The Green Invaders: The Greens who support the Devastation of the Countryside and its Wildlife

This work is a companion to terra firm 13 'The Rural Exploitation of Urban People'. Whilst that work explored the case for and against the movement of people into the countryside, this work highlights the views of various commentators and green organizations on this issue. This work is also a companion to special publications no.16 'A Geocentric Critique of Tribalism' for similar reasons. Whilst sp16 provides an analysis of tribalism this work, once again, just outlines the views of various commentators on this issue.

This work outlines the views of greens aiming to urbanize the countryside. It is perverse that greens, who are supposed to be fighting for the greening of the Earth, are promoting policies to cover even more of the Earth in concrete and sement. Why is it that greens, most of whom live in urban areas, wish to desert the cities in order to live in an anarcho/hippy/tribo/perma-paradise in the countryside? Perhaps the reason for this bizarre stance is that they are so urbanized they can't envisage anything else but extending the benefits of city life to rural areas. Perhaps they can't stand the idea of going to the countryside without being plagued by the noise, smells and poisons of motorized transport.

PART ONE: THE GREENS SUPPORTING THE INVASION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE.

It might come as something of a shock to people outside the green movement who believe that greens support the greening of the Earth, but there are many so-called greens whose objective is the exact opposite. Tony wrench is one of these inappropriately named 'greens'. He's highly critical of the ecological damage caused by modern industrial pharming. He's also critical of the ecological sterility of many of brutland's green belt areas/countryside parks. He also finds it objectionable that whilst millions of people living in brutish cities are unemployed, large stretches of the countryside lie idle. For wrench the answer to all of these problems is to allow the unemployed to move into the countryside to grow their own food. This will lead to the abolition of prairie pharming, create jobs for the unemployed (and thus solve all the social problems caused by unemployment) as well as green the land.

Wrench objects to planning laws preventing him from pharming in the countryside, "I am deeply concerned about the way our society is relating to the Earth, and am continually baffled by the obstacles that prevent me simply doing what my grandfather did - build a wooden house in the countryside." [1] He persuaded the green party to adopt a new category of land use, called permaculture land, "This is land used for permaculture - sustainable self reliant agriculture and horticulture in which work, house building, leisure, growing food, rearing Animals (sic - murdering Animals), education, renewable energy, recycling and nature conservation are integrated in an infinite number of ways." [2] What he envisages is not merely a small number of highly committed permaculturalists moving into a few wooden sheds in the countryside but masses of unemployed people creating large numbers of rural villages, "The knowledge now exists for new settlements to be designed along permaculture lines in which people would feel fulfilled; find a new sense of purpose; develop new skills; design and build energy efficient natural homes; and grow and eat good organic food. These settlements would also provide habitats for a greater variety of Plants and Animals than was there before - both wild and domesticated - whether the site was a quarry, an airstrip, a piece of city waste land or a farm." [3]

Although wrench seems confident his green flavoured expropriation of the countryside would produce a biodiversity extravaganza, he shows some signs of realizing it could go wrong. He demands a contract is drawn up between those allowed back into the countryside and the local authorities designating permacultural land, "The essence of permacultural land would be that there is a contractual relationship between the owner and the local/national authorities. This states, basically:

'I will buy and live on just this piece of land.

I will not buy several plots and speculate. I will not let it out.

I will conserve energy and nature. I will plant over 20 Trees per acre.

I will co-operate with my neighbour over transport, infrastructure, power generation, waste disposal, water harvesting and supply and common land.

Whilst wrench is right in his criticisms of both modern pharming and the sterility of some of the country's nature conservation areas, this contract is so much like a colander it isn't worthwhile doing anything more than point out its most blatant leaks. The creation of perma-imperialist settlements will boost geophysiological destruction and increase Animal exploitation. The following sections explore these issues.

It is absurd to believe that most people, even permaculturalists, will confine themselves to a single piece of land. There is nothing to stop them from having a large family. When each child grows up they will expect to be given land of their own on which to bring up their own family. By focusing on the image of his grandfather, a seemingly lone individual, wrench evades the problems generated by families, especially large families. In addition, some of the permaculturalists who settle in the countryside would doubtlessly find themselves in financial problems just like anyone else and could be forced to sell some of their land to a property developer in order to survive.

Wrench emphasizes the limits to the infrastructure of his proposed permacultural settlements - "i will do without additional connections to mains water, electricity, sewerage or road system." Doubtlessly a dedicated band of permaculturalists/organic farmers could limit themselves in the way he envisages but for those who are not so dedicated to the green cause there are likely to be demands for all sorts of developments:

* new roads and petrol filling stations

* schools (a community school of course), community centres, theatres, medical facilities, pubs, grocers, market, shops, post offices, etc.

* each public facility will doubtlessly have to have its own car park because the distance between these facilities and the surrounding permacultural homesteads would probably be too great to walk - mothers/fathers won't be able to walk home carrying their sprogs and their shopping.

* Power generation will cause even more ecological damage in the form of wind parks, solar parks, small scale hydro-electric schemes, etc.

* The water supply and sewage disposal infrastructure will alter natural drainage systems and thereby damage Wildlife habitats. The construction of water reservoirs, water treatment works, water pumping stations and the laying of a network of drains will all have an ecological impact.

Wrench proposes that those moving into the countryside would have to promise not to get connected to mains water, electricity, sewerage or road system. This is an important contractual clause which would considerably reduce some of the ecological damage that would occur without such limits. [5] But this creates a political problem. The more stringent the implementation of this clause the less ecological damage there will be, but the less attractive will it be to live in the countryside. These restrictions would make it far less likely that millions of people would want to move into the countryside. However, if huge numbers did so it is highly likely that, eventually, they would insist on having more modern conveniences of life. Whilst wrench's clause is a valiant effort to ensure that permacultural expansionism doesn't cause ecological damage, it has to be suggested that it wouldn't be worth the paper its written on.

Permaculturalists/organic farmers would displace Wildlife in favour of livestock Animals.

The increase in road traffic brought about by permacultural settlements would lead to more roads, more cars and more Animals being killed by cars.

Many of the unemployed urbanites who moved back into the countryside would develop a taste for bloodsports. In general, ruralites are surrounded by Animals and are brought up on diet of Animal cruelty. The perverts who defend Stags being hunted down and torn to pieces by packs of Dogs may argue that Stags love being chased but most normal people realize that such treatment is a barbaric act of torture. Urbanites, on the other hand, do not live in close proximity to Animals and thus have less opportunities to indulge in such depravities. They tend to be much more squeamish about cruelty to Animals - it is usually only the perverts, thugs, wife beaters, rapists and tories in urban areas who enjoy torturing Animals. In addition, whilst it is possible to torture Animals in rural areas without anyone hearing the screams and howls, this is far more difficult in urban areas. If urbanites moved back into the countryside they would quickly pick-up these odious rural habits which would lead to a dramatic increase in the cruelty inflicted on Animals. There might even be a resurgence of the more barbaric sports such Cock fighting/Dog fighting which always lurks just beneath the civilized facade of rural folk proclaiming the virtues of bloodsports. Given the violent proclivities of large numbers of urban youths who go out stealing cars, joyriding, and torching cars, if they were moved into the countryside it would probably be a fairly small step for them to start torturing Animals. The yobs who currently terrorize people on council housing estates by joyriding and firing stolen cars might discover that terrorizing Animals gave them the same sort of adrenaline highs. Animal torturing is the rural counterpart of joyriding.

If permacultural missionaries were allowed to take their domestic cats with them into the countryside this would cause havoc to Wildlife because they kill huge numbers of Birds. Domestic cats are already decimating urban Bird populations and feral cats are causing havoc in Wilderness areas. These problems would multiply if permaculturalists took their pets with them to the countryside.

Wrench does not give any geophysiological justification for planting 20 Trees - why not 3 Trees and a dozen rose bushes or 400 Trees? Wrench seems to have chosen this number because it sounds like a nice, cuddly, round-figured, sort of number.

The green contract is a good idea to minimize the ecological damage which could be caused by utopian permaculture paradises. However, the fact is that permaculture settlements would damage the Planet's life support system, destroy Wildlife habitats, increase the exploitation of Animals whether livestock or Wildlife, and increase Wildlife fatalities. It should be transparent that this contract would allow even the most lackadaisical Earth-rapist to get away with causing extensive ecological destruction. One of contract's most fundamental flaws is that, as is usual for green imperialists, it is based on an agreement between oomans rather than between oomans, Animals and the Earth.

What wrench's grandfather did a couple of generations ago wasn't simply to wander into a vast Wilderness like some permacultural robinson crusoe and build a quaint, old, wooden house with no impact on the Earth's geophysiology. He was pioneering a path that was then followed by thousands, tens of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people (as in the western united states) who started decimating the world's Wilderness areas and wrecking the Earth's life support system. He was expropriating land which once belonged to Wildlife. Doubtlessly such pioneers could easily ignore the seemingly minuscule ecological damage they caused but with hindsight it should be transparent that these Wilderness lovers helped to destroy the thing they loved.

Wrench is an archetypal permacultural missionary and his article displays the typical wondrous faith in oomancruels which is common amongst greens desperately trying to persuade six billion Earth-wrecking shits to act a little more considerately or to vote green. He displays the same geophysiological ignorance which is so common amongst supergreens who picked up their green politics in the 1970s and have failed to learn anything new since then. They spout 'lovelock' and 'gaia' without seeming to understand that lovelock doesn't sanction mass expropriations of the countryside.

Wrench's article is founded on the basic tenets of oomano-imperialism - that the land belongs to oomans who can do what they want with it and that Animals are there to be exploited in whatever way oomans see fit. Wrench is just like every other irresponsible green - he hasn't carried out a geophysiological analysis of either the Earth's current predicament or his pet green projects which would cause a considerable degree of ecological destruction. He seems to rely exclusively on wishful thinking that permaculture will green the Earth.

Monbiot has sought to rejuvenate interest in the inequalities of english land ownership - a grievance which has existed ever since the norman conquest in the 11th century. Protests against this inequality have erupted at various times over the last three and a half centuries, firstly by the diggers in the english civil war; henry george in the 19thC; 'green anarchist', and more recently, 'the land is ours' . This issue has been one of the mainstays of class politics for centuries but monbiot has endeavoured to give it a modern green tinge. [6]

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 .." [7] 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." [8] 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." [9] - as if the over-paid, over-privileged individuals in these groups were ever interested in anything more than playing around on the margin.

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." [10] ; "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" [11]

"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." [12] A more pure example of oomano-imperialism it would be difficult to find.

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." [13]

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." [14] 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.

Cross Country adventures,

It isn't all that clear whether monbiot supports farming which involves the exploitation and execution of Animals. 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"." [15] ; "Credit union, LETS scheme, self-build projects, city farms and gardens, permaculture and community education .." [16]

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." [17] 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." [18]

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 .." [19] 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?

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.

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 .. " [20]

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?

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'.

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.

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.

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 emanating 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'.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

Welcome to Special Publication no.11

PART ONE: THE GREENS SUPPORTING THE INVASION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE.