Post: #1

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:

Quote: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.

Post: #2

Terrific post. I have noticed the same phenomenon, of the constantly shifting goal posts for acceptable thought, beliefs that became verboten in the space of a single generation. But the term Year Zero, with its historical pedigree, is an excellent one, and your analysis is right on the mark. John Derbyshire memorably referenced this phenomenon and how feckless conservatives are in relation to it, saying that conservatives are 'marching eastward on a westbound ship.'

Quote: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.

Yes, this has been going on for some time. Old words evoke the truth too clearly, and are too bound up with the old ways of thinking, of the ancien regime. Propaganda for new modes of thought is more effective when it needn't confront the old ways of thinking head on.

Neutral words like homosexual, Negro, Jew, Oriental, sex (as in male or female), colored are shunned. The claim is that these old words are offensive and inherently bigoted; but the words that are deemed acceptable are constantly changing - the real intent is to prevent 'people of privilege' (whites, heterosexuals, gentiles, men, etc.) from talking about 'unprivileged' groups at all. If the privileged do dare to discuss the unprivileged, they must use obsequious terms that undercut their own argument - undocumented immigrant is an obvious example.

Post: #3

I'm sold on this idea.

Are you & DOBA in cahoots?

(04-12-2015 08:10 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  RE: "Safe Space" culture is an active form of Misandry

Liberals are winning the culture war because they know words have power. That's why you see them (mis)characterize average things a "hateful" and "bigoted" or "bullying." Those mere words can stigmatize anything or anyone, no matter how harmless they really are. Those words brand people.

We will not get anywhere attempting to brand people with the word "misandry," which is the linguistic equivalent of trying to knock out a boxer with a wet noodle. (And outside these parts, few people even know what that word means.)

How can we have better phrased this, so we can get the knock-out punch? How can we phrase this so they get branded, not us?

The way is to use their memes against them -- some of which the original commenter mentioned. Let's focus them for future reference.

* Safe spaces are the new segregation.

* Safe spaces keep males out -- including black ones.

* Safe spaces for rich, white females.

* Safe spaces for college girls/scary spaces for their maids.

I'm sure you all can improve on these basic ideas or come up with better ones. But the main point is we have to hit harder with words.

Words need to be looked up like a chess game. What words can we put together that "checkmate" the opposing player? What words can we use that will leave them no way out?

Both of you on fire today.

Post: #4

One of the most excellent posts I've ever seen on this forum, and like I said in an ISIS thread, you can tell all extreme ideologies by their adherence to a sort of Year Zero thinking. All forms of extremism have always and everywhere attempted to wipe out any relationship with the past in society. This is something that transcends leftism, rightism, religion, etc.

Post: #5

Year Zero - I like that.

Post: #6

Very well put, and good explanation of how the progressive ideology can paper over historical memory in favor their own reality.

Post: #7

This is very well done. Always good to put a term to a well known concept.

Post: #8

(04-12-2015 08:56 PM)Conscious Pirate Wrote:  I'm sold on this idea.

Are you & DOBA in cahoots?

DoBA and I are always in cahoots.

More seriously, even though the Year Zero post is from a year and a half ago, a big reason for writing it was precisely what DoBA is saying: we need new and effective language to stainingly characterize the vicious ideology we're dealing with. I agree with DoBA that "misandry" is weak and most people don't know what it means. And terms like "feminazi" are getting old and tired and are too obvious insults, making them an easy target for bans and censorship. The term "Year Zero" is, I think, very effective, because it's so deadly accurate. My hope and the point of writing the OP was to to get more people to start using it so it would gain in popularity over time. I know from personal experience that feminists and progressives hate it with a passion. And it's an historical term which is impossible to ban anywhere.

Here are some thoughts and suggestions on how I think this phrase should be used:

-- It should always be written out as in the OP, "Year Zero", two words, both capitalized. That is the most effective and deadly combination.

-- Twitter and Facebook comments are always the best way to spread a new phrase and give it the most penetration.

-- A very good way to use it is as part of the phrase "typical Year Zero this or that" ie

"typical Year Zero insanity/trash/nonsense/bloodthirstiness/stupidity" etc

-- Finally, here is a perfect illustration of the kind of context where this term could be used. The fanatical progressive/feminist ideologue Naomi Klein has written a book called "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate":

http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Every...1451697384

From the book's blurb from Amazon:

Quote:The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.

In short, either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will be visited upon our physical world. The status quo is no longer an option.

In This Changes Everything Naomi Klein argues that climate change isn’t just another issue to be neatly filed between taxes and health care. It’s an alarm that calls us to fix an economic system that is already failing us in many ways. Klein meticulously builds the case for how massively reducing our greenhouse emissions is our best chance to simultaneously reduce gaping inequalities, re-imagine our broken democracies, and rebuild our gutted local economies. She exposes the ideological desperation of the climate-change deniers, the messianic delusions of the would-be geoengineers, and the tragic defeatism of too many mainstream green initiatives. And she demonstrates precisely why the market has not—and cannot—fix the climate crisis but will instead make things worse, with ever more extreme and ecologically damaging extraction methods, accompanied by rampant disaster capitalism.

Klein argues that the changes to our relationship with nature and one another that are required to respond to the climate crisis humanely should not be viewed as grim penance, but rather as a kind of gift—a catalyst to transform broken economic and cultural priorities and to heal long-festering historical wounds.

Note the book's very title, "This Changes Everything" and the bolded sentences above. This is typical Year Zero insanity: the idea that on some pretext (in this case "climate change" but there have been others) a wholesale and immediate change is required to the most basic structures of life, how the entire economy works, how we exploit natural resources, the whole social fabric -- all of these things must be scrapped and replaced immediately, starting from scratch, according to a blueprint which is known to the ideologue and known (somehow) to be correct, all based on the "best science", of course.

Someone could very profitably review this book on Amazon and call it out for what it is, the most typical Year Zero insanity and propaganda. And this is just one example but it illustrates the wide applicability of the phrase.

Post: #9

Excellent post.

These insane SJWs and far left progressives have no sense of history let alone human nature and nature itself. We're degenerating into oblivion fast.

FYI "Year Zero" is also the title of Nine Inch Nails' 5th studio album and also probably what many of the 20s and 30s type dudes might think of when they hear the name. It's a criticism of America and how we're headed towards autocratic oblivion - from a more artsy lefty perspective but a lot of the themes are still the same except they seem to be saying that the US will turn into a Christian-led autocracy (hah!!!). (It's funny how even slightly left-leaning advocates can't quite identify just how autocratic and evil their nihilist ideology is ideology is until it's too late).

It's actually a pretty good album and one of my favorite by NIN - some pretty good but dark tunes in there with some great riffs:

This is the beginning of the end....

Post: #10

Should we start an associated hashtag to get the concept out there more?

Also Lizard, you might want to consider writing an in depth article on ROK for this explaining the concept and some historical movements with Year Zero pathology, probably starting with the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the 17th century.

Post: #11

Libertas, thanks for the suggestions. My sense is that a Twitter hashtag could be slightly premature at this point, it might be better for guys to just start using the term in various contexts (including Twitter, certainly) and let it gradually gain recognition, rather than start from a hashtag. That might come a bit later. But let's keep it in mind.

I prefer to just post on the forum for the time being, so no ROK articles. But I encourage anyone who feels like it to use the phrase in ROK articles, not necessarily ones dedicated to it specifically, just whenever it seems appropriate.

Post: #12

Parenthetically, I've long thought there should be a manosphere Manual Of Style that would teach readers how to write in a clear and lucid manner that is completely free of such radical, Year Zero terminology.

Year Zero is a terrific term for its explicit link to a terrible historical genocide AND its obvious resemblance to popular contemporary leftism.

Post: #13

There are some writings that hint that the French Revolution was really the start of cultural decline, mainstream socialism, and ultimately the destructive politics that are present today. I've been meaning to read up more on it, but it's fallen to the wayside, unfortunately. There's a wealth of original French and English writing, from de Tocqueville to Burke, and I've only scratched the surface on it. This term is highly appropriate.

Akula, great point on Trent Reznor's work of the same name. It's a shame, because if he was better read in history and a few other areas he could've made more sense out of what he was seeing. Instead, he defaulted to the trendy groupthink reality that he's stuck in.

If he hadn't lost it in his mid-late 20s and gotten into heavy drugs he would've been even better, I bet. He was full of masculine energy then and had hard times dealing with it:

Quote:During the five years following the release of The Downward Spiral, Reznor struggled with depression, social anxiety disorder, and the death of his grandmother (who raised him). During this period of intense grief, Reznor began abusing alcohol, cocaine, and other drugs. He eventually became addicted to alcohol and cocaine. Reznor reached his darkest moment with substance abuse while touring in London for The Fragile, when he mistakenly purchased china white heroin, which he believed to be cocaine; he consequently overdosed and was resuscitated at a local hospital.[116]

In 2001, Reznor successfully completed rehab, and eventually moved from New Orleans to Los Angeles. In a 2005 interview with Kerrang, Reznor reflected on his self-destructive past: "There was a persona that had run its course. I needed to get my priorities straight, my head screwed on. Instead of always working, I took a couple of years off, just to figure out who I was and working out if I wanted to keep doing this or not. I had become a terrible addict; I needed to get my shit together, figure out what had happened".[26] In contrast to his former suicidal tendencies, Reznor also admitted in another interview that he is "pretty happy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Reznor#Personal_life

Roissy had asked in reference to Closer, years ago, if Trent was Alpha after having produced that song. The truth is, he was a deeply troubled beta male turned musician that had fame hit him hard and fast. He lost years to drugs and suicidal tendencies and almost killed himself. Let that be a lesson to others. Those negative thoughts will kill you. He could act out in ways that others could not, and ended up being successful, but even then he lived on the edge with himself. I mean, how else could you produce this song:

(04-13-2015 05:48 PM)Akula Wrote:  Excellent post.

These insane SJWs and far left progressives have no sense of history let alone human nature and nature itself. We're degenerating into oblivion fast.

FYI "Year Zero" is also the title of Nine Inch Nails' 5th studio album and also probably what many of the 20s and 30s type dudes might think of when they hear the name. It's a criticism of America and how we're headed towards autocratic oblivion - from a more artsy lefty perspective but a lot of the themes are still the same except they seem to be saying that the US will turn into a Christian-led autocracy (hah!!!). (It's funny how even slightly left-leaning advocates can't quite identify just how autocratic and evil their nihilist ideology is ideology is until it's too late).

It's actually a pretty good album and one of my favorite by NIN - some pretty good but dark tunes in there with some great riffs:

This is the beginning of the end....

Post: #14

(04-13-2015 08:00 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  There are some writings that hint that the French Revolution was really the start of cultural decline, mainstream socialism, and ultimately the destructive politics that are present today. I've been meaning to read up more on it, but it's fallen to the wayside, unfortunately. There's a wealth of original French and English writing, from de Tocqueville to Burke, and I've only scratched the surface on it. This term is highly appropriate.

The genesis, I would argue, actually extends back further, to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the 17th century. Arguably it extends back even further to the Protestant Reformation, but the Wars of the Three Kingdoms was the first modern instance of a sort of popular revolt against all the old traditions and status quo. Like many others, the conflict was started by moderates that simply wanted a few changes in the relationship between Crown and Parliament, but eventually the radicals in the New Model Army won out and began to change society from top to bottom.

Although, given that it was the first, it was imperfect and almost forgotten in some respects until the subsequent Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The French revolution was when this sort of thing reached maturity though, and its effects on the modern psyche were far more permanent.

Post: #15

(04-12-2015 09:56 PM)Libertas Wrote:  One of the most excellent posts I've ever seen on this forum, and like I said in an ISIS thread, you can tell all extreme ideologies by their adherence to a sort of Year Zero thinking. All forms of extremism have always and everywhere attempted to wipe out any relationship with the past in society. This is something that transcends leftism, rightism, religion, etc.

I don't agree. Firstly you could claim the actions of the allies after WW2 constituted 'year zero thinking', in the same way you could the Khmer Rouge. However the directions of those 'resets' were opposite.

Secondly, what OP is referring to is just Leftism. There is no need for any more words to describe this social phenomenon, we already have a slew of them as it is (cultural marxism, liberals, SJWs, plus all the specific sub terms like feminism, gay activism, welfare statism etc).

The Right does not typically do this, actually. The Right is generally about the 'natural social order', and is more than willing to appeal to 'ancientness' in its justifications of things. They will support the power of a monarch (lifelong, hereditary line) over a democratic assembly (fleeting elected positions), they will place emphasis on phenomena with ancient origins (race & nation), they will appeal to ancient traditions. Compare this with the Left, who always focus on whatever current perceived conflict they can conjure up, and are always quick to reject the past as 'an evil time'.

Post: #16

(04-15-2015 09:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Secondly, what OP is referring to is just Leftism. There is no need for any more words to describe this social phenomenon, we already have a slew of them as it is (cultural marxism, liberals, SJWs, plus all the specific sub terms like feminism, gay activism, welfare statism etc).

First: no, it is not "just leftism". There is a large (though dwindling) number of people in the US, and the West in general, who are old-fashioned pro-Union, pro-worker-rights, social democrat type leftists who have absolutely no use for contemporary Year Zero ideologies like radical feminism or radical environmentalism. I think the RVF's very own Tuthmosis is a good example of that -- he is on the left, yet he battles against various SJW and Year Zero types and ridicules them as well and as effectively as anyone. A good historical example is someone like George Orwell, who was certainly on the left politically but who hated Year Zero ideologies with all his heart and soul and devoted much of his life to understanding and exposing them. It is true that Year Zero ideologies are ascendant within the contemporary Left (as well as society in general) and are crowding out the sane old-fashioned types; but that does not mean that they are identical.

Second and more importantly, regardless of the degree of overlap between Year Zero ideologies and the Left, it is always important to find and popularize new language that stainingly characterizes particularly significant and vicious aspects of these ideologies in a way that can be memorably deployed against them. The phrase Year Zero is so good because it captures one of the most sinister aspects of these ideologies, the hunger and readiness to tear apart the entire social order -- or worse than that, innate human behaviors that precede any social order -- and start from scratch, in the utter certainty that their ideology gives them the one correct blueprint and the right to ignore centuries or millennia of human history as irrelevant obstacles to be swept aside.

It also happens to be a strikingly accurate characterization, and for that reason it is particularly hated by feminists, progressives, and other Year Zero types when used against them, as I know from personal experience. To call someone a "leftist" or even a "feminist" is simply a neutral designation; but to call them out on their Year Zero lunacy is something different entirely, and extremely valuable in the right context. It makes plain to normal people who are apt to be hoodwinked by these ideologies just what is really going on.

Post: #17

(04-15-2015 10:31 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 09:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Secondly, what OP is referring to is just Leftism. There is no need for any more words to describe this social phenomenon, we already have a slew of them as it is (cultural marxism, liberals, SJWs, plus all the specific sub terms like feminism, gay activism, welfare statism etc).

First: no, it is not "just leftism". There is a large (though dwindling) number of people in the US, and the West in general, who are old-fashioned pro-Union, pro-worker-rights, social democrat type leftists who have absolutely no use for contemporary Year Zero ideologies like radical feminism or radical environmentalism. I think the RVF's very own Tuthmosis is a good example of that -- he is on the left, yet he battles against various SJW and Year Zero types and ridicules them as well and as effectively as anyone. A good historical example is someone like George Orwell, who was certainly on the left politically but who hated Year Zero ideologies with all his heart and soul and devoted much of his life to understanding and exposing them. It is true that Year Zero ideologies are ascendant within the contemporary Left (as well as society in general) and are crowding out the sane old-fashioned types; but that does not mean that they are identical.

Second and more importantly, regardless of the degree of overlap between Year Zero ideologies and the Left, it is always important to find and popularize new language that stainingly characterizes particularly significant and vicious aspects of these ideologies in a way that can be memorably deployed against them. The phrase Year Zero is so good because it captures one of the most sinister aspects of these ideologies, the hunger and readiness to tear apart the entire social order -- or worse than that, innate human behaviors that precede any social order -- and start from scratch, in the utter certainty that their ideology gives them the one correct blueprint and the right to ignore centuries or millennia of human history as irrelevant obstacles to be swept aside.

It also happens to be a strikingly accurate characterization, and for that reason it is particularly hated by feminists, progressives, and other Year Zero types when used against them, as I know from personal experience. To call someone a "leftist" or even a "feminist" is simply a neutral designation; but to call them out on their Year Zero lunacy is something different entirely, and extremely valuable in the right context. It makes plain to normal people who are apt to be hoodwinked by these ideologies just what is really going on.

I think, even more than this, it is important to understand that 'Left wing', 'Feminist' and many of these terms are actually seen as complimentary by the people who adhere to their ideologies. You do no damage to, nor do you force them to reconsider, their position when you attach these labels. Such is the grip of the public consciousness held by the left that to be left wing is publicly seen as being 'right thinking', empathetic, and intelligent. Whereas, to openly acknowledge you are right wing is like openly acknowledging you are stupid, fascistic, ignorant, extreme, etc. Given that most like to think they have the former qualities, and noone likes to think they have the latter, the public sphere becomes self-censoring.

By contrast, a term like 'Year Zero' serves a number of advantages:

Firstly, it is unequivocally associated with violence and bloodshed, which is at odds with the peace, love and equality mantra of the left.

Secondly, it most likely exposes a historical ignorance on the part of the accused, as they will probably fail to understand the reference, providing you, the neanderthal right-winger with the opportunity to divulge some of the fruits of your erudition, something particularly powerful with an audience. Exposing that someone is ignorant of the events that lead to the evolution of their core beliefs is a fantastic way of undermining their position entirely, and stops you getting bogged down in a rational vs emotional debate.

Thirdly, given the appalling acts of those associated with it, particularly in recent history, it allows you to be unequivocal in your disdain. This is critical, as it allows you to make you absolute contempt abundantly clear, without resorting to petty ad hominem attacks. It allows you to nail your colours to the mast, and to reverse the assumption of moral rectitude that the left have appropriated for themselves. By highlighting the parallels, you force your adversary to either weaken/abandon their position, or to defend the utterly indefensible. Either way, a winning position.

Post: #18

(04-15-2015 10:31 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 09:20 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Secondly, what OP is referring to is just Leftism. There is no need for any more words to describe this social phenomenon, we already have a slew of them as it is (cultural marxism, liberals, SJWs, plus all the specific sub terms like feminism, gay activism, welfare statism etc).

First: no, it is not "just leftism". There is a large (though dwindling) number of people in the US, and the West in general, who are old-fashioned pro-Union, pro-worker-rights, social democrat type leftists who have absolutely no use for contemporary Year Zero ideologies like radical feminism or radical environmentalism. I think the RVF's very own Tuthmosis is a good example of that -- he is on the left, yet he battles against various SJW and Year Zero types and ridicules them as well and as effectively as anyone. A good historical example is someone like George Orwell, who was certainly on the left politically but who hated Year Zero ideologies with all his heart and soul and devoted much of his life to understanding and exposing them. It is true that Year Zero ideologies are ascendant within the contemporary Left (as well as society in general) and are crowding out the sane old-fashioned types; but that does not mean that they are identical.

Second and more importantly, regardless of the degree of overlap between Year Zero ideologies and the Left, it is always important to find and popularize new language that stainingly characterizes particularly significant and vicious aspects of these ideologies in a way that can be memorably deployed against them. The phrase Year Zero is so good because it captures one of the most sinister aspects of these ideologies, the hunger and readiness to tear apart the entire social order -- or worse than that, innate human behaviors that precede any social order -- and start from scratch, in the utter certainty that their ideology gives them the one correct blueprint and the right to ignore centuries or millennia of human history as irrelevant obstacles to be swept aside.

It also happens to be a strikingly accurate characterization, and for that reason it is particularly hated by feminists, progressives, and other Year Zero types when used against them, as I know from personal experience. To call someone a "leftist" or even a "feminist" is simply a neutral designation; but to call them out on their Year Zero lunacy is something different entirely, and extremely valuable in the right context. It makes plain to normal people who are apt to be hoodwinked by these ideologies just what is really going on.

I think men on the left that aren't one of the new true believers are politically "blue pill." They are as outmoded and obsolete as conservatives, libertarians, or whatever. They have failed to fully accept the reality of the situation: that they are no longer in control of the vehicle their ideological forefathers used to destabilize the existing power structure to take power themselves and never will be again. The revolution devours its children. Marxism, communism, socialism were all lies and false hope, the same thing they accused the established religions of the time of being. They're a scam, a con job.

Orwell himself started out as somewhat of a utopian socialist who became disenchanted with Soviet communism during the Spanish Civil War. He was a true believer. To borrow an analogy from the thread on the Gervais Principle: he was one of the "clueless" who woke up to what was going on with the Bolsheviks and divorced himself from it. He was not, however, ready to admit that his core ideology in itself was essentially worthless because he was so emotionally invested in it. Emma Goldman and a couple of other Russophiles who actually visited the USSR during the days of the revolution had similar experiences. There was a slight uptick of communist-leaning intellectuals growing disenchanted with the entire thing after the Kronstadt Rebellion was brutally repressed. However, few completely lost faith. They merely had a schism and some followed Trotsky later on.

To them it was always an issue of the "right people" simply not being in charge when there are rarely ever going to be the "right people" in charge of such a movement because the people who are skilled at getting to the top are in it for themselves first and foremost. You either have that killer instinct, the opportunity and the intellectual means to achieve your goals or you don't, and most people don't.

It appears to me that humanity is doomed to repeat this process of abandoning and adopting new religions forever, and being hoodwinked each and every single time by those smart enough to manipulate them for their own ends.

Post: #19

A perfect example of Year Zero thinking comes in the review of Cinderella by my hometown alternative newspaper, which contains this suggestion for how to improve the movie:

Cinderella says, "Fuck y'all, I'm not your servant." Flips over a table. Electric guitar plays. Fairy godmother shows up and says: "Finally. That's the way a woman does it." She turns one of the mice into the Predator, who inflicts gruesome punishment on all who have wronged Cinderella. They destroy the patriarchal kingdom in an epic battle. Cinderella turns the house into an anarchist feminist commune.
http://www.thestranger.com/film/features...cinderella[/i]

Notice how it's assumed that the only proper approach to the existing order is simply to destroy it wholesale. The "patriarchal kingdom" has fed Cinderella and protected her from barbarians for the first 18 years of her life; nonetheless it is all bad, root and branch, and the only thing to do is rip it out. Anything that follows will be an improvement; nothing good will be lost. An 18-year-old girl with no particular skills, education, or experience is perfectly capable of building a better social order from scratch in a few weeks.

Even random destruction (flipping over a table in the house you live in) is good, because the table is part of the house which is part of the patriarchy; destroying part of it isn't as good as destroying the whole thing, but it is still good.

This is the sort of thinking that inspires ISIS and that inspired the Bader-Meinhoff gang and as the OP notes the Khmer Rouge. Look, there are plenty of problems with modern society, let alone a medieval kingdom. But read a little fucking history. Revolutions, civil wars, societal collapse are awful things and do not reliably result in better societies even after you get through the horrors of them. They are last resorts.

Game of Thrones is an excellent fictional depiction of this. Robert Baratheon was a bad king, and the Lannisters are worse. But waiting in the wings are the Boltons with their flaying knives, the Red Woman with her fires, the cannibalistic Thenns beyond the Wall.

Think twice before you flip over that table, bitch. It ain't all electric guitars and fairy godmothers.

Post: #20

OK, I won't press the argument on the distinction between the 'mild left' and the Left in this thread. So address my other point: Year Zero can be used in a good context, as well as bad.

In Nazi Germany, the population was treated like cattle and swathes of minorities were slaughtered. The culture was 'our race must take over the world'. In post-WW2 Germany, the allies conducted a 'denazification' purge, effectively eradicating the Nazi culture and 'starting again'. A new constitution guaranteeing individual rights and protecting minorities was enacted. That's basically doing a full U-turn.
In Japan, they went so far as to strip the Emperor of his power, dismantle the zaibatsus, and make possession of a military unconstitutional. Again, this is a complete U-turn, and starting again with an entirely new form of society.
These are just as extreme 'Year Zeros' as the Cultural Revolution, but in the opposite direction.

Basically you can apply the phrase 'Year Zero' to any 'revolution' whatsoever. No one has a revolution to 'accept that the way things were before is just as good, and we won't change that much'.

You want to make out that the phrase 'Year Zero' is this amazing new discovery, but it isn't, and it doesn't even specifically fit the concept you want it to.

Post: #21

(04-15-2015 12:14 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  In Nazi Germany, the population was treated like cattle and swathes of minorities were slaughtered. The culture was 'our race must take over the world'. In post-WW2 Germany, the allies conducted a 'denazification' purge, effectively eradicating the Nazi culture and 'starting again'. A new constitution guaranteeing individual rights and protecting minorities was enacted. That's basically doing a full U-turn.
In Japan, they went so far as to strip the Emperor of his power, dismantle the zaibatsus, and make possession of a military unconstitutional. Again, this is a complete U-turn, and starting again with an entirely new form of society.
These are just as extreme 'Year Zeros' as the Cultural Revolution, but in the opposite direction.

Nope, both of these are terrible examples.

The Nazis were in power in Germany for **12 years**. Undoing the effects of their monstrous rule is hardly an example of "scrapping all history and starting from scratch" -- on the contrary, it was an example of returning a society to being the kind of liberal democracy that Germany was on the path to becoming before the Nazis took over (with some additional safeguards, etc.).

Japan, as you should know, is a very unique place and culture, and they are capable of both radical change and the most intricate preservation of their old habits and mores at the same time. They have done such U-turns at a number of points in their history, and yet maintained a degree of continuity in deep parts of their day-to-day culture that is beyond anything seen in the rest of the world. Nothing that applies to Japan can really be extrapolated to the rest of the world.

(04-15-2015 12:14 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Basically you can apply the phrase 'Year Zero' to any 'revolution' whatsoever. No one has a revolution to 'accept that the way things were before is just as good, and we won't change that much'.

Not every revolution or change in political order is necessarily of the Year Zero type. The essence of Year Zero ideologies is that they strive to completely remake from scratch the most basic parts of everyday life, including innate behaviors that are part of human nature and have survived all varieties of political order -- such as the relation between the sexes, what constitutes "consent", how men and women should treat each other in private, etc.

(04-15-2015 12:14 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  You want to make out that the phrase 'Year Zero' is this amazing new discovery, but it isn't, and it doesn't even specifically fit the concept you want it to.

I make no claim that it's any sort of new discovery, certainly not mine, and I have no interest in taking any credit for it. But it is an extremely useful term, and I strongly believe that it can do a lot of damage and that it "fits the concept" very well indeed. If you disagree, you are certainly under no obligation to use it.

Post: #22

The American Revolution is a good example of a revolution that was not a Year Zero one. The end goal was to simply throw out the British and institute self-determination in the colonies-turned-states. Society changed of course, but it was less social than political. Most of the old culture was kept and it didn't want to eradicate the past. This can be found in the fact that since then the two countries have extremely similar political cultures and eventually became the closest allies in the world.

The French Revolution is the contrast that occurred only a few years later. Unlike the American Revolution, the French wanted to completely eradicate any vestiges of the old kingdom and remake society. Anyone associated with the old kingdom was in danger. The tombs were raided, religious artifacts destroyed, the calendar was changed, etc. France was in chaos and Napoleon eventually put a stop to it by undoing the most radical, past-erasing social trends.

Post: #23

Well fair enough, but I think the term 'nihilist', or something like that, would work better. 'Year Zero type' doesn't roll off the tongue, and I would very much like North Korea to have a Year Zero.

Post: #24

(04-15-2015 12:41 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Well fair enough, but I think the term 'nihilist', or something like that, would work better. 'Year Zero type' doesn't roll off the tongue, and I would very much like North Korea to have a Year Zero.

The strength in the term Year Zero comes from the fact that the only types to understand the reference would be intellectuals at this point in time. Anyone else would have to 'find out'.

Nihilism isn't the same thing from my understanding. And to be honest, personally I would have less of an ego problem (therefore an investment) being called a nihilist than a Year Zero proponent, should I take the time to look it up.

One of the first things I noticed when I came into the sphere is just how familiar everyone is with the term 'mysogyny' while I hadn't ever registered the term 'misandry'. I still think an effective campaign could be waged not by pointing the finger but just by educating people on the term 'misandry' & letting their own heads do the math. However I partially agree with others who have noted that most won't care or will view it as just tit-for-tat, which ultimately doesn't come from a position of strength.

Year Zero has a ring to it that could become jingoistic & also syllabically rolls off the tongue. Take a moment on your own in a private space, visualise a SJW cunt you hate & sneer "Year Zero". There's something quite self satisfying about it. It has an inherently intelligent labelling quality about it.

Post: #25

(04-15-2015 12:41 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Well fair enough, but I think the term 'nihilist', or something like that, would work better. 'Year Zero type' doesn't roll off the tongue, and I would very much like North Korea to have a Year Zero.