Donnadogsoth Posted May 17, 2015 Posted May 17, 2015 By that I mean, there is an ideology today known as Environmentalism or Ecology, some of which is sane and concerned with reducing smog. No one likes smog, good to cut down on it if possible, and that's all very well. But the "radical" wing of Ecology isn't concerned with smog, it's concerned with destroying the human "footprint" on the planet. Some may say we need "zero population growth," others want drastic population reduction (and by any means necessary), and a few even want total genocide of the human race. My question is, what sort of personality is drawn to this kind of genocidal, suicidal, anti-industrial, anti-science, ecology-loving ideology? Never mind that the ecology is always in flux, they love it as sacred, whereas everything man does is profane. Who is drawn to this sort of thinking?
Mister Mister Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 My immediate thought is: people who feel guilty for being alive. Many parents say horrible things like: "I wish you were never been born", or they blame all conflicts on the children, or in the absence of an explanation, the children blame themselves for family conflicts. Modern environmentalism, along with white guilt, "privilege" of all kinds, and the Catholic concept of "Original Sin", is a way of inflicting automatic guilt on people so they will feel an automatic obligation. The people for whom this emotional manipulation is effective, would be those who experienced it as children.
MMX2010 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 My question is, what sort of personality is drawn to this kind of genocidal, suicidal, anti-industrial, anti-science, ecology-loving ideology? Never mind that the ecology is always in flux, they love it as sacred, whereas everything man does is profane. Who is drawn to this sort of thinking? Esteemed RooshVForum member, The Lizard of Oz, calls this "Year Zero" thinking. http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-30159-post-580633.html#pid580633 One of the first things that happened in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution was the introduction, first informally and then by edict, of a new calendar. Initially, the revolutionary year of 1789 was declared Liberty Year I, the following year was Liberty Year II and so on, but with the proclamation of the Republic it was decided that 1792 should in fact be considered Liberty Year I. In addition, the old conventions for designating months and even hours of day were abolished and replaced with new conventions. These changes lasted for about 10 years and were abolished by 1802. When the Cambodian Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh on April 17 1975, Pol Pot, who was educated in Paris and learned much from his French colonial masters, declared Year Zero. The period of terror, genocide, and wholesale destruction of a society that followed was so insane and memorable that the term entered the lexicon, popularized by an eponymous 1979 documentary. To quote from the brief wiki article on the subject: The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up. When I read contemporary feminist and some varieties of "progressive" text, and observe the ever growing power, accompanied by ever growing hysteria, of these ideologies, I am often struck by the extent to which they embody Year Zero thinking. They take for granted the demented conceit that ways of life, habits and traditions that have existed throughout long periods of human history, or that are obviously innate to the species itself, can be declared null and void overnight and replaced by entirely different ways of life that are introduced by mere ideological fiat. We all know the examples but let me list just a few: -- For tens of thousands of years and probably for as long as the species has existed, the sexual game between men and women has been played in a certain way across virtually all cultures, with the man as the aggressor and the pursuer and the woman as the more or less willing and seductive quarry who teases the hunter and offers various degrees of more or less token resistance before being overwhelmed and ravished. Year Zero ideology pretends that this age-old ritual is henceforth abolished. "Consent is sexy", and "consent must be continuously maintained". Anything outside of a harshly explicit, unnatural, and ludicrous code of conduct between the sexes is defined as equivalent to "rape". -- Throughout human history it has been clear that there are innate differences between men and women that determine their roles in society. These are too well-known to rehearse. Year Zero ideology pretends that such roles are mere "social constructs" and can be summarily reversed. It can be mandated that women become as athletic and physically strong as men; it can be mandated that women become soldiers, scientists, and business leaders; and it can be mandated that men become "stay at home dads" and mangina "allies". Never mind what havoc, destruction, and at times, black comedy, are caused by these mandates; Year Zero is proclaimed and they must be enforced, come what may. -- Throughout history, marriage has been understood as something that happens between men and women. While homosexuality is as old as the species itself, the idea that two men or two women can be "married" to each other would have been met not by outrage but by shrugging incomprehension a mere few decades ago. Year Zero ideology mandates that, from one day to the next, the definition be extended to "gay marriage" as if this were the most natural thing in the world. A concept that only yesterday would not have been understood even as a joke is now supposed to be taken instantly for granted, and the radical and unprecedented nature of this break from the past is to be either elided or celebrated as a sign of "how far we've come in a short period". One could go on, but the idea is clear. There are two features worth noting that characterize all Year Zero ideologies and the texts they generate: 1. Because a new and unnatural reality is mandated and must be made to exist by fiat, new linguistic constructs and slogans of various kinds must be invented to characterize this reality. Because these constructs arise from ideology and not from organic language, they always sound nauseatingly strained and artificial. When you see a "consent is sexy" t-shirt what you have before you is an example of brutally unnatural Year Zero language, and its lack of organic connection to the true and living language makes you want to throw up. 2. Because Year Zero ideological constructs are unnatural and contrary to human experience, the only way to ensure their implementation is by the savage and absolute suppression of all dissent. While contemporary Year Zero ideologues have (luckily) neither the power nor the bloodthirstiness of a Stalin or a Pol Pot, they are increasingly ruthless and effective in suppressing dissent and characterizing obvious and simple truths as expressions of "hate" or "bigotry". I believe that Year Zero is a highly useful term that succinctly characterizes something important about the lunatic nature of contemporary feminism and allied ideologies. I am reminded of this term more and more often, and feel like I want to start using it in all kinds of contexts on the forum as an effective shorthand. But I thought that before starting to use a term that not everyone is familiar with, an explanation would be in order. Hence this post.The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted May 18, 2015 Author Posted May 18, 2015 A standout post, thank you MMX2010. My next thread was going to be about feminism, and you've beaten me to the punch, and made the implicit connection between ecologism and feminism that I see. Who is attracted to Year Zero thinking? People who are nihilistic in some way, childishly seeking a way to punish daddy for his relationship with mommy, whether that relationship is sexual (feminism) or agro-industrial (ecology's "mother earth"). So it comes down to the Oedipus complex, people who want to find a way to murder their fathers and protect and possess their pristine, innocent mothers. And they find themselves attracted to ideologies that package and sell them their anger, buttered over with "beauty of nature" and "women are wonderful" sentimentality.
MMX2010 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Who is attracted to Year Zero thinking? People who are nihilistic in some way, childishly seeking a way to punish daddy for his relationship with mommy, whether that relationship is sexual (feminism) or agro-industrial (ecology's "mother earth"). So it comes down to the Oedipus complex, people who want to find a way to murder their fathers and protect and possess their pristine, innocent mothers. And they find themselves attracted to ideologies that package and sell them their anger, buttered over with "beauty of nature" and "women are wonderful" sentimentality. The Lizard of Oz made an alternative connection that I prefer over your explanation. (1) Here's a news story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/magazine/the-last-day-of-her-life.html?_r=1 tl;dr summary: A 65-year old female feminist professor, who married a man who later turned out to be gay, and had two children decided to kill herself before the disease wreaked major havoc on her brain. She has two children, one an adult son who "couldn't attend the plug-pulling ceremony". (2) Some RVF members expressed sadness over her death, but The Lizard of Oz had a completely different take: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-47539-post-1022692.html#pid1022692 Nope -- there is nothing "sad" about it. Let's reserve that word for where it belongs. The only reaction this story elicited from me was a chortling and hearty LOL. It is the distillation of so many things -- this "brave" "beautiful" "pixie" midget radical feminist female academic who married a gay ghoul, raised their kids "gender neutral" and solemnly chooses "death with dignity" because of "Alzheimer's" -- it reads like a parody, it's like no one would be shameless enough to put these things together. But here they are. It is a remarkable fact that no word -- not one -- falls with a heftier and more decided seriousness on the page and on the screen of the New York Times than the sacred word "Alzheimer's". The only word that equals it in solemnity -- but does not exceed it -- is the word "warming" when it is used with no qualifiers, in its solitary glory. The fanatical nihilists that populate the pages of this rag have long been obsessed with "death with dignity"; they have a ghoulish and almost gleeful fear of the depredations of old age, since that is when what they know to be the "meaninglessness" of life finally gets proven out, when insult finally gets added to injury. And this worthless midget aspie coming to terms with pentobarbital and letting everyone in on her infinitely solemn decision -- even though the "troubled" son could not "attend the suicide" -- does not evoke the least pang of sympathy let alone sadness. When people live lives that are so grotesque, so deranged, that "attending the suicide" is your fun family gathering of a spring Saturday, they do not partake of pathos. It is rank sentimentality to feel that death -- especially such a depraved and disgusting one -- confers any worth on someone whose life was an absurd parody. There is no "sadness" here, and not even a "story"; just an almost too good to be true distillation of a peculiar depravity, all the more comical for the worshipful solemnity with which it is delivered; as if the this NYT Alzheimer's lullaby were the very locus of meaning, emotion, and interest. What a world, LOL. ------------------- They're not punishing daddy for his exploitive relationships with mommy; they're punishing daddy for conspiring with mommy to give birth to them. They are anti-life, which is why they're anti-sex, anti-joy, anti-pretty women, and anti-masculine optimism.
Donnadogsoth Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 I think Oedipus still applies. The essence of Oedipus is wanting to get the actual or symbolic daddy out of the picture somehow, destroyed or enslaved, to claim an actual or symbolic (Gaia, the Government) mommy. Any excuse for this can be thought up by the Oedipal mind. That feminism and ecology seem rooted in nihilistic urges indicates a particularly powerful complex; for, for the child to successfully destroy the family would be disastrous, and the child himself probably subconsciously knows this. Thus there is a death-wish as you note, and in both feminism and ecology. There's something more going on here: I'm interested in why you describe the masculine as optimistic, whereas the feminine by contradistinct implication is either neutral or pessimistic. Why do you think this? I think this is the origin of the death-wish, this over-adherence to the mother, to femininity.
MMX2010 Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 There's something more going on here: I'm interested in why you describe the masculine as optimistic, whereas the feminine by contradistinct implication is either neutral or pessimistic. Why do you think this? I think this is the origin of the death-wish, this over-adherence to the mother, to femininity. All of my conclusions about male and female natures come from Rollo Tomassi, and bedrock conclusions stem from articles on menstruation (http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/) and Peak Sexual Market Value, particularly the conclusion that female Peak SMV happens at age 23 and male Peak SMV happens at age 36 (http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/24/the-reckoning/). If you're only interested in reading one article, read the FOURTH one linked. If you're not interested in reading any articles, I can offer a short summary. Women are born into plenty, because starting from youth they're treated kindly, provided a considerate amount of help and emotional freedom, and usually experience a constant sense of warm regard from others. But as women get older, their SMV decreases, and those gifts they receive from society dwindle through no fault of their own. Men, on the other hand, are born into struggle, because starting from youth they're treated the opposite of how girls are treated. When a man ages, he acquires more resources, become stronger and more mature, and hopefully acquires more friends and lovers who appreciate him. (Sadly, most men get their optimism crushed in this society, because of both the constant focus on women's needs and the constant negative messages a man receives from the media and society.) The loss of joy that a woman experiences as she ages makes her naturally non-optimistic, while the sense of growth and potential a man experiences as he ages makes him naturally optimistic.
Recommended Posts