Special Publications no.31: The Ideology of Fox Hunting.

In brutland, Fox hunt supporters are a tiny minority of the population. They claim to be supported by the majority of people in the country, but the decent sector of society finds their activities repugnant. Even more people would be appalled by their activities if they knew what Fox hunters actually got up to on their barbaric escapades. Fox hunting would almost certainly be banned if there was a plebiscite on the issue. There is widescale popular support for the banning of this ritualized sadism. However, there are two main obstacles to the banning of Fox hunting. The first is political and the second involves Fox hunters’ use of violence.

Banning Fox hunting is difficult because the country’s land-owning pharming elite controls the house of lords and the conservative party, “People once described the church of england as ‘the conservative party at prayer’. Agriculture may be described with some justification as the ‘conservative party at work’. For generations, the party’s grandees have come mainly from the farming and land-owning classes, and even those who are businessmen or professionals tend to take up agriculture as hobby-farmers (some authors have said that as many as 70% of conservative mps have commercial links with the food and farming industry.”[1] During the medieval period, the aristocracy exercised their political power over the country through the house of lords. Even at the end of the 20thc the landowning elite in the house of lords still exercised a veto over the democratic process - and one of their most prominent vetoes was over a ban on Fox hunting.

Although the members of the house of lords are unelected and undemocratic this doesn’t stop them complaining relentlessly about brutland losing sovereignty to an unelected and undemocratic european superstate. If it’s a choice between a european superstate run by normal, decent people and the snotty nosed puerile, bigoted, over-privileged, duffers in the house of lords then the mundi club says give us brussels any day of the week. The first mcblair administration capitulated in the most obsequious way to the demands of the country’s landowning pharming elite and this has rapidly snowballed so that anything to do with the pharming industry, whether the house of lords or Fox hunting, is now given complete political protection.

Fox hunting is a sick activity for perverts. It has always attracted thugs who have never been reserved about dishing out violence to anti-hunt supporters trying to protest against their barbarism, “The joint masters of a hunt have been fined for vandalizing an animal rights activist’s van. Anthony sandeman and philip ghazala were caught scratching a panel of the protester’s peugot, magistrates at hayward’s heath, west sussex, were told. The crawly and horsham hunt chiefs were fined £300 each and had to pay £59 compensation to simon wright.”[2]

After mcblair’s general election victory in 1997, the prospect of a ban on Fox hunting seemed to increase substantially. Many hunt supporters began to realize their only remaining defence of Fox hunting was violence and civil disobedience. The main reason they have been resorting to these tactics is because they have been used so successfully by the pharming fraternity to defend their interests. Since the mid 1980s, the violence and criminality of the pharming fraternity has been considerable - they have learnt they can even get away with murder if they act stroppily enough:-

* Charles windsor, and a labour minister, set up a photo opportunity to publicize their consumption of bseef-on-the-bone even though it was a criminal offence to prepare and eat such corpses. This was the royal family’s and the labour government’s show of solidarity with the mass criminality of the pharming fraternity. But, then again, windsor is one of the country’s wealthiest scroungers, a person who epitomizes the gross inequalities of brutish society, and a symbol of the appalling privileges of the landowning pharming elite in brutish society, so it is hardly surprising he believes he doesn’t have to obey the law.

* In december 1997 pharmers started blockading ports around the country to protest about imports of cheap, putrefying corpses. On one occasion, they hijacked a lorry and threw its contents into the sea. Of course if this had been an Animal liberation operation half the country’s police forces would have been out sweeping the country for those responsible and there would have been mass arrests. Labour ministers would have denounced such people as terrorists; and the media would have highlighted the increasing threat they posed to a supposedly civilized society much of which is fuelled by various combinations of alcohol-nicotine-gambling-tranquillizers. But because this act of criminality was carried out by pharmers the police didn’t bother investigating it nor make any efforts to apprehend the culprits - police chiefs and pharmers are as thick as thieves. As far as the police are concerned, it is perfectly alright for pharmers to break the law. Politicians and the media believe that criminal activities carried out by pharmers do not need to be the subject of any police action. Such are the standards of law keeping in brutland. It is perfectly acceptable for pharmers to commit criminal acts; it is perfectly acceptable for them to sell bse-infected bseef; just as it is perfectly acceptable to sell tobacco, alcohol, tranquillizers, and gambling. According to the country’s pharmer-loving, geriatric tory loons, the only real crimes being committed these days are those by Animal liberationists’ rescuing Hamsters or people smoking a harmless weed. No wonder the country’s politicians, pharmers, and religious leaders are finding it so difficult recruiting young people when they’d be expected to lie on such a grand scale about such an extensive array of issues.

* In the autumn 1999 pharmers used their open door access to the media to try and trigger off a trade dispute with france which could have thrown millions of people out of work. Throwing so many people out of work would not have bothered pharmers in the slightest. After all, a few years later, they were quite willing to close down half of the country’s multi-billion pound tourist industry just for the sake of protecting the highly unprofitable Animal exploitation industry.

What all of the above examples clearly demonstrate is that in brutland the landowning pharming elite believes it can get away with acting in a violent and criminal way without the slightest repercussions from parliament, the media, or the police. These examples represent good, old fashioned, no-nonsense, class bigotry. Pharmers can break any laws they want but everyone else is expected to abide by the letter of the law. Since the mid 1980s brutish pharmers have been engaged in mass criminality over the bse, and the foot and mouth, epidemics and they have not merely got away with such activities, they’ve been rewarded with even bigger state subsidies. The Fox hunting brigade have seen the success of the pharming fraternity’s criminal/violent activities and realize they too could also successfully employ such a tactic. But, then again, given that many pharmers are also Fox hunters, all that is involved here is pharmers taking on an additional workload.

In effect, what pharmers-in-their-role-as-Fox hunters are threatening to do is to declare independence from the rest of the country. They refuse to be restricted by the country’s laws and by its democratic decisions - decisions which in the past they’ve accepted because they’ve been formulated by pharmers’ representatives in parliament. People living in rural areas seem to want political independence so they can continue practicing their grossly unnatural, satanic pharming and Fox hunting rites - even though the rest of society would end up having to subsidize their so-called independence. Perhaps it would be a good thing if rural people did declare independence from the rest of the country i.e. urban areas. They could then do whatever they wanted i.e. constantly recycle diseased meat, fill up Animals with antibiotics and hormone growth boosters, drench slave Animals in insecticides, intensify their concentration camp production system, genetically rearrange and clone Animals and, finally, shoot burglars in the back, without warning, with sawn off shotguns. But if they take this course of action they would have to forgo the massive subsidies which urban people are being forced to give to these unnaturally retarded, rural, scroungers. No government wants to be faced by a minority of people who are willing to be thrown in prison but when they insist on being subsidized to carry out their criminal, anti-democratic, activities then surely a civilized society has the right to tell them to piss off? If the pharming industry was cut down to size then the number of pharmers available to support Fox hunting would drop dramatically. One of the factors which makes Fox hunting viable is that many pharmers who support this activity are being subsidized by urban people opposed to Fox hunting.

6. The Wider Issues behind Fox Hunting.

Many Fox hunt supporters ask why politicians are debating Fox hunting when there are far more important issues which need addressing. The point was made by james lovelock, “In England, the hatred of the hunt is somewhat hypocritical, and its emotional drive comes more from class war than from compassion for the fox. As i write this, it astonishes me that the british parliament is wasting its time voting for a bill to abolish hunting with dogs.”[4] The same point is made by paul routledge, “People are more important than Animals, I fear. If parliamentary time is limited (and it always is) what is more crucial - saving the lives of our people and educating the next generation, or outlawing a sport that is deeply-rooted in the traditions of the countryside. Those who put them there (elect labour mps) to make britain a better place will not quickly forgive them for preferring the fox to the people.”[5] It has to be asked: ‘Has the countryside alliance been sending out the same crib sheet to all of these people?’ Robin page makes the same point in his article in the ecologist about Fox hunting which is a little odd since he must believe the issue is important enough to have spent time writing about it. Throughout the rest of the article he contradicts himself even further by showing that Fox hunting is important because it is related to many of the major issues of our time.[6]

In terms of the number of Animals killed, Fox hunting is a minuscule part of the holocaust that oomans are inflicting on Animals. By this very fact, it is linked to all other the forms of Animal slaughter that are taking place as part of oomans’ holocaust against Animals. In addition, given that Fox hunting is pursued by a specific class, it is also linked to all the political issues generated by that class. Consequently, the attempt to ban hunting is not merely about protecting particular Animals in brutland, promoting Animal rights around the world, or promoting a geocentric philosophy which opposes Animal exploitation, it also about a range of political, constitutional, and cultural, issues.

Over the last millenia, the history of brutland’s land owning elite has been one of almost continual barbarism and violence. This started with the sacking of the monasteries; the forcible ejection of peasants from their land; the suppression of rival nationalities in brutland; involved the slaughter and extermination of indigenous peoples during the colonial, and the imperial, periods; the transportation of huge numbers of people from one colony to another which, in many places, triggered off such hatreds that they’re still killing each other today - hundreds of years later; and continued with the ruthless exploitation of factory workers during the industrial revolution. In the protection and extension of its interests, the brutish aristocracy has displayed a ruthless savagery that has rarely been witnessed since the hey-day of the roman coliseum. It is an historical anomaly that nazism broke out in germany rather than brutland.

Hunting is not about people who love Horse riding in the countryside. It is not about getting exercise, enjoying fresh air, keeping fit, or relishing beautiful scenery - most of which is boring pastureland. For the aristocratic elite it is partly about nostalgia for the medieval period when they ruled local areas, were able to set aside large tracts of land as their own personal hunting preserves, and could inflict severe punishment on commoners for the most minor of transgressions.

In this work it has also been suggested that Fox hunting provides a general education for the landowning elite not merely in lying but in being able to sustain systematic lies in the face if the truth. Fox hunters not merely refuse to tell the truth about what they are doing, they fabricate a fantasy world sustained by lies. In this world, savagery is civility; Foxes are killed quickly and painlessly; Fox hunting is a noble and spiritually uplifting sport, the preservation of nature in its natural state, etc. Each generation of aristocrats indoctrinates the next into this illusory world, so the aristocracy automatically responds to other political problems by adopting the same tactic e.g. there’s no such thing as bse, there’s no such thing as global burning, etc.

The most accurate way of depicting Fox hunting, however, is that it is an informal military training exercise i.e. an exercise replicating many elements of military training. This exercise affects three sectors of society. Firstly, the aristocracy. Hunting provides the aristocracy with informal, military training. It helps to train them in tracking and running down opponents. In the medieval period, the aristocracy would suppress peasant uprisings by sweeping across the countryside on their Horses and slaughtering the troublemakers. And, in wars, the cavalry was a vital element of an army’s attacking force which was able to defeat battalions of foot soldiers. But hunting is also important militarily in a psychological sense because it stokes the aristocracy’s excessive levels of viciousness not merely in wars but between wars when there is a tendency for people to relax and enjoy more civilized pursuits. The hunting of Animals provides not merely good practice for the suppression of peasants and the conduct of war, it continually primes the aristocracy’s willingness to murder its adversaries. Through the centuries of brutish history, the survival of the aristocracy has been dependent on its willingness to kill its opponents.[7]

The second group affected by hunting is the aristocracy’s children. The aristocracy uses hunting to brutalize its children so that they too become sufficiently ruthless to unstintingly apply whatever violence might be necessary to suppress their enemies. Hunting enables the aristocracy to overcome their children’s squeamishness about inflicting violence on sentient creatures so that, later on in life, they won’t flinch from using violence on the lower orders of society. Over the centuries, eton and oxbridge were more like military training academies than educational institutions. Prior to the 20thc, they were more concerned about building what they called character in their pupils through sporting activities than they were about intellectual growth, artistic endeavour, or cultural refinement. All of these so-called academic institutions have their own Fox hunting packs. When the aristocracy ritualistically initiate their children into Fox hunting by bloodying them (smearing their faces with the blood of the Foxes that have been killed) they are preparing them for rulership later on in life when it may well be necessary to spill ooman blood. The aristocracy train their children in exactly the same way they train Foxhound pups by taking them Cub hunting.

The third group affected by Fox hunting as a form of military training is the rest of society. Fox hunting constantly reminds the general population of the aristocracy’s capability for crushing rebellions against its rule. Hunting not merely reminds the aristocracy that they are the country’s rulers, it reminds the rest of society that they are the ruled and that if they challenge the aristocracy’s grossly unjust privileges, they too will be hunted down. In effect, Fox hunting educates the masses about who runs the country, and about who has power in society. It teaches them about their inferior role in society and that their views don’t matter. What better way is there of showing people that their views don’t matter when the elite refuses to take any notice of public demands for a ban on Fox hunting? Fox hunting is the symbol of the aristocracy’s dominance of society whether this might be in the medieval period, the industrial era, or in today’s modern hi-tech society.

To some readers such an explanation might sound far too medieval, and thus irrelevant, to the present day. However, there are three main reasons why this explanation is more relevant to modern hi-tech societies than to the medieval period.

Firstly, the taxes that medieval peasants were forced to hand over to local barons aren’t that different from the subsidies the masses currently pay to the landowning pharming aristocracy for churning out shit-riddled, drugged up, toxic, diseased-ridden, putrefying, corpses. The great difference between then and now is that in the medieval period when the aristocracy extracted taxes from the peasants it induced in them a burning resentment towards their masters, whereas today the landowning pharming elite has been so successful in its domestication of the biped livestock population the public is completely unconcerned about handing over billions of pounds a year in subsidies to the pharming industry. What is so remarkable about the way that consumer livestock currently hand over vast sums of their hard earned money to the pharming industry is that they do so with such complacency even though the landowning elite have conditioned them to vehemently oppose subsidizies to unprofitable industries. There could be no greater testimony to the sophistication of the aristocracy’s domestication of biped livestock than that they have taught the livestock to react furiously when governments suggest subsidies for ailing urban industries, but they remain completely placid when the government hands out tens of billions of quid to help the pharming industry to recover from the latest epidemic - an epidemic that has usually been caused by the last lot of excessive subsidies given to pharmers. The fact that most individuals in society never question the truly vast subsidies being paid to unprofitable pharmers whilst having a deep animosity towards subsidies for unprofitable industries, is proof of the aristocracy’s success in domesticating the livestock. Whilst thatcher was in power she was quite content to allow unprofitable urban industries to go bankrupt but when the pharming industry started going into debt she piled on the subsides and nobody said a word - not the opposition, nor the media, nor consumer groups. As consumers speed by in their cars, they see Cows grazing in pastureland and reflect how docile the beasts seem to be - but actually the Cows are thinking exactly the same thing about the bipeds.

The seemingly medieval portrait of Fox hunting as a military training exercise may also have current relevance in another way. It is quite true that the modern aristocracy no longer charges around the countryside lopping off the heads of those who object to its excessive land holdings and political privileges, but it continues to get away with murdering people in the late 20thc as much as it has done over the last thousand years. The aristocracy has learnt it is better to domesticate biped livestock so it can extract whatever subsidies it wants without continually having to do so by intimidating or killing them. But this does not mean the aristocracy no longer slaughters consumer livestock. The slaughter that the aristocracy currently carries out is through the spread of diseases, poisons, pollution and, ultimately, climate change. This slaughter is inadvertent. It is not something the aristos seek to do. It is an unexpected, although not unpredictable, consequence of their greed for pharming profits. However, it is something they are willing to tolerate.[8] Many of today’s pharming victims may feel that a quick death i.e. being hacked to death by an aristocrat’s sword, may be preferable to the terrifying mental and physical degeneracy they suffer as a result of contracting mad pharmers disease i.e. bse. The aristocracy doesn’t kill people with lances or spears these days (the last to use such blunt instruments being lord lucan) because it has successfully domesticated the biped livestock but it continues to get away with murdering large numbers of livestock as a result of epidemics generated by its violent pharming practices. The reason these deaths can be called murder is because the landowning elite in parliament blocks the necessary health and welfare measures to combat epidemics.

Over the last few decades, many diseases have swept across the country because the landowning pharming elite controls parliament and refuses to implement any substantial public health and safety measures. The public wanted action against salmonella in eggs but in the end edwina curry, the minister who issued the warning about this disease, was sacked and the pharmers in parliament then helped themselves to huge subsidies from the treasury to replace their diseased flocks so that, for a while at least, they no longer produced diseased eggs.

People didn’t want the mass slaughter of Animals during the f&m epidemic but it was carried out because the government promised to compensate pharmers for the Animals slaughtered. The slaughter would never have taken place if pharmers had had to replace slaughtered Animals from their own funds. It happened only because pharmer-politicians in parliament were able to take vast sums of money from the public purse to buy themselves disease free herds to start all over again because they knew the livestock wouldn’t raise any objections.

The continuing potent, and lethal, power of the brutish aristocracy was demonstrated in all its vile, brutal, nastiness during the f&m epidemic. The moment this epidemic started the government instantly ordered the complete shutdown of the countryside, and thus the sacrifice of the multi-billion pound tourist industry, for the sake of saving the aristocracy’s unprofitable pharming industry. The pharming industry may have been acting in its own best economic interests by forcing the closure of the countryside but such a policy was far from being in the country’s economic interests. There was no debate in parliament about the policy - it was applied instantly as if the landowning aristocracy had issued a decree. Parliamentary democracy stood revealed as just a front for the continuing power of the aristocracy.

In conclusion, the depiction of Fox hunting as a military training exercise is as relevant today as it was in the medieval period. The aristocracy continues to defy public opinion today as much as it ever did in the past. It was pointed out that Fox hunting teaches the livestock that their views don’t matter. The fact that today a large section of society wants a ban on Fox hunting but the landowning elite in parliament continues to defy their wishes is indicative that, politically, nothing has changed since medieval times. Fox hunting symbolizes the aristocracy’s complete and utter indifference to the views of ordinary people. When liz windsor couldn’t be bothered to visit abervan after the deaths of many schoolchildren buried under a coal slag; when she refused to talk about the dunblane massacre because of the royals’ love of shooting, when she had to be dragged back to buckingham palace to treat the death of princess diana with respect - such bloody minded, inhumane, cold heartedness is made possible by a lifetime of Fox hunting. The aristocratic elite continues to go Fox hunting because it doesn’t have the slightest interest is taking notice of anything ordinary people might feel or think.

In brutland, Fox hunting may seem remote from the gargantuan number of Animals that oomans are murdering around the world - particularly the slaughter of what is left of the Earth’s charismatic Fauna. And yet this activity legitimizes not merely whaling and Elephant culling but all forms of Animal abuse. There have been many occasions on which brutish politicians, who condone Fox hunting in brutland, have attended global fora to condemn various examples of Animal slaughter in other countries. Whilst brutish politicians and many brutish people may have rather conveniently put such hypocrisy to one side as being irrelevant, those countries defending their own forms of Animal terrorism do not regard such hypocrisy as irrelevant. Many countries use the example of Fox hunting in brutland to justify their own brand of Animal slaughter. It’s a bit like norway or japan leading a global campaign for a ban on Fox hunting.

Those who support Fox hunting are compelled by the logic of their argument to support the conversion of Wilderness areas and Animal sanctuaries into game parks in which Wildlife are hunted for food or profit. When greens promote game parks around the world they are not doing so because they care about Animals or local people who might benefit from game meat or a share of hunting profits, but because they want to protect that country’s landowning aristocracy - just as they do in brutland, “The nearest wildlife management system to exmoor’s red deer-hunting is possibly zimbabwe’s ‘campfire’ scheme. As things stand, the deer are tolerated by farmers and valued by local people because they bring substantial benefit to them.”[10]

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s there was a common belief in ooman progress - that the centuries’ long trend of civility which started with the abolition of slavery, and then moved on to encompass the rights of children and workers, the emancipation of women, etc, would continue with anti-racism. Some Animal rightists believed this trend would continue and culminate in the equality of species - implying the abolition of hunting and Animal exploitation. But trends don’t change anything themselves. In brutland this progressive trend came to a halt during the thatcher era.[11]

One of the most striking aspects about brutland is that it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet it still hasn’t abolished poverty within its own borders. There is not the slightest prospect that, over the next millenia, the world is going to continue getting richer and richer which would increase the prospects for abolishing global poverty. There are many reasons for believing that brutland is not merely the wealthiest it has ever been but that currently it is the wealthiest it is ever likely to be. If it does not abolish poverty soon, within the next decade or so, when it has so much wealth, then it never will. The failure to abolish poverty (and the widespread illiteracy, violence, and exploitation, that goes with it) is indicative of the increasing failure of progress. Another glaring sign of this failure is the survival of Fox hunting and other forms of Animal terrorism. The continuation of poverty and Animal exploitation is not a coincidence - they pinpoint that the cause of both is the domination of society by the landowning aristocratic elite which puts the interests of its Cattle rustling industry before the interests of the poor, Animals, and the Earth. The abolition of Fox hunting would put brutland back on the road to ooman progress.

Fox hunters enjoy watching Foxes being killed, but they also enjoy watching other Animals being killed in the wide variety of ways that oomans have invented and refined over the last few thousand years. They support Grouse shooting, Deer Hunting, Badger baiting, etc. Since the formation of the countryside alliance and the rightward lurch of the labour/green movements, Animal terrorists have been on a propaganda offensive promoting the exploitation of Animals. It won’t be long before Fox hunters start demanding the legalization of Dog fighting, Cock fighting, Bear-fighting, Bull fighting, Badger baiting, Animal circuses, egg collecting, etc. The current prospects for abolishing Animal exploitation are not only deteriorating, there is the threat they will go into reverse. Camilla parker bollox, the fred west of the royal family, could one day sit on the throne of england extolling the sadistic pleasures of Fox cub hunting and Bull fighting.

Fox hunting thus raises the question of whether people want to live in a civilized society without cruelty to Animals and oomans or whether they condone a barbaric society of Animal concentration, and extermination, camps and Animal terrorism. Fox hunting is an activity legitimized by a range of right wing ideologies: the hobbesian ‘war of all against all’, the naturalistic ‘Red in Tooth and Claw’, the darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’, and the thatcherite cut-throat, free market, competition etc, all of which glorify violence.[12] It exists because the society in which it takes place is not civilized enough to have banned it. It has no place in a society based on compassion and co-operation. The question is whether brutish people want to continue living in a nasty, violent, and callous, society where Fox hunting is regarded as an acceptable activity, or do they aspire to live in a more peaceful, caring, compassionate, and harmonious society? Many brutish people believe brutland is a civilized country, especially since the vast slaughter of Animals being carried out in this country is hidden away in remote concentration and extermination camps. However, if Animal terrorists get their way it would be that much more difficult for people to continue holding such a delusion.

Fox hunting has an inordinate influence on society, out of all proportion to the number of Animals being killed, because it is an activity pursued by the highest echelons of society. In comparison, illegal hare coursing, whilst just as barbaric and odious as Fox hunting, does not have this influence because it is pursued by thugs at the opposite end of the social hierarchy. Society looks to its leaders to set an example whereas it expects has nothing to expect from thugs and just hopes they won’t cause too much trouble. When society’s leaders participate in such a cruel activity, and when the rest of the establishment condone it, this encourages the yobbish elements in all classes. One of the prime reasons that, in brutland, there is so much violence against men, women, gays, blacks, children, Animals, and pets, etc, is because of the culture of violence perpetuated by the royal family, the aristocracy, the house of lords, pharmers, and the country’s leading educational institutions such as eton and oxbridge - as exemplified in their support for Fox hunting. It is not an accident that this country has the nastiest, most brutal, media in the world. It is not an accident that a large minority of people watch video nasties involving ooman/Animal gore, "Trading standards officers say they have smashed an underground network dealing in horror videos. The tapes show mutilation, torture, disembowelment, animal killings, bestiality and necrophilia."[13] Violence and brutality run through brutish society like an epidemic.

The people who support hunting are not merely Animal terrorists such as Badger baiters, Dog fighters, etc, but society’s bullies, yobs, football hooligans, sadists, perverts, paedophiles, mutilators, torturers, and necrophiliacs.[14] It is hardly surprising then that the only ‘violence’ denounced by brutish pharmer-politicians and the media is the rescuing of Hamsters from vivisection camps by members of the Animal Liberation Front. The question which is raised here is whether people want a society in which there are more Animal terrorists, bullies, yobs, football hooligans, sadists, perverts, paedophiles, mutilators, torturers, necrophiliacs, etc or one in which there are fewer such garbage.

Fox hunting gives legitimacy to all other forms of Animal exploitation around the Earth e.g. the slaughter of Seal pups for fur/oil; the slaughter of Seals for their penises; whaling, Elephant hunting, Bull fighting, egg collecting, etc.

Fox hunting is also about whether people want to live in a just or an unjust society. Over the last couple of millenia, the landowning pharming aristocracy in brutland has acquired, through violence and treachery, a substantial part of the country’s land. The distribution of land in this country is as unequal as in any third world banana republic. Consumer livestock are so ignorant about these inequalities they laugh at third world countries with such inequalities because they believe such societies are primitive in comparison to their own more egalitarian country. Such a belief provides further evidence of the Animal exploitation industry’s success in domesticating livestock consumers. The landowning elite has domesticated the livestock to such an extent that the landownership issue is hardly ever mentioned in this country - as if it is a non issue. There is no way of righting the wrongs perpetrated in the long distant past by the landowning elite’s acquisition of so much land but it is imperative to abolish the country’s large land holdings and to redistribute land for Reforestation in order to combat climate change and provide renewable resources.

To provide one further example of the injustices found in brutland’s shitopolis.[15] It was only at the start of the 21stc that a right to roam law was enacted.[16] Up until that time, the only class in society which had the right to roam over the countryside was the aristocracy engaged in Fox hunting. Ordinary people couldn’t just charge over pharmers’ fields and do what they wanted - only the Fox hunting fraternity had the right to do this. The reason the landowning pharming aristocracy could do this is because they own substantial parts of the countryside.

Fox hunting is made possible by a society in which there is a gross inequality in land ownership. A society which tolerates Fox hunting also tolerates gross land inequalities. Fox hunting implies a considerable level of injustices in society. People are unlikely to question this country’s land inequalities and demand drastic reforms until they have abolished Fox hunting. Fox hunting is an activity which could not be tolerated in a just and equal society - just as it could not be tolerated in a civilized, caring and compassionate society.

Fox hunting is also a matter of whether democratically elected governments should focus on serving the interests of the landowning aristocratic elite or the majority of the people i.e. those living in urban areas. What this means is whether governments should redistribute wealth from the rural rich, the land-owning pharming aristocracy, to the urban poor or from the urban poor to the rural rich. In the early 21stc, pharmer-politicians are currently dishing out to themselves subsidies on the scale of £6 billion-£10 billion a year and this is having such a huge negative impact on public finances that council housing estates, hospitals, and schools, are being underfunded whilst nurses, pensioners, and the poor, are having to live on inadequate incomes.

Fox hunting is also a question of who rules the country - the people and their representatives in the house of commons or the country’s land-owning, pharming aristocracy and their representatives in the house of lords? In other words, do people want to live in a democracy or an aristocracy? The house of commons have twice voted overwhelmingly for a ban on bloodsports but mcblair and the house of lords have done everything they could to prevent such votes being transformed into legislation. It was obvious, in days gone by, with so many hereditary peers that the house of lords wasn’t going to vote for a ban on Fox hunting. But what is surprising is that even after the reform of this democratic impediment, the house of lords is still as decisively against Fox hunting as before. So which is going to prevail - the house of commons or the house of lords; democracy or aristocracy?

The Fox hunting issue slides easily into the political debate about whether brutland ought to be a monarchy or a republic. The royal family owns large tracts of land. It is the head of the aristocracy, the country’s landowning, pharming, elite. It enjoys many privileges beyond the reach of the rest of society - vast land holdings, private schools, oxbridge, and ‘the old boys’ network’ etc. It helps to perpetuate the dominance of rural interests over urban interests. If people want to live in a republican state then one way of undermining the monarchy is by banning Fox hunting. If people want to get rid of Fox hunting then one way of doing this is by undermining the monarchy.

It has been noted that Fox hunters pretend that Fox hunting is a natural activity whilst all the evidence shows that it is an entirely artificial, man-made, activity. It is about as natural as shooting goldfish in a goldfish bowl. If rural people believe that Fox hunting is natural then this raises fundamental doubts about their understanding of nature - especially when they argue that modern pharming is also natural. Fox hunting thus raises the question of whether the best people to protect the country’s Biodiversity and to formulate the policies needed to combat global burning are either semi illiterate, red-necked, rural turds who engage in the most unnatural hunting and pharming practices ever witnessed throughout ooman history, or urbanites with a commitment to reason and science who understand the nature of the Earth. Philip schleswig-holstein-sonderburg-glucksburg[17] publically criticized the labour government’s ban on handguns and is an outspoken defender of hunting. His bigotry and stupidity shows why it is vital for urbanites to ignore the ideological ramblings of country bumkins in order to take care of the country’s environment, “Prince phillip today criticises the ‘ignorance’ of townspeople about how shooting and other country pursuits benefit wildlife and the environment. They must be taught to understand, he says. The countryside march in london last march was “a dramatic expression of the anxiety of country people about the growing influence of the perceptions and attitudes of townspeople on popular opinion”. Writing in the 90th anniversary issue of shooting and conservation, the journal of the british association of shooting and conservation, he says, “In many cases there are deeply-held beliefs, but i suspect that in most cases it is due to ignorance. Converting this ignorance into knowledge and comprehension is going to be one of the prime tasks of the association and similar organizations in the years ahead.” Prince philip is patron of the association, a successor of the wildfowlers association of great britain and ireland founded in 1908 to protect the interests of wildfowlers and rough shooters. The “one great difference” after 90 years, he says, is the enormous expansion of the urban population compared with rural areas. “There is therefore no conflict of interest between shooting and conservation.””[18]

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

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

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

The global pharming industry is the biggest contributor to global burning and if oomans hope to stabilize the climate they have got to abandon the Animal exploitation industry and allow pastureland to revert back to Forests. Pharmers are currently responsible for blocking the Reforestation needed to combat global burning and, in brutland’s case, repaying its appalling Carbon debts. By arguing that hunting protects pastureland habitats, page is trying to defend the vast scale of pastureland in this country and the ruling aristocracy which owns the pastureland. He is distracting attention from the fact that pastureland is a total ecological devastation which needs to be abandoned for the sake of restoring the Earth’s life support system. The mundi club once believed that greens opposed Reforestation because of their support for organic pharming. It is now becoming, however, that greens are also opposed to Reforestation because it poses a threat to the interests of the country’s landowning aristocracy and the survival of their favourite past-time - Fox hunting.

Fox hunting is a cruel and barbaric activity which is sustained by the privileges of the monarchy and the landowning elite. It is as savage towards Foxhounds and people as it is towards Foxes. It is as much about the aristocracy being able to get away with murdering oomans by permitting the spread of Animal diseases (such as bse) as it is chasing a tiny Animal across the countryside. Fox hunters defend their perversion through systematic lies. Fox hunting is justified by extreme right wing ideologies such as the deserving rich over the undeserving poor; the naturalism of ‘red in tooth and claw’; the darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’; and free market competition. It is sustained by the subsidies given to conventional pharmers by urban people, many of whom are opposed to Fox hunting, and by vegetarians and vegans. Thus, an attack on Fox hunting is an attack on the monarchy, the landowning elite, anthropocentric ideologies, subsidies to the Animal exploitation industry, and conventional pharming. The abolition of Fox hunting wouldn’t lead automatically to the abolition of the monarchy but it would mean that society is closer to ridding itself of the country’s biggest scroungers .

The monarchy/aristocracy uses Fox hunting as a political barometer for the preservation of its privileges. It knows that if it can defend Fox hunting then it can defend its other privileges - particularly the gross inequalities in land ownership. The level of public support for Fox hunting is a measure of the landowning pharming elite’s ideological control over biped livestock. It enables the aristocracy to gauge how much it can exploit the livestock without a rebellion. The aristocracy knows that as long as the livestock continues to condone Fox hunting then the aristocracy’s control is secure and it can continue doing whatever it wants. The aristocracy knows that if this activity is abolished then it will significantly increase the chances of more substantial reforms to their other privileges.

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/

5. The Difficulties of Banning Fox Hunting.

6. The Wider Issues behind Fox Hunting.