Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Down Under


A change of pace for this entry. I've just returned from a month's trip to Australia and would most heartily recommend it to anyone. If you want to forget your woes (for a time, anyhow) and wish to live a simpler, less complicated life a hot and sunny climate is to be recommended. As a European, I found the newness and freshness of the country took a little getting used to, but I soon settled into its refreshing lightness and thoroughly relished the lack of the miserable history that weighs down the Northern Hemisphere (not forgetting the havoc wrought on the Aborgines, of course).

In fact, as the trip went on I came to realise just how much Greek thinkers such as Diogenes, the Cynics and the Epicureans were fundamentally correct about the wisdom of a no-nonsense, light baggage, simple life. Some of us may regret having been born, but if you're going to live, then that's the way to do it. After all, so much of our so-called 'culture' is essentially the expression of misery by people who can't find a way of life which may render the need for such expression superflous. So there you go: sun, heat, beuatiful scenery and friendly people. Australia has the lot.

212 comments:

  1. "Some of us may regret having been born, but if you're going to live, then that's the way to do it. After all, so much of our so-called 'culture' is essentially the expression of misery by people who can't find a way of life which may render the need for such expression superflous."

    True.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want to become suicidal...Save up all your bread and fly Trans Shit airlines to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA. It will be worth it! If not for the sake of this post, but for your own piece of mind. (Apologies to Eric Burdon) :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I intend to finally kill myself, I do want to fly away from the horrible Canadian climate and land somewhere for a couple of days/a week/a month and just enjoy myself and the simplicity, unburdened by absolutely anything. And fuck responsibilities, fuck debt, fuck money, fuck work, fuck relationships. Nothing really matters anyway. Now I am enjoying myself and will shortly go into the deep water and never come out. Yay!

      Delete
    2. You are absolutely right, DIMA SOKOL, but what only exacerbates the tragedy is that I don't even have the money to escape the glossy and suffocatingly expensive prison of Toronto, Canada.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, I happen to be in the same prison :)

      Delete
  3. I wish I could go somewhere for a month! Australia does sound really damn nice!

    I always wanted a simpler life and I managed to simplify it somewhat by shedding burdensome elements (annoying friends,preoccupation with achievement,carrot chase of materialism,etc) but I still can't get rid of the main two elements: work and suffering. I fucking hate work and I suffer greatly for it. Not to mention my other health issues.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Karl, what about those pesky spiders in Australia?

    Just kidding. Not good to know you are back (since you enjoyed Aussie land so much I rather you´d just stay there forever then) but good to know you´ll be around, keeping us company in the dark.

    Cheers bud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Shadow. Let me just clarify that my antinatalist beliefs didn't waver for a second on holiday! In fact, I had many moments of pure despair, but I guess the thrust of my piece is about optimising one's life situation and trying to make the best of a bad lot. I think a simpler life is generally the way to go.

      Delete
    2. Don´t worry, Karl, I wasn´t being condescending. I was just pointing out that if you ever find some place which diminishes your discomfort in life, I can only congratulate you. We are all looking for more comfort, that´s all.

      But I know that you haven´t abandoned the AN philosophy, I guess that´s not one of the things you can easily let go of.

      =)

      Delete
    3. Karl, I think the problem is that even if my antinatalist beliefs ever wavered in any way over the remainder of my life (however long/short of a time I have left), that really wouldn't change the fact that they're a correct interpretation of reality.

      Philip K Dick's quote comes to mind:
      “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

      So even if I stop being an antinatalist (only if I get Alzheimer or regress mentally or turn into a vegetable), that wouldn't change the fact that we're more correct than new atheism, religion, new age thinkers, etc.

      That's why I think its so hard for people who realized how the world is to truly take a mental vacation from that knowledge..

      Delete
    4. 'After such knowledge, what forgiveness?' - T.S. Eliot

      Delete
  5. Where are the travel pictures? Just kidding... although I'd be interested...

    After all, I fear, that well-being during journeys bogs down to the "the grass is always greener on the other side" - phenomenon. At least that's how I have returned from my travels all too often - thinking of, for example, Scotland (yeah, no sun and heat there) etc. to be 'the' places to stay, yet ignoring the triteness of - not only - my friends' daily lives there, which I have perceived as well.

    Maybe all it takes for this temporary and fragile contentedness is a "nomadic" state of mind.
    I am thinking here about the misery that settledness has brought upon the people of Greenland (http://books.google.de/books?id=EalnZaeiVmAC&lpg=PA98&ots=b4gyp0F2FW&dq=G60%20policy%20greenland%20suicide&hl=de&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=G60%20policy%20greenland%20suicide&f=false)

    My wild train of thought, forgive me for I am drunk right now.

    Cheers!

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Gree with Martin. Just any place away from work, family, acquaintances and -- and CROWDS -- will be fine. The farther away, the better! =)

      Delete
    2. Hi, Martin. I refer you to my reply to Shadow above. Fear not, I am well aware of the greener grass phenomenon, and am also perfectly cognisant of the fact that being on holiday somewhere is infinitely different to having to work and toil in that place. However, I'm one of those who relishes extreme heat and sun and Oz certainly ticked that box. (Scotland's barren desolation is also appealing, however.)

      Srikant, right on, buddy.

      Delete
    3. Living in a tropical place, I sometimes fantasize of living somewhere where there are winters - like Canada. But anyway. Just wanted to share with you guys.

      Cheers!!!

      Delete
  6. Wow, sounds like about as good a place as you could find on this miserable planet. Wish I lived there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Karl, I think you're right on about the virtues of the "simpler life." It's funny, but all around a certain point in history (~5th B.C.E - ~3th B.C.E.) people all over the world (Cynics, Stoics, Buddhists, Daoists) seemed to have been saying the exact same thing: let's get rid of all this shit and live simpler lives. What is disheartening is that, when you look at the Cynics, for example, they were always viewed as mad! I know in college they sure as hell weren't offering classes on the simple life of the Cynics. Guess "simplicity" isn't esoteric or interesting enough to be taught in schools?

    I guess one of the problems with our extremely materialistic modern society is that we are SURROUNDED by shit on all sides. The Cynics didn't have to deal with TV, radio, i-this and i-that, automobiles, airplanes, and what have you. I mean, the Prince Gautama had it lucky - he could just go into some damn forest and do his meditating there!

    I wonder if the challenge of life is just one long process of simplification. I feel like over the years I've slowly been throwing out one stupid thing after another, both literally and figuratively, but especially figuratively . . . one by one getting rid of all the shit that has been drilled into me from the time I was dragged here.

    Sigh, now I'm not sure if this has anything to do with your post. My bad man. Glad you had a good time in Australia. Hope you got to see a Koala bear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sound words, E.M. As you intimate, simplicity will never receive official endorsement as so many people's lives and egos are bound up with unnecessarily complicating life for others.

      And yes, there is so much shit being hurled at us left, right and centre. I think eliminating TV is certainly a good place to start. Switch to radio if you need background noise, and generally good radio is more intelligent and thought-provoking than the best tv.

      In Australia I studiously avoided all media outlets, as I do anyway. Remember, the media is designed to create fear and anxiety so it's best avoided.

      Keep it simple!

      Delete
  8. "Prince Gautama had it lucky - he could just go into some damn forest and do his meditating there!" Prince Gautama dulled his sense on the excesses of his pleasure palace before setting out to become the Buddha and shrug off the lusts, needs, and passions of the flesh. Perhaps we're are all going through this migration of values together?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I feel most comfortable when playing video games, especially shooters or role playing games. But a simple life sounds good: only me, nature and a computer for gaming.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, janus. Nice to see you around! Berman is entertaining; I like his down-to-earth, non-pretentious style.

      Thanks also for the nice words re the trip:-) All I can say is that after a week back in sedentary, depressed, shut-in Europe I stand over every word I wrote!

      Delete
    2. Could you please hint where to find the comment and more about Berman on the dissidence (?) blog

      M.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact you feel so deeply about what big business is doing to the environment proves not all humans are a disease. The disease is ideological, and what you're doing, talking about it and getting the word out, is the cure. Keep it up. But less aspersions! The following will merely throw someone's defenses up and they'll stop reading: "Humans are a disease, a blight that will never evolve beyond greed and joyful destruction of anything that has true value and beauty."

      We're all politicians now I guess, but at our core dumb beasts. We all respond better to love and acceptance, even the grotesque ones. Not giving your opponent any recourse with words or behavior, opportunities for evasion into rage, is the trick.

      Delete
    2. Rant away, Janus. You're more than welcome. Very sad to hear this is also in Oz. I guess the strength of the latter is that it has relatively few people given its vast space. I was told by someone in the Environmental Studies industry that if the shit really hits the fan, Australia and Ireland would be too of the best places to be in terms of space/people ratio. Thank god I have a passport for the latter!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Karl, I'm roughly half-Irish, and I checked into getting citizenship through my grandmother. Unfortunately, she made the mistake of being born in Massachusetts a few months after her parents entered the US. I'm going to start researching how to legally reside over there! I have kept putting off a visit to Ireland because I wanted plenty of time to stay. Well, now's the time.

      Delete
    5. janus, get there while you can. Ireland's current economic ruination is due to it attempting to abandon its native ways and mimic the rest of the world. Hopefully, the people will have learned, although I fear not. Its population is also only increasing very slightly, which is surely the best thing that can be said about anywhere!

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Ann. I also saw your comments, and I agree that Berman can be frustrating. He has no real positive and slinging mud is easy. I sometimes (unfairly) think Chomsky falls into the same trap. At least Antinatalists can advocate non-existence as their ideal!

      Delete
    2. Should read 'positive alternative' above.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry I erased it... I was so sleep-deprived I feared I was just ranting.

      Delete
  15. I wonder how antinatalists feel being published on the same press that published a man who admits to jerking off to the thought of raping children and a man who says the so-called gas chambers were just for delousing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, how do you feel about sharing the same planet as actual child rapists and real Neo-Nazis? Respectable and well-known publishing houses such as Penguin publish Mein Kampf and the Marquis de Sade. Are those firms to be boycotted because of that? Freedom of thought and expression etc etc.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous, how do you feel about sharing the same planet as actual child rapists and real Neo-Nazis?"

      Well you know as well as I do that sharing a planet with child rapist and neo-nazis was something that was inflicted on me ;)

      Delete
  16. wonder how antinatalists feel being published on the same press that published a man who admits to jerking off to the thought of raping children and a man who says the so-called gas chambers were just for delousing.

    So just another shock-doctrine? More info.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/store/

      You can argue that this is all just about free speech, but the Nine-Banded Books twitter account regularly references and retweets racist icon Steve Sailer, so it might be wise to be a little suspicious.

      It's not like being lumped in with the racists and holocaust deniers isn't something a philosophy with hopes of universality should be a little wary of.

      Delete
    2. God, how trite. Punk philosophy, holocaust denial, and books by pedophiles. wtf! All the obnoxiousness of organized religion without being told what to do, and still telling other people what to do. Great. This collection of demons ARE the SUFFERING in the world.

      Delete
    3. Just another attempt to dismiss the philosophy by resorting to trite accusations and ad hominem. Big yawn.

      Delete
    4. Steve Sailer is as much a racist as Obama is a Stalinist, i.e. in your histrionic imagination.

      Delete
    5. http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/forum/6-general-shit-talk/ Picture of average Steve Sailer fans.

      Delete
  17. isnt antinatalism itself an ad hominem attack against the whole species for the actions of those who seem to publish alongside some of this scenes biggest mouths?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really am just sick and tired of the people who can't be bothered to read Benatar's book and engage with the philosophy, but who instead having a false idea of what AN is about just start getting on their high horse and mouthing off. Just a complete cop-out.

      Let's have a look at this:

      1. One person with antinatalist convictions has a book published with a publishing firm.

      2. That firm publishes books by people whose opinions some people find offensive.

      3. Therefore, the first author, who has nothing to do with those opinions and who is writing on an altogether different subject is guilty of something or other by publishing association.

      Absolutely pathetic!

      Delete
    2. Karl, if you wrote a book on antinatalism and a leader of a small skinhead group praised it, would you put their blurb on the cover? Would you let them write the introduction to your book? Would you put their blog on your blogroll? If this skinhead ran a publishing company, would you go to them to get your book published?

      Delete
    3. But Chip Smith is not a skinhead, so why even ask the question?

      Delete
  18. Chip Smith here, of Nine-Banded Books. Thought I would chime in, for what it's worth, if only to clarify my aim as a publisher.

    Simply stated, I publish books that I think are interesting. I happen to have an abiding -- but not exclusive -- interest in intellectual taboos because I think the exploration of ostensibly dangerous ideas can be a great source of insight.

    I'm not sure what else to say. Peter Sotos is a great writer and I consider it an honor to be able to publish his work, just as it would have been an honor to publish Henry Miller or Jean Genet when it mattered. Sam Crowell's book, I believe, stands on its own merit as a thoughtful and closely reasoned treatment of historical controversy; at core, it is an argument for intellectual freedom.

    In any event, it is unequivocally fallacious -- as Karl has noted -- to judge Jim's book (which I think is a very good, very solid book) by the perceived sins of his publisher. Whatever you may think of me or Nine-Banded Books, his arguments can only be considered on their own terms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chip, level with me. Do you think antinatalism is universal, or do you think it only applies to well-bred whites like yourself? I'll bet you think those pesky wetbacks and chinks and niggers will just inherit the earth which they will then destroy, because they're far too animalistic to sustain a civilization that great white people like Steve Sailer and the Fuhrer worked so hard to build.

      Delete
    2. My previous comment was deleted. You won't let this heinous PC crime against free speech stand, will you Chip?

      Delete
    3. Thats a very sanctimonious way of saying you make money on snuff and kiddie porn.

      Delete
    4. Who said I was making money? And the idea that I trade in "snuff and kiddie porn" is plainly ludicrous. I publish books. Words on paper. You don't have to read them.

      Delete
    5. The selling point of Sotos seems to be his his sexual preference for children.

      howedgy I bet you sleep like a baby dont you.

      In 1985, Peter Sotos was arrested. He was charged with obscenity for publishing a magazine and was later convicted for possession of child pornography. After his trial, he kept a low profile. He worked for a meat distribution company and struggled to pay down his legal bills. He underwent mandatory counseling. Then, in the late 1980s, he began writing a manuscript that, once published, would signal the mature arrival of one of the most disquieting and original voices in English literature. That manuscript was called Tool.

      Delete
    6. Thanks for the plug, I guess. It would be better form to use quotation marks when lifting a descriptive passage from the flap of a book.

      I should take this opportunity to mention that my introduction to Tool might actually be of some interest to antinatalists (and I am nothing if not an antinatalist myself). Also, I'm writing an introduction to a new collection of the philosophical works of the great American pessimist, Edgar Saltus. That book will be published later this year by Underworld Amusements.

      I'd like to visit Australia, but I am terribly afraid of spiders and they have the scariest spiders in the world down there.

      I've never slept well, but not for the reasons you might suspect.

      Over and out.

      Delete
    7. Say hi to your local Klan leader for me!

      Delete
    8. You "should" take this opportunity to self-reflect, and consider trying to lead a life that doesn't profit from suffering on the the one hand, while also making money from people who claim human evil and suffering justifies our extinction on the other; which I imagine must have been a tough moral decision for your Anti-Natalist writer's to make in choosing you as a publisher, being how much their position is pinioned on moral outrage. Choose a side... or, rather consider changing sides and doing the world some good.

      I wonder what was so deplorable in the comments above that it was "censored" by Karl. I shudder to think.

      Delete
    9. I am an antinatalist and I do not believe the possession of child pornography should be a crime.

      But I do believe the production and purchasing of child pornography should be a crime.

      Possession = victimless crime. Plus is it used as a excuse for increasing government control of the Internet.

      Delete
    10. "Possession = victimless crime."

      Possession, leads to demand, leads to supply. If you own this material you have contributed to the atrocities in the material. Seek help, please.

      Delete
    11. Public Service Announcement:


      DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

      Delete
    12. Antinatalism is racist, sexist and homophobic.

      Delete
    13. I don't believe it necessarily is, but the people Chip and Sister Y hang out with might make you think otherwise.

      Delete
    14. Sister Y is a witch! BURN HURRRR!!!

      Delete
    15. Apparently it's witch hunting to point out that being tweeps with My Nationalist Pony is pretty off.

      Delete
    16. I heard Sister Y, Chip Smith and Hitler like to host LAN-parties where they swap terabytes of kiddie porn.

      Delete
    17. Right, I'm sorry I suggested an antinatalist comrade could be wrong about anything ever.

      Delete
  19. You either 'sign up to' freedom of speech or you don’t. And if antinatalist opinions get expressed in the Daily Mail, so much the better. (Especially if they’re expressed by Peter Hitchens!)

    The whole tainting by association ‘thing’ is puritanism. One ends up in a straitjacket for fear of being contaminated.

    Puritanism is a horrible, totalitarian tendency worse than Popes with Whores, and it has done the USA no good at all. Indeed it has done for the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We dont have freedom of speech. Julian Assange.

      We have people who need to prove who cool they are by reading pedo tracts and murder manuals. Lets have no standards whatsoever so pedophiles and drug traffickers dont feel left out. This definitely has the stink of big business ethics about it. How cool you must feel.

      Delete
    2. What's wrong with drug traffickers?

      Delete
    3. We're living in an age where people turn their nose up at anything but the strictest Organic standards, or won't use electronics which contain conflict minerals. Yet will happily do drugs recreationally; applaud their favorite pop-star for being a drug-wreck. The means of production lead to horrors that would have shamed the guards at Buchenwald. It's not about personal freedoms, it's about contributing to so much pain:

      http://www.alternet.org/shocking-stories-loss-motivate-mourners-mexicos-drug-war-victims-hold-us-responsible

      Delete
  20. What does it matter that Tommy likes to set cats on fire? We both sit at the uncool kids table, so it's perfectly fine for me to hang out with him! I don't set cats on fire, so it's obviously people will not suspect me when Mr. Whiskers goes missing. I have boundless faith in people's ability to not judge me by the company I keep!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Racist rapist, begone!

      Delete
  21. First up, I did not censor any comment. One of the Anonymouses used the word 'nigger' in a sarcastic manner and the comment went to the spam box automatically. I have now unspammed it.

    I am amazed at the lack of awareness of those here who would employ censorship while baselessly accusing others of Nazi-like sympathies and tendencies.

    Freedom of expression and freedom of action are totally different things. Some people here appear unable to distinguish between the two.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how would you feel if I were to express the love for my wife, the safety of home, the richness of my experiences, and the quality of my life by having a child?

      Delete
    2. Go for it! In the 20 months this blog has been around, I've only ever deleted one comment, and that's when someone was maliciously masquerading as someone else. I've never once censored, deleted or edited an expression of genuine opinion.

      Delete
    3. Public Service Announcement:


      DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

      Delete
    4. Apparently it's trolling to point out that Chip is a huge fan of brutally racist bloggers like Steve Sailer and Moldbug.

      Delete
  22. Ha ha ha ha ha! I'm one of Chip's Nazi/antinatalist authors, and I would sign my soul to a legal document stating that to the best of my knowledge, experience, and math skills Chip takes, if anything, a loss on publishing. Sorry, you'll have to come up with a better ad hominem than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he just has a boner for controversy.

      Delete
    2. Boners are misogynist.

      Delete
    3. You have to be joking. Just because somebody is making a loss selling 'literature' by pedophiles, seemingly for this fact alone, it somehow makes it okay? So Thalidomide would have been ok, as long as Gruenenthal didn't make any money on it? Wake up to yourself, and get some new material, deflecting every argument with this 'adhominem' parroting is just a way of not addressing the issue, people are accountable for their actions sorry, were not children. An ideology isn't a shield, certainly not when your alleged compassion, the backbone of your whole philosophy, turns out to be so much bullshit.

      Delete
    4. Yes, and some of us believe in free speech, which you don't. You're the one happy to censor others if they don't align with your worldview. And your points are indeed all ad hominem. Why not try to make a coherent argument as to why someone who has served jailtime has no right to publish his or her opinions? Do you have an actual argument, or is it just more holier-than-thou posturing?

      Delete
    5. Pot, kettle, black? This whole website is a summary judgment against the species for humans just like Peter Sotos. (Or, just the people at the local Pret-A-Pret who annoy you). Yet, you don't consider people profiteering on a convicted Pedophile to foster a romantic self-image of themselves as literary-outlaws, and their brand as controversial in the vein of "Henry Miller or Jean Genet" etc. You're saying you don't find this in any way wrong, because censorship is wrong. But the guy can blog, he can self-publish, it's freely available to anyone with an internet connection, or access to a public library, and I'm free not to read his blog or his books in either case. What I'm saying I'm repulsed by the publisher leaning on this guys criminal past to foster an image for their brand in order to sell controversy; and the fact that Anti-Natalists, the so-called compassionate philosophers suggesting we end life in order to end suffering, don't have a problem being stable-mates with him... to what end being they make "a loss"? is there no other publisher that will publish their books? Is it merely to profit on this image of controversy too?

      This isn't about being holier than thou it's about having standards on what we promote, and what we attach ourselves too. Especially if we're making judgements against the ENTIRE species for the acts being celebrated by Nine-Banded books.

      Delete
    6. So it's not Free Speech you're against? It's the publishers choice of material? These are totally seperate things. Are you saying that in your ideal world Sotos would not be allowed any kind of expression anywhere? You really need to clarify what you're for and against.

      Delete
    7. I'm against the fact, that I feel he is only being sold by NBB becuase of his pedophilia, in order to foster an image as a purveyor of dangerous ideas. The guy has every right to say what he wants and I have every right to not read his work, but this is like big-record companies selling street-crime and misogyny just to sell records - it doesn't seem ethical.
      And, I question the very few authors on that site who have chosen to publish alongside him because it takes a very rational debate - that over overpopulation, unwanted children, thehorror we do to each other - and aligns it with, and markets it as, cheap controversy.

      Delete
    8. See my Bible question below.

      Delete
    9. Or, just address the issue and leave the strawmen out of the argument.

      Delete
    10. I've set out position perfectly clearly. It's the censors and hypocrites who have the case to make.

      Delete
    11. Strawmen are misandrist.

      Delete
    12. I'm out of the pool, but I want to be very clear in correcting one assertion. Peter Sotos is NOT a "convicted pedophile."

      Delete
    13. So we're both losing money and profiteering, both being discredited and enjoying a publicity boost, from a vague association with Sotos? Kiddie porn must be magic. Or else you're trolling just to troll.

      Delete
    14. I think the argument is is IF you are publishing with Nine-Banded Books THEN it is to make a profit from the image of subversion and dangerousness they are selling. And IF your profiting either by association, or financially (whether you claim to or not it is the intent of publishing), from books which include Holocaust denial, Suicide manuals, and strange fiction by a peadophile, and it is ostensibly adding to the total suffering on the planet and not subtracting from it, THEN it dismantles the pulpit of moral superiority you have placed yourself upon as an Antinatalist, in that you believe it is morally superior to not breed in order to not add to the suffering in the world. Your choice not to breed could be made for you by infertility, whereas your actions to actually not harm are a choice more consistent with the overall philosophy.

      Delete
    15. The first IF is entirely speculative and amounts to an attempt at character subversion. People publish where they can get published.

      Secondly, Peter Sotos is NOT a convicted paedophile. That is simply slander.

      Thirdly, guilt by association is nonsense.

      Penguin publishes the Marquis de Sade, a man actually convicted of sexual abuse crimes. Are all of the authors who publish with Penguin therefore guilty by association? Are those who read De Sade's fiction guilty of something? Of course not!

      Again, all of this is yet another attempt to slander antinatalists and antinatalism by those who feel threatened by the philosophy and also, by and large, by those who haven't read Benatar's book.

      Delete
    16. "People publish where they can get published." At any cost too, huh? By everyones accounts NBB is a vanity press that "makes a loss". Chip's own self-image of himself is as the publisher of "Henry Miller or Jean Genet". If money is not a motivator, and with the ease of blogging and self-publication, the only motivation for publishing for, or with NBB would be as a kind of nostalgic pose for pre-internet days, to foster an affinity with their image and authors, and to be included in the scene they're selling (Suicide manuals, Holocaust Denial etc.).

      "Convicted Pedophile" is splitting hairs. The ad copy for his book states he was "charged for obscenity", and for "possession of child pornography". It was wrong to assume he would be convicted of this, he must have been able to afford a good attorney to avoid sentence.

      You point out that I haven't read Benatar as if it cancels out my observations about this one very specific issue. Why? Does Benatar present a good argument for profiting on suffering while at the same time using it as an excuse to judge pregnant women as moral criminals, and sentence the species to death?

      I haven't read Dawkins either. Does that diminish my ability to enter a debate on the existence of an imaginary friend in the sky? Belittling my argument because I haven't read a book is a strange move. Are only upper-class intellectuals who have read the books you read and share your opinion allowed to comment on a perceived case of celebrating suffering and harm?

      But, I have read Cioran, Shoppenhauer, and Nietzche. The idea of Anti-Natalism is also a component of Buddhism, Christian Orthodoxy, Classical Philosophy, and Les Knight's Voluntary Human Extinction Movement more recently. I've also read numerous books on modern politics, economics and warfare, Danner, Junger, McCracken, Chomsky, Filkins etc. etc. Which laterally paint a very dark portrait of humanity. A new book on the subject would only confirm opinions one way or another at this stage, and denying someones opinion as valid because they haven't read a book seems a merely condescending form of censorship. Are only upper-class intellectuals are allowed an opinion then? Are only people who have read the Bible allowed argue against the behaviors of the Fed Phelps church, or Catholic sex scandals, the inquisition, the crusades etc.? But I digress this argument is about SOME Antinatalists who have chosen to publish with NBB, not Antinatalism.

      I've read Aldous Huxley too, and though more of a pop-philosopher of his own time, the following seems a somewhat appropriate conclusion to this nonsensical debate. Ask yourself why some crimes are worth ending the species over, and pointing the finger of moral judgement, and others, seemingly, are just a friend doing business. Goodbye.

      "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do… For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” A. Huxley

      Delete
    17. Right, so previously you indicted NBB for profiteering, but now it's being indicted for something else, ie your subjective interpretation of what they're doing.

      To say 'convicted paedophile is splitting hairs' is so preposterous as to be beyond belief. I'm glad you''re not a judge. If you wish to keep slandering someone when you know your accusations are outrightly false then that's your business, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

      And this 'upper-class intellectuals' nonsense. Just more ad hominem to avoid the argument. I don't know any 'upper-class intellectuals' and I am certainly not one myself.

      And again, you avoid the de Sade question, which is key to seeing if you have any moral consistency, or whether this is just a specific AN target campaign.

      You don't like Antinatalism, fine. Have you a more positive, coherent version of the world and life to present that can be debated? Please do present it.

      Delete
    18. If it came out that the higher-ups at Penguin believed in sexual relations with minors being a-okay, I'd probably start boycotting their books. But apparently asking people to stop publishing in an "alt right" "race realist" "holocaust revisionist" company is just being silly.

      Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not the same anonymous you've been arguing with above so I put a number after anonymous.

      Delete
    19. You can't be convicted of "being" a pedophile (without acting on it) any more than you can be convicted of having murderous rage fantasies, thank christ. You can only be convicted of acting on those fantasies, which to the best of my knowledge Sotos has never done, outside the highly questionable grey area of acquiring kiddie porn. He was convicted for possession of child pornography, not for actual child interference. He hasn't caused suffering due to his problems, he's experienced it. A person like him is an excellent argument for antinatalism, in fact. I'm sure his parents had no intention of inflicting life on someone who was going to be haunted by such terrible fantasies, desires that could not be assuaged without committing a terrible act; but in their carelessness, they doomed him to it. As for pedophiles who become actual child molesters, their parents have doomed both them and their victims (who were doomed to the chance of having such awful things happen to them by their parents, in turn). You seem to be confusing the examination of suffering with the causation thereof. One of the main points of antinatalism is that you can never be certain what lies in store for any given child--Down's syndrome, pedophilia, kidnapping, alcoholism, cancer--so childbirth is necessarily rolling the dice for someone else without their having any say in the matter.

      Delete
    20. Further note: Benatar's book is hardly out of the price range of someone who could acquire the rest of the books you've listed. That's a cheap excuse, har har.

      Delete
    21. Parents, don't have kids because they might grow up to be a fringe libertarian brutally racist prick like Chip Smith.

      Delete
    22. Nonexistence is racisss!

      Delete
    23. Anonymous 2, are you accussing Chip Smith of approving sex with minors? If so, that's utterly slanderous.

      Delete
    24. I am not. Since you mentioned that Penguin books isn't judged for publishing books by De Sade, I tryed to show how it might change if it came out that the people at Penguin books fully supported all of De Sade's beliefs. I was not saying that Chip Smith is a pedophile. There is no proof that he is.

      Delete
    25. just that he holds an "abiding interest" in them

      Delete
    26. Again, for the millionth time, Peter Sotos is NOT a convicted paedophile. Do you think that by repeating the slander over and over, it'll suddenly become true?

      Delete
    27. http://i40.tinypic.com/1rydrt.jpg

      Quotes from bloggers on Chip Smith's blogroll "The Turner Diaries is the equivalent of giving a normal, healthy, man a gun and telling him to shoot his neighbors. Django Unchained and Machete are the equivalent of giving the gun to a deranged man, who is already enraged at his neighbors, and telling him to shoot them. Which scenario is more dangerous? It’s true that some readers of The Turner Diaries are already deranged, angry, individuals. But they represent a miniscule number of people when compared to the seething masses of hateful, vengeful, blacks and Mexicans. White violence against blacks and Mexicans is a rare aberration. Black and Mexican violence against whites is a way of life. The last thing we need is to encourage it even more."

      "In fact, anti-Semitism MacDonald style is probably the most courageous political belief anyone can hold in 2007 - at least if you live anywhere west of Gaza City. This does not make it right, but it certainly does not give anyone who believes in "diversity" and "the environment" any right to sneer. I admire conviction, I despise cant. Anti-Semitism was cant in Munich in 1936, or in 1886 for that matter. It is cant in Tehran today. In California in 2007, it can be nothing but conviction."

      "So therefor, I want to ask for help. I myself call myself an Ana veteran. I've been anorxic for 14 years now, and I know this is the way I want to live. I don't need a buddy for myself, but I can be one for a few, or some more, because I've been there. I've seen it all, done it all. I know the do's and don'ts, I know how hardvit can be."

      "Part of me wishes for a voter IQ test purely for the pleasure of watching the race-policing retard disenfranchise himself from the democracy he loves. In such an event, would he practise what he preached by taking a bleach bath?"

      Delete
    28. I could go on, but I think you'll appreciate that I was pretty viscerally disgusted looking through people Chip thinks are worth advertising, so I'd rather not. I'd urge you to click on a few links yourself and think if this is really a person and organization you think deserves to help carry the light of antinatalism to the masses.

      Delete
    29. "Do not breed. Nothing gives less pleasure than childbearing. Pregnancies are damaging to health, spoil the figure, wither the charms, and it's the cloud of uncertainty forever hanging over these.."

      -- Marquis de Sade (antinatalist!!!)

      Delete
    30. Yeah, and there are parts of 120 Days of Sodom where the libertines talk about how they hate their mothers from bringing them into a world with the possibility of pain.

      Delete
    31. "50 Shades of Sodom is my favorite antinatalist book."
      -- Adolf Hitler.

      Delete
    32. Watch as Karl focuses on refuting Sade being representative of antinatalist when he should be refuting Chip being representative of antinatalists.

      Delete
    33. Oooooooooooooh, Chip is so nauggggghty.

      Delete
    34. Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding

      Delete
  23. It's pretty clear why this is happening "Alt Right"(read: fascist) people like to pretend they have some sort of hidden truth that everyone is too blinded by Political Correctness to see.

    Antinatalist people are dedicated to searching for that exact sort of "hidden truth" and are way too small to self-police well so are attracted like moths to a candle flame.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Whoops, I should have listened to the PSA. Captain non sequitur has re-entered the building.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is somone who gets published with a firm responsible for what other books that firm publishes? Is it wrong for Christian authors to publish with Penguin because they publish Mein Kampf and the Marquis de Sade?

    The Bible contians all sorts of invocations to violence, it condemns all sorts of individuals and groups who don't toe the line with its morality. It celebrates the destruction of Israel's enemies at God's commands. This includes the slaugher of women and children. Jesus also had his prejudices. He disliked Gentiles and promised fire and brimstone to cities who refused his message. The Book of Revelations promises much worse.

    So, enemies of free speech, by your standards, should the Bible be banned? It is the best-selling book in the world and makes a fortune for a lot of people. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and am happy to publish them:-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Fred Phelps started up a publishing company and the Bible was one of the books it published, would you publish on it?

      Delete
    2. "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

      -- Adolf Hitler (antinatalist and Alt Right blogger)

      Delete
    3. I hope I speak for all sane antinatalists when I say.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MkRuV0aCcI

      Delete
    4. Yes, Adolf Hitler was an antinatalist, one of his projects being the breeding of a new master race who would need vast new territories in Russia to accomodate the enormous rise in population. Well done.

      Delete
    5. I think whoever said that AH himself was an antinatalist was kidding.

      Delete
    6. I dont think there has ever been any political figure that adopted antinatalism. Ending sentience and all civilization goes against the whole idea of politics which is all for pro-natalism behaviour, more cannon fodder victims, more "progress", debt, more, more, more life.

      Its very sad.

      Delete
  26. I'm tickled by the string of quotations -- none of which was familiar to me -- attributed to my Kevin Bacon linked associates. It reads like an art project, really; and the truth is, I'd relish the opportunity to chat over drinks (water, in the case of the pro-ana girl) with any one of the sources. I believe in few things, but I do like the quaint idea that everyone deserves a hearing.

    At least some of the the "anons" here are, in my genuinely humble opinion, being silly. But not everything being said is silly. So. If You -- any one of you -- would like to know what I actually think about a given subject (as if it mattered!), drop me a note and we'll chat. Same goes it you are inclined to question -- or politely interrogate -- me about my motives as a microscopic indie publisher. I'll talk with you as if we were supping over wine and tapas at a trendy neighborhood bistro. My emails (through 9BB or THH) are public, and your confidence is assured.

    Best, ~Chip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right everyone deserves a fair hearing. And then when you hear them say horrible things, you say "fuck off" and move on. You do not wine, dine, and give them a blowjob.

      And oh yeah, Kevin Bacon linking. You are fucking lucky I didn't go beyond one degree because then you can start finding the really awful shit without searching hard.

      And good job making it look like you're being generous while refusing to air your opinions in the open. But then, you've attempted to gracefully exit from this conversation like, nine times and it still hasn't taken.

      Delete
    2. Well then, I would say I've had a change of heart -- that I'm taking the conversation seriously enough to make it personal. Write to me and we can parse it out. We can even talk over the phone, if you're inclined. I'll make time, and maybe we can learn something in the process. I'm not convinced that I'm right about anything; I'm only sure that I am sincere -- and I frankly suspect you are as well.

      The degrees of separation thing, to me, means only that you (plural?) and I are working from markedly divergent premises. That seems like a good point from which to launch a real conversation. We're all human beings here, yes?

      chipsmith AT ninenandedbooks.com

      I publish books that, believe it or not, I believe in.

      Best, ~Chip

      Delete
    3. Yeah, the Anonymous (this one) that finds the whole carnival barker for atrocity, on the one hand while publishing folks who claim to have adopted a position of moral certitude and superiority that the human race must be extinguished for crimes from column A. out of compassion on the other hand - has fatigued.I wasn't taking a shot a Peter Sotos for -being- a pedophile (that's a pretty awful psychological disorder to be burdened with - however the fact he was contributing to the creation of materials by buying and creating them -is- worth judging him for - and if your publishing there has to be some kind of duty of care that he is keeping to some kind of program of betterment?) I was outraged, and still am, that it appears your brand just exists to to push a kind of filth and cruelty show, but also has a few Anti-Natalists ( folks judging the whole species as worthy of death, calling pregnant women moral criminals, and parenting a child an immoral act) publishing through you. It seems morally inconsistent. And, the association, of the later with the former merely ends up reducing a proper dialog on over-population, and care of the young, and maybe even questions of moral standards in society - to a kind of adolescent shock posturing: holocaust denial, suicide manuals, etc. etc. And by and large is the kind of thing that has lead to Efil/Evilism - further turning the conversation into a kind of Dawkin's style New-Atheism brand of Religion as reason to rage online - thus pointless, to no effect other than raging on. Cue "Ad-hominenm" "Slander!" youtube pop links, non-seqitor and strawmen. I guess the only point of all this is to say "Are you adding to of subtracting from the total suffering on Earth by spruking this stuff?"

      Delete
    4. ""Are you adding to of subtracting from the total suffering on Earth by spruking this stuff?""

      Math is sexist.

      Delete
    5. I can see that I was wrong here. Chip isn't a brutal racist, he's just a moron who takes a shallow interest in whatever's controversial. Which I guess is better, don't get me wrong. Any terrible opinions he actually does have are probably just by osmosis.

      Everyone go home or go back to discussing antinatalism, this nihilistic punk isn't worth expending thoughts on.

      Delete
    6. Obviously the people who are determined to associate Antinatalism with Nazism, Paedophilia, etc in an attempt to disparage it and as an excuse not to engage with its arguments are never going to change their opinions, and, as a believer in freedom of speech, best of luck to them. They can continue making their false statements, such that AN is about 'wiping out humanity' (an obvious and utterly transparent attempt to link it with Nazi genocide etc) and their character slurs all they like. More fair-minded people know better. Ultimately, the arguments of Antiantalism are still there and stand or fall by their own merit.

      Delete
    7. I find it funny that you think the commenters are attempting to associate antinatalism with pedophilia and fascism(and let me just repeat that I see NO necessary connection with either mental disease/idealogy in antinatalism) when antinatalists are the ones who chose to publish on the same tiny, tiny, press as holocaust denialists.

      Delete
    8. So does that mean that Antiantalists are Holocaust deniers? Obviously not. Again, it's all just smearing and guilt by association. You don't like Nine Band Books and what they publish. Fine. That's your call, just don't go smearing and impugning others on the basis of your personal opinions.

      Delete
    9. You know what would be a good way to avoid smearing and guilt by association? Not publishing on Nine Banded Books.

      'cause otherwise, one of these days you're gonna end up with an Antinatalism+ or something one of these days.

      Delete
    10. You know what would be even better again? For people to refrain from smearing and guilt by association in the first place.

      Delete
    11. Yes, and it would also be good if pain didn't exist and marshmallows grew on trees.

      Delete
  27. Where exactly does the following quoted text occur ('wiping out humanity') in any of the previous statements:

    "...such that AN is about 'wiping out humanity' (an obvious and utterly transparent attempt to link it with Nazi genocide etc)"

    Guilt by association, and generalizations seem to be the means employed for condemnation of all people around here.

    "Can we wholly condemn Man? Take a look at his History and Character. Yes, we can."

    It was a poor decision made by some Anti-Natalists to neuter their own argument to publish with Nine-Branded Books alongside Holocaust Denial; particularly when that particular event seems to be dragged out and paraded as evidence against humanity fairly regularly when it's guilt-by-association o'clock. By your own argument - condemning individual soldiers for the actions of the army would not be allowed.

    So, back to Anti-Natalism is there any circumstance where bringing a child into the world would not be considered an immoral act? I know at least one of the AN authors on NBB are having their cake and eating it to, so to speak, in that they are a parent. Or, is it possible that in Life, as opposed to Internet-land, the circumstances of all our lives are far too complicated to be summarily dismissed by some ivory-tower attention-seeker after Dawkin's old soap-box, because everyone isn't guaranteed a silk pillow and an Xbox for being born, and the fact is you simply should not judge anyone, let alone ALL LIFE, because you can only report on your own circumstances? But what you can do is power-off Internet-Land and make a difference. Cue: Anything not just complaining on the net is "Circling the drain".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Characterisation of Antinatalism as genoicide is from the Anonymous comment of 27 Jan: 'a position of moral certitude and superiority that the human race must be extinguished for crimes'.

      "It was a poor decision made by some Anti-Natalists to neuter their own argument to publish with Nine-Branded Books alongside Holocaust Denial.."

      So in your world arguments don't stand or fall on their own merit, it's all about where they appear? Fallacious reasoning.

      "I know at least one of the AN authors on NBB are having their cake and eating it to, so to speak, in that they are a parent."

      So Vegetarianism is rubbish because practically every single vegetarian on earth did at some point in their lives consume meat? Well done.

      "the circumstances of all our lives are far too complicated to be summarily dismissed by some ivory-tower attention-seeker after Dawkin's old soap-box, because everyone isn't guaranteed a silk pillow and an Xbox for being born"

      Ah yes, the old 'life is something we can't pass judgement on', a position which itself is a judgement.
      And the trivialisation of a philosophical position by those who couldn't be bothered reading the main statement of the position.

      "Ivory-tower attention seeker", more of the old ad hominem dismissal without consulting the actual argument. Of course, quoting Aldous Huxley (born into a wealthy family, Eton and Oxford educated, and as ivory tower as you can get) is perfectly acceptable.

      "and the fact is you simply should not judge anyone, let alone ALL LIFE, because you can only report on your own circumstances?"

      Yes, but labelling someone repeatedly as a paedophile, ascribing base motivations to publishers and writers, is acceptable when it suits a certain position.









      Delete
    2. So are we judging people, and all humanity is then a crime against non-existence and pregnant ladies are criminals, and nothing anyone does is worthwhile in a meaningless universe of suffering; or are we not judging people because asking them to adhere to a moral standard to minimize harm is censoring their self-expression?

      How would the survivor that still has a prison serial number tattooed to their forearm feel about NBB, or the victim of a paedophile, or the family of a serial-killer? It seems to me doing the right thing means doing that which limits our pleasure, it's called self-control - and it's what asking people not to have children is ultimatley about, no? That they exercise self-control in order that there is less suffering in the world? Asking that the species halt history because it's worthless, while we refuse to exercise any self-control over our behaviors (because that would be censorship) seems a bizarre double standard.

      Delete
    3. So in essence you're a supporter of censorship and an enemy of free speech and expression? Everything that's said, written and published has to conform to your undefined morality?

      And you're assuming that NBB is an immoral enterprise and that those who publish with it are immoral, two judgements I do not accept and for which no proof has been put forward.

      Delete
    4. "you're a supporter of censorship and an enemy of free speech and expression"

      Ad-hominem! Slander!

      Delete
    5. No, deliberate misquotation. There was a question mark at the end of the sentence. Nice try, though:-)

      Delete
    6. "So in essence you're a supporter of censorship and an enemy of free speech and expression?"

      Are you? Should humans have children?

      If the survivor that still has a prison serial number tattooed to their forearm is hurt by being told the holocaust never happened, how is the act and the word then different? And if we are judging people for making people suffer, why not this?

      Delete
    7. Big difference between freedom of expression and thought and freedom of action.

      I don't think people should procreate, but I don't go around shooting pregnant women and pouring sterilisers in the water. Nor do I censor the comments of pronatalists here; I engage them in argument and debate as I believe freedom of speech is a vital element of any society.

      "If the survivor that still has a prison serial number tattooed to their forearm is hurt by being told the holocaust never happened, how is the act and the word then different?"

      And how do you suggest this is measured? Are there to be Expression Police going around monitoring eery single statement made? And how are you going to measure the hurt felt by those who hear Holocaust Denials against the harm caused to those afraid of or prohibited to speak their minds? Have you given any thought to this? Are you aware that philosophers and social activists such as Peter Singer and Noam Chomsky have protested against Holocaust Denial laws?


      Delete
    8. "I don't think people should procreate, but I don't go around shooting pregnant women and pouring sterilisers in the water."

      Do you think it is wrong, or immoral if people do these things?

      Delete
    9. "I don't think people should procreate, but I don't go around shooting pregnant women and pouring sterilisers in the water."

      Do you think it is wrong, or immoral, if people do these things?

      Delete
  28. Antinatalism, which is the belief that life should not be brought into existence has become a popular movement on the internet. Its basic premise, the rejection of procreation, sounds innocent enough. Many depressive people, myself included, initially found the antinatalist philosophy appealing because it resonated with our worldview, which was shaped by our unfortunate experiences in life over the years.

    Once you dig deeper into the movement, however, you quickly discover just how degenerate and outright hypocritical it really is. The same people who (rightfully) criticize today’s parents for being devoid of morals turn around and promote sleazy rape techniques; brag about their one-night stands and other sexual conquests; engage in rectal sodomy; condone homosexuality, bisexuality and bestiality; and glorify indecent behavior while shunning real manliness. While this may not describe everyone in the antinatalist movement, it does describe an overwhelming number of participants on antinatalist blogs and forums.

    Antinatalist communities are also havens for Fascists, Zionists, white supremacists, gang-stalkers, cybercriminals, and even pedophiles who take advantage of vulnerable young children whilst abroad. No moral, God-fearing person would want to be associated with such shady, deplorable characters.

    Also, if you are white, having pride in your race is a glorified activity in antinatalist land. On one forum I used to frequent, a black South African man was banned for voicing his opinions about the Jewish Supremacists and their damaging influence on his race. Several forum members successfully convinced the moderators to crack down on this particular poster. Meanwhile, white supremacists run rampant on that forum, because they have been given a free pass to spout their white rhetoric and brag about having sexual affairs with white women. Talk about double standards!

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sickened by the unabashed dirtbags who frequent these forums, I recently posted a definition of ‘antinatalist’ on Urban Dictionary. My intention was to warn potential members of the inherent dangers involved with aligning oneself with such slimeballs. This was my proposed definition of 'antinatalist':

      "The losers of the internet. They engage in unprotected sex with third-world hookers and use sleazy tactics to rape children. They brag about their sexual conquests and don’t take paternal responsibility when their sex partners become pregnant. The majority of antinatalists are atheists. They idolize the slimeball cast of Jersey Shore and wish to emulate them. They defend homosexuality, bisexuality, rectal sodomy, and public obnoxiousness. They think it’s “cool” to act disrespectfully and engage in gang-stalking activity. They are in league with the criminal, anti-white organization. They are perfect matches for the Communists. They “pump and dump” women and then brag about it to their dirtbag friends. They have a lot of neo-Fascists within their ranks who worship Adolf Hitler. They are satanic to the core and will not gain admission into the kingdom of heaven. Their lives are full of sin, treachery, and lies. They are untrustworthy and unscrupulous. Furthermore, most five year-olds possess a higher level of mental and emotional maturity. No wise man or woman would ever confuse your typical antinatalist dweeb with true morals humans who live moral lives, believe in God, conduct themselves in a respectable manner, and do not wear tattoos.

      The antinatalist movement is for you if you enjoy sodomy, condone homosexuality, don’t believe in God, wear tattoos, listen to rap and death metal music, act obnoxiously in public, defend satanists, engage in one-night stands, enjoy filthy network programming like Jersey Shore, and support Hollywood. The most despicable characters will fit right in with the lowlifes who frequent antinatalist forums.


      There seemingly must be antinatalist editors on Urban Dictionary, because my perfectly valid definition was rejected. Here is the response that I received from Urban Dictionary’s editors:

      Thanks for your definition of "antinatalist"!

      Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to not publish it.

      To get a better idea of what editors publish and reject, sign up as an Urban Dictionary Editor here: http://editor.urbandictionary.com/

      Urban Dictionary


      Meanwhile, a plethora obscene words and definitions remain on that website today.

      Chances are, Urban Dictionary’s gross negligence will result in unsuspecting people becoming victims of the decadent, gang-stalking villains that are overrepresented in antinatalist communities. Those boards and blogs are filled with criminal sociopaths who wouldn’t think twice about ruining your personal life, career, and reputation. This is not paranoia; this is real. Become involved with antinatalists at your own peril. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you if something happens to you because you decided to affiliate yourself with “the losers of the internet.”

      Delete
    2. "The same people who (rightfully) criticize today’s parents for being devoid of morals turn around and promote sleazy rape techniques; brag about their one-night stands and other sexual conquests; engage in rectal sodomy; condone homosexuality, bisexuality and bestiality; and glorify indecent behavior while shunning real manliness."

      I think we know what we have on our hands here.

      Delete
    3. While it may seem we are ostensibly on the same side. I subscribe to a belief that the kingdom of heaven is me doing as little harm in the world as I can do - to the best of my knowledge and efforts. Not a reward for this behavior.

      I've seen some gross behavior, and read some incredibly shocking stuff on the boards too, some of which I've questioned on and commented on above. But in all fairness your description for Urban Dictionary is very inflammatory, I would say they chose not to upload it because it makes a lot of references to behaviors in the scene, without defining the Anti-Natalist position - Benatars main points:

      (1) Coming into existence is always a serious harm. (2) It is always wrong to have children. (3) It is wrong not to abort fetuses at the earlier stages of gestation. (4) It would be better if, as a result of there being no new people, humanity became extinct.

      Delete
    4. "I think we know what we have on our hands here."

      A Peter Sotos story?

      Delete
    5. Big difference between a fictional story and someone's stated beliefs, a distinction that seems beyond the grasp of several people around here.

      Delete
    6. So art is insincere then, there is no personal truth to it if "fiction" is stamped on the cover? It's merely selling to an audience?

      Delete
    7. Art is art, its 'sincerity' or otherwise is not only a highly complex issue, it's also totally irrelevant.

      Delete
    8. But all things being equal in a meaningless universe, you can't ask that I favor an expression just because it is contained in a book - something you have ascribed value to. The screed above may be a passionate expression of truth as Mr. Anonymous sees it. Who are we to judge or censor?

      Delete
    9. Well if you're a nihilist, that's your business. And you're done by your own logic: why should you get worked up by anything you read?

      Delete
    10. I don't believe the universe is meaningless. But Anti-Natalism posits that nothing we will ever do has meaning enough to cancel out the suffering that exists because of our actions. If books have meaning enough that you would defend their existence over non-existence in order that their authors be allowed self-expression, irrespective of who might be hurt by their content, then you've just fostered a reason for existence over non-existence. Perhaps this is how a parent feels?

      Delete
    11. To further clarify:

      If a book has the possibility to cause suffering, then the argument could be made that this is an unacceptable risk to take in publishing it, as not suffering is preferable to suffering.

      Delete
    12. I suggest you read about Benatar's distinction between potential lives and the lives of those already created.

      Delete
    13. A book does not spontaneously occur. It is as much a product of passion, best-intentions, or even animal lust as a child is. If by writing a book into existence we cause harm, is it justified to bring that book into existence?

      Delete
    14. Antinatalism is about the harm caused TO the newly created consciousness. Books do not experience harm.

      Delete
    15. Benatar's argument is that coming into existance causes harm to the one coming into existance, not necessarily to others who already exist, for whom the existance of the new person may be a benefit. Books do not experience harm.

      Delete
    16. Oops, I saw that Karl beat me to it.

      Delete
    17. By that account Benetarism becomes a doctrine of disappointed and infantile expectations, and I'd like to not believe that. So let's extend the reasons for not bringing life into existence to not just be limited to the child's disappointed or thwarted wants, or even the horrible events that may happen to it (like being used to make child pornography for example, or the victim of a serial killer) but also to include the harm this child will cause as a result of it's birth. The carbon emissions, the food and resources needed to feed and clothe it, and ALSO, beyond these - the suffering this child will inflict upon the world.

      Is it moral to bring this child into the world just because of my loneliness, or animal passion, or need to express myself, to outlive myself, behold myself, be loved, or to continue my family traditions, and express my beliefs?

      Is it moral to bring a book into the world just because of my loneliness, or animal passion, or need to express myself, to outlive myself, behold myself, be loved, or to continue my family traditions, and express my beliefs?

      Delete
    18. Are you really comparing the "harm" of "reading a book" with the harm of World War I, World War II, the black plague, the crusades, millions of suicides, murders, rapes, diseases, bullying, torture, abuse, poverty, starvation, etc.?

      Delete
    19. "Benetarism becomes a doctrine of disappointed and infantile expectations, and I'd like to not believe that. So let's extend the reasons for not bringing life into existence to not just be limited to the child's disappointed or thwarted wants"

      That's a caricature. Why do I waste my time with people can't be bothered reading the book?

      AN asks for a good moral reason for unnecessarily creating a nexus of suffering. None is available.

      "my loneliness, or animal passion, or need to express myself, to outlive myself, behold myself, be loved, or to continue my family traditions, and express my beliefs"

      All selfish and egotistical reasons, most of which assume life is a good thing to be begin with, precisely the claim AN disputes.

      The lonely can socialise and/or acquire a domestic animal. Procreation as self-expression is just base egotism and self-worship, as are 'family traditions'. And no one outlives themselves, no matter how many children they have.

      Delete
    20. "Are you really comparing the "harm" of "reading a book" with the harm of World War I, World War II, the black plague, the crusades, millions of suicides, murders, rapes, diseases, bullying, torture, abuse, poverty, starvation, etc.?"

      No, but I am saying that if books were behind most of these events, be it the Bible - the crusades, The Coming Race - WW2 etc. as has been alleged. Is it our inexcusable right to put them out in the world knowing it there was even a small chance of someone harming someone else as a result of their existence? What if the numbers were demonstrably higher, as in the case of a book on how to effectively commit suicide? Or build a weapon at home?

      "That's a caricature. Why do I waste my time with people can't be bothered reading the book?" Because that would make you no different to any other zealot pounding a book and letting it speak for them, or letting it say who is good and who is not, and you're better than that? It's a dialog. When you say that it doesn't matter what harm we cause, what matters is that we ourselves feel pain I find that almost solipsism. Whether I believe in these things or not is irrelevant. I believe that while we can't control people breeding, despite suggesting they do otherwise, we can control the harm we cause, no?

      Delete
    21. " Is it our inexcusable right to put them out in the world knowing it there was even a small chance of someone harming someone else as a result of their existence?"

      Is it your inexcusable right to put out your blog comments in the world knowing it there was even a small chance of someone harming someone else as a result of their existence?

      "What if the numbers were demonstrably higher, as in the case of a book on how to effectively commit suicide? "

      As if effectively commiting suicide is a bad thing, you fucking scumbag.

      Delete
    22. "When you say that it doesn't matter what harm we cause, what matters is that we ourselves feel pain I find that almost solipsism."

      Sorry, but I am really getting tired of being misrepresented. When did I say it doesn't matter what harm we caused? I am an Antinatalist precisely because I think procreation causes unjustifiable harm.

      And again, I ask you what practicable form of censorship are you advocating? How are you going to measure the harm caused by a book against the pleasure given? What gives anyone the moral right to assume the role of thought police? (And please try answering the questions without resorting to 'And what gives you the right to say people shouldn't have children?')

      Delete
    23. Perhaps you mister Anonymous could answer this question for Karl as he seems disinclined to:

      "I don't think people should procreate, but I don't go around shooting pregnant women and pouring sterilisers in the water." - Karl.

      Do you think it is wrong, or immoral, if people do these things?

      Sincerly,

      A "Fucking Scumbag" who has known 15 year olds with bipolar depression that killed themselves instead of seeking treatment and assessing their choice to end their life unhindered by emotional pain, and psychological illness. A person who also thinks it should be a RIGHT to comfortably suicide in a medically assisted fashion for the terminally ill patient, or the elderly.

      Delete
    24. I wish my suicide attempt when I was 17 years old was succesful. I am now in my late twenties and have undergone years of therapy (i.e. abuse), before I found out that psychiatry is a pseudoscience.

      Delete
    25. So amusing to be charged with ducking questions by people who continue to duck the questions I pose them because they know it would expose the hollowness of their position.

      I, of course, disapprove of shooting pregnant women. Sterilising water is a more complex and debatable issue, regarding which my opinions tend to oscillate.

      There, are you going to answer my questions from now on are we will we just get more of the same rhetoric?

      As for the Bipolar kids and the assisted suicide for the ill and elderly, that's all fine, but ultimately incidental to the deeper issue of Antinatalism.

      Delete
    26. "So amusing to be charged with ducking questions by people who continue to duck the questions I pose them because they know it would expose the hollowness of their position."

      Agreed, Karl. He/she still hasn't answered my question:

      Is it your inexcusable right to put out your whiny blog comments in the world knowing it there was even a small chance of someone harming someone else as a result of their existence?

      Delete
    27. Looking forward to the 'Karl thinks the water should be sterilised and people's right to procreation interfered with' comments....

      Delete
    28. Its really annoying how people keep associating Antinatalism with Nazim or all of that other crap. The fact of the matter is that none of it truly matters - stop procreation and ALL problems that ever existed or could exist disappear forever.

      Calling us infantile is just pure slander. If people are willing to stoically accept such a horrible existence and bring others into it - now THAT'S the peak of infantilism.

      Delete
    29. Because babies are so well known for their stoicism.

      Delete
    30. "So amusing to be charged with ducking questions by people who continue to duck the questions I pose them because they know it would expose the hollowness of their position."

      The hollowness of my position? It's been like communicating with a Christian fundamentalist. Anything not covered in Benatar doesn't count, or is simply ignored (despite Antinatalism being neither exclusive to, or invented by Benatar). You refuse to accept any suggestion that people have any accountability, or responsibility for actions in life, because you've decided Antinatalism is a system where meaning is measured in units of pleasure. You instead keep sidestepping into accusations of censorship when clearly the point was to establish a parallel between the morality of bringing another mouth into the world to feel and cause pain, and the consequences of the actions of the ones who are here. When posts started being deleted, I figured the whole thing had just become a circus, and just as morally inconsistent as people who puff out their argument using the word "compassion" yet feel no need to do anything but seek their own pleasure in life, irrespective of the harm it may cause. I did like the "Antinatalism:religion for trolls" post you deleted, however. Thanks for diminishing my pleasure and censoring it, I wouldn't want to become too attached to this vale of tears, quagmire of pain, etc. etc. Back to posting purple prose and how much you hate your parents, guys. You know, 'seriously engaging the discussion'.

      Delete
    31. The only post that were deleted were trash and spam. And besides, as an enemy of freedom of expression, surely you would approve, no? But oh yes, only your smug morality counts.

      "You refuse to accept any suggestion that people have any accountability, or responsibility for actions in life"

      A funny accusation to be levelled at an antinatalist!

      The bottom line is you've evaded every single direct question you've EVER been asked here. Not once have you responded to my direct criticisms of your position. Questions about Penguin and De Sade, your repeated slandering of Sotos, your nonsense about 'upper-class intellectuals' while spouting rubbish from Aldous Huxley, your claim that we shouldn't judge others while proceeding yourself to judge others left, right and centre based on your psychological caricatures, your total and absolute refusal to consider the actual arguments of antinatalism etc etc. I could go on and on and on, but it's already too wearisome for words. You are not an honest player.

      Delete
    32. An 'honest player'?

      Maybe this shouldn't be a game to you. You've got people on your blog praising the recent killing of school children which you let stand, as you don't believe in censorship, and/or they have a right to express themselves; and a comment parodying just how ridiculous the conversation had become "Antinatalism: religion for trolls" you delete/censor as 'trash'. Good grief.

      "your total and absolute refusal to consider the actual arguments of antinatalism" No, I've merely suggested it should extend beyond smug superiority in the personal decision to not breed and the labeling of pregnant women as moral criminals, and move on into a gameplan for living more thoughtfully of the ones who are here, in order to minimize the suffering we contribute to, and maybe even do some good.

      Imagine the discussions that could replace cheering on monsters: "What did you do this week?" "I sat with an 83 year old woman with crippling arthritis, in a beige and brick filing cabinet for the elderly where her family had shoved her to forget about her, and I listened to her speak. And I held her hand. And for just one moment things were slightly better for her. And at least for one of us the world was slightly less dark."

      A whole lot more people would listen to the discussion, a whole lot more people would engage in it, and it would be impossible to ignore, or just call "a religion for trolls".

      Delete
    33. Oh spare me. I am sick and tired of the nauseating self-congratulation in your self-appointed Jesus/Buddha act. You're a hypocrite who preaches compassion and comes on here abusing and slandering everyone in sight for not automatically agreeing with you. You believe you're above answering points of criticism because you think you're a better person than all those here. Rational debate means nothing to you. Just neverending rhetoric and slander. Not once, not on a single occasion have you bothered to address my criticisms of your statements. All because you know full well you can't answer them.

      And of course it's perfectly obvious that you're terrified that Antinatalism might be true; after all, why else would you spend so much time with a bunch of 'angsty teens/goths/fascists/paedophiles' etc etc? Why else would you refuse to read the Benatar book, while so desperately abusing all in sight who talk about? It's all so transparent and pitiful.

      Now, please, do everyone, yourself included, a big favour and go away.

      Delete
  29. I think we should just have vasectomies and "get out more". The point about 'doing as little harm' as possible while alive is surely the only important thing in life ? We cannot do NO harm, so we have to choose.
    Some antinatalists eat meat, for example.
    Others go on crass Gay Pride (=Arrogance) marches.
    Yet others don't like the principle of the European Union.
    But I am not going to cross swords with them.

    Just sharing one important viewpoint is rare enough in this society - enough of this claustrophobic-testosteronal infighting! Antinatalists of the world unite!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should be our only goals. That of all sentient life. To live thoughtfully. To walk on water without causing ripples. To pass through life from nothing to nothing causing as little harm as we're able to.

      Delete
    2. Bravo, also! The most noble and effective course being that of desisting from procreation, needless to add!

      Delete
    3. a religion promoting perfect non-violence:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence

      Delete
  30. Who wants to walk on water ? Isn't there enough land - for example, the Gobi Desert ? And why not stay seated and reading *The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám* - which includes the great quatrain (Second Edition only):

    Better, O better cancel from the Scroll
    of Life one luckless Human Soul
    than drop by drop enlarge the Flood that rolls
    hoarser with anguish as the ages roll.

    An excellent presentation of the Fifth Edition (with some interpolations, like the above, from the Second) can be read here:
    www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/fitzgerald.htm

    ReplyDelete
  31. Notwithstanding the weird troll attempt(you can bet that some forum somewhere is laughing their ass off at getting one over on the weird people) this has gone back to garden variety internet antinatalism discussion. I guess I'll be on my way then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, sadly the refusal of the many Anonymi to answer any direct questions has indeed rendered the exchange redundant, but given that they weren't interested in dialogue to begin with, it's best that it comes to an end and they can go and waste others' time elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. I would, but most of the other AN bloggers delete my comments :(

      Delete
    3. Well, you don't have that excuse here. Bye, bye:-)

      Delete
  32. This blog makes me want to have a child for every post. I'm a real masochist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude saying that doesn't work on antinatalists, they know you're just trying to get a rise out of them.

      Start quoting Camus and Nietzsche instead, that shit really sets them off.

      Delete
    2. "But I crashed in a wall
      Man I'm dead
      I guess it's no use
      I'm screwing up ever little thing I ever try to do
      I was born to lose"
      -Simple Plan

      This is the kind of thing an anti-natalist worships. It's a super deep song that is the highlight of modern philosophy. That's how everyone on this blog (aka angsty teen kids who are "not understood") sounds and looks.

      Delete
    3. Can we just skip the blah blah blah I am 50 years old and blah blah blah ad hominem you scumbag blah blah blah Schopenhauer blah blah blah asymmetry thing that would usually happen after the previous comment and say we did?

      Delete
    4. Is this your way of telling me I meant the word prepubescent instead of angst?

      Delete
    5. Yawn. I guess there's a better chance of seeing life on Mars than a rational argument from some of the people here. Back to your fairy-dust land, folks.

      Delete
    6. Seeing as you live in the UK it's possible that you or someone you've known has seen Life on Mars. I could probably direct you to a place where you watch it if you'd like.

      In the rare chance that you're not just trying to reference some TV series (I say rare considering the fact that most the people on here only have the ability to quote a mentally traumatized individual of the past or some teen band), I would have to say that statement makes you look reluctant to want a rational argument given your views on life. Perhaps it's because you could not win a rational argument?

      Also, given the fairy-dust land comment, I feel my theory of this blog being filled with prepubescent teens gaining further evidence to support it. Besides that, living in a fairy-dust land would be pointless. Perhaps that's where you are then?

      Delete
    7. Oh sad and weak, even by your own lamentable standards. And as for avoiding rational debate, what a classic case of projection! As a specialist in psychological slander I'm sure you know what that means. If you ever decide to respond in detail to the point-by-point criticisms I made of your 'position' in the following comments, let me know:

      25th January 01:45

      28th January 00:56

      28th January 5:05

      Otherwise don't bother coming back.

      (Oh, and for such a righteous person, I notice that you made no condemnation of the Urban Dictionary guy, a clear racist, homophobe and white-supremacist. Why would that be, I wonder? Oh yes, your hypocrisy and determination to slander Antinatalists at all costs.)

      Bye, bye:-)

      Delete