Welcome to Mappa Mundi no.16.

This is the second in the trilogy of works highlighting the views of those in the so-called green movement. The first of the trilogy focused on so-called green individuals. The third will explore the greenness, or rather, the lack of it, amongst green organizations and the vicious, politically conventional, muppets in the media from journalists to the rich and famous. This issue explores loose associations of so-called greens i.e. people who have ideas in common - whether they belong to a formal organization or not. At one point in this conceptual star are those who share similar ideas because they belong to the same generation - the vietnam war generation produced what is called here the supergreens; at another point are those who share similar ideas because they belong to the same family e.g. the goldsmiths; at another point are those sharing common ideas because they’re involved in the same type of so-called green work i.e. the organic farming brigade; and, finally, there are those who share ideas but have no formal, or even informal, connections with each other e.g. the biospherians i.e. those who believe oomans need green politics in order to colonize the solar system, the rest of the galaxy, and the universe beyond.

1. The Supergreens.

1.1: The Emergence of the Supergreens.

In america, in the early 1960s, the publication of rachel carson’s book ‘silent spring’ led to the creation of the environmental movement in which, for the first time, people began to treat the environment as a political issue.[1] The movement spread from america to europe and other english speaking countries and, over the following years, led to the formation of groups which today form the backbone of the green movement. In this work, the people who helped to establish the green movement in the 1960s are called the ‘supergreens’ partly because they have now been in the green movement for 30-40 years but also because many of them still hold virtually the same views and values as they did when they became environmentalists. The environmentalists of the 1960s and 1970s learnt their politics in the days when they didn’t even identify themselves by a colour on the political spectrum; when there was virtually no conception of global burning; when gaia and the science of geophysiology were just a twinkle in james lovelock’s eye; when acid rain was only beginning to emerge as a global issue; when nobody had heard of the stratospheric ozone layer; and when few people conceived of Animal rights or deep ecology, etc - and these days right wing commentators argue the environment is getting better!

Carson’s book showed that the pharming industry’s excessive use of pesticides was poisoning the food chain and wiping out many Wildlife species. There was a concern about Animals being wiped out by pesticides but, as was common in those days, the real concern was the damage to ooman health caused by contamination of the ooman feed chain. The supergreens’ anger over this damage was directed primary towards the chemical industry and, to a lesser extent, modern, industrial pharming but, quite significantly, not pharmers themselves. Supergreens’ focused on the chemical industry because firstly, it was manufacturing vast quantities of toxic substances - in the process of which it was also dumping huge amounts of pollution into the environment. And, secondly, because it was regarded as being responsible for forcing farmers to use pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, anti-biotics, and hormone growth promoters, etc, in order to increase pharming productivity. The influence of science on the farming industry was becoming so dominant, particularly pharmacology which was providing many new products for farmers, that the industry could be described more accurately as pharming.[2]

It should be pointed out that whilst supergreens were strongly opposed to large scale, industrialized, intensive, pharming they had a strong affinity for pharmers especially traditional, small scale, family pharmers. Some of these family pharmers were too poor to apply expensive chemical treatments to their land and their slave Animals and were thus de facto organic pharmers - no matter how much they would have loved to have been able to pharm in the same way as their wealthier rivals. The reason for supergreens’ commitment to pharmers was their belief that most environmental damage was being caused by urbanites and that only by encouraging urban people to go back to the countryside and become pharmers would it be possible to solve environmental problems. Supergreens believe oomans can live in an environmentally friendly way only in rural areas where they can grow their own food and thus live close to the soil. For all the faults of modern pharming, farming was the only sustainable life. For example the ecologist’s editors argued, “City life is marked by consumption and waste. Cities, however small, have always been parasitic on the countryside around them, not least because the majority of their inhabitants must rely on farmers in the countryside to provide them with food. Where cities are small, and the demands of their citizens limited, the degradation caused need not undermine their viability. But the demands being made by city-dwellers today, particularly in the industrialized countries are global in their reach, and global in their implications. Meeting even the demands of present day cities is placing an intolerable burden on the environment and society as more and more resources are sucked into urban conglomerations.”[3] In other words, urbanites cause environmental damage, whereas pharming protects the environment. These supergreens’ assumptions and values have persisted over the last forty years - many so-called greens still condemn the chemical industry, complain about intensive pharming, but have nothing but praise for pharmers no matter how much damage they continue to inflict on the Earth’s life support system. Many supergreens still believe that only the demolition of cities will stop environmental damage - a little like pol pot.

The next object of environmentalists’ ire was the fossil fuel industry. In the 1960s, environmentalists attacked the fossil fuel industry for causing oil spills, acid rain, lead poisoning, and consuming scarce resources. Over the decades, greens’ attacks on the fossil fuel industry have undergone a transmutation. These days it is believed that fossil fuels’ contribution to acid rain is far smaller than was originally suspected and the quantity of fossil fuel resources much greater than was once thought to be the case. Since the late 1980s, greens’ main criticism of the fossil fuel industry has been its contribution to global burning.

In the 1970s, environmentalists’ anger was directed at the nuclear power industry. Environmentalists’ opposition to civilian nuclear power grew in the wake of the peace movement’s opposition to nuclear weapons. It was the threat of obliteration by a nuclear war which sparked off anger towards the nuclear power industry which, prior to that time, had been held in awe by most of the public - especially since it had promised to generate electricity that would be “too cheap to meter”.

In the late 1980s global burning suddenly emerged as one of the most critical issues in environmental politics. This issue was put onto the political agenda by the scientific community - not by environmentalists, many of whom were as caught out by it as ordinary politicians. The rise in concern for global burning, and the destabilization of the climate, had two impacts on supergreens. Firstly, although supergreens tended to accept scientists’ evaluation that the fossil fuel industries contributed more to global burning than the chemical, and nuclear power, industries they still retained a strong residual hatred for the latter industries. They simply dismissed the possibility of nuclear power replacing energy generated by burning fossil fuels. Secondly, as has been pointed out, whilst supergreens condemned large scale, industrialized, intensive, pharming they had a romantic view of traditional, small scale, organic pharming and rural life. As a consequence, when global burning became a political issue they dismissed the role played by pharmers in destabilizing the climate in the same way as they dismissed the idea of nuclear power replacing fossil fuels. Greens eagerly resumed their hostility to the fossil fuel industry and condemned it for releasing greenhouse gases but, once again, ignored the pharming industry’s contribution to the destabilization of the climate. In reality, the pharming industry is the biggest contributor to the destabilization of the climate because it not merely releases vast quantities of greenhouse gases but is also responsible for a vast scale of deforestation - but greens simply dismiss such allegations. Yes, there were many environmentalists who went around acknowledging that Cattle farts were a major contributor to the destabilization of the climate but they also tended to mention, in the same breadth, that termite farts were just as bad - by which they seemed to imply that both were forces beyond ooman control which could not be changed.

Some supergreens had the time to absorb the multitude of new green issues as they arose after the 1960s - but many did not. There were so many new environmental problems, most of which involved complex scientific and political issues, that it is hardly surprising that many environmentalists could not keep up with this cascade of calamities. Very few supergreens managed to develop an in depth understanding of all the green issues that emerged after the 1960s e.g. Animal rights, geophysiology, and global burning, let alone keep up with the changing evaluations of what constituted the biggest environmental threat. Those who joined the green movement in later decades did so because of these new environmental threats and tended to understand these issues better than the supergreens. As a consequence, the attitudes of supergreens have become more and more distinctive from successive generations of greens which emerged after the 1960s.

1.2: The Material Basis of the Supergreens.

Over the decades many supergreens headed for the hills in the belief that the solution to the environmental problems caused by urbanites was a more rural way of life, closer to the soil. Many supergreens live in rural areas and belong to the same communities as pharmers. They not merely support small scale, family-owned, pharming they also look to rural communities for support. Supergreens tend to be much more rurally-oriented than the rest of the green movement most of which resides in urban areas. Politically, many supergreens target small scale pharmers in the hope of persuading them to convert to organic pharming.

1.3: The Main Tenets of Supergreens’ Views.

The main tenets of supergreens’ political creed is support for:

* rural life, rural communities, and rural villages;

* organic pharming;

* subsidies for pharmers and rural dwellers;

* the exploitation of slave Animals (albeit free range),

* the exploitation of wild Animals e.g. whaling, elephant culling, fur,

* blood sports.

Supergreens believe that:

* environmental problems are caused by urbanization, urbanites, and urban industries, and that the environment can be protected only by deurbanization - when urbanites return to living a rural, peasant-like, life;

* global burning is caused only by the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels rather than the deforestation carried out by the pharming industry i.e. it is an emissions-only problem. They talk about global burning as if it were only a problem of excessive Carbon emissions;

* the biggest consumers of fossil fuels, and thus the biggest contributors to the release of greenhouse gases, are urban industries and urban people - as opposed to rural industries, primarily pharming, and rural people;

* in a green world, pharmers would supply most of the country’s green energy either in the form of wind power, solar power, or biomass.

Supergreens’ rural orientation and their support for pharming are the main reasons they will not:-

* blame pharmers for devastating the environment - they blame large scale, intensive pharming but will not blame small-scale pharming;

* blame the pharming industry for causing global burning - they believe it is the fault of the fossil fuel industries and urban consumers;

* support Reforestation as a means of combating global burning because it will limit the spread of organic farming;

* support the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry in order to allow Forests to grow on abandoned pastureland to combat global burning. On the contrary, they promote extensification, i.e. a vast increase in pastureland to increase the production of free range slave Animals to the number currently being produced by intensive pharming;[4]

* expose the country’s gross inequalities in land ownership;

* condemn way the landowning elite and rural interests exploit urbanites;

* condemn pharmers for the massive subsidies they receive primarily from urbanites;

* condemn pharmers for causing bse;[5]

* denounce Animal exploitation, blood sports, and the wearing of fur, (thereby alienating half of the green movement i.e. Animal rightists).

Around the world, pharmers are the biggest Earth rapists and the main culprits of global burning. In brutland they were the main cause of the spread of bse and are the country’s biggest welfare benefit spongers. And yet supergreens will not condemn them for the damage they are causing because they believe a rural way of life is the only way to create an environmentally friendly society and because they look upon pharmers as prospective allies. As gregg easterbrook points out .. “though environmental lobbies often call for restrictions on use of farm chemicals, rarely do they call for an end to farm subsidies, such subsidies being a sacred cow, as it were, of classical liberalism.”[6]

Pharmer-loving environmentalists believe that, in the future, pharmers could play a huge role in growing, and generating, environmentally-friendly energy. Many believe that urban people will have to subsidize farmers to produce such energy. Perhaps they believe that urban consumers would be willing to pay a premium for using green energy. However, what this policy is really designed to do is to ensure a continuation of lavish subsidies for wealthy pharmers. Urban people have been forced to subsidize pharmers for generations. They have had to subsidize pharmers for slaughtering Chickens because of salmonella in eggs; they have had to subsidize pharmers for slaughtering Cattle because of bse; and they have had to subsidize pharmers for slaughtering Sheep because of foot and mouth. Pharmers are on the look out for the next subsidy gravy train and green energy fits the bill nicely. However, it ought to be pointed out that the reason this energy appears to be green is because supergreens ignore the damage it does to the Earth’s life support system. They refuse to measure the geophysiological impact of so-called green energy just as they refuse to measure the impact of all of their so-called green policies.

1.4: Supergreens as Environmentalists.

At core, supergreens are mainly environmentalists - as opposed to ecologists or geophysiologists. Most have not been able to get past the politics of their youth. They are concerned about protecting the beauty of the ooman made landscape - primarily pastureland created by pharmers. The only pollution they are concerned about is that which affects oomans. However, some supergreens are conservationists/ecologists who have developed a scientific understanding of Wildlife habitats. But neither of these two categories of supergreen knows much about geophysiology - the science of the Earth’s life support system. Supergreens dismiss Reforestation as a priority for combating global burning because they have no appreciation of the role played by Photosynthesis in stabilizing the Earth’s climate; no appreciation that Photosynthesis provides the only form of renewable energy; and no appreciation that Wood economies are the basis of a sustainable Planet.[7] Although they pay sincere homage to james lovelock and frequently refer to the idea of ‘gaia’ they have never acquired a solid understanding of the science of geophysiology and thus see no reason to reformulate their concept of green politics. One of the reasons for this is their resentment towards lovelock for his support for the chemical, nuclear, and fossil fuel, industries, which they believe are the cause of the world’s environmental problems. If they carried out a geophysiological assessment of the world’s main industries they would discover that the pharming industry is the biggest contributor to global burning and would thus be much less critical of lovelock.

Another important characteristic of supergreens is the superficiality of their commitment to environmentalism. Given the need to make a living, many of them have ended up adopting lifestyles they’d previously sought to challenge. They’ve been pushed into conventionality by the need to seek shelter from the wild and wacky image imposed on greens by planetless morons in the media. Many have been worn down by constant political failure. They drive cars because, having moved to the countryside in the belief that they could live less unsustainably there, they then discovered they couldn’t do without cars to travel around. Some politically active supergreens are globe-trotters who travel the world in planes and cars to visit the sites of major ecological disasters in order to publicize what is going on but, in doing so, they help to legitimize the industries they should be condemning. Their radicalism has eroded until they are little more than servile reformists.

This analysis of supergreens is a tad derogatory but it ought to be acknowledged that at least they were responsive to the political issues of their day and sought to do something about it. The vast majority of youngsters who grew up in the 1960s were never in the slightest bit bothered about environmental politics - and many of them went on to obtain prestigious jobs in multi-national corporations where they continue to hide themselves from the wreckage of the world’s ecological habitats being wreaked by their employer.

1.5: A List of Supergreens.

Albery, Nicholas.

Nicholas died in 2001. He was the son of sir donald albery, impresario and theatre owner. Educated at stowe and st john’s college, oxford.

Bellamy, David.

Bellamy demands that environmentalists should work with multinational, Earth-rapist, corporations .. in order to save the planet from .... multi-national Earth rapist corporations. He’s even done a car commercial, “As for David Bellamy, he has lost all credibility since he’s been seen advertising Ford on the box.”[8] He’s another green supporter of Animal exploitation, "Bellamy has made numerous public statements of his belief in game keeping as beneficial for conservation, he is patron of the 'Moorland Gamekeepers Association' and is involved in a number of other similar organizations that put this idea across."[9]

Fairlie, Simon.

Fairlie is on the board of the ecologist and is a part time farmer.

Hall, Chris.

Heads the ramblers association. A former member of peter melchett’s ‘1999 committee’.

Mabey, Richard.

A former member of peter melchett’s ‘1999 committee’.

North, Richard.

North argues, much like gregg easterbrook, that there is no such thing as geophysiological limits - which, presumably, means that oomans can go on destroying the Earth’s life support system with impunity because it will just repair itself, "But what do we know about this business of the world already being beyond its limits? In cold blood, we know nothing. Locally, there are problems in some places: that is obvious. All the rest, all the planetary talk, is speculation."[10] He continues, "In short, while there are ecological rules on this Planet - naturally - there are no limits that we know of."[11] This is just the sort of view that the world’s corporate Earth-rapists pay millions to obtain.

North, Richard & Booker, Christopher.

These are two greens who have a strong ideological commitment to the pharming industry. They even argue that pharmers weren’t responsible for spreading bse, “Even now, most people have not grasped just how flimsy was the scientific basis for that statement (that there were 10 bse-cjd victims). Indeed, it is astonishing that, before allowing mr dorrell to stand up in parliament, his officials, led by the chief medical officer, kenneth calman, did not subject the scientific advisory committee (seac) to rigorous grilling. The cjd surveillance unit in edinburgh claimed to have identified 10 cases of a new strain of cjd. It had no hard evidence to suggest a probable link between the "new strain" cjd and bse - indeed, its findings subsequently published in the lancet were laughably thin. Why had it done so little research to establish that the strain really was new? Why had it not inquired whether the "new strain" of cjd had already been identified in countries where bse was rare, or even non-existent?”[12]

Papworth, John

Papworth is another supporter of culinary freedom in the face of geophysiological meltdown, ‘Nobody is going to tell me what i should put on my plate’. It has to be wondered why people bother calling themselves green when they contribute nothing to green politics.

Purdey, Mark.

An organic pharmer who blames bse on the chemical industry rather than on pharmers.

Puttnam, David

It is not at all clear why puttnam regards himself as an environmentalist and it is even more of a mystery why the green movement associates with him. In the mid-1990s he was one of the leading advocates trying to save rainham marshes in north-east london .. by covering it in a film studio and amusement park complex. He was chair of Forum for the Future. In the house of lords, where he sits as a member of the labour faction, he’s been blocking efforts to abolish Fox hunting, “Labour peers including film director david puttnam last night threatened to wreck jack straw’s plans to ban fox-hunting.”[13] The green party would do anything to be involved in a photo opportunity with puttnam and yet if a truthteller comes along pointing out environmental meltdown they disappear. The green party will still be saying its possible to protect the environment even in the midst of environmental meltdown.

Pye-Smith, Charlie & Hall, Chris.

Charlie pye-smith and chris hall provide a crystal clear example of the way that supergreens are more concerned about supporting organic farming than they are about combating global burning. They actively encourage the Animal exploitation industry to prevent the growth of Forests which could counter global burning .. “from a conservation point of view .. we must either burn it regularly, as happens on many nature reserves, or it must be grazed. We favour the latter course.”[14] It is as if these authors have never heard of global burning or are so ignorant of geophysiological issues they believe Forests have no role in regulating the climate.

Roddick, Anita.

In a letter to the ecologist, amnesty international  slagged off Roddick for trying to turn native Indians into production line workers for the body shop.[15]

Rose, Chris.

A former member of peter melchett’s ‘1999 committee’.

Secrett, Charles.

Secrett is currently director of friends of the Earth. He is a prime example of a supergreen who supports the pharming industry no matter how much it contributes to global burning. At the inaugural meeting of the countryside alliance he told the assembled Earth rapist pharmers that the problems of the pharming industry and rural areas did not lay not with pharmers’ appallingly unnatural pharming practices which have given rise to bse, the autumn 2000 floods, and the foot and mouth epidemic, but with city people, “Charles secrett, director of friends of the Earth, told the meeting that a change in attitude was essential to help failing villages. “City people must understand that the whole country needs a prosperous rural economy and a robust farm sector, if they are going to get the type of countryside they want and expect.””[16] In june 2001, secrett was interviewed on channel four news about the foot and mouth epidemic and dismissed the idea of allowing bankrupt pharms to revert to Wilderness areas in order to combat global burning. Here was the leader of one of the country’s major green organizations who was more concerned with ensuring that pharmers continued receiving billions in lavish subsidies rather than in protecting the country’s life support system which the pharming industry has been ravishing for the last half century.

Warren, Andrew.

A former member of peter melchett’s ‘1999 committee’.

Wilson, Des.

"Des Wilson maintains that he is an environmentalist. Mr Wilson was appointed BAA's head of public relations and corporate affairs last year to give a green edge to the company's efforts to get permission to build Terminal Five at Heathrow. The T5 scheme is a massive development that incorporates as much retail space as the town centre of nearby Staines, an 800 bed hotel, a large office block and parking for 13,000 cars. Mr Wilson, who earns more than £100,000 .. "[17]

2. The Green Aristocrats - the Royal Green Establishment; the Green Rootin’, Tootin’, and Shootin’ Set.

The second collection of greens explored in this work are what is called here the green aristocrats i.e. aristocrats who support environmentalism.

2.1: Introduction.

The Green Aristocrats and the Supergreens.

In the 1960s some of the members of the first post world war two generation of land-owning aristocrats developed an interest in environmental issues just like their middle class and, to a lesser extent, working class, counterparts. Doubtlessly it is possible to trace the aristocracy’s interest in various green issues all the way back to the 18th or 19th centuries but it was only in the 1960s that a number of young aristos started taking environmentalism seriously. In other words, many green aristocrats are supergreens - although since this first intake a number of younger aristocrats from later generations have also gone green. It could be argued that green aristocrats are one of the main social groups within the broader category of supergreens.

As members of large landowning families, most green aristocrats were brought up in rural areas and support rural life. They support organic pharming because they have seen at close quarters the damage caused by large scale, industrial pharming. Perhaps the most blatant reason that supergreens rarely criticize small scale pharming is because the aristocratic landowning elite own many pharms - and the last thing they want to do is to alienate one of the most powerful groups within environmentalism. In brutland the leading members of the organic pharming brigade are mostly renegade members of the landowning, aristocratic, elite. There is a considerable overlap between the supergreens and green aristocrats. Not only can many green aristocrats be regarded as supergreens, many supergreens take their values from their social superiors - especially over Animal exploitation and organic pharming.

The Class Nature of Green Politics.

In brutland, many of the country’s leading greens are members of the landowning pharming elite - the most prominent being charles windsor.[18] Given the aristocracy’s influence on society, most greens support the Animal enslavement industry.[19] Aristocratic greens hope to replace the modern, intensive Animal enslavement industry with the extensive Animal enslavement industry i.e. organic pharming. In other words, they reject intensive factory pharming, but not the Animal slavery industry. The green aristocrats are primarily rebels against their own class - not in the sense of wanting to overthrow their own class but of changing the way it pharms. They want to reform their own class not do away with it or abolish the land inequalities it enjoys. Their objective is not a global green revolution to create a sustainable planet but a cultural revolution within their own class. They preach a new pharming ideology for their own class rather than an uprising of the poor and dispossessed against the landowning elite. How could they possibly call for such an uprising when they belong to this elite - charles windsor alone has 140 tenanted pharms? At times it seems as if the green movement is just a front organization for the organic pharming industry which is dominated by the post world war two generation of rebels within the landowning pharming elite.

The Greenless Greens.

Over the last ten years, brutish greens have done nothing to help the public to understand the aeons long role of Photosynthesizers in stabilizing the Earth’s climate nor the current role of deforestation in destabilizing the Earth’s climate.[20] They have done nothing to point out the pharming industry’s responsibilities for:

* the bse and bse-cjd epidemics;[21]

* the september 2000 fuel tax insurrection;

* the autumn 2000 floods; and,

* the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic.

Virtually all the country’s major green organizations “scorn” Reforestation as a means of combating global burning - from greenpeace to foes of the Earth; ‘new scientist’; ‘tiempo’; ‘the Corner-house’; to the ‘ecologist’, etc. This is the failure of green politics. The only people on the planet who supposedly love Trees and Forests, are the most vigorous opponents of Reforestation. This is not a tragedy, it is the betrayal of green politics, a betrayal of life on Earth, and, ultimately, it could be the betrayal of the Earth itself. The reason for this calamity is the dominance of the green movement by the country’s landowning aristocracy. Even worse is that if aristocratic greens ever succeeded in introducing organic, free range, pharming they would end up finishing off the Earth’s life support system. The modern Animal enslavement industry has severely wounded the Earth’s life support system and the green, organic, Animal enslavement industry threatens to strike the fatal blow.

It is possible to understand greens’ bizarre opposition to Reforestation only by highlighting their material basis i.e. the green movement’s domination by members of the land-owning pharming aristocracy - of whom charles windsor is primus inter pares. Aristocratic greens want organic pharming to replace industrialized pharming. The problem is that organic livestock pharming is far more extensive than conventional, intensive, meat production, so if it tried to produce the same quantity of cadavers it would decimate what remained of the country’s Forests and, if applied around the world, would decimate the world’s Forests.[22] Aristocratic greens denounce the fossil fuel industry for causing global burning because this distracts attention from their own role in boosting global burning and because this covers up the fact that organic pharming would decimate what is left of the Earth’s life support system - not forgetting that organic pharming also justifies carnivorism and hunting.

The organic pharming industry is the young, trendy face of the Animal terrorism industry. Organic pharmers raise their Animals with consideration, care, and love, and then slit their throats. It has to be suggested that even if Reforestation played absolutely no part in combating global burning there would still be a need to abolish the world’s land inequalities because of the poverty caused by such inequalities.

Organic pharmers could become responsible for producing green energy. It was pointed out above that pharmer loving greens believe that green energy could be a good excuse for supplying pharmers with yet more subsidies. And yet it ought to be pointed out that small scale pharmers were the primary instigators of brutland’s fuel tax rebellion in 2001 and now aristocratic greens want to put them in charge of producing green energy! During the fuel tax rebellion pharmers blockaded petrol refineries and petrol stations in the belief that petrol was too expensive but once the fuel tax protestors are put in charge of the country’s green energy supplies they are all too likely to find plenty of other excuses for exploiting their power over consumers.

The transformation of society from one based on intensive factory pharming to one based on organic pharming would be so insignificant it wouldn’t even lead to the abolition of Fox hunting - green aristocrats being true to their class by supporting such perversion.

Aristocratic greens are not only ideologically confused about their political colouration (they call themselves greens but they’re more like blues) they bear the hallmark of their class i.e. arrogance. They call themselves green so they believe that anything they do must, by definition, be green. They feel they have no obligation to prove their policies would contribute to the creation of a sustainable planet. They demand that fossil fuelled industries carry out environmental impact statements to determine whether their policies would boost global burning and yet they refuse to carry out such an evaluation of their own policies. It’s time the greenless greens carried out geophysiological impact statements on the policies they propose before they cause any more damage to the Earth’s life support system. Perhaps when they’re condemning fossil fuels, the fossil fuel industries ought to tell them to get stuffed until they’ve done a geophysiological analysis of their own policies.

The Green Aristocracy Inaction.

What is contradictory about the green aristocrats’ position is that whilst they support small scale, organic farming many of them have never done a day’s work on a farm in their lives. It is difficult imagining many of them ever picking up a spade and tending to their cabbage patches. Charles windsor is rarely photographed digging up his allotment because he’s either on holiday or corrupting his children by encouraging them to blast defenceless Animals to death. Lord porritt is usually found in boardrooms rather than mucking out the livestock sheds. When these green aristocrats get involved in the back breaking toil of turning over the soil, pulling up weeds, planting seeds, harvesting, etc, it might be possible to take them a little more seriously. It’s amazing they have the gall to go around demanding that urban people should take up this backbreaking way of life when they have never done anything like it in their lives and, seemingly, having no intention of doing so. This is reminiscent of those academic left wing wadicals in the 1970s and 1980s who extolled workers’ virtues without ever going anywhere near a factory themselves. As far as they were concerned, working in factories is good for other people - not them. They were much too good to work in such places - although they’d never say such a thing in public. The mundi club has no intention of demanding that everyone ought to become farmers when it’s the last job we would ever want to do. We have no intention of going back to the land whilst green aristocrats like windsor, porritt, etc, are jetting around the world living in luxury hotels before getting into four wheel drives to visit the latest site of cutting edge localism - thereby triggering off a craving by the poor for the four wheel drives that greens are using.[23] We ain’t working on the land until we see them sweating, sunburnt, and grimy from years of toil in the soil. The gall of green aristocrats is appalling, “I’ve actually heard western enviros who themselves take meals in air-conditioned restaurants going on about how third world farmers should not be given tractors because ox-drawn plows are more ecologically transparent.”[24]

2.2: The Windsors.

The Firm.

The windsors call themselves ‘the firm’. Others have described them as .. “the most selfish, ruthless, cold, arrogant family in the land. That in the 21stc there is nothing more ridiculous than tax paying citizens bowing and scraping to these pampered accidents of birth.”[25]; .. “the uncritical press coverage of the queen mother’s pageant was published on the same morning as a coruscating report from the united nations, condemning the level of censorship under which british newspapers have to operate, along with this country’s pitiful record on freedom of information. Did you know that one of the most thorough books ever written about the windsors - The Royals by Kitty Kelly - cannot be bought in britain? It’s a best seller in the u.s. but not only has it never been published here, british booksellers will not even import it for fear of prosecution. And why is it effectively banned in this country? Because .. it reveals them for what they are - a wealthy, self centred, dysfunctional, thoroughly unpleasant, and not very likeable family.”[26]

The Monarchy on the Run.

The events following diana’s death were some of the most dramatic in recent brutish political history. In the late 1980s the monarchy was one of brutland’s most stable and deeply rooted institutions. It seemed almost as unshakeable as the russian empire and the berlin wall. But within a matter of years, as a result of two divorces and a number of scandals, its relevance was being questioned to varying degrees by large sections of society. Over the last few years it seemed as if the decline in the monarchy’s popularity had bottomed out but after diana’s death it almost sank like the titanic, “The monarchy was on the brink of disaster as it listened to old but unwise heads and tried to swim against the tide.”[27] Public support for the monarchy drained away almost by the minute and only die-hard royalists would have been left if the windsors had carried out their plan to return to london on saturday morning for the funeral procession. The queen’s refusal to respond to diana’s death was one of the most revealing insights into the nature of the windsor family.

Royal Farms.

On the political front, it needs to be stated that there is no way of combating global burning without abolishing the Animal slavery industry and expropriating the vast stretches of land owned by the royal family.

Dunnabridge Farm, Dartmoor National Park.

“A farm owned by charles on dartmoor was hit by f&m disease yesterday. It raises fears that thousands of farm animals grazing freely in the national park under ancient commoners’ rights - as well as deer and other wildlife - may have to be culled to halt the spread of the disease.”[28] It’s dunnabridge farm, near two bridges in devon.

Gatcombe Park.

“Princess anne .. her navy husband runs their gatcombe park estate, gloucestershire. The commodore blew his top when they ran out of pheasants at the last shoot of the season. Princess anne was given the 1,200 acre gatcombe park as a gift from the queen who bought it for £500,000 in 1976.”[29]

Members of the Firm.

Liz.

She’s patron of the council for the protection of rural england.

Charles.

The Head of the Aristocratic Greens.

Charles is head of the aristocratic greens. He owns so many organic farms that he’s automatically an absentee organic pharmer.

March 1999: Promoting the Illegal Consumption of Bse-on-the-Bone.

“Charles windsor tucked into banned beef on the bone yesterday and said it was “absolutely delicious”. Welsh secretary alun michael also sampled the outlawed sirloin at a st david’s day lunch. Their apparent distaste for the government ban re-ignited the row over the 15 month old law. Officials later explained that both the prince and the minister were unaware of the exact cut they were eating. However, pictures showed the pair standing watching as a chef carved the meat from the bone. Charles was launching a promotion for welsh beef and ate sirloin cooked by the celtic manor head chef trefor jones and carved by tv cook james martin. Hotel spokesman steve howell said it had not broken any law, “We did not buy the beef, we were given it by a wholesaler in normal deliveries. Newport chief environmental health officer colin streeter said, “On the face of it, there has been a contravention of the legislation.” Under the 1998 beef bones regulations, it is illegal for a hotel or restaurant to serve beef on the bone to guests, even if they do not pay.”[30] Windsor encouraged all those connected with the Animal exploitation industry to break the ban on bseef-on-the-bone and the inevitable outcome of this was that pharmers continued to put bse-infected Animals into the ooman feed chain. The odious, bse loving, Fox hunting, fur loving, master of privilege, and excessive landownership, adds criminality to his list of talents.

March 2000: Still Promoting Bse-on-the-Bone.

“Award winning oxfordshire chef raymond blanc and the prince of wales are spearheading a campaign to persuade europe’s leading chefs to put british beef back on the menu. The prince will escort 20 of europe’s top chefs on a two day tour of farms and restaurants, organized by the meat and livestock commission. The prince said, “Since the bse crisis british farmers have worked to achieve the highest standards of quality.””[31]

Fox Hunting.

It’s bad enough that the windsors own vast areas of land in brutland. It’s even worse when the public has to subsidize these spongers. But what really grates is that these vile, pampered, shits believe they’re entitled to spend the public’s money on activities which the majority of the public deplore. And whilst the royals are prancing around the countryside terrorizing Animals, people are slogging their guts out at work. The only time the royals have for Fox hunting, in between extensive holidays around the world, is on weekdays when people are at work and can’t get into the countryside to protest about what the royals are doing.

What charles windsor doesn’t seem to understand is that what many people hate about him is that he enjoys maiming, mutilating, and murdering, defenceless Animals. There is no way that a significant fraction of the people in this country would accept him as king because of his tradition-bound attachment to murdering Animals. People don’t want the nasty murdering thug on the throne nor for that matter his spoilt brats unless they renounce their crimes against Animalkind.

July 2001: Charles support for Pharmers during the Foot and Mouth Epidemic.

In early july 2001, a documentary on brutish television revealed that during the foot and mouth epidemic, windsor had been kept in touch with developments by the maffia (who says it never consulted the public?) and that at one point he had interceded to point out the benefits of vaccination as an alternative to the government’s, and national pharmers union’s, barbaric slaughter policy. The prime minister held a meeting with senior government officials and decided to support this dramatic change in policy which the government had been ruling out since the start of the epidemic. It was only when attempts to overcome the intense opposition of the red-necked, retarded, subsidy-loving, thugs in the national pharmers union had failed that mcblair was forced to abandon the idea. The important point here is not that windsor had enough political clout to get access to the prime minister and persuade him to adopt a particular policy but that he is highly politically active even though he is supposed to keep aloof from brutish politics.

Charles attempts to create a Political Basis of Support for his tenure as King of England.

Charles windsor is currently trying to carve out for himself a constituency to support his tenure as king of england’s aristocratic scroungers. One of the sectors he hopes will support him is the green movement and, in turn, he’s also hoping to stimulate the green movement and bring about greenish political changes. He’s drawing together supporters of organic pharming, alternative medicine, alternative energy, etc and trying to unite them under a pro-monarchy, pro-aristocracy, pro-conservative, pro-hunting, and pro-Animal exploitation, banner. He’s cultivating links with large numbers of people in the media, the pop world, the acting world, the sports world, and the establishment. He’s using his contacts to help the organic pharming brigade to obtain more access to the media. It is not known what organizational links there are between the aristocratic greens, let alone between them and the countryside alliance, but these groupings clearly pose a threat to the Animal rights movement which needs to be addressed. The last thing that Animal rightists want is for increasing numbers of greens to align themselves under the banner of monarchism, aristocracy, conservatism, hunting, and Animal exploitation.

Green Policies.

Charles windsor is a great admirer of rural life, the countryside - and countryside barbarism. When he talks about green reforms he is talking a completely different language from what most people believe environmentalism to be, "Prince Charles is to stop shooting birds with lead shot - and use only new style 'green' cartridges instead."[32]

Support for Pharmers and Rural Life.

Windsor has also been highly active in promoting the interests of rural people - almost invariably at the expense of urbanites. In february 1998, “Prince charles is to throw his weight behind the countryside campaign by fighting for a better deal for farmers. He wants to set up a nationwide forum to discuss their problems and will outline his plans next week. The prince paid a private visit last thursday to three struggling farms in carmarthenshire.”[33]

Charles covering up Pharmers’ Role in the 2000-2001 Floods.

Windsor did not blame the pharming industry for the autumn 2000-2001 floods in brutland. He sought to cover up its responsibility by blaming global burning - which he believes is caused by the fossil fuelled industry, “The prince told a British Medical Association conference in London: "Some recent occurrences, such as the BSE disaster and ... the present severe weather conditions in our country are, I have no doubt, the consequences of mankind's arrogant disregard of the delicate balance of nature. "Somehow we have to find a way of ensuring that our remarkable and seemingly beneficial advances in technology do not just become the agents of our own destruction."“[34] It is quite true that global burning was responsible for the downpours but the floods happened because pharmers had deforested, and then flattened the land for prairie pharming, making it impossible for the soil to absorb much rain. It is also true that the biggest contributor to global burning is not the fossil fuelled industries but the pharming industry. It can’t be any surprise that one of the country’s biggest landowners, who is one of the country’s biggest pharmers, should blame the fossil fuelled industry for global burning and then blame global burning for the 2000-2001 floods.

Charles’s Political Vision.

Windsor brings a lengthy wagon train of issues to the supergreen cause. He desperately wants to be king of brutland and to preserve the brutish monarchy; he believes in the church and in god; he supports huntin’, shootin’, fishin’ and fornicatin’; he encourages his sons to follow the royal tradition of bloodsports; he resembles his father who, although president of the worldwide fund for nature, is well-known for his contempt for ‘Animal lovers’; and, finally, he loves cars.[35] 

The worry about windsor’s role as the head of the royal green establishment is that he’s going to push his favoured political topics - the monarchy, the house of lords, church, god, infidelity; a love of cars; bloodsports, carnivorism, and contempt for Animals - i.e. rootin’, tootin’, and shootin’ onto the green movement’s agenda.

Phil.

Shooting Animals is Preserving Them.

Phil is patron of the ‘world wide fund for nature’. His interest in the environment derives primarily from his love of hunting and shooting i.e. the need to ensure large tracts of the countryside provide hunting opportunities. He has said virtually nothing about environmental issues except in so far as they affect this prime interest. He has done a large amount of publicity work for the protection of charismatic fauna but it often seems as if this is either out of guilt for what he and other hunters have done to such Animals in the past or because he wants other hunters to be able to enjoy shooting such Animals as much as he has done. He doesn’t seem to have the slightest interest in Animals themselves - as was apparent when he once dismissed those concerned about Wildlife as “Animal lovers”.

Support for Handguns.

In the mid 1990s, the windsors did their bit to undermine the government’s bill to ban handguns but what else could be expected from these gun-loving, Animal murdering, meat-eating, fur wearing, pharmers? Over the last few decades, they have cultivated an almost instinctive knack for pushing their collective finger up the nose of public opinion, “Phil windsor has sparked outrage by saying shooting club members are no more dangerous than a cricketer with a bat. He said, “If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean are you going to ban cricket bats?” He called for mps to think again before the outlawing of all handguns except .22 calibre becomes law. The prince, who himself shoots game (sic), said: “There’s no evidence that people who use weapons for sport are any more dangerous than people who use golf clubs or tennis racquets or cricket bats.” Ann pearston, a spokesperson for the snowdrop campaign, said: “To think of the queen coming up here and laying a wreath at our school and then hearing her husband say something like this sickens me.”[36] Phil windsor’s view that Animal murderers are normal decent people is wide of the mark. It is well known that there is a close link between shooting, meat eating, fur wearing, wife beating and child abuse - for example in early 1997 it was revealed that one of the windsor’s servants who’d recently died had made a 14 year old girl pregnant but no action had been taken against him.

Liz windsor failed to mention the dunblane massacre in her 1997 xmas speech as if it were far more important to protect the right to use handguns than commiserate with those caught up in a tragedy. The royals couldn’t curb their bloodlust during this period when people’s memories of the dunblane massacre were still fresh, “Prince william has developed a craving for shooting Animals which has shocked his uncle prince andrew.”[37] With not the slightest sense that they might alienate people with their remarks, omissions and antics, a few months later the royals were making it known they would appreciate it if the country’s taxpayers forked out £80 million on a new royal yacht - even more surprising was that in the run up to the general election the tory’s began to play the patriotic card and promised to pay for this new aristocratic luxury.[38]

Conservation for Hunting not Biodiversity.

Phil has done his best to ensure that his vast land holdings are run according to his hunting interests rather than out of any desire for the conservation of Biodiversity. As far as he is concerned, his land holdings are there for hunting and he’s concerned about the Animals which live on his land only to the extent that they provide good target practice, “Both windsor great park - of which prince phillip is ranger - and the rest of the crown or royal estates are exempt from laws protecting wildlife and important habitats. (Local authorities cannot impose tree preservation orders on Trees in these estates). The queen’s balmoral estate contains a remnant of the endangered caledonian forest, populated by rare wildcats, pine martens, capercaillies, and crossbills. Lochnagar, the estate’s highest point is the home of britain’s rarest alpine plants. These spots should be listed as sites of special scientific interest. But in the 1970s prince phillip insisted that they be exempted, and the nature conservancy council secretly dropped its application.”[39]

The Royals’ use of Mahogany.

The royals see little reason for actually doing anything about green issues such as protecting the rainforests, “Five years ago, I traced mahogany cut illegally in an indian reserve in brazil back to the company supplying the furniture restoration departments of buckingham palace and sandringham.”[40]

Corruption.

Phil’s attitude towards the devastation of Rainforests in madagascar by rtz, a multinational mining corporation, was similar, “Then prince philip announced that the mining area “was not frightfully significant - I gather it’s marginal.” The duke of edinburgh international award programme was housed in the offices of rtz.”[41]

Criticisms of Urbanites for not appreciating that Fox Hunting is a Natural Activity.

Philip schleswig-holstein-sonderburg-glucksburg[42] publically criticized the labour government’s ban on handguns and is an outspoken defender of hunting, “Prince phillip today criticises the ‘ignorance’ of townspeople about how shooting and other country pursuits benefit wildlife and the environment. They must be taught to understand, he says. The countryside march in london last march was “a dramatic expression of the anxiety of country people about the growing influence of the perceptions and attitudes of townspeople on popular opinion”. Writing in the 90th anniversary issue of shooting and conservation, the journal of the british association of shooting and conservation, he says, “In many cases there are deeply-held beliefs, but i suspect that in most cases it is due to ignorance. Converting this ignorance into knowledge and comprehension is going to be one of the prime tasks of the association and similar organizations in the years ahead.” Prince philip is patron of the association, a successor of the wildfowlers association of great britain and ireland founded in 1908 to protect the interests of wildfowlers and rough shooters. The “one great difference” after 90 years, he says, is the enormous expansion of the urban population compared with rural areas. “There is therefore no conflict of interest between shooting and conservation.””[43] It is true that charles followed in his father’s footsteps and has a concern for the survival of Wild game Animals but this is about as far as environmentalism goes in the scroungers’ family.

That shooting is good for hunting implies that the only reason Wildlife is preserved in this country is because of their hunting value. In other words the only thing Wildlife are good for is being shot at. This means they have no intrinsic value - only the value hunters put upon them. Over the centuries, the aristocracy’s disdain for monetary pursuits has been legendary but over Wildlife it is possible to see a reconciliation. The aristocracy has at long last accepted the basis of thatcherism - that all Animals have got to pay their way if they’re to survive. It’s just a pity they haven’t got around to applying this to themselves as yet.

Anne.

Right up until the time they wheeled into the public spotlight the first bse-cjd victims, anne windsor went around the country claiming that bse posed no threat to ooman health. This loon was so convinced of its safety she even agreed to formally open factories which were mass manufacturing bseefburgers. She encouraged people to consume a highly lethal disease that has since killed many people. One wonders what state her conscience is in these days.

Willie.

“Prince william has developed a craving for shooting Animals which has shocked his uncle prince andrew. The duke of york was walking his Dog in windsor great park when he noticed there was little sign of Wildlife. When he raised the subject with a park warden he was told, “That’s because your nephew has been down here, sir. He’s killed everything in sight. The warden told him william had shot dozens of Squirrels, Rabbits and Birds on several visits. One servant said, “Hunting is his passion.” Wills has been using the private grounds of the park near the royal lodge, the queen mother’s home. William recently killed his first Stag during a visit to balmoral.”[44]

2.3: A List of Green Aristocrats.

Lord Porritt.

The most prominent political figure in the royal green establishment is jonathon porritt - referred to in the so-called green movement as lord porritt, second baronet of hampstead. Porritt is another green etonian. He was a leading member of the green party from the late 1980s to the early 1990s but left to become one of charles’s spokespersons during the break-up of the charles’s marriage to diana. At the start of his involvement with green politics he was something of a radical but the pull of his class loyalties proved to be much stronger than his commitment to the Earth. Since his involvement in charles’s public relations war with diana he has reverted to establishment politics and today his attitudes are not that different from windsor’s. He's a meat eater and car owner, “In spite of being a self-confessed radical or ‘dark’ green, he .. isn’t a vegetarian .. and (contrary to some press reports) does drive a car. It’s not even been converted to take unleaded petrol, although he claims it’s going to be.”[45] He was also the role model used in an advertising campaign by a so-called green motoring organization. Although it is believed he doesn’t participate in huntin’, shootin’, and fishin’ he has not shown much interest in Animal rights.

Many people thought david icke had gone mad when he proclaimed himself the son of god. Porritt seemed only slightly less loopy when he started working for someone whose ancestors believed they posed the ‘divine right of kings’. The popularity of the green movement plummeted as a result of icke’s flirtation with god. It fell even further as a result of porritt’s association with someone who became widely despised because of his treatment of diana. At the beginning of the 1990s the royal family was still held in considerable respect by a majority of people across all social classes. There was so little support for republicanism that the term was hardly ever mentioned in the media. However, after the revelations about charles’s divorce from diana much of this respect was lost and for the first time in centuries there was open talk about the need for a republic. The public was particularly disenchanted with charles since it was commonly held that anyone who uses a woman he does not love simply to provide himself with kids is odious. What happened between charles and diana was closer to rape than love. Quite how anyone could trust such a person again is difficult to imagine. Porritt acted admirably in coming to the aid of a friend but he thereby committed political suicide.

Lord Melchett of Greenpeace.

Origins

In descending order of importance following on from charles windsor and lord porritt, is peter melchett or lord melchett as he’s known in the green movement. Melchett had a traditional aristo upbringing, “Eton and cambridge educated lord melchett inherited his title in 1973 after his father, julian died of .."[46] He owns a farm in norfolk, "The peer .. has travelled a long way from his background as the great-grandson of sir alfred mond, the man who founded ici. After eton and cambridge he became a vegetarian socialist and later a junior minister for northern ireland in the callaghan government from 1976 to 1979."[47] He founded the 1999 committee (see below) and for a while was head of greenpeace international.

Campaign against Genetically Modified Crops.

In 2000 greenpeace organized a civil disobedience campaign against genetically modified crops (hereinafter referred to as genetically modified organisms, gmo). This involved going onto pharms and trampling crops which were part of the government’s ludicrous experiments to scientifically prove the safety of gm crops. These experiments had more to do with show biz than science. Many greenpeace activists were arrested and were sent to trial for criminal damage to pharmers’ crops.

The September 2000 Fuel Tax Protests.

In the september 2000, the country’s red-neck pharmers exploited motorists’ grievances over the cost of fuel by launching the fuel tax insurrection. They weren’t interested in reducing fuel tax since one of the privileges of being pharmers is not having to pay tax on fuel but they believed they could exploit motorists’ grievances in order to coerce the mcblair government into providing them with yet more subsidies. The green movement showed little interest in the september 2000 fuel tax protests. It didn’t make any attempt to organize counter demonstrations. However, on october 5th, in the run up to the second fuel tax protests planned for november 2000, greenpeace decided to get involved, “Greenpeace is preparing to campaign head to head against fuel protesters, if blockades of oil refineries go ahead next month. The environmental group said it would send teams to each blockaded venue to argue the green case for maintaining the current level of fuel duty. The tax is "justified to stop climate change and improve air quality," the group said. Greenpeace policy director Stephen Tindale told a business conference in London, attended by Trade and Industry Secretary Stephen Byers, that the government had been "running away from the real justification for a fuel tax - to stop climate change and improve air quality. Executive director Lord Melchett added: "The government could turn the fuel protests into an asset if they responded by directing a small fraction of oil revenues towards alternatives like hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels and clean power from the sun, the wind and the waves. "This is an historic opportunity to break our addiction to fossil fuels, massively improve the quality of our lives and generate a new hi-tech industry for Britain."”[48]

Meeting with Handley.

Greenpeace decided to meet handley, one of the leaders of the fuel tax insurrection. After this meeting handley came out saying he had lots in common with the green movement. He .. “even discloses that he met senior figures from greenpeace on Friday, and acknowledges that cheaper petrol is not the long term answer to the country’s problems. “The greens and us have a lot in common,” he ventures, “we couldn’t agree on fuel prices but did on everything else.””[49]

The culmination of the GMO campaign.

The culmination of greenpeace’s campaign against gmo came shortly after the end of the pharmers’ september insurrection, when greenpeace protestors were acquitted by a jury of criminal damage, “Greenpeace boss lord melchett and 27 other protestors who ripped up a trial crop of gm plants were cleared of criminal damage. Later lord melcett refused to rule out further attacks on gm trial fields. “We took this action to defend the british countryside from contamination. The time has come to stop growing these crops.” Lord melchett has an organic farm .. ”[50] The president of the nfu was furious about people getting away with illegal protests - despite the fact that many of the rent-a-mob pharmers who’d been illegally picketing companies up and down the country for the last three years were members of his trade union.

What was interesting about greenpeace’s courageous campaign against gmos was that it started when gm crops began to be grown in this country rather than when, in america, such crops were fed to livestock which were then exported to brutland. Greenpeace never bothered launching a campaign to dissuade people from eating Animals reared on gmos - it wasn’t interested in protecting Animal health and the last thing it wanted to do was to attack the corpse industry despite the fact that it is the biggest contributor to global burning. It is suspected that melchett’s campaign to make gmos a big political issue was part of the royal green establishment’s strategy for steering the green movement away from a concern with Wildlife, urban areas, and climate change, and back to a concern for the countryside and the pharming industry - not forgetting green refrigerators and green cars.

Resignation from Greenpeace.

A short time after greenpeace’s great political success in the courts over gm crops, melchett resigned from greenpeace. His resignation was very strange - almost wilson-like, "Peter Melchett, the norfolk farmer and environmental campaigner, has announced he intends to resign as executive director of greenpeace to spend more time on his organic farm. The 52 year old labour peer who quit the lords when the government axed more than 600 hereditaries last year, leaves the environmental pressure group, after working with the organization since 1985."[51]

So why did he resign? And, why did he resign at this particular time? The resignation seemed to come at an extremely critical moment for greenpeace when it was about to confront one of its biggest challenges in opposing fuel tax protestors over their demands for reductions in fuel taxes especially when there was a distinct possibility the fuel tax protestors might bring about the collapse of a democratically elected government. It has to be wondered whether melchett agreed or disagreed with greenpeace’s policy of challenging the fuel tax protestors? If he agreed with the pharmers was his support so fundamental that he felt he couldn’t be a part of greenpeace’s campaign against them and so resigned? Did he decide, like many other greens, that he wanted to throw his weight behind the fuel tax protestors? Or was it possible that rural thugs had threatened him, his family, and his pharm? He must have realized that if he acted against pharmers then he would have been regarded as a traitor in his own pharming community and there would be many local thugs who would be extremely pissed off with him.[52]

Puttnam, Lord David & Baroness Mallalieu.

“Labour peers including film director david puttnam last night threatened to wreck jack straw’s plans to ban fox-hunting. The home secretary will next week give mps a free vote with the majority expected to back a ban on hunting with hounds. This means the crucial battle will be fought in the lords where a third of labour’s peers support hunting - enough to tip the balance. They plan to hold up the bill so it runs out of time. Labour peer baroness mallalieu, president of the countryside alliance, claimed the moves would cost labour dear at the election. Mr straw yesterday received the burns inquiry into the impact of a fox hunting ban.”[53]

2.4: New Members of the Green Aristocrats.

Beaumont, Lord Tim.

“Tim beaumont (aka lord beaumont of whitley) crossed the floor of the house of lords, leaving the lib dems to become britain’s first ever green peer. Beaumont founded the green alliance in 1979 ..”[54]

Berkeley, Lady.

“Swampy is all very well, my dears, but the new eco-warriors wouldn't dream of going underground. Instead, like Lady Berkeley and her upper-class chums, they would rather air their concerns with a well-aimed chocolate eclair and a spin doctor. Her family gave its name to one of the most exclusive squares in Mayfair and her parents called her after the ancient queen of the Carthaginians. Lady Berkeley sees her title not so much as a mark of aristocratic lineage as a weapon to be used in her fight for the environment. `If you have six names on a list complaining about something, and one of them has got a title, people listen. It opens doors; if you've got it, use it,' she says. `When I write to environment groups, I don't use the title, but when I phone up English Heritage or developers, I say it's Lady Berkeley.” Dido Berkeley is no mere posh eccentric. She is part of a new wave of aristocrats championing environmental causes and going out of their way to be seen to be doing so. The phrase `socialite and ecologist' first found its way on to the front pages of newspapers a month ago when Birgit Cunningham threw a chocolate eclair into the face of the Agriculture Secretary Nick Brown in full view of the British media. The point, apparently, was to help the British countryside and British farmers, but the message was rather obscured by the pre-shot photographs of her modelling in various seductive poses in the papers the following day. She insists, despite all the rumours, that Max Clifford had nothing to do with it; she used the publicist who helped her promote an organic picnic attended by 4,000 people last year in Greenwich. She's now using her sudden fame to publicise a website she is setting up to promote environmental issues: http://www.chocolate-eclair.com. One of her connections is heiress Julia Stephenson, the granddaughter of Sir Derek Vestey, founder of the billion-pound Vestey empire. Stephenson, who recently posed nude in Tatler except for some strategically placed body paint in order to promote animal welfare, is a living stereotype of the Sloane Ranger. She has all the essentials, a beautiful apartment off Sloane Square, a flat in Gstaad, a trust fund, a mantlepiece stacked with party invitations and the occasional modelling assignment. And, as of a week ago, she is the Green Party candidate for the Greater London Assembly, with Birgit Cunningham acting as her `direct-action consultant'. `She's advising me not to throw the cream buns. Why waste a good eclair on someone you don't like when you can eat it?' she muses. Julia and her brother, Mark Brown, are the scions of a family that made its fortune in the meat business. Julia is an avowed vegan and Mark is standing trial for his involvement in last June's Carnival Against Capitalism in the City of London, which ended in £2 million worth of damage. `People like us have always been environmentally minded, but they are sticking their heads up and being counted now. People have woken up to what's going on. They're travelling a lot and seeing what's happening to the world,' said Julia, who is proud to call herself an eco-toff. `Even last year, my interests were considered eccentric and I tried not to talk about it. But this year, friends who I thought were sceptical are now asking questions about it. It's now considered fashionable to be green. It's almost cool to be vegan!' There is nothing new about the Establishment taking an interest in the environment. They have been doing so ever since medieval monarchs preserved huge swathes of the countryside for their hunting. The Queen is patron of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Duke of Edinburgh is patron of the World Wide Fund for Nature and Prince Charles grows organic crops. The Duke of Wellington, dubbed `Green Wellies', is also a prominent environmentalist and has a good record on organic crops at his 400-acre park at Stratfield Saye. In the more recent tradition of aristo-radicals, the old Etonian Second Baronet of Hampstead, Jonathon Porritt, is director of Friends of the Earth and the Marchioness of Worcester, Tracy to her friends, is a trustee of Friends of the Earth, associate director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, and was recently involved in direct action against the Newbury by-pass. `Bunter', her husband, was unamused by her plan to set up an eco-village on their estate. The most influential of the radical eco-toffs is the old Etonian Fourth Baron Mond, great-grandson of the founder of ICI, one of the UK's most polluting companies. Lord Melchett is now executive-director of Greenpeace, and recently gained headlines for getting arrested for trampling on a field of GM crops. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the new wave of eco-toffs is more than just PR spin. When I rang the Green Party for their view, I was put on to their spokesman Ffinlo Costain. Yes, he admitted sheepishly, that was Costain, as in the major civil-engineering firm. `They built on the environment and I'm saving it,' he quips. Phone the Ecologist magazine, and you're likely to be put on to co-editor Zac Goldsmith, the old Etonian, but deep-green son of the billionaire financier, James Goldsmith. Zac is currently preoccupied with trying to find the greenest part of the British Isles in which to live. `I am in a better position than most to choose where to live,' he told Tatler recently. `Yet, so far, I have been unable to find an area both free from dangerous pollutants and close to a village where I would want to bring up children. There remains virtually no patch of our country which has been spared the varied horrors of so-called progress.'”[55]

Ramsey, Lord de.

Lord de ramsey is a landowner and a farmer. He was once the president of the country landowners association, and is currently the head of brutland’s environmental protection agency, “Lord de ramsey - president of the country landowners association, chair of the environment agency 1995.”[56]; “Lord de ramsey .. has been chairman of the environment agency since 1995 and also chairs the 6,500 acre family farming business in cambridgeshire.” Ramsey seems to be a big supporter of genetic engineering which is even more environmentally destructive than prairie farming, “The boss of the environment agency is allowing genetically modified crop experiments on his land for a second time. Lord de ramsey. the chairman of the government watchdog, sparked fury last year when it was revealed he was allowing gm food giant monsanto to carry out experiments on his land. Despite the row he is now renting 60 acres of his estate in abbots ripton, cambs, to a swedish firm which is carrying out three tests on oilseed rape.”[57]

Worcester, Marquess of.

"The Greens are marshalling their forces. Not in draughty offices or dusty squats, but at the vast Gloucestershire estate of the marquess of worcester. This weekend the leading figures (sic) of the environmental movement have been gathered together by the marquess's wife ... The marchioness's guests in the lush surroundings of the beaufort estate, home of the badminton horse trials, include Huge Raven .. ed mayo ...[58]

2.5: Honorary Members of the Green Aristocrats.

Brown, Mark.

“Julia and her brother, Mark Brown, are the scions of a family that made its fortune in the meat business.”[59]

Cunningham, Birgit.

3.2.2000: Fat Chops gets it in the Chops - Poverty Stricken Pharmers Dining out at the Hilton.

Birgit Cunningham pelted nick brown, the secretary of state for agriculture, with a chocolate eclair whilst attending mcblair’s reception with angry farmers - when aren’t pharmers angry? They seem to be permanently in a state of cold turkey brought about by their anxiety that one day the public is going to wake up and wonder why it’s giving billions of quid to pharmers so they can sit on their arses all day writing out claims for yet more compensation payments, “The furious exchanges were the worst possible start for tony blair’s countryside charm offensive.”[60] Paul routledge, a ruralite and self-confessed bse-on-the-bone criminal, so no pharmers’ enemy he, makes an interesting point about the circumstances surrounding this eclair bashing incident, “And where were these cash-strapped farmers meeting? At the hilton hotel, of course.”[61] Nick brown is the now forgotten former secretary of state for agriculture who helped prepare the ground for the country’s foot and mouth epidemic. Brown bore a close resemblance to the freisians he stumped out vast subsidies for.

31.3.2000: A Publicity Stunt to Highlight a Publicity Stunt.

“Birgit Cunningham, who pushed a chocolate eclair into Mr Brown's face at a farming conference last month, yesterday drenched herself in fake blood before handcuffing herself to railings near the summit. She paraded a sign saying: `Yes, this is a publicity stunt, but it is not half as much as the one going on right now in Downing Street."”[62]

Dimbleby, Jonathon.

In october 1993, jonathon dimbelby proclaimed himself a green.[63] He later became president of the Soil Association.[64]

Goldsmith, Edward.

For a more detailed analysis of edward goldsmith see next section.

Irons, Jeremy.

Irons is not a member of the brutish aristocracy but his accent and social connections lead people to believe he’s a member of the upper classes. Jeremy first came to the mundi club’s attention in 1992 when he narrated heathcote williams’s poem ‘autogeddon’.[65] It was pointed out that it was a rather strange decision to choose him as the narrator[66] given that he was a motorist, “The Irons' family have two cars, a volkswagen and an audi-quattro estate." Even worse was that irons was quoted as saying, "I need a car in spite of all its negative aspects concerning the environment."[67] The mundi club droned on about audi being a subsidiary of one of the world’s leading Earth rapist multinational car corporations, volkswagen, and that it was appalling that jeremy could finance his lavish lifestyle only by wrecking the Earth - and he says he loves his kids and wants to do everything to ensure their future!!!! But, it was asked, how is he going to remain a wealthy, consumer superstar when there ain't any oomans left on Earth? For billions of years the Earth has been generating a fabulous diversity of life-forms but now, it seems, the Planet's got to evolve around jeremy's career. The mundi club suspects that ironocentrism will never catch on as a major evolutionary process and that the sooner self-centred, pseudo-aristo, oomano-imperialists are cut down to size the better the chance of saving the Earth.

Since his work on ‘autogeddon’ further information has come to light about irons which makes it even more dubious why he was asked, and got paid, to do the voice over. He admits that, “I’m quite militant about hunting. It requires bravery and nerve, which I think all the best sports do. (Wot, shooting defenceless Animals with a high powered rifle from point blank range!!!). It can be cruel but one of the things that makes the country the country is hunting. I’m very for it.”[68] And then, surprise, surprise, we discover irons’s real attitude towards the Earth, “Movie heart-throb Jeremy irons was fined £120 yesterday for doing 97mph on a motorway.”[69] In another article he confesses, “I love driving .. and i like best of all to go fast.”[70] Boring.

Such attitudes don’t suggest an overwhelming commitment to saving the Earth. Nevertheless he went on the green campaign trail through his involvement in oxford’s first ‘green screen’ festival which also involved rory bremner, jonathon porritt, alan yentob, and francine stock, “At Monday’s launch, Mr Irons gave an impassioned speech stressing the importance of individual action when it comes to forcing the pace of change (over green issues).”[71] For the views of francine stock see mm17: ‘Who’s Who in the Media’.

Monbiot, George.

"George Monbiot .. eats meat .. The monbiot family, descendants of French aristocracy, fled the Loire valley for England during the French Revolution. He is quick to point out that, prone to being underweight, he eats meat only on the advice of his vegan sister, an alternative diet therapist. He got rid of his car four years ago - "a huge liberation"."[72] Monbiot is regarded as a hero by some sections of the green movement, "If this movement were to have a leader it would be George Monbiot, one of its only thinkers. Monbiot, a former BBC producer .."[73] One of its only thinkers!

Stephenson, Julia.

“As a member of the fabulously wealthy vestey meat dynasty, trust fund girl (julia stephenson) was sheltered from the stresses of the real world. A bonfide It girl, her life was a constant whirl of shopping sprees, beauty treatments, cocktail parties and skiing holidays. But, in an amazing turnaround julia, now 35, has rejected the party circuit .. for the green party. Julia is the youngest child of the furnishing tycoon andrew brown obe and his wife rosamund vestey, an heiress of the meat empire which founded dewhurst.”[74]

Tickells.

Crispin.

Crispin tickell was a brutish diplomat .. “TH huxley, who did so much to establish darwin’s science, was his great-great-grandfather.”[75]

Oliver.

Oliver is son of crispin.

White, Vivian.

In november 2000, white presented a panorama programme about the autumn 2000 floods and used the programme for what seemed like an announcement that he’d gone green - thereby following in the footsteps of the youngest dimbleby. He seemed to have only just appreciated the threat posed by global burning. His ignorance of global burning became clear when he stated that brutland was getting wetter, “More storms and floods. It looks like the first instalment of global warming.”[76] At the end of the programme he stated, “In the last few weeks some 6,000 homes have been flooded. An estimated £500 million damage has been caused. Is this the first bill for global warming?”[77] Clearly he can’t have been paying attention when the 1987 storm hit and when, in 1990, the country suffered a couple of severe storms.

2.6: Political Manifestations of the Green Aristocrats/Supergreens.

The 1999 Committee.

Peter melchett, chris hall, andrew warren, chris rose, and richard mabey.

One of the green aristocrats/supergreens’ earliest political manifestations was the ‘1999 committee’. In autumn 1984 peter melchett set up an informal group to discuss how greens could promote the countryside. This group included chris hall, andrew warren, chris rose, and richard mabey. It produced a manifesto to promote the rejuvenation of rural areas, “We need a new vision of what our countryside should be and a manifesto to achieve it. That is what this book provides.”[78]; “The Countryside we want’ is a practical programme of reforms for revitalizing rural britain and halting the many destructive processes which yearly make it a less attractive place to live in and visit. We want a diverse countryside in which a multiplicity of activities can take place.”[79]; “We are concerned with revitalizing the countryside. Something must be done, and done quickly, about the shortage of housing, the decline of public transport and the loss of jobs .. We must also create the opportunities for the less affluent town-dwellers to move into the countryside and to work in it if they wish.”[80] In sum, more subsidies for rural people (the biggest beneficiaries of which are the landowning elite). These subsidies to be extracted from urbanites.

The Green Alliance.

According to simon matthews, “Green alliance was launched in july 1978 .. ‘to raise the profile of the environment in mainstream politics’, by lord beaumont and richard holme, both major figures in the liberal party, and maurice ash, son-in-law of leonard elmhirst, trustee of dartington hall and a senior figure in the town and country planning association. In 1982 tom burke .. became director of green alliance. Burke was also active in the british american project for a successor generation .. Bap funding came from, among others, rio tinto zinc, whose chair from 1995 to 1998 was richard holme .. Both burke and holme remain members of the green alliance. Currently .. the organization is chaired by andrew purkis (who is also chief executive of the diana, princess of wales fund, one of several green alliance figures connected to the royal family) .. ”[81]

Matthews’ conclusion about the green alliance is none too conclusive. He starts off by stating that the Green Alliance is .. “arguably the most influential and well connected pressure group in britain.”[82] Unfortunately he can’t find any evidence to back up his claim, “The actual impact of green alliance during the blair years is hard to gauge. But whatever its initial rationale and whatever the personal views and opinions of some of its individual members, green alliance looks like an enormously powerful corporate lobby heavily connected to the political forces that have reshaped the globe since the late 1970s.”[83]

Forum for the Future.

Jonathon porritt, sara parkin and paul ekins, sir david putnam, richard bransen, glenys kinnock, chris patten, juliet stevenson, michael grade, and will hutton, peter gabriel, crispin tickell, douglas adams, robert worcester, tim bell.

Another manifestation of green aristocrats/supergreens is ‘forum for the future’. These greens have virtually given up campaigning for green issues and have settled for cosy fireside chats with rich, and powerful, Earth rapists, “At a westminster hotel, jonathon porritt, sara parkin and paul ekins are to launch ‘forum for the future’ as “a megaphone for good news”. It will concentrate on promoting solutions rather than publicizing problems, pioneering new green economics, setting up a database of best environmental practice, and running a scholarship programme for “future leaders”. They have the backing of a formidable assembly of the great, the good and the green (although perhaps not invariably all three at once). Their council, chaired by film director sir david putnam, includes richard bransen and glenys kinnock, chris patten, and juliet stevenson, michael grade, and will hutton. Rock star peter gabriel will also sit on the council with crispin tickell, douglas adams, and pollster robert worcester. There is even a place for mrs thatcher’s favourite pr, tim bell, who will serve on the forum’s ‘development board’. It has recruited ‘corporate partners’ with “a proven commitment to environmental issues” including b&q, national westminster bank, the body shop and - rather more improbably - tesco, the post office, and wessex water.”[84]

These greens can often be found at swanky award ceremonies either giving green awards to Earth rapists or legitimizing green awards being given by Earth rapists, "Shell, the giant oil company, was forced yesterday to postpone its annual Better Britain environmental awards ceremony amid growing international protests at its plans to dump the brent Spar oil platform in the Atlantic. The prestigious ceremony was to have been held in London on wednesday with more than 200 guests .. including Jonathon Porritt, David Bellamy, Sara Parkin, David Gee, a former director of Friends of the Earth, and Chris Baines, the television naturalist."[85] It should be remembered that shell is still in the climate coalition. The objectives of these green aristocrats/supergreens are not so much preserving the Earth’s life support system as preserving the powers of the landowning, and corporate, elites should there ever be anything as unpleasant as an urban green revolution.

The UK Sustainable Commission.

The current manifestation of green aristocracy/supergreenery is mcblair’s latest effort to pretend he’s doing something substantial about the environment whilst supporting massive Earth rapist projects, “Members of the new UK Sustainable Development Commission, announced today by the Prime Minister Tony Blair, will drive forward sustainable development across Britain. The Commission will be the first body of its kind to report jointly to central Government across the UK on social, economic and environmental development issues. The 22 members of the Sustainable Development Commission are:

Chair Jonathon Porritt.

Director, Forum for the Future; former Director, Friends of the Earth.

Cllr Maureen Child.

Chair, Edinburgh City Council Finance Committee; former Chair, Edinburgh Lord Provost's Commission on Sustainable Development; Vice-Convenor, CoSLA Sustainability Group.

Deirdre Hutton.

Vice Chair, National Consumer Council; Vice Chair of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA); former Chair, Scottish Consumer Council; Chair, Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Council; Better Regulation Task Force.

Raymond Young.

Housing and Regeneration Consultant; Board member, Forward Scotland; former Director of Research and Innovation, Scottish Homes; Chair, New Deal Environment Task Force in Scotland; Former Secretary, Secretary of State's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development.

Maria Adebowale.

Director, Environmental Law Foundation.

Prof Rod Aspinwall.

Deputy Chair, Aspinwall Enviros Ltd; Director, National Urban Forest Unit.

Helen Browning.

Chair, Soil Association.

Rita Clifton.

Chief Executive Officer of Interbrand.

Lindsey Colbourne.

Director, Projects in Partnership; member of UK21 Sustainability Network

Anna Coote.

Director, Public Health Programme at the King's Fund

Ed Crooks - Economics Editor, Financial Times

Nicky Gavron - Deputy Mayor of London

Dr Chris Gibson-Smith - Group Managing Director/Executive Vice President, BP Amoco plc

Brian Hanna - Chief Executive, Belfast City Council

Dr Alan Knight - Head of Environmental Policy, B&Q

Walter Menzies - Chief Executive, Sustainability North West

Prof Tim O'Riordan.

Professor of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia.

Derek Osborn - Chair, UNED/UK; Chair, European Environment Agency; former Chair, UK Round Table on Sustainable Development.

Prof Ann Power - Professor of Social Policy, London School of Economics.

Charles Secrett.

Director, Friends of the Earth.

Richard Wakeford - Chief Executive, Countryside Agency.

Graham Wynne.

Chief Executive, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).”[86]

2.7: Conclusions: The Right wing Drift of the Green Aristocrats/Supergreens.

The green aristos hold right wing views primarily because they are members of the landowning elite. However, over the last few years there has been a distinct right wing drift amongst the green aristocrats/supergreens because of a number of factors:-

* the growing influence of charles windsor as his ascension draws closer;

* the extreme right wing shift of the tory party primarily as a result of europe’s ban on brutish bseef attempting to prevent the spread of bse;

* the rise of the countryside alliance;

* increasing political activism amongst pharmers protecting their colossal state subsidies;

* the increasing numbers of organic pharmers;

* the rural revolt.

The right wing shift of the supergreens/green aristos can be seen in the following ways:

* support for Animal exploitation not merely Fox hunting but the conversion of Animal protection sanctuaries into game reserves;

* support for the fuel tax rebellion;

* demands for the creation of a network of local abattoirs;

* demands for a reduction in health standards in abattoirs to reduce the burden of costs imposed on pharmers;

* opposition to Reforestation as a means of combating global burning.

The green aristoctrats/supergreens are also pushing the green movement in a right wing direction. The green movement is shifting towards a naturalist ideology which has echoes not merely in conservatism, but in fascism and nazism. It is moving away from a gaian or geophysiological outlook which opposes oomano imperialism, supports the abolition of global poverty, and demands geophysiological equality between nations. The green movement refuses to blame pharmers for being the biggest contributors to the devastation of the planet’s life support system. It refuses to recognize that the Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to global burning. When greens support pharmers they are propping up:

* the country’s gross land inequalities;

* the massive subsidies being given to the landowning, pharming elite;

* the political privileges of the landowning pharming elite in parliament; and,

* the group of people who are most vocal and active against environmentalism and Animal rights.

It seems as if the older that green aristocrats/supergreens become, the more signs they show of a drift to the right. The role of green aristocrats/supergreens is covering up the Animal exploitation industry’s damage to the Earth’s life sustaining processes which is destabilizing the Earth’s climate. At best they’re a complete irrelevance to green politics whilst at worst they are deceiving the public into thinking that they’re doing something fundamental to stop oomans from decimating the Earth’s life support system.

The Links between the Green Aristocrats/Supergreens and the right wing Referendum Party.

Members of the referendum party included lord mcalpine, edward fox, geoffrey boycott. Sympathisers included lady carla powell (wife of charles powell). At a pro-referendum party, “There were aristos; the marquis of worcester, countess maya schonburg and lady cosima somerset. There were celebs: edward fox, maya even, sir alan walters ...”[87]

The Links between the Green Aristocrats/Supergreens and the Countryside Alliance.

Charles Secrett.

Secrett, the director of friends of the Earth, spoke at the inaugural meeting of the countryside alliance. He told the assembled Earth rapist pharmers that the problems of the pharming industry and rural areas did not lay not with pharmers’ appallingly unnatural pharming practices which gave rise to bse epidemic, the autumn 2000 floods, and the foot and mouth epidemic, but with city people.