Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberalism: Rebellion Against Death, Alienation from Nature, Spiritual Weakness
self | 8/30/2010 | Huck

Posted on 08/30/2010 8:57:03 AM PDT by Huck

Environmentalism: Liberal Rebellion Against Death

I believe the liberal’s twisted environmentalism is due to their own alienation from nature. It also stems from their spiritual helplessness. Extreme liberalism is rebellion against death, which is really rebellion against life as it is.

Why do they become vegetarians? Not because they think it’s healthier—it’s to avoid the anxiety that comes from eating meat—acceptance of death. Why are they absurdly anti-war? Same reason.

They flock to urban centers where people are supreme, and where nature has been subdued or eliminated. Seems odd for environmentalists, but it isn’t. The city is the greatest example of man’s attempt to recreate the world, recreate the environment, and to CONTROL the world and the environment. It’s a perfect place for people who can’t accept life as it is.

Meanwhile, those who live out “in the country” are far less squeamish about the realities of life, because even in merely ex-urban areas, one can observe nature in action, and it’s hard to miss the implications.

I watch the nervous chipmunk sneaking around. I like chipmunks. My wife loves ‘em. They are cute. But in this world, they are also prey, and must fear for their lives at all times. I observe the violent horror show that is the average fishing hole. A little frog hops across some lily pads. If he falls into the water in the wrong spot, or just lands on the wrong pad, he’ll find himself in a bass’s belly before he has time to react. Perch eat smaller perch. Pickeral eat damn near anything. Frogs eat other frogs. It’s a beautiful pond, a wonderful “ecosystem”, but it’s also a nasty, monstrous place.

Nature is violent. It’s beautiful, too. The country person is more in tune with the true nature of this world. The libs want the beauty without the teeth that come with it. So they live in concrete cities, where “parks” represent nature. They rebel against nature. They cry for “peace”, as if that is something this world has ever offered. They simply can’t accept life as it is. I think the word is neurotic.

Ironically (but there is so much about liberalism that is ironic!), abortion is probably the crowning achievement of this rebellion against death. A truly cold and selfish person, with no inner conflict, would simply say if I want to kill my own young, that’s my business—to hell with what you think. Think Henry Hill in Goodfellas. No apologies, no sugar-coating. No problems with death. But most liberals cling to the ludicrous argument that abortion is not the taking of innocent life in the womb. If nothing is being taken, what exactly is being aborted? The liberal defense of abortion rests on a complete denial of reality. The Henry Hill argument has more logical merit, truth be told.

Their support of euthanasia is also, ironically, rebellion against death. They seek to control death. They seek to subjugate death. To de-fang and de-claw death. Maybe they fear death via overpopulation, and so seek to outsmart death by beating it at its own game. Maybe they favor a predictable, comfortable death. Whatever the case, they’ve got death on their mind. It’s no wonder the term “death panels” set them off so dramatically. It cuts to the quick. It touches their deepest neurosis.

When death refuses to yield, they simply demand more funding for government to cure the problem. That’s the answer for everything: More central planning and funding and support. I’m not even sure they believe in the fixes. They just compulsively need to do something. It’s reflexive, like scratching an itch. Imagine the nation as a pregnant woman about to give birth. We need to tell the liberals to go boil some water.

Liberals are extremely fragile creatures, when you think about it. Their “reality” requires the maintenance of a web of interdependent lies. The conscience of a liberal is like a shyster lawyer. Start with the desired outcome and work backwards from there; and try to keep your story straight.

Preacher was talkin’,
There’s a sermon he gave,
Said every man’s conscience,
Is vile and depraved.
You cannot depend on it,
To be your guide,
When it’s you who must
Keep it satisfied.

Bob Dylan, The Man in the Long Black Coat

Liberals cannot accept death. If they accept death in one instance, they’ll have to accept it in the others. Death is not a valid argument against war. Death is not a valid argument against meat. Death is not a valid argument against poverty. Or for funding this or that government fix. Death is not a valid argument against nature. Death is inevitable. Death is the surest thing in this world.

The liberal hears this, and fears nihilism. The abyss. How can one possibly be happy in such a world—self-comfort being the highest goal of the liberal at all times. They have an itching need to “fix” it. They can’t face the facts. I say look at it again, from the other side.

That chipmunk faces violent death every day. But look at how expertly and bravely he does it! He has strategies based on what he is best at. He adapts to his own size and capabilities, and to the environment around him. Does he complain? Not that I can tell.

He is a cute little bugger, but he’s also tough as nails. He doesn’t always get killed. He accepts the world as he finds it, because he has no choice. And he succeeds or fails.

People often say we need more heroes. Maybe I’m crazy, but for me, the chipmunk is a hero--an example for us all: Of grace, dignity, bravery, industry, frugality, guile, charm, physical prowess. I could say the same of squirrels (In fact I do.)

But to understand and appreciate the chipmunk (or the squirrel) in this way, beyond his good looks, is to understand him within the true context of life as we know it: brutal, unforgiving, endless competition at the ultimate level. Since the liberal cannot accept this true context, they see nature against a phony background, and fail to draw anything but superficial (aesthetic) inspiration from it.

And thus, they fail to appreciate the great gift that is every single peaceful day you get to experience on this earth. Many times, I find myself relaxing out on the back deck with my wife, after a fine char-grilled meal, with the wind rustling through the trees, the sun setting beyond the mountains, katydids chattering away, and the thought hits me:

I’ve had another peaceful day on earth. I’m not ill. I’m not in pain--nothing I can't handle, anyway. I’m well-fed. My basic provisions are met. I’m happy. My wife is happy. I call that a win. Slap another W in the old win column. But you see, that’s viewing myself within the same true context I view the chipmunk in—the world as we know it. The world that is at once beautiful and harsh. Sumptuous and cruel. Sweet and bitter.

Maybe if the liberal would accept death, they’d actually appreciate life more. Maybe they’d discover the virtues that are somehow obscured from their view. Maybe then they would discard their death-denying arguments, and seek more rational arguments. Maybe they’d have more modest expectations and demands. Maybe they’d lose their compulsion to “change the world.” But then, if they did all that, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore.


TOPICS: Outdoors; Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; country; death; environmentalism; liberalism; nature; prolife
I posted the first several paragraphs of this essay as random sunday morning thoughts on a thread comment. Checked in this morning to find an unexpected and hearty series of positive replies, including the request that I post it as a vanity, and that I possibly develop and expand on it a bit.

I wrote the first part off the cuff, so I did the same with the second part, and went where it led. Hope you like.

"I'm like my mother; I stereotype. It's faster." --Ryan Bingham in Up in the Air.

1 posted on 08/30/2010 8:57:06 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Huck

Excellent post


2 posted on 08/30/2010 9:00:12 AM PDT by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Left wants to construct a Utopia — a Garden of Eden here on earth. And they are hoping that there will be a serpent in that Garden. They will eagerly seek out that serpent and say “Show me the Tree of Life, for I would eat of it.”


3 posted on 08/30/2010 9:01:49 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy; GOPJ; MWestMom; The Comedian; TexasTransplant; thecodont; stansblugrassgrl

I took your advice and posted a longer version. Thanks again for the unexpected feedback.


4 posted on 08/30/2010 9:02:45 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Excellent!


5 posted on 08/30/2010 9:05:53 AM PDT by stansblugrassgrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Totally agree. Years ago, during my tramping days, I ended up at a national “Rainbow Gathering” in CO. It was ground zero for the purest, uncut form of liberal utopianism. I kept a journal ( I was not your average tramp) and came away with the clear view that they suffered from a guilt-driven, utopian, third-world fantasy. They talked openly about “returning to Eden.” It was a lucky thing I went to the gathering. I was able to distill my thoughts about them at a young age.


6 posted on 08/30/2010 9:07:17 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck

perhaps you would appreciate reading the blog I kept when I lived lakeside http://mohicanlake.blogspot.com/2007/09/please-dodont-feed-animals.html


7 posted on 08/30/2010 9:11:49 AM PDT by Ge0ffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ge0ffrey
Although I no longer feed the birds or the chipmunks (see "Chippy the Chipmunk RIP" below), that hasn't deterred these creatures from turning up every morning with nosebags. As soon as I get close to the picture window, Nutty the nuthatch lands on the railing looking for sunflower seeds. And once Nutty alights, Chicky the chickadee or Titty the titmouse swoops in for a looksee.

My wife and I use a similar naming convention :-) En toto we refer to them as "our friends."

8 posted on 08/30/2010 9:13:33 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Insightful.

I would say, however, that the disconnect is even a little bit deeper. They’re disconnected from the natural order of life, and have an excessive fear of death, because of a greater disconnect — from God.

Faith centers your priorities, and gives you perspective —on good and evil, death, and on your place in the big picture.

Liberalism is an extension of humanism, and, thus, liberals have no perspective. They fear death because they see it as the end of an existence that has no meaning. They prioritize the lives of trees and animals (but not unborn humans) because, without perspective, they are unable to characterize the value of life — when it must be preserved, and when its sacrifice is necessary. They see warfare only as an instrument of death because they have no perspective on good and evil, or on the value of one over the other.

SnakeDoc


9 posted on 08/30/2010 9:20:49 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Shut it down" ... 00:00:03 ... 00:00:02 ... 00:00:01 ... 00:00:00.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
My wife and I use a similar naming convention :-) En toto we refer to them as "our friends."

Lol!

So do my wife and I. Here on our desert two acres, he have daily visits from Loggie (Loggerhead shrike) and, in spring, Son of Loggie & Grandson of Loggie.

Excellent essay! I, too, have discovered that for the most part, those who pin the label of "environmentalist" to their ascot are either kids, kooks, left-wing agendists, or Mother Earth-loving (but Nature-fearing) urbanites.

But there is hope for the kids, at least...

10 posted on 08/30/2010 9:26:51 AM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I posted the first several paragraphs of this essay as random Sunday morning thoughts on a thread comment.

You posted those comments to me in response to my comment about urban liberals who live in their own filth, lecturing me on the environment. Your post is dead on.

Its kind of funny. When my urban cousins come to grandma's house for holidays, they consider that a trip to the country. The problem with that is that the bulk of the trip is on the interstate and main roads to a small town surrounded by the country. A large yard with mowed grass and woods in the distance is really as close to nature as they get.

I grew up in that little town surrounded by the country and my vision of nature wasn't sterilized by a lack of experience. While I spent my life following deer paths through the woods, they were following sidewalks of Minneapolis, Kalamazoo, and Ann Arbor.

At Easter, one of my cousins commented that I was being anti social because I wandered away from the family. I realized then, that my urban family gravitated to the center of the yard and I was naturally drawn to the high weeds and brush at the edges. If it hadn't been a holiday I would have jumped the fence, crossed the field and headed for the woods.

Honestly I kind of pity them because they only get a washed out sterilized and idealized view of nature. I really wonder when the last time they were in a place where the grass was more than ankle deep. When was the last time they took a step and sank knee deep in mud of a riverbank. When was the last time they picked their way through a briar patch or walked out of the woods covered with mosquito bites.

Seems a horrible way they live.
11 posted on 08/30/2010 9:28:34 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
because of a greater disconnect — from God.

I agree. I mention briefly their spiritual weakness, but you are right, I didn't go into great detail about it. They have nowhere to turn. They are consumed with guilt, with the servicing their own disoriented and confused consciences.

My personal beliefs are, I think, reflected in this essay. I'm more or less a Stoic, of the Epectetus variety. I believe that even absent faith, one can reach "inner peace" with the real world, by accepting it.

As for God, no matter how hard I may try, I can get no further than to acknowledge that I don't know who created the world or why. But rather than fear that fact, I accept it. I marvel at it. Sometimes I shudder.

I beg for Mercy all the same. I think it's only fair for someone in my condition:-) I'm truly sorry for my sins, and try to do the best I can. I pray to Jesus from time to time, and give thanks as often as it occurs to me. But I don't expect anything, or nothing. I have no idea what to expect.

But why doesn't that put me in the liberal neurotic camp? I honestly believe that a hard-core acceptance of the world as it is, for what it is, is incompatible with liberalism, even if the fate of one's soul is still in question. I learned it from Epictetus.

12 posted on 08/30/2010 9:33:48 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I really wonder when the last time they were in a place where the grass was more than ankle deep. When was the last time they took a step and sank knee deep in mud of a riverbank. When was the last time they picked their way through a briar patch or walked out of the woods covered with mosquito bites.

You just described a lot of my free time :-P

13 posted on 08/30/2010 9:36:51 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Liberalism was summed up by a certain serpant a long time ago -

“you will be as gods, knowing good and evil”

“knowing” being “defining for yourself”


14 posted on 08/30/2010 9:41:10 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Huck
You just described a lot of my free time

And that truly is God's time.
15 posted on 08/30/2010 9:44:17 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Huck
My hero


16 posted on 08/30/2010 9:50:43 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Brilliant post lad! Kudos!


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

17 posted on 08/30/2010 10:38:48 AM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I like what you wrote but think that liberalism is part of an older tradition that attempts to conquer nature (including death) and human nature. There was an optimism with modernity that through reason alone (science) man can solve his physical and social problems. Man didn’t need to be subject to the vagaries and whims of God or nature. Man would be able to master his environment and correct his problems. Ancient thinkers like Plato said it couldn’t be done — create the perfect society — that man should not attempt such a proud undertaking and that the perfect society (city state) was only possible in words. Further, Plato believed fortune or accident conspired against it. In contrast, Machiavelli, the modern, said fortune was a woman that needed to be slapped around and controlled by man. In other words, man could raise himself up through unaided reason. Francis Bacon followed suit with the belief that science would “ease man’s estate.” Modernism, defined as this turning way from ancient wisdom, was unleashed on the world with this bold project: conquer nature through science for the benefit of man. Reason became almost a god (the most authoritative voice) and religion, especially Christianity, was relegated to superstition. The men in the white coats (scientists) now dominated the men in the black coats (priests). But the aim of the two men were the same: perfection. The scientists thought they could create perfection on this planet through scientific discoveries; the priests said it existed once (the Garden of Eden) and would never appear again because man was essentially a fallen creature. The priests believe that sin = death, that perfection exists in the next world with God.

Science has given us many wondrous things, many things that can used for good and evil. We have miraculous cures and drugs from science that make us live longer and enjoy life more and, yet, we have WMD and 100 million murdered in the last century — the result of “scientific” communism (Marx thought he was doing science) — in an attempt to correct our social problems. But the question remains can science conquer death? It can’t show man’s soul under a microscope or show God in the sky with a telescope. Because it can’t many people will refuse to believe in God. They see no value in the wisdom or knowledge of the Bible. They want to believe in power of science of conquer death. If man can live forever he has no need of God, or justice or virtues or almost anything. He will have no need for humanity. Man will have become God.


18 posted on 08/30/2010 12:29:13 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blind Eye Jones
I agree with you. Something changed in the 60s. The back to nature movement took over. It's the predominant strain among the under 40 crowd of lefties. I think maybe the Nazis and the advent of nuclear bombs quashed the sense of progressive scientific enlightenment. Nowadays, as we all have seen, leftist science is a regressive force.
19 posted on 08/31/2010 4:54:02 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Leftist science is not science but the tampering of science (Global Warming), Politics (Green movement) and a rejection of science for language (Post Modernism). Post moderns posit there are no facts (scientific or otherwise), just text and discourse. Reality is just a series of mental constructs. This way, in their arrogance, if everything is language then death is also a part of language — a mental construct — and we can do away with it by redefining it. This is nihilism at best. A childish indifference to reality, a luxury of the left. Most of the people who hold these views are products of the 60s, were pampered and spoiled hippies. And they continue to be that way. These people are hung up on age — they were promised a hippie dream that they’d never grow old and die.


20 posted on 08/31/2010 9:35:04 AM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Huck; Vaduz; a fool in paradise; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; hoosiermama; penelopesire; ...
Nature is violent. It’s beautiful, too. The country person is more in tune with the true nature of this world. The libs want the beauty without the teeth that come with it. So they live in concrete cities, where “parks” represent nature. They rebel against nature. They cry for “peace”, as if that is something this world has ever offered. They simply can’t accept life as it is. I think the word is neurotic.

Ironically (but there is so much about liberalism that is ironic!), abortion is probably the crowning achievement of this rebellion against death. A truly cold and selfish person, with no inner conflict, would simply say if I want to kill my own young, that’s my business—to hell with what you think. Think Henry Hill in Goodfellas.

Nice post - thanks.

Ping

21 posted on 08/31/2010 10:00:38 AM PDT by GOPJ (TIME Magazine - - a conserve-a-phobe publication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Excellent essay. Hopefully, it’s the first of many.


22 posted on 08/31/2010 10:41:08 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

A truly cold and selfish person, with no inner conflict.
What a great line it covers so many progressives cracker haters.


23 posted on 09/01/2010 8:26:20 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz; Huck

You’re right - what’s scary about liberals is their cold total lack of inner conflict... Huck nailed it with this one. It covers progressive haters well...


24 posted on 09/01/2010 9:09:03 AM PDT by GOPJ (TIME Magazine - - a conserve-a-phobe publication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson