National Socialism and animal rights
By
Klas Lund
[email protected]
Leader of the resistance movement
We often receive questions via email. One question that has come back now and then is how we National Socialists look at animal rights. Klas Lund responds.
It is probably safe to say that the National Socialist Germany was the country where animal rights and environmental issues first became successful impact of policy and legislation. By comparison, it is clear that many countries in the world still, nearly 80 years later, does not have any laws that protect animals from abuse and that it is still only in northern Europe as animal rights legislation has come a long way.
National Socialism was developed early on an organic view of the world, as opposed to the prevalent human-centered (anthropocentric) and the geocentric world view which we largely inherited from Judaism and Christianity.
This anthropocentric worldview followed the view of the animals that created only to serve the people. The animals lacked "soul" and was just a kind of machinery (the Church, Pope Pius IX, Descartes and others). National Socialism was opposed of course to this anthropocentric approach. Under National Socialism, man is also an animal - albeit higher standing - and therefore part of the natural order and must follow the laws of nature. Man was thus not automatically more valuable than the other animals. The National Socialist Germany was a pioneer when it introduced where animal welfare laws that protected the animals from being subjected to painful experiments, which protected them from painful slaughter. It also introduced proper wildlife management laws. The basic idea was not that the animals would be protected because we humans would benefit from it, but the animals would be protected for its own sake.
Too many "anti-Nazis" was this view of man as part of nature dangerous because a revaluation of the animals necessarily led to a devaluation of human beings in the natural order, and thus, according to these critics indirectly paved the way for the alleged genocide of the Jews. This is certainly a recurring argument among those who criticize the Nazi animal rights policy. A related argument sometimes used against "environmental zealots" because based on the finding that the human species has overpopulated the Earth and thus destroying the world's ecosystems, necessarily (by rational individuals) must also come to the conclusion that people are just too many and that our number must be reduced to one or Another way for that life on earth will be saved.
For the Christians, and for the non-Christians in the West, who inherited the anthropocentric view, human life is considered "sacred", as being more valuable than other animals. But we understand of course that no objective basis for this does not exist, but only rooted in our subjective perspective, people. We simply require special existential rights of our own species based on an idea of "chosenness."
We Swedes should be proud of our great scientist Carl Linnaeus was one of the first who dared to go against the prevailing dogma when he claimed that man belonged to the primates, and therefore was an animal. Despite criticism from contemporary Christian authorities claimed that the animals could also be considered to have a soul and that they should be treated well.
We are born into this world and it was not us who decided its fundamental laws. We humans (at least until the development of our modern farming techniques), just like other animals, are forced to kill to live. But we are forced to kill in the struggle for survival does not mean we have the right to cause other creatures unnecessary suffering. On the contrary, we are as högstående people, obliged to treat living creatures decent.
By decent, I mean that we treat other living things as well as possible for the circumstances involved. As long as we are carnivores, we will be forced to kill other animals for this purpose. But keeping animals in an unworthy or painful way to maximize profits is completely reprehensible. Keeping animals in captivity for the production of luxury goods, I also completely unacceptable. I am thinking of the mink farms which are still allowed in our country.
In the Nordic countries have animal rights issues garnered some success. But in other parts of the world is absolutely no legal or moral protection to animals. It is very difficult for us to even understand how badly animals are treated in other cultures and many people would probably not even pretend about what is going on and put on their blinkers. I recently read an article about how some animal rights group in China managed to document how raccoons skinned alive for their fur. The day before I happened upon an article about a female bear, also in China, who first had killed her own child and then himself in order to escape life in captivity, where they regularly emptied her and her youngster's gall bladder to produce any kind of medicine. I did not read the article until the end. These two news made me feel sick for several days. And this from a nuclear-armed communist dictatorship that capital is now claiming to save our economy ... How low have we sunk?
Animal experiments involving some form of suffering of animals should of course be completely prohibited. I do not think we can justify painful experiments on animals in order to provide people with drugs. Even less for other products! We simply try to solve this research in another way, no matter if it costs us more money. Cruelty to animals is today far too low penalty. In a National Socialist State had animal cruelty considered a very serious offense. It is my personal opinion that people who are guilty of serious cases of animal cruelty has forfeited its right to exist.
Finally, I am of the firm opinion that a National Socialist society must work hard and purposefully for a resettlement of many people to the countryside. We must prevent the current trend towards larger farms. The National Socialist state must pursue small-scale agriculture and a greater self-catering. The state must have a very well developed system of control of animal husbandry and slaughter and instead of large centralized slaughterhouses, we should try to develop local production and consumption, and strive to animals in the future slaughtered on farm and not transported away from the environment where they lived and feel safe. On the whole, we should fight the industrialization of agriculture and animal husbandry, which also includes strict prohibitions against GMOs, artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides.
https://www.nordfront.se/nationalsoc...h-djurratt.smr Google-translated https