On December 1st 2023, a “Natal Conference” was held in Austin, Texas to preach about the good of having children.
They argue on their website that,
“Natal Conference has no political or ideological goal other than a world in which our children can have grandchildren. If you are concerned about collapsing fertility, the economic challenges of having children, the increasing difficulty of dating for men and women, we want to hear from you.”1
Some of it’s speakers include “Raw Egg Nationalist,” “Indian Bronson,” Charles Haywood, Balagi Srinavasan, and Razib Khan. Although a majority of these speakers are not American, they seem to speaking for white interest. A journalist by the name of “Marian Evans” wrote her review of the conference for American Renaissance, a white advocacy publication. White nationalists can learn something from the philosophy of natalism if they are to survive and advocate the action for a “nation.”
What is more interesting, however, is the ideology behind it’s opposition, “antinatalism.” Antinatalism believes humanity is better off not having children, and to some extent, non-existence is desired. David Benatar made antinatalism possible with his Peter Singer-style “maximum ethics” argument for non-existence called the “asymmetry argument.” One who comes into existence is always harmful because of the plausibility harm is inevitable.
It follows:
1. the presence of pain is bad;
2. the presence of pleasure is good;
…however,
3. the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
And 4., the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
Benatar can only push his argument if good is the ultimate virtue. Thus it becomes something about individual liberalism and preferences of subjective desires. There is an extreme insistence for egalitarianism and sameness, and if at least someone gets it, that must be bad for everyone! Advocates of antinatalism are liberals themselves, and I have touched upon this behavior before as nothing more than the Puritan ethic of self-guilt. This fallacy from antinatalist advocates like Eugene Thacker persist that, “if I have the power to think of something negative, everything is justified as bad, and therefore it is better to not exist.” Liberalism advocates a subtle “non-aggressive pact” into it’s logic that whatever force that may potentially harm an individual or thing, it is the fault of the force. Liberalism fears evil and cannot fathom a world with it. Therefore, everyone must restrict all potential influences and retreat into non-interactivity. This is perfect for a society addicted to the internet, isolated from other people, and socially controlled by an elite that contradict this antinatalist practice.
The conspiracy to degrow, depopulate, and to control the production of humanity is called “Malthusianism,” named after it’s mastermind, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766 – 1834). Malthus believed that the Earth could no longer hold a certain number of humans on the planet after a threshold limit, and it must be in the best interest of the elite to kill off the excessive amount of humans who are useless to society. This might as well be initiated in the propaganda of being LGBTQ+, in that the hedonistic and non-productive fear duty, and thus don’t have children. Liberalism gives the power for the human to be “free,” but simply at the cost it goes against the natural order of life and the world. America celebrates this transhumanist urge for freedom as the highest desire, and it has been a disaster globally.
Ironically, this urge for transhumanism is engineered by white people; the creators of liberalism. The G7 project and liberal democratic capitalism could be seen as an attempt to globally engineer a plurality of trashumanist states for every non-white country in the world. Yet this has taken a toll against the naive white liberal elite that insist on whitewashing the world. Whites are now all inherently “racist” while non-whites that speak English or enjoy American culture can never be racist. Non-whites can take the liberal culture, all while procreating their own people first through racial nationalism and self-determination. White liberals become an elite minority and have to pay anyway for this stubborn non-white racial nationalism that is against their transhumanism. Thus white nationalism becomes a popular alternative to fight against this paradox and the belief in “ethno-nationalism” becomes the only solution for global peace.
Ethnic nationalism, ironically, also becomes a new paradox in that it also fulfills the logic of Benatar’s asymmetry argument. Instead of advocating the natalism of white people, it as well advocates the antinatalism of non-whites. The latter becomes more important in the drive of Ethnonationalism.
Suppose a half-white, half-Asian child is born or exist. Both the white and Asian ethnonationalists cannot comprehend the Eurasian child’s existence and succumb back to the argument that “all of existence is painful.” If the child is neither white or Asian, he belongs on neither team, and his existence causes pain! The answer must mean there has to be a “Eurasian ethnonationalist” party that he must belong to. But what if there is none or the party is as small as the state of Delaware? Established institutions of being “white” or “Asian” are more appealing over what better goods are offered. If someone is Chinese-American, and had to choose between representing America or China in a international competitive sport, the choice is between what offers a superior good. One is better off with good or without pain. A third position cannot be realized because both America and China want to maximize their people over the alien. And so both want the alien to not exist.
Natalism can only maximize more over none. Meanwhile, antinatalist hipsters need an argument to justify their negativity as meaningful in logic. “Everything is bad because I feel that way, and everyone should feel the same way as I do because we all have that right to be transgressive. Therefore, we should all not exist because we have this power to feel pain!” And natalist hipsters can shrug this logic as helpful to him, inciting, “We are better off having people like ourselves, and no one wants to live in a society that has no one like them. We should have children because it advocates our cultural and aesthetic interest over the alien that does not share ours.” Add both these opposing axioms together, and we are back to Benatar’s four corner box with a new twist:
*
the presence of the alien is bad;
*
the presence of more people like ourselves is good; …however,
*
the absence of the alien is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
*
the absence of more people like ourselves is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
We are asking “If the Eurasian exists, verse if the Eurasian never exists.” The same logic can apply to any mixed-race person as well. We come to a conclusion that Eurasianism (or any biracial party) must exist because the absence of them is a deprivation. However, it must also assume that any alien force is indeed, bad. The Eurasian (or mixed person) is currently an alien if it is denied an institution. The contradiction means that the alien must have more people like themselves and obtain the same status as the natalist. The race conscious natalist, ironically, cannot accept this coexistence, as the alien has always been bad and negates their people for others. What would happen if all natalists become ethnonationalist? Then the absence of the alien is good because it is enjoyed by no one. Therefore, a white nationalist cannot enjoy anything that is alien, and thus the absence of the non-white is good. An Asian nationalist cannot enjoy anything that is alien, and thus the absence of the non-Asian is good. The Eurasian is an alien, and is constantly negated!
Both white and Asian nationalists would have to agree that they hate race mixing because it creates the alien. They use propaganda tools of Elliot Rodger and “r/Hapa” to speak of Eurasian self-guilt of existing. That somehow, dysgenics is real and only pure races can exist (even though race realism eventually leads into a superior notion of genetics over the bad ones of the Africans, etc). Liberal culture starts to believe in race and argues that the Eurasian’s existence is bad because he is not a byproduct of being a “fetish” or being too “white” and not “Asian.” Then it’s about how only a binary can exist: white or Asian. The alien does not exist!
And when the Eurasian party does exist, all shame and ridicule is pointed at the alien. Because natalism was never about Eurasianism or any interest in mixed biracial to multiracial parties. Natalism is about producing the subjective and individual interest of more people like yourself. That comes with the modus operandi that you want more people against those who are alien.
Instead of being natalist for all peoples of the planet and going against the Malthusian machine, natalism is a Malthusian design in that it wants to limit property for those who have niche interest over the good over humanity and intellectualism. Even if there are more Indians on the planet than there is whites, the white liberals will start creating Malthusianism against the Indians to make sure their group comes first, and that means Indians will get hit with liberal ideology, LGBTQ+ activism, white collar managerialism, and all whitewashing non-reproduction. It’s about racial equity than it is technological innovation or colonizing Mars.
Antinatalists, however, are more open about the Malthusian program, and simply don’t have children. But the “Natal Conference” that happened last year isn’t so much a declaration for growth and prosperity, but an arrogant message of the white nationalist managerial class trying to control it’s alien opposition. “Growth for us, none for them.” If everyone grows equally, the alien must be out of the equation.
Therefore, white nationalism is a form of antinatalism, regardless of it’s so-called avocation of “the 14 words” or protecting the interest of white men. A white nationalist society would eliminate the alien and thus socially control any opposition. All ethnonationalist want many Utopians for them but not for the alien. It therefore must give and limit the space for the alien to turn it into a non-alien, or all agree they are somehow a Eurasian abomination like a suicidal school shooter, a porn star, or a serial killer.
Benatar’s logic no longer helps antinatalism, as it also advocates the purpose of the racial nationalist and his urgency to eliminate the possibility of interracial offspring, love, and the entire Eurasian project.
This should be a concern to any ethical and sincere intellectual.
-pe
3-4-2024
Subscribe now
Share Polemics
Share
1
pilleaters 
Leave a comment