Archive for the ‘Ecology’ Category


Remember the controversy surrounding AgriProcessors? Probably not. This was the largest illegal-immigration work-place raid in United States history — a massive raid on the country’s largest “kosher” slaughterhouse, which involved drug-production, underage and undocumented workers, sexual abuse, and possession of illegal firearms. Was this news deemed unfit for circulation beyond Postville, Iowa? And if so, why? Though it is “old news” by now, and whether the story was ever widely known or not, I noticed scarcely a word was spoken of it in our national press. They discussed it with some embarrassment in the Israeli press, but it was, and apparently remains, much too delicate for standard exposure in the United States. After all, someone, somewhere, just might be offended by the facts… So, no exposure. No information. No dissemination of truth. That is, no real loss for AgriProcessors, as they have surely paid their way out of the worst of this “little” mess. Business as usual. “Everything’s kosher” — go back to sleep, America. -W.
Feds Serious About Illegals?
Posted on: 2008-05-20
Raid in Postville
by James Edwards

The other day the federal government conducted a high profile raid of illegal immigrants at America’s largest kosher meat plant in rural Postville, Iowa, arresting hundreds. No one in management was arrested for hiring these illegals, hundreds of whom were obviously using fake ID and stolen Social Security numbers. Hundreds of your employees are darkly complected, cannot speak English, and they all have names like Tom Richards, William Jones, Edward Jenkins, etc.? Yeah, nothing amiss there.

But that’s not even half of it. The company, AgriProcessors, owns another plant in Brooklyn, New York. They’ve been in a protracted court battle – in a federal court no less – over the Brooklyn employees efforts to unionize. The workers voted to form a union, and the company, which is run by a small clique of Lubavitcher Jews, sued to stop them from unionizing in federal court.

On what grounds? You’ll never believe it:

“And last month, the company lost a federal appellate court battle over whether or not it could ignore a vote by workers at its Brooklyn distribution center to unionize, on grounds that those in favor were illegal immigrants and not entitled to federal labor protections.”

Yeah, go ahead and rub your eyes and read that again. That’s right; they claimed that the workers can’t unionize because they’re in the country illegally, and aren’t entitled to the protection of our labor laws!

Knowingly hiring/employing illegal aliens is a crime. And yet a company can go to federal court, argue that a case against them should be thrown out on the grounds that they themselves have committed scores of illegal acts, and are continuing to do so, and no one says a word, and the judge doesn’t throw the case out and order the owners of the company arrested.

And labor activists claim the real reason the Postville plant was raided was to derail a federal investigation into even worse labor practices:

“This employer has a long history of violating every law that’s out there — labor laws, environmental laws, now immigration laws,” said Mark Lauritsen, international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has waged a bitter battle to organize the Postville plant. The union charged that the immigration raid disrupted a separate U.S. Labor Department investigation into alleged child labor law violations and other infractions.

“ICE may be ‘deporting 390 witnesses” to the labor investigation, Lauritsen said, adding, “This administration seems to place a larger value on flashy shows in this immigration raid than in vigorously enforcing other labor laws.”

Of course, should the public outcry against this case grow loud enough, (which is unlikely), the feds will probably move to make a few token arrests among management, while being careful to give the suspects plenty of time to flee to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with us. You know how those “strategic allies” are.
Feds: Drugs Produced at Jewish-Owned Kosher Meat Plant
Published: 05/13/2008

Federal authorities charged that a methamphetamine laboratory was operating at the nation’s largest kosher slaughterhouse and that employees carried weapons to work.

The charges were among the most explosive details to emerge following the massive raid Monday at AgriProcessors in Postville, Iowa.

In a 60-page application for a search warrant, federal agents revealed details of their six-month probe of AgriProcessors. The investigation involved 12 federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the departments of labor and agriculture.

According to the application, a former plant supervisor told investigators that some 80 percent of the workforce was illegal. They included rabbis responsible for kosher supervision, who the source believed entered the United States from Canada without proper immigration documents. The source did not provide evidence for his suspicion about the rabbis.

The source also claimed to have confronted a human resources manager with Social Security cards from three employees that had the same number. The manager laughed when the matter was raised, the source said.

At least 300 people were arrested Monday during the raid, for which federal authorities had rented an expansive fairground nearby to serve as a processing center for detainees.

The search warrant application said that 697 plant employees were believed to have violated federal laws.

Agriprocessors officials did not return calls from JTA seeking comment.

Meat plant vows to cooperate in probe
Published: 05/13/2008
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/108548. html

The nation’s largest kosher slaughterhouse says it takes immigration laws seriously [oh, obviously] and will cooperate with government investigators.

AgriProcessors responded to federal charges Tuesday, the day after authorities arrested 390 of its employees on immigration violations in the largest workplace raid in U.S. history.

“Our company takes the immigration laws seriously,” the statement said. “We cooperated with the government in the enforcement action. We intend to continue to cooperate with the government in its investigation. AgriProcessors will also inquire further into the circumstances that led to today’s events.

The company said its facilities were operating after the Monday shutdown. It extended “our heartfelt sympathies to the families whose lives were disrupted and wish them the best.
And an enlightened man spoke of Postville nearly a decade before…

Free Speech – July 2001 – Volume VII, Number 7
Murdering Iowa
by Dr. William Pierce

To most people statistics don’t have much meaning. They’re just numbers. Tell people that 50 years ago 90 per cent of the citizens of the United States were White, that today only 70 per cent are White, and that 50 years hence less than half the U.S. population will be White, and it doesn’t move most of them. They can’t remember what it was like 50 years ago, when the United States was unquestionably a White man’s country, and they don’t have enough imagination to visualize what it will be like when Whites are a minority and are completely at the mercy of Blacks, Asians, mestizos, and Jews. Tell most people about this trend toward a darker and darker America, and they will just shrug. They don’t see how America’s changing demographics will affect what they can buy at the mall or watch on television. What is happening to America is happening so slowly that they aren’t alarmed.

That’s most people. In a few places in America, however, the changes are occurring more rapidly, and people are forced to pay attention. Many of these people are alarmed. I receive letters every week from listeners who lament what has happened to the towns or the neighborhoods they grew up in. They tell me that 15 years ago every family in their neighborhood was White. The streets were clean and safe. They could leave their doors unlocked without worry. Their kids could walk to school or play with other kids in the neighborhood in safety. They could take a stroll in the evening with a wife or a girlfriend without danger of having lewd comments directed at them.

Today half their neighborhood has become non-White. Streets and yards are littered with trash, bars have been installed on all first-floor windows, Their kids get beaten up and have their lunch money stolen, and no White man in his right mind will expose his woman to the catcalls and deliberate jostling by the non-White thugs who roam the streets and hang out in the malls.

We’ve come to expect changes of this sort in the decaying cities of the East Coast or in California or Florida or Texas, where the impact of non-White immigration has been especially heavy during the past few decades. But the White heartland also is being corrupted now. In fact, there is a deliberate campaign to corrupt and pollute the White heartland as quickly as possible.

Iowa is an excellent example of this. One of the Whitest states in the country, a land of corn-fed, blue-eyed, blond farm boys and girls, Iowa is looked upon with undisguised hatred and distrust by the multicultural planners and diversity mongers of the East Coast. From their point of view Iowa, with less than three per cent minorities in 1990, was far too White, far too Aryan. Something really had to be done about Iowa. And so they’re doing it, with the help of their natural allies in the statehouse, in the Christian churches, in big business, and in the media.

Under Iowa’s new Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, state officials have launched a campaign to bring more non-Whites into Iowa. Recruiting teams are sent to ghettos and barrios around the country to persuade Blacks and mestizos to move to Iowa. The government in Washington is pumping money into a number of special programs in Iowa to help in the process of multiculturalization. Non-Whites are even being recruited in Mexico, Africa, and other non-White areas and then brought to Iowa as government-approved immigrants. A story which appeared last month — that was May 4 — in the Chicago Tribune praising the efforts to darken Iowa contained interviews with several of these non-White immigrants, including a physician from Ghana married to a White woman, a meat-packing plant employee from Puerto Rico married to a Filipina, and a high school student from Laos.

Governor Vilsack and the other politicians justify this program to racially pollute Iowa with the argument that Iowa’s population isn’t growing fast enough through natural increase. Iowa’s population increased by only 5.4 per cent during the 1990s, while the population of the country as a whole increased by 9.6 per cent. Without a faster growth in population, claim the multiculturalizers, the economy will be hurt. The pretense is made that there will be no one to do essential jobs. The Chicago Tribune quotes Governor Vilsack: “Who is going to farm the land? Who is going to teach our children? Who is going to care for our medical needs?”

This same spurious argument is being used by the enemies of our people in Europe to justify opening the borders of European countries to the Third World. Europeans aren’t breeding fast enough to maintain the various welfare programs and social services needed to provide for an aging White population, so fast-breeding Third Worlders should be brought in to keep the population growing, say the multiculturalizers.

Of course, any scheme that depends upon a continually growing population must eventually come to grief, when the land can support no more people. Did you catch that? Any plan, any program, that requires a continually growing population for its success is fundamentally flawed and eventually must fail. But the people pushing such schemes onto a gullible White public don’t really care about the long-range prospects. For them the scheme is simply a trick to get as many non-Whites as possible mixed in with the White population as quickly as possible. They believe that once they have done that it will be too difficult — too bloody — a task for us to unmix what they have mixed. They will be surprised at what we are willing to do to repair the damage they have done.

Listen: If Iowans need more teachers and doctors, the law of supply and demand will take care of that. Iowans may have to offer higher pay to attract needed White workers from other parts of the country, but that is the way things always have worked. The argument that non-Whites are necessary to keep the economy alive is fraudulent, but the politicians, the Christian churches, the big businessmen, and above all the media — the untouchable Jewish media — are supporting this fraud — this genocidal lie — and few citizens, in Europe or in Iowa, are bold enough to challenge it.

The fact is that much of the 5.4 per cent increase in Iowa’s population during the 1990s has been mestizos brought in by the owners of meat-packing plants looking for cheap labor. This has resulted in those Iowa communities with meat-packing plants being especially hard hit by the multicultural onslaught. Storm Lake, a town of 10,000 residents in northwestern Iowa, is an example. In 1990 Storm Lake was virtually all White, a nice place to live and to raise a family. Today a third of Storm Lake’s residents are non-White, and the quality of life has changed accordingly. In all of the 1980s there was just one homicide in Storm Lake. Between 1990 and 2000, as the town went from all White to one-third non-White, there were 10 murders, and other crime also rose proportionately.

This sudden destruction of their community and their life-style in the course of only a decade shocked a few of Storm Lake’s White residents into speaking out. The multiculturalists have responded by bringing their road show to town, proclaiming Storm Lake a wonderful example of how a diverse group of people can live and work together, and denouncing anyone who doesn’t want to go along with the continued destruction of Iowa as a “racist” and a “bigot.” With the Christian clergy and the media noisily on their side and the big businessmen providing support from behind the scenes, the multiculturalists have been moderately successful at shouting down the dissidents even in heavily impacted areas such as Storm Lake.

The local high school students, raised on MTV, have been taught that a White Iowa is a boring Iowa, and that having lots of non-Whites around adds some buzz to an otherwise dull life. The Chicago Tribune article that I cited earlier had an interview with a 17-year-old White high school girl in Storm Lake. Looking around at the non-Whites who make up nearly half of her high school classmates, Jill Parman said:

I know that Iowa doesn’t look like this, but it would be a whole lot less boring of a state if it did.

Thoroughly jaded young people such as Jill Parman, taught by television that life should, above all else, be entertaining, are quite susceptible to the poison disseminated by the multiculturalists. And the multiculturalists are indeed proud of their ability to use their control of the mass media — especially television — to take over the minds of the younger generation and alienate them from their people and from their people’s traditions and values. They have become quite self-confident — arrogant, really — in their ability to keep dissent within manageable limits as they continue their genocidal work.

An even better example of this than Storm Lake is the small town of Postville, in northeastern Iowa. Postville is undergoing an even more traumatic racial and cultural transformation than Storm Lake. A decade ago Postville was an all-White, all-Christian farming community of 1,000 souls, most of German and Norwegian ancestry. Then Aaron Rubashkin, a Hasidic Jew who owns a kosher meat market for supplying his fellow Hasids in New York City, opened a kosher slaughterhouse in Postville. He had bought Postville’s bankrupt meat-packing plant from its Gentile owners and converted it to kosher use, because he could get his meat slaughtered much more cheaply in Postville than in New York, even when the cost of shipping the meat from Iowa to New York was included. Today he and his son Shalom run the slaughterhouse, which employs 300 workers, nearly all of them non-Whites recruited by Aaron and Shalom outside Iowa and brought to Postville specifically to work in the slaughterhouse. They also brought more than 30 Ultra-Orthodox rabbis and their families to town. The rabbis do the actual slaughtering of the animals according to Jewish ritual, a shockingly inhumane procedure, which has been outlawed in many jurisdictions.

The White people of Postville feel overwhelmed. Their town has been stolen from them. Ten years ago everyone they met on the sidewalk or in the local pizza parlor was a neighbor, someone they had gone to school with, someone they shared values and traditions with. Now they see Orthodox Jews wearing black hats and prayer shawls and talking to each other in Hebrew. They see Mexicans and Nigerians and Vietnamese lounging against the lampposts and jabbering at one another in other strange languages. They see their schools, which used to be entirely White, swamped with dusky aliens.

But it is the Jews who are the most difficult for the people of Postville to accept. The Jews are all from New York City. They are loud and pushy. They are fast-talking hustlers. They are arrogant. They make no effort to adapt themselves to the ways of Postville. Instead they demand that Postville adapt itself to them. They even ignore the local laws with contempt. The Rubashkins dump the waste from their kosher slaughterhouse into the local river, polluting it so badly that it no longer is suitable for fishing or swimming or boating. Postville imposed a $2 million fine on the Rubashkins, who simply refuse to pay and keep on polluting, knowing that the governor and the media are on their side.

And unfortunately, some of the White people of Postville are on their side too. The City Council members, for example. And the people at the local newspaper. The newspaper hired a Jewess to write a regular column. When there was a vacancy on the City Council, the council members appointed a Jew to the council, saying that it would be good for the local economy. When local citizens circulated a petition protesting the appointment, they were accused of anti-Semitism by the newspaper. That intimidated most of the White citizens into silence, but not 81-year-old Dorothy Radloff. She said that she didn’t want a Jew on the City Council. She went further, saying what many other Whites in Postville were feeling but were afraid to say:

We’re just afraid if they get one in, then pretty soon the whole council will be Jewish, and they’re going to run the town. They’re working to take the town over and push the rest of us out.

But with the support of the newspaper and the other council members and the mayor, the Jew, Aaron Goldsmith, won a special election two months ago. There’s something about politicians and journalists. And the gullibility and blind tolerance of our people for getting kicked in the teeth and not fighting back seem to know no limits. Perhaps if the White citizens of Postville, Iowa, had known a little more about the Hasidic Jews who are taking over their town and flooding it with non-Whites, besides the fact that they are pushy and arrogant, the election to the City Council might have turned out differently.

The Rubashkins and the other Jews associated with the kosher slaughterhouse all are members of the Ultra-Orthodox Lubavitcher sect. The Lubavitchers are those strange-looking Jews one sees in New York wearing long, black coats and black hats, with sidelocks down to their shoulders. The late leader of the sect, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was worshipped like a divinity by his followers, including the Rubashkins and all of the other Jews they brought to Postville.

Rabbi Schneerson was a real Old Testament Jew, a Talmud Jew, who preached to his followers the unadulterated doctrines of the Talmud, including the doctrine of Jewish superiority and the doctrine that the Jews are the chosen people of God, ordained to rule all the other nations of the world and own all their possessions. His sermons have been published, although you’re not likely to find them in the New York Times or any other place where Gentiles might read them. But I’ll read you a selection from one of them, just to give you the flavor. Rabbi Schneerson preached:

The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of a member of any other nation of the world…. The Jewish body looks as if in substance it were similar to the bodies of non-Jews, but … the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look, and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality, however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews…. Their bodies are in vain … An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist. A non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul comes from holiness.

Well, Rabbi Schneerson had much more to say in his preaching to his followers about the satanic nature of Gentiles and the holy nature of Jews, but perhaps you’ve gotten the general idea from what I’ve just read. The general idea is that Jewish superiority has been bestowed on them by their deity. The Jews are so superior to us that they are justified in doing to us whatever they want. They are entitled to deceive us and plunder us and take all our possessions from us, and it is a transgression against their deity for us to attempt to protect ourselves. That’s what the Hasids believe. That’s what the Rubashkins and all the other Jews in Postville believe. It’s too bad that there was no one to tell the White citizens of Postville what the Jews really think about them before they elected one of the Jews to their City Council.

Perhaps Dorothy Radloff had some inkling of the truth when she told her fellow citizens. “They’re working to take the town over and push the rest of us out.” Indeed. Unfortunately, too many of her fellow citizens failed to heed her warning. They listened instead to their Christian preachers and their local politicians and their newspaper. They have for all practical purposes lost their town. They are too confused and demoralized and disunited to put up an effective opposition to the Jews. And if they really started to clean up their town and take it back, Mr. Bush would send in the FBI to stop them. They would be arrested and charged with “hate crimes.”

At this point we might ask: Why are the Jews and their allies doing it? Why are they hell bent on destroying White areas like Iowa? Why aren’t they satisfied with what they have done to California and to the big cities of the East? Why do they want to make the whole country look like New Jersey and New York? Why do they deliberately destroy all-White communities such as Storm Lake and Postville?

I’ll read you a few words written by Professor Earl Raab of Brandeis University’s Institute for Jewish Advocacy:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

“We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible….

In plain language, Professor Raab is boasting that he and his fellow Jews have changed the immigration laws — and prevented the government from enforcing what immigration laws we still have — in order to make the American population more heterogeneous, or, to use the more familiar term, more diverse. Their goal is to make Whites a minority in their own country so that the Whites can never combine against the Jews and regain control of their own destiny. You can read more of Professor Raab’s sinister scheming in a book that is available from my sponsor, National Vanguard Books. That book is Alien Nation, by Peter Brimelow.

Professor Raab and his fellow Jews aim not only at eliminating the White majority in the country as a whole, but also at polluting and corrupting every White area inside the country, so there will be no one capable of organizing an effective opposition to the Jews. They will be the only racially conscious group still able to wield power. What the Jews have done to Postville and are busy doing to the rest of Iowa is just one step in their grand scheme for implementing a Final Solution to the Gentile problem. This Final Solution is not being implemented with concentration camps and gas chambers, but with bought politicians, with corrupt preachers, and above all with television and other mass media. It is being implemented by flooding the country — and every White area inside the country — with non-Whites and by encouraging miscegenation. It is being implemented through programs aimed at increasing diversity. It is being implemented by deceiving and brainwashing White people to collaborate in their own destruction.

The hour for our people is late indeed — but it’s still not too late. It’s still not too late to fight back.
The most cruel method of slaughter, Jewish law describes as the most humane. Where does this reprehensible attitude toward animals come from? “Divine right,” as made clear in Genesis 1:26… Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ It is wise to remember that a derogatory Hebrew term for Gentiles is Goyim, which means cattle or property…

Investigation at AgriProcessors

In 2004, PETA conducted its first investigation inside a slaughterhouse owned by Sholom Rubashkin, the largest slaughterhouse in the country. The initial investigation at Rubashkin’s Postville, Iowa, facility, AgriProcessors, revealed almost 300 instances of inhumane slaughter, including that cows had their tracheas ripped out while they were still alive, writhed in pools of their own blood, and tried desperately to stand up as blood poured from their throats. When PETA conducted an investigation into a second Rubashkin-owned slaughterhouse—a Gordon, Nebraska, facility—in May 2007, the investigator discovered that animal abuse still takes place inside Rubashkin’s slaughterhouses.

Experts in animal welfare, veterinary medicine, and slaughter systems reviewed the disturbing footage recorded inside the slaughterhouse and noted the following about the abuses documented by PETA:

* Cows remained conscious for as long as two minutes after their throats were cut open.
* A worker ripped into conscious cows’ throats with a metal hook in order to make the bleeding process go faster.
* Cows were handled improperly, resulting in fear and stress just prior to slaughter.
* Workers removed identification tags by mutilating live cows’ ears.

As noted above, this is the second time that PETA has uncovered abuse at a Rubashkin-owned slaughterhouse. The investigator’s log notes from the 2004 investigation at AgriProcessors state that a “worker followed the rabbi and gouged a chunk of flesh out of the cow’s neck and then pulled his trachea or esophagus … outside of his throat so that it hung down.”

The investigator’s notes went on to say, “The first time I saw a cow stagger to his feet and walk around with his trachea dangling outside of his body, I thought to myself, this can’t be happening—but after several days I knew better.”

After the first investigation into a Rubashkin-owned slaughterhouse, the company promised to stun any animals who remained conscious after throat-slitting. Unfortunately, the second investigation proved that Rubashkin has not lived up to this promise. Rather, Rubashkin’s Nebraska slaughterhouse allowed cows to remain conscious for up to two minutes after their throats were slit, leading several experts to condemn the company’s practices. Dr. Holly Cheever stated, “This method of slaughter as depicted on this tape is brutal and should be amended to provide a humane end for these animals.”
Demand That Video Cameras Be Installed in Slaughterhouse

A new PETA undercover investigation has caught AgriProcessors—the world’s largest kosher slaughterhouse, which is located in Postville, Iowa—cruelly hacking holes in cows’ throats. Dr. Temple Grandin, the world’s foremost expert on slaughter methods, has stated that these gouging, circular cuts cause the cows pain and suffering.

This isn’t the first time AgriProcessors has been caught… In 2004, PETA went undercover at the same plant and videotaped workers who were using a meat hook and a knife to rip out cows’ tracheas while the animals were still conscious—after the shochetim (kosher slaughterers) had cut their throats. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) told the plant to stop this procedure and determined that AgriProcessors employees “had engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter.”

AgriProcessors Deceives Consumers
When Dr. Grandin inspected the facility in 2006, the plant showed her slaughters that did not include a second cut at all, and she gave them her approval. Just two weeks prior to PETA’s August 2008 undercover investigation, AgriProcessors gave a private tour to selected rabbis, community leaders, and reporters, and video footage from that tour shows slaughter done without a second cut at all.

Clearly, AgriProcessors wanted consumers to believe that the plant was operating in a manner that would meet the high standards expected, but PETA’s investigation revealed that things happen differently behind closed doors.

In light of this new video exposing the gouging second cuts—and AgriProcessors’ quite different conduct during the tour—Dr. Grandin has made a new assessment of AgriProcessors, stating, “The undercover video clearly showed that when they think nobody is looking, they do bad things in this plant.”

Demand that the USDA require that AgriProcessors install video cameras on the kill floor as part of a live video-monitoring system that would be audited by a third party. A number of plants already use this important technology, which is recommended by Dr. Grandin, and it ensures that proper procedures and laws are followed at all times.
Every year, devout Jews around the world engage in an age-old ritual called kapparot, in which an individual swings a chicken over his head, imbuing it with his sins. The chicken is then slaughtered. In this video, the animal rights activist group PETA documents abuses in an attempt to convince the Jewish public that the ritual should no longer be practiced.

Stop eating meat.
Stop buying kosher products, altogether.
Support local, organic farmers whenever possible.
Boycott businesses which hire undocumented workers.

Read Full Post »


Wolves Off the Protection List

“It is disappointing that the Obama administration is choosing to follow a bad Bush policy to piecemeal wolf conservation efforts instead of prioritizing the development of a national wolf recovery plan.

Interior Secretary Salazar Announces Wolf Delisting

Conservation groups will challenge the removal of essential federal protections

March 6, 2009

Washington, DC — Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today the federal government’s decision to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the northern Rocky mountains except for those in Wyoming. The delisting effort revives an effort launched by the Bush administration’s which was halted in January for review when the Obama administration took office. Today’s delisting is the second time in twelve months the government has moved to lift federal protections from wolves. Conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, successfully sued to get the protections reinstated in July 2008.

The decision to lift wolf protections comes as Yellowstone Park wolves declined by 27 percent in the last year — one of the largest declines reported since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995. Wolf populations in the northern Rockies don’t mix enough between the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, central Idaho, and northwest Montana to avoid inbreeding and ensure wolves’ long-term survival.

Independent scientists say that between 2,000 and 3,000 wolves are needed to have a sustainable, fully-recovered population. After delisting, the northern Rockies wolf population may be allowed to drop to only 300 to 450 wolves.

Wolves will remain under federal control in Wyoming because the court ruled that Wyoming’s hostile wolf management scheme leaves wolves in “serious jeopardy.” The Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly stated that a state-by-state approach to delisting wolves was not permitted under the Endangered Species Act, including in an earlier decision to not delist wolves without Wyoming’s inclusion.

In addition to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana have refused to make enforceable commitments to maintaining viable wolf populations within their borders. On the very day the first delisting took effect in March, 2008, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed a law allowing Idaho citizens to kill wolves without a permit whenever wolves are annoying, disturbing, or “worrying” livestock or domestic animals. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission established rules that would have allowed 428 wolves to be killed in 2008 alone had the court not returned wolves to the endangered species list. Montana also planned a fall wolf hunt.

Conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, will send the Fish and Wildlife Service a notice that the delisting violates the Endangered Species Act when the government formally submits the rule to the Federal Register, presumably next week. If the agency does not reconsider the delisting rule, the conservation groups will again ask a federal court to reinstate federal Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the northern Rockies until wolf numbers are stronger and the states pledge to responsibly manage wolves.

Earthjustice represented Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Project, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council in the earlier suit.

Statements of Conservation Organizations

Suzanne Stone, northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife: “Nothing about this rule has changed since it was rejected and deemed unlawful in federal court. It still fails to adequately address biological concerns about the lack of genetic exchange among wolf populations and it still fails to address the concerns with the states’ wolf management plans. If this rule is allowed to stand, nearly two-thirds of the wolves in the northern Rockies could be killed. We had hoped for a new delisting plan, based on current science that provides for a healthy, well connected wolf population in the region. Instead we are forced to, once again, challenge a bad rule forcing the expenditure of time and money that would have been much better served towards developing responsible state management plans.

Sierra Club representative Melanie Stein: “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be working with the state of Wyoming to create a scientifically sound wolf management plan. Northern Rockies wolves should be treated as one connected population. It’s short-sighted and inappropriate to delist wolves state-by-state. Wolves don’t know political boundaries.

Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity: “Today’s announcement means wolves will lose their federal protections before recovery is complete. And, as we saw last year before a federal judge reversed a Bush administration delisting rule, that will result in an unconstrained and unconscionable slaughter of these animals. It is disappointing that the Obama administration is choosing to follow a bad Bush policy to piecemeal wolf conservation efforts instead of prioritizing the development of a national wolf recovery plan. Setting up a system in which wolves in a population are both endangered and not endangered was not contemplated and is not supported by the Endangered Species Act.

Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation with The Humane Society of the United States: “We are disappointed the new administration has missed this opportunity to change course, and rethink the failed wolf persecution policies of the last eight years. We urge the Department of the Interior to reconsider this ongoing effort to strip wolves of all federal protection, which has been repeatedly struck down by the courts, and is no more likely to succeed here than the previous failed attempts.

Michael Garrity, executive director of the Helena-based Alliance for the Wild Rockies: “We are disappointed in this decision since Idaho, Wyoming and Montana stand ready to implement management schemes that have the primary purpose of eliminating, rather than conserving, wolves.

Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild: “Oregon has a lot of wild forests that provide high quality wolf habitat, but it’s mostly unoccupied. Secretary Salazar’s decision is a big set-back for wolf recovery efforts in Oregon because true recovery in Oregon will depend on healthy wolf populations across the northern Rockies.

Dan Kruse of the Cascadia Wildlands Project: “This decision is a terrible blow to Oregon’s fledgling wolf population, which is so dependent upon the migration of wolves from the northern Rockies. At this critical junction, where Oregon’s wolves have a fighting chance for the first time in more than sixty years, the decision to take away their protection is particularly unjustified.

Jon Marvel of Western Watersheds Project: “This shameful ruling will result in the killing of hundreds of wolves just to benefit ranchers. With this decision, Ken Salazar is subjecting wolves to the whim of states that have proven to be incapable of protecting them.

Jennifer Schwartz, Hells Canyon Preservation Council: “The possibility that a viable population of wolves can naturally disperse and re-colonize in Oregon in the near future is significantly diminished, if our neighbor Idaho is allowed to greatly reduce its core wolf population. The delisting rule amounts to a very disheartening setback for our organization and its many members who welcome the return of wolves in Oregon.

Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine: “The states are eager to begin killing wolves without federal oversight. By delisting wolves, the federal government is handing Idaho and Montana a loaded gun. The Fish and Wildlife Service says states may kill all but 300 of the current northern Rockies population of around 1,500 wolves. The population cannot stand this level of mortality.


Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice, (406) 586-9699
Suzanne Asha Stone, Defenders of Wildlife, (208) 861-4655
Louisa Willcox, Natural Resources Defense Council, (406) 222-9561
Melanie Stein, Sierra Club, (307) 733-4557
Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, (575) 313-7017
Her deadly wolf program

With a disdain for science that alarms wildlife experts, Sarah Palin continues to promote Alaska’s policy to gun down wolves from planes.
By Mark Benjamin

Sep. 08, 2008 | Wildlife activists thought they had seen the worst in 2003 when Frank Murkowski, then the Republican governor of Alaska, signed a bill ramping up state programs to gun down wild wolves from airplanes, inviting average citizens to participate. Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field.

But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski’s job at the end of 2006. She went one step further. Palin didn’t merely think Alaskans should be allowed to chase wolves from aircraft and shoot them — she thought they should be encouraged to do so. Palin’s administration put a bounty on wolves’ heads, or to be more precise, on their mitts.

In early 2007, Palin’s administration approved an initiative to pay a $150 bounty to hunters who killed a wolf from an airplane in certain areas, hacked off the left foreleg, and brought in the appendage. Ruling that the Palin administration didn’t have the authority to offer payments, a state judge quickly put a halt to them but not to the shooting of wolves from aircraft.

Detractors consider the airborne shootings a savage business, conducted under the euphemism “predator control.” The airplanes appear in the winter, so the wolves show up like targets in a video game, sprinting across the white canvas below. Critics believe the practice violates the ethics of hunting, while supporters say the process is not hunting at all, but a deliberate cull.

Palin has argued that she is worried about Alaska’s hunters, locked in perennial competition with the canine carnivores for the state’s prodigious ungulate population. A hunter herself, Palin has battled critics of aerial wolf hunting with the support of the Alaska Outdoor Council, a powerhouse advocacy and lobbying organization for hunting, fishing and recreation groups. In addition to so-called urban hunters, who shoot moose mostly for fun, Alaska is home to a significant number of subsistence hunters, including some of the Native population. Subsistence hunters rely on an occasional moose to make ends meet. The wolves, Palin has said, are stealing food from their tables.

“Palin acts like she has never met an animal she didn’t want shot,” says Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, based in Connecticut.
The controversy over Palin’s promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes. A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of only 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don’t even understand what wolves eat.

State officials stand by their scientific findings on predator control. “Several times over the past several years, our science has been challenged in court,” says Bruce Bartley, a spokesman for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “In every instance it has prevailed.”

Yet it is not hard to find Alaskans who say Palin’s enthusiasm for predator control fits a broader narrative of how she edits science to suit her personal views. She endorses the teaching of creationism in public schools and has questioned whether humans are even responsible for global warming.

In 2007, she approved $400,000 to educate the public about the ecological success of shooting wolves and bears from the air. Some of the money went to create a pamphlet distributed in local newspapers, three weeks before the public was to vote on an initiative that would have curtailed aerial killing of wolves by private citizens. “The timing of the state’s propaganda on wolf control was terrible,” wrote the Anchorage Daily News on its editorial page.
“Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science,” says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. “In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way.” The initiative was defeated last month.

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. “On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective,” he says of Palin. “I cannot find any credible scientific data to support their arguments,” he adds about the state’s rationale for gunning down wolves. “In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary.”

Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state’s wolf-killing operation. According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on “unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations.” As a result, the “inadequately designed predator control programs” threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate (hooved mammals) and wolf populations. The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears “on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters.”

Apparently Palin wasn’t fazed. Earlier this year she introduced state legislation that would further divorce the predator-control program from science. The legislation would transfer authority over the program from the state Department of Fish and Game to Alaska’s Board of Game, whose members are appointed by, well, Palin. Even some hunters were astounded by her power play.

The legislation would give Palin’s board “more leeway without any scientific input to do whatever the hell they basically wanted,” Mark Richards, co-chair of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, wrote in an e-mail. The legislation is currently stalled in the Alaska state Senate.

Predator control in Alaska dates back to the 1920s and 1930s. Even then, wildlife biologists insisted that wolves were important to the area’s natural ecology and not responsible for inordinate deaths of sheep, caribou or moose. Yet the scientists fought a losing battle against ranchers, hunters and government officials, who backed the extermination of tens of thousands of wolves. Aerial hunting began in earnest in the 1940s and continued through the 1960s after Alaska had earned statehood.

But starting in 2003, Murkowski opened the airborne shooting to citizens with special permits and expanded predator-control programs to cover 60,000 square miles of state and federal land, the largest wolf-killing operation since Alaska became a state. The stated goal is to reduce wolf populations in some areas by 60 to 80 percent. Teams of pilots and gunners have killed at least 795 wolves since 2003. Conservationists counter that the total number of wolves trapped, shot from airplanes, chased down by snow machines, and killed legally and illegally in Alaska every year is more along the lines of 2,000.

Scientists insist that the Palin administration is systematically killing wolves with an inadequate understanding of the relationship between the carnivore and hoofed animals. The state responds that predators kill over 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die each year, while hunters and trappers kill less than 10 percent.

Haber says the state’s numbers are wildly inflated. His decades of wolf research have shown that wolves are, in fact, mostly scavengers. “Sixty to 70 percent of the moose they eat are scavenged, not killed,” he says. He adds that the state’s wolf population estimates, based on secondhand observations and extrapolations, are also high.

Palin offered the $150 bounty for wolf paws in 2007 after efforts to kill wolves from airplanes that season were, in her view, coming up short. State officials had hoped that 382 to 664 wolves would be killed during that predator-control season. State officials were disappointed when only 115 wolves were killed from the air.

Palin thought the $150 cash bounties would do the trick. Haber has another explanation for the dry spell. “I can tell you from my own research that the reason they didn’t get many wolves in certain years, particularly last winter, is because they have scraped those areas clean,” he says.

Last year, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., introduced legislation designed to curtail predator-control programs, except as a last resort. “It’s time to ground Alaska’s illegal and inhumane air assault on wolves,” Miller said. Palin quickly fired off a curt letter in response, applauding the state’s programs as “widely recognized for their excellence and effectiveness.” She pointed out that her state has “managed its wildlife so that we still maintain abundant populations of all of our indigenous predators almost fifty years after statehood.”

Says Jans, co-sponsor of the losing initiative to outlaw aerial wolf hunting: “This is a reflection of a somebody who doesn’t have any use for science.”
– By Mark Benjamin

Read Full Post »


Illustration from FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY, by David Pimentel of Cornell University and Mario Giampietro Istituto of Nazionale della Nutrizione, Rome.

Environment, Immigration, and Population Reduction
Thomas Dalton
March 5, 2009
Source: The Occidental Observer

At 308 million people, the U.S. is currently the third most populous nation on Earth, behind only China (1.3 billion) and India (1.2 billion). By 2050, India will rise to #1, with 1.6 billion—a 37% increase. China’s ‘one-child’ policy will limit its increase to about 8% (1.4 billion). The growth rate in the U.S., though, tops them both: We are projected to hit 440 million, or an astonishing 43% increase. This is, by far, the highest growth rate of any western industrialized nation.

Such dramatic population growth, under any circumstances, causes a variety of social and economic problems. In the U.S., as we know, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that most of our increase will be among non-White minority groups, primarily Hispanics. The numbers are striking: The 43% increase amounts to 132 million people; of these, 130 million will be minorities. White population will increase by only 2 million, reducing it to 46% of the total by 2050. Thus we can expect that problems with minorities will grow in a variety of areas: housing, schools, welfare, health care, crime, security, economic inequality, and racial and ethnic conflict.

But one neglected area of importance is truly color-blind, and that is the environment. Resource and energy use, development, road construction, expanded cropland and pastureland, deforestation, pollution and waste disposal — none of these care which race or ethnicity is doing the consuming. Only two things matter: sheer numbers of people, and the level of consumption. And on this count alone, we are facing an ecological crisis in this country.

Measuring environment impact is a challenging prospect, but consensus seems to be building around the concept of the ecological footprint as one relevant criterion. The basic idea behind it is sound: that human beings, as consumers and producers, require the ongoing use of some portion of the planet’s surface, from which to draw resources and on which to dump their wastes. Some resources are renewable, others are not. Some waste products decay quickly, others take millennia. Many of our resources demand a quantifiable area of land: land to farm, pave, pasture, or otherwise develop. So too our waste products: our trash takes up an ever-growing space, and greenhouse gas emissions from all sources may require offsets in terms of vegetation (trees or other ground cover). And plant life generally has a vital ability to break down the various pollutants and toxins that our society churns out daily.

In an attempt to formulate a standardized measure, environmental scientists have added together the land area of all our resource use, plus the land area required for all our waste products and carbon offsets. The result is, for each nation, a single measure of land area—the ecological footprint—that represents the amount of area required, per person, to sustain a given standard of living. (In the following, I use the World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet Report 2008”.)

At the low end, nations like Haiti and Bangladesh struggle by on roughly 1 acre per person. The bulk of the Third World consumes between 2.5 and 8 acres, including India (2.3) and China (5.3). Most of Western Europe ranges from 10 to 15. At the top of the list of major nations is the U.S., at nearly 24 acres per person. (Two energy-intensive oil fiefdoms, UAE and Qatar, rate higher than the U.S, but only slightly.)

Naturally, there is some guesswork and estimation in these numbers, and certainly they are subject to debate. But I have little doubt that they are directionally correct, and that the margin of error is within reason. But even if they are off by 50%—that is, if they indicate twice the actual consumption level—they point to some troubling conclusions for our country.

Consider, for example, the total footprint of the U.S. With over 300 million people consuming on average 24 acres per person, this yields a total footprint of 7.4 billion acres. By comparison, the continental U.S. (i.e. excluding Alaska) has a total land area of just 1.9 billion acres—merely one quarter of our actual usage. Putting it otherwise: Our footprint is 400% of our continental area, and takes in more than 20% of the entire planet.

In fact there is a two-part explanation for our situation. First, we are overtaxing the land itself. The above calculation of ecological footprint for the US implies that it is possible to use more than 100% of the land. This happens by, in essence, depleting the “natural capital” of the biosphere, which occurs through such actions as deforestation, loss of topsoil, and overuse of groundwater. By most indications, humanity as a whole is overtaxing the planet by 30–40%—a condition that, if true, clearly cannot continue indefinitely. But the second and more important factor for the U.S. is a situation whereby we are able, through globalization and international trade, to consume the land resource area of other nations—in the form of imported agricultural products, manufactured goods, chemicals, clothing, machinery, vehicles, and fossil fuels.

For both reasons of social justice and ecological sustainability, the world of the future will have to live within its means. In a practical sense this means three things: reducing total (global) consumption to sustainable levels, reducing the per capita consumption (given the U.N. assumption that populations will rise), and, most critically, living within the capacity of each nation’s land area.

So for the U.S., the calculation is straightforward. With 1.9 billion acres of land, we can carry at most only (1.9 billion / 24 acres =) 80 million people sustainably. Compare this to a present population of 308 million, which is rapidly heading up to 400+ million. Thus, we should be contemplating a reduction of 75%, rather than staring head-on into a 40% increase. (This, of course, assumes a fixed level of consumption; if we are willing to cut our footprint in half, we could get by with a mere 50% population cut, to something like 150 million people.)

But the situation is worse than this. True long-term sustainability demands that a large portion of the land be set aside as true wilderness, unused and unexploited, in order to maintain overall ecosystem viability. How much to set aside is a difficult question, especially given the wide variability and sensitivity of differing ecosystems, and the lack of consensus on the appropriate metrics. Minimum estimates seem to run in the 20–25% range, and at the high end, some have argued for 50% or more, especially in the more biodiverse regions.1 If, worst case, we are then allowed to use only about 1 billion acres of land, current consumption levels will sustainably support only 40 million people—an 87% reduction.

These are, frankly, shocking numbers. And as I mentioned above, even if the footprint figures are significantly wrong—if, say, we are actually consuming only at a rate of 10 or 12 acres per person—then the long-term sustainable population is only back up to 80–100 million. Thus we cannot argue our way out of this problem simply by claiming wild overestimates by some crazed environmentalists. Clearly more drastic action is demanded.

Given the radical unsustainability of our present situation, we need to immediately address both the level of consumption and the population issue simultaneously. On the consumption side, we clearly need to become more efficient, less wasteful, and generally consume less. Americans as a whole waste a tremendous amount of energy and resources, and this does little or nothing for our standard of living. Germany, for example, has an equal or higher quality of life, and it achieves this on a footprint of just 11 acres per person—less than half of ours. A comparable level for the U.S. is clearly attainable, especially over a period of a few decades. But it will not happen without overcoming some ferocious infighting by vested interests.

The other half of the equation is even more difficult and contentious. Tackling the thorny issue of population control, let alone population reduction, is only slightly less controversial than Holocaust denial. And in fact any attempt to discuss large-scale population reduction invariably brings up bad jokes about gas chambers and crematoria. But the situation demands a rational discussion, and there are some obvious first steps.

One: An immediate end to all immigration. The myth of America as the ‘land of the free and home of the brave’ is, for most immigrants, nonsense. Immigrants don’t come here because they ‘love our freedoms.’ They come primarily for one reason: to make money, and increase their standard of living. But every new immigrant—whether poverty-stricken Mexican or well-educated Asian—contributes directly to an already overshot ecosystem. Neither our nation nor the planet can stand any more Americans.

Two: Deportation of all illegal immigrants, and termination of green card privilege. Given the urgency, every illegal person here should be arrested and deported. The green card system should be ended, and those holding current green cards should be subject to accelerated expiration without renewal.

Three: Pay people to leave. If anyone wants to permanently relocate outside the U.S., the government should pay all moving expenses, and perhaps throw in a little financial incentive as well. This obviously does nothing for the global population predicament, but it does help the total consumption problem; the fact remains that any given person living anywhere besides the U.S. will, on average, consume less.

Four: A full-court press on family planning and contraception options. Free or low-cost access to condoms, birth control pills, educational programs, even abortions, should be considered.

Five: An end to all tax incentives to have more than one child. Current tax laws allow exemptions for all children, regardless of number. They should be revised to allow a break only for the first child, and increasing disincentives beyond the second.

If these should prove insufficient, more radical options are available:

Six: Government-paid sterilization. Certainly some percentage of the American population would be willing to get sterilized if it was free. More radical yet would be to provide monetary incentives for sterilization. Imagine if the government offered $5,000 for any childless adult who was willing to get sterilized—and imagine the outcry! But there can really be no complaint, as long as there is no coercion and the program is fully voluntary. Yes, the lower classes are more likely to participate; this is perhaps unfortunate, but given that we accept extreme financial inequality in our country, we have to live with the consequences. (At worst, this would offset the higher birth rates of the lower class immigrant populations.)

Seven: Birth licenses or ‘credits’. This is a kind of capitalist version of China’s policy. Kenneth Boulding and Herman Daly, among others, have proposed a system that gives every woman a certain number of credits, such that would allow her to have one legal child. If she wants two or more, she must buy the credits from another woman who is willing to forego hers. A national marketplace would set the price, and childless women would clearly profit. This is perhaps a rather heartless method, but the present system is exceedingly cruel in its own way—an uncontrolled human plague eating up the planet.

No doubt many readers will think of sterilization programs or birth credits as outrageous and impossible. To which I offer two replies: (1) we would obviously begin with the less radical approaches first, and only contemplate the more extreme actions if necessary; and (2) do we have any better ideas? Continuing on in the same vein is not a rational option. This only invites catastrophe as a means of reducing our population—which will certainly happen if we do nothing. Human numbers will go down; we can rationally plan a soft landing, or just wait for a ruthless Mother Nature to crush us.

The above actions, addressing population and consumption simultaneously, would doubtless have a substantial impact. The actual effect would of course depend on the speed of implementation. The situation is pressing, but there seems to be sufficient time for these actions to work. Reduced consumption and greater efficiencies can happen rather quickly, but no one is proposing 50% or 75% population reductions in a decade.

More realistically, I would propose something on the order of a 50-year plan to achieve the above goals. If, over the coming five decades, we could reduce both our footprint and our population by just 2% per year, we would reach 2060 with 110 million people, consuming at a level of 8.7 acres per person—a sustainable 1 billion acre footprint in total. Two percent annual reductions are easily achievable, and would barely register on the public consciousness.

There is plenty of flexibility in the numbers, of course. If we were only able to muster, say, 1% reductions per year on average, the process would still work—but it would take 100 years to achieve sustainability. Tradeoffs between population and consumption are also possible. If we could, for example, drive population down by 3% per year, then consumption need only fall by 0.5% annually; or vice versa.

And finally, critical to any population reduction scheme is equitable and proportionate implementation. It would not do, for example, to have one class or ethnicity voluntarily adopting low-growth (or negative growth) policies while others ignored them with impunity. There would thus need to be some minimal policy of monitoring and, particularly for systems of tax penalties or birth credits, equitable enforcement.

Every year that we wait, things get immeasurably worse: growing population, increasing per capita consumption, and a global ecosystem nearing exhaustion. With a sustainable population in America, we could feed ourselves, supply all of our own energy (think of it—no more wars for oil!), and maintain vast areas of wild nature. This is truly achievable. It is only a matter of will. But the discussion must start now.


1. See: Metzgar and Bader (1992), “Large mammal predators in the Northern Rockies,” Northwest Environmental Journal, 8(1). Hoctor et al (2000), “Identifying a linked reserve system,” Conservation Biology, 14(4). Noss et al (1999), “A conservation plan for the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion,” Natural Areas Journal, 19(4). Carroll et al (2003), “Use of population viability analysis,” Ecological Applications, 13. RETURN TO ARTICLE.

Dr. Thomas Dalton (email him) is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2009).
And a response by Professor MacDonald:

Kevin MacDonald: Thomas Dalton on Carrying Capacity

Kevin MacDonald: Thomas Dalton’s current TOO article “Environment, Immigration, and Population Reduction“ reflects an intellectual movement that was for some time centered around the academic journal Population and Environment, especially when it was edited by Virginia Abernethy and later by me. The basic idea is that in the long run the human population will have to be scaled back in order to come into line with Earth’s carrying capacity.

An immediate implication of this perspective is that countries like the United States would have to institute an immigration moratorium. As things stand now, all predictions are for a massive increase in US population by 2050, almost entirely due to immigration. The figure accompanying the article, from a paper by two academics, David Pimentel of Cornell and Mario Giampiettro of the University of Rome, projects a US population of 520 million by 2050 if current increases of 1.1% per year are maintained.

Recently Lindsey Grant, another major figure in this movement, has distributed a new paper on this topic. He notes that the population restriction movement gained some traction in the 1970s but declined thereafter, and that recently the US State Department commented that “The U.S. does not endorse population ‘stabilization’ or ‘control.’” There is absolutely no discussion of reduction of legal immigration despite high levels of unemployment and wages that have been stagnant for a generation. Instead, as the LA Times reports today, the Obama administration and its Congressional allies are gearing up to legalize illegal immigrants, a policy that will hugely inflate US population as these people bring their relatives here.

Grant also points to economic realities: “The past 35 years have been a period of soaring incomes for the wealthy, stagnant hourly wages for most people, income differentials rising to levels that a humane observer would call obscene.” Rising commodity prices of the last few years are a harbinger of scarcity. Unemployment is increasing: “To keep up with population growth in those two years, we should have added about 1.2 million jobs, rather than losing nearly nine million. The “good” months are those when the job loss slows down. January was a ‘good’ month; only 22,000 jobs disappeared. What kind of recovery is that?” (For February, the loss was 36,000, a report that was greeted as encouraging by the Obama administration.) On the basis of US Labor Department statistics, he points out that the real unemployment level is 16.8 percent of the labor force, and much higher for minorities and youth.

One could say much else about the economic irrationality of current immigration policy. In attempting to explain why there are no attempts to have a population policy, he points to five reasons:

First, the national addiction to growth and the dream of rising prosperity. Second, the political fears of alienating Hispanic voters, business, and their allies by tackling immigration levels. Third, the increased assertiveness of interest groups that oppose governmental population policies on principle (such as the Vatican) or, like the feminists at Cairo, do not want population policy advocates diverting attention from their priorities, or who oppose governmental involvement in women’s decisions about child bearing. Fourth, the defection of most of the U.S. environmental movement from population advocacy, for fear of losing support from the people I have just described, or from immigration advocates. Fifth, the present confrontational climate in Washington, which dictates that politicians avoid any positions that might lose votes.

I think this is basically right. A population policy that included an immigration moratorium flies in the face powerful ethnic and economic interests, as well as a deeply embedded view of perpetual expansion that is very common across the political spectrum.

Of course, I would add a prominent role for Jewish ethnic interests in leading and funding the pro-immigration movement as well as providing support for immigration among media and academic elites. (It’s amazing that it’s okay to mention Catholics, Latinos, feminists and business interests but would never mention the role of Jewish ethnic interests.) A notorious example related to environmental and population policy is David Gelbaum’s $100 million donation to the Sierra Club on condition that they not oppose immigration. As Gelbaum famously said to the president of the Sierra Club, “”I did tell [Sierra Club President] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

It’s interesting that the global warming hysteria did manage to recruit the backing of elites in government and business without offending the coalition of interests promoting a head-in-the-sands policy on population. (Headline you won’t see: Al Gore Proposes Immigration Moratorium To Combat Global Warming.) After all, one could argue that a good way for the US to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to lower its population, especially since, as Dalton points out, the US has such a large ecological footprint. Immigrants coming to the US will typically have a larger footprint than if they had stayed at home, and, as Virginia Abernethy has point out many times, this increase in prosperity is typically accompanied by increased fertility — Life is good compared to what you grew up with. Have babies. At present, Latino fertility is 50% higher than White, non-Latino fertility.

Nevertheless, global warming became a pillar of the left — even though the data supporting it are iffy at best and even though dealing with global warming requires the same sort of long range planning and drastic social changes also entailed by taking carrying capacity seriously. All told, it’s a nice comment on where the power is.

As a result, as things stand now, in 2050, not only will the US have a minority White population, it will have a population that is well beyond sustainability. Ethnic conflict will increase in multicultural, White-minority America even in the absence of sustainability issues. But the conflict will be even more intense as resources diminish and humans are forced to find ways to reduce population. As always, conflict will center around ethnic identities. It’s not going to be pretty.

Read Full Post »


Thor Heyerdahl, Norwegian Explorer in Search of Odin

Thor Heyerdahl – Norwegian biologist, geologist, archeologist and marine migration historian – is still best known as “Kon-Tiki Man” – the nickname which dates back to his first voyage expedition in 1947 when he crossed the Pacific in a primitive balsa-raft.

“People think I’m just an adventurer,” he [would] tell you. “They don’t realize that all my projects are related like pearls on a string — that they’re part of a single pattern.”

“This voyage on the “Kon Tiki” in 1947 was my first experience with a small vessel on the open ocean. From then on, I began organizing archeological excavations. My first was in 1952 to the Galapagos Islands. The next was to Easter Island in 1955-56. That was the first time I saw carvings of those large sickle-shaped ships. They were the same type as those in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.”

“I came to the conclusion that the Egyptians who built the pyramids left behind art and technology of an incredibly high level. They would not have continued to build boats made of reeds if they had considered such vessels to be primitive and ineffective. So, I decided that there must be something wrong with our scientific theories. All the literature that I had read at the university had said that boats made of balsam wood would absorb water and sink.”

“So I went on to prove that these scientific theories were wrong. The Kon Tiki raft kept afloat for 101 days until we arrived in Polynesia. In Egypt it was said at the Papyrus Institute that papyrus reed would absorb water and sink after two weeks. Again, I decided to trust the ancient pharaohs more than modern scientists who have never even seen a papyrus ship. That’s how I came to build my first reed boat. Together, with an international crew of seven people, we sailed for two months. The reed boat was still afloat.”

The geographer-zoologist turned expeditionist-archeologist is driven by an insatiable curiosity that has convinced him that many of the pieces in the chronology of prehistoric human life have yet to be discovered.

Heyerdahl is fond of saying that “man hoisted sail before he saddled a horse. He poled and paddled among rivers and navigated open seas before he traveled on wheels along roads.” Like a detective in search of missing clues, Heyerdahl believes the search for mankind’s first vehicles – water craft – will take him back to the source of civilization.

“I believe I’ve opened the locked door to the hidden evidence that the vessels of antiquity permitted unrestricted voyages in pre-European times and that there is a complex global root relationship between all those rapidly growing civilizations that suddenly grew up with evidence of advanced boat building some 5,000 years ago.”

Heyerdahl admits that a single reed of papyrus seems so fragile that you could hardly dare think about entrusting it with your life on a violent ocean. But when reeds are harvested in the appropriate season and tied together in bundles, he found they made a boat that was exceptionally seaworthy, virtually unsinkable and safer than any canoe or ship with a vulnerable hull. When breakers surge over a reed boat, all the water which showered onboard disappears the same instant through a thousand fissures.

Heyerdahl first became interested in marine migration after his first visit to the Marquesas Islands in Polynesia in 1937-38. Trained as a biologist at the University of Oslo, he had specialized in studying animal and plant diffusion to Oceania. He noticed that a number of the most important food plants cultivated in aboriginal Polynesia, as well as the Polynesia dog, appeared to have spread from South America prior to European arrival. That’s when he became suspicious of anthropological dogma which insisted that the Peruvian balsa raft could not have floated there in pre-Columbian times.

And that’s when he set out to prove that such migrations were possible. The quest would take him on four trans-oceanic voyages over a span of 29 years. The first was the balsa raft, “Kon-Tiki”, (1947) which sailed 4,300 miles from Lima to Polynesia. In 1969 he constructed a papyrus reed boat, the “Ra” which crossed the Atlantic via the Canary Current from Morocco, traveling 3,000 miles in eight weeks and arriving within 600 miles of Central America.

In 1971, Heyerdahl commissioned the Aymara Indians from Lake Titicaca (Bolivia) to construct a second version of the reed ship, “Ra II”. This one crossed the Atlantic “without loss or damage to a single papyrus stem” from Morocco to Barbados in 57 days (two months). For Heyerdahl Mexico should be perceived as only a few weeks away from Morocco-not centuries or millennia as had been thought previously.

In 1978, his fourth expedition was of ancient Sumerian design. The “Tigris”, a 60-foot reed vessel, began its journey at the convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and sailed 4,200 miles in 143 days (five months plus) out through the Arabian Gulf eventually arriving at Djibouti at the entrance of the Red Sea.

Despite the fact that Heyerdahl formally researches ancient history, he has always advocated a deep concern for contemporary problems. When his reed boats encountered oil slicks and chemical pollution spills in the ocean in the late 60s, Heyerdahl was the first to send a report to the United Nations and appeal to governments and international environmentalists. He has since testified on ocean pollution for governmental and scientific institutions in 23 countries, including the US Senate and the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Heyerdahl is convinced that if more money were spent on the environment, there would be fewer wars:

“History and archaeology both show us that no progress in the quality or quantity of arms can secure peace. It can only lead us into ever more horrible and inhuman wars. Therefore, we should be spending more money on research related to environmental protection of our globally deteriorating planet than on arms to protect ourselves from each other. This is our only alternative; otherwise we will all sink together by undermining the delicate and highly complex environmental ecosystem, thus committing suicide by interfering with biological recycling and hastening climatic changes.”

. . .

“For a long time, I’ve been puzzled by the fact that three great civilizations surrounding the Arabian peninsula appeared in about 3,000 B.C. as ready-developed, organized dynasties at the same astonishingly high level and all three were remarkably alike. The definite impression is that related priest-kings at that time came from elsewhere with their respective entourages, and imposed their dynasties on areas formerly occupied by more primitive or, at least, culturally far less advanced, tribes.”

“But where could they have come from? Is there a “zero hour for civilized man”? I’ve been convinced for quite some time that the clues to this mystery, no doubt, lie in the prehistoric boat petroglyphs which are found on widely scattered continental shores and islands all over the world and even near dried-out waterways deep inside the Sahara Desert. Petroglyphs and rock paintings of watercraft represent the earliest known illustrations of human architecture and even predate pictures of dwellings or temples. I’ve seen such sketches from below the equator in Polynesia to above the Arctic Circle in Northern Norway. Everywhere they testify to the fact that boats were of extreme importance to early man as they provided security and transportation millennia before there were roads through the wilderness.”

“Our lack of knowledge about our own past is appalling. In the course of two million years of human activity, ice has come and gone, and land has emerged and submerged. Forest humus, desert sand, river silt and volcanic eruptions have hidden from view large portions of the former surface of the earth. The sea level has altered; 70% of our planet is now below water, and underwater archaeology has barely begun in coastal areas. We are accustomed to finding sunken ships with old amphora and other cargo beneath the sea, but speculation as to the discovery of other human vestiges on the bottom of the ocean still remains a subject for science fiction writers.”

“It may not be pure coincidence that the ship petroglyphs that the early Azeri depicted while navigating on the Caspian Sea and up the Russian rivers are identical to those of the ancestors of the Vikings along the fjords of Norway millennia later. In Scandinavia, there are two different types of boat petroglyphs, both well represented in Norway. One is similar to those at Gobustan and is drawn as a simple sickle-shaped line which forms the base of the ship with vertical lines on deck to illustrate crew or raised oars.”

“The other ship type probably represents a “skin boat” with a rather short and bulky hull and an interior framework of wood, appearing on the petroglyphs as if viewed from outside. Such a boat is mentioned in early Norwegian sagas written down by the Icelander, Snorre Sturlason, before his death in 1241, (Snorri, The Sagas of the Viking Kings of Norway. English translation: J. M. Stenersens Forlag, Oslo 1987). According to the saga, the Viking kings descended from Odin, an immigrant hierarch who came in a vessel called Skithblathnir (Skidbladner) which could be folded together like a cloth. Odin came from the land of the “Aser” (Æsír), and is, therefore, frequently referred to as “Asa-Odin”. The legendary land of the people known as Aser is given a very exact location in Snorre’s saga as east of the Caucasus mountains and the Black Sea.”

“From there, according to the same saga, Odin, owner of the foldable boat migrated with all his people northwestwardly through Russia, Saxland, and Denmark into Sweden where he died and lay buried in a huge funerary mound at Sigtuna. Asa-Odin’s saga with his boat and his itinerary has been considered by Nordic historians as a myth concocted in medieval times, although they consider the Nordic people as Caucasians. But, perhaps, Odin’s boat may indicate that the land of the Aser really lay by the Caspian Sea east of the Caucasus. In fact, in the 5th century B.C., the Greek historian, Herodotus, described such marvelous foldable boats used precisely in the area referred to in Asa-Odin’s saga as the home of th Aser, namely the land of the present day Azeri and Armenians.”

“In this area, Herodotus wrote, traveling merchants used boats built with a framework of wood and canes covered with skin, and of such great size that they carried one or more donkeys in addition to crew and cargo. They navigated down river to Babylonia where they sold their merchandise and the framework (wood), then they folded the skins and loaded them on the donkeys for their return upstream in preparation for the next voyage.”

“I’m personally convinced that Snorre recorded oral history rather than a concocted myth, and I think it’s time to look for the land that my Scandinavian ancestors came from and not merely where they subsequently went on their Viking raids and explorations. They certainly did not come out from under the glaciers when the ice-age ended so they must have immigrated from the south. Since their physical type is referred to as Caucasian and their very own descendant preserved an itinerary from south of the Caucasus and north of Turkey, I suspect that the present Azeri people and the Aser of the Norse sagas have common roots and that my ancestry originated there.”

“The unwritten history of both the Scandinavians and the Azeri doubtlessly began with ships and navigation. Both had access to waterways which permitted them to explore and travel far and wide. The Azeri could easily have sailed across their inland sea to the great centers of civilization in antiquity and up the river Volga which was navigable past present-day Moscow to its sources which are suspiciously close to the sources of the river Dvina which empties into the Baltic Sea at Riga, where the first Christian Norwegian Viking king, Olav Trygvason, was born.”

“This would mean that Azerbaijan and not northern Europe was the dispersion center of the Caucasian people buried in northwestern China some 4,000 years ago and now discovered by Chinese archaeologists who theorize that they came from northern Europe because they were tall, blond, blue-eyed and with Caucasian features. According to modern scholars in Azerbaijan, there used to be a strong blond and fair-skinned element in the aboriginal Azeri population, as illustrated by the stone-age hunters at the Gobustan Museum. Subsequent invasions by Romans and Arabs have somewhat modified the original Azeri type.”

“Many clues are still invisible about the human history prior to the sudden cultural bloom in Egypt, Sumer and the Indus valley some five millennia ago. But with advanced technology, some day the answers may be found under the sand and sea. The challenge for scholars is to look deeper into foreign relations in the region of present-day Azerbaijan to determine what those prehistoric roots and linkages were.”

Heyerdahl never stopped asking if there is a “zero hour for civilized man”. His pursuit has taken him all over the globe searching for man’s earliest settlements and for links of migration from region to region and continent to continent. Heyerdahl is convinced that the vessels of antiquity permitted unrestricted voyages in pre-European times, and that there is a complex global relationship between many of the rapidly growing civilizations that suddenly appeared 5,000 years ago which had an advanced knowledge of boat building. He believes that Azerbaijan may well be one of the very first centers of migration.

Heyerdahl first began forming this hypothesis after visiting Gobustan, an ancient cave dwelling found 30 miles west of Baku, which is famous for its rock carvings. The sketches of sickle-shaped boats carved into these rocks closely resemble rock carvings found in his own native Norway.

. . .

“We learn of the line of royal families in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. But we didn’t take these stories about our beginnings seriously because they were so ancient. We thought it was just imagination, just mythology. The actual years for the lineage of historic kings began around the year 800 AD. So we learned all the kings in the 1,000 years that followed and did not interest ourselves in earlier names.”

“But I remember from my childhood that the mythology started with the god named Odin. From Odin it took 31 generations to reach the first historic king. The record of Odin says that he came to Northern Europe from the land of Aser. I started reading these pages again and saw that this was not mythology at all, but actual history and geography.”

“Snorre, who recorded these stories, started by describing Europe, Asia and Africa, all with their correct names, Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea with their old Norse names, the Black Sea with the names we use today again, and the river Don with its old Greek name, Tanais.”

“Snorre said that the homeland of the Asers was east of the Black Sea. He said this was the land that chief Odin had, a big country. He gave the exact description: it was east of the Black Sea, south of a large mountain range on the border between Europe and Asia, and extended southward towards the land of the Turks. This had nothing to do with mythology, it was on this planet, on Earth.”

“Then came the most significant point. Snorre says: ‘At that time when Odin lived, the Romans were conquering far and wide in the region. When Odin learned that they were coming towards the land of Asers, he decided that it was best for him to take his priests, chiefs and some of his people and move to the Northern part of Europe.'”

“The Romans are human beings, they are from this planet, they are not mythical figures. Then I remember that when I came to Gobustan, I had seen a stone slab with Roman inscriptions. I contacted the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. I was taken to the place, and I got the exact wording of the inscription.”

“There’s a very logical way of figuring out when this was written. It had to be written after the year 84 AD and before the year 97 AD. If this inscription matched Snorre’s record, it would mean that Odin left for Scandinavia during the second half of the 1st century AD. Then I counted the members of the generations of kings, every king up to the grandfather of the king that united Norway into one kingdom, because such information is available – around 830 AD.”

“In anthropology we reckon 25 years per generation for ruling kings. In modern times, a generation may extend up to 30 years, but on average the length of a generation in early reigns is 25 years. When you multiply 31 generations by 25 years, you come exactly back to the second half of the 1st century AD. So there is proof that these inscriptions carved by the Romans in stone coincide with the written history written almost 1,800 years ago in Iceland.”

“We all know that the Northern people are called Caucasian. Here is where history, archeology, geography and physical anthropology come together.”

“The more I research the topic, the more evidence I find that this part of the planet has played a much more significant role than anybody ever suspected. I am working on a book at present together with a colleague, and we are halfway through it describing our observations.”

“In the meantime we have contacts with the Academies of Sciences in 11 nations. We do not want to leave anything out. The most surprising discovery was when we contacted Communist China. They had discovered blond-haired mummies in the Karim Desert deep inside China, so perfectly preserved in the cold climate and salty earth that you could see the color of the skin and hair. The Chinese archeologists were surprised because these mummies were not Mongoloids at all; they suspected instead that they were Vikings.”

“But it didn’t make sense to me that Vikings should be deep inside the deserts of China. When the Chinese archeologists conducted radio-carbon dating, they determined that the mummies were of Nordic type dating from 1,800 to 1,500 years BC. But the Viking period started around 800 AD. It then became obvious that these mummies were not Vikings who had come to China. Here was a missing link. And again the Caucasus enters into the picture as a mutual migratory center.”

“But this is not the end of the story. These mummies were dressed in cloth that had been woven, and the colors and the woven pattern were of a very specific type. The Chinese themselves studied the mummies and then invited American experts to study the clothing who determined that the weave and coloring were typical of the Celts of Ireland. But this made no sense at all. Then we contacted Ireland to get their sagas, and their written saga says that their ancestors were Scythians. So, again, their roots come back here to the Caucasus.”

“This is only the beginning, because this is as far as we have obtained documentation from the Academies of Sciences with which we are in contact. I will not go into detail further, but I have also found archeological evidence that is so striking that there can no longer be any doubt.”

“My conclusion is that Azerbaijan has been a very important center, sending people in many directions and attracting people from many directions. You have had metals that made the Romans want to come here. But you have been very central in the evolution of civilization, and more than anything, this is proven by the petroglyphs in Gobustan.”

. . .

“The most important thing we can learn from the past is that no earlier civilization has survived. And the larger the pyramids and temples and statues they build in honor of their god or themselves, the harder has been the fall. Most of them have been so completely eradicated that it has taken archaeologists to bring them to light again. Neither the Sun God nor the creative power behind the Big Bang smiles upon the huge buildings or powerful armies of mankind. They smile at civilizations who respect their own creation and who show appreciation for it.”

“Where people have constructed great buildings, they have also fought the greatest wars. When the archeologist excavates to the bottom of the ruins for an extinct civilization, more often than not, he will find the remnants of an even older one beneath it. And we would be wise to note that the most advanced culture is rarely the one on the top layer.”

. . .

“Where is God? I feel that God is behind every flower and every tree in the woods. He is behind every mountain rock and every foam-crested wave in the sea. God is omnipresent. I am willing to reach my hands in the air and admit that I have a limited number of senses and that they are insufficient for me to grasp the whole truth. Therefore, I refrain from having a fixed picture of God and what He might be. It can be a magnetic field. It can be a law. It can be anything.”

. . .

Since his first visit to the Caucasus early in the 1960s, Thor Heyerdahl had stored in his memory the similarities he found between the petroglyphs in Gobustan near Baku and the petroglyphs in Scandinavia, especially those in Alta, Norway. Even though this similarity belonged to pre-history and could not be neatly transferred to later history at the beginning of the Viking era, Thor nevertheless suspected that there might be other cultural connective links between the Caucasus and Scandinavia.

That was the reason for his visit to the region in the Autumn of 2000. He was on the trail of Odin (Wotan), the Germanic and Nordic god of the mythologies of the early sagas. According to Snorre, the Icelandic author of the Nordic Sagas, who wrote in the 13th century, Odin was supposed to have migrated from the region of the Caucasus or the area just east of the Black Sea near the turn of the first century AD. Thor wanted to test the veracity of Snorre and, consequently, organized the Joint Archaeological Excavation in Azov, Russia in 2001.

I met Thor in Moscow on April 21, 2001. He had already contacted Dr. Sergey Lukiashko of the Institute of Archaeology at the State University of Rostov-on-Don. Thor had been planning an excavation at this site because of the peculiar phonology of the place – name Azov. Snorre speaks of a place called Ashov (read As-hov) – the sacrificial site of the As tribe. This phonological coincidence led Thor to start his investigations in Azov, Russia.

I had met Heyerdahl earlier in Azerbaijan in the summer of 2002 while excavating the Kish church [See Storfjell’s article, “The Kish Church – Digging Up History” in AI 8.4, Winter 2000]. Heyerdahl appointed me chief archaeologist for the Scandinavian team, which was composed of two other Norwegian archeologists and two Swedish archeologists. For a period of six weeks, we carried out the excavation with our Russian colleagues.

The results of the first season brought to light more than 35,000 individual pieces of material cultural remains, which have now all been numbered and registered. Most of these items would excite only archeologists and offer little occasion for joy to the uninitiated. I am primarily referring to broken ceramic vessels whose many fragments filled several buckets each day. But it is these unglamorous fragments that yield their secrets about the dates of their creation and help us to assign dates to the various layers of soil that are being excavated.

Among the more significant finds were several fibulae – circular ring-pins used to fasten garments – which can be dated to the 1st-2nd centuries AD. They showed a clear affinity with fibulae from the Baltic region and would not have been out of place had they been discovered there. The same can be said about a sword found in a burial from the same period. After just one season of excavation, we can demonstrate a certain level of cultural connectivity between the steppe region of the Black Sea with the Baltic. It is very likely the great rivers of Russia were the conveyors of these cultural links, something that puts us right back into an environment that Thor Heyerdahl was very much at home with – water.

The first season – Summer 2001 – in this extensive project took place in Azov, Russia. The total scope of the project envisions several more seasons of excavation in and around Azov. Then the investigation will move to the Caucasus, where the As and Van peoples once lived. This is all recorded in the Norse Sagas, but about 2,000 years before Snorre in Iceland wrote about these people groups, the Van were referred as a geographical term in Assyrian contemporary records in the 13th century BC. The As are identified in contemporary Assyrian records from as early as the 7th century BC. This evidence warrants continued research in the Caucasus, not just to test the statements of Snorre, but to help us understand more about a region that has figured so prominently as a cultural bridge, early in human history.

At age 86, Thor was one of the most energetic persons at Azov. Each day last summer, he would visit every excavation site – five in total – scattered throughout the city. We Scandinavians were excavating in a strawberry garden with the kind permission of the owner, who decided to forego the berries in favor of ancient history. At meal times during our discussions, the ideas began to emerge about how we would carry on Thor’s archaeological work. Half a year later, those ideas of a research center became a reality.

In the meantime, after the excavation, work shifted to analysis of the finds and the task of writing up the reports of the fieldwork. Thor continued working on the manuscript of what was to become his last book. “Jakten på Odin” (In Search of Odin) was published in Norway a few months later, in November 2001. (The English version apeared ca. November 2002.) A couple of days after Thor returned to his home in Tenerife in the Canary Islands, following the book launch in Oslo, Norway, I visited him in connection with writing up reports on Azov. But it seems he had other matters to discuss.

He had been offered funding for the second season of excavation in Azov, and in that connection he wanted to establish a research center. He honored me by asking me to set up the center and then to direct it; it would be located in England for a variety of practical reasons.

By the middle of February 2002, the Thor Heyerdahl Research Centre had become a reality. It was organized and registered at Companies House in England, and Thor Heyerdahl was the first Chairman of the Board. Now his widow, Jacqueline Beer Heyerdahl, holds that position and is eager to oversee the continuation of Thor’s work in Azov, the greater Caucasus and beyond.

Beyond that, there is a new project that Thor was planning in Samoa in the Pacific. He had been made aware of the existence of a pyramidal structure that is thought to be the largest of its kind in the Pacific. In February 2002, he visited the site with Jacqueline and started making arrangements for an excavation to begin in Autumn 2002.
He had wanted Samoa to be his last project. It was in the Pacific that he had started his long and illustrious career, and it was there that he wanted to close the last chapter of his professional endeavors.

But April 18, 2002 conspired against him. Thor Heyerdahl, perhaps the best-known Norwegian of the second half of the 20th century, died peacefully in his sleep at his family home in Colla Micheri in Italy, where he had gone to spend the Easter holidays with the closest members of his family around him.

Excerpts (all) from Azer.com
(1) Thor Heyerdahl in Azerbaijan: KON-TIKI Man by Betty Blair (AI 3:1, Spring 1995)
(2) The Azerbaijan Connection: Challenging Mainstream Theories of Migration by Heyerdahl (AI 3:1, Spring 1995)
(3) Azerbaijan’s Primal Music Norwegians Find ‘The Land We Come From’ by Steinar Opheim (AI 5.4, Winter 1997)
(4) Thor Heyerdahl in Baku (AI 7:3, Autumn 1999)
(5) Scandinavian Ancestry: Tracing Roots to Azerbaijan – Thor Heyerdahl (AI 8.2, Summer 2000)
(6) Quote: Earlier Civilizations – More Advanced – Thor Heyerdahl (AI 8.3, Autumn 2000)
(7) The Kish Church – Digging Up History – An Interview with J. Bjornar Storfjel (AI 8.4, Winter 2000)
(8) Adventurer’s Death Touches Russia’s Soul – Constantine Pleshakov (AI 10.2, Summer 2002)
(9) First Encounters in the Soviet Union – Thor Heyerdahl (AI 10.2, Summer 2002)
(10) Thor Heyerdahl’s Final Projects – Bjornar Storfjell (AI 10.2, Summer 2002)
(11) Voices of the Ancients: Rare Caucasus Albanian Text – Dr. Zaza Alexidze (AI 10.2, Summer 2002)
(12) Heyerdahl Burns “Tigris” Reed Ship to Protest War – Letter to UN – Bjornar Storfjell, Blair – (AI 11.1Winter 2003)

Read Full Post »


Knut Hamsun and the Cause of Europe
Mark Deavin, edit W.

After fifty years of being confined to the Orwellian memory hole created by the Allied/Zionist cause as part of their European “denazification” process, the work of the Norwegian author Knut Hamsun — who died in 1952 — is reemerging to take its place among the greatest European literature of the twentieth century. All of his major novels have undergone English-language reprints during the last two years, and even in his native Norway, where his post-1945 ostracism has been most severe, he is finally receiving a long-overdue recognition.

Of course, one debilitating question still remains for the great and good of the European liberal intelligentsia, ever eager to jump to Jewish sensitivities. As Hamsun’s English biographer Robert Ferguson gloomily asked himself in 1987: “Could the sensitive, dreaming genius who had created beautiful love stories … really have been a Nazi?”

Unfortunately for these weak-kneed scribblers, the answer is a resounding “yes.” Not only was Knut Hamsun a dedicated supporter of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist New Order in Europe, but his best writings — many written at the tail end of the nineteenth century — flow with the very essence of the National Socialist spirit and life philosophy.

Born Knud Pederson on August 4, 1859, Hamsun spent his early childhood in the far north of Norway, in the small town of Hamaroy. He later described this time as one of idyllic bliss where he and the other children lived in close harmony with the animals on the farm, and where they felt an indescribable oneness with Nature and the cosmos around and above them. Hamsun developed an early obsession to become a writer and showed a fanatical courage and endurance in pursuing his dream against tremendous obstacles. He was convinced of his own artistic awareness and sensitivity, and was imbued with a certainty that in attempting to achieve unprecedented levels of creativity and consciousness, he was acting in accordance with the higher purpose of Nature.

In January 1882 Hamsun’s Faustian quest of self-discovery took him on the first of several trips to America. He was described by a friend at the time as “tall, broad, lithe with the springing step of a panther and with muscles of steel. His yellow hair … drooped down upon his … clear-cut classical features.”

These experiences consolidated in Hamsun a sense of racial identity as the bedrock of his perceived artistic and spiritual mission. A visit to an Indian Reservation confirmed his belief in the inherent diversity of the races and of the need to preserve this diversity through separation, but he was also perceptive enough to recognize that America carried within it the seeds of racial chaos through its policies of enforced integration.

In his view, the repatriation of the blacks back to Africa was essential to securing America’s future (cited in Robert Ferguson Enigma: The Life of Knut Hamsun, London, 1987, p.105). Hamsun also developed an early awareness of the Jewish question, believing that “anti-Semitism” inevitably existed in all lands where there were Jews — following Semitism” as the effect follows the cause.” He also believed that the departure of the Jews from Europe and the White world was essential “so that the White races would avoid further mixture of the blood” (from Hamsun’s 1925 article in Mikal Sylten’s nationalist magazine Nationalt Tidsskrift). His experiences in America also strengthened Hamsun’s antipathy to the so called “freedom” of democracy, which he realized merely leveled all higher things down to the lowest level and elevated financial materialism as the highest morality. Greatly influenced by the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Hamsun saw himself as part of the vanguard of a European spiritual aristocracy which would reject these false values and search out Nature’s hidden secrets — developing a higher morality and value system based on organic, natural law. In an essay entitled “From the Unconscious Life of the Mind,” published in 1890, Hamsun laid out his belief:

An increasing number of people who lead mental lives of great intensity, people who are sensitive by nature, notice the steadily more frequent appearance in them of mental states of great strangeness … a wordless and irrational feeling of ecstasy; or a breath of psychic pain; a sense of being spoken to from afar, from the sky or the sea; an agonizingly developed sense of hearing which can cause one to wince at the murmuring of unseen atoms: an irrational staring into the heart of some closed kingdom suddenly and briefly revealed.

Hamsun expounded this philosophy in his first great novel Hunger, which attempted to show how the known territory of human consciousness could be expanded to achieve higher forms of creativity, and how through such a process the values of a society which Hamsun believed was increasingly sick and distorted could be redefined for the better. This theme was continued in his next book, Mysteries, and again in Pan, published in 1894, which was based upon Hamsun’s own feeling of pantheistic identification with the cosmos and his conviction that the survival of Western man depended upon his re-establishing his ties with Nature and leading a more organic and wholesome way of life.

In 1911 Hamsun moved back to Hamaroy with his wife and bought a farm. A strong believer in the family and racial upbreeding, he was sickened by the hypocrisy and twisted morality of a modern Western society which tolerated and encouraged abortion and the abandonment of healthy children, while protecting and prolonging the existence of the criminal, crippled, and insane. He actively campaigned for the state funding of children’s homes that could take in and look after unwanted children and freely admitted that he was motivated by a higher morality, which aimed to “clear away the lives which are hopeless for the benefit of those lives which might be of value.”

In 1916 Hamsun began work on what became his greatest and most idealistic novel, Growth of the Soil, which won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1921. It painted Hamsun’s ideal of a solid, farm-based culture, where human values, instead of being fixed upon transitory artificialities which modern society had deemed fashionable, would be based upon the fixed wheel of the seasons in the safekeeping of an inviolable eternity where man and Nature existed in harmony:

They had the good fortune at Sellanraa that every spring and autumn they could see the grey geese sailing in fleets above that wilderness, and hear their chatter up in the air — delirious talk it was. And as if the world stood still for a moment, till the train of them had passed. And the human souls beneath, did they not feel a weakness gliding through them now? They went to their work again, but drawing breath first, for something had spoken to them, something from beyond.

Growth of the Soil reflected Hamsun’s belief that only when Western man fully accepted that he was intimately bound up with Nature’s eternal law would he be able to fulfill himself and stride towards a higher level of existence. At the root of this, Hamsun made clear, was the need to place the procreation of the race back at the center of his existence:

Generation to generation, breeding ever anew, and when you die the new stock goes on. That’s the meaning of eternal life.

The main character in the book reflected Hamsun’s faith in the coming man of Europe: a Nietzschean superman embodying the best racial type who, acting in accordance with Nature’s higher purpose, would lead the race to unprecedented levels of greatness. In Hamsun’s vision he was described thus:

A tiller of the ground, body and soul; a worker on the land without respite. A ghost risen out of the past to point to the future; a man from the earliest days of cultivation, a settler in the wilds, nine hundred years old, and withal, a man of the day.

Hamsun’s philosophy echoed Nietzsche’s belief that “from the future come winds with secret wingbeats and to sensitive ears comes glad tidings” (cited in Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century). And for Hamsun the “good news” of his lifetime was the rise of National Socialism in Germany under Adolf Hitler, whom he saw as the embodiment of the coming European man and a reflection of the spiritual striving of the “Germanic soul.”

The leaders of the new movement in Germany were also aware of the essential National Socialist spirit and worldview which underlay Hamsun’s work, and he was much lauded, particularly by Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg paid tribute to Hamsun in his The Myth of the Twentieth Century, published in 1930, declaring that through a mysterious natural insight Knut Hamsun was able to describe the laws of the universe and of the Nordic soul like no other living artist. Growth of the Soil, he declared, was “the great present-day epic of the Nordic will in its eternal, primordial form.”

Hamsun visited Germany on several occasions during the 1930s, accompanied by his equally enthusiastic wife, and was well impressed by what he saw. In 1934 he was awarded the prestigious Goethe Medal for his writings, but he handed back the 10,000 marks prize money as a gesture of friendship and as a contribution to the National Socialist process of social reconstruction. He developed close ties with the German-based Nordic Society, which promoted the Pan-Germanic ideal, and in January 1935 he sent a letter to its magazine supporting the return of the Saarland to Germany. He always received birthday greetings from Rosenberg and Goebbels, and on the occasion of his 80th birthday from Hitler himself.

Like Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, Hamsun was not content merely to philosophize in an ivory tower; he was a man of the day, who, despite his age, strove to make his ideal into a reality and present it to his own people. Along with his entire family he became actively and publicly involved with Norway’s growing National Socialist movement in the form of Vidkun Quisling’s Nasjonal Samling (National Assembly). This had been founded in May 1933, and Hamsun willingly issued public endorsements and wrote articles for its magazine, promoting the National Socialist philosophy of life and condemning the anti-German propaganda that was being disseminated in Norway and throughout Europe. This, he pointed out, was inspired by the Jewish press and politicians of England and France who were determined to encircle Germany and bring about a European war to destroy Hitler and the idea which he represented.

With the outbreak of war Hamsun persistently warned against the Allied attempts to compromise Norwegian neutrality, and on April 2, 1940 — only a week before Hitler dramatically forestalled the Allied invasion of Norway — Hamsun wrote an article in the Nasjonal Samling newspaper calling for German protection of Norwegian neutrality against Anglo-Soviet designs. Hamsun was quick to point out in a further series of articles soon afterward, moreover, that it was no coincidence that C.J. Hambro, the president of the Norwegian Storting, who had conspired to push Norway into Allied hands and had then fled to Sweden, was himself Jewish. In his longest wartime article, which appeared in the Axis periodical Berlin-Tokyo-Rome in February 1942, he also identified Roosevelt as being in the pay of the Jews and the dominant figure in America’s war for gold and Jewish expansion of power. Declaring his belief in the greatness of Adolf Hitler, Hamsun defiantly declared: “Europe does not want either the Jews or their gold.”

Hamsun’s loyalty to the National Socialist New Order in Europe was well appreciated in Berlin, and in May 1943 Hamsun and his wife were invited to visit Joseph Goebbels, a devoted fan of the writer. Both men were deeply moved by the meeting, and Hamsun was so affected that he sent Goebbels the medal which he had received for winning the Nobel Prize for idealistic literature in 1920, writing that he knew of no statesman who had so idealistically written and preached the cause of Europe. Goebbels in return considered the meeting to have been one of the most precious encounters of his life and wrote touchingly in his diary: “May fate permit the great poet to live to see us win victory! If anybody deserved it because of a high-minded espousal of our cause even under the most difficult circumstances, it is he.” The following month Hamsun spoke at a conference in Vienna organized to protest against the destruction of European cultural treasures by the sadistic Allied terror-bombing raids. He praised Hitler as a crusader and a reformer who would create a new age and a new life. Then, three days later, on June 26, 1943, his loyalty was rewarded with a personal and highly emotional meeting with Hitler at the Berghof. As he left, the 84 year-old Hamsun told an adjutant to pass on one last message to his Leader: “Tell Adolf Hitler: we believe in you.

Hamsun never deviated from promoting the cause of National Socialist Europe, paying high-profile visits to Panzer divisions and German U-boats, writing articles and making speeches. Even when the war was clearly lost, and others found it expedient to maintain silence or renounce their past allegiances, he remained loyal without regard to his personal safety. This was brought home most clearly after the official announcement of Hitler’s death, when, with the German Army in Norway packing up and preparing to leave, Hamsun wrote an obituary for Hitler which was published in a leading newspaper:

Adolf Hitler: I am not worthy to speak his name aloud. Nor do his life and his deeds warrant any kind of sentimental discussion. He was a warrior, a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel for all nations. He was a reforming nature of the highest order, and his fate was to arise in a time of unparalleled barbarism, which finally felled him. Thus might the average western European regard Adolf Hitler. We, his closest supporters, now bow our heads at his death.

This was a tremendously brave thing for Hamsun to do, as the following day the war in Norway was over and Quisling was arrested.

Membership in Quisling’s movement after April 8, 1940, had been made a criminal offense retroactively by the new Norwegian government, and the mass roundups of around 40,000 Nasjonal Samling members now began in earnest. Hamsun’s sons Tore and Arild were picked up within a week, and on May 26 Hamsun and his wife were placed under house arrest. Committed to hospital because of his failing health, Hamsun was subject to months of interrogation designed to wear down and confuse him. As with Ezra Pound in the United States, the aim was to bring about a situation where Hamsun’s sanity could be questioned: a much easier option for the Norwegian authorities than the public prosecution of an 85-year-old literary legend.

Unfortunately for them, Hamsun refused to crack and was more than a match for his interrogators. So, while his wife was handed a vicious three-year hard-labor sentence for her National Socialist activities, and his son Arild got four years for having the temerity to volunteer to fight Bolshevism on the Eastern Front, Hamsun received a 500,000-kroner fine and the censorship of his books. Even this did not stop him, however, and he continued to write, regretting nothing and making no apologies. Not until 1952, in his 92nd year, did he pass away, leaving us a wonderful legacy with which to carry on the fight which he so bravely fought to the end.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Natural Law, Our Only Rule


National Socialist Germany and the Environment


The term “Ecology” was invented in Germany in the nineteenth century by the pioneering zoologist Ernst Haeckel. Via his widely influential writings and lectures, Haeckel elaborated a holistic view of man’s symbiotic relationship with the Natural world. To Haeckel, and those who followed his philosophy of “Monism”, Natural laws governed the workings of the Natural world and human civilization alike. Haeckel and others of his philosophical school taught respect for Nature and preached conservation.

What many people do not know about Haeckel, however, is his connection to National Socialism. Haeckel placed his views about Nature conservation into a worldview similar to that of Social Darwinism. Here, only the strong (both individually and on a national scale) and those willing to fight, survived the constant upward struggle that characterized national evolutionary development. Nations, cultures, and peoples could therefore be categorized “scientifically” into those that were superior and those that were inferior, with the latter being considered expendable and even worthy of extinction.

This brief collection of quotes illustrates the decisive role that a radical Ecological understanding of the world played within National Socialism. Needless to say, Ecology as a science and natural philosophy, as a whole, have not always assumed the same radical ideological shape throughout history. Since World War II, the Green movements that have sprung up all over the world are largely democratic in nature and are as concerned about the well being of humanity as they are about the health of the planet as a whole.

However, the deteriorating world environmental situation in our time could create incentives for even more strict regimes than those of National Socialist Germany. Thus, it is useful to study this subject.


“By ecology we understand the total science of the connections of the organism to the surrounding external world.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Haeckel quoted in Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 38.


“Man is not distinguished from [the animals] by a special kind of soul, or by any peculiar and exclusive psychic function, but only by a higher degree of psychic activity, a superior stage of development.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (New York: Harper, 1900), p. 201.


“As our mother earth is a mere speck in the sunbeam in the illimitable universe, so man himself is but a tiny grain of protoplasm in the perishable framework of organic nature. [This] clearly indicates the true place of man in nature, but it dissipates the prevalent illusion of man’s supreme importance and the arrogance with which he sets himself apart from the illimitable universe and exalts himself to the position of its most valuable element.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (New York: Harper, 1900), pp. 14-15.

“Man is not above nature, but in nature.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The Evolution of Man. 2 vols. (New York: Appleton, 1903), vol. II, p. 456.

“Man must not fall into the error of thinking that he was ever meant to become lord and master of Nature. A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them but he can never free himself from their sway.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 10.


“National Socialism is politically applied biology.” — Hans Schemm, Founder and Head of the National Socialist Teachers Association

“Civilization and the life of nations are governed by the same laws as prevail throughout nature and organic life.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 11.

“The whole of organic nature on our planet exists only by a relentless war of all against all. … The raging war of interests in human society is only a feeble picture of an unceasing and terrible war of existence which reigns throughout the whole of the living world.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, Monism: The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science. Tr. J. Gilchrist (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895), pp. 73-74.

“[It is] useful to know the laws of nature – for that enables us to obey them. To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against heaven.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 116.

“As in everything, nature is the best instructor.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 321.

“Christianity [is] a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 43.

“Deep and understanding feeling for nature is the foundation of every culture.” — Hermann Goering

Source: Goering quoted in Blätter für Naturschutz 18, 2 (1935).

Source: Schemm quoted in Die Biologe 5 (1926), p. 281.

“If … the garden (i.e., society) is to remain the breeding ground for the plants, if, in other words, it is to lift itself above the harsh rule of natural forces, then the forming wheel of a gardener is necessary, of a gardener who, by providing suitable conditions for growing, or by keeping harmful influences away, or by both together, carefully tends what needs tending, and ruthlessly eliminates the weeds which would deprive the better plants of nutrition, the air, light, sun.” — R. Walther Darré

Source: Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (New York: NYU Press, 1992), pp 113f.


“We are compelled by reflection to recognize that God is not to be placed against the material world [as in Christianity], but must be placed as a ‘divine power’ or ‘moving spirit’ within the cosmos itself … All the wonderful phenomena of nature around us, organic as well as inorganic, are only various products of one and the same original force.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, Monism: The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science. Tr. J. Gilchrist (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895), p. 15.

“Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships. Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call god (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe).” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 5.

“The man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety; not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 5.

“When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not mean what naive Christians and their clerical exploiters have in mind. …The power of nature’s law is what we call the omnipotent force or God. …We National Socialists demand of ourselves that we live as naturally as possible, that is to say in accord with the laws of life. The more precisely we understand and observe the laws of nature and of life and the more we keep to them, the more we correspond to the will of this omnipotent force.” — Martin Bormann, NSDAP Party Secretary

Source: Boria Sax, Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust (New York: Continuum, 2000), p. 106.


“Every healthy Völk sees the right to expansion of its living space as something natural.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler Speech, Völkischer Beobachter, 11 November 1931


“Nations whose feeling for nature dissipates because they destroy their homeland, carry the seeds of death in them; they only continue as a nation artificially. Nations with a strongly defined feeling for nature, like the Germans and the Slavs, overcome even the hardest blows and have an unlimited capacity for regeneration. Therefore a government that seeks to maintain the feeling for nature of its people is smart, and to that end no sacrifice is too large, no means too small, and everyone who helps with that serves his Völk.” — Hermann Löns, Popular Writer in Second Empire Germany

Source: Zeitschrift für Vogelschutz und andere Gebiete des Naturschutzes 1, 1 (1920), p. 44.

“The German countryside must be preserved under all circumstances, for it is and has forever been the source of strength and greatness of our people.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler quoted in Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 81.

“Man should organize his existence meaningfully in the natural sphere of his living space, should make everything that nature offers him useful for himself while being conscious of his responsibility, should be the master of nature but at the same time its protector and conserver.” –Julius Wagner, German educator

Source: Julius Wagner, Die Biologie im Dienste heimatlicher Landschaftskunde (1934).


Lands protected included:

“Remaining portions of landscape in free nature whose preservation on account of rarity, beauty, distinctiveness or on account of scientific, ethnic, forest, or hunting significance lies in the general interest.”

Source: Raymond H. Dominick III, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1992), p. 108. (Introduction to law can be read here (PDF File).


“The morality and customs of Germans are derived entirely from the organizational unity of blood and soil.” — R. Walther Darré, 1931

Source: R. Walther Darré, Um Blut und Boden: Reden und Aufsätze (München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Franz Eher Nachführung, 1942), p. 57.


“The leadership of our National Socialist state and our conception of a people [Volk] is penetrated and inspired by foundations in biology. Legal provisions are derived from the laws of life. Their worth proceeds from the degree to which they are thought through in biological terms and on biological foundations.” — Walter Greit, Chief of Reichsbund für Biologie

Source: Klaus Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (New York, Continuum, 1995), p. 233.


“The domestication (the culture) of man does not go deep–where it does go deep it at once becomes degeneration (type: the Christian). The ‘savage’ (or, in moral terms, the evil man) is a return to nature–and in a certain sense his recovery, his cure from ‘culture’.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, Fragment 684

“Even in those days [in Vienna] I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these [social] conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved.

Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation – which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred – and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 2.

“I desire a violent, domineering, fearless, and ferocious upcoming generation. It must be able to bear pain. It must show no signs whatsoever of weakness or tenderness. The free and magnificent predator must once again glint from their eyes.” — Adolf Hitler

Source Hitler quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Gespräche mit Hitler (New York, 1940), p. 237.

“At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man’s mastery of nature, and announcing he would soon have dominion over space … In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress.” — Adolf Hitler, 11 July 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), pp. 5-6.


“The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 3.


“Among the Spartans all newly born children were subject to a careful examination or selection. All those that were weak, sickly, or affected with any bodily infirmity, were killed. Only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live, and they alone afterwards propagated the race.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 170.

“Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Book (New York: Grove Press, 1961, p. 18.

“For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 4.


“The völkisch concept of the world recognizes that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind. Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature’s operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 13.


“Mental differences between the lowest men and the animals are less than those between the lowest and the highest man.” — Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

Source: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation, vol. 2, p. 366.

“Difference which exists between the lowest, so-called men, and the other higher races is greater than between the lowest men and the highest apes.” — Adolf Hitler

Source: Hitler quoted in Heinz Bruecher, Ernst Haeckels Bluts- und Geisteserbe (München: Lehmann, 1936), p. 91.


“The German people have always shown their great love of animals and the question of animal protection was always near their hearts. For thousands of years the German people have always looked upon their household and farmyard animals as their companions, in the case of horses as their fighting companions, and as God’s creatures. To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached. …Under the influence of foreign conceptions of justice and a strange comprehension of law, through the unhappy fact that the exercise of justice was in the hands of people alien to the nation (i.e., Jews) — because of all these conditions, until now, the animal was considered a dead thing under the law.” — Hermann Goering, August 1933

Source: Hermann Goering, The Political Testament of Hermann Goering. Tr. H.W. Blood Hermann (London: John Lang, 1939), pp. 70f.

See English translation of text of 1933 Nazi law on animal rights.


“The external appearance of any construction projects that are created during the time of the National Socialist Reich must take on the sensibility of our time. Factories are the workplaces of our National Socialist racial comrades. Streets and highways carry the name of the Führer. Settlements today are not isolated communities, but rather parts of greater city-construction plans. Every work site must be properly located within its neighborhood and surrounding setting (i.e., the natural world).” — Fritz Todt

Source: Deutsche Technik, May 1938, p. 209.

“We do not build speedways, but roads which correspond to the character of the German landscape.” — Fritz Todt

Source: Fritz Todt, “Vortrag in der Leipzig-Hochschule am 6.2.1934” in Die Autobahn, 4/1934, p. 125.

“For decades engineers have stood accused that their buildings do not have any cultural value. We have attempted to liberate engineering of this accusation. As National Socialists we are dedicated to working with boldness, but also with love of the Volk and our landscape in mind. These roads do not serve transportation alone, they also bind our Fatherland. In these highways our engineering will reflect the National Socialist movement.” — Fritz Todt

Source: Deutsche Technik, June 1935, p. 270.

“The German landscape is something unique that we cannot disturb and have no right to destroy. The more densely populated our ‘living space’ becomes with settlements, the greater our hunger will grow for unspoilt nature. The ever increasing spiritual damage caused by life within the big city will make this hunger practically uncontrollable … when we build here on this the landscape of our homeland we must be clear that we will protect its beauty; and in places where this beauty has already disappeared, we will reconstruct it.” — Fritz Todt

Source: Franz W. Seidler, Fritz Todt: Baumeister des Dritten Reiches (München: F.A. Herbig, 1986), p. 113.


“War has returned to its primitive form … Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to he who conquers them.” — Adolf Hitler, 10 October 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), p. 51.

“Despite all its efforts, the side [in war] that hasn’t got the natural riches must end by going under. The world’s wealth is boundless, and only a quarter of the surface of the globe is at present at humanity’s disposal. It is for this quarter that everyone is fighting. And its all in the natural order or things — for it makes for the survival of the fittest.” — Adolf Hitler, 13 October 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), pp. 53f.

“From now on, one may consider that there is no gap between the organic and inorganic worlds.” — Adolf Hitler, 24 October 1941

Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944. tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), p. 84f.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »