Antinatalism is the belief that reproduction is evil, and therefore, humanity is better off not existing, because it causes harm to other “sentinal beings.” Coming into existence is somehow bad or immortal. It can only advocate the idea of population and technological degrowth, predicated by Thomas Robert Malthus in his work, “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” in 1798.
Malthus argued that the world population will keep doubling every other year, and the threshold of feeding everyone will break down. Birth rates must be decreased, or a one-child policy must be initiated when the global elite sees that resources are running out. Charles Darwin and the “natural selection” theory were influenced by these ideas, and soon enough, the European governments began practicing systematic “eugenics” programs on who gets to have children and who doesn’t. Unwanted people were assumed to have “dysgenics,” or bad genes that would harm humanity. They were sterilized, while wanted and healthy people were given the privilege to procreate. This early idea of population control would later reinvent itself in the early 21st century, where once this idea was considered “racist” and associated with nazism, liberalism began adapting Malthusian talking points within critical theory discourse.
The word “antinatalism” was invented in 2006 by Théophile de Giraud, a man-hating Malthusian activist dressed as a “punk” and “leftist.” His statement, “If you love children, don't create them,”1 assumes the non-producers should take an elitist position of paternal castration (an eunuch) while they over the dumb people who have children. Quite ironic, considering that r/K selection theory is about quantity and quality offspring, whereas “K” is about having one or two children with delicate care, and “r” is about promiscuity, having many children, and giving zero parenting. De Giraud wants the elimination of K from this selection theory, where only the stupid r-multipliers can have many infested children under a selected and non-reproductive managerial state. It’s euthanasia, but instead, the antinatalist enjoys life till the bitter end, realizing that he can only benefit society by sterilizing himself from influence. This, however, does not guarantee that the r-masses will increase their intelligence or become K out of emulating ethics. The hypocrisy for De Giraud means that he must tell the r-multipliers to stop reproducing, which is impossible, considering that he “loves children” that isn’t his. If children are produced without a “patriarchy,” that means no fathers are in the household, and thus society becomes primitive and animalistic.
Even more ironic, is that the antinatalist cannot confront African society, because Africans have children for the sake of it (even without a nuclear family) against the K-values of European societies (including France). If De Giraud said "having children is wrong" to a black man, he would be dubbed as a "racist." If Africa is wrong, that means the antinatalist has to colonize and invade the continent to control their population and then successfully influence their culture with degrowth values as morally right. We are reminded of Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” and Rudyard Kipling’s “The White Man's Burden” as Aesop fables for the failure of white colonization.
Punk rocker GG Allin once said on The Jerry Springer Show in 1993 that he hates everyone because “it lives inside of him,” loving the idea that he is the devil, and that hate should be accepted in return for his actions. A black woman yelled at him, and he said back, “I love you!” This cliche of “avant-garde hate” among Generation X is the self-guilt politics found within liberalism, and thus an atheist extension of the European Christian condition. Someone who is abused by the 1960s white bourgeois America retaliates back as an adult figurehead of that abuse, thus becoming relatable to those who were also abused in similar conditions. Many fans of GG Allin insist he is not racist because he hates everyone “equally.” Even his 1988 song, “No Room For Niggers,” is supposedly an “anti-racist” song, and thought of as “satire.” But this is a wild excuse to justify the emotion of hate or being “oppressed.” Black people get special treatment because they don’t apply the social injustice that the white speaker feels guilty about. And just like antinatalists who wouldn’t dare talk about black overpopulation, their philosophy does not apply to non-white people.
Antinatalism benefits white nationalism because degrowth would stop “race mixing.” If all white people become non-reproductive, that means those who are mixed and half-white would follow suit, and believe in a paradoxical premise, “I don’t want to have children because there is something wrong with me.” Half-Asian people feel like they don’t belong because an entire media is telling them they are “school shooters” like Elliot Rodger, or that whites or Asians don’t want them. So by adopting antinatalism, the Eurasian start to hate himself while believing it has something to do with ethics or virtue. Racial nationalism benefits because the mixed people erase themselves out of genetic competition. As the saying goes, “The future belongs to those who show up.” Antinatalism cleans out those with dysgenics by gaslighting them that it’s better not to have an identity or an institution representing them.
Chris Korda, electronic musician and creator of “The Church of Euthanasia,” was one of the first punk voices to endear antinatalism as an art movement and identity politics, even before the word “antinatalism” was coined by De Giraud. I reached out to Korda in 2016 for a podcast interview on The Stark Truth show with Robert Stark.
This was his first reply,
“It looks mildly interesting but I'm not keen on conspiracy theories or mysticism. If you're serious about interviewing me I suggest you familiarize yourself with the following sources:
1) Antihumanism http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/antihumanism.html
This is effectively the Church of Euthanasia's manifesto.
2) Metadelusion
http://metadelusion.blogspot.com/
Metadelusion enshrines a debate with noted conceptual artist Lydia Eccles over the specialness of scientific knowledge. It makes more sense if you read it backwards starting from the earliest post.
I'm currently preoccupied with a family crisis, but I will get back to you when I have more time.
Regards,
Chris”
11-24-2016
When I asked if he knew about Jim Goad, I received an astonishing answer,
“Of course I know the Goads but I have nothing to do with any of that. Again I suggest you read Metadelusion and Antihumanism carefully because it reflects my current thinking much more than the CoE output back in the day. I am probably much too square to be on your show. My primary interests are computer science (esp AI), music theory, and the long term survival of civilization.
11-26-2016
When asked about his associations with white nationalism (and now that he writes for Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents), he dumbfoundedly wrote this back,
“The alt-right is atrocious and the fact that you're giving those morons oxygen is more than enough to dissuade me from appearing on your show.”
11-26-2016
And trying to persuade him to still come on, he wrote,
“Climate change of course. But it's a waste of time in this case, and I have other matter to attend to.”
11-26-2016
And finally, like a passive liberal, he wrote,
“Please don't contact me again.”
11-26-2016
It’s quite odd that Chris Korda is friendly with Jim Goad, another avant-garde hate artist who uses the medium of white nationalism to offend liberals. And Goad is surprisingly backed up by Margret Cho, Jack Donovan, Adam Parfrey, Nick Bougas, Peter Sotos, Chuck Palahniuk, Doug Stanhope, Lydia Lunch, and the Gen-X list of liberal-leaning punk rockers goes on. Even more peculiar is his subtle insistence that transhumanism is superior and is better for humanity because it can turn people into customizable individuals. The concern of “climate change” brings up another anti-human and antinatalist philosopher; Timothy Morton.
“Object Oriented-Ontology” is the belief that nonhuman objects have the rights that sentinel beings do, and we should focus on how “objects” have existing power. But in Morton’s variation of the philosophy, he believes in “dark ecology,” where if “deep ecology” respects every single life on planet Earth, dark ecology must also accept the existence of the non-humankind, and thus the chair or the computer is just as worthy of value as an animal. Morton wants to displace anthropocentrism, or human-centric ideology, and replace it with nonhumanity. This will come at the cost of accelerating the technological singularity, Malthusian social control, degrowth, eating synthetic food instead of meat, self-guilt politics, and the same mumbo jumbo of “anti-white” hatred against European people.
To care about “climate change” is also another projected theory of the Gaia hypothesis, where all living things synthesize with the nonliving, and harmony is reached between the two as an egalitarian whole. Right there, this is projected social justice for non-humankind and the advancement of liberal individualism of everything till everyone gets the same treatment. As the ancient Greek tale of Procrustes goes, by stretching the arms or cutting off the legs, every victim can fit on the iron bed. This is radical equity or antinatalism, and it kills everyone in the process.
Another issue with antinatalists is that they assume ethics is about maximizing the good rather than virtue. David Benatar argues that all existence is harmful because the logic of ethics would follow that only good can come from nonexistence. The fallacy written here is the same as Peter Singer, a “moral philosopher” of “applied ethics” who constantly defends the right of bestiality, simply because the rhetoric of ethics allows it. Benatar is associated with Singer by being on the editorial board of Singer’s so-called “Journal of Controversial Ideas,” which only allows arguments framed in the liberal perspective and what can be allowed through its non-virtue logic.
Like the card game “Cards Against Humanity,” the game is not offensive whatsoever, because it is only offensive to liberal ethics and culture, as a non-liberal wouldn’t find any of the subjects in the game offensive at all. “Controversial” is neither about offense nor transgression, as “controversy” just means “popular disagreement.” Benatar can only justify antinatalism because logic allows it, and such a theory can be supported by an elite that wants to depopulate people they don’t need anymore, thereby brainwashing them that they shouldn’t have families.
Antinatalists try and weasel their suicidal message out by proclaiming that non-procreation is similar to Buddhism, in that “all life is suffering.” Because antinatalism was conceived in 2006, it is not possible to create a canon of history proclaiming the past was in favor of the biased politics of Théophile de Giraud, Chris Korda, Timothy Morton, or David Benatar. Fingers point to Arthur Schopenhauer, who fused Buddhist influences against German idealism. Further misrepresentation of eclectic blip sources come anywhere from Seneca, Gustave Flaubert, Heinrich Heine, Jack Kerouac, and Emil Cioran. Cioran often gets highlighted as “the antinatalist guy” because of his pessimism and conundrum of logic. Anyone who talks or celebrates nonexistence (or even legacy) gets dubbed as an “antinatalist” to push a peculiar agenda of degrowth.
Even more absurd is the notion of “non-penetrative procreation.” Some religious sects (like Shakers) and political groups (The Antisexual Stronghold and George Yury Right) believe that sex is immoral, and compromise ways of procreation without the act of penetration. Penetration is like stabbing someone, and this is a reason why an antinatalist would find procreation evil, as it legitimizes pain in the act. Although antinatalists never elaborated on their sexuality, it is almost impossible in sex to ejaculate without penetration, and thus antinatalists must all get a vasectomy if they are to enjoy sex without procreation. It is another fallacy that the antinatalist tries to have power over his sexual drive, and yet fails miserably when his biological urges tell him to do the action, all while shooting in the wrong direction.
The antisexual in this scenario feels righteous over the antinatalist because the antisexual wants to procreate without sex, while the antinatalist can love sex all while contradicting the consequences of it; like having a cake and eating it too. Hedonism is advocated by the liberal individual democratic capitalist state because everyone has free will to contradict and vote for the same consumer goods. More free will equate to less duty, and that means there is no responsibility for child rearing or anything above the individual. Jacques Lacan pointed this error out in his essay, “Kant with Sade,” comparing the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant with the hedonistic free will of Marquis de Sade. Lacan writes, “If, after having seen that the one accords with the other, we show that it… gives the truth of the Critique.”2 Liberalism assures rule-based hedonism based upon “consent.”
What is “consent” then, if one consents to be killed? Going back to euthanasia, someone consents to their death and demands it. Antinatalists talk about how unfair it is to be born because no one ever consented to be born! Ethics maximizes the good by not having kids, but if somebody ever kills someone to accelerate that human extinction and to help out antinatalism, they call that evil. Antinatalists always fear their liberal consequences and never want to take responsibility for their actions. “Consent” is the axiom that needs to be debunked, as liberalism will fall with it. White nationalists are not guilty of being white, but antinatalists are guilty of existing!
Thomas Ligotti, another post-Lovecraft horror writer of a bygone pulp error of the 1980s, succumbs to the same antinatalist jargon found in his only known work, “The Conspiracy Against the Human Race.” Here, he creates a goofy manifesto of dark pessimism, where the attitude of hating oneself is supposedly the horror aspect, and what makes the work “offensive” and “transgressive” is the urge to believe in negative nonexistence for the sake of it. It’s no longer about a horror story, as now the text speaks to the reader because it is downright philosophical irrationalism. None other than the suicidal and dead Mark Fisher advocated the text. This is the same author of “Capitalist Realism,” who gave up on Trotskyism and assumed Marxists must embrace living under the American empire. Ligotti gives up on storytelling because adults no longer want to read hypothetical situations with characters, script, and plot, and writing a direct statement of “theory fiction” moves people.
Another so-called “philosopher,” Eugene Thacker, has written multiple fanfiction accounts of his bastard interpretation of Cioran, all while being pushed by Ligotti. Supposedly there is the “horror of philosophy,” where simply pursuing wisdom and virtue is considered scary! All roads lead to suicide, depression, hopelessness, and the ultimate fallacy that tries to justify the subculture and act of thinking negatively all the time.
Why does this Thacker think like this? Because he comes from the pretentious English-to-American subculture of power electronic shock jocks birthed by Whitehouse. Like Sasha Grey naming herself after Sascha Konietzko from KMFDM and doing porn to jumpstart her music career, Thacker had several noise releases from 1997 to 1998, even doing a split with Merzbow. He wrote the same pseudo-sadist commentary inspired by Philip Best to bolster his obnoxious and transgressive noise music without context. And when the noise scene was dying out in New Brunswick, Thacker did what all economically bored people do; he doubled down and got a liberal arts Ph.D. at nearby Rutgers. Now with better writing skills and some sense of rhetoric, he bolstered the same fashion statements and pretentious nonsense of being transgressive with academic language. By living in New York City and with some tattoos here and there, he can live his dream of being a paid agent for the Malthusian elite. Thacker becomes a gatekeeper for edgy power electronics literature, the same as Dominick Fernow becomes a gatekeeper for power electronics music in America.
Even more crazy is the white boomer liberal connections with these agents of compromised transgression. The mother of Dominick Fernow is Jean Feraca, a poet and National Public Radio reporter, and the father of Wesley Eisold (Cold Cave and American Nightmare) is John Francis Eisold, a rear admiral in the United States Navy (who has also been featured on C-SPAN). Two prestigious parents working for a homogeneous white America, and their children become the supposed opposition to them, dancing around and advocating “power electronics” as psychological operations for liberalism. Their connections to other musicians and artists are eye-opening. Like a Mark Lombardi rhizome, the conspiracy is not against the human race, but the conspiracy is a Malthusian one bent on the destruction of everything.
We have to recite the work of György Lukács, and his 1952 study, “The Destruction of Reason.” Lukács realized that the attack on German philosophy (or in general) was motivated by irrationalism, in that spiritualism or supernatural belief, not logic, was seen as more important than what was rational. Arthur Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and even types like Ayn Rand are all guilty of espousing a mystical, occultist, “supernatural,” and “objectivist” view of the world that eventually advocates the arrogant individual self, and thus making liberalism acceptable. Lukács, a Marxist, saw Americanism as hostile towards human production and everyday people. We realize that antinatalism takes that same path at the turn of the 21st century, and cites Arthur Schopenhauer as a justification for its self-destructive actions. Antinatalism is irrational and against the need for virtuous socialism. White nationalism uses antinatalism to uphold a Darwinian ideology of the strong against the weak. This is why America is trying to co-opt the ideology of “socialism” and make it rely on liberalism and capitalism. The subversion can only mean population control. Who is “white” would ultimately mean who is liberal.
Antinatalism is an excuse for self-guilt. It’s motivated by liberalism, and the antinatalist feels like he is either too good and humble for everyone, or that he dons a fake punk rock imagery of trying to be the most offensive and “authentic” person in the room. All of it is rooted in philosophical irrationalism, and the loopback breaks.
Imagine if we have transhumanism and we live forever. At that point, would we cease to exist? Or would it be impossible to die? Then would we only go out if the universe dies? Antinatalists believe they are protesting or “walking away” from their supposed evil nature. But nature moves on. Antinatalists are losers. They never want to try. That’s perfect for the winners in power. Those in power have to tell the losers to remain where they are. Instead of committing genocide, let it happen through their gullibility.
It’s not enough to just kill yourself. Having no influence is nonexistence. Existence supersedes nonexistence when legacy and influence live forever. The ghost of Karl Marx will always haunt us, even though he is dead. He existed, and he influenced the world. His current nonexistence relies on his existence. Nonexistence doesn’t have a ghost.
What we do now will live forever after we die.
Are you ready to live as a ghost? Or will you cry about how influence and legacy are evil?
Liberalism is the true death sentence.
-pe
12-26-2023
Detaille, Stéphane (2008-09-11). "Théophile de Giraud - Le Soir". Le Soir (http://archives.lesoir.be/theophile-de-giraud_t-20080911-00HW5R.html)
https://www.lacan.com/kantsade.htm
Anti-natalism is also racist and highlights the white supremacy that has been endemic within the western left.