Introduction
In recent years, xenophobic propaganda based on ecological grounds has become a pervasive global phenomenon. In Western countries such as the United States, New Zealand, the UK, and Germany, some far-right terrorists who self-identify or are identified as “ecofascists” have even launched numerous ecological terrorist attacks targeting non-white immigrants. The “Great Replacement,”Footnote 1 based on the white genocide conspiracy theory, has had a significant influence on many of the perpetrators. The most influential of these is undoubtedly the shooting incident that occurred on March 15, 2019, in Christchurch, New Zealand, resulting in a total of 51 deaths. In his manifesto titled The Great Replacement, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, exaggerated the impact of the Muslim population on the European population. While using the conspiracy theory of the “Great Replacement” to express hatred towards immigrants, he also promoted white supremacy. He declared himself to be an “ethnonationalist eco-fascist,” and justified his terrorist attacks by arguing that the murder of Muslims was necessary to prevent the overpopulation of the world by Muslims and thereby protect the environment (Quent Reference Quent2019). Similar to Tarrant, Patrick Wood Crusius, the perpetrator of the terrorist attack in El Paso, Texas, on August 3 of the same year, promoted the far-right conspiracy theory of the “Great Replacement” in his anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant manifesto entitled “The Inconvenient Truth,” and partially defended his atrocities from an ecological perspective. The white supremacist terrorist views immigrants as an ecological and cultural threat to the USA and warns of the Hispanic “invasion” of Texas and the cultural and ethnic replacement that this “invasion” brought (Hafez Reference Hafez2019). Like Tarrant, Payton S. Gendron, the gunman in the Buffalo terror attack on May 14, 2022, also called himself an “eco-fascist.” He blamed immigrants for environmental damage, accusing mass immigration of causing continuous damage to the natural environment (Milman Reference Milman2022).
Certainly, such large-scale terrorist attacks are rare on a global scale. In Europe, however, it is extremely common for far-right parties and organizations to raise awareness of ecological issues and use ecological conservation as an excuse to oppose and exclude immigrants. For example, both the National Rally and the British National Party (BNP) emphasize a transition from biological racism to a softer cultural nationalism and populism. Marine Le Pen, President of the National Rally, changed the disdain for environmental issues during the Jean-Marie Le Pen era and restrained the language of racism and extremism. She launched the “Patriotic Ecologism” project, which combines national identity, national heritage and ecologism to protect the French nation, territory and national identity. To this end, she emphasizes the uniqueness of French culture and identity, the superiority of the French territory and heritage, the purity of the French landscape, and claims that there is a strong link between France’s natural superiority, its national identity, and its landscape. The National Rally advocates protecting the land by defending its sovereignty, thereby excluding those without connection to it (that is, immigrants). Thus, the party’s traditional topics of “immigration” and “border security” are combined in the argument for ecological conservation (Bivar Reference Bivar2022; Boukala and Tountasaki Reference Boukala, Tountasaki and Forchtner2020). The BNP emphasizes the significance of Britain’s landscape to its national identity and views overpopulation, primarily driven by immigration, as the cause of environmental degradation (BNP 2019). To reduce the housing pressure and environmental damage caused by population growth resulting from immigration, the BNP calls for an immediate halt to all immigration in its manifesto and prohibits any building on the Green Belt. It claims, “We need to give ourselves breathing space - literally!” and criticizes immigration for taking up too much space. Obviously, the true meaning of “breathing space” here can be equated with “living space.” In this way, it combines land protection, environmental protection and nation conservation (British National Party 2016).
In Germany’s ecological conservation movement, the trend towards the spread of radical conservative and far-right positions has become increasingly apparent in recent years. Parties and organizations ranging from right-wing conservatism to right-wing populism, right-wing extremism, and neo-Nazis, as well as groups such as the “free fellowships” and the “autonomous nationalists,” which are not strictly organized, are actively involved in ecological conservation discussions and actions. Right-wing ecological conservation is often combined with xenophobia and used as a tool to oppose immigration and refugees. For example, the right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi political party the Third Way has advocated for “German socialism,” with an ecological focus since its establishment in 2013 (Fachstelle Radikalisierungsprävention und Engagement im Naturschutz 2019). The party equates environmental protection with homeland protection and calls for an immediate end to the excessive foreignization of Germany and the constant abuse of asylum in order to preserve the national identity of the German nation (Der Dritte Weg 2016). Due to the high level of concern for ecological conservation topics in society, using this as a means of propaganda and mobilization can easily arouse sympathy and gain support from people, making it an ideal channel for some far-right extremists to establish their right-wing extremist worldview in the mainstream of society (Nicolaisen Reference Nicolaisen2018). Because compared with the “hard” xenophobic incitement and violent actions under the slogan of “foreigners out,” the “soft” propaganda and agitation under the pretext of ecology are more covert and confusing.
Furthermore, the history of German right-wing ecological conservation is very long and has been influenced by xenophobic nationalism since its inception (Staudenmaier Reference Staudenmaier, Biehl and Staudenmaier2011). During the Third Reich, the arguments in the fields of nature conservation and animal protection were even used by the Nazis to justify genocide (Corni and Gies Reference Corni and Gies1994; Rössler and Schleiermacher Reference Rössler and Schleiermacher1993). Therefore, the wide range and scope of participation, as well as the specific historical context, make xenophobia in right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany particularly worthy of research.
This article firstly examines the historical connection between ecological conservation and right-wing ideology and the manifestations of xenophobia in various historical periods and important ecological conservation movements. It also analyzes the ideological basis of xenophobia in right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany by combining the historical evolution and updating of right-wing ecological thought. Afterwards, taking xenophobia in the fields of species conservation and animal protection as examples, it specifically analyzes the ways in which far-right parties and organizations combine ecological topics with xenophobia and their real purposes. Finally, the research results of the entire article are summarized. This article addresses three main research questions: 1. How does xenophobia combine with ecological issues in right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany? 2. What are the historical continuities and contemporary characteristics of xenophobia in right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany? 3. What are the real motives behind the involvement of far-right parties and organizations in ecological conservation?
To this end, this article employs historical analysis and document analysis to conduct a qualitative examination of xenophobia within contemporary German right-wing ecological conservation. First, through research on the history of German right-wing ecological conservation, comparative historical analysis is used to examine how contemporary German right-wing ecological conservation inherits and develops historical right-wing ecological thought, exploring the historical continuity and significance of xenophobia within it. Therefore, this article focuses not only on the pivotal role of core ideologies of right-wing eco-protection, such as “homeland protection” and the “blood and soil” concept, in German right-wing ecological conservation, but also on analyzing their contemporary characteristics. Second, this article selects the AfD, the NPD, and the Third Way as case studies, conducting textual analysis of their party platforms, election programs, eco-declarations, and statements by key leaders, and comparing the core policy propositions of these three parties in the field of ecological conservation and their argumentation methods that combine ecological conservation with xenophobia.
Literature Review
The green-brown history of Germany’s nature conservation and environmental movements, especially the post-war connections between environmentalism and far-right politics, has long been valued by scholars. They construct a theoretical framework based on definitions such as ‘ecofascism’ (Biehl and Staudenmaier Reference Staudenmaier, Biehl and Staudenmaier2011; Moore and Roberts Reference Moore and Roberts2022), “right-wing ecology” (Jahn and Wehling Reference Jahn and Wehling1990; Olsen Reference Olsen1999), and “far right ecologism” (Lubarda 2020) to examine the ideological concepts and political practices of ecological conservation from the right wing in Germany, although the accuracy of these definitions remains somewhat contentious. For example, Jahn and Wehling examine the developments spanning from (right-)conservatives to the extreme right in Germany. They argue that although right-wing ecology (Ökologie von rechts) is not a uniform, self-contained theoretical-ideological concept, it is nevertheless possible to identify some “specific right-wing ecological stereotypes.” These include a fundamental naturalization of social and political dynamics, talk of the “alienation” of people from homeland, Volk, and national culture as the cause of ecological destruction, pointing to overpopulation/“foreigners” in Germany as an ecological problem and the call for a “strong state” as the guarantor of the (ecological) “common good” (Jahn and Wehling Reference Jahn and Wehling1990). Similar to them, Olsen (Reference Olsen1999) identifies the primary characteristics of right-wing ecology as eco-naturalism (the nature as a model for social order), eco-organicism (the Volk as an ecosystem), and eco-authoritarianism (the need for a strong state to deal with the environmental crises of our time). He reveals the influence of an anti-universalist anthropology on right-wing ecology and analyzes the environmental justification for an anti-immigrant politics. Forchtner (2019) argues that an extreme-right ecological perspective signifies an organic and unifying worldview. He identifies key areas such as the naturalization of social relations, environmental destruction as a symptom of alienation from the homeland and the community’s culture, and the view of Others as an ecological problem (human and non-human immigrants as well as overpopulation), etc. Moore and Roberts (Reference Moore and Roberts2022) explore the connection between fascist mobilization and ecological narratives, emphasizing the importance of naturalizing social relations for far-right ecological arguments. They argue that as an aspect of fascist ideology, eco-fascism most intensely seeks to connect with its purported natural foundations.
In their research on the history of ecological conservation in Germany, some scholars demonstrate the integration of ecological conservation with right-wing, far-right, and fascist ideologies, while analyzing ecologically oriented solutions to immigration and refugee issues. For instance, based on his analysis of the combination of naturalism, environmentalism, and far-right ideologies such as xenophobic nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, and social Darwinism within Germany’s right-wing environmental history, Staudenmaier (Reference Staudenmaier2021) concludes that there have been significant links between environmentalism and right-wing politics. While emphasizing the historical continuity of eco-fascist ideas, he warns of the contemporary revival of the blood and soil ideology. Similarly, Bierl (Reference Bierl2016) also uses the term “ecofascism” to describe groups and individuals who justify anti-Semitic, nationalist, racist, or social Darwinist views with actual or supposed environmental and nature conservation requirements or knowledge of ecology. Geden (Reference Geden1996) reveals the right-wing conservative tradition within ecological thought and explores the right-wing ecological argumentative pattern that links ecological concerns to demands for a ban on immigration and a strong state. Bierl (Reference Bierl2014) analyzes how biocentrists and deep ecologists combine mysticism with fundamental misanthropy, alongside their agitation against immigration and so-called overpopulation. He argues that the AfD and the NPD share a common thread with them: their rejection of refugees is based on eco-Malthusianism.
Additionally, scholars warn about the spread of anti-immigration stances within right-wing environmentalism into the social mainstream. Among them, Olsen (Reference Olsen1999) focuses his research on the debate over immigration after the reunification of Germany (Geden Reference Geden1996; Olsen Reference Olsen1999).
In summary, existing research has provided a relatively in-depth analysis of xenophobic worldviews embedded within Germany’s various historical periods and major ecological conservation movements, as well as xenophobic arguments and exclusionary activities justified on ecological grounds. However, the commonality and importance of xenophobia as a fundamental tenet of right-wing ecological protection theory have not received sufficient attention. Furthermore, due to the extensive involvement of far-right forces in ecological conservation in contemporary Germany, their xenophobic ideology is also manifested through various ecological arguments, including biologism, ecological racism, cultural racism, and ethnic pluralism. Existing research on the complexity of their xenophobic actions and arguments is also somewhat insufficient. Therefore, this article focuses on the most active and influential parties in right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany: the AfD, the NPD, and the Third Way. It analyzes their core environmental policy positions and their integration with xenophobia based on party platforms, election manifestos, ecological declarations, and statements by key leaders. In addition, this article focuses specifically on the historical continuity of xenophobia, the relationship between right-wing ecological conservation and “homeland protection,” and the role of “culture” in right-wing ecological argumentation.
Xenophobia in the history of German right-wing ecological conservation
In Germany, the link between ecological conservation and right-wing ideology has a long history. The origins of German ecological thought can be traced back to the national Romantic transformation of nature around 1800. Under the influence of the Romantic tradition’s anti-Enlightenment irrationalism, a combination of naturalism and nationalism emerged early in German ecological conservation. Ecological thinkers Ernst Moritz Arndt and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl are typical representatives of this combination. However, their environmentalist ideology was also closely intertwined with xenophobic nationalism. They associated a love of their own land with militant racist nationalism. Arndt despised the French, Slavs, and Jews, and Riehl also held an antisemitic position (Staudenmaier Reference Staudenmaier, Biehl and Staudenmaier2011).
In the middle of the 19th century, the first nature conservation movement in German history emerged in the German Empire. The leading figures of this movement were not only committed to nature conservation but also to combining it with homeland protection. In the 1880s, Ernst Rudorff, regarded as the father of homeland protection, developed the völkisch-romantic concept of “homeland protection.” He founded the “Bund Heimatschutz association” on March 30, 1904, and refused membership to Jews (Fachstelle Radikalisierungsprävention und Engagement im Naturschutz 2019). Homeland protectors set up nature, peoples, and homelands as decisively linked entities. Over a long period of time, the “natural biotope” created specific peoples, races, and ethnic groups, which thereby acquired a “grounded” character and a unique collective identity that is biologically inherited. Therefore, people could be divided into “land-bound” and “landless peoples.” The Jews were the heads of the “landless peoples” and could only draw their strength from money (Wagner 2018). For this reason, homeland protection rejected equality and “Jewish materialism,” opposed immigration, and especially exaggerated the destruction of homeland and nature by the Jewish people (Gröning and Lichtenstaedter Reference Gröning, Lichtenstaedter, Gröning and Wolschke-Bulmahn2006). Thus, ecological preservation justified xenophobia and provided a new argument for the traditional antisemitic movement in Germany. Nature conservation, Volk protection, and homeland protection can also be equated. Therefore, homeland protection was a concept that deliberately emphasizes exclusion (Frohn Reference Frohn2015).
In the 1890s, while the field of homeland protection was increasingly occupied by the political right, a “völkisch movement” arose in Germany. The movement was dominated by German nationalist, racist, and antisemitic parties and associations, with an exclusive ideology centered on antisemitism, anti-Slavism as important elements of its racial ideological foundation. The worldview of volkism was based on a community that existed through blood ties, and thus the goal pursued by the volkists was the creation of a racist, ethnically homogeneous German national community. Blood and soil became the determining factors of ethnic affiliation (Hering Reference Hering, Grunewald and Puschner2003). Like the Protectors of the homeland, the volkists emphasized the close connection between land and nation, and combined geographic determinismFootnote 2 with the Germanic mythology that the harsh, primitive nature of Germania had created a superior genetic material for the Germanic peoples. On this basis, the volkists concluded that “the land makes the man” and that the German nation was superior to other nations. To preserve nature, therefore, was to preserve the vestiges of the original Germania and to preserve the land that had made the Germans superior to others (Franke Reference Franke2013). From its inception, the ideology of volkism has been combined with antisemitism. While opposing rationalism, cosmopolitanism, and urban civilization, this movement, like the homeland protection movement, blamed Jews for some of the social problems as well as for the environmental destruction (Postone Reference Postone, von Barbara, Kleist, Küßner, Wehrhahn and Wolf2005). While elevating the Germanic race, the volkists vigorously excluded and disparaged the Jews, placing them at the bottom of the human hierarchy. They believed that despite having everything, the Jews were incapable of loving their homeland because they had no homeland at all (Schmoll Reference Schmoll, Radkau and Uekötter2003), belonging instead to a rootless “desert nation.” (Sombart Reference Sombart1911)
In 1896, a “Wandervogel movement” arose in Steglitz, marking the beginning of the “youth movement.” At the beginning of the 20th century, it eventually became the most influential youth movement. The völkisch worldview became an important ideological foundation for the Wandervogel movement, which practiced and disseminated the ideals of the völkisch movement. The Wandervogel movement criticized urban culture while emphasizing the close connection between nature and homeland (Puschner Reference Puschner, Botsch and Haverkamp2014). The introversion of Germans was in opposition to the acquisitiveness and rootlessness of Jews. The “Jewishness” was seen as a carrier of disintegration and a threat to the composition of nature and landscape. Migratory groups such as the Jews, due to their lack of connection to their surroundings, were unable to take any responsibility for nature and the environment. Therefore, they did not belong to the organic order of human and landscape and were identified as a threat, falsification, and contamination of one’s own (Schmoll Reference Schmoll, Radkau and Uekötter2003).
After the rise of National Socialism, some ideological elements of the right-wing ecological movement, such as “Germanic mythology,” geographical determinism, and the opposition between urban and rural civilization, were absorbed and developed into the concept of “blood and soil,” due to their common positions of volkism, social Darwinism, racism, and antisemitism. Premised on “Germanic mysticism,” the concept assumes the unity of an ethnically defined national body with its settlement area, thus organically combining environmental purity with racial purity. While proclaiming the superiority of the “Germanic race,” the theory focused on pitting the Germanic-Nordic race as a peasantry rooted in the land against the rootless Jewish nomads. The rural way of life was idealized by the Nazis and opposed to the city (Corni and Gies Reference Corni and Gies1994). In the Third Reich, ecological conservation areas such as nature conservation, landscape protection, and animal protection were deeply influenced by the ideology of National Socialism. With the institutionalization of nature conservation policies, the Nazi regime formulated laws such as the Reich Nature Conservation Act, the Reich Animal Protection Act, and the Reich Hunting Law, by which nature and animal protection gained a special legal status (Dirscherl Reference Dirscherl2012). However, these laws were introduced to a large extent for ideological propaganda purposes. While elevating the status of nature, landscapes, and animals, Nazism biologically degraded “inferior races” such as the Roma and the Jews in the country as a justification for their exclusion, deportation, and even extermination, in order to achieve the goals of “national purity” and “communal purity.” Consequently, although these laws were ahead of their time in terms of the completeness of their provisions, they did not bear fruit because they were not really enforced. The modernization of National Socialism and the development of the military industry instead caused massive damage to the nature and landscape of Germany (Frohn Reference Frohn, Frohn and Friedemann2006). Taking the Reich Animal Protection Act, which was touted by the Nazis as the “best animal welfare legislation in the world,” as an example. Although the Act contains detailed provisions against cruelty to animals, at its core, it prohibits ritual slaughter practiced by Jews. Vivisection, supposedly a particular passion of Jewish doctors and considered “a monstrosity of Jewish materialistic orthodox medicine” (BRUMME Reference Brumme and Hubenstorf1997), was also strictly prohibited. The law was thus motivated more by restrictions on Jewish religious freedom and discrimination against Jews.
After the Second World War, right-wing ecological conservation did not disappear with the fall of the Third Reich, and many of the activists who had been involved in the “blood and soil” nature conservation were still able to continue their nature conservation work and exert their influence in associations in the Federal Republic of Germany. In fact, from 1933 to 1960 onwards, nature conservation was dominated by the same generation in both official and private associations. It was not until around 1970 that this situation gradually changed with the beginning of the democratization of nature conservation (Engels Reference Engels, Radkau and Uekötter2003). Unlike over a hundred years of nature and environmental protection, this new ecological movement, known as the “ecological turn,” has led to the globalization of previously narrow national views on nature conservation. It is no longer primarily concerned with one’s own country or one’s own homeland, but with people themselves and their prospects for survival on the planet (Volmer Reference Volmer2009). Modern environmental protection based on empirical science not only has a background of global cooperation, but also embraces the spirit of universal human rights. Prior to this, especially since the late 19th century, the main ideas that left their mark in both ecological science and the ecological movement were conservatism to fascism (GedenReference Geden1996).
After the rise of the new ecological movement, conservative, biological, revivalist, and even fascist ecological conservation ideas continued to exert influence. Almost all right-wing parties and groups, from the New Right to the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), increasingly focused on environmental protection issues and incorporated them into their political platforms (Jahn and Wehling Reference Jahn and Wehling1990). As early as 1973, the NPD included a paragraph on “national health and environmental protection” in its program and listed “protection of the environment and nature” as an indispensable prerequisite for the preservation of human living space and national health (Hoffmann Reference Hoffmann1999). In 1977, the party’s youth organization, the Young National Democrats (JN), also emphasized in its Ecological Manifesto that “environmental protection and homeland protection” should be established as guiding principles, along with “national and subsistence protection” (Jahn and Wehling Reference Jahn and Wehling1990). In their party platform in 1987, the Republicans included environmental protection in the comprehensive national health policy, and took “maintaining the survival of the German people, their health and their ecological living space” as the priority goal of domestic policy (Die Republikaner 1987). In addition, the Heidelberg Declaration issued on June 17, 1981, also openly expressed racism and xenophobia. The 15 German professors who signed the declaration issued a warning against the “infiltration of the German nation” and the “alienation” of the German language, culture, and “ethnicity.” Viewing the nation as a higher system of life, the declaration argued that the integration of large numbers of foreigners could not be carried out simultaneously with the preservation of the German nation. Since these people not only added to the burden of society, but also to the ecological burden of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is “one of the most densely populated countries in the world,” they should return to their ancestral homeland (Das Heidelberger Manifest 1981).
In short, right-wing ecological conservation has long dominated Germany’s ecological conservation history. Before the start of the new ecological movement in the 1970s, ecological conservation in Germany was long controlled by right-wing and conservative forces, and intertwined with ideas of naturalism, revivalism, racism, and anti-Semitism. In the history of right-wing ecological conservation in Germany, xenophobia has always played an important role. By emphasizing the natural connection between Volk (blood) and space (soil), the purity of nature and environment was organically linked to the purity of the Volk. Ultimately, ecological conservation in areas such as nature conservation, environmental protection, landscape conservation, and animal protection could be equated with homeland protection. Immigrants like Jews, who are seen as “rootless” and “foreign,” have caused damage to nature and the environment, thereby threatening the safety of the homeland and becoming targets of hatred.
Xenophobia in species conservation and animal protection
In contemporary Germany, ecological protection issues such as nature conservation, environmental protection, and animal protection are still taken seriously by far-right parties and organizations. They call for the protection of nature, environment, forests, landscapes, species, and animals, resist nuclear energy and genetic modification, advocate and practice organic agriculture, and call for the establishment of regional economic cycles to reduce energy consumption (NPD 2010; Alternative für Deutschland 2016; Der Dritte Weg 2018). On the surface, their ecological preservation claims are often no different from those of the left-wing, and in some aspects, they even demand more. However, due to the theoretical basis in far-right ideas such as biologism, volkism, antisemitism, and racism, their modes of argumentation, motivations, and purposes are fundamentally different compared to those of the left.
The concept of “biological invasion” and the debate surrounding neobiota in nature conservation are susceptible to misuse by right-wing extremist, xenophobic arguments due to the terms used. Criticism of ritual slaughter has long been an important component of antisemitism in the history of right-wing ecological conservation. After Muslims replaced Jews as the largest immigrant group in Germany, ritual slaughter became an important argument for anti-Muslim racism. Therefore, this article takes species conservation and animal protection as examples to analyze the combination of right-wing ecological conservation and xenophobia in contemporary Germany.
Species conservation
Environment and nature are the core elements of the far-right worldview, with concepts such as nature, environmental protection, biotope, and species conservation occupying a central position in this worldview (Wagner 2018). The homeland is also regarded as a utopia of harmony between humans and nature. However, it also has an identity-forming function and structural exclusivity. In the tradition of nature conservation, the foreignness of species is destructive because it impairs the familiarity of the accustomed habitat (Eser Reference Eser1999). Right-wing extreme conservationists argue that superhuman nature must be protected in its primitive form because it directly determines the personality and social structure of the “Volk.” The neobiota, however, “tamper” with the purity of the primitive nature and should therefore be rejected (Franke Reference Franke2012). However, their distinction between “native” and “alien” species is mainly based not on ecological or natural scientific standards, but on cultural concepts of “home” and “foreign.” Due to the exclusivity of homeland, expressions such as “new biota,” “foreign,” “exotic,” and “non-native” species all have negative connotations and are essentially equivalent to “invasive species.” In addition, using terms from the social sciences, such as “neo-citizens,” “neo-immigrants,” “animal immigrants,” and “animals with a migration background” in the natural sciences can easily shift discussions about alien species towards immigration issues (Horn Reference Horn2009; Graf Reference Graf2016).
The Federal Nature Conservation Act defines “invasive species” as “species that occur outside their natural range and pose a significant threat to local natural ecosystems, habitats, or species” (§ 7 (2) 9) (Bundesamts für Justiz 2009). In the field of nature conservation, invasive species are considered the second greatest threat to biological diversity worldwide after habitat destruction (Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2025). According to data from the German Federal Information Center for Agriculture, invasive species caused economic losses of up to €116.61 billion in European agriculture and forestry between 1960 and 2020 alone. Besides the UK, Spain, and France, Germany is also one of the most severely affected countries. Germany’s losses amounted to at least €8.21 billion, not including indirect costs caused by health impacts or ecological damage (Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft 2024).
Given the enormous harm caused by invasive species, species conservation is highly valued by the German government and environmental agencies. Some far-right parties have also incorporated nature conservation, environmental protection, and homeland protection into their worldview, attempting to establish a direct connection between natural order and social order. This is also reflected in their party platforms, election manifestos, or ecological declarations. The NPD views humans as part of nature in its party platform. Therefore, nature is not only the “environment” for humans but also their natural foundation for survival. Due to concerns that genetically modified (GM) technology could have immeasurable impacts on the nation and nature, the NPD has called for a ban on the sale of GM foods and the cultivation of GM crops in Germany. The party argues that nature conservation also includes the protection of biodiversity in the world of flora and fauna. Due to the significant threat posed by seed companies and genetic engineering companies to the diversity of economic crops, it calls for the unimpeded cultivation and sale of domestic crops and their seeds (NPD 2010). In mid-July 2019, the environmental policy spokesmen of the AfD Landtag factions and the Bundestag faction at the party’s second environmental conference adopted a “Dresden Declaration (Dresdner Erklärung)” with an ecological agenda. The declaration addresses the harm caused by invasive species to native species and equates nature conservation and landscape protection with homeland protection (AfD 2019). The Third Way argues that humans are and remain part of nature. Therefore, an intact natural environment is the foundation of the German people. In Article 4 of its party platform, entitled “Ten-Point Program,” the party regards the homeland as “a country of Germans” and equates the homeland with identity. In order to prevent excessive foreignization, it demands that the granting of German citizenship must once again be linked to bloodline, and only to bloodline. In Article 7, the party emphasizes the importance of environmental policy because without environmentally friendly policies, the survival foundation of any nation will be threatened. If humans distance themselves from the environment and lose their foundation, they will lose their identity (Der Dritte Weg 2018). Therefore, the goal of the Third Way is to create or restore an environment with living value, preserve and develop the biological substance of the nation, and promote its health.
From the platforms of these three parties, it is evident that the concepts of homeland, identity, nature, and environment are integrated. Since humans are rooted in “nature” or “environment,” nature or environment plays a decisive role in identity formation. However, the “nature” they focus on is not nature in the broad sense, but rather “German” nature, and the “environment” they focus on is not the living environment of ‘humans’ in the broad sense, but rather the living environment of their own “Volk.” Therefore, the nature conservation and environment protection in right-wing ecological conservation are nothing more than a means of preserving the völkisch-defined German Volk. The pseudo-ecological stance of these three parties is also evident in their attitudes toward climate issues. Due to the need for global cooperation to achieve climate protection, it is associated with “cosmopolitanism” and “globalism,” leading to a partial loss of sovereignty. Consequently, within right-wing conservation in contemporary Germany, climate change — despite potentially being the gravest threat to the homeland — is frequently questioned for ideological reasons, and climate protection is often downplayed or even rejected. Because environmental protection is understood as regional homeland protection, it is not considered part of climate protection, but rather contrasted with it. Therefore, the Third Way denies climate change and industry’s responsibility for global warming, and sets national environmental protection against global climate protection (Der Dritte Weg 2024). In the “Dresden Declaration,” the AfD also contrasts ‘so-called climate protection’ against ‘environmental protection’ and ‘landscape conservation.’ It demands an end to photovoltaic and wind power generation—which cause no air pollution and thus benefit climate protection — because these energy sources would cause significant damage to “native forests” and Germany’s cultural landscape (Aktionsbündnis Brandenburg gegen Gewalt, Rechtsextremismus und Rassismus 2022; Staud Reference Staud2012). While strongly opposing climate protection measures, the AfD, like the NPD, views lignite as a “domestic energy source” based on energy nationalism. Consequently, neither party universally rejects coal-fired power generation for environmental protection purposes, but rather prioritizes energy independence over global warming. Furthermore, the AfD rejects an ideologically motivated phase-out of coal as well as a CO2 tax or pricing of CO₂ in any form and demands withdrawal from the Paris Agreement of 2015 (AfD 2019). Consequently, a comparison of the parties based on the expert assessment of the Chapel Hill Expert Survey 2019 (CHES) shows that the AfD represents the least environmentally friendly positions (Jolly, Bakker, Ryan etc. Reference Jolly, Bakker and Hooghe2022).
In addition, the introduction of alien species has been occurring in Europe since the Age of Discovery. These alien species have not only enriched Germany’s species diversity but have also brought enormous economic and ecological benefits. Therefore, it is completely wrong to hold a discriminatory attitude towards alien species and equate them with “invasive species.” Today, more than 70 percent of Germans’ food comes from non-native plants. For example, wheat and lentils originate from the Middle East. Potatoes, tomatoes, corn, and pumpkins all originate from Central or South America (Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft 2024). Among these “exotic” plants, potatoes in particular have had a profound impact on German culture and cuisine. Potatoes were introduced to Germany around the end of the 16th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries, many rulers recognized the enormous potential of this tuber as a food source. They actively promoted its cultivation in order to combat famine and improve the nutritional situation. Frederick the Great of Prussia, especially vigorously promoted the cultivation of potatoes in Prussia through the “potato orders” (Humm 2012). Since then, potatoes have gradually become the staple of German cuisine and have proven to be extremely valuable as an important food source in times of crisis. Foreign tree species can enrich forestry activities and be economically interesting. In response to a general shortage of wood, forestry cultivation began in Germany in the mid-18th century with imported, exotic tree species. These were intended to help restore the productivity and stability of the devastated forests. In contemporary Germany, people still enrich the country’s relatively narrow range of tree species by planting some valuable exotic tree species. For example, the Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), the Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and the grand fir (Abies grandis) are not only non-invasive, but also beneficial additions to German tree species (Weller and Meiwes 2015; Otto Reference Otto1993; Vor, Spellmann, Bolte etc. Reference Vor, Spellmann, Bolte and Ammer2015). In addition to their economic value, foreign tree species may also have ecological value. Researchers have found that during periods of climate change, when insects’ native host trees die in large numbers, foreign trees can serve as refuges for insects (Floren, Horchler, and Müller Reference Floren, Horchler and Müller2022).
However, far-right parties and organizations avoid discussing this, just as they only emphasize the destructive nature of immigration but completely ignore the contributions that immigrants make to German society. Because their main motivation for actively participating in species conservation is to shift the discussion of alien species towards the discussion of alien “humans” and apply biological frameworks to societal issues in order to propose biologically grounded solutions. Corresponding to the opposition to alien species, some right-wing ecological activists oppose foreigners and the “mixing” of culture, that is, human society should be protected as well as nature from “alien” influences. For example, Felix Menzel, one of the core figures of the identity movement, criticized mass migration and invasive species and argued that the protection of flora and fauna also applied to peoples (Menzel Reference Menzel2019). Moreover, by conceptualizing human culture as an integral part of nature, proponents of right-wing ecology advocate for the preservation of regionally specific plants, animals, and cultural traditions against the threats of globalization, homogenization, and cultural extinction. Therefore, excluding alien species can both protect the unique integrity of specific ecosystems and maintain the purity of each culture, thus protecting cultural diversity (Olsen Reference Olsen1999).
While using species conservation to incite xenophobia, some far-right parties try to exaggerate the threat of immigrants, refugees, and other foreigners to Germany. For instance, the Third Way argues that Germany’s ecological carrying capacity has reached its peak for decades. Therefore, in a densely populated country like Germany, the large-scale migration of refugees from the ‘poor’ world to the ‘rich’ world has intensified intra-species competition (Der Dritte Weg 2018). The AfD fabricated a “migration of peoples (Völkerwanderung)” that threatened to destroy the cultural, political, and social foundations of Germany and Europe (Rohgalf Reference Rohgalf and Korte2015). Furthermore, in a speech to the Bundestag in May 2018, party chair Alice Weidel used the term “generation replacement through unregulated immigration” to refer to the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, accusing the German government of wanting to “choose and assemble the people itself” (Bahners Reference Bahners2023).
On immigration issues, both the NPD and the AfD hold hardline positions. The NPD rejects integration as a solution to immigration issues because it argues that “multicultural societies have failed.” In its party platform, the NPD demands an end to the costly and inhumane integration policy. It is committed to preserving the substance of the German nation, as it equates integration with genocide. In particular, it emphasizes that Islamization poses a special threat to German identity and culture. To ensure the “right to survival of the German nation,” the NPD demands the reintroduction of the original citizenship law based on the principle of bloodline and the deportation of foreigners currently residing in Germany back to their countries of origin (NPD 2010). In response to the immigration issues, the far-right circles in Germany have proposed a solution of “remigration,” which is to expel German citizens with immigrant backgrounds. In a speech, Weidel also called for large-scale deportations and said, “I must be frank with you. If this is called ‘repatriation’, then call it ‘repatriation’” (Kollmar and Schmidt Reference Kollmar and Schmidt2025).
In conclusion, far-right parties and organizations demonstrate a close association between nature conservation, environmental protection, and the protection of the homeland from external influences. The exclusivity of homeland has transformed species conservation into a tool of identity politics. Consequently, foreigners are not merely a social issue but also an ecological problem that is destroying the homeland. In debates on species conservation, far-right political parties and organizations employ this strategy to legitimize racist ideologies. They do so by presenting arguments that intersect with nature conservation and species conservation. In this way, they seek to broaden the acceptance of their biological, völkisch, and racist worldview.
In short, far-right parties and organizations are concerned that “mixing” will lead to the loss of purity and destruction of ecosystems and the community, and therefore hate “alien” species and “alien” people. Underlying their arguments lies an ideology of “unequal value,” that is, the value of the original species in “German” nature is higher than that of “alien” species, and the value of the German nation is higher than that of other nations, especially non-European nations. Based on this idea, far-right parties and organizations are committed to preserving the purity of “German” nature, because it is the basis for Germans to be superior to other nations. The protection of ‘German’ nature is framed as necessary for sustaining the natural foundations believed to underpin the nation’s exceptional characteristics. For the society, foreigners and immigrants are excluded in order to maintain the purity of the “national community” and avoid “Umvolkung” or “ethnic death.”
Animal protection
In the field of animal protection, far-right parties and organizations often participate in various social discussions and animal protection activities under the guise of “love for animals,” attempting to create an image of themselves as “improvers of animal welfare” among the public. They advocate for the good treatment of animals in all aspects, including restricting animal experimentation, implementing humane slaughter, opposing industrial farming, advocating species-appropriate animal husbandry, and calling for a ban on the keeping of wild animals in circuses. Because the topics of animal protection and welfare can easily garner public sympathy, far-right parties and organizations attempt to win sympathizers through clever propaganda strategies and establish a firm foothold in society.
In order to demonstrate their love for animals, the NPD and the AfD have included animal protection in their party platforms. The NPD claims that “animals are not disposable items, commodities, but living beings with feelings.” Therefore, it demands that animal experiments be conducted only in extremely necessary circumstances for medical purposes. In addition, it rejects industrial large-scale farming and demands that animal transportation must comply with animal welfare standards (NPD 2010). The NPD’s youth organization, the Young National Democrats (JN), criticizes industrialized meat production as immoral because animals are downgraded to commodities. It claims that the lives of those chickens that end up as McNuggets or Big Macs in consumers’ cardboard bags are characterized by suffering and misery, as they have neither sunshine nor freedom of movement in their feeding devices. Their maximum life expectancy is only 28 days, and they are ultimately slaughtered in a fully conscious state. Therefore, it refers to the fast-food company (McDonald’s) as the “McDonald’s killer” (Junge Nationalisten 2009). On the surface, it is exposing the miserable lives of fattening animals to the public in order to draw attention to them so as to improve their living conditions. However, animal protection here masks anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalist views. The AfD views animals as “sentient beings” and “living beings of the same kind,” calling for strict restrictions on factory farming and promoting “species-appropriate” feeding systems in animal husbandry. Compared to NPD, its animal protection measures are more detailed, such as requiring shorter transportation distances for livestock and slaughtered animals, and limiting transport time to no more than six hours (AfD Bundesverband 2025). The Third Way calls for ensuring the protection of animals and species, and placing animal protection and environmental protection on an equal footing with human protection. It regards preventing animal abuse as a human obligation, and requires the state to prohibit ritual slaughter and the keeping of wild animals in circuses, as both belong to animal abuse (Der III. Weg 2024). Die Rechte demands that “animals should be recognized, protected, and cared for as fellow beings” (Die Rechte 2021).
In the contemporary right-wing animal protection movement in Germany, baseless accusations of animal abuse by immigrants and discrimination against people of different religious beliefs are important tools used by far-right parties and organizations to stir up xenophobia. The purpose is to create conflict between immigration and animal protection, thereby provoking the German people’s aversion towards immigration. AfD and its affiliated media outlets claim that there are increasing incidents of religiously motivated attacks on dogs in Germany. They rely on occasional and real incidents of immigrant animal abuse, but more on one-sided and untrue reports to fabricate the religious background of animal abuse cases. Immigrants are accused of labeling dogs as unclean and launching a “jihad” against them (Gensing Reference Gensing2019).
Among the various forms of discrimination against people of different religious beliefs, criticism of “cruel” ritual slaughter is the most important inciting topic. The AfD considers ritual slaughter to be cruel to animals. Stephan Protschka, the party’s parliamentary group spokesman on agricultural policy, claimed in a debate in the Bundestag that ritual slaughter is not in line with animal welfare. Since animals are killed by having their throats cut while fully conscious, ritual slaughter is the “cruelest way of killing” (Protschka Reference Protschka2023). Therefore, it supports the removal of the exemption for religious reasons from the requirement for anesthesia in Section 2, Paragraph 4a (2) of the Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz/TierSchG) (Alternative für Deutschland 2016), and demands that ritual slaughter only be permitted after adequate anesthesia has been administered and that the duration of anesthesia be guaranteed throughout the entire slaughter process (AfD Bundesverband 2025). However, the AfD doesn’t push for a complete ban on slaughter without anesthesia. In addition to slaughter for religious reasons, Section 2 (4a) (2) of the Animal Welfare Act also provides for exemptions for emergency slaughter. Furthermore, with the approval of the Bundesrat, the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture may “determine exceptions to the requirement for electrical stunning when slaughtering poultry (…)” (Bundesamts für Justiz 2006). Neither the AfD nor other right-wing parties are calling for these exemptions to be removed from the Animal Welfare Act. It is clear that their real concern is not improving animal welfare, but restricting religious freedom. The NPD considers “culturally alien” ritual slaughter to be animal abuse and should therefore be punished severely under criminal law as a criminal act (NPD 2010). Some far-right animal protectors also frequently oppose non-German, and therefore “culturally alien” and “species alien” ritual slaughter under the slogan “Ritual slaughter is animal torture.” Behind this slogan lies also an argument of cultural racism (Staud Reference Staud2015). Unlike biology, cultural racism uses the concept of “culture” instead of “race” to evaluate and interpret social behavior, and excludes and discriminates against people based on cultural identity. Due to the fact that the total number of Muslim immigrants in Germany far exceeds that of Jewish immigrants,4 cultural racism criticism primarily focuses on Muslims. In criticizing ritual slaughter, anti-Muslim racism disguises itself as a criticism of religion, portraying Islam as an “uncivilized” religion. In this way, Muslims are devalued and excluded from German society (Voß Reference Voß2015).
There are no official statistics on the number of ritually slaughtered animals in Germany, but based on existing data, it can be deduced that they represent only a very small proportion of the total number of animals slaughtered in Germany. In Lower Saxony, for example, there is currently only one slaughterhouse with a special license for ritual slaughter, and its annual volume of animals slaughtered fluctuates in the low three-digit range (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 2018). Dr Edmund Haferbeck, legal advisor of the German branch of the animal welfare organization “PETA,” also points out that “the field of ritual slaughter is a very insignificant area in the overall complex of animal exploitation in Germany.” It should be noted that the animal anesthesia methods used in Germany’s conventional slaughterhouses are not perfect either, as both chemical anesthesia using carbon dioxide gas and physical anesthesia methods based on electric shocks have a certain failure rate. According to the Federal Statistical Office, 55.1 million pigs and 3.5 million cattle were slaughtered in Germany in 2019. Additionally, according to the federal government, the rate of failure to anesthetize ranges from 3.3 percent to 12.5 percent for pigs and 4 percent to 9 percent for cattle. Based on this rate, at least 2 million animals were slaughtered in 2019 without being adequately anesthetized in normal slaughterhouses (Wolf Reference Wolf2024). Therefore, considering the small percentage of ritual slaughter in the German slaughter industry and the shortcomings of the existing anesthesia methods in Germany, it is a serious distortion of reality to consider ritual slaughter as the sole cause of suffering in slaughtered animals.
The majority of German Muslims have long since accepted the anesthesia method of short electric shocks. Because this does not violate Islamic doctrine and can reduce the pain of slaughtered animals, animal welfare and religious issues can be considered equally. The General Association of the Union of Islamic Religious Affairs Bureaus of Turkey (DITIB) has also called for animals not to be tortured at slaughter during the Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha. The organization stated that “there is nothing wrong with using electric shocks or similar methods to make animals unconscious before slaughtering them, in order to prevent them from suffering unnecessary pain” (Deutscher Tierschutzbund 2016). Reform Jews have also called for short-term anesthesia, as Hanna Rheinz, a Jewish cultural scientist and founder of the Jewish Animal Welfare Initiative, has long advocated in her writings (Bundesverband Tierschutz e.V. 2019). However, the efforts of far-right parties like the AfD to protect animals in slaughter are confined to ritual slaughter by Jews and Muslims, and they never pursue overall progress in slaughter technology. They reject compromise to preserve a pretext for targeting Judaism and Islam, as their aim is less about animal welfare and more about inciting racism and excluding foreign religions and cultures.
In conclusion, far-right parties and organizations actively participate in animal protection, attempting to portray themselves as “animal welfare defenders” to the public. On the other hand, they incite xenophobia through baseless accusations of immigrant animal abuse and criticism of ritual slaughter. Ultimately, far-right parties and organizations have exploited animal protection to create a dichotomy between a German culture of compassion for animals and an alleged foreign culture of animal discrimination and abuse, using the promotion of “cultural” superiority to effectively propagate racial superiority. During the Nazi era, animal protection was closely intertwined with antisemitism and racism. In contemporary Germany, right-wing animal protection, far-right parties, and organizations have inherited this ecological narrative and continued the Nazi-era logic of racial exclusion in a more covert, culturally racist manner. Since a sharp dichotomy has emerged between “animal-loving Germans” and “animal-abusing immigrants,” the enemies of animals have become the enemies of Germans, and animal protection can be equated with national protection and homeland protection. Therefore, the motivation of far-right parties and organizations to engage in animal protection is political manipulation rather than genuine concern for animals. Animal protection is merely a tool for their disguised xenophobic propaganda and greenwashing.
Conclusion
The combination of ecological preservation and xenophobia from the right side of the political spectrum has a long history in Germany. The use of the topic of ecological preservation for overt or covert xenophobic propaganda is an important motivation for far-right parties and organizations to engage in ecological preservation debates and activities in contemporary Germany. The ideological core of right-wing ecology is most clearly exemplified by the position on immigration issues: antisemitism, which is dominated by the stigmatization, devaluation, and rejection of Jewish immigrants, has been present throughout the history of right-wing ecological preservation. After the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, with the increase in Muslim immigration, anti-Muslim racism gradually replaced antisemitism as the most important content of xenophobia in the right-wing ecological conservation movement in Germany.
From the perspective of ideological concepts and argumentation patterns, right-wing ecology regards blood and land as the foundation of culture, and emphasizes the decisive role of geographical and environmental characteristics in the formation of human culture based on the idea of geographical determinism. Therefore, right-wing ecologists in Germany are committed to maintaining the purity of the country’s nature, culture, and Volk, and are afraid of the mixture of “species (races)” and “culture (ethnics).” The “foreignness” is the reason why alien species, alien religions, and alien people (immigrants) are excluded and attacked, because this exoticism destroys the purity of “German” nature and society (the national community), and thus causes harm to it. Through the binary opposition between “land-bound” and “landless peoples,” ethnic groups close to nature and those who destroy it, ethnic groups who love animals and those who abuse them, “superior” culture and “backward” culture, right-wing ecologists conclude from differences in ethnic origins, personalities, cultures and other aspects that the German nation has superiority, while foreign ethnic groups have inferiority. Due to the fact that using cultural differences as an excuse for xenophobic and exclusionary propaganda is more covert than using racial superiority or inferiority as an excuse, right-wing ecologists are actually attempting to use ecological conservation arguments to replace racial superiority with cultural superiority. However, whether it is promoting the “superiority” of biology and genetics or cultural superiority, its core is an anti-democratic and anti-human idea of inequality. Therefore, the right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany not only elevates the value of nature and animal life at the ecological and cultural levels, but also strives to belittle foreign “people.” Behind the love for nature, homeland, and animals is the hatred towards foreign “people.”
Right-wing ecological conservation in Germany has been intertwined with nationalism from its inception; therefore, its objects of protection have always been ‘national (German)’ nature and environment. With the deepening of globalization today, nationalism has not been weakened, but has become increasingly strong and has shown great flexibility. Within right-wing ecological conservation in contemporary Germany, it continues to serve as a core ideological pillar, manifesting itself in forms such as ecological nationalism, xenophobic nationalism, ethnic nationalism, cultural nationalism, and energy nationalism. Due to the central position of the concept of “homeland,” a naturally occurring community of people and land, right-wing ideology is essentially still a völkisch “blood and soil” ideology. Because of the view of nature, Volk and homeland as an indivisible unity, and the equation of ecological conservation in all fields with homeland protection, right-wing ecological conservation and ecocriticism in contemporary German focuses on the local, the regional or the national (FARN 2019) and thus lacks a global perspective and rejects the search for solutions to global ecological problems through international cooperation.
In summary, the right wing’s involvement in ecological conservation is designed to instrumentalize ecological issues in order to eliminate the opposition of the political spectrum, improve its social image, covertly disseminate right-wing ideology under the guise of “ecology” and “greenness,” and exclude immigrants and foreigners as an important objective. The right-wing ecology of contemporary Germany inherits the traditional concept of “blood and soil” while incorporating many modern elements, and promotes xenophobia from a “cultural” rather than a “racial” perspective, making it highly deceptive and confusing.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Yuan Ruoheng from the University of Mainz in Germany for her assistance in data collection.
Financial support
This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China under Grant [number 21BSS035].
Disclosure
None.
Open access
