Monday, December 2, 2013

A retraction



Giordano: I hate every Antinatalist I see

From Antinatalism to Efilism
No, you'll never make an AN out of me


Oh my God, I was wrong
Life was shit, all along
You've finally made a AN
Antinatalists: Yes, we've finally made an AN
Giordano: Yes, you've finally made an AN out of me
Antinatalist: Yes, we've finally made an AN out of you

Giordano: I love you, Dima Sokol!




Yo, Chip, Shadow, Sister Y, Mr Mean-Spirited, and Anne Sterzinger are all still bigots though.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

I poke my head out of my burrow...

And find that Mr. Mean Spirited has turned his implicit racism into explicit racism, and that Anne Sterzinger and Sister Y are palling around with wife-beating enthusiast Matt Forney.

I conclude that antinatalists have officially stopped caring about suffering of any kind and just become a weird morbid splinter sect of Stormfront and retreat to my burrow of not checking in on weird internet people.

There will be six more weeks of fall.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Blog is on hiatus

I'm sorry to leave so soon after my last little joke, but due to real life stuff, I really do need to go for a few months. I might return after Christmas, or vanish for good. If it's the latter, I'd like to thank Mitchell and Shadow for being nice, and not thank everyone else for going "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALA".

Good luck out there, you hateful bastards ;)

Time to come out and say it

Dimasok is a sockpuppet I've been using to discredit antinatalists by making them look my petulant children. I simply cannot live a lie any longer.

To clear some things up

          mis·an·thro·py  (ms-nthr-p, mz-)
          n.
Hatred or mistrust of humankind.

phi·lan·thro·py  (f-lnthr-p)
n. pl. phi·lan·thro·pies
1. The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
2. Love of humankind in general.



As you can see, these two words are antonyms  which means that they mean, and are commonly used to express, opposite ideas.

So to clear things up, a coherent philanthropic antinatalist would be someone who liked humanity, or at least wanted to help humanity, and thinks the best way to do so is eliminating them through refusal of childbirth.

A misanthropic antinatalist would, assuming they understand their own philosophy, either be someone who prefers not to be born, but likes to see other people be born because of how much they hate people, OR someone who thinks people deserve to be worse off not existing, or are bad for the planet, and should be done away with via refusal of childbirth.

As you can see, it is impossible to be both, and one rules out the other. A philanthropic antinatalist might, however believe a misanthropic antinatalist is wrong, but not try to convince them otherwise because they are happy they are not having children. This also works in the opposite direction. If so, one or both sides are cynically using what they see as the other's gullibility.

Now that this is all cleared up, I hope you will all be a little more honest about things.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

It's vaguely hilarious

That many antinatalists appear to be more confused about what they believe than I am.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

At first I was sceptical of his fringe position...

But then he showed me his blog "Universal Extinction Now" where he blogs as "Red Death Robot" and talks about building hydrogen bombs to cleanse the planet, and my misgivings just melted away.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

The revolving door nature of blog antinatalism

It has not escaped my notice that antinatalist blogs often burn out quickly. One look at the blogrolls and old comments sections of several antinatalist blogs will show you people who seem to have no further presence online.

So what ends up happening to them? Does the ennui of depression get the best of them? Do they work up the willpower to end it all? Do they leave the antinatalisphere for their own mental health? Do they de-convert, or simply get bored with it all? What do you think, dear readers who don't exist because all the anti-antinatalist people are on youtube and only people who hate my guts and care nothing about actually convincing me of the truth of antinatalism read this blog?

Friday, August 16, 2013

Someone posted a graphic video of children being shot under one of my posts

I have deleted the comment, but refuse to ignore its existence.

This is what your people do, antinatalists, this is what they think is okay.

Furthermore, if two children dying is an atrocity, all children dying is a greater one, which is precisely what some of your number want.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

The online echo chamber of Antinatalism

The antinatalist is in an interesting, but by no means unique position. He or she is, under most forms of antinatalism morally obligated to attempt to convert the natalist to his or her position. As such, the antinatalist forms a blog online, talks with non-antinatalists, and attempt so convert them to the position, under the hopes that at least some non-lives will be saved.

Which raises an interesting question: why are antinatalists avoiding the necessary missionary work?

Time and time again, Antinatalists shut down opposing viewpoints rather than waging war in hopes of converts. Comment filters are put up, trolls and adversaries alike have their comments deleted, or are blocked on youtube, and antinatalists simply refuse to engage online with non-believers.

To name specific examples, Francois Tremblay, Dimasok, Jim, and sadly, Karl who once prided himself on never deleting a comment have comment filters. Sister Y does not, but harshly deletes any comments questioning her racist views, which leads me to believe she has not actually read my blog. She notably did NOT delete obvious troll comments from white supremacist site My Posting Career. Speaking of which:



It is possible antinatalists do all their conversion work IRL, and simply view the internet as their personal therapist who will not judge them for rubbing salt in all their wounds. If so, I would wish that they state this outright, rather than pretend they are engaging in anything other than listening to the reflected sound of their own ideals.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

A rebuttal to Say No To Life

There was once an earnest Puritan who held it wrong to dance. And for his principles he labored hard, his was a zealous life. And there loved him all of those who hated the dance; and those that loved the dance respected him too; they said "He is a pure, good man and acts according to his lights."

He did much to discourage dancing and helped to close several
Sunday entertainments. Some kinds of poetry, he said, he liked, but
not the fanciful kind as that might corrupt the thoughts of the very young.
He always dressed in black.

He was quite interested in morality and was quite sincere and there grew to be much respect on Earth for his honest face and his flowing pure-white beard.

One night the Devil appeared unto him in a dream and said "Well done."
"Avaunt," said that earnest man.
"No, no, friend," said the Devil.
"Dare not to call me 'friend,'" he answered bravely.
"Come, come, friend," said the Devil. "Have you not done my work? Have you not put apart the couples that would dance? Have you not checked their laughter and their accursed mirth? Have you not worn my livery of black? O friend, friend, you do not know what a detestable thing it is to sit in hell and hear people being happy, and singing in theatres and singing in the fields, and whispering after dances under the moon," and he fell to cursing fearfully.
"It is you," said the Puritan, "that put into their hearts the evil desire to dance; and black is God's own livery, not yours."
And the Devil laughed contemptuously and spoke.
"He only made the silly colors," he said, "and useless dawns on hill-slopes facing South, and butterflies flapping along them as soon as the sun rose high, and foolish maidens coming out to dance, and the warm mad West wind, and worst of all that pernicious influence Love."
And when the Devil said that God made Love that earnest man sat up in bed and shouted "Blasphemy! Blasphemy!"
"It's true," said the Devil. "It isn't I that send the village fools muttering and whispering two by two in the woods when the harvest moon is high, it's as much as I can bear even to see them dancing."
"Then," said the man, "I have mistaken right for wrong; but as soon as I wake I will fight you yet."
"O, no you don't," said the Devil. "You don't wake up out of this sleep."

And somewhere far away Hell's black steel doors were opened, and arm in arm those two were drawn within, and the doors shut behind them and still they went arm in arm, trudging further and further into the deeps of Hell, and it was that Puritan's punishment to know that those that he cared for on Earth would do evil as he had done.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Response to a commenter

New commenter Mitchell has some concerns with my project, which I will attempt to address in this post.
This is an odd little blog. You seem to be getting people's positions wrong, many times over. 
For example, you class Dima Sokol as a "misanthropic antinatalist", someone who says the world is wonderful and people make it bad. When has he ever said that the world is wonderful?!
As I have said before, this blog works according to The Principle of Charity. If I find that a position is simply nonsensical or non-tenable or laughably inconsistent, I will simply reconstruct it to make some kind of sense. The only explanation for Dima Sokol's nonsensical assertions that he both hates humanity and wants the best for them is that he is simply lying about what "the best" is and directing humanity towards the worst.

Or your category of "reactionary antinatalists", who you seem to define as people who long for a past of patriarchal rule by the white race, or something, but who so despair of it ever happening that they would prefer extinction instead. Presumably there are people who match that description, but I can't say it applies to any of the people you name. You list "metamorphhh" aka "Jim" as one of these. He was married to a black woman, and liked her enough to have two daughters with her.
Well, I for one can name multiple racists who have married outside of their own racial group. If Jim actually did respect all black people as human beings, he would not publish on a white power press like Nine Banded Books, nor would he be simply one degree of blogroll separation away from numerous white power sites like Vox Day or Unqualified Reservations.

And Sister Y is undoubtedly a philanthropic antinatalist. It seems that because she has come to entertain "reactionary" ideas, or simply skepticism about many "liberal" platitudes, that you are filing her in the wrong category. 

And the post where you try to deal with "philanthropic antinatalism" is in a way the most perplexing of all. Suffering doesn't exist, because you can't point to it in an fMRI machine? And you even seem to be hinting that people as such don't exist, perhaps because of some quasi-Buddhist deconstruction of the notion of identity? The convergence of views between Buddhists who analytically decompose the subject, and modern neuro-materialists who think there is only atoms, is an interesting cultural phenomenon. But if it is to be used as a way to deny the existence of suffering, then it has simply become evil - though hopefully an ineffectual evil. I call it evil because it tries to wish away something that is there. 
I am not denying the existence of pain! This is readily identified by neuroscience and a neurology interested friend notifies me that there exists special receptors known as nociceptors that exist to receive painful stimuli. I will simply give no credence to this mysterious metaphysical notion called "suffering" which is either a great pain or something intrinsic to being itself, if one listens to antinatalists. Do rocks feel suffering? What about computers?

Maybe you're just in denial about how evil life can be? Maybe out of your own sensitivity, plus a dose of wishful thinking, you're trying to find reasons to deny that the badness is there? Because if you won't confront it, you can never even begin to form an opinion on these matters. 
Life encompasses all the worst things that have ever happened to anyone - people tortured to death, buried alive in earthquakes, swept to sea by tsunamis, and dying by inches in terror and confusion thanks to modern medical care - just to mention a few things. Benatar's logic-chopping aside, if you would just care to notice the sort of things that happen in the world, then it should be obvious that antinatalists have a good case; because if no-one has children, at least things like all that can't happen to anyone. Call this "precautionary antinatalism" if you need a name for it. I'd like to see you tackle that version.
 Indeed! There is a great deal of pain in the world. HOWEVER. Antinatalists disregard all feelings or opinions or drives of sentient beings EXCEPT pain, arbitrarily. Second, antinatalists are simply awful at identifying current pains. Rather than speak of particular pains or troubles, antinatalists will ramble endlessly about boredom and futility. As if boredom and futility have anything to do with the problems of thousands of people who are going through REAL extreme pain every day! There seems to be almost a taboo amongst antinatalists of mentioning no-trivial current affairs that relate to antinatalism as if the plight of third world diamond miners or the rise of fascism or persecution of Muslims is simply beneath them. Call me when antinatalists can talk about the world and humanity as it is, rather than in abstract.

For extra credit, identify what historical event this song is referring to, AND what current event I am repurposing it to refer to WITHOUT using wikipedia!


Sunday, June 30, 2013

A psychological rebuttal

In the last decades interest in hunger artists has declined considerably. Whereas in earlier days there was good money to be earned putting on major productions of this sort under one’s own management, nowadays that is totally impossible. Those were different times. Back then the hunger artist captured the attention of the entire city. From day to day while the fasting lasted, participation increased. Everyone wanted to see the hunger artist at least once a day. During the later days there were people with subscription tickets who sat all day in front of the small barred cage. And there were even viewing hours at night, their impact heightened by torchlight. On fine days the cage was dragged out into the open air, and then the hunger artist was put on display particularly for the children. While for grown-ups the hunger artist was often merely a joke, something they participated in because it was fashionable, the children looked on amazed, their mouths open, holding each other’s hands for safety, as he sat there on scattered straw—spurning a chair—in black tights, looking pale, with his ribs sticking out prominently, sometimes nodding politely, answering questions with a forced smile, even sticking his arm out through the bars to let people feel how emaciated he was, but then completely sinking back into himself, so that he paid no attention to anything, not even to what was so important to him, the striking of the clock, which was the single furnishing in the cage, but merely looking out in front of him with his eyes almost shut and now and then sipping from a tiny glass of water to moisten his lips.

Apart from the changing groups of spectators there were also constant observers chosen by the public—strangely enough they were usually butchers—who, always three at a time, were given the task of observing the hunger artist day and night, so that he didn’t get anything to eat in some secret manner. It was, however, merely a formality, introduced to reassure the masses, for those who understood knew well enough that during the period of fasting the hunger artist would never, under any circumstances, have eaten the slightest thing, not even if compelled by force. The honour of his art forbade it. Naturally, none of the watchers understood that. Sometimes there were nightly groups of watchers who carried out their vigil very laxly, deliberately sitting together in a distant corner and putting all their attention into playing cards there, clearly intending to allow the hunger artist a small refreshment, which, according to their way of thinking, he could get from some secret supplies. Nothing was more excruciating to the hunger artist than such watchers. They depressed him. They made his fasting terribly difficult. Sometimes he overcame his weakness and sang during the time they were observing, for as long as he could keep it up, to show people how unjust their suspicions about him were. But that was little help. For then they just wondered among themselves about his skill at being able to eat even while singing. He much preferred the observers who sat down right against the bars and, not satisfied with the dim backlighting of the room, illuminated him with electric flashlights, which the impresario made available to them. The glaring light didn’t bother him in the slightest. Generally he couldn’t sleep at all, and he could always doze off a little under any lighting and at any hour, even in an overcrowded, noisy auditorium. With such observers, he was very happily prepared to spend the entire night without sleeping. He was ready to joke with them, to recount stories from his nomadic life and then, in turn, to listen to their stories—doing everything just to keep them awake, so that he could keep showing them once again that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could. He was happiest, however, when morning came and a lavish breakfast was brought for them at his own expense, on which they hurled themselves with the appetite of healthy men after a hard night’s work without sleep. True, there were still people who wanted to see in this breakfast an unfair means of influencing the observers, but that was going too far, and if they were asked whether they wanted to undertake the observers’ night shift for its own sake, without the breakfast, they excused themselves. But nonetheless they stood by their suspicions.

However, it was, in general, part of fasting that these doubts were inextricably associated with it. For, in fact, no one was in a position to spend time watching the hunger artist every day and night without interruption, so no one could know, on the basis of his own observation, whether this was a case of truly continuous, flawless fasting. The hunger artist himself was the only one who could know that and, at the same time, the only spectator capable of being completely satisfied with his own fasting. But the reason he was never satisfied was something different. Perhaps it was not fasting at all which made him so very emaciated that many people, to their own regret, had to stay away from his performance, because they couldn’t bear to look at him. For he was also so skeletal out of dissatisfaction with himself, because he alone knew something that even initiates didn’t know—how easy it was to fast. It was the easiest thing in the world. About this he did not remain silent, but people did not believe him. At best they thought he was being modest. Most of them, however, believed he was a publicity seeker or a total swindler, for whom, at all events, fasting was easy, because he understood how to make it easy, and then still had the nerve to half admit it. He had to accept all that. Over the years he had become accustomed to it. But this dissatisfaction kept gnawing at his insides all the time and never yet—and this one had to say to his credit—had he left the cage of his own free will after any period of fasting. The impresario had set the maximum length of time for the fast at forty days—he would never allow the fasting go on beyond that point, not even in the cosmopolitan cities. And, in fact, he had a good reason. Experience had shown that for about forty days one could increasingly whip up a city’s interest by gradually increasing advertising, but that then the public turned away—one could demonstrate a significant decline in popularity. In this respect, there were, of course, small differences among different towns and among different countries, but as a rule it was true that forty days was the maximum length of time. So then on the fortieth day the door of the cage—which was covered with flowers—was opened, an enthusiastic audience filled the amphitheatre, a military band played, two doctors entered the cage, in order to take the necessary measurements of the hunger artist, the results were announced to the auditorium through a megaphone, and finally two young ladies arrived, happy about the fact that they were the ones who had just been selected by lot, and sought to lead the hunger artist down a couple of steps out of the cage, where on a small table a carefully chosen hospital meal was laid out. And at this moment the hunger artist always fought back. Of course, he still freely laid his bony arms in the helpful outstretched hands of the ladies bending over him, but he did not want to stand up. Why stop right now after forty days? He could have kept going for even longer, for an unlimited length of time. Why stop right now, when he was in his best form, indeed, not yet even in his best fasting form? Why did people want to rob him of the fame of fasting longer, not just so that he could become the greatest hunger artist of all time, which, in fact, he probably was already, but also so that he could surpass himself in some unimaginable way, for he felt there were no limits to his capacity for fasting. Why did this crowd, which pretended to admire him so much, have so little patience with him? If he kept going and kept fasting even longer, why would they not tolerate it? Then, too, he was tired and felt good sitting in the straw. Now he was supposed to stand up straight and tall and go to eat, something which, when he merely imagined it, made him feel nauseous right away. With great difficulty he repressed mentioning this only out of consideration for the women. And he looked up into the eyes of these women, apparently so friendly but in reality so cruel, and shook his excessively heavy head on his feeble neck. But then happened what always happened. The impresario came forward without a word—the music made talking impossible—raised his arms over the hunger artist, as if inviting heaven to look upon its work here on the straw, this unfortunate martyr, something the hunger artist certainly was, only in a completely different sense, grabbed the hunger artist around his thin waist, in the process wanting with his exaggerated caution to make people believe that here he had to deal with something fragile, and handed him over—not without secretly shaking him a little, so that the hunger artist’s legs and upper body swung back and forth uncontrollably—to the women, who had in the meantime turned as pale as death. At this point, the hunger artist endured everything. His head lay on his chest—it was as if it had inexplicably rolled around and just stopped there—his body was arched back, his legs, in an impulse of self-preservation, pressed themselves together at the knees, but scraped the ground, as if they were not really on the floor but were looking for the real ground, and the entire weight of his body, admittedly very small, lay against one of the women, who appealed for help with flustered breath, for she had not imagined her post of honour would be like this, and then stretched her neck as far as possible, to keep her face from the least contact with the hunger artist, but then, when she couldn’t manage this and her more fortunate companion didn’t come to her assistance but trembled and remained content to hold in front of her the hunger artist’s hand, that small bundle of knuckles, she broke into tears, to the delighted laughter of the auditorium, and had to be relieved by an attendant who had been standing ready for some time. Then came the meal. The impresario put a little food into the mouth of the hunger artist, now dozing as if he were fainting, and kept up a cheerful patter designed to divert attention away from the hunger artist’s condition. Then a toast was proposed to the public, which was supposedly whispered to the impresario by the hunger artist, the orchestra confirmed everything with a great fanfare, people dispersed, and no one had the right to be dissatisfied with the event, no one except the hunger artist—he was always the only one.

He lived this way, taking small regular breaks, for many years, apparently in the spotlight, honoured by the world, but for all that, his mood was usually gloomy, and it kept growing gloomier all the time, because no one understood how to take it seriously. But how was he to find consolation? What was there left for him to wish for? And if a good-natured man who felt sorry for him ever wanted to explain to him that his sadness probably came from his fasting, then it could happen, especially at an advanced stage of the fasting, that the hunger artist responded with an outburst of rage and began to shake the cage like an animal, frightening everyone. But the impresario had a way of punishing moments like this, something he was happy to use. He would make an apology for the hunger artist to the assembled public, conceding that the irritability had been provoked only by his fasting, which well-fed people did not readily understand and which was capable of excusing the behaviour of the hunger artist. From there he would move on to speak about the equally hard to understand claim of the hunger artist that he could go on fasting for much longer than he was doing. He would praise the lofty striving, the good will, and the great self-denial no doubt contained in this claim, but then would try to contradict it simply by producing photographs, which were also on sale, for in the pictures one could see the hunger artist on the fortieth day of his fast, in bed, almost dead from exhaustion. Although the hunger artist was very familiar with this perversion of the truth, it always strained his nerves again and was too much for him. What was a result of the premature ending of the fast people were now proposing as its cause! It was impossible to fight against this lack of understanding, against this world of misunderstanding. In good faith he always still listened eagerly to the impresario at the bars of his cage, but each time, once the photographs came out, he would let go of the bars and, with a sigh, sink back into the straw, and a reassured public could come up again and view him.

When those who had witnessed such scenes thought back on them a few years later, often they were unable to understand themselves. For in the meantime that change mentioned above had set it. It happened almost immediately. There may have been more profound reasons for it, but who bothered to discover what they were? At any rate, one day the pampered hunger artist saw himself abandoned by the crowd of pleasure seekers, who preferred to stream to other attractions. The impresario chased around half of Europe one more time with him, to see whether he could still re-discover the old interest here and there. It was all futile. It was as if a secret agreement against the fasting performances had really developed everywhere. Naturally, the truth is that it could not have happened so quickly, and people later remembered some things which in the days of intoxicating success they had not paid sufficient attention to, some inadequately suppressed indications, but now it was too late to do anything to counter them. Of course, it was certain that the popularity of fasting would return once more someday, but for those now alive that was no consolation. What was the hunger artist to do now? The man whom thousands of people had cheered on could not display himself in show booths at small fun fairs, and the hunger artist was not only too old to take up a different profession, but was fanatically devoted to fasting more than anything else. So he said farewell to the impresario, an incomparable companion on his life’s road, and let himself be hired by a large circus. In order to spare his own feelings, he didn’t even look at the terms of his contract at all.

A large circus with its huge number of men, animals, and gimmicks, which are constantly being let go and replenished, can use anyone at any time, even a hunger artist, provided, of course, his demands are modest. Moreover, in this particular case it was not only the hunger artist himself who was engaged, but also his old and famous name. In fact, given the characteristic nature of his art, which was not diminished by his advancing age, one could never claim that a worn-out artist, who no longer stood at the pinnacle of his ability, wanted to escape to a quiet position in the circus. On the contrary, the hunger artist declared that he could fast just as well as in earlier times—something that was entirely credible. Indeed, he even affirmed that if people would let him do what he wanted—and he was promised this without further ado—he would really now legitimately amaze the world for the first time, an assertion which, however, given the mood of the time, something the hunger artist in his enthusiasm easily overlooked, only brought smiles from the experts.

However, basically the hunger artist had also not forgotten his sense of the way things really were, and he took it as self-evident that people would not set him and his cage up as some star attraction in the middle of the arena, but would move him outside in some other readily accessible spot near the animal stalls. Huge brightly painted signs surrounded the cage and announced what there was to look at there. During the intervals in the main performance, when the general public pushed out towards the menagerie in order to see the animals, they could hardly avoid moving past the hunger artist and stopping there a moment. They would perhaps have remained with him longer, if those pushing up behind them in the narrow passageway, who did not understand this pause on the way to the animal stalls they wanted to see, had not made a longer peaceful observation impossible. This was also the reason why the hunger artist began to tremble before these visiting hours, which he naturally used to long for as the main purpose of his life. In the early days he could hardly wait for the pauses in the performances. He had looked forward with delight to the crowd pouring around him, until he became convinced only too quickly—and even the most stubborn, almost deliberate self-deception could not hold out against the experience—that, judging by their intentions, most of these people were, time and again without exception, only visiting the menagerie. And this view from a distance still remained his most beautiful moment. For when they had come right up to him, he immediately got an earful from the shouting and cursing of the two steadily increasing groups, the ones who wanted to take their time looking at the hunger artist, not with any understanding but on a whim or from mere defiance—for him these ones were soon the more painful—and a second group of people whose only demand was to go straight to the animal stalls. Once the large crowds had passed, the late-comers would arrive, and although there was nothing preventing these people any more from sticking around for as long as they wanted, they rushed past with long strides, almost without a sideways glance, to get to the animals in time. And it was an all-too-rare stroke of luck when the father of a family came by with his children, pointed his finger at the hunger artist, gave a detailed explanation about what was going on here, and talked of earlier years, when he had been present at similar but incomparably more magnificent performances, and then the children, because they had been inadequately prepared at school and in life, always stood around still uncomprehendingly. What was fasting to them? But nonetheless the brightness of the look in their searching eyes revealed something of new and more gracious times coming. Perhaps, the hunger artist said to himself sometimes, everything would be a little better if his location were not quite so near the animal stalls. That way it would be easy for people to make their choice, to say nothing of the fact that he was very upset and constantly depressed by the stink from the stalls, the animals’ commotion at night, the pieces of raw meat dragged past him for the carnivorous beasts, and the roars at feeding time. But he did not dare to approach the administration about it. In any case, he had the animals to thank for the crowds of visitors among whom, now and then, there could also be one destined for him. And who knew where they would hide him if he wished to remind them of his existence and, along with that, of the fact that, strictly speaking, he was only an obstacle on the way to the menagerie.

A small obstacle, at any rate, a constantly diminishing obstacle. People became accustomed to thinking it strange that in these times they would want to pay attention to a hunger artist, and with this habitual awareness the judgment on him was pronounced. He might fast as well as he could—and he did—but nothing could save him any more. People went straight past him. Try to explain the art of fasting to anyone! If someone doesn’t feel it, then he cannot be made to understand it. The beautiful signs became dirty and illegible. People tore them down, and no one thought of replacing them. The small table with the number of days the fasting had lasted, which early on had been carefully renewed every day, remained unchanged for a long time, for after the first weeks the staff grew tired of even this small task. And so the hunger artist kept fasting on and on, as he once had dreamed about in earlier times, and he had no difficulty at all managing to achieve what he had predicted back then, but no one was counting the days—no one, not even the hunger artist himself, knew how great his achievement was by this point, and his heart grew heavy. And when once in a while a person strolling past stood there making fun of the old number and talking of a swindle, that was in a sense the stupidest lie which indifference and innate maliciousness could invent, for the hunger artist was not being deceptive—he was working honestly—but the world was cheating him of his reward.

Many days went by once more, and this, too, came to an end. Finally the cage caught the attention of a supervisor, and he asked the attendant why they had left this perfectly useful cage standing here unused with rotting straw inside. Nobody knew, until one man, with the help of the table with the number on it, remembered the hunger artist. They pushed the straw around with poles and found the hunger artist in there. “Are you still fasting?” the supervisor asked. “When are you finally going to stop?” “Forgive me everything,” whispered the hunger artist. Only the supervisor, who was pressing his ear up against the cage, understood him. “Certainly,” said the supervisor, tapping his forehead with his finger in order to indicate to the staff the state the hunger artist was in, “we forgive you.” “I always wanted you to admire my fasting,” said the hunger artist. “But we do admire it,” said the supervisor obligingly. “But you shouldn’t admire it,” said the hunger artist. “Well then, we don’t admire it,” said the supervisor, “but why shouldn’t we admire it?” “Because I had to fast. I can’t do anything else,” said the hunger artist. “Just look at you,” said the supervisor, “why can’t you do anything else?” “Because,” said the hunger artist, lifting his head a little and, with his lips pursed as if for a kiss, speaking right into the supervisor’s ear so that he wouldn’t miss anything, “because I couldn’t find a food which tasted good to me. If had found that, believe me, I would not have made a spectacle of myself and would have eaten to my heart’s content, like you and everyone else.” Those were his last words, but in his failing eyes there was still the firm, if no longer proud, conviction that he was continuing to fast.


“All right, tidy this up now,” said the supervisor. And they buried the hunger artist along with the straw. But in his cage they put a young panther. Even for a person with the dullest mind it was clearly refreshing to see this wild animal prowling around in this cage, which had been dreary for such a long time. It lacked nothing. Without thinking about it for any length of time, the guards brought the animal food whose taste it enjoyed. It never seemed once to miss its freedom. This noble body, equipped with everything necessary, almost to the point of bursting, even appeared to carry freedom around with it. That seem to be located somewhere or other in its teeth, and its joy in living came with such strong passion from its throat that it was not easy for spectators to keep watching. But they controlled themselves, kept pressing around the cage, and had no desire at all to move on.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

A Few Quick Words on Vulgar Antinatalism

It is about time to draw a distinction between philanthropic ANs and what I'll call vulgar ANs. The difference is that while P-ANs compare a world with people to a world without people, V-ANs, ridiculously enough, compare an existent person to(get ready to laugh) a non-existent person! We can see what's wrong with this in a simple joke example. Let's say me and an P-AN are discussing whether a room would look better with, or without a chair. The P-AN declares that the room would be better without a chair, while I insist the chair is best in the room. Then the V-AN comes in and declares that the room is better when the chair is a nothing-chair, and that furthermore, the room is FILLED with nothing-chairs!. Substitute the V-AN saying the nothing-chair would look better in a nothing-room where it goes nicely with the nothing-rug if you so wish.

Now I confess, I initially confused P-ANs and V-ANs but the esteemed Francois Tremblay pointed out my error, and assured me that he, and other ANs believed in P-AN. Unfortunately I have found that Ano Nym of the Phillip Mainlander blog going around in AN circles and one of my commenters are both V-ANs so I felt the need to come up with a quick debunking of this ridiculous position. After this, you can be sure all my blog posts will be aimed at the other variety of AN I have identified, who have intelligent, coherent positions, that are worth debunking. Chip Smith's brave refusal to apologize for his reading habits increased my respect for M-ANs by leaps and bounds, as it should for you!


Friday, June 7, 2013

Reactionary Antinatalism

In this blog post, I will address Reactionary Antinatalism and attempt to refute it.

First though, however, some readers have expressed confusion at the term "Reactionary Antinatalism". Although it shares overlap with Philanthropic and Misanthropic Antinatalism, I believe it constitutes a unique ideology. Some have also expressed skepticism at the political opinions I have ascribed to RAs being their real positions. I would suggest they simply head to the twitter of Chip Smith, head of AN publishing press Nine Banded Books and died in the wool Reactionary. Some are confused as to Mr. Smith's motives and ascribe his publishing of controversial reactionary material to a strong belief in Free Speech. However, given  Mr. Smith has said that he does not believe free speech is a terminal value, and given that he is clearly not a reprehensible sociopath who publishes things just to make people angry and stir up controversy, he must clearly publish books he believes in. Furthermore, Sister Y and Jim Crawford clearly support Chip, as Sister Y follows many reactionaries like Brony Nationalist, My Nationalist Pony, and Less Wrong imperialist Konkvistador and Jim has Chip's blog up on his blogroll. Point proven!

RAs believe that a world where minorities and women have free reign is simply not worth living in. Aside from a massive pogrom, which they would support, but consider unlikely, they believe the best option for the White Race(note the caps) is to simply die off and leave the world to minorities to destroy. To this I would simply find that all this is part of an Antinatalist tendency towards universalism and essentialism. True, SOME whites consider it an indignity but as Stevie Wonder and Frank Sinatra found, racial harmony is not an impossible goal(at least not as impossible as a great white die-off). I would also note that, given that Hegelian historical dialectics do not exist as proven by reactionary blogger Mencius Goldbug, they can have no assurance that the current system will eventually be proven unworthy and die off for a reactionary regime, so the best thing to do is to simply deal with the system and learn that blacks and Mexicans and Jews are not as scary as they seem to be from a distance.

(Also Karl, if you're reading this, my comments inexplicably seem not to be coming through on your blog. You might want to fix something, as I know you wouldn't silence debate simply because you are uncomfortable with it. As the reactionaries firmly believe, truth is the most important thing out there.)


Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Misanthropic Antinatalism

Misanthropic Antinatalism is probably the AN contingent with the largest internet following. Misanthropic antinatalism is, true to it's name based on a deep contempt for humanity. But the most important thing to remember is that MA is not so much a philosophy as a set of strategies for the annihilation of the human race.

I confess that I was initially confused by MAs. Why, if they cared about suffering, as they said they did, did they react so angrily to people who were not suffering or at least claimed to not suffer? Why, if they claimed to hate humanity so much, did they want humanity to stop suffering in a state of nonexistence? But in a flash of inspiration, it all became clear to me: Misanthropic Antinatalists do not actually think existence is basically bad.

Once this is accepted the MA "strategy" become clear. Misanthropic Antinatalists believe the world is basically good, so they are attempting to usher humanity off it by

A: Spouting miserabilist rhetoric(none of which, let's be clear, they actually believe) in order to make humans as miserable as possible.

B: Making happiness seem to be an ethical violation, to take people's motives to stick around.

C: Actively making things worse by refusing to do anything to improve the state of the world and humanity's place in it( a tactic I will call antinatalist accelerationism)

Now that I have blown the doors wide open on Misanthropic Antinatalism, I can only expect some rather harsh denials will follow, but I will take all these denials as proof that I have hit upon at least unconscious motives amongst MAs.

Next up: a piece on those wacky postmodern libertarians, reactionary antinatalists. Sadly because RA blogs long ago started deleting my comments, I will be unable to get any RAs to come over here and engage with me, unless some helpful reader is able to do it.(hint hint)


Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Odds and Ends

The entry on Misanthropic and Reactionary antinatalism are coming, I promise. I've been busy with the odds and ends of the life Reactionary and Philanthropic antinatalist so despise. I'll almost certainly have both posts done within the next few weeks. You can all look forward to:

  • The world's first expose of the Misanthropic Antinatalist strategy, which, to my knowledge, has never been clearly and openly articulated
  • A clear-eyed reveal of the way the obscurantist whispers of postmodernism have influenced Reactionary Antinatalism
  • And an open debate post, in the comments of which I hope to engage ANs of all stripes.

Also, I'd like to give a shoutout to Misanthropic Antinatalist Dimasok, who has seen fit to advertise my blog on his blog. Dima is the blogger, who, besides Karl of Say No To Life, has been the most help in revealing the structure and ideas of Misanthropic Antinatalism. He does, however, appear to be unaware of the writings where Sister Y and Chip Smith have been explicit with their Reactionary Antinatalism, so I will simply point him towards their twitters, where their positions are clearly articulated in debate with fine thinkers like My Nationalist Pony and poet of fascist transhumanism, Konkvistador.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Philanthropic Antinatalism

Philanthropic Antinatalism, while not a popular position on the internet, is one of the three main strands of antinatalism as a whole and must be dealt with. The position that it is better that humanity not be because humanity is good and existence is bad has been advanced by Patrick Benatar. At first Benatar's metaethical imperative to avoid causing suffering seems appealing. And it is, initially at least, hard to argue that suffering is a part of being is also hard to argue. But it is these very premises that must be deconstructed(I am here using the phrase "deconstructed" in it's normal sense, not in the sense used by obscurantist deconstructionists like De Man and Deleuze)

First off what are these "metaethical imperatives" Benatar speaks of but Deontology, a philosophy that has been shown to be very faulty by Professor Sam Harris a leading expert in both neuroscience and moral philosophy. As Harris showed, brainscanning technology like MRI machines are the center of  information for our moral universe, and "suffering" is something that has yet to be shown in an MRI machine, when all that can be found is specific pains. No "suffering" to speak of! Further more Benatar's use of philosophical terminology would likely be laughed at by Sam Harris who said:

I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe. 

Moreover, while antinatalists speak if "being" do they really have a good grasp of what it means? Languages like Russian, Ainu, and Arabic do quite well avoiding the use of words like "be" and "is" and created languages like E-Prime actively seek to avoid it. The philosopher Quine famously said "To be is to be the value of a variable", and an Amazon commenter insightfully says of Benatar's book

I haven't read the whole book, so I might have missed something but I fail to see how you can harm someone who doesn't exist.

Very wise, and a statement antinatalists would do well to pay attention to.


Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Basic Argument

The single, basic argument advanced by Elfists and ANs is that it is better that humanity not exist, however, different justifications are given for this argument, and three main strands of antinatalism may be divined.

Philanthropic Antinatalism says that it is better that humanity not exist because suffering exists. As far as know, only East African professor, Patrick Benatar and blogger Francois Tremblay hold this position.

Misanthropic Antinatalism on the other hand, holds that the world is a wondrous and beautiful place, and as such, a wretched virus like humanity does not deserve to live there. This position is advanced by such bloggers as Dimasok, Karl, and Shadow, as well as the youtube Elfists, who are too numerous to name here.

Finally, Reactionary Antinatalism holds that because the world is wretched cesspool full of minorities and women who do not know their place, the world would be better off not existing, both so that the universe would not have to see the indignity of blacks in the office, as well as freeing white people from having to deal with other races. This position is advanced by Sister Y, Jim Crawford, and Chip Smith, as well as being advanced in a different form by a Continental theorist of Marx and Deleuze, Nick Land.

From such a complex series of views, it is difficult to extract a single theme, but I have been able to see the theme that it is better not to be running through each of them. But what are the problems with each strand of antinatalism? And what is, "is" anyway? These and other questions will be answered in my series of blogposts on the weaknesses of each strand of antinatalism.

(Here I should pause to note that this blog operates under the Principal of Charity or Steelmanning as it is sometimes known by reactionary antinatalists. It seeks to present antinatalism in it's strongest possible form to see if it stands up, and to advance the positions of antinatalism in a stronger, clearer, more consistent way than antinatalists often do. If my descriptions of antinatalism do not precisely match the beliefs of individual antinatalists, so much the worse for the antinatalists!)


Friday, May 10, 2013

Introduction

In this blog I will examine the many ways the philosophy of antinatalism, or elfism as it is sometimes called, is wrong. Antinatalism has been advanced by any distinguished thinkers, like West African college professor Patrick Benatar, American horror author Thomas Ligotti (author of such works as Teatro Grotesco and The Shining) and German philosopher Friedrick Nietzsche, as well as postmodernists like Sartre and Camus. Antinatalism uses logic and reason to try to establish that it is better that humanity end. But is the logic and reason ANs use sound and coherent, or does it fall apart under examination? I will address these, and other questions on my blog.