National Socialism and Animal Rights

“Cruelty against animals will and must disappear…” Hermann Göring’s polemical attack against vivisection, and the full text of the Reich Animal Welfare Act of 1933

There is an interesting segment in Rudolf Jung’s 1922 treatise on National Socialist ideology, in the chapter titled “The Tasks of Municipal Policy,” where the author suggests various grass-roots reforms which the National Socialist movement should pursue. Included among the predictable suggestions for improved housing, sanitation, road repair, social measures, etc., is a section on “Animal Welfare” in which Jung posits that “animal welfare is also human welfare” since “animal abusers above all have a predisposition towards criminality.” The inclusion of animal welfare among core policy demands is curious but does not derive from any idiosyncrasy on Jung’s part, being a consequence instead of the fact that some of National Socialism’s ideological roots lay within the racial völkisch movement, which itself had evolved out of the ‘life-reform movement’ (Lebensreformbewegung) of the late 19th century – a very loose collection of social-reformist groups whose disparate adherents had advocated a wide variety of often-faddish causes (temperance, athletics, nudism, vegetarianism, homeopathy, paganism, communal living, astrology, land reform, animal rights, etc.) as a means of improving the German people’s quality-of-life. National Socialism inherited from the völkisch and life-reform movements a utopian reverence for the natural world, a powerful suspicion of urbanization, and the ‘progressive’ view that man was an animal like any other – a “domesticated animal,” to be sure, but still an animal. The combination of these perspectives led to a general rejection of the Christian teaching that man possessed a higher status than animals; for National Socialists, it was the acceptance of such a notion which had helped alienate man from his natural surroundings, opening the door to highly destructive forces (capitalism, materialism, unchecked industrialization and urbanization) and to the development of a harmful moral code entirely divorced from the Natural Order that guided all other living things. As a result it was man’s duty to protect and to respect animals wherever he could, a principle which the NSDAP rather strikingly put into practice after achieving power in 1933 by making Germany one of the first nations in the world to introduce comprehensive national legislation protecting animals from abuse and regulating their general treatment. Translated below are two examples of this somewhat neglected aspect of National Socialist ideology. The first is a transcript of Hermann Göring’s famous radio broadcast of August 1933, in which Göring outlines in detail the NS movement’s vehement opposition to vivisection (experimentation on living animals) and the measures the Hitler government proposed to take against it. The second is the complete text of the Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich Animal Protection Act) of November 1933, which sets out the government’s provisions for the treatment of animals and the punishments to be dispensed towards those who abuse them.

The Struggle against Vivisection
Hermann Göring
Radio broadcast speech of 28th August, 1933.


“To equate the animal with an inanimate object and to grant the owner absolute right of disposal over it is not in accordance with German sensibilities; above all it it not in accordance with the National Socialist worldview as the intellectual outlook of the German people.”

Folk-comrades! Since the day on which I first issued my decree against the cruelty to animals that is vivisection, I have received a flood of telegrams and letters expressing great delight and the most spirited approval for the fact that aggressive steps have finally been taken to combat this abuse against animals.1 My decree striking so suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, may have come as something of a surprise. The struggle against vivisection has been going on for years. Much has been said and quarreled about it, in both scientific and unscientific forms, but nothing has yet been done. From day one the National Socialist government was clear that energetic measures had to be taken against it, yet that it would take months before such a law, with all of its preparation, could be passed.

In order to prevent the torture of animals from spreading any further during this period of preparation, I have now intervened with this decree and have exercised my vested right to impose protective custody in a concentration camp upon those who still believe that they can treat animals as inanimate commodities.

The German Volk have always had a particular affection for animals, and have always treated the issue of animal welfare with special attention. They have always regarded animals as God’s creatures, especially those which for thousands of years have been their companions at home and on the farm, yes, in some respects one could say their coworkers and – one need only consider horses here – their comrades-in-arms. Animals, for the German people, are not only living beings in the organic sense, but creatures that lead their own emotional lives, that feel pain and show joy, loyalty, and devotion. It would never have been in accordance with our national sentiment to equate the animal with an inanimate, lifeless, and unfeeling thing, to regard the animal merely as an insentient and soulless object of exploitation, as an implement of labor that can perhaps be utilized for reasons of utility, and that can also be tormented or destroyed on the same utilitarian grounds. The fables and legends of the Aryan peoples, particularly those of the German Volk, demonstrate this spirit of solidarity shown by Aryan man.

It is all the more incomprehensible that previous jurisprudence has not been in conformity with national sentiment on this matter, as well as in many other areas. Under the influence of foreign legal opinions and foreign legal concepts, under the influence of the unfortunate reality that the administration of justice had passed into the hands of foreign elements, a judiciary was able to exist until today which legally equated the animal with an inanimate object – a judiciary which gave the animal’s owner all the rights which he possesses over any other inanimate article in his possession. To equate the animal with an inanimate object and to grant its owner absolute right of disposal over it is not in accordance with German sensibilities; above all it is not in accordance with the National Socialist worldview as the intellectual outlook of the German people. That its owner could destroy it within his own four walls like any other inanimate object without there being any legal grounds for punishment, or that he could even abuse it for his own wretched motives, this we cannot understand.

Until the National Socialist uprising, law-making confined itself to punishing violence and brutality against animals only if they resulted in a public outcry. Hence there needed to be witnesses, other people, taking umbrage against animal abuse. Only then would there be any possibility of punishment. The draft penal code of 1927 sought to break with this conception, to make cruelty against animals a punishable offence; however, it incorporated within its rationale the inference that procedures on animals were not to be regarded as torture if they were conducted merely from a religious or scientific standpoint. This is a poor and inadequate framing, which neither does justice to the need for a comprehensive, fundamental protection of animals from torture, nor gives any clear indication as to what extent procedures on animals may be carried out for scientific purposes.

The utilization of animals for scientific purposes also cannot be left to the discretion of any individual who feels himself compelled to conduct experiments. Operating on animals in order to diagnose diseases in humans, to develop medicines, or for purposes of research, likewise requires detailed legal regulation and oversight by the state. The fact is, unfortunately, that it has been a hallmark of science in past decades both before and after the War, with its materialistic thinking motivated by raw chemistry and physics and with the protection offered it by the inadequate legal situation, that it has far exceeded tolerable levels for the German people in the type and scope of its animal experiments. It is not only French experimenters like the infamous Claude Fernar who have conducted experiments whose cruelty can no longer possibly be correlated with any intended benefit, but German scientists as well – most of whom, admittedly, have been racial aliens. The fact that any feeling of emotion was blunted or generally non-existent within the behavior of these largely isolated, again mostly foreign scientists, is demonstrated via examples from past scientific literature, in which – without any trace of human compassion – anaesthesia-free torture of the worst kind is described: operations without sedation, as well as burns, frostbite, hunger, and the like.

Vivisection, the dissection of a living, unanaesthetised animal, was made use of. Laboratory animals – rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and (perhaps most repugnant of all to national sentiment) even dogs, the companion of man – have had their bodies sliced apart, their hearts exposed, their skulls chiseled open, their limbs severed, all in order to observe how their organs work and what consequences arise after they are lost. It is incomprehensible to the sensibilities of National Socialism, but unfortunately it is a fact, that in many instances the perfectly feasible anaesthesia of an animal before its operation was not carried out, or was not carried out with the requisite care, since it was considered merely an animal.

It remains debatable as to what extent such vivisections have proven necessary and useful in prior decades for our understanding of the structure and life of the human body. Today, at any rate, even science itself takes the position that the agonizing slaughter of animals via vivisection can no longer further our present knowledge. More and more has science quashed such experiments. All the more reason, then, for a fundamental, decisive ban on vivisection, an edict not only for the love of animals and for consideration for their suffering, but also for common humanity. Animal welfare is necessary not only to protect the animal; with it we fight simultaneously against impetuous apathy, human brutality, cruelty to animals, and their suffering.

I have therefore pronounced an immediate ban on all vivisection within Prussia and have made it a punishable offense – which means, for the present, offenders being subject to the penalty of removal to a concentration camp until the law itself can stipulate severe penalties in this area. I have charged the relevant Prussian ministers with ensuring that a draft law along these lines is drawn up as quickly as possible, and I can already announce today that the Reich Ministry of the Interior responsible for this task will ensure that such a law is passed within the next few weeks.

Vivisection, however, does not encompass every feasible form of needless animal cruelty. Scientific experiments of an agonizing nature as well as cruelty against animals, as they play out in daily life, both require fresh legal provisions. The fact that the entire issue of animal protection legislation will at long last be regulated consistently and commendably will be the result of questions of animal welfare being dealt with by experts, something suggested by my decree.

It now must be and will be the task of experts to determine in detail, and to what extent, procedures on animals are still generally required in order to help identify diseases in humans, to produce medicines, and to foster progress. I am thinking here of methods for detecting serious epidemics and infectious diseases which are equally as threatening to humans as they are to animals. If there is no possibility of discovering the causative agent of such diseases through microscopic investigation, with this instead being possible only via animal experimentation, then such experiments may be employed with the use of anaesthesia and safeguards. The extraction of blood from animals in order to produce an antiserum from that blood serves to directly combat the most dangerous of human diseases. However, the minor procedures required for this cannot be described as animal cruelty or vivisection, because they primarily serve the larger goal of combating the most serious infectious diseases. For example, let us only consider the experiences of war, what indispensable help the serum proved in the struggle against tetanus and gas gangrene. If a blood sample is taken conscientiously then the animal will not be harmed in any way whatsoever. Even when the danger is particularly great, people will at any moment give up some of their own blood in order to be able to help their fellow human beings.

If animal experiments on pigs helped facilitate the discovery of the drug Germanin,2 which is named after Germany and which is recognized worldwide as the only effective treatment against the terrible sleeping sickness, then it is understandable for this medicine to continue to be tested on animals for its reliability. But these tests also must be carried out under the necessary safeguards and under the required anaesthetic.

Medicines which are produced from animal organs – such as insulin, the most effective means of combating diabetes and a drug whose manufacture and sale the industries of civilized countries are struggling over today – can usually only be tested on animals for their efficacy, since they cannot otherwise be tested in terms of raw chemistry.

Significant nutritional deficiency illnesses like scurvy could also only have been identified through animal experiments. It is hoped that such nutritional tests will continue to advance the important field that is the redevelopment of our diet.

I do not wish to enlarge upon these examples in detail. They are a testament to our science’s successful work. But even with the procedures on animals required for these, everything that is not urgently necessary must be stopped, and all operations must be carried out with the greatest possible care. Anaesthesia and analgesia, if they are to serve science and thus human beings, must not only be of benefit to people during operations, but must also benefit animals to the same extent and with the same level of care. Those animals with whom we form special bonds, such as dogs and cats, must be spared from any experiments that can be accomplished using other, inferior animals. The rat, a parasite which is to be exterminated in any case, is certainly more resistant to pain and less partaking of our compassion than man’s household pets. But in these experiments, too, the same care, the same clemency must nonetheless prevail, and these experiments are also to be permitted only to the extent that they are indispensably essential for mankind.

The group of people permitted to conduct such experiments must be limited to serious scientists and the institutes they manage, so that the only procedures carried out are those from which suffering humanity can expect to see progress in its healing. But here again the state must provide oversight, the state must intervene when abuse takes place. For teaching purposes, meanwhile, animal experiments can broadly be replaced by pictures and by film screenings.

The conference of experts on science and animal welfare which I have now convoked will clarify all such details, and will submit its proposals to me. I have intentionally appointed primarily those experts who have campaigned for animal welfare for years, who for years have fought passionately against the cruelty of vivisection, in order to provide them with an opportunity to prepare clear wording for the upcoming prospective legislation. For decades now the struggle between those who have long recognized the need for animal protection and those who would ruthlessly make use of animals for human purposes has been a perpetual bone of contention. It is unacceptable for anyone who studies medicine to believe that they can improve their knowledge in the first instance by conducting a more or less successful experiment on any given animal.

Through the new legal regulations which I have introduced we will finally be able to reach a solution to this burning issue. In this way we will once again bring about the formation of inner peace within a segment of our German cultural life. What is necessary will remain; what is unnecessary, deleterious vivisection and cruelty against animals, will and must disappear, so that the consensus which is so essential for the development of our internal and external political life may also be achieved.


Animal Welfare Act
Passed 28th November, 1933.

The Reich government has passed the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

Section I
Animal Cruelty


(1) It is prohibited to needlessly abuse an animal, or to roughly mistreat it.

(2) An animal is abused when someone causes it significant pain or suffering of a prolonged or repetitive nature; abuse is needless unless it serves a reasonable, justifiable purpose. An animal is mistreated when someone causes it significant pain; mistreatment is considered rough when it arises out of a callous disposition.

Section II
Regulations for the Protection of Animals


It is prohibited,

1. to neglect an animal in terms of its rearing, care, accommodation, or during its transportation, such that it suffers significant pain or serious harm as a result;

2. to needlessly utilize an animal for labor that is manifestly beyond its strength, or that causes it significant pain, or that it is unable to cope with owing to its present condition;

3. to utilize an animal for training, film recordings, exhibitions, or similar activities, insofar as they are associated with significant pain or with serious, adverse harm to the animal’s health.

4. to sell or to purchase a domesticated animal that is frail, sick, worn-down, or old, and whose continued existence constitutes torture, for any purpose other than an immediate, painless termination;

5. to abandon one’s own household pet as a means of disposing of the animal;

6. to train dogs, or to test their abilities, by using live cats, foxes, or any other animals;

7. to crop the ears or tail of a dog over two weeks old. Cropping is permissible if carried out under anaesthesia;

8. to crop (dock) the root of a horse’s tail. Cropping is permitted if it is carried out by a veterinarian under anaesthesia, in order to remedy a bad habit or a disease of the tail root;

9. to undertake a painful procedure on an animal in an improper manner or without anaesthesia. Castration is to be regarded as a painful procedure on horses, on cattle and pigs over three months old, and on sexually mature rams and goats. Anaesthesia is not required if the pain associated with a procedure is only marginal, if anaesthesia is generally not used in the same or similar procedures on humans, or if use of an anaesthetic does not appear viable in individual cases according to veterinary discretion;

10. to kill a farm-kept, fur-bearing animal other than under anaesthesia or in an otherwise painless fashion;

11. to force-feed poultry by stuffing (gavage);

12. to pull off or to cut off the limbs of live frogs.


The importation of docked horses is prohibited. The Reich Minister of the Interior may permit exceptions in duly justified cases.


The use of equids underground is permitted only with the permission of the relevant provincial authorities.

Section III
Live Experiments on Animals


It is prohibited to undertake procedures or treatments on living animals for experimental purposes that involve significant pain or harm, unless §§6 to 8 stipulate otherwise.


(1) The Reich Minister of the Interior can, at the recommendation of the relevant Reich authority or the highest provincial administration, grant certain scientifically-oriented institutes or laboratories the permission to carry out scientific experiments on living animals, provided that the scientific director possesses the requisite professional training and reliability; that suitable facilities for carrying out animal experiments are available; and that appropriate care and accommodation for the animals can be guaranteed.

(2) The Reich Minister of the Interior can cede the granting of permission to other supreme Reich authorities.

(3) Permission can be withdrawn at any time without compensation.


When carrying out animal experiments (§5), the following regulations are to be observed:

1. Experiments may be carried out only under the full responsibility of the scientific director or by his specially authorized proxy.

2. Experiments may only be carried out by persons who have been scientifically trained for the purpose, or under their direction, and only while avoiding the generation of any pain that is not a necessary part of the process.

3. Experiments undertaken for research purposes are only to be carried out if they can promise a specific result that has not yet been validated by science, or if they serve to clarify previously unresolved questions.

4. Experiments are only to be carried out under anaesthesia, unless, in the opinion of the scientific director, the purpose of the experiment necessarily precludes it, or where the pain associated with the procedure is judged to be less than the impairment the anaesthesia would otherwise cause to the test animal’s wellbeing.

No more than one serious, surgical, or painful bloodless experiment may be carried out upon the same unanaesthetised animal.

Animals suffering from considerable pain following the completion of serious experiments, particularly those involving surgical interventions, are to be painlessly and promptly terminated, provided that the scientific director determines this to be congruous with the purpose of the experiment.

5. Experiments on horses, dogs, cats, or monkeys may only be carried out if their intended purpose cannot be accomplished via experiments on other animals.

6. No more animals may be utilized than are necessary to clarify the relevant issue.

7. Records must be kept of the kinds of animals used, as well as of the purpose, implementation, and outcome of experiments.


Animal experiments for matters relating to the administration of justice, as well as vaccinations and the collection of blood samples from live animals for the purpose of identifying human or animal diseases or for extracting or testing (value determination) sera and vaccines using proven or state-approved methods, are not subject to the provisions of §§5 to 7. However, these animals are also to be painlessly and promptly terminated if they are suffering from considerable pain and if termination is congruous with the purpose of the experiment.

Section IV
Penalty Provisions


(1) Whoever needlessly abuses or roughly mistreats an animal shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.

(2) Anyone who, save from the circumstances in par. 1, carries out an experiment on live animals without the requisite permission (§5), shall be punished with imprisonment for up to six months and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.

(3) Unless the offence already falls under the penalties spelled out in par. 1 and 2, a fine of up to one hundred and fifty Reichsmarks or imprisonment shall be imposed upon anyone who deliberately or negligently

1. violates one of the prohibitions in §§2 to 4;

2. violates one of the regulations in §7;

3. violates a regulation for the protection of animals issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior or by a provincial government in accordance with §14;

4. fails to prevent children, or other persons who are under his supervision and who belong to his household, from violating the provisions of this Act.


(1) Alongside the penalties for a deliberate violation imposed upon the basis of §9, the confiscation or termination of an animal can also be instituted if it belongs to the convicted individual. Instead of confiscation, it can also be ordered that the animal be otherwise housed and catered for at the convicted individual’s expense for a period of three months.

(2) If no specific person is able to be prosecuted or convicted, the confiscation or termination of the animal can still be imposed if the remaining conditions for this are otherwise met.


(1) If someone has repeatedly been lawfully convicted of a deliberate violation on the basis of §9, the relevant provincial authority can temporarily or permanently prohibit them from keeping certain animals, from working with them professionally, or from trading in them.

(2) After one year has passed following a prohibition order taking legal effect, the relevant provincial authority can repeal the arrangement.

(3) Animals that have been seriously and culpably neglected in terms of their rearing, care, or accommodation can be taken away from their owners by the relevant provincial authority and housed with due care elsewhere until a guarantee exists that the animal will be kept satisfactorily. The costs of this accommodation are to be borne by the guilty party.


If there is any uncertainty during criminal proceedings as to whether an offence falls under a prohibition in §2.1 or §2.2, the civil service veterinarian and, insofar as agricultural operations are involved, the Reich Nutritional Estate,3 should be consulted as soon as possible during the process.

Section V
Final Provisions


For the purposes of this Act, anaesthesia is understood to mean any process that produces general painlessness, or which eliminates sensations of pain locally.


The Reich Minister of the Interior can enact legal and administrative provisions for the implementation and supplementation of this Act. Where he does not make use of this authority, regional governments can issue the required implementation provisions.


This Act comes into force on 1 February, 1934, with the exception of §2.8 and §2.11 and §3, for which the Reich Minister of the Interior, in consultation with the Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture, determines the effective date of implementation.

§145b and §360.13 of the Criminal Code shall cease to apply from 1 February, 1934.4

The provisions of the Bird Protection Act of 30 May, 1908 (Reichsgesetzblatt, p.314) are to remain unaffected.

Berlin, 24 November, 1933.

The Reich Chancellor
Adolf Hitler

The Reich Minister of the Interior

The Reich Minister of Justice
Dr. Gürtner


Translator’s Notes

1. Göring, in his capacity as Minister-President of Prussia, had issued a decree on 16 August, 1933 which imposed a total ban upon vivisection within Prussia’s territorial boundaries.

2. Also known as ‘Suramin’, a drug which combats African sleeping sickness and river blindness. The drug was first synthesized in 1916 by German scientists at Bayer, and was subsequently used in trade deals as a form of political leverage; the colonial administrations of ‘Versailles Powers’ like England were in desperate need of it. The discovery of Germanin was such a point of pride for Germans that a (highly fictionalized) film about its development was released in 1943, based on a novel by physician Dr. Hermann Unger. The film, Germanin: die Geschichte einer kolonialen Tat (“Germanin: The Story of a Colonial Deed”), can be viewed here, although without English subtitles. It is typical of German wartime entertainment in that its villains are scheming, plutocratic Englishmen.

3. The Reich Nutritional Estate (Reichsnährstand) was a state agricultural body set up by the National Socialist regime on 13 September, 1933. The Reichsnährstand and its various subsidiary organizations were responsible for governing all food production and distribution within Germany, exercising oversight over farmers, peasants, cooperatives, wholesalers, retailers, processors (mills, dairies), etc., including over their prices and marketing. The Reichsnährstand enforced its dictates through the issuance of fines, and via forcible closure or confiscation of non-compliant farms or businesses.

4. At the time this Act was passed, §145b of the German Criminal Code stated: “Anyone who roughly abuses an animal or who deliberately mistreats it is to be punished with imprisonment for up to six months, or with a fine.” §360.13 of the Criminal Code stated: “The following shall be punished with a fine of up to one hundred and fifty marks, or with imprisonment… anyone who violates a regulation issued for the purpose of animal welfare.” Both these provisions were effectively rendered moot by the Reich Animal Welfare Act’s going into effect on 1 February, 1934, and both were struck from the text of the Criminal Code going forwards.

Göring’s speech translated from Dr. Erich Gritzbach’s (ed.) Hermann Göring: Reden und Aufsätze (1938), Zentralverlag der NSDAP.
Reich Animal Welfare Act translated from Reichsgesetzblatt Teil 1, no.132 (25 November, 1933), Reich Ministry of the Interior.

5 thoughts on “National Socialism and Animal Rights

  1. Bogumil,

    While I am familiar with Pan-Germanic Socialism’s positions on Animal Rights, I doubt most people are fully aware of why the ideology is supportive of Animal Rights, let alone its implications beyond the obvious pro-Environmentalist ones. There is a philosophical argument being promoted in that aforementioned section in “Der nationale Sozialismus” where Rudolf Jung had discussed about the topic in passing. How it ties in with Göring’s statements can be inferred from Jung’s justifications for “Animal Welfare” as part of his proposed Municipalization Policy:

    “One should not forget that animal abusers above all have a predisposition towards criminality. In this sense, animal welfare is also human welfare.”

    What most people do not realize is that there is far more to the metaphysical logic, and how it relates to what Hermann Göring in this ARPLAN Post. In essence, when Pan-Germanic Socialism advocates for Animal Rights, it is consciously doing so to express a philosophical opposition toward “Humanocentrism” or “Anthropocentrism,” the Enlightenment belief that humanity is the center of everything within the universe. It claims that because humanity is meant to be independent from and superior to nature, humanity has a Natural Right to exploit nature itself. Conventional Liberal Capitalist interpretations of “Human Rights,” since they are also interrelated with the concept of “Natural Rights,” can be traced back to this sort of Enlightenment thinking and its relationship with three well-known Liberal Capitalist philosophies, “Utilitarianism,” “Egalitarianism,” and “Positivism.” Since its origins stem from the Liberal Capitalist perversion of Natural Law, it makes sense for Göring to be insisting that both problem and solution are to be found in legal jurisprudence. Göring appeared to be confident about his own assertions that I am convinced that Pan-Germanic Socialism’s stances on Animal Rights should be understood more broadly as part of its own legal theory.

    How do we begin to comprehend what I will be referring to as “Pan-Germanic Legal Theory (PGLT)?” Regardless of whether you, Bogumil, consider yourself religious or irreligious, there is still a very fine distinction between Natural Rights and Legal Rights. Unlike Legal Rights, because they are legislated and passed by the State, Natural Rights is derived from “Natural Law,” which is a legal framework whose basis is moral and therefore meant to be applicable to all of humanity. Natural Law, given its origins in Theology, derives itself from our conventional senses of right and wrong based on our epistemological perceptions of Divine Law (whose basis is derived from the Catholic Church vis-à-vis St. Thomas Aquinas).

    To be honest, I am not at all suggesting that Natural Law in itself is inherently antithetical to Pan-Germanic Socialism or any Socialism for that matter like National Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism. If Pan-Germanic Socialism is somehow opposed to Natural Law, then why was Jung invoking Freedom of Conscience in the contexts of Der nationale Sozialismus Chapters “At the Gates to the Future” and “The Concept of Freedom and Defensive Readiness?” Those Chapters could never be written without some basis in Natural Law. In fact, it is clear to me that PGLT is capable of respecting Natural Law so long as Natural Law itself is capable of being detached from the Liberal Capitalist concept of Natural Rights.

    Legally speaking, we cannot have Liberal Capitalist legal jurisprudence without Natural Rights. This legal jurisprudence operates on the notion that because humanity originated from what it calls a “State of Nature,” the “Civil Government” must act as the intermediate between the “Private Citizen” and the “Civil Society.” I have referred to this phenomenon on my Blog as “State of Natural Rights” because of its legal implications being socioeconomic, financial and technological:

    “Could something as Alienable as an Unnatural Right be repurposed into a ‘Natural Right’ and convince everyone into believing that it is somehow ‘Inalienable?’ The ideological language is implying that Nature itself constitutes as its own government outside of a nation-state’s legal jurisprudence. If anyone is willing to believe in that, they are also capable of adopting the same mindset that enjoys theological pastimes like conspiracy theories, alternate histories, parlor games, investment speculations, economic sanctions, and labor strikes. This ‘State of Nature’ is in fact about as ‘natural’ as a Derin Devlet (Deep State), a Shadow Government, a Vehmgericht (Extrajudicial Court of Contract Killers), Secret Societies, Offshore Banks, Black Markets, Terrorist Cells, Political Assassinations, Military Coups, and Smoke-Filled Rooms. I mean, why would criminals not want to establish their own parallel governments? The Commission of the American Mafia is an often overlooked example since the Castellammarese War, the Castellammarese War itself continuing the Prohibition introduced by Amendment XVIII.

    But the ‘State of Nature’ concept is capable of coexisting under legal and illegal contexts. Its illegal context claims that ‘Nature itself’ is somehow capable of exhibiting the ‘human consciousness’ of an actual criminal. The legal context, meanwhile, suggests that this ‘human consciousness’ is incapable of being free and secure on a deeply subconscious level, compensating this apparent unfreedom and insecurity by projecting them onto reality itself through the Freedom-Security Dialectic. Here, we find all of the ideological justifications for Liberal Capitalism because we are left assuming that somebody is psychically and psychologically enslaved by a ‘Shadow Government’ operating on dubious legal claims of ‘Natural Law.’ From the purview of Jungian Psychology, is it too much of a coincidence for the oldest conspiracy theory in existence to be consistently about a ‘Shadow with its own Government?’”

    Therein lies the fundamental problem with Natural Rights as far as Pan-Germanic Socialism and most Socialisms in general are concerned, and why PGLT should have no issues whatsoever with Natural Law. Not everyone in any conceivable social group operates according to the same legal and moral understandings of right and wrong. Our everyday notions of right and wrong, like legal and illegal, does not occur within Nature nor does it occur in a vacuum divorced from Reality itself. These notions are in final analysis the end result of a consensus forged by the social relations between the Individual, their Volksgemeinschaft and other Volksgemeinschaften.

    As for the topic of PGLT, it needs to have its own follow up comment.


  2. Bogumil,

    The latest ARPLAN Post is definitely among the most insightful and relevant topics about Pan-Germanic Socialism. In this case, we are delving into Pan-Germanic Legal Theory (PGLT), including its prospect of ushering an entirely distinct form of legal jurisprudence, Animal Rights just being one example among many different cases. Pan-Germanic Socialism, for those who do not know, had its own conception of International Relations at one point whose interpretation of International Law differed from all other forms of International Relations. Its significance is important in a world concerned about Climate Change and Peak Oil because I am convinced that a Pan-Germanic Socialist Nation in this century can implement PGLT as part of its foreign policies. There is no indication PGLT entails imperialism, warmongering, war profiteering, or neocolonialism because Pan-Germanic Socialism itself vehemently condemns them.

    To begin, there are four principles which define PGLT under International Law:
    1 The Right to Mutual Coexistence
    2. The Right to National Self-Defense
    3. The Right to Equal Treatment
    4. The Right to National Sovereignty

    As you and I both know, Pan-Germanic Socialism emphasizes the importance of the Volksgemeinschaft as the “Nation.” But unlike the Realist School of International Relations, the Volksgemeinschaft does not exist in a chaotic, anarchic world order. It coexists alongside hundreds and hundreds of other Volksgemeinschaften as part of a “Gesellschaft.” This Gesellschaft is essentially a world order that governs the conduct of diplomacy between Nations. All Volksgemeinschaften in the Gesellschaft have their own interpretations of Natural Law, which is informed by their own historical, cultural, traditional, theological, sociological, anthropological, psychological and psychical conditions. Every Volksgemeinschaft’s distinct interpretation of Natural Law is predicated on their Right to Exist as an identifiable Volkskörper. The Pan-Germanic Socialist conception of Natural Law differs from the Liberal Capitalist conception insofar as it rejects “Natural Rights” because “Positive Law” also does not exist in PGLT.

    For the sake of clarity, here is how this sort of logic looks on two diagrams:

    Liberal Capitalist Legal Theory
    Divine Law
    Natural Law || “Positive Law”
    “Natural/Unnatural Right” || Legal Right

    In the Liberal Capitalist version, we have “Positive Law” (Laws passed by Parliament) and “Natural Law” (Laws passed by Nature). The metaphysics is there within my last comment. A law like the “Animal Welfare Act” to a Liberal Capitalist is ‘unreasonable’, not that it would deprive them of another source of Kapital, but specifically because it is foreign or perhaps even alien to their everyday understandings of legal jurisprudence. Repealing or deregulating it in Parliament, therefore, becomes ‘reasonable’ to them.

    Pan-Germanic Legal Theory
    Divine Law
    Natural Law || “Moral Imperative”
    “National Law” || Legal Right

    In PGLT, however, we have “National Law” (Laws passed by the State) and “Moral Imperative” (Laws passed by the State according to the Volksgemeinschaft’s interpretation of Natural Law). Every National Law is meant to have some basis in Natural Law so as to outline the Legal Rights of those affected and the “Moral Imperatives” which are of importance to the Volksgemeinschaft. Passing a law like the “Animal Welfare Act” is understood by Pan-Germanic Socialists like Rudolf Jung or Hermann Göring as ‘ethical’, whereas repealing it would be ‘unethical’.

    If there is anything we can learn from PGLT, it should be this: Who interprets Natural Law in relation to International Law and National Law, and on what legal basis are these interpretations being made? Can a post-1945 argument be made that PGLT would entail be a revolutionary form of legal jurisprudence unlike the conventional Liberal Capitalist version governing Thomas Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty under International Law and International Relations by extension?

    I am convinced that PGLT has the potential to eliminate a number of legal problems in these United States and the broader Western world. To claim that PGLT is exclusive to the German Reich (or the German-speaking world at large) is tantamount to an underappreciation of its precedents. The best part of all is that we can finally begin laying the groundwork for a Council Democratic form of governance capable of helping whole countries around the world combat the rise of Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon” in the digital realm.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Panopticon is a Liberal Capitalist concept derived from Utilitarianism and its relationship with Bentham’s “Positive Law.” We cannot talk about Positive Law itself without eventually discussing about Bentham and his lifelong ambition to create his own version of legal jurisprudence based on his Utilitarian philosophy. The logical conclusion of his Panopticon concept is a “Police State” where mass surveillance technologies are deployed to monitor the “Civil Society” without the latter’s awareness or even their consent. We already live in a world where the multinational corporations and intelligence agencies of Liberal Capitalist regimes are allowed to expropriate personal information for profit. But that is simply because of how the WWW (World Wide Web) was designed to be as a nationless, stateless digital realm where nobody’s government can be held accountable by anyone, let alone by their own government.
    How would PGLT address the question of Surveillance Capitalism? We often forget that the Internet is an extension of the Gesellschaft. And if the Internet is part of the Gesellschaft, we can also argue that the Volksgemeinschaft of every Nation is supposed to have their own “Intranet.” Going back to those four principles which I had outlined earlier, does the Pan-Germanic Socialist Nation have a Moral Imperative to protect its citizens from hostile mass surveillance? How about the Moral Imperative of establishing its own Intranet separate from the Internet?

    And this is not the only example of where we can reapply PGLT based on what has been learned from the latest ARPLAN Post, Bogumil. I am confident that there are plenty of other examples in the 21st century that affect our own everyday lives both online and offline. In doing so, we can arrive at entirely different conclusions and even provide distinct perspectives to others on legal grounds favorable to Pan-Germanic Socialism. The most obvious benefit is that we do not really need to be relying on the historical experiences of the German Reich, the NSDAP or the German-speaking world overall. That will allow us to keep much of our analysis and conclusions grounded in contemporary times, creating an entirely distinct legacy for this version of Socialism.


  3. PS: On a sidenote, if I had to choose what this version of International Relations should be called, I would have to give it the proper designation of “National Socialist School of International Relations.” While one might be inclined to refer to it as “Völkisch” or “Pan-Germanic,” I genuinely find the term “National Socialist” to be more appropriate here because of how it can be reapplied elsewhere and not just in the German-speaking world alone. It is a Socialistic interpretation that cannot be framed as being part of the more well-known Marxist School of International Relations. That particular School of Thought remains fractured between “Revisionists” adhering to the Frankfurt School and Trotskyism and the “Anti-Revisionists” who are still readjusting to a Liberal Capitalist world order where the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries no longer exist.

  4. Thank you for this translation.

    Are you aware of other national-socialist texts or speeches on animal rights and animal welfare? Before and after 1933? There is often talk of NS having a positive relationship with animals, but I am not aware of any texts or speeches on the subject.

    • Unfortunately no – I’ve had a very quick look through my collection and I can’t immediately see any other articles which deal directly with this topic, besides the ones I’ve translated here. If I do find more I’ll put them on the site. It wasn’t a central component of NS ideology, more a corollary of its attitude towards the biological world (nature) & the industrial revolution. That the NSDAP had made Germany forward-thinking in regards to animals was taken for granted by National Socialists, re Himmler’s October 4, 1943 speech to SS functionaries at Posen:

      Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, “I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them,” then I have to say, “You are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood.”

      A concern for animal welfare was also shared by British Fascists. The Mosleyites campaigned against vivisection and had Jorian Jenks in their ranks; Jenks became a very influential environmentalist and a pioneer of organic farming. Arnold Leese of the Imperial Fascist League, a former veterinarian, was also concerned with animal welfare. I think for both British and German fascists, a disgust with Jewish ritual slaughter practices helped shape their attitude towards animals. In Germany also there was apparently a high proportion of Jews in certain scientific disciplines, which helped fuel the view that vivisection and Jewry were interrelated.

Leave a Reply