# Real Anarchists Don't Breed



## mkirby

Real Anarchists Dont Breed

Read and discuss.


----------



## finn

That interpretation of anarchism is extremist and nonsensical. I'm not an anarchist myself, but I have friends who are and who also have children. I mean do people really believe that people who don't use contraceptives or have abortions cannot be anarchists unless they are sterile or abstain from sex? I understand the population density argument, but I feel that there can be solutions figured out to avoid the pitfalls of capitalism instead of deciding to eliminate parenthood because it is hierarchical. There are going to be hierarchies- it's a fact of life- when there's a skillshare or a triage, it's unavoidable.


----------



## veggieguy12

finn said:


> That interpretation of anarchism is extremist and nonsensical.



I think the first seven paragraphs are pretty right-on and indisputable.

Extreme, perhaps, but also a bit tongue-in-cheek, I think. 
It is, after all, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose acronym is said as "vehement".

Anyway, extreme circumstances call for extreme actions.
What could be a more extreme situation than planetary degradation and mass extinctions - both caused by our own blossoming (over)population - which will in turn bring about our own extinction? As our civilized population grows exponentially, the wild/"Nature" is killed more rapidly.



finn said:


> do people really believe that people who don't use contraceptives or have abortions cannot be anarchists unless they are sterile or abstain from sex?



I don't think an anarchist is defined on his/her status as a parent or non-breeder, and I'm not sure the essay is really saying this. I think it's trying to encourage those who identify as anarchists to steer clear of breeding by getting sterilized, rather than to shirk those with children as 'bad anarchists'.

Any thoughts on the cartoon?


----------



## finn

There is probably a reason why I shouldn't be posting anything when I'm sleep deprived- my thought process isn't terribly clear. I need to sleep soon. Anyway, I really should have noticed that it was from the Voluntary Human Extinction people, I view them as a bit of a comedy group in the manner of a tom swifty. Anyway, it's proven that education and self-empowerment works the best as a contraceptive, but it's inconvenient at the very least for the powers that be. The cartoon is pretty much how wannabe activists delude themselves into thinking they're radicals.


----------



## codym

In the Unabomber manifesto Kaczynski says radicals should breed like rabbits and I'm of the same opinion. The social order allows for very off-balance "natural" selection. The more free blood there is the more the ratio tilts between us and the farm animals (capitalists)!


----------



## mkirby

I've always thought radicals were made, not born

I mean, if there's one thing you can do to make a kid into a bible-thumping facist, it's give him anarchist parents. 

Children will always find a way to rebel...


----------



## bobNkamille

mkirby said:


> I've always thought radicals were made, not born
> 
> I mean, if there's one thing you can do to make a kid into a bible-thumping facist, it's give him anarchist parents.
> 
> Children will always find a way to rebel...



we discussed that me and my soon to be husband . He said wouldn't it be funny if our kids grew up to be gangsters i told him that I wouldn't pay for there shit (gangster kids are expensive). Then he said what if they rebel by becoming hardcore Christians i just laughed. I'm not an anarchist I would love to believe that anarchism would save the human population but the truth is it's contradictory. Even with anarchy there would have to be set law set rules it may not be like the government we have now but it would still be us governing people. People "who do not bare leadership skills" would turn to the ones who do, we evolved from ape's which are pack animals. I think with out everything that people have grew so use to we would fall back to a primal stature. 

There are rules with in a pack there are rules with in a family. There is structure to survival and a need to survive no matter how much we suppress these needs they are still embedded into our genes. If no one had kids because it was "rebelling" to not conform to society then you would be conforming by having abortions birth control buying these things to make it so much harder for you not to beckon to your primal responsibility to reproduce. I said this to a few people "going green" is the new black soon enough it will fall out of fashion. being political falls into this same category it's the new in thing to do. Everything has a fashion to it sooner or later no one will care we might care about organic D.I.Y shit our children might even care but who says they wont rebel against us as we rebelled against our parents and our parents rebelled against there's. There is no saving humanity unless we go straight into primativism and god knows that, that's not going to happen.
Thats my theory on the mess 
Who says you have to own all the latest gadgets to have children. It's like people telling me i have to do my taxes or own a house car phone or computer that's the social norm if i choose to not be part of it then let it be


We all conform one way or another


----------



## soymilkshakes

I'd assume the majority of people who are brought up staunchly Conservative/Liberal/religious/etc etc etc stick pretty close to those beliefs - otherwise regional stereotypes such as Bible Beltin' Southerners and hippie dippy Californians would switch every generation, no? My parents are pretty politically minded, and that is definitely a huge factor in why I grew up so politically passionate. I tended to rebel in other ways. The more radical people breed, the more chances for for radical children (who will hopefully still question everything, even their parents' teachings, and alter passed on ideals to fit them).
But I don't think whether or not we small minority breeds or not will affect extinction or the coming of a huge Anarchistic revolution. We're going to self-destruct (or Mama Earth will shake us off) unless the people that already exist figure out a better way to do so in a less fucked up way.

I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## veggieguy12

Ted K isn't exactly in a position to be admired.
He done fucked up! Had a glimpse but not the whole picture of the problem, and certainly not the solution, methinks.


----------



## Arapala

Sometimes things are just taken to far. What is this some sort of game?

"Oh whats that johnny? You have got a kid! You are no anarchist you dominated capitalistic pig!"

I swear some anarchists just take things to far so they can make themselves feel like more of an anarchist than the next guy. Ridiculous. 

What if you want to raise a child. What if thats what makes you happy in life?


----------



## moe

i liked how they said, "in denser areas, we can't even cross the street, until a signal light gives us permission."
i thought no shit, i don't want to get fucking smacked and totaled by a freaking truck.lol
i thought that was funny.
anyway....im still reading it. on i go.


----------



## moe

i also find Les U. Knight humorous.
i wonder what the u stands for.


----------



## moe

I found this hard to consider.
and i'd never do this. if it doesn't make me an anarchist yet i find other ways to rebel, what does that make me. a non radical radical. it's fucked up. if those anarchists volunteered to not procreate, there's other christian, hippie, fascist, whatevers ready to fuck and have more kids.
it's impossible when everything is spreading so quickly, to call for human extinction.

and that doesn't make me pro-life.


----------



## katiehabits

if any group of people shouldn't be breeding it's the upper class fascist fucks who's children are going to grow up to be just like them and continue the cycle of destruction and oppression. 
but then again isn't that oppressing folks too? during the holocaust hitler sterilized gypsies because he didn't think they had the "right" to breed. 
there's too many people on this planet but the choice is yours......


----------



## cailyBear

I think that the problem does indeed solely lie in the numbers.... the article is extreme because we have an extremely big problem on our hands. 6 billion people, we have to be sorted through somehow don't we? like crayons in a box-- our numbers really are that great. I do agree with the article. none of us would be here having this conversation/ debate if it wasn't for the problems that arise from ... well whatever you think they arise from... i believe they arise from our giant brains overly complicating everything, including our instincts to survive and reproduce. we have that instinct so we can keep the human race going, as do all other animals.. mammals enjoy having sex to ensure reproduction.. but the everyday mind forgets this, which leads to fucking like rabbits. which i feel is just unnecessary now that we have 6,000,000 humans. Whew.


----------



## cailyBear

this post is extremely old but oh well.


----------



## cailyBear

you say that if anyone shouldn't be breeding it's the yuppies, well, there wouldn't be yuppies, hippies, anarchists, there wouldn't be any of these classifications because they were created as a way to differentiate yourself from the masses. the now titled "anarchists" may be the only ones who can see this big pictures, and that's the whole point, that's why a real anarchist would not breed.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

I have never been too sure of my stance on this issue, partially because I am not committed to the idea that human extinction is in the planet's best interest.

First of all I would like to note that the most egregious offender of environmental destruction is well, the environment itself. I think we need to be honest about why most people who care about the environment do so: to maintain human existence.


The other option is that of utilitarianism. In that case we give all organisms equal consideration of interests. We strive for the least amount of suffering across the board and the most amount of autonomy. I find myself somewhere in this vein.

The problem is that by these ethics, theoretically, it would be unethical for humans to purposefully end themselves in order to keep other organisms from suffering. The reason is that humans have the capability to actually reduce organism-wide suffering due to natural causes. This can be through technology, and also through "green" stuff like certain forms of permaculture. Now we certainly are not on the right track now, but I do not believe that has anything to do with "human nature." I mean shit, I left the church for a reason.

Either way, it doesn't seem particularly important to me as mass extinction events is inevitable. At least for the time being. It is surprising how few people are actually aware of some of the perfectly natural processes at work. Take Yellowstone for example. That place is a fucking ticking time bomb. It is a supervolcano that seems to erupt every 40,000 years (the last eruption was...40,000 years ago). When it erupts, the entire midwest, most of the west coast, and parts of the east coast will be destroyed. Several states will disappear by the blast alone. The ash depositories will most likely result in a rapid volcano winter worldwide- this could lead to another ice age. A supervolcano came dangerously close to annihilating humans once before. Our data indicates that the population possibly dropped as low >1000 worldwide. Granted we had not spread out though.


Anyway, the idea that there is something inherent about nature that deserves our respect is laughable. Nature doesn't give a shit about nature so we should we by those principles? If we are to actually care about anything other than our own species, we must arrive at our conclusions through a blend of logic, intuition, and practicality.


----------



## veggieguy12

Haha, *lobotyomy3yes*, good one. Free comedy! 'Preciate it.


----------



## oldmanLee

Rather well thought out,Lobotomy3yes.......the only question that I have is where is the haha that Veggieguy is refering?Must be my old brain,but it seems your reasoning and rational cut rather deep,and I still don't get the joke he's refering to...............


----------



## lobotomy3yes

veggieguy12 said:


> Haha, *lobotyomy3yes*, good one. Free comedy! 'Preciate it.


No problem mah friend.


----------



## veggieguy12

lobotomy3yes said:


> ...I am not committed to the idea that human extinction is in the planet's best interest.



I don't believe that all humanity need vanish from the planet, though Civilization is doing a good job to ensure this result. However, it's hard to see how the absence of all humans would be a real detriment to rhinos, butterflies, redwoods, roaches, whales, mountains, grasslands, oxygen, coral reef, ice caps, etc.
On the other hand, I think it's pretty easy for all to imagine how absolutely fucked all humans are when some of these things begin to disappear.
I guess I think that it definitely serves "the planet's best interest" - 'the planet' meaning all other living creatures and this Earth they inhabit and depend on - for humans to disappear, though that is only _one_ route to serving (or saving) the planet.
Ideally, we (Civilized) humans will change our dominating, destructive ways before we extinct ourselves.



lobotomy3yes said:


> First of all I would like to note that the most egregious offender of environmental destruction is well, the environment itself.



"The biggest cause of male balding is having a scalp and hair! Did you know that the scalp drops millions of hairs every month?" Point made?
It's not environmental destruction when a forest burns from lightning or summer heat, or when tectonic plates shift, any more than it is looting or theft when you take garbage curbside from the house. It's not murder when you smack a mosquito on your arm or scratch your leg (thus killing or displacing untold numbers of bacteria) - it's just how life works for you, and similarly that's how this planet functions.
It serves the planet, and therefore us, for volcanoes and forest fires and earthquakes, those phenomena aren't some "environmental destruction" which we should end.



lobotomy3yes said:


> I think we need to be honest about why most people who care about the environment do so: to maintain human existence.



I dunno about most people. But even accepting that you've correctly assessed the motivation of most, I'm not sure it's bad. Human existence is dependent upon continued existence (or, at the very least, the slow, gradual extinction) of an indescribable, unknowable diversity of flora and fauna. Human existence will not be served by the destruction Civilization is wreaking against this wild Earth.



lobotomy3yes said:


> ...humans have the capability to actually reduce organism-wide suffering due to natural causes. This can be through technology, and also through "green" stuff like certain forms of permaculture.



Even when well-intentioned, this type of meddling has _consistently_ been shown to be unwise, primarily for the fact that we haven't a wide enough lens to view all the ramifications of our actions over time and down the line.



lobotomy3yes said:


> ...When [Yellowstone Caldera] erupts, the entire midwest, most of the west coast, and parts of the east coast will be destroyed. Several states will disappear by the blast alone. The ash depositories will most likely result in a rapid volcano winter worldwide- this could lead to another ice age.



That's really nice to know, but it does not give me _carte blanche_ to ransack your house, nor does it fare well as any rapist's defense. So I have to wonder why it merits any mention as some kind of dismissal for stopping the ransack and rape of the Wild.
*Yes*, we absolutely should stop rape and atrocities upon people and the planet, though an ELE asteroid crash is imminent, or volcanic lava is rushing our way.



lobotomy3yes said:


> Anyway, the idea that there is something inherent about nature that deserves our respect is laughable. Nature doesn't give a shit about nature so we should we by those principles? If we are to actually care about anything other than our own species, we must arrive at our conclusions through a blend of logic, intuition, and practicality.



"Nature" (almost more an abstract concept than a definable thing) produces tornadoes, earthquakes, sunburns, drought, forest fires, floods, etc. - all of which kick billions of asses. Whatever nature is, it's what we're all dependent upon, and not the other way around.

I don't know if I'd say I "respect" Nature, but I damn sure know I need it.
Beyond that, I have a brain and can think and feel and sympathize and grant compassion or respect, or I can eliminate these feelings with rage and anger or hurt. I don't think Nature (wind, rock, water, soil, atmosphere) has feelings or thoughts, so I don't resent that it doesn't "respect" me. Does anyone?


----------



## lobotomy3yes

I think you are misunderstanding what I am actually saying. I'm just trying to raise questions about why we care about the environment (I ask because I do) and what exactly beliefs would mean. That post was simply throwing out a lot of such questions.

I'll try to respond to your critiques after I have gotten some sleep, but needless to say I am primarily opposed to the statement "anarchists don't breed" for entirely different reasons. I don't think it is my choice whether or not to reproduce because I'm not technically the one doing the reproducing. It is the right of a woman to decide how to use her own body. Frankly she doesn't have to give a damn about what I think.

Secondly, the whole "breeding" language is extraordinarily racist (not you, the link) and insensitive to history. For years white people have referred to nonwhites as "breeding." That is just semantics yes, but the racism goes much deeper. This stance against reproduction is, by and large, held by white people. How fucking selfish is for us white people to tell the rest of the world to stop reproducing. Western imperialism at its best..."We've fucked you over for years guys, and you have fought a good fight. Sorry to tell you though, you've gotta give up this human existence thing. Don't worry, it's in the planet's best interests. Us whites know, we always do." 

THAT is what I hear when someone talks about shit like this.

Now if you have said WHITE people should not reproduce, I would agree. Then again, it's not my choice so it doesn't fucking matter. In general though, I would prefer not further add to the privilege pool.


----------



## veggieguy12

lobotomy3yes said:


> I don't think it is my choice whether or not to reproduce because I'm not technically the one doing the reproducing. It is the right of a woman to decide how to use her own body. Frankly she doesn't have to give a damn about what I think.



Well, I agree with that.
Of course, your choice to not reproduce lies in you withholding your sperm from anyone. If you give your sperm out, it's entirely her choice; if you don't put out sperm, you've firmly staked your claim in the camp of Not Breeding.



lobotomy3yes said:


> This stance against reproduction is, by and large, held by white people. How fucking selfish is for us white people to tell the rest of the world to stop reproducing. Western imperialism at its best...
> Now if you have said WHITE people should not reproduce, I would agree.



I skip all these details; I understand the social-justice aspects of environmental politics, but it really just does not matter when we're facing species-wide and planetary-scale extinction. I'm not particularly concerned that the human species continues, more that it doesn't eliminate the survival abilities of all Earth's other inhabitants - BUT, if humans do survive, then they'll have time to sort out all the wrongs committed and achieve racial harmony and religious enlightenment and finally legalize gay marriage. Without a decent planet to live on, though, all those other goals are moot.

And actually, there are probably pretty equal amounts of people from each race and ethnicity who are going to survive post-Civilization. Nobody in urban centers, really, but anybody currently living inter-relatedly with a mountain, jungle, or forest will make it just as (or easier than) they do now. And these are White, Yellow, Red, Brown, Black, all over the world.


----------



## wartomods

wouldnt it be more like nihilists dont breed, or people who dont want to be worried with kids dont breed???


----------



## yarn and glue

I think this whole argument (like most arguments) can be simplified and summed up by a nice, proverbial hunk of earthy wisdom. In this case, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Problem: Population growth at this rate is unsustainable.

Solution: Stop reproducing, god damn it.


----------



## oldmanLee

Yarn and Glue,that was the most pragmatic,elegantly simple,and utterly workable statement that I've heard regarding overpopulation ever.Now comes the hard part:convincing people that 6 BILLION+ PLUS is too damned many.Me,i don't regret my kids(some were not mine biologically,but I raised 'em),but convincing people to even "wrap the rascal" seems to be almost impossible.


----------



## eruiz87

I've always sort of felt that making kids is unfair to the kid because families can be so fucked up. But that's just me who's going to stop people from making babies?


----------



## veggieguy12

oldmanLee said:


> Now comes the hard part:convincing people that 6 BILLION+ PLUS is too damned many. ...convincing people to even "wrap the rascal" seems to be almost impossible.



Expecting _any_ success from earnest efforts to gain volunteers is like expecting prayers to stop the weather: *futile*, and perhaps frustrating. Personal actions/decisions are limited to the person, and we need more systemic address of the problem.


----------



## 120 Proof Vomit

I think that the real problem is responsibility. People fuck for fun, and have kids on accident. This is not to say that these accidental children are not just as capable of anything children under any other circumstance are, but as unemotional as I can put it, it's reckless, and if you're an anarchist, that reckless fucking is counter-productive to your movement. One could argue that the media pushes sex like they do any other product (you could compare "personal lubricant" to a Pepsi in this demonstration,) and the end result is more consumers to go out and spend more money, perpetuating Capitalism... shit, you don't even need to argue it. If you've ever paid for a sex toy, or a porn magazine, it's clear that someone had their hand in your pocket, while they distract you with self indulgences. It's an age old trick, ever read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Sure, sex is great, but it's not that fucking great... But their is the media there to embilish it from the time we're little, turning us all into easily controlled sex robots. But this is the world we've made for our selves, where self indulgence is favored over self discipline. Fuck ever learning anything, or making any real progress...


----------



## EastCoast315

I don't understand anarchism. Sure, its a fun concept, but it seems dumb to actually take it seriously and want it to happen. If the law isn't your thing, come move out to the country. No one gives a shit what you do out here. And I'm just in cny, imagine how shit is in north slope AK and NWT canada. Stay out of cities and you can do what you like.


----------



## 120 Proof Vomit

Anarchy isn't about fucking off and disagreeing with laws, To me it's more about organising the people to the point that government is obsolete, the police become obsolete, and so do the big businesses/franchises. It's about taking off the training wheels and doing shit ourselves. Taking responsibility for the world around us, instead of expecting the government to pass a new law against whatever. And no offence, but it's always just a "fun concept" to the people on the outside looking in. To me anarchism is the most frustrating aspect of my life, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.


----------



## christa

I don't think it is my choice whether or not to reproduce because I'm not technically the one doing the reproducing. It is the right of a woman to decide how to use her own body. Frankly she doesn't have to give a damn about what I think.

This i believe is also racist/classist statement. To say that once your sperm is out it is her "choice". But what if there are no free clinics, or doctors who would preform abortions, or contraceptives or plan b available to you. If we're talking about not breeding in context of the world than this statement of responsibility and choice the woman has, once having been involved, is false. Most women across the world do not have a choice unless they are of upper class and have access to funds or are white and live in a liberal city with access to free health care with doctors who are considered "radical". For most cases there are no clinics that offer anything but to go through with birthing the child. it is actually encouraged in most societies to breed and to establish ones identity through breeding this goes for men and especially women. 
I do agree with the bluntness of the article. For the most part it is true that when involved with anarchism, having a child might stop you from certain acts and also continue a dependency on materials produced from capitalism. However I do not believe that it is rational or functional. It undermines the feeling and depths of human relationships and feelings. The article refers to pregnancy as breeding a term one that is racist, but also used for animals and for that i feel is degrading. I believe that there is a choice and that population is a topic that shouldn't be swept under the carpet


----------



## 120 Proof Vomit

I don't know the racial history to the word "breeding," but humans are animals, and animals breed. To be compared to an animal, to me, is nothing but natural. The Idea behind having sex is to keep the species alive. The quote from the movie Fight Club comes to mind; "I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species." Well, we have enough people. Stop having so much fucking sex, everybody! It's kind of like when you double dose on the wrong meds that you were prescribed and drop dead of an overdose. Too much of a good thing is inherently bad.


----------



## christa

120 Proof Vomit said:


> I don't know the racial history to the word "breeding," but humans are animals, and animals breed. To be compared to an animal, to me, is nothing but natural.
> the point is that it is meant to be derogatory, not to put us in the context of being connected to the animal planet. And having sex isn't the problem, it's feeling that out of sex a child has to be born which is not necessary.


----------



## veggieguy12

120 Proof Vomit said:


> Well, we have enough people. Stop having so much fucking sex, everybody! It's kind of like when you double dose on the wrong meds that you were prescribed and drop dead of an overdose.



Moralizing about sex? What are ya, religious or something? Sex made all the people, but sex is not the reason all the people are here.
I mean, it takes sex to _create_ the people, but it takes food surpluses to _keep_ the people.
And, on that note, sex is natural, humans need it and are programmed for it. Agriculture - creating more food than the inhabitants require, and controlling which foods are grown & where, and who has access to the foods - that is not in our DNA, and the evidence shows it's a practice with dire consequences for the planet.



christa said:


> To say that once your sperm is out it is her "choice".



It sorta looks like you're taking issue where there isn't one to take. In the context of his remarks, he was saying it isn't his position to deny a woman the decision of abortion or motherhood - this is far from saying that the status of reproductive rights is great, far and wide. And further context to the remark is the point that he should not disperse his sperm, thereby exercising his will to not reproduce (rather than to be against breeding but unable to enforce his will upon an impregnated woman).



christa said:


> The article refers to pregnancy as breeding a term one that is racist, but also used for animals and for that i feel is degrading. I believe that there is a choice and that population is a topic that shouldn't be swept under the carpet


 
Pregnancy is different than breeding; pregnancy can happen 500 times, but breeding may occur from a mere 10% of those pregnancies.
Anyway, I can't really grasp how 'breeding' in reference to the exploding human population is derogatory or degrading or anything other than objective, scientific, an starkly accurate. Racist? What racial superiority or inferiority does it imply, and toward or against whom? Breeding is done (every second) by every race, religion, and ethnicity across the globe - _unfortunately_.

Also, the Virginia Woolf quote you have for a signature reminds me of Thomas Paine's earlier "My country is the world, and my religion to do good." (That's either plagiarism, or sexism, you make the call.)


----------



## MoetThePoet

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O hi there, maybe this will answer everyone's arguments


----------



## madewithpaint

i don't care what anyone says, this shit is 100% undeniably true.

"Anarchists take risks which parents canâ€™t."
and that was just hilarious haha


----------



## trustno1

since its been brought up previously, i thought id add the actual quote

"204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific
evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a
social attitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that
personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold
this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but objections are
feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend
on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view
it doesn't matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through
childhood training. In either case the ARE passed on.
205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial
system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or
no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support
or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of
revolutionaries the present generation must reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will
be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get
rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world's population
necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will
continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population
to keep increasing almost indefinitely.
206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are
that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other
goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an
empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the
foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should
be discarded." -Unabomber Manifesto


----------



## Kalalau

I'd just like to point out 2 simple things... anarchists would not exist without breeding.... and all successful anarchist societies have been breeding for 100K years. 

anyone here wanna breed with me? how about breeding and pizza?


----------



## mittens

Stewart said:


> Sometimes things are just taken to far. What is this some sort of game?
> 
> "Oh whats that johnny? You have got a kid! You are no anarchist you dominated capitalistic pig!"
> 
> I swear some anarchists just take things to far so they can make themselves feel like more of an anarchist than the next guy. Ridiculous.
> 
> What if you want to raise a child. What if thats what makes you happy in life?



I agree with you the most so far.


----------



## mittens

lobotomy3yes said:


> Now if you have said WHITE people should not reproduce, I would agree. Then again, it's not my choice so it doesn't fucking matter. In general though, I would prefer not further add to the privilege pool.



Look, pall. I'm white. This post really pissed me off. It does sound like you were kind of tired when you posted this, so like fuck, Okay, but that is what the fucking 'edit post' button is for, buddy.

Do you honestly feel that because I'm white I deserve to have my Fucking nuts chopped off.

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of the posts here because buddy was right. some shit gets taken way too far. Fighting for your right to Choose what you want and Think for yourself makes makes you an Anarchist! Not becoming a fucking IT!


----------



## farmer john

what if i was only a lil white ? am i allowed to breed then?


----------



## mittens

farmer john said:


> what if i was only a lil white ? am i allowed to breed then?


 
You might be able get an operation for that. M.J. found a way to make himself white. Talk to the right people... they could make it happen, but If that fails you can just go to a tanning salon.


----------



## farmer john

lol i was just curious im 200 proof white but wantd to knof if the sterilization specialist had contingency plans for half and quarter breeds


----------



## pigeon

i'm just going to throw my two cents in without reading what everyone said but can you be and anarchist if you are making rules to be on how to be an anarchist? i don't think so.


----------



## vandalette

"It starts in this parking lot, and in my dreams, I am dirty broke beautiful and free. My hands clenched in a fist, and my face in a smile, after hitching too many miles. "

^^^whats this quote from? If its your own i'd like to quote you :]


----------



## wokofshame

its from Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains . look him up on Myspace.. good shit

PS fuck off dipshit peoples posting on this thread...get a fuckiong life


----------



## anyways

MURT said:


> its from Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains . look him up on Myspace.. good shit
> 
> PS fuck off dipshit peoples posting on this thread...get a fuckiong life


 
I didn't even read this thread yet, but this is what my screen brought me to first. Just so you know, as catchy and lyrically decent as Johnny Hobo is... I've heard from a bunch of people that the kids a poser and has never been on a train in his life...hence the bands name change to Wingnut Dishwashers Union (who also have good songs if you haven't heard em) 

I don't hate the kid, but thought it might be of interest to you to know that if you didn't yet... It's pretty stupid to make it seem like you're a rider when you're not........


----------



## vandalette

yeah i've listened to him before, just never really have too much time on the computer to know there lyrics.


----------



## joaquim33

if progressive minded people dont breed then pretty soon its just gonna be mormons and other assorted morons out there. whats more important to discuss is not whether or not to have kids, but how to raise them so they think for themselves.

and i dont think pat aka johhny hobo has ever written a song about or claimed to ride trains. the name is meant to be ironic; songs coming from the perspective of a young middle class kid who looks up to crust punks who ride through his bucolic new england town.


----------



## ayron

people that claim to be anarchists, have kids, and raise them in front of tv's, in suvs, and using disposable diapers, i agree are not real anarchists at all and are not ready to have kids in the first place. but if you claim to be an anarchist, have kids, and raise them in a diy culture, educate them yourself, treat them like equals and show them what it means to be an anarchist, then your creating another free person whos very existance is destructive to the imperial capitalist state. 

the point is, if your not ready to breed and stay integral being and raising anarchy, then dont.


----------



## veggieguy12

ayron said:


> ...if you claim to be an anarchist, have kids, and raise them in a diy culture, educate them yourself, treat them like equals and show them what it means to be an anarchist, then your creating another free person whos very existance is destructive to the imperial capitalist state.


 
How is anyone who lives and consumes within/as part of a capitalist society destructive to that system?
One day, a person may be the V.I. Lenin (or better) and topple the capitalist system in which s/he lived, but living (i.e., buying food, clothes, renting/buying property for residence, paying taxes) in the system makes one complicit in its existence. And dropping out resolves that participation in the system, but doesn't actively counter the system.

So just being of a certain mind is not going to do shit; only certain actions will amount to a life "destructive to that system".


----------



## Crocodile

Yeah. Johnny Hobo sings oogle anthems. 

He's never ridden a freight train in his life but supposedly he writes about his friend's lives. Which, to be fair, is something a lot of song writers do. Many people write about things they've never done. However, it's a bit problematic to write about train hopping if one has never done it. You can't know what it is to ride a train without actually having done it. And also, with the more music and art about freight trains that comes out about trains, the more idiots will emerge that want to ride trains. So I don't know.


----------



## emc

weve got to realize that as violent and unpredictable as nature is, it gave birth to us. if it wasnt this way, we would never have come about. it wouldnt be an 'advance' in nature to remove humans since it would inevitably repeat the process of forming us again either here or somewhere else. i mean, the greatest advance fish came up with was to crawl on land to become birds... which prey on fish when they need to. most tribal cultures had an initiation process by which their kids became adults. they would have to go on a dangerous hunt or something, but now they just go to college. it forms the consumer class which is kind of like a primordial soup. they are a class of maintenance which allows life to continue but stays pretty much the same for their whole lives. they have no desire to take the kinds of risks other people do... on the other hand, risk takers who stay that way for their whole lives come up with the kinds of experiments which make life worthwhile though they themselves often do not reproduce. the idea of settling down for a normal life is repugnant to them in some cases. anyway, the native americans were conquered by the europeans. the only reason the europeans were in that position was because of their proximity to a variety of other cultures which forced/enabled them to do so whereas the natives were more or less isolated. this was the only way of carrying the natives into a unified modern age... however, the only way for us to survive in it is to learn some lessons from the natives and make it a place where they can exist. iniquity always results in bloodshed and evolution tends toward greater equality. in other words, as adventurers, anarchists, whatever, we are in fact leading the charge to make civilization more civilized. still, at least some people are going to have to contribute to future generations in order for any of our ideas to have an impact. whatever, these things go in cycles. idk, fuck ive been reading a lot of history lately so its good to lay some thoughts out there. interesting topic yall.


----------



## ChikhaiBardo

I don't have sex.


----------



## Pheonix

if you really want your child to become an anarchist than throw them in the foster care system. the department of child services have taught more confessed and unwanted children how to hate the system then any of us can.


----------



## spoon

Shut up!
(btw i did not read a single post in this thread and I have no idea what its about)


----------



## Nelco

Real Anarcho's don't give up any of their rights for politics sake, including the right to breed.


----------



## Heron

if the comic at the top summed up the rest of the content, then ill say 1. environmentalism =/= anarchism and 2. you don't need to burn down a tropical rainforest and start a chinese toy factory to take care of your babiez.

sure populations out of hand and any kids you have are probably going to end up as dead as the rest of us when the shit hits the fan, but i don't think it's a very good point really.


----------



## joaquim33

Crocodile said:


> And also, with the more music and art about freight trains that comes out about trains, the more idiots will emerge that want to ride trains. So I don't know.


i think that's a pretty silly statement, considering that after love and death, freight trains are one of the most canonized fixtures in the american musical repertoire. and anyway, plenty of train riders are complete idiots, and such aforementioned emerging people would be better off learning to hop trains from some silly 16 year kid's goofy folk punk song than mentoring with some train core oogle.


----------



## acrata4ever

ted kaczynski volunteered to take cia acid in mkultra tests. 1954 cia document says he very well could have been a sleeping agent (manchurian canidate). camilos parents were anarchists, his agrian reform for cuba shows his parents influence. abbie hoffmans son is an anarchist. yes your parents hope you will be a carbon copy of the assholes they are. these chances are 50/50. ANARCHY MEANS NO RULERS/BOSSES NOT NO RULES/LAWS. the chinese culturally like the japanese have a problem rebelling, blind obedience is the way it works there. it was a bitch for mao to get the following he did and took alot of brainwashing. yes youre going to use in life, i use less i believe less is more. most babies are mistakes you are responsible for your mistakes. please be very responsible.


----------



## acrata4ever

oh i forgot look at a population density map of the USA theres plenty more room for more people.


----------



## Earth

No, there isn't...

There has to be a balance.
Not everything needs to be developed, certain areas's need be wild and uninhabited
so that other forms of life can live there own way.

I can't understrand why some / acrually many feel that every God damned square inch of country here
needs a person on it.
No, it don't....

People need to stay out from the wildlands,
or else everything will be just one big ghetto......
While some may find that cool,
it ain't fair to the life forms that have no say in the matter.

Manson once said that 200 million need to go,
as far as people are concerned...

With the way so called civilized life is going,
I'd have a hard time disagreeing.........................

We are a part of nature, not apart from nature.


----------



## Earth

( I just took my dog out for a nice walk in the night air )

But, to comment on the original thing here at hand - breeding vs not - my own personal views have shifted greatly over the past twenty years.

For a long time, I was completelty against it - then in 1995 I was paired up with a wonderful woman who I would have had a family with, except she chose to end her life sooner rather than later. 
(this was during my newly post Official Hoologans / Adam-12 CT / NY hardcore life...)

But towards the end of the 90s, I was blessed with being a part of another wonderful woman who was actually a mom, with two boys (11, 13) and I fell into an instant family which I truly adored - until her complaints about me going to NYC for session work (I played electric bass back then) got to be too painful....

Today I am older and broken, and oddly enough for the first time really wishing I had kids of my own.
But I don't, and there's nothing I can do to change that.

Now,
in reference to the comment I just made before this one - I am not being a jerk...

I sincerely do believe that life today is completely out of balance, that there are way too many people - especially bad people - whose greed is ruining it for everyone....

The very last time I got drunk, I listend to the entire Marvin Gaye record (yes, record as in that snap crackle and pop) What's Going On and really became quite distraught over all the words to the music, because today - this record actually stands even stronger than it did back in the early 70s...

There's no jobs, no hope..... I'm so glad I don't have to do it all over again...
- and the only people doing anything positive today (those in all the OCCUPY movements wherever they may be) are being rediculed beyond belief BECAUSE THE PROTESTS SPEAK THE TRUTH !

I do know one thing though, and that's
if I should ever find the right woman, preferably one with a kid - or thinking of adopting one - my life will finally be complete.


----------



## oki

people should do what they want, as long as i dont have to have any kids.
its a personal choice, and anarchism means freedom so anarchism that forbids having children is facist.


----------



## river dog

im gonna tell you how to live your life and in the process become the greatest anarchist their ever was, jus' sayin


----------



## sideshowbxb

bobNkamille said:


> we discussed that me and my soon to be husband . He said wouldn't it be funny if our kids grew up to be gangsters i told him that I wouldn't pay for there shit (gangster kids are expensive). Then he said what if they rebel by becoming hardcore Christians i just laughed. I'm not an anarchist I would love to believe that anarchism would save the human population but the truth is it's contradictory. Even with anarchy there would have to be set law set rules it may not be like the government we have now but it would still be us governing people. People "who do not bare leadership skills" would turn to the ones who do, we evolved from ape's which are pack animals. I think with out everything that people have grew so use to we would fall back to a primal stature.
> 
> There are rules with in a pack there are rules with in a family. There is structure to survival and a need to survive no matter how much we suppress these needs they are still embedded into our genes. If no one had kids because it was "rebelling" to not conform to society then you would be conforming by having abortions birth control buying these things to make it so much harder for you not to beckon to your primal responsibility to reproduce. I said this to a few people "going green" is the new black soon enough it will fall out of fashion. being political falls into this same category it's the new in thing to do. Everything has a fashion to it sooner or later no one will care we might care about organic D.I.Y shit our children might even care but who says they wont rebel against us as we rebelled against our parents and our parents rebelled against there's. There is no saving humanity unless we go straight into primativism and god knows that, that's not going to happen.
> Thats my theory on the mess
> Who says you have to own all the latest gadgets to have children. It's like people telling me i have to do my taxes or own a house car phone or computer that's the social norm if i choose to not be part of it then let it be
> 
> We all conform one way or another


on that note, what would snake do? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed6Yr81jZ6g


----------



## Yell

guess that means me and my partner aren't real anarchists.


----------



## billyriot

I don't agree with a lot of what vhemt said, but I can understand where they are coming from, as far as population density goes. The part that offended me most was "good parents make bad anarchists". I wholeheartedly hate that line. I've known anarchists to make great parents, better parents than most Statists. Simply because one chooses to procreate shouldn't take away from how they view the world around them, that's absurd and thoughts like that create coercive behaviour.

And all this talk of "real" anarchists? What does it take to be a "real anarchist"? I simply thought having the ideals that I have, and wanting to apply those ideals to my life, would constitute as anarchistic in one form of the word, but apparently not. Deciding what is and is not for other people's lives is completely contradicting to an anarchistic viewpoint.


----------



## Mei

I feel like going as far as to say "real anarchists don't breed" is to place very rigid social controls on people. To call oneself an anarchist and at the same time tell people not to have any children is self contradictory.

How about "if you can't feed em don't breed em" as a general suggestion?


----------



## AnarchoNomad

mkirby said:


> Real Anarchists Dont Breed
> 
> Read and discuss.


I am automatically suspicious of anything that starts out with "Real anarchists...."


----------



## 3rdEyeVision

I think any list of why you should have kids can easily be destroyed with logic by a list of why you shouldn't have kids. Just don't have kids. Period. It doesn't matter where you come from or what you believe. We just need to stop having fuckin kids.


----------



## Odin

I think only those who are capable of raising intelligent... sane... well adjusted children should have children...

now lets take a census of who on this planet is capable of that.


----------



## thapoet

what bettern soldiers than the ones you make yourself? lol... sorry, had to lighten this thread up a little bit.... but seriously, as a rational being, I would agree, but as a caring father, I have to say that my daughter is the best my life has to offer this world.... and she can shoot a fly off a plate o' grits at 60 yards with a 22.... but then again, we are not true anarchists. personally, since i know that everything i say and do, everywhere i sleep, damn near every choice I make in the name of personal freedom is deemed illegal in some fashion, I instead consider myself a "fuckemallist".... bcause quite frankly, i don't give a shit about their rules or the rule of havimg no rules.... when anarchists dictate what others should or shouldn't do, then they seem to be no better than those in power... i was born free because i say i am free, not because governments give me freedom... and when someone tells me i shouldnt have kids because it doesn't fit their agenda, well, whats the difference.... i could never subscribe to communo-anarchism... the belief that everyone must live their lives for the betterment of society. or the safety of the planet... or to save the deer... fuck that! serve that deer up slow roasted on a spit over an open fire while society sits there hating me for not being vegan or some shit.... anyway, the point is this, its not necessarily whether or not you have kids, its what freedom you intill in their hearts that inevitably make the world a free and better place.... wow... i was ranting.... sorry yall, imgots nothingnbut love, yall know this


----------



## Mongo

anarchy is a form of policy that we apply to ourselves and sometimes try to coerce others into based on what we believe is right.

having children is a basic part of nature.

that being said, you can be an anarchist and be a good parent.

as for the overpopulation argument, nature or we take care of the population, be it a pandemic, nuclear bomb, asteroids, or even a blackholes can wipe us out at any second.

final summation fuck it, have kids do whatever you want, if your gonna try to stop me arguing
I'll just walk away and if it comes down to it I'll put a boot in your face if anyone trys to physically stop me from having a kid. just try to keep everything as decent as possible while you can on your own personal terms without inhibiting others.


----------



## Kamil

Anarchism has nothing to do with the absence of laws, the chief fallacy in the popular conception of anarchism is that it means "no rules". Anarchism literally means no leaders. In fact, the classic anarchist theorists like Bakunin wrote extensively about how people would take up a general sort of natural honour code (for want of a better term) that replace the need to be policed. The existance of "rules", which, in a stateless society would differ dramaticlly in conception, articulation, and application from the rules of bourgeois statist society, does not imply that said community is restrained in its liberty. Rather, they would instead be rendered essential truisms, axiomatic if you will. Sorry for tangent and I didnt mean talk down to anyone or anything. "Whats right and whats wrong?" is a question we will be unable to ask in the future language of global stateless society as it will be replaced by a rational, scientific empathy for all life. And it is with this in mind, that the problem of family and by extension overpopulation must be examined.

There is an essential difference, in my opinion, between organic and inorganic familial relations. Under the material conditions of a market economy and the political monopoly of the financier/businessmen caste, which promotes a cut throat ethos the relations between people blood related all too easily become strained and artificial. There is an honest difference between genuinly loveing someone you are blood related to because of who they are as a person and what theyve done for you, and "loving" someone begrudgingly "just because their family".

Tribal and so called "primitive" societies from what I've seen, postulate (at least in theory) a much more warm, heart-affirming, and honest code of familial interaction. though it certainly does retain flaws in some cases. So-called tribal societies are not a blanket: some are patriarchial, some are not; some are encouraging of the youth, others repressive. Dare I say, sometimes its downright reactionary (FGM, unconsensual marriages), but in general, in its bonding communial ritualism valueable lessons can be gleamed from it.

Contrariwise, the alienation felt by humans in the technologically advanced first world, allows us to reconsider previously held notions though at the same time it is the springboard for this. In the nuclear family unit the wife is subserviant and the children are property. In our first world alienation we can readily see this and thus disregard emopty notions of sanctity in subserviance. Monogamous relationships, caretaking and personal loyalty to ones parents and kin is not inherintly oppresive, but often the conditions of modern technological society make it so.

Just as Marx (obviously not an anarchist but I love em anyways) proposed for the workers to take ahold the reigns of the state (which he defined as a the tool of class oppression) to overthrow, punish, and erase the exploiters; so too can the family structure be re-taken, subverted, and used to our own ends by those of us who are "progressive, nomadic, off the grid" or whatever term you wish to use. This subverted street family would take nods from the tribal model in its various forms while cheerfully and ironically embracing and thus dashing to bits stereotypical elements of the bourgeois family unit.


----------



## Kamil

maybe i went off on bullshit, im just really high and bored at the college i dont attend in their library


----------



## ancienttoes

i think children in this capitalist society creates a lot of obligations and ties a lot of people to the operation of the system. could you do what you now and just dumpster some extra food for your baby? maybe. but would you in reality if you had another option like the warm comfort of security that capitalism offers now that another smaller, more vulnerable human being is involved? there are enough people that everyone who could should consciously decide not to make another person. also, the reason parenting is so burdensome is that we no longer have a tribe where everyone takes care of everyone. the reason there are so many people though is not from decision but from fossil fuels and petrochemical fertilizer-induced high yields.


----------



## shabti

the existence of voluntarists/anarcho-capitalists should prove that there is no way to make a set of beliefs that "real" anarchists hold. Even those with a propensity to fight hierarchy and politics in all it's forms (an, archy, literally, 'against hierarchy') willingly and knowingly engage in it from time to time. I bought some peanut butter at walmart this morning for example.

yeah. "Here's why I don't think anarchists should breed." is a title that might make me want to read what this dude had to say.


----------



## liberationmoves

Less humans = more freedom for the humans here and the chance to have species diversity and environmental diversity. 

More humans = more animal torture , less diversity of animal species and less freedom for humans on the planet. 

The wise choice is simple.


----------



## shabti

I want to be a father. Or rather, I feel a strong need to be a mentor to the young. There is a difference. I wouldn't mind helping youth learn to do permaculture... But I WOULD mind having my "spawn" get sucked in by American commercialism. It would make me feel awesome if someday I could offer guidance, advice, support, etc to the youth of whatever community I'm in. If I could help them grow. It would NOT be awesome if I was responsible for explaining genocide, pesticides, homicide, and all that goes along with culture. 

I want to be a dad, but I fear that I'd fail at raising a more radical and capable human than I. I want to be a dad, but I fear it's more selfish self interest than a legitimate need to nurture. Thankfully I'm young enough to give the matter some thought, but this much I know it's true: like everyone else, it wouldn't be an internet article to convince me one way or another. The circumstance, the mother, a lot of other things besides an internet article.


----------



## notOK

Real anarchists argue with real anarchists about what real anarchy is. For me, the most attractive part of anarchy's always been not having someone tell ya how things must be done. Plenty of people are dicks, and their nature is to be, regardless of their philosophical leaning or system they live under. There's enough for every person in the world to have all they need. Just some folk want a whole lot more than that. 
These days you don't need a dozen kids to supply the labor to feed the family. I understand the logistics of the argument. A fair number of parents want their children to get a job without concern for what the work entails, in the grand scheme. But to say that one less child is one less soldier, worker, pawn is an oversimplification. More or less saying this world is too fucked, so don't have kids.
Kids can certainly be used to control the actions of the parents. And more kids meaning more benefits/tax breaks is a significant example of that coercion. Because feeding kids dumpster food can get them taken away. 
It's a hardliner position, not without its merits. But it is maybe overly intellectual and denies the biological imperative to reproduce. And it only works if everyone does it, whileforcedcompliance runs contrary to the anarchist side of it.


----------



## Kim Chee

[QUOTE="mkirby, post: 23356, member: 353"Read and discuss.[/QUOTE]

Fuck you I won't do what you tell me.


----------



## Thrasymachus

This is the way I see it. Speaking for myself, I can barely function under capitalism. I think about suicide all the time, my life is a constant existential crisis, I cannot just simply live, everything is a big issue: when I am off work I am like a paralyzed deer in headlights and just procrastinate or have an anxiety attack -- when I am at work, I am like a zombie. If I hold a job for too long, I start getting caged animal syndrome and feel especially suicidal and morose till I hit a crisis and quit the job. I finally made enough money to support myself in my own apartment at age 32(I am talking without a room-mate here). I can barely bring myself to wash clothes, shower more than once a week, I don't care to meet other people(literally: if I don't write down people's names whom I meet, I will forget their names again and agan), I am severely underweight due to unhappiness preventing me from working out consisently or eating enough, etc.

Literally I cannot function in this society. Personally I don't call myself an anarchist, because I think it is an immature utopian movement. But say someone else did say they were an anarchist, but they could jump through the hoops required of them, and do all the right things according to the dominate narrative. They went to college, they got a high paying professional job, they convinced themself that they feel in love, then they bought a house, and finally they raised a kid. Isn't such person just a poser? They are pretending they are against capitalism and the state, but they are actually living and functioning just fine under capitalism and the state. I mean I cannot function properly under capitalism and even take care of myself. If someone can function under capitalism so fine that they can support another person in the conventional manner, how are they actually against capitalism? What people self report is very faulty. Probably they are functioning just fine if they made such a choice.

That is the part of the reason why I think anarchism is a waste of time, anarchists are just interested in being anarchists, same as punks just want to be punks or black metal scenesters are black metal scenesters. Also it is beyond funny that they didn't allow that group to table some lame anarchist bookfair.


----------

