7.4. Zac Goldsmith.

7.4.1: The Ecologist: A Jewish Family Business.

Egoldsmith retired from ‘the ecologist’ some time during 1999-2000. [1] After extensive publicity to advertise the vacant post followed by an intensive series of interviews with a wide range of applicants, the most meritocratic candidate, a complete unknown, was appointed - zac goldsmith. So, who exactly is this person? Ah, son of jgoldsmith. The ecologist seems to have become a jewish-owned family business. Even as we speak the editor is preparing for the conception of the next editor in a couple of decades’ time.

7.4.2: A Short Biographical Sketch of Zgoldsmith.

7.4.2.1: ‘Early’ Years.

Not surprisingly zgoldsmith went to eton, “Like his father he (zak) spent his secondary school years at eton. And again like his father he left abruptly at 17. With no pressing need to earn a living, he embarked on a marathon backpacking tour of pakistan and nepal. His travels took him to ladakh, in the foothills of the himalayas, where he spent months examining a society which has become a model for ecologists studying the lessons that industrialized nations can draw from traditional cultures.” [2] He embarked on ecological studies in the united states and worked for the bristol based group, set up by helena norberg-hodge, called ‘international society of ecology and culture’. He admires his father’s book, ‘the trap’ but shares some of his father’s habits, “With an annual allowance well into six figures, zak is in a position to paint the town red on a regular basis. While not a noted womaniser, he appears to share his late father’s enthusiasm for gambling ...” [3]

7.4.2.2: ‘Later’ Years.

The Views of the London Evening Standard.

Further enlightenment about zgoldsmith appeared in the london evening standard, “Zac goldsmith is a 25 year old multi-millionaire .. But the son of late grocery tycoon, far-right political campaigner and notorious womanizer sir james goldsmith, and brother of former it girl jemima khan, intends to change all that. .. though he has thrown off his playboy image since his high profile wedding to sheherazade bentley, daughter of asset stripper john bentley and socialite vivianne ventura. Some might find it hard to take goldsmith’s junior’s environmental credentials seriously. (hic). It’s easy to imagine that he will tire of the green crusade, return to the london social circuit and its paragraphs in the gossip columns. But he says time will prove that his environmental fervour is more than a passing phase ..” [4]

Political Background.

It’s important to draw a cursory portrait of zgoldsmith’s background in order to gauge the direction in which he might push ‘the ecologist’. He was educated at eton college whose naturalistic ethos of the survival of the fittest and cut throat competitiveness is manifest in having its own Fox hunting pack. His father was a self-confessed predator; a member of a select band of ruthless, jewish, asset strippers including charles clore, isaac wolfson, maxwell joseph, john bentley, robert maxwell, etc. Jgoldsmith married twice into the european aristocracy; acquired stratospheric wealth; promoted extreme right wing views; and his social circle included the murderer lord lucan; john aspinall, a professional gambler and a collector of Wild Animals; as well as large segments of europe’s aristocracy and landowning elite.

Zgoldsmith’s intellectual background would have consisted of his uncle, egoldsmith, a high tory paternalist turned tribalist, who has spent large periods of his life jetting around the planet looking down with contempt on the greenhouse gases being released by urbanites reliant on fossil fuelled industries; mark purdey, an organic farmer who unknowingly fed his Cattle with meat and bone meal and then sold them as organically reared meat, and promoted the view that bse and bse-cjd are insecticide induced diseases which necessitates that the government pays out billions of pounds in compensation to pharmers already suffering a glut of welfare benefit payments; and, finally, his sister is married to camilla parker bollox’s brother - camilla parker bollox being the fred west of the brutish monarchy.

Fancy being surrounded by such a motley crew of vile, self indulgent, debauched, degenerate, Earth rapists. If he’s managed to emerge psychologically unscarred by this morass of doomanity it would be a miracle. It’s a wonder he hasn’t gone completely off the rails. He should be just the sort of person the green movement needs to challenge the degenerate Earth rap ... uhm err ... the filthy ric .... uhmmmm errrrrrrr ... the vile Animal murde ..ahhhhhhh ... the establishment bast .. oooooohhhhhh  .... those over-privileged landowning aristocra .... eeeeehhh Oh terra!!!! HELP, HELP!!!

The Psuedo Ruralist.

One of the first lessons that zgoldsmith would have learnt in becoming an environmentalist would have been that urban areas are the source of all environmental destruction and pollution whilst rural areas are where oomans must live in order to establish environmentally-friendly societies. He would have learnt this lesson from his uncle and the rest of the ecologist editorial team, “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.” [5] He would have picked up the same message from helena norberg-hodge during his time at the ‘international society of ecology and culture’, “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.” [6] The implication of this view is that if people go and live in a rural area then they must be green.

At the beginning of 2000 it was reported that zgoldsmith was trying to find a home in the greenest part of brutland, “I am in a better position than most to choose where to live,” he told Tatler recently. “Yet, so far, I have been unable to find an area both free from dangerous pollutants and close to a village where I would want to bring up children. There remains virtually no patch of our country which has been spared the varied horrors of so-called progress.' ” [7] From the perspective of the so-called green movement, zgoldsmith’s move into the countryside would confirm his status as a leading green. And the more remote his home in the countryside, the greener he would be. Why bother trying to prove your environmental credentials when all you have to do is move to the countryside? In the real world, however, as more and more rich oomans move into the country’s least cultivated areas, the more damage they do to the Earth’s life support system, the less and less wild these areas become. So, whilst green aristos might believe they are establishing their green credentials in society’s eyes by moving into a Wilderness areas, all they are doing is showing they are Earth rapists and that they know nothing about the Earth’s life support system.

James lovelock’s ideas were explored in mm15. It was pointed out that he was born and raised in london but during his adult life he increasingly hankered after a home in the brutish countryside. When he eventually succeeded in moving into a remote part of the countryside there were a number of consequences. Firstly, that he had to buy a car. [8] Secondly, the longer he lived in the countryside, the more he came to love and respect his rural friends, “Brian and his wife barbara both come from the english countryside, and represent the people i most admire.” [9] He started replacing his urban attitudes with a rural ideology which led him to change his mind over Fox hunting and carnivorism even though his theory of the Earth’s life support system was telling him that the stabilization of the climate needed the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry. Thirdly, because his house was so isolated there was no chance of it being connected to the national gas network. He was thus left with the need to instal his own central heating system which, given his green loyalties, meant a system which ran on local, renewable, resources. His first attempt involved using Grass but this turned out to be impractical because he didn’t have the spare time to cut it, prepare it, let alone feed it into the burner. He then installed a system using logs but this required the purchase of a tractor (presumably fuelled by the logs as well??). Unfortunately, one day, whilst he was using moving logs closer to the burner the tractor keeled over trapping him for many hours until he was eventually rescued. The accident damaged his kidneys and he later discovered one of them had stopped functioning. In the end lovelock was forced to rely on cylinder gas in his home - the ecological cost of transporting heavy cyclinders to his remote home in the countryside must have been considerable. [10]

One wonders how zgoldsmith will fare when he’s found his rural idyll. Of course it should be much easier for him since all he’ll need to do is install a log central heating system and hire a couple of locals to cut and move the logs. Otherwise the consequence of his move to the countryside is almost inevitably going to be similar to that of james lovelock’s although probably on a much larger scale: Firstly, if he follows in his father’s footsteps, he’ll devastate the area he moves to by building a house with swimming pool, tennis courts, stables, Dog kennels, car parks, and additional houses for the servants looking after his estate - although whether he’ll need a four mile long driveway and his own private airstrip is too early to say. Secondly, he’ll have to buy a fleet of cars in order for him and his wife and the servants to travel to and from urban areas. At first it will be just the two cars for the family - one for himself and one for his wife but, as the sprogs start appearing, they’ll need one each in order to enjoy their champagne green lifestyle. And so within the next twenty years they’ll be four, five , six cars parked outside their house - not forgetting all the cars needed by the servants.

Zgoldsmith’s search for an idyllic site in what is left of the rapidly diminishing brutish countryside reveals his support for rural people and rural values and his belief that urban people are ecologically destructive and that they must be moved back into the countryside at the earliest possible opportunity. It has to be asked how he is going to represent urban greens when he’s desperately trying to get as far away as he can from urban areas?

Zgoldsmith seems to be following in the footsteps of his father and uncle - gross hypocrisy. And, just like them, his material interests are diametrically opposed to all the dramatic changes which are needed to create a sustainable planet e.g. land reform. Is zgoldsmith and the rest of his rich, aristocratic chums who own vast tracts of land going to give up their land for the greater cause? The creation of a sustainable planet also requires the abolition of capitalism and wealth and yet zgoldsmith and his wealthy chums have never indicated they would give up their material prosperity for the sake of saving the Earth. Zgoldsmith’s participation in so-called green politics reveals what a travesty and utter fraud it has become.

7.4.2.3: Zgoldsmith’s Breaking into the Media World.

It was pointed out above that much of the publicity surrounding george monbiot’s ‘the land is ours’ and egoldsmith’s book ‘blueprint for survival’ was due to the support given to them by their oxford university chums in the media and family connections. Zgoldsmith has also been enjoying the media privileges which come from having a household family name and lots of contacts in the establishment.

Letter to the Times - 2000.

Sometime in 2000, the times printed an article by zgoldsmith about globalization. There was nothing original about it so, it has to be wondered, why should ‘the times’ have bothered to publish it? Answers on a postage stamp please to ‘the times’ c/o freemason hall, department for pharmers’ subsidies, office of the landowning elite, Fox hunters lane, global zionist conspiracy, buckingham palace road, london.

Letter to New Scientist - September 2000.

In september 2000, egoldsmith, peter bunyard, and zgoldsmith, wrote a letter to ‘new scientist’ protesting about the brazilian government’s plans to chop down all but 10% of its share of the amazon Rainforest. The fact that these authors all live (for some of the time anyway) in a country which, for the last few decades, has had barely 8% Forest cover wasn’t mentioned in their letter although quite what brazilians would think about this is another matter. Isn’t it a little hypocritical to demand that brazil preserves its current Forest cover when, as far as is known, these authors have never made a demand for the same percentage of brutland to be covered in Forests. (Is this egoldsmith’s hypocrisy number 1002?). But then how could they possibly demand the Reforestation of brutland, or anywhere else for that matter, when they want the land used for organic farming and Fox hunting? There may be perfectly sound ecological reasons for suggesting that brazil should keep its current Forest cover whilst this country continues decimating the tiny fragments of its Forests e.g. producing vast quantities of meat for its grossly overweight consumer livestock and providing plenty of open ground for the landowning aristocracy to engage in Fox hunting, but to most brazilians i.e. sensible people, such arguments have the distinct stench of unfairness. As much as the former playboys might not like it, the fact is that the current disparity in Forest cover between brutland and brazil is completely and utterly politically untenable. The only possible hope for a political agreement about brazil’s and brutland’s Forest cover, as well as all countries’ Forest cover, is for each country around the world to balance their Carbon budgets. But what are the chances of getting the ruling elites in each country to agree to such a target? Non-existent. Especially when the anti-green green movement in the over-industrialized world (including the ecologist of course) supports Reforestation only in third world countries.

Bbc 1’s Breakfast News - February 2001.

In february 2001, zgoldsmith appeared on the bbc’s breakfast news to comment on a story about the melting of the antarctic. [11] Now the first issue here is why zgoldsmith was invited onto this programme? According to the london evening standard having only just given up his playboy lifestyle, he didn’t exactly seem to be one of the world’s most highly qualified authorities on global burning - or perhaps even green issues. But to the bbc he was just the sort of green they wanted to interview. Firstly, he’s the son of mega wealthy parents. Secondly, he’s jewish. Thirdly, he loves the countryside. To bbc news producers these three qualities are far more important than any environmental qualifications he might have - or rather doesn’t have. There’s no chance of him praising palestinian freedom fighters trying to regain their land from religious fundamentalist fascists like the mass murderer ariel sharon. The bbc’s anti-racist strategy somehow manages to embrace a rather gross form of semitism in which zionists are constantly asked to explain to the brutish public why palestinian terrorists are killing innocent zionists who have occupied their land, stolen their property, and murdered innocent child protestors, whilst refusing to allow palestinians to appear on television to highlight zionist state terrorism. [12]

Towards the end of the interview, he was asked what people could do to combat global burning. He replied that it is important to consume only local goods. The bbc interviewers, however, failed to ask him what he is doing in order to live locally. Has he found his home in the countryside which is going to necessitate endless car journeys back and forth to all those places of luxury that the rich and thick like to visit? Not forgetting all those endless journey’s to media studios to give interviews about living locally. What about all those goldsmith trust fund family homes around the world - is that living locally? Does he know what his car mileage and air miles were last year - were they under six figures? The interviewers also failed to ask how the goldsmith family is faring after some of the goldsmiths got a scare in an aeroplane on their way to their goldsmith trust fund ranch in kenya. To the goldsmiths, africa is regarded as being local - i.e. a local ‘continent’ in comparison to ‘foreign continents’ like asia or australia. Flying south to their winter feeding grounds is also a perfect example of what the goldsmiths mean by oomans’ living in harmony with nature. It’s a shame that most other oomans on the planet just can’t manage to live like Birds because they’re too poor to afford the air fares to kenya - for further details see below.

7.4.3: What’s the New Ecologist up to?

7.4.3.1: New Directions for the Ecologist.

7.4.3.1.1: The Ecologist’s Promotion of Naturalism.

Zgoldsmith has set about transforming ‘the ecologist’ with all the zeal of a former playboy who knows next to nothing about environmental issues. Still, he’s made a positive move by putting ‘the ecologist’ on the internet. The magazine’s new slogan is “rethinking basic assumptions”. Articles are appearing that might never have appeared under the previous management. Fred pearce, a so-called green deeply steeped in rustic traditions, has suggested, “The test for any magazine with radical pretensions .. is whether it becomes a place where new ideas can flourish and find expression.” [13] The only cliche pearce neglects to use in his review of the ecologist’s first thirty years was .. “zac goldsmith is a breath of fresh air from the usual, nauseating, filthy rich, supercillious, aristocratic gits who occasionally wander out of their gambling casinos to play at radical politics.”

Pearce suggests there has been a more commercial approach taken by the new ecologist, “The magazine has noticeably returned to the warpath on issues of immediacy to its european and american readers, including the toxic threats of life such as dioxin and radiation, while retreating as a mouthpiece for development issues in the poor world.” [14] The americanization of the ecologist does not augur well for the future given that denialism is so rife in the states - no such thing as Animal rights, no such thing as ozone depletion, no such thing as global burning, no such thing as moslem resentment at being dominated by zionist religious crackpots with a vast arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological, weapons.

It wasn’t long before it became clear that ‘rethinking basic assumptions’ and creating a place ‘where new ideas could flourish and find expression’ meant a return to conventional, commercial, rural, aristocratic, darwinian, values - a pro-meat article was quickly followed by a pro-hunting article. The pro-meat article was based on the undeclared assumption that bse is a hoax made up by renegade Animal rightists to defame good old brutish bseef.

Given zgoldsmith’s background it’s hardly surprising that his editorship of ‘the ecologist’ is resulting in the promotion of a naturalistic philosophy which, based on the principle of the survival of the fittest, promotes oomans’ superiority over Animals, Animal exploitation, carnivorism, Fox hunting, blood sports, and, perhaps worst of all, organic farming. It looks as if he’s going to repeat many of the mistakes made by his uncle no matter how populist he tries to make the magazine.

7.4.3.1.2: The Ecologist’s Strategy of Separating Greens from the Animal Rights’ Movement.

Jgoldsmith’s personal philosophy was the darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ - the ideology of the predator. His uncle outlined a tribalist philosophy - the ideology of the predator. Zgoldsmith is following in their footsteps. Egoldsmith used tribalism to justify his consumption of meat and the wearing of fur, as well as legitimizing oomans’ consumption of meat and the wearing of fur. But zgoldsmith is going even further in so much as he is using tribalism to justify the consumption of meat from the intensive Animal pharming industry. He seems to be pursuing a high risk, political strategy. By promoting tribal/rural values he’s reinforcing the split between the so-called green, and the Animal rights, movements in order to promote the interests of the aristocratic landowning elite and pharming industry. The mundi club applauds these efforts. It believes that so-called greens extolling rural values, propping up the interests of the aristocratic landowning elite, supporting the organic farming industry, and ignoring the decimation of Forests for the sake of the Animal exploitation industry, ought to go away and call themselves the blue movement so that urbanites who support Animal rights and Reforestation can get on with the job of greening the Earth. Zgoldsmith is repositioning ‘the ecologist’ to make it more appealing to members of the countryside alliance.

7.4.3.2: The Ecologist’s Pro Meat Article.

The new ecologist’s first step in its strategy for dumping the Animal rights movement was the publication of a pro-meat article. [15] There are carnivores who are capable of presenting interesting arguments to support their case but stephen byrnes isn’t one of them. His article was so full of extremist nonsense it was surprising ‘the ecologist’ could publish the article given its alleged adherence to scientific principles. It’s funny how they drop these requirements when it comes to articles promoting Animal exploitation but not when it comes to articles demanding a ban on cars. In his article, brynes comes over as a right winger who denies all environmental threats from bse, to stratospheric ozone depletion, global burning, etc.

Byrnes argued, “The argument here, then, is not that eating meat depletes the Earth’s resources, but that commercial farming methods do.” [16] He believes that modern livestock pharming causes ecological devastation whilst tribal carnivorism and organic farming do not. This is not correct. Over the last few millennia, organic pharming has devastated huge areas of land. In addition, replacing conventional pharming with organic farming would require more extensive area of pastureland than is currently being used by intensive livestock pharming if it attempted to generate the same levels of meat and dairy products. This would lead to a vast increase in geophysiological damage. [17]

Given byrnes’s antipathy towards modern livestock pharming, it might have been suspected he would also condemn modern pharming for damaging ooman health. On the contrary, he dismisses vegans’ claims that meat eaters have higher rates of heart and kidney disease, cancer, obesity, and osteoporosis, “Such stupendous claims are hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts.” [18] He tries to prove his point by using ‘evidence’ from tribalism - although he doesn’t mention the source of this evidence. It might have been thought that obtaining evidence from tribalists would be rather difficult. He argues that since tribalists are healthy after eating large quantities of meat on a regular basis then the billion or so consumers in the over-industrialized world who regularly eat meat can’t be damaging their health either - even though the former eats wild corpses (sometimes ooman) whilst the latter eats mass-produced, synthetic, factory pharm, corpses. He believes, that corpse consumption has had no effect on the health of modern consumers - although he doesn’t mention the health effect on the hundreds of millions of third world people impoverished by having their land stolen in order to provide over-industrialized consumers with corpses. It has to be suggested that it seems unimaginable that the gluttonous, meat eating extravaganza that has occurred in the over-industrialized world since the second world war, in which hundreds of millions of people have eaten vast quantities of fatty, chemically boosted/drugged up/hormone enhanced/antibiotic/insecticide soaked/pesticide saturated/bse-riddled, corpses, has had no negative impact on ooman health. Byrnes thus holds an unusual position even for a country bumkin: he condemns the intensive livestock pharming for causing ecological damage whilst defending its contribution to ooman health.

Byrnes believes the premature deaths of millions of obese consumers is caused by eating refined sugar and vegetable oil rather than meat/dairy products, “Saturated fat consumption, therefore, cannot logically cause these diseases. .. modern day researchers fail to take into account dietary factors of people who have heart disease and cancer. As a result, the harmful effects of refined sugar and vegetable oil consumption get mixed up with animal fat consumption.” [19] Doubtlessly refined sugar and refined vegetable oil are bad for ooman health but to believe they are more lethal than meat/dairy products is difficult to believe. Ironically the phrase “get mixed up with” is not merely a figure of speech since in the synthetic world created by the pharming industry, large quantities of sugar are added to processed meat. Is it just a coincidence, then, that vast numbers of fat faced, fat-arsed, fat-headed, consumers wandering around the world’s shopping malls look exactly like the obscenely fattened Animals they eat? [20] The only difference between herds of Cattle and the herds of obese livestock bipeds moving across the united states and western europe is that the former walk gracefully to their destinations whilst the latter can manage it only by squeezing their fat bulks into four wheeled hearses.

Byrnes sounds like a denialist - people who deny a proposition just because they don’t like it - no matter how much scientific evidence on which it rests. Since the last world war there has been an enormous expansion of the livestock industry around the world. Vast stretches of Forest have been cleared to provide pastureland for hundreds of millions of additional Cattle. Every high street in every town and city throughout the over-industrialized world, and large parts of the rest of the world, now have not just restaurants but fast food dispensers of jewish corpses fresh from their local concentration camps. Throughout the 20thc in the over-industrialized world there has been a substantial increase in corpse consumption - if only because there has been an increase in ooman numbers. It is suspected there has been an increase in per capita consumption. When the bse crisis began, there was an increase in vegetarianism but most people simply switched from red to white corpses. However, despite this evidence of the vast expansion in the livestock industry in the over-industrialized world, brynes argues, “It does not appear, then, that saturated fat consumption has gone up this century. What has gone up is consumption of margarine, lifeless, packaged ‘foods’, processed vegetable oils, pasteurized/homogenized milk and refined sugar. These are the more likely culprits in our modern epidemics of cancer and coronary heart disease.” [21] So, the livestock industry must accept some of the blame for the epidemic of gluttonous, consumer livestock, diseases - pasteurized/homogenized milk - presumably in contrast to health giving, free range, organic, unpasteurized milk. Strangely, he makes no mention of cheese.

Thereafter brynes slips right over the edge of reality by regurgitating crude carnivorous propaganda, “That vitamin b12 can only be obtained from animal products is one of the strongest arguments against veganism being a ‘normal’ way of human eating. If those same people had lived just 100 years ago, when vitamin supplements were unavailable, they would have died.” [22]

After all this, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to learn that byrnes, like the ecologist, doesn’t believe that bse was spread by infected Animal feed. As far as he is concerned, Cattle couldn’t have contracted a disease as a consequence of being forced to become carnivores because they have always been carnivores, and thus have an immunity from Animal diseases, “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.” [23] That the ecologist could print such a statement reveals what a complete shambles it is becoming and the scale of its commitment to the Animal exploitation industry.

7.4.3.3: The Ecologist’s Pro Hunting Article.

7.4.3.3.1: The Ecologists’ Eco-Nazi Philosophy.

The ecologist’s next promotion of right wing, darwinian, naturalism was robin page’s article purporting to outline the ecological benefits, and civilizing influence, of hunting. [24] Page is one of the ecologist’s associate members so this seems to suggest his article has some editorial significance rather than being merely the ravings of a lone rustic crackpot peturbed by pharmers’ lack of state subsidies. The letters in response to his article were evenly split between pro- and anti- hunting which suggests ‘the ecologist’ is succeeding in winning a bigger audience amongst members of the countryside alliance. It is beginning to be suspected that, one day, the ecologist might incorporate ‘country life’.

7.4.3.3.2: Hunting is Natural.

According to page, “A growing number of scientists believe that .. hunting (is) ‘natural’.” [25] This is not the place to discuss the merits of the debate over whether oomans were originally hunters, vegetarians, or fruitarians. It is accepted that it is highly likely that many, if not most, of the earliest oomans, and perhaps even their predecessors, were hunters to one extent or another. Indeed it would not have been possible for oomans to have left africa and colonized the rest of the world without hunting to acquire the resources needed to cope with climates that would have been much harsher than those in africa. Prehistoric oomans had little choice about what they ate or what they wore. The critical point is that oomans currently have a choice between being carnivores or vegans. There is a clear cut moral choice between these options. However, naturalistic commentators imply this choice does not exist. They argue that since oomans, primarily males, evolved as hunters then this means that they are hunters and carnivores by nature. This implies that males have no choice about being predators whether for survival, food, resources, or even mates. Males’ natural instinct forces them not only to kill other oomans to defend themselves, but to be carnivores, and to rape women. In other words, if this hypothesis is true, and god help us if it is, then raping women is as instinctual for males as eating meat. If, as page suggests, males have an instinct for hunting then it wouldn’t be surprising to see the resurrection of the roman coliseum and perhaps televised festivals featuring specially choreographed gang rapes.

The consequence of arguing that prehistoric oomans might once have engaged in hunting to one degree or another but are not hunters by nature, and thus that they currently have a choice about whether to hunt, eat meat, or to rape women, implies that veganism is an historical morality. But so what? Vegans are more concerned about persuading people to give up eating meat than they are about condemning every ooman who’s ever lived because, when trying to survive, they had no choice about eating meat. So ooman civilization opens up new new moral options - isn’t this what civilization is about?

Naturalistic philosophies such as darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ imply not merely that oomans are predators by nature but that ‘might is right’. This justifies the fittest oomans killing less fit oomans, the rich killing the poor, the rural landowning elite slaughtering the urban masses, etc. It justifies homophobia, racism, colonialism, eugenicism, and nazism - which should be quite pertinent given the jewish ownership of ‘the ecologist’. It also justifies Animal exploitation. Oomans have become the mightiest species and are able to maim, mutilate, and murder, as many Animals as they want. ‘Might is right’ justifes oomans doing whatever they want to Animals. In terms of might is right, hunting is entirely natural.

7.4.3.3.3: Hunting is Contrived.

In its modern guise hunting is far from being natural. It is almost completely artificial. It has become as thoroughly planned and organized as any other event in the aristocracy’s social calender whether ascot, wimbledon, cowes, or the boat race - the only thing missing is the outside broadcasting units and corporate hospitality tents. Hunters have significantly contorted nature in order to obtain a regular dose of their sordid, perverted activities. Firstly, hunters exterminate all the predators of ‘game’ Animals to ensure there are plenty of ‘game’ for oomans to hunt. Grouse shooting is possible only because gamekeepers exterminate the species that prey on Grouse. A considerable number of Wildlife are decimated to ensure a plentiful supply of Grouse. Secondly, both Grouse shooting and Fox hunting are possible only because gamekeepers take action to breed Grouse and Foxes should their numbers fall short of hunting requirements. Every year Fox hunters draw up a rough list of the number of meets they would like to cater for during the next Fox hunting season and then estimate how many Foxes they would need to have if every one of these meets is to enjoy a successful kill. This list of Fox hunting requirements is then passed on to the gamekeepers who are expected to fill these requirements in any way that they can. Thirdly, hunting is possible only in habitats which have been created and maintained by oomans. For example, Grouse shooting was made possible by clearing Forests to create an artificial habitat, Moorland, in which Grouse could thrive. This habitat would disappear the moment oomans stopped protecting it. Gamekeepers preserve Moorland by annually setting fire to the moors to prevent saplings from growing. A habitat that is entirely dependent upon ooman management can hardly be regarded as natural. The same also applies to Fox hunting. The Animal slavery industry has deforested large swathes of the brutish countryside in order to create pastureland. If it wasn’t for pharmers maintaining this artificial habitat then Fox hunting would not be possible. [26] Fourthly, in the case of Fox hunting, both Foxhounds and even Foxes themselves have to be trained in order to provide a good chase. Fifthly, terriermen block off Foxes escape routes to ensure a good chase and if, by chance, a Fox manages to find safety underground along come this ooman dross to dig them out. In conclusion, Fox hunting and Grouse shooting are about as natural as the country’s modern intensive pharming industry or any other social event in the aristocracy’s social calendar. Why is this so surprising when all of activities are organized by the same people?

7.4.3.3.4: Hunting is Ecological.

7.4.3.3.4.1: Hunting is Good for the Countryside.

According to page, hunting is not only natural but is good for the Earth. It supposedly plays a vital role in protecting the Earth’s ecological habitats. Page blames industrialized pharming for destroying Forests, Woods, Hedgerows and Wildlife in the brutish countryside whereas hunting has saved many ecological habitats, “The exceptions to this rule are in the areas where hunting, shooting and fishing take place, and i write this as a conservationist who does not hunt, shoot or fish. Where habitat is left for the fox and the pheasant, it also creates a wider range of habitats for other forms of wildlife such as the otter, the barn owl and the bee orchid.” [27] ; “The irony is that it is the hunters and shooters who are managing the countryside in a practical and conservation-friendly way. They are retaining and managing woodlands, grassland, wetland and hedgerows. As a consequence, serious conservationists should be praising their work. Sadly, myself and david bellamy are almost the only two who are prepared to put our heads above the parapet of political correctness to say so.” [28] Page is just dealing in abstractions divorced from reality. The facts are these.

7.4.3.3.4.2: Hunters have destroyed Biodiversity.

Firstly, over the millenia organic farmers and hunters have devastated this country’s indigenous Wildlife. The Wildlife that can be seen in the countryside today are mainly exotic species imported from abroad after hunters wiped out virtually all of the country’s indigenous species. It’s not possible to just forget what hunters have done in the past as if it wasn’t relevant to what is happening now. Historically, hunters have never been a positive influence on natural habitats. [29]

7.4.3.3.4.3: The Minuscule Scale of the Woods protected by Hunting.

Secondly, it is true that tenant pharmers are told to preserve small copses by their aristocratic landlords in order to provide a supply of Foxes for the aristocrats’ social calendar. The area of Woodland that pharmers protect for Foxes is miniscule - it would barely cover 0.0001% of the country - and yet Page is suggesting that Fox hunting is making a critical contribution to the country’s ecology.

7.4.3.3.4.4: Hunters have devastated Ecological Habitats.

Thirdly, as has been noted above, Grouse shooting has entailed deforestation and the creation of anthropogenically managed ecologies which are no where near as complex as the original Forest ecologies. It is only because brutland’s landowning aristocratic pharming elite have decimated large swathes of the country’s Forests and turned them into pastureland that Fox hunting has become possible. Without vast areas of open pastureland, Fox hunting would be next to impossible. Fox hunting is the companion bloodsport to the Animal slavery industry. Fox hunting ought to be banned because of its barbarity but, even if it is not, if the country’s pastureland was abandoned (for example because of the huge contribution it makes to global burning) then the opportunities for Fox hunting would be severely curtailed.

For page to argue that the land used for hunting helps to preserve Biodiversity reveals his superficial understanding of the Earth’s life support system in this country. On the one hand, it is true that such land has much greater biodiversity than a shopping mall or a car park but, on the other hand, it has nothing like the Biodiversity it would have if it was allowed to revert back to a ooman free Wilderness area - especially since most of the country’s pastureland would almost certainly return to a Forested state. Those who argue that Fox hunting preserves Biodiversity are just accepting a cosmetic, artificial, second rate nature which, although it might be better than no nature at all, does not mean that it is the best possible nature for that area, let alone that it is contributing to the country’s life support system and thereby stabilizing the climate.

The global pharming industry is the biggest contributor to global burning and if oomans hope to stabilize the climate they have got to abandon the Animal exploitation industry and allow pastureland to revert back to Forests. Pharmers are currently responsible for blocking the Reforestation needed to combat global burning and, in brutland’s case, repaying its appalling Carbon debts. By arguing that hunting protects Biodiversity, page is not merely defending Fox hunting, he is also defending the vast scale of pastureland in this country, and thus the interests of the ruling aristocracy that owns the land, because without this pastureland Fox hunting would not be possible.

The suggestion that Fox hunting is making a major contribution to the country’s life sustaining processes is nonsensical because the activity relies on vast areas of open pastureland which have minimal ecological value. By focussing on the miniscule area of Woods being managed to provide a refuge in which Foxes can breed, page is distracting attention from the fact that the majority of the country’s land has been deforested to provide pastureland which is virtually bereft of Wildlife, makes virtually no contribution to the Earth’s life support system, and is destabilizing the climate - but is good for Fox hunting.

What page, and the rest of the pro-Fox hunting, anti-Reforestation, brigade in the ecologist, refuses to recognize is that pastureland has to be abandoned for the sake of restoring the Earth’s life sustaining processes and stabilizing the climate - and once pastureland goes so will hunting Foxes with Dogs. The mundi club once believed that greens opposed Reforestation because of their support for organic pharming. It is now becoming clear, however, that so-called greens are also opposed to Reforestation because it poses a threat to the interests of the country’s landowning aristocracy and to the survival of Fox hunting.

7.4.3.3.4.5: Support for Fox Hunting Legitimizes the Conversion of Animal Sanctuaries into Game Reserves.

Fox hunting not merely contributes to the decimation of the Earth’s life support system in this country, it also contributes to the decimation of the Earth’s life support system around the world. Those who support Fox hunting are compelled, by the logic of their argument, to support hunting in other countries and this justifies the conversion of Animal sanctuaries and Wilderness areas into game parks in which Wildlife is hunted either for food or for profit. When greens promote the oomanization of Wilderness areas around the world they are not doing so because they care for Animals or even for local people who might benefit from game meat or a share of hunting profits but because of their solidarity with the land owning aristocracies of other countries. The reason that the consumption of bush meat is rocketing is because of the efforts that brutish Fox hunting conservationists have been making around the world to encourage people to take up hunting, “The nearest wildlife management system to exmoor’s red deer-hunting is possibly zimbabwe’s ‘campfire’ scheme. As things stand, the deer are tolerated by farmers and valued by local people because they bring substantial benefit to them.” [30] Thatcher encouraged the privatization of nationalized industries - including of course the Forestry commission. The green thatcherites, like those in the ecologist, support the privatization/localization of Wilderness areas in order to exploit Animals as resources.

7.4.3.3.4.6: Oomans’ Extermination of Animals is pushing them towards Oblivion.

At present, around the Earth, oomans’ slaughter of Animals has currently reached colossal proportions. Billions of oomans are slaughtering hundreds of billions of Animals. Oomans are currently killing more Animals than ever before throughout ooman history. The scale of Animal slaughter is probably greater than at any time throughout the Earth’s entire history. Oomans are also eradicating other species at a rate which has never been surpassed at any time in Earth’s turbulent history - with the exception of instant catastrophic disasters such as asteroid impacts. If oomans continue to slaughter as many Animals as they want, they are all too likely to end up damaging the Earth’s life support system to such an extent it will no longer support them. Darwin’s theory of evolution and his theory of the survival of the fittest are inadequate as guides to ooman conduct because they do not take into account the effects of such behaviour on the Earth’s life support system.

7.4.3.3.5: Hunting is Good for Oomans.

7.4.3.3.5.1: Hunting is good, normal and natural.

Page believes that hunting is not only natural and good for the Earth but that it is also good for oomans .. “it might even be good for us.” [31] ; “The desire to hunt is good, normal and natural.” [32] Hunting is good for the health and well being of hunters. It can help to keep people fit. But, it has to be suggested, justifying Fox hunting because it can help to keep people fit is no justification at all.

7.4.3.3.5.1: Hunting is a Civilizing Influence on Oomans.

The original contribution that page makes to the hunting debate is not merely that hunting is ‘good for oomans’, but that it is a civilizing influence on oomans, “Those who describe hunting as uncivilized are simply showing that they do not understand how the civilizing process began.” [33] In other words, cruelty, sadism, and perversion, are good wholesome activities. Such is the nonsense of extremist right wing denialism. These pharmer boys certainly come out with some whoppers - ‘Foxes love being chased across the countryside’.

It has been pointed out that around the Earth oomans’ slaughter of Animals has currently reached colossal proportions. From the perspective that hunting is a civilizing activity, this implies that oomans today must be more civilized than they have ever been. Is this just plain denialism or are we slipping towards something more akin to perversity or even madness?

Given that more hunting is being carried out than ever before, the corrollary of page’s hypothesis is that the Earth must be in the fittest condition it’s been in for aeons. It must be appalling to page that there are people who argue that the ooman race is damaging the Earth’s life support system to such an extent that oomans are on the verge of ecocide. Such people are called environmentalists. Perhaps page ought to meet some. Perhaps the ecologist could arrange to meet some as well.

7.4.3.3.6: Hunting is Barbaric.

7.4.3.3.6.1: Bloodlust.

Hunting is a barbarizing influence on oomans. There are very few hunters who like only one form of hunting e.g. they like Fox hunting but not Stag hunting, Bear-baiting, etc. This is because the pleasure that oomans derive from hunting is seeing Animals being killed in cruel, and bloody, ways - the more gruesome and excrutiatingly painful the death, the greater the thugs’ pleasure, “Follow a hunt. Watch the people at the beginning. Many are good people. But, as the day goes on, you see the cruelty. You feel that mounting craving to be “in at the death”. You notice men and women gaping and glorying in those final moments. That is the reality, no matter how much the hunters dress it up.” [34] The pleasure that perverts get at Fox hunts is no different from what they get at Hare coursing, “Undercover investigators infiltrated the groups to secretly film them and gather evidence. One investigator said, “This is no better than dog fighting or cock fighting. The look of bloodlust on the faces of these people as they release their dogs on hares is sickening. When it is caught the hare squeals like a baby - it is heartbreaking.” The league against cruel sports is appealing for readers to shop anyone they know who is taking part in the brutality that is decimating britain’s hare population. Illegal hare-coursing has become more widespread since the foot and mouth crisis which shut legal countryside hunts.” [35] If oomans were hanged or tortured in public then they’d be there having a good ogle. When there are car accidents on motorways, hunters are bound to be there rubber necking.

The people who enjoy hunting also enjoy other related activities e.g. Horse racing, Greyhound racing, etc. The people who enjoy hunting probably also enjoy the many forms of abuse and violence that oomans inflict on other oomans e.g. boxing. [36] It is quite likely they also enjoy, or even take part in, football hooliganism - the aristocrats wouldn’t be seen dead at a football match or engaging in football hooliganism but those who enjoy Hare coursing aren’t restrained by social snobbery. The people who enjoy hunting probably also enjoy wife-beating, racism, homophobia, nazism, etc. Hunters almost certainly admire cars and the reckless use of these lethal weapons. [37] In conclusion, if people state that they support Fox hunting it is not difficult reeling off a long list of other views they are likely to hold. The length of this list may vary from individual to individual but most hunters would tick off most of the items on the list. Such people are constantly on the verge of bringing chaos and disorder to society. They are constantly threatening to drag society even deeper into the mire of barbarism. For the present, civilizing forces may be holding sicko hunters at bay but if there’s a breakdown in law and order they’ll start coming out to play.

7.4.3.3.6.2: The Ideology of Fox Hunting is Barbaric.

The ideology which promotes Fox hunting is naturalism. The ideologies of the ruling classes up and down the ages have been fertilized by plentiful dollops of naturalistic philosophies. Naturalism has been used by all those wishing to start wars and slaughter other groups of people. It is the philosophy of barbarism and the antithesis of civilization. Naturalism is the philosophy promoted by public schools, especially eton college, which train their pupils to be ruthless rulers capable of slaughtering other oomans if needs be. Hunting is a major obstacle in the creation of a civilized society.

7.4.3.3.6.3: Support for Fox Hunting encourages the Legalization of Banned Forms of Animal Exploitation.

Those who support Fox hunting also support illegal Hare coursing and would like to see the legalization of Bear baiting, Dog fighting, Cock fighting, Bull fighting, (apparently a personal favourite of camilla parker bollox), Animal circuses, etc.

7.4.3.3.6.4: Support for Fox Hunting Legitimizes all other Forms of Animal Exploitation.

In brutland, support for Fox hunting legitimizes all other forms of Animal terrorism around the world.

7.4.3.3.7: Fox Hunting Unimportant.

Page starts his article by asking why politicians are debating Fox hunting when there are far more important issues which need addressing. The same point was made by james lovelock, “In England, the hatred of the hunt is somewhat hypocritical, and its emotional drive comes more from class war than from compassion for the fox. As i write this, it astonishes me that the british parliament is wasting its time voting for a bill to abolish hunting with dogs.” [38] The point was also made by paul routledge, “People are more important than Animals, I fear. If parliamentary time is limited (and it always is) what is more crucial - saving the lives of our people and educating the next generation, or outlawing a sport that is deeply-rooted in the traditions of the countryside. Those who put them there (elect labour mps) to make britain a better place will not quickly forgive them for preferring the fox to the people.” [39] It has to be asked: ‘Has the countryside alliance been sending out the same cribsheet to all of these people?’ In Page’s case his view is a little odd since he must believe the issue is important enough to have spent time writing an article about it. Throughout the rest of the article he contradicts himself even further by showing that Fox hunting is important because it is related to many of the major issues of our time. [40]

The Fox hunting issue is important because it is related to all other hunting issues and beyond them, to the entire Animal exploitation industry. It is related not merely to oomans’ attitude towards Foxes, but to Animals in general. It is related to naturalist philosophies and anthropocentrism - as opposed to philosophies in which all life on Earth is given its full value e.g. geocentrism which values life in terms of its contribution to the stabilization of the Earth’s climate. Countering anthropocentric attitudes and philosophies is probably the most important political issue of our time - it is a greater challenge than combatting global burning. An anthropocentric world is one of spiralling violence against Animals leading to the devastation of the Earth’s life support system for oomans and, quite possibly, ooman oblivion.

Fox hunting is not only a critical measure of oomans’ attitudes towards Animals it is also an indicator of their attitude towards the Earth. Those who promote Fox hunting are more than likely to be disinterested in the environment, ecological habitats, and Biodiversity, but especially the Earth’s life support system. Any defence of Fox hunting serves as a defence of the vast swathes of ecologically denuded pastureland across the country. Fox hunting is a beneficiary of the Animal slavery industry’s devastation of vast areas of this country’s life support system. It cannot be regarded as being responsible for this damage but, as a beneficiary of this damage, it is responsible for preventing a restoration of the Earth’s life support system in this country. Fox hunting helps to save a few isolated copses around the country but this is nothing in comparison to the benefit it obtains from the decimation of the countryside.

It is quite true that the abolition of Fox hunting would do little to undermine the Animal slavery industry and would do nothing to combat global burning. However, as has been suggested above, it is responsible for defending the decimation of the countryside which makes it harder to take the actions necessary for combatting global burning. As far as those opposed to Fox hunting are concerned, it could be that if the tactic of encouraging people to support a legal ban on Fox hunting is not going to succeed because of the blocking power of the landowning aristocracy (not forgetting the corporate mentality of the mcblair government) then perhaps another campaign which might achieve the same result is undermining the Animal slavery industry because, as has been suggested above, if pastureland in this country is abandoned this will seriously undermine Fox hunting.

The so-called greens who support Fox hunting are putting themselves on the same side of the political debate as the gun-loving, sexist, homophobic, racist, eco-nazis who are devastating the Earth’s life support system and denying the threat posed by global burning. They are not greens, they are eco-nazis. The greens who oppose Fox hunting put themselves on the side of anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-racism, anti-Animalisms, anti-speciesism, and support philosophies which seek to stabilize the climate and create a sustainable planet. It is because oomans cannot respect Animals that they cannot respect the Earth which will lead, eventually, to their ecocide. It is because they cannot respect the rights of other species to live on this planet, being interested only in maiming, mutilating, or murdering, them that oomans will destroy the Earth. It is because oomans believe they are so superior to Animals that they deem Animals to be unworthy of being granted the right to live in ooman-free Wilderness zones.

7.4.3.3.8: What do i Know about Animal Rights Activists?

Page points out that Fox hunting is less important than other forms of Animal cruelty, “If cruelty is regarded as an issue, what about the cruelty in hahal slaughter - an issue that i have never once heard addressed by animal rights activists.” [41] It is probable that Fox hunting is not the cruellest death that oomans inflict on Animals. Vivisection, often carried out without anaesthetics, is perhaps the most painful. But Fox hunting is worse than vivisection in so much as the cruelty is perpetrated to provide thugs with entertainment.

Page reveals his ignorance if he believes that Animal rightists are disinterested in the issue of islamic, and jewish, forms of Animal slaughter. Is it not pretty appalling that one of the country’s leading greens has never heard an Animal rightist’s demand for something to be done about these forms of Animal slaughter? Perhaps if ‘the ecologist’ hadn’t treated the Animal rights movement with such contempt over the last thiry years then discussions about these forms of Animal abuse would have been aired in that magazine. The question isn’t so much why page hasn’t heard an Animal rightist demand action against halal slaughter but why the ecologist magazine has for decades stopped Animal rightists from raising this issue and many other Animal rightist issues. For the ecologist to have turned its back on the Animal rights movement over the last thirty years is a disgrace and, politically, disasterous. What further evidence is needed that the ecologist’s editorial team are supergreens stuck in a 1970s time warp?

7.4.3.3.9: Above Nature but not the Earth.

Page concludes his article by stating that, “Consequently it could be said that those people who condemn hunting are also condemning nature and condemning their own past.” [42] - as if hunting doesn’t entail the decimation of natural habitats. But he is right that those who condemn hunting should also condemn nature. It is imperative for oomans to put themselves above nature, or rather the traditional concept of nature, not in the sense of encouraging oomans to be superior to Animals but in the sense of abolishing carnivorism and the Animal exploitation industry. Nature is the realm of predation, ‘the war of all against all’, ‘the survival of the fittest’ where life is ‘red in tooth and claw’. If oomans want to remain in this realm, acting as predators towards each other, women, Animals, this will lead only to eco-nazism. If oomans are predators by nature then they are also oomano-imperialists, Earth rapists, and eventually Earth wreckers. Oomans need to liberate themselves from the realm of nature. They need to civilize themselves by putting themselves above nature. This doesn’t mean abolishing nature - it means creating ooman free Wilderness areas in which Wildlife can survive according to their own rules.

There is no reason for those who oppose hunting to condemn the past when oomans had no choice about whether to kill Animals, eat meat, and use Animal resources. This was a time when oomans were as much part of the realm of nature as any other predator when it would have been as impossible for oomans to have survived in this realm without killing as it would have been for Lions to have done so. It is important only to criticize oomans’ past when oomans choose to rely on the Animal exploitation industry when they could have abolished it. This past will never be as civilized as the future could be if oomans manage to abolish the Animal exploitation industry.

Although oomans need to be above nature, this is not to imply they also ought to be above the Earth. Nature and the Earth are two different concepts - it is the difference between darwinianism and gaianism. Oomans should not try to live above the Earth i.e. by becoming space travellers attempting to colonize other planets. But, then again, neither should they try to live in harmony with the Earth. Oomans’ aim should be to stabilize the Earth’s climate. They ought to look upon themselves as planetary beings and see their role on Earth as keeping the Earth cool. Oomans need to be above nature but not above the Earth.

7.4.3.3.10: The Econazi Nature of Tribalism.

For many decades, egoldsmith and ‘the ecologist’ have supported tribal peoples around the Earth. They have helped to change world opinion about peoples who seemed to be so primitive as to be non-ooman. This has been a noble defence of some of the most vulnerable people on Earth. But then they’ve extolled primitivism as the only way of living sustainably on Earth. Unfortunately this has led them to promote carnivorism because most tribal peoples are involved in killing Animals. Tribal peoples don’t have the technology to create a choice between a carnivorous and a vegan lifestyle - although it is odd that given their supposedly profound knowledge of the resources to be found in Forests that they haven’t managed to dispense with Animal terrorism. Tribal peoples are thus oomano-imperialists like all other oomans who exploit other species - the only difference being that whilst tribal peoples are compelled to exploit Animals, modern consumers have a choice about whether to do so. For tribal peoples, carnivorism is an issue of survival whereas for modern consumers it is a moral choice.

Despite all the talk about tribal peoples living in harmony with their surroundings and not damaging the environment they too implicitly support the philosophy of ‘might is right’ because they prey on Animals. This has pushed the ideas of ‘the ecologist’ and egoldsmith in the same direction. Support for might is right and naturalistic philosophies leads ultimately to the nazis’ slaughter of gypsies, communists, gays, and jews. Ironically, jews complain about concentration camp victims being shoved into gas ovens but, around the world, they’re doing exactly the same to millions of Animals. The Animal exploitation industry, supported by jews and all other peoples around the Earth, is slaughtering hundreds of billions of Animals every year. There has never been a time throughout ooman history when so many oomans have slaughtered such vast numbers of Animals. It’s time that oomans rose above such barbarism that makes modern societies look like modern varieties of nazism. That ‘the ecologist’ has decided not to play any role in challenging this barbarism shows just how irrelevant it has become both morally and geophysiologically. That it is run by a jewish family makes it even more appalling.

7.4.3.4: The Ecologist’s stance over the 2001 Foot and Mouth Epidemic in Brutland.

The right wing nature of the green aristocrats/supergreens came to the fore during the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic 2001 in brutland. The policies and demands being made by many greens were surprisingly right wing.

7.4.3.4.1: The Ecologist Blaming the Closure of Local Concentration Camps for the Epidemic.

The ecologist blamed the f&m epidemic on the closure of local abattoirs rather than pharmers’ illegal movements of Sheep around the country to defraud the european commission of subsidies. [43] What has green politics come to when one of its demands for local politics is the return of local concentration camps?

7.4.3.4.2: The Ecologist Demands Reductions in Health Standards in Local Abattoirs.

Since the 1997 general election pharmers have been attempting to roll back a wide range of what they call ‘red tape’ but which normal people refer to respectfully as health and safety regulations. A surprising number of greens (including the ecologist) have demanded the construction of local abattoirs which would be a financial benefit to pharmers, but would lead to significant reductions in health and safety regulations. The appallingly unhygienic state of local abattoirs has been highlighted in many mundi club publications so it shocking to find the ecologist demanding the return of these local insitutions. [44]

Zac Goldsmith.

“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. [45]

Robin Page.

“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. (in other words they have been brought up to the highest european standards. It is exactly this contempt for high standards of hygiene that is basically behind the spread of the diseases in this country). 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.” [46]

7.4.3.5: The Globalization Issue.

7.4.3.5.1: The Ecologists’ Promotion of the Anti-Globalization Protests.

It has been noted above that egoldsmith is one of the leading voices against the globalization process. The agents of globalization are multinational corporations; global financial institutions such as the world bank, the imf, etc; global bureaucracies monitoring global free trade agreements such as the gatt treaty; and global political organizations such as the world treaty organization. [47]

7.4.3.5.2: The Similarities between Globalization and Anti-Globalization.

Although anti-globalization protestors oppose globalization they both share common assumptions - the abolition of national borders allowing all people around the world (but not Animals) to travel and settle where they want, when they want. The globalizers want to turn the world into a global village whilst the anti-globalizers see the world as a global commons providing resources for all oomans. They support oomans’ right to travel and settle anywhere they want. [48] They believe anyone, in any country, should be able to travel and to settle down wherever they want - not merely those in third world countries wanting political asylum in the over-industrialized world but economic migrants who want to enjoy as much material prosperity as possible. The anti-globalizers are opposed to national borders and all immigration controls. As will be seen, the anti-globalizers promote a global ideology just as much as the globalizers.

7.4.3.5.3: Anti-Globalization is just as much of an Ideology propping up Class Interests as Globalization.

Zgoldsmith has taken up these themes in the new ecologist. But neither globalization nor anti-globalization are objective, impartial, concepts accurately depicting reality. They are the propaganda tools of specific classes representing specific class interests. The new ecologist, like green aristos/supergreens/green pharmers/pharmer-loving greens, blame globalization for causing the world’s environmental problems but not the pharming industry. They also blame the fossil fuel industry for global burning rather than the pharming industry. [49] However, it can be argued that the damage being caused to the Earth’s life support system by globalization and the fossil fuel industry is nothing like as significant as the damage caused by the global pharming industry and yet the anti-globalization brigade refuses to condemn the global pharming industry because of its members’ vested interests.

7.4.3.5.4: The Hypocricies of the Anti-Globalization Globalizers.

Many political commentators have had lots of fun mocking anti-globalization protestors for their hypocrisies. The fact that these comments come from politically conventional sources is not relevant because such criticisms are valid.

Anti-Technology.

Whilst the anti-globalizers are supposedly anti-technological, they rely heavily on the global communications network whether television, telephones, mobile phones, computers, the internet. Most anti-globalization protestors organize protests over the internet in the hope of obtaining global television coverage. Some anti-globalizers profess they use these commodities only to bring down globalization but this is irrelevant - using global technology to support anti-globalization is contradictory. Anti-globalizers also use the global transport network - not merely cars but aeroplanes.

Global Protests.

Some anti-globalization protestors travel around the world to demonstrate against globalization. Anti-globalization protests have emerged all over the world. In other words, anti-globalization has become a global phenomenon. It isn’t difficult spotting that this new global phenomena is itself a product of globalization. These activists present themselves as the leading agents of anti globalization but these protests are just as much a part of the globalization trend as capitalism.

Anti-Materialists.

The anti-globalizers are supposedly anti-materialist but this doesn’t stop them owning/using televisions, telephones, computers, cars, aeroplanes, etc. In the most extreme cases it doesn’t stop them from owning homes around the world.

The anti-globalizers are also perfectly willing to accept that the policies they support will encourage economic migrants to move around the world in search of the material good life. It is odd how environmentalists are so committed to oomano-imperialism that they support a policy which helps materialists opposed to green values. It has to be suggested that the anti-globalizers are mere environmentalists who more concerned about boosting ooman welfare than they are in protecting the Earth’s life support system.

Anti-European.

Most anti-globalization protestors are eurosceptic. They support the abolition of borders but oppose the european community - even though it has abolished borders within europe. The globalizers oppose the european community because they want global free trade whilst the anti-globalizers oppose the european community because of its borders with the rest of the world. If these borders were abolished it would lead to global free trade.

Oomano-Imperialist Rights but not Animal Rights.

The anti-globalizers are hypocrites about Animals. They support oomans’ right to roam wherever they want but deny that Animals should be given the same right. Indeed, anti-globalizers are so fanatical about oomans’ rights to travel and settle around the world they even insist that oomans should be entitled to settle in Wilderness areas because they believe it isn’t right that Animals should have their own living space. They want to force Animals to live in harmony with bipeds even though these  terrorists will eventually blast the shit out of them. And whilst the anti-globalizers 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 Global Ideology.

Anti-globalizers promote a global ideology. They proclaim they are localists and yet they support oomans’ rights to travel or settle wherever they want. In other words, they are globalizers not localists. As localists they would defend their locality and insist they have the right to determine who visits, and who is allowed to settle in, their locality. Quite why anti-globalizers should define themselves as localists when it is transparent they are globalists is indicative of the gross self deception involved by those advocating such an ideology.

7.4.3.5.5: The Anti-globalizers are the Mirror Image of the Globalization Process.

The anti-globalizers’ ideology promotes ideas and values which are remarkably similar to those promoted by globalizers. Globalizers support free markets; the free movement of capital, goods, and labour and thus the abolition of borders. The anti-globalizers support people’s right to travel and settle where they want (which means in effect the free movement of labour, goods, and capital) and the abolition of national borders. The anti-globalizers support ooman rights i.e. global rights, just as much as the globalizers. The globalizers want to create a global village whilst the anti-globalizers want to create a global village green i.e. the global commons. They are virtually the same except that in the former the global village is ruled by a small number of gigantic multi-national corporations whereas in the latter large numbers of small tribes would roam the global commons in search of resources. Neither of these social/political arrangements are capable of stabilizing the Earth’s climate.

Both the globalizers and the anti-globalizers are opposed not merely to national borders but to nature conservation/Wilderness areas i.e. areas set aside solely for Wildlife as a means of protecting them from ooman predators/poachers/terrorists. 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 to 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 the Wildlife which threaten their existence. Both the globalizers and the anti-globalizers are oomano-imperialists who support the idea of oomans roaming the planet killing Animals.

Given that the views of the anti-globalizers are so similar to those of the globalizers it is not surprising they are both opposed to the european community. It is as if in the 1990s the tories’ rebellion against europe created a generation of young people opposed not merely to europe but to all global institutions. In brutland, since the early 1990s, the tories have successfully campaigned about the country’s sovereignty being diminished by the transfer of power to an unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, bureaucracy i.e. the european community. And yet they said nothing about the transfer of power to an unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic, bureaucracy known as the world terrorist organization. In many ways the european community offers considerable refuge against the hurricane of global free trade and the free market being promoted by globalizers through the world treaty organization. The anti-globalizers have been taken in by the tories’ deception because they fail to appreciate that europe is a refuge against global free trade.

7.4.3.5.6: The Globalization Diversion.

The anti-globalizers promote a particular global ideology. According to john vidal, “No single analysis (of globalization) has drawn all the strands of the debate together. The new era may yet throw up its marx and engels, a defining manifesto or political philosophy.” [50] This ideology suggests:

* firstly, that only the release of greenhouse gas emissions contributes to global burning rather than changes in the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover.

* secondly, that the biggest contributor to the increase of the greenhouse effect is the fossil fuel industry rather than the global livestock pharming industry and,

* thirdly, that the biggest users of fossil fuels and thus the biggest contributors to global burning are global corporations or world financial institutions rather than the global livestock pharming industry.

* fourthly, that the biggest consumers of products produced by global corporations or world financial institutions are urban people which means they are the biggest consumers of fossil fuels rather than rural people and the global livestock pharming industry.

The anti-globalization ideology has been concocted by members of the landowning aristocracy to cover up:-

• firstly, the colossal amount of damage that the global livestock pharming industry is doing to the Earth’s life support system;

• secondly, the gross inequalities in land ownership in virtually every country around the Earth; and,

• thirdly, their vast land ownership.

It can be argued that the main political issue is not globalization nor anti-globalization but domestication - the process by which the landowning pharming elites in each country around the world (whether they are supporters of globalization or anti-globalization) are using their political power to domesticate both Animals and oomans. This domestication process entails indoctrinating the livestock into believing that the Animal exploitation industry:-

• has no responsibility for releasing Carbon emissions and boosting the greenhouse effect;

• makes only a minor contribution global burning and,

• that it is good for oomans and good for Animals.

Anti-globalization protests are being promoted by green landowning aristocrats who own homes around the world and travel the world in airplanes and contribute as much to the domestication process as landowning aristocrats who pursue conventional pharming. The critical event which exposes the contradictions and class bias of the anti-globalizers, the smokescreen of the anti-globalizers’ ideology is that charles windsor, one of brutland’s biggest landowners and one of the most overprivileged people in the country, supports english/french pharmers in their battle against a gatt treaty. The primary problem is not gatt, it is charles windsor.

Many of the anti-globalizers are also supporters of the (global) kyoto treaty which deals exclusively with Carbon emissions and blatantly ignores the Earth’s life sustaining processes. They promote the idea that all oomans around the planet are entitled to share equally in the global services produced by the global commons i.e. to all intents and purposes, the Earth’s life sustaining processes. This seems all too laudable. It is not. The anti-globalizers’ theory allows countries to chop down their Forests and yet this has no effect on their entitlements from the global commons. So those countries which save their Forests from being chopped down are not rewarded for preserving Biodiversity and those countries which chop down their Forests are not penalized for reducing their Biodiversity. The anti-globalization protestors are just as much of a threat to the Earth as the globalizers.

7.4.3.6: Conclusions.

7.4.3.6.1: The Ecological Denialists.

The sheer lies of the ecologist’s stance are becoming more and more blatant, and more and more similar to the sort of denialism found in extreme right wing american politics.

* Urban industries and urban people are the cause of environmental degradation - only rural people and a rural existence are going to create an environmentally friendly society

* Bse was triggered by the chemical industry and not by the disgusting antics of the country’s pharming industry.

* Herbivores such as Cattle are actually carnivores.

* Hunting is good for the Animals being hunted since they now have some value (for oomans) rather than being pests who occupy too much land that is needed by biped terrorists.

* Hunting is living in harmony with nature (even though it has led to the mass extermination of Animals).

* Fox hunting is good for Foxes because Foxes like being chased.

* Foxes suffer no pain when being chased.

* Fox hunting is good for Foxes since it helps to protect Fox numbers.

* Fox hunting is good for the conservation of the countryside since it protects ecological habitats (i.e. piddling little copses in an ocean of deforestation).

* Fox hunting is good for oomans because it is a civilizing activity. [51]

These denialist statements dress up reality in their opposite value. There is a remarkable overlap with the denialism found in right wing american politics. It isn’t understood why the ecologist doesn’t just come out with it and state that it is a magazine for the protection of the interests of the aristocratic elite. What is so amazing, however, is that this establishment organ manages to pose as the most progressive part of a libertarian/anarchistic/tribalist rebellion against establishment - it’s just a sheer accident that its leading spokespersons are all members of the mega wealthy, landowning pharming elite.

7.4.3.6.2: The Epitome of the Shift to the Right.

Over the last few years there has been a rightward shift in the green party/movement. This is not the place to discuss the factors leading to such a shift. The epitome of this rightward shift has been ‘the ecologist’ magazine which seems to be adopting a right wing “survival of the fittest” ideology extolling the virtues of hunting. One of its contributors supported the right wing, anti-environmentalist, fuel tax insurrection. The magazine increasingly sounds like ‘Pharmers’ Monthly’. The fact that its editor is a member of the thatcherite generation, went to eton, and that his father was one of the world’s biggest Earth rapists, whose level of personal pollution was equivalent to that of a medium sized brutish city, is doubtlessly purely accidental.

7.4.3.6.3: Like Uncle, Like Nephew.

At the start of 2000, it was not quite clear what political direction ‘the ecologist’ was taking. The publication of the pro-meat article had given rise to the suspicion that egoldsmith had appointed as editor of the magazine one of his family members who was obviously not qualified for the job. What this implied was that the Earth’s life support system would have to put up with further damage whilst this former playboy learnt his trade. But then the appearance of the pro-hunting article made such a suspicion less tenable. It seemed much more likely that the new editor liked generating controversy - but only the sort which shifted opinion towards support for pharmers and the slaughter of more Animals - which, of course, would lead to further deforestation, and thus the exacerbation of global burning which ‘the ecologist’ proclaims it is fighting against. Zgoldsmith then wrote a letter to new scientist complaining about the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. The only conclusion that could be drawn from this is that it looks as if he is well on his way to becoming just as big a hypocrite as uncle ted. The ecologist’s new slogan “rethinking basic assumptions” actually means ‘going back to old assumptions.

7.4.3.6.3: Making a Family Business out of the Green Movement.

One of egoldsmith’s offspring runs a green magazine trying to persuade multi-national corporations to turn green - shades of john aspinall trying to tame charismatic fauna - and one of jgoldsmith’s offspring, a former playboy, is now at the reigns of the ‘ecologist’. It appears as if the goldsmiths are creating a family business out of the green movement.

The critical issue of green politics is the creation of a sustainable planet. This requires:

* the abolition of global poverty;

* the abolition of the wealth of the global elite - not the redistribution of wealth! - and its replacement with a new global Carbon currency;

* the abolition of land inequalities. This requires the expropriation of the land currently owned by the landowning elite and the Animal livestock industry. The land should be used to create climate Forests, ooman free Wilderness areas, and regional wood economies in which the landless would have land to grow their own food,

* the abolition of money and its replacement by a global Carbon currency - this would stop wealthy individuals from buying vast quantities of fossil fuels and, correspondingly, releasing vast quanities of greenhouse gases.

This is the scale of what needs to be done to create a sustainable planet. And yet the goldsmith family has shown no sign of giving up their excessive share of wealth; it has shown no sign of giving up their excessive land holdings; it has shown not the slightest interest in equalizing their Carbon budgets so that a few indivduals do not indulge in over-consumption and thereby impoverish the rest of humanity. The globe trotting ecologists show no sign of reducing the time they spend flying around the world.

In other words, on all the critical issues involved in the creation of a sustainable planet, the goldsmiths have vested interests which puts them in direct opposition to a sustainable planet. All this campaigning for green issues is just a way of reducing their conscience whilst they sit on vast piles of wealth ridiculing those in the green movement who want to see fundamental changes.

There is no way that the material interests of the goldsmith family are going to remain unaffected by the changes which are needed to establish a sustainable planet. The goldsmiths are going to lose many of their properties dotted around the world and the days when they could indulge their wanderlust and fly off around the world will be over because wealth will reside in regional Forest economies which are unlikley to produce a Carbon surplus to enable anyone to engage in stratospheric indulgencies.

The worrying thing about the goldsmiths, and all other member of the green aristocracy, is that they’re going to promote the idea of a sustainable planet whilst at the same time trying to preserve their property, their land, their privileges, and their money. The danger posed by the goldsmiths is that their defence of their property and landowning interests could become a focus for other members of the stratospheric elite or the landowning elites to defend their interests. A global defence of current land ownership around the world would be ecocidal. What is particularly dangerous, given the current naturalistic philosophy they are promoting, is that in the future as environmental conditons deteriorate, more and more of the landowning elite might gravitate toward the green movement with the explicit intention of using it as their mouthpiece to defend their material interests - in other words using the rest of the world in which to make environmental improvements whilst leaving their own property beyond the need for reform.

The big question then for the goldsmiths, just to make absolutely sure their position is clear, is whether they believe in fundamental land reforms around the world or whether they are going to use the green movement as a forum to defend their interests.

7.5. Other members of the Goldsmith Klan.

Were the Jet Setting, Globe-trotting, Goldsmiths responsible for bringing Foot and Mouth into Brutland?

Every year, many members of the globe trotting goldsmith family fly south for the winter. It is possible they could have brought back the foot and mouth disease from their ranch in kenya. They couldn’t have done so from their trust fund ranch in mexico because the country doesn’t have the disease but it could have come from their trust fund ranch in kenya. Perhaps it might have happened when one of them popped back to brutland to pay off their organic milk bill.

The ‘live locally’ goldsmiths still find it impossible to live on the Earth’s northern continents during the winter months because of the inclement weather. In 2000, during the goldsmiths’ annual migration south, some of them were caught up in a terrifying event. A black lunatic attacked the pilot of a commercial aircraft flying at 35,000 feet and the plane started hurtling to the ground. It looked like the end for some of the goldsmiths on board - jemima khan, her brother benjamin goldsmith and their mother lady annabel goldsmith. [52] The mundi club is a great admirer of president mugabe and his efforts to rid his country of the white landowning racists who, during the colonial era, expropriated all the best pharmland from black people. It’s a pity the president of kenya doesn’t take similar measures against the white landowning parasites in his country. And its a pity the prime minister of brutland doesn’t do exactly the same in this country as well but then this gutless, corporate, Earth-wrecking, toe rag is only there to protect the interests of the corporate and landowning elites.

7.6. Conclusions.

It has been noted that jgoldsmith’s prime aim in life was the creation of a family dynasty. During edward and james goldsmith’s lifetime it was almost invariably the younger brother who found fortune and was given constant media attention. And yet ironically, although he achieved his aim of creating a goldsmith family dynasty, its ethos has been shaped considerably by egoldsmith and his preoccupation with environmentalism. The goldsmith family could well lay claim to the title of the country’s leading green aristocratic family. The days when the goldsmith name was commonly associated with fabulous wealth may well be replaced by an association with trying to save the Earth. Unfortunately, it seems likely they aren’t going to be up to the task.

Addenda.

The Demands of the Rural Alliance.

The rural alliance, in collusion with the ecogit magazine, is producing a manifesto for the next general election. It has been rumoured the full list of demands is as follows:-

* Full compensation for all pharmers who have lost any livestock, pets, or relatives, over the last 40 years;

* Full compensation for the loss of livestock sales as a result of the appreciation of the pound - no money to be refunded when the currency depreciates;

* Full compensation for the income pharmers lost due to europe’s barmy bans on the export of bse-infected Animal feed, bse-infected bseef, and bse-infected Cattle and Sheep;

* The right to export bse-infected Animal feed, bse-infected bseef, and bse-infected Cattle and Sheep around the world;

* The introduction of food disparagement laws preventing Animal rightists from ever again making sickening allegations that the country’s pharmers put bse-infected livestock into the ooman feedchain causing hundreds of ooman fatalities. In truth, bse is a hoax made up by environmentalists to defame good brutish bseef;

* The internment of all Animal rights activists;

* A total refusal to test livestock tissues in abattoirs to discover the prevalence of bse in the country’s Cattle herds and Sheep Flocks and thus the amount of bse continuing to get into the ooman feed chain;

* Knighthoods to be awarded to the scientists who for the last five years have been pretending they’ve been experimenting on Sheep brains, whilst actually using Cattle brains, in order to prevent the discovery of the scale of bse infection in the country’s Sheep flocks. They managed to escape reaching any conclusion for five years by claiming they’ve just discovered they’ve been using Cattle brains. What this means is that 15 years after the start of the disease, nobody in brutland knows whether Sheep flocks in this country have bse nor its prevalence. What greater manifestation is there of the sheer corruption of brutish science than that they’ve been able to prevent anyone finding out the scale of bse infected Cattle herds and Sheep flocks for fifteen years. [53]

* Full compensation for pharmers who, for five years, have been wrongly attempting to rear bse-free Cattle before being told they were actually genetically challenged Sheep;

* The reintroduction of the corn laws wrongly abandoned in the 1840s;

* The right of all countryfolk to bear arms;

* An end to the ban on rural people owning and carrying handguns in urban areas;

* The right of all countrydwellers to wander through the countryside shooting anything at will - especially visiting urbanites;

* The right of pharmers to lie in wait for trespassers and shoot them in the back, from point blank range, without a warning, using illegal, unlicensed, pump action, sawn-off shotguns and then have rural, pharmer-loving judges quosh any convictions. [54] “The prosecution alleged he told a number of people he would kill the next burglar he found. On the night in question he did not know who was downstairs but, without warning, he fired three shots at point blank range with a pump action shot gun for which he had no licence and which was a type banned from use since the dunblane tragedy.” [55]

* the legalization of all blood sports - Fox hunting, Deer stalking, Bear baiting, Dog fighting, and (Camilla barker-bollock’s personal favourite) Bull fighting;

* Blood sports to be included as a compulsory element in the national curriculum;

* Blood sports to be included as a compulsory element in the olympics;

* All schoolchildren to be taught to blast the shit out of a range of Animals from 5 yards; [56]

* All countryfolk to be made to feel a valuable member of society through the provision of free public transport, free village schools, free postal services, free gas/water/electricity; free creches, free banking, and free internet services;

* Sovereignty over the countryside to be handed back to pharmers;

* The return to a feudal aristocracy. Voting rights to be dependent on ownership of a minimum acreage of land or a minimum agricultural subsidy - whichever is the greater. The transfer of powers from the house of commons back to the house of lords whose membership must once again consist solely of members of the aristocracy;

* The royal family to be restored to its supreme position in society as god’s representatives on Earth. All privileges lost over the last 1000 years to be returned. The building of a new royal yacht britannia at taxpayers expense. Charles to be given concubines to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The royals to be given more time off public duties like opening hospitals, caring for the sick and injured, praising heroes standing up to bullies, etc in order to pursue their main interests in life - maiming, mutilating, and murdering, Animals.

* All oomans but especially green anarchists, the ecologist, and Earth first!ers to be given the right to invade all Wilderness areas/nature reserves by pretending they’re greens living in harmony with Wildlife. This would enable them to exterminate all the top predators and then shoot Wildlife for resources until they went extinct. Living in harmony with nature is just another excuse for exterminating Animals.

* Oomans must hunt Animals in order to save them. Strangely, however, they do not argue that the only way to save oomans is to shoot them.

Zoo Animals Contracting Bse.

Antelopes.

Bse has been passed to Antelopes. [57]

Infant Antelope.

"Fear that calves are getting mad cow disease from their mothers was heightened yesterday when the first infant antelope born to an infected mother was confirmed to have died from the brain disorder at London zoo." [58]

Puma.

"A puma fed on beef at an undisclosed zoo in the north of England has died from "mad cat" disease. The wild cat is the first animal known to have got the disease without first eating meat and bone meal made with the brains of infected cows and sheep. This contrasts with Mr Gummer's testimony two weeks ago to the Commons agricultural select committee when he said the infective agent which causes BSE had been found only in the brains of affected animals." [59]

Kudus.

"Five of London Zoo's greater kudus - a type of African antelope - have now been diagnozed as having BSE. The first kudus died in 1989 and was thought to have contracted the disease through feed .. Her daughter was later found to be infected, probably during birth. The latest three cases were all males and none had been fed on ruminant protein." [60]

General.

"Not only have cattle been affected but five types of antelope, including a rare Arabian oryx, have also died in British Zoos from brain disease. Ranch mink have contracted a related disease, believed to be a result of their being fed raw sheep offal."