ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

Many thanks to those few who have sent in information or articles about the topics covered in this work. Especial thanks to daniel g. The mundi club welcomes any criticisms of, or contributions to, this work.

WELCOME TO TERRA FIRM ISSUE 13.

This work is addressed to a range of different people. Firstly, it is addressed to urban greens i.e. greens who currently live in urban areas and wish to green the cities and continue living in cities after the creation of a green planet. The opposite of urban greens are what could be called, for want of a more accurate phrase, 'rural greens'. 'Rural greens' are not environmentally minded people who live in the countryside - on the contrary, one of the basic assumptions of this work is that there are few greens in rural areas. 'Rural greens' are greens who currently live in urban areas who want to move into the countryside and dismantle cities to create a green world e.g. green anarchists, london greenpeace, tribalists, primitivists, 'back to the landers', 'travellers', permaculturalists, etc. In this work it is proposed that if these greens are allowed to move into the countryside they'll end up recreating the ecological disasters they've left behind them in the cities.

The second group of people this work is addressed to is those in the Animal rights movement. The green movement in this country, especially green anarchists, london greenpeace, tribalist, primitivist, 'back to the land', 'the land is ours', 'right to roam', 'travellers' and ravers, groups, not forgetting permaculturalists and the organic farming movement, pose a considerable threat to what is left of Wildlife habitats not only in this country but around the world.[1] The objectives of these groups are exactly the same as those being put forward by the redneck brigade of dirt bikers, four wheel drivers, poachers, hunters/shooters, blood sports enthusiasts, hare coursers, etc. all of whom want more access to the countryside, "Indeed, many of those who want to use the countryside more are not ramblers (but people engaged in) ballooning, rock climbing, shooting and hunting, hang-gliding, mountain biking, model aircraft flying, bird watching, riding, caving, golf .."[2] It is imperative to expose the threat these groups pose to Wildlife and Wildlife habitats. The debate about the future of the countryside in brutland, and in most other countries around the world, should be regarded as a critical issue in the Animal rights movement because of the profound damage the urbanization of the countryside would have on the survival of Wildlife. If Wildlife is to survive on Earth it is necessary to go beyond Animal liberation and allow Animals to live in their own domain without being maimed, mutilated or murdered by oomans.

Finally, this work is also addressed to those interested in the conflict between urban and rural interests, the town and country divide.

The first chapter explores oomans' historical invasion of the Earth; the second highlights the ways in which rural interests exploit urban people and thereby destroy both cities and Wilderness areas. The third chapter outlines the material and cultural differences between town and countryside. The fourth presents the arguments for and against greens' retreat into the countryside and the consequent urbanization of rural areas. The last chapter outlines the case for greening the cities and restoring Wilderness areas.

See also

SP11: 'Greens Invasion of the Countryside'

Terra Firm 18 'The Segregation of Oomans from Animals'.

INTRODUCTION: URBAN GREEN POLITICS.

The majority of individuals and organizations within the green movement are what have been called above 'rural greens'. They believe people should have the right to move back into the countryside. They demand that huge numbers of the poor, the homeless, and the unemployed, should be allowed to abandon over-crowded, crime-ridden, polluted, urban areas in order to move into the countryside where they can enjoy fresh air, grow their own crops, develop cottage industries and participate in small-scale village economies. The more extreme greens, the tribalists and primitivists, want to move everyone out of the cities and abolish cities altogether - a global, green, year zero. They have no interest in creating rural communes/villages because they want to restore tribal living in which people would wander wherever they wish grazing off nature's bounty, killing and exploiting Animals, free of the shackles of technology - which, of course, doesn't stop them from using computers, driving around in cars/vans or flying to various places around the world. For both groups of 'rural greens' the key issue is not the restoration of the Earth's life support system nor the protection of biodiversity but imperialist rights for the earth's dominant species - oomans' right to do what they want, when they want, how they want, and wander/settle anywhere they want - even if this means killing Animals and wrecking local ecologies in the process.

It is perverse that the extreme 'rural greens', most of whom live in urban areas, wish to desert the cities to live in anarcho/hippy/tribo/primitivist/perma-paradises in the countryside. It is also perverse that moderate 'rural greens', who are supposed to be fighting for the greening of the Earth, promote policies which would cover even more of the Earth in concrete and sement. The geophysiological damage caused by greens' urbanization of the countryside would be immense.

It is even more perverse that greens, and Animal rightists, promote policies that divorce them from the source of their popularity i.e. people living in urban areas. Both the environmental, and Animal protection, movements in brutland, as in other over-industrialized countries, were triggered off by urban people and they receive far more support in urban, as opposed to rural, areas. Neither greens nor Animal protectionists try to build on their popularity in urban areas by protecting and enhancing the interests of urban people. On the contrary, they demand the abolition of cities so that millions of people can coaxed or, according to george monbiot, "driven" into the countryside[3] where they would be expected to become small scale pharmers - even though the vast majority of urbanites would never even consider putting such a goal on their list of ten million interesting things they might consider doing over the next decade.[4] 'Rural greens' and Animal protectionists promote policies which favour the interests of rural folk i.e. people who are not in the least bit interested in environmental and Animal protection issues and who, what is more, do not want urbanites moving back into the countryside!

Why is it that greens/Animal protectionists want to abolish the cities when most of their supporters live in cities and love living in cities? Why are they undermining their own political support by campaigning for a mass movement of urban people into rural areas? The policies put forward by many leading greens/Animal protectionists are completely at variance with the interests, views and aspriations of the large numbers of urban people who support green/Animal protectionist issues. The abolition of the cities would be an act of political suicide by the green/Animal protection movement.

Greens/Animal rightists do not merely disregard the material interests and cultural attitudes of their own supporters, they don't even bother to try and defend the interests of urban people being exploitated by rural interests. This could be due partly to the fact that 'rural green' activists have been duped by rural propaganda, which argues that urbanites exploit rural people. However, it could also be due to the fact that many of brutland's leading greens have landowning interests or move in landowning social circles i.e. charles windsor, charles's political adviser lord porritt, lord melchett, george monbiot, charles windsor's friend jonathon dimbleby[5], oliver tickell, simon fairlie, edward goldsmith, jeremy irons, etc.[6] In other words, whilst the vast bulk of the people in the green movement live in urban areas, many of its leaders have rural roots.[7]

Greens' desire to leave urban areas for the countryside would be less politically intolerable if they'd managed to take political control of, and transform, the cities into beautiful green paradises. However, since they have abjectly failed to do this their move into the countryside resembles a pathetic political retreat, the usual anarchistic, individualistic, cop-out. It is imperative to oppose greens' invasion of the countryside until they have proven themselves capable of greening urban areas. Until so-called greens have transformed urban areas they shouldn't be let anywhere near to the countryside.

This work seeks to defend the material interests and cultural values of urban people by highlighting and challenging the rural exploitation of urbanites. There are many ways in which rural interests exploit urban folk and it is time to end the parasitic nature of rural life. For far too long, urbanites have been subsidizing the interests of aristocratic scroungers in the countryside. Rural folk don't pay the full cost of the wide range of social and political services they receive nor do they pay the full cost of the environmental damage they cause to the countryside. These costs are paid by urban people including the poor. If rural folk want to continue living in rural areas they should, at the very least, pay their own way. The money needed to green the cities and create a sustainable planet can come only from the abolition of the subsidies which urbanites are currently dishing out to rural people.

This work also sketches what needs to be done to create a sustainable planet. One of the most pervasive manifestations of rural ideology is the belief, shared by greens, scientists, politicians and even urban people, that industry is responsible for boosting global warming by releasing greenhouse gases. To give but one example .. "catastrophic changes which will interrupt the monsoons, turn the whole of spain and southern france into desert, and may mean that britain ceases to benefit from the gulf stream. The trouble remains centred in the american fossil fuel industry. They are in a real sense, dinosaurs."[8] This accusation is not true. By far and away the biggest cause of global burning are the world's pharmers who have hacked or burnt down vast areas of Forest around the world. The pharming industry has caused far more damage to the Earth's life support system than any other industry. It is pharmers, not industrialists, who are primarily responsible for boosting global burning and destabilizing the climate.

If greens are to create a sustainable planet it is imperative to undermine the power of the rural elite. Restoring the Earth's life support system means creating regional Wood economies, climate Forests and Wilderness areas. To do this it is necessary to abolish both chemical, and organic, pharming and depopulate the countryside. It is imperative that a third of each country around the world should be turned over to regional Forests, which would provide oomans with all the resources they need for a convivial existence; another third should be turned over to ooman free Wilderness areas; and the remaining third should be designated as climate Forests to counter global burning. The deconstruction of the pharming industry should not be regarded as a desire for revenge against pharmers because of the damage they have done to the Earth and their massive slaughter of Wildlife, but because it is only by Reforesting pastureland that oomans are going to stabilize the climate.