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. Hitler believed that 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: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-nazis-tried-bring-animals-back-extinction-180962739/#wvUkVlhhUgExszwp.99
Today we see “Smart Growth” and restrictive land use laws based on NAZI notions of “sustainability”. Ironically, 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.
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. Just like their NAZI mentors, modern environmentalists seek the power to create a world of their own making. They will be merciless in carrying out their eco-fascist agenda if they are allowed to succeed in their fanatical quest to obtain complete political control.
Sources for this article:
Mark Musser – “Hitler’s Green Killing Machine” c. 2010
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/
http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/questions/much-land-earth-inhabited/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-nazis-tried-bring-animals-back-extinction-180962739/
omots page 
“I will!”
“Hath God said. . .”
Doctrines of demons, the bane of the egocentric.
According to the author the wolf propaganda used in the 90’s was almost word for word translation from the Nazi’s.
“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”
“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: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_green_nazi_deep_ecology_of_martin_heidegger.html#ixzz4zxkbNOcX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
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.
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.
REWILDING advocate realizes that the wild cattle he is breeding are “dangerous”. Well, duh!
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-23/rewilding-activists-aim-bring-back-some-long-extinct-beasts-europe
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.
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.
The modern Green Party in Germany has deep NAZI ties.
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/The-Nazi-roots-of-the-German-Greens-318973
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.
LOL, the ‘curiousmeerkat’ website link that you cited to concludes by saying this;
‘Or you could take a more glass half-empty view and say that 90% of Earth is covered by humans – either populated or connected with an ever-expanding network of roads, train tracks, highways, farms and industrial land. Only 10% of the world is truly wilderness.’
The said reference cities to a website that says, according to the European Commission’s Joint Research Center that only 10% of the world’s land is classified as remote, meaning that it is 40 hours away from a city or not used by humans for purposes such as farmland.
Here is the source: https://www.quora.com/Philosophy-of-Everyday-Life-What-percentage-of-the-worlds-land-is-populated-by-humans
When I was reading this article by you Steve I was just about to believe your assertion that human activity is consigned to a few parts of the Earth. To tell you the truth, you had my hopes up big times.
So 90% of the Earth is covered by humans in one way or the other, doesn’t entail that we live on said land. Also 10% of the Earth is truly wilderness, as your own cited point states. So the ‘Nature needs Half’ brigade don’t have ‘more land than they need’ as you state.
Quite an own goal for you when your own cited reference contradicts your point.
Thank you for providing examples of how data can be bent or misused to fit an opinion. That is exactly what the Curious Meerkat website does at the end, as you have noted. Nice catch. However, I cited the article because it did have several facts correct, that is until the authors started trying to spin the facts to fit their preconceived worldview.
While I am glad you took the time to review my sources, you must have missed the part in this same article which states the following:
“In 2009, the European Commission’s Joint Research Center published a map in the World Bank’s World Development report, showing that 95% of the world’s population is concentrated in just 10% of the land surface.”
That statistic is more than confirmed by the NASA data which states: “Half of the total human population lives on less than 1% of the land area of the planet.”
Let’s go through the math one step at a time….
50% of the human population lives on less than 1% of the planet.
An additional 45% of the human population lives on an additional 9% of the planet.
That makes 95% on 10%…..are we okay so far?
Those are facts, but the rest is conjecture and fantasy. Let me explain.
Do you really expect anyone to believe that the remaining 5% of the human population takes up a whopping 80% of the remaining land surface area of the earth?
Good grief man, does the ALCAN Highway or the trans-Siberian railroad and the occasional outpost across the Yukon and/or Siberia make all that empty land “inhabited”? Does an outpost in the middle of Australia and a couple of 500,000 acre ranches with a couple out buildings and a few thousand head of cattle make the vast bulk of the empty Australian outback “inhabited”? Does the gravel road meandering for two thousand miles down the spine of South America through Argentina and Chile contaminate all the empty land on either side of it with the presence of humans?
According to you, and those who think like you, “WILDERNESS” is defined as being at least “40 hours” away from cities and towns. (The article actually cites “48 hours from a large city” as it’s definition for remote, uninhabited, or unspoiled wilderness land.)
Do I really need to take the time to point out that “48 hours” is NOT a distance measurement? A time reference is absolutely meaningless unless you also note whether one is walking, riding a bike, clinging to a camel, or hopping a train and compute the distance covered in the time alloted. On it’s face, this is an extremely silly definition of “uninhabited” or “wilderness” land and is where the article goes off the rails in it’s effort to downplay the facts and drum up support for the green NAZI agenda.
I happen to live near a medium sized city, yet I can be in wolf inhabited woods in ten minutes, 15 more to a designated nature preserve, and a little over 3 hours to a designated “wilderness” area. That’s by walking, riding my bike, or driving 35 to 60 mph, depending on which area and route I decide to take. Moose, deer, turkeys, and bald eagles regularly invade my neighborhood. Yet you would have us believe that a forest road to a backcountry trailhead, by your definition, precludes the entire area from the “uninhabited”, “unspoiled” or “wilderness” definition because I can get there too quickly, or because it is not “48 hours from a large city”?
How absurd.
Hitler’s Jurassic Park – National Geographic film.
“The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.”
Source:
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Wildlife_Trusts
Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family.
Family –
Charles Rothschild worked as a partner in the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons in London.
Nature conservation –
He was concerned about the loss of wildlife habitats, and in 1912 set up the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, the forerunner of The Wildlife Trusts partnership. In 1915 the Society produced a schedule of the best wildlife sites in the country, some of which were purchased as nature reserves.
They managed Hitler, Hitler did not manage them.. The roots of REWILDING goes centuries beyond these people..
Ancient Babylonians, Egyptians and Hindus, whose one-dimensional, evolutionary nature systems extended back centuries before Greek and Roman civilization to ancient Sumeria and the Babylonian Enuma Elish. The Enuma Elish is the original evolutionary cosmogony, the source and model for all ancient and modern evolutionary cosmogonies, Mysteries, nature religions, and evolutionary philosophy. Though it was found in Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrians, evidence indicates that it dates back to the Sumerians. It begins with an evolutionary account of beginnings. Thorkild Jacobsen comments:
“Enuma Elish assumes that all things have evolved out of watery chaos…Then, in the midst of this watery chaos, two gods come into existence…” (The Long War Against God, Dr. Henry Morris, pp. 243-244)
“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9
I find it odd that a man researching this for twenty years can be so off the mark…
g888-
The fact that paganism, oneism, nature worship and/or REWILDING concepts pre-date Hitler is not a revelation and is certainly not something I have missed.
See my previous posts:
• Avoiding Armageddon: The UN Plan to Save the World
• The Dominion Deception, parts 1, 2, and 3.
• Our Common Destiny, NOT! -The President’s Theosophy and Agenda 21
• Where Does Your Treasure Lie? – How Preserving Native Species has become a Religion
• ABBEY’S ROAD – A Wide Path to Destruction
• KNOW THY ENEMY – The Environmental Death Cult
The fact that the NAZI occult/pagan beliefs are/were mirrored and supported by various individuals in positions of power and influence around the world, prior, concurrent, and following their rise, even up to today, is also not a revelation.
However your statement that the Rothschild’s “managed Hitler, Hitler did not manage them” is laughable at best. Hitler looted the Rothschild’s fortune in Germany and Austria, and held the local head of the family hostage. That doesn’t sound like the Rothschild’s were in control of Hitler. I would remind you that many American’s also financially and theologically supported Hitler prior to him revealing his true nature, while some persisted/persist in their support even after he revealed his true intentions.
Yet I’m sure you have your reasons for believing such rubbish about how much control the Rothschild’s had over Hitler. All good conspiracy theories have volumes of anecdotal rhetoric to back up their claim. The NAZI’s were masters at creating and using propaganda, having taken their lead from Gustave Le Bon, a man who wrote the playbook on the technique:
“Communal reinforcement is a social phenomenon in which a concept or idea is repeatedly asserted in a community, regardless of whether sufficient empirical evidence has been presented to support it. Over time, the concept or idea is reinforced to become a strong belief in many people’s minds, and may be regarded by the members of the community as fact.”
You really are unbelievable. You love to make confidant assertions yet when someone else makes one you get on your high horse and talk down to them, when it comes to protection of nature. Some countries have enshrined rights of nature into their laws. Ecuador too has a rights for nature law. Costa Rica has done so, and because of that they have maintained their biodiversity. India, a country you mentioned in response to a comment here, has plenty of pro-biodiversity laws on their books (I didn’t realise the Nazis were in charge of India). It is also home to Project Tiger, a successful conservation initiative that has seen the numbers of tigers in that country increase.
Bhutan, a small and relatively poor country has a chunk of its land under legal protection and is regarded as a great case study in nature protection. The people of Bhutan actually care about protecting what sustains them, even if many westerners don’t.
For many people worldwide, nature, forests and clean rivers provide the livelihood that keeps them alive. Rights for nature is a right for them to stay alive, an example being the indigenous people of say, Sumatra, who are having their home destroyed at a heartbreaking rate to satisfy the greed of people who know nothing about their home.
Do you seriously think that Costa Rica (a country that chose health care over a military) is a country controlled by Nazis? Do you think that the indigegous people of Sumtra and the Amazon are Nazis? Has the Bhutan royal family forced its own people off the land and into the concentration camps?
You live in a fantasy world of your own imagination.
Ryan,
You’ve obviously been drinking too much green kool-aid. You wrote, “Some countries have enshrined rights of nature into their laws…” and then you go on to cite Ecuador, Costa Rica, Bhutan, and India as your examples of environmentally conscious advanced nations. What a laugh! When it comes to environmental protection, it is the richest countries on earth, those with the highest standards of living that have the strictest environmental protection laws.
India, for your information, is considered one of the most polluted and polluting countries in the world, rivaled in scale of environmental damage perhaps only by the former Soviet Union. Ecuador is a more interesting example in that while the government there has indeed moved to protect a significant portion of their rainforest ecosystem, it has also allowed oil drilling in one of the most pristine areas on earth, the Yasuni National Park.
According to the Ecuadorian government, the “key reason in allowing the drilling for oil in this pristine area, which is still home to some indigenous tribes people, is the profit that it will provide for the impoverished country and the potential of providing economic advancement for the local communities. The money earned from this drilling would provide over 7 billion dollars to the local communities, which would help to improve the existing social services in Ecuador.”
I believe resource extraction is not only necessary, but can be done in an environmentally responsible manner. I am for wise use, multiple use, and responsible stewardship of our public lands. I reject the idea that the best use of land is to lock it up (allow no use) or designate it for vast “nature” preserves. I especially oppose all those who think promoting large carnivores in areas near human settlements, and driving out humans from rural areas, is a good idea.
FACT: Urbanization is increasing all over the world, and in many cases, rural areas are emptying out. Mega urban areas, especially in developing nations, have a much more significant impact on the environment than dispersed populations. Bhutan’s largest city produces over 50 tons of garbage per day, which is dumped in landfills and over cliffs. They only recently started to address the huge problem of “public defecation” by constructing public toilets and contracting with a Japanese company for their very first sewage treatment plant. My city has a waste to energy plant, no landfills. My city has a sewage treatment plant that does an exceptional job of removing contaminants and keeping our rivers clean. But then again, I’m just a filthy American.
Here’s a recent article on the topic: “Brown and Green: Were the Nazis Forerunners of Environmental Movements?”
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/of-nazis-and-other-nature-lovers-1.5236743
Last two paragraphs:
“Paradoxically, Nazism had a direct impact on green politics in contemporary history in general and in Germany in particular. Neumann points out that in Germany, in the period immediately after the Second World War, green activists built themselves up as an antithesis to the Nazis. Environmental activists sought to use their ideology to atone for the sins of the past. The memory of the destruction the Nazis caused fueled activities aimed at the prevention of similar disasters in the future. Terms like “ecological Holocaust” made their way into the green lexicon to such an extent that, in the wake of the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, Paul McCartney claimed that those who do not believe in climatic change are like those who do not believe the Holocaust actually occurred.”
“Neumann says he “would avoid like the plague such a term as ‘environmental Holocaust.'” Not because the term lessens the impact of the memory of the Holocaust but rather because the way to deal with such an “environmental Holocaust” could lead to extremism. “I am deterred by the notion that ecology is the be-all and end-all. Ecology does not have a say in every issue. There is a need here as well for criticism based on common sense and for saying in some cases, ‘This is as far as I go; I am not intervening in this issue.'”
“Zoology: Hitler’s Cow is Back” is an article about the attempt to breed “modern aurochs”. The article is in French.
Go to Google Translate at https://translate.google.com/
Post the URL into the box to read in English.
https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2000/05/25/la-vache-d-hitler-est-de-retour
I think it’s important to make a distinction between people who simply call themselves environmentalists and people why support what is known as ‘rewilding’.
The former simply want clean air and clean water and support caring about the environment as a general principle. The ‘rewilding’ supporters adovcate the reintroduction of species that have been killed off from a certain area, if that reintroduction is plausible. The general envrionmentalists don’t always agree with the rewilders, at least not on every possible reintroduction.
I think shouting ‘Nazi’ at environmentalist is a bit silly to be honest, and there is no difference between this article and those on the radical left who shout ‘racist’ at everybody who is to right of Bill Clinton. Both arguments are essentially howling at the Moon.
Paul, in one of my earliest articles, “Eden Revisited”, I drew a distinction between those of us who called ourselves “environmentalists” because we showed concern about and wanted to see actions taken that were aimed at protecting the environment, i.e. “stop polluting”; “save the whales” etc, and those who view environmentalism as an all encompassing ideology. I can no longer call myself an “environmentalist” though I still care, as you do, about protecting wild lands, eating uncontaminated food, breathing clean air, and drinking clean water, etc. In fact my credentials for calling myself an “environmentalist”, if I were to choose to continue to do so, far outweigh most of those who do call themselves “environmentalists”.
The fact that environmentalism has become an ideology synonymous and in partnership with the global sustainability agenda makes it anathema to me. I would prefer to be known as an advocate for wise use, or “responsible stewardship”, which I define as the use of the planet’s resources under reasonable management (regulation) of human activities in order to allow maximum freedom and provide benefits to individuals and communities without doing irreparable harm to the environment.
It is a historical fact that the NAZI regime used violence and genocide to REWILD large swaths of the lands they conquered. They justified their atrocities by Darwinian science. It was Ernst Haeckel, “father of ecology”, who laid the groundwork that put biology in the service of an ideology that was blatantly racist, chauvinist, and homicidal. The same thing is happening today. Environmentalism is being controlled and driven by fascist organizations such as the Center For Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and the Nature Conservancy. Environmentalism as an ideology is wholly in the service of those who are leading us towards the worst form of tyranny, made possible by those who choose to remain ignorant about the true nature of environmentalism and the sustainability agenda.
Pingback: A Universal Political Crisis? | Frank Davis
‘Environmentalists are Nazis’
‘Western countries are the ones with the best environmental protections… which we only have due to those same environmentalists I think are Nazis.’
Well done.
Anon ,
Please cite the source of your curious ‘quotation’ above. Obviously it is not anything that I have said or written. If you need clarification on any point in my article, or any other related article I have written, (and there are several posted on this page), please say so. The purpose of this blog is to present facts, and while opposing views are welcome, any contrary arguments presented must be backed up with sound reasoning, some basic research and facts that can be checked.
However, if you think that your ‘quote is an accurate paraphrase of what I have written in my article, or any statement contained therein, then you are an idiot.
The fact is, misquoting someone, on purpose, is the same as lying, and liars, and idiots, will not be tolerated on this page.