FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

'Rewilding' - Nazi programme to reintroduce killer species?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The War On Children, Marriage and the Family
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2948
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:59 pm    Post subject: 'Rewilding' - Nazi programme to reintroduce killer species? Reply with quote

When the Nazis Tried to Bring Animals Back From Extinction
Their ideology of genetic purity extended to aspirations about reviving a pristine landscape with ancient animals and forests
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-nazis-tried-bring-animals- back-extinction-180962739/

Aurochs
Aurochs illustration from Sigismund von Herberstein's book published in 1556 (Wikimedia Commons)
By Lorraine Boissoneault
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
MARCH 31, 2017
Born to the director of the Berlin Zoo, Lutz Heck seemed destined for the world of wildlife. But instead of simply protecting animals, Heck had a darker relationship with them: he hunted and experimented with them.

In the new movie The Zookeeper’s Wife (based on a nonfiction book of the same title by Diane Ackerman), Heck is the nemesis of Warsaw zookeepers Antonina and Jan Zabinski, who risk their lives to hide Jews in cages that once held animals. All told, the couple smuggled around 300 Jewish people through their zoo. Not only was Heck tasked with pillaging the Warsaw Zoo for animals that could be sent to Germany, he was also at work on project that began before the Nazis came to power: reinvent nature by bringing extinct species back to life.

Lutz and his younger brother, Heinz, grew up surrounded by animals and immersed in animal breeding, beginning with small creatures like rabbits. At the same time that the boys learned more about these practices, zoologists around Europe were engaged in debates about the role of humans in preventing extinction and creating new species.

“It was kicked off by all kinds of what we would consider quite weird experiments. People were trying to breed ligers and tigons,” says Clemens Driessen, a researcher in cultural geography at Wageningen University and Research in the Netherlands.

While breeders’ imaginations ran wild with thoughts of new species to create, closer to home, European bison, known as wisent, were going extinct in the wild. Scientists began to consider the role of zoos could play in keeping the species alive—and in Germany, to combine those answers with theories about the supposed “purity” of long-gone landscapes.

Should wisent be revitalized using American bison as breeding stock? Would the resulting offspring still be considered proper bison? As they grew older, the Heck brothers were immersed in these same questions.

According to an article written by Driessen and co-author Jamie Lorimer, Heinz saw the extinction of the wisent as the natural progression of the result of nomadic tribes overhunting. His brother, on the other hand, became more and more interested in what he considered to be “primeval German game”—an interest increasingly shared by Nazis who sought a return to a mythic German past free of racial impurities.

In his autobiography Animals: My Adventure Lutz describes being fascinated by animals he associated with that mythical past, especially wisent and the formidable aurochs.

Lutz Heck with a scaly anteater, 1940
Lutz Heck with a scaly anteater, 1940 (Sueddeutsche Zeitung Photo / Alamy Stock Photo)
Aurochs were large, horned cattle that went extinct in 1627 from excessive hunting and competition from domesticated cattle. The brothers believed they could recreate the animals through back-breeding: choosing existing cattle species for the right horn shape, coloration and behavior, then breeding them until they had something approximating the original animal. This was before the discovery of DNA’s double helix, so everything the brothers looked to for information on aurochs was from archaeological finds and written records. They believed that since modern cattle descended from aurochs, different cattle breeds contained the traces of their more ancient lineage.

“What my brother and I now had to do was to unite in a single breeding stock all those characteristics of the wild animal which are now found only separately in individual animals,” Heck wrote in his book. Their plan was the inverse of Russian experiments to create domesticated foxes through selective breeding—rather than breed forward with particular traits in mind, they thought they could breed backwards to eliminate the aspects of their phenotype that made them domesticated. (Similar experiments have been picked back up by modern scientists hoping to create aurochs once more, and by scientists trying to recreate the extinct quagga. Researchers disagree over whether this type of de-extinction is possible.)

The brothers traveled the continent, selecting everything from fighting cattle in Spain to Hungarian steppe cattle to create their aurochs. They studied skulls and cave paintings to decide what aurochs should look like, and both claimed success at reviving aurochs by the mid-1930s. Their cattle were tall with large horns and aggressive personalities, capable of surviving with limited human care, and in modern times would come to be called Heck cattle. The animals were spread around the country, living everywhere from the Munich Zoo to a forest on the modern-day border of Poland and Russia.

But despite their shared interest in zoology and animal husbandry, the brothers’ paths diverged greatly as the Nazis rose to power. In the early 1930s, Heinz was among the first people interned at Dachau as a political prisoner for suspected membership in the Communist Party and his brief marriage to a Jewish woman. Though Heinz was released, it was clear he would never be a great beneficiary of Nazi rule, nor did he seem to support their ideology focused on the purity of nature and the environment.

Lutz joined the Nazi Party early in its reign, and earned himself a powerful ally: Hermann Göring, Adolf Hilter’s second-in-command. The two men bonded over a shared interest in hunting and recreating ancestral German landscapes. Göring amassed political titles like trading cards, serving in many positions at once: he became the prime minister of Prussia, commander in chief of the Luftwaffe, and Reich Hunt Master and Forest Master. It was in this last position that he bestowed the title of Nature Protection Authority to Lutz, a close friend, in 1938.

Hermann Göring
Hermann Göring (Wikimedia Commons)
“Göring saw the opportunity to make nature protection part of his political empire,” says environmental historian Frank Uekotter. “He also used the funds [from the Nature Protection Law of 1935] for his estate.” The law, which created nature reserves, allowed for the designation of natural monuments, and removed the protection of private property rights, had been up for consideration for years before the Nazis came to power. Once the Nazis no longer had the shackles of the democratic process to hold them back, Göring quickly pushed the law through to enhance his prestige and promote his personal interest in hunting.

Lutz continued his back-breeding experiments with support from Göring, experimenting with tarpans (wild horses, whose Heck-created descendants still exist today) and wisent. Lutz’s creations were released in various forests and hunting reserves, where Göring could indulge his wish to recreate mythic scenes from the German epic poem Nibelungenlied (think the German version of Beowulf), in which the Teutonic hero Siegfried kills dragons and other creatures of the forest.

“Göring had a very peculiar interest in living a kind of fantasy of carrying spears and wearing peculiar dress,” Driessen says. “He had this eerie combination of childish fascination [with the poem] with the power of a murderous country behind it.” In practical terms, this meant seizing land from Poland, especially the vast wilderness of Białowieża Forest, then using it to create his own hunting reserves. This fit into the larger Nazi ideology of lebensraum, or living space, and a return to the heroic past.

“On the one hand National Socialism embraced modernity and instrumental rationality; something found in the Nazi emphasis on engineering, eugenics, experimental physics and applied mathematics,” write geographers Trevor Barnes and Claudio Minca. “On the other hand was National Socialism’s other embrace: a dark anti-modernity, the anti-enlightenment. Triumphed were tradition, a mythic past, irrational sentiment and emotion, mysticism, and a cultural essentialism that turned easily into dogma, prejudice, and much, much worse.”

In 1941 Lutz went to the Warsaw Zoo to oversee its transition to German hands. After selecting the species that would be most valuable to German zoos, he organized a private hunting party to dispatch with the rest. “These animals could not be recuperated for any meaningful reason, and Heck, with his companions, enjoyed killing them,” writes Jewish studies scholar Kitty Millet.

Millet sees an ominous connection to the Nazi ideology of racial purity. “The assumption was that the Nazis were the transitional state to the recovery of Aryan being,” Millet wrote in an email. In order to recover that racial purity, says Millet, “nature had to be transformed from a polluted space to a Nazi space.”

While Driessen sees little direct evidence of Lutz engaging with those ideas, at least in his published research, Lutz did correspond with Eugen Fischer, one of the architects of Nazi eugenics.

But his work creating aurochs and wisent for Göring shared the same conclusion as other Nazi projects. Allied forces killed the wild animals as they closed in on the Germans at the end of the war. Some Heck cattle descended from those that survived the end of the war in zoos still exist, and their movement around Europe has become a source of controversy that renews itself every few years. They’ve also been tagged as a possible component of larger European rewilding programs, such as the one envisioned by Stichting Taurus, a Dutch conservationist group Stichting Taurus.

With scientists like the Dutch and others considering the revival of extinct wildlife to help restore disturbed environments, Uekotter thinks Heck’s role in the Nazi Party can serve as a cautionary tale. “There is no value-neutral position when you talk about the environment. You need partners and, [compared to gridlock that happens in democracy,] there is a lure of the authoritarian regime that things are all of a sudden very simple,” Uekotter says. “The Nazi experience shows what you can end up with if you fall for this in a naïve way.”

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

Email
SIGN UP
Privacy Policy, Terms of Use

About Lorraine Boissoneault
Lorraine Boissoneault is a contributing writer to SmithsonianMag.com covering history and archaeology. She has previously written for The Atlantic, Salon, Nautilus and others. She is also the author of The Last Voyageurs: Retracing La Salle's Journey Across America. Website: http://www.lboissoneault.com/
Read more from this author | Follow @boissolm
TAGS

[/code]

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."


Last edited by Whitehall_Bin_Men on Sun May 10, 2020 9:40 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2948
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rewilding will make Britain a rainforest nation again
George Monbiot
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/25/rewilding-britai ns-rainforest-planting-trees

It will take vision and a willingness to confront vested interests, but we can restore our trashed ecosystems
Wed 25 Sep 2019 06.00 BST
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
The forests still burn, but the world now looks away. In both the Amazon basin and the rainforests of Indonesia, the world-scorching inferno rages on, already forgotten by most of the media. Intricate living systems, species that took millions of years to evolve, are being incinerated in moments, then replaced with monocultures. Giant plumes of carbon tip us further into climate breakdown. And we’re not even talking about it.
World losing area of forest the size of the UK each year, report finds
But underneath the grief and frustration, I also feel disquiet. We rightly call on other nations to protect their stunning places. But where are our rainforests? I mean this both metaphorically and literally. Out of 218 nations, the UK ranks 189th for the intactness of its living systems. Having trashed our own wildlife, our excessive demand for meat, animal feed, timber, minerals and fossil fuels helps lay waste the rest of the world.
Among our missing ecosystems are rainforests. Rainforests are not confined to the tropics: a good definition is forest wet enough to support epiphytes – plants that grow on other plants. Particularly in the west of Britain, where tiny fragments persist, you can find trees covered in rich growths of a fern called polypody, mosses and lichens, and flowering plants climbing the lower trunks. Learning that Britain is a rainforest nation astounds us only because we have so little left.
We now know that, alongside keeping fossil fuels in the ground, natural climate solutions – using the mass restoration of nature to draw down carbon from the air – offer perhaps the last remaining chance to prevent more than 1.5C, or even 2C, of global heating. Saving the remaining rainforests and other rich ecosystems, while restoring those we have lost, is not just a nice idea: our lives may depend on it. But in countries like the UK, we urge others to act while overlooking our own disasters.
Foreigners I meet are often flabbergasted by the state of our national parks. They see the sheepwrecked deserts and grousetrashed moors and ask: “What are you protecting here?” In the name of “cultural heritage” we allow harsh commercial interests, embedded in the modern economy but dependent on public money, to complete the kind of ecological cleansing we lament in the Amazon. Sheep farming has done for our rainforests what cattle ranching is doing to Brazil’s. Then we glorify these monocultures – the scoured, treeless hills – as “wild” and “unspoilt”.
The conservation groups have manifestly failed to translate our love of nature into action
When the International Union for Conservation of Nature sought to classify our national parks, it had to invent a new category. Most of the world’s national parks are category I or II: set aside principally for nature. But all of ours are category V: places where, in practice, business comes first and nature last. Much of the land in our national parks is systematically burned. In the northern parks, this destruction is wreaked by grouse estates, and in Snowdonia by farmers. But on Dartmoor and Exmoor, the park authorities do it themselves, torching wildlife, roasting the soil, pouring carbon into the skies: everything we condemn elsewhere.
The government’s new Landscapes Review is better than I expected, but its positive proposals are in no way commensurate with our ecological and climate crises. It suggests that England’s national parks and other protected landscapes should “have a renewed mission to recover and enhance nature … simply sustaining what we have is not nearly good enough”. But it does not argue that any of our parks should aim for something better than category V. Nor does it recommend that burning should cease, or that farming should withdraw from some places to allow rainforests and other rich habitats to recover. Where is the ambition our emergencies demand?
We urgently need more trees, but we appear to believe that the only means of restoring them is planting. We have a national obsession with tree planting, which is in danger of becoming as tokenistic as bamboo toothbrushes and cotton tote bags. In many places rewilding, or natural regeneration – allowing trees to seed and spread themselves – is much faster and more effective, and tends to produce far richer habitats.
Burning gorse on Dartmoor. Photograph: Marc Hill/Alamy
All over the country, I see “conservation woodlands” that look nothing like ecological restoration and everything like commercial forestry: the ground blasted with glyphosate (a herbicide that kills everything), trees planted in straight rows, in plastic tree guards attached with cable ties to treated posts. It looks hideous, it takes decades to begin to resemble a natural forest and, in remote parts of the nation, it is often the primary cause of plastic litter, much of which is never recovered. There are no woodland creation grants in this country supporting natural regeneration: public money is pegged exclusively to the number of trees planted. This is one of the reasons for the shocking failure to meet the UK’s targets for new woodlands.
The government should follow the hierarchical approach suggested by the conservationist Steve Jones. It should fund natural regeneration wherever possible. Where trees struggle to establish themselves, it should finance assisted regeneration (clearing competing vegetation). Only where those options won’t work should it offer grants for tree planting. But while nature loves a mess, officialdom abhors one: instead of natural exuberance it seeks neat industrial rows.
Don’t expect much help from politicians. Michael Gove’s successor as environment secretary, Theresa Villiers, seems tongue-tied, apparently terrified of offending vested interests. Labour’s vote for a Green New Deal, with a 2030 deadline for decarbonisation (20 years before the government’s) is exciting. But we now need to see its commitments on industrial emissions matched by ambitious proposals for ecological restoration.
Grow your own forest: how to plant trees to help save the planet
Nor are the big conservation groups filling the void. Ours is an extraordinary situation: a nation of nature lovers, obsessed by wildlife programmes, represented by gigantic NGOs, but apparently incapable of preventing the precipitous decline of wildlife and habitats. The conservation groups have manifestly failed to translate our love of nature into action.
They betray their radical roots. The National Trust arose from the Commons Preservation Society, that tore down fences to return land to the people. Now it allows the forces it once contested to ride roughshod over its land, allowing trail hunts and exclusive grouse shoots to erode the sense of national ownership. On its Exmoor estate, in the resource book it publishes for school teachers, it celebrates burning the land. The RSPB was founded by women seeking to ban the import of birds’ plumage for hats – they eventually succeeded. Now, as independent ecologists raise massive petitions to ban driven grouse shooting, the RSPB undermines their campaigns by calling for this devastating practice to be, er, licensed. Hesitation and appeasement reign.
We should continue to mobilise against the destruction of the world’s great habitats, and its terrifying implications. But the most persuasive argument we can make is to show we mean it, by restoring our own lost wonders.
• George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 17628
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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

https://oldmanoftheski.com/2017/11/30/the-nazi-roots-of-the-environmen tal-movement/

----- Forwarded message -----
From: "bonnie@riseup.net" <bonnie@riseup.net>
To: Landjusticeuk <landjusticeuk@lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Friday, 6 March 2020, 21:57:17 GMT+13
Subject: [landjusticeuk] land and ecological crisis meeting March 28

Hi,
The People's Land Policy project is organising a meeting to discuss what
kind of land use and what policies we need to combat climate change and
enhance biodiversity and rewilding. It is on the 28th of March at the
New Economics Foundation in London. Programme includes speakers from the
London Mining Network, Anti-Coal Network, Friends of the Earth and the
Woodland Trust.
All details and registration- see below.



https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/land-and-the-ecological-crisis-tickets- 91114446763

Regards,
Bonnie
---
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 17628
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

THE NAZI ROOTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT
On November 30, 2017 By Steve Busch
https://oldmanoftheski.com/2017/11/30/the-nazi-roots-of-the-environmen tal-movement/

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

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

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

“In fact, the Nazis actually believed that the sick modern world of both international capitalism and communism, led by Jews and spread by Christianity, was entirely disobedient to Nature.”
[Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]

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

“Their ideology of genetic purity extended to aspirations about reviving a pristine landscape with ancient animals and forests.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-nazis-tried-bring-animals-b ack-extinction-180962739/#wvUkVlhhUgExszwp.99

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

“The Reich Nature Protection Act even allowed the expropriation of private property without compensation for the sake of the environment. Sustainable forestry practices called Dauerwald, which ironically means “eternal” forest, were also introduced at the federal level.”
[Mark Musser- Hitler’s Green Killing Machine c. 2010]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is far more to the REWILDING agenda than meets the eye. Just like their NAZI mentors, modern environmentalists seek the power to create a world of their own making. They will be merciless in carrying out their eco-fascist agenda if they are allowed to succeed in their fanatical quest to obtain complete political control.

Sources for this article:

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

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/hitlers-green-killing-machine/

http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/questions/much-land-earth-inhabited/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-nazis-tried-bring-animals- back-extinction-180962739/

http://natureneedshalf.org/

http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/glc-share-doc.pdf

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 17628
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will Reanimation of Extinct Large Carnivores Drive Humans From Western USA?
Rewilding Network—Saving Globe Through Big Wilderness: Another UN Agenda 21 Hoax

https://canadafreepress.com/article/rewilding-network-saving-globe-thr ough-big-wilderness-another-un-agenda-21

By Kelly OConnell —— Bio and Archives--August 7, 2012

Attempts to fathom the United Nation’s “Sustainable Development” program Agenda 21 mean continually peering behind the facade of a thousand “harmless” organizations and programs. This because Agenda 21 is ostensibly socialist dogma seeking creation of world collectivist hegemony on land use, human population size, capitalism and consumption of electricity and water. Since transparent socialism was unable to ever attract a majority in America, these programs must always fly below the radar.

Ironically, Agenda 21 is itself transparently directed towards extreme remedies for the “problem” of mankind. Such ideas as reducing human populations and relocating them near industry, while revoking property ownership rights are the remedies proposed for humanity’s errors. In particular “re-wilding”—or returning huge tracts of land to pristine status while restoring all former animal groups—is one of the most dramatically anti-human ideas ever conceived, defined by one author:

Rewilding is “the scientific argument for restoring big wilderness based on the regulatory roles of large predators,” according to Soul and Reed Noss in their landmark 1998 Wild Earth article “Rewilding and Biodiversity.”

Rewilding is ultimately about property rights. In transferring large tracts of land (aka Big Wilderness) into government hands it thereby cancels any rights of the original owners. This is, in fact, the entire goal of rewilding large, dangerous carnivores—to take away mankind’s property rights to big parcels of land so the elite caste might macro-manage earth according to their dictates. In this way, progressives like eco-terrorist godfather Dave Foreman hope to embargo all constitutional rights and drive mankind into the cold, hopeless servility of the state.
I. What is “Rewilding”?

The term “rewilding” was coined by Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!—one of the most radical and violent environmentalists in history. Foreman’s book, Rewilding North America: A Vision For Conservation In The 21St Century, is a primary codex for those seeking a radical reduction of humanity’s presence on earth. The Rewilding Institute elucidates Dave Foreman’s book:

Three major scientific arguments constitute rewilding, justifying emphasis on large predators.

The structure, resilience, and diversity of ecosystems are maintained by “top-down” ecological (trophic) interactions initiated by top predators.
Wide-ranging predators usually require large cores of protected landscape for foraging, seasonal movements, and other needs; they justify bigness.
Connectivity is also required because core reserves are typically not large enough in most regions; they must be linked to insure long-term viability of wide-ranging species…

In short, the rewilding argument posits that large predators are often instrumental in maintaining the integrity of ecosystems. Overall, large predators require big space and connectivity.

A congressional example is found in U.S. Congress - H.R. 5101 Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2010, calling for “wild animal bridges and tunnels, and increasing roadless areas.”
II. Rewilding Mission: Reintroducing Large Carnivores

It’s no surprise the rewilding plan to reintroduce expurgated classes of large carnivores onto the American continent will drive out humans. Further, this expulsion of humans from vast land tracts ought not be seen as anything but the ultimate intent of the rewilding project, as its planner admit. This large carnivore reintroduction goal is explained here:

If native large carnivores have been killed out of a region, their reintroduction and recovery is the heart of a conservation strategy. Wolves, cougars, lynx, wolverines, grizzly and black bears, jaguars, sea otters, and other top carnivores need restoration throughout North America in ecologically effective densities in their natural ranges where suitable habitat remains or can be restored. Without the goal of rewilding for large areas with large carnivores, we are closing our eyes to what conservation really means—and demands.

III. Reintroducing Extinct Megafauna—Pleistocene Rewilding

Perhaps the most jaw-dropping part of the rewilding plan involves reintroducing long-gone American animal groups back onto the North American continent. This could happen in several ways. The first would be to reintroduce former indigenous species who once roamed our land—such as elephants and the (wooly) rhinoceros. The second, reminiscent of a sci-fi movie, would be to find DNA materials to recreate extinct animal groups. For example, under this plan, well-preserved extinct animals—such as glacier-bound woolly mammoths, recently disappeared passenger pigeons, or the La Brea Tarpits’ saber toothed cats could be raised as fetuses from scratch. On this Science Daily published: A Plan For Reintroducing Megafauna To North America:

Dozens of megafauna (large animals over 100 pounds)—such as giant tortoises, horses, elephants, and cheetah—went extinct in North America13,000 years ago during the end of the Pleistocene. As is the case today in Africa and Asia, these megafauna likely played keystone ecological roles via predation, herbivory, and other processes. What are the consequences of losing such important components of America’s natural heritage?

In The American Naturalist, 12 scientists provide a detailed proposal for the restoration of North America’s lost megafauna. Using the same species from different locales or closely related species as analogs, their project “Pleistocene Rewilding” is conceived as carefully managed experiments in an attempt to learn about and partially restore important natural processes to North American ecosystems present for millennia until humans played a significant role in their demise 13,000 years ago.

As to the cloning of extinct magafauna, one writer says this—The Mammoth in Glen Canyon:

French explorer Bernard Buigues and Larry Agenbroad, Northern Arizona University hope that Jarkov Wooly Mammoth sitting inside a 23-ton block of ice will contain flesh sample with some perfectly preserved DNA. That and some proven cloning technology could resurrect a long-gone species.

What Buigues and his team would do is something similar to the process that created the famous sheep Dolly: extracting the nucleus of one adult mammoth cell and inserting it into an empty egg cell. The embryo would then be implanted in the uterus of an Asian elephant, the mammoth’s closest living relative, a surrogate mother that would gestate it as its own but without transferring to the baby any of the elephant’s genes.

IV. Goals of Rewilding

The goals of Rewilding are staggering, summed up at The Wildlands Project:

The Wildlands Project goal is to set aside approximately 50% of the North American continent (Turtle Island) as “wild land” for the preservation of biological diversity.

The project seeks this by creating “reserve networks” across the continent. Reserves are made up of the following:
Cores, created from public lands such as National Forest and Parks
Buffers, often created from private land adjoining the cores to provide additional protection
Corridors, a mix of public and private lands usually following along rivers and wildlife migration routes
The primary characteristics of core areas are large size (100,000 to 25 million acres), allowing for little, if any, human use.
The primary characteristics of buffers are that they allow for limited human use so long as they are “managed with native biodiversity as a preeminent concern.”
Moral and ethical guidelines for the Wildlands Project are based on the philosophy of Deep Ecology. (Minimization of personal property and possessions)
The platform of Deep Ecology is summarized as follows:
All life (human and non-human) has equal value.
Resource consumption above what is needed to supply “vital” human needs is immoral.
Human population must be reduced
Western civilization must radically change present economic, technological, and ideological structures.
Believers have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.

V. Anarcho Rewilding: Green Nihilism

Rewilding exposes roots of doctrinaire Marxism. For example, the final stage of Marx’s Dialectic of History is the emergence of a benign anarchy. The Green movement therefore pushes anarcho-rewilding as a way to sow chaos into human history to cause anarchy to result. Says one site:

Rewilding is the process of undoing domestication. In green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism, humans are said to be “domesticated” by civilization. Supporters of such human rewilding argue that through the process of domestication, our wildness has been tamed and taken from us. Rewilding, then, is about overcoming our domestication and returning to our innate wildness. Though often associated with primitive skills and relearning knowledge of wild plants and animals, it emphasizes primal living as a holistic reality rather than just a number of skills or specific type of knowledge. Rewilding is most associated with green anarchy and anarcho-primitivism or anti-civilization anarchy in general…

VI. Criticisms of Rewilding:

A fair analysis of rewilding efforts exposes profound problems in the doctrine and practice. Here are a few obvious issues.
A. Danger

Rewilding would create clear danger for any residents of North America, especially with the reintroduction of large carnivores from Africa or Asia—such as lions and cheetahs. This risk would only increase with reanimation and release of such exotic beasts as extinct saber-toothed tigers.
B. Anachronistic Heresy

It is a specie of the Naturalist Fallacy that North America should be returned to the habitat existing 13,000 years ago before mankind became preeminent. This fallacy claims that everything in its “natural state” is better than any alternative. But if that were the case, creating vaccines against such dangerous menaces like whooping cough and polio would be immoral or stupid. Further, such attempts at re-balancing a long-dead ecosystem could create an environmental disaster of epic proportions, given how little we know of these extinct beasts, their habits and diseases.
C. Agenda 21 & Property Rights

Perhaps the most pernicious aspects of the entire rewilding plan is its ideological origin. For rewilding is simply an application of Agenda 21, the UN’s audacious attempt to turn the globe socialist (see A Brief History & Description of Agenda 21). So no natural logic or necessity supports the plan, just simplistic Marxism. Further, to accept this policy means giving up our constitutional rights to own property and for due process of law. Finally, socialism never works in actual practice so why adopt a failed ideology?

Many progressive groups, such as the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, toil to put vast stretches of American land under the whip-hand of government control (see Shady Details of Marxist “Earth” Organizations: NM Wilderness Alliance). And the Rewilding Institute’s demand for large carnivores naturally needs massive land tracts to hope to succeed—what a coincidence!
D. Anti-biblical

Finally, rewilding is a stunning rebuke to the Genesis account where God gives mankind charge of the earth, aka the Dominion Mandate, found in Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”



Kelly OConnell -- Bio and Archives

Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The War On Children, Marriage and the Family All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group