"Issues of World War III" Survey

We were rather surprised by the large wave of impassioned answers to last week's question, "Should the government protect animal species from going extinct?" Apparently this is an issue near and dear to people's hearts. Bottom line: 67% classified themselves as essentially against protecting endangered species, 22% expressed "other" viewpoints that partly agreed with saving endangered species and partly not, and the remainder advocated protecting endangered species. Several readers responded with extra comments, and some of the comments were pretty long; here are short excerpts:

• "…It is clear that G-d gave man dominion over the animals… Genesis 1:28 does not give much room for interpretation in the matter… the federal government has spent billions 'protecting' 'endangered species' in the past 30 years or so and has not saved a single species from extinction…."
• "…The only one that should be allowed to change the balance of nature is the one who created it. Hashem, in His infinite wisdom, placed the animals there for our good and His purpose…."
• "…wasting any kind of animal just for sport hunting seems wrong."
• "…If we don't need a species then let it naturally go extinct, but if we can live in harmony with nature and be wise stewards… then by all means, we should do it.…"
• "…Letting the government decide which animals should live is like playing G-d…."
• "…Animals should never be more important that humans."
• "…G-d created man in His image, meaning that humans are His most precious creation, not animals."

Factual Background:
It has now been more than three decades since the legislating of the Endangered Species Act and the closely related Marine Mammal Protection Act, among other environmentalist inroads made during the Nixon Administration. Originally, these measures were defended as being critical for the sake of humans. Man in his greed, said the rationale, would hunt species to extinction if left unchecked, resulting in the permanent loss of important species of animals, ones needed by humans themselves.

Later the notion of a "delicate ecosystem" was emphasized more prominently by the environmentalists, arguing that even species of animals not needed by humans were nevertheless indispensable for the "balance of nature" and the survival of the ecosystem as a whole, thus indirectly affecting other species that are needed by humans.

More recently, the "deep ecology" of such terrorist groups as Earth First! (EF!) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) has revealed more plainly the true intent of environmentalists all along. Such radicals actually defend the existence of animals species — and the ecosystem's "delicate balance" — entirely for their own sake, and not for how humans might need them. In other words, say the openly violent Marxists, nature (meaning everything that isn't human) has an inherent right to exist absolutely undisturbed. The implicit logic in this is evident; as long as humans exist, they necessarily and automatically "disturb" and "impact" nature simply by living, and thus… human civilization, and human beings themselves, must be eliminated. This becomes the underlying rationale for eco-terrorism.

This has all along been the aim of the entire environmentalist movement, including those groups not officially violent. As time passes, the overt connections between environmentalist organizations and the Communist International are becoming more evident, to such an extent that it is now clear the environmentalist movement is nothing but Marxist revolution in a new disguise — meaning its aim is, in fact, the Marxist goal of annihilating religion and civilization. But that is a huge subject in itself, suited best for another time.

The protection of allegedly "endangered" species has been one of the most powerful weapons in the Marxist arsenal for dismantling the industrial economy and even national security. Water supplies are being destroyed to save the snail darter fish, coho salmon, or steelhead trout; exploitation of natural resources such as timber is being halted to save the spotted owl; frogs are the excuse for blocking construction and development projects, and even for recreating swamps that have already been partly developed; whales, seals, and dolphins are cited to justify bans on seal furs and whale hunting (to destabilize certain North Atlantic economies targeted by Soviet Russia), and to create arbitrary and severe limits on fishing; whales, dolphins, and porpoises have just successfully been used to stop the U.S. Navy from deploying its new, low-frequency sonar technology across the Pacific Ocean, which would have protected the American west coast from Soviet Russian and Red Chinese submarines; etc. The applications of "species protection" are as numerous as there are projects to accomplish, from the smallest to the largest. Virtually no industry has escaped its impact, and the economy has by now been badly crippled to an inestimable extent.

Aside from the subversive designs behind saving animals, is there any logic to the notion that greedy humans could wreck the earth's ecosystem?

If the question is asked of primitive, pre-industrial societies, the answer could very well be "yes." As we have mentioned in a previous issue, the American Indian savages were the most notorious and systematic destroyers of wild buffalo, deer, and other species, and laid waste to millions of acres of wild land at a time, all motivated by pagan, reckless attitudes that lived to consume today rather than building for the future. The same was true of primitive barbarians the world over.

But if the question regards modern, industrial societies, the answer flips to the other side. Capitalism — that is, saving rather than spending, for the sake of investing in tools, machinery, and technology that increase production — is the product of a spiritually more refined culture and civilization that values hard work today for a bigger payoff tomorrow. Capitalist societies invest in the future rather than consuming what they have today (which means, by the way, that our modern society has recently lost many of its capitalistic features, largely because of the destruction of capital by socialistic measures). Capitalism doesn't log trees without planting more, or deplete wild animals without domesticating them for mass farm production, or wantonly destroy anything that could one day prove to be a valuable resource. For example, it is well documented that whale populations never truly become endangered by whale hunting; whenever human hunting depletes one species of whale to a low point, the difficulty and price of hunting more of them (that is, finding them) becomes so high that hunters turn to other whale species, until the first species has recovered in population. This has caused the phenomenon of cycling whale populations as hunters rotate from one species to another over time, never rendering any of them extinct.

Societies that are sufficiently moral and refined to become capitalist and industrial are societies that pose no danger to natural resources — so long as "danger" is not equated with "impacting," as the eco-terrorists do.

One more key point: The whole concept of a "delicately balanced ecosystem" ignores the fundamental principles of biology. If living things were machines, then any slight disturbance of nature would wreak havoc and send ripples of destruction in all directions. But biological organisms have living souls that give them flexibility and allow them to adapt to changes in their environment without being destroyed. So by its very nature, an ecosystem simply adjusts to any human impact, and keeps functioning. Many of the federally designated "endangered species" have been discovered to be totally unaffected by human "destruction" of their habitat; spotted owls, for example, simply start living in new-growth forests when their old-growth tree habitats are cut down. And so it is for fish, frogs, etc.

Relevant Torah Principles:
1) The Torah explicitly forbids Jews from wanton destruction of anything (the specific case cited regards destruction of fruit trees). The Lubavitcher Rebbe concluded this applies to gentiles as well, under the Noahide Laws. No one is allowed to destroy anything, including a part of nature, for no good reason.

2) At the same time, the Torah does not forbid useful destruction, such as clearing out the old to make way for the new (anywhere that this could apply). Hasidus, and various examples in Jewish Law, make much of the concept that often new things cannot be built until old ones are torn down (on the Sabbath, for example, a Jew is forbidden to destroy something if his intent is to clear the way for building, whereas he has not committed the sin of doing work on Shabbos if he destroyed without intending to build something new).

3) The foundation of the Noahide Laws is mentioned in Isaiah 45:18 — the mandate to develop the physical world for the expansion of human civilization. This is the entire purpose of the Noahide Laws, and thus any action that contradicts human development is a violation of the Noahide Code, even if it is not spelled out elsewhere.

4) This is further bolstered by the passage in Genesis, chapter 1, where G-d commands man to "rule over" the animals, fish, and birds. The Hebrew word used there, "ur'du" (or "rodeh") means not only to rule over, but also to exploit; "rodeh" is used to describe the mining of resources, such as removing honey from the beehive. Thus we see that the purpose for the existence of animals is as natural resources for the development of human civilization. The world was created in an imperfect, raw, natural state (described as "tohu," or chaos, in kabbalistic Jewish sources), and man's mission is to change and perfect the world as commanded by G-d. Being a steward of natural resources doesn't mean keeping things in their naturally created state; on the contrary, it specifically means changing and restructuring nature (albeit without wantonly and needlessly destroying). If an animal species stands in the way of human development, the Torah does not allow us to interfere with human expansion in any way to save that interfering species. We are commanded not to live in balance with nature, but rather to transform it into its more perfect, civilized state.

Analysis:
Given the above, it goes without saying that the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, among other environmentalist laws, must be forever repealed.

But we must also wage war against the Marxist environmentalist movement, which inherently poses an imminent danger to national security and law and order. Aggressive measures must be adopted to ban all environmentalism and its advocacy, and to root out and destroy the entire network — before it can do any more destruction of economy and society.

And now for this week's survey question (hopefully one that will arouse as much interest as last week's):

How should America handle the development of nuclear power in Iran? (1) It's a matter for the United Nations Security Council to handle. (2) Support Russia's offer to handle Iran's uranium processing, thus keeping part of the nuclear technology out of Iran. (3) Take military action against Iran's nuclear reactors, putting them out of commission. (4) Other

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Please send your input by Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 12pm PST.

THE HALL OF SHAME…
Have Some Chabad Shluchim Betrayed Their Rebbe?

This week's example:
Rabbi Sholom Ber Veshedsky, Emeritus, Hadar HaTorah Yeshiva, Brooklyn, NY

A JAHG-USA volunteer showed Rabbi Veshedsky our Proclamation (which lists the Torah rules requiring everyone to get involved with JAHG-USA's PLO-defunding campaign) last July 14th. The Rabbi immediately turned apprehensive, and asked whether Rabbi Yaakov Goldberg, his former boss (Veshedsky used to teach at the Hadar HaTorah Yeshiva for adults who become religious), had signed; upon finding out he hadn't, Rabbi Veshedsky used that as his excuse and promptly refused.

Here we see plainly the devastating consequences when someone refuses to do his responsibility in saving lives. By trying to remain neutral by not endorsing, Rabbi Goldberg has in turn helped cause others also not to do their responsibility. It is a terrible sin not to participate in saving lives; it is infinitely worse to discourage others from doing so, as pointed out in the Proclamation itself.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Veshedsky has no excuse. Dozens of other yeshiva teachers have signed, and he knows perfectly well what his duty is according to Torah. He's just afraid of getting caught in the middle of controversy.

…AND THE HALL OF FAME
Some Chabad Shluchim Are Helping the JAHG-USA Campaign

This week's examples:
Rabbi Yonah Avtzon, Sichos in English, Brooklyn, NY; and
Rabbi Avraham Leider, Ahavas Chesed, Brooklyn, NY

Rabbi Avtzon was presented the Proclamation for the PLO-defunding campaign on July 1st, and he signed on the spot. He is an editor (and translator?) of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's speeches published in English.

Rabbi Leider likewise endorsed the JAHG-USA campaign as soon as he saw the Proclamation, on July 7th. Rabbi Leider is the executive director of a charitable program that provides help for people's medical and hospital bills. His experience with helping those in need undoubtedly helped him see the importance of helping the millions of Jews, Arabs, and others who are quite literally endangered by current and future PLO terrorism.

Our thanks go to Rabbis Avtzon and Leider for unhesitatingly doing at least some of their Torah duty in fighting terrorism and saving lives.

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, the up-to-date status of their responses, and how you can get help the campaign, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

This week's edition of our sister site, ATTAC Report, presents:

• The story of how George Bush kept American soldiers paralyzed in the Afghan War, blocking them from fighting
• Bush's back-door funding of Hamas — even as he pretends not to support them
• A map of over 130 concentration camps and prisons in the Canton province of Red China, around Hong Kong and Macao

Send your letter to the editor to newsletter@noahide.com.

Be sure to visit our Web site, Noahide.com.