Green racism

Environmentalists’ loathing of the masses is most destructive in the developing world.

Fraser Myers

Fraser Myers
Staff writer

Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate has accused the media of racism after she was cropped out of a photograph circulated by the AP news agency.

The original photo shows Nakate alongside other young climate activists, including Greta Thunberg, at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The cropped version leaves only the white activists in frame. ‘You didn’t just erase a photo. You erased a continent’, tweeted Nakate, alongside a comparison of the two photos.

The AP has removed the cropped version from its wire service, though it insists there was no ‘ill intent’ behind its edit. Nevertheless, the incident provides a fitting metaphor for the environmental movement which really does ‘erase’ the developing world and the people in it – often in the nastiest ways imaginable.

A handful of environmentalists have started to notice that the climate movement, despite claiming to speak on behalf of the global South (apparently most at risk from the ‘climate emergency’), is overwhelmingly white and middle class. In 2015, Craig Bennett, the then head of Friends of the Earth, told the Independent on Sunday that the green movement had to escape its ‘white, middle-class ghetto’.

More recently, some Guardian pieces have drawn attention to Extinction Rebellion’s ‘race problem’ and lack of diversity. But critiques largely raise questions about tactics and image. Some reactionary tendencies within the green movement are identified but these critiques from sympathisers fail to acknowledge the broader context of green misanthropy.

Environmentalists fundamentally do not like human beings. The most charitable defence you could make of environmentalists is that they are ‘equal opportunities’ misanthropes. When David Attenborough, arguably the world’s most famous environmentalist, says that humanity is a ‘plague on the earth’ because of our large carbon footprint, he is expressing that misanthropy. It is a view embedded in nearly all global-facing Western institutions, from the UN and the World Economic Forum to foreign-aid agencies and NGOs.

Last week, the primatologist and official UN ‘Mesenger of Peace’ Jane Goodall told the global super-rich at Davos that all the environmental issues we talk about ‘wouldn’t be a problem if there was the size of the population that there was 500 years ago’. The global population was estimated to be around 500million in the 1500s. Today, there are around 7.8 billion people on earth – several billion too many, according to the Goodall view.

If people are perceived as an inherent ‘problem’ merely because they have been born, it is unsurprising that environmentalists’ attention then turns to the global South where population is expanding most rapidly.

Both Goodall and Attenborough have fronted campaigns to discourage Africans from giving birth. Both are also patrons of Population Matters, formerly the Optimum Population Trust. At one point, between 2013 and 2014, the charity took such a hard line on population growth that it said that not only was the planet too full, but Britain was full, too – or our population levels were ‘unsustainable’, to use the eco-euphemism. It called for a ‘net zero’ immigration policy and for all Syrian refugees to be banned from coming to Britain. (All references to immigration have since been deleted from its website.)

Another anti-natalist project is Thriving Together, a UN-backed campaign involving over 150 NGOs. The organisers say that family planning is necessary, not to promote women’s choice, as is the case in the West, but to ‘respond to conservation challenges’. ‘Reducing population growth’ can ‘arrest the huge losses of biodiversity’, apparently. Thriving Together’s efforts target specifically ‘poor rural communities in developing nations’. As Ella Whelan put it on spiked, this was essentially ‘prioritising beetles over black people’.

At last year’s Davos, in an interview with Prince William, Attenborough complained that Africa was no longer the ‘Garden of Eden’ it used to be when he first visited in the 1970s. ‘The human population was only a third of the size it was today’, he added, seemingly lamenting the destructive presence of African people in Africa.

And it’s not just Africa. Attenborough has also expressed qualified support for China’s infamously brutal one-child policy. Yes, state-enforced sterilisation produced many ‘personal tragedies’, he admitted, but without it ‘there would be several million more mouths in the world than there are now’.

In 2012, it was revealed that British foreign aid was being used to fund forced sterilisations in India. Documents from the Department for International Development argued that forced population control could help in the fight against climate change, even if it raised ‘complex human rights and ethical issues’. You don’t say. Because doctors and officials were given bonuses for each operation they performed, they would frequently operate on unsuspecting people under false pretences. Pregnant women were forced to miscarry and many people died from botched operations.

In the environmental mindset, human beings are reduced to their most base, animalistic behaviours: feeding and fucking. In fact, the comparison with animals is unfair. Animal lives are valued by environmentalists in a way human lives are not.

In order to conserve wildlife, some animal-conservation charities have effectively decided to cull humans instead. Last year, a Buzzfeed investigation uncovered the links between the World Wildlife Fund and paramilitary forces. The WWF provided paramilitaries with weapons. Locals ‘have been whipped with belts, attacked with machetes, beaten unconscious with bamboo sticks, sexually assaulted, shot, and murdered by WWF-supported anti-poaching units’ across the world, according to documents seen by Buzzfeed. WWF field workers signed off on proposals to kill trespassers in the Kaziranga nature park in India. Dozens were killed in the name of saving the rhino. Many of the victims of these paramilitaries are not even poachers. One was a 12-year-old girl, killed alongside two other indigenous women as they gathered tree bark in Bardiya National Park, Nepal.

Worse still, the integrity of plants seems to take precedence over human life. Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace have long been campaigning against genetically modified foods. Their campaigning and lobbying have been successful in preventing GMOs from reaching the developing world where they are most needed.

Golden Rice, for instance, was developed more than 20 years ago to counter blindness and other diseases caused by Vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries. According to science writer Ed Regis, had Golden Rice been allowed to grow, ‘millions of lives would not have been lost to malnutrition, and millions of children would not have gone blind’. Greenpeace’s opposition was ‘especially persistent, vocal, and extreme’, writes Regis, ‘perhaps because Golden Rice was a GM crop that had so much going for it’. Greenpeace insists the wonder food is ‘environmentally irresponsible’. Even under pressure from over 100 Nobel laureates, Greenpeace continues to oppose Golden Rice.

The environmentalist elevation of the ‘planet’ and nature goes hand-in-hand with an ugly, debased view of the human. When environmental ideology is dominant among global institutions, capitalist elites and Western NGOs, the needs, aspirations and even lives of the people in the developing world barely get a look in.

Fraser Myers is a staff writer at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @FraserMyers.

Picture by: Getty

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Tony Collins

1st February 2020 at 7:58 pm

Malthus was not wrong; simply before his time.
Read or watch any science-fiction scenarios set in their future. Without exception, their authors alway get it wrong; but only in their time scales. Things always take longer than expected.
Orwell’s 1984 wasn’t realised by that date, but something similar is happening right now; people are sacked for their opinions, history is rewritten (cigarettes airbrushed from the hands of popular folk heros) and now we have police records of people who “Need to have their thinking checked”. No-platforming goes on.
Arthur C Clarke’s ‘2001’ came and went, but the technology had not come about by that year.
And we haven’t even considered ‘Soylent Green’ (yet)
And this process is still continuing unabated.
Malthus simply proposed a patently obvious fact of life; resources, although capable of a mathematical increase are finite, but population increase is exponential.
He also reasoned that balance was being maintained by catastrophies. Plagues, wars, famine, floods, pogroms etc. All evolution’s way of balancing a species’ numbers.
Is that how we want it to continue?
Since we have acquired so many means of preserving life we have removed many of these controls. Granted, a modicum of control may come from same-sex unions and adoptions, but this is hardly a global solution.
Two hundred years on we have dealt, and are dealing, with most of these crises. In the meantime world population continues to grow at a phenominal rate.
The sensible thing is not to question how much longer we can go on like this, but to ask ourselves just how many people do we want on this planet. Do you feel lonely?
Isn’t it the sensible thing to use our talents voluntarily to curb our egos and hormones?
It is not misanthropic to talk about population control. No-one is proposing mass euthanasia. That’s just being alarmist. It cannot be misanthropic to talk about unknown geniuses who as yet do not exist.

Hugo van der Meer

1st February 2020 at 8:58 pm


Hugo van der Meer

1st February 2020 at 1:25 pm

In practical terms it is beyond the scope of any thinking persons understanding why children are continually being conceived within any demographic that lives in such abject poverty. Providing funds simply exacerbates the issue. The problem will not go away by throwing money, or sympathy, at it. Hard line measures need to be implemented. A good start would be the humane removal of the overprivileged Attenborough and Funberg.

Jon Austen

31st January 2020 at 6:09 pm

Dear oh dear Fraser.
David Attenborough and Jane Goodall are racist are they? They are two of the greatest living environmentalists and I completely agree with them. We are desperately overpopulated and destroying the environment, are you blind?
They are not against humans, they are against too many humans who are busy wiping out everything else.
Calling David Attenborough racist is the must insulting thing. He cares deeply. And he’s right.

Jerry Owen

1st February 2020 at 11:17 am

Just how large is Attenborough’s carbon footprint… Or do you not care?

Hugo van der Meer

1st February 2020 at 1:28 pm

Yes the hot air and continual jet setting do add up to rather humongous emmisions.

behepeh behepeh

30th January 2020 at 4:30 pm

Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everY one. Work for three to eight hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments……


Don’t include “𝓛­” in url

steve moxon

29th January 2020 at 9:34 pm

Greens — watermelons — never do science. So they are ignorant of the demographic transition.
Demographers are agreed that total global population is set shortly to peak and then fall off a cliff.
The basis of DT seems actually to be biological, not economic: (1) the impact of ‘crowding’ stress on males leads to epigenetic changes in their female offspring, whereby there is huge fall in physiological fertility and reproduction-related behaviour — maybe feminism? (joke); and (2) outbreeding depression.
Just as greens (watermelons) don’t know the first thing about climate (and notably the astrophysics of modes of solar forcing), they don’t know the first thing about population; or anything else — not least, they don’t know the first thing about what makes people tick: themselves in particular.


29th January 2020 at 10:45 pm

What have you got against watermelons then?

Ben Schaefer

2nd February 2020 at 2:33 am

Cheers Steve. Lots to think about there.

Michael Lynch

29th January 2020 at 8:01 pm

This is just more evidence of Left’s hypocrisy. They’ve always been great talkers and not doers and that’s why the British people see through them every time. It’s even worse nowadays because hypocrisy is the staple of the middle classes and they are firmly in charge of the Party at the moment.

James Knight

29th January 2020 at 5:59 pm

You are not allowed to hate a particular race anymore. Except for greens who hate the human race.

It is equal opportunity hatred.

Ben Schaefer

29th January 2020 at 1:23 pm

Isn’t it the case that as a given population(in the West, anyway) achieves a certain level of wealth and equality that the population naturally begins to shrink? The theory is called Demographic transition.

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 4:50 pm


steve moxon

29th January 2020 at 9:44 pm

Yes and no. There certainly is a demographic transition, but the fertility decline is not through wealth, but an apparent biological mechanism (see my post above).

William Stuttard

30th January 2020 at 4:49 pm

Yes you are correct Ben, wealth is correlated with lower fertility rates – one casual reason for this is that the economic incentive to have more than two children isn’t there if the kids don’t work from a young age (e.g. on the familly farm). That is what is taught in geography in schools and universities up and down the country. Steve and jerry are being biologically deterministic here, and i would be interested to see a peer reviewed paper that backs them up…

Thomas Smith

29th January 2020 at 12:15 pm

I agree with everything you wrote, until you started praising “Golden Rice.” That’s bull. GM crops are not only toxic to the environment, but also to the people who eat them. Check your own racism, Fraser–“Let the darkies eat Golden Rice?!”–and look for a non-toxic alternative

Filbert Flange

29th January 2020 at 3:13 pm

Your “thinking” is grossly ignorant. First you need to define just what you consider to be toxic (likely more unsupported hyperbole) then post a link to even just one reputable paper supporting such nonsense.

Thomas Smith

30th January 2020 at 2:52 am

Filbert, Insults from ignoramei such as yourself are the highest form of flattery. Nevertheless, I still aim to challenge your grotesque stupidity, lest you remain a puppet on the string of the gmo corporate empire. That’s just the kind of guy I am. It is very disappointing to me that the denizens of sp!ked, even staff such as Myers, who used to consider themselves “Living Marxists,” fall for the same profit-driven nonsense. (I guess these Marxists must have died, hunh?) But I would direct you and he to the work of independent researcher from Scotland, Arpad Putzstai, who actually CONDUCTED studies on the toxicity of gmos, rather than just assume they were safe, as did our own American, corporate bought-and-paid-for FDA. The British Empire is no better. When Putzstai revealed his independent findings, showing that gmos produce cancers and other organ diseases, he was fired from his job.
Here is an article from NPR which is a bit more balanced about the controversy over golden rice, than is Mr. Myers. Even this “public” radio outfit is more skeptical than just to take the word of Nobel laureates:
And I suggest you read this article that I wrote, Against Scientistic Credulity, at

Asif Qadir

29th January 2020 at 5:13 pm

Agree 100p%, Thomas.

steve moxon

29th January 2020 at 9:23 pm

Complete ignorant tosh.

Thomas Smith

31st January 2020 at 3:39 pm

Steve, your dismissive, hostile statement–hostile to any open-minded debate–is completely unworthy of someone claiming to be a scientist, let alone someone who condemns Greens for never being interested in science. Your response is reminiscent of some hellfire and brimstone conquistador’s priest, such as Vincente de Valverde, who collaborated in the slaughter of the Incas after Atahuallpa refused to convert to the former’s Catholism on the spot: “He came forward holding a crucifix in his right hand and a breviary in his left and introduced himself as another envoy of the Spanish ruler. …Friar Vicente called upon the Inca to renounce all other gods as being a mockery of the truth.”[5] Atahuallpa simply replied that he could not change his beliefs in the all powerful and ever living Sun and other divinities.”

Jonnie Henly

29th January 2020 at 11:40 am

“Environmentalists fundamentally do not like human beings.”

No they don’t. That’s what we call a straw man ad hominem attack.

R Rodd

29th January 2020 at 5:16 pm

He just gave some quotes showing that some do (and these are important ones he quoted). I’ve read others.

Jonnie Henly

29th January 2020 at 6:03 pm

Indeed. So not a convincing argument overall to justify his sweeping statement about Environmentalists.

Phil Ford

29th January 2020 at 8:55 am

You want to try enduring a few YouTube travel vlogs from white, middle-class, university-educated types. Oh, it soon turns into some kind of endurance marathon. I dunno, I understand its completely unacceptable to stereotype people, but – really – after you’ve seen one or two of these vlogs you soon start anticipating the tropes.

I’ve also noticed a new craze for what I call ‘poverty tourism’ on YouTube. (Comparatively) rich white kid (university grad type, often with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend) take to the ‘backpacker circuit’ by way of some of the world’s poorest (and often most dangerous) nations, selfie-cameras in hand all the way.

Watching a these clueless trust-fund types emoting from the compound of a clearly poverty-stricken village, surrounded by dirty, half-dressed kids and suspicious, somewhat alarmed adults is a sign of the times, I guess. But is it entertainment? In good taste? Dare I say it – offensive?

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 10:02 am

Yes I’ve seen those videos .. I remember one recently the couple were called Harry and Meghan if i remember correctly.

Steve Roberts

29th January 2020 at 8:45 am

A superb article from Myers, straight to the kernel of the malthusian environmentalist ideology.
This is how to posit the debate with these misanthropes to cut through all the diversions and platitudes,not to be dragged into channels where the consequences of the green ethos is hidden.
It is all very well entering debates about the “science” ,recycling, sustainable energy and so much more, but frankly it is an irrelevance.
When one is faced by an ideology ,that discards humanity, and an established order of late stage capitalism that entirely supports it, and if one studies the long history realises this is an elite project from its very inception, debates around the peripheral issues are just absorbed and ignored and measures imposed by political and economic power.
The only way to stop this misanthropy is to make it clear that is in the interest of all humanity to stop these people, to democratically remove them from power, it is in our universal interests to do so.
There is no point being soft on these people, as Myers explains, at root ,in fact as an absolute necessity humanity must be severely reduced, yes reduced by the billions.
Now how is that going to happen, a reduction, and presumably before the end is nigh in 10 years, ok they know this is a nonsense but it is all part of ideology to remove the scourge of humanity from the planet. Well, Myers points out some of the methods they would like to employ, especially in the relatively undeveloped world.
And if that is not enough , what then ? Birth control in the west, culling, get rid of the oldies first, the undesirables, i mean it is an emergency, the end is nigh.
These are people with the worst of all ideas, misanthropy, we must push this home to everyone what these people really are, its not about plastic in the ocean or a bag for life, that’s just the acceptable soft edge and a distracting one of the malthusian misanthropy that is at the bottom of this ideology.
I would urge everyone to watch this video from the BOI last November with BON on the panel.
Also on the panel are the “reasonable” face of the greens, two of them, well spoken,middle class, calm, only for a while, educated, appearing caring and rational, about the planet of course and those they will allow to be left on it after population reductions.
But just listen, and consider their thought patterns and the consequences of their ideas, these are dangerous people. The nut jobs of ER are just the lunatic fringe on the streets, the real lunatics are the theorists and misanthropes of an ideology centuries old, malthusianism.
Its them and their ideas we need to be rid of, democratically of the political mainstream, and by exposing the inhumanity of green ideas, much does depend on it, perhaps, if their population reduction is to be reached, by billions of us.
Scaremongering? well it comes from their mouths, i am not making this up, please listen.

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 11:35 am

Thanks for the link!
Ashley impressed me despite her many references to Marx.. maybe I have him wrong! Her belief that obsoletion was built into products is a fallacy, it’s a case of technology marches on so she got it wrong there.
The young girl at the end suggesting we have too much and we need equilibrium, she and her ilk would struggle with my lifestyle in the sixties a few short decades ago. BON as good as ever.

Steve Roberts

29th January 2020 at 3:37 pm

Jerry Owen, glad you got something from the video. For future reference, i am sure it will be very helpful, it certainly is to me, the film charity that made the video, and makes most of those at the Battle of Ideas annually is
As well as hundreds of video’s from the BOI they also have full length award winning films tackling, among other things, important political issues, as well as hundreds of video’s of varying lengths for all manner of issues. Presumptuous of me but please check them out and donate if you can.

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 4:52 pm

The site is duly noted and in my bookmarks list !

Asif Qadir

29th January 2020 at 5:19 pm

Hey Peeved Gobbet’s? Why do you insist upon saying do much to day absolutely nothing?

As for you Jerry Oven-Kraut, l saw where you were trying to pass yourself off as having been born in Shrewsbury, where my investigations reveal that you were in fact born in Mainz to Rudolph and Greta Oven-Kraut. I’m back and have a lot to reveal about you, you sick phuck.

David George

30th January 2020 at 6:33 am

For a good insight into the pathology of the green movement try reading “The Green Reich”

“Ban everything we can, eco-tax the rest: this could be the motto of the environmentalists in politics. If human CO2 is the problem, then Man must be restrained, controlled, suppressed in every one of his CO2-emitting activities: that is to say, in the totality of his actions. Researching environmentalism from the root of its anti-humanist ethic to the staggering heights of its actual demands — banning cars, aircraft, meat, nuclear energy, rural life, the market economy, modern agriculture, in short, post-Industrial-Revolution modernity — Drieu Godefridi shows that environmentalism defines a more radical ideology in its liberticidal, anti-economic and ultimately humanicidal claims than any totalitarian ideology yet seen.”

Ven Oods

29th January 2020 at 8:37 am

Even if you subscribe to the view that the world’s woes are attributable to human beings, it seems unfair to punish those who have yet to enjoy the fruits of our species’ technological advances. You could forgive those in developing countries for thinking that the developed nations (or their environmental lobbyists) are hypocritical.

steven brook

29th January 2020 at 8:30 am

“NGOs like Greenpeace have long been campaigning against genetically modified foods.” Believe the science!

Stephen J

29th January 2020 at 8:26 am

Whilst I wouldn’t wish to speculate about the motives of most ordinary folk who are demonstrating support for this “climate emergency”, I have very little doubt that its perpetrators, its movers and shakers are representatives of extreme socialism and or its closely related chum, fascism.

And as we know, their attitude to what it sees as its inferior, regardless of colour or creed, has nothing of note to add…

Other than their bovine follower genes.

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 7:50 am

I do not subscribe to the view that Co2 is bad, I do not subscribe to the view that rising Co2 levels are bad, but most importantly I do not subscribe to the view that humans are responsible for any meaningful measurable amount of increase. Therefore human population cannot be a problem in terms of its carbon footprint.
We all have enough to eat and drink in our western society and as Fraser says food shortages need not be an issue.
The problem we have is migration from the poor world to the rich world, this is not an environmental problem it’s a political problem. Starvation in Africa is a political problem also.
With proper political solutions to our problems which could be easily solved, the green movement could be rendered obsolete. Hopefully it would then wither away and die… Wouldn’t they support their own euthanasia?
Attenborough is a particularly loathsome creature, he should do a programme about himself sometime, it would show him to be more loathsome than any snake he’s filmed.

Dominic Straiton

29th January 2020 at 7:18 am

Nakate should be grateful that thanks to capitalism Uganda is growing at 6% a year. The richer the population the less children they have . The population of the world is set to plummet. And with wealth comes better management of the environment .Except in places like western Europe where enviro mentalist like the Royal society for the protection of birds support wind turbines that kill hundreds of thousands of birds a year.


29th January 2020 at 10:50 pm

The UK population is about to plummet due to Brexit-related famine and failure of the sausage roll harvest in Brexit-voting areas.

Jerry Owen

30th January 2020 at 8:34 am

I look forward to celebrating your tears come 11pm tomorrow.. Cheers!

Hugo van der Meer

1st February 2020 at 9:19 pm

They need to take a leaf or two from Isabel dos Santos book.

jessica christon

29th January 2020 at 7:11 am

There will be some form of population control eventually in Africa and elsewhere whether we like it or not. I’d rather it happened via contraception than genocide.

Neil John

29th January 2020 at 11:21 am

I hate to say it but there’s little chance of that, having lots of children isn’t going to stop, as the next famine, war or weather event may kill most of your family, so they’ll keep breeding. Modern ‘western’ medicine doesn’t help, it merely keeps more alive to consume precious resources, the idiots who ran ‘band-aid’ helped to condition those affected that the west will always come to their aid, or give them a home if they can make it here.
Mother Nature will have her cruel way, the ‘hand of man’ only prolongs the agony.

Hugo van der Meer

1st February 2020 at 9:29 pm

May I say that your comment makes perfect sense.

R Rodd

29th January 2020 at 5:20 pm

Nah, there will just be mounting pressure to let them into the richer countries. And that pressure will succeed.

Hugo van der Meer

1st February 2020 at 9:25 pm

I suspect the Marxist perspective might be that contraception equals genocide whilst continually preaching the pro-abortion mantra they’re so fond of. Contrarian farquhars that they are.

Michael Lynch

29th January 2020 at 1:42 am

The modern greens want to deny those children in Africa their own emancipation through industry so they can keep flying first class unimpeded. I wonder if Emma T, as she nods off in her lush recliner at 50,000 feet, ever spares a thought for those poor kids as they walk miles for a drink of filthy water. She is a hypocritical, selfish, stuck up, virtue signaling snob and I hope she chokes on her next G&T.

Ven Oods

29th January 2020 at 8:40 am

I’m happy to enjoy her work while disregarding the fact that she’s part of the newly-woke joke.

Jim Lawrie

29th January 2020 at 10:01 am

She is happy to use her work as a platform from which to spew her view.

Jonnie Henly

29th January 2020 at 3:05 pm

“I wonder if Emma T, as she nods off in her lush recliner at 50,000 feet, ever spares a thought for those poor kids as they walk miles for a drink of filthy water.”

She probably thinks about then no more than you do. Though you only think about them when you need a stick with which to bash the nasty actress you don’t like and virtue signall to the rest of us how morally superior you are to her. Well done you.

Gabe Syme

29th January 2020 at 4:48 pm

Ah yes, the classic ‘You don’t actually care, you just are using XYZ to bash the left’ nonsense.

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 4:55 pm

More self projection from our little Jonnie.. how tedious.

Asif Qadir

29th January 2020 at 5:23 pm

What do you get out of speaking to Hon like that, Oven-creep?

Jonnie Henly

29th January 2020 at 6:05 pm

“The classic” trope that you just invented? Somehow, an eminently predictable response.

Jerry Owen

29th January 2020 at 6:42 pm

Little Jonnie where is your evidence for your accusation that Spiked care as little about brown people that E Thompson does then .. do tell ?

Jonnie Henly

30th January 2020 at 12:35 am

Jerry are you incapable of reading? I didn’t mention Spiked at all.

Now where is your evidence for myself caring about the 3rd world as little as E Thompson supposedly does?

Do tell.

Jerry Owen

30th January 2020 at 8:40 am

Little Jonnie
I refer to Spiked to include those that are positive contributors to it..Spiked like any other publication cannot exist without support from its readership. So what is your evidence that Michael Lynch thinks no more of them than E Thompson.
Do tell.. or are you just whistling in the wind ?
Do explain your accusation with hard facts.

Michael Lynch

30th January 2020 at 2:32 pm

Slick retort, Jonnie. Alas, your accusation is fundamentally flawed in so much that it is not I who owns expensive homes in London and Scotland and consumes huge amounts of carbon in their maintenance and in traveling between them and LA. She may even own a nice pad in America as fas as I know. I also don’t go around lecturing other people about how much carbon they use either. Rather, I’m a person of modest means and yet have consistently given to organizations like Oxfam and Medicine Sans Frontier for most of my working life. Furthermore, I do quite a bit of charitable work for a local organization which involves maintenance of properties of those more unfortunate than myself; I don’t even receive a penny in expenses either. As a Christian, I am appalled by the suffering of those poor children in Africa and thank my lucky stars I was born into world where my kith and kin do not have to endure that type of existence. You, on the other hand, are noting more than a nasty, vile Troll that does disservice to the modern Left with your indiscriminate and hateful posts.


29th January 2020 at 10:48 pm

Since when do private jets or commercial airliners fly at 50,000 feet? Around 41-43,000 feet ceiling would be about right.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.