--- joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net> wrote:
> Thank you.
> B. wrote:
> >Includes: "Fascist Ideology: The Green Wing of the
> >Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents" by Peter
> >Staudenmaier & "'Ecology' and the Modernization of
> >Fascism in the German Ultra-Right" by Janet Biehl.
They don't seem to consider the eviro thing inherently suspect:
"As social ecologists, it is not our intention to deprecate the all-important efforts that environmentalists and ecologists are making to rescue the biosphere from destruction. Quite to the contrary: It is our deepest concern to preserve the integrity of serious ecological movements from ugly reactionary tendencies that seek to exploit the widespread popular concern about ecological problems for regressive agendas. But we find that the "ecological scene" of our time--with its growing mysticism and antihumanism--poses serious problems about the direction in which the ecology movement will go."
Like I said before, yes, green nasties are out there, as well as people whose motivations are suspect, or at least loopy. Maybe I've had my nose in Worldwatch publications too much, but there are also quite humanistic and rational reasons for environmental concern without fretting about what creepy crawlies might share that concern.
Let me put it this way: I understand that part of ANSWER's position against the Iraq war is that they consider Saddam Hussein a hero for standing up against US imperialism. Furthermore, LaRouche and his organizations are against the war as well. Since the antiwar movement (such as it is) is not inconsistent with holding Saddam in high esteem nor with... whatever LaRouche represents, shall we reevaluate our opposition? After all, I wouldn't want to have anything more to do with LaRouche that I would with Nazis.
Ah, Nazis. What would the net be without Nazis?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com