Charles Manson died on Nov. 19, 2017. He should have died in 1971, when he and other members of his “family” were sentenced to death for multiple murders. But the Supreme Court ruled out the death penalty. It was reinstituted in 1976, but Manson and his pals were held under life sentences, with periodic parole hearings. For all those 46 years, Manson and the others ate three meals a day, slept in warm beds, watched TV, and enjoyed human interaction ‒ at our expense. Their victims did none of these things.
On the fortieth anniversary of the gruesome murders of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and seven other victims, mass murderer Charles Manson granted an interview. Charlie was convicted of these murders, though he boasted of many more.
Manson rambled on about global warming, protecting nature, and various topics including theology. Typically, the college-educated are more likely to substitute environmentalism for religion. But even in Charlie’s uneducated, twisted brain, environmentalism took on religious trappings. The melting of the polar ice caps was a notion especially upsetting for him. Perhaps Manson was frightened of a warmer climate in this world because he expected a much hotter climate in the next world, and he wanted to enjoy what comfort he could while he could.
We can question the validity of human-caused global warming. We can read “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists” by Roy Spencer, a top climate scientist himself. We can watch a 5-minute lecture by Dr. Richard Lindzen, a leading climatologist at MIT.
We can come to realize that scientists, no less than other people, are subject to fads and peer pressure, as well as being motivated by advancing an agenda rather than by searching for the truth. We can note with sadness that “climategate” has become a standard English word.
But surely the concept of human-caused global warming has regained some of its lost credibility, now that an authority with the status of Charlie Manson has granted it his blessing.
Listening to Manson, we again see that respect for nature has no relation to respect for human life. Indeed, the relation may sometimes be inverse. If you doubt this, consider the many hours that Adolf Hitler spent gazing out at the beautiful view of mountains, valleys, and forests from his Alpine retreat at Berchtesgaden.
Hitler loved the natural wonders of the Reich. What is more, Hitler loved animals. He was particularly fond of his German shepherd Blondi, which did not stop him from causing her to be poisoned and her pups shot before he committed suicide. Earlier, the Nazis issued a decree forbidding animal research. A cartoon in a Nazi newspaper showed the animals with their paws raised, heiling their Führer. To replace research animals, the Nazis used prisoners in concentration camps.
Appreciating natural beauty, combined with respect for animal life, didn’t do Hitler any good. It did even less good for his millions of victims. If we can understand that, we can view nature worship in its proper perspective.
Mass murderers like Hitler and Manson disguising themselves as environmentalists may seem ludicrous, but it is not illogical. So-called “deep ecologists” assert that the only way to save the planet is to bring about a “substantial reduction” in the human population of the Earth. If that doesn’t cause you anxiety, perhaps you just don’t understand the situation.
Nor is this anti-human viewpoint limited to homicidal maniacs. Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics in the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. But how would a Center for Inhuman Values look any different? Singer teaches that “defective” or unwanted babies can be killed up to one month old, later increased to up to three years old. This is not the ranting of a convicted murderer − it is the “philosophy” of a professor in a leading American university. Consider this when you hear a discussion of the “cost savings” that ObamaCare is promised to produce.
Needless to say, Singer is irreligious − at least in the conventional sense. As a child, he learned that three of his four grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust. Rather than identifying with the weak, he identified with the strong. Singer was not repelled by the Nazis’ notion of “life unworthy of life” and “useless eaters” who were a “drain on the Fatherland.” Instead, he (presumably unconsciously) adopted similar views. What people learn from events depends more on the people than on the events.
When Time Magazine named the Person of the Century, the editors placed Einstein’s photo on the cover. But with due respect for the gentle genius, the person with the most lasting, widespread influence was clearly not Einstein but Hitler. It was no accident that Manson carved on his forehead a swastika, not E=mc².
Am I implying that all environmentalists are anti-human, or want to reduce the human population substantially? Not at all. The vast majority of environmentalists care about the Earth, and they also care about human life. The vast majority of animal lovers also love human beings. But what the passive majority believes is less important than what the active minority does. This is true for any group, but it is especially true for groups than include extremists.
Earth Liberation Front terrorists set fire to SUV dealerships, and Animal Liberation Front extremists bomb scientists who do research on animals in order to help cure human diseases. Hard-core radical environmentalists and animal-rights extremists care little about human life. If we ever forget this, we can reread Charlie Manson’s ramblings, and we can admire the inspiring view from Hitler’s mountain retreat. But the key question is this: What did it inspire?
Nature should be respected. God should be worshipped. He has Ten Commandments. Trees have none. And that, of course, is the chief attraction of nature worship.
●
Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.