Greenpeace: An Old Heresy in a New Form

First of all, apologies for my prolonged absence from RS.  Life sometimes gets in the way of blogging. “The best laid schems o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley” as Burns said.   On a more interesting note, however, in the wake of the so-called “Climategate” scandal, let’s check in on our friends from international terrorist eco-fascist organization Greenpeace:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1019

It seems that the upcoming Climate Change Conference has really motivated the best and brightest at Greenpeace.  Sadly, and rather unsurprisingly, this drivel is the best that they can come up with.  I find it quite interesting to note, however, what this particular message betrays about the underlying philosophy behind Greenpeace (embraced by so, so many eco-fascists).  I am not so terribly interested in the main text of the ad, the “I’m Sorry…” part, but rather in the “Copenhagen 2009 – Act Now Change the Future” slogan.  This handy little slogan contains several premises which the viewer is likely not aware of, but implicitly accepts if he/she supports the overall message of the advertisement.

Premise 1:  the notion of the inevitable movement of history toward progress.  This is the old historicist philosophy (or anti-philosophy to be entirely accurate)  that Hegel authored.  Essentially this is the root of “progressivism,” which also claims that its adherents are moving “forward” and will make everything “better.”  Or, in our current political vernacular, this is “hope” and “change.”  I have yet to meet a leftist that did not subscribe to this idea.  That the eco-fascists at Greenpeace have quite openly advertised their embrace of historicism is unsurprising given that they, like most of the environmentalist movement groups, are more interested in leftist ideology than in actual stewardship of the Earth.  It is quite foolish to dismiss historicism as a bizarre 19th century leftist philosophy, however, as it has a certain appeal to audiences of any era.  After all, who doesn’t want to be considered “with the times” or “progressive” or “forward-looking?”  This was part of Hegel’s appeal to young students.  Karl Marx, Hegel’s most famous student, developed a particular take on historicism, historical materialism, that forms the basis for his political system which we are all-too-familiar with. 

Greenpeace’s embrace of this historicist nonsense very much takes the form of Marx’s historical materialism in that they are interested in driving us into the next stage of history by altering our economic relationships.  Specifically, they would like to utterly uproot our energy and food production systems and replace them with faux-scientific “green” methods.  Unfortunately for the Marxists at Greenpeace, historical materialism is not, in fact, scientific as Karl Popper, among others, pointed out.  Like the science behind Global Warming, the data used to advance historical materialism can and has been “cooked” to produce the results desired by the authors.   Historicism is ultimately a failed philosophy that, for one reason or another, continues to appeal to gullible leftists.  For a recent example of this, see the work of historicist philosopher and Obama cheerleader Francis Fukuyama.

Premise 2: the viewer can change the future of the Earth itself.  How much more messianic can we get, folks? This is an even greater temptation than historicism.  Essentially what Greenpeace is doing here is spreading the idea that each person who becomes a member of their cult is somehow joining in a revolutionary gestalt, for lack of a better term, that can alter the course of human history.  Several flaws in this thinking immediately come to mind.  First, the environmentalist movement, for the most part, is, as I have already noted, more committed to Marxist economics than to the environment.  Despite the occasional “mother Earth,” “Gaia,” “goddess worship,” “feminist economics,” blather that erupts from the eco-fascist camp, there really is no acknowledgement of the essentially spiritual nature of the human person.  This is a side-effect of adopting Marx’s philosophical anthropology (which is a kind of dead Darwinism, in my humble opinion).  So rather than accept that human beings have a real, spiritual link to the Earth – and this could happily take the form of either man created Imago Dei serving as the friend and steward of God’s creation (Judeo-Christian) or man as God’s slaves tending to his creation (Islamic) or man as in balance with nature and thus needing to maintain nature to maintain the balance in his own soul (very loosely Taoist) – the Greenpeace cultists choose to create an atheist, materialist, messianic ideology (environmentalism) as the idol for all “forward-looking” people to embrace.  Linked to this is the idea that those who join the eco-fascist movement are entitled to some secret knowledge (possibly the knowledge of the key to salvation itself?) that eco-skeptics will never have.  This is out-and-out Gnosticism of a very old kind that has simply been resurrected and given a marketing make-over.  The same people who are buying into Greenpeace’s messianic ideology are devouring copies of The Gospel of Judas and The Da Vinci Code.   

In light of the fact that Greenpeace has betrayed the secret of its own ideology so openly, opponents of the organization have a real opportunity to counter its claims to “truth” and “science” by pointing out the fact that Greenpeace has embraced an anti-truth and anti-science ideology.  Historicism is little more than an excuse for moral relativism (in the Hegelian sense) or revolutionary violence (in the Marxist, historical materialism sense).  Gnosticism, of course, is an old joke and a very bad one that continues to sucker in the gullible – see, for example, the success of the Scientology cult which is blatantly Gnostic.  Both of these dangerous ideas are little more than revivals of ancient heresies which Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers successfully battled in ages long past.  As science, they fail as shown by, among others, Karl Popper.  As theology, they fail as shown by C.S. Lewis and Søren Kierkegaard.  As philosophy, they fail as shown by Leo Strauss and Immanuel Kant. 

Clearly, the notion that environmentalism is a religion without a god contains more than a kernel of truth.  Certainly it has its own prophets – need we really name them? – and its own holy scriptures.  I suggest then that those of us who are eco-skeptics – and thus denied the joy of the sacred knowledge that only true eco-fascists are privy to – open a new front in the war against Greenpeace and its ilk.  Certainly honest scientists, economists, statisticians, etc., are finally making progress against the faux “science” of Global Warming; it is long past time that the rest of us start challenging the Global Warming fanatics on philosophical and, if need be, theological grounds given that they are as much members of a religion as any Christian, Taoist, Jew, or Hindu.  The age-old battle against heresy continues my friends. I invite you to join-up with St. Paul, St. Iranaeus, Tertullian, St. Augustine, Rabbi Akiva, Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, Lewis, Kant, and many others who have fought the battle of ideas against the heretics (and honestly, does not one see Communism as the great Judeo-Christian heresy of the modern age?).  To use the analogy of a forest fire, Greenpeace and the eco-fascists are a brush fire that threatens to consume the entire forest and “Only you can prevent forest fires.”