The Pagan Mysteries

by Brad Nelson   4/1/14

Perhaps put this next blog post in the category of “What does it matter?” After all, what does it matter that many people today have tossed over the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and now subscribe to the god of CO2, baby seals, and dangerous pit bulls? (Yes, read that article by Prager and find out how pit bulls factor into this: The Church of Leftism.)

Prager writes:

The Judeo-Christian worldview is that man is at the center of the universe; nature was therefore created for man. Nature has no intrinsic worth other than man’s appreciation and moral use of it.
Worship of nature was the pagan worldview, a worship that the Hebrew Bible was meant to destroy. The messages of the Creation story in Genesis were that:

1) God created nature. God is not in nature, and nature is not God. Nature is nothing more than His handiwork. Therefore, it is He, not nature, that is to be worshipped. The pagan world held nature in esteem; its gods were gods of nature (they were not above nature).

2) Nature cannot be worshipped because nature is amoral, whereas God is moral.

3) All of creation had one purpose: the final creation, the human being.

Whatever one believes about God, the metaphysics of nature-only produces a different man than one who believes nature is just a part of an overall scheme. I love getting out in nature and think we should have ample set-asides for humans (yes, humans) to enjoy. But that’s about the extent of my environmentalism. One can appreciate the virtues of nature without the naive romantic notions.

Every once in a while you’ll read of some city-dwelling environmental wacko who tries “communing with nature” and ends up paying the price for his naiveté. The movie Into the Wild (a Sean Penn film) could be deemed the environmental wacko’s version of “The Ten Commandments.”

And I guess that really is the point of this blog post. There is something inherently goofy about making a religion out of environmentalism, although it is consistent with the utopian nature of the Left. Reality is denied and replaced by a naive romantic view of how things are. Most liberals are probably just a vacation away from joining the fate of Timothy Treadwell who found out the hard way that grizzly bears are not just big stuffed animals.

Even Steve Irwin, who I otherwise was fond of, found out the hard way the nature is not to be trifled with too often. It’s not a warm, cuddly thing superior and pure compared to man. Man may be many bad things himself at times, but it is quite true what Alfred, Lord Tennyson said of “nature, red in tooth and claw.”

But in my view, the religion of environmentalism isn’t based upon a love of nature. It’s based upon a hatred of man which is further based upon a hatred of self. It’s is routinely noted that at political gatherings that conservatives tend to leave the place spotless while those on the Left leave heaps of trash. Occupy Wall Street, glamorized in the press, was actually a smelly, dirty event generally populated by unkempt and dodgy people.

And if there is a conservative throwing thrash out his window, or leaving bottles on the trail, then shame on them. But I highly doubt this is generally the case. It is most likely the adherents of the religion of environmentalism (or at least those who vote for their kind) who are doing so. Me, I pick up some of this trash, but can’t in any way cope with all of it.

That’s not say that legions of low information voters who stylize themselves as hip “Progressives” are self-haters like the leaders of the movement itself. This crowd is accustomed to, and practiced at (if only by sheer ignorance and narcissism), taking the the harsher aspects of the Left and turing them into playthings. These are the ones who genuinely have at least made a “lifestyle” of getting out in nature, even if they harbor little or no hatred for mankind. Still, such a mindset does leave them oblivious to the darker impulses involved in these movements, and thus they keep voting in the environmental wackos such as Obama and his ilk thinking that by doing so they “care” so damn much.

But is the world really placed here for man’s disposal? I don’t know. But the point would be that you see deeply into the heart of the religion of environmental wacko-ism when you note, as Prager did, that:

On February 20, a pit bull attacked a four-year-old boy, Kevin Vicente, leaving the boy with a broken eye socket and a broken jaw. Kevin will have to undergo months, perhaps years, of reconstructive surgeries. A Facebook page was set up to raise funds. But it wasn’t set up for Kevin. It was set up for the dog. The “Save Mickey” page garnered more than 70,000 “likes” and raised more than enough money to provide legal help to prevent the dog from being euthanized. There were even candlelight vigils and a YouTube plea for the dog.

The nonprofit legal group defending Mickey is the Lexus Project. According to CBS News, “the same group fought earlier this year for the life of a dog that fatally mauled a toddler in Nevada.”

This is the trend: Nature over man.

That’s all you need to know. Despite the trappings of “caring” that the Left likes to baste itself in, this environmental wacko stuff is about nature over man.
__________________________________________________
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1333 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Pagan Mysteries

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I’ve noticed that the Occupiers (and from the moment they appeared, I found that name significant as an indicator of their basic hostility to America) are basically a bunch of lousy slobs without toilet training. Naturally they make great heroes for liberalism.

    I read about 20 years ago that the Bush administration had put in separate bins for different types of trash, which the “environmentally friendly” Clinton administration members proceeded to ignore. It was an early lesson in the point that liberals judge others on the basis of what they believe, not how they behave.

    Probably little can be done about the basic misanthropy of modern liberals, but we can inoculate the rest of the population (at least in theory). Perhaps if someone could find a nice natural video of a polar bear munching on a seal, it would go sufficiently viral to teach those who are merely naïve an important lesson. (I recall that in the Disney cartoon of The Sword in the Stone, they make reference to the acts of predators, but never actually show one successfully attacking its prey. It’s easy to see why a movie made for children wouldn’t show such things, but too many people seem to grow up without realizing that there really are predators and they really do eat other animals, and sometimes one can have one beloved animal eating another.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I read about 20 years ago that the Bush administration had put in separate bins for different types of trash, which the “environmentally friendly” Clinton administration members proceeded to ignore. It was an early lesson in the point that liberals judge others on the basis of what they believe, not how they behave.

      Dennis Prager has a good explanation for why liberals are litterbugs. In the case of leaving trash all over the place, he says it is because their mindset is that it is somebody else’s job (and certainly not their job) to pick up the trash. That is, in socialism, the idea of being personally responsible for something tends not to be an engrained trait. Personal responsibility gets lost in a fuzzy haze of “socialized” responsibility.

      I think that covers part of it, for sure. But I think it just scratches the surface. What I think we’re dealing with is a narcissistic, infantile mindset — one for whom simply believing that one is one of the Smarter and More Compassionate People is what it’s all about, which is why I sometimes refer to those on the Left as the wannabe New Master Race. Believing that one is a savior of the planet is cheap and easy. It costs nothing to have such a belief. But it does cost time and effort not to throw trash along the side of the road. But for liberal “environmentalists,” they simply can’t be bothered personally.

      Conservatives, on the other hand, don’t throw litter onto the street because, 1) It is aesthetically displeasing, 2) It is morally wrong, and 3) In order to set a good example for others. There’s even an element of a respect for law and order (as well as the desire not to be fined for littering).

      It is realities such as this that ease my conscience when making fun of liberals. Yes, they are human beings and due the respect any human being deserves just for being. But as a political cause and affectation, they are stupid, goofy, and highly hypocritical. If their policies weren’t so harmful we would just keep them around for our own amusement like a class clown or court jester.

  2. Glenn Fairman says:

    A very fine piece Brad…….

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If one studies the history of religions, the Hebrew development of monotheism is seen as a seminal point in religious thought. In Judaism man was made in the image of God thus lifting the value of mankind and human life.

    Paganism was and is by definition a primitive concept. It has no overarching moral structure, other than adapting to nature, whatever that means. Worship of rocks, ancestors, etc., does not, in general, lead to great leaps of religious thought. Roman house Gods were concerned with a specific family, not mankind. Human sacrifices, such as those to Baal show a religious idea in which human life was held in low regard. That is why I say the modern Left are really regressive, taking the world back to a more primitive time and mode of thought.

    I have long said, only half jokingly, that the Germans are really pagans at heart. I think that is one reason they could carry out the Holocaust.

    • Glenn Fairman says:

      good comment Kung.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, the Nazis certainly made extensive use of Norse pagan symbols (such as Hermann Goering saying “Arise to Valhalla” at the funerals for important Luftwaffe figures). They also were very much nature-oriented (Goering was Reichsjaegermeister, and I understand his laws on hunting are still in use) and (for their time) very pro-environment. Hitler, of course, was famous as a vegetarian (and Himmler was anti-hunting, unlike Goering). And they certainly had no regard for human life, as can be seen by what Hitler was willing to do to the German people at the end because they had “failed” him.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I do not know of any other country in which the environmental movement has held such sway as in Germany. The Green party really came out of Germany in the early 1970’s. The environment and the earth, trump every other consideration.

        I do not know another people who are so enamored of “Nature”. The German speaking peoples can go a little overboard in this regard. They even see nudity as part of the big nature picture. As I recall the so-called FKK (freie Koerper Kultur, I think that is the correct name) sold itself, at least partially as natural.

        The word wander comes from the German wandern. Which is what they love to do through the forests and over hill and dale. They even have Spa’s built around this. I mean, who else but a pagan would wear Lederhosen?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I do not know another people who are so enamored of “Nature”. The German speaking peoples can go a little overboard in this regard.

          Mr. Kung, it’s my understanding (which would seem to jibe with yours) that Europeans — lacking any kind of otherworldly religion — have made at least a soft religion of nature.

          I don’t mean that they are out dancing around rocks like Druids or hugging trees like true environmental wackos. I mean that their feelings regarding the miracle of reality have no other expression (religion having been throughly stigmatized) than the rather contrived feelings of awe that aren’t appropriate to the subject. The Force or Being that made nature should certainly be held in awe. But nature herself — while often extremely beautiful — is just not on the level of something to be worshipped, soft or otherwise.

          A Catholic kneeling at Mass taking Communion is in no danger of blurring the boundaries of what he or she is doing, whatever one thinks of the Sacrament itself or the rationale behind it. A person taking Mass knows they are taking mass. And, presumably, when this same person goes hiking they are partaking of nature as nature — perhaps thinking of it as one of God’s blessings as well.

          But the “soft” religion of secular/socialist Europe has only goofiness left in its expressions. You see people trying to infuse nature with feelings and thoughts that don’t really fit so it all comes of as rather stilted.

  4. steve lancaster says:

    For sixty years we have coddled them, pampered them and guarded the rest home of Western Civilization while they have joked about us, called us the most foul names and in general done almost everything possible to undermine our culture. Western Europe is senile and sitting in God’s waiting room for the last rites. And when the time comes, as it surely will, we will have to bury our metaphorical parents and live in a world without them. It will come not as a sudden collapse but a slow decline leading to a flat line. We can miss them and still be glad that they no longer interfere with our lives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *