After the reviewer indulged in several bouts of bad language, as if he wanted to draw even more attention to the incongruity of his criticisms about the mundi club's righteous indignation, the review highlighted a more substantial point - whether it was right to carry out research into greens who owned cars. He (assuming the reviewer was a he) not only believed we should keep quiet about eco-nazis but objected to the method by which the mundi club obtained its information, "Digging up stuff like Sara Parkin owning a 2CV smells of the same mentality that vegan police have digging through rubbish bags for proof of 'unsoundness' .." To accuse us of such methods is disgraceful - but even if we ever stooped to looking in rubbish bags for evidence the last thing we would expect to find would be a green sitting in a car. The mundi club would like to make it clear that all the information about greens and their cars comes from published sources. We could have used inside information about a lot of leading greens and their cars but decided against it. The fact that the reviewer didn't realize the information came from published sources indicates how little he knows about the subject he's reviewing. It also exposes the fact that he didn't read the magazine he reviewed because references were provided to the sources of most of the information published.

The reviewer made no attempt to discuss the legitimacy of 'personal politics'. The mundi club has published more information about the ecological damage caused by cars than any other organization on Earth - a lot more than 'green anarchist'! so what are we expected to do when greens and green organizations go out of their way to suppress, or distort, this information? Give up and say we've been beaten by people who are supposed to be on our side? Is it not perfectly legitimate to argue that if green eco-nazis (let alone the rest of the factory pharm dross driving around on this beautiful Planet) will not listen to a detailed, reasoned and scientific case against the car then clearly some other tactic has got to be found of getting these poisonous shits to face up to what they are doing and give up their cars?

The mundi club has argued for many years that motorists do not drive cars for rational, utilitarian reasons - as must be blatantly obvious from the fact that millions of them sit in commuter traffic jams day after day, week after week, year after year. Motorists aren't just indifferent to the destruction they are wreaking on the Planet, they are insane, reality-defying, bigots who refuse to take seriously any criticisms of their precious love-objects. There is little hope in trying to persuade them to give up their cars merely by presenting them with a comprehensive, detailed, scientific case for banning the car. The only way to get car owners to face up to what they're doing is through shock tactics.

Potential readers should be warned that this publication contains a shock tactic against car-owning feminist bigots. Whilst these wimmin drive around in cars promoting their careers in the feminist movement they ignore their responsibilities for leaving poor, non car-owning, women stranded on housing estates without public transport. Something has got to be done to shock these middle class feminist bigots out of their warped ideology.

The car, and car related, industries consume more raw materials than any other industry. It is hardly surprising that they produce more toxic waste than any other group of inter-related industries. The degree to which cars produce more toxic emissions than incinerators can be seen from the following, "A proposed state-of-the-art" incinerator, burning 2,250 tons of trash per day would emit 5 tons of lead annually. This equals the annual emissions from 2,500 automobiles using leaded gasoline." There are over 20 million cars in great brutland equivalent to nearly 10,000 waste incinerators. The car is a mobile toxic waste incinerator. Supporting a ban on vertical toxic waste incinerators but not horizontal toxic waste incinerators is bizarre.

In greenpeace’s 'fossil free energy scenario' (its vision of a sustainable society) the world vehicle fleet would grow only to 1,600 million. Although there would be no Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from these vehicles there would be nearly a billion extra vehicles on the roads in comparison to today’s level, "The total number of road vehicles is constrained to

The bad news is that, "The National Trust’s coastal and countryside conservation work is set to receive £1 million in sponsorship from the Rover group. In a five year deal Rover will provide vehicles and give Trust staff training in off-road driving. The whole deal is expected to give the Trust - which celebrates its centenary next year - £200,000 of support each year. Sir Angus Stirling, the Trust director general, said that the money generated by the partnership will help fund a Rover group Countryside Fund for a back-log of work." (PF). Even worse is that, "The National Trust, Britain's biggest environmental organization and an opponent of many road schemes, owns a stake in Tarmac."

The reason for oxfam’s pro-car propaganda is primarily because so many of its staff earn such huge wages they can all afford to drive around in cars. Third world first organizations impose a ban on cigarette smoking in their offices but it’s perfectly acceptable for workers to walk around eating lumps of meat which derive from third world exploitation. It would be much more appropriate to call the third world first brigade ‘the third world workers first brigade’.

Third world organizations won’t even discuss the need to campaign against cars and carnivorism. One oxfam author highlights a long list of commodities being exported from third world countries but does not mention commodities exported in connection with the Animal exploitation and car industries. See Belinda Coote ‘The Trade Trap. Poverty and the Global Commodity Markets’ Oxfam Publications, Oxford 1992. These commodities aren’t even recognized as an issue.

Another important characteristic of supergreens is that many of them have been worn down by constant political failure and have been pushed into conventionality by the need to counter the wild and wacky image with which they have been portrayed. Their radicalism has eroded until they are little more than pathetic servile reformists. Given the need to make a living, many of them have adopted the lifestyles of the people they seek to change. They support cars because they do not understand geophysiology or the nature of global warming; because they believe solar power will eventually replace fossil fuels; and because their lifestyle is almost indistinguishable from that of any other member of the middle classes. The leading supergreens are almost invariably globe-trotters who travel around the world in planes and cars to visit the sites of major ecological disaster in order to publicize what is going on and thus help to legitimize their ludicrously over-paid jobs.

John craven is the main presenter on ‘countryfile’. When he introduces articles he is usually filmed in some idyllic spot in the countryside rather than sitting behind a desk in a london studio. Unfortunately, these scenic views are totally spoilt by the fact that a large range rover usually clogs up the entire frame. Quite why herr craven has to be filmed constantly in the company of this vehicle is not known but if he’s not sitting in it, standing along side it, propped up against it, leaning out of the window, or sprawling across the bonnet, he seems quite lost. Perhaps it’s because the programme is focussed almost entirely on the way that oomans are dominating and exploiting the countryside (all in the name of conservation and saving the countryside of course). What could symbolize better the fact that oomans are destroying the Earth than a wasteful, extravagant, Earth-rapist vehicle like a land rover - a typical example of ‘conspicuous ecological destruction’?

There was a complete absence of consultation over the production of the green party's transport document. The ban on engines over 1600cc caused a degree of embarrassment to those expected to extol the virtues of these policies. After turning up in 'large' cars for interviews about these policies they found themselves being grilled by interviewers wanting to know why they weren't supporting their party's policies.

Whilst the medical profession protests endlessly about lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking, it rarely mentions the role played by vehicle exhaust emissions. This silence seems to suggest that it is a medical fact that cigarette smoking is the main, and perhaps even the sole, cause of lung cancer. One of the reasons for this silence is that doctors are middle class and whilst most are motorists few of them smoke cigarettes - it has been estimated that only 6 out of 100 doctors smoke. It is, therefore, in their interests to blame lung cancer on cigarettes because this enables them to evade any guilt for causing lung cancer by driving around in cars. Dr vernon coleman seems to fall into this category of a car-owning, non smoking, doctor. And, just like the corrupt medical profession which he so brilliantly condemns, coleman does not believe that vehicle exhaust emissions have anything to do with asthma.

Herr coleman also believes that doctors ought to be allowed to speed through traffic to reach patients in desperate need of medical attention. He wants general practitioners to be granted the same privileges as the emergency services. He bleets, "Fifteen years ago, when I was a GP, I was fined £45 for speeding to the help of a patient who thought he’d had a heart attack." He believes his work in saving lives is so important that he, and the tens of thousands of other doctors around the country, ought to be given a flashing blue light to put on the roof of their cars to draw attention to themselves as they speed through traffic limits. Unfortunately even police officers, who have the right to break traffic regulations and are highly trained in driving skills, are involved in about half a dozen fatal accidents every year. How many people would doctors kill if they could drive as fast as they believed is necessary? Isn’t it possible they might end up killing and maiming more people than they saved?

It’s interesting to note that coleman was one of the first to demand that .. "people who made themselves ill by smoking or drinking too much should have to pay for their own medical treatment." It doesn’t seem, however, as if he's made any corresponding recommendation about forcing motorists to pay for their victims’ medical costs when they are found guilty of wreckless or dangerous driving. However, he's recently changed his mind on the whole issue. He now condemns, as ‘health fascists’, those who argue that people who induce their own illnesses should have to pay for their own medical treatment. Is this because, as a motorist, he dreads the costs which motorists would incur?

Coleman has recently altered his views on the causes of asthma, "It is widely believed that the incidence of asthma has trebled in the last two or three generations. I am, I confess, just the teeniest bit suspicious of this claim. I can’t help wondering if the incidence of asthma might not have been exaggerated by the fact that many doctors and parents - encouraged by drug companies looking for new patients - are over-vigilant for symptoms of the disease. Still, there undoubtedly has been some increase in asthma and experts seem to agree that there are two main reasons for this: the pollution of our atmosphere and poor eating habits."

There are two points to make about this statement. Firstly, as far as is known very few so-called ‘experts’ have blamed asthma on food (most of them seem to believe it is caused by the house dust mite). Secondly, this is the first time he has acknowledged that asthma might be be caused by atmospheric pollution - although he doesn’t seem able to bring himself around to stating that this might include the sort of pollution being dumped into the atmosphere by motorists like himself, especially those over-privileged twits driving gas guzzling vehicles such as rolls royces. However in a later part of the article he indicates that, in his own personal opinion, exhaust fumes from cars and rolls royces have little responsibility for provoking asthma because, "the most likely reason (for the increase in asthma) is our increased consumption of diary products such as milk, butter and cheese." After all, no doctor wants to admit that he contributes to a situation where one in seven children have asthma and thousands are dying as a result of this disease.

A year later and the good doctor seems to have forgotten his earlier views, "asthma isn’t the only disease which is said to be commoner than ever before. Phooey! I just don’t believe any of it. The problem is not that these (and many other) diseases are becoming commoner, but that doctors are diagnosing them more often! Go into a doctor’s surgery with a mild wheeze and the chances are that the doctor will tell you you’ve got asthma .. The driving force behind this vast over-prescribing is, of course, the ubiqitous drugs industry." Yeah, yeah, yeah.