It often strikes me as baffling how inept and incompetent government agencies or really PR firms as a whole, be it in any social or cultural institution, can pump out such a glaringly transparent message without any hassle from the censors. You see, in Good Olde’ Britannia, public money, sometimes in huge amounts, contributes to PSA campaigns such as this one, that teaches people the joys of wanton hedonism and futureless sterility.
In the poster above, women have to choose between makeup, expensive (and meaningless) market-inflated luxury items and having children. Men get to choose between becoming a father, and playing video games (some parents do both mind you). Is this a conspiracy to ensure the demographic destruction of Britain? I would conclude that this is not a conspiracy per-say, but the acting out of an operational discourse that has been ingrained in western populations for quite some time now. Freedom is hedonism, Freedom is being unencumbered by any limitation. Kids are a massive limitation to personal freedom, and in a society of atomized and deracinated NPCs, nothing but chasing after the latest crop of objects that promises “happiness” and “freedom” should be the number one life-prerogative.
The fact that some faceless bureaucrat PR “creative” thought this poster was acceptable in the first place illustrates the self-annihilatory impulse present in most western societies. I bet during the approval meeting, everyone thought it was clever, and was a message of “common sense”. What bothers most people, including the women that take these PSA posters to be sexist, is the entire framing of the dichotomous choice to begin with. Choose to have kids, suffer by being deprived of these “things”, implying that these “things” give you the same satisfaction as ensuring your future, giving endless love and being loved, and taking care of your own offspring.
Let me make a confession, a confession of “wrong-think” i guess because it just might “offend” people (people who, chances are, end up being against me politically anyways, so C’est La Vie). I never really could bring myself to entertain or sympathize with people who are die-hard against having children, as someone who has always valued the life-altering and sacred duty of having children. Of course there might be good reasons, in fact if you are not up to the task, then it’s better if you do not have children.I am specifically referring to the minority of people who are adamantly against having children to the point of bordering on anti-natalism. Anti-Natalism is such a cold and inhuman philosophy, a self-defeating one in good time when you really think about it. Maybe this particular form of Thanatos is more often than not an unconscious disposition among the childless, then the even smaller minority of actual ideological anti-natalists.
Now the PSA was put in place to help teenagers think twice about getting pregnant underage, but as the feminist stated in the Daily mail article against it (side note: me agreeing with a feminist imagine that! They said it couldn’t be done), it had the unintended consequence of devaluing motherhood and presenting pregnancy as a life-ending and terrible reality.
The fact of the matter is, and to be fair I only know this from observation (not being a parent myself), having children is hard. Seeing children be raised into adulthood and making them into flourishing human beings, that’s one of the hardest things one can do. Even if it is the hardest thing one can achieve, it is also the most natural, natural in terms of the biological and natural law connotations of the term.
Is the new line of makeup or shoes going to give you happiness as you grow older and your looks fad into nothingness? is that Vidya going to give you lasting satisfaction as the new console comes out, and you wasted away countless hours on a complex and expensive form of escapism? The answer seems obvious to anyone with life still flowing through their red-blooded veins. What a time to live in, the government encourages its citizens to, as the cliched saying goes “live, buy, consume, die”, and do this all while being bitter and lonely. As more people are centralized in megacities, and economic realities constrain families in the middle class, more people become childless as a result. City life is generally difficult for parents, especially as single income homes are a thing of the past.
what saddens me to this reality is the ease by which so many buy into this anti-natalist line of thinking. Do an experiment, try to talk to someone who states outright “I NEVER want to have kids”, and try and convince them otherwise. Chances are its hopeless, for we no longer live in the world of tradition, where communities influenced the minds of the youth, including one’s family, and such things as childlessness were discouraged. You can’t even question someone on not having kids now a days, as if it is some kind of new in-vogue social taboo. Some people actually believe promoting the family is outright “misogyny”, or against the revolution, or whatever ideology-speak they come up with to justify demographic decline….
There are a variety of responses in which those especially on the political far-left come up with that make it seem like not having children is a noble and valiant act. The problem is, the social capital of a couple with children has significant gone down as society devalues the family as a whole, and the social capital of rootless DINKS has gone way up, at least in certain places and in certain industries. For the unenlightened, DINKS refer to “dual income, no kids”, because going on two vacations a year and becoming an alpha consumer is such a noble and socially important role to fulfill; It is safe to say it is no longer edgy to state you are not having children. You get to become the model corporate cog employee, get to attend fancy
wine IPA and cheese parties, have a “fun and interesting” existence as defined by the modern culture industry, and get to indulge in all sorts of “hip and cool” evanescent things that wont really matter in time. I hear you get to become a “cool wine aunt”, or whatever the male equivalent is (creepy beer uncle?).
Just look at this article from Business Insider (obviously they have a bias for those of you keen enough to observe) on seven reasons you shouldn’t have kids. Right away we see that the tool that is most effective to sell normals something now a days in the age of mass materialism, where metaphysics is on the decline (for now) in the west, is to label something with that almighty word SCIENCE! SCIENCE says you shouldn’t have kids! But when you read the article, all the reasons listed come off as rather quite selfish, and eschews any amount of sacrifice in one’s life for a higher end. Apart from the “contributing to global warming” reason, but families with a lot of kids, at least outside of North American, and even in huge parts of rural and more traditional places in North America, have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than cosmopolitan alpha consumers. At least three of the seven reasons directly relate to having a higher income as well; The problem is, you can’t easily convince people of a non-material benefit to something that takes multiple decades to fully realize in terms of true human life-satisfaction. Its quite easy, given our social milieu, of convincing the average NPC of direct material benefits in the immediate.
Let me end this article on a bit of a Nietzschean note. If you are familiar with the historical symptom analyst approach of Nietzsche, where he diagnoses a society, a particular behavior or philosophic system, etc. as on the ascending or descending line of life. What honors nature, and compliments human flourishing is on the ascending scale, and what derides and denies nature and life is on the descending; Of course this is a very rough summation, and Nietzsche was referring to western metaphysics after Plato as being on the declining side of life, for it paints a decrepit picture of the human body, derides the earth and the worldly, praises death, etc. This is His estimation of metaphysics, not mine.
The point is, which is more ascending? which position honors human life, loves nature, is vibrant and filled with verve, and that which promotes human flourishing? Taking up the responsibility of being a parent and passing on your line, cultivating potentially great people with their own unique life-paths? Fulfilling nature by reproducing? or the inverse…the hedonistic, individualistic, anti-natalist position?
Once again, if your eyes still fight the heaviness brought about by the banal, eternally sleeping-wakeful, zombie-like plotting through life, if blood still rushes through your veins, if passion still enters your heart….then the answer is obvious.
Artwork done by me, entitled “night time mother with child”, graphite, Sept/2018.