3. The Green Pharmers.

The previous two sections have looked at supergreens, some of whom are pharmers, and the green aristocracy, many of whom are landowners with extensive pharming interests. However, this is far from being the end of pharmers’ influence on the green movement. This section looks at the pharmers who run green organizations; the pharmer-loving greens who run green organizations; the greens who give political allegiance to pharming as the means for creating an environmentally friendly society; the greens who regurgitate pharmers’ propaganda; the greens who support welfare benefits to pharmers; the greens who act like pharmers; the contrast between the public’s positive image of organic pharming and its grim realities; and, finally, explores the Greens who support the Animal slaughter industry by buying Animal slavery products.

It should not be forgotten that in brutland although the vast majority of conventional pharmers are politically conventional supporters of the tory party, there are some who support green politics. Most pharmers insist that they are the country’s only greens; that only they understand the countryside; and that they are the ‘guardians of the countryside’ - especially when a carrot of environmental subsidies is dangled before their noses.[1] At the same time they are the most vociferous opponents of environmentalism and Animal rights.

3.1: Pharmers’ Dominance of the Environmental Movement.

A number of green organizations are run by the landowning elite or by pharmers. This enables pharmers to influence these organizations for the benefit of pharmers.

Friends of the Earth.

Formerly headed by lord porritt.

Greenpeace.

Formerly headed by lord melchett.

The Environment Agency.

The head of brutland’s environmental protection agency is lord de ramsey. Given that pharmers are the world’s biggest Earth rapists it might seem a little odd that one of them is given responsibility for protecting the environment. This is why greens blame the fossil fuelled industry for global burning rather than pharmers.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England.

“The Queen is patron of the Council for the Protection of Rural England ... ”[2]

Business in the Community.

It’s president is charles windsor.

The World Wide Fund for Nature.

.. “the Duke of Edinburgh is patron of the World Wide Fund for Nature ... ”[3]

3.2: Pharmer-Loving Greens Leading Environmental Organizations.

Even if green organizations are not run by the landowning elite or by pharmers, they are almost invariably run by environmentalists who regard pharming as being the only environmentally friendly lifestyle and pharmers as being ‘custodians of the countryside’.

Friends of the Earth.

Currently being run by charles secrett.

National Trust.

Monbiot suspects that around 1940 the national trust was infiltrated by the aristocracy, "Their vision of britain was a place in which the aristocracy need to be protected from intrusion by the mass, rather than the mass protected from exclusion by the aristocracy."[4]

3.3: Pharmer-Loving Greens.

Most greens believe that urbanization i.e. urban people, urban industries, and urban life, are responsible for wrecking the environment whereas only deurbanization and the widescale introduction of small scale pharming is capable of creating an environmentally friendly society. Urbanization causes environmental problems whilst ruralization provides the solutions. As a consequence, environmentalists have a great sympathy for pharmers no matter what type of pharming practices they are engaged in. This is because they tend to believe that all small-scale pharmers would adopt organic farming practices if given a free choice - although given a free choice most small scale pharmers would prefer to be large scale conventional pharmers. In other words, their attitudes to pharmers are like those of revolutionary left wingers to the working classes. Whereas marxists believe that the working classes are the agents of revolution who will create a socialist utopia, greens believe that pharmers are not merely ‘custodians of the countryside’ but agents who will bring about a sustainable society. Paradoxically, however, pharmers, and rural people, are vigorously opposed to both environmental issues and Animal rights.[5] Just as marxists refused to face up to the fact that the working classes weren’t particularly interested in world revolution let alone leading such a revolution, so greens refuse to come to terms with the fact that pharmers and ruralites are the people who are least interested in the creation of a sustainable planet.

Colchester, Marcus.

Colchester wants rural people who have moved to urban areas to move back to the countryside but questions the economic and financial support they might need, “Land reformers also face the dilemma of how much assistance to provide without creating dependency and undermining peasant initiative. Newly resettled farmers may require the provision of considerable agricultural extension facilities and infrastructure investments( roads, housing, schools, dispensaries) before they become familiar with their new surroundings and able to work the land well.”[6]

Earth First!ers.

For a radical, direct action, organization Earth First uk! seem surprisingly conventional in their green politics. In their magazine ‘do or die’, they express admiration for planterose’s ideas for Reforesting scotland - including some of his reactionary proposals. Firstly, that Forests are to be used to produce economic wealth, “It is the forest that holds the key to any hope for a vibrant future. It is the fulcrum of ecological and social wealth in the Highlands.”[7] Secondly, they also support his ideas for Animal exploitation i.e. the grazing of livestock Animals, “Sheep need not be purged from the highlands - bernard planterose, in the hugely inspiring ‘Rural Manifesto for the Highlands’ hints at ways in which ‘less might be more’, and Sheep farming restored to a more secure footing. Confining Sheep to smaller pastures instead of the vast ranges utilized today, more intensive management, integrating farming into an agro-forestry’ system - all could allow the Sheep to take advantage of the milder micro-climate .. ”[8] This do or die author approves of better conditions for Sheep but all s/he’s doing is creating a greener abattoir. It seems as if s/he’s just wandered in from a pep talk with the countryside movement. Thirdly, s/he goes on to conclude, “It is therefore with great reluctance that I say culling might be unavoidable ..”[9] It has been noted in previous mundi club publications that the rural alliance has made attempts to take over the national trust and the rspca - it appears they have succeeded in taking over the brutish Earth First! movement.

Fairlie, Simon.

In the early 1990s, a group of people, including fairlie, bought/occupied?? a 40 acre site in the somerset countryside called tinkers bubble, in order to try and provide a living for themselves from the land. They have been campaigning to persuade local authorities and the department of the environment to overturn planning restrictions to allow them to construct buildings on the site. If given permission, tinkers bubble would doubtlessly expand its operations to ensure even more land is ruined and even more Animals are slaughtered. Fairlie is not merely promoting policies which would damage the Earth and exploit Animals he’s actively engaged in the struggle already.

Goldsmith, Edward; Nicholas Hildyard; Patrick McCully & Peter Bunyard.

As has already been noted, the ecologists’ editorial collective condemns urban life, “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.”[10]

Goldsmith, Edward.

Edward goldsmith is another major supporter of the mass invasion of the countryside. What is so surprising about his position is that although he’s one of the founders of the green movement and highly indebted to the ideas of james lovelock, his rationale for encouraging a return to the countryside has nothing to do with the Earth’s life support system but with ecological factors. He also believes such a policy would solve a range of urban problems, “In fact, if you were to restore your small farms, bring people back to the land, you’d be solving all sorts of urban problems .. from crime and delinquency, of unemployment, to the massive problems of putting up safe housing everywhere; all these problems would be solved, you see, if you were to return more people to the lands and re-establish the small farm.”[11] And god help the Animals who are going to be maimed, mutilated, and murdered, by the return of such people.

Goldsmith argues that the capital intensive approach to agricultural production is less efficient than labour intensive production, “To begin with, the bigger farm does increase yield per unit of labour, but not yields per unit of land used. .. even m.s. fuminuthan, the father of the green revolution in india, admits that the right size farm for india is 2.5 acres. It’s small farms that maximize food production not big farms.”[12] Whether this analysis takes into account the damage caused by pharmers’ infrastructure - the houses, roads, villages, etc that would be required to support small scale pharming - is not known. The fundamental problem with goldsmith’s approach is that he doesn’t carry out a geophysiological assessment of his policies to determine whether they would rejuvenate or ruin the Earth’s life support system but then again greens rarely bother providing a geophysiological analysis of any of their policies.

Gummer, John.

The problem with gummer is not merely that for years he ignored the scientific advice of the chair of the government’s committee set up to look into bse,[13] nor that he stridently and aggressively took the anti-scientific stance that there was no evidence that bse posed a threat to oomans, but that he believed there was nothing ethically wrong with turning herbivores into carnivores nor with cannibalizing livestock Animals by feeding them on their own species so that Cattle ate Cattle, Sheep ate Sheep, and Chickens ate Chickens. On the contrary, as far as gummer was concerned, turning herbivores into carnivores was natural and cannabalizing Animals was natural. To this stupid, odious, arrogant, little crackpot it was vegetarians who were "wholly unnatural".[14]

Monbiot, George.

Monbiot supports urban people moving back into the countryside and becoming small scale pharmers. He criticizes the national trust for not helping urban working class people to do this - as if he wasn’t quite aware that brutland suffers from endemic class conflict. He suspects that around 1940 it was infiltrated by the aristocracy, "Their vision of britain was a place in which the aristocracy need to be protected from intrusion by the mass, rather than the mass protected from exclusion by the aristocracy." He demands, "It (the National trust) must present a countryside in which we all have a stake."; "It (the national trust) must help to provide means by which those who want to get back in can live and work in the countryside."[15]

Norberg-Hodge, Helena.

“An equally common myth that clouds thinking about more human scale rural economies is that “there are too many people to go back to the land”. It is noteworthy that a similar scepticism does not accompany the notion of urbanizing the world’s population. It is considered ‘utopian’ to suggest a ruralization of america’s or europe’s population; but china’s plans to move 440 million people into the cities during the next few decades hardly raises eyebrows.”[16]

North, Richard.

"Let the purists rage: some of the rainforest may even be more useful as reservoirs for dams."[17]

Orbach, Julian and Emma.

Some so-called greens are so devoted to rural life and the pharming industry they believe they have the right to go into Wild areas in the countryside, colonize some land, and simply set themselves up as pharmers i.e. people who don’t pay any local rates and who are given constant welfare benefit subsidies without the government continually putting advertisements in daily newspapers encouraging the public to inform on those defrauding the system by moving their Animals around the country, “A secret ‘good life’ village built without permission in a beauty spot faced a bulldozer threat yesterday - after being hidden for four years. The village is home to 12 adults and 10 children who generate their own electricity, grow their own food and get fresh water from a stream. Their hideaway was spotted by the pilot of a low flying plane surveying the pembrokeshire national park when one of the solar panels on the commune’s architect-designed homes glinted in the sunshine. Planners moved in to find the residents of the isolated hillside village surrounded by trees and bushes. Buildings facing demolition include a dome built on stilts .. Others earmarked for razing include a roundhouse with a turf roof, a wooden marquee, wood store and workshop. They have all been sawn down from nearby woods. The village was set up in the foothills of mount carningli near newport by architectural historian julian orbach and wife emma.”[18]

Page, Robin.

The ecologist’s robin page supported the pharmers during the fuel tax insurrection. He appeared on a newsnight programme to hurl abuse at a labour minister defending the fuel tax. The country’s biggest welfare benefit spongers want even more subsidies no matter how much environmental pollution would be caused by lower fuel prices. Pharmers are responsible for making the biggest contribution to global burning so they aren’t in the least bit bothered by the fact that this would contribute even more to global burning. As far as pharmers are concerned, efforts to protect the environment should not impinge on their interests.

Planterose, Bernard.

Planterose wants to repopulate the highlands of scotland. Even worse, he wants to reintroduce many Wildlife species which once used to roam the area so that new ruralites could kill them for resources, “Other large herbivores (besides Reindeer) might be introduced and managed as wild resources too. The once native Elk would seem to be a good candidate.”[19] He wants to reintroduce Wildlife not because he believes in Biodiversity or Animal freedom but because he wants to extend the range of meat products for ooman consumption, “In contrast to the extreme paucity of wild game taken from the land today, the great Wood would yield up a much increased range, quantity and quality of Animal products managed by local communities to supply food, in the first place, to themselves.”[20]

Porritt, Lord.

In his early days, porritt was a revolutionary who demanded that people should be allowed to invade the countryside because, "The present system denies people their natural birthright of access to the land."[21] He was so radical he opposed the expropriation of land because .. "it should not be possible to own land."[22] He called for ... “a massive programme of rural resettlement."[23]

Pye-Smith, Charlie & Hall, Chris.

The authors call for.. “a countryside in which both human and wildlife will prosper. Where more people work on the land. Where everyone can wander freely. Where the animals which end up on our plates are decently kept and decently killed.”[24] The mundi club is sure that Wildlife would love oomans to move back into Wilderness areas if only they could put the bipeds on their plates.

Roszak, Theodore

During the 1960s and 1970s roszak was one of the most influential environmental thinkers and he bears a considerable degree of responsibility for the equations of rural is good, urban is bad. He believes that, "Land reform is the undiscovered revolution in American politics."[25] He condemns urban life, "Urban dwellers .. constitute the oldest imperial interest in the world. The empire of cities, incessantly forcing itself upon the traditional, the rural, the wilderness at large. Today, all the decisions that are being made about the future of our planet are being made in the cities by city brains."[26]; "By the very fact that they are locked away from the Earth in an artificial environment, urbanites lose sight of the planet as a living entity with whom they must maintain an organic reciprocity."[27] "The modern city represents our most daring attempt to live 'beyond' nature as its detached observer and master."[28]; Roszak believes people do not want to live in cities but have been forced to move there by circumstance. Thus, given the chance they would go back to the countryside, "There would be little chance of deurbanizing the modern world if the millions that now flock to the cities wanted to be there. Deurbanization is not something that need be made to happen; it need only be allowed to happen, as if by natural gravity."[29] He shows just how divorced he was from reality by arguing, "The city has never been a way of life that appealed to more than a strict minority."[30] It could be argued that the reason people live in cities is because they understand that the greater the concentration of oomans in one area, the less the impact they have on the environment because of the ecological economies of scale.

Tickell, Oliver.

Tickell is a great supporter of tinkers’ bubble and objected to john gummer’s attempt to close it down, "Thanks to your personal intervention in the planning process, a unique experiment in the sustainable development of the English countryside is to be brought to a premature end. I am writing of Tinkers Bubble, a 40 acre land holding on Ham Hill in Somerset, where eight adults and four children have made their home for 18 months. The land is ideal for human habitation. Three quarters of the area is wooded providing timber, fuel and shelter; and after decades of neglect the woodland is crying for sympathetic management. A start has been made on the pruning of 1,000 apple trees under which graze sheep and a Dexter cow. Higher up, rare-breed pigs live in the open air, fattening up on damaged fruit and kitchen scraps."[31]

Wrench, Tony.

Wrench persuaded the green party to adopt a new category of land use, called permaculture land, “This is land used for permaculture - sustainable self reliant agriculture and horticulture in which work, house building, leisure, growing food, rearing Animals (sic - murdering Animals), education, renewable energy, recycling and nature conservation are integrated in an infinite number of ways.”[32] What he envisages is not merely a small number of highly committed permaculturalists moving into a few wooden sheds in the countryside but masses of unemployed people creating large numbers of rural villages, “The knowledge now exists for new settlements to be designed along permaculture lines in which people would feel fulfilled; find a new sense of purpose; develop new skills; design and build energy efficient natural homes; and grow and eat good organic food. These settlements would also provide habitats for a greater variety of Plants and Animals than was there before - both wild and domesticated - whether the site was a quarry, an airstrip, a piece of city waste land or a farm.”[33]

3.4: Greens supporting Pharming Subsidies.

Many greens have expressed their support for the subsidies being given to pharmers even though these have rocketed to astronomical proportions during the 1990s.

Lean, Geoffrey.

“Britain pioneered the intensification (of pharming) on this side of the Atlantic. No European country has pursued it so relentlessly, or has so ruthlessly driven small farmers to the wall to benefit richer ones: more than 330,000 farms ­ two-thirds of the total ­ have been forced out of business since 1945.”[34]

Meikle, James.

.. “in the past decade consumption - and the price paid to farmers (for milk) - has fallen dramatically. Farmers' pickets at processing plants and supermarkets over beef and lamb are being repeated by dairymen. Should we worry whether the black and white beasts that adorn the pages of nursery books may soon disappear? Or should our sympathy for farmers be tempered by the welfare failures of intensive dairy farming, the consequences of the sector's large share of bse casualties and the suspicion that the whole industry has fallen foul of a subsidy system that once helped bring fat profits that were never reinvested? ”[35]

Page, Robin.

“We are now in danger of losing our rural culture completely. The tragedy, however, is not that foot and mouth is here, but that the epidemic need not have happened. Our politicians and farming bureaucrats simply do not learn. The message from bse was that industrialized, over-intensive farming carries many dangers and the time had come for a change. Nothing changed. Does farming in this country have a future? The way forward according to tim lang is “ecology friendly pharming”. The countryside restoration trust of which i am chairperson, has been carrying this out in cambridgeshire for several years. We  are producing good quality food; our livestock is killed locally and wildlife is flooding back.”[36]

3.5: The Greens who regurgitate Pharmers’ Propaganda such as the cause of the Foot and Mouth Epidemic.

There are many greens who are so besotted by pharming and pharmers they go along with anything pharmers say. Thus they supported pharmers’ ludicrous argument that the european community’s and the labour government’s dismantling of local abattoirs was responsible for brutland’s foot and mouth epidemic in 2001.[37]

Goldsmith, Zac.

“The new crisis facing farmers must come as something of a relief to the government. The potentially embarrassing Countryside March is delayed, and the small farmers who have been subjected for years to endless political sabotage look set to join the world's lost species list. In other words, new Labour's loudest foe is defeated, and because foot and mouth is nothing new, they can't be blamed. But the truth is they can, and must be blamed along with their close buddies, the supermarkets, which have price-fixed small farmers into bankruptcy. It was the EU, with full new Labour support, that outlawed small abattoirs by imposing regulations that no medium-sized business could possibly handle. And while they enlisted the god of "hygiene" to justify the red tape, it was known at the time of the E.coli outbreak that triggered the rulings that the meat responsible was prepared by an industrial plant that already complied with EU hygiene rules. That is why animals are now carried hundreds of miles from field to slaughter, and why the spread of disease is all the more inevitable.”[38]

Page, Robin.

“However the disease arrived, it was subsequently trailed across the country by transporting animals unacceptable distances for slaughter - all because of “industrialized” farming. Some 33.5 million pigs, cattle and sheep are involved in this absurdity every year, and all the government does is close down yet more slaughterhouses, so making the situation worse. Even more unacceptably, some cattle - herd animals - are mixed with animals from other herds during their journeys, causing them considerable distress. This situation has been created by nonsensical european regulations that have seen the closure of 800 local slaughter houses in the past 10 years. Once environmental health officers could monitor slaughterhouses; now vets have to be permanently on duty to monitor slaughterhouses that have been upgraded to ridiculous and expensive levels far beyond simple hygiene and cleanliness. Farm livestock should not be faced with the stress of travelling long distances - they should be killed locally and the carcasses then transported. The possibility of spreading any disease - swine fever, or foot and moth disease - is then minimized.”[39]

Green Anarchist.

.. “the possible european origin of the (f&m) outbreak. Europe is responsible for the increased transportation of Animals about britain, because of the forced closure of many british abattoirs due to the imposition of european regulations.”[40]

Mellor, David.

.. “animals intended for our table are still being fed bits of other creatures despite the bse disaster. Feeding animal residues to herbivorous creatures is against nature. And now nature is taking a terrible revenge. They have allowed 800 local slaughterhouses to be shut because of e.u. regulations. Why not set up a chain of local slaughterhouses, and if the eu objects tell them to stuff it.”[41]

Lucas, Caroline.

Oxfordshire green mep caroline lucas complained about the closure of locally based abattoirs, “This trend must be reversed so that animals can be slaughtered close to the farms on which they are reared.”[42] Local politics means local abattoirs!!

3.6: Environmentalists acting like Pharmers.

It’s bad enough that many green organizations are run by the landowning elite or by pharmers but what adds to pharmers’ dominance of the green movement, and thus creates the impression of a green (welly) movement, is that even environmentalists who have no (known) connection with either the landowning elite or pharming, implement policies which benefit the pharming industry.

Christopher Gledhill and the Breacon Beacons National Park.

Gledhill is the manager of the breacon beacons national park. Most of this park consists of pharmland grazed by Sheep. During the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001 he demanded action to protect Sheep in the park from contracting the disease which would have meant exterminating them for having a common cold. Rather than celebrating the prospect of the land being cleared of livestock so that it could return to its natural, Forested, state he acts like a pharmer protecting the aesthetic value of the pharmer-made landscape. In other words, here is another conservationist doing his best to prevent action being taken to combat global burning and to reduce the country’s appalling Carbon debts. It’s more than likely that he too blames the fossil fuelled industries for global burning rather than the livestock industry.

Bob Carter and the Lake District National Park.

Like the breacon beacons national park, the lake district national park is little more than a collection of pastureland. Its manager holds the same views as gledhill about the threat that foot and mouth posed to livestock, “The crisis could ruin one of the country’s most beautiful regions, experts warned yesterday. “We are facing an absolute doomsday scenario,” said bob carter manager of the lake district national park. He warned that picturesque pastures could be reduced to scrubland and views that attract millions of tourists could be destroyed. Livestock in the region roam free. Mr cartwright said the consequences will be “devastating” if the park’s sheep have to be killed.”[43] Ah yes now let’s see. Let’s start with a beautiful natural Forest. Along comes pharmers and chops it all down. Then when pharmers aren’t getting enough welfare benefit payments they start pretending the landscape is beautiful in the hope of encouraging tourists from around the world to get onto their nearest aeroplane and fly all the way over just to see slave Animals eating everything in sight. The amount of pollution created by these tourists must be significant.

Charles Secrett.

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. His reply was staggering, ‘Oh no we don’t want that. We want to get farmers back onto these pharms. Wilderness ought to be left to national parks.’ Firstly, notice that he wants farms not Forests. This is one of the country’s leading greens and he’s more interested in propping up the subsidy laden livelihoods of pharmers than he is in combating global burning. This is why his organization has been churning out the most unscientific rubbish about Forests for the last decade or so. Secondly, he was just conning people because brutland doesn’t have any Wilderness areas - they’re all national parks most of which consist of bloody pharms!!! This is why all of brutland’s so-called parks had to be shut down during the f&m outbreak because they’re full of slave Animals which eat every bit of greenery in sight! Here was the leader of one of the country’s major green organizations who was more concerned with ensuring that pharmers continued receiving billions of pounds 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. The decadence of the green movement is truly incredible to behold. The bse epidemic, the autumn 2000 floods, and the f&m disasters were an unmissable opportunity to reduce this country’s appalling Carbon debts. But greens have done everything they could to prevent this from happening.

National Consumers Council.

The national consumers’ council is supposed to represent the interests of consumers against the pharming industry. Unfortunately, it is a front organization since it is funded by the ministry of agriculture, fisheries, and food, (the notorious maffia) and takes pharmers’ side over controversial issues .. “the national consumers’ council (ncc), a government-sponsored body under the wing of maff ..”[44]

Pye-Smith, Charlie & Hall, Chris.

These two advocates of organic pharming seem totally preoccupied with behaving as if they were pharmers. They suggest that in order to prevent chalk Grasslands from reverting back to Forests .. “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.”[45] 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.

Food Standards Agency.

It is not known what connection john krebs has to the landowning elite or the pharming industry but he once carried out some research which was very beneficial to pharmers, “Food campaigners yesterday criticised the appointment of a leading scientist to head the new food standards agency. They said Oxford professor Sir John Krebs, who will be paid £96,000 a year for the four-day-a-week job, did not have a track record in food or consumer policy. But he insisted that he wanted the agency to be `a beacon of openness and a model for the best use of science.' Sir John, who is former head of the national environment research council, and whose study of badgers helped to bring about a government cull to see whether the animals spread TB to cattle, said he wanted to strengthen “already high standards" of food safety, to ensure that `everyone can have confidence that public health is being properly protected".

3.7: The Organic Farming Fraternity.

The Romantic Image of Organic Farming.

Most supergreens are avid supporters of organic farming although few of them are farmers. The public also supports organic farming, or have a great deal of sympathy for it, because they prefer that Animals should have the freedom to roam .. before having their throats slit. They also prefer free range meat/dairy produce because it is supposedly free of additives, preservatives, and chemicals. However, if it’s cheaper they’ll buy the fat saturated/diseased/toxic/chemically boosted/drugged up/multiply-vaccinated/genetically modified/hormone enhanced/antibiotic laced/insecticide soaked/pesticide drenched/bse-infected/shit-riddled, putrefying corpses, meat/dairy products.

The Mass Slaughter entailed by Organic Farming.

The public has a very positive image of organic pharming because they connect it with free range Animals. However, organic farming involves:

* the exploitation and murder of livestock Animals;

** killing alleged pests in order to protect organic crops. For example .. “the brown rat, the house mouse and the rabbit.”[46] Also Deer and Birds e.g. the Wood Pigeon.

*** the extermination of Wildlife that pose a threat to the health or survival of organic livestock e.g. Foxes, Rats, Stoats, Weasels, Mink, Badgers, etc. Because organic pharming is free range it requires the slaughter of Wildlife whereas this is not the case with conventional pharming because livestock are kept indoors where they cannot be attacked by Wildlife. Because organic pharming is much more extensive than intensive pharming it requires Wildlife to be slaughtered over a much wider area of land.

**** organic pharmers have to exterminate all Wildlife which pose a disease threat to livestock Animals - this is especially the case since they do not use modern chemicals or antibiotics to protect their Animals’ health. At the very least this means the slaughter of Rats, Mice, Badgers, etc. Once again, this threat is much more significant with organic pharming than it is with conventional pharming where slave Animals are kept indoors away from Wildlife.

***** organic farming is an extensive system of livestock farming and thus takes up far more land than conventional pharming. It devastates much larger areas of Wildlife habitats than intensive pharming;

****** organic farmers kill livestock Animals which thereby justifies hunting, shooting, and fishing;

******* because organic farmers support hunting, shooting, and fishing, this necessitates the extermination of the Wildlife species which feed on ‘game’ Animals. In the case of fishing this often requires the extermination of Pike; in the case of Grouse shooting it requires the killing of birds of prey, “Peregrine, buzzard, golden eagle and other hawks and owls are still shot and poisoned on gaming estates, even though they are protected by law. .. other ‘vermin’ which are killed for the sake of the shoot: stoats, weasels, jays, magpies, crows, pigeons, rats, adders ..”[47];

******** organic farmers justify the killing of slave Animals, game Animals, and what they define as ‘pests’, but this also justifies raising and killing Animals for fur;

********* in many countries around the world Wildlife sanctuaries/Wilderness areas have been set up to try and prevent poachers and local people from exterminating rare Animals. However, organic farmers encourage people to graze their slave Animals in such areas in the name of living harmoniously with nature - which almost invariably ends up with them wiping out the Wildlife which pose a threat to such Animals. They wipe out everything with the exception of those Animals which hunters are willing to pay large sums of money for shooting;

********** organic pharming legitimizes hunting not only in this country but in all countries. This means supporting the hunting of Elephants and Tigers. It also means supporting the trade in ivory, Tiger fur, etc;

*********** Organic farming also condones the use of Animals in medicines e.g. the use of Tiger bones, “Field surveys assessing conservation risks posed by traditional chinese medicine (tcm) deal almost exclusively with the few medicinal mammals. The results are disheartening. Continued demand for Tiger bones makes over-exploitation a greater threat than habitat loss. Similarly, medicinal use of Rhinoceros horn has accounted for much of the decline in numbers. Between 1970 and 1993, 95% of the world’s population of black Rhinoceros disappeared, and javan and sumatran Rhinos hover on the brink of extinction. Demand for Bear bile still threatens asian Bears, even though there are now regulations on international trade in all species. One solution is to farm medicinal Animals and plants. Chinese officials have promoted this as a way of guaranteeing supplies as well as protecting endangered species. Even when it works, farming usually fails to match the scale of demand. China’s demand for Animal products such as musk and pangolin scales far exceeds supply from captive-bred sources. Bear farming in china is particularly controversial. Around 7600 captive Bears have their bile “milked” through tubes inserted into their gall bladders.”[48] This, in turn, legitimizes Whale hunting by norwegians, japanese, chinese and an increasing number of astro-turf tribal peoples. In total, the resumption of the trade in Animal parts.

The Diseases Caused by Organic Pharmers.

Organic pharming is also responsible for generating a number of diseases amongst Animals. It should also be mentioned that organic farmers are not free of the threat posed by bse because they fed their Animals on bse-infected meat and bone meal - and then sold these Animals as organically reared meat. For decades organic free range Animals were brought up on meat and bone meal like those in the conventional, intensive livestock industry. Most organic pharmers must have suspected the feed they were giving their Animals contained mbm and yet they carried on selling their Animals as having been reared on a natural organic diet.

It is commonly recognized that intensive pharming causes disease outbreaks to spread like wildfire because of the intense concentration of Animals in one place but it is much less commonly appreciated that organic pharms are far from being free of diseases. The fact is that diseases are always rife where Animals are pushed into proximity with each other and many of these diseases also afflict oomans. It is a mistake to believe that organic pharming is disease-free in comparison with intensive pharming. The issue of which form of pharming is better for slave Animals has to be determined on a disease by disease basis. Although intensively reared Animals are vulnerable to a wide range of diseases, so too are extensively reared Animals.

"Mad Itch".

Firstly, “As a device for spreading disease, the classic farmyard could scarcely be bettered. Where cattle, pigs, chicken and sheep share the same soil, you have the perfect conditions for breeding new strains of viral illness. The cattle industry in America's Midwest was once threatened by a disease known as "mad itch", a 19th century mad cow disease that caused cattle to rub their coats maniacally against fenceposts for a few days before dying. The disease was conquered when it was found that it was transmitted by pigs. The move to more industrialised farming, where cattle and pigs were separated, eradicated the disease.”[49]

F&M.

Secondly, the intensive Animal slavery industry is much less vulnerable to f&m disease than organic pharming. The disease can be transmitted via wind and rain so whilst intensively reared Animals are protected from the elements, organically reared Animals, being free range, are not. The f&m epidemic has primarily affected the Sheep industry because most Sheep are grazed on pastureland whereas slave Animals confined to factory pharms, most notably Pigs, have hardly been affected by the epidemic.

The Appalling Practices of the Organic Pharming Brigade.

Cannibalism.

According to jeremy hardy, “Many of us were unaware that, as farmers now tell us, they have been doing it (the practice of turning Cows into cannibals) for more than a hundred years. The Times's simon jenkins who has in the past refused to believe the link between bse and nvcjd .. The fact that the tories went out of their way to encourage us to eat as much beef as possible is the key to all this."[50] If pharmers were left to their own devices there wouldn’t be anything left of nature in this country. Every time politicians talk about environmental protection, pharmers reach for their rifles because they’re the last people who want their environment protected.

The Lies of the Organic Pharmers.

Organic Food is Free of Chemicals.

Organic pharmers encourage vegetarians/vegans to eat meat by suggesting that all food now contains pesticides - not just meat. What they overlook in this argument is that organically grown fruit and vegetables are just as much affected by pesticides as conventionally grown crops, “Even organically grown vegetables and fruit, even wild vegetation, contains measurable levels of pesticides, so sensitive is the device.”[51]

Organic Pharmers Live in Harmony with Wildlife.

Organic Pharming is Natural.

The Extensification of Organic Pharming will Boost Global Burning.

At the present time, organic farming has a superficially positive public image. To the marginal extent that the public considers this issue, they look positively upon small scale organic farmers who grow crops and rear Animals without the use of chemicals. The public mistakenly believes that organic farming is far less brutal than modern industrialized pharming. Monbiot adds a romantic gloss to this image by suggesting organic farmers are the ‘davids’ in comparison to the goliaths of industrialized pharming, “For no one has suffered more from the depredations of maximized agribusiness than the conscientious farmer.”[52]

This propaganda is a recent invention. Prior to the development of pesticides, all farming was organic. Since the start of agriculture thousands of years ago, organic farmers have caused a colossal scale of ecological devastation. Organic farming .. "has resulted in drastic forest clearance, habitat destruction, ecological disruption and loss of species and genetic diversity for thousands of years world-wide; a one-off ecological cost of huge proportions hardly made up for by the sustainability of the pharming practices carried out on the cleared land."[53] In the over-industrialized world this damage has long been forgotten and the public sees only the remnants of organic farming in which the positive aspects stand out against the gory backdrop of industrialized pharming. Paradoxically, industrialized pharming, which has taken over much of the land once converted to pharming by organic farmers, is now blamed for the ecological devastation that was carried out by organic pharmers. Of course, industrialized pharming continues to cause widescale deforestation in order to increase pharm production but it also inherited vast areas of land where much of the ecological damage had already been carried out by organic farmers. To a significant extent then, industrialized pharming is blamed for ecological damage it did not commit. It is a public relations’ victim of the appalling practices carried out in the past by organic pharmers. It is possible the scale of Forests chopped down over the millennia by organic farmers is greater than that chopped down over the last half century by industrialized pharming - which, of course, is not to praise industrialized pharming since the devastation it has brought about has happened in fifty years in comparison to the damage caused over two thousand years by organic farmers. At this rate of devastation, industrialized pharming will rapidly consume what is left of the Earth’s natural Forests.

Despite the public’s false image of organic farmers as people who inflict no damage on Animals or on the Earth’s life support system there are examples to the contrary. Two advocates of organic pharming, Charlie pye-smith and chris hall, suggest that in order to prevent chalk Grasslands from reverting back to Forests .. “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.”[54]

Whilst it is possible that growing of organic crops could be more productive than industrialized crops and thus less damaging to the environment, it is inevitable that a resurgence of organic livestock pharming would be far more destructive than conventional pharming because of the vast numbers of people who would have to move back into the countryside thereby urbanizing rural areas. In the intensive system of livestock pharming, jews are kept in huge wharehouses where they are fed and fattened before being taken to a concentration camp. Assuming that the same number of livestock jews are involved, the amount of land required for organic livestock pharming would be far more extensive than that required for intensive livestock pharming. This would mean that even more Forests would have to be razed to the ground to create organic pastureland. Pastureland is far less Photosynthetically productive than Forests and would thus boost global burning.

Supporters of Organic Pharming.

FoE.

“Growing Concerns reports that FoE have for the first time unequivocally endorsed organic farming, in a new booking ‘Working Future? Jobs and the environment’, pointing out that it creates more jobs. They will be appointing an agricultural campaigner.”[55]

Lang, Tim.

The way forward according to tim lang is “ecology friendly pharming.”[56]

Page, Robin.

“The countryside restoration trust of which i am chairperson, has been carrying this out in cambridgeshire for several years. We  are producing good quality food; our livestock is killed locally and wildlife is flooding back.”[57]

Browning, Helen.

“Helen browning’s 1,300 acre dairy, pig and grain farm near swindon, on the oxfordshire-wiltshire border, is a flagship of the organic movement with a £1 million turnover on the farm and another £1 million on its meat business. Only 800 of brutland’s 100,000 farmers are organic, farming only 0.3% of the farming area. Organic farming, now defined under e.u. law, bans chemical fertilisers and pesticides and uses rotations, mixed cropping and fertility building by using leguminous crops rather than artificial nitrogen. Animals raised organically, without systematic use of antibiotics ..”[58]

3.8: The Greens who Support the Animal Slaughter Industry by Buying Pharm Products.

Finally, greens support pharmers by consuming corpse and dairy products. There is a substantial minority of greens who support organic farming but who will consume corpse and dairy products from conventional farming if organic is not available. There is a minority of vegetarians in the green movement and an even tinier minority of vegans.

3.9: Conclusions.

The vested interests of pharmers and carnivores in the brutish green movement lead them to blame the fossil fuel industry for provoking the greenhouse effect. The green movement believes in the scientifically ludicrous fantasy that global burning is caused solely by the release of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and that the destruction of the Earth’s Forests by the global pharming industry has no influence on global burning. Correspondingly, they also believe the only way to combat global burning is through reducing greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels completely ignoring the extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere through Reforestation. Not only are they disinterested in Reforestation as a means for combating global burning they are opposed to it because of the threat it poses to the expansion of the organic farming industry. Greens desperately try to protect their vested interests by covering up or denying the contribution made by the Animal enslavement industry to global burning. What this means is that, politically, greens are incapable of even proposing, let alone implementing, the policies needed to combat global burning.

The global Animal enslavement industry makes a bigger contribution to global burning than any other industry. Unless this industry is abolished and pastureland allowed to Reforest itself then there is no way of combating global burning. Recycling, the conservation of resources, energy conservation, energy efficiency, pollution reduction, catalytic converters, green cars, etc, etc, could make only an insignificant contribution to combating global burning. These elements of green politics are a necessary part of a sustainable planet but they are not urgent, essential, or significant, policies for combating global burning. By far and away the single most important means for combating global burning is Reforestation. Without the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry, and the abolition of inequalities in landownership, then people might as well forget about global burning and enjoy what time they have left on Earth. At best so-called green politics is irrelevant, a waste of time. At worst it is a front for the world’s biggest Earth wreckers and the world’s biggest contributors to global burning.

4. Guardian Journalists.

The guardian has a number of journalists who support environmental issues. Some of these journalists are supergreens whilst others belong to later generations.

4.1: Examples.

The Bse Loving Guardian.

“Like a foreign secretary without a passport or a transport minister unable to drive a car, christine gwyther was the welsh agriculture secretary whose great misfortune was to be a vegetarian. So they had it in for ms gwyther from the moment she took office last year, as part of alun michael’s founding devolved welsh administration. She had survived the departure of alan michael but wales’s new boss, rhodri morgan, showed her the door. Now she can spend more time with her lettuce. Last month she told the welsh assembly that farming’s contribution to the nation’s economy was “close to zero”. So the lesson for ms gwyther’s successor is clear enough. He ought to tuck into a plate of prime, tender and above all, welsh lamb: with a side-order of beef, just to make sure.”[59]

Boseley, Sarah

"Regrettably, Sheep's brains are off at st john's restaurant in clerkenwell, near london's smithfield market, where they specialize in "nose to tail eating"."[60]

4.2: Guardian Supergreens.

The General Views of Guardian Supergreens.

It can be argued that guardian journalists form a second cluster of supergreens. They include paul brown, david mckie, james meikle, tim radford, john vidal, martin woollacott. They share common values such as support for organic pharming; the Animal exploitation industry; opposition to Reforestation as a priority for combatting global burning; and support for rural people/communities as opposed to urbanites and urban communities. The basically believe the rural myth that only if urban people return to their ancestral homes in the countryside is it going to be possible to create an environmentally friendly society.

There are many perplexing aspects about brutish society. For example, in an age where there is a super-abundance of news media, why does the media rarely highlight the considerable pockets of poverty in urban areas, whether on outer estates or inner city areas? And why have politicians done so little to abolish urban poverty? A part of the reason for this is that guardian writers are far more concerned about rural people and rural issues than they are urban people and urban issues.

Members of the Guardian Supergreens.

Brown, Paul.

McKie, David.

Support for Roads to Protect Rural Communities.

The november 1996 budget was .. “the fourth year in a row that this programme (the roads’ programme) has been cut. “A hit-and-run budget catastrophe,” raged the rac. For 30 years, collingbourne ducis, on a stretch of road where the A338 and the A346 briefly combine, has wanted a bypass. For the past six years the Collingbourne Action group has agitated for relief. To passive resistance designed to stop motorways we may soon have to add passive resistance to stop the ruination of rural communities by alien traffic.”[61]

Meikle, James.

People should make up their own Minds about Safety Issues.

Meikle published an article in which he suggests there may be the equivalent of bse in Sheep i.e. ovine spongiform encephalopathy, “The spectre of bse being found in sheep has reared its head again, just as supermarkets and farmers urge consumers to help them out of the foot and mouth crisis by eating more lamb.”[62] Meikle is one of those pharmer-loving greens who supports pharmers’ interests by suggesting that consumers ought to be allowed to make up their own minds about the risks of eating ose-infected Sheep. Thatcherism famously brought about privatization but meikle seems to be advocating the personalization of health and safety issues i.e. removing health and safety legislation in order for people to make up their own minds about the risks they want to take, “I prefer to think that some authorities responsible for protecting public health have learned to trust the public to make their own minds up about possible risk rather than making it up for them.”[63] The question here is not whether people have the right to eat diseased feed as the right to obtain all information about the many threats posed by eating toxic, pesticide ridden, putrefying corpses. Their chances of obtaining all such information is negligible.

Bse is present only in some Cattle Organs but All Sheep Organs.

Meikle persists in maintaining the maffia’s propaganda that whilst bse exists only in some parts of Cows’ bodies. This is just nonsense. Bse is present in blood. It circulates around the body and accumulates in many organs throughout the body. The only point in churning out the nonsensical idea that bse resides only in some Cattle organs rather than all of them is to protect pharmers’ interests since such a proposition allows the industry to continue putting the allegedly bse-free organs into the ooman feed chain, “Health officials are to consider whether more parts of sheep and lamb should be removed from meat for human consumption in continuing jitters over bse possibly spreading from cows to other livestock. Brains, skulls, eyes, tonsils, spleens and, in older animals, the spinal cord, are already removed from mutton and lamb as a precaution. But it would probably be impossible to remove all bse infectivity from sheep were it to be found in national flocks. Laboratory experiments indicate the disease spreads far more widely through the bodies of sheep than cattle, but governments will be anxious to maintain a proportionate response that does not damage the sheep industry economically or affect consumer confidence to such an extent farms have to be restocked.”[64]

Radford Tim.

Tucker, Anthony

Anthony tucker highlights prusiner’s views because of his own scepticism, “A few weeks ago, in evidence to the bse inquiry, the Nobel Laureate Stan Prusiner, originator of the infectious prion protein hypothesis of bse and similar diseases, said that he could not understand the statistical argument underlying the British claim that the small number of cases of new variant cjd are a human form of bse.”[65]

Vidal, John.

Support for the Pharming Industry.

Vidal expresses his support for the pharming industry, “In 1939, Britain could still be called a nation of small farmers. There were almost 500,000 farms, the majority fewer than 100 acres and worked by families. Between them they employed up to 15% of the population. The rural economy revolved around them, they were a significant political and social force and their standing in the community was generally high. Within 30 years, the number of farms had almost halved and by 1990 fewer than a quarter of the farmworkers had survived. In the last 10 years the number of farms has fallen a further 25% from 233,000 to 168,000. The latest figures suggest that 42,000 farmers and farmworkers have left the industry in the past two years. Today about 2% of the workforce is actively engaged in farming. In Ireland, a government inquiry into the state of small farms recently found that the numbers had declined by 90% in the last 20 years and that dairy farmers had fallen from 212,000 in 1974 to fewer than 30,000 today. Similarly, in mainland Europe, 200,000 farmers gave up agriculture in 1999. Ironically, small farms have been shown in study after study in Britain, the US and India to be more productive per acre, less polluting, better for employment and wildlife and environmental diversity. ”[66]

Vidal peddles the fantasy of the environmental soundness of small scale pharming. At the end of the day, the issue is not whether people are urban or rural but whether they support a meat based diet or not. No matter how well small scale family pharms seem to protect the environment the fact is that around the globe the Animal exploitation industry is causing massive devastation and is the main cause of the destabilization of the climate.

Woollacott, Martin.

Support for the Pharming Industry.

“Yet the agricultural crises of recent years do, alas, show the town leading the farmer by the nose - into greater debt, into greater reliance on machinery and chemicals, into greater dependence on distant markets, and, as we have just learned once again, into greater vulnerability to plant and livestock disease. The resulting changes threaten not only the supply of healthy food but the essential character of our societies, shaped as they have been since the Greeks by the wisdom, experience, and political style of farmers. “The European Union, founded in part to protect small farmers as well as workers in the basic heavy industries of coal and steel, has ironically succeeded in turning both groups into threatened and ever smaller minorities. That is what connects the disasters of bse and foot and mouth disease with the disaster of the Newport closure. But if the old kind of industrial worker has his back to the wall, the farmer is an even worse case. EU figures suggest that half of north European agriculture will disappear within a generation. As is well known, farmers are leaving the land in unprecedented numbers. What is at risk here is not just what does or does not get on to our plates or what happens to hedgerows and songbirds. The American farmer and classicist Victor Hanson, writing in a California where there are three times as many people on food stamps as there are farmers, wonders: "My fear is not whether we will have a sizeable presence of family farmers but whether we are to have any farmers at all!" If that happens, he continues, " where will be the needed counterpoint?...What other profession is there now ... where the individual fights against nature, lives where he works, invests hourly for the future and never for the mere present, succeeds or fails by his own intellect, physical strength, bodily endurance, and sheer nerve?" Some of today's harassed and slovenly farmers may not well fit this portrait, but it remains true of the best, and it remains true that this farming experience is, as Hanson says, a "needed counterpoint" to less grounded kinds of work and thinking.”[67]

This article is a romanticization of traditional european agriculture in which people lived close to the soil with a sickle in one hand and a throat slitter in the other. It’s an appallingly retrogressive yearning for a non-existent rural bliss which is feasible only because the authors didn’t have to work through those harsh, laborious, tragic years.

The mundi club applauds the process whereby small farmers are chucked off their land by big businesses - and compensation given to them for a better life in towns. This is not because we are great supporters of the monopolization of power in a free market system, nor because we want vast numbers of Animals slaughtered even more efficiently so that more and more people can eat afford cheap corpses. On the contrary, we applaud the intensification of pharming because it’s easier to expropriate land from one owner than millions of kulaks in order to use pastureland for Reforestation. If market forces push more and more rural people into towns this stops them from being brought up with, and thus becoming accustomed to, Animal slaughter. Urban people learn to love and appreciate Animals in a way that rural thugs could never possible do so. It is true that this is a high risk strategy.[68]

4.3: Guardian Environmentalists Blaming the Americans for Kyoto Failures.

In brutland, media reports about climate change negotiations have been presented primarily by environmental journalists. This is especially true of the guardian and ‘new scientist’.[69] What is interesting about these green journos is that they are all supporters of organic pharming. Some of them may even be, or have been, organic pharmers. They share similar values to aristocratic greens. They are all promote the belief that only a rural existence is environmentally friendly and they’re all opposed to Reforestation as a means of combatting global burning because it conflicts with their support for organic pharming.

Since the start of the climate change negotiations, these commentators have presented the issue to the brutish public in two main ways. Firstly, that america is by far and away the world’s biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect and, therefore, must take the lead in reducing greenhouse emissions. This view has become so commonplace in brutland it is the starting point of any discussion about climate change. Even if members of the public don’t know the exact figures for countries’ Carbon emissions they know that america releases far more greenhouse gases than any other country and that it is to blame for global burning. There are NO greens in this country who question this belief. It has become a truism through countless repetition.

Secondly, brutish environmental commentators have repeatedly blamed america for being the main obstacle to a global agreement in climate negotiations. This argument is useful since it reinforces the above assumption - after all, if america wasn’t the biggest contributor to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect then there would be no reason for it to be so obstinate about a global agreement. These journalists then cement these assumptions together by suggesting that the europeans are always eager for a global climate agreement.

One of the first issues that was raised during climate change negotiations was whether agreements for reductions should be made legally binding - as they were for the uruguay round of the gatt agreement concluded shortly after the rio Earth summit. According to these journalists, in 1990 and in 1992 the entire world wanted binding commitments but not america and that many countries were outraged that america resisted such commitments, “Most europeans wanted to press ahead with targets and a timetable. But the americans argued against commitments .. it announced reforestation programmes and pointed out that america’s clean air legislation removed greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. A bloc of industrialized nations formed that stood out against commitments .. juscanz, an acronym formed out of the names of its members: japan, the united states, canada, australia, and new zealand. All are wealthy nations, and all except japan, are large thinly populated areas and profligate in their use of fuel.”[70]

In march-april 1995 at the first round of climate negotiations,[71] brutish environmentalists once again pointed out how the americans were resisting demands .. “for new commitments. So far as the u.s. was concerned, there were to be no specific targets or timetables; indeed these words were to be avoided.”[72] However, brutish environmentalists were pleased when gore managed to reverse the american government’s stance, “It announced a new policy at the next conference of the parties (cop2) in geneva in july 1996. Wirth called for a legally binding agreement to cut emissions after the year 2000. (The geneva declaration) .. instructed delegates to draw up a legally binding protocol setting targets at the next meeting .. (kyoto in december 1997).”[73] They then condemned the american congress’s refusal to ratify the kyoto agreements, “Under the protocol, it has signed up to a reduction (on their 1990 levels) of 12.5% in emissions of six gases by some time between 2008 and 2012.”[74]

Guardian/new scientist journalists have fostered the belief in brutland that the failure of climate negotiations has been solely america’s fault. This implies firstly, that america is one of the world’s worst environmentalists and, secondly, that successive brutish governments from thatcher to major and then mcblair, have all been sincere about curbing climate change. Both of these hypotheses are plainly absurd. Firstly, america has done more to protect its environment, and its Biodiversity, than any other country around the world. Secondly, brutish efforts to protect its environment and its Biodiversity have been appalling failures. American legislation on environmental issues is far superior to brutland’s on virtually any indices and is substantially better on most indices. All brutish leaders have at one time or another spouted about protecting the environment and curbing climate change and then not only have they done nothing about it they have vigorously pursued policies causing considerable environmental devastation. Brutland’s environmental record is one of the most dismal around the world. Whenever there has been a choice between economic growth and environmental protection all brutish leaders have always sacrificed the environment. In 1988, thatcher promised to curb global burning within five years and then forgot about it. Her government, illegally, refused to implement europe’s laws on carrying out environmental impact statements. John major was so disinterested in environmental issues he would never have found the environment without explicit directions. Mcblair has taken up the baton of hypocrisy from thatcher. Shortly before becoming prime minister he stated that the environment would be at “the centre of his government”. Soon after becoming prime minister he stated at a special session of the un general assembly on the fifth anniversary of the rio summit in june 1997, “We in europe have put our cards on the table. It is time for the special pleading to stop and for others to follow suit. If we fail at kyoto we fail our children because the consequences will be felt in their lifetime..”[75] He didn’t say anything more about the environment for three and a half years!!! Then, during the autumn 2000 and winter 2001 he:

* reduced taxes on fuel for motorists;

* agreed to the construction of half a million new homes over the next ten years;

* announced the third tranche of new motorways;

* agreed to the construction of a new super-jumbo aircraft; and,

* provided the country’s pharmers, who are by far and away the country’s biggest Earth rapists, with massive subsidies of £6 billion so they could recover from bse to continue devastating the country’s life support system.

Mcblair then had the gall to start talking about the environment in the run up to the 2001 general election because he knew there was a small percentage of green votes to be won. It is the pathological hypocrisy of the mcblair government which allows him to boast that brutland is one of the world’s leaders in environmental reforms whilst in fact it is one of the worst in the world.

Guardian journalists have gone along with the environmental fantasies opportunistically uttered by brutish prime ministers and have done nothing to expose them as liars. As far as they are concerned it is far easier to go on blaming america for climate change problems whilst pretending that brutland and the rest of europe are desperate to reach a global climate agreement.

5. The Green Cornucopians.

This is a very select group of individuals who believe that green politics is the way to create a global consumerist paradise. As far as is known there is no association between these greens.

Easterbrook, Gregg.

For easterbrook’s green cornucopianism see mappa mundi no.15 ‘Optimism in Technological Overdrive - Technological Cornucopianism - the Onset of New Nature’ p.13.

Lovins, Amory.

For lovins’s views see tf11: ‘Stuck in a 1970s Timewarp’ p.25.

Dauncey, Guy.

"Global trade is essential to the well being of humankind, and must be enabled to continue."[76]

6. Biospherians, the Green Space Colonialists.

6.1: Introduction.

The fifth association of greens consists of those who support space colonization. This is a loose association of greens - as far as is known there is no formal organization promoting their views and no informal links between them.

Biospherians are greens who believe that oomans must colonize other planets in the solar system because in a few hundred million years time the sun will get too hot for life to survive on Earth. They also believe that oomans have got to colonize planets in other parts of the galaxy or in new galaxies because eventually the sun will explode and destroy the solar system. They believe the colonization of space can be achieved only by constructing biospheres, self contained artificial environments, in which oomans would be able to survive for long enough to enable them to terraform suitable planets. The knowledge needed to create self sustaining environments in which oomans could survive for long periods of time, perhaps a decade or even a lifetime, could be provided only by greens. If oomans are to leave Earth, they have not merely got to take some of the Earth with them but the Earth’s system otherwise by the time that oomans arrive at another planet they will have evolved into rocket borne life form.

6.2: Biosphere II: A Monument to the Farce of Ecology.

This is a review of the television documentary ‘Earth and Life’.[77]

The Start - the Plan.

In the late 1980s a group of professional ecologists embarked on a massive public relations’ exercise. They told the world they were going to build a massive, environmentally self-contained, greenhouse type structure in which eight oomans would live for two years. This would demonstrate that ecologists could create artificial biospheres in which people could survive for long periods of time either in inhospitable parts of the Earth or on other planets. These ecologists revealed they were just as much at home in the corporate world as they were in ecological habitats when they managed to raise a monstrous $150 million to fund the project. The plan was to build a greenhouse structure housing five different habitats or biomes - the most critical of which would be the tropical Rainforest, ‘The tropical Forest with its rich vegetation was to provide the bulk of the oxygen and remove the CO₂ storing it as wood.’ The biosphere would be, as the author of ‘Earth and Life’ says without the slightest touch of irony, ‘The most tightly sealed greenhouse in the world’. The project was grandiosely called biosphere II, given that the Earth itself was deemed to be biosphere I. The project received worldwide attention - could the yanks succeed in bottling not only cola but the Earth’s life support system?

The experiment was intended to demonstrate that ecologists had the academic know-how to construct self regulating, ecological systems in the same way that architects design buildings. It would prove the validity of the principles of ecological science, boost the social/corporate status of ecologists, and would be a monument to the pride and prestige of ecologists’ scientific professionalism. The ecologists believed the lessons learnt from this experiment would enable them to design bigger and better biospheres in which, eventually, once all the flaws had been ironed out, people could live in perpetuity. The production of biospheres might even become a huge money spinning operation. Self-contained biospheres could be used in inhospitable areas of the Earth either in deserts or on ocean floors; in space stations circling the Earth; on the moon; and, eventually, distant planets. If oomans’ could live in biospheres on other planets this would fulfil what many believe to be their destiny of colonizing the solar system and warp driving their way around the galaxy. Some commentators, such as john leslie, believe that such biospheres may help to save oomans if they devastate the Earth, “Ozone layer destruction, greenhouse warming, the pollution crisis, the exhaustion of farmlands and the loss of biodiversity all threaten to cause immense misery. Yet they too might appear unlikely to wipe out the entire human race, particularly since people could take refuge in artificial biospheres.”[78] As the Earth’s life support system for oomans begins to break down the rich might want to buy such biospheres to ensure their long term survival - although quite how oomans could survive in greenhouses when they can’t even survive in the great greenhouse of planet Earth is not discussed. But biospherian ecologists refused to regard their plans as being a mere rearguard action to save a few oomans from a devastated Earth. As far as they were concerned oomans are a marvellous species which is not damaging the Earth’s life support system in any way. All they wanted to do was to help oomans to take their first steps into the universe - although quite what life forms on other planets would say about the arrival of a species which had exterminated all ‘alien’ i.e. Wildlife species on Earth is once again not mentioned.

To professional ecologists, biosphere II was to be their moon landing. In private, many ecologists were miffed that increasing attention was being devoted to james lovelock’s new science of the Earth, geophysiology. It was believed such a project would restore their scientific credentials in comparison to upstart gaians. One of the leading lights of the project, wally broecker, was a virulent anti-gaian.[79] He, like most other ecologists, wasn’t overly concerned about global burning in the real world, “The Earth is going to have a higher CO₂ content and whether this is going to really make it warmer or not we don’t know.”[80]

So, after the construction of biosphere II the great day finally arrived. In 1991 eight ecologists entered the biosphere intent on staying for a two year period. With the benefit of hindsight, it has to be stated that it was lucky they weren’t sealed in with a time lock or else they’d have been dead long before the doors opened again.

A Fraud even before it Started.

The ecologists building the biosphere proclaimed they were building a self contained system that could run without any contribution from outside.[81] This was a lie. According to lynn margulis, biosphere II imported most of its electrical energy, “The 17 acre facility (biosphere II) allegedly was ‘materially closed’ in the autumn of september 1991 to all but its enormous intake of external electrical power.”[82]

A Disaster soon after it Started.

One of the first problems to emerge was that the ecologists who designed the centre parc lookalike simply forgot to work out how much sunlight would get into the biosphere. It might have been thought the sun was such a fundamental part of life that even environmentalists and ecologists would have noticed it but apparently not! They must have spent too much time either in boardrooms collecting cheques from their multi-national paymasters or in libraries learning the latin names for Plants in order to polish up their scientific credentials, “The special thick glass panes which could withstand the impact of a large hail storm had the unfortunate side effect of cutting out 50% of the light.” This turned out to be disastrous for food production and, as a consequence, the inmates spent most of their sentence in a state of semi starvation. This sort of lifestyle is hardly likely to make biospherical life very appealing to the one-third of americans who bear an uncanny resemblance to the livestock Cows they consume. In addition, many rich americans who might have been thinking about buying their own personal biosphere and then stocking it with a wide range of pharmyard Animals to keep them in the effluent lifestyle to which they had become accustomed, would have had serious doubts about biospheres that didn’t include large areas of pastureland. Still, as it was to turn out, living in a state of near starvation was the least of the biospherians problems.

Another Disaster follows the First.

If the first problem was a surprise, the second was not. Most corporate ecologists aren’t worried about anthropogenic CO₂ emissions boosting global burning. This is primarily because many of them spend their time inventing scientific rationales, such as cost-benefit analysis, for endless construction projects proposed by their multi-national corporation paymasters. But even if ecologists aren’t bothered about CO₂ emissions on Earth it might have been thought they would want to get this issue sorted out for the sake of their own survival in biosphere II. What became apparent was that they had obviously fallen victim to their own propaganda - that CO₂ emissions and the greenhouse effect were not a problem.[83]

Almost as soon as the doors of the biosphere were closed the concentration of CO₂ started rising. One participant stated, “On the inside when we closed the door in 1991 we started with 400 parts per million (ppm). During a certain time of the mission it was .. close to 4,000 ppm.” Wow! They were out by a factor of ten! “Dealing with the CO₂ was to prove a major headache.” - as if this headache existed only inside biosphere II. They tried the most obvious course of action to remove the excess CO₂, ‘All the biomes were put into maximum production to reduce the CO₂. The excess biomass was removed and stored in the cellar.’ Despite these frantic efforts it wasn’t enough, ‘The atmosphere inside biosphere II was showing some alarming trends. Slowly but relentlessly CO₂ was increasing.’

It turned out that these corporate ecologists had not merely forgotten the sun, they’d also forgotten the Earth’s Carbon cycle as well, “Too much soil had been put into the biosphere. This was the fatal mistake. For all this organic matter was a micro-paradise. Microbes in the soil decompose organic matter and in doing so they release CO₂ and consume O₂. Photosynthesis couldn’t keep pace.” It’s easy to believe that the first thing they should have done after creating the biosphere was to estimate just how much Carbon in the form of soil they would need to ensure a low level of CO₂ in the biosphere but apparently all they’d been concerned about was shovelling as much soil into the biosphere as they could in order to ensure they could grow as much food as they wanted during their time in the biosphere. They completely forgot about the soils’ impact on the biosphere’s Carbon cycle. It is difficult to admire these so-called scientists for the scientific precision with which they determined how much soil would be suitable for the biosphere.

It was only by sheer luck that this farce didn’t degenerate into tragi-comedy, “High as it was, the CO₂ in biosphere II wasn’t nearly high enough. Something was removing massive amounts of Carbon dioxide,” Despite the lorry loads of soil dumped into the biosphere, the level of CO₂ didn’t rocket higher than 4,000 ppm, thereby asphyxiating the inhabitants in a thick smog, because huge quantities of CO₂ were being absorbed by something that wasn’t supposed to play any role in the biosphere at all. It took months for the ecologists to discover the source of their salvation - the biosphere’s concrete floor. The concrete was absorbing huge amounts of Carbon, “Concrete starts out with a fair amount of calcium hydroxide and then CO₂ comes in and kicks out the water and turns calcium hydroxide into calcium carbonate. There was more concrete than soil which turned out where all the CO₂ was.”[84] It was concluded, ‘This completely unanticipated sink saved biosphere II from a very nasty situation.’ Once again this is all too symbolic. If there’s one thing which ecologists are less interested in than the sun, soil, CO₂ emissions, and the greenhouse effect, its Carbon sinks. Quite refreshingly, however, broecker made no attempt to cover up the fact that biosphere II had a runaway greenhouse effect, “If they had built a biosphere without any concrete and put that much organic matter in the soil they would have had a runaway greenhouse effect.” It’s just the global burning on Earth he can’t see. So there we have it. These professional ecologists had not merely forgotten about the sun, they’d also forgotten about the Carbon cycle as well. How much more embarrassing could things get?

The Start of Another near Disaster.

The converse of the CO₂ problem was the oxygen problem. In order to release CO₂ the microbes in the soil had to extract oxygen from the atmosphere. So, as the level of CO₂ rose, the level of oxygen fell, ‘If the CO₂ in the biosphere goes up the oxygen must go down. Which it did. Month by alarming month.’ The ecological system in the biosphere was so disastrously lop-sided, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere started to drop dramatically. The Earth’s atmosphere contains 21% oxygen but in biosphere II it was heading into single figures when the plug was pulled on the project. The factory pharm ecologists decided to call it a day when the level of oxygen reached 14%.

So let’s quickly recapitulate. The ecologists had forgotten the sun so the biospherians were producing so little food they were getting closer and closer to starvation. They’d forgotten the Carbon cycle which meant they were on the verge of being poisoned by excess quantities of CO₂. And they’d forgotten the oxygen cycle which pushed them to the verge of asphyxiation.

The Admission of Disaster.

The biosphere’s concrete floor delayed the inevitable but could not evade it. Eventually, the ecologists had to admit defeat - the ecosystem they’d designed couldn’t support oomans, ‘By late 1992 O₂ levels had sunk to 14.2%. Biosphere II could no longer operate as a materially closed facility and continue to support oomans. Starting on january 13th 1993, 475 days after sealing in the oomans, some 14,000 kilos of liquid oxygen were injected into the lungs over a 90 day period.’ Pumping oxygen into the system allowed them to complete the mission and save face but there was no disguising this professional humiliation. Within the space of a mere 475 days these wealthy, over-civilized, car-owning, jet flying, consumerist ecologists had turned a beautiful biosphere into a choking, smog ridden, deoxygenated, death trap - just as they were doing in real life on Earth. If it hadn’t been for the concrete floor (which should have played no part in the biosphere at all) the project would have collapsed ignominiously within a matter of weeks. The interesting question about this venture is that if the ecologists had been sealed into the biosphere, what would have killed them first - starvation, Carbon poisoning or asphyxiation? They had a number of options to choose how they could end their days. Not so much biosphere II as biosphere tomb.

A Disaster from the Start.

Biosphere II is a monument to the crass failure of ecological science and the corporate decadence of professional ecologists. There could hardly be a more vivid demonstration of the pretentiousness of ecologists’ claims to scientific status. This was one of the few occasions in history when the whole world witnessed the collapse of a pseudo science. Everyone now knows that professional ecologists don’t know what they’re talking about. It was only a stroke of fortune that prevented the world from witnessing the eight inmates clawing their way out of their high tech coffin, starving, hallucinating from oxygen deprivation, and suffocating. Ecology is just as much of a junk science as brutland’s ministry of agriculture, food and fisheries’ views that ‘there was no evidence that bse posed a threat to oomans’. It wouldn’t have taken an ‘O’ level geophysiological student using a Carbon budget more than five minutes to work out that this system was totally unworkable.

Ecologists believed they knew all the basic principles of life giving them the power to design artificial environments in which oomans could survive in perpetuity. It turns out that what they have been teaching for the last three decades is so much ecocidal junk. It will now be much more difficult for professional ecologists to be taken seriously at public enquiries when they try to give scientific respectability to their multinational corporation paymasters’ construction projects. It was all too symbolic that they should end up with an atmosphere choking in CO₂ and a runaway greenhouse effect. The next time anyone sees a professional ecologist at a development enquiry go up to him as he’s getting out of his car and yell, “Biosphere off you detestable corporate livestock.”

Wolfgang Sachs Criticisms of Biosphere II.

Wolfgang sachs, a social ecologist, criticized the biosphere experiment but did so on the basis that geophysiology provided as much of a rationale for the project as ecology. He criticized what he calls global environmental managers or global ecologists such as the Earth scientists working for nasa, the scientists on the inter-governmental panel on climate change, and geophysiologists, “Environmentalism is being framed through an astronaut’s perspective. The blue planet, suspended in the dark universe, has become the object of science and politics. Without the photographs of the earth it would scarcely have been possible to view the planet as an object of management. But there is a political, a scientific and a technological reason as well. Only in the course of the eighties - with the ozone hole, acid rain, and the greenhouse effect - did the global impact of pollution by industrial societies force itself into the foreground. Scientists have made enormous headway in representing the biosphere as an all embracing eco-system. And a new generation of instruments and equipment has created the possibility of measuring global processes. During the past decade, satellites, sensors, and computers have provided the means for calibrating the biosphere and displaying it in models. Research on the biosphere is rapidly becoming big science.”[85]

It can be argued, however, that it is a difficult imagining professional ecologists wanting to engage in global environmental management given their primary concern for legitimizing the global plunder being carried out by their multi-national corporation paymasters. Most ecologists probably regard global environmental management as a threat limiting capitalist exploitation of the Earth’s resources. However, given the creation of nasa and a global institution such as the ipcc, it may have been inevitable that ecologists would try to put their discipline on a global footing.

Sachs’s criticisms of geophysiology are unfair. It is the first science of the Earth. It makes use of satellites, computers, computer models, and takes an archimedean perspective on the Earth. The dangers of geophysiology, like any other theory, lie in the political exploitation of this theory. If global environmental managers adopted a geophysiological perspective and sought to use it to enable multi-national corporations to exploit the Earth, its resources, Biodiversity, and oomans, as ruthlessly as possible this could turn into a nightmare.

6.3: Conclusions.

Geophysiology is a different science from ecology. The biosphere disaster was a disaster for ecology not geophysiology. According to margulis, if the scientists constructing biosphere II had used geophysiology to set up the environment then the project might have succeeded. However, it can also be suggested that it could be used to stabilize the Earth’s climate by determining what the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover should be and what the concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere should be. Once these calculations had been made it would then be possible to estimate, for each country around the world, how much land should be put aside for the creation of climate Forests; the creation of ooman-free Wilderness areas (in which Wildlife would enjoy the freedom to live without the fear of being maimed, mutilated, or murdered by members of the royal family or other oomano-imperialist dross); and for the creation of regional Forests from which oomans would derive renewable resources. Such changes would bring about global justice between all nations and thus the abolition of global poverty.

It is believed that geophysiology could thus help oomans to be more at home on Earth and to share the Planet with Wildlife rather than embarking upon an ecocidal invasion of space. The desire for the conquest of space is a gross form of oomano-imperialism - the underlying cultural value which is leading oomans to destroy the Earth’s life support system for oomans.

6.4: A List of Biospherians.

Margulis, Lynn.

Margulis was one of the founders of gaian theory and the originator of the idea that life has evolved through symbiosis. For her views on Biosphere II and the creation of biospheres to colonize other planets see mappa mundi no.15 p.29.

Easterbrook, Gregg.

For his views on colonizing other planets see mappa mundi no.15 p.13.

Moss, Norman.

For his views on colonizing other planets see mappa mundi no.15 p.33.