The attached was accepted by The Ecologist founding editor Teddy
Goldsmith to be published in his jnl. I therefore took to distributing the
attached preprint. Teddy's undertaking was then cancelled by his nephew
Zac (a reformed playboy of tender years). A very different article was
later printed on the GM/nuclear comparison, perhaps commissioned by Zac
from Pom friends. I flatter myself that my article could have done some
good if it had been pubd in The Ecologist a half-decade ago as promised.
This dismal example of suppression is worth pondering. The article
has since been accepted (in slightly different versions) for several
websites e.g www.psrast.org, and no faults have been alleged to me. I
flatter myself that it could have done more good if it had been printed a
half-decade ago as promised by Teddy.
The question I wish to raise is, why would Zac suppress such a
paper? Assuming its content was not a reason - it is at least as good as
the one Zac later printed - what about its author would prompt Zac to
One hint of evidence is the previous suppression by Nicholas
Hildyard, when he had been ostensibly in charge at The Ecologist, of a
paper 'Living as if Gaia Mattered' (now available at
http://www.kuratrading.com/HTMLArticles/writings.htm). Hildyard gave no
reason. Goldsmith soon afterwards - to his credit - swooped in and
purged from the magazine staff not only Hildyard but, more importantly, a
little set of PowerHarpies who had been controlling the magazine from
junior positions (esp Australian citizen Tracey Clunies-Ross). My Kiwi
friend Denys Trussell had observed these dominatrices at close quarters
during a spell working for Goldsmith.
The Australasian expert on suppression of academics has been Brian
Martin http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/ who wrote up to some extent
the main attempts to purge me from the U of Auckland. I doubt he will be
much interested in the present msg however, because he supports the
ideology which I suggest to have been instrumental. (He also advocates
that every citizen rotate in & out of government - a concept he calls
My hypothesis is that the suppression of 'The Selfish Commercial
Gene' was retaliation for my outspoken criticisms of WimminsLib.
Penalties & obstructions of various sorts have been put in my way since I
began in 1987 to point out the anti-ecological & anti-social aspects of
this ideology. The flow of informed commentary on GM to the public is
impeded & distorted by the dominance of PC operatives in the media, to whom
GM is a relatively minor issue subordinated to promotion of sexism, racism
& militant sexual perversion.