Green Room

The Final Solution to the Global Warming Skeptic Question

posted at 12:50 am on October 4, 2010 by

Right away, I suppose you know where this is going.  I’ll stipulate at the outset that I do not impute to all (or even most) environmental activists a Nazist desire to blow away the other humans who disagree with their beliefs, conclusions, and prescriptions for “the planet.”

But I do impute such a desire to the makers of the “No Pressure” video. In their unapologetic apology for the video, they display neither contrition for the theme of pulverizing those who disagree with them, nor understanding that it’s their inverted “moral” justification for doing so that’s the problem.  It’s not the contrived images, per se, that ought to disturb us, it’s the ideology behind them.

As several commenters pointed out at Ed’s post, the proposition of the video is Nazism.  It’s not “like” Nazism – it is Nazism.  This is partly because a tortured idea of environmental-ecological hygiene was a strong element in Nazism.  But that’s not the most important reason.  The “No Pressure” video’s proposition is Nazism because it implies a moral justification for “problematic” humans being exterminated.  It shows the global-warming skeptics dying because they “deserve it” – because they interfere with realization of the urgent collective idea.

This is Nazism.  It is the very heart of Nazism.  It is why Nazism produced euthanasia of the old and disabled, why it justified ghastly eugenic experiments on “problematic” humans, and why it led to the Holocaust of the Jews.

Note this well: Nazism did not do this by preaching in favor of euthanasia, of homicidal eugenic experimentation, or of slaughtering Jews.  Nazism was always publicly coy about the implications of its vicious themes.  It achieved its real outcomes, rather, by first positing a “utopian” condition (one with a substantial element of eco-harmony alongside the “racial hygiene”); by then supposing a systemic racial and political menace to it; and by demonizing and dehumanizing those who were held to be interfering with the realization of the utopia. Nazism further assumed a mystical urgency to the problem, which justified limiting the people’s freedoms, requiring certain involuntary actions and heroic sacrifices from them, and subjecting some of the people to unequal treatment.

It does not matter that environmental activists who achieve public prominence and political influence today aren’t preaching a Final Solution.  The Nazis didn’t preach one either, nor did Germans vote for them in the hope of one.  What the Nazis’ public rhetoric did was justify the Final Solution, along with the other hideous undertakings of the Nazi state.  Their public rhetorical campaign laid the foundation for their moral decisions behind closed doors.

The horrific decisions themselves were not featured in public communications.  They were not advocated explicitly or introduced for national debate.  Yet they were still adopted and executed by the national government.  And this is important: in Nazi propaganda – in what we would today call the Nazis’ “information campaign” – there could be found no countervailing affirmation of the irreducible moral standing of the “problematic” humans.  In word and picture, the “problematic” humans were portrayed solely in terms of their “vile” nature, as if they were a virus infecting society, and as if they should be treated as such.

I’m sure that most environmental radicals are not personally in favor of blowing away their critics.  Most of them would repudiate such an idea with repugnance.  I understand that.  But their intellectual idea is an absolutist one; it does not admit of the possibility that their fellow humans are owed the right to live by their own moral lights in this matter, just because they are human.  We are all human, in fact.  Being human makes each of us prone to error, something the long parade of errors and unraveling assertions in the history of AGW advocacy has amply demonstrated.  A moral society does not assume error and punish preemptively; it waits to establish error, by process of law and investigative iteration; and it seeks accommodation and compromise when neither absolute truth nor incontrovertible error can be objectively established.

We are assuredly living under the latter conditions today, when it comes to the AGW/Climate Change/Climate Disruption proposition.  There may well be some amount of anthropogenic global warming, although theoretical certainty has persistently been greater than unassailable evidence in that regard.  But skepticism that human carbon emissions are having a cataclysmic effect on “the planet” is as fully justified as was skepticism that Jews and other substandard humans constituted a mongrelizing infestation of a pristine, ecologically harmonious Aryan super-race.

The central moral vulnerability of radical environmentalism is that it does exactly what the Nazis did:  it advances arguments that would justify a wildly hubristic, fabulist attitude about our fellow humans; and it never mitigates the force of that rhetorical theme with an uncompromising commitment to the moral right of those fellow humans to their lives and liberty.

This latter form of mitigation is not a given in any time or place.  It cannot be left to operate on its own, because it doesn’t.  The moral right to life and liberty has been defined out of effective existence by every collectivist ideology and most forms of autocracy.  The most epic, tragic fool is the one who suggests, in sophomoric fashion, that people ought to “lighten up” about fanatical ideologues and their cavalier dismissal of the moral rights of others.

On this topic, there is under no circumstances an obligation to “lighten up.”  We either acknowledge instead the obligation to be weighed down with the burden of vigilance, or we end up being ruled by people who think it’s funny and satisfying to imagine us being pulverized.  The step from that to actually killing people, in the name of an ideological morality, has already been taken, and more than once in the last century.  No one who prescribes disregarding that history can be taken seriously.

Cross-posted at The Optimistic Conservative.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well said written.

Sqrl on October 4, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Excellent column

Just for reference:

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

Translates to the phrase:

National Socialist German Workers Party.

The Nazis were on the Left side of the political spectrum, despite the Left’s constant attempt at rewriting history.

Nazism further assumed a mystical urgency to the problem, which justified limiting the people’s freedoms, requiring certain involuntary actions and heroic sacrifices from them, and subjecting some of the people to unequal treatment.

That brings up a chicken or the egg question – Did the “urgency” of the Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption “Crisis” foster the urgency in addressing it?

Or did the need for these drastic measures to curtain individual freedom and liberty magnify the Urgency of the Crisis?

Chip on October 4, 2010 at 7:45 AM

No Pressure.

dentalque on October 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

That brings up a chicken or the egg question – Did the “urgency” of the Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption “Crisis” foster the urgency in addressing it?

Or did the need for these drastic measures to curtain individual freedom and liberty magnify the Urgency of the Crisis?

Chip on October 4, 2010 at 7:45 AM

Oddly enough, the climate models that were the basis of the movement date back to an attempt by Margarete Thatcher to break the UK coal unions.

Count to 10 on October 4, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Your writing is impressive as always, ma’am.

I concur wholeheartedly with almost all of your article, with the exception that I believe that the people who believe it to be okay to kill their fellow humans for the sake of Gaia are more prevalent than you believe.

I myself spent the weekend informing people I know of the existence of this little video. Reactions ranged from abject horror, to amusement, to the very interesting line of “something like that is going to have to happen eventually, nature will balance us out by itself if not”, and four variations upon that.

It is long past time that we, as a people, understand that there is indeed a segment of our population that feels that our own fellow citizens truly are worse than the Taliban, more oppressive, more racist, more hateful. Even as they denounce us as hateful and murderous radicals, they sacrifice thousands of children daily upon the altar of ‘sexual freedom’, or, as it used to be known, Molech. At the same time, some among them plan and scheme how best to reduce our numbers.

It is difficult to equivocate on such a ghastly point.

On this topic, there is under no circumstances an obligation to “lighten up.” We either acknowledge instead the obligation to be weighed down with the burden of vigilance, or we end up being ruled by people who think it’s funny and satisfying to imagine us being pulverized. The step from that to actually killing people, in the name of an ideological morality, has already been taken, and more than once in the last century. No one who prescribes disregarding that history can be taken seriously.

Exactly right.

Though I understand that no place in the world is safe from human degeneracy, still I am shocked to the core that we have this on our minds in America. I cannot believe that it has come to this.

KinleyArdal on October 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Killing the opposition is their first solution not the final. Hence, all the reporters wishing Cheney dead or Limbaugh or Beck. This is how they have always operated down through the centuries. Identifying it as Nazism gives it a more recent definition.

Kissmygrits on October 4, 2010 at 10:59 AM

That was pure evil, no two ways about it. Evil. You don’t compromise with evil, you don’t make light of evil, instead you expose it to the light and call it what it is.

odannyboy on October 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Video going viral. Friends of mine around the nation have been sending me links to it on Youtube or Facebooks, asking if its for real. >.> No one can quite believe it.

KinleyArdal on October 4, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Lockstein13 on October 4, 2010 at 4:51 AM

Thanks for the link. A commenter in there had even better news, and that was that Sony backed out of the whole 10:10 movement when it saw that horrible film.

Which is good because I really like my PS3, lol.

DrAllecon on October 4, 2010 at 5:46 PM

Nicely written as usual.

An important point to remember, the steady march toward the extermination of millions of Jews was started with a simple rule: Jews could not swim in the same public pools as everyone else.

By dehumanizing them, getting the general population to accept the premise that Jews are lesser humans than others, the rest of the dehumanization and eventual extermination followed.

In this ad, it’s almost the other way around. The non-followers are exterminated in the ad. But by showing their extermination in the commercial, it is an attempt to dehumanize the non-followers in real life…for possible eventual extermination in real life? As you’ve said, it’s been done before, and horribly, terrifyingly, effectively.

DrAllecon on October 4, 2010 at 5:52 PM

For an in depth look analysis of the liberal tendency to eliminate the opposition, read Liberal Fascism by Bernard Goldberg.

Conservative Samizdat on October 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM

For an in depth look analysis of the liberal tendency to eliminate the opposition, read Liberal Fascism by Bernard Goldberg.

Conservative Samizdat on October 4, 2010 at 6:52 PM

It’s Jonah Goldberg and it has nothing to do with liberals. It tries very hard to make a case that fascism is socialism and therefore a product of the left. Sort of like saying Marx had a beard therefore everyone with a beard is a Marxist. Fascists in the classic sense of European fascism hated liberals, were formed to combat socialists and bolshevism and wanted to preserve traditional ideals of society (they tolerated monarchies with limited piower and were not anti-clerical). Fascists reject class warfare and are ultra-nationalists at heart. The nation state was their ideal and completely at odds with Communist/Leninism. The term ‘fascist’ is so overused (a la ‘young ones’ and your run of the mill hippy response to police taking their pot plants away) that has lost it’s meaning.

If you are really looking at how radical environmentalism is shaping up I would say the better analogy is that it is more like a religion than the Nazi movement.

lexhamfox on October 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM

Fascists in the classic sense of European fascism hated liberals

So do Marxists. Does that mean they are right-wing?

Fascists reject class warfare and are ultra-nationalists at heart.

BS. They absolutely embraced class warfare.

We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeois and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state.

We must therefore break both groups politically. The lines of German socialism are sharp, and our path is clear.

We are against the political bourgeois, and for genuine nationalism!

We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!

We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!

We are for the National Socialist German Workers Party!

Why Are We Socialists?
by Joseph Goebbels

The nation state was their ideal and completely at odds with Communist/Leninism.

But not Stalinism with his ‘Socialism in One Country’.
International socialists vs national socialists. Yeah, I can see the difference.

If you are really looking at how radical environmentalism is shaping up I would say the better analogy is that it is more like a religion than the Nazi movement.

lexhamfox on October 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM

True to a degree, but that was also true of communism and fascism. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

sharrukin on October 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM

sharrukin on October 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM

If that ‘socialism’ is so central to Nazis then why didn’t they employ any of the reforms you point to? They did not nationalize ‘German’ owned industries. Hitler deliberately maintained a class of wealthy industrialists… they were his allies. Sure he made speeches and rhetorically abused capitalism in order to get votes but even at the end of the war capitalism remained in place.

Hitler disguised the implicit contradictions of Point 17 of the National Socialist Program, by explaining that “gratuitous expropriation concerns only the creation of legal opportunities, to expropriate, if necessary, land which has been illegally acquired, or is not administered from the view-point of the national welfare. This is directed primarily against the Jewish land-speculation companies”.

Sure the Nazi Party has it’s roots in working class populism but that was never implemented and, if anything, he was allied with big business. If you know those points you cite then you should know that Strasserism was abandoned by fascists immediately after they took power. Aspects were selectively employed against ‘aliens’ but not Germans. I could argue that the Soviet model is democratic based on the constitution but clearly it wasn’t and no one in their right mind argues it was.

lexhamfox on October 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM

They did not nationalize ‘German’ owned industries.

Not all socialist regimes are full fledged communist ones. Control of the economy was the point and there are socialist groups that advocate state control of the market, but not nationalization.

Hitler deliberately maintained a class of wealthy industrialists… they were his allies.

So did the Soviets. They had Armand Hammer, Ford, and others.

If you know those points you cite then you should know that Strasserism was abandoned by fascists immediately after they took power. Aspects were selectively employed against ‘aliens’ but not Germans. I could argue that the Soviet model is democratic based on the constitution but clearly it wasn’t and no one in their right mind argues it was.

lexhamfox on October 5, 2010 at 5:16 PM

If your point is that socialism and communist Utopia’s are an impossibility then I would say that’s rather obvious.

The rebelution is always betrayed, because it has to be. It’s an impossible dream.

The Soviet New Economic Policy of 1921 was Lenin’s accommodation with capitalism and the Soviet’s allowing small garden plots was needed so people wouldn’t starve. The Fascists simply had a more common sense approach than the Soviets. Cuba is now doing some of the same things, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a socialist nation.

Here’s another startling revelation. The egalitarianism that the Soviets claimed? Didn’t happen. The elites in the Soviet Union lived high on the hog while their socialist comrades lived in poverty. That doesn’t change the fact that egalitarianism plays a major role in socialist ideology.

sharrukin on October 5, 2010 at 9:03 PM