Ecofascism

The Environmentalism of National Socialism

Ecology formed a strong undercurrent National Socialist ideology that, when read out of context, sounds quite in keeping with the tenets of latter-day “deep ecology.” For example, Adolph Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings.”

Yet such ecological consciousness was not unique to Hitler or the Nazis; rather, the Nazis were the inheritors of a potent 19th-century German intellectual tradition combining [Page 117]naturalistic and nationalistic conceptions that revered the connections between “blood and soil.” The Nazis believed not only in the unity of humans with nature but also in the volkish and mystic valorization of the peasantry and the purifying attributes of nature and country living. In contrast, urban life, with its greed, industry, and corruption—of course strongly associated with the Jews—was seen as contrary to traditional German values. Significantly, biological purity was viewed as indistinguishable from racial purity, and prescriptions for the ideal German society adopted a form of ecological determinism in which humans were subject to (ideologically convenient) “natural laws.”

Ecology was not merely an ideological matter for the Nazis but contributed to major policies, such as the 1935 Reich Nature Protection Law, agrarian policies, and other efforts at natural conservation. Furthermore, some of the founding fathers of ecological thought such as Ernst Haeckel (who actually coined the term ecology in the 1860s) were also purveyors of social Darwinist notions elevating Nordic peoples, as well as a profound antihumanism.

However, there are fundamental differences between Nazi-era conservation and contemporary ecology: the former was romantic, nationalistic, and nostalgic and was not based on a scientific understanding of preserving global ecosystems. Furthermore, the Nazis' conservation ethos did not prevent them from building large-scale industry to support their war efforts, so their commitment to conservation was not powerful enough to supersede their other political ambitions.

Critiques of “Deep Ecology” and the New Right

Humanists and social ecologists such as Murray Bookchin have found odiously misanthropic certain claims, beliefs, and positions adopted by some adherents of “deep ecology,” such as the need for aggressive and government-led population control, the pointlessness of foreign aid to famine-stricken nations, and the need for stricter anti-immigration policies. The deep ecologists' call for a radical reduction in our population levels, in particular, are seen by some to be consistent with fascist ideology, particularly when considering the repressive state that would be required to fulfill it.

...