7.3. Edward Goldsmith.

7.3.1: A Short Biographical Sketch.

Egoldsmith’s Travels.

Egoldsmith was born in france in 1930. He went to a primary school in the bahamas; a boarding school in toronto; a prep school in somerset; then magdalen college, oxford.[1] His adult life seems no less peripatetic. Any attempt to list his travels around the world would require a team of full-time researchers. It would be far quicker to mention the villages around the world he’s never visited than the cities and towns that he has. His ecological footsteps were tiny but his air miles would have been astronomic. It has been concluded that edward .. “was, if anything, more shiftless than the young jimmy.”[2] Thankfully he didn’t have a boeing 757 at his disposal or else the Earth would currently be shrouded in a green smog.

The Gambling Habit Continues.

Egoldsmith was one of a unique group of brat pack undergraduate gamblers at oxford university. Whilst some of the members of this group managed to use their gambling skills to make hundreds of millions of pounds and, in jgoldsmith’s case, a couple of billion pounds, egoldsmith did not do so. If anything, he became a gambling victim. His gambling continued long after he’d left university, got married, and had kids. At one point the gambling bug seems to have got so bad it necessitated the sale of his brother’s car.[3] By 1960, his gambling debts had built up to such an extent that paying them off led to a period of relative poverty for him and his family. Whilst jgoldsmith  .. “built up thousands of pounds of gambling debts as a young man, he had largely grown out of such excess by the time he went into business at the age of 20. Teddy, on the other hand, was a 30 year old married man with two daughters when his mother bailed him out of his debts by selling her apartment in chantilly.”[4] It wasn’t until his father’s death in 1967 that he could escape the poverty into which he’d put himself and his family.

7.3.2: The Strange Media Success of Goldsmith’s Blueprint.

Over the last few millenia, no political theorist has published a manifesto which has received any media attention - primarily because most of them were critical of the established order and the ruling elite. However, egoldsmith’s ‘blueprint for survival’ was a huge media success reviewed in many newspapers and magazines .. “in 1972 he became a figure of interest to a wider public with the ecologist’s publication of ‘a blueprint for survival’, a 40,000 word critique of the way the world was heading. No one took it more seriously than the sunday times, which compared it with marx’s communist manifesto and abraham lincoln’s gettysburg address ...”[5]

The reason ‘blueprint’ received such attention was not because of its outstanding intellectual stature. It was partly because egoldsmith could rely on favours from his old etonian, aristocratic, and oxford university, chums in the media; partly, because the media took an interest in everything the goldsmiths did - this was just the latest episode in the goldsmith family soap opera and it seemed slightly juicy because the book was implicitly critical of his brother’s activities; and partly, perhaps even jgoldsmith’s influence on the media.[6] Without the goldsmith name, the country’s media wouldn’t have taken the slightest bit of interest in it. It would have been ignored like most other green manifestos. In other words, the media’s extensive interest in the book was primarily a product of the intense social snobbery amongst brutland’s ruling elite which believes that only the members of this elite have anything significant to say. It doesn’t matter if a member of this elite has radical ideas they’ll still be given an airing because of class loyalties. But, should lesser mortals, lower in the social order, say anything then they’ll just ignore it. There must be many green political theorists who must be seething after having jotted down a piddling 40,000 word manifesto only to find that not only has the media not taken the slightest bit of interest in it but that even the goldsmith controlled green media hasn’t bothered to shake itself from its aristocratic superiority complexes, its comatose state of self contentment, its overbloated ideological arrogance, and its pathetic appeasement of the powers that be, to take the slightest bit of interest in it either.

‘Blueprint’ is surely one of the most over-hyped publications of the late 20thc. Despite its considerable exposure in the media it did not lead to large numbers of converts or a mass movement and it led to very few social and ecological changes. For example, a couple of years later, in the 1974 general election, egoldsmith contested the parliamentary seat in suffolk and failed to win many votes.

‘Blueprint’ was well received, however, in parts of the academic world - the fact that a couple of its writers were oxford university graduates being purely accidental .. “33 academics put their names to this radical manifesto, including 17 professors, five of them fellows of the royal society.”[7] Paradoxically, this academic support could well have been the kiss of death for ‘the ecologist’ because, thereafter, the magazine seemed to direct itself to the academic elite rather than the rest of society. Egoldsmith sought to transform society through persuading the livestock owners rather than the livestock.

7.3.3: The Formation of ‘the Movement for Survival’; ‘People’ and ‘the Ecology Party’.

Egoldsmith set up the movement for survival which evolved into a new political party called ‘People’ which, in 1976, evolved into the ecology party, and then the green party.

7.3.4: What’s the Ecologist been Doing for the Last Thirty Years?

7.3.4.1: Introduction.

‘The ecologist’ magazine is one of the oldest, most popular, and most respected, environmental magazines in the country.[8] But the throat-slitting, blood-sucking, meat eating, fur-loving, vivisection supporting, members of ‘the ecologist’ seem to be stuck in the environmentalism of the 1970s when the chemical industry was blamed for causing the most environmental damage.[9] This section evaluates the ecologist’s record over the first thirty years of its existence whilst a later section explores the direction in which it might be going under the editorship of zgoldsmith.[10]

7.3.4.2: Cowardice over the Gulf War.

In the early 1990s, egoldsmith and the rest of the ecologist editorial crew refused to take the slightest bit of interest in the mundi club’s hypothesis that saddam’s torching of kuwaiti oil wells was better for the environment than allowing the oil to be used to maintain capitalist expansionism. The ecologist still persists with the puerile view that, “Gulf war unleashes oil fires. Saddam sabotages the oil wells of kuwait during the gulf war. Fires burn for many months, unleashing clouds of black smoke across the region, causing lung diseases and polluting the desert with oil lakes.”[11]

7.3.4.3: Cowardice over Jewish Responsibilities for the Current Immiserization of Iraqi Children.

During the 1991 gulf war, the allies systematically bombed iraq back towards the stone age. After the war the allies forcibly demilitarized the country (whilst allowing zionist occupied palestine to continue building up its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons) and imposed trade sanctions which have caused the impoverishment of huge numbers of iraqi children. They have denied iraq the medicines it needs to look after its people - especially its children. The allies have done nothing to clean up the nuclear waste they dumped on the country causing genetic deformities in babies and many deaths. It has been estimated that, overall, these policies have led to the deaths of about a million iraqi children. About this appalling situation norman g finkelstein has written, “As in the nazi holocaust, a million children have likely perished. Questioned on national television about the grisly death toll in iraq, secretary of state madeleine albright replied that “the price is worth it”.[12]

David edwards condemns the ecologist for refusing to denounce this holocaust, “Green magazines like the Ecologist sometimes appear reluctant to be overly critical of the mainstream media for fear of being excluded and marginalized even further (the Ecologist’s editors vigorously deny that this is the case). If so, it is an understandable concern, given the mainstream’s extreme intolerance of criticism.”[13]

The decivilizing of iraq was achieved through american military power and its political ascendancy as the world’s sole superpower, but it was supported not merely by the huge jewish lobby in america but by the right wing, religious bigots in successive zionist governments, who continue to expropriate palestinian land. The mundi club highlighted the influence of the jewish lobby on american politics during the gulf war and its responsibilities for the devastation of iraq. But has ‘the ecologist’ denounced this zionist contribution to the devastation of iraq? Oh, yes, i forgot. We aren’t supposed to criticize zionist supremacism because to do so is regarded as racist. But, once again, if you think the mundi club is going to keep quiet you are seriously mistaken.

7.3.4.4: Nothing to say about the Car.

In the early 1990s the mundi club sent an article to ‘the ecologist’ on the damage cars and the car-related industries were inflicting on the Earth’s life support system. It was returned with the comment that they wouldn’t publish it because, “It wasn’t scientific.” By that time the ecologist had been published for nigh-on twenty years and, as far as is known, hadn’t included a single article condemning the car. As anti-car protests spread around the country, activists began to wonder why ‘the ecologist’ was so oblivious of the issue. Eventually simon fairlie broke ranks and admitted the ecologist’s failure over this issue, "Nor can the Ecologist remain immune from criticism. In 1992 not a word was published in this journal about Twyford Down. The Dongas have put the entire spectrum of the British environmental movement to shame."[14] It eventually produced a campaign notice board to publicize anti-car demos.

7.3.4.5: Ecologist Blames the Chemical Industry for Bse.

The bse and bse-cjd debacles have so far entailed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Cattle, the mass murder of millions of Cattle (many of whom would not have been infected with bse), and the slow mental disintegration of over 100 oomans. One the major surprises of the bse crisis was that ‘the ecologist’ blamed the cause and spread of the disease on insecticides and the chemical industry rather than:-

• feed manufacturers who recycled Cattle carcasses;

• pharmers, who did everything they could to evade bse-cjd health regulations because they refused to admit the disease posed any threat to ooman health. As a consequence, they sold for ooman consumption thousands of Cattle who were obviously afflicted with the disease - they even did this at public auctions where people could see that the Animals were infected by the disease; and

• the maffia/nfu, who employed bogus scientists to lie that bse was not a threat to Cattle or ooman health.[15]

The editors of ‘the ecologist’ are primarily supergreens so, in the late 1980s when bse first appeared, it was hardly surprising they should suspect the chemical industry was responsible for the epidemic. As supergreens they believe that only a rural existence is ecologically viable, and they’re great supporters of organic farming. So, the last thing they wanted to do was to blame conventional pharmers because they hoped, one day, to convert these right wing, ecocidal, mass murderers, to organic farming. Indeed, if ‘the ecologist’ could have proven the insecticides’ thesis it would have given a huge boost to the magazine’s campaign to persuade drug-crazed, conventional pharmers to go organic because they would have been able to claim billions of pounds in compensation from the government for having been compelled to use insecticides. And it’s commonly known there’s nothing pharmers like more than growing cash crops - not the commercial crops which come out of dirty, smelly, muddy, fields but the cash received through welfare benefit payments - some of which they get for doing absolutely nothing i.e. sitting on their arses in their fuel tax free vehicles. The idea of the government paying compensation to pharmers for the bse epidemic because of the insecticide hypothesis really takes the cake because it would be on top of the £4 billion - £10 billion they’ve already been given to bail them out of the mess they got themselves into and, because it would also have meant that the victims of mad pharmer disease would be even less likely to receive any help. Talk about rewarding mass murderers whilst ignoring the victims of crimes!!!

Four to ten billion quid paid to landowning aristocratic pharmers for bse, and billions more in the pipeline, just so that they can keep the country in a state of virtual deforestation and exacerbating global burning, whilst simple-minded ecologists run around the country demanding immediate action is taken to curb emissions from urban fossil fuel industries!! The level of corruption surrounding pharming in this country is gigantic - and all ‘the ecologist’ does is jump on the bandwagon.

Mark purdey’s insecticide’s hypothesis postulated that insecticides were responsible for creating the brain rotting disease amongst Cattle. The implication of this view is that the disease appears only in the presence of insecticides but not in the absence of insecticides i.e. it is non transmissible. If this was all there was to the thesis it could be treated as a legitimate hypothesis which deserved scientific investigation. However, purdey pushed the hypothesis far beyond this point. He argued the disease not only does not appear when insecticides are absent, but that the disease disappears when these chemicals are removed. In other words, he believed he could cure bse.

When purdey first concocted this thesis the existence of prions was virtually unknown. After the scientific acceptance of prions, he eventually accepted that prions were the agent of bse. Unfortunately, in order to save his hypothesis he argued that prions were created only in the presence of insecticides. This allowed him to continue arguing that bse, which is scientifically defined as a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, is not transmissible i.e. it could not be passed from Cow to Cow, or from Cattle feed to other species/oomans, or even maternally transmitted from mother to baby. It’s a shame that purdey and the ecologist’s editors didn’t try and prove this point by sitting down, in a phosmet free zone, and tucking into a banquet of bse infected Cows’ brains. This is not far fetched - this material is available - sections of the corrupt pharming industry have created a black market in bse-infected Cattle offal.

The most obvious reaction to purdey’s theory is why he pushed his hypothesis to such extremes when it would not have been difficult to update the theory after the discovery of prions to make it seem more credible. He could have argued that insecticides created the deformed protein which then spread in the way outlined by mainstream scientific opinion. Unfortunately, to have done this he would have had to accept that the government would be liable only for creating the disease not spreading it which would have meant a considerable reduction in the amount of compensation the government could be expected to offer pharmers.

Purdey’s hypothesis threatens many dangers. Firstly, blaming insecticides for spreading bse has distracted attention from the fact that bse and bse-cjd are lethal and transmissible diseases. The vast majority of the country’s pharmers have been in virtual denial about bse ever since it was first discovered so any theory which suggested the disease was non transmissible just added to their unwillingness to do anything to stop the spread of the disease. Secondly, it encouraged people to believe the threat entailed by eating bseef was far less than was being alleged. Instead of making pharmers concerned about the infectiousness of this deadly disease, purdey’s theory suggested they could safely feed their Animals with whatever they wanted and that oomans could safely eat bseef. The third implication of purdey’s theory is that since the government abandoned the use of insecticides, bse is no longer being spread around the country, so the government could abolish all the bse regulations that have been imposed on the pharming industry and, once again, allow consumers to eat Cattle brains and offal. Considering that bse is still rife amongst brutish herds this would have meant the return of both the bse and bse-cjd epidemics.

At the very least the editors of ‘the ecologist’ could be criticized for giving space to a theory which dismissed the infectiousness of a lethal disease; made pharmers less worried about spreading bse to oomans; and made consumers less worried about consuming bse-infected bseef and spreading bse-cjd to other oomans. At worst they were promoting a theory which has helped to spread two lethal, and highly infectious, diseases.

As a consequence of their sympathy, and possibly even support, for purdey’s theory ‘the ecologist’ did next to nothing to warn people about the terrible threat posed by bse and brutish bseef. Instead of screaming from the rooftops that the disease was highly infectious and that people should not go anywhere near bseef (indeed all meat), it virtually kept quiet. Instead of denouncing the maffia for doing nothing to stop the spread of these diseases through infected feed and the consumption of what the maffia continually called ‘perfectly safe beef’ it remained virtually silent - why should it make a noise when the disease was caused by insecticides? The ecologist’s editors’ implicit or explicit support for purdey’s thesis was also fortuitous because the last thing they wanted to do was to undermine the conventional pharming industry with its vast array of subsidies, its freedom from planning regulations, its virtual immunity from prosecution for spreading lethal diseases. They want organic pharmers to be able to enjoy all these same, outrageous privileges.[16]

7.3.4.6: The Ecologist gives more space to those who support Purdey.

The ecologist objects to the view that bse originated from infected feed. It would much rather blame the chemical industry than pharmers. Not surprisingly in 1999 it printed an article by a pro-meat, pharmer-loving, rustic who sought to legitimize the cannibalistic practices of brutish pharmers by pointing out that Cattle are by nature carnivores, “Bse is probably not caused by cows eating animal parts with their food, a practice which imitates nature, as cows eating fresh grass consume insect larvae and eggs.”[17]

7.3.4.7: Support for Vivisection.

‘The ecologist’ supports vivisection. Its antipathy towards multi-national chemical corporations is such that it is willing to condone Animal experiments if they help to undermine the chemical industry. It uses ‘evidence’ from Animal experiments to suggest how dangerous chemicals are to oomans, and thus how evil the chemical industry is, even though Animal experiments do not indicate anything about chemicals’ impacts on oomans - the bse tragedy is the latest example of Animal experiments being used to prove that a lethal disease was not a threat to ooman health.

One contributor to the ecologist, alison white, cited a number of conclusions derived from Animal experiments and suggested they were relevant to oomans, “A number of laboratory studies have shown not surprisingly that animals are at greater risk of developing cancer if exposure began in infancy rather than later in life.”;[18] “Young rats are more susceptible than adults to the lethal effects of 15 out of 16 organophosphate insecticides.”[19]; “Hundreds of studies have shown that many pesticides adversely affect the immune system in Animals and render them more susceptible to disease, and yet pesticides generally are still not required to be tested for immune-system suppression before they are put on the market.”[20]; “One study in italy .. found that a mixture of 15 pesticides impaired liver function and induced free-radical damage of dna at low doses in Rats.”[21]

She points out some of the absurdities involved in Animal experiments but complains .. “most pesticides in current use have not been properly tested.”[22] without clarifying what sort of tests she believes would be helpful. At least richard north pointed out in his article that, “Animal tests cannot predict safety for humans with any degree of confidence.”[23]

7.3.4.8: Support for Over-population.

Since 1970, the first Earth day, the ooman population has soared from 4 billion to nearly 6 billion. ‘The ecologist’ doesn’t believe these additional eco-nazis are responsible for any ecological damage. One of the reasons for this unwillingness to blame over-population for ecological devastation is because egoldsmith has sired five offspring. This is even more surprising since egoldsmith used to believe that over-population was one of the causes of ecological devastation.

7.3.4.9: The Ecologist’s Refusal to Condemn Pharmers for Causing Global Burning.

‘The ecologist’ contends that global burning is triggered by the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and that pharmers contribute little to the accumulation of Carbon in the atmosphere. It is as if they believe that if it wasn’t for pharmers growing crops, usually for the Animal exploitation industry, then global burning would be far worse than it is now, “The most serious technology-related disaster of all time is likely to be global climate change.”[24]

7.3.4.10: Globalization.

Egoldsmith is one of the leading critics of the globalization process and one of the leading voices in anti-globalization protests. The ecologist has become the leading magazine highlighting this issue. Globalization is the process whereby capitalism is creating a global economy in which there is global free trade and people live in a global village where all national boundaries have been abolished allowing everyone to travel where they want, when they want and to settle down wherever they should so please. As far as egoldsmith is concerned, tribalism is the opposite of globalization. But, peculiarly enough, it shares common assumptions with globalization - the abolition of national boundaries thereby allowing people to travel and settle where they want, when they want. The globalized world is similar to the tribalized world except that in the former a small number of gigantic multi-national corporations rule a global village whereas the latter has a large number of small tribes roaming the global commons in search of resources.

7.3.4.11: Conclusions.

‘The ecologist’ under egoldsmith has much to feel proud about but it has made a lot of questionable judgments. Thirty years and it still hasn’t produce a scientific definition of sustainability nor a vision of a sustainable planet.

7.3.5: Egoldsmith’s Contradictions.

7.3.5.1: Promoting Tribalism but not Living Tribally.

Egoldsmith could be described as a supergreen, who developed his interest in green issues in the 1960s. He could also be described as an aristocratic green. The main thrust of his work is the promotion of tribalism. He believes oomans must abandon industrialization and technology and go back to living a tribal lifestyle, grazing off the Earth’s resources - including Wildlife. The idea of six billion oomans going back to live in small tribes seems ludicrous and irrelevant - especially when this would require a billion consumers in the over-industrialized world to give up their addiction to a wide range of luxury technologies. And yet this theory is far from being unrealistic in the sense that if there is a geophysiological collapse in oomans’ life support system, the small numbers of oomans who might survive would undoubtedly be forced to revert to pre-historical forms of society. Even james lovelock, a great supporter of high technology, has given tribalism some credence, “We are by nature tribal carnivores ..”[25] - although it has to be suspected that what he meant by tribal was not small-scale, indigenous tribes but nation-states based on nationalism.

In an attempt to give his ideas more credibility egoldsmith tried to live tribally, “By the late 1960s, under jimmy’s stewardship, his father’s legacy had multiplied to the extent that teddy could afford to return to england and put his green beliefs into practice. This meant leaving london for a rural fastness where it would be possible to live a largely self-sufficient existence. To this end, teddy bought a small farm near wadebridge in cornwall and moved in with a group of other enthusiasts. All forms of technology were avoided, including the television.”[26] James lovelock was a neighbour of egoldsmith’s and expressed admiration for his efforts to live according to his principles. This is even more of a complement considering that lovelock doesn’t like many greens, “A great comfort during these bad times was the presence of teddy goldsmith at withiel, not far from coombe mill. Teddy had more influence on my thinking than i think he knew. His strength and consistency made him for me a touchstone on green affairs .. Teddy and his wife kathy lived in a manor house where they lived a life consistent with their principles, even to the extent of using earth closets inside the manor house.”[27]

The jump from aristocratic privileges and pampered luxuries to primitive self-sufficiency proved too great a challenge for egoldsmith’s family.[28] Eventually, they moved to tribal free richmond and dropped back into middle class, high tech, consumer society.

Once egoldsmith returned to a consumerism the gulf between his theory and his lifestyle grew into a chasm. Such a gulf exists, to a greater or lesser extent, in the lives of all political activists of whatever creed. It exists amongst greens. There is little hope of any idealist leading a life unsettled by contradictions. But the objective is to minimize the contradictions and its counterpart hypocrisy. With egoldsmith, however, the failed experiment seems to have opened up a chasm so wide it raises serious questions about whether he cares about such hypocrisies. Anyone trying to understand his views is constantly confronted by the divorce between what he says and what he does.

7.3.5.2: Tribalism and Wanderlust.

Egoldsmith promotes tribalism but he constantly travels the world. One sympathetic green describes him as having wanderlust.[29] This wouldn’t be an issue if he actually walked to his various destinations but he doesn’t - he uses commercial aircraft. The mundi club is hoping to obtain a complete list of egoldsmith’s travels around the world in order to calculate his Carbon debts.

Egoldsmith then has the audacity to print in ‘the ecologist’ an article by a couple of localists advocating an extremist form of self reliance. They argued that local communities have the capability for defending their environment against attacks by multi-national corporations. So, not only are tribal communities expected to live self sufficiently, which is difficult enough, they’re also expected to defend themselves against high-tech, mega-wealthy, lawyer-rich, multi-national corporations. This is absurd. The most that could be expected of tribal communities is that they defend themselves against rival tribes not huge multi-national corporations, “‘Think globally, act locally’ .. has become a rallying-cry for those advocating decentralization and power to the community. Less obviously, the exhortation to “act locally” defines the limits of intelligent, sensible action: by ommitting mention of global action, it grants at best a limited place for “acting globally”. It urges us to resist the Promethean urge to be godlike and omnipresent - not simply because ordinary people do not have the power of institutional capacity to “act globally” but because it invites us (albeit implicitly) to view “global action” as a far fetched and dangerous fantasy.”[30]; “It is at the grassroots that they (global institutions such as the world bank and multi-national corporations) can most wisely be opposed. For it is the only level at which men and women can effectively struggle.”[31]

7.3.5.3: Tribalism and Technology.

As a tribalist egoldsmith is anti-technology and yet:-

* he constantly travels the world in commercial aircraft - one of the industrial world’s most high-tech products.

* he is completely reliant on computers whether in aeroplanes; publishing the ecologist; or printing it.[32]

7.3.5.4: Tribalism and Identity.

As a localist, egoldsmith vehemently opposes brutland’s membership of the european community. Whilst most eurosceptics come over as semi-fascistic, politically conventional, little englanders, egoldsmith is not tainted by such views because his opposition is based on tribalism. And yet, just as was the case with his brother, one wonders how someone who constantly flies around the world; owns god knows how many homes in different countries; and may well be multi-lingual and hold multiple nationalities, could possibly promote such a narrow-minded, parochial, theory as tribalism. This theory is not merely grossly at odds with his lifestyle but with his intellectual cosmopolitanism. If egoldsmith was a tribalist he’d know next to nothing about the planet he’s living on - he probably wouldn’t even know it was a planet.

7.3.5.5: Egoldsmith and Animal Exploitation.

Egoldsmith believes Animals ought to be treated with respect and yet there are a number of examples where he uses them as a means to an end:-

* Firstly, when he was young, both he and his brother ran a pharmaceutical business which probably used Animal products;

* Secondly, his brother’s business empire ran a vast range of Animal exploitation companies;

* Thirdly, egoldsmith’s gambling addiction probably encompassed Horse racing - treating Animals as a means for oomans’ pleasures;

* Fourthly, goldsmith met aspinall at oxford and forged a life-long friendship with the zoo owner, multiple murderer, little englander, and general lunatic. Thereafter .. “began a long period of reading and travelling the world alone or with his friend john aspinall, during which his own highly personal world view was forged. Aspinall and teddy shared a love of the primitive.”[33] Just how influential aspinall was on egoldsmith or vice versa is not known but aspinall’s treatment of Animals was not so bad that egoldsmith jettisoned the relationship.

* Fifthly, when egoldsmith contested a parliamentary seat in the 1974 general election he campaigned “against industrial agriculture with a camel supplied by aspinall that bore a sandwich board ..”[34]

* Finally, the goldsmith family is a part of the european aristocracy which is blood sports crazy. Murdering Animals is one of its great delights. It takes them back to their glorious medieval past when they possessed divine rights which, they believed, entitled them to terrorize the peasants. Indeed, since the end of the medieval period, Fox hunting has more to do with a romanticized attachment to the past than to pest control. It is not possible to expect people like egoldsmith (or anyone else in the goldsmith family) to take Animal rights seriously when they are a part of a rich aristocratic social scene which enjoys betting on Animal races or chasing Foxes across the countryside and encouraging Dogs to maul them to death. Egoldsmith has never been able to come to terms with deep ecology or Animal rights. His work displays a crippling anthropocentrism which is never going to save oomans from annihilation.

7.3.5.6: Tribalism being used to justify Animal Exploitation.

Egoldsmith’s early attitudes towards Animals made it easy for him to develop his tribalist theory and, in turn, this theory doubtlessly reinforced his early aristocratic class prejudices. The theory of tribalism justifies his exploitation of Animals; his personal consumption of meat; society’s consumption of meat; the wearing of fur; and quite possibly Fox hunting as well.

The most obvious question mark about egoldsmith’s use of the theory of tribalism to justify Animal terrorism is how he can do this when he can’t live like a tribalist. In fact it would be difficult to find anyone further removed from tribalism. At best he’s a failed tribalist. So, quite how he can use such a theory to justify his consumption of meat etc, when he’s living a consumerist lifestyle like everyone else in the over-industrialized world is not apparent. Much worse, however, is that he also uses tribalism to justify the consumption of meat by all oomans even though at least 99.5% of the Earth’s six billion oomans don’t have the slightest connection to, or interest in, tribalism. Worse still is that in 2001 zgoldsmith published an article which used tribalism not merely to justify oomans’ consumption of meat but the consumption of meat from the intensive Animal exploitation industry - something which egoldsmith had never done.

Pre-historic tribes had few choices about what they ate whereas the vast majority of people around the world have a choice between veganism or vegetarianism or carnivorism. This choice is open to the rich in the over-industrialized world where technology provides resources which enable people to live entirely without exploiting Animals. But this choice is also open to the poor in third world countries - there are hundreds of millions of indians who are vegetarians.[35] In other words, what egoldsmith is doing is promoting a theory in which people who have little choice about what they eat are being used to justify the omnivorous diets of non-tribalists who have a clear-cut choice about what their diets.

Egoldsmith’s support for carnivorism is appalling and shows the grip which his aristocratic class prejudices still have over his life. It is deplorable that he has failed to condemn the Animal exploitation industry; that he has failed to see the links between the Animal exploitation industry and global poverty; that he has failed to see the links between deforestation, the Animal exploitation industry, and the destabilization of the climate. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that the Animal exploitation industry is the biggest cause of global poverty (‘Animals do not produce food. They waste it’) and that it is the biggest contributor to the destabilization of the climate which is adding further misery to the lives of the poor around the world. It just goes to show how deeply entrenched are egoldsmith’s class prejudices. Tribalism is one of the most pathetic trivializations of the most important green issues of our time.

7.3.5.7: Tribalism and Overpopulation.

Another of egoldsmith’s hypocrisies is that whilst tribalism entails tribes controlling the size of their population in order to conserve resources, he has sired five children. The irony of the situation is that in the early 1970s he supported a dramatic reduction in the country’s population, “The ecologist’s aim was to reduce the population of britain from 56 million to 30 million over 150-200 years. After first ending population growth by bringing the birth-rate into line with the death rate, britain would then be expected to reduce its propagation of children still further - and ban immigration completely - so that the population actually fell. This would initially be achieved by .. campaigns to ‘inculcate’ a socially more responsible attitude to child rearing, including the great need for couples to have no more than two children.”[36] It is not known how many children egoldsmith had when he published these ideas nor what changed his mind about this issue thereby enabling him to increase the size of his family. And it isn’t as if the overpopulation issue has been diminishing over the last three decades. On the contrary, it has grown increasingly stark as the ooman population has soared from 4 billion in 1970 to nearly 6 billion in 2000.

To give the most obvious reasons for egoldsmith’s fecundity: either his dick likes to wander around as much as he does, or his loyalty to judaism led him to try and repopulate the world after the second holocaust[37] during the second world war, or because there was some fraternal competition with his brother who produced .. “8 children by four different women.”[38]

7.3.5.8: Tribalism and Deforestation.

Another hypocrisy is that egoldsmith supports tribalists who engage in slash and burn techniques whilst promoting Reforestation! Is this hypocrisy no.1001?

7.3.5.9: Globalization.

It has been pointed out that egoldsmith is one of the leading voices in anti-globalization protests. Although he deems tribalism to be the opposite of globalization they both share common assumptions - the abolition of national borders thereby allowing all people around the world to travel and settle where they want, when they want.

Both the globalizers and the anti-globalizers are opposed not merely to national borders but to nature conservation areas in which land is set aside solely for Wildlife as a means of protecting them from ooman predators/poachers. The globalizers and the anti-globalizers both use the idea of ‘oomans living in harmony with nature’ to promote oomans’ invasion, and colonization, of conservation/Wilderness areas. There are now both high-flying, corporate, property developers and ecologists/green anarchists/tribalists/Earth First!ers who insist that oomans can live in harmony with nature as a propaganda device for persuading governments that they should be allowed to colonize Wilderness areas. When this happens it will almost invariably lead to the colonizers (whether multi-national corporations or tribalists) killing all the Wildlife which threaten their existence. Both the globalizers and the anti-globalizers are oomano-imperialists since they support the idea of oomans wandering around the planet killing Animals. Both the globalizers and the anti-globalizers are hypocrites because whilst they support oomans’ rights to roam the Earth and settle anywhere they want they do not support the rights of Wildlife to do the same. And whilst they believe it is acceptable for oomans to kill and eat Animals, they do not believe that Animals should be allowed to kill and eat bipeds. They’re anthropocentric - in other words, oomano-imperialists.

The anti-globalization protests are being promoted by green aristocrats who own homes around the world and travel the world in airplanes. They promote anti-globalization protests because they’re trying to distract attention from the domestication issue i.e. that landowning elites in most country’s around the Earth own most of the land and that these elites have domesticated both livestock Animals and oomans in order to promote their own interests at the expense of all other life on Earth. The landowning aristocracies are using anti-globalization protests to cover up the fact that the biggest contributor to global burning is the livestock pharming industry - mainly owned by the landowning elites - rather than the fossil fuelled industries.

7.3.6: Conclusions: The Personification of Green Decadence.

Egoldsmith has many achievements of which he might justifiably feel proud - but there are also gross failures. He co-wrote one of the basic texts which helped to shape the green movement. He created the apocalyptic trend in green thinking - the only type of analysis which comes close to being realistic. For a couple of decades his exposition of the damage being inflicted on the biosphere was second to none - although during the 1990s his work has been surpassed by that of the worldwatch institute. Unfortunately, however, his analysis of who is causing the damage, and why it is happening, is erroneous. In the early 1970s he bravely tried to build a political party. The work he did setting up ‘the movement for survival’, the people’s party, and the ecology party, prepared the way for the emergence of the green party - although whether this is a positive or negative development has still to be decided. His greatest achievement was creating what is now the oldest, and most highly respected, green magazine in the country. However, it has only a limited appeal. It never achieved any widescale popularity either amongst the public or even amongst greens. The main issues on which it has focused have long since been overtaken by more important issues. He has rarely attempted to incorporate new green issues.

After the failure of his attempt to live a more tribal lifestyle, hypocrisy became a more and more blatant aspect of his life - believing in the right to roam (around the world in the comfort of jet aeroplanes) and that the land is ours (or rather his family’s whose properties speckle the planet).[39] There is little question that his most blatant characteristic is his pervasive hypocrisy. This is obvious even to non-greens, “Indeed, neither of the goldsmith brothers was particularly good at practicing what they preached. Teddy, after his brave attempt at living the (organic farm) dream in cornwall” (gave up). For years he had railed against the modern lust for consumers goods (but today his richmond home) “is equipped with modern appliances of every description. The man who campaigns for an end to pollution has a gas guzzling volvo in his drive and the revolutionary who once stressed ‘the great need’ for couples not to have more than two children has married twice and fathered five.”[40] It is as if hypocrisy has become so endemic in his life he can no longer be bothered trying to evade it. He seems to do what he wants and say what he wants as if there needn’t be any relationship between them. One of the reasons he can get away with this is because he is a respected figure in the green movement. However, it is also because he has a position of power in the green movement - greens fear to criticize him in case they never get asked to write for one of the family’s magazines. The inevitable outcome of this lack of green criticisms has been to allow licentiousness to flourish. He has retreated over living a tribal lifestyle and also reducing ooman over-population.

There are several reasons why egoldsmith’s impact on the brutish environmental movement has been limited. Firstly, he is a supergreen who is stuck in the environmental politics of the 1970s as are those surrounding him. Secondly, he spends a large proportion of his time travelling around the world - either because of his wanderlust or because of family commitments. Thirdly, his loyalties are divided between many countries. He can be only a part-time activist in any one country.

The most serious charge against egoldsmith are his huge Carbon debts. When the debts of the entire goldsmith family are included, they would be in the region of something like a small natural disaster such as a volcanic eruption. Many greens know little about the ecologically destructive side of the goldsmith family. Those who do seem to conveniently forget about it and just listen to what they say rather than object to what they do - english people being trained to tolerate whatever their masters do. But not the mundi club. Jgoldsmith has been described as .. “a man who personified western decadence.”[41] It can be suggested that egoldsmith personifies the decadence of western green politics.