clovenhooves The Personal Is Political General Article Was ‘efilism’ the extreme ideology behind the Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing?

Article Was ‘efilism’ the extreme ideology behind the Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing?

Article Was ‘efilism’ the extreme ideology behind the Palm Springs fertility clinic bombing?

 Print Thread
 
eyeswideopen
Find
86
May 19 2025, 12:04 PM
#1
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palm-springs-fertility-clinic-bombing-efilism-b2753937.html

It's interesting to me that while there are women who are anti-natalists and efilists, only men seem to make their belief in these philosophies everyone else's problem. Male narcissisism can never be defeated.
Reply
Reply
eyeswideopen
May 19 2025, 12:04 PM #1

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palm-springs-fertility-clinic-bombing-efilism-b2753937.html

It's interesting to me that while there are women who are anti-natalists and efilists, only men seem to make their belief in these philosophies everyone else's problem. Male narcissisism can never be defeated.

Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
895
May 19 2025, 1:45 PM
#2
Quote:Bartkus has been described as a “pro-mortalist,” with possible links to a belief system known as “efilism” — a radical offshoot of antinatalism that asserts not just that humans should stop reproducing, but that all sentient life should be extinguished to prevent suffering. Efilism, so called because “efil” is the word “life” spelled backward, pushes beyond conventional antinatalism.

Jeez. Efilism sounds like a murder-suicide cult turned into a political ideology. Antinatalists, I can understand, but this is just disturbing. To me it is a sign of how severely sick modern society has become, that such a belief is gaining an actual following.
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
May 19 2025, 1:45 PM #2

Quote:Bartkus has been described as a “pro-mortalist,” with possible links to a belief system known as “efilism” — a radical offshoot of antinatalism that asserts not just that humans should stop reproducing, but that all sentient life should be extinguished to prevent suffering. Efilism, so called because “efil” is the word “life” spelled backward, pushes beyond conventional antinatalism.

Jeez. Efilism sounds like a murder-suicide cult turned into a political ideology. Antinatalists, I can understand, but this is just disturbing. To me it is a sign of how severely sick modern society has become, that such a belief is gaining an actual following.

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
189
May 19 2025, 4:41 PM
#3
I mean, most antinatalists I've seen fall into two categories: 1. People who think they are so enlightened and unique for not enjoying screaming children, soiled diapers and the self-sacrifice of parenting. 2. People who think they are so enlightened and unique for not enjoying screaming children, soiled diapers and the self-sacrifice of parenting AND also try to think up bs philosophical arguments for why it's unethical for children to be brought into existence. So I'm not actually surprised that this is what it got flanderised into.

Much like atheism, despite there being good ethical reasons for it (certainly for women), antinatalism got popular because it lets lazy, irresponsible and narcissistic men feel special and daring for prioritising their own interests, and then some women joined in by projecting their own misgivings with childbearing expectations onto the male arguments already in place.
Edited May 19 2025, 6:27 PM by YesYourNigel.
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
May 19 2025, 4:41 PM #3

I mean, most antinatalists I've seen fall into two categories: 1. People who think they are so enlightened and unique for not enjoying screaming children, soiled diapers and the self-sacrifice of parenting. 2. People who think they are so enlightened and unique for not enjoying screaming children, soiled diapers and the self-sacrifice of parenting AND also try to think up bs philosophical arguments for why it's unethical for children to be brought into existence. So I'm not actually surprised that this is what it got flanderised into.

Much like atheism, despite there being good ethical reasons for it (certainly for women), antinatalism got popular because it lets lazy, irresponsible and narcissistic men feel special and daring for prioritising their own interests, and then some women joined in by projecting their own misgivings with childbearing expectations onto the male arguments already in place.

Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Find
339
May 20 2025, 7:43 AM
#4
I sometimes lurk on the r/NEET and r/hikikomori subreddits, which skew heavily male. In the NEET sub in particular, I'm seeing a lot more posts with the attitude of "my parents should support me forever because they brought me into the world without my consent." A lot of them did seem to have shitty home lives and shitty parents who should never have had kids. But that's not an excuse for failure to launch years or decades later. Is there another species other than humans where the young can just refuse to leave the nest or den or burrow and be allowed to stay indefinitely? Seems like this literally goes against evolution.

I'm not talking about people who have serious enough mental or physical conditions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to be on their own. Nor do I support the idea of parents kicking their kids out once they turn 18. If someone lives with their parents and they contribute in some way to the household, and the parents don't mind having them there and the relationships are overall healthy, then there isn't a problem. My rant is about the entitled ones who think they're owed a no-effort, no-contribution existence just because "they didn't ask to be born."
Reply
Reply
Elsacat
May 20 2025, 7:43 AM #4

I sometimes lurk on the r/NEET and r/hikikomori subreddits, which skew heavily male. In the NEET sub in particular, I'm seeing a lot more posts with the attitude of "my parents should support me forever because they brought me into the world without my consent." A lot of them did seem to have shitty home lives and shitty parents who should never have had kids. But that's not an excuse for failure to launch years or decades later. Is there another species other than humans where the young can just refuse to leave the nest or den or burrow and be allowed to stay indefinitely? Seems like this literally goes against evolution.

I'm not talking about people who have serious enough mental or physical conditions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to be on their own. Nor do I support the idea of parents kicking their kids out once they turn 18. If someone lives with their parents and they contribute in some way to the household, and the parents don't mind having them there and the relationships are overall healthy, then there isn't a problem. My rant is about the entitled ones who think they're owed a no-effort, no-contribution existence just because "they didn't ask to be born."

Reply
Reply
eyeswideopen
Find
86
May 21 2025, 10:08 AM
#5
(May 20 2025, 7:43 AM)Elsacat I sometimes lurk on the r/NEET and r/hikikomori subreddits, which skew heavily male. In the NEET sub in particular, I'm seeing a lot more posts with the attitude of "my parents should support me forever because they brought me into the world without my consent." 

NEET-ism (using as a shorthand to refer to the attitude that Elsacat describes in her post) feels like an iteration of the Japanese hikikomori phenomenon, where you see (mostly) males withdraw from interactions with the outside world. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23182523

I don't know any NEETs personally, but the group does seem to be mostly male and they do have the same attitude of being owed support (hikikomori can only exist because their parents are providing them with food and shelter).

I like the "failure-to-launch" ("FTL") term to describe these men because it's a little broader than NEET and it encompasses men who still interact with the outside world. I have an older male cousin in his 60s who falls into this category - went to college, but was coddled by his parents (who come from an ethnicity that centers and glorifies males), never left home and only got married in his mid-50s to an undocumented immigrant who needed a U.S. husband so she could regularize her status. He lives now on rental income from property his parents purchased (typical immigrant story of working like dogs to start their own successful businesses and families).

As a society, we've been fortunate that the men who FTL generally are incompetent, otherwise I think the death toll from when some of them flame out would be much higher than it currently is.
Edited May 21 2025, 11:24 AM by eyeswideopen.
Reply
Reply
eyeswideopen
May 21 2025, 10:08 AM #5

(May 20 2025, 7:43 AM)Elsacat I sometimes lurk on the r/NEET and r/hikikomori subreddits, which skew heavily male. In the NEET sub in particular, I'm seeing a lot more posts with the attitude of "my parents should support me forever because they brought me into the world without my consent." 

NEET-ism (using as a shorthand to refer to the attitude that Elsacat describes in her post) feels like an iteration of the Japanese hikikomori phenomenon, where you see (mostly) males withdraw from interactions with the outside world. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23182523

I don't know any NEETs personally, but the group does seem to be mostly male and they do have the same attitude of being owed support (hikikomori can only exist because their parents are providing them with food and shelter).

I like the "failure-to-launch" ("FTL") term to describe these men because it's a little broader than NEET and it encompasses men who still interact with the outside world. I have an older male cousin in his 60s who falls into this category - went to college, but was coddled by his parents (who come from an ethnicity that centers and glorifies males), never left home and only got married in his mid-50s to an undocumented immigrant who needed a U.S. husband so she could regularize her status. He lives now on rental income from property his parents purchased (typical immigrant story of working like dogs to start their own successful businesses and families).

As a society, we've been fortunate that the men who FTL generally are incompetent, otherwise I think the death toll from when some of them flame out would be much higher than it currently is.

Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
895
May 22 2025, 10:22 AM
#6
(May 20 2025, 7:43 AM)Elsacat I sometimes lurk on the r/NEET and r/hikikomori subreddits, which skew heavily male. In the NEET sub in particular, I'm seeing a lot more posts with the attitude of "my parents should support me forever because they brought me into the world without my consent." A lot of them did seem to have shitty home lives and shitty parents who should never have had kids. But that's not an excuse for failure to launch years or decades later. Is there another species other than humans where the young can just refuse to leave the nest or den or burrow and be allowed to stay indefinitely? Seems like this literally goes against evolution.

Eh... We are so far past "evolution" at this point as a species, with modern medical technologies and the human species ability to adapt. In fact, I would pinpoint the technological advancement of human and the resulting exponential growth of antisocial systems like capitalism as the reason these failure to launch NEETs exist. Part of me also wants to make a more morbid point that women have been forced to have children for so long, children that they did not want, with male partners that they might not have picked if there were not overarching overbearing patriarchal and capitalist systems, that we have actually genetically altered ourselves to let rapists determine our evolutionary path. However, that really would start veering into biological essentialism, and I still believe that because of humans extreme ability to adapt to many situations and utilize creative thinking, that we would be able to overcome any genetic predispositions through use of logic and restraint.

Though I guess if we wanted to go with that evolution angle, in a sense, evolution is working here. As in, the parents were not "meant" to have those children—either biologically because it's a long line of women being forced to have children they never wanted to have, or socially by the human parents not being able to properly raise their human children to fit in with the social species of humans—and therefore their children are suffering and their evolutionary path ends. (However, I still personally believe a lot of these NEETs are that way because of an increasingly antisocial society, not because they are biologically predispositioned to be NEETs.)

(May 20 2025, 7:43 AM)Elsacat I'm not talking about people who have serious enough mental or physical conditions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to be on their own. Nor do I support the idea of parents kicking their kids out once they turn 18. If someone lives with their parents and they contribute in some way to the household, and the parents don't mind having them there and the relationships are overall healthy, then there isn't a problem. My rant is about the entitled ones who think they're owed a no-effort, no-contribution existence just because "they didn't ask to be born."

They are correct, they didn't ask to be born, none of us asked to be born. However, tough shit? Like, why did they think just because they didn't ask to be born that means that other people should always be required to take care of them? That's not how things work. Literally no one is obligated to care for you. (And I truly mean that in the absolute sense, I even mean parents are not obligated to care for their biological children, there is a reason adoptions happen and baby drop boxes exist.) I don't wish to be morbid, but I honestly do think that people have a right to suicide, and that if people truly believe that they didn't want to be born and hate living here so much, they should have a right to no longer exist. Granted, I also think such a right needs to be met with a lot of psychotherapy and safety checks to ensure the person actually has no chance of deciding that life is worth living. (I am disturbed of the stories I read about in Canada where the government appears to have started misusing their assisted suicide program to cull disabled populations.)
Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
May 22 2025, 10:22 AM #6

(May 20 2025, 7:43 AM)Elsacat I sometimes lurk on the r/NEET and r/hikikomori subreddits, which skew heavily male. In the NEET sub in particular, I'm seeing a lot more posts with the attitude of "my parents should support me forever because they brought me into the world without my consent." A lot of them did seem to have shitty home lives and shitty parents who should never have had kids. But that's not an excuse for failure to launch years or decades later. Is there another species other than humans where the young can just refuse to leave the nest or den or burrow and be allowed to stay indefinitely? Seems like this literally goes against evolution.

Eh... We are so far past "evolution" at this point as a species, with modern medical technologies and the human species ability to adapt. In fact, I would pinpoint the technological advancement of human and the resulting exponential growth of antisocial systems like capitalism as the reason these failure to launch NEETs exist. Part of me also wants to make a more morbid point that women have been forced to have children for so long, children that they did not want, with male partners that they might not have picked if there were not overarching overbearing patriarchal and capitalist systems, that we have actually genetically altered ourselves to let rapists determine our evolutionary path. However, that really would start veering into biological essentialism, and I still believe that because of humans extreme ability to adapt to many situations and utilize creative thinking, that we would be able to overcome any genetic predispositions through use of logic and restraint.

Though I guess if we wanted to go with that evolution angle, in a sense, evolution is working here. As in, the parents were not "meant" to have those children—either biologically because it's a long line of women being forced to have children they never wanted to have, or socially by the human parents not being able to properly raise their human children to fit in with the social species of humans—and therefore their children are suffering and their evolutionary path ends. (However, I still personally believe a lot of these NEETs are that way because of an increasingly antisocial society, not because they are biologically predispositioned to be NEETs.)

(May 20 2025, 7:43 AM)Elsacat I'm not talking about people who have serious enough mental or physical conditions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to be on their own. Nor do I support the idea of parents kicking their kids out once they turn 18. If someone lives with their parents and they contribute in some way to the household, and the parents don't mind having them there and the relationships are overall healthy, then there isn't a problem. My rant is about the entitled ones who think they're owed a no-effort, no-contribution existence just because "they didn't ask to be born."

They are correct, they didn't ask to be born, none of us asked to be born. However, tough shit? Like, why did they think just because they didn't ask to be born that means that other people should always be required to take care of them? That's not how things work. Literally no one is obligated to care for you. (And I truly mean that in the absolute sense, I even mean parents are not obligated to care for their biological children, there is a reason adoptions happen and baby drop boxes exist.) I don't wish to be morbid, but I honestly do think that people have a right to suicide, and that if people truly believe that they didn't want to be born and hate living here so much, they should have a right to no longer exist. Granted, I also think such a right needs to be met with a lot of psychotherapy and safety checks to ensure the person actually has no chance of deciding that life is worth living. (I am disturbed of the stories I read about in Canada where the government appears to have started misusing their assisted suicide program to cull disabled populations.)

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
Find
189
May 23 2025, 11:02 PM
#7
I find the whole "didn't ask to be born" thing stupid as hell. Like, of all the actual ethical dilemmas and problems, people have to invent some ridiculous "right" to non-existence as if merely being brought into existence is an act of abuse. It reminds me of trans ideas about how having to undergo puberty or being a certain sex is horrible and abusive and traumatising and it's YOUR fault that magical sex change isn't real. What's next? Having to eat food is traumatising? Having to breathe? omg I can't believe I have to walk and can't fly, my life is suffering.

Furthermore, how can you claim a non-existant thing has any sort of right, including a right to choose whether to be brought into existence? It can't make any kind of decisions or think or have rights because it literally doesn't exist! It has no needs or feelings or thoughts. I can understand people debating what counts as life or sentience but I can't for the life of me understand the idea that a nonexistent thing should be able to choose to not exist. A fucking rock would have more of a claim to rights than something nonexistant. It's just telling of how these people's brains can't even comprehend what they're talking about and can only imagine it in some vague sense of being plucked from another dimension against their will, one where they already made and stated their decision. They're starting from the (supposedly cruel and awful) premise of having been brought to life with a mind to form feelings and decisions about nonexistence and using that to claim they totally would've decided not to be born in the first place.

I understand the concept of human rights seeking to ensure a bare minimum of a comfortable existence for all human beings, but the notion that merely existing itself is abusive? Give me a break. We can assure rights for people in the future (like with taking care of our planet or preserving knowledge for future generations) because they WILL exist, but the notion that someone who's never existed and would never exist can claim they refuse being brought into existence (a decision that could only possibly be made using the pre-requisite of existing as a person), and then blame the parent for having done it anyway...and then demand eternal servitude because having to live and eat and earn money is "their fault"...just what the fuck?

Quote:Granted, I also think such a right needs to be met with a lot of psychotherapy and safety checks to ensure the person actually has no chance of deciding that life is worth living

You can't make state-assisted suicide on a psychological basis ethical. As soon as you open that option, people are not gonna care to take the more distant, difficult and alien option of recovery and will self-sabotage to get the result they want. Even worse are the predators and abusers who will convince them to do it, especially if they have something to gain from their death. And the hasty notion that some people are simply born "different" in a way that makes it impossible for them to enjoy living is incredibly dangerous.

People have raised good points regarding assisted suicide targeting women who already are far more likely to be abandoned by their male partners (who could try to convince them to end their life to get them off their back) and feel like a burden, to be dismissed by medical professionals despite dealing with more mental illnesses, and to be traumatised by a lifetime of dehumanisation and abuse.
Edited May 24 2025, 3:59 PM by YesYourNigel.
Reply
Reply
YesYourNigel
May 23 2025, 11:02 PM #7

I find the whole "didn't ask to be born" thing stupid as hell. Like, of all the actual ethical dilemmas and problems, people have to invent some ridiculous "right" to non-existence as if merely being brought into existence is an act of abuse. It reminds me of trans ideas about how having to undergo puberty or being a certain sex is horrible and abusive and traumatising and it's YOUR fault that magical sex change isn't real. What's next? Having to eat food is traumatising? Having to breathe? omg I can't believe I have to walk and can't fly, my life is suffering.

Furthermore, how can you claim a non-existant thing has any sort of right, including a right to choose whether to be brought into existence? It can't make any kind of decisions or think or have rights because it literally doesn't exist! It has no needs or feelings or thoughts. I can understand people debating what counts as life or sentience but I can't for the life of me understand the idea that a nonexistent thing should be able to choose to not exist. A fucking rock would have more of a claim to rights than something nonexistant. It's just telling of how these people's brains can't even comprehend what they're talking about and can only imagine it in some vague sense of being plucked from another dimension against their will, one where they already made and stated their decision. They're starting from the (supposedly cruel and awful) premise of having been brought to life with a mind to form feelings and decisions about nonexistence and using that to claim they totally would've decided not to be born in the first place.

I understand the concept of human rights seeking to ensure a bare minimum of a comfortable existence for all human beings, but the notion that merely existing itself is abusive? Give me a break. We can assure rights for people in the future (like with taking care of our planet or preserving knowledge for future generations) because they WILL exist, but the notion that someone who's never existed and would never exist can claim they refuse being brought into existence (a decision that could only possibly be made using the pre-requisite of existing as a person), and then blame the parent for having done it anyway...and then demand eternal servitude because having to live and eat and earn money is "their fault"...just what the fuck?

Quote:Granted, I also think such a right needs to be met with a lot of psychotherapy and safety checks to ensure the person actually has no chance of deciding that life is worth living

You can't make state-assisted suicide on a psychological basis ethical. As soon as you open that option, people are not gonna care to take the more distant, difficult and alien option of recovery and will self-sabotage to get the result they want. Even worse are the predators and abusers who will convince them to do it, especially if they have something to gain from their death. And the hasty notion that some people are simply born "different" in a way that makes it impossible for them to enjoy living is incredibly dangerous.

People have raised good points regarding assisted suicide targeting women who already are far more likely to be abandoned by their male partners (who could try to convince them to end their life to get them off their back) and feel like a burden, to be dismissed by medical professionals despite dealing with more mental illnesses, and to be traumatised by a lifetime of dehumanisation and abuse.

Reply
Reply
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)