My Advice to Young People: Sincere and Decent

You want my advice to young people?

Don’t ever believe that anyone is “sincere” or “decent.”

Those are things that people pretend to be in order to A. Make themselves feel better about things they’ve done, or B. Distract you from what they plan to do.

To answer the obvious question: If you think you actually are sincere or decent, you’re either A. Delusional, or B. Completely and totally alone and had better watch your back, because the chances of you running into a person like yourself AND recognizing them against everyone else’s smoke screens are pretty much zero. (You think I’m going to tell you which case I think I fit? Ha!)

She thought she was saved... till he pulled out the zoom lens.
She thought she was saved… till he pulled out the zoom lens.

Frankly, most of you are better off dead, either for your own good or (far more likely) the good of everyone else, not that they deserve it.

Does this sound insane or paranoid? Stick around a while. I used to keep an open mind. But every time I thought I was misanthropic enough, the bottom fell out, revealing a new level of treachery and scum. Every attempt I had made to create an accurate model of reality was too hopeful, too forgiving. That little nagging feeling when someone hangs up the phone, that “crazy” premonition: ugly as they might make you, your suspicions are correct. No one really means you well.

(The good news? You don’t have to worry about conspiracy theories, since people are too treacherous to even conspire for long. Then again, I might be telling you that to protect my own conspiracy, mightn’t I?)


  1. Simon Elliot

    I was just wondering, as an anti-natalist, what do you think of cultural conventions such as Mother’s Day and Father’s Day? Do you think they should be days of scorn, as opposed to celebration and gratitude for the “gift of life” our parents have bestowed upon us?

      1. Simon Elliot

        I considered myself an alt-right for many years, but I left it all behind when I discovered anti-natalism. I was a very enthusiastic convert. Needless to say, when I introduced the philosophy to my comrades on forum I quickly became the guy everyone loves to hate. My reputation reached an all time low, and despite a year of membership and a lengthy article I contributed, I was permanently banned. I feel that white nationalists are our staunchest opponents by far. Since they became aware that the anti-natalist position exists, the response has been visceral. David Benatar having a Jewish surname has only added fuel to the fire. I have been accused of being a ZOG agent sent to create morale problems and sow discord. What’s your view on all this?

        1. asterzinger

          Anyone who thinks quantity not quality in any human group is going to be pissed off at the notion that maybe you should think with the big head for a second before having a kid. But more thoughtful WNs are usually kind of curious. They’re used to having a fringe notion themselves… then again, in general I tend to interact with creative types, not people who spend all days on message boards having flame wars (although there’s an obvious overlap). Have you read this piece? It’s me struggling with simultaneously thinking France should not sink into the mire of history but also thinking the entire human race maybe would be better off making a graceful exit… it’s not entirely successful but it might give you an idea of my thoughts.

          1. Simon Elliot

            It’s quite a contrast, really. I don’t think I’ve ever heard more than three of Bowie’s songs, most of them being from that movie he was in with a young Jennifer Connelly. I definitely go mad without my music though. Some songs capture the essence of life and the human condition so well, I actually find it quite therapeutic.

            Apart from being denounced as a ZOG agent and an egalitarian shill, by far the most common responses from the WNs were of the “the struggle is the glory” type. It did not surprise me that, much as the believer will rationalise all the evil in the world with the concept of a benevolent creator, the WNs immediately toned down their condemnation of white suffering when I asserted that said suffering was reason enough not to bring white children into existence. In light of my criticism, white suffering and death suddenly became “the reason to strive for a better future” and so forth. And the more I called out these tired clichés, the more vehemently they were repeated. Now, considering just how much effort the alt-right puts in to maintaining it’s pathetically contrived masculine façade, these responses didn’t come as much of a surprise to me, as I’m sure they wouldn’t to you. But at the same time, I felt disgusted with these people. They talk so much of the need to protect their sacred race, and yet when confronted with the unfathomable suffering that generations past and present have gone through, they make no effort to stifle a smug macho smirk, and cheerfully retort “so what?”

            It seems that they are all too happy for intermediate generations to form the mulch beneath our feat on the path to perfection. I was so disgusted with their blasé attitude and inconsistent moral code that I left.

          2. asterzinger

            Last I checked a disbelief in human perfectibility was a cornerstone of conservativism, but maybe I’m old and out of touch.

          3. Simon Elliot

            Oh, but this is the “huwhyte race”, as they pronounce it. Nothing could be more perfect in their eyes.

            You know, after I read Hellstorm by Thomas Goodrich, I actually confronted some of the religious ones and asked “I suppose this is all part of your God’s plan, eh? It’s all a test, is it?” Shockingly, they didn’t pick up on my sarcasm and responded affirmatively. I then made it clear to them that God is either malevolent or non-existent, and if it is the former, why are they so willing to kiss the ass of an eternal tyrant in the sky? Astoundingly, the response was “there’s no shame in kissing the ass of a tyrant.”

            In case you didn’t know, Hellstorm is a book that details some of the most disturbing acts of violence and torture in modern history, that took place from 1945 to 1950 in post-war Europe. Reading it was possibly the most emotionally distressing experience of my life, and it’s what finally sold me on anti-natalism.

          1. Simon Elliot

            Yeah, they are as pre-programmed and predictable as any SJW. Some of them wanted to see a picture of me, so I eventually posted one, and they accused me of being “part negro” because of the size of my lips. I humoured them.

          2. MRDA

            When you realiuse that WN is the unwitting (?) culmination of the whole SJW-endorsed identitipolitik herding project, their schematic becomes a helluva lot clearer.

          3. Simon Elliot

            I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. But you know, even the WNs who are atheist still openly bemoan the increasingly secular culture of the West, particularly Europe. I sometimes fear that white nationalism may herald the return of primitive Abrahamic superstitions about women and their place in society. Whether they truly believe in all this anthropocentric spiritual guff I have no idea, but they crave these strict conservative societal values so desperately that they might just force themselves to believe, common sense be damned.

          4. asterzinger

            Well, it’s the old Cicero’s dilemma: “I don’t believe in God, but boy, that’s a delusion that sometimes scares people who would otherwise be disruptive to society into behaving.” Trouble is, one theist’s behaving is another theist’s burqua.

          5. Simon Elliot

            Oh, even the religious ones are big fans of r/K selection theory. Not very consistent, are they? And they’ll never miss an opportunity to mention the name of one F. Roger Devlin. I take it you’re familiar with these talking points?

          6. MRDA

            On that, I’ll plead uncertain. I’m wary of theories which get picked up and bandied around as cheap propaganda slogans.

          7. Simon Elliot

            You yourself are kinda proof that it isn’t true, or at least not in general. It’s another case of individualism vs collectivism, I guess.

          8. MRDA

            Oh, I meant that WNs are both a reaction to and logical outcome of the SJW tendency to reify groups, treating ’em as discrete entities rather than clusters of individuals; the pendulum swinging back again. No matter how much they want to scoff at it, they’re pretty much bizarro Tumblristas, from rhetorical details to broad worldview: “X group is keeping us down!” “If outgroup members can be bastards, why can’t we?”

          9. Simon Elliot

            Are you saying white nationalism is playing into the hands of the establishment? That this is what they want?

          10. MRDA

            I couldn’t honestly answer that affirmatively,not being clairvoyant, but it’s convenient enough for propaganda purposes: “I told you they were doubleplusungood!”

            Despite their protests to the contrary, it certainly comes across internalisation of the SJW playbook, mirroring their retardation; whether this is “part of the design” or not is up for debate, though.

          11. MRDA

            And despite all their damn appeals to scientific materialist “realism”, they still have an essentially religious attitude to race, gender, “survival”, etc. No surprise they want to invoke ye olde time religion (paganism, Christianity, and I’ve even seen some of them getting a hard-on for Islam).”Realism” only factors in so far as it appears to legitimise their pre-rational biases and preferences.

          12. MRDA

            That’s part of it. They certainly share the mystical/Platonic attitudes toward race and gender roles expressed by those two jokers.

          13. Simon Elliot

            They kept accusing me of being an egalitarian and a “degenerate” or whatever, because I was critical of gun culture and I tend to have a more favourable view of wealth redistribution. Most of them were former libertarians, so needless to say my days there were numbered. Lately they’ve been harping on about F. Roger Devlin and this video, which makes no sense to me. What do you think?

          14. MRDA

            I’ll have to watch that later, but wasn’t it men who ultimately gave the wimmin the vote? A lot of antifeminist analysis is great for taking a clawhammer to the conceits of feminism (aka the radical notion that women are innocent); but for alt-righters/manospherians to blame women qua women for the “decline of civilisation” always sounds like a deflection from the the realisation that, from their perspective, the Y-chromosomers “failed the shit test” by handing women the wrecking ball.

          15. Simon Elliot

            I really have no idea. It’s unfamiliar territory for me. Basically it’s a long rant about how “loosening sexual morals” and the pill have eroded monogamous marriage, masculinity, motherhood, and high investment parenting. Honestly, sometimes I think the alt-right and Islam have something in common.

          16. MRDA

            Oh, yeah. I heard all that before! Again, the pill was the brainchild of a male mind, as far as I can remember, so they need to factor that into their tale of double-X destruction.

          17. Simon Elliot

            Well it doesn’t really matter who invented this stuff (although I’m sure they’d like to believe it was the Jews). However it happened, it’s happened, and what I’d like to know is… are they right? Because I can’t seem to wrap my head around it. Do you think they’re on to something?

          18. MRDA

            They take a reasonable analysis (interest groups have been working for special treatment of the groups they claim to speak for) and Trojan in their own bullshit with it (gender roles are normative requirements, not just general tendencies). So, a mixed bag.

          19. Simon Elliot

            What do you consider yourself? Do you have any sympathies for these white nationalists?

          20. MRDA

            Not really. They do raise valid points re: the stigmatisation of white people for the Original Sin of being born white, but they fuck it up with their own hypocritical racial antipathies. Better people have made similar criticisms in a less reactionary spirit. I tend to think most, if all, identitarian types – whether white, black, polka-dotted, etc – are just herd animals huddling for warmth and a vicarious sense of accomplishment. Not my scene.

            Besides, I couldn’t join ’em even if I wanted to, given my ancestry.

          21. Simon Elliot

            What’s your ancestry? I seem to have a bit of everything. English, Scottish, French, German, Italian, Dutch, and possibly Roma.

          22. Simon Elliot

            I’m impressed. Of course, from my time spent in white nationalist circles, I’ve seen a lot of data about the comparatively low intelligence of sub-Saharan Africans. I almost want to say it’s a shame you won’t breed, but of course I can’t say that.

          23. asterzinger

            Wow, I don’t know how you can square antinatalism with a “more favorable view of wealth distribution,” actually. Any per-person redistribution will encourage any given family of shitheads to increase their lineage, perhaps hoping to steal some of the take from their offspring… and the welfare state as it’s practiced in the US constantly waves a big green “GO GO BREED GO GO!” flag, especially in the face of the most useless dipsticks. Not that dipstick suffering is any different from non-dipstick suffering, but unless you’re going to take a hard-line AN position (ie ignoring harm reduction), dipsticks bring a lot less palliative value into the world, and more annoyance, than their non-shitstain counterparts.

          24. asterzinger

            (Simply put, a woman can only have so many children, so letting rich people accumulate enough wealth to have 26 children doesn’t mean they can actually do so. Distributing that wealth downward is going to let a person who under normal circumstances couldn’t feed one child have five.)

          25. asterzinger

            (And for christ’s sake, all of our schemes to redistribute wealth by growing the government have had the opposite effect anyway… it’s the middle class that’s having fewer children since they don’t have access to either corporate welfare OR welfare welfare.)

          26. Simon Elliot

            My only condition for welfare recipients would be that they mustn’t have any children during their lifetime.

          27. Simon Elliot

            I live with my mother and we both having debilitating health problems, mine mental, and her’s physical. I won’t go into details, but we both rely on government aid to stay alive. It’s all well and good to view unproductive people as vermin, but one must take into account whether one’s lack of ability to work is self-induced or not. In our case, it most definitely is not. England has a history of hating the poor too, but not in the libertarian sense. More of an aristocratic one. It still exists to this day, truth be told. But I believe resources should be allocated to decent, morally upstanding people most deserving of them.

          28. asterzinger

            I’m not sure what you mean by deserving. When I went through a rough patch after paying taxes, working, etc., doing my best despite well… read my books… I couldn’t get a penny after paying in all that time. If anyone would know what to do with a bit of free time it would be me—but no kids so nope. You’re in England I take it? In the US there is no “artist’s dole.” There is no merit dole, obviously. Breed and take, or pay in till you die.

          29. Simon Elliot

            By deserving I mean genuine unfortunates who can’t be expected to support their own existence. Although, of course, I do support the right of all people to end their lives in a dignified manner, under whatever circumstances and for whatever reasons they wish. I also don’t think their “mental competence” should have anything to do with making that kind of decision. No one lives to regret suicide, after all.

          30. asterzinger

            I’ve worked for private charities that take care of “genuine unfortunates” voluntarily, even after being taxed to the ears to care for grifters. You don’t need to force people to take care of people who genuinely need help.

          31. Simon Elliot

            With all due respect, you worked for charity in the past and therefore know that charity is able to cover everyone in need’s living costs? Well, I could claim the exact opposite. There are many people who are willing to give quite sizeable portions of their income to charity. This does not generally apply to the 1% who are the actual beneficiaries of the lowering in taxes coming from getting rid of welfare. And if you say the problem with welfare is that people get comfortable and have children, why can’t the same be said for charity?

            If charity did work then when taxes are lowered the inequality between the rich and the poor should decrease. But as it happens, it gets a lot wider.

          32. asterzinger

            Sure, if you put aside that whole initiation of force against the taxpayer thing—I don’t know why people think this is something you can just shrug off because some libertarians are silly—your “no breeding on the dole” rule would reduce the harm. But the way most welfare states are set up is just the opposite of that —they give you more money the more kids you have. And some people do have health problems, and some are unlucky, but more are weasels or useless (I’m not talking about you, I’m concerned with the qualities of people who plan to reproduce themselves) and whether that’s nature or nurture it’s insane to encourage those families to have more and more kids. Sure, I might feel differently if novels were considered dependents by the welfare state or even the IRS… not that I’ll ever get a chance to find that out. LCD.

          33. Simon Elliot

            I told a youtuber I know about our discussion concerning welfare and its compatibility with anti-natalism, and he has produced a video in response.

          34. asterzinger

            What a mish-mash of crap… You can’t smash together antinatalism, which is founded on NOT imposing anything on anyone without their consent, and socialism, which is the PINNACLE of imposing things on people without consent. This isn’t even coherent as sophistry.

          35. asterzinger

            Hell, if there were a non-statist commune, I might join it for the sake of convenience and safety. But people with these “brilliant ideas” are never content for people to join their plan voluntarily.

          36. Simon Elliot

            Well let’s not be too dismissive. I think some things can and should be imposed on people without their consent, just not life itself. I support the death penalty, which we of course impose upon criminal scum without their consent. I’d also support the imposition of things like China’s one child policy, for instance. It may not be full throttle anti-natalism, but it’s better than letting them multiply with no restraint like locusts.

          37. MRDA

            If all life is suffering, isn’t imposing the death penalty on those you hate and despise giving them sweet release? Sounds like you’ve taken to the whole “love thy enemy” thing. :p

          38. Simon Elliot

            I admit that life imprisonment (as long as it really is for life, and the prison is austere and unpleasant, as it should be) is the more intimidating option, but I don’t think we really want to subsidise their continued existence. Just kill them quickly and be done with it.

          39. Simon Elliot

            The idea that the rich are literally being held at gunpoint by the state, forced to funnel money to the undeserving poor… is a very persistent libertarian notion. I must make it clear that the only poor I think should benefit from wealth redistribution are the deserving poor. I do find it objectionable that such people as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates exist. Libertarians always assume that the rich are the salt of the earth, and I think we can trace such naïve notions to the old puritan work ethic.

          40. asterzinger

            I’m more worried about the rich using the poor as a moral prod to goad more general revenues out of the worker bees. “Don’t you care about the poor[er]? Pay your taxes, peasant!”

          41. asterzinger

            But my original point had nothing to do with deserving or fairness… merely which economic policy is going to generate (through incentivizing) the most new children.

          42. Simon Elliot

            That’s why I think it would be interesting to offer welfare (and I don’t mean the “bare minimum” kind) to the poor in return for not breeding.

          43. asterzinger

            That’s actually a very good idea, but you could never implement it… people would IMMEDIATELY start shrieking “genocide!”

          44. Simon Elliot

            What do you think of the white nationalist mantra that to create conditions that produce reduced fertility is tantamount to genocide? After all, they use the UN charter on human rights to back up this claim.

          45. MRDA

            If people are breeding less by choice, it’s ludicrous hyperbole.

            There’s little reason to take the UN seriously on anything.

          46. Simon Elliot

            You might think of it as choice, but they would call it coercion. They think (and from the evidence, I find it hard to disagree) that conditions have been created that make childbearing an unattractive prospect.

          47. Simon Elliot

            Well, we should always remember that it is first world countries in general, not just white countries, that suffer from sub-replacement fertility. Japan has this problem also, but the difference is that Japan is not importing tons of rabid third world colonisers, as white nations are. Japan may fizzle out quite peacefully in comparison. I have no doubt that the conspiratorial plot of “white genocide” is genuine, but I myself have made peace with it, since I do not see life as an enterprise worth maintaining. Many factors are involved, both political and economic, but it is very obvious to me that, on the political side of things at least, these results were pre-meditated.

          48. MRDA

            I’m not down on immigration like the alt-right is, but I do agree that the way its been handled now isn’t great. Let people come in and be welcoming: fine. Bend over backwards to alter the fundamentals of the host cultures/laws out of some misguided (and condescending) political correctness: nicht so gut! It’s one thing to have immigration of those who, as individuals, are culturally compatible, and quite another to invite everyone round to win votes for your democratic multiculturalist welfare-state schematic. Factor in the handling of the current migrant influx and things get messier.

            That said, as well as being sceptical of many of the proposed “solutions” to the problems caused by this perverse incentive structure, I’m not sure that current fertility trends will remain constant.over time, whether in Japan or the West.

            In any case, it’d be nice to see other countries beyond the West develop enough to make prolific breeding a less attractive prospect. It’d bring this whole thing closer to an equilibrium and make migration less of an economic necessity for many.

          49. Simon Elliot

            Well, as I said to Ann, I think the idea of giving people welfare in exchange for not breeding is an interesting idea. I myself would like to emigrate, but the country I’d want to live in would never have me, because I’m not economically viable.

          50. Simon Elliot

            Australia. I suffer from depression in winter, and lack of sunlight isn’t good for us humans. Iv got a lot of flack from the WNs for preferring “degenerate” tropical climes over my native England. Still, such a move would really be impossible, for so many reasons. I think it’s a cruel fact of life that most people are simply stuck where they are born. In the 21st century, you really would think we’d have moved beyond this. It seems I just expect too much of humanity.

          51. MRDA

            Still, unless governments start penalising the endogamous breeding of ethno-Europeans, I see the “white genocide” narrative as WN panic propaganda to conscript new soldiers to their atavistic cause. For a variety of reasons, endogamous mating remains the norm; and every antinatalist Ann and childfree Charlie knows that breeders gonna breed, no matter how they wanna rationalise it.

          52. Simon Elliot

            Whites will go extinct, if current trends persist. I have no doubt about that. And third world nations will realise they cannot function without the white man and his technology, and they will start to go extinct themselves, with any luck. God knows the Asians won’t help them. Humanity comes in many shades of shit, and I hope the same fate befalls them all.

          53. MRDA

            Although the prognosis looks grim (or great, depending how you view it), I doubt any of that will happen in the foreseeable future. Not that it’ll necessarily be plain sailing, but the human instinct to replicate seems to outstrip most trends to the contrary.

            If hyuumz of any/every type are destined for destruction, it’ll come about by more instant and spectacular means.

          54. Simon Elliot

            Funny you should mention that, because I did have a nightmare about an asteroid impacting the Earth last night.

          55. asterzinger

            I don’t think most libertarians are upset about the rich being soaked to benefit the poor… speaking for myself, at least, it’s that worker bees are being soaked for the benefit of everyone else…as I said elsewhere, both corporate welfare AND welfare welfare.

          56. Simon Elliot

            I dunno, man. As an autiste with a truly terrible grasp of mathematics, perhaps I’m a bit out of my depth here, but I’ve always thought that the less populous a country, the better the quality of life would be, on average. We’re limited to working within the confines of a system where, in order for there to be winners, there will always have to be losers.

          57. Anton Chigurh ✓Patriarch

            No again, you raging faqgot. White Nationalists detest Hitler–that man contributed more to the extinction of the white race by damning white collectivism more than anyone else in history.

          58. Simon Elliot

            Yes, that’s pretty much what I think of Hitler, but in my experience, most white nationalists have more positive to say about him than negative.

          59. Anton Chigurh ✓Patriarch

            WN’s are distinctly different than neo-Nazis in that they actually care about protecting and advancing the white race, where neo-Nazis merely seek escapism in the degenerate and utterly adolescent ideology of supremacism. WN’s are not supremacist–merely protectionist. WN’s don’t see other races as an enemy. Neo-Nazis can’t see anything from their vantage point up their own ass.

          60. Simon Elliot

            Except that WNs aren’t really concerned with the welfare of white children. If they were, they wouldn’t bring them into existence. It seems that the Hellstorm of Germany has taught them absolutely nothing about the nature of the world.

        2. Anton Chigurh ✓Patriarch

          ” relationship between white nationalism and anti-natalism?”

          There is none, you raging faqgot. Anti-natalism is a moronic adolescent tantrum, not a philosophy, and as far as I’m concerned, if you contribute directly to the extinction of the white race, you deserve to die.

  2. Edwin Oslan

    “The good news? You don’t have to worry about conspiracy theories, since people are too treacherous to even conspire for long.” Ha, yep.

  3. Anton Chigurh ✓Patriarch

    All these anti-natalists…a retarded and gay philosophy contributing directly to the extinction of our race. F*cking morons.

    Misanthrope, yes, of course. Anti-natalist, f*cking grow up, pull the dildo out and do something positive for a change. Stupid children.

  4. ThePatriotMuckraker

    Keep in mind the temporal context of the article. 60+ years ago “shit people” were the anomaly, reserved for criminals. Today, narcissism it is the cultural norm. Every fool thinks they are a “player”, a self delusion of one’s greatness inspired by “The Sopranos” and “Game of Thrones.” This too shall pass. Humans are sociable beings and concrete jungles are anathema to robust civilization. What is happening now is all part of a “take down” of western civilization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × three =