Welcome to the Second Edition of SP10.

The first edition attempted to point out that the policies of the land is ours seemed to promote the interests of various sectors of society not known for their commitment to green politics i.e. that these policies would give dirt bikers more access to the countryside. Surely george monbiot et al would never be so stupid as to support the interests of dirt bikers, four wheel drivers, motorcross rally drivers, cross country adventurers, etc? A few months after the publication of the first edition, john vidal used his extensive holdings in the guardian’s environment section to publish an article with that other large landowner of the printed word, george monbiot, about providing access to the countryside for  .... yes, you’ve guessed it  ... dirt bikers.[1] As if to emphasize their commitment to such a destructive policy, which seemed little more than a slavish attempt to satisfy every ooman desire no matter how frivolous, the article was accompanied by a huge photograph of a dirt biker flying through the air - hopefully landing on his head. Who says the green movement hasn’t been taken over by Earth rapists? It is staggering that these two prominent green writers could support dirt biking given the appalling state of this country’s geophysiological debts. Either this pair are a couple of geophysiological ignoramuses who haven’t got a clue as to the state of this country’s life support system or, if they do know, then they don’t seem to care if even more damage is inflicted on it.

Introduction: the Formation of the Land is Ours Group.

In february 1995 george monbiot, a green radical,[2] an aristocrat,[3] media producer,[4] and oxford academic turned pundit, published an article in the guardian about land inequalities.[5] The article sought to rejuvenate interest in the inequalities of brutish land ownership - a grievance which has existed ever since the norman conquest in the 11th century. The issue has been one of the mainstays of class politics for centuries but monbiot has endeavoured to give it a modern green tinge. Nearly 800 people responded to the article and ‘the land is ours' was formed in april 1995.

During the 1980s and early 1990s a myriad of individuals/groups had campaigned on this issue for years without getting the slightest media attention. However, monbiot obtained a huge amount of publicity from the national media.[6] This media success had little to do with public concern for land inequalities nor was it due to a resurgence of interest in green issues by the public or by politicians - both of whom had completely forgotten the green disasters which had driven them into apoplexy just a few years earlier. What it had to do with was the brutish class system in which oxbridge academics, especially those with an aristocratic pedigree, are accorded an extraordinary degree of reverence by their chums in the media establishment - for example, most people today believe the only person who ever went on an aldermarston walk against nuclear weapons was bert russell.[7] 1995 was a year of many climatic disasters with floods in europe and china; heat waves in india, america, and italy; huge icebergs calving in the antarctic; and evidence of the melting of antarctic ice shelves and the siberian tundra, etc., but the media wasn't in the slightest bit interested in these manifestations of global burning foretelling the collapse of the Earth's life support system. And yet as soon as some oxford academic comes up with a conventional campaign the media leaps into action with all cameras rolling, microphones at the ready, fax machines primed, satellite dishes erect. Still, st george’s squat at a disused airfield brilliantly milked his chum’s prejudices. Its links to english history, elements of pageantry, and romantic celebration of a folklore hero were a photo-opportunity that the less uncultured end of the brutish media couldn’t ignore.[8] The grovelling sycophancy which the media bestows on oxford academics does not disappear even if the academic is critical of the establishment. During the late 1990s the land is ours became the cause célèbre for green radicals.[9]

PART ONE: THE VIEWS OF THE LAND IS OURS.

1.1: Land Inequalities.

Monbiot points out the unjust distribution of land in england and scotland, “Today 1 per cent of the people own between 50 and 75% of the land. It is impossible to be precise, as the land lords have successfully resisted a census since 1875. In Scotland, the enclosures were both more rapid and more complete than in England. Today, half of Scotland is owned by 600 people ..”[10] He argues that landowners are still a very powerful group in parliament, “Landowners have never relinquished their grip on government. .. their greatest victory this decade has been the trespass provisions of the Criminal Justice Act .. These were first proposed by the Country Landowners association in 1985, and were partly accommodated in the Public Order Act of 1986. Unappeased, the CLA continued to lobby until, eight years later, it achieved everything it had been pressing for.”[11] It has to be suggested that if it took them eight years to get a bill through parliament it doesn't exactly suggest they've got "a grip on government". He concludes, “Unless the environmental and social justice movements address the control and ownership of land, they will for ever be playing at the margins of political change.”[12] - as if the over-paid, over-privileged individuals in these groups were ever interested in anything more than playing around on the margin.

1.2: The Right to Roam.

There is a difference between the right of access and the right to roam. Some parts of the countryside have no access whatsoever. However other parts provide a right of access but no right to roam. The right of access means that people must stray from a strip of land, path, or bridleway. Whilst the public is likely to give support to a right of access they are not quite so keen on a right to roam.

Monbiot demands a right to roam, “Four per cent of England and Wales is still registered as commons, but there is a right to roam over only one-fifth of this fragmentary inheritance. In the rest of the countryside, where, from time immemorial until the 16thC, everyone had a right to wander .. we are confined to a shrinking network of public paths .. Yet this land is ours. The man who holds the deeds to a stretch of countryside has no greater moral right to that land than the man who wishes to visit it.”[13]; “A right to roam is not just a convenience for the 18 million people who visit the countryside every summer weekend. Our exclusion from rural britain is the most manifest of class barriers. When it comes to the disposal of power in britain, little has changed in 900 years.” He continues, “Britain and some of its ex-colonies are the only nations on earth where the concept of trespass is understood. We must overturn this notion and assert a right of access to all uncultivated land of the sort enshrined in law in Sweden and taken for granted elsewhere in Europe. In Brazil, the dispossessed know how to assert such rights. In some places 10,000 people at a time have invaded a stretch of land, and the government, unable to restrain them, has given them what they want”[14]

1.3: The Right to Live and Work in the Countryside.

The land is ours demands that people should not only have the right to roam the countryside but should be allowed to live and work there.

The Land is Ours.

“In the countryside we want planning presumptions allowing settlers to live on their own land and a new Caravan Sites Act, giving Gypsies and travellers a place to live.”[15]

George Monbiot.

The Right of Oomans to Exploit all the Land.

“We are challenging the Government’s whole philosophy about the pre-eminence of property rights. We want the land to be well used - for homes, small scale uses and for livelihoods. It’s our common inheritance. We want our land back, but we also want a say in the decision making process affecting it.”[16] A more pure example of oomano-imperialism it would be difficult to find.

Monbiot’s Criticisms of the Town and Countryside Divide.

Monbiot believes the national trust should help people to repopulate the countryside but suspects this is unlikely because, he believes, around 1940 it was infiltrated by the aristocracy, "Their vision of britain was a place in which the aristocracy need to be protected from intrusion by the mass, rather than the mass protected from exclusion by the aristocracy." He demands, "It (the National trust) must present a countryside in which we all have a stake."; "It (the national trust) must help to provide means by which those who want to get back in can live and work in the countryside."[17]

Monbiot’s Criticisms of John Prescott.

A few years later monbiot condemned john prescott’s attempts to reinforce the town and countryside divide through taxing new developments in the countryside, “There’s no question that prescott wants to protect the countryside and revitalize the towns. But his plans for coping with the growth in household numbers are inadequate and misconceived. Most alarming, however, is the minister’s proposed tax on new development in the countryside. Making rural land dearer will further penalize the poor. Much of the housing in the countryside is being driven by the market in second homes - an abomination in a land where so many people are homeless. .. most importantly, we must ensure that our towns and cities no longer fail to provide the development we need, while providing in abundance the kind of development that drives people into the countryside. Protecting the countryside means defending the poor.”[18] Urbanizing the countryside doesn’t mean protecting the poor. It means turning urban people into Animal exploiting, anti green, bigots just like the pharmers currently inhabiting the countryside.

1.4: The Right to Play in the Countryside.

The land is ours want to go beyond roaming, living and working, in the countryside. They want to transform the countryside into a playground.

Robin Grove-White.

Grove-white argues the countryside needs to find alternatives because large areas of land are no longer needed to produce food, "Conservation and (some) recreation activities have emerged as significant land uses in their own right." He suggests .. "there are now a growing variety as to what it (the countryside) is for. This transcends the issue of the right to roam. It can be seen in the range of non-work uses to which urban-dwellers now wish to put the countryside - not simply day visits, walks and family picnics on the fringes of farmed areas but roisterous music festivals, (which entails vast numbers of cars heading for gigs); noisy sports, (presumably dirt bike riding, motorcross rallies, mountain biking, hunting, shooting); new patterns of religious, ethnic and social gathering, of tourism (which means more roads, more car parks and more roadside cafeterias) business entrepreneurship, (with all the business infrastructure this requires) and even tribal patterns of living."[19]

Grove-white insists that opening up the countryside to new ooman developments wouldn’t jeopardize the environment, "The social and economic upheavals of the past 15 years (in the countryside) have created a chance for new human possibilities for the countryside without jeopardizing environmental gains already made."[20] But, it has to be asked, what are these environmental gains? This country's geophysiological debts have got bigger and bigger over the last 15 years. Grove-white’s argument is just a means of dismissing those who have concerns about the geophysiological impacts of his proposals. In other words, he’s talking a complete load of green crap.

PART TWO: THE DIRE IMPLICATIONS OF THE VIEWS OF THE LAND IS OURS.

2.1: The Exploitation of Livestock Animals.

The land is ours wants people to have the right to move back into the countryside in order to grow their own crops and feed themselves. To some this would entail small-scale farming, whilst to others it would mean organic or permacultural farming. All of these types of farming involves the exploitation and execution of Animals.

Simon Fairlie.

Fairlie is a prominent supporter of ‘the land belongs to oomans’ group.[21] He’s a carnivore and in his contribution to the guardian’s series of articles on the land issue has argued that people should be allowed to move back into the countryside to develop free range farming. This confirms what was suspected above - that the real role of 'the land is ours’ group is not merely to suffocate even more of the Earth’s surface in buildings and to dig up even more Wildlife habitats to feed even more oomano-imperialists, but to enable oomans to indulge in their carnivorous cravings and slaughter more and more Animals, “When Jill Delaney applied for permission to put up a shed for her free range chickens three years ago, she was rudely rebuffed. The right to put up any agricultural building is a question of wealth: it is unconditionally available only to those who own 12 acres or more, a sizeable holding by the standards of most European countries. .. a national planning policy which could hardly have been better designed to prevent peasant farming from working efficiently in Britain. The policy of zoning, which divides rural land into two distinct zones, agricultural and development .. Agricultural land is worth about £1,500 per acre while the price of development land is 50-100 times as much .. As the policy of zoning comes under scrutiny in the next few years, so there will be questions raised about the pessimistic assumptions which lie behind it: is all human development intrinsically harmful to the environment? Is it utterly impossible to establish standards whereby people can live work and build in the countryside without degrading it. Do we really need to shepherd all but an elite into suburban estates and sunrise industries so that they may amble round a spotlessly managed country park on Sundays. The answer to these questions is, of course, “no”. Recently, permission was given for a group of underground houses to be built on greenbelt land in Nottinghamshire. The project involves the planting of over 3,000 trees and the establishment of a fish-farming pond and small scale food production - and, one may imagine, a chicken-house.”[22]

George Monbiot.

It isn’t all that clear what type of farming monbiot supports in the countryside. He’s supposed to be a vegan but eats meat (but not ooman meat unfortunately), "George Monbiot .. eats meat .. He is quick to point out that, prone to being underweight, he eats meat only on the advice of his vegan sister, an alternative diet therapist. He got rid of his car four years ago - "a huge liberation"."[23]; “Credit union, LETS scheme, self-build projects, city farms and gardens, permaculture and community education ..”[24]

2.2: The Destruction of Wildlife Habitats and the Earth’s Life Support System.

The land is ours supports an invasion of the countryside which will not only exploit livestock Animals but lead to the destruction of Wildlife habitats and thus the decimation of Wildlife. The destruction of Wildlife habitats will happen in various ways.

2.2.1: The Right to Roam will Damage Wildlife Habitats.

The right to roam refers primarily not to agricultural or grazing land but to Wildlife habitats. As monbiot makes clear, "We must .. assert a right of access to all uncultivated land .." In other words, he wants access not to the vast areas of land currently being used to grow crops or graze Animals but to areas used by Wildlife. So this is what the grand project of the land is ours comes down - not overthrowing the establishment and their appalling agricultural system which is destroying the land, Animals, and the livelihoods of millions of third world peasants, but getting access to land currently being enjoyed by the tiny variety of Wildlife left in this country.

Just to make sure everyone gets the message that 'the right to roam' is a charter for bipeds to trample over any Wildlife habitat that takes their fancy monbiot argues, "The gamekeeper's penultimate resort is that we have an adequate network of footpaths, from which there's no need to stray. Regrettably, many of the most charming and intricate corners of Britain are wholly inaccessible by public footpath."[25] It has to be pointed out that these .. “most charming and intricate corners” are precisely those places where Wildlife has a good chance of surviving because of minimal interference from bipeds. The right to roam will destroy Wildlife sites and, in the future when a new geophysiological order will have to be established to prevent further climate destabilization, it will make it even more difficult to create climate Forests and ooman-free Wilderness zones which are necessary for the survival of Wildlife and which are a just reward for Wildlife because of their role in creating a habitable Planet.

Monbiot makes two responses to those who protest against the damage his policies would inflict on Wildlife. Firstly, he denies the problem exists, "There are places, like Derwentwater and Dovedale, where the pressure of numbers does damage the land, and there are others where the fauna and flora is so vulnerable that it can tolerate no intrusion, but these conditions are rare and localized. They fail to justify our exclusion from the rest of Britain."[26]

Secondly, he argues that only when people trample over Wildlife habitats will they be in a position to see the damage being done, “On the contrary, only when we can enter the countryside can we monitor and report the landlords’ daily pillage of sites special scientific interest ..”[27] Does monbiot really believe the 18 million people who visit the brutish countryside every year, especially those who plough around the countryside in their dirt bikes, four wheel drives, etc? would be interested in reporting the damage to Wildlife sites?

2.2.2: The Right to Live in the Countryside will lead to Developments that will destroy Wildlife Habitats.

The right to live in the countryside will lead to the urbanization of the countryside i.e. more roads, more schools, more houses, more factories, more shops, etc, etc, etc.. Clearly, the land is ours must be sick and tired of seeing the country’s multi-national developers and road builders being given lucrative contracts for suffocating the countryside in tarmac when they could be doing it much more cheaply and efficiently.

The argument that, “Unless the environmental and social justice movements address the control and ownership of land, they will for ever be playing at the margins of political change” is a vacuous truism. It is quite true that unless there are dramatic changes in land ownership in this country (as in all other countries around the world) then geophysiological devastation will continue but encouraging hundreds of millions of people to invade the countryside will do nothing other than boost this devastation. The only way for this country, which has enormous geophysiological debts, to help to avert a global burning disaster is by allowing huge swathes of the countryside to revert back to Forests (in order to regulate the climate) and Wilderness areas - which will indirectly help to stabilize the climate although its main role would be to ensure the survival of biodiversity.

It’s absurd that people like monbiot oppose the construction of new roads and yet at the same time promote the further development of the countryside which would make road construction unavoidable - if tarmac and wimpeys had any political sense whatsoever they should be funding the land is ours to boost their prospects of opening up the countryside. One wonders just how many people there are like him in the Earth first! movement (better called the Oomans’ First movement) who indulge in a bit of anti-roads protesting whilst at the same time insisting on the invasion of the countryside. Perhaps they suspect they’re going to feel guilty about eventually owning land in the countryside and causing the construction of new roads so they engage in a bit of anti-roads protesting to avoid the future eruption of their conscience. It can't be too long before the oomans’ first movement negotiates joint endeavours with tarmac and barratt for the building of new homes in the countryside. Such schemes have already been tried out in a number of urban areas, such as hull, where a multi-national construction company helped young homeless people build their own barratt style homes complete with the obligatory two car parking spaces per (low impact) house. If oomans first! and multinational building corporations are even more politically astute about urbanizing the countryside they'll refer to these 2 car parking spaces as children's play areas.

2.2.3: The Right to Live in the Countryside will give greater Access for Property Developers.

It will not be possible to give the public the right to build in the countryside without also doing the same for multi-national corporations.

2.2.4: The Right to Play in the Countryside will Damage Wildlife Habitats.

The Types of Playful Activities to be allowed in the Countryside.

The right to play in the countryside entails:-

Dirt Biking,
Trail Biking,
Four Wheel Driving,
Motorcross Rallies,
Cross Country adventures,
Egg Collecting,
Raves,
Shooting,
Trapping
Poaching.
Hunting.

It has been pointed out that, “Indeed, many of those who want to use the countryside more are not ramblers (but people engaged in) ballooning, rock climbing, shooting and hunting, hang-gliding, mountain biking, model aircraft flying, bird watching, riding, caving golf ..”[28]

The right to play will give dirt-bikers and 4x4 loonies the right to exercise their vehicles no matter how much damage is done to Wildlife habitats. As bruce tigwell, chairman of the all wheel drive club, has argued, "Green lanes are ancient roads which have been used by vehicles through the ages. We have a right to be on them as well as walkers, who sometimes forget that it is often 4x4 drivers who keep the lanes open."[29] It will also give millions of car and caravan owners the opportunity to wander where they like - doubtlessly leaving behind them huge quantities of consumerist detritus. All of these activities will result in damaging Wildlife habitats.

This right would not only be enjoyed by the 56 million people living in brutland. It will also allow every biped in the european community, almost 350 million of them, to wander wherever they wanted and in whatever way they wanted.

George Monbiot.

The demand for the right to roam is often presented in a way which suggests it would benefit primarily ramblers and Bird watchers thereby conjuring up quaint images of mild-mannered, nature lovers strolling gently and considerately through the countryside. But, as far as monbiot is concerned, ramblers are far from being the only people who he wants storming across the countryside .. “the 1995 DoE/Ministry of Agriculture paper must reflect post-industrial reality - where a true rural economy based on land itself has ceased to exist, where cultural relationships are now rooted in escape or informed by television. And as space becomes precious - a playground as much for trail bikers and ravers as hikers and climbers .. ”[30]

Monbiot’s support for the use of motorized transport in the countryside is a little strange given that some time ago he wrote a powerful article about the arrogance of the participants in a four wheel adventure through the amazon Rainforest and destruction they caused. So why is it unacceptable for four wheel drivers to be driven across the brazilian countryside but acceptable to do so across the brutish countryside?

2.3: The Right to Slaughter of Wildlife.

The land is ours supports the slaughter of livestock Animals and the devastation of Wildlife habitats leading to the destruction of Wildlife. It also supports the direct slaughter of Wildlife. This would happen in a number of ways.

2.3.1: The Right to Work in the Countryside requires the Killing of Wildlife to Protect Organic, Free Range, Livestock.

The inevitable consequence of the move back to the countryside and the setting up free range farming would be that nouveaux farmers would quickly realize their livestock would be vulnerable to Wildlife e.g. Chickens would be threatened by Foxes. After a few disasters in which large numbers of Chickens are torn to pieces, more and more perma-imperialists would demand that Foxes are cleared out of the area - permanently. Doubtlessly many permaculturalists would move into the countryside with pro-Animal attitudes but, as they began losing income from their exploitation of Chickens, they would gradually change their opinions and come to see ‘predator control’ as an intrinsic part of their so-called 'working harmoniously with nature'.

Charlie Pye-Smith and Chris Hall.

“We believe that the presumption in law should be that all species of mammal and bird be protected, with certain exceptions. The exceptions should include three ‘pests’ which can cause economic damage and which are common: the brown rat, the house mouse and the rabbit. However, farmers and landowners should be able to apply for permission to kill other species .. There are some animals which, both for their own sake and that of others, must periodically be culled.”[31] It is tempting to include oomans in this list especially landowners, farmers and greens - in no particular order of merit.

2.3.2: The Right to Play in the Countryside means giving Access to Poachers, Egg Collectors, Hunters, Bloodsport Enthusiasts and Animal Torturers.

Just at the time when there is a need to give more protection to the Earth and its remnants of Wildlife, along comes the land is ours giving rights to oomano-imperialists who enjoy killing Animals. The right to play will give poachers, egg collectors, hunters, and bloodsports enthusiasts even more opportunities to indulge in their sickening habits. It will enable any tom, dick, and harriet to go out into the countryside and amuse themselves by maiming, mutilating and murdering Animals.

It ought to be remembered, yet again, that this is a policy being promoted by so-called greens!!! It's just typical of the romantic do-lally thinking of the so-called green movement that so many believe that the right to roam and the right to build will not lead to an increase in either geophysiological destruction or the slaughter of Wildlife. An increasing number of people are coming around to the view that the best way to stop geophysiological destruction and the slaughter of Animals is to start exterminating members of the so-called green movement.

2.3.3: The Right to Play in the Countryside means the Invasion of Wildlife Sanctuaries and the Exploitation of Wildlife.

Monbiot believes the rights to roam/own land in the countryside are also applicable to all other countries around the world especially the third world. Virtually every country has the same land inequalities as those found in brutland. This international aspect of monbiot's arguments is important because it reinforces the case made for land redistribution in this country. Politically it is simply not possible to campaign for an end to land inequalities in other countries without doing the same in brutland - and vice versa. However, whilst in brutland there are no ooman-free Wilderness areas there are some in third world countries and the ideology of the land is ours encourages people to invade these areas just as much as they do land belonging to multinational cash crop corporations and large landowners.

Since the second world war a number of third world countries have created ooman free Wilderness areas in order to prevent the total extermination of the Wildlife in those areas. This has sometimes involved moving people out of these areas. Increasingly, however, third world governments are expropriating land from local people not in order to protect Animals but to create highly profitable safari parks for wealthy hunters from the over-industrialized world. Local/tribal people are being denied access to safari areas which they have used in the past. Monbiot insists that people should be allowed to return to their land - not only the safari parks but the ooman free Wilderness areas. He doesn’t make any distinction between the two. What is interesting about this is that monbiot goes out of his way to encourage people to invade ooman-free Wilderness areas in third world countries but does not make the same demands about the far greater areas of land being used to produce cash crops. As has been noted above, monbiot’s demands the invasion of “uncultivated land” in the countryside. He can’t demand an invasion of land belonging to multinationals and large landowners because this will require that he makes similar demands in this country which will ruin his media appeal. So, Animals have to be slaughtered just to maintain his media credibility. Third world governments have kicked people off their land in order to build hydro-electric dams, motorways, plantations, etc but monbiot makes no demands for people to invade these lands.

Monbiot turns to the masai tribe to support his case. According to monbiot the masai were forced off their land, without compensation, in order to establish a safari park. He believes the masai should be allowed to return to this land because in the past they were able to live in harmony with Wildlife, "On the whole, their impact on the game was neither lasting nor profound. Nomads lived alongside enormous numbers of wild animals for centuries."[32] In fact, community based safari parks are becoming increasingly popular and this problem is diminishing. What this means is that monbiot’s demand that people be allowed to return to their tribal lands is primarily being used not against safari parks but to open up ooman free Wilderness areas.

Monbiot blames the destruction of Wildlife and the environment in the masai mara not on ooman and livestock overpopulation but on conservationists for creating safari parks without the help of local people like the masai, "But conservation, having annexed so many of their dry-season grazing areas, has been of profound importance. This as much as any other factor has stopped the Maasai from moving between pastures, forcing them to remain in one region throughout the year. The result is that genuine overgrazing is now taking place. The parks and the reserves are becoming islands of biodiversity in a sea of degradation. As people have been alienated by conservation, they have shown few scruples in attacking animals with which they once co-existed. By comparison, the growth in human population, most commonly blamed for what is now the real degradation of the savannahs, is of limited significance. While human numbers have risen steeply, with corresponding effects on water supplies and settlement patterns, livestock numbers appear not to have done so: data from Tanzania suggests that the Maasai's animals have not increased in 25 years."[33]

This sounds reasonable but is not accurate. Firstly, the expropriation of land is being carried out not so much by conservationists but by the masai themselves. A substantial number of masai have settled down on what use to be their tribal land and are using it for agriculture denying the rest of their tribe access to this land. Thus as more and more masai are left to use smaller and smaller tribal lands this is causing considerable damage. The masai were originally a pastoral people but since they started fencing off the grasslands they have suddenly started treating Wildlife, the original inhabitants of the area, as pests needing to be exterminated.

Secondly, monbiot argues that ooman overpopulation has had no impact on environmental destruction but it is absurd to believe this is the case. It is especially the case when more and more masai have less and less land to exploit. Thirdly, monbiot believes that no ecological damage has been caused by livestock over-population but, once again, it is absurd to argue that even though livestock numbers are constant they don’t cause environmental damage. Environmental damage is bound to occur when they have less land on which to graze.

Another commentator paints an entirely different picture of the changes the masai are undergoing, “To the masai, the pastoralists .. the wild Animals are a nuisance, at best. Predators, such as male Lions too old or lazy to chase an impala, occasionally attack Cattle and, less frequently, their keepers. The annual migration (of Wildebeests) is one of nature’s great spectacles .. but to the masai it is a disaster. (So much for their renowned ability to live in harmony with nature - a natural phenomena that has been happening for the last tens of thousands of years! The pastoralists can’t move away because they are fenced in by the masai mara reserve to the south and farmland to the north). Recently many more (masai), lured by the promise of greater income, have taken an even more drastic step: planting crops on their land and fencing it off. The masai once roamed across some of the choicest rangeland in western and central kenya .. The traditional masai way of life poses few obstacles to the Wildlife. As nomadic pastoralists, they eschew fences .. and rarely kill game for meat .. Yet the pressures on the masai are largely self generated. Some 300,000 masai now live in kenya, and their population is swelling at nearly the national rate of 4% a year. (This is becoming unsustainable and so some masai are going to live and work in the towns). More significant, as far as the wildlife is concerned, is the growing number of masai who are abandoning pastoralism for farming. Masai (in mara) generally lease their land to non-masai farmers rather than cultivating it themselves. The more prosperous masai landowners live not in the mud huts that tourists find so picturesque but in big ranch style houses surrounded by four wheel drive vehicles. Iowa comes to mind. “Most people think the masai like striding across the plains, playing the noble savage,” says allan earnshaw of ker and downey safaris ltd, “but they’d rather drive a land cruiser just like the rest of us”. The government has sought to induce the masai to keep their land open to Wildlife by giving them an even greater share of the benefits from tourism. The (masai) councils have used funds from tourism to dig wells and establish Cattle inoculation programs; the funds also help to build schools, medical facilities and roads. The (Kenyan) Wildlife department has begun providing funds generated by tourism not only to the councils but also to so-called group ranches, formed by families of masai who share a common grazing area. Now some of these ranches are subdividing their land still further - into lots as small as five acres - and distributing it to individuals. Eventually, all of masailand may be parcelled into individual lots .. At that point the councils may no longer have any political power and the masai may have no unified voice.”[34]

Monbiot argues that tribalism is essential to masai identity, "The land and the traditional way of using it are not just a means of survival; they are the very basis of the Maasai's identity."[35] The fact is that many of them have recognized that because ooman numbers are exploding, tribalism is no longer viable and have started expropriating land in order to become consumers in the capitalist world, “The more prosperous masai landowners live not in the mud huts that tourists find so picturesque but in big ranch style houses surrounded by four wheel drive vehicles.”[36]

Monbiot is right to berate those authorities who have created Wildlife sanctuaries without adequate compensation for those who used to use the land. Some people have been shabbily treated. But in many cases, tribalists have not been moved off the land, as if they were rooted to a particular piece of land. Tribalists wander over large areas and, in many cases, they have just been prevented from using the entirety of their tribal lands. But this loss of land was going to happen anyway given the continuing rise in ooman numbers. It is no longer possible to allow tribalists the right to lay claim to vast tracts of land most of which they would visit only once every decade. The fact is that the Earth is over-populated. The days when tribalists could claim possession over vast tracts of land is over.

It should also be pointed out that it is not true that tribalists have lived in harmony with Wildlife. This is just the propaganda of green oomano-imperialists. Tribalists have always slaughtered and killed Animals. Slaughtering Wildlife cannot be regarded as living in harmony with Wildlife - nobody in their right mind says “we live in harmony with our neighbours so now we’re just going to slaughter them.” Whilst it may have been true that tribalists have had a small impact on Wildlife in the past this is no longer true as the population of tribal capitalists has sky-rocketed.

One thing’s for sure, if oomans don’t get rid of the Animal exploitation industry they’ll never survive on Earth and this is a lesson that monbiot will never learn because his loyalty is to the privileged species on Earth and not to the Earth itself. First of all he encourages settlers to take over Wildlife habitats, then he’s encouraging city farms where, presumably, urbanites can gather during the throat slitting ceremonies. Perhaps monbiot could invite his green aristocratic chum, charles windsor, to do the dirty deed. If charles can blast the shit out of Animals from fifty yards there isn’t much doubt that he’d be willing to wield a knife or wring necks.

2.4: The Right to Free Land.

The land is ours demands that people should occupy land for free, “In the countryside we want planning presumptions allowing settlers to live on their own land and a new caravan sites act, giving gypsies and travellers a place to live.”[37]

2.5: The Right of Oomans to Occupy all Land.

The land is ours believes that oomans are entitled to occupy all land around the world no matter how detrimental this might be for geophysiological stability and Wildlife survival.

PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS.

3.1: The Latest Brand of Green Oomano-Imperialism.

The philosophical assumption behind the demand for land redistribution is that all land belongs to oomans - quite literally, ‘the land is ours’. This implies that oomans are the masters of the Earth and that they are entitled to turf out its present occupants i.e. Wildlife - whilst, of course, pretending that the only reason they are going back to the countryside is to boost Biodiversity. Monbiot is a prime example of a so-called green using green politics to wreck the Earth's life support system. The land is ours is nothing less than the latest brand of oomano-imperialism intent on wrecking more Wildlife habitats. Monbiot might see himself as a social reformer romantically standing in a long historical line of rebels dating back to gerrard winstanley but in reality he’s just the latest oomano-imperiali - an over-paid, over-privileged, yuppie, Earth-rapist posing as a green. It’s beyond belief that greens could be so naive as to fail to appreciate that a 'green' occupation of the countryside could be anything other than a forerunner for the full scale exploitation of the countryside by property developers. 

3.2: The Brutish version of American Wise-Use Groups.

The wise-use groups in america are often called multi-use groups because they want Wilderness areas open to all forms of exploitation whether from the mining industry, dirt bikers, hunters, four wheel drivers, cross-country rally driving, etc., "Far more militant than the roundtable is a growing anti-environmental group called the Wise Use movement, a loosely linked organization including among others, loggers, fishermen, farmers, bikers, and snowmobilers, as well as Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Among its goals as laid out in The Wise Use Agenda .. (is) .. to expand concessions in national parks to be run by private firms like the Walt Disney Company, which are expert in "people moving" .."[38] Hardly surprising then that these groups are funded by some of the world’s biggest Earth rapists, “The groups supporting Wise Use organizations include Exxon USA, the national Cattleman’s Association, the motorcycle industry Council, Chevron USA, Kawasaki, Yamaha ...”[39]

3.3: No Environmental Impact Statement.

Like so many others in the so-called green movement, monbiot seems to be all too eager to extol fine sounding policies which have not been geophysiologically costed. This is primarily because his policies will boost geophysiological destruction so he has to divert attention away from demands that he ought to geophysiologically cost his policies. He has totally failed to indicate how land redistribution is going to help this country balance its Carbon budget and thus play its part in global efforts to prevent a global burning disaster. He does not indicate how much of the country should be Reforested. He says nothing about the creation of Wilderness areas - besides the usual condescending crap emanting from well meaning permacultural imperialists, ‘Yes of course we love Wildlife and look after Wild Animals - why we've even created a Wilderness area .. it's down the bottom of the garden next to the compost heap’.

3.4: The Latest Green Animal Exploiters.

The land is ours poses a considerable threat to what is left of the Wildlife in this country and around the world. It is not Animal friendly as should be obvious from the support they give to the redneck brigade of dirt bikers, four wheel drivers, poachers, blood sports enthusiasts, etc. It is time the threat they pose to Wildlife and Wildlife habitats was recognized.

3.5: Political Retreatism.

It really is quite amazing that greens started heading back into the countryside in 1995, the year when the first hole in the ozone layer appeared over the Arctic and when, amongst other climatic disasters, “Three entire ice shelves have disintegrated over the past few years, the Antarctic summer has grown dramatically longer, an important glacier is dissolving into the sea three times faster than had been thought, and part of the white continent is turning green as flowers and grasses spread rapidly over it. ..The Prince Gustav Channel Ice shelf and the northern Larsen ice shelf, both of which had appeared healthy in January, were breaking up. (Icebergs have always broken away) But the disintegration of entire ice shelves is much more extraordinary.”[40] Instead of confronting this geophysiological breakdown, greens are intent on making it worse. What do they think they're going to do once they’ve built their political retreats in the countryside? Build glass domes to keep out ultraviolet light? Build huge moats to divert stray icebergs?

One of the ironies of 'the land is ours' photo opportunity at wisley aerodrome was that whilst a number of oxford's green radicals went trooping off to bask in the media spotlight, oxford city council decided to sell off some of its allotments in littlemore for development.[41] If livestock consumers are supposed to be so intent on moving back into the countryside it seems a little odd that there are so many redundant allotments in oxford - just as there are in most other cities around the country. If 'the land is ours' wants a place in which they can grow cabbages then why don’t they use their local allotments - perhaps they don’t like the poisons from all the cars in the city? But instead of fighting for a ban on cars it seems they’d rather just leave the cities altogether.

The campaigns of so-called greens such as 'green anarchist', the green party, organic farmers, permaculturalists and, most recently, 'the land is ours', ‘do or die’, ‘Earth First uk’, tribalists and primitivists, to urbanize the countryside is basically a retreat from urban politics. It is like an admission of defeat that they cannot green the cities. It is as if they believe the only option left to them is to run away from urban problems and start again in the countryside. But if greens haven’t been able to green the cities why should they be trusted to green the countryside? This is especially true when most anarcho/hippy/primitivist/tribalist/erff first!ers haven’t got the slightest experience of participating in democratic decisions made by local communities. The reason greens have failed to exert much influence in urban communities is not solely because they spend their time down the local boozer getting drunk on tory beer (guiness!!!), but because they aren’t defending or promoting the interests of urban greens.

It is imperative to oppose any invasion of the countryside until greens have proven themselves capable of living a green lifestyle by transforming urban areas. Until the so-called greens have transformed urban areas they shouldn’t be let anywhere near to the countryside.

3.6: Green Radicals being persuaded by the Green Aristocracy to Return to Medieval Serfdom.

One of the most remarkable features of the land is ours is that it is led by green aristocrats who want green radicals and the urban unemployed, most of whom enjoy their urban lifestyle, to go back to the land to engage in the back-breaking, bone-crunching, mind numbing, toil of peasant life. It’s almost as if the green aristocrats are trying to create a green peasant class over which it can rule like their forebears. They seem to believe the only problem with the medievalism of the middle ages was that it didn’t last - it wasn’t ‘sustainable’ to use the modern lingo. So what they promise now is sustainable medievalism.

The titular head of the aristocratic greens is, of course, charles windsor. Behind him is his adviser and chum, lord jonathon porritt. Behind porritt are greens such as lord peter melchett of greenpeace, george monbiot, oliver tickell, simon fairlie, the editors of the ecologist, jonathon dimbleby, mark purdey, etc. The aristocratic greens, or supergreens, are people who learnt their green politics in the 1960s and 1970s when climate issues were rarely even conceived, let alone mentioned, and when geophysiology was just a twinkle in james lovelock’s eye. Their primary hatred is for the chemical industrial and the industrialization of the countryside. These greens are environmentalists, or at best ecologists, who understand local ecologies but know very little about geophysiology, the Earth’s life support system.

Most of the aristocratic greens who support small scale organic farming have never done a days work on a farm in their lives - the exceptions being simon fairlie and mark purdey. It is difficult imagining the rest of them ever picking up a spade and tending to their cabbage patches. Charles windsor is rarely photographed digging up his allotment because he’s either off on holiday or corrupting his children into the arts of blasting Animals to death. When aristocratic greens have had a few decades’ experience of the back breaking toil of turning over the soil, pulling up weeds and planting seeds, it might possible to take them a little more seriously. It is amazing that they have the gall to go around demanding that urban people should take up this boring, bleak and backbreaking way of life when they’ve never done anything like it in their lives and, seemingly, have no intention of doing it. This is reminiscent of those academic left wing wadicals in the 1970s and 1980s who extolled workers’ virtues without ever going anywhere near a factory themselves. As far as they were concerned, working in factories is good for other people - not them. They’re much too good to work in such places although they would never say such a thing in public. Personally, i have no intention of demanding that everyone ought to become peasants when it’s the last job i would ever want to do. I also have no intention of going back to the land whilst supergreens like windsor, goldsmith, porritt, monbiot, and papworth, are jetting around the world living in luxury hotels before getting into four wheel drives to visit the latest site of cutting edge localism. I ain’t working on the land until i see them sweating, sunburnt, and grimy from years of toil in the soil. The gall of these supergreens is appalling, “I’ve actually heard western enviros who themselves take meals in air-conditioned restaurants going on about how third world farmers should not be given tractors because ox-drawn plows are more ecologically transparent.”[42]The sooner the peasants in the 'back to the land' movement discover that being close to the soil is a modern form of serfdom the better. The only hope is that the urban masses are so content with their life in the inner cities they’ll resist all attempts to “drive” (monbiot) them into the countryside.

3.7: Comprehensive Land Reform for Wildlife, the Earth and the Climate but not just for Oomans

Unless there are dramatic changes in land ownership in all countries around the world then there will be a climatic disaster but encouraging hundreds of millions of people around the world to invade the countryside is only going to hasten this climatic disaster. The only way to avert a global burning disaster is if each country balances its Carbon budget by creating climate Forests (to regulate the climate), regional Wood economies and ooman-free Wilderness areas.

This work is not opposed to land redistribution. But, it is opposed to piecemeal and unrestrained land redistribution which does not take into account geophysiological factors. Land redistribution in both the over-industrialized countries and the disintegrating/industrializing countries must be carried out within the framework of a global agreement on global burning and the creation of a sustainable Planet or else the Earth’s life support system for oomans will eventually collapse. This means there must be a comprehensive redistribution of land not only for the landless but for Wildlife (in the form of ooman free Wilderness areas) and for the Forests needed to combat global warming.[43] Land redistribution for the Earth is just as vital as land redistribution for oomans.

3.8: The Big Bang Solution.

Many green organizations like the land is ours (and the world Rainforest movement) promote policies for the redistribution of land but not policies for combating global burning. And yet campaigning about global burning would, if successful, have beneficial consequences for issues such as landlessness, global inequalities between rich and poor countries, third world debts and global poverty. This is because the policies to counter global burning necessitate the abolition of landlessness, global inequalities, third world debts, and global poverty, as well as the fivefold overpopulation of cars, kids, cattle, capita and carnage. It is a waste of valuable time and effort for political campaigners to try to solve each of these issues separately, one by one, when action against global burning would require a solution to all of them at the same time. The danger of pursuing each issue separately is that campaigners may make demands which would overstep the Earth’s geophysiological limits thereby boosting global burning whereas this would not be possible if global burning was the primary policy. Only a global burning campaign is capable of solving both land redistribution and global justice whilst protecting the Earth.

The question of who owns the land is secondary to the question of how much land around the Earth is devoted to oomans and how much is devoted to the Earth and Wildlife. What is more, no matter how important the question of who owns the land might be it will always be secondary to what happens to the land under ooman occupation.

3.9: No Defence of the Indefensible.

These criticisms of the land is ours shouldn’t be taken as a defence of the current state of the brutish countryside. The pharmers around the world are responsible for most of the geophysiological damage inflicted on the Earth’s life support system. But even if we put aside the desire for revenge against pharmers, i.e. banning pharmers from the countryside because of all the damage they have done, the fact is that many pharmers are going to have to give up their land in order to allow large scale Reforestation to counter global burning and to provide habitats for the Animals protecting the Earth’s life support system. It is imperative that a third of the country should be turned over to ooman free Wilderness areas, another third should be designated as climate Forests, and the other third used as regional Wood economies.

3.10: Future Options in Tribalism.

Although one day in the green future the majority of oomans might want to return to a more rural way of life, at the moment it would be utter folly to promote the urbanization of the countryside when the global population is nearing 6 billion and heading in the direction of 10-12 billion. Any movement back into the countryside by vast numbers of city dwellers would be a disaster for what is left of the Earth’s Wildlife habitats and for geophysiological stability.[44] Only when a sustainable Planet has been created and ooman numbers reduced dramatically, would it be geophysiologically safe for people to create a more rural way of life.[45] Permaculture is vital because it enables urbanites to grow enough food to sustain their existence in urban areas. This would ensure the viability of cities whilst the Earth’s life support system is restored.[46]

3.11: The Economic Costs of going back to the Countryside are High.

Some of the activists in the land is ours seem to hope that one day they’ll be able to grab some free land (usually in some idyllic setting such as a nature reserve) and then gain recognition as permacultural/organic farmers in order to receive lavish subsidies from the common agricultural policy. What a life this would be, away from the oomanojunk race, a lovely quiet place in the countryside where they would be legally entitled to do what they wanted on the land and where they would receive lavish subsidies for doing nothing - all without having to pay any rates or having to sign on every fortnight. The one thing about hippies in the sixties was that at least they engaged in politics without hope of getting any rewards whereas the activists in ‘the land is ours’ are in grave danger of promoting policies from which they would stand to gain personally. If people suspect that the high principles and nobility of the land is ours is just a tactic for getting free land and lavish, lifelong, pharming subsidies, they are going to become very disenchanted with green politics.

What those in the land is ours don’t seem to appreciate is that there is not the slightest prospect of people being allowed to move back into the countryside precisely because the financial benefits of living in the countryside are so substantial. Because pharmers enjoy such a huge range of financial, and political, privileges no government could afford to extend these privileges to any substantial numbers of people. The brutish government will never allow a rejuvenation of small holdings into the countryside because this would mean even more people not paying local rates or sewerage/water rates. Unless farmers start paying taxes on their land then the masses will never be allowed back in.