DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 9097--------------------------------------------------
True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: guest55 Date: September 28, 2021, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
SCHOPENHAUER: Why Having Children is Wrong (Antinatalism)
[quote]Antinatalism is the philosophical belief that assigns a
negative value to birth. Antinatalists believe that having
children is morally wrong and that one shouldn’t do it. There
are a variety of possible ethical arguments to make, but the
general tone of the antinatalist position is that existence
itself has a negative value. In other words, that it’s better to
not exist at all. If non-existence is preferable to existence,
then it follows that it’s morally wrong to create new life and
doom another being to a life of suffering.
This video is not about antinatalism in general. Rather, we’re
taking a look at Schopenhauer’s position on this question. There
seems to be a great misconception regarding Schopenhauer’s views
on procreation.
There is this idea that Schopenhauer was not a complete
antinatalist. One philosophy magazine, for example, called
Schopenhauer a “proto-antinatalist.” While it’s definitely true
that Schopenhauer directly influenced those philosophers who are
most famously associated with antinatalism today, like Emil
Cioran, in this video we want to argue that there is nothing
half-baked about Schopenhauer’s antinatalism. In other words, we
want to argue that Schopenhauer was a full-fledged antinatalist,
even if the term did not exist at the time.
The two arguments presented in this video take us to the origin
of suffering an Schopenhauer's ethical recommendations.
We take some ideas from Arthur Schopenhauer's main work, The
World as Will and Representation, and read between the lines a
bit to find out Schopenhauer's reasons for his anti-natalist
views.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk5Q8H5ma3o
Comments:
[quote]Until the world is paradise and no evil upon it, I will
not put kids on this slaughter house 🐑[/quote]
[quote]I decided in my early teens that I wouldn't have
children, the phrase I used was "the misery stops with me".
Nice to. have that sentiment dignified by a great
philosopher.[/quote]
[quote]Love your children enough not to create them![/quote]
I brought you into a world of pain and suffering because I love
you!!!
[quote]I love my daughter very much, but look at the world right
now? If you are a parent do you not feel a little guilty for
bringing them into this absolute madness? [/quote]
No, most obviously don't!!!
[quote]I had a decent childhood but realized that life began to
suck towards the end of my youth and adulthood. Can’t bring
myself to recycle all that pain again.[/quote]
[quote]People always tell me that having a child is the most
joyful thing they’ve ever done, and I won’t feel true joy until
I’ve had a baby. They say that, yet I have done many things that
have made me happy, like rescuing animals or helping others. So
far, I think I have lived a good life without children and I
don’t feel like I’m missing anything, but the people who
constantly remind me that I don’t want kids keep trying to
justify their decision to procreate. I have seen parents who
wish death on their own children, or are depressed and almost
suicidal and they still insist bringing a child into this world
was a good idea. No thanks, I’d rather adopt someone who needs a
home, or not have any at all.[/quote]
Apparently, you have to hang around anti-natalist videos if
you're looking for higher-quality people....
I suspect most people who claim they want children have children
to satisfy their own egos. They don't actually love children.
#Post#: 9099--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 28, 2021, 9:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287
[quote]Indian man to sue parents for giving birth to him
A 27-year-old Indian man plans to sue his parents for giving
birth to him without his consent.
Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel told the BBC that it's wrong
to bring children into the world because they then have to put
up with lifelong suffering.
Mr Samuel, of course, understands that our consent can't be
sought before we are born, but insists that "it was not our
decision to be born".[/quote]
This is a good start.
[quote]So as we didn't ask to be born, we should be paid for the
rest of our lives to live, he argues.[/quote]
Here is where I begin to worry. I am opposed to the notion that
money should be considered acceptable compensation for initated
violence, for if it were, the wealthy could commit as much
initiated violence as they want and are willing to pay for
afterwards. It also spiritually degrades the victim to be
satisfied with merely monetary compensation rather than actual
revenge.
I would prefer a case of the form: the state should not protect
from retaliatory violence those who have initiated violence, nor
punish their victims who seek revenge against them.
[quote]A demand like this could cause a rift within any family,
but Mr Samuel says he gets along very well with his parents
(both of whom are lawyers) and they appear to be dealing with it
with a lot of humour.
In a statement, his mother Kavita Karnad Samuel explained her
response to "the recent upheaval my son has created".
"I must admire my son's temerity to want to take his parents to
court knowing both of us are lawyers. And if Raphael could come
up with a rational explanation as to how we could have sought
his consent to be born, I will accept my fault," she
said.[/quote]
Kavita is an idiot. She had no way to seek his consent. That is
precisely why she should not have given birth to him! It is not
only the person who could have sought consent but chose not to
who is at fault. To proceed when seeking consent is impossible
is just as ethically faulted.
[quote]Mr Samuel's belief is rooted in what's called
anti-natalism - a philosophy that argues that life is so full of
misery that people should stop procreating immediately.
This, he says, would gradually phase out humanity from the Earth
and that would also be so much better for the planet.
"There's no point to humanity. So many people are suffering. If
humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They'll
certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human
existence is totally pointless."[/quote]
Why limit this view to humans? Are non-human children not also
born without their consent? And while they will clearly be
better off with humans gone, they will nevertheless still be
trapped in the cycle of reproduction (along with predation,
competition and everything else intrinsic to material existence
long before humans arrived).
[quote]A year ago, he created a Facebook page, Nihilanand, which
features posters that show his images with a huge fake beard, an
eye-mask and anti-natalist messages like "Isn't forcing a child
into this world and forcing it to have a career, kidnapping, and
slavery?" Or, "Your parents had you instead of a toy or a dog,
you owe them nothing, you are their entertainment."
Mr Samuel says he remembers first having anti-natalist thoughts
when he was five.
"I was a normal kid. One day I was very frustrated and I didn't
want to go to school but my parents kept asking me to go. So I
asked them: 'Why did you have me?' And my dad had no answer. I
think if he'd been able to answer, maybe I wouldn't have thought
this way."[/quote]
The truth is that his father gave birth to him as a way to
psychologically escape the shameful conclusion that he himself
was a victim of birth too cowardly to avenge himself. Victims of
violence often try to convince themselves that they were never
victims by violating someone else in the same way and telling
themselves such behaviour is fine, thereby psychologically
relieving themselves of the duty to go after the original
violator, but at the cost of creating a new innocent victim.
This is called tradition.
The only way to end this is to return all violence to its
origin.
See also:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/gnosticism/
---
"Non-human animals have children for their instincts."
That is a massive generalization that fails to see animals as
individuals. Would you also apply generalization of similar
scale to humans?
"They can't resist their instincts and stop reproducing unless
they are sterile."
This is not true. For example, the remaining pandas in the world
are not technically sterile but have so little interest in
reproducing that zookeepers have to routinely employ violent
means of impregnation to get them to reproduce. In other
species, there could well be many individuals per generation
with similarly little interest in reproducing, except it is
harder to spot them because they would surely be a minority
within their populations, and in each generational cycle their
bloodlines will be the ones terminated precisely because of lack
of interest in reproducing.
"The obvious way is lengthening own lives."
If life extension becomes a commodity, it will open up a whole
new can of worms as the temptation of greed will grow
geometrically when people consider that they could keep their
accumulated assets indefinitely. The likely result will be total
abandonment of spiritual values, and thus total victory for
Yahweh:
longevityalliance.org/?q=idea-life-extension-entering-mainstream
-israel
www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2014/5/european-biogerontology-co
nference-in-beer-sheva-israel
www.israel21c.org/israel-fast-becoming-world-hub-of-aging-indust
ry/
www.longevityisrael.org/scientific-board/
This is why we have to nuke Israel ASAP.
---
"I saw that even an autocratic state like China couldn't
prohibit panda's forced reproduction"
No one here claims that an autocracy automatically produces good
policies. But as long as autocracy is the form of government,
all it takes for good policies is the emergence of a noble
ruler, which is far more statistically likely than the emergence
of a noble majority.
If Western colonialism had never occurred, pandas would surely
be peacefully extinct by now. China is of course foolish to be
influenced by Western thought, but it is inconceivable that
China would have forced pandas to reproduce in absence of
Western influence. It goes without saying that artificial
insemination is a Western invention:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination#History
[quote]The first reported case of artificial insemination by
donor occurred in 1884: Dr. William H. Pancoast, a professor in
Philadelphia, took sperm from his "best looking" student to
inseminate an anesthetized woman.[2] The case was reported 25
years later in a medical journal.[3] The sperm bank was
developed in Iowa starting in the 1920s in research conducted by
University of Iowa medical school researchers Jerome Sherman and
Raymond Bunge.[4][/quote]
---
False Left hypocrisy so shameless that only a Westerner can
perform it:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfpkPXPI0_E
If this piece of shit had any sincerity, he would have
voluntarily refrained from reproducing in the first place (like
I am doing FFS!).
Anyone who says they are "sorry" but who is not voluntarily
refraining from reproducing is lying (and insulting our
intelligence).
---
"like I am doing FFS!"
Why so? As an Aryan, are you not supposed to continue your
lineage for the purpose of Aryanizing the population?
---
As an ideologist, I have to prove I am not using my own theory
as an excuse to let myself break the rule that I call for
imposing on everyone. Whoever is allowed by the state to
reproduce must not know that a selection process is taking place
at all, until after the decision has been made, as I was
explaining here:
[quote]The only behaviour that can be used reliably to decide
who should be allowed to reproduce is behaviour during early
childhood, prior to those being selected becoming aware that
state control over reproduction even exists.[/quote]
If a National Socialist state with a competent Aryanization
administrator existed when I was still an infant, I am sure it
would have chosen me for reproduction (since the selection
criteria are largely based on my own early childhood behaviour).
But that is academic. In reality I am the one designing the
selection process for a future National Socialist state which
does not currently exist. The Aryanization project begins only
after we achieve such a state.
---
It is common to hear the slogan: "In a peaceful society, the
state should have a monopoly on legal violence." I agree with
this statement. But if so, then any society where people can
reproduce at whim without being punished cannot be considered
peaceful, since reproduction is violence against the child being
born, and thus the state which does not control legal
reproduction cannot be said to have a monopoly on legal
violence.
---
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtkEtZOUUAAvwUW.jpg
why are they so hellbent on reproduction? I've seen many of them
saying the solution to their own made-up problems or to the
decrease of the "white" population to have more white babies. To
them, having children equals goodness or good intent because
they appeal to nature. They also use it as an indicator of a
woman's value (to them, her fertility and submission). It does
not matter to them how the child feels, ever. It never will to
them. I just won't ever get it.
#Post#: 9512--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Zea_mays Date: October 22, 2021, 1:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]A woman conceived through rape who campaigned for nine
years to bring her father to justice has won a prestigious
award.
The 45-year-old can only be referred to as Daisy to protect the
identity of her birth mother, who was raped 46 years ago at the
age of 13 by Carvel Bennett, now 74. He was convicted in July
2021 at Birmingham crown court and sentenced to 11 years in
jail.
Daisy was awarded the Emma Humphreys memorial prize, which
recognises women who make outstanding contributions towards
ending male violence. She was announced as the winner on Sunday
at conference in Portsmouth for FiLiA – a female-led volunteer
organisation working for the liberation of women.
Daisy, who is black, believes that one of the reasons why it
took so long to bring Bennett to justice was because of her and
her birth mother’s skin colour. Although her birth mother named
Bennett after she became pregnant with Daisy after the rape, no
action was taken by the authorities to charge him. Daisy, who
was adopted as a baby, spent nine years campaigning to get
Bennett prosecuted after tracking him down herself.
[...]
Police told Daisy that even though she described herself as “a
walking crime scene”, as her DNA evidence confirmed Bennett as
her father, it would not be possible to proceed with a case
against him without her birth mother providing evidence.
[...]
Daisy is now campaigning for a change in the law so that
children conceived through rape can be recognised as secondary
victims of the crime along with the primary victim, their
mothers.
[...]
“There is still so much silence on the issue of rape conception.
It appears to be one of the last taboos in relation to violence
against women and girls. For those of us who were
rape-conceived, it’s a huge struggle to come to terms with your
paternity and in turn one’s sense of self and identity. We are
left to carry the shame and stigma of the act of violence that
created us.”[/quote]
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/17/woman-conceived-through-wins-award-for-campaign-to-convict-father
Mathematically, going back far enough it is nearly certain
everyone alive has at least one rapist in their family tree.
#Post#: 9516--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 22, 2021, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If we think about it carefully, the only circumstance in which
ideal love can exist between one biological parent and their
offspring is if that parent had been raped by the other
biological parent, thus making themselves and the offspring
fellow victims of the same violence. Whereas any biological
parent who claims to love a child that they themselves
voluntarily conceived is lying, while any child who still loves
a biological parent after finding out that the parent had
voluntarily conceived themselves is a slave.
From this angle, ****-conceived children are actually more
emotionally fortunate, as they at least get a theoretical chance
to have a good relationship with one biological parent without
compromising on Original Nobility. In contrast, children
conceived from sex that was consensual on the part of both
biological parents must hate both biological parents in order to
maintain Original Nobility.
#Post#: 9518--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: Zhang Caizhi Date: October 22, 2021, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Muammar Gaddafi,, the former leader of Libya had 8 biological
children. What did he do for Libyans having children?
[quote]Surviving members of his family include his widow, the
mother of seven of eight biological children.[/quote]
HTML https://www.ft.com/content/1ae9103e-3537-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852
#Post#: 9558--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: rp Date: October 25, 2021, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused as well; didn't former team members such as JAM Jr
and AA have children too?
#Post#: 9559--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: SirGalahad Date: October 25, 2021, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We support leaders like Gaddafi for pragmatic reasons. Just
because we speak highly of people like Gaddafi when compared to
other western leaders, that doesn't mean we have zero criticisms
about the people we currently support, or believe that they're
people without flaw. JAM for example, has already been
criticized here and over on the main site by AS. It's about
uplifting the right people at the right time, and looking at how
these people contribute to the dissemination of our ideology. I
thought that was pretty obvious. We can focus on scrutinizing
the flaws of people like Gaddafi and JAM once we've dealt with
the common enemy we all share.
#Post#: 9565--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: rp Date: October 26, 2021, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gadaffi was not a National Socialist. JAM, who proclaimed to be
a national socialist, and who was endorsed for doing so by the
leader of this movement, is a different subject.
#Post#: 9566--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: guest55 Date: October 26, 2021, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We know nothing about you RP, nor do we ask you to tell us about
yourself. When people are willing to be open about their flaws
and shortcomings knowing they will be persecuted for doing so I
find it admirable. Who fears persecution for the shortcomings
and flaws the most in this world? Constantly digging into them
for these flaws after they have shared them comes across as
nothing more than ego on the part of the person doing so in my
humble opinion.
You are an identity on an online forum RP. None of us know you,
as you know none of us personally. You do not know what any of
us have been through or the lives we have been forced to live,
or the circumstances that have been forced upon us against our
own wills. People who atleast try to strive to be better and are
actually willing to engage in the internal struggle of making
their Aryan blood dominant, if they have any at all, are already
much better people than those that do not care at all.
Lest we forget, there is no Aryan National Socialist state in
existence in this world currently, the Aryanization process has
not yet even begun except a select handful of people who are
willing to subject themselves to that process. I find this
admirable as stated before.
I think we can also be pretty certain that anyone who is willing
to be persecuted here is probably not Jewish!
You also have no way of understanding how guilty and bad someone
feels about their flaws. If they are willing to share them here
then they must weigh heavily on their minds on some level, no?
So what service do you provide by constantly reminding them of
that which they are already struggling with and are obviously
aware of through their own self diagnosis?
Let us not forget the parable of the mustard seed spoken of by
the ancients either....
#Post#: 9567--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: antinatalism
By: SirGalahad Date: October 26, 2021, 12:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@rp Gaddafi wasn't a National Socialist, but Aryanism still
shares a decent amount in common with other real world
ideologies. So in that respect, he played a key role in
promulgating universalist anti-Zionism. That's basically what
I'm referring to when I talk about people who aren't necessarily
Aryanists. A lot of the ideas and achievements of other
ideologies are transferable to ours.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page