Mumia Abu-Jamal has been death row in Philadelphia since the early 1980s, I organised the British arm of the campaign to prevent him being executed in 1995 by Republican Governor Tom Ridge, we succeed but he is still in prison, a life term already.
The evidence against him is poor and he has long served, Mumia was imprisoned like Gramsci to shut him up and like Gramsci it didn't work, he is closer to our politics than Gramsci. A supporter of mainly African-American deep ecology/ religious group/ post-panthers MOVE he still proclaim the prophetic vision of John Africa.
He writes beautiful columns, no column today but his 1997 rememberence of leftist Earth First! activist Judi Bari.
as they say on these occassions 'ONA MOVE LONG LIVE JOHN AFRICA!'
Statement for the Memorial of Judi Bari
March 6, 1997
We join with you in this moment of remembrance of Judi Bari, who fought valiantly for the green and growing life of your region, and of Mother Earth. The bombing of Judi and her companion by forces now unknown, is a dark testament to her growing significance in the movement against the rapacious greed of big lumber and capital. Even after that honor, her sprit remained undaunted and undiminished, although her body was shattered. She is remembered today, and will be remembered tomorrow, for the flash of the spirit that returned on behalf of life. Let us remember her with our resistance.
Ona Move
Long Live John Africa
Mumia Abu Jamal
10 May 2006
Tea with Chavez
well, folks lot of dodgy phone calls from people with Tibetan accents, anyway if you want to see Chavez (very sound on these human rights) mail the GLA now!
well here is sunday's rally, some ambiguity with VIC and Gla saying different things but the rally at friends house should be on.
Delegation of 12 from Green Party going on sunday so excellent that Party is supporting and not just us usual suspects, frightening by the way to think the usual suspects far left in Labour are now Roy Hattersley and Compass!
More on the Dalai Lama who as far as I can see simply wants to keep sex as boring as possible.....any way save that for tommorrow
Welcoming President Hugo Chavez To London
Sunday 14 May 2006, 3pm to 7pm
Camden Centre, 38-50 Bidborough St, London WC1
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, will host a welcome meeting on Sunday 14 May for His Excellency President Hugo Chavez Frias on the occasion of his visit to London.
President Chavez Frias will address the meeting on current social and economic policies issues in Venezuela that are relevant to London.
The meeting will take place on Sunday 14 May 2006 between 3pm to 7pm, at the Camden Centre, 38-50 Bidborough St, London WC1 (off Judd St, opposite St Pancras Station).
Attendance will be limited by the capacity of the venue.
Only individuals with confirmed registration sent from the GLA will be admitted.
In order to attend, you must RSVP by 7pm Thursday 13 May 2006 to: sandeep.sra@london.gov.uk
Please allow time to pass through security when you arrive.
For inquiries about disabled access, please email sandeep.sra@london.gov.uk
Venezuelan flag Mayor of London
well here is sunday's rally, some ambiguity with VIC and Gla saying different things but the rally at friends house should be on.
Delegation of 12 from Green Party going on sunday so excellent that Party is supporting and not just us usual suspects, frightening by the way to think the usual suspects far left in Labour are now Roy Hattersley and Compass!
More on the Dalai Lama who as far as I can see simply wants to keep sex as boring as possible.....any way save that for tommorrow
Welcoming President Hugo Chavez To London
Sunday 14 May 2006, 3pm to 7pm
Camden Centre, 38-50 Bidborough St, London WC1
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, will host a welcome meeting on Sunday 14 May for His Excellency President Hugo Chavez Frias on the occasion of his visit to London.
President Chavez Frias will address the meeting on current social and economic policies issues in Venezuela that are relevant to London.
The meeting will take place on Sunday 14 May 2006 between 3pm to 7pm, at the Camden Centre, 38-50 Bidborough St, London WC1 (off Judd St, opposite St Pancras Station).
Attendance will be limited by the capacity of the venue.
Only individuals with confirmed registration sent from the GLA will be admitted.
In order to attend, you must RSVP by 7pm Thursday 13 May 2006 to: sandeep.sra@london.gov.uk
Please allow time to pass through security when you arrive.
For inquiries about disabled access, please email sandeep.sra@london.gov.uk
Venezuelan flag Mayor of London
9 May 2006
Dalai Lama attacks anal, oral and 'manual' sex.
"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong."
At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.
"A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it," the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. "But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."
Well that's got your attention, shockingly the Dalai Lama has less fun than the rest us (that's got me on somebodies death list). The following lines from Dr Who
"Well," comes the cheeky reply, "your wife was away, you were surrounded by bald, athletic men ... I just thought you were enjoying yourself." (tooth and fang) may not quite apply to the Buddha but there is no homophobia in his teaching, far from it. So why run a series of classic sutras on sex and zen including gay zen on my blog, well five reasons come to mind?
1. Theology
2. Human liberation
3. Green Party policy.
4. Dr Who is a gay icon and I like Dr Who
5. Hey, I am getting married so lets celebrate with some blog sexual politics.....some classic zen teachings coming up.
1. Theology...many religious are sceptical about the Earth believing we need to escape to Heaven, they condemn gross bodily matters, are suspicious of nature and hostile to the feminine. Sex other than for procreation is condemned. This is all part of the gnostic heresy that divides spirit from matter and condemns the living Earth. Creation centre spirituality, stewardship, etc are a good step in the right direction but we have to recognise that Nirvana is here in Samsara in every moment, this point is the whole point for me of what is described as 'religion', as Blake (who to be honest was not quite with me on this one) states 'Everything that lives is holy'. To put it crudely those hostile to gay sex, are often hostile to sexuality because they are hostile to life.
Ironic that Islam often gets singled out when there are lots of other religious with a bad side on this!
Here are some thoughts from the Gay Zen group
World Accepting, World Rejecting Religions Gay Zen group
World accepting religions are those that perceive the world, including sex, as either inherently pure or as neutral. The world is not something which needs to be changed or conquered, nor is it something from which to escape. Impurity is entirely within the human mind or its attitude towards the world. It is due to our egocentric thinking that humanity has the right to stand out from the world, especially from nature. World accepting religions see the world primarily in non-dual terms. This means that the sacred and profane are seen as identical or in non-opposition to one another. The goal in such world accepting non-dual religions is not to be liberated from this world, but to identify with it, or to be liberated within the world. Only then will we find release from our alienation, from self, others and the world.
World accepting religions are in most cases more female friendly than are world rejecting religions. For example, in China the recognition of the necessary interplay of feminine yin and masculine yang allowed, at least on a metaphysical level, for a degree of acknowledgement of the worth of the feminine. This made certain forms of Taoism one of the most female-friendly of all major religions. Due to the extensive amount of Taoist influence on Ch’an and Zen, especially the Taoism of Chuang Tzu, one could expected them to be as female-friendly as it is male-friendly. This is especially so considering the Zen acknowledgement of the non-duality between the profane and the sacred.
Unfortunately the strong Confucian influence suppressed much of this pro-feminine characteristic in Zen. This is because Confucianism, while a world accepting religion has a women-unfriendly sexist attitude. In Japan, although there was an awareness of the Yin and Yang polarities, there was an even greater reinforcement of the masculine elements in Zen due to the glorification of the masculine militarism of the Samurai class.
World rejecting religions are those which, to a great degree believe that the world is essentially impure or corrupt, and ultimately alien, at least corporeally, to the human spirit. Such religions are, more often than not, dualist, seeing the sacred as a very separate reality from the profane. The goal in such religions is either to conquer and change the world or, failing this, to escape from it.
World accepting and world rejecting religions also appear to view death differently. It has been suggested that the link of world-accepting, women-accepting, and sex-accepting can most likely be attributed to the fact that the primary focus of most women has always been the conceiving, bearing, and raising of the next generation. This means that the feminine focuses on the beginning of life (birth), hence is biophilic; while the masculine focuses, for the most part, on the end of life and the escape from death, hence is necrophilic. It has been thought that this necrophilic factor is the main reason that most of the world’s great religions, with their avoidance of death ideologies, have been founded by men. Obvious examples of these are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Jainism.
2. Human Liberation. Sexual freedom is good for all with the obvious cavaets of avoiding abuse in unequal power relationship, opposition to gay sex can morph into hostility to sex for pleasure in general. Equally I don' buy the gay gene approach, it seems there is a sexual continuum stretching from gay to straight with many of us to some extent in the bisexual middle, this why I support Peter Tatchell's idea that its about human liberation. Sexuality is about taste, this is poetically put in Howard Fast's film Spartacus...these lines were cut in 1960.
Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier): Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus (Tony Curtis): When I have them, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters. Spartacus
3. Green Party policy. Greens have been strong on gay friendly policies, one of the purposes of the blog is to support green policies. Here is a nice piece from Peter Tatchell from the 2005 General Election.
GREEN IS THE NEW PINK
The Green Party now leads the way on gay rights. It is the only political party to oppose the ban on same-sex marriage. Greens support the right of gay couples to get married. All the other parties want to exclude us. They believe only heterosexuals should be allowed to enjoy wedded bliss.
The Greens say homophobia is a social evil on a par with racism and sexism, and it must be challenged with equal determination. They reject the way the government has made action against race prejudice a priority over action against homo hatred.
Green Party Euro-MEPs have led the campaign to harmonise European laws to guarantee gay equality and outlaw homophobic discrimination across the entire continent, from Dublin to Moscow and from Oslo to Athens. They want a “Europe without Homophobia”.
The Greens were the first party to elect an openly gay leader, Darren Johnson. He was the first politician to promote the idea of a same-sex partnership register and the first to back proposals for a Lesbian and Gay Museum.
These are a few of the reasons I am voting Green on 5 May. A big pink vote for the Greens will shake up the grey parties and encourage them to adopt more gay-friendly policies.
The Greens also have lots of other pioneering policies. Global warming threatens human survival. Rising temperatures will melt the polar ice-caps. This will raise sea levels and cause devastating floods. Food production will plummet. Millions of people will be forced to flee their homes and jobs.
Preventing catastrophic climate change is the precondition for gay life and rights. Without a sustainable planet, there can be no gay community and no gay liberation. Only the Greens have serious, effective policies to avert ecological disaster.
The Greens have the best policies on queer issues too. Second best are the Lib Dems. The Tories have the worst record. Despite Michael Howard’s supposed rejection of past Conservative homophobia, his party has no specific policies to tackle the remaining areas of homophobic discrimination.
Contrary to popular perceptions, Labour is not as pro-gay as it claims. Most of the government’s gay law reforms, such as the equalisation of the age of consent, were forced by rulings in the European Court of Human Rights. Europe declared Britain’s anti-gay discrimination illegal, which compelled the government to act.
Proof of Labour’s reluctance to challenge homophobia is the new Equality Bill. It denies gay people protection against discrimination in housing, education and the provision of goods and services, such as insurance. It fails to tackle homophobic harassment and allows public bodies, like local councils, to ignore anti-gay discrimination. This means most homophobia remains lawful by default.
Instead, the new Bill introduces wide-ranging legal protection for religious believers, to the exclusion of queers. People of faith have won priority over gays.
The government says the new legislation is necessary to protect vulnerable religious minorities, especially Muslims. I agree. Anti-Muslim harassment and discrimination requires urgent remedy. But this is no reason to deny gay people the same protection. Why can’t the Equality Bill protect both Muslims and gays?
The Equality Bill is just one of ten instances where the government is blocking gay rights. Labour refuses to outlaw incitement to homophobic hatred and it refuses to grant refuge to most gay asylum seekers fleeing homophobic persecution. It also backs the ban on same-sex marriage and has vetoed the inclusion of education against homophobia in the national curriculum guidelines on religious education. Labour says charities should remain free to discriminate against gay people, and it allows homophobic singers to openly advocate the murder of lesbians and gay men. New Labour, old inequalities.
Peter Tatchell
4. Dr Who is a gay icon and I like Dr Who. Huge following with gay fan clubs like the Sisterhood of Karn, all very buttoned up and unemotional and asexual but the new series brought to us from the writer of Queer as Folk is very gay friendly with lots of checky lines like the one at the start, with some gay and lots of straight kissing and some gender bending Dr Who has real emotional range....I am sure this has increased its audience to far more women rather than the classic lonely boys.
5. Hey, I am getting married so lets celebrate with some blog sexual politics.....some classic zen teachings coming up.
Here is some stuff from Roshi Robert Aitken, however fun as it is discussing zen and sex, they are not about talking are they, so going to sign off here. oh well one last....if you want to get married in Honlulu, Robert is very sought after.
ZEN BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE
ON SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE
On October 11, 1995, some religious leaders gave testimony
to the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law in support of same-
gender marriage. It was one of the most moving meetings of the Commission.
Of the approximately 9 speakers, three submitted written testimony
(two Buddhist and one Lutheran). I have retrieved their testimony from the
archives and will post each on to the internet. The first is appended below.
Robert Aitken served much of World War II as a prisoner of war of
the Japanese; one of his captors introduced Robert Aitken to Zen Buddhism.
Today Robert Aitken heads the western region of the United States.
Aloha!
Tom Ramsey
Co-Coordinator, HERMP
Robert Aitken's Written Testimony
To the Commission on Sexual Orientation
and the Law, October 11, 1995
I am Robert Aitken, co-founder and teacher of the Honolulu
Diamond Sangha, a Zen Buddhist society established in 1959, with centers
in Manoa and Palolo [macrons are over first a's in each word].
Our organization has evolved into a network of Diamond Sangha groups
on Neighbor Islands and in North and South America, Australia and New
Zealand. I am also co-founder of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship and a
member of its International Board of Advisors. This is an
association whose members are concerned about social issues from a
Buddhist perspective. It has it headquarters in Berkeley, California,
and has chapters across the country, including one here on O'ahu, as well
as chapters overseas. I am also a member of the Hawai'i Association of
International Buddhists.
I speak to you today as an individual in response to the Chair's
request to present Buddhist views, particularly Zen Buddhist views, on
the subject of of marriage between people of the same sex.
The religion we now call Zen Buddhism arose in China in the sixth
century as a part of the Mahayana, which is the tradition of Buddhism
found in China, Korea, Japan and to some extent in Vietnam. Pure Land
schools, including the Nishi and Higashi Hongwanji, as well as Shingon
and Nichiren, are other sects within the Mahayana.
The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.
Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling. Over a
twenty-year career of teaching, I have had students who were gay, lesbian,
trans-sexual and bisexual, as well as heterosexual. These orientations have
seemed to me to be as specific as those which lead people to varied careers.
Some people are drawn to accounting. I myself am not expecially drawn to
accounting. Some people are drawn to literature. I place myself in that
lot. In the same way, some people are attracted to members of their own
sex. I am not particularly attracted in this way. But we are all human,
and within my own container, I can discern homosexual tendencies. I keep
my checkbook balanced too. So I find compassion---not just for---but with
[with is underlined] the gay or lesbian couple who wish to confirm their
love in a legal marriage.
I perform marriages among members of my own community. Occasionally,
for one reason or another, these are ceremonies that celebrate commitment
to a life together, but are not legally binding. I have not been asked
to perform a ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple, but would have no
hesitation in doing so, if our ordinary guidelines were met. If same-sex
marriages were legalized, my policy would be the same. I don't visualize
leading such ceremonies indiscriminately for hire, but would perform them
within our own Buddhist community.
Back in the early 1980s I had occasion to speak to the gay and
lesbian caucus of the San Francisco Zen Center. It was in the course of
this meeting that the seed of what is now the Hartford Street Zen Center
was planted. This is a center that serves the gay and lesbian population
of San Francisco, giving them a place for Zen Buddhist practice where they
can feel comfortable. A number of heterosexual women also practice there,
as a place where they will not have to deal with sexual advances from men
who misuse other centers as hunting grounds for sexual conquests.
The Hartford Street Zen Center flourishes today as a fully accepted
sanctuary within the large family of Zen Buddhist temples in the Americas
and Europe. It sponsors the hospice called Maitri, a Sanskrit term meaning
"loving kindness," that looks after people suffering from AIDS. Maitri is
one of the significant care-giving institutions in San Francisco, and is
marked by a culture of volunteers who serve as nurses, doctors, counselors,
and community organizers in a large support system.
Historically, Zen Buddhism has been a monastic tradition. There have
been prominent lay adherents, but they have been the exceptions. In the
context of young men or young women confined within monastery walls for periods
of years, one might expect rules and teachings relating to homosexuality,
but they don't appear. Bernard Faure, in his cultural critique of Zen
Buddhism titled The Rhetoric of Immediacy [underlined] remarks that
homosexuality seems to be overlooked in Zen teachings, and indeed in classical
Buddhist texts. My impression from my own monastic experience suggests
that homosexuality has not been taken as an aberration, and so did not receive
comment.
There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.
In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
All societies have from earliest times across the world formalized
sexual love in marriage ceremonies that give the new couple standing and
rights in the community. The Legislative Reference Bureau, at the
request of this Commission, has compiled a formidable list of rights that
are extended to married couples in Hawai'i, but which are denied to couples
who are gay and lesbian, though many of them have been together for decades.
These unions would be settled even more if they were acknowledged with
basic married rights. A long-standing injustice would be corrected, and
the entire gay and lesbian community would feel more accepted. This would
stabilize a significant segment of our society, and we would all of us be
better able to acknowledge our diversity. I urge you to advise the Legislature
and the people of Hawai'i that legalizing gay and lesbian marriages will
be humane and in keeping with perenniel principles of decency and mutual
encouragement [mutual underlined].
Honolulu Diamond Sangha
2747 Waiomao Road
Honolulu, HI 96816
808-732-3119
808-735-4245 (fax)
At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.
"A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it," the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. "But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."
Well that's got your attention, shockingly the Dalai Lama has less fun than the rest us (that's got me on somebodies death list). The following lines from Dr Who
"Well," comes the cheeky reply, "your wife was away, you were surrounded by bald, athletic men ... I just thought you were enjoying yourself." (tooth and fang) may not quite apply to the Buddha but there is no homophobia in his teaching, far from it. So why run a series of classic sutras on sex and zen including gay zen on my blog, well five reasons come to mind?
1. Theology
2. Human liberation
3. Green Party policy.
4. Dr Who is a gay icon and I like Dr Who
5. Hey, I am getting married so lets celebrate with some blog sexual politics.....some classic zen teachings coming up.
1. Theology...many religious are sceptical about the Earth believing we need to escape to Heaven, they condemn gross bodily matters, are suspicious of nature and hostile to the feminine. Sex other than for procreation is condemned. This is all part of the gnostic heresy that divides spirit from matter and condemns the living Earth. Creation centre spirituality, stewardship, etc are a good step in the right direction but we have to recognise that Nirvana is here in Samsara in every moment, this point is the whole point for me of what is described as 'religion', as Blake (who to be honest was not quite with me on this one) states 'Everything that lives is holy'. To put it crudely those hostile to gay sex, are often hostile to sexuality because they are hostile to life.
Ironic that Islam often gets singled out when there are lots of other religious with a bad side on this!
Here are some thoughts from the Gay Zen group
World Accepting, World Rejecting Religions Gay Zen group
World accepting religions are those that perceive the world, including sex, as either inherently pure or as neutral. The world is not something which needs to be changed or conquered, nor is it something from which to escape. Impurity is entirely within the human mind or its attitude towards the world. It is due to our egocentric thinking that humanity has the right to stand out from the world, especially from nature. World accepting religions see the world primarily in non-dual terms. This means that the sacred and profane are seen as identical or in non-opposition to one another. The goal in such world accepting non-dual religions is not to be liberated from this world, but to identify with it, or to be liberated within the world. Only then will we find release from our alienation, from self, others and the world.
World accepting religions are in most cases more female friendly than are world rejecting religions. For example, in China the recognition of the necessary interplay of feminine yin and masculine yang allowed, at least on a metaphysical level, for a degree of acknowledgement of the worth of the feminine. This made certain forms of Taoism one of the most female-friendly of all major religions. Due to the extensive amount of Taoist influence on Ch’an and Zen, especially the Taoism of Chuang Tzu, one could expected them to be as female-friendly as it is male-friendly. This is especially so considering the Zen acknowledgement of the non-duality between the profane and the sacred.
Unfortunately the strong Confucian influence suppressed much of this pro-feminine characteristic in Zen. This is because Confucianism, while a world accepting religion has a women-unfriendly sexist attitude. In Japan, although there was an awareness of the Yin and Yang polarities, there was an even greater reinforcement of the masculine elements in Zen due to the glorification of the masculine militarism of the Samurai class.
World rejecting religions are those which, to a great degree believe that the world is essentially impure or corrupt, and ultimately alien, at least corporeally, to the human spirit. Such religions are, more often than not, dualist, seeing the sacred as a very separate reality from the profane. The goal in such religions is either to conquer and change the world or, failing this, to escape from it.
World accepting and world rejecting religions also appear to view death differently. It has been suggested that the link of world-accepting, women-accepting, and sex-accepting can most likely be attributed to the fact that the primary focus of most women has always been the conceiving, bearing, and raising of the next generation. This means that the feminine focuses on the beginning of life (birth), hence is biophilic; while the masculine focuses, for the most part, on the end of life and the escape from death, hence is necrophilic. It has been thought that this necrophilic factor is the main reason that most of the world’s great religions, with their avoidance of death ideologies, have been founded by men. Obvious examples of these are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Jainism.
2. Human Liberation. Sexual freedom is good for all with the obvious cavaets of avoiding abuse in unequal power relationship, opposition to gay sex can morph into hostility to sex for pleasure in general. Equally I don' buy the gay gene approach, it seems there is a sexual continuum stretching from gay to straight with many of us to some extent in the bisexual middle, this why I support Peter Tatchell's idea that its about human liberation. Sexuality is about taste, this is poetically put in Howard Fast's film Spartacus...these lines were cut in 1960.
Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier): Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus (Tony Curtis): When I have them, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Marcus Licinius Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters. Spartacus
3. Green Party policy. Greens have been strong on gay friendly policies, one of the purposes of the blog is to support green policies. Here is a nice piece from Peter Tatchell from the 2005 General Election.
GREEN IS THE NEW PINK
The Green Party now leads the way on gay rights. It is the only political party to oppose the ban on same-sex marriage. Greens support the right of gay couples to get married. All the other parties want to exclude us. They believe only heterosexuals should be allowed to enjoy wedded bliss.
The Greens say homophobia is a social evil on a par with racism and sexism, and it must be challenged with equal determination. They reject the way the government has made action against race prejudice a priority over action against homo hatred.
Green Party Euro-MEPs have led the campaign to harmonise European laws to guarantee gay equality and outlaw homophobic discrimination across the entire continent, from Dublin to Moscow and from Oslo to Athens. They want a “Europe without Homophobia”.
The Greens were the first party to elect an openly gay leader, Darren Johnson. He was the first politician to promote the idea of a same-sex partnership register and the first to back proposals for a Lesbian and Gay Museum.
These are a few of the reasons I am voting Green on 5 May. A big pink vote for the Greens will shake up the grey parties and encourage them to adopt more gay-friendly policies.
The Greens also have lots of other pioneering policies. Global warming threatens human survival. Rising temperatures will melt the polar ice-caps. This will raise sea levels and cause devastating floods. Food production will plummet. Millions of people will be forced to flee their homes and jobs.
Preventing catastrophic climate change is the precondition for gay life and rights. Without a sustainable planet, there can be no gay community and no gay liberation. Only the Greens have serious, effective policies to avert ecological disaster.
The Greens have the best policies on queer issues too. Second best are the Lib Dems. The Tories have the worst record. Despite Michael Howard’s supposed rejection of past Conservative homophobia, his party has no specific policies to tackle the remaining areas of homophobic discrimination.
Contrary to popular perceptions, Labour is not as pro-gay as it claims. Most of the government’s gay law reforms, such as the equalisation of the age of consent, were forced by rulings in the European Court of Human Rights. Europe declared Britain’s anti-gay discrimination illegal, which compelled the government to act.
Proof of Labour’s reluctance to challenge homophobia is the new Equality Bill. It denies gay people protection against discrimination in housing, education and the provision of goods and services, such as insurance. It fails to tackle homophobic harassment and allows public bodies, like local councils, to ignore anti-gay discrimination. This means most homophobia remains lawful by default.
Instead, the new Bill introduces wide-ranging legal protection for religious believers, to the exclusion of queers. People of faith have won priority over gays.
The government says the new legislation is necessary to protect vulnerable religious minorities, especially Muslims. I agree. Anti-Muslim harassment and discrimination requires urgent remedy. But this is no reason to deny gay people the same protection. Why can’t the Equality Bill protect both Muslims and gays?
The Equality Bill is just one of ten instances where the government is blocking gay rights. Labour refuses to outlaw incitement to homophobic hatred and it refuses to grant refuge to most gay asylum seekers fleeing homophobic persecution. It also backs the ban on same-sex marriage and has vetoed the inclusion of education against homophobia in the national curriculum guidelines on religious education. Labour says charities should remain free to discriminate against gay people, and it allows homophobic singers to openly advocate the murder of lesbians and gay men. New Labour, old inequalities.
Peter Tatchell
4. Dr Who is a gay icon and I like Dr Who. Huge following with gay fan clubs like the Sisterhood of Karn, all very buttoned up and unemotional and asexual but the new series brought to us from the writer of Queer as Folk is very gay friendly with lots of checky lines like the one at the start, with some gay and lots of straight kissing and some gender bending Dr Who has real emotional range....I am sure this has increased its audience to far more women rather than the classic lonely boys.
5. Hey, I am getting married so lets celebrate with some blog sexual politics.....some classic zen teachings coming up.
Here is some stuff from Roshi Robert Aitken, however fun as it is discussing zen and sex, they are not about talking are they, so going to sign off here. oh well one last....if you want to get married in Honlulu, Robert is very sought after.
ZEN BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE
ON SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE
On October 11, 1995, some religious leaders gave testimony
to the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law in support of same-
gender marriage. It was one of the most moving meetings of the Commission.
Of the approximately 9 speakers, three submitted written testimony
(two Buddhist and one Lutheran). I have retrieved their testimony from the
archives and will post each on to the internet. The first is appended below.
Robert Aitken served much of World War II as a prisoner of war of
the Japanese; one of his captors introduced Robert Aitken to Zen Buddhism.
Today Robert Aitken heads the western region of the United States.
Aloha!
Tom Ramsey
Co-Coordinator, HERMP
Robert Aitken's Written Testimony
To the Commission on Sexual Orientation
and the Law, October 11, 1995
I am Robert Aitken, co-founder and teacher of the Honolulu
Diamond Sangha, a Zen Buddhist society established in 1959, with centers
in Manoa and Palolo [macrons are over first a's in each word].
Our organization has evolved into a network of Diamond Sangha groups
on Neighbor Islands and in North and South America, Australia and New
Zealand. I am also co-founder of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship and a
member of its International Board of Advisors. This is an
association whose members are concerned about social issues from a
Buddhist perspective. It has it headquarters in Berkeley, California,
and has chapters across the country, including one here on O'ahu, as well
as chapters overseas. I am also a member of the Hawai'i Association of
International Buddhists.
I speak to you today as an individual in response to the Chair's
request to present Buddhist views, particularly Zen Buddhist views, on
the subject of of marriage between people of the same sex.
The religion we now call Zen Buddhism arose in China in the sixth
century as a part of the Mahayana, which is the tradition of Buddhism
found in China, Korea, Japan and to some extent in Vietnam. Pure Land
schools, including the Nishi and Higashi Hongwanji, as well as Shingon
and Nichiren, are other sects within the Mahayana.
The word Zen means "exacting meditation," descriptive of the formal
practice which is central for the Zen Buddhist. It is a demanding practice,
from which certain realizations emerge that can then be applied in daily
life. these are realizations that each of us is a boundless container, a
hologram, so to speak, that includes all other beings. The application of
this kind of ultimate intimacy can be framed in the classic Buddhist
teaching of the Four Noble Abodes: loving kindness, compassion, joy in
the attainment of others, and equanimity.
Applying these Four Noble Abodes to the issue of same-sex marriage,
I find it clear that encouragement should be my way of counseling. Over a
twenty-year career of teaching, I have had students who were gay, lesbian,
trans-sexual and bisexual, as well as heterosexual. These orientations have
seemed to me to be as specific as those which lead people to varied careers.
Some people are drawn to accounting. I myself am not expecially drawn to
accounting. Some people are drawn to literature. I place myself in that
lot. In the same way, some people are attracted to members of their own
sex. I am not particularly attracted in this way. But we are all human,
and within my own container, I can discern homosexual tendencies. I keep
my checkbook balanced too. So I find compassion---not just for---but with
[with is underlined] the gay or lesbian couple who wish to confirm their
love in a legal marriage.
I perform marriages among members of my own community. Occasionally,
for one reason or another, these are ceremonies that celebrate commitment
to a life together, but are not legally binding. I have not been asked
to perform a ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple, but would have no
hesitation in doing so, if our ordinary guidelines were met. If same-sex
marriages were legalized, my policy would be the same. I don't visualize
leading such ceremonies indiscriminately for hire, but would perform them
within our own Buddhist community.
Back in the early 1980s I had occasion to speak to the gay and
lesbian caucus of the San Francisco Zen Center. It was in the course of
this meeting that the seed of what is now the Hartford Street Zen Center
was planted. This is a center that serves the gay and lesbian population
of San Francisco, giving them a place for Zen Buddhist practice where they
can feel comfortable. A number of heterosexual women also practice there,
as a place where they will not have to deal with sexual advances from men
who misuse other centers as hunting grounds for sexual conquests.
The Hartford Street Zen Center flourishes today as a fully accepted
sanctuary within the large family of Zen Buddhist temples in the Americas
and Europe. It sponsors the hospice called Maitri, a Sanskrit term meaning
"loving kindness," that looks after people suffering from AIDS. Maitri is
one of the significant care-giving institutions in San Francisco, and is
marked by a culture of volunteers who serve as nurses, doctors, counselors,
and community organizers in a large support system.
Historically, Zen Buddhism has been a monastic tradition. There have
been prominent lay adherents, but they have been the exceptions. In the
context of young men or young women confined within monastery walls for periods
of years, one might expect rules and teachings relating to homosexuality,
but they don't appear. Bernard Faure, in his cultural critique of Zen
Buddhism titled The Rhetoric of Immediacy [underlined] remarks that
homosexuality seems to be overlooked in Zen teachings, and indeed in classical
Buddhist texts. My impression from my own monastic experience suggests
that homosexuality has not been taken as an aberration, and so did not receive
comment.
There is, of course, a precept about sex which Zen Buddhists inherit
from earlier classical Buddhists teachings. It is one of the sixteen precepts
accepted by all Zen Buddhist monks, nuns and seriously committed lay people.
In our own Diamond Sangha rendering, we word this precept, "I take up the
way of not misusing sex." I understand this to mean that self-centered
sexual conduct is inappropriate, and I vow to avoid it. Self-centered sex
is exploitive sex, non-consensual sex, sex that harms others. It is
unwholesome and destructive in a heterosexual as well as in a homosexual
context.
All societies have from earliest times across the world formalized
sexual love in marriage ceremonies that give the new couple standing and
rights in the community. The Legislative Reference Bureau, at the
request of this Commission, has compiled a formidable list of rights that
are extended to married couples in Hawai'i, but which are denied to couples
who are gay and lesbian, though many of them have been together for decades.
These unions would be settled even more if they were acknowledged with
basic married rights. A long-standing injustice would be corrected, and
the entire gay and lesbian community would feel more accepted. This would
stabilize a significant segment of our society, and we would all of us be
better able to acknowledge our diversity. I urge you to advise the Legislature
and the people of Hawai'i that legalizing gay and lesbian marriages will
be humane and in keeping with perenniel principles of decency and mutual
encouragement [mutual underlined].
Honolulu Diamond Sangha
2747 Waiomao Road
Honolulu, HI 96816
808-732-3119
808-735-4245 (fax)
8 May 2006
Howard Switzer for Tennesse
well, saw this on Tennesse indy media...thought it would be fun to flag up another interesting green candidate, depressing that even making health insurance a little fair is a radical policy in the USA, here in the UK Greens are fighting to preserve the National Health Service that presently provides free health care for all.
The framining with 'socialism@ ohmygod and 'Jesus' shows the culture gap, anti-globalisation has been used to keep working people voting Republican and here has been exploited by the neo-fascist British National Party.
well, if you are state side get involved with your green candidates, politics is about slogging around the streets persuading voters.
Green Party Activist Howard Switzer Announces Candidacy for Governor of Tennessee Current rating: 0
by Chris Lugo
Email: christopher_lugo (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) 02 May 2006
Howard Switzer announced his candidacy for the Governor of Tennessee this week. He was nominated as candidate for Governor at the Green Party nominating convention on March 6th. He submitted his petition on April 6th, andit has just been verified by the Federal Elections Commission. Howard is not a typical Gubernatiorial candidate, and prides himself on that. Howard is critical of candidates who are beholden to special interests and do not represent the concerns of everyday Tennesseans. Howard supports a single-payer health insurance system for every resident of Tennessee, similar to the program which is currently being considered in Ohio. He is concerned about the nearly half million people who have lost their health care coverage in Tennessee due to the Tenncare cuts and intends to make health care coverage for all his most important campaign priority.
Green Party Activist Howard Switzer Statement from the Candidate:
Hello, my name is Howard Switzer and I am running for Governor of Tennessee. As you can tell from my photo I am not a typical candidate for Governor but I think, and you may agree, the typical candidates running for high office lately have not been serving us very well. I think it is because many are ethically challenged, serving the concerns of their wealthy corporate contributors, instead of the interests of most Tennesseans. I think this corruption is reflected in many Tennessee government policies, and works to the detriment of the working people of this state.
I am an architect who likes to help people build straw bale houses--so why am I subjecting myself to the dirty tricks and smears of our political system? It is because I think it is time we changed how government treats the majority of people and I don’t see anyone else working to do this--so as someone once said, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
I am asking those who have benefited most from this tilted playing field to meet the rest of us in the middle. The first thing is to immediately restore healthcare coverage to the nearly half million Tennesseans who were so rudely dropped from TennCare. I simply thought that was not a Tennessee sort of thing to do. I would then implement a state single-payer healthcare insurance system based on the one currently being presented in Ohio. For a few to make huge personal profits from people’s misery is wrong and a heavy burden on our society. Public health should be a public responsibility, not a “profit center,” as it is called on Wall Street. It is especially important today with so many new diseases and threats to our health.
Tennesseans spend nearly $30 billion on healthcare annually, but with a single-payer system that would drop to $14 billion due to much lower administration costs and no profit being made on your healthcare dollar.
Don’t believe the myths that you won’t get good healthcare or that it is “socialism” and is against “our” principles. The main thing Jesus did besides kick the money changers out of the temple was to heal the sick, so I don’t think it should be against the principles of the people of Tennessee to "go and do likewise."
I think the wealthy corporate interests who misuse their corporate charters to the detriment of our planet and all who live here need to change their motivations. Unbridled growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell, not a prescription for a sane society. Corporations have succeeded in evading the responsibility of taxation, putting the burden of paying for government largely on the shoulders of individuals. We need to change that.
From 1947 to 1979 the bottom, middle and top 20% percentiles, even the top 1% of American incomes, rose together. From 1979 to 2001, income for the lower 80% of households in the country essentially stayed flat, while the upper twenty percent rose fifty percent and the upper five percent nearly doubled. This has been the case in Tennessee to an even greater extent than elsewhere in the country. Attempting to fund state government on the sales tax, again, puts the burden of paying for government most heavily on Tennessee's poorest citizens. That is wrong and there is something we can do about it.
My candidacy speaks for many Tennesseans--the hundreds of thousands cut off Tenncare; the hundreds of thousands who struggle from paycheck to paycheck; those who live in the chemical shadow of out-of-control, polluting industries; the rural residents who have seen their counties stripped of once-abundant natural resources, and who find themselves poorer than before. I believe that together we can forge a movement that will shake the foundations of political power in this state and move Tennessee in a new, saner, more compassionate direction. If you want to see that change, vote for me in November.
See also:
http://www.H4gov.com
The framining with 'socialism@ ohmygod and 'Jesus' shows the culture gap, anti-globalisation has been used to keep working people voting Republican and here has been exploited by the neo-fascist British National Party.
well, if you are state side get involved with your green candidates, politics is about slogging around the streets persuading voters.
Green Party Activist Howard Switzer Announces Candidacy for Governor of Tennessee Current rating: 0
by Chris Lugo
Email: christopher_lugo (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) 02 May 2006
Howard Switzer announced his candidacy for the Governor of Tennessee this week. He was nominated as candidate for Governor at the Green Party nominating convention on March 6th. He submitted his petition on April 6th, andit has just been verified by the Federal Elections Commission. Howard is not a typical Gubernatiorial candidate, and prides himself on that. Howard is critical of candidates who are beholden to special interests and do not represent the concerns of everyday Tennesseans. Howard supports a single-payer health insurance system for every resident of Tennessee, similar to the program which is currently being considered in Ohio. He is concerned about the nearly half million people who have lost their health care coverage in Tennessee due to the Tenncare cuts and intends to make health care coverage for all his most important campaign priority.
Green Party Activist Howard Switzer Statement from the Candidate:
Hello, my name is Howard Switzer and I am running for Governor of Tennessee. As you can tell from my photo I am not a typical candidate for Governor but I think, and you may agree, the typical candidates running for high office lately have not been serving us very well. I think it is because many are ethically challenged, serving the concerns of their wealthy corporate contributors, instead of the interests of most Tennesseans. I think this corruption is reflected in many Tennessee government policies, and works to the detriment of the working people of this state.
I am an architect who likes to help people build straw bale houses--so why am I subjecting myself to the dirty tricks and smears of our political system? It is because I think it is time we changed how government treats the majority of people and I don’t see anyone else working to do this--so as someone once said, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
I am asking those who have benefited most from this tilted playing field to meet the rest of us in the middle. The first thing is to immediately restore healthcare coverage to the nearly half million Tennesseans who were so rudely dropped from TennCare. I simply thought that was not a Tennessee sort of thing to do. I would then implement a state single-payer healthcare insurance system based on the one currently being presented in Ohio. For a few to make huge personal profits from people’s misery is wrong and a heavy burden on our society. Public health should be a public responsibility, not a “profit center,” as it is called on Wall Street. It is especially important today with so many new diseases and threats to our health.
Tennesseans spend nearly $30 billion on healthcare annually, but with a single-payer system that would drop to $14 billion due to much lower administration costs and no profit being made on your healthcare dollar.
Don’t believe the myths that you won’t get good healthcare or that it is “socialism” and is against “our” principles. The main thing Jesus did besides kick the money changers out of the temple was to heal the sick, so I don’t think it should be against the principles of the people of Tennessee to "go and do likewise."
I think the wealthy corporate interests who misuse their corporate charters to the detriment of our planet and all who live here need to change their motivations. Unbridled growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell, not a prescription for a sane society. Corporations have succeeded in evading the responsibility of taxation, putting the burden of paying for government largely on the shoulders of individuals. We need to change that.
From 1947 to 1979 the bottom, middle and top 20% percentiles, even the top 1% of American incomes, rose together. From 1979 to 2001, income for the lower 80% of households in the country essentially stayed flat, while the upper twenty percent rose fifty percent and the upper five percent nearly doubled. This has been the case in Tennessee to an even greater extent than elsewhere in the country. Attempting to fund state government on the sales tax, again, puts the burden of paying for government most heavily on Tennessee's poorest citizens. That is wrong and there is something we can do about it.
My candidacy speaks for many Tennesseans--the hundreds of thousands cut off Tenncare; the hundreds of thousands who struggle from paycheck to paycheck; those who live in the chemical shadow of out-of-control, polluting industries; the rural residents who have seen their counties stripped of once-abundant natural resources, and who find themselves poorer than before. I believe that together we can forge a movement that will shake the foundations of political power in this state and move Tennessee in a new, saner, more compassionate direction. If you want to see that change, vote for me in November.
See also:
http://www.H4gov.com
Dr Wall's diary
Well, the big news is my girlfriend and I are going to get married. She is lovely, glamorous and radical and we have so much fun including our trip to Venezuela and on the campaign trail for Penny Kemp and food reviews and much else. It will be an excuse to have a big camp pagan ceremony in August 2007! So watch this space, haven't been officially married before but I do have three sons from my previous partner. Will be good fun to dress up, may be cross dress in recycled finery. Lots more on marriage in future blogs...must tell you about the time that I was asked on Islam TV about what I thought of gay marriage by Yvonne Ridley...much as I like Yvonne her attitude that it is simply 'haram' is not one I share.
Obviously the religious aspects must be exploited...if any gay Zen priests want to help out mail me here!, the consumerism subverted and the state element dealt with.
Other news how can there be other news...well, did lots of cooking and Dr Who watching with my sons, Genesis of the Daleks....got my middle son Larry to read some wisdom from 'The Tao Of Pooh' to Peter Wall, age five. Vince has been writing some Dr Who plot summaries to improve his english skills...he is heir to a long line of dyslexics you may have guessed from these postings.
Speaking engagements snowballing and my industrial action as VT at Goldsmiths continuing....sent off for Kit Pedler's The Quest for Gaia, so we can all have some cybemen/doomwatch/ecocatastrophe science fiction fun later in the week.
Off to Zen this evening...really touched by Samuel's posting,
'Nice blog... I'm Sam, am also an ecosocialist, I lived w/ Walt Sheasby up 'til his death, took care of his dog when he went to England in late '03 to visit you...
my own blog is at http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com'
to think he was looking after Walt's dog when he and his girlfriend visited me over here in the UK.
Tonnes of gardening going on, will it be hot enough to grow ginger, the chillis and peppers are in the propagator, potatoes, tomatoes, sweetcorn, coriander..all coming up...nothing pisses off the ecofascists than some curry plants subverting the english allotments and gardens....they assume that multiculturalism/migration is a plot by evil bankers (guess which racial group they are obssess with) to weaken our bodily fluids (or something, its a while since I read 'The New Unhappy Lords')
also got Darren to speak with Chavez...meeting next monday is the main ecosocialist task of this week.
Obviously the religious aspects must be exploited...if any gay Zen priests want to help out mail me here!, the consumerism subverted and the state element dealt with.
Other news how can there be other news...well, did lots of cooking and Dr Who watching with my sons, Genesis of the Daleks....got my middle son Larry to read some wisdom from 'The Tao Of Pooh' to Peter Wall, age five. Vince has been writing some Dr Who plot summaries to improve his english skills...he is heir to a long line of dyslexics you may have guessed from these postings.
Speaking engagements snowballing and my industrial action as VT at Goldsmiths continuing....sent off for Kit Pedler's The Quest for Gaia, so we can all have some cybemen/doomwatch/ecocatastrophe science fiction fun later in the week.
Off to Zen this evening...really touched by Samuel's posting,
'Nice blog... I'm Sam, am also an ecosocialist, I lived w/ Walt Sheasby up 'til his death, took care of his dog when he went to England in late '03 to visit you...
my own blog is at http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com'
to think he was looking after Walt's dog when he and his girlfriend visited me over here in the UK.
Tonnes of gardening going on, will it be hot enough to grow ginger, the chillis and peppers are in the propagator, potatoes, tomatoes, sweetcorn, coriander..all coming up...nothing pisses off the ecofascists than some curry plants subverting the english allotments and gardens....they assume that multiculturalism/migration is a plot by evil bankers (guess which racial group they are obssess with) to weaken our bodily fluids (or something, its a while since I read 'The New Unhappy Lords')
also got Darren to speak with Chavez...meeting next monday is the main ecosocialist task of this week.
7 May 2006
Green building meeting Brighton
This months Green speak....they have me next month, so if you want to complain about my views in person come along on june 13th!
Earthships are great very ital!
Sustainable Buildings, Supporting Communities
Tuesday 9 May 2006
7.30pm £Free!
Speakers:
Maurice Phillips, Sandale Eco Retreat & Learning Centre, Gambia
Mischa Hewitt, Brighton's Earthship Project / Low Carbon Trust
Come and hear about these inspiring projects. You'll also learn about volunteering opportunities, holidays and courses related to the projects.
See you there?
Terraces Bar & Grill, Marine Parade (close to Sea Life Centre), Brighton
www.greenspeak-brighton.org.uk - martin@greenspeak-brighton.org.uk
Greenspeak is 2nd Tuesday of every month at Terraces
With the support of Brighton & Hove Green Party
www.brightonandhovegreenparty.org.uk
June 13th ‘Economics after climate change and peak oil’ with Dr Derek Wall of Green Economics Institute & author ‘Babylon & Beyond’
Earthships are great very ital!
Sustainable Buildings, Supporting Communities
Tuesday 9 May 2006
7.30pm £Free!
Speakers:
Maurice Phillips, Sandale Eco Retreat & Learning Centre, Gambia
Mischa Hewitt, Brighton's Earthship Project / Low Carbon Trust
Come and hear about these inspiring projects. You'll also learn about volunteering opportunities, holidays and courses related to the projects.
See you there?
Terraces Bar & Grill, Marine Parade (close to Sea Life Centre), Brighton
www.greenspeak-brighton.org.uk - martin@greenspeak-brighton.org.uk
Greenspeak is 2nd Tuesday of every month at Terraces
With the support of Brighton & Hove Green Party
www.brightonandhovegreenparty.org.uk
June 13th ‘Economics after climate change and peak oil’ with Dr Derek Wall of Green Economics Institute & author ‘Babylon & Beyond’
Goldsmiths and conservative ecology
Zac Goldsmith's links with the Conservative leader present fascinating possibilities.
Zac is son of Referendum Party billionaire and critic of free trade James Goldsmith and nephew of Teddy Goldsmith. Teddy started off in the Conservatives and was a founder of the Ecology Party then called PEOPLE...I think he is Hegel to the Greens, like Hegel was to Marxism...vital but conservative, he has been an important critic of economic growth and the pathologies of progress, a greater defender of grass roots communities under threat say from large dam projects but a reactionery keen to defend backward looking views on the family and even advocate ecological arguments for war.
This interesting article has its flaws, there is plenty of socialist deep ecology and Bookchin has in my experience despite his ecosocialist perspectives acted in a fairly sectarian way.
The strong link betweeen greens and the far right is social credit monetary...far weaker than Blair's links with fascism in Italy via their charming ex prime minister!
Zac I am told by people who know him is well to the left of Teddy...however lets have a look at the dark side of political ecology...
COMMUNALISM: International Journal for a Rational Society
ISSUE 3 | DECEMBER 2002
The Dark Side of Political Ecology
By Peter Zegers
“[I]f the word ecology is used to describe our outlook, it is preposterous to invoke deities, mystical forces to account for the evolution of first nature into second nature. Neither religion nor a spiritualistic vision of experience has any place in an ecological lexicon. Either the term ecology applies to natural phenomena by definition, or it is a chic metaphor for the disempowered consciousness that fosters mysticism or outright supernaturalism.” [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. (Montréal: Black Rose, Second edition 1991) p. xxi]
The ecology movement has over the last decades been a battleground for both progressive and reactionary ideas. The notions one encounters in the ecology movements range from genuinely progressive and humanist ones to extremely misanthropic, even ecofascistic ones. In the essay “Will ecology become 'the dismal science'?” American social ecologist Murray Bookchin identified nearly ten years ago some of the anti-humanistic tendencies within the ecology movement in the United States: deep ecology, biocentrism, Gaian consciousness, and eco-theology. Basic to these outlooks is a suspicion of reason and an emphasis on the importance of intuitive and irrational approaches to ecological issues. Bookchin concluded the essay with this note: “It is not only the great mass of people that must make hard choices about humanity's future in a period of growing ecological dislocation; it is the ecology movement itself that must make hard choices about its sense of direction in a time of growing mystification.” (1) Since Bookchin’s essay was published in 1991, these anti-humanistic tendencies have unfortunately become even more prominent. A case in point is one of the leading American deep ecologists, Bill Devall. Together with George Sessions, Bill Devall introduced the ideas of Arne Næss, the founder of deep ecology, to the American public. Devall uttered on August 2, 1998, at the conference Gold and Green, a racist remark against Mexican immigrants: according to him, they “did what gangs of Mexicans always do – rape, pillage, burn, murder.” He also made the point that the owner of Maxxam Corporation (a firm threatening a redwood forest in California) was “a criminal Jewish capitalist.” Devall’s associate George Sessions, also present at this conference, lamented about the left wing perspective of a lot of people in the ecology movement and claimed that social justice issues only would distract attention from the real cause of the ecological crisis: overpopulation. In order to counteract the ecological imbalance Sessions suggested that an authoritarian regime should be implemented, like the one that ruled Japan from 1615 to 1836. (2) Is this just a marginal incident? Because of the premisses on which deep ecology is predicated I very much doubt this.
The Political Implications of Deep Ecology
Deep ecology is a vague and formless concept and one can find all kinds of mixtures of reactionary and seemingly progressive ideas in it. Deep ecologists claim very different thinkers as pioneers of deep ecology, one can for example find Heidegger alongside Spinoza. No effort is made to explain how these very different thinkers can be rubricated in the same category. Commenting on this lack of coherence Arne Næss wrote: “Why Gleichschaltung? Why monolithic ideologies? We have had enough of those in both European and world history.” (3) To put a demand for coherence on a par with a Nazi operation is telling enough and reveals his limited understanding of fascism. Næss continues in the same article: “It would, in my view, be a cultural disaster for humankind if one philosophy or one religion were to become established on earth. It would be a disaster if future Green societies were so similar that they blocked the development of deep cultural differences.” (4) Does this also apply to human rights and democracy? In another interview he stated: “Diversity in every aspect of our existence should be a norm, whether it is biodiversity, cultural diversity or economic diversity. Diversity of ideas is also very important. If we thought that there is one correct idea, one absolute truth, one right way to sustainability, then we might end up creating a kind of eco-fascism. It is only through multiplicity, plurality, diversity and inclusivity that we can find self-realization. There is no one final definition of self-realization. Everyone will find their own meaning in this word. Through deep questioning we come to deep ecology and through deep ecology we come to self-realization, but all this means nothing. It remains a kind of theory. It is through practice that we find realization. As each one of us has our own body, we have our own ‘realization’.” (5) Maybe because of this limited understanding of eco-fascism Næss does not mind being published by extreme right wing publications in France and Italy. Indeed his ideas bear a close resemblance to the 'ethno-pluralism' advocated by Alain de Benoist and others in the Nouvelle Droite. American author Kirkpatrick Sale, who is very close to deep ecology, is very clear about the fact that democracy and human rights need not be respected, but that we instead should respect the denial of democracy and human rights! Kirkpatrick Sale wrote: “[Bioregional diversity] does not mean that every community in a bioregion, every subregion within an ecoregion, every ecoregion on a continent, would construct itself along the same lines, evolve the same political forms. Most particularly it does not mean that every bioregion would be likely to heed the values of democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, justice and the like, the sort that the liberal American tradition proclaims. Truly autonomous bioregions would inevitably go in separate and not necessarily complementary ways, creating their own political systems according to their own environmental settings and their own ecological needs … Different cultures could be expected to have quite different views about what political forms could best accomplish their bioregional goals, and (especially as we imagine this system on a global scale) those forms could be at quite some variance from the Western Enlightenment-inspired ideal. And however much one might find the thought unpleasant, that divergence must be expected and – if diversity is desirable – respected.” (6)
Not only does deep ecology oppose the universal concepts of democracy and human rights through its misguided understanding of diversity, the ideas of Næss verge also on the mystical and he himself seems to be aware of this since he quotes New Age-author Charlene Spretnak approvingly when she calls for 'emotional involvement and caring' instead of rational thinking. (7) It is therefore not very surprising that New Age-authors Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak have embraced the label deep ecology. Fritjof Capra is like Spretnak very outspoken in his anti-rationalism: “Ultimately, deep ecological awareness is spiritual or religious awareness.” (8) Charlene Spretnak declares humanism to be the principal enemy of an ecological politics. In 1984 she said in an address to the annual gathering of the E.F. Schumacher Society: “Green politics rejects the anthropocentric orientation of humanism, a philosophy which posits that humans have the ability to confront and solve the many problems we face by applying human reason and by rearranging the natural world and the interactions of men and women so that human life will prosper.” (9) Spretnak and Capra wrote a book about the German Greens where they, in spite of the 'pluralism' of deep ecology, made very clear that they are hostile to left wing tendencies in the Green movement. (10) Unfortunately no such demarcation exists for right wing tendencies in the ecology movement. The Right seems to be very grateful to enter this lack of demarcation and it would indeed be very hard to demarcate deep ecology from the Right because it shows structural similarities with Right ideology. Although Capra and Spretnak seem to be aware of the German past, they have trouble seeing the continuity with the present. They describe Herbert Gruhl as a 'conservative' politician, whereas the term eco-fascist would be more appropriate. Gruhl was one of the founders of Die Grünen but left the party in 1982 (which Capra and Spretnak seem to regret and blame the 'marxists' for) to found the Ökologisch Demokratische Partei (Ecological Democratic Party). When this party decided in 1989 to distance itself from the extreme Right political party Die Republikaner against the will of Gruhl, he withdrew and founded the Unabhängige Ökologen Deutschlands. He was one of the first to use ecological discourse for xenophobic purposes. (11) Capra and Spretnak also do not seem to understand why many Germans are so suspicious about ideas that bear a close resemblance to the Blut und Boden (Blood and soil) theories of the Nazis. Instead of analyzing this resemblance and continuity, they choose to ignore it and as a consequence they were uncritical of Rudolf Bahro's views that only a few years later culminated into a kind of spiritual fascism. (12)
Deep ecology is a very eclectic bag of ideas and there are yet other features that are very disturbing because of the reactionary implications. Fundamental for deep ecology is the completely unfounded assertion that the ecological crisis is caused by 'overpopulation'. There is not a single line in the vast literature on deep ecology that explains why this would be the case. It is simply a matter of faith for adherents of deep ecology and because of this, critique of this aspect has not resulted in a change of ideas in this matter. (13) Some of the supporters of deep ecology have publicly stated that AIDS and famines are nature's revenge on humankind and that we should not do anything about it. A case in point is Dave Foreman, an activist of the environmental direct action group Earth First!, who said in an interview to Bill Devall: “When I tell people how the worst we could do in Ethiopia is to give aid – the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve – they think that is monstrous. But the alternative is that you go in and save these half-dead children who never will live a whole life. Their development will be stunted. And what is going to happen in ten years' time is that twice as many people will suffer and die. Likewise, letting the USA be an overflow valve for problems in Latin America is not solving a thing. It is just putting more pressure on resources we have in the USA. It is just causing more destruction of our wilderness, more poisoning of water and air, and it is not helping the problems in Latin America.” (14) Not a single protest against this raving was uttered by Devall, one of the leading exponents of deep ecology in the United States. We understand from his statements at the Gold and Green conference quoted above why Bill Devall did not bother to contradict Foreman. Deep ecology lacks a theory of the social causes of the environmental crisis and the only solution they can think of is a reduction of population. How to achieve this is not made clear, but some supporters do not exclude draconic, indeed eco-fascistic measures.
The anti-humanist notion of 'biocentrism', the notion that all living beings have equal 'intrinsic worth', is another disturbing feature in deep ecology. This 'biocentrism' has its counterpart in 'anthropocentrism', the view that human happiness and welfare should precede all other priorities. In the book The Arrogance of Humanism (1981) David Ehrenfeldt wrote in this 'biocentric' vain about the right of the smallpox-virus to exist. Since then tons of paper have been produced with articles about 'intrinsic worth', 'biocentric democracy', and 'biocentrism' and its implications. Indeed deep ecology has become a booming academic industry. The way seems to be opened for the discussion of how much human suffering and death is acceptable in the name of an 'ecological ethics'. Again, there is not the faintest idea about the social roots of the environmental problems. All people, regardless of their position in society, are held equally responsible for the destruction of the environment in this view. Humanity's 'original sin' was 'anthropocentrism' (theological words apply very neatly in this way of thinking). Deep ecologists have a very static view on nature or 'wilderness'. As important as they profess to value 'wilderness', they never explain very much the meaning of this concept. For them 'nature' is just a scenic view, untouched by human intervention even though in reality there is no 'wilderness' left on this earth. Nevertheless some deep ecologists want to exclude people from some areas, at least people not living 'traditional' (pre-1500 A.D., according to Foreman) lifestyles. (15) Hand in hand with their reverence for 'wild' nature goes a depreciation of science and technology. These are held responsible for the desacralization of nature and consequently the destruction of the environment. Bill Devall, in his usual subtle way, states it like this: “Students in natural resources sciences and management – are much like the guards in Nazi death camps.” (16) In another passage he makes the same comparison: “I see an analogy between rescuers of Jews and homosexuals in Nazi-occupied Europe and strategic monkeywrenching (a tactic used by the environmental direct action group Earth First!, PZ) in the late twentieth century.” (17) Like Næss, Devall has no hesitations about using inappropriate analogies that trivialize the Holocaust.
The Extreme Right and Ecology
Even more disturbing than the reactionary implications of basic tenets of deep ecology is the use of ecological concepts by groups and individuals of the extreme Right. Many people in the ecology movement consider themselves to be 'beyond Left and Right', but this position unfortunately makes them very vulnerable to overtures from the extreme Right, which (especially in Europe) is trying to modernize its rhetoric (the slogan was, tellingly enough, invented by the German right wing ecologist Herbert Gruhl for Die Grünen). By adopting ecological themes and concepts and incorporating them into its propaganda, the extreme Right today is seeking to gain mainstream public acceptance. For example, in France the Nouvelle Droite (New Right) has shown a lot of interest in deep ecology. Nouvelle Droite is the name for a tendency in the extreme right wing milieu that tries to modernize its ideology. A central organization in this field is the Groupement de Recherche et d'Études pour la Civilisation Européenne, founded in 1968. Its leading ideologue is Alain de Benoist, who is constantly changing his ideas, but nonetheless always opposed the egalitarian ideas that originated in the Enlightenment. (18) It is far beyond the scope of this article to explain in any detail the history of GRECE. (19) Suffice it for now to say that De Benoist and his supporters became interested in ecology around 1993. In an article about the European New Right (ENR) Mark Wegierski wrote: “Although some ENR members at one time advocated technocracy, they have now embraced ecology as one of the most hopeful tendencies on the planet today. The 1993 GRECE colloquium was dedicated to ecology.” (20) From the milieu around GRECE a new ecological organization was founded in the early nineties. This organization called Nouvelle Écologie (New Ecology) organizes conferences and lectures and publishes the magazine Le recours aux forêts. Nouvelle Écologie regards itself as the French branch of the international deep ecology movement and tries to influence the ecology movement toward a right wing direction.
Even as the extreme Right has picked up and incorporated ecological themes, some prominent ecologists have themselves evolved toward reactionary positions and do not mind to work together very closely with the extreme Right. The British ecologist Edward Goldsmith is a case in point. Goldsmith has been a well-known figure in the international environmentalist movement for several decades. In 1970 he founded the journal The Ecologist, which has long been a leading voice for the movement. He was one of the authors of the 1972 bestseller A Blueprint for Survival. Already in this book some conservative views were exhibited: “If there is no hierarchy there will be constant bickering and fighting. There will also be no mechanism for ensuring the perpetuation of those qualities required if the society is to survive.” (21) The overall obsession in Blueprint is 'stability' and 'order'. According to the authors of Blueprint the causes of the environmental crisis are to be found in economic and demographic growth. Like the authors of the Limits to Growth report of the conservative Club of Rome, whom they regard as like-minded individuals, their view on the environmental crisis is extremely limited. In 1991 he received the Right Livelihood Award, the 'alternative Nobel prize'. He is presently very much involved with international campaigns against the WTO, MAI, nuclear energy, and genetically modified organisms. For years, Goldsmith had also been known for his socially paleo-conservative views, especially on the role of women and the family. In an interview he said: “In my view women perform a very important role, both with regard to social coherence as well as of the viewpoint of the protection of the environment. They do not have the typical male chauvinism and competiteveness. I am in favor of the kind of feminism Vandana Shiva stands for, whom I know very well by the way, but which is completely at odds with the American kind of feminism that in the end results only in a reversal of male chauvinism into female chauvisnism. You know, one has to accept the differences between men and women, just like those of ethnic groups and cultures. For me, as well as for Shiva, cultural, ethnic, and also biological diversity, destroyed by the global economy, are very important.” (22) In The Way: An Ecological World-View (1992, revised and enlarged edition 1998) Goldsmith tries to formulate his worldview. Like Fritjof Capra he bases his views on an unlikely mix of mechanistic systems theory and eastern mysticism. Many of Goldsmiths ideas focus on religion and its alleged role in shaping the social order. Western society went wrong, he asserts, when it embraced technology, science, and progress instead of the traditional 'Way' (or Tao). The monotheistic religions are also to blame for the desacralization of nature. Goldsmith thinks society should be reorganized so that it accords with the precepts of 'Gaia' which means arranged in the same plan and governed by the same laws as the Cosmos and the natural world. Religion is the means through which the laws of nature should be instrumentalized in society. Goldsmith puts it himself this way: “The argument put forward in this book is that we can only conceivably do better if, among other things, we set out to re-interpret our problems in the light of a very different world-view – the worldview of ecology – inspired as it must be by the chthonic world-view entertained by our remote ancestors who knew, as modern man no longer knows, how to live on this planet.” (23) He sees potential in the religious fundamentalist movements in the Moslem world and India. He states: “[t]here are signs … that such movements are likely to preach a return to the vernacular way of life …[A] considerable proportion of the revitalist movements that have so far sprung up in the Third World have been 'nativistic' – which is to say that they correctly attributed the ills against they were reacting to the way of life imposed upon them by their colonial masters, and preached a return to the Way of their ancestors ... We cannot afford to wait and see whether such movements will develop into revivalist cults that are powerful enough to transform our society. Instead, we should work towards their development by helping to create the conditions in which they are likely to emerge. Let us remember that the world-view of ecology is very much that of the vernacular community-based society.” (24) Interestingly, he refers a few times very favorably to deep ecology in his book The Way: An Ecological World-View, which he hopes will develop into a movement to perform the task put forward in the book. Goldsmith thanks deep ecology founder Arne Næss, “who, after reading a summary of this book in The Ecologist, urged me to complete it and get it published.” (25) The view that people should obey the laws of nature (or Gaia) can be found in deep ecology, but also in New Age and the Nouvelle Droite.
The views of Goldsmith are also a potential justification for racism. Nicholas Hildyard, a former associate of Goldsmith, wrote a critique of his views and showed convincingly that he is in favor of separation of different so called 'ethnic groups'. (26) In an article for The Ecologist Goldsmith wrote: “The Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland constitute two distinct ethnic groups, of different origin, with different manners and traditions and different motivations and capacities. They could occupy the same geographic area and form a single society if they were capable of living in cultural symbiosis with each other, which they have done up to now. The Catholics, however, are no longer willing to fill the lower echelons of the economic hierarchy, as the cultural pattern which previously enabled them to do so has largely broken down. The only remaining solution is to separate them territorially. Ataturk separated Greeks and Turks very successfully, although there was a terrible outcry at the time and it undoubtedly caused considerable inconvenience to the people who were forced to migrate. But should we not be willing to accept measures of inconvenience in order to establish a stable society?” (27) Few people would agree with his rather peculiar view that Irish Catholics and Protestants are two distinct ethnic groups. In his book The Way he adds more in general: “Social evolution has led to the development of complex social groupings and to a wide diversity of different ethnic groups, each perfectly adapted to the specialized environment in which it lives.” (28) This view accords perfectly with Nouvelle Droite views on ethnicity, which is also in favor of territorial separation of different 'ethnic' groups. In the 1990s he therefore has become very attractive to the Nouvelle Droite.
The popularity of Goldsmith's writings among the Nouvelle Droite has made him welcome at Nouvelle Droite conferences. On 27 November 1994 he was one of the featured speakers for the 25th annual conference of GRECE, the major Nouvelle Droite organization in France. Its theme was (very tellingly) “Left-Right: the end of a system.” He also gave an interview to their magazine Elements in October 1996. Goldsmith was also a welcome guest at the conference of the Flemish connection of Nouvelle Droite in Belgium. On 11 November 1997 he was a speaker on the third colloquium of the Delta Stichting, the Belgian connection of GRECE, about How can we survive decadence? His speech was called Against progress: the U-turn we need. Another speaker at this conference was Alain de Benoist, with whom Goldsmith obviously does not mind sharing a platform. Goldsmith has also contributed his writings to Nouvelle Droite publications, such as the Flemish Tekos. This magazine is published by the Delta Foundation, which has a lot of contacts with the extreme Right Vlaams Blok (Flemish Bloc). Guy de Martelaere, collaborator of Tekos, found translating Goldsmith’s writings to be an uplifting experience: “The Tekos-colloquium in Antwerp on 11 November was a big success. The conservative-ecological theses of Edward Goldsmith have attracted a lot of interest and acceptance from Nouvelle Droite audiences, which partly have yet to discover green thought. Alain de Benoist, internationally the leading ideologue of the Nouvelle Droite, and Luc Pauwels, chief editor of the Belgian periodical Tekos, are moving into an ecological direction, inspired among other things by contact with Goldsmith and his ideas. I myself got the task to translate one of Goldsmith's most recent and philosophically profound articles for Tekos.” (29)
In recent years, Goldsmith has also been an active supporter of Nouvelle Écologie in France. Laurent Ozon, a disciple of Alain de Benoist, is the director of this organization. Laurent Ozon wrote in an article about housing: “For ecologists it is today essential to safeguard for every people its creative local expression, its possibility even to live or to exist as a constructive part of a culture that participates in the diversity of life. Because the uprooting caused by the individualization of style and the globalization of construction standards is an important weapon in the war waged by the forces of money, hate, and standardization against the natural communities and their ecosystems.” (30) The writings of Goldsmith are an important source of inspiration for Ozon. Besides being the director of Nouvelle Écologie, Ozon has very active against the war of NATO in Kosovo as the leading figure in the Collectif Non à la Guerre, which tried to build an alliance between Left and Right in opposition to the the intervention of NATO in Kosovo. Nouvelle Écologie also has the support of Antoine Waechter, the leading exponent of the 'neither Left nor Right' faction within the green movement in France, the socalled 'ninis'. On May 29, 1989, Waechter declared on French public television: “To open the borders for foreigners is a dangerous utopia. Bearing in mind the demographic explosion in the Third World, there would be millions of people wandering to an already overpopulated Europe. The damage on the cultural and environmental level would be devastating.” (31) How would the Nouvelle Droite not be interested in such an ecologist? In September 1993 Krisis, the journal edited by Alain de Benoist, asked for and got an interview from him. In this interview Waechter said: “[I]f there is a place today for an autonomous ecological movement, it is precisely because political ecology is accompanied by a philosophy of action completely different than that supported by the Right-Left cleavage, that structured the French political landscape for two centuries and shows today clear signs of exhaustion.” (32) Waechter broke away from Les Verts in 1994 because he thought they were too much leaning toward the Left and he founded the political party Mouvement Écologiste Indépendant (Independent Ecology Movement). The new party received the full support of Nouvelle Écologie and its whereabouts got plenty of coverage in Le recours aux forêts (the title of this magazine is a reference to an article by the German extreme right wing author Ernst Jünger that was translated to French and published in Krisis in 1993). Waechter has made several electoral alliances with the autonomists in Alsace. The autonomist party in Alsace (like in Brittany) has a long history in right wing politics. In an interview in Alsace Presse in December 1998 Waechter explained his differences with Les Verts, and its candidate Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Waechter said: “Our list is truly ecological, whereas that of Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a list of the Left with an ecological coloration. Our aim is to make sure that the list of Les Verts does not accumulate the votes of distracted voters, that is the votes of the Leftists and the votes of those with an ecological sensibility that could be seduced by the centrist discours of Cohn-Bendit.” (33) In a letter to the daily Libération Waechter protested against the accusation of working together closely with extreme Rightists on a conference in Paris in January 1999: “What are they reproaching me for? To have participated in a forum and presenting a lecture about Robert Hainard. Is there a single idea in my lecture that resembles closely or distantly the theses of the extreme Right? No, for sure. Is there a single word from the moderator, Laurent Ozon, that would justify such a connection? Not any more so. Burt Laurent Ozon has had the courage to ask some iconoclast questions and to gather some intellectuals of different persuasions to answer them. This is disturbing because this enterprise is situated outside of the convenient cleavage. Just like an ecological list is disturbing because it destroys the myth according to which the ecologists are represented at the European elections by Les Verts. Why can not the Left and the Right deal with the emergence of political ideas that are different from socialism and liberalism?” (34)
Edward Goldsmith was, like Antoine Waechter, one of the featured speakers in this conference in Paris which had as its theme: Ecology against progress? It was organized by Nouvelle Écologie and Goldsmith presented his usual paleo-conservative views on Family, Community, Democracy. Of course Alain de Benoist and several other people of the Nouvelle Droite were also present. A report of this conference was published in Le recours aux forêts, the magazine of Nouvelle Écologie, which earlier devoted a special issue to the views of Edward Goldsmith. In the interview in this special issue of Le recours aux forêts on his views, Goldsmith said: “In both France and England, as well as in Germany, the Greens have the tendency to align themselves with the Left, because the Left is thought of as being less linked to the big multinational corporations, and therefor more inclined to protect the interests of the people. But, in my view, this will change, because of the simple reason that there practically no difference anymore between the Left and the Right, neither in France nor in Germany and the United States … It goes without saying that it is a question of time before a party will be created to represent all these groups that are marginalized by the global economy and also of those who want to preserve what is left of our society, of its culture, and its natural environment. The next political cleavage will be the one between the parties in favor of the global economy and those in favor of the local and communitarian economy. Of course I hope the ecologists will play an important role in the formation of this party, that could be a federation of parties.” (35)
In advance of the European elections of May 1999, Goldsmith tried to put his ideas into practice and he wanted to form an electoral alliance with Waechter's MEI. But in February 1999 the right wing affiliations of both Edward Goldsmith and Antoine Waechter were exposed, whereupon the alliance was broken up. (36) Fortunately Waechter’s MEI did not get many votes in the subsequent election. In September 1999 Goldsmith wrote a letter to the magazine Silence in which he defended his attendance at the conference of GRECE in 1994 by stating that he also spoke at a conference organized by the trotskyist party in Switzerland. He says he never checks the organizations who invite him to speak at their conferences. He states that he does not know about the current political views of GRECE (although he admits that it was founded from a extreme Rightist background) and he defends Alain de Benoist by saying that the Frenchman is critical of the views on immigration of the Front National. Indeed, De Benoist is critical of Front National, but that does not mean he is not part of the extreme right wing. It seems to escape Goldsmith that not every criticism of the Front National is necessarily progressive. De Benoist is in disagreement with the strategy used by Front National, not its principles. Goldsmith also denied that he was involved with financing the MEI campaign for the European elections but Antoine Waechter said otherwise in a press statement issued by the MEI dated 7 December 1998. Very revealing Goldsmith writes at the end of this letter: “It may be worthwhile to mention that all my African, Hindu and Polynesian friends (except those who were too much exposed to Western influences) agree on the principles of this worldview.” (37) Makes one wonder where these friends stand in the political spectrum. Goldsmith seems to believe in some kind of cultural apartheid and that different cultures should not influence one another.
Alain de Benoist said of Goldsmith in an interview: “I am … in sympathy with the views expressed by … Edward Goldsmith, in such works as The great U-turn (1988), The Way: an Ecological Worldview (1991) and again, very recently, in a collection of pieces entitled The Case against the Global Economy and for a Turn toward the Local (Sierra Club Books, San Francisco 1996).” (38) Goldsmith's book was translated into French as Le défi du XXIe siècle - Une vision écologique du monde. His book is very well received by the connections of the Nouvelle Droite in Germany and Italy as well. The Way was translated to German and Heinz-Siegfried Strelow, one of the leading exponents of the Unabhängigen Ökologen Deutschlands (Independent Ecologists of Germany) wrote that it should become obligatory reading for conservative ecologists (which is nothing but an euphemism for ecofascists). (39) In Italy The Way was published as Il Tao dell'Ecologia and Goldsmith also contributed an article to the right wing magazine Diorama Letterario under the same title. (40) This magazine is the Italian connection of GRECE and headed by Marco Tarchi, a political scientist working at the university of Florence. Goldsmith went to Florence on 17 February 1999 to speak about Community, Local Economies, and Globalization. He did not mind sharing a platform with Marco Tarchi on this occasion. Tarchi is a well-known supporter of GRECE, a former member of the neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano and nowadays very close to the separatist Lega Nord. He professes an interest in the deep ecology of Arne Næss. (41) In a review of Robyn Eckersley's Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Eco-centric Aproach for the British far Right magazine The Scorpion the known neo-nazi Michael Walker wrote: “[I]t is precisely deep ecology and bio-regionalism that are most likely to inspire a conservative or anti-liberal, even anti-humanist, dare we say even racialist, green perspective. There is no lack of dire warnings from the Left about the dangers for the uninitiated of bio-regionalism, which by its very name invites the novice to consider the biological implications of the conservation of differences. Deep ecology is so radical in its anti-capitalism that anti-capitalism is more important than anti-fascism and saving the world more important than either, more important than anything else in fact.” (42) Fortunately so far there have been no signs of the far Right making serious overtures to the ecology movement in Britain, but judging from this assessment of Michael Walker, the ecology movement should be very vigilant.
The Challenge for the Ecology Movement
There is a very real danger that the right wing will significantly influence the ideology and practice of the ecology movement. The Nouvelle Droite will gladly take the opportunity to use the similarities in thinking of the anti-humanist and anti-rationalist currents in the ecology movement. In this they have the full support of Edward Goldsmith. The ecology movement once was a very promising movement, but unfortunately the promise of a new kind of politics was never fulfilled. Instead it drifted into mysticism and religion on the one hand and to an uncritical acceptance of the status quo on the other hand (cfr. Les Verts in France, Die Grünen in Germany, Agalev and Ecolo in Belgium, I Verdi in Italy). The current rise of mysticism, religion, and obscurantism in Europe and North America will be regarded by the right wing as a gigantic opportunity to spread their message. In spite of the statement by the neo-nazi Michael Walker about the anti-capitalist nature of deep ecology, capitalism has nothing to fear from mystical ecology. The social causes of environmental degradation are 'deeply' mystified by the acolytes of deep ecology, bioregionalism and ecofeminism. It is more likely that these tendencies will result in authoritarian measures against the poor and weak in society. As an antidote to this kind of thinking American social ecologists Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier wrote: “What prevents ecological politics from yielding reaction or fascism is an ecology movement that maintains a broad social emphasis, one that places the ecological crisis in a social context.” (43) Rather than in a context of race, ethnicity, bioregion, mysticism, and the like, ecological politics should be embedded in the struggle against hierarchical domination and class exploitation, the fundamental social causes of environmental problems.
Ecology, if unmediated by social theory and philosophy, can easily result in terrible disasters. Context is all-important, as Murray Bookchin points out correctly: “To think ecologically is to enter the domain of nature philosophy. This can be a very perilous step. Serious political ambiguities persist in nature philosophy itself: namely its potential to nourish reaction as well as revolution. Contemporary society is still seared by images of nature that have fostered highly reactionary political views. Vaporous slogans about 'community' and humanity's 'oneness with nature' easily interplay with the legacy of 'naturalistic' nationalism that reached its genocidal apogee in Nazism, with its myths of race and 'blood and soil'. It requires only a minor ideological shift from the ideas of the nineteenth-century Romantic movement and William Blake's mystical anarchism to arrive at Richard Wagner's mystical nationalism.” (44) With the goal of creating a rational, humanist, and truly democratic society, social ecology stands out as the complete opposite of the current anti-humanist, irrationalist, and authoritarian trends in the ecology movement and in society at large. We have to make hard choices and think critically and rationally about these choices. We face a grim future if the battle against the reactionary trends is not won.
Notes
1. Murray Bookchin, “Will Ecology become 'the Dismal Science'?” in The Progressive (1991). Reprinted in Which Way for the Ecology Movement? (Edinburgh & San Francisco: AK Press, 1994).
2. Quoted in David Kubrin, “Toxic Ideologies” in Reclaiming Quarterly, Summer 1999.
3. Arne Næss, “Deep Ecology and Ultimate Premises” in The Ecologist, Vol. 18, Nos. 4/5 (1988). Reprinted in Society and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1992), p. 108.
4. idem, p. 113.
5. Interview with Arne Næss and Helena Norberg-Hodge in Resurgence, January 1997.
6. Kirkpatrick Sale, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1991), p. 108.
7. Arne Næss, “Deep Ecology and Ultimate Premises” in The Ecologist, Vol. 18, Nos. 4/5 (1988). Reprinted in Society and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1992), p. 112.
8. Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter (London: Flamingo, 1997), p. 7. In The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture (1982) Capra also stated his support for deep ecology.
9. Charlene Spretnak, The Spiritual Dimension of Green Politics (Santa Fe: Bear & Co., 1986), p. 27.
10. Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak, Green Politics: The Global Promise (London: Hutchinson, 1984).
11. For Herbert Gruhl, see Janet Biehl, “'Ecology' and the Modernization of Fascism in the German Ultra-right” in Janet Biehl & Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience (Edinburgh & San Francisco: AK Press, 1995). I also highly recommend the writings of Jutta Ditfurth, Feuer in die Herzen: Gegen die Entwertung des Menschen (Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1997) and Entspannt in die Barbarei. (Öko-)Faschismus und Biozentrismus (Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1996). Although there was a public break between the ÖDP and Gruhl, this did not have much influence on the formers ideology. In fact they continued to spread his books and pamphlets and kept informal relations with their erstwhile leader.
12. For Rudolf Bahro, see Janet Biehl, ”'Ecology' and the Modernization of Fascism in the German Ultra-right”. See also the exchange between James Hart and Ullrich Melle who defend Rudolf Bahro and Janet Biehl in Democracy & Nature #11/12 (Vol. 4, no. 2/3, 1998).
13. See Murray Bookchin, Re-enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human Spirit against Anti-Humanism, Misanthropy, Mysticism and Primitivism (London: Cassell, 1995).
14. Dave Foreman interviewed by Bill Devall, “A Spanner in the Woods” in Simply Living Vol. 12 (c. 1986). Quoted in Murray Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecology (Montréal: Black Rose, second revised edition, 1995), p. 117. In 1989 there was a public debate in New York between Dave Foreman and Murray Bookchin about their differences. Foreman distanced himself from his statements in the interview he gave to Bill Devall in this debate, but soon thereafter he started using the same eco-brutalist language again. This is hardly surprising because it is inherent in 'biocentric' thinking. After leaving Earth First!, Foreman joined the board of directors of the conservationist organization Sierra Club and tried, fortunately unsuccessfully so far, to have it adopt an anti-immigration policy. The debate was published in Steve Chase (ed.), Defending the Earth: A Dialogue between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman (Boston: South End Press, 1991).
15. Dave Foreman, “A Modest Proposal for a Wilderness Preserve System” in Whole Earth Review #53 (Winter 1986). Quoted by Bill Devall, Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology (Layton: Gibbs Smith, 1988), pp. 164-165.
16. Bill Devall, Simple in Means, Rich in Ends, p. 49.
17. ibid., p. 149.
18. For his intellectual development see the detailed analysis of Pierre-André Taguieff in Sur la Nouvelle Droite (Paris: Descartes & Cie, 1994). Unfortunately Taguieff takes the proclamations of De Benoist about his politics being neither Left nor Right far too serious.
19. In Krisis #15 De Benoist published “La nature et sa valeur intrinsique” (September 1993). Under the pseudonym Robert de Herte he wrote in Elements #79 “Les deux écologies”, “Herbert Gruhl et les 'verts' allemands” and “Écologie et réligion” (January 1994).
20. Mark Wegierski, “The European New Right” in Telos #98/99 (Winter 1993/Fall 1994). Telos, once a leading neo-marxist theoretical journal in the United States, has unfortunately been transformed into a platform for European Nouvelle Droite authors.
21. The Ecologist, A Blueprint for Survival (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 102. For a critique of its conservatism see David Pepper, The Roots of Modern Environmentalism (London & New York: Routledge, 1984).
22. Edward Goldsmith interviewed by Paul Gimeno in Oikos #3. Oikos is a publication of the Belgian (Flemish) green party Agalev. My translation from the Dutch. For a critique of the reactionary ecofeminism of Vandana Shiva, see the excellent essay by Maria Wölflingseder, “Kosmischer Größenwahnsinn. Biologistische und rassistische Tendenzen im New Age und im spirituellen Ökofeminismus” in Gerhard Kern & Lee Taynor (eds.), Die esoterische Verführung: Angriffe auf Vernunft und Freiheit (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 1995), pp. 187-210. See also from the same author “Fetisch Weiblichkeit: Über die diffizilen Zusammenhänge zwischen spirituellen Ökofeminismus und rechter Ideologie” in: Renate Bitzan (ed.), Rechte Frauen: Skingirls, Walküren und feine Damen (Berlin: Elefanten Press, 1997), pp. 56-71. For a critique of American ecofeminism see Janet Biehl, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics (Boston: South End Press, 1991).
23. Edward Goldsmith, The Way: An Ecological World-View (Athens GA: University of Georgia Press, 1998). Revised and enlarged edition, p. 424.
24. Edward Goldsmith, idem p. 437-438.
25. Edward Goldsmith, idem p. xvii.
26. Nicholas Hildyard, `Blood' and 'Culture': Ethnic Conflict and the Authoritarian Right (London: Cornerhouse briefing #11, January 1999).
27. Edward Goldsmith, “Basic Principles of Cultural Ecology” in The Ecologist, Vol. 1, no. 12, 1971, p. 4. Quoted by Nicholas Hildyard, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
28. Edward Goldsmith, The Way, p. 420.
29. Guy de Martelaere, “Nieuws en korte beschouwingen” in Gwenved #23 (January 1998). Guy de Martelaere also publishes in the British right wing periodicals Perspectives: European identities, autonomies and initiatives, edited by the Transeuropa Collective, and Alternative Green, a magazine edited by Richard Hunt. My translation from the Dutch. In 1997 Tekos (no. 85) published a translation of the first editorial Goldsmith wrote in 1970 for The Ecologist. It also published a translation of “Scientific superstitions” (from The Ecologist, vol. 27, no. 5, Sept/Oct. 1997). Guy de Martelaere translated parts of The Way to Dutch for the publishing house of Tekos. Goldsmith also gave an interview to the right wing Belgian periodical De Vrijbuiter (Spring 1998) in which he praised the traditional family and traditional community.
30. Laurent Ozon, “L'habitat, un enjeu pour les écologistes” in Le recours aux forêts #4. My translation from the French. Ozon's articles are translated and published in Italian in Diorama Letteraria, and in Dutch in the extreme right wing paper of Voorpost, SOS-Nieuwsbrief.
31. Quoted by Philippe Pelletier, L'imposture écologiste (Paris: Reclus, 1993), pp. 101-102. My translation from the French. See also Thierry Maricourt, Les nouvelles passarelles de l'extrême droite (Paris: Syllepse, 1997).
32.“Ni droite, ni gauche. Entretien avec Antoine Waechter” in Krisis #15 (September 1993), pp. 16-23. My translation from the French. In the same issue was published “Eight Theses on Deep Ecology” by Arne Næss.
33. Interview with Antoine Waechter in Alsace Presse, 8 December 1998. My translation from the French.
34. Antoine Waechter, Libération, 15 February 1999. My translation from the French.
35. Interview with Edward Goldsmith in Le recours aux forêts #3. My translation from the French.
36. Christiane Chombeau, “Le dérive extrémiste d'Antoine Waechter” in Le Monde, 18 February 1999. Nicole Gauthier, “Waechter accusé par les siens de dérive brune” Libération, 12 February 1999.
37. Letter of Edward Goldsmith in Silence #248 (September 1999). Emphasis added. My translation from the French. Arne Næss seem to share this purist, ‘nativist’ view: “The quite young Dalai Lama was exalted by cameras and films that were ‘smuggled’ to him … When such a central personality, raised from the cradle in a strong culture, tumbles headlong for something so specifically Western technology as a camera, what chances does the culture have to survive? The enthusiasm of the Dalai Lama maybe reveals the demonic force of modern industrial technology.” Arne Næss, Økologi, samfunn og livsstil (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 5th edition 1976) pp. 111-112. Translation from the Norwegian by Eirik Eiglad.
38. Alain de Benoist interviewed in the British right wing magazine Right Now! A Magazine of Politics, Ideas, and Culture, 1997.
39. Heinz-Siegfried Strelow in Junge Freiheit #47 (1996), quoted by Jean Cremet, “Neue Rechte: jetzt generationen- übergreifend” in AK 403, 5 June 1997. The UÖD split away from the Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (Ecological Democratic Party). The MEI is affiliated with the latter. Reports of Hannes Krill in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 26 and 29 January 2000 indicate that the split between Die Grünen and the ÖDP could be restored in the near future. Die Grünen have got rid of their left wing that temporarily blocked the influence of the ecofascists.
40. Edward Goldsmith, “Il tao dell'ecologia” in Diorama Letteraria #214 (May 1998).
41. Marco Tarchi, “Cari liberali, adesso è vostro il pensiero unico” in Liberal #26 (May 1997). Tarchi also contributed to the American journal Telos, see “In Search of Right and Left” in Telos #103 (Spring 1995). Like De Benoist Tarchi is critical of Alleanza Nazionale (the former Movimento Sociale Italiano), but that does not mean he is not right wing, he is merely from a rival tendency on the Right.
42. Michael Walker, “A Darker Shade of Green” in The Scorpion #19. This British magazine is very close to GRECE. Michael Walker is also a collaborator of Elemente, the magazine of the German branch of the Nouvelle Droite.
43. Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, “Introduction” in Ecofascism, pp. 2-3.
44. Murray Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecology, pp. 101-102. Emphasis added.
Zac is son of Referendum Party billionaire and critic of free trade James Goldsmith and nephew of Teddy Goldsmith. Teddy started off in the Conservatives and was a founder of the Ecology Party then called PEOPLE...I think he is Hegel to the Greens, like Hegel was to Marxism...vital but conservative, he has been an important critic of economic growth and the pathologies of progress, a greater defender of grass roots communities under threat say from large dam projects but a reactionery keen to defend backward looking views on the family and even advocate ecological arguments for war.
This interesting article has its flaws, there is plenty of socialist deep ecology and Bookchin has in my experience despite his ecosocialist perspectives acted in a fairly sectarian way.
The strong link betweeen greens and the far right is social credit monetary...far weaker than Blair's links with fascism in Italy via their charming ex prime minister!
Zac I am told by people who know him is well to the left of Teddy...however lets have a look at the dark side of political ecology...
COMMUNALISM: International Journal for a Rational Society
ISSUE 3 | DECEMBER 2002
The Dark Side of Political Ecology
By Peter Zegers
“[I]f the word ecology is used to describe our outlook, it is preposterous to invoke deities, mystical forces to account for the evolution of first nature into second nature. Neither religion nor a spiritualistic vision of experience has any place in an ecological lexicon. Either the term ecology applies to natural phenomena by definition, or it is a chic metaphor for the disempowered consciousness that fosters mysticism or outright supernaturalism.” [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. (Montréal: Black Rose, Second edition 1991) p. xxi]
The ecology movement has over the last decades been a battleground for both progressive and reactionary ideas. The notions one encounters in the ecology movements range from genuinely progressive and humanist ones to extremely misanthropic, even ecofascistic ones. In the essay “Will ecology become 'the dismal science'?” American social ecologist Murray Bookchin identified nearly ten years ago some of the anti-humanistic tendencies within the ecology movement in the United States: deep ecology, biocentrism, Gaian consciousness, and eco-theology. Basic to these outlooks is a suspicion of reason and an emphasis on the importance of intuitive and irrational approaches to ecological issues. Bookchin concluded the essay with this note: “It is not only the great mass of people that must make hard choices about humanity's future in a period of growing ecological dislocation; it is the ecology movement itself that must make hard choices about its sense of direction in a time of growing mystification.” (1) Since Bookchin’s essay was published in 1991, these anti-humanistic tendencies have unfortunately become even more prominent. A case in point is one of the leading American deep ecologists, Bill Devall. Together with George Sessions, Bill Devall introduced the ideas of Arne Næss, the founder of deep ecology, to the American public. Devall uttered on August 2, 1998, at the conference Gold and Green, a racist remark against Mexican immigrants: according to him, they “did what gangs of Mexicans always do – rape, pillage, burn, murder.” He also made the point that the owner of Maxxam Corporation (a firm threatening a redwood forest in California) was “a criminal Jewish capitalist.” Devall’s associate George Sessions, also present at this conference, lamented about the left wing perspective of a lot of people in the ecology movement and claimed that social justice issues only would distract attention from the real cause of the ecological crisis: overpopulation. In order to counteract the ecological imbalance Sessions suggested that an authoritarian regime should be implemented, like the one that ruled Japan from 1615 to 1836. (2) Is this just a marginal incident? Because of the premisses on which deep ecology is predicated I very much doubt this.
The Political Implications of Deep Ecology
Deep ecology is a vague and formless concept and one can find all kinds of mixtures of reactionary and seemingly progressive ideas in it. Deep ecologists claim very different thinkers as pioneers of deep ecology, one can for example find Heidegger alongside Spinoza. No effort is made to explain how these very different thinkers can be rubricated in the same category. Commenting on this lack of coherence Arne Næss wrote: “Why Gleichschaltung? Why monolithic ideologies? We have had enough of those in both European and world history.” (3) To put a demand for coherence on a par with a Nazi operation is telling enough and reveals his limited understanding of fascism. Næss continues in the same article: “It would, in my view, be a cultural disaster for humankind if one philosophy or one religion were to become established on earth. It would be a disaster if future Green societies were so similar that they blocked the development of deep cultural differences.” (4) Does this also apply to human rights and democracy? In another interview he stated: “Diversity in every aspect of our existence should be a norm, whether it is biodiversity, cultural diversity or economic diversity. Diversity of ideas is also very important. If we thought that there is one correct idea, one absolute truth, one right way to sustainability, then we might end up creating a kind of eco-fascism. It is only through multiplicity, plurality, diversity and inclusivity that we can find self-realization. There is no one final definition of self-realization. Everyone will find their own meaning in this word. Through deep questioning we come to deep ecology and through deep ecology we come to self-realization, but all this means nothing. It remains a kind of theory. It is through practice that we find realization. As each one of us has our own body, we have our own ‘realization’.” (5) Maybe because of this limited understanding of eco-fascism Næss does not mind being published by extreme right wing publications in France and Italy. Indeed his ideas bear a close resemblance to the 'ethno-pluralism' advocated by Alain de Benoist and others in the Nouvelle Droite. American author Kirkpatrick Sale, who is very close to deep ecology, is very clear about the fact that democracy and human rights need not be respected, but that we instead should respect the denial of democracy and human rights! Kirkpatrick Sale wrote: “[Bioregional diversity] does not mean that every community in a bioregion, every subregion within an ecoregion, every ecoregion on a continent, would construct itself along the same lines, evolve the same political forms. Most particularly it does not mean that every bioregion would be likely to heed the values of democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, justice and the like, the sort that the liberal American tradition proclaims. Truly autonomous bioregions would inevitably go in separate and not necessarily complementary ways, creating their own political systems according to their own environmental settings and their own ecological needs … Different cultures could be expected to have quite different views about what political forms could best accomplish their bioregional goals, and (especially as we imagine this system on a global scale) those forms could be at quite some variance from the Western Enlightenment-inspired ideal. And however much one might find the thought unpleasant, that divergence must be expected and – if diversity is desirable – respected.” (6)
Not only does deep ecology oppose the universal concepts of democracy and human rights through its misguided understanding of diversity, the ideas of Næss verge also on the mystical and he himself seems to be aware of this since he quotes New Age-author Charlene Spretnak approvingly when she calls for 'emotional involvement and caring' instead of rational thinking. (7) It is therefore not very surprising that New Age-authors Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak have embraced the label deep ecology. Fritjof Capra is like Spretnak very outspoken in his anti-rationalism: “Ultimately, deep ecological awareness is spiritual or religious awareness.” (8) Charlene Spretnak declares humanism to be the principal enemy of an ecological politics. In 1984 she said in an address to the annual gathering of the E.F. Schumacher Society: “Green politics rejects the anthropocentric orientation of humanism, a philosophy which posits that humans have the ability to confront and solve the many problems we face by applying human reason and by rearranging the natural world and the interactions of men and women so that human life will prosper.” (9) Spretnak and Capra wrote a book about the German Greens where they, in spite of the 'pluralism' of deep ecology, made very clear that they are hostile to left wing tendencies in the Green movement. (10) Unfortunately no such demarcation exists for right wing tendencies in the ecology movement. The Right seems to be very grateful to enter this lack of demarcation and it would indeed be very hard to demarcate deep ecology from the Right because it shows structural similarities with Right ideology. Although Capra and Spretnak seem to be aware of the German past, they have trouble seeing the continuity with the present. They describe Herbert Gruhl as a 'conservative' politician, whereas the term eco-fascist would be more appropriate. Gruhl was one of the founders of Die Grünen but left the party in 1982 (which Capra and Spretnak seem to regret and blame the 'marxists' for) to found the Ökologisch Demokratische Partei (Ecological Democratic Party). When this party decided in 1989 to distance itself from the extreme Right political party Die Republikaner against the will of Gruhl, he withdrew and founded the Unabhängige Ökologen Deutschlands. He was one of the first to use ecological discourse for xenophobic purposes. (11) Capra and Spretnak also do not seem to understand why many Germans are so suspicious about ideas that bear a close resemblance to the Blut und Boden (Blood and soil) theories of the Nazis. Instead of analyzing this resemblance and continuity, they choose to ignore it and as a consequence they were uncritical of Rudolf Bahro's views that only a few years later culminated into a kind of spiritual fascism. (12)
Deep ecology is a very eclectic bag of ideas and there are yet other features that are very disturbing because of the reactionary implications. Fundamental for deep ecology is the completely unfounded assertion that the ecological crisis is caused by 'overpopulation'. There is not a single line in the vast literature on deep ecology that explains why this would be the case. It is simply a matter of faith for adherents of deep ecology and because of this, critique of this aspect has not resulted in a change of ideas in this matter. (13) Some of the supporters of deep ecology have publicly stated that AIDS and famines are nature's revenge on humankind and that we should not do anything about it. A case in point is Dave Foreman, an activist of the environmental direct action group Earth First!, who said in an interview to Bill Devall: “When I tell people how the worst we could do in Ethiopia is to give aid – the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve – they think that is monstrous. But the alternative is that you go in and save these half-dead children who never will live a whole life. Their development will be stunted. And what is going to happen in ten years' time is that twice as many people will suffer and die. Likewise, letting the USA be an overflow valve for problems in Latin America is not solving a thing. It is just putting more pressure on resources we have in the USA. It is just causing more destruction of our wilderness, more poisoning of water and air, and it is not helping the problems in Latin America.” (14) Not a single protest against this raving was uttered by Devall, one of the leading exponents of deep ecology in the United States. We understand from his statements at the Gold and Green conference quoted above why Bill Devall did not bother to contradict Foreman. Deep ecology lacks a theory of the social causes of the environmental crisis and the only solution they can think of is a reduction of population. How to achieve this is not made clear, but some supporters do not exclude draconic, indeed eco-fascistic measures.
The anti-humanist notion of 'biocentrism', the notion that all living beings have equal 'intrinsic worth', is another disturbing feature in deep ecology. This 'biocentrism' has its counterpart in 'anthropocentrism', the view that human happiness and welfare should precede all other priorities. In the book The Arrogance of Humanism (1981) David Ehrenfeldt wrote in this 'biocentric' vain about the right of the smallpox-virus to exist. Since then tons of paper have been produced with articles about 'intrinsic worth', 'biocentric democracy', and 'biocentrism' and its implications. Indeed deep ecology has become a booming academic industry. The way seems to be opened for the discussion of how much human suffering and death is acceptable in the name of an 'ecological ethics'. Again, there is not the faintest idea about the social roots of the environmental problems. All people, regardless of their position in society, are held equally responsible for the destruction of the environment in this view. Humanity's 'original sin' was 'anthropocentrism' (theological words apply very neatly in this way of thinking). Deep ecologists have a very static view on nature or 'wilderness'. As important as they profess to value 'wilderness', they never explain very much the meaning of this concept. For them 'nature' is just a scenic view, untouched by human intervention even though in reality there is no 'wilderness' left on this earth. Nevertheless some deep ecologists want to exclude people from some areas, at least people not living 'traditional' (pre-1500 A.D., according to Foreman) lifestyles. (15) Hand in hand with their reverence for 'wild' nature goes a depreciation of science and technology. These are held responsible for the desacralization of nature and consequently the destruction of the environment. Bill Devall, in his usual subtle way, states it like this: “Students in natural resources sciences and management – are much like the guards in Nazi death camps.” (16) In another passage he makes the same comparison: “I see an analogy between rescuers of Jews and homosexuals in Nazi-occupied Europe and strategic monkeywrenching (a tactic used by the environmental direct action group Earth First!, PZ) in the late twentieth century.” (17) Like Næss, Devall has no hesitations about using inappropriate analogies that trivialize the Holocaust.
The Extreme Right and Ecology
Even more disturbing than the reactionary implications of basic tenets of deep ecology is the use of ecological concepts by groups and individuals of the extreme Right. Many people in the ecology movement consider themselves to be 'beyond Left and Right', but this position unfortunately makes them very vulnerable to overtures from the extreme Right, which (especially in Europe) is trying to modernize its rhetoric (the slogan was, tellingly enough, invented by the German right wing ecologist Herbert Gruhl for Die Grünen). By adopting ecological themes and concepts and incorporating them into its propaganda, the extreme Right today is seeking to gain mainstream public acceptance. For example, in France the Nouvelle Droite (New Right) has shown a lot of interest in deep ecology. Nouvelle Droite is the name for a tendency in the extreme right wing milieu that tries to modernize its ideology. A central organization in this field is the Groupement de Recherche et d'Études pour la Civilisation Européenne, founded in 1968. Its leading ideologue is Alain de Benoist, who is constantly changing his ideas, but nonetheless always opposed the egalitarian ideas that originated in the Enlightenment. (18) It is far beyond the scope of this article to explain in any detail the history of GRECE. (19) Suffice it for now to say that De Benoist and his supporters became interested in ecology around 1993. In an article about the European New Right (ENR) Mark Wegierski wrote: “Although some ENR members at one time advocated technocracy, they have now embraced ecology as one of the most hopeful tendencies on the planet today. The 1993 GRECE colloquium was dedicated to ecology.” (20) From the milieu around GRECE a new ecological organization was founded in the early nineties. This organization called Nouvelle Écologie (New Ecology) organizes conferences and lectures and publishes the magazine Le recours aux forêts. Nouvelle Écologie regards itself as the French branch of the international deep ecology movement and tries to influence the ecology movement toward a right wing direction.
Even as the extreme Right has picked up and incorporated ecological themes, some prominent ecologists have themselves evolved toward reactionary positions and do not mind to work together very closely with the extreme Right. The British ecologist Edward Goldsmith is a case in point. Goldsmith has been a well-known figure in the international environmentalist movement for several decades. In 1970 he founded the journal The Ecologist, which has long been a leading voice for the movement. He was one of the authors of the 1972 bestseller A Blueprint for Survival. Already in this book some conservative views were exhibited: “If there is no hierarchy there will be constant bickering and fighting. There will also be no mechanism for ensuring the perpetuation of those qualities required if the society is to survive.” (21) The overall obsession in Blueprint is 'stability' and 'order'. According to the authors of Blueprint the causes of the environmental crisis are to be found in economic and demographic growth. Like the authors of the Limits to Growth report of the conservative Club of Rome, whom they regard as like-minded individuals, their view on the environmental crisis is extremely limited. In 1991 he received the Right Livelihood Award, the 'alternative Nobel prize'. He is presently very much involved with international campaigns against the WTO, MAI, nuclear energy, and genetically modified organisms. For years, Goldsmith had also been known for his socially paleo-conservative views, especially on the role of women and the family. In an interview he said: “In my view women perform a very important role, both with regard to social coherence as well as of the viewpoint of the protection of the environment. They do not have the typical male chauvinism and competiteveness. I am in favor of the kind of feminism Vandana Shiva stands for, whom I know very well by the way, but which is completely at odds with the American kind of feminism that in the end results only in a reversal of male chauvinism into female chauvisnism. You know, one has to accept the differences between men and women, just like those of ethnic groups and cultures. For me, as well as for Shiva, cultural, ethnic, and also biological diversity, destroyed by the global economy, are very important.” (22) In The Way: An Ecological World-View (1992, revised and enlarged edition 1998) Goldsmith tries to formulate his worldview. Like Fritjof Capra he bases his views on an unlikely mix of mechanistic systems theory and eastern mysticism. Many of Goldsmiths ideas focus on religion and its alleged role in shaping the social order. Western society went wrong, he asserts, when it embraced technology, science, and progress instead of the traditional 'Way' (or Tao). The monotheistic religions are also to blame for the desacralization of nature. Goldsmith thinks society should be reorganized so that it accords with the precepts of 'Gaia' which means arranged in the same plan and governed by the same laws as the Cosmos and the natural world. Religion is the means through which the laws of nature should be instrumentalized in society. Goldsmith puts it himself this way: “The argument put forward in this book is that we can only conceivably do better if, among other things, we set out to re-interpret our problems in the light of a very different world-view – the worldview of ecology – inspired as it must be by the chthonic world-view entertained by our remote ancestors who knew, as modern man no longer knows, how to live on this planet.” (23) He sees potential in the religious fundamentalist movements in the Moslem world and India. He states: “[t]here are signs … that such movements are likely to preach a return to the vernacular way of life …[A] considerable proportion of the revitalist movements that have so far sprung up in the Third World have been 'nativistic' – which is to say that they correctly attributed the ills against they were reacting to the way of life imposed upon them by their colonial masters, and preached a return to the Way of their ancestors ... We cannot afford to wait and see whether such movements will develop into revivalist cults that are powerful enough to transform our society. Instead, we should work towards their development by helping to create the conditions in which they are likely to emerge. Let us remember that the world-view of ecology is very much that of the vernacular community-based society.” (24) Interestingly, he refers a few times very favorably to deep ecology in his book The Way: An Ecological World-View, which he hopes will develop into a movement to perform the task put forward in the book. Goldsmith thanks deep ecology founder Arne Næss, “who, after reading a summary of this book in The Ecologist, urged me to complete it and get it published.” (25) The view that people should obey the laws of nature (or Gaia) can be found in deep ecology, but also in New Age and the Nouvelle Droite.
The views of Goldsmith are also a potential justification for racism. Nicholas Hildyard, a former associate of Goldsmith, wrote a critique of his views and showed convincingly that he is in favor of separation of different so called 'ethnic groups'. (26) In an article for The Ecologist Goldsmith wrote: “The Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland constitute two distinct ethnic groups, of different origin, with different manners and traditions and different motivations and capacities. They could occupy the same geographic area and form a single society if they were capable of living in cultural symbiosis with each other, which they have done up to now. The Catholics, however, are no longer willing to fill the lower echelons of the economic hierarchy, as the cultural pattern which previously enabled them to do so has largely broken down. The only remaining solution is to separate them territorially. Ataturk separated Greeks and Turks very successfully, although there was a terrible outcry at the time and it undoubtedly caused considerable inconvenience to the people who were forced to migrate. But should we not be willing to accept measures of inconvenience in order to establish a stable society?” (27) Few people would agree with his rather peculiar view that Irish Catholics and Protestants are two distinct ethnic groups. In his book The Way he adds more in general: “Social evolution has led to the development of complex social groupings and to a wide diversity of different ethnic groups, each perfectly adapted to the specialized environment in which it lives.” (28) This view accords perfectly with Nouvelle Droite views on ethnicity, which is also in favor of territorial separation of different 'ethnic' groups. In the 1990s he therefore has become very attractive to the Nouvelle Droite.
The popularity of Goldsmith's writings among the Nouvelle Droite has made him welcome at Nouvelle Droite conferences. On 27 November 1994 he was one of the featured speakers for the 25th annual conference of GRECE, the major Nouvelle Droite organization in France. Its theme was (very tellingly) “Left-Right: the end of a system.” He also gave an interview to their magazine Elements in October 1996. Goldsmith was also a welcome guest at the conference of the Flemish connection of Nouvelle Droite in Belgium. On 11 November 1997 he was a speaker on the third colloquium of the Delta Stichting, the Belgian connection of GRECE, about How can we survive decadence? His speech was called Against progress: the U-turn we need. Another speaker at this conference was Alain de Benoist, with whom Goldsmith obviously does not mind sharing a platform. Goldsmith has also contributed his writings to Nouvelle Droite publications, such as the Flemish Tekos. This magazine is published by the Delta Foundation, which has a lot of contacts with the extreme Right Vlaams Blok (Flemish Bloc). Guy de Martelaere, collaborator of Tekos, found translating Goldsmith’s writings to be an uplifting experience: “The Tekos-colloquium in Antwerp on 11 November was a big success. The conservative-ecological theses of Edward Goldsmith have attracted a lot of interest and acceptance from Nouvelle Droite audiences, which partly have yet to discover green thought. Alain de Benoist, internationally the leading ideologue of the Nouvelle Droite, and Luc Pauwels, chief editor of the Belgian periodical Tekos, are moving into an ecological direction, inspired among other things by contact with Goldsmith and his ideas. I myself got the task to translate one of Goldsmith's most recent and philosophically profound articles for Tekos.” (29)
In recent years, Goldsmith has also been an active supporter of Nouvelle Écologie in France. Laurent Ozon, a disciple of Alain de Benoist, is the director of this organization. Laurent Ozon wrote in an article about housing: “For ecologists it is today essential to safeguard for every people its creative local expression, its possibility even to live or to exist as a constructive part of a culture that participates in the diversity of life. Because the uprooting caused by the individualization of style and the globalization of construction standards is an important weapon in the war waged by the forces of money, hate, and standardization against the natural communities and their ecosystems.” (30) The writings of Goldsmith are an important source of inspiration for Ozon. Besides being the director of Nouvelle Écologie, Ozon has very active against the war of NATO in Kosovo as the leading figure in the Collectif Non à la Guerre, which tried to build an alliance between Left and Right in opposition to the the intervention of NATO in Kosovo. Nouvelle Écologie also has the support of Antoine Waechter, the leading exponent of the 'neither Left nor Right' faction within the green movement in France, the socalled 'ninis'. On May 29, 1989, Waechter declared on French public television: “To open the borders for foreigners is a dangerous utopia. Bearing in mind the demographic explosion in the Third World, there would be millions of people wandering to an already overpopulated Europe. The damage on the cultural and environmental level would be devastating.” (31) How would the Nouvelle Droite not be interested in such an ecologist? In September 1993 Krisis, the journal edited by Alain de Benoist, asked for and got an interview from him. In this interview Waechter said: “[I]f there is a place today for an autonomous ecological movement, it is precisely because political ecology is accompanied by a philosophy of action completely different than that supported by the Right-Left cleavage, that structured the French political landscape for two centuries and shows today clear signs of exhaustion.” (32) Waechter broke away from Les Verts in 1994 because he thought they were too much leaning toward the Left and he founded the political party Mouvement Écologiste Indépendant (Independent Ecology Movement). The new party received the full support of Nouvelle Écologie and its whereabouts got plenty of coverage in Le recours aux forêts (the title of this magazine is a reference to an article by the German extreme right wing author Ernst Jünger that was translated to French and published in Krisis in 1993). Waechter has made several electoral alliances with the autonomists in Alsace. The autonomist party in Alsace (like in Brittany) has a long history in right wing politics. In an interview in Alsace Presse in December 1998 Waechter explained his differences with Les Verts, and its candidate Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Waechter said: “Our list is truly ecological, whereas that of Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a list of the Left with an ecological coloration. Our aim is to make sure that the list of Les Verts does not accumulate the votes of distracted voters, that is the votes of the Leftists and the votes of those with an ecological sensibility that could be seduced by the centrist discours of Cohn-Bendit.” (33) In a letter to the daily Libération Waechter protested against the accusation of working together closely with extreme Rightists on a conference in Paris in January 1999: “What are they reproaching me for? To have participated in a forum and presenting a lecture about Robert Hainard. Is there a single idea in my lecture that resembles closely or distantly the theses of the extreme Right? No, for sure. Is there a single word from the moderator, Laurent Ozon, that would justify such a connection? Not any more so. Burt Laurent Ozon has had the courage to ask some iconoclast questions and to gather some intellectuals of different persuasions to answer them. This is disturbing because this enterprise is situated outside of the convenient cleavage. Just like an ecological list is disturbing because it destroys the myth according to which the ecologists are represented at the European elections by Les Verts. Why can not the Left and the Right deal with the emergence of political ideas that are different from socialism and liberalism?” (34)
Edward Goldsmith was, like Antoine Waechter, one of the featured speakers in this conference in Paris which had as its theme: Ecology against progress? It was organized by Nouvelle Écologie and Goldsmith presented his usual paleo-conservative views on Family, Community, Democracy. Of course Alain de Benoist and several other people of the Nouvelle Droite were also present. A report of this conference was published in Le recours aux forêts, the magazine of Nouvelle Écologie, which earlier devoted a special issue to the views of Edward Goldsmith. In the interview in this special issue of Le recours aux forêts on his views, Goldsmith said: “In both France and England, as well as in Germany, the Greens have the tendency to align themselves with the Left, because the Left is thought of as being less linked to the big multinational corporations, and therefor more inclined to protect the interests of the people. But, in my view, this will change, because of the simple reason that there practically no difference anymore between the Left and the Right, neither in France nor in Germany and the United States … It goes without saying that it is a question of time before a party will be created to represent all these groups that are marginalized by the global economy and also of those who want to preserve what is left of our society, of its culture, and its natural environment. The next political cleavage will be the one between the parties in favor of the global economy and those in favor of the local and communitarian economy. Of course I hope the ecologists will play an important role in the formation of this party, that could be a federation of parties.” (35)
In advance of the European elections of May 1999, Goldsmith tried to put his ideas into practice and he wanted to form an electoral alliance with Waechter's MEI. But in February 1999 the right wing affiliations of both Edward Goldsmith and Antoine Waechter were exposed, whereupon the alliance was broken up. (36) Fortunately Waechter’s MEI did not get many votes in the subsequent election. In September 1999 Goldsmith wrote a letter to the magazine Silence in which he defended his attendance at the conference of GRECE in 1994 by stating that he also spoke at a conference organized by the trotskyist party in Switzerland. He says he never checks the organizations who invite him to speak at their conferences. He states that he does not know about the current political views of GRECE (although he admits that it was founded from a extreme Rightist background) and he defends Alain de Benoist by saying that the Frenchman is critical of the views on immigration of the Front National. Indeed, De Benoist is critical of Front National, but that does not mean he is not part of the extreme right wing. It seems to escape Goldsmith that not every criticism of the Front National is necessarily progressive. De Benoist is in disagreement with the strategy used by Front National, not its principles. Goldsmith also denied that he was involved with financing the MEI campaign for the European elections but Antoine Waechter said otherwise in a press statement issued by the MEI dated 7 December 1998. Very revealing Goldsmith writes at the end of this letter: “It may be worthwhile to mention that all my African, Hindu and Polynesian friends (except those who were too much exposed to Western influences) agree on the principles of this worldview.” (37) Makes one wonder where these friends stand in the political spectrum. Goldsmith seems to believe in some kind of cultural apartheid and that different cultures should not influence one another.
Alain de Benoist said of Goldsmith in an interview: “I am … in sympathy with the views expressed by … Edward Goldsmith, in such works as The great U-turn (1988), The Way: an Ecological Worldview (1991) and again, very recently, in a collection of pieces entitled The Case against the Global Economy and for a Turn toward the Local (Sierra Club Books, San Francisco 1996).” (38) Goldsmith's book was translated into French as Le défi du XXIe siècle - Une vision écologique du monde. His book is very well received by the connections of the Nouvelle Droite in Germany and Italy as well. The Way was translated to German and Heinz-Siegfried Strelow, one of the leading exponents of the Unabhängigen Ökologen Deutschlands (Independent Ecologists of Germany) wrote that it should become obligatory reading for conservative ecologists (which is nothing but an euphemism for ecofascists). (39) In Italy The Way was published as Il Tao dell'Ecologia and Goldsmith also contributed an article to the right wing magazine Diorama Letterario under the same title. (40) This magazine is the Italian connection of GRECE and headed by Marco Tarchi, a political scientist working at the university of Florence. Goldsmith went to Florence on 17 February 1999 to speak about Community, Local Economies, and Globalization. He did not mind sharing a platform with Marco Tarchi on this occasion. Tarchi is a well-known supporter of GRECE, a former member of the neo-fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano and nowadays very close to the separatist Lega Nord. He professes an interest in the deep ecology of Arne Næss. (41) In a review of Robyn Eckersley's Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Eco-centric Aproach for the British far Right magazine The Scorpion the known neo-nazi Michael Walker wrote: “[I]t is precisely deep ecology and bio-regionalism that are most likely to inspire a conservative or anti-liberal, even anti-humanist, dare we say even racialist, green perspective. There is no lack of dire warnings from the Left about the dangers for the uninitiated of bio-regionalism, which by its very name invites the novice to consider the biological implications of the conservation of differences. Deep ecology is so radical in its anti-capitalism that anti-capitalism is more important than anti-fascism and saving the world more important than either, more important than anything else in fact.” (42) Fortunately so far there have been no signs of the far Right making serious overtures to the ecology movement in Britain, but judging from this assessment of Michael Walker, the ecology movement should be very vigilant.
The Challenge for the Ecology Movement
There is a very real danger that the right wing will significantly influence the ideology and practice of the ecology movement. The Nouvelle Droite will gladly take the opportunity to use the similarities in thinking of the anti-humanist and anti-rationalist currents in the ecology movement. In this they have the full support of Edward Goldsmith. The ecology movement once was a very promising movement, but unfortunately the promise of a new kind of politics was never fulfilled. Instead it drifted into mysticism and religion on the one hand and to an uncritical acceptance of the status quo on the other hand (cfr. Les Verts in France, Die Grünen in Germany, Agalev and Ecolo in Belgium, I Verdi in Italy). The current rise of mysticism, religion, and obscurantism in Europe and North America will be regarded by the right wing as a gigantic opportunity to spread their message. In spite of the statement by the neo-nazi Michael Walker about the anti-capitalist nature of deep ecology, capitalism has nothing to fear from mystical ecology. The social causes of environmental degradation are 'deeply' mystified by the acolytes of deep ecology, bioregionalism and ecofeminism. It is more likely that these tendencies will result in authoritarian measures against the poor and weak in society. As an antidote to this kind of thinking American social ecologists Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier wrote: “What prevents ecological politics from yielding reaction or fascism is an ecology movement that maintains a broad social emphasis, one that places the ecological crisis in a social context.” (43) Rather than in a context of race, ethnicity, bioregion, mysticism, and the like, ecological politics should be embedded in the struggle against hierarchical domination and class exploitation, the fundamental social causes of environmental problems.
Ecology, if unmediated by social theory and philosophy, can easily result in terrible disasters. Context is all-important, as Murray Bookchin points out correctly: “To think ecologically is to enter the domain of nature philosophy. This can be a very perilous step. Serious political ambiguities persist in nature philosophy itself: namely its potential to nourish reaction as well as revolution. Contemporary society is still seared by images of nature that have fostered highly reactionary political views. Vaporous slogans about 'community' and humanity's 'oneness with nature' easily interplay with the legacy of 'naturalistic' nationalism that reached its genocidal apogee in Nazism, with its myths of race and 'blood and soil'. It requires only a minor ideological shift from the ideas of the nineteenth-century Romantic movement and William Blake's mystical anarchism to arrive at Richard Wagner's mystical nationalism.” (44) With the goal of creating a rational, humanist, and truly democratic society, social ecology stands out as the complete opposite of the current anti-humanist, irrationalist, and authoritarian trends in the ecology movement and in society at large. We have to make hard choices and think critically and rationally about these choices. We face a grim future if the battle against the reactionary trends is not won.
Notes
1. Murray Bookchin, “Will Ecology become 'the Dismal Science'?” in The Progressive (1991). Reprinted in Which Way for the Ecology Movement? (Edinburgh & San Francisco: AK Press, 1994).
2. Quoted in David Kubrin, “Toxic Ideologies” in Reclaiming Quarterly, Summer 1999.
3. Arne Næss, “Deep Ecology and Ultimate Premises” in The Ecologist, Vol. 18, Nos. 4/5 (1988). Reprinted in Society and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1992), p. 108.
4. idem, p. 113.
5. Interview with Arne Næss and Helena Norberg-Hodge in Resurgence, January 1997.
6. Kirkpatrick Sale, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1991), p. 108.
7. Arne Næss, “Deep Ecology and Ultimate Premises” in The Ecologist, Vol. 18, Nos. 4/5 (1988). Reprinted in Society and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1992), p. 112.
8. Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter (London: Flamingo, 1997), p. 7. In The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture (1982) Capra also stated his support for deep ecology.
9. Charlene Spretnak, The Spiritual Dimension of Green Politics (Santa Fe: Bear & Co., 1986), p. 27.
10. Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak, Green Politics: The Global Promise (London: Hutchinson, 1984).
11. For Herbert Gruhl, see Janet Biehl, “'Ecology' and the Modernization of Fascism in the German Ultra-right” in Janet Biehl & Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience (Edinburgh & San Francisco: AK Press, 1995). I also highly recommend the writings of Jutta Ditfurth, Feuer in die Herzen: Gegen die Entwertung des Menschen (Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1997) and Entspannt in die Barbarei. (Öko-)Faschismus und Biozentrismus (Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1996). Although there was a public break between the ÖDP and Gruhl, this did not have much influence on the formers ideology. In fact they continued to spread his books and pamphlets and kept informal relations with their erstwhile leader.
12. For Rudolf Bahro, see Janet Biehl, ”'Ecology' and the Modernization of Fascism in the German Ultra-right”. See also the exchange between James Hart and Ullrich Melle who defend Rudolf Bahro and Janet Biehl in Democracy & Nature #11/12 (Vol. 4, no. 2/3, 1998).
13. See Murray Bookchin, Re-enchanting Humanity: A Defense of the Human Spirit against Anti-Humanism, Misanthropy, Mysticism and Primitivism (London: Cassell, 1995).
14. Dave Foreman interviewed by Bill Devall, “A Spanner in the Woods” in Simply Living Vol. 12 (c. 1986). Quoted in Murray Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecology (Montréal: Black Rose, second revised edition, 1995), p. 117. In 1989 there was a public debate in New York between Dave Foreman and Murray Bookchin about their differences. Foreman distanced himself from his statements in the interview he gave to Bill Devall in this debate, but soon thereafter he started using the same eco-brutalist language again. This is hardly surprising because it is inherent in 'biocentric' thinking. After leaving Earth First!, Foreman joined the board of directors of the conservationist organization Sierra Club and tried, fortunately unsuccessfully so far, to have it adopt an anti-immigration policy. The debate was published in Steve Chase (ed.), Defending the Earth: A Dialogue between Murray Bookchin and Dave Foreman (Boston: South End Press, 1991).
15. Dave Foreman, “A Modest Proposal for a Wilderness Preserve System” in Whole Earth Review #53 (Winter 1986). Quoted by Bill Devall, Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: Practicing Deep Ecology (Layton: Gibbs Smith, 1988), pp. 164-165.
16. Bill Devall, Simple in Means, Rich in Ends, p. 49.
17. ibid., p. 149.
18. For his intellectual development see the detailed analysis of Pierre-André Taguieff in Sur la Nouvelle Droite (Paris: Descartes & Cie, 1994). Unfortunately Taguieff takes the proclamations of De Benoist about his politics being neither Left nor Right far too serious.
19. In Krisis #15 De Benoist published “La nature et sa valeur intrinsique” (September 1993). Under the pseudonym Robert de Herte he wrote in Elements #79 “Les deux écologies”, “Herbert Gruhl et les 'verts' allemands” and “Écologie et réligion” (January 1994).
20. Mark Wegierski, “The European New Right” in Telos #98/99 (Winter 1993/Fall 1994). Telos, once a leading neo-marxist theoretical journal in the United States, has unfortunately been transformed into a platform for European Nouvelle Droite authors.
21. The Ecologist, A Blueprint for Survival (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 102. For a critique of its conservatism see David Pepper, The Roots of Modern Environmentalism (London & New York: Routledge, 1984).
22. Edward Goldsmith interviewed by Paul Gimeno in Oikos #3. Oikos is a publication of the Belgian (Flemish) green party Agalev. My translation from the Dutch. For a critique of the reactionary ecofeminism of Vandana Shiva, see the excellent essay by Maria Wölflingseder, “Kosmischer Größenwahnsinn. Biologistische und rassistische Tendenzen im New Age und im spirituellen Ökofeminismus” in Gerhard Kern & Lee Taynor (eds.), Die esoterische Verführung: Angriffe auf Vernunft und Freiheit (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 1995), pp. 187-210. See also from the same author “Fetisch Weiblichkeit: Über die diffizilen Zusammenhänge zwischen spirituellen Ökofeminismus und rechter Ideologie” in: Renate Bitzan (ed.), Rechte Frauen: Skingirls, Walküren und feine Damen (Berlin: Elefanten Press, 1997), pp. 56-71. For a critique of American ecofeminism see Janet Biehl, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics (Boston: South End Press, 1991).
23. Edward Goldsmith, The Way: An Ecological World-View (Athens GA: University of Georgia Press, 1998). Revised and enlarged edition, p. 424.
24. Edward Goldsmith, idem p. 437-438.
25. Edward Goldsmith, idem p. xvii.
26. Nicholas Hildyard, `Blood' and 'Culture': Ethnic Conflict and the Authoritarian Right (London: Cornerhouse briefing #11, January 1999).
27. Edward Goldsmith, “Basic Principles of Cultural Ecology” in The Ecologist, Vol. 1, no. 12, 1971, p. 4. Quoted by Nicholas Hildyard, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
28. Edward Goldsmith, The Way, p. 420.
29. Guy de Martelaere, “Nieuws en korte beschouwingen” in Gwenved #23 (January 1998). Guy de Martelaere also publishes in the British right wing periodicals Perspectives: European identities, autonomies and initiatives, edited by the Transeuropa Collective, and Alternative Green, a magazine edited by Richard Hunt. My translation from the Dutch. In 1997 Tekos (no. 85) published a translation of the first editorial Goldsmith wrote in 1970 for The Ecologist. It also published a translation of “Scientific superstitions” (from The Ecologist, vol. 27, no. 5, Sept/Oct. 1997). Guy de Martelaere translated parts of The Way to Dutch for the publishing house of Tekos. Goldsmith also gave an interview to the right wing Belgian periodical De Vrijbuiter (Spring 1998) in which he praised the traditional family and traditional community.
30. Laurent Ozon, “L'habitat, un enjeu pour les écologistes” in Le recours aux forêts #4. My translation from the French. Ozon's articles are translated and published in Italian in Diorama Letteraria, and in Dutch in the extreme right wing paper of Voorpost, SOS-Nieuwsbrief.
31. Quoted by Philippe Pelletier, L'imposture écologiste (Paris: Reclus, 1993), pp. 101-102. My translation from the French. See also Thierry Maricourt, Les nouvelles passarelles de l'extrême droite (Paris: Syllepse, 1997).
32.“Ni droite, ni gauche. Entretien avec Antoine Waechter” in Krisis #15 (September 1993), pp. 16-23. My translation from the French. In the same issue was published “Eight Theses on Deep Ecology” by Arne Næss.
33. Interview with Antoine Waechter in Alsace Presse, 8 December 1998. My translation from the French.
34. Antoine Waechter, Libération, 15 February 1999. My translation from the French.
35. Interview with Edward Goldsmith in Le recours aux forêts #3. My translation from the French.
36. Christiane Chombeau, “Le dérive extrémiste d'Antoine Waechter” in Le Monde, 18 February 1999. Nicole Gauthier, “Waechter accusé par les siens de dérive brune” Libération, 12 February 1999.
37. Letter of Edward Goldsmith in Silence #248 (September 1999). Emphasis added. My translation from the French. Arne Næss seem to share this purist, ‘nativist’ view: “The quite young Dalai Lama was exalted by cameras and films that were ‘smuggled’ to him … When such a central personality, raised from the cradle in a strong culture, tumbles headlong for something so specifically Western technology as a camera, what chances does the culture have to survive? The enthusiasm of the Dalai Lama maybe reveals the demonic force of modern industrial technology.” Arne Næss, Økologi, samfunn og livsstil (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 5th edition 1976) pp. 111-112. Translation from the Norwegian by Eirik Eiglad.
38. Alain de Benoist interviewed in the British right wing magazine Right Now! A Magazine of Politics, Ideas, and Culture, 1997.
39. Heinz-Siegfried Strelow in Junge Freiheit #47 (1996), quoted by Jean Cremet, “Neue Rechte: jetzt generationen- übergreifend” in AK 403, 5 June 1997. The UÖD split away from the Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei (Ecological Democratic Party). The MEI is affiliated with the latter. Reports of Hannes Krill in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 26 and 29 January 2000 indicate that the split between Die Grünen and the ÖDP could be restored in the near future. Die Grünen have got rid of their left wing that temporarily blocked the influence of the ecofascists.
40. Edward Goldsmith, “Il tao dell'ecologia” in Diorama Letteraria #214 (May 1998).
41. Marco Tarchi, “Cari liberali, adesso è vostro il pensiero unico” in Liberal #26 (May 1997). Tarchi also contributed to the American journal Telos, see “In Search of Right and Left” in Telos #103 (Spring 1995). Like De Benoist Tarchi is critical of Alleanza Nazionale (the former Movimento Sociale Italiano), but that does not mean he is not right wing, he is merely from a rival tendency on the Right.
42. Michael Walker, “A Darker Shade of Green” in The Scorpion #19. This British magazine is very close to GRECE. Michael Walker is also a collaborator of Elemente, the magazine of the German branch of the Nouvelle Droite.
43. Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, “Introduction” in Ecofascism, pp. 2-3.
44. Murray Bookchin, The Philosophy of Social Ecology, pp. 101-102. Emphasis added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Well with over 30,000 members the Green Party of England and Wales is reviewing its structures, do we need to change Green Party Ex... -
'The Geneva Mosque was vandalised on Thursday when someone threw a pot of pink paint at the entrance. Earlier this month, a vehicle with...
-
The Irish delegate to the committee of the European Green Party failed to be elected at the weekend and, I am told, only received a handful ...
