Malthusian Terrorist Product of a Green Climate of Hate?

|

Depopulate yourself!

The good news is that yesterday's Malthusian terror attack on the Discovery Channel headquarters ended with only the death of the perpetrator, James Jay Lee. But what motivated this assault?

It's long been a trope of the Left that the "rightwing" rhetoric is inciting unstable people to violence. Maybe. But surely, in this case, there can be little doubt that environmentalist rhetoric inspired this act of violence. We don't know, but did Lee come across such rhetoric as that deployed by environmentalist radical Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who unapologetically refers to humanity as the "AIDS of the Earth"? Watson has lots more to say:

Humans are presently acting upon this body in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system.

A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet's life support system. We are killing our host the planet Earth.

I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the "AIDS of the Earth." I make no apologies for that statement. Our viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and ourselves. We are both the pathogen and the vector. But we also have the capability of being the anti-virus if only we can recognize the symptoms and address the disease with effective measures of control.

So what's Watson's goal?

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion….

Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans….

The result of "re-wilding the planet" would be:

We should not be living in human communities that enclose tiny preserved ecosystems within them. Human communities should be maintained in small population enclaves within linked wilderness ecosystems. No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.

In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference….

All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.

Watson ends with this rather chilling prescription:

Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.

Ecoterrorist James Lee didn't need a tinfoil hat to tune in to incendiary anti-human screeds. He could easily find them being promoted by prominent environmentalist leaders.

And here's a delicious bit of irony for you: The Discovery Channel's Animal Planet broadcasts Whale Wars which is a series valorizing none other than Paul Watson.

Advertisement

NEXT: There's No Such Thing As a Free Vacation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. WTF?! OVERPOPULATION!!!!!

  2. BOW DOWN BEFORE MY ALMIGHTY BUNGHOLE!

    1. Here’s a little hot sauce offering…

  3. BTW, love the t-shirt.

  4. Its always the same 3-5 billion people who are not like me need to die. Then, Eden will open to us, the survivors. Once they get rid of capitalists, the Chinese, Indians, South Americans, and urban Africans, life is gonna rock… Until their Tevas and North Face gear rots out.

    1. I thought there were a Billion screaming Chinamen…

      1. There were.

  5. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did a pretty good job of fighting the human virus. We need more brilliant environmentalists like them.

  6. Sea Shepherd Conversation Society

    If only.

    1. RCD: Indeed. Fixed. Thanks.

  7. If Watson is committed to the cause, I suggest he do what Lee did and get himself killed. Stop being a hypocrite. If you think humans are killing the earth, the most direct action you can take to solve the problem is to kill yourself.

    1. He is too childlike for that. If anything Lee is more mature than Watson. Watson operates on the level of a child dreaming that someday everyone but him will be gone and all the toys will be his to play with.

    2. I’m thinking the Donner party is more their style. Less waste that way.

      1. Donner, party of ate. Donner, party of ate.

        1. …Oh, party of seven. Sorry to keep you waiting.

    3. Life’s short and hard like a body-building elf, so save the planet and kill yourself.

  8. Just imagine if this sick fuck said this stuff in the name of some racist ideology. “Everyone but white people must be exterminated” or such. I don’t think he would get a discovery series. But he would be no less sick.

    It is not so much that this guy exists. Evil people have always existed. It is that he is so accepted by the environmentalist community. That is really scary.

    1. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

    2. I take it you missed the portion of his screed that discussed immigrants?

      1. There is a huge split in the environmental community over immigration. Lots of environmentalists support immigration restrictions.

        1. …while they forget that locking people inside their third world countries is usually a good way to have them devastate a lot more their ecosystems. Worse, they tend to be tropical ecosystems probably more relevant to the global equilibria than temperate ecosystems.

          1. It’s like George Carlin said. Environmentalists don’t care about the planet, they just want a nice little spot on earth for themselves.

        2. Lots of environmentalists support immigration restrictions.

          Watson seems to agree with immigration restrictions:

          No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market.

          No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.

    3. Well, it’s not like hating an extra race makes you less racist. If you hate all black people, and graduate to hating all Asians too, you get more racist if anything. Since envirotards like that hate all humans, that makes them the most racist people on the planet.

  9. I knew there was a good reason why I was always rooting for the whalers.

    1. Me too. I laughed my ass off when the whalers rammed the boat of the people trying to stop them.

      1. Me too. I laughed my ass off when the Sea Shepherd boat was incompetently conned into a collision with the whalers rammed the boat of the people trying to stop them.

        Seriously. A boat as fast and nimble as that ocean racer is 100% responsible for avoiding a collision with a boat as slow and ponderous as that whaler.

        1. Very good point.

          1. But it was lots of fun watching Pete Bethune (the Ady Gil’s captain) rant and rave in his hilarious New Zealand accent as he plotted his revenge, only to succeed in getting his ass thrown into a Japanese prison for four months. There is a justice in the world.

            1. I was really hoping the firefighter on the Ady Gil was going to flip out and beat the hell out of the two officers on the Steve Barker. That would have been the best part of the series so far.

      2. Uh, I think I just realized that that South Park episode was inspired by real life.

      3. I laughed my ass off when the whalers rammed the boat of the people trying to stop them.

        Actually the whale lovers rammed the whale hunters:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4Y1Sq4TYw

        1. Here is another video of anti-whalers ramming a whale boat.

          Watch the back of the boat and the prop wake it makes just before it hits. It obviously accelerated into the whale boat.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  10. Lee was also deepls opposed to immigration and anchor babies:

    5. Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

    1. YOU SEE! HE BE RACIS’!

      1. Which means, of course, that he must be one of those right-wing teabaggers!

        1. Teabaggers! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.

        2. Which means, of course, that he must be one of those right-wing libertarian teabaggers!

          Fixed. Didn’t you get the memo?

    2. Green on the outside, brown on the inside.

    3. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently.
      This confused me the most. What the heck does he expect the mole people to do about it?

  11. So the left is going to get bit in the ass by the right now after years of “right wing terror” stories. Oh well, turnaround’s a bitch, dickholes.

    1. Only on blogs like this. IN the major media they are just ignoring it. The local news here is covering it to death. But you could watch five hours of coverage and have no real idea why this guy did this other than because he is a nut who hated the Discovery Channel. His environmental views truly are the dog that didn’t bark.

      1. John, I often consider your frequent complaints of MSM bias to be just a bunch of right-wing whining, but in this case, I just checked CNN’s front page and this story isn’t on it. Anywhere.

        That is fucking ridiculous. If this had been a teabagger, it would have been the top story for days.

        1. Thank Gaia another evil oil platform had a fire in the Gulf or they might have had to talk about it.

        2. Yup. And they would be outside Glenn Beck and Sara Palin’s homes asking them if they feel guilty about the violence they have caused. Contrast the coverage of this to the coverage of the nut who killed the museum guard at the holocaust museum. And they never so much as mention someone like Watson or ever admit that this kind of crazy talk actually goes on in environmental circles.

          1. “And they never so much as mention someone like Watson or ever admit that this kind of crazy talk actually goes on in environmental circles.”

            That’s right. It’s the kind of information you have to seek out or stumble across.

            Not one of my liberal friends commented about this on Facebook. News stories about crazed gunmen have never failed to get their attention, until this one.

        3. I just checked CNN’s front page and this story isn’t on it.

          Didn’t CNN produce “Captain Planet”?

          1. TBS or Turner Television did. Not sure if there’s much difference.

        4. @ Episiarch – how dare you criticize John!!! You need some invasive, left-wing anit-viral “therapy”…

        5. That is fucking ridiculous. If this had been a teabagger, it would have been the top story for days.

          I don’t know. Uppper middle class white girls actually vanish or turn up dead quite often, but the only one to really make the news for years has been Natalie Holloway. And it’s the same with most other “big” stories. There doesn’t seem to be any good way to predict many big stories, and I’m willing to bet that chaos is more important than conspiracy.

          1. Whenever a rich white girl disappears, Nancy Grace is on the story. They don’t disapear that often and it does make the news when they do. Black girls, not so much.

            And contrast the coverage of this guy with the coverage of the Holocaust museum shooter for proof of the bias.

            1. Nancy Grace, with that weird haircut and hooked nose, is like a human owl. Creepy.

            2. Except for the Duke lacrosse team “rape” victim. Nancy Grace was all over that. Turned out she was wrong, though you’d never know it from listening to her.

              1. If you are a black women, just make sure you are victimized by a white man. Otherwise, your life doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot media land.

            3. Black girls are always assumed to be runaways, white girls are always assumed to be kidnaps.

              (Runaways the are majority of vanishings in all races, btw. But you’d never know by looking at the news.)

              Of course, there ARE kidnaps, and below a certain age, kidnaps are indeed more frequent than runaways. But then family kidnaps, typically during or after a custody dispute, are by far the most frequent child kidnappings, way, way more frequent than a Jaycee Dugard.

          2. “There doesn’t seem to be any good way to predict many big stories”

            It’s determined by how fast the family comes up with a hottie GND picture.

      2. How did the WaPo refer to him this morning? Left-wing terrorist? Leftist militant? Extremist liberal nutjob? No. Environmental militant.

        1. Yes. And that term is in the last paragraph of the story after the fold. This sentence is at the very end of the story is the only mention of his motivation in the entire paper that I could find.

          “An environmental militant, Lee held a grudge against Discovery, viewing the network as a purveyor of ideas he considered environmentally destructive and staging protests outside its headquarters, according to authorities and court records.”

        2. Yes. And that term is in the last paragraph of the story after the fold. This sentence is at the very end of the story is the only mention of his motivation in the entire paper that I could find.

          “An environmental militant, Lee held a grudge against Discovery, viewing the network as a purveyor of ideas he considered environmentally destructive and staging protests outside its headquarters, according to authorities and court records.”

        3. You just can’t make this shit up.

          1. You just can’t make this shit up.

            Yes you can.

        4. Well, to be fair, he seemed pretty monomaniacal about the environment, not a broad spectrum of leftist policies. To the extent he was anti-immigrant or anti-war, it was only due to the environmental aspect of those questions.

          Not that a monomaniacal racist psycho would ever not be called “right-wing”, mind you, even if he consistently voted Democrat.

      3. I was actually suprised by The Daily Mail’s take. Descibing him as a Crazed eco-terrorist who was pissed his TV show didn’t get picked up.

        Of course on the local news this morning, they blamed it on Kate plus 8 and 19 kids and counting. Never mentioned the environmental aspect.

  12. “Just enough of me, way too much of you.” – PJ O’Rourke

  13. I haven’t been watching the news much on this, but surely the MSM is not actually calling him a “terrorist,” right?

  14. I’ll admit it, I shared thinking like this when I was 17. It sounded cool and rebellious, and it almost got me laid. Maybe if I had gotten laid, it would have reinforced such thinking, and I’d think whale wars was a show about heros instead of idiotic villains.

    1. I’ve never understood why the whaler ships don’t just hire a couple dozen Somali pirates, provision them, and let capitalism run its course.

      1. Sea World should start selling Shamu Steaks in their resturaunts. Whales schmales.

        1. I had whale sushi in Japan about 15 years ago. It was rather like very marbled beef and the color was a little darker than red beef. It was pretty good, but he price was such that you couldn’t eat a lot of it. I ate it mostly just to be able to say “I’ve eaten whale”.

      2. I’ve never understood how being a dirty hippy gets you laid. Am I the only one who’s bothered by hippy smell?

        1. The hippies can smell themselves.

      3. There’s nothing worthwhile to steal from the hippies? Even if they were slavers, hippies aren’t exactly known for their work ethic.

  15. I’ve been seeing a lot of sincere “there are no crazies on the Left” comments on some chatrooms. A lot of the stuff that Sowell discussed in Visions of the Annointed. Moreso than usual.

    1. IT’S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT!!!!WTF!!!!POPULATIONBOMB!!!!

    2. To be clear Sowell’s thesis is that radicals tacitly agree “no attacks to the left (even when you disagree”), not “there are no crazies to the left”. Which of course is why nuts can have jobs at allegedly mainstream environmental NGOs.

  16. Extremism. If you’re peddling it, be prepared for violence. Pushing the crazies to take extreme actions is a bad idea. Rational and measured responses to risks and concerns would serve us all so much better than nonsensical and inflammatory rhetoric.

    What really strikes me is the nihilism of the totally nutty environmental wacko, who believes that mankind is a pestilence and that the Earth would be better off if we were totally exterminated. I mean, really? That’s a valid worldview? Maybe it’s better to direct such wackos to religion, so they’ll at least think death is a doorway and won’t try to find a way to slaughter us all. Shit, even Hitler only wanted to murder some percentage of humanity.

    1. That’s a valid worldview?

      My environmental studies prof in college seemed to think so (she was the eco-feminist who wrote a paper on how satellites are raping Gaia with their penetrative male gaze, for those of you keeping track at home).

      Even if you believe that the planet should remain as “natural” as possible, these types totally ignore the cognitive dissonance it takes to conceive of humans as innately unnatural. That was the crux of my prof and her acolytes worldview- very self-hating.

      1. You know, all that swirling gas and matter that formed into the solar system, Earth, and everything living on it is all the same.

        1. That should be said with a campy German accent a la The Big Lebowski.

          “Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

          1. Campy? Fuck you! I spent six months working on that accent!

      2. Can you say “Original Sin?”

      3. Beaver dams good, human dams bad.

      4. I do keep score at home. And I think I think your professor’s paper gets scored as a “full feministing”. The “male gaze on the earth”?

        1. Good stuff, right, John? She actually had the nerve to assign that shit as required reading.

          1. And to think you had to pay for that class. Reason number one million why half of the colleges in this country need to be closed. If that is all they have to teach, they are no longer needed.

            1. The worst part is, seeing as it was a Canadian university, was that she might have been the most “right-wing” prof on campus. 🙂

      5. “(she was the eco-feminist who wrote a paper on how satellites are raping Gaia with their penetrative male gaze, for those of you keeping track at home).”

        Sounds like pure satire. Wow.

  17. We need to re-wild the planet. We need to “get ourselves back to the garden” as Joni Mitchell once so poetically framed it.

    This is a process that will require a complete overhaul of all of humanities economic, cultural, and life style systems. Within the context of our present anthropocentric mind-set the solution is impossible. It will require a complete transformation of all human realities.

    Paulie, be a dear and use the Google for ‘Pol Pot.’

    1. We should channel all that obsessiveness and craziness into something useful.

      For instance, if humanity became truly spacefaring, with tens or hundreds of millions of people living in space, we could conceivably transfer mining and industry to space, allowing the Earth to become more residential and park-like. Plus, with the technological boost we’d get from going all-in in space exploration/exploitation, fusion, flying cars (not polluting!), etc. would be more likely to develop.

      Also, with all of that crazy high-tech stuff going on, chances are that robots will kill us all off. Thus achieving the Gaeaist goals! It’s a win-win strategy!

      1. Yeah but that wouldn’t allow them to kill people. This is a millennial cult. It is not about the earth. It is about punishing mankind for his sins. Moving into space doesn’t do that.

        1. Let the robots kill the people. That way, justice is done and they can take the moral highroad.

      2. You can always play the Mass Effect series when reality gets in the way.

        1. Already beat Mass Effect 2, twice.

          Maybe the wackos should play Fallout 3?

      3. if humanity became truly spacefaring….

        We could send this Lee fucker to Mars.

        1. It would be like the Botany Bay episode of Star Trek, only in reverse: We’re exiling our useless misfits instead of our supermen.

          1. Planet of the Crazies.

          2. We can’t lose all of our telephone sterilizers. That won’t end well.

            1. Excellent.

              1. Care for a Jynnen Tonnick?

      4. I have 4 words for you: Watch Mobile Suit Gundam. That’s what will happen. Even more war, and by then we will have the means to drop some really big dinosaur killer size astroids on Earth.

    2. In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities.

      Yeah they imagine they’re building a Shire, but in the end it’s killing fields and mounds of bodies … again. [sigh]

  18. “Whale Wars” is supposed to be a drama, but I watch it and laugh and laugh. It’s a comedy! The eco-clowns never manage to “save” a single whale; they spend most of their time going around in circles and staging utterly ineffectual “raids” upon the professional Japanese whalers. This, when they are not getting their million-dollar Bat-boat cut in half or running out of water or getting stuck in the ice or losing their speedboats or getting seasick. The Sea Shepherd vegans “save” whales like President Obama “saved” jobs.

    1. I haven’t watched it. But it seems it would have to be like that. The Japanese fishing industry is legendary. And fisherman in general are pretty rough people. It is hard to imagine a bunch of dumb fuck vegans in a boat stopping them. And if they could, why is there still a whaling industry?

      1. This is how crazy I think the movement is: I just had a great idea for fighting whaling, then realized that I don’t want to help these crazies actually hurt people. On the off chance they’re lurking here.

      2. As a study in propaganda alone, it’s well worth watching. But it goes far beyond that. The self-righteousness of these delusional dilatants is over-the-top hilarious.

        1. (Make that “dilettantes.” I blame me.)

      3. I want to see a mashup of these tofu tufgais going up against honest-to-god tough SOBs like Sig Hansen or John Hillstrand from Deadliest Catch. Discovery is sitting on a gold mine right there.

        It would be amusing to watch the video of Watson trying to extricate the crab pot from his ass at the end of episode 1.

        1. That would definitely be on my DVR. The juxtaposition of the guys on Deadliest Catch, seriously hard working people who risk their lives to provide a useful product and a bunch loony echo nutbags who do nothing but get in the way and cause trouble would be very educational.

        2. I’d pitch that to Discovery in a heartbeat. After all, why protect the whale and not the king crab? Aesthetics?

        3. Historically, Norweigans are good at two things: sailing boats and fucking people up.

          Capt. Sig would boost ratings significantly if he tossed Hayden Panitierre(sp? but who really gives a shit) into the Bering Sea in a survival suit.

          1. “Capt. Sig would boost ratings significantly if he tossed Hayden Panitierre(sp? but who really gives a shit) into the Bering Sea in a survival suit stark naked.”

            It’d be a waste, but sure, I’ll watch.

            1. I’ve always wondered if vegan girls can swallow. He should ask her before he tosses her. The cold wind should be chilling her chilly points.

    2. I’ve seen a couple of episodes, and it’s exactly this: A bunch of besandaled boneheads harrassing the whalers to absolutely no significant effect and getting their asses handed to them in the process. It’s simultaneously infuriating and hilarious.

      1. Paul Watson is such a misanthropic ecotard that Greenpeace itself kicked him out of their club.

    3. The Sea Shepherd vegans “save” whales like President Obama “saved” jobs.

      Really? Whale Wars has created or saved 2.3 million whales! I suddenly respect them!

      1. Sure. If you count all the whales the whalers didn’t take.

      2. Yes. Their models say so.

    4. They actually did seem to have a lot of success this season after the Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin were able to block the slipway of the Nishin Maru or whatever. I think it’s mostly due to the fact that the Japanese haven’t, for the most part, made it actually dangerous for the Sea Shephards. Honestly, I see the Sea Shephards as similar to a free market defense group engaging in vigilante justice. Right or wrong, it is what it is.

      1. “the Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin were able to block the slipway of the Nishin Maru or whatever”

        Their boats are really named the “Bob Barker” and the “Steve Irwin”? You can’t make this shit up.

        1. In that case they need to name the whaler the “Drew Carey.”

          1. The “Happy Gilmore” because you can think “Bob Barker” without thinking “Happy Gilmore”. And the Gilmore would have a launch called “The Price is Wrong. Bitch”

        2. Bob Barker actually donated money for them to buy the boat they named after him. I didn’t realize how much of a douche he was until I heard that on the show. Steve Irwin was also a supporter, and he was going to sail with them before he died.

          1. You knew Irwin was a douche (although I think his hippy wife was pretty cute). But who would have figured Barker for that?

          2. Get your pets spayed or neutered.

            1. DO NOT SPAY YOUR PETS, PEOPLE!

              It’s barbaric, unneccessary and causes health problems. If you can’t keep a dog from getting knocked-up, then you shouldn’t have one. And if you dog does get knocked up, take it to the vet for an abortion. If it’s good enough for a thirteen-year-old pregnant girl, it’s good enough for a dog.

              1. Sorry, the condom broke.

        3. Bob Barker, cuddly game-show host, donated millions of his own money so the ecotards could buy a 60-year-old boat. They named it after him.

          1. The S.S. Chop Fluffy’s Nuts Off?

          2. He then requested that they spay or neuter any whales that were saved.

      2. The Sea Shepherds based their “saved” numbers on the whaler’s 1000-whale quota. The Japanese reported something like 700 whales harvested, so the Shepherds claimed that they “saved” 300 whales. There is no empirical evidence of this. Just like Obama’s “jobs saved” claims.

    5. I’ve heard about the show but never watched it.

      My question is, where do these idiots get the money to finanace their boats and operations? If they’re out running around chasing whalers, they’re obviously not earning it themselves.

      1. From the Discovery Channel who pays for their show.

        1. Did the Discovery Channel buy their boat for them?

          1. Surely they went to the forest, found trees already dead and fallen, took the wood, carried it on their shoulders to the coast, and axed it themselves into a ship.

            No way they would buy a ship already made from ugly, polluting shipyards.

          2. Animal Planet airs the show. They don’t produce it and they don’t finance the Sea Shepherds.

  19. After decades of torched condo developments, ruined research, smashed laboratories, destroyed car dealerships, spiked trees, sabotaged equipment, stalked researchers, bombed offices…is anyone shocked by this latest?

    The eco-Left is lunatic.

    1. I had ten years in the Navy and “Eco-Nazis” (as we called them in polite company) were the Pacific Fleet’s biggest security concern before 9/11!

  20. To the asshole who was spoofing me yesterday: Fuck you. You suck, and you’ve just shown how stupid and childish the libertoids are.

    1. I’m not convinced, “Chad”.

      Oh, I believe someone was spoofing you yesterday. I just don’t know why I should believe that this is the Chad who used to comment here, when its seems quite likely that Chad caught a bullet yesterday at Discovery HQ.

    2. Show us on the internet where the Bad Man touched you.

    3. Still mourning the loss of your precious sushi-boy?

    4. just shown how stupid and childish the libertoids are

      Oh, so you can take the actions of one member of a group and assign that value judgment to all the members of the group? Cool.

      I’ll make a note of that.

      1. That was me.

    5. How do we tell the difference between your idiocy and statolatry and someone spoofing your idiocy and statolatry?

    6. STEVE SMITH LIKE CHAD. STEVE SMITH RAPE HIM LAST.

      1. REMEMBER WHEN I SAID I’D RAPE YOU LAST? STEVE SMITH LIED.

      2. I always pictured Chad as Steve Smith’s jizz-rag. “STEVE SMITH DONE RAPING FOR NIGHT. STEVE NEED CLEANING. CHAAAAAAAD!!!!”

    7. Fuck you, you suck. You suck Koch.
      Knock it off already.

      1. Oh, that’s real mature. I’m going to go whack off to Japanese tentacle-porn that takes place on bullet trains now.

        1. If I had won ten years ago, James Lee’s ideas would be national policy.

          1. And Al Gore wouldn’t look like the Goodyear blimp.

            1. He might even be able to find a girl to take care of “this” voluntarily.

    8. And remember: Every single teabagger is a racist who can go off any second and kill someone.

    9. OMG! Chad! You’re alive!

    10. In honor of chad that died yesterday I will go out and piss in the yard.

  21. Not worth strapping on some dynamite and getting your head blown off over it, but the continual TLC freakshow of diseased, disfigured, disabled, ultra fat and women using their vagina like it is a clown car is kind of disgusting. Just turn it off. Best Protest Ever.

    1. Even BBQ Pitmasters sucks ass this season.

      1. BBQ Pitmasters

        The title of that show makes me want to get cable. Seriously, is that what I’ve been missing out on?

    2. I like those People with Really Weird Looking Diseases and Syndromes shows. Half Man, Half Tree was awesome!

      1. Nightmares!

  22. even if we got down to 1 billion people, if they were all as fat as Paul Watson, we’d need a bigger Earth.

  23. This whole event was pretty heartwarming to me. No hostages got hurt, and the gunman’s demands to reduce the human population were fulfilled.

    It’s not often that the news cycle brings you an upbeat story where everyone wins.

    1. Let us not forget the best development out of this whole thing: It backed up westbound traffic on 495 so I got home a lot faster than normal yesterday.

      1. I waited until 7 to leave, but avoided Silver Spring like the plague. I went up Conn Ave and the beltway going east was almost deserted. It was the best commute in years! Please shut down Colesville Rd more often!

  24. Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans….

    Paul, do you think you and your friends would be nice enough to determine who those people are for us.

    You would? That is so magnanimous of you.

    What a fucking arrogant douchebag.

    1. He’s no hypocrite. His image has killed many a boner, thereby preventing conceptions.

      1. He would be effective as an abstinence only advocate.

    2. Have you ever noticed that the people who want us to live in a primitive, socialistic world are fat fucks who would probably die in such a world? Paul Watson and Michael Moore can both suck it.

      1. Naw dude. As wise shamans of the tribe, they’d have all kinds of bitches ready to jump on their dicks (and feed them grapes).

        This is fat nerd power fantasy 101.

      2. “Paul Watson and Michael Moore can both suck it.”

        And probably do – with regularity.

    3. In future, please refer to ‘Paul’ as “Mr. Watson”.

      1. I’d change my name.

  25. All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market.

    Do people like this ever actually think about the consequences of what they’re espousing? Assuming you live in the northeastern quadrant of the US, it would mean
    -No coffee, tea, or chocolate.
    -A greatly reduced selection of fruits and vegetables, especially in the winter.
    -Vastly more expensive milk and meat; pretty much more expensive everything else too, come to think of it.

    Then again, since these crazies hate humanity, I suppose they don’t really care, but I wonder if it occurs to them that pretty much no one other than hunter-gatherers has ever lived the way they describe.

    1. What they’re describing is pretty much an 18th Century existence, with all that entails. Nasty, brutish and short.

      1. What they’re describing is pretty much an 18th Century existence, with all that entails.

        The environmentalists want to restore slavery!

        1. It would be a probable consequences of returning to a pre-industrial revolution society. It’s no coincidence that pretty much every society had slaves and/or a class of extremely underpaid peasants. The amount of manual labor needed to do anything is kinda beyond comprehension to people like us, who have machines scramble our eggs for us.

          1. That is a really good point.

        2. Jerry Pournelle had a good comment on this. Back in the 70s, he and Larry Niven went to some “back to basics” display of technology, where they had a grain mill run off of a stationary bicycle. Pournelle said that he should get jackboots and a whip and stand over Niven while he pedaled ? a picture of the new future the environmentalists wanted.

    2. You could produce coffee, tea, chocolate, fruits, and vegetables in massive greenhouses…

      1. Which require massive heat in a Vermont winter.

    3. It also means that you would starve when there was a bad harvest that year. Until the 19th Century most of the 19th Century most of humanity lived under the constant threat of famine. If you had a bad harvest there was no way to get food from the places that didn’t to make up for it.

      It is astounding how stupid or sick or both these people are. If you don’t think Watson is mentally ill, the term doesn’t have much meaning.

    4. I am definitely moving to Central America when this shit kicks off. And taking cows.

      1. They have cows in Central America. The environmentalists hate them, because cows are anti-environmental. Not because they help Central American farmers potentially increase their lot in life.

    5. Tell that to those socialists in Vermont. I always loved being dragged into City Market in Burlington and walking through the produce section pointing out everything that those idiots would have to live without if they truly got their way.

      Nevermind how all those Volvos and Subarus with the “Buy Local” stickers made it all the way to New England…

      1. Ewww, City Market! Did Price Chopper close? What sane person would shop at City Market?

  26. I don’t understand. joe said that people like Paul Watson and they were just strawmen created by “denialists.” Did joe lie? Why would joe lie?

    1. joe would never lie. Just like Barack Obama would never lie.

      1. It’s possible that neither joe or Obam lied. It’s possible that they honestly believed everything they said when they said it.

        Of course, that would kind of make them insane.

    2. No shit? did he really say that?

      1. I have no idea.

      2. Yes. It was sometime around when “The World Without Us” came out. I said something about how some environmentalists had suggested reduce the population through releasing a virus. joe called bullshit and I posted a link. He called them fringe wackos and moved the goal posts. It was really pretty funny.

        1. Joe could never admit any fault on his own side. It was his prime directive. Never criticize or admit fault on a fellow blue team member. Most of his obnoxiousness related to that prime directive. It just led him to lie and defend the indefensible.

        2. It was sometime around when “The World Without Us” came out. I said something about how some environmentalists had suggested reduce the population through releasing a virus. joe called bullshit and I posted a link. He called them fringe wackos and moved the goal posts. It was really pretty funny.

          I don’t know what links you shared, but (based on a very cursory look) I am pretty sure it would be fair to characterize Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as fringe wackos. I mean the guy founded his society because he thought Greenpeace wasn’t aggressive enough. And then, of course, there are his wacko ideas. Wackos do make for good TV (not that I’ve seen the show). It sounds like this guy is Dog The Whaler Hunter. Now maybe Dog is a typically bounty hunter, but I am not gonna assume that to be the case.

          1. The point was, Neu, that joe said no environmentalist talked like that, I linked to a professor who said in a lecture that the best thing for the Earth would for a virus to wipe out mankind and hoped that Ebola would mutate. Then joe blew it off by saying it was a few kooks.

            My point wasn’t that all/most/majority/significant percentage/more than a few environmentalists think like this–I really don’t think it’s more than a vocal fringe–but I did find a few that disproved joe’s ignorant boast.

            Paul Watson is a kook with a very few fellow kooks and not representative of the vast majority of green adherents.

            joe is a goalpost-moving assbag.

    3. I question your belief that there is a “joe”.

    4. Are you threatening me?!

  27. I won’t watch whale wars because I knew it was going to be an action reality series completely ignoring the crackpot philosophies that make up the backdrop to all the players involved.

    1. But the producers can’t hide the crackpot philosophies of the “warriors.” It’s evident in the footage. They have such an indefensible case that they damn themselves through their own actions, despite the best intentions of the propagandist “documentarians.” That’s why it’s so funny.

      1. Yeah… Honestly I’ve never met anyone who’s watched that show and taken it seriously… Mostly it just winds up producing a team-sport style opposition among my friends where most root for the Japanese whalers and a couple stick with the underdog.

  28. I agree that the people on Whale Wars are ridiculous.

    But since the Japanese are openly peeing on treaties they signed, I wouldn’t really be that sad if in the course of running over one of the hippie ships a whaler went to the bottom of the sea with all hands.

    The whaler crews are really no better than Katrina looters when you get right down to it, and if they catch a bullet, no loss.

    1. Are the Japanese breaking treaties? Seriously, if whales are a useful product and they are not hunting them to extinction, what is wrong with it?

      1. Yes, they are.*

        The convention on whaling inserted a clause into the whaling ban allowing limited taking of specimens for scientific research, no doubt envisioning that occasionally a biologist would take tissue samples from a beached whale or something.

        The Japanese simply went right on conducting their commercial whaling operations, while pretending it was “research”.

        *This statement is based on my assumption that Japan still subscribes to the convention. They were talking about leaving it at one point but I don’t know if that happened.

        1. I didn’t know that. Little bastards.

          1. “This statement is based on my assumption”

            Heh heh.

          2. Exceptions to the Moratorium

            Determined to continue whaling, several countries found loopholes in the moratorium. Under the rules of the IWC, certain countries or groups of people can still kill whales under certain conditions. Norway, Japan, Peru and the Soviet Union exercised their right under this treaty to file official objections, effectively stating that they would not abide by the moratorium.

            * Peru later withdrew its objection.
            * Japan, fearing U.S. retaliation with fish embargoes, withdrew its objection only after nongovernmental organizations filed a lawsuit in 1988. Total compliance with the moratorium didn’t take place until 1989. Japan now wants to resume commercial whaling, but because it has withdrawn its objection to the moratorium, it must either leave the IWC or continue to expand its so-called scientific whaling.
            * Norway, following through on its original objection, resumed commercial whaling in 1993.
            * Whether Russia will return to commercial whaling is worrisome. In need of an influx of hard currency, Russia may see commercial whaling as a way to accomplish this.

            Japan, Iceland and South Korea found a way to continue whaling while appearing to obey the moratorium: They used the treaty’s scientific research loophole. Japan then sold whale meat domestically, while Iceland and South Korea were able to exploit the market for whale meat in Japan. Nearly every year, the IWC adopts resolutions attacking the scientific whaling programs as inadequate and useless.

            * South Korea has since ceased scientific whaling.
            * Japan not only continued its “research” program but expanded it. In 2000 the country added sperm whales and Bryde’s whales to the hundreds of minke whales it kills each year. It added sei whales in 2001, fin whales in 2005, and announced its plans to begin hunting humpback whales off Antarctica in December 2007.
            * Iceland stopped its scientific whaling and eventually withdrew from the IWC, saying the organization had become too protectionist. In 2002 Iceland illegally rejoined the IWC with an objection to the moratorium and again began scientific whaling the following year. It then started commercially whaling for minke and fin whales in 2006.

            http://www.hsus.org/about_us/h…..ssion.html

      2. there’s nothing produced from whales (other than delicious whale meat) that can’t be produced without killing whales, & they’re hunting them to extinction…
        why do you people hate whales?

        1. I don’t hate whales. But I eat cows and fish. So, I can’t really say much about Inuits or Japanese eating whales. And if they are only taking a 1000 a year, as indicated above, it is hard to see how they are hunting them to extinction.

          1. DOLPHIN AND WHALE!!!!!!!

            Sorry, I have to include that in every Whale Wars discussion.

          2. It depends on the species.

            Ocean issues are difficult because no one owns the ocean.

            As long as the [somewhat preposterous] pretense is maintained that the nations of the world own the oceans “together”, then deciding what to do with them is a political process. For good or ill, the political process of managing the whale population produced a hunting moratorium. Those sneaky, scheming Pearl Harboring Japanese are being their usual tricksy selves about it.

            The fact that hippies are opposing them makes it hard to not be on Japan’s side here, but they’re not blameless in what is going on.

            1. No they are not. It is pretty disgraceful.

              1. They are also guilty of overfishing areas like the Great Banks. While enviro-wackos are assholes, the Japanese fishing industry approaches resource management the same way as a plague of locusts do.

            2. I think part taking the side of the whalers is the format of the show. You never directly see the Japanese defending their weasely interpretation of the whaling convention while you do get a heaping load of the self-righteously smug, whiny, dickishness of the Sea Shepherd people.

    2. Thanks. Your blog sucks.

      1. Well, of course.

        If it didn’t suck what would be the point?

        1. Narcissism?

  29. I just noticed something funny in Watson’s linked essay.

    Primitive hominids were well-organized, efficient, slaughter crews. As they advanced, the mammoth, sabre-toothed cats, cave bears, giant sloths, camels, horses, and wholly rhinos fell to their stone weapons and deliberately set fires. The extinction of all of these great mega-species is directly attributable to “primitive” human hunters.

    Uh, last I checked, horses and camels were still with us. As for “wholly” rhinos, the less said the better.

    1. Oh, and it gets even better:

      Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.

      Yup, that’s right: you can have a career or a child in Watson’s Eden. Oh, you wanted to do something else with your life too? Sorry, having a child means becoming a Watsonian brood sow. I am starting to think this guy is actually a troll sent to make the environmental movement look bad.

      1. In which case, Phil Jones and his East Anglia U. crew have left him little work.

      2. Yeah, I’m wondering who gets to sort the “responsible and completely dedicated” from those who are not, and what happens to the latter.

        Next stop: Khmer Rouge.

    2. Only feral and repopulated horses survive in the wild. True wild horses are gone.

      The Tarpan horse went extinct and Przewalski’s horse almost went extinct (the population was restored) with zoo horses.

      Horses originally evolved in the Americas and disappeared from there in ~11K years ago. Scientists think either climate change or Clovis Culture humans killed them off.

      Wild camels were thought to be extinct until a small population was found in the Gobi Desert.

      I’m surprised he didn’t mention the wild cattle — the aurochs went extinct in 1627.

      1. Hey, if you’re a walking 3000 pound bag of food and construction materials and you can’t fend off some uppity monkeys with pointy sticks, you don’t really deserve to live.

    3. He meant the mega-fauna. Giant should have been attached to all those animals. Giant camel, giant horse, etc.

      1. Apparently, the primitive hominids were unable to wipe out the giant douche.

        1. the giant douche

          Bravo.

    4. He probably means camels and horses in the Americas, which would make his statement true. Of course, he didn’t say that, which makes it untrue . . .

    5. I hate to defend the nutjob, but horses and camels both evolved in North America. It’s debatable whether humans hunted them to extinction here, but this is where they’re originally from. They were later re-introduced by Eurpoean settlers.

      1. The question about the human source of extinction for the American populations is: why would the human migrants to the America’s kill them off in their original habitat, but the native humans in Asia would not destroy the populations of those animals that made it to Asia?

        1. Because the populations in Asia were used to deal with human hunting and had learned to treat humans as predators despite their small size and teeth. The populations in the Americans were encountering humans for the first time.

          Of course, it would be impossible to know for sure lacking a time machine, but this explanation is what better explains that paradox, of all I have previously read. It fits the experience of humans arriving at until-then uninhabited islands and continents after the H. erectus stage.

  30. Once upon a time, somebody who ran around saying stuff like that would be put in a straitjacket and packed off to a padded cell.

    1. It’s still not too late.

  31. In case it hasn’t been brought up…the automatic linking of “environmentalism” with “the left” is fallacious. It is akin to calling libertarianism “right” or “left.”

    Extremists are inspired by extremist doctrine. Nothing special about this guy in that sense. I haven’t really delved into his ideas yet, but nothing in the main statements strikes me as particularly “leftist.”

    As for Watson…same point applies. Nothing in his Utopian re-wilding vision described above is particularly left or right, politically even if he, himself, might be (I have no idea).

    1. Population control is certainly well within the political confines of the left. Social change implemented through a centralized bureacracy is pretty much the mantra of the left.

      I don’t hold Al Gore responsible for this nutbag, but to say that those calling for population control don’t play for TEAM BLUE is ridiculous.

      1. Tman,

        Sorry, I don’t buy it. Forced population control is not a leftist agenda item.

        And, although Social change implemented through a centralized bureacracy is pretty much the mantra of the left is more on target, I don’t see explicit calls from Watson for this to be implemented centrally with government coercion. (My guess is he hasn’t really worked out how we would bring about this change in any practical detail…I could be wrong).

        1. And for the record,

          Forced population control is not on the agenda of most environmentalists. Even those that warn against the dangers of overpopulation.

          It is important to avoid, what’s it called, commutation of conditionals, in issues like this.

        2. So The Great Leap Forward wasn’t a leftist idea either?

          Leftists don’t believe in a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization? Or collective ownership?

          I think you are missing how closely these all resemble each other.

          1. Sorry, but that seems like a non-sequitur to me.

            What has collective ownership got to do with the idea of forced population control? They seem orthogonal concepts to me.

            1. What has collective ownership got to do with the idea of forced population control?

              The both need centralized power in which to force the collection or control thereof. The Great Leap Forward had both of them.

              I hate it when leftists who espouse socialism/communism/collectivism try and excuse the disastrous policies of Mao or Stalin as “the bad kind” of leftism. It’s the same cookie. You just don’t want to admit how wretchingly awful it tastes.

              1. [sigh]

            2. What doesn’t forced population control have to do with collectivist societies?

              I mean… Let’s ignore the fact that that idea has been a huge piece of the history of collectivist regimes as Tman points out… Let’s just think of the logic of it.

              If “society” owns all resources, that certainly includes a lot of ownership of people too, almost by necessity – look at health care, for instance. If taxpayers/the state/society is responsible for all health care costs, then it behooves them to start making decisions on what procedures some people can or cannot have, which people’s lives are worth saving and even, in the end, which people should be allowed to drain system resources on new babies.

              This isn’t exactly a stretch, and oh yeah… it’s been done.

              And ohhhh yeah again… It’s exactly what a lot of early 20th Century progressives were all about anyway.

              1. Some leftists practiced/wanted forced population control.

                Someone, LL, is a “leftist”

                Quick: what does LL think about forced population control?

                Some people who want forced population control are/were collectivists.

                Someone, RR, wants forced population control.

                Quick, what does RR feel about collectivism?

                1. “Forced population control is not a leftist agenda item.”

                  “Some leftists practiced/wanted forced population control.”

                  That only some species of Leftist is into forced population control is not dispositive that the majority of movements which espouse that are Leftist. It certainly does not mean that forced population control is never associated with the Left like you implied in the 1st quote.

                  1. Not the ‘majority’,MJ, ALL the movements that espouse population control are leftist.

                    And all leftist ideologies or variants thereof lead to population control as the all-encompassing states keeps itself going.

                    And, finally, Lee refers several times to a ‘they’ fixing the things he sees as a problem–i.e. the spread of human infestation of Earth—who do you think he meant with that?

                2. It’s disingenuous, I think NM for you to write off the fact that A. Lefist political theory is fundamentally a subset of collectivist political theory, that, B. A collectivist state functioning (if I can use that term loosely) requires significant amounts of population control, as a part of broader controls over the behavior of basically everyone, and that C. Population control has been a historically significant feature of many leftist regimes… Mao Zedong’s for example.

                  You can pretend that we’re making too big a leap on this one, but I think you’re pretty much just being an idiot.

        3. It might not be a mainstream leftist agenda item, but almost everyone that believes in population control (forced, or merely encouraged, e.g. by propaganda on the Discovery channel) is a leftist. Some of them even get to be named science czar!

    2. Good point, but it doesn’t change the fact that for the most part people like this get a pass from the media and various commentators as well-meaning activists.

      1. people like this get a pass

        Do you mean like Watson or like Lee?

    3. As fallacious as linking Christianity with the right. I’m not religious, so they can all go to hell as far as I.. well, you know what I mean.

  32. Anything to distract from the vast gaping chasm between the richest 1% and everyone else.

    1. Get that vast vacum between your ears fixed, Tony.

      The distribution of wealth isn’t any of your – or anyone else’s – business.

      1. I lie every time I claim not to be jealous of wealthy people, of which I am one. After all, I do have more than one home, AND a private beach, so that makes me better than you poor fuckers – although I also deny being an elitist.

        1. I’ve got the Academy on the line, Fake Tony- they think you have a shot for Best Actor in a Leading Role, but they’re not sure yet.

    2. Anything to distract from the vast gaping chasm between the richest 1% and everyone else.

      You should like the richest 1% tony.

      They pay for 40% of the government you love so much.

  33. Anything to distract from the vast gaping chasm between the richest 1% and everyone else.

    Speaking of vast gaping chasms…

  34. Ron: You are right qualitatively, and wrong quantitatively.

    Yes, there are a few radical leftwingnuts out there. That does not offset the ~30% of Americans who are teabaggers.

    1. And every single one of that ~30% of teabaggers are dangerous right-wingers just itching to blow something up.

    2. Classic Chad.

      A.) You can’t hold one nutjob responsible for the entire left, just because Robert Byrd was a klansman doesn’t mean democrats are racist.

      b.) A third of the right are racist David Duke loving teabaggers!

      Cracks me up, you do.

  35. time for MY Discovery Manifesto!!

    1. I read Greg Egan’s books. You should read them to and make a shows about them.

    2. More T-Rex vs Mega-gators. That shit is awesome! and who could forget about squirrels. They fuck up the reason comments and having them eaten by a giant CGI ice age beaver would be pretty cool.

    3. UFOs and aliens are bullshit and you guys know it. Same with Ghosts and Angles and other paranormal bullshit. Either make shows that debunk them or don’t make shows about them at all.

    4. more lions killing shit.

    5. More Cheetahs killing shit

    6. More shit killing other shit.

    7. Your hulu page sucks. I don’t have cable so fix that.

    8. I have no idea how quantum physics works. Fix that.

    9. The big bang seems like bullshit. The universe created itself from nothing. That is worse then the bible and the evidence given to justify it in popular media is thin. Either show the evidence or debunk it.

    10. Space is cool. More space.

    11. There were a lot of babies in your day care. No recommendations there…just wow lots of babies.

  36. For all Discovery networks: Kill the reality crap. It sucks.

    1. For all Discovery networks: Kill the reality crap. It sucks.

      1. Well, yes, of course, but I thought I’d start with them.

        I’m not a huge TV person, but I’ve turned on the TV more than once and flicked through channels, noting in distress how friggin’ many of those damned shows are on. And they’re so stupid that I feel the idiocy in the half second it takes me to change the channel.

        I’ve never sat through one of those shows, not once. It is a sad commentary that that crap is so popular. I get the networks running it–it’s cheap–but not the consumer watching it.

        1. I agree. I’ve also never watched a full episode of a reality show. Only unlike you, I’m smug and superior about it.

        2. I’ve never sat through one of those shows, not once.

          So you’ve missed the real lesbian housewife dwarfs who also cook competitively and have irresponsible sex in a hot tub while pawning their hoarded custom motorcycles?

          1. They were already housewives? I thought one of them was going to choose her wife from a bunch of lesbian dwarfs. That’s what I get for not watching…

  37. Tman,

    I don’t hold Al Gore responsible for this nutbag, but to say that those calling for population control don’t play for TEAM BLUE is ridiculous.

    As I see it, environmentalism is no more left or right (TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE) than libertarianism is left or right. In fact it seems to me that environmentalism is not left or right because it is not about the MEANS, but about the ENDS. You can believe in the goals of environmentalism and support market forces or government intervention as the best way to achieve those goals. And, in fact, most environmentalist I know are pretty much going to choose the means based on the likelihood that the goal is reached, rather than from some left/right preference as far as means goes.

    Libertarianism, interestingly, avoids the left-right classification while advocating both an END (maximum individual liberty) and a MEANS (limited government) because its END is at its root a MEAN (I get to choose, not you). If that makes any sense.

    1. um…add an “s” as appropriate.

    2. You can believe in the goals of environmentalism and support market forces or government intervention as the best way to achieve those goals

      Leftists don’t believe in allowing “market forces” to achieve that goal. And incidentally you can swap “environmentalism” with “education” or “housing” or “food production” and you have leftism.

      I take it you didn’t read any of that John McCarthy page from yesterday huh.

      1. You can believe in the goals of environmentalism and support market forces or government intervention as the best way to achieve those goals

        Leftists don’t believe in allowing “market forces” to achieve that goal.

        You are conflating leftist and environmentalist again.

        I guess I’ll just you are a right wing libertarian who can’t tell the difference ;^)

        1. I’m not conflating, they both believe that “market forces” are insufficient to achieve their goals.

          You are just afraid to admit it.

          And by the way, I am neither a full blown libertarian nor a right winger. Had you read any of the McCarthy page you would know that.

          1. I’m not conflating, they both believe that “market forces” are insufficient to achieve their goals.

            Unless they are environmentalist and believe that market forces are sufficient. Plenty of those around. Do you ever get out in the world?

            You are just afraid to admit it.

            I am afraid to admit what? That all environmentalist think exactly alike?

            And by the way, I am neither a full blown libertarian nor a right winger. Had you read any of the McCarthy page you would know that.

            How would my reading of McCarthy give me insight into how you self-identify politically? You said you liked his stuff…am I to infer from that that you think exactly as he does on all issues?

            1. Unless they are environmentalist and believe that market forces are sufficient.

              I would call those people conservationists, not environmentalists. And if that describes your position, then good on you.

              I am afraid to admit what? That all environmentalist think exactly alike?

              No, I just am of the opinion that the vasty majority of environmentalists are leftists.

              How would my reading of McCarthy give me insight into how you self-identify politically?

              The bolded part I quoted, and the fact that I said “here’s the views that most closely reflect mine.”

              am I to infer from that that you think exactly as he does on all issues?

              No, just the ones we were discussing.

              1. I would call those people conservationists, not environmentalists. And if that describes your position, then good on you.

                [sigh]

                Larger category: Environmentalist

                Subcategories: “conservationist”; “conservationists who believe that market forces are sufficient” ; “conservationists that believe market forces are mostly sufficient but may support some regulations” ; “conservationists that believe government has a major role to play but understand the need for some market participation; “watermelons.”

                As with most distributions, the majority falls in the middle of the range.

          2. I am neither a full blown libertarian nor a right winger.

            Full blown libertarian is, sort of, an oxymoron as, taken to its extreme, it becomes “Anarcho-capitalist” or some such. I am willing to bet (based on your posts) that you are considerably to the right of center on the left/right axis and closer to the libertarian end on the other.

      2. I take it you didn’t read any of that John McCarthy page from yesterday huh.

        Yeah I did. Why? What has that got to do with our discussion here?

        You are not conflating “environmentalists who espouse the need for population control” with “all environmentalists” are you? And even worse, are you conflating my contention that environmentalism is not a leftist political movement with some odd sense that I am a leftist?

        I am a moderate and an environmentalist. Like most mainstream environmentalists I think that market forces are an essential ingredient if any progress is to be made on environmental issues.I am just not sure they get us all the way there. Some regulations are necessary to assure that environmental costs are priced into the market, for instance.

  38. As the old bumpersticker from the 80’s said……….Save the Planet, Kill Yourself

  39. Neu? If you are still around…

    Can we at least agree that the environmentalists who are leftists concern libertarians?

    I agree that they shouldn’t be conflated, but the free market environmentalists not only appear to be a minority, they appear to be a very quiet minority.

    1. Free market environmentalists

      Bjorn Lomborg

      And?????

      1. The Whole Earth Catalog dude.

    2. I agree that they shouldn’t be conflated, but the free market environmentalists not only appear to be a minority, they appear to be a very quiet minority.

      Free market environmentalists are actually conservationists.

      And there are a shit load of them.

      Ducks Unlimited has a pretty big donation base.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.