204 Chapter 9
mightcomeat the cost of someyearsto her life, additionalyearsthat she otherwisewould
haveexperienced.Whenit comesto suchtradeoffsin the pursuitof eudaemonia,every
individualmustengagein introspectionandrationalstudyto renderher ownjudgment
callson whatshe does.
TheNaziswouldnot countenancemy idea—leavingpeoplefreeto act on theirown
choicesconcerningtheirownhealth.Proctorstatesthat in the ThirdReichthe ideologyof
illness“preventionmergedwiththe ideologyof ‘one for all andall for one’ (Gemeinnutz
gehtvor Eigennutz) thatwasyet anotherhallmarkof Nazithought:as one anti-tobacco
activistput it, nicotinedamagesnot just the individualbut the populationas a whole.”^12
Sullumpointsout thatthis ideasoundssimilarto a sentimentexpressedby C. Everett
Koop(1916–2013),the U.S.surgeongeneralunderthe Clintonadministration.He quotes
this statementof Koop’s: “Thegovernmenthas a perfectrightto influencepersonalbe-
haviorto the bestof its abilityif it is for the welfareof the individualand the community
as a whole.” BothKoopandthe Germangovernistsprioritizethe collectiveabovethe
individual’s well-being.^13
TheMalignancyof MisconceptionsAboutCancer
Nazipracticesthatare still yet morePC by the standardsof contemporaryenviron-
mentalistsare the dietaryhabitsthat the ThirdReichforceduponthe population.Despite
his ownsupportfor left-wingenvironmentalistgovernism,GeorgeWashingtonUniver-
sity geographerMartinW. Lewisadmits,“... Germannationalsocialismwasheavily
ladenwitha romantic,ecologicallyimbued‘bloodand soil’ ideology.”^14 Returningto the
subjectof Germany’s past,RobertProctorilluminates,“Onecommonthemeof Nazifood
rhetoricwasthe needto returnto a morenaturaldietfreeof artificialcoloringsand
preservatives.... Meateatingwasto be minimized,andfreshfoodswereto be chosen
overpreservedfoodsin tins.” Throughit, “Vegetarianismgot a boost.” Meanwhile,“Ef-
fortsweremadeto control foodadditivesand to limitthe oversaltingof prepared
foods.”^15
Airingthe samearbitraryassumptionsthat hundredsof anti-capitalistenvironmental-
ists air in the era of this writing,Naziofficialsallegedthatthe syntheticfertilizers,pesti-
cides,andantibioticsutilizedby agribusinessandfactoryfarmshadrenderedthe food
supplyunsafeandsignificantlymorecarcinogenicthanit otherwisewouldbe. Justas
NewAgefoodfaddistscurrentlydo, Nazisassimilatedthis fetishabouteating“organic”
producegrownin the absenceof manmadechemicals.As usual,though,this famedNazi
practicedid not beginunderthe ThirdReichbut underthe influenceof the Second.It was
in Bismarck’s Germany,it will be recalled,thatgovernismand anti-reason,anti-industri-
alistRomanticismheldsway.Organicfarmingwasfirstpreachedin 1924by the doctor
andmysticRudolfSteiner(1861–1925),whobuilthis entirelifestylearoundbeliefin the
supernatural,participatingin the NewAgemovement“theosophy”—untilhis dispute
withfellowmysticJidduKrishnamurti(1895–1986)^16 —andthenfounding“anthroposo-
phy.”^17 AlthoughBismarck’s rulehadendedby then,the philosophicclimatehe engen-
deredhadremainedstrongin 1920sGermanywhenSteiner’s teachingsfirstcaughton.
Noris it a surprisethatSteineradvocateda controlledeconomy.Steiner’s idealsocial
system,writesColinWilson,waswhatSteiner“calledthe ThreefoldCommonwealth—in
effect,a societyin whichthinkersand artistswouldmakethe decisions,whilethe politi-
ciansand businessmenwouldensurethe smoothrunningof the state.”^18
Steinerdid not call non-chemicalfarming“organic,” though;the namehe usedwas
biodynamicfarming.^19 Steiner’s preachingheavilyinfluencedroyalfamilymembersin Eng-
land,particularlySir AlbertHoward(1873–1947)and LadyEve Balfour(1899–1990)in the
1930sand1940s.^20 In turn,Sir Albert’s writingsstrucka chordwithAmerican-bornac-