The Child-Free Death Cult

The “choice” to be an evolutionary dead end has become the way in which leftist sophisticates signal their progressive credentials. The “child-free” set, ranging from the apathetically disinterested to the rabidly antagonistic tend to spout Malthusian justifications for the obliteration of their genetic heritage: that the world doesn’t need more people, that the world is overpopulated, that there aren’t sufficient resources to support more human life, that human reproduction damages the ecology and so forth. They are united in their view, whether conscious or unconscious, of Earth as a distant hypothetical or as an inherent value, divorced of its life sustaining function. Put simply, these suicidalists’ primary concern is for the Earth and not for the life that it fosters and sustains. Their endgame is Earth’s depopulation so that the planet will be free of the scourge that is humankind.

These assertions are seldom backed by science and are often contradicted in the face of technological advancements that both minimize human impact on the planet while facilitating demographic booms, and catastrophic events like wars and disease that tend to naturally act as culling forces upon the global population, periodically resetting the course of human events. Ironically (or perversely), the mere existence of these anti natal, highly educated, self sterilizing hipsterfucks demonstrates just how inaccurate Malthus was in his prediction that boom times will lead to exponential increases in reproduction. As the West in general and Europe in particular is coming to realize, conditions of plenty oftentimes lead to substantial demographic collapse. Industrialized Asian countries are being confronted with this grim reality as well. As it turns out, wealth and education are the most effective forms of birth control, as the world’s brahmins spay and neuter themselves while the world’s feeble minded reproduce with alacrity and vigor. Without a doubt, the ugly dysgenic chickens will be coming home to roost quite soon.

At base, the anti natalists are anti human and self hating. They are fundamentally selfish and and uninteresting. Attempting to “find oneself” in career or vacations to the Caribbean or backpacking through Europe are exercises in futility; masturbatory pursuits with no value beyond the immediate thrill of adventure, providing only an ersatz semblance of fulfillment for a fleeting moment. The left is rapidly devolving into a death cult interested only in total self annihilation and in the complete annihilation of humankind. There is nothing glamorous about being anti life. There is nothing sophisticated about choosing not to give life. Though many useful idiots will look upon this “lifestyle choice” as liberation it is nothing more than slavery to nihilism.

As Christoper Cantwell says: “I’m thoroughly convinced that our social and political provlems extend well beyond “left versus right” or “statist versus anarchist.” This has now reached a point where the war is between people who enjoy the world and people who want to see its utter destruction.”  His conclusion is correct. The Left hates life; fecundity is anathema to it. Far from being conscientious abstainers, the “child-free” clique are genetic abortions, dupes who are nothing more than sorry pawns in a game far beyond their comprehension.



    1. Hey Chris, thanks for the comment and the vote of approval. I felt like the quote perfectly characterizes the nature of the current “debate,” so I had to put it in there. The left hasn’t been interested in reformation in a long time; the impulse is purely destructive now and this is reflected in nearly every position that they take.

      I started listening to your podcast and reading your work pretty recently and I think it’s excellent, spot on stuff. Keep fighting the good fight.

      Out of curiosity, it’d great to know what you disagreed with in the article. I’d like to think that there are more things that we agree on than we disagree on, but it would be interesting to know where those lines are drawn.



      1. I was sorta thrown off by this line… “Attempting to “find oneself” in career or vacations to the Caribbean or backpacking through Europe are exercises in futility; masturbatory pursuits with no value beyond the immediate thrill of adventure, providing only an ersatz semblance of fulfillment for a fleeting moment. ”

        Particularly the career thing. How we make a living is a pretty defining characteristic of our lives. How do we feed and clothe and shelter these children we’re going to be making if not by having some kind of career? How do we excel at that career without it being somewhat central to our being?

        Other than that, I really thought this was a great piece.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Oh sure. I think my phrasing was harsher than I intended. Career is very important, and people need to be productive and serious about work. I just think it’s unfortunate when people try to find some deep fulfillment or meaning in work or vacations, so much so that they fail to realize that there’s more to life than just those things.

        I should have added that family life isn’t for everyone, and that people should live their lives in ways that are natural to them. But I really doubt that the majority of these “child-free” folks really think that children and family aren’t for them. I just think that it’s a new way of signaling how “progressive” and “thoughtful” they are. It seems to be more of a political statement than anything.

        I appreciate the feedback!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s