Hatred for humanity

Apparently today was Earth Day. I’m not entirely sure about the point of Earth Day, but from what I hear, Earth Day calls for some traditional celebrations and rituals. For example, Earth Day requires humans  to hug a tree, and kiss an animal, and bow down before the sun and the moon and the stars. Allegedly, planting a tree on Earth Day can also actually bestow magical blessings on the planter.

Obviously, smart people (like me) know better than to follow these man-made traditions. But I can never attain satisfaction merely by freeing myself from superstition. Rather, justice requires that I communicate to others my ingenius insights. So let us go, and enlighten ourselves about the true nature of the universe.

Many people imagine that environmentalists adore the natural world, but this belief is false. Environmentalists do not love nature. In fact, environmentalists do not particularly love anything. Environmentalists actually despise the world because they see the world as flawed. Ultimately, environmentalists actually hate themselves.

Objectors will argue, “But Drew, that’s crazy; no one hates himself! These people just really like nature.” Such an objection demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding. Humans are part of the nature. Environmentalists heap praise on every part of creation other than humanity, and this discrimination shows their true disdain.

Environmentalists do not love trees or fish. Rather, they simply loathe themselves, and show it by praising the trees and fish. Consider this:  The only reason anyone prostrates himself before a non-human object, like a tree or a rock or a frog, is to make himself feel smaller. A person cannot love an inanimate object, but bowing down makes him feel humble. Environmentalists, likewise, humble themselves before the wild earth in order to cast off their human dignity.

Environmentalists invent self-destructive rituals and rules in order to punish themselves for their human imperfection. Practicing these rituals (e.g., recycling) makes an environmentalist feel better. He feels like he is atoning for his sins.

Lately, I have heard students complain about the warm temperatures in classrooms. The reason classrooms are warm is because UT has decided to “go green.” Apparently, “going green” means making the classrooms uncomfortably hot in the summer time, and making the faculty offices uncomfortably chilly in the winter. Ultimately, the important part is the human discomfort. To the self-loather, discomfort cleanses the conscience.

In politics, socialists have recently begun their push for new taxes on every industry that burns anything. Obviously, taxed industries must raise their prices to stay afloat, and everyone will suffer. Nonetheless, societal fear about the weak economy poses absolutely no obstacle to the self-loathers. In the mind of the environmentalist, destructive timing makes the tax all the more satisfying!


Basically, the environmentalist justification for the tax goes like this:
1. Burning anything creates carbon dioxide.
2. Carbon dioxide angers the earth goddess, Gaia.
3. Therefore, we can atone for our wickedness by taxing combustion, which will simultaneously impoverish our society and thereby make us feel better.

This type of self-destruction is hardly new. Ancient pagans, for example, used to sacrifice their children to the god Molech. Even throughout Christian history, pagan infiltrators besieged the church from within, promoting doctrines of hatred for humanity. These heretics attacked marital sexuality, prohibited the consumption of various foods, discouraged self-defense (which preserves the human body), and banned the drinking of alcohol. Ultimately, an ascetic will invent whatever rules he can think of to make life miserable.

The ancient heretics showed their pure hatred for humanity by denying even that Jesus himself had a human body(After all, humans are just too dirty and disgusting.) In a similar way, environmentalists attack and degrade their own species.

An ascetic practitioner is a man who hates his humanity, and the environmentalist falls into such practice. The environmentalist would rather be a disembodied nature spirit than a flesh-and-blood human. On practical matters, he allies with the wild beasts, bacteria, and trees over his own kind. Instead of accepting grace for his human imperfections, he invents new systems to punish himself. Environmentalists are sad people.

8 Responses to “Hatred for humanity”

  1. 1 Matthew Gillam-Lewis May 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Hi, and thank you for this blog,

    I do agree that ascetic hatred for the body and for humanity is indeed a live issue today, as it was even in medieval times. There are so many who would still prefer an everlasting bordome in heaven to a brief, but fulfilling life on earth.

    But as far as environmentalism is concerned, I think your blog entry is quite wrong. True: there are SOME environmentalists who feel that because we pollute the earth, we must suffer and suffer badly for it. Yes, this is just the same old doom and gloom about sin and damnation: i.e. ascetic ideal.

    However, in my experience, environmentalists are, for the most part, very body-positive. In fact, we love our body, we love our earth, and we love our life here and now, so much that we wish not to destroy it. That, to me, is environmentalism.

    My body is NOT a temple: my body is the god itself–all else is the temple. Therefore, quite mucking up my temple!

    You see, we understand that we are not some monad, some discrete entity, some dinstinct individual in a list of other individuals. We understand that we are what we eat, what we breathe, what we buy at the store, what we talk about with our friends over a few drinks–we understand that our bodies are this very planet–and we love our bodies! Therefore, we seek a healthy body (NOT a healthy SOUL).

    I am very pleased that people are employing Nietzsche’s ‘ascetic ideal’ and ‘geneology of morals’ conceptions of inversion, self-abasment, and resentiment. Bravo! But that knife does not cut the environmentalist. The environmentalist seeks to afirm life, to afirm this body, to afirm this earthly existence (by the way, this is also the exact definition of the PAGAN).

    So, here I am: A Pagan Environmentalist laughing heartily at this poor attempt to turn the barking dog of Nietzsche on Environmentalist Pagans. Nice try.

    But I ask you, finally, do you love this life? Do you afirm this life? (What is this life anyway?) And what are you willing to DO for this life?

    Because if you know any Nietzsche at all, you know that the love of life comes at a cost–exactly to the extent at which others are trying so desperatly to destroy it. Our Earth is being systematically destroyed, which means that our bodies are being denied and sacrificed–to what?–to science?–to progress?–

    If you understand Nietzsche, you understand that science and progress are nothing but ascetic ideals minus the whole God bit. So, I ask again, what are you willing to DO to afirm your life–this life– What are you willing to –GET UP AND DO ABOUT IT–?

  2. 2 Drew May 4, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    I’d argue with you, but I think you’re kinda making my point for me that environmentalism and paganism are correlated, because you admit to both.

    To cure your environmentalism, therefore, I guess all I really need to do is convert you to Christianity. For that purpose, I would point you toward the resurrection, which was attested by numerous eyewitnesses who willingly gave their lives for the testimony later. (If I remember right, Paul and all the twelve disciples except John wound up executed rather than recanting. John died of old age.)

    I do think, though, that you kinda have the wrong idea about Christianity. Christianity is not ascetic. To the extent that the Medieval church embraced asceticism, it’s only because the church was compromising itself with pagan beliefs. I mentioned that in the original post.

  3. 3 matt gillam May 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    Hi Drew,

    It is really interesting that you are a Christian. I didn’t really get that in the origonal post, but now that I have re-looked at your post I find that it makes a lot of sense. At first I thought you were working with a Nietzschean conception of ‘value inversion’ and self-hatred as projected outward into ‘resentiment’ and the need for punishing oneself. But I see now that we were not actually having the same conversation.

    I will tell you what I mean when I say asceticism (I do this only becasue I am currently writting a paper on Nietzsche and the ‘ascetic ideal’, and this is a good way to try and test my understanding).

    Asceticism: The idea that
    1) life on this Earth is fake, or illusory, or deceptive; and marked by sin and defilment and suffering

    2) another world is waiting for us which is true, or real, or Ultimate; and is marked by goodness and purity and redemption from the Earth (i.e. heaven)

    3) We are on this planet as a test or to make up for the sins of the past: i.e. we are here to fulfill some mission (to do certain deeds, for instance) or to make up for some past mistake (to repent).

    4) Therefore, we must suffer, and/or repent, and/or renounce our allegience to this world (and all its Earthly sinfulness) to gain acceptance in the world to come.

    This is what I mean by asceticism. I find it very interesting that you think that ‘pagans’ are the ascetics and that Christians are not — even to the extent that asceticism in the Church is somehow the result of pagan infiltrators. This is, actually, not very historically acurate.

    Actually, if you look at the history, most Christian massacres, crusades, or imperial projects were justified by the argument that the ‘pagans’ to be conqured deserved to be destroyed exactly because they did not renounce their pleasures (of sex, of drink, of games, of dancing, of merry-making, of pagan festivals and festivities, etc.), nor did they repent of their sins.

    The Witch-trials and the Spanish Inquisition are two small examples of the vast history of Christian Imperialism aimed at destroying the ‘heathens’ (note that ‘heathen’ and ‘hedonist’ have the same refrent: those who seek pleasure in this life and deny the Church as a spiritual authority. these two terms are virtually synonyms, as far as the historical usage goes).

    Pagans will not bow down before some God in the Heavens. The only thing worth bowing to is this very life. You see, we love our life–THIS life. This life on Earth, therefore, this earth. We do not need to suffer, or repent, or renounce anything for any god not here on earth. Nor do we need to do anything on this earth to get something better on some OTHER earth.

    Asceticism is actually no more than the belief that another world–a better world–is waiting. This is because the only logical conclusion about THIS world is that this world is, at the very least, second best; at the very most, a defilment. The practice of asceticism (fasting, renouncing, repenting, denying the drives of the body–especially the sexual drives) is the logical conclusion of the ascetic evaluation of this life.

    So it is no wonder that some Christians oppose Environmentalism as a logical conclusion of their belief in the ‘other-worldly’. But make no mistake — the opposition to environmentalism is basically the belief that this life, here on earth –is worthless. Why spend your time waxing and polishing a rent-a-car? But you see, this interpritation of life –is a denial of life. I.e. asceticism. If you valued your life, and you understood that this earth WAS your life, wouldn’t you want to help it be healthy?

    But, I apologize to you in advance, as these next words may come as a shock to you (if you take them to heart):

    There is no other world — there is only this fleeting, fragile life.

    This life is so precious–exactly because it is so finite and so fleeting. I beg you not to waste this life, as this is the only life your going to get.

    I do not expect to convince you of this, as the Christian doctrine is very appealing to so many young people today. And I do not want you to take my word for it. Please investigate this yourself: do your religious friends and family members respect this life, and this planet? Do they support you in respecting this life and this planet? Do your religious leaders afirm this life–here and now–or do they instead emphasize the ‘next’ life to come?

    –Now, after you investigate this matter of whether or not your faith affirms this life or denys it (and this investigation may take the whole of your natural life), you get a choice: To affirm this faith, or to deny it.

    Again, I am not trying to convince you of my view. You need to investigate these things yourself. But I will suggest that you re-read Nietzsche’s ‘Geneology of Morals’, because I think you have misunderstood it. This book is very insightfull into the relationship between The Abrahamic traditions (Jewdism, Christianity, Islam) and the ascetic ideal.

    Thank you for your time, and I am very sorry for our confusion. But please, take it from me: the realization that one’s faith is erronious is a very serious shock, and it will take a long time to come to terms with this kind of hurt and betrayell.

    I hope that you will be peacefull with your self in your quest, and even if you still end up believing that there is a better world out there — please, I beg you, help us to make this world a better place for us, who love it, and for our children, too.

    Thank you Drew,


  4. 4 matt gillam May 4, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    Hi Drew,

    I tried to post a reply, but I think it failed. So, this will have to be much shorter.

    Well, I see now that we were not having the same conversation. Have you read Nietzsche? At first I thought you were giving a Nietzschean analysis of Environmentalism; and even though it failed, I thought it was rather inventive and imaginative.

    But if you are farmiliar with asceticism in general (let alone a Nietzschean understanding of asceticism!), I just don’t see how ‘pagan’ traditions can be viewed as ascetic. Pagan traditions are marked by the love of life: which means love of sex, love of drink, love of dancing, love of celebration, love of jubiliation, and, yes, you are right, love of the earth. There are very few pagan traditions in European history which exhibited any form of asceticism.

    On the other hand Christianity has from the start been hostile to sex, to drink, to dancing, to ‘non-religious’ celebration (especially celebration of the earth), etc. etc. Further, there are a great many ascetic traditions in Christianity–and all of the traditions that flow from Abraham, actually. Many ascetic traditions still exist today: Trapist Monks for instance.

    Finally, if you have read Nietzsche’s ‘Geneology of Morals’ I encourage you to re-read it; because I do not think you have understood him at all. The ascetic ideal is just simply the belief in another world or another life, which is better than this one.

    You sound young, and I hope that you are. You may have a long life a head of you, but then again, you may not. But if you are young, the chances are good that you have a long life ahead of you.

    Please, do not waste this life. This may be the only life you have. Therefore, this world may be the only world you, or your children will have.

    I do not want you to be convinced by me: I want you to convince yourself. But tell me truely: does your faith affirm this life here on earth–or does it affirm another world, instead? If the answer is affirmative to this life, it is not an ascetic faith. If the answer is affirmitive to the next life, it is an ascetic faith.

    We Pagans affirm this life. We affirm our human lives, and we also affirm all non-human life. We affirm non-human life (even the life of rocks, air, rivers and oceans, mountains, etc.) because we have come to realize that our life is not seperate from the life of the earth. By definition, actually, we are anything but ascetic — did I mention we also love sex and drink and dancing (and doing all three at once!)? –those practices are certainly opposed to asceticism!

    Anyway, your analysis is not correct. But you must prove that to yourself–I cannot prove it for you. I will however encourage you to read Nietzsche. He will help you, but he will not let you keep your faith (he’s not as nice as I am). It’s a long road to hoe if you want to know the truth of things — but keep an open mind, an open heart, and an open eye and you’ll be allright!

    Be Well my Christian Friend,

    Your Pagan Friend, Matt

  5. 5 Drew May 4, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    No need to worry, I don’t feel any particular temptation to drop Christianity based on what you’ve argued. Essentially, it sounds like you’re using a fairly emotional analysis (whether you like the rules of Christianity) to determine whether a faith is true or false, whereas in contrast, I try to rely on the historical fact of the resurrection. Even if I agreed with you that free love and such were desirable, that wouldn’t make Christianity false. To me, Christianity is based on observed history and not my opinions.

    I think I understand why you might consider Christianity ascetic (because it involves self-denial), but in reality it’s not. Asceticism is denial without purpose, or self-denial for the primary purpose of punishing the body. By contrast, the Christian rules against promiscuous sex actually serve the purpose of establishing solid families for the continuation of the species. Various non-Christian societies (e.g., early Rome) have held similar rules against promiscuity, abortion, divorce, etc. And the monks that you referenced I would actually consider pagan. (Check out 1 Timothy 4:1-5 and Colossians 2:16-23 to see what I mean.) As I said in the post, pagan influences have historically compromised the church, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches especially.

    It’s true that some pagan cultures sound, on the surface, like they reject asceticism and embrace absolute freedom. On the surface, free love and all that seems like freedom. But as I attempted to highlight in the original post, those same pagans will almost inevitably impose new, pointless rules on themselves in place of the old rules. So whereas the pagan will get rid of the (socially beneficial) rule against promiscuity, he will replace it with another (pointless) ascetic rule — such as pacifism, vegetarianism, environmentalism, etc. The result isn’t freedom but just a new type of slavery. If you’re not like that then maybe you’re the exception, but you’ve already suggested that you’re an environmentalist. For example, if you support measures like a global warming tax (as most modern environmentalists do), then I would consider that ascetic.

    And nah, I only know a little about Nietzsche, mostly based on what others have told me. I think I may try to get into it some more though based on your recommendation, although it won’t be ’til after my exams are over.

  6. 6 Nurani July 18, 2010 at 11:57 am

    I think you may be right. I kind of exhibit misanthropy, a disliking for the human race. I understand that I am a part of this race, yet I feel so ashamed being one.
    And I kind of understand your concept on us environmentalists hating ourselves… but speaking for myself, I think I care for the environment– I care about how each innocent little piece of nature gets harmed. I mean, I just loathe humans because they are so greedy and uncaring. How they keep inflicting damager to earth!
    I love the environment because it is peaceful and balanced. That is my reasoning on being an environmentalist.
    Maybe I do hate myself. But for now, I’m content with me.

  7. 7 Drew July 18, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    Wow, interesting admission.

    In the original post, I don’t think I really addressed from where the self-loathing derived. That is, I didn’t address whether the self-loathing first caused the “love” for the environment, or whether a legitimate love for the environment first induced a self-loathing. I think pretty clearly, the two emotions can feed off each other. So probably a legitimate love for cute little squirrels and such could induce a sense of self-hatred, which might produce a false “love” for the environment, which might result in more self-hatred due to the perceived damage resulting from the rest of humanity’s failure to recognize the false “love.” A harmful feedback loop could result. Perhaps in the future I might author a post that speculates about which emotion generally comes first — the love or the self-hatred. I will have to ponder it further.

    Thanks for stopping by!

  1. 1 Pointless entertainment « The DREW BLOG Trackback on September 8, 2009 at 8:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: