Before you can combat ANYTHING, you have to recognize it for what it is. Intellectualizing evil just allows the advancement of evil in the PURPOSEFUL confusion. There is ONLY right and wrong. The only difference between the two is DEGREE. Once an INDIVIDUAL knows the difference between the two, they can combat it in ALL it's forms.

The left are MASTERS at intellectualizing issues for this purpose. You are caught in their web.

Evil is not a thing. The cause is human action in accordance with bad ideas of moral philosophy. The ideology of the viros is different and worse than the Marxists. You cannot stop either by ignoring their philosophies of irrationalism and sacrifice, and it is not enough to say only what you oppose. It takes defending the principles of what is right -- reason and individualism. Conservatives and libertarians yelling about "evil" and "power" is hopelessly inadequate.

To carry out their goal to leave the world a better place than they found it, they should carry out a suicide pact and once they are gone the world will be a better place!

I'm sorry, but YOU are the one who brought up the "variations" of the left by bringing up your debate points on my original comment.

THE CAUSE is evil. Once you are able to recognize evil, in all its forms, which many people are obviously not able to do, you can fight it.

We are not debating "merits" of variations of the left. The ethical principles driving them are fundamental. The political decline of the country is a result of philosophy. Opposing "POWER" with no thought of the cause will not stop it.

Very good point. As if man were not part of nature. Since this particular global warming stage started 12,000 years ago which is when the glaciers began to retreat I wonder what man was doing at that time to start the whole process. Perhaps we should go back to that time to find out who to blame.

The "concepts" has but ONE final goal or aim as do all the left's "concepts". POWER over all people to comply with their wishes. If people do not realize that and continue to debate the "merits" of their "concepts", they will miss the march of the left and succumb.

If they got their way the Earth's ecosystem would not become stable. As you say, it never was. The eco-nuts only assume it would be, because they hold a mystical belief in an intelligent "Gaia".

All these so-called climate scientists with computer models that don't even "predict" the present should try predicting that "ideal" future and see how much they'd enjoy living in it.

That's a major problem for all non-left politics. I believe it's caused by the bad habit of watching TV news shows that feed you one sound bite and then change the subject.

Of course, leftist leaders usually do know better. They just want their followers to continue not using their brains.

It starts with the assumption that man is bad for the earth. That makes it easy to believe that anything we do must be having some terrible affect.

Yes there has always been a contradiction in their demands to preserve and restore nature to some arbitrary state in the evolution of the earth. But the fundamental premise behind their manipulations is that nature as such must be preserved from man. The misanthropic nihilism in their nature worship is the essence of their ideology.

Concepts are not nuances of labels. The nature of the viro movement as anti-reason, misanthropic nihilism is very important to understand.

You would have to include detailed instructions on how to aim it. They are already using it in the wrong direction.

Most of them would not say they literally want to kill people. Many are still trying to pretend that it is only against "pollution". Yet the root religious premise of the viro movement, that nature is an intrinsic value superior to human life, can have no other result than killing off humanity. Their anti-private property, preservationist, anti-industrial revolution politically destroying industry, private property rights, and economic freedom is the means.

What I do not understand is why do people not see this? I have family members that believe there is man-made global warming and no matter how many facts I give them, they refuse to not see the truth. I just do not get it.

I do think there are too many people, perhaps.

The unbelievable irony is the exact same people arguing for the environment and too many people, want to simultaneously save all the starving and poor using resources stolen from the successful. They could have their way if they let nature take its course.

Touche!

I'm not really interested in what the left, as a whole, CLAIM they are. I'm commenting on what they ACTUALLY are after, and that is power with their delusional ignorant followers arrogantly virtue signaling with quite a lot of them having no idea what it is they are advocating. I tire of the arguments over the "nuances" of the labels. The left or as some call them, STATISTS, are evil people overall no matter if all of them agree on every fine point of the method for their aims or not.

It is interesting that all those who are 'for the earth' want to keep it exactly as it is ignore the fact that the earth has never been this way before and won't be this way again. If they impose stability upon the earth won't they be contradicting nature instead of complimenting it? The history of the earth is change, evolution and extinction. What makes them think they know what 'nature' intends? Perhaps we should help them and make certain they become extinct.

Their hatred of humanity is a religious worship of nature as an intrinsic value regarded as superior to human life. They indulge in orgies of emotion over scenic imagery and fantasized utopia of an effortless Garden of Eden uncorrupted by man, let alone industry. It's a religious reversion to primitivism, rejecting the human virtues illustrated in Ayn Rand's novels.

See Ayn Rand's The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, an expanded edition of her original anthology The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution from the early 1970s. https://estore.aynrand.org/p/265/retu...

The title essay "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" dissected the new environmentalist movement (then still called the "ecology movement") that had just risen out of the violent New Left of the late 1960s and 70s. (The original ecology movement on which it was based began in Germany in the 19th century.)

Ayn Rand dissected the philosophical roots and meaning of the ecology movement -- the modern viro movement -- at its beginning, before it had changed its name for PR reasons because most people didn't know what "ecology" meant and when most regarded it is an idealistic popular movement only opposed to "pollution".

Thanks Dale - I posted this to my timeline on Facebook (with credit to your blog of course.) Tom

Well do I remember John Holdren wanting to poison the water to stop women from conceiving.

The viros are at root much worse than communists or socialists. The Marxists claimed they were for mankind and promised they would bring prosperity. They sacrificed individuals to their reification of the collective and destroyed economies, but at least they claimed to be pro-human. The viros want to sacrifice humans to nature and advocate deprivation in economics. The left has seen that collectivist economics does not work and embraces the failure as their goal. Their misanthropic nihilistic nature worship is much worse in its roots than the old communists and socialists.

Any group that wants the population reduced to save the environment should be sent a cheap gun and the same number of bullets as the members of that group.
That should come with a note that states: "You now have as many bullets as members in your group. Do as you say."

It is a hatred for reason ultimately, which manifests itself in a belief that anything man does is evil (to the earth is an excuse) because he has the ability to reason and create.