PART THREE: THE MATERIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOWN AND COUNTRYSIDE.

The material conditions of urban, and rural, people produce different cultural perspectives on the environment and Animal protection.

3.1: The Material Basis of the Differences between Town and Country over Environmental Issues.

3.1.1: General Rural/Urban Differences.

Ever since the emergence of the first town in the mists of antiquity, the jobs carried out by urban people have been different from those carried out by rural people. The material differences in working and living conditions between urbanites and ruralites has led to differences in lifestyles and cultural outlooks. Two commentators who support the invasion of the countryside deny there are any cultural differences between urbanites and ruralites but this denial is a political gambit whose purpose is the rural and urban poor against the large landowners, "Some people in the countryside still talk despairingly about 'townees' and some people in our towns still imagine that there are 'countryfolk' whose way of life, moral character and outlook are substantially different from theirs. This is all false. The barriers which divide town and country are largely illusory, and the only people who profit from their continued recognition are the rural landowners who wish to protect their privileges and ensure that the urban majority has no say in what they are doing to 'their land'."[1] Whilst this political point of view may be laudable, it is wrong to deny the blatant differences between urban and rural people. Urbanites tend to be more educated and better informed about history, science, society, and the wider world, than rural folk. They also tend to be more cultured, worldly, cosmopolitan, and sophisticated than their rural counterparts. Whilst many urbanites are cynical or dismissive about religion, rural folk tend to be believers. Whilst urban folk tend towards open mindedness, tolerance and progressive views, rural folk tend to be narrow-minded, reactionary, servile, and rooted in customs and traditions.

3.1.2: The Local and Global Perspectives.

Crop pharmers have to learn about nature i.e. local ecological conditions; they have to know the best time to plant seeds, how to cultivate their crops, and when to bring in the harvest. They work according to the daylight available. On the other hand, because of the industrial revolution, but increasingly since the second world war, many people working in urban areas have virtually forgotten about nature. The larger the cities become, the more divorced urban dwellers become from the land and nature. Many work indoors under almost completely artificial conditions enabling them to work at any time of the day. They don't need to know anything about seeds, planting, cropping, local ecological conditions or the seasons - they just pop down to the local supermarket and buy whatever pretty little coloured cellophane package takes their fancy - usually, considering their girth, car loads of packages.[2]

The material conditions in which people work do not correlate directly with the ideologies they espouse. There are striking paradoxes here. The people closest to the land tend to exploit it as ruthlessly, and thus destructively, as possible. Crop pharmers have become almost like an army waging war against the soil, Photosynthesizers and Biodiversity. They employ huge machinery which alternately compresses and churns up the soil and they then bombard the soil with chemicals, synthetic fertilisers, insecticides, pesticides, etc. They believe that whatever they do is, by definition, caring for the land no matter how ruthless they are toward it. On the other hand, those furthest away from the land, who know least about so-called nature, tend to demand the land should be treated more gently. This is mainly because they have to consume the chemicalized products that pharmers produce. Townies are frightened by the increasing number, quantity, and toxicity, of the chemicals which crop pharmers use to 'grow' crops.

Another paradox, entwined with that above, is that whilst crop pharmers understand their own local ecologies and very little else, urbanites see the broader picture of what is happening to the Earth as a whole. Crop pharmers understand only nature i.e. the local ecologies of the land on which they work. They are concerned only about their own land. They are not interested in the climate - even though it will have a significant impact on the weather. Townies on the other hand are global consumers, they acquire food from crop pharmers around the world and although they are divorced from the land their consumer perspective makes them aware about what pharming is doing to the entire Earth. To a particular crop pharmer the damage which s/he inflicts on the Earth may be miniscule but to the urbanite who sees the damage caused by hundreds of millions of crop pharmers around the world, the damage seems colossal. Whilst crop pharmers are concerned about nature, townies are concerned about the Planet. These different outlooks result in quite different proposals about the environment.

3.1.3: Rural Opposition to Environmental Protection.

3.1.3.1: The United States of America.

3.1.3.1.1: The Rise of Right wing-anti-Environmentalists.

It is often suggested the environmental movement took off in the early 1960s as a result of the publication of rachel carson's book 'silent spring' which exposed the damage that pesticides inflict on Wildlife and oomans. Given the chemical industries' virulent response to her accusations it can be argued this was also the start of the political anti-environmental movement. The power of chemical industries to dismiss the interests of urban consumers can clearly been seen from the fact that today they produce more pesticides/insecticides, and more toxic varities, than ever before.

In the united states, the anti-environmental movement acquired overt political power only after the election of ronald reagan as president. One of the first acts of this environmental ignoramus was to install james watt as secretary of state for the interior - who was even more of an extremist than his arch right-wing counterpart in the thatcherite government, nicholas ridley.[3] He tried to deregulate the country's natural resources. This top-down strategy to environmental deregulation was complemented by the bottom-up strategy which involved the creation of 'wise use groups' to promote the same views as big industry. These supposedly grassroots' organizations were secretly funded by multi-national corporations, "The groups supporting Wise Use organizations include Exxon USA, the national Cattleman's Association, the motorcycle industry Council, Chevron USA, Kawasaki, Yamaha ..."[4] Whilst watt was eventually forced out of office because of his political bigotry, the huge increase in the number of astroturf anti-environmental groups continued. The popularity of these groups was boosted by sympathetic publicity and coverage in the huge segment of the american media owned by mega wealthy industrialists who would long ago have failed all clinical tests on their sanity if it wasn't for the fact that through various medical foundations they owned the medical profession and could thereby get medical professionals to do and say anything they wanted.

Most of the support for wise-use groups comes overwhelmingly from rural people. They demand the deregulation of all laws concerning mining and construction projects. They have linked up with the huge number of shooters' clubs, most of whose members also live in rural areas, and adopted their demands for the transformation of Wildlife sanctuaries into game parks, "Hollywood movie legend charles heston is to head america's most powerful gun club amid growing calls for firearms to be banned. He has been called in to fight off the backlash against gun users after massacres at three schools. The nra's 3.5 million members are seen as a strong voting bloc and the well financed organization regularly influences state and federal legislation. He urged america's 70 million gun owners to get "loud and proud" or they will lose their right to bear arms and defend themselves. In february he provoked fury by attacking britain's new gun laws. He claimed they were introduced because of public hysteria after the dunblane and hungerford massacres."[5]

The wise use and shooters groups have, in turn, linked up with various groups on the religious right, not merely christian fundamentalists such as christian identity but the klu klux klan and white supremacists, who are also rooted in rural areas. This has created an explosive mixture of gun lovers, hunters, blood sport enthusiasts, violent anti-abortionists, bible thumpers, moral majoritarians, militiamen, regionalists, confederalists, and racists, "Far more militant than the roundtable (of top industrialists) is a growing anti-environmental group called the wise use movement, a loosely linked organization including among others, loggers, fishermen, farmers, bikers, and snowmobilers, as well as reverend sun myung moon's unification church. Among its goals as laid out in 'the wise use agenda' .. (is) .. to expand concessions in national parks to be run by private firms like the Walt Disney Company, which are expert in "people moving" .."[6]

The corporate livestock behind the wise-use movement are implacably dismissive of global warming. The fossil fuel industries are funding scientists prepared to ridicule the science of global warming, "Patrick michaels (university of virginia) has been paid over $300,000 from companies such as the german coal mining association and western fuels."[7]; "Robert Balling, a geographer from arizona state university, has boasted he's received $700,000 from industries such as british coal over the last five years."[8] Two other sceptics are fred singer (university of virginia) and frederick seitz (rockefeller university). They are president and chairperson of the science and environment policy project.

The fossil fuel industries are also funding wise use groups to increase public opposition to legislation intended to curb global burning, "As the death toll from the sweltering heat in the southern u.s. reached 50 last week, the simmering row between the clinton administration and congress over global warming approached boiling point. Vice president al gore blames the heat wave on climate change. But members of the republican majority in congress are backing draconian legislation that would stop the government funding research into climate change, or even talking about it. A $6 billion initiative to promote research and investment in energy-efficient cars and buildings, and in renewable energy, is now in ruins as the republican majority in congress prepares to veto its $200 million first phase. And the legislators want to go even further. Republican senators, led by john ashcroft of missouri, have attached an amendment to a bill authorizing next year's government spending that would ban the administration from spending any money on "rules, regulations, or programs designed to implement or in contemplation of implementing" the kyoto agreement."[9]

3.1.3.1.2: The Basic Tenets of Rural Environmental Ideology.

The politically conventional tenets of rural environmental ideology are as follows:-

the deregulation of all laws restricting logging and mining;

the deregulation of national parks, Wildlife sanctuaries, Wilderness areas and their conversion into game parks;

the deregulation of national parks, Wildlife sanctuaries, Wilderness areas to foster developments such as ski resorts, lesiure facilities, holiday homes, and entertainment centres - like centre parcs;

the deregulation of national parks, Wildlife sanctuaries, Wilderness areas to allow them to be used by dirt bikers, snowmobilers, four wheel drivers, etc;

the right to bear arms;

the right for children to bear arms, "The huge scale of america's gun crisis emerged yesterday as a survey revealed nearly a million children took pistols and rifles to school. Despite a series of fatal shootings and armed police and metal detectors on most campuses, pupils were determined to carry guns, according to research by the charity Pride. In the last academic year shootings in u.s. high schools have left more than 10 children and teachers dead. The most notorious were the jonesboro massacre in arkansas and killings in springfield, oregon."[10];

pro-hunting, pro-blood sports;

the deregulation of all laws protecting the environment.

The politically conventional believe that everyone should be allowed to own and carry as many guns as they wish. Such a right may be less dangerous in rural areas but in urban areas it is just a nightmare.

3.1.3.1.3: The Victims of Right wing-anti-Environmental Terrorists.

There is now a long list of environmentalists/Animal rightists who have been attacked and murdered by these pro-life, Animal-shooting, meat-eating, bigots. This movement has generated almost as much paranoia in american society as the mccarthy witch-hunts of the 1950s. The combination of different groups, a veritable oil slick rainbow of bigots, became so potent it virtually took over the republican movement in the early 1990s. However, urban voters were petrified by the republican party's right wing extremism and its support for wise use/gun club/pro-life/christian fundamentalism and this made them look more favourably on bill clinton in the 1992 presidential elections. Despite this electoral setback the centrists in the republican party were unable to reassert control over the party and the extreme right wing has continued to grow as a political force. The republicans did extremely well in the 1994 congressional elections and although they lost the 1996 presidential elections they managed to take control of both houses of congress.

3.1.3.2: Brutland.

Political developments in brutland lag behind those in the united states. Nevertheless the increasingly right wing tory party and its rural supporters have opposed virtually every bit of legislation on the environment:-

* opposition to increases in petrol prices to curb global burning;

* opposition to limits on the use of pesticides;

* opposition to restrictions on the sale of bse infected meat,

* the right to export bse-infected meat around the world, etc.

3.2: The Material Basis of the Differences between Town and Country over Animals.

The material differences between ruralites and urbanites has also led to opposing attitudes towards Animal protection. If anything, the contrast between attitudes over Animals is even greater than the differences over the environment.

3.2.1: Material Differences between Rural/Urban Relationships with Animals.

There are considerable material differences between ruralities and townies concerning Animals. A large proportion of rural jobs are connected with the rearing, mutilating, maiming, torturing, and killing, of Animals. Livestock pharmers rear as many Animals as they can to increase profits but although, in recent decades, they no longer personally involved in slaughtering livestock Animals they continue to kill large numbers of other Animals:-

* Wildlife which pose a physical threat to livestock, whether the threat is real or not;

* Wildlife which compete with livestock for resources;

* Wildlife which pose a health threat to livestock, whether real or not.

The conditions in which Animals are kept on intensively reared modern pharms is appalling. Despites decades of efforts to try and improve the conditions of factory pharm Animals virtually nothing of substance has been done. On the contrary, more and more Animals, and more and more different types of Animal, are being subjected to this type of captivity, "There have been several attempts to reverse this trend (of livestock abuse) and put a humane dimension back into farming. All have failed."[11]

Nevertheless, Animals enjoy better conditions on modern pharms than they used to on small scale, what would be called today free range, pharms. What exists today is the highly efficient mass slaughter of Animals. As far as the slaughter process is concerned, the difference between the past and the present is that between the wild, chaotic, bloodlust of jewish pogroms carried out by the nazis during the 1930s and the highly efficient, bureaucratic, extermination process created during the war. Adolf eichmann would be completely at home in today's ministry of agriculture, food and fisheries ensuring the smooth functioning of this high-tech, efficient, slaughter process.

In this country many people complain about the appalling existence of intensively reared livestock Animals but many of these Animals live the life of luxury in comparison to the sort of treatment they used to get from small scale, low impact, family/peasant farmers prior to the first world war - the sort of treatment which many Animals continue to endure on small scale farms across much of europe, "For centuries poultry and gamebirds were reared in the dark, blinded, or in the case of geese had their feet nailed to the floor, or if they were chickens had their feet cut off, because it was believed that it made their meat more tender."[12] Jane ridley recounts the story of a 19thc farmer's wife, "Flora Thompson was brought up in an Oxfordshire farming village in the 1880s, and she recalled how each cottage fattened a pig, which was kept in a lean-to at the back. The family pig was pampered, petted and fed, men called on sundays to admire and scratch its back; but when it reached the required fatness it was invariably killed. A noisy business it was too. The wounded, screaming pig was hoisted on to a rough bench to bleed, in order to preserve the quality of the meat. The scene, with its mud, blood and flaring lights, recalled the savagery of the african jungle .. (sic)."[13] We'll be hearing more from jane ridley later in this section. The point which needs to be made here is that there are greens who promote a return to the countryside and organic livestock farming and it is exactly these sort of practices they would help to rescuscitate. The 'return to the land' is a return to barbarism.

Many other ruralities besides pharmers are involved in the killing of Wildlife whether these are hunters, shooters, trappers, and other assorted thugs and bloodsuckers. Ruralites enjoy killing Animals they have taken it upon themselves to define as 'vermin' or 'pests'; they enjoy killing Animals regarded as livestock competitors; but then again, they enjoy killing any Wildlife that comes within their gunsights. They enjoy bloodsports such as Fox hunting and Hare coursing and, given half a chance, if they could deregulate the rules covering the treatment of Animals, many would love to reintroduce Dog/Cock/Bear fighting - all of which are still pervasive in rural areas in europe, asia and third world countries.

In conclusion, many people brought up in the countryside have become accustomed to the bloody and barbaric treatment meted out to livestock Animals and Wildlife. On the other hand, most urban jobs have little to do with Animals - the exceptions being butchers and Pet shop owners. The main contact urbanites have with Animals is through pets. Their only other contact is seeing the occasional urban Fox or city centre Pigeons.[14] A substantial number of urbanites are pet owners and many of them look at the Animal world through this perspective.

In general, people living in rural areas are surrounded by Animals and are brought up on the everyday experiences of Animal cruelty/torture/slaughter whereas urbanites, living in close proximity to partner Animals, do not experience such pervasive Animal cruelty. In addition, whilst it is possible for psychopathic oomans in rural areas to inflict pain and suffering on Animals without anyone discovering what they are doing, this is not so easy in urban areas.[15] There are not the same level of opportunities for sadists to torture Animals in urban areas as there is in rural areas.

3.2.2: The Cultural Differences between Rural and Urban Relationships with Animals.

These practical, everyday, material differences between townies and ruralites has led to considerable cultural differences. One of the most striking characteristics of the Animal rights movement is that, just like the environmental movement, it has emerged and achieved popularity in urban areas i.e. amongst those people who are the furthest removed from livestock Animals and Wildlife. Conversely, the biggest opposition to the protection of Animals has come, not from urbanites, but from those living in the countryside especially, of course, those who earn their living on livestock pharms, or who are dependent on doing business with pharmers, or who are involved in Animal murdering. Although they protest that they treat livestock Animals with care and affection in reality they see livestock Animals primarily as cash registers to be bought and sold for the highest price as if they were just lumps of meat. They claim to be saving game Animals from extinction but they do this only by exterminating all of their competitors.

In virtually every debate about Animal issues the people who want to protect Animals tend to come from cities whilst those who oppose Animal protection come from the countryside. During these debates countrydwellers inevitably come out with the refrain that, "Urbanites don't understand the ways of the countryside" i.e. they don't realize how barbaric Foxes/Badgers/Hedgehogs/Mice are to Chickens/Sheep/Cows. The general attitude of ruralites is that Wildlife have to be killed or, at the very least, severely repressed otherwise, before long, "they'll be takin' o'r the parish councils".

In the united states, the wise use groups which have been formed to dismantle environmental legislation are also demanding the end of Animal protection, "A considerable source of worry for the environmentalists (to America's Endangered Species Act) is the efforts of such powerful groups as the Endangered Species Roundtable, which includes representatives from the petroleum industry, the American Farm Bureau, mining and timber interests, the National Association of manufacturers, and the US Chamber of commerce. One of the roundtable's primary aims is to narrow the scope of the act so that it no longer protects sub-species. This would in theory turn the entire habitat of the Northern Spotted Owl over to the lumber industry, since the Northern is one of three sub-species .."[16] Even one anti-green sceptic is appalled by the extremist nature of these right wing thugs, "Today lovers of nature ought to have no use for wise use. The wise use crow, for instance, is nearly psychasthenic in its opposition to the Endangered species act. The ecorealist ought to support strengthening of the act .. ."[17]

3.2.3: Rural People see nothing wrong with Wearing Fur.

Rural people are far more likely to wear fur than their urban counterparts. These fur wearing rural tarts believe they can then go swanking through urban areas without anyone being offended, "Animal rights activists last night threatened a campaign of harassment against fur wearing members of the aristocracy following the apparent theft of the royal furrier's client database. Calman links, london, supplies furs to the queen and the queen mother; the customer list circulated by fur-free london includes lords, ladies and countesses - and gives precise details of the type and quantity of fur they have bought."[18]

3.2.4: International Comparisons.

From an international perspective, it is by no means a quirk of an island people that Animal rights became so popular in brutland. It is, after all, one of the most over-populated, over-industrialized, over-urbanized, countries in the world. Equally, it is by no means surprising that opposition to Animal rights is much greater on the european continent where there are still huge numbers of small scale farmers just like those greens admire so much,

France.

"It (hunting or la chasse) is a favourite pastime here. Far from the elitist tag it has in britain, millions of ordinary men and women are keen shooters. This week they feel like loosing off two barrels in the direction of the european union whose recent edict clamps down on the shooting of migratory birds."[19]

Tuscany.

"If the italians are ever to be shaken out of their indifference to the cruel slaughter of pets by game-shooters with poisoned meat-balls, murial (sparks) is the person to bring this about. I'm afraid that .. it will prove to be very difficult indeed (to stop the pet killers in tuscany). The authorities of the province of arezzo have had police officers keeping an eye on battery chicken farms to see who is removing discarded chicken heads, these being frequently used for poisoned bait. And the public prosecutor of florence has sent a circular to police stations urging that complaints about poisonings should be taken more seriously. But a deeper problem than official indifference is the reluctance of people whose pets have been killed to go to the police in the first place. The culture of omerta still prevails in the tuscan countryside."[20]

The United States of America.

In social and political affairs it is often the case that brutland lies half way between the united states of america and the united states of soviet russia. As regards Animal rights, however, america seems to be half way between brutland and the continent. There is only a tiny minority of people involved in pharming in america - as is the case in brutland. However, unlike in brutland where a huge proportion of people live in urban areas, in the united states huge numbers of people live in semi-rural areas within easy reach of wilderness areas and, as a consequence, there is a flourishing vampire industry, "The leghold trap in America alone kills approximately 10 million fur bearing creatures annually. The leghold trap has been banned in over 50 countries in Africa, Latin America and europe. North america and Asia (with the exception of India) have held out. In the USA there is a powerful lobby of 40,000 professional trappers and about 2 million 'recreational' trappers that has, so far, blocked any move to ban these traps."[21] This explains why in that country there is so much support for both Animal rights and Animal exploitation.

3.2.5: The Rise of Veganism in Urban Areas.

Perhaps the most blatant manifestation of the differences between rural and urban outlooks towards Animals is vegetarianism/veganism. Veganism is a modern invention not merely because it relies on the production of ooman-made fibres but because it is popular primarily in urban areas. Most vegans live in urban areas. Veganism flourishes in urban, but not rural, areas. It is very rare indeed to find people brought up in the countryside who support veganism. Veganism came into existence because the growth of urban areas has segregated large numbers of people from the continual, everyday slaughter of Animals which takes place in the countryside. Urban folk, being more civilized than their rural counterparts, became increasingly sensitized to Animal cruelty. If there were no urban areas it is very unlikely that there would be any vegans.

3.3: The Wider Nature of Rural Ideology.

This section highlights some of the wider tenets of rural propaganda.

3.3.1: Rural people believe they are Exploited by Urbanites.

The rural elite camoflauge their political power by promoting a rural ideology which suggests that rural people are exploited by urban interests. To give but one example, "The idea of localization also runs counter to the belief that fast-paced urban areas are the locus of "real" culture and diversity, while small, local communities are invariably isolated backwaters where small mindedness and prejudice are the norm. It isn't strange that this should seem so. The whole industrialization process has systematically removed political and economic power from rural areas and engendered a concomitant loss of self respect in rural populations."[22] In most countries around the world, the rural poor believe their governments are biased towards urbanites. Even though they are exploited by large landowners, who have a considerable influence over national governments, they still believe the state favours urban, rather than rural, areas. Just as surprising is that the rural middle classes revile urbanites as shiftless, workshy spongers even though urban people are subsidizing a whole range of services for the rural elite/middle classes and, to a lesser extent, the rural poor. It is only in third world countries where the exploitation of the poor by the landowning elite is so blatant it is impossible to disguise with such an ideology. Doubtlessly there are cases where the landowning elites have found it expedient to give way to the demands of urban people but, on the whole, the urban masses subsidize rural people i.e. both the rural elite and the rural poor.

3.3.2: The Free Market applies only to Urban Areas not Rural Areas.

Ruralites believe that pharmers are entitled to generous agricultural subsidies whilst rural people deserve subsidized rural services - all of which should be paid for by urban people. As far as tey are concerned the free market is applicable only to urban industries and urban people. Tory pharmers in virtually every country around the world are simply not willing to live by market forces even though they have forced most other sections of society to do so.

3.3.3: Global Warming is caused by Industrialized Urban Areas not Pharmers in Rural Areas.

The greatest victory of rural ideology is the belief that the main cause of global burning is the release of greenhouse gases by urban industries. Whilst this ideology accepts that agriculture is also responsible for modest quantities of greenhouse emissions this acceptance is solely a means of distracting public attention from pharming's biggest contribution - the devastation of Forests, the Earth's life support system. Virtually all sections of society believe that greenhouse gases and urban industries are the main culprit - including greens, politicians, the media and even climatologists. The united nations environment programme reinforces this ideology by insisting that because agriculture's greenhouse emissions are smaller than those of industry, therefore agriculture is not an important contributor to global burning - thereby ignoring the vast scale of the ecological destruction carried out by pharmers, "As for agriculture, it accounts for about 20% of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. Intensive agricultural practices such as livestock rearing, wet rice cultivation, and fertilizer use emit 50% of human-related methane and 70% of our nitrous oxide."[23] Scientists, the media and politicians are unwilling to point out the role played by deforestation in boosting global burning because they do not want to confront the most powerful political forces in society responsible for this deforestation i.e. pharmers. The reason that greens do not protest about pharmers boosting global burning through deforestation is because they want to obtain free land in the countryside and continue to enjoy the generous subsidies given to pharmers.

3.3.4: It is perfectly acceptable for people to be killed in Urban Areas in order to allow Ruralites to drink and drive.

Every year, huge numbers of people in brutland (and in many other countries around the world) are killed as a result of drinking and driving. Many of those killed are the motorists themselves but there are always sad stories of the slaughter of entirely innocent bystanders whether pedestrians or cyclists, who are killed because drivers are so besotted with their cars they refuse to stop driving after a drink. Every once in a while there are campaigns to persuade motorists not to drink and drive but as soon as the campaign is pushed onto the back burner the drinking and driving fatalities rise again. And even in the middle of such campaigns there are motorists who are so bloody minded about their rights to drive, presumably having been hyped up about fast cars by the likes of jeremy clarkson, that nothing seems to stop them. It is commonly believed the main political force blocking the introduction of tougher drinking and driving laws, or the banning of drinking and driving, is motorists. But this is only partially true. It is more accurate to argue that the main political opposition to such laws is rural motorists. The introduction of such laws would severely disrupt the habits of rural people and they are vehemently opposed to this proposal which would more or less mean they could drink only at home. In other words, thousands of urban people in this country are killed or mutilated as a result of entirely avoidable social problems caused by drunken motorists, just so that rural people can go to the pub and have a drink. Urban people are not merely subsidizing the lifestyle of those who have chosen to go and live in the countryside they are also paying with their lives for this obscene pleasure.

POSTER - THIS GIRL WAS MURDERED BY A DRUNKEN DRIVER - SHE WOULD NOT HAVE DIED IF RURAL INTERESTS HAD NOT PREVENTED THE PASSING OF TOUGHER LAWS BANNING DRINKING AND DRIVING.

3.3.5: It is wrong to increase Petrol Taxes because this will punish Rural People rather than Urban People.

One of the most recent developments in rural ideology has been ruralites' opposition to increases in petrol taxes in order to reduce environmental pollution. In the past, tory governments have dismissed such a measure because it would hit the middle classes. Similarly the labour party has been reluctant to support this measure because it would hit the poor living in inner city areas. However, of the two parties the most likely party to introduce this measure has been the labour party. Unfortunately, as a result of the 1997 general election, there are a significant number of labour mps who represent rural constituencies and are fighting to protect rural interests. They feared that environmental taxes on fuel would drive up the costs of rural motoring. It is possoble they were the decisive lobby which prevented increases in petrol taxes in the 1998 budget. In additional consideration is that the labour government's is politically shifting to the right in order to appeal to rural voters in order to increase its share of rural seats.

Policies to protect the environment and combat global burning are now being opposed by rural interests. Once again, it is urban people who are suffering because of the interests of the rural people they subsidize. The government's refusal to increase petrol taxes in the 1998 budget means that people living in urban areas will continue to be poisoned by millions of selfish, bloody minded, sods (single occupant drivers) driving into city centres. In other words, ruralites are condemning urban people to live in poisonous, foul-smelling, conditions which is causing an explosion in asthma cases and boosting lung cancer. The only way that townies are going to be able to enjoy fresh air is to reduce the number of ruralites driving into city centres either by increasing petrol taxes or banning cars altogether.

3.3.6: Rural Folks argue We'll have as Many Sprogs as we Want.

Rural people have a significantly higher birthrate than their urban counterparts, "Agricultural life is nothing if not fecund: many nations' farmers and pastoralists have succeeded in raising very large families. The average for european rural families has varied from four to eight."[24] Rural people seem to believe it is their right to have as many sprogs as they want especially when it is urbanites who are having to foot the bill.

3.3.7: A Wider View of Animals: A Case Study of Jane Ridley.

In order to understand the rural mentality more fully, it would be useful to examine the wider views of one vociferous ruralite. She starts of by agreeing with the basic thesis of this section, "Animals represent one of the chief points of friction between town and country."[25] Unfortunately, this is but a prelude to her next point, "As town and country pull apart on this issue, there is a real danger that the town will exploit its majority to impose legislation which, by importing urban expectations into the rural context, will damage the animals it is designed to protect."[26]

She believes that Animals have no personality and no moral being, "Animals are not language using self-conscious beings; having neither personality nor the concept of it, they are not moral beings."[27] The trouble with these attempts to insist that Animals are just things with no personality, sense of morality or rights, is that this is very much the same sort of attitude these people have towards the working classes, the poor, and foreigners. The miners should be chucked on the scrapheap but welfare payments should continue to be lavished on Animal murderers.

She condemns the way that urbanites have anthropomorphized their Animal partners, "But pet keeping only really became widespread around 1800. Dogs .. were given human names and shamelessly anthropomorphized - human qualities such as intelligence, loyalty, courage are all ascribed to dogs .."[28] If anything, characteristics such as intelligence, loyalty, and courage, are much more evident in Animals than oomans. Oomans have animalmorphized these characteristics in order to cover up their base stupidity, pack instincts and gross greed. After all, what other species on Earth is currently murdering millions of its own species around the world and impoverishing billions of others? It is amazing that even the most rational oomans seem unable to deduce from the fact that rich oomans are trashing the lives of the vast majority of people on Earth that oomans are the most vile species on Earth. What other species is currently committing mass suicide and murdering large numbers of innocent, defenceless Animals? Ridley is just another anthropogenic, oomano-imperialist, bigot.

Not content with denying Animals any personality or intelligence, ridley proceeds to make the standard rural excuse steeped in ancient stupidity and bigotry, "As is well known, the fox is a mass murderer of chickens and young game birds."[29] Ridley believes that Foxes are mass murderers for killing say between ten to twenty thousand Chickens a year? Does she then go on to denounce oomans as even worse mass murderers for killing billions of Chickens every year? Somehow this demented, rural old biddy can't see what oomans are up to around the planet. Even worse she fails to recognize that, in her own terms, what oomans are doing to Chickens is far worse than what Foxes are doing because, unlike Animals, oomans supposedly have a moral code. After fathoming the depths of such stupidity it is all too obvious that Animals are far superior to oomans.

3.4: Test Case: Rural Opposition to Gun Controls.

It was pointed out above that, as a rule, rural people tend to support gun ownership whilst those in the cities do not. Tory mps and the pests in the house of lords put up considerable opposition against the tory and labour government's ban on handguns which reveals the extent to which rural people are attached to firearms.

Tory Mps Dismiss the Dunblane Massacre.

There are some interesting overlaps between the politics of the dunblane massacre and the politics of the bse epidemic. The dunblane massacre happened on march 13th 1996, a week before the government disclosed there were 10 victims of mad cow disease (bse-cjd). After the massacre mps of all political parties were scrambling for interviews in the media to offer their sincerest condolences to the relatives of the dunblane victims. Doubtlessly after dishing out their sympathies some tory mps then popped down into parliament's new purpose built gun range to blast off a few rounds of live ammunition. Even whilst publicly mourning the dead, tory mps didn't have the slightest intention of heeding public demands for a ban on handguns. They sympathetically handled the public's emotional demands for action whilst carefully ushering such demands into parliamentary oblivion. No matter what disasters are caused by tory interests, the tory government was always willing to protect these interests from 'state interference'. A big advantage that tory mps had over this issue was that many of them had experience of managing such a crisis before when they prevented restrictions being placed on firearms after the hungerford massacre, "The close relationship between the conservative party and the shooting lobby is embodied by patrick lawrence, chairman of the british shooting sports council, the umbrella organization co-ordinating the lobby's evidence to the dunblane inquiry and lobbying mps. A birmingham solicitor, patrick can count mps such as jerry wiggin, the mp for weston-super-mare and michael colvin, the mp for romney, among his council members. Both played a key role in ensuring that shooters' interests were heard by ministers when they rebelled over the 1988 firearms act, after the hungerford massacre."[30] If tory mps hadn't sabotaged the calls for a handguns' ban after the hungerford massacre, there wouldn't have been a dunblane massacre - unless, of course, the dunblane mass murderer had gone out and bought himself of set of semi-automatic, rapid reload, cricket bats.

Despite national revulsion over the dunblane massacre, the tory government began defusing public demands for a curb on handguns. It set up the cullen inquiry to avoid taking any decisions and hoped to publish the report after public opinion had cooled down after the massacre. Over the summer of 1996 a small number of tory mps began to test the state of public opinion by making it known that they dismissed the need for a ban on handguns. The number of tory mps opposed to such a ban was greater than the tory party's majority in the house of commons. The guardian newspaper carried a report listing the tory mps opposing a ban, "John Major faces a potential rebellion against the introduction of a ban on the private ownership of handguns by at least 32 conservative mps who shoot for recreation or have strong links with shooting organizations. There are 22 conservative mps who number shooting among their recreations:

Rupert Allason (Torbay);

Peter Atkinson (Hexham);

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster);

Timothy Boswell (Daventry);

John Carlisle (Luton N);

Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton);

Edward Garnier (Harborough);

Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon);

Warren Hawksley (Halesowen and Stourbridge);

David Heathcote-Amory (Wells);

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire);

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries);

Michael Norris (Northampton South);

Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking);

Richard Page (SW Hertfordshire);

James Paice (SE Cambridgeshire);

Graham Riddick (Colne valley);

Andrew Robathan (Blaby);

Ian Taylor (Esher);

Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)

David Tredinnick (Bosworth) and

Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne).

Five more likely to join them:

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester);

Nicholas Soames (Crawley) and

Henry Bellingham (NW Norfolk).

Mr Colvin, who is chairman of the british field sports society and jerry wiggin are also expected to be active again."[31]

Fortunately, these offal eatin', gun tottin', cowboy mps found themselves up against the campaigning zeal of the dunblane victims' parents who managed to resuscitate public demands for a ban on handguns. By the time the aristocratic lord cullen had finished faffing around with his report, the tory government had been put under so much pressure from the dunblane snowdrop campaign that it let it be known it would adopt even more drastic policies than those cullen had been pontificating on for so many months.[32] The government, however, refused to support a total ban on handguns, "The government will today bow to public anger over the private ownership of guns in the wake of the dunblane massacre by announcing a ban on almost all handguns. The exception will be .22 single-shot pistols, which account for less than 10% of legally held handguns in brutland .. But they will have to be kept in secure gun clubs. The government's U-turn is a victory for mr forsyth, whose stirling constituency includes dunblane, and who was pressing for a ban, while mr howard favoured a less stringent approach."[33]

The government, however, didn't have the support of enough tory mps for a partial ban so it decided to leave legislation to a private members' bill in the knowledge that the labour party would vote it through. However, it refused to give tory mps a free vote on this private members' bill in order to prevent the country from discovering the scale of tory mps' opposition to the ban. The labour party and a few tory mps voted for the handguns' ban on november 18th 1996.

The Dunblane Massacre and Bse.

From the perspective of the bse saga, what is so interesting about the dunblane issue is that many of the tory mps who were willing to defy public opinion and allow a wide range of blood sport perverts, sadists, whackos, militaristic groupies, and deranged psychopaths, to legally own guns, were also pharmers who prevented drastic measures from being taken to combat the spread of bse.

The following is a list of the tory members of parliament who, in the last parliament, were pharmers[34] and thus had a direct interest in preventing measures to combat bse. The tory mps who were both pharmers and members of the shooting lobby, as mentioned in the list above, are highlighted in bold:-

Michael Ancram

Robert Banks

Henry Bellingham,

Sir Richard Body,

Sir Nicholas Bonsor,

Tim Boswell,

Nicholas Budgen,

Sir Kenneth Carlisle,

Paul Channon,

James Clappison

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown,

Michael Colvin,

Derek Conway,

Hugh Dykes,

Christopher Gill,

Sir Archie Hamilton,

David Harris,

David Heathcoat-Amory

James Hill,

Sir Ralph Howell,

Michael Jopling,

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman,

Tom King,

Paul Marland,

Tony Marlow

David Martin,

Sir Patrick Mayhew

Sir Hector Monro,

Philip Oppenheim

James Paice,

Richard Ryder,

Sir Tim Sainsbury

John Sykes,

William Waldegrave.

At least eight out of the 34 mps who were pharmers were known supporters of the shooting lobby. This grossly underestimates the actual overlap between the two groups. Many tory mp pharmers would rather spend their leisure time on their estates shooting Animals rather than going to gun clubs - even the lavish one which had been built under the house of commons at taxpayers' expense.

It can be concluded that most of the country's pharmers are shooters and that the strength of the firearms lobby in parliament derived mainly from the large numbers of tory mps who are pharmers. Basically the tory mps who are pharmers, not only prevented action being taken to combat bse, and thus helped to spread the disease amongst the Cattle and ooman populations, they also opposed the ban on handguns. Tory mps were so devoted to their pharming and shooting interests they were not prepared to do anything to prevent bse-cjd and hungerford/dunblane type disasters.

Stroppy, Trigger Happy, Tories.

There is a trigger happy, gun loving, culture among tory mps,

Roger Gale - Tory mp.

"The son of tory mp roger gale has been suspended for firing a ball bearing gun on a crowded bus. The scandal comes after gale told a local paper he did not believe the proposed Firearms Bill banning handguns would "save a single life". The 53 year old mp for thanet north, who does not shoot .. "[35]

Rupert Allason - Tory mp.

"Major was challenged to "back or sack" rupert allason following revelations that the tory mp asked britain's top cop not to charge two pals on a gun rap."[36]

The Aristocracy and Dunblane.

The overlap between pharmers and shooters is even more extensive in the house of lords. There were plenty of aristocratic, gun tottin' tory pharmers intent on scuppering the tory government's proposal for a limited ban on handguns, "Hard-hearted lords are plotting against the gun ban brought in after the dunblane massacre. They plan a series of amendments to increase the number of firearms that can be used legally."[37]; "The house of lords last night defeated a key part of the government's handuns bill .. in the most significant of three defeats for the government last night, by 153 votes to 139 peers overturned a ban on holding pistols at home, and said owners should be allowed to do so provided key parts to enable the gun to fire were held at secure gun clubs. .. a liberal democrat move to compensate gun dealers hit by the ban on high-calibre handguns was carried by 121 votes to 110."[38]; "Charles edward stourton, 26th baron mowbray .. the peasant shooting, oxford educated baron."[39] The lords opposition continued when labour came into office and implemented a full ban on handguns. Nevertheless, the labour government still compensated those who had to handed in their guns.

The Windsors and Dunblane.

The windsors did their bit to undermine the bill to ban handguns but what else could be expected from these gun-loving, Animal murdering, meat-eating, fur wearing, bull-fighting, pharmers?[40] There is little that the windsors love more than killing Animals. Their entire lives revolve around protecting Animals until it is time to kill them. They are farmers. Not content with being farmers they also sell dead carcasses, "Royal restaurant chain 'deals' is up for sale after losing £1million. Takings have dipped at the three burger bars which were the house of windsor's first public commercial venture. The business was launched in 1988 by lord linley - 12th in line to the throne - the queen's cousoin lord lichfield and the restaurateur eddie lim. But the latest loss of £260,000 is the third in four years."[41] And every opportunity they get they go out killing Wildlife. When camilla goes on holiday she can't wait to see a good bullfight . They even enjoy the sport of winding up Animal lovers. Phil denounces 'Animal lovers' and half the fun of wrapping themselves in furs is to provoke the wroth of Animal lovers.

The windors have carefully cultivated an almost instinctive knack for pushing their collective fingers up the nose of public opinion, "Phil windsor has sparked outrage by saying shooting club members are no more dangerous than a cricketer with a bat. He said, "If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean are you going to ban cricket bats?" He called for mps to think again before the outlawing of all handguns except .22 calibre becomes law. The prince, who himself shoots game (sic), said: "There's no evidence that people who use weapons for sport are any more dangerous than people who use golf clubs or tennis racquets or cricket bats." Ann pearston, a spokesperson for the snowdrop campaign, said: "To think of the queen coming up here and laying a wreath at our school and then hearing her husband say something like this sickens me."[42] The queen, a sickeningly over-privileged nonentity, failed to mention the dunblane massacre in her 1996 xmas speech as if it was far more important for her to protect the right od shooters than to commiserate with the victims of gun culture.

The royals couldn't curb their bloodlust during this period when people's memories of the dunblane massacre were still fresh, "Prince william has developed a craving for shooting Animals which has shocked his uncle prince andrew. The duke of york was walking his Dog in windsor great park when he noticed there was little sign of Wildlife. When he raised the subject with a park warden he was told, "That's because your nephew has been down here, sir. He's killed everything in sight. The warden told him william had shot dozens of Squirrels, Rabbits and Birds on several visits. One servant said, "Hunting is his passion." Wills has been using the private grounds of the park near the royal lodge, the queen mother's home. William recently killed his first Stag during a visit to balmoral."[43] With not the slightest sense that they might have alienated anyone with their remarks, omissions and antics, a few months later the royals were making it known they would appreciate it if the country's taxpayers forked out £80 million on a new royal yacht - even more surprising was that in the run up to the general election the tory's began to play the patriotic card and promised to pay for this new aristocratic luxury. Phil windsor's view that Animal murderers are normal decent people is wide of the mark. It is well known that there is a close link between shooting, meat eating, fur wearing, wife beating and child abuse - for example in early 1997 it was revealed that one of the windsor's servants who'd recently died had made a 14 year old girl pregnant but no action had been taken against him.

If the dunblane mass murderer had taken a shotgun with him then the public would have demanded a ban on these weapons as well which would probably have made life so intolerable for the so-called royals they might have vacated the throne and gone to live in america. It has to be asked, if philip windsor is so convinced that the dunblane massacre could have been carried out using a cricket bat then why doesn't this slimey, overprivileged turd use one himself when he goes out hunting Wildlife? It would be interesting to see him defend himself with one against a charging Rhino.

Had the Dunblane Murderer been Infected with Bse?

There is one other overlap between dunblane and bse which ought to be considered and that is whether the dunblane murderer was suffering from bse. He was a long standing beef eater. What is so worrying about bse is that it has a long incubation period and does not produce physical ailments until the latter stages of the disease. The first effect of bse on oomans is psychological problems. Could it be that the dunblane murderer, who had built up powerful resentments against his local community, had been driven over the edge by bse-cjd? An autopsy should have been performed to determine whether he was suffering from this disease.