Simply put, radical environmentalism, a.k.a. the GREEN MOVEMENT, DEEP ECOLOGY, or REWILDING,  is a philosophy that elevates nature over man.  Hitler incorporated this naturalistic philosophy in his infamous treatise,  Mein Kampf, where he blamed the entire Jewish race for what he called “the pacification of Nature”.   

According to Hitler, the Jews, and to a lesser extent, the Judeo-Christian ethic that stemmed from a belief in a “transcendent God”,  were responsible for wrecking the environmental health of the planet.  Jews and Christians accomplished this evil deed  through the promotion of capitalism, international commerce, and/or the communitarian values of communism.

Hitler’s anti-materialistic, anti-human, indeed anti-Christ philosophy is very much evident in the modern environmental movement.  Deep ecologists, a.k.a “radical environmentalists”, seek many of the same goals Hitler sought.  Primarily they intend to keep and/or return as much of the planet as possible to a pre-historic or primitive state completely untouched and untrammeled by human beings.  For the sake of simplicity, I refer to this agenda as “REWILDING”.

“In fact, the Nazis actually believed that the sick modern world of both international capitalism and communism, led by Jews and spread by Christianity, was entirely disobedient to Nature.”

[Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]

The NAZI’s believed that wild animals and nature needed more space. They initiated plans to depopulate and REWILD large swaths of Europe and replace domestic cattle with wild species such as the Auroch.  Much of the NAZI’s genetic research was dedicated to replicating primeval animals of the past.  Ironically, in their obsession with the veneration of nature,  they treated human beings, in particular the Jews, worse than animals.

“Their ideology of genetic purity extended to aspirations about reviving a pristine landscape with ancient animals and forests.”

Read more:

Today we see “Smart Growth” and restrictive land use laws based on NAZI notions of “sustainability”.  In fact, the word “ecology” was coined in 1866  by the racist German zoologist Ernst Haeckel.  Suffice it to say that Hitler approved of  many of Haeckel’s Darwinist concepts, especially as they related to the Jews.   Even after the defeat of NAZISM, subsequent generations continue to be programmed to believe that stifling human development in order to “save” fish and frogs or some species of vole is the right and necessary thing to do.  We have been programmed to believe that shutting down the timber industry for the sake of non-endangered birds, or promoting large non-endangered carnivores such as wolves and grizzly bears to the detriment of human beings, is right, noble, and just.

“The Reich Nature Protection Act even allowed the expropriation of private property without compensation for the sake of the environment. Sustainable forestry practices called Dauerwald, which ironically means “eternal” forest, were also introduced at the federal level.” 

[Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]

Advocates of REWILDING are fond of claiming that “nature needs half”, implying that human beings occupy too much space and  therefore we must limit our planetary “footprint” in order to preserve a “sustainable” percentage of the earth’s habitat for wildlife and fish, an amount which only they are competent to define.   Climate change is blamed on capitalism and those who hold to a Judeo-Christian ethic or outmoded concepts of industry and “private property”.   The extinction of wildlife species is blamed on those who hold to the mindset that man is the pinnacle of creation and nature exists to meet man’s needs.  The Deep Ecology answer to all of the world’s perceived “problems” is to reduce human impacts by radically reducing the human population, curtailing development, and re-educating (read: programming) and controlling those who are allowed to remain.

But here are the facts.   Over half of the entire human population currently occupies a mere 1% of the earth’s land surface. The perception that human beings are virtually everywhere is based on the fact that we are a communal species that choose to live in settled landscapes where other people, i.e. civilization,  if not right out the front door, is close at hand.    While the total land surface area of the earth is just under 58 million square miles, approximately 33% is desert and 24% is mountainous. Subtracting this largely empty and/or uninhabitable land from the total land area leaves about 25 million square miles of habitable land.

Half of the total human population lives on less than 1% of the land area of the planet. [Map Info courtesy of NASA]
Our urban centers are often surrounded by  agricultural land that actually covers less than  11% of the earth’s land surface. Domesticated animals grazing on open undeveloped land or pastures may account for up to another 20%.   That means human activity, in all forms, takes place on less than 1/3 of the earth’s land surface.  The fact is, nearly 2/3 of earth’s land surface is very sparsely populated and is considered too hostile of an environment for human habitation or agricultural production.  Thus, the REWILDERS already have far more land than they clam to want.  In fact, they are GAINING EVEN MORE LAND EVERY DAY!

According to U.S. Bureau of Census statistics, the majority of rural counties in the United States are continuing to lose population while urban centers continue to grow. Over the last several decades, rural land abandonment in Europe has reached problematic levels as urbanization continues to swallow more and more of the population.

Those who think that urban sprawl and unchecked development are the greatest threats to the health of the planet may want to look at the facts.  According to the 2014 FAO Global Land Cover SHARE database, a mere 0.6% of Earth’s land surface is defined as “artificial surfaces”.  Artificial surfaces include any land surface area that has an “artificial covering” as a result of human activities. This would include any type of construction or infrastructure such as cities, towns, dams, roads, mines, quarries, urban parks, sports fields, etc.

Think about this.  Over half of humanity lives on a mere 1% of the earth’s surface while development (infrastructure) covers just 0.6% percent.   Let’s use Canada as an example to try to put this in perspective.  Canada has a land area of roughly 3.8 million square miles.  Nearly 90% of the population lives in only four provinces, with more than 40% living in only one province (Ontario).  The vast majority of the Canadian population resides within 100 miles of the U.S. border.   That leaves vast areas of unsettled land available for nature.  Yet we are repeatedly told by the REWILDING advocates that “nature needs half”, as if humanity has somehow already managed to overrun the entire planet.

There is far more to the REWILDING agenda than meets the eye.  NAZI ecological concepts went far beyond “wise use” or “responsible stewardship” of the earth’s resources and wildlife.   And just like their NAZI mentors,  modern environmentalists seek the power to create a world of their own choosing.

Sources for this article:

Mark Musser – “Hitler’s Green Killing Machine”  c. 2010





  1. “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.” – [Unabomber’s Manifesto [Sec. 119]

    “We must identify our enemies and drive them into oblivion.” – [Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of Interior- 1991- speaking about conservatives, independent rural Americans, ranchers and farmers, land owners and developers and other assorted “anti-green’ capitalists.]

    “Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment . . . Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.“ – [Al Gore- Earth in the Balance p. 274]

    “We are trying to subvert the system. We would like to see the system collapse. When I say the system, I mean the modern industrial system as we know it….The deep ecology movement, or the EarthFirst! movement, would like to see human beings live much more like the way they did 15,000 years ago, as opposed to what we see now.” – [John Davis, Managing Editor of EarthFirst! Journal]

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – [Maurice Strong, Chairman 1992 Rio Conference and founder of the UN Environment Programme (a.k.a. “Agenda 21”)]

    To read more see my 2013 article.. “Know thy Enemy – The Environmental Death Cult”

  2. “That modern environmentalism has swept in behind the collapse of classic western philosophy and the fading of the Judeo-Christian worldview is thus no accident. It is part and parcel of the whole post-modern outlook that denies any transcendental truth or God that exists independent and outside of the natural world. Without such transcendental truths, all that is left is an amoral nature and its factual existence….”

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  3. Anon

    Nature needs half is about humanity not being completely self-centered and acknowledging that we aren’t the only species on Earth and that other species have the same right that we have to live. It’s about legally protecting land and setting it aside for the other millions of species that live on Earth.

    Restoring to ‘the Nazis believed it too’ argument makes the person making the argument sound desperate. Environmentalists are opposed to war as well as racism. They also believe in a role of women that extends outside the house, unlike the Nazis.

  4. First, my anonymous friend, you cross the line into pure wishful, and perhaps, deranged, thinking when you start talking about equal “rights” for animals. Try telling a wolf that the sheep in the pasture have a “right” to live peacefully, undisturbed by the predatory instincts of large carnivores like himself. Or try telling the subsistence farmer in India, a man who can barely feed his family off what he grows, that the local elephants have a right to eat and trample his crops. Earth to reader: Human beings only have “rights” as they are won in battle and maintained by force.

    Second, you missed the main point of my article, which is that when it comes to undisturbed land, wilderness, or land otherwise untrammeled by human beings, that amount already far exceeds 50%. The NATURE NEEDS HALF propaganda is for the city dweller, who is being brainwashed into thinking that farmers and ranchers should give up their land so wolves and bears can live there instead. Earth to reader: Wolves and bears don’t need more land to survive, and we certainly don’t need to give up agricultural production for their sake. Both species are doing quite well with what they have already.

    I believe, that when it comes to nature and wildlife, human beings have a moral obligation to be wise stewards. Polluting our home and destroying that which sustains us is stupid, evil, and insane. However, allowing nature to be “king”, and promoting range expansion for high impact non-endangered species such as the gray wolf and grizzly bear, especially in close proximity or in place of human settled landscapes, is even more evil, stupid, and insane. And that is exactly what the NAZI’s and the radical environmentalists have in common.

  5. Anon

    Dear Steve Busch,

    I was not talking about wolfs and bears. I was talking about the elephants and Lions that get killed because humans destroy their habitat then blame the Lion and Elephant for the conflict and then kill said creature.

    I’m not talking about giving animals the ‘same’ rights as humans. I’m talking about granting animals the right to live their lives and have their share of the Earth. Instead of the entire planet being just for humans, as some idiots believe.

    Earth to Steve – it’s humans who create these conflicts by tramping on the habitats of other species. All they want to do is live their lives. There’s no such thing as human-wildlife conflicts. There is such thing as human narcissism though.

    Although to be fair to you Steve, you don’t come across as being part of the problem though. I acknowledge that there’s people out there far worse than you when it comes to this issue.

  6. So, let me see if I have this right, excuse me for being a bit confused….according to you it’s NOT about wolves and grizzly bears, but it IS about elephants and lions? And according to you, it’s NOT about “ giving animals the same rights”, but it IS about “granting animals the right to live”, (which not coincidentally, just happens to be a “right” most environmentalists willingly DENY to humans!)

    You define “animal rights” as being “fair” and “sharing” the earth. I get that. But what gives you the right to tell an African or Southeast Asian person that he cannot graze livestock or plant crops because by doing so he is having a negative impact on the habitat of lions and elephants? Who gave you the authority to decide how much land is appropriate for elephants and humans? Exactly what amount is fair? What if someone disagrees with your assessment? Don’t you think local people have a right to decide how to survive, how to live, how to use the land and resources around them?

    Who made you the judge and authority of how others may live, and who lives and dies based on your own idea of “fairness” and “sharing”? Who put you in charge of someone else’s property and life? You obviously live in a fantasy world of your own imagination. Unfortunately, you’re not alone. As history is my witness, Hitler believed he could decide all these things too.

  7. The modern Green Party in Germany has deep NAZI ties.

    According to this wikipedia entry, the Green Party’s stance on the environment reads as follows:

    “The central idea of green politics is sustainable development. The concept of environmental protection is the cornerstone of Alliance 90/The Greens policy. In particular, the economic, energy and transport policy claims are in close interaction with environmental considerations. The Greens acknowledge the natural environment as a high priority and animal protection should be enshrined as a national objective in constitutional law. An effective environmental policy would be based on a common environmental code, with the urgent integration of a climate change bill. During the red-green coalition (1998–2005) a policy of agricultural change was launched labeled as a paradigm shift in agricultural policy towards a more ecological friendly agriculture, which needs to continue.”

    “Climate change is at the center of all policy considerations. This includes environmental policy and safety and social aspects. The plans of the Alliance 90/The Greens provide a climate change bill laying down binding reductions to greenhouse gas emissions in Germany by 2020 restricting emissions to minus 40 percent compared to 1990.”

    Sounds a lot like the U.N. to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s