“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

Both Chesterton and Lewis below are on point.
“… recent demands by the otherwise broadly progressive group Extinction Rebellion for a “citizens’ assembly” to address climate change also look, on closer inspection, suspiciously like an extra-democratic body of appointees.
Of course. Looking at the Stop Oil activists actions is telling enough – self serving justifications and contempt for their fellow citizens, that is, disregard for their interests – and the exploitation of them for use in their political activism.
This to me borders on, for want of a better word, ‘malevolent’. And the sad thing is that they don’t see it, such is their all-consuming emotions of hysterical fear and loathing and disgust. But, a “citizens assembly” we have seen before. It is the meaning of “Soviet”.

This is such a good piece of writing. I had to read it twice before I could keep all the bawls (avoiding speech vandal) up in the air.
“those, like Linkola, who suggest we should retrieve the idea of human stewardship of the natural world — but at the expense of valuing the human full stop.”
What a convoluted idea of who we are and what we want: that humans should take up stewardship of the natural world to preserve and save it, but at the same time devaluing what we are. This is real absurdism. In an environment of such entangled thought, like a cats-cradle, where critical thinking falls behind with each generation, it’s easy to see a new set of religious wars coming, a new set of disciples, with blind adherence to ideas they can’t comprehend.

I read the provided link on Deep Green Resistance and did wonder how much DGR’s position on trans politics had to do with the authors’ critique. I’d come across DGR’s Lierre Keith before – as an ardent opposer of veganism! She’d been vegan for many years and believed it destroyed her health.

Don’t be critical of these sacred cows of the environmental movement and expect a fair hearing.

It’s that smug look on her face I can’t get out of my head. The same day this happened my wife sent me a link to a video clip of a very similar angry young woman in a grocery store somewhere opening dozens of gallons of milk and pouring it on the floor, apparently in solidarity.

Why mostly young women? After a decade of insane climate hysteria it’s no wonder we get tantrums like Greta Thunberg’s. Greta Goons.

It’s only the beginning. Watch for a power station bombing soon.

If it’s a valid tactic to throw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, surely it would be equally effective to throw sunflowers at Warhol’s Soup. There are many examples in the Warhol museum in Pittsburgh, and even in the Albertina in Vienna.

There are many who will say Truss’ proposals were correct. But she didn’t confer, or warn anyone, she just imposed them. It could be that the environmental cause is also a good one – but again, it is how it is being implemented. A movement is when enough like minded people join together for a cause. At what point and by which manner does it take on a religious mantle? I would suggest when there is a power grab and the perpetrators invent rituals and rules and shroud themselves in mystery to retain the power. This is not to say the original cause was a bad one. It just gets lost in translation.

Hubris on the part of extreme environmentalist betrays their inability to ask questions such as; is my claim true, what is my evidence, why do I imagine I should have the power I want, what happens if as if by magic my wish comes true next Wednesday, if I am so committed to the idea that humans are ruining the planet why don’t I kill myself?

There are many other example of questions that everyone concerned with any movement that should be asked prior to becoming a fanatic to an idea of any sort.

I often wonder how many of these people would desire to riot if the consequences of their actions were harsher than the are. I can understand putting your life on the line if others want to destroy me, but who wants to be shot for gluing themselves to the highway?

This article reminds of any one of the decade of sermons I was obliged to listen to as a child. Take a subject, any subject, and slowly bend it to align with, and be subsumed by the sermoniser’s variety of Christianity. Pythonesque.

What is needed now is an organised resistance movement.
People who, when learning of some eco sabotage incident on social media, will rush to the scene and act to impede and seriously inconvenience the saboteurs. Perhaps handcuffing some together, throwing something disgusting over them, turning their cars around to engulf them in exhaust fumes, etc. Sadly necessary since the police are largely aiding and abetting this criminality.

Could it be that the great innovation of Christianity was humanism, and this substantially explains its success and popularity? It was perhaps the first religion to stress, front and centre, what we can do for others, to root progress in human wellbeing, to give people what they surely want – heaven and a all loving deity – the clear implication that God lives for us. Could it even be that people created it? After all, its central ideas, themes and stories are far older than 2000 years.

it easily possible to separate our extractive relation to technology — the principal driver of climate change — from that heritage.

I really wish people would state that correctly. You could say “technology – the principle driver of CO2 emissions…” and be correct. But the evidence is more than ambiguous supporting the hypothesis that CO2 is the principle driver of changes to the earth’s climate. Or, when you say “climate change” do you mean changes to the climate distinct from natural variability? In that case, the above-construction is semi-defensible. See, that’s how the climate zealots get you. They trade in a currency of ambiguous terms and vaguely defined variables. It’s all great quantities of politicized b***s***. I really wish my favorite writer wouldn’t promote the folly.

Speaking as a member of Extinction Rebellion, I would like to know what is meant by “recent demands by the otherwise broadly progressive group Extinction Rebellion for a “citizens’ assembly” to address climate change also look, on closer inspection, suspiciously like an extra-democratic body of appointees.” One initiative of our local group is to form an unpaid body to hold the County Council to its Net Zero pledge by research, questions, etc. Is this also “suspiciously extra-democratic”??

Human population numbers will plummet in the next few decades, regardless of what the eco fringe groups say or do.
A hundred years from now expect human population to have halved.
The development of advanced AI pleasure dolls will only accelerate the current trend.

The problem is not confined to eco warriors. Quite a large percentage of the population don’t believe in democracy. For them the end justifies the means and physical intimidation or violence are legitimate tools to further their cause or tribe.

Very weak arguments. Nazis were also in favour of technology and economic growth. However, few liberals would share to question such concepts just because Nazis or Stalinists support them too.
Nature has cycles of growth and shrinking. The economy is no different. Only someone with no scientific background could believe that the world’s human population can grow forever.
A bunch of tree-huggers are not doing more harm that the Luddites two centuries ago. Growth and de-growth both provoke social tensions, as some groups grow or shrink faster than others. There are always a bunch of extremists that appeal to violence instead of dialogue.
It is not only a matter of Christian values, although it is interesting to address the religious question. All Abrahamic religions prone population growth and attack family planning, abortion and contraceptives. They want their own kind to overcome other people’s growth. By the way, so did the Nazis.
It was women’s fight for sexual freedom that probably contributed most to family planning efforts and a reduction of the birth rate, except perhaps in China or in India under Indira Ghandi.
Democracy is always under attack as groups want to have more voting rights than others. Further to that, groups often vote decisions against their own interests for various reasons. One of them being that politicians often adapt their speeches to their audiences without feeling anyway constraints to respect their promises.
Secondly, what looks good in the short term could be a disaster in a long term. As politicians and the people want to see quick results, long term policies are unlikely to be a priority. Companies are not the exception, as managers depend on continuous profit to keep their positions, even if such constant quest for profit could lead the company to engage in criminal activities and to risk bankruptcy.
Following the rules of nature, a quick success increases the risk of failure and fall. We take democracy and social welfare for granted, and cry when the gap between the richest and the poorest increases too much and the economy fails to deliver the goods. Even if such up-down cycles are all except a surprise.

I will simply point out that Christianity and Churchianity are not the same thing.