PART FOUR: THE LAND IS OURS’ ACTIONS

The land is ours has been engaged in a number of direct action protest campaigns.

St George’s Hill.

The first campaign was at st george’s hill, “The campaign began on april 23rd 1995 with the week-long occupation of a disused airfield, 30 acres of set aside and a copse three miles to the south of st george’s hill, near weybridge, surrey. It was on st george’s hill that the diggers launched their famous rising of 1649, calling for an end to enclosure and access to the land for all the people of england. We held onto the land and demonstrated just how much could be achieved on an unused plot in one week. Most importantly, we succeeded in stimulating debate and raising people’s consciousness of their exclusion from our most fundamental resource. The press response was huge and almost universally favourable.”[1]

Magdalen College Deer Park.

Oxford green party activists and members of the land is ours want to live in harmony with local Wildlife by opening up the city’s Deer park to the public. One wonders how long the Deer would last in the presence of so many carnivores but this doesn’t matter to those who support the twaddle of living in harmony with nature .. “Green party activist elise benjamin of east oxford is already planning to occupy oxford’s magdalen college deer park to test the response of both councils (to the land is ours campaign). Historically the park was common land but the college has constructed a moat to protect it from townspeople.”[2] This is not quite accurate. The moat was constructed to protect the Deer from carnivores. Well done magdalen college. The mundi club’s canine members will soon be going down to elise benjamin’s home in order to occupy it under the slogan of ‘living in harmony with the eco-nazis’.

Wandsworth/Guiness.

The Squat.

While the world’s multinational corporations were gathered together to create a global free market system ignoring all environmental afctors, many radicals in brutland decided to stage their next protest against land inequalities by occupying land owned by guiness in wandsworth. They built a temporary campsite before eventually being turned off by the police.

The Dilemmas.

The land is ours had a lot of trouble in their tempo-perma-paradise because a number of people .. “the drunk, the drugged and the deranged” as monbiot called them, joined the campsite even though they had no interest in green politics or the philosophy of land redistribution. According to john vidal there were three groups at wandsworth - back to the landers who wished to set an example of what could be achieved; green activists passing through on their way to the next demo; and then the detritus from the mentally unstable, to drunkards, drug addicts, and others - “There was a known paedophile on site at one point”. This group created some very unpleasant incidents. “One woman regularly tried to cut herself up. Someone else tried to kiss this girl and he started pointing a gun,” one of the women recalled.” Some of the women activists felt vulnerable.

The political activists on the campsite were having to learn how to become care workers, “We are having to spend more and more time looking after people.” said one. More crucially, it raised the question of whether there should be limits as to who should be allowed to live on the campsite. Even some of the anarchists began mulling over the idea of chucking the violent riff-raff off the site for causing such disruption and danger. On the one hand, there were the tribalists who believed anyone should be allowed to come and go as they wished and, on the other hand, there were communitarians who wanted restrictions on those allowed onto the site. Underlying these differences were different concepts of property. The tribalists opposed not only private property but community property. After all, if the land belongs to everyone then anyone should be allowed to go where and when they want. The communitarians wanted to protect community property.

Monbiot supported the idea of community property, “The most critical decisions - about what behaviour is tolerated and whose actions merit expulsion - were fudged. A site which imposes no conditions of entry is open to as many conflicting world views as it is to different sorts of people. .. open access precludes a community of interest. There can be no community without a commons - the property in which the community exercises shared rights. Its ownership immediately establishes both common interest and mutual restraint .. In the absence of a common property regime, the tragedy of open access - perversely misnamed, the tragedy of the commons by garrett hardin - inevitably will unfold. Next time we must define the limits of exploitation our social commons can support. We must learn to recognize and punish overuse and persuade other communities of interest to clear off and find their own spatial and political commons. It’s a harsh, hard-headed, illiberal idea, .. We can only guess at what we might achieve, once we know who we are. ”[3]

The social problems and the political differences they created between activists became so grave that the occupation had almost fallen apart by the time the police carried out the eviction. There was no wanstead defence of wandsworth.

So what we have here then is a group which takes over some land and is then forced to start thinking about excluding everyone else from it. The land is ours but apparently not yours or yours or yours. The land is ours had been set up to confront private property and yet here they were in the real world being confronted by property rights’ issues of their own. Whatever next - strict immigration policies? Well let’s hope so.

If the campsite had continued and they’d decided to establish a community interest, the next dollop of reality they would have had to confront would have been who is going to decide which communities are going to own what land? Monbiot dismisses the problem, “We must learn to .. persuade other communities of interest to clear off and find their own spatial and political commons.” If there were millions of people wanting to obtain some land, demanding that they just grab what they want would be a disaster. Beyond this issue it would have to be decided how much land should be put aside for Wildlife and how much land should be put aside for the stabilization of the Earth’s climate. Building sandcastles on the beach is easy, knowing when the tide comes in takes a bit more thought and organization. What this occupation shows is that there is no way of solving global climatic problems from the bottom up.

There are those who looked upon the demonstration as a means of obtaining publicity for their cause. In the end many of the activists must have learnt more than they might have expected. Perhaps they should have been a little more modest and looked upon it as an experiment to see whether it was possible to build a green planet from the ground up.

One of the ironies of this protest becoming bogged down in social issues is that it reinforces a point made by dave foreman in his criticisms of the social ecologists, ecological-socialists, and other lefty socio-ecos. He pointed out that it was simply not possible to solve every social crisis (and thus every ooman problem) before getting around to saving Wildlife and Wilderness areas.

The betting is that whilst drunks, psychopaths, paedophiles, etc were allowed on the campsite Dogs were not - and the land is ours is supposed to ‘live in harmony with nature’.

Living in Harmony with Wildlife - but not Dogs.

“Mass trespass in commemmoration of the diggers. Meeting saturday, 12 midday for mass trespass to mystery site (no Dogs).”[4] Could you trust people who don’t even want Dogs on their protests to live in harmony with nature? Absurd.

Parliamentary Bill.

Monbiot exploited his establishment connections to promote a right to roam bill through parliament. One minute he’s on a squat and the next he’s squatting amongst the vermin in the house of lords.

Individual Actions.

Wild Owl

“An eccentric eco-warrior is facing eviction from his makeshift home in a field of brambles by an oxford college. For a year, the 30 year old known as wild owl, has been living in a hut he created using recycled materials. But now merton college, which owns the land where the hut stands behind st cross church yard wants the green campaigner removed. Wild owl, who makes a living by recycling waste, said: “I want to fight land issues. I would like to see it as common land for the people. There’s not much common land in oxford.”[5]

FEATURES

This article was first printed in terra firm 13.

A Summary of the Inexorable Logic of the Land is Ours.

There are many people who may be attracted to the ‘the land is ours’ because of organic farming. Firstly, because they prefer that Animals should have the freedom to roam (the back garden) rather than being confined in factory pharms and, secondly, because they prefer to eat meat free of all additives, preservatives, and chemicals rather than doped up, genetically modified, toxic, meat. But anyone falling for the allure of ‘the land is ours’ will rapidly find themselves hurtling down a helter scelter of Animal slaughter.

‘The land is ours’ promotes chemical-free organic crops. But, in order to protect these crops, organic pharmers kill off pests such as .. “the brown rat, the house mouse and the rabbit.”[6] Also Deer and Birds such as the Wood Pigeon.

‘The land is ours’ promotes organic livestock farming involving the exploitation and execution of livestock Animals.

In order to protect livestock Animals, organic farmers have to exterminate even more Wildlife e.g. Foxes, Rats, Stoats, Weasels, Mink, etc.

They also have to exterminate all Wildlife which might carry diseases that pose a health threat to livestock Animals - this is especially the case since they do not use modern chemicals or antibiotics to protect their Animals’ health. At the very least this means the slaughter of Rats, Mice, Badgers, etc.

‘The land is ours’ promotes organic farming even though this involves the extensification of livestock farming which will devastate even more Wildlife habitats than conventional livestock rearing.

‘The land is ours’ believes that if organic farmers are justified in killing livestock Animals for resources/food then they are also justified in supporting hunting, shooting and fishing i.e. the killing game Animals such as Grouse, Deer, etc.

Because ‘the land is ours’ supports hunting, shooting and fishing it has to exterminate the Wildlife species predating on game Animals.
* in the case of fishing this requires the extermination of Pike;
* in the case of Grouse shooting it requires the killing of birds of prey, “Peregrine, buzzard, golden eagle and other hawks and owls are still shot and poisoned on gaming estates, even though they are protected by law. .. other ‘vermin’ which are killed for the sake of the shoot: stoats, weasels, jays, magpies, crows, pigeons, rats, adders ..”[7]

‘The land is ours’ believes that if organic farmers are justified in killing livestock, game Animals, and pests (although apparently not the biped types of pests) then it must also be legitimate to raise and kill Animals for fur.

In many countries around the world Wildlife sanctuaries have been set up to try and prevent poachers and local people from exterminating rare Animals. However, ‘the land is ours’ is one of the leading propaganda organizations encouraging local people to invade Wildlife sanctuaries to graze livestock or exploit the Wildlife. After all, since ‘the land is ours’ supports the exploitation of livestock and Wildlife in this country they must also support it in other countries. This means allowing rich hunters to shoot Elephants and Tigers. This also requires supporting the trade in ivory, fur, the use of Tiger bones in medicines, etc. This, in turn, legitimizes Whale hunting by norwegians, japanese and other tribalist nations. In total, the total resumption of trade in Animals.

The greens in ‘the land is ours’ are nauseating hypocrites. They argue for oomans’ right to roam but not for Animals’ right to roam. The fact that they want the right to roam for oomans but not Animals proves they are oomano-imperialists. They believe in the idea of living harmoniously with Wildlife but while they insist that oomans should be allowed to invade Wildlife parks to use its resources, they complain when Wildlife eats or tramples over their crops. They won’t reciprocate with Wildlife. As far as the land is ours is concerned there is one law for oomans who can roam and live anywhere on Earth, whilst Wildlife have got to be penned into smaller and smaller areas where their survival becomes ever more precarious. It’s a strange sort of harmony when you execute the creature you are supposed to be living in harmony with. The land is ours complains that Animals numbers are increasing and that culls are necessary but they say nothing about the huge increase in ooman numbers which is helping to cause the invasion of Wilderness areas. Is it surprising that goldsmith refuses to believe that ooman overpopulation is a problem when he’s got five kids?

The supporters of ‘the land is ours’ like simon fairlie, oliver tickell, george monbiot, edward goldsmith, charles windsor, etc are green Earth rapists and Animal exploiters. No wonder the green movement is in such a mess. With shits like these around it's almost impossible to develop any links between the green, and the Animal rights, movement.

Green oomano-imperialists campaigning to Wreck the Earth

Following in the footsteps of that arch environmentalist, nicholas ridley, who aimed to abolish local government and local government structure plans so that anyone, and everyone, could build whatever they wanted, where-ever they wanted, in the countryside (except in his back-garden), we now have george monbiot championing the green invasion of the countryside, the green belt, areas of scientific interest and Wilderness areas.

The land is ours is campaigning on behalf of the following groups of Earth-rapists:

Ramblers

who want to trample over ecologically sensitive Wilderness sites;

Dirt Bikers and 4 wheel drive Loonies

who want to tear across Wildlife habitats - after all: if ramblers are given access to ecologically sensitive sites then why shouldn't they have access too?;

Poachers, Bloodsports Enthusiasts, Egg Collectors, and Animal Torturers.

who welcome further access to the countryside where they can indulge their perversions - rumour has it that large numbers of bloodsports enthusiasts have joined 'the land (and the Animals) are ours';

Property Developers -

who are hoping to benefit from the opening up of the countryside; and,

Tribalists -

who want to take over Wildlife sanctuaries so they and their offspring can live in harmony with the Earth's most ferocious predators such as Wolves, Lions, and Bears;

Organic Farmers

who need huge areas of land in oreder to carry out extensive livestock rearing.

LAND REDISTRIBUTION IS ESSENTIAL BUT GIVING MORE RIGHTS TO EARTH-RAPISTS AND ANIMAL EXPLOITERS IS WRONG.

Press Release: ‘The Land is Ours’ is Broadening its Support Base

The land is ours believes the only way we can win popular support for our invasion of the countryside is by widening our appeal to all those groups which could benefit from greater access to the countryside. Leaders of the ‘land is ours’ are currently in negotiations with a range of groups to create a slew of new rights for oomano-imperialists:-

The Right to Ride wherever we Want.

The right of dirt bikers to ride where-ever they want.

The Right to Drive wherever we Want.

The right of four-wheel drive promoters to drive wherever they want.

The Right to Fish wherever we Want.

Fishermen, long annoyed with the restrictions imposed upon them by the european community which foolishly and needlessly demands a 30% cut in total Fish catches to prevent the extermination of Fish species, are launching up a 'Right to Fish' campaign so that they can Fish when and where they like.

The Right to Farm wherever we Want.

Permaculturalists are clamouring to be given the right to set up dirty old sheds in nature reserves so that they can live in harmony with Wildlife - except Dogs.

The Right to create Energy wherever we Want.

A number of green power industries have expressed an interest in constructing wind pharms and Animal manure power stations in the countryside.

The Right to Develop wherever we Want.

Multi-national corporations want to build a range of energy efficient, affordable, housing projects on the country’s green belt in order to green the countryside. A spokesperson for the developers said that no green belt could be truly green unless it was covered with energy efficient, loft insulated, cavity wall filled, triple glazed, housing estates.

The Right to Kill whatever Wildlife we Want.

The land is ours supports hunters’ ‘right to kill’ campaign.

The Right to Party wherever we Want.

The land is ours supports the thousands of drugged up ravers who truck around the countryside looking for nature reserves on which they can hold all night raves.