PART SIX: ADDENDA.

6.1: Greens Supporting the Urbanization of the Countryside and the Decimation of Wildlife Habitats.

Dauncey, Guy.

"The repopulation of rural areas in ecologically sustainable ways."[1]

Dobson, Andrew.

"Most manifestations of the Green movement argue for a repopulation of the countryside."[2]

Kemp, Penny @ Wall, Derek.

"Greens believe that more people should have access to the land and would end the current stranglehold of large landowners by means of grants and a system of community ground rent designed to split land holdings of many thousands of acres. Greens would like to see more people living in rural areas."[3]

Lanz, Klaus.

"If current forecasts are to be believed, almost half of humanity will be living in cities by the year 2000. This trend should be halted or at least slowed, and incentives provided to persuade people to live in rural areas or in smaller towns."[4]

Melchett, Peter; Charlie Pye-Smith & Chris Hall

Charlie pye-smith and chris hall were members of an informal group called the '1999 committee' which produced a manifesto to promote the rejuvenation of rural areas, "We need a new vision of what our countryside should be and a manifesto to achieve it. That is what this book provides."[5]; "The Countryside we want' is a practical programme of reforms for revitalizing rural britain and halting the many destructive processes which yearly make it a less attractive place to live in and visit. We want a diverse countryside in which a multiplicity of activities can take place."[6]; "We are concerned with revitalizing the countryside. Something must be done, and done quickly, about the shortage of housing, the decline of public transport and the loss of jobs .. We must also create the opportunities for the less affluent town-dwellers to move into the countryside and to work in it if they wish."[7]

Porritt, Jonathon.

"There should be ... a massive programme of rural resettlement."[8]

Rifkin, Jeremy with Ted Howard.

"Eventually the proportion of farm to city population will have to reverse itself if human life is to survive. Labour intensive organic farming cannot support the concentrated urban population centres that have built up during the high energy fossil, fuel age. An agricultural way of life will dominate the coming Solar age as it has in every other period of history before our own."[9]

Windsor, Charles.

"Charles called for the development of new towns with young, old, rich and poor living side by side."[10]

6.2: Greens Supporting the Urbanization of the Countryside, the Abolition of Cities and the Exploitation of Wildlife.

Bahro, Rudolf.

"If we want to arrive at ectopia we must not work towards renovating Frankfurt but rather towards clearing and dismantling it."[11]

Goldsmith, Edward; Nicholas Hildyard; Patrick McCully & Peter Bunyard.

"City life is marked by consumption and waste. Cities, however small, have always been parasitic on the countryside around them, not least because the majority of their inhabitants must rely on farmers in the countryside to provide them with food. Where cities are small, and the demands of their citizens limited, the degradation caused need not undermine their viability. But the demands being made by city-dwellers today, particularly in the industrialized countries are global in their reach, and global in their implications. Meeting even the demands of present day cities is placing an intolerable burden on the environment and society as more and more resources are sucked into urban conglomerations."[12]

Roszak, Theodore.

"Urban dwellers..constitute the oldest imperial interest in the world. The empire of cities, incessantly forcing itself upon the traditional, the rural, the wilderness at large. Today, all the decisions that are being made about the future of our planet are being made in the cities by city brains."[13]; "By the very fact that they are locked away from the Earth in an artificial environment, urbanites lose sight of the planet as a living entity with whom they must maintain an organic reciprocity."[14]; "The modern city represents our most daring attempt to live 'beyond' nature as its detached observer and master."[15]

Green Anarchist.

"When the cities can no longer provide jobs and food gets increasingly expensive, the cities will dwindle to nothing."

6.3: The Continuing Critique of Green Politics.

6.3.1: Greens' Silence over Rural Exploiters.

What is so remarkable about the rural exploitation of urban people is that it is rarely mentioned. In this respect greens are no different from their conventional political counterparts. They rarely discuss this topic even though it goes to the heart of green politics. As a consequence, greens do little to protest about this form of exploitation. For example, andrew rowell's expose of the backlash in america against environmentalism was discussed almost exclusively in political terms i.e. as a fight between the right and the left. The only time the rural nature of wise use groups, and the rural-urban divide, was mentioned was in quotes by some of the leading figures in the backlash but he didn't explore these comments. For example, he quotes the rabid, anti-green propagandist, ron arnold. The focus of this quote is on the fact that although the american public does not like multi-national corporations, they are willing to support grassroots' organizations campaigning for policies which are in the interests of these corporations, "The public will never love big business. The pro-industry citizen activist group is the answer to these problems. It can speak as a group of people who live close to nature and have more natural wisdom than city people .. It can evoke powerful archetypes such as the sanctity of the family, the virtue of the close-knit community, the natural wisdom of the rural dweller .."[16] Rowell quotes another commentator who pointed out that most of the environmentalists being attacked by redneck, anti-environmentalists lived in rural areas where they were easy targets, "What we also know is that it is mainly grassroots activists, miles from the safety of big cities who are suffering most."[17] The only time rowell mentions the conflict between rural and urban peoples is when he discusses the green backlash in norway, "Throughout the region (nordic countries) environmental and animal rights groups have suffered from the image of meddling imperialistic city dwellers who know nothing about traditional ways of life in the arctic, and who care more about animals than the continuance of rural traditions, and a way of life that has remained constant for generations."[18] But, once again, he does not follow up this statement about the rural-urban divide.

6.3.2: The Paradoxes of Environmental Politics.

The green movement derives most of its support from urban areas whilst the anti-green movement derives most of its support from rural areas. The anti-greens tailor their policies to suit the interests of rural people and make an explicit appeal for support from rural volk. However, most environmentalists/greens do not tailor their policies to suit the interests or needs of urban people. On the contrary, they blame urbanites for the devastating the Earth; they blame urban consumers for forcing rural folk to ransack the Earth's resources;[19] they blame urban industries and urban consumers for boosting global burning; and some even condemn the existence of cities. Whilst such condemnations are appealing to pharmers (and multinational road/dam/logging/mining, corporations etc) they are hardly popular amongst urbanites. Even worse is that environmentalists/greens spite urban people by praising rural folk for looking after the environment - even though rural industries cause more environmental damage than any other industry and rural folk are mostly implacably opposed to environmental regulations. Greens' admiration of small scale farming is one of the reasons they rarely criticize the Animal exploitation industry and why they have done so little to condemn pharming for causing problems such a bse. In 1998 greens started sabotaging genetically engineered crops but they have done very little to sabotage the work of genetically engineered Animals which has been going on for far longer.

The facts are, however, that it is ruralites and rural industries which are primarily responsible for destroying the Earth's life support system and boosting global burning. Although urban people do not live close to nature, many know more about the destruction of the Earth's life support system than rural people. Whilst urbanites are appalled by this destruction, ruralites believe that pharmers should be freed from environmental constraints preventing them from carrying out even more environmental devastation. Whilst ruralites might be closer to nature they are also desperate to exploit nature. They exploit natural resources not for the sake of producing products which will make the lives of poor, inner city people more comfortable but to make bigger profits. Ruralites are so intent on exploiting local ecologies they are completely unwilling to face up to the damage they are doing to the Earth's life-sustaining processes.

6.3.3: The Paradoxes of Animal Politics.

The same paradoxes are found in Animal politics. The bulk of the support for Animal rights comes from urban, not rural, people and yet many Animal rightists are green anarchists/back to the landers/tribalists encouraging oomans to live in rural areas. Animal rightists encourage a return to nature on the spurious basis that oomans can live in harmony with Wildlife. Given the colossal scale of the slaughter which oomans are currently inflicting on billions of Animals around the world anyone who promotes such an idea ought to be diagnozed as clinically inane. As soon as large numbers of oomans move back into the countryside they will exterminate all Wildlife which pose a threat to the safety of their children, their livestock and their livelihoods.

Even more paradoxical, but on a more mundane level, is that the vast majority of the greens/Animal rightists who espouse the belief in the harmony of oomans and Animals organize meetings which ... ban Dogs. The following are a couple of examples of this hypocrisy, "Mass trespass in commemmoration of the diggers. Meeting saturday, 12 midday for mass trespass to mystery site (no Dogs)."[20] Could you trust people who vehemently support the fantasy of living in harmony with nature when they can't act harmoniously with Dogs? If they can't even ensure that oomans and Dogs live in harmony then how are they going to ensure oomans and all other forms of Wildlife are going to live in harmony?[21] In 1998 london greenpeace embarked on a publicity campaign for its oomano-imperialist creed - 'Oomans must be able to live and travel where they wish and when they wish'. These are the same people who put up 'No Dogs allowed' signs at their meetings. It seems to be alright for oomans to wander where and when they want but not Animals.

The dangers posed by the urbanization of the countryside are of considerable relevance not only to the environmental/green movement but to the Animal protection movement. Rural urbanization will bring about a huge deterioratio in the conditions in which livestock Animals are kept; cause an increase in the scale of damage to Wildlife habitats; and lead to an even greater decimation of Wildlife. It was pointed out earlier that it was surprising that instead of supporting Reforestation schemes in abandoned rural areas, many greens wanted to push people back into the countryside and cover it in cement. There is a similar tactical disaster in the Animal protection movement. Despite the fact that, at the moment, the desertion of the countryside creates a wonderful opportunity to increase the scale and number of Wilderness areas in which Wildlife would be free from ooman barbarism, many Animal protectionists also support the urbanization of the countryside. What makes the urbanization of the countryside even worse is that it would lead to urban people assimilating rural values i.e. not merely rearing livestock but hunting, shooting and fishing. At the very least, it would increase the numbers of people with the opportunity to slaughter Wildlife. The urbanization of the countryside would thus have a detrimental impact both on Animals and on the level of support for Animal protection. If vegans want to encourage more people to become vegan they should support the depopulation of rural areas by pointing out the attractions of urban life. It is only when all oomans are living in cities that it will possible to create a vegan society. The only way to ensure the survival of Widlife is to segregate oomans into urban areas and prevent them from coming into proximity with Animals.

6.3.4: Greens' Strategy.

In complete defiance of all known laws of political campaigning, greens' support for the invasion of the countryside alienates their natural supporters in urban areas; it disenchants greens' allies in the Animal rights movement; and it promotes the interests of rural people who are oblivious to green ideas. This may even underestimate the situation. Many rural people are not merely oblivious to green ideas but antagonistic towards them. Some even despise greens e.g. auberon waugh, ned sherrin and other old age, flatulent, meat eating, geophysiological ignoramuses - for which see below.

The urbanization of the countryside will also bring about the assimilation of urbanites into rural culture. Urban folk will lose interest in environmental protection and Animal rights causing even greater exploitation of the countryside and Animals. It has been argued that, "If you want to know when a (political) system is coming to its end, then one good indicator is when the elite is moving to the countryside."[22] This view could be updated to suggest that a good indication of the proximity to the collapse of the Earth's life support system is when greens try and drag urbanites into the countryside.

In other words, greens' strategy is undermining the basis of their own support amongst people in urban areas who haven't got the slightest interest is small scale farming, whether organic or permacultural; it is undermining the support of Animal protectionists who are appalled by greens' support for the exploitation of Animals, and the slaughter of Wildlife, entailed by free range farming; and, finally, it is dismally failing to win over rural people who, at best, are indifferent to the destruction of the Earth and its Wildlife.

6.3.5: The Anti-Environmentalists Wooing Urban Voters.

Greens' failure to highlight the exploitation of urban people by rural interests and, as a consequence, their failure to defend the interests of the people who support them, has recently been exploited by anti-environmentalists trying to extend their support from rural into urban areas, "The most economically efficient part of human civilization is the city where there is the most contact between people, the best public transport, and generally the most efficient use of resources. But many environmentalists are repelled by cities and are opposed to the urbanization of third world countries."[23] The anti-environmentalists hope they can take electoral advantage of the political vacuum created by greens' lack of interest/support for urban people so that they might win the support of urbanites who are currently sympathetic to green/Animal protection issues. Greens' belief that most urbanites can't wait to abandon the cities and move back into the countryside means they don't see the need to challenge anti-environmentalists' efforts to woo over urban folk and promote their interests. Given that most support for greens/Animal protectionists comes from urban areas this could cost the green movement a considerable amount of political influence. Although there is currently very little support for anti-environmentalism in urban areas this could easily change if anti-environmentalists start exposing greens' plans for "driving" (george monbiot) millions of urbanites onto vegetable plots in the countryside. This is a serious flaw in the green movement's political strategy.

6.3.6: The Defeatism of Green Politics.

The campaign of so-called greens such as 'green anarchist', the green party, organic farmers, permaculturalists and, most recently, 'the land is ours', 'do or die', 'Earth First uk', tribalists and primitivists, to urbanize the countryside is basically a retreat from urban politics. It is like an admission of defeat that they cannot green the cities. It is as if they believe the only option left to them is to runaway from their problems and try to start again in the countryside. But if greens haven't been able to green the cities why should they be trusted to green the countryside? This is especially true when most anarcho/hippy/primitivist/tribalist/erff first!ers haven't got the slightest experience of participating in democratic decisions made by local communities. The reason greens have failed to exert much influence in urban communities is not solely because they spend their time down the local boozer getting drunk on tory beer, but because they aren't defending or promoting the interests of urban greens.

6.3.7: The Supergreens; the Green Aristocrats.

Perhaps the main reason why greens are currently in such an absurd political mess is because the green movement is dominated by people who, in an earlier work, were referred to as supergreens but who could also be called aristocratic greens. These are people who learnt their green politics in the 1960s and 1970s when climate issues were rarely even conceived, let alone mentioned, and when geophysiology was just a twinkle in james lovelock's eye. Their primary hatred was for the chemical industrial and the industrialization of the countryside. These greens are environmentalists, or at best ecologists, who know about local ecologies but know very little about geophysiology, the Earth's life support system.

The head of the aristocratic greens is, of course, charles windsor and behind him is his adviser and friend, jonathon porritt. Behind porritt are greens such as peter melchett, george monbiot, oliver tickell, simon fairlie, the editors of the ecologist, jonathon dimbleby, mark purdey, etc. The main tenets of aristocratic greens' political creed is support for:

* organic pharming,

* continued subsidies for pharmers and rural dwellers,

* the exploitation of free range Animals,

* support for blood sports,

* the love of fur.

Whilst supergreens condemn industrialized pharming they are not anti-pharmer. On the contrary, they target pharmers in the hope of persuading them about the merits of organic pharming. Since many supergreens live in rural areas they look to rural communities for support and are much more rurally-oriented than the rest of the greenmovement which resides in urban areas. This rural-orientation is the reason why they will not:-

* expose the way rural interests exploit urbanites;

* condemn farmers for the subsidies they receive;

* condemn pharmers for causing bse. On the contrary, they try to put the blame for bse on multi-national chemical corporations (which will have the entirely fortuitous consequence of requiring the government to fork out billions of pounds worth of additional compensation to pharmers for being compelled to use insecticides on Cattle);

* blame pharmers for causing global burning but persist in propping blaming manufacturing industries and urban consumers;

* support Reforestation and the creation of regional wood economies. Rather than abolishing pastureland to plant Forests which could combat global burning, they promote extensification, a vast increase in the pastureland for free range livestock. Given the same number of Animals, organic pharming requires even more pastureland than current livestock pharming - paradoxically, although it is possible to grow more crops on less land through labour intensive efforts, it is not possible to obtain more meat from less land;

* denounce Animal exploitation, blood sports and the wearing of fur, (thereby alienating half of the green movement i.e. Animal rightists).

Most of the aristocratic greens who support small scale organic farming have never done a days work on a farm in their lives. It is difficult imagining them ever picking up a spade and tending to their cabbage patches. Charles windsor is rarely photographed digging up his allotment because he's either off on holiday or corrupting his children into the arts of blasting Animals to death. When aristocratic greens get involved in the back breaking toil of turning over the soil, pulling up weeds and planting seeds it might possible to take them a little more seriously. It is amazing that they have the gall to go around demanding that urban people should take up this backbreaking way of life when they have never done anything like it in their lives and, seemingly, have no intention of doing it. This is reminiscent of those academic left wing wadicals in the 1970s and 1980s who extolled workers' virtues without ever going anywhere near a factory themselves. As far as they were concerned, working in factories is good for other people - not them. They're much too good to work in such places although they would never say such a thing in public. I have no intention of demanding that everyone ought to become farmers when it is the last job i would ever want to do. I also have no intenton of going back to the land whilst supergreens like windsor, goldsmith, porritt, monbiot, and papworth, are jetting around the world living in luxury hotels before getting into four wheel drives to drive to the latest site of cutting edge localism. I ain't working on the land until i see them sweating, sunburnt, and grimy from years of toil in the soil. The gall of these supergreens is appalling, "I've actually heard western enviros who themselves take meals in air-conditioned restaurants going on about how third world farmers should not be given tractors because ox-drawn plows are more ecologically transparent."[24]

Even though pharmers are the biggest Earth rapists; the main culprits of bse and global burning; and the biggest welfare benefit spongers in the country; aristocratic greens will not condemn them because they look upon them as, potentially, their natural allies .. "though environmental lobbies often call for restrictions on use of farm chemicals, rarely do they call for an end to farm subsidies, such subsidies being a sacred cow, as it were, of classical liberalism."[25]

6.3.8: The Appalling Public Relations Image of Rural Green Politics.

At the opposite end of the 'rural green' spectrum from the supergreens are the new generation of greens in 'the land is ours'/'Earth First'/tribalism, etc. Whilst the supergreens enjoy a life of luxury, the young greens live precariously with little secure means of support. They are the victims of tory taunts about being welfare radicals even though, as has been pointed out, pharmers are by far biggest welfare scroungers in the country. Like the supergreens, the young greens rarely protest about what pharmers are doing to the Earth's life support system or its Wildlife. Is this because they hope one day to find security by grabbing some free land (usually in some idyllic setting such as a nature reserve) and then gaining recognition as permacultural/organic farmers in order to receive lavish subsidies from the common agricultural policy? What a life this would be, away from the oomanojunk race, a lovely quiet place in the countryside where they would be legally entitled to do what they want on the land, where they would receive lavish subsidies for doing nothing, all without having to pay any rates or having to sign on every fortnight. The one thing about hippies in the sixties was that at least they engaged in politics without hope of getting any rewards whereas the activists in 'the land is ours' are in grave danger of promoting policies from they would stand to gain personally. If people suspect that the high principles and nobility of 'the land is ours' movement is just a tactic for getting free land and lavish, lifelong pharming subsidies, they are going to become very disenchanted with green politics. Unfortunately, what those in 'the land is ours' movement don't seem to appreciate is that there is not the slightest prospect of people being allowed to move back into the countryside precisely because these financial benefits are so substantial. Because pharmers enjoy such a huge range of financial, and political, privileges no government would want to extend these privileges to any substantial numbers of people.

6.3.9: The New Alliance between Back to the Landers and Earth Rapists.

Rural greens' advocacy of the ooman rights to live, work, roam, and play, in the countryside will pave the way for an explosion of Earth rapist leisure activities such as dirt bike riding, four wheel drives, motorcross racing, car rallying, safari ralying, raves, not to mention a massive extension of traditional countryside pursuits such as poaching, Hare coursing, hunting and shooting. Far from being embarrassed about the support 'the land is ours' is giving to dirt bikers and their ilk, monbiot decorated one of his articles in the guardian with a large photograph of a dirt biker in action. It has to be suggested that the number of Earth rapists who will benefit from increasing access to the countryside will be far geater than those 'peacefully' trampling the countryside underfoot. What we are witnessing at the present time is a shift of political allegiances in the green movement. There is a new alliance emerging between on the one hand, rural greens, the Land is ours/the Back to the Landers/Organic Farmers and, on the other hand, dirt bikers, four wheel drivers, rally drivers, motorcross riders, hunters, poachers, blood sports enthusiasts, hunters, shooters, fur trappers, etc. This is a bizarre alliance between green anarchists and rural rednecks; between trendy greens and psychopathic murderers; and between genteel ramblers and mad cap motorists. In addition, greens' preoccupation with the countryside leads them to support the interests of the housing/road construction industries.

Still rumours have it that large numbers of ravers are due to descend on tinkers baubles for an all night party (before moving on to george monbiot's place) - let's hope he has enough room on his property for all their cars and that he's got a spare couple of weeks to clear up after their consumerist indulgencies. Perhaps the travellers who are planning to squat on his permacultural Wilderness patch at the bottom of his rural retreat will help him tidy up. But, since most members of this cultural cul-de-sac don't like getting out of their foul, polluting vehicles this is none too likely. The land is ours' group must be sick and tired of seeing the country's multi-national road builders being given lucrative contracts for suffocating the countryside in tarmac when they could be doing it much more cheaply and efficiently. Property developers and road builders intent on sementing the countryside must be amazed at their stroke of good fortune at being offered the support of their supposed opponents in the green movement. Whilst a small handful of individuals are heroically building tunnels to prevent road building, the supergreens are out their demanding that more of the countryside should be covered in cement.

6.4: A Summary of the Inexorable Logic of the Land is Ours.

There are many people who may be attracted to the 'the land is ours' because of organic farming. Firstly because they would prefer that Animals are given the freedom to roam rather than being confined in factory pharms and, secondly, they'd prefer to eat free range meat free of all additives, preservatives and chemicals rather than doped up, genetically modified, toxic, meat. But anyone falling for the allure of 'the land is ours' will rapidly find themselves hurtling down a helter scelter of Animal slaughter.

'The land is ours' promotes organic farming because it involves growing chemical-free crops. In order to protect these crops, organic pharmers kill off crop pests such as .. "the brown rat, the house mouse and the rabbit."[26] Also Deer and Birds e.g. the Wood Pigeon.

'The land is ours' promotes organic farming even though this involves the exploitation and murder of Animals treated as livestock.

The consequence of organic, free range, farming is that farmers have to exterminate even more Wildlife in order to protect their livestock e.g. Foxes, Rats, Stoats, Weasels, Mink, etc.

Organic pharmers have to exterminate all Wildlife which carry diseases which pose a health threat to livestock Animals - this is especially the case since they do not use modern chemicals or antibiotics to protect their Animals' health. At the very least this means the slaughter of Rats, Mice, Badgers, etc.

'The land is ours' promotes organic farming even though this involves the extensification of livestock farming which will devastate large of Wildlife habitats.

'The land is ours' believes that if organic farmers are justified in killing livestock Animals then they are also justified in supporting hunting, shooting and fishing i.e. the killing game Animals such as Grouse, Deer, etc.

Because 'the land is ours' supports hunting, shooting and fishing means it also accepts the exterminate of Wildlife species which predate on game Animals. In the case of fishing this requires the extermination of Pike; in the case of Grouse shooting it requires the killing of birds of prey, "Peregrine, buzzard, golden eagle and other hawks and owls are still shot and poisoned on gaming estates, even though they are protected by law. .. other 'vermin' which are killed for the sake of the shoot: stoats, weasels, jays, magpies, crows, pigeons, rats, adders .."[27]

'The land is ours' believes that if organic farmers are justified in killing livestock, game Animals, and pests (although apparently not the biped types of pests) then it is also legitimate to raise and kill Animals for their fur.

In many countries around the world Wildlife sanctuaries have been set up to try and prevent poachers and local people from exterminating rare Animals. However, 'the land is ours' is one of the leading propaganda organizations encouraging local people to invade these Wildlife sanctuaries in order to graze their livestock or to exploit the Wildlife. After all, if 'the land is ours' supports the exploitation of livestock and Wildlife in this country so they also have to support it in other countries. This means allowing rich hunters to shoot Elephants and Tigers. This also requires supporting the trade in ivory, Tiger fur, the use of Tiger bones in medicine. This, in turn, legitimizes Whale hunting by norwegians, japanese and other tribalist nations. In total, the resumption of the trade in Animal parts.

'The land is ours' also condones the use of Animals in medicines, "Field surveys assessing conservation risks posed by traditional chinese medicine (tcm) deal almost exclusively with the few medicinal mammals. The results are disheartening. Continued demand for Tiger bones makes over-exxploitation a greater threat than habitat loss. Similarly, medicinal use of Rhinoceros horn has accounted for much of the decline in numbers. Between 1970 and 1993, 95% of the world's population of black Rhinoceros disappeared, and javan and sumatran Rhinos hover on the brink of extinction. Demand for Bear bile still threatens asian Bears, even though there are now regulations on international trade in all species. One solution is to farm medicinal Animals and plants. Chinese officials have promoted this as a way of guaranteeing supplies as well as protecting endangered species. Even when it works, farming usually fails to match the scale of demand. China's demand for Animal products such as musk and pangolin scales far exceeds supply from captive-bred sources. Bear farming in china is particularly controversial. Around 7600 captive Bears have their bile "milked" through tubes inserted into their gall bladders."[28]

The greens in 'the land is ours' are nauseating hypocrites and ooman-imperialists. They argue for oomans' right to roam but not Animals' right to roam. The fact that they want the right to roam for oomans but not Animas proves they are oomano-imperialists. They insist that oomans should be allowed to invade Wildlife parks to use whatever resources are there. They believe in the idea of living harmoniously with Wildlife. And yet they complain that Wildlife are eating or trampling over their crops and that this has got to be stopped. They won't reciprocate with Wildlife. As far as 'rural greens' are concerned there is one law for oomans who can roam and live and steal resources anywhere on Earth, whilst Wildlife have got to be penned into smaller and smaller areas where there survival becomes ever more precarious. They complain that Animals numbers are increasing and demand that they should be culled but they say nothing about the huge increase in ooman numbers which is helping to cause the invasion of Wilderness areas. Is it surprising that goldsmith refuses to believe that ooman overpopulation is a problem when he's got five kids?

The supporters of 'the land is ours' like simon fairlie, oliver tickell, george monbiot, edward goldsmith, charles windsor, etc are green Earth rapists and Animal exploiters. No wonder the green movement is in such a mess. With shits like these around it's almost impossible to develop any links between the green, and the Animal rights, movement.

6.5: Fred Pearce: The Rural Green Ideologist Par Excellence.

Fred pearce is one of the leading writers for 'new scientist' a populist science magazine. He thus needs to maintain the respect and co-operation of a wide range of vivisectionists and other white coated thugs in order to obtain the material needed to publish articles for this magazine. He can't afford to challenge their gross stupidities or else he'd be out of a job. He seems to enjoy mocking the ideas of Animal rights. Over the years these controversial remarks add up to a rather sordid portrait.

Making Animals Pay their Way; Hunting and Exploiting Wildlife.

"Here's a contradiction. Kenya has the toughest anti-hunting laws in africa, but the past twenty years has seen its wild animal population halved. One district has escaped the carnage. In laikipia, a plateau the size of wales, farmers have a licence to cull animals for meat - and the game is returning. People will only leave space for Animals if they pay their way. (At the lewa wildlife conservancy) .. former hunter ian craig runs a private game reserve on what used to be a cattle ranch. Craig and munyugi have helped to develop the illngwesi tourist lodge and the laikipia wildlife forum, an alliance of farmers, ranchers, herdsmen and others dedicated to enhancing the value of wildlife. But here's the rub. .. the real profit from wildlife would come from hunting. The truth seems inescapable. If kenya is serious about protecting its wildlife then trophy hunting will be vital to making wildlife a profitable commodity. Use it or lose it. Roll on the return of the tourist hunter."[29] The question which has to be asked about this article is why pearce is so excited about this reliance on hunting. He doesn't seem in the slightest bit sad that the logic of his argument leads him to this conclusion, on the contrary he seems thrilled.

Eating Whales, Reindeer, and Seals (and then presumably Horses, Cats, Dogs and Budgerigars as well).

"For adventurous eaters, tromso is a must, especially if you like your flesh gamey. During a conference earlier this month in norway, i consumed minke whale steaks, local reindeer meat, gulls' egg quiche and several unspecified fish roe sandwiches, before passing on the antelope, boar and ostrich at the local bistro. In between, i scoffed the real local speciality, the rich dark meat of boiled seal .. But surely it is not the norwegians, but a large chunk of the rest of us, who have got it wrong. It is the blind urban pursuit of Animal rights that is adrift from proper ecological concerns for the sustainable use of natural resources. Save the Whales by all means. But first save whalers."[30]

The Need for More and More Oomans.

"Remember the great droughts of the african sahel in the 1970s and 1980s? Across the sahel, most countries now have sufficient grain most years. Mortimore believes much of africa is not overpopulated but underpopulated. More hands to work and brains to think can more than compensate for the extra mouths to feed. It means we are wrong to assume that rising population always damage the environment. And wrong to assume that global warming will mechanistically translate into so many more people going hungry."[31]

Meat eaters are Good for the Environment; Vegetarians are bad for the Earth'.

"Vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment. A survey of the energy used to produce and distribute various foods has found that meat and processed food .. are among the most energy-efficient - and so least polluting - foods in our diet. Tea, coffee, tomatoes, salad vegetables and white fish, on the other hand, are distinctly environmentally unfriendly. David coley and colleagues of the centre for energy and the environment at the university of exeter have analyzed how much energy from fuel is used in the complete production cycle of food in a typical shopping basket. The analysis includes the manufacture and application of fertilisers and other chemicals, harvesting, processing, packaging, transport and waste disposal. Geographical differences have been averaged out. In a study of the diets of more than 2000 people, they found that it takes aroun 18,000 mega-joules of energy each year to get a typical briton's food to the table. This is almost six times the energy contained in the food itself. The most energy-intensive item is

coffee - 177mj of energy to produce 1 mj of food intake.

salad vegetables 45mj

white fish 36

beef and burgers 8mj

chicken 7mj

lamb 6mj,

fresh fruit 10-22mj

sugary confectionery, crisps, white bread and ice cream consuming less than 1mj each."[32]

From these bizarre views it would be extremely difficult to guess that pearce has written many books and articles on global burning. It is one of the central tenets of rural green ideology that modern industry, especially the fossil fuel industry and urban consumers, are responsible for global burning. According to this ideology it is only pharmers and meat eaters who have done anything to prevent a run-away, global burning disaster.

Fur Loving.

Pearce supports the killing of Animals for fur.

The More Condoms dumped on Beaches the better for the Environment.

"We need more seaweed on the beach and more sewage in the water. The key to beach ecosystems is .. the high tide mark where all sorts of flotsam and jetsam wash up. This repositary of dead dogs and timber, algae and plastic bottles, used condoms and rusty cans is a dynamic, ephemeral and ever-changing habitat."[33]

Investigative Reporter of the Decade - I ain't bin able to spot anything wrong with Macdonalds for nigh on twenny yurs'.

In may 1997 when mcdonalds were persecuting two unemployed people for distributing leaflets about what the company was up to in the Rainforests, fred pearce confessed his naivety about this multi-national corporation, "More or less honestly, we publicly accepted the company's assurances (mcdonalds) that this was nonsense (i.e. raising beef on recently felled rainforest)."[34]

It has to be suggested that even if a reporter had no facts about the global, Animal exploitation industry being responsible for cutting down or burning Rainforests and then exporting into america the Animals reared on this pastureland, it shouldn't require much logic to appreciate that the burger industry consumes such vast amounts of beef that there is a very strong likelihood that some of this meat wis coming from Cattle grazed on former Rainforest land. In addition, what investigative journalist of any quality would accept the public relations crap dealt out by multi-national, Animal slaughtering corporations? Perhaps the sort of person who loves eating Whales, Seals and Rheindeer? Such utter naivety from an investigative reporter is sad but even sadder is that the revelation about mcdonalds didn't make him think that perhaps he ought to take the views of Animal rightists more seriously. On the contrary, it seems to have made him even more enthusiastic about killing the remnants of the world's Wildlife. Perhaps the reason for these extremist views is that pearce is compensating for being revealed as a crap investigative reporter by trying even harder to give respectability to the absurd view that the slaughter of Wildlife is vital for saving Wildlife. Just how absurd this theory is shouldn't be difficult to appreciate when it is asked what whalers ever done to protect Whales as opposed to slaughtering them to the point of extinction? How is it possible to trust a journalist to report fairly on the Animal exploitation industry when he is such an extremist carnivore?

6.6: Rural Ideologists.

Bellamy, David.

"Bellamy has made numerous public statements of his belief in game keeping as beneficial for conservation, he is patron of the 'Moorland Gamekeepers Association' and is involved in a number of other similar organizations that put this idea across."[35]

Durkin, Martin.

"The anti-environmental agenda has arrived in britain from the u.s.a. Its coming of age was naturally on tv, in the channel 4 programme 'Against Nature', and the BBC2 series 'Scare Stories'. The former produced by martin durkin, a self-confessed marxist, and alleged supporter of the revolutionary communist party, aroused the most controversy by its blatantly biased coverage of environmental issues. 'Against Nature' was a hatchet job on greens, done more by durkin's biased editing than by the words of green critics like gregg easterbrook and frank furedi."[36]

Greer, Germaine.

At the beginning of 1998 this media personality denounced those who opposed Fox hunting, "Opposition to Fox hunting is hypocritical complained germaine greer in the observer, when "motorists can kill and injure Animals by the million with impunity."[37] This is a fair point coming from greens demanding the banning of cars but from a car-owner it seems slightly hypocritical. It seems even more absurd coming from a feminist who believes there ought to be more women drivers because cars are the only safe way for women to travel. A few months later, like any other hormonally imbalanced woman, she seems to have forgotten her criticism of motorists driving irresponsibly and killing Animals on the roads, "Feminist germaine greer was yesterday banned from driving for 14 days after doing 101mph."[38]

Keighley, Rev David.

"A vicar is to hold a public "last supper" in protest at food laws. The rev david keighley's £12.50 feast near st austell, cornwall, will feature beef on the bone and limited-catch Fish."[39] This is a good example of the way the church is rooted in rural areas and props up rural values.

Sherrin, Ned.

"The Meat and Livestock Commission have a £20 million advertising budget. .. in the present climate of consumer anxiety about the health of red meat. The 'recipe for love' commercials have a budget of £7m. Ned Sherrin who was brought up on farms said that slaughtering animals is part of the rich tapestry of life."[40]

Waugh, Auberon.

Waugh issued a sterling defence of the countryside march in london, "The (countryside) march is to protect hunting, to warn town dwellers to keep their distance."[41] Hardly surprising then that his views of global burning border on the loonatic, "Auberon waugh could write in 1991 that 'nobody in a position to know is in the least bit impressed by all this twaddle about Carbon dioxide or global warming .. "[42]

Windsor, Charles.

"Prince charles is to throw his weight behind the countryside campaign by fighting for a better deal for farmers. He wants to set up a nationwide forum to discuss their problems and will outline his plans next week. The prince paid a private visit last thursday to three struggling farms in carmarthenshire."[43]

6.7: Who are the Ruralites?

The Union of Country Sports Workers.

"An unlikely new trade union is being launched today. The union of country sports workers, comprising an estimated 125,000 gamekeepers, ghillies, grooms, hunt employees, farriers, beaters, stalkers and saddlers, are to .. campaign to save hunting in the event of a labour government."[44]

The Fox Hunting Fraternity.

.. "selectively shoot 16,000 puppies each year in order to introduce new blood."[45]

6.8: The Further Demands of the Countryside Movement.

It has been rumoured that countryside movement's full list of demands is as follows:-

* Full compensation for all pharmers who have lost any livestock, pets or relatives over the last 40 years;

* Full compensation for the loss of livestock sales as a result of the appreciation of the pound - no money to be refunded when currencies depreciate;

* Full compensation for the income pharmers lost due to europe's barmy ban on the export of bse-infected meat and Cattle.

* The right to export bse infected Cattle and Sheep around the world;

* A total refusal to tests livestock tissues in abattoirs to discover the prevalence of bse;

* Bse is a hoax made up by environmentalists to defame good brutish beef;

* The introduction of food disparagement laws to prevent Animal rightists from ever again making sickening allegations about the health of the country's livestock;

* Full compensation for pharmers wrongly accused of being so incompetant about rearing livestock that they allowed an infectious disease to spread around the country for 15 years before doing anything about it;

* The internment of all Animal rights activists;

* The reintroduction of the corn laws wrongly abandoned in the 1840s;

* The right of all countryfolk to bear arms;

* An end to the ban on rural people owning small handguns and using them in urban areas;

* The right of all countrydwellers to wander through the countryside shooting anything at will - especially urbanites on a day out;

* Sovereignty over the countryside to be handed back to pharmers;

* the legalization of all blood sports - Fox hunting, Deer stalking, Bear baiting, Dog fighting, and (Camilla barker-bollock's personal favourite) Bull fighting;

* Blood sports to be included as a compulsory element in the national curriculum;

* All schoolchildren to be taught to blast the shit out of a range of Animals from 5 yards;

* The return to a feudal aristocracy. Voting rights to be dependent on ownership of a minimum acreage of land or a minimum agricultural subsidy - whichever is the greater. The transfer of powers from the house of commons to the house of lords;

* All countryfolk to be made to feel a valuable member of society through the creation of free public transport, free village schools, free postal services, free gas/water/and electricity; free creches, and free banking;

* The royal family to be restored to their supreme position in society as god's representatives on Earth. All privileges lost over the last 1000 years to be returned. The building of a new royal yacht britannia. Charles to be given concubines to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The royals to be given more time off at taxpayers expense from public duties like opening hospitals, caring for the sick and injured, etc in order to pursue their main interests in life - maiming, mutilating or murdering Animals.