By Timothy Fitzpatrick
January 15, 2016 Anno Domini
I was provoked to write this piece after hearing the cult of sustainability (the greenies, environmentalists, sustainable development advocates, and such) this December use their co-religionists in the mainstream media to whine about Christmas lights.
They claimed that the use of Christmas lights, which are used to adorn the homes of those few left that still celebrate the designated day for the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ (as well as the Epiphany), were a senseless drain on hydro-electric resources and a defiance of the new state-imposed green religion in a world under the immediate threat of global warming. This public castigation of the celebrants (presumably mostly Christian) is a recent example of the hideous trajectory of “green” thinking, which works in tandem with modernism and trans-humanism.
Beauty, a meaningful delight that brings us closer to the divine (God), is no longer useful to the modern-thinking sustainabilists; therefore, they argue, we must abandon it in order to survive, for the planet to survive, and for technology to advance unhindered by rigid absolutes. But don’t worry; we will grow to like it, just as we grew to like scatological modern art, right? The usefulness of people, things and expressions, not their form or innate beauty, is the new maxim. Beauty is of no use and has no real value other than what we give it, they claim. This subjectivist fallacy allows for the death of objective beauty and the triumph of utility and materialism, with it, the death of objective truth and the triumph of relativity, and ultimately, the death of God and the triumph of death (Hades).
Any manifestations of beauty that may arise in this new utilitarian utopia are either accidental or coincidental; so don’t get too excited if you might come upon them. The cult of sustainability seeks to snuff out any vestiges of practices and things that are expressions of beauty and replace them with utilitarian things, not matter how ugly, sterile, and soul-destructive they may be. Because, they argue, in a world of scant resources and overwhelming population, we can’t afford any idealistic notions of beauty.
But doesn’t this utility gimmick seem like a convenient excuse? After all, revolutionaries have always been in love with death, decay, and deformity. If God is beauty and truth, then the absence of God must be ugliness and falsehoods. The sustainabilists, then, have revealed their love affair with the anti-thesis of God, their participation in the revolutionary conspiracy against Christ and the beautiful, moral order of the universe. Utility is a mask, revolution and death the goal.
Modern art, especially Dadaist, has already advanced the revolutionary goals of ugliness, defilement, and destruction; trans-humanism has taken them to a whole other level with the help of technology—technology itself, an ugly and cheap imitation of divinely created things, of miracles, and of healing. Trans-humanism and sustainability have sort of overtaken modern art as the fear-laden message of environmental doom has been pushed non-stop for about the last 30 years. Or, perhaps, they have become modern art themselves—a Frankensteinien devolution in which modernists naively take pride.