Posted by undidly, Saturday, 13 June 2009 10:59:24 AM

Undidly , did you really mean to declare moral support for the Arrived and Withdraw support for the arriving ?

Perhaps you could explain what seems to me an alarming moral dilemma and how you a came to support and propose such an ugly thesis .

TRTL, would you stand up at your beloved granny's funeral and declare, "oh well, at least she won't be burning up all those fossils fuels keeping warm in winter anymore!"

Would you tell the parents of a stillborn baby, "hey, think of the tonnes of greenhouse gases you've spared the planet!"

I doubt it.

So how do you and egregious creeps like Heinberg have the gall to stand up and make the revolting statements in this article? Because like so many zealous idealists, you are able to reduce real, living people to a convenient abstraction; mere numbers, to be added, or most often subtracted.

Above all, your unquestioning devotion to the dogmas of environmentalism leads to the sort of deplorable realpolitik moral compromise so eloquently expressed by Tolkien's Saruman: "deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose ... all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends."

As H. G. Wells wrote of the "dark valley" of the 1930s, "Terrible are the faithful disciples", as we indeed witnessed during the 20th Century, when "the faithful disciples" and their amoral, abstracted devotion paved the road to Hell in the concentration camps, the gulags and the killing fields.

I shudder when I hear the anti-human deep green zealots talking openly of state-enforced population control, one-child policies and the "bright side" of megadeaths, because I am reminded of nothing so much as the cultured, urbane 19th century idealists of the Volkisch movement, and their airy sentimental patriotism and back-to-the-land romanticism, little imagining the horrors of which they were inadvertantly laying the foundations.