am aware that not all skinhead culture is violent, and that it is a multifaceted culture with many diverging philosophies and attitudes.)

As to the other points you raise, the fact that the “No Pressure” video was withdrawn by its creators only further strengthens one of the central points of the article. Namely, that the public will not stand for expressions of fascist policies unless they are clouded in euphemism (in which case they love them) such that it is a tactical error for these groups to openly joke about the coercive means behind their preferred policies. (Incidentally, their “apology” was a classic non-apology apology, which consisted essentially of saying “we’re sorry people were offended!”)

As to whether Greenpeace condones violence, I will let their video (and their other actions) speak for themselves.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: