Were the Nazis radical environmentalists?

[Jim heartfield]

In message <199805111514.KAA04148 at dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>, Nathan Newman
<nnewman at ix.netcom.com> writes
>there was a real misanthropic strain within Earth First that (rightfully) gained
>it notoriety in its early years.Lester Brown also recently endorsed the anti-immigrant resolution within the
>Sierra Club - endorsing the "carrying capacity" rhetoric of the immigrant
>bashers. I was saddened to see him line up with the racist right on this
>initiative, but his actions actually reinforce the argument that, despite good
>intentions by many Greens, they can find affinity with the racist right at
>critical junctures.
In message <3.0.1.32.19980511114339.0118396c at popserver.panix.com>, Louis
Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes
>Lester Brown is wrong on this question, 
But Lester Brown's support for immigration controls is not an incidental
confusion on his part, but a logical development of the 'limited
resources' argument. If there is not enough to go round, then, as Louis
has already argued, there will have to be rationing - including the
rationing of citizenship. (Of course, racists have always taken refuge
in the idea that people are a pressure on resources, oblivious to the
obvious fact that people produce as well as consuming.)
> We
>should also keep in mind that many libertarian-oriented right-wingers, like
>Jack Kemp and the late Julian Simon, are vehemantly pro-open borders.
What point are you making here, Louis? Simon's support for open borders
does not damage the case for an open door - it makes Simon a better man
than you would normally allow (I am surprised and sceptical about Kemp's
being attributed such a position).

Interesting. Louis' champion, Brown supports immigration controls. His
bete noir, Simon wants freedom of movement. A moral here maybe?
In message <3.0.1.32.19980511170740.007250bc at popserver.panix.com>, Louis
Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> writes
>She says Nazi "ecological" ideology was used to justify the destruction of
>European Jewry. This is a new one on me. I always thought it was Wagnerian
>operas and Nietzsche that set the German people off the deep end.
No, I think that the goal of race purity and the cult of nature were in
fact pretty close to the ideological justification of the holocaust.
In message <Pine.3.07.9805111023.A26222-a100000 at login>, Justin Schwartz
<jschwart at freenet.columbus.oh.us> writes
>
>The arguments on both sides of this ratherdumb debate are based obvious
>fallacies. The "brown" Marxists (not my term), argue:
>
>The Nazis liked trees.
>The Greens like trees.
>So, the Greens are Nazis.
>
>In logic this is called affirming the consequent. Doesn't follow.

No, but it does suggest that a love of nature is no barrier to a hatred
of much of humanity. 
>There is also the argument that:
>
>Marx liked industrial development.
>The Greens don't like industrial development.
>So, the Greens are not Marxists.
>
>This is an equivocation. It assumes that Marx defines the acceptable
>parameters of Marx_ist_ views. 
I agree there is no need to make Marx's own positions into holy
scripture, but a philosophy that Marx vilified so comprehensively in his
own lifetime neither needs, nor deserves, Marx's imprimature.
-- 
Jim heartfield