- Counter-Currents Publishing - http://www.counter-currents.

com -

Interview with Chip Smith on Anti-Natalism, Cosmic Pessimism, & his

Plans for the Future
Posted By Greg Johnson On August 22, 2013 @ 12:01 am In North American New Right | Comments
Disabled

[1]5,020

words

The conclusion of my interview with Chip Smith of

Nine-Banded Books [2] deals with anti-natalism, cosmic
pessimism, H. P. Lovecraft, Hollister Kopps Gun Fag
Manifesto [3], and other future 9BB publications.
Anti-natalism is the theme of two of your titles: Jim
Crawfords Confessions of an Antinatalist [4] and the
forthcoming title by Sarah Perry, Every Cradle is a
Grave [5]. What attracts you to anti-natalism?
I have been asked before whether I agree with the theses
and ideas on offer in the books I put out. The stock answer
is, not necessarily. I am, however, convinced that
antinatalism (I tend to shear the hyphen) taps an acid
truththat every birth is tragic.
Earlier you asked about my political and intellectual
disposition and, mindful of context, I tried to answer
honestly. But if you want to play it down to the quick, I
suppose my deeper worldview can be reduced to a toxic blend of scientific materialism and deep
pessimism. In other words, I allow that reality can be apprehended through reason and experience,
but I think the conclusions that follow tend only to affirm our worst suspicionsthat, to borrow
Thomas Ligottis perfect phrase, the universe is not just meaningless, but malignantly useless.
Some people might describe this as nihilism, but I am aware of the logomachian squalls that attend
the term. To be a bit clearer, then, I dont think that nothing is true in the sense that not even that
grammatical utterance is true, but I do ascribe to a kind of nihilistic (or profoundly pessimistic, in the
key of Schopenhauer not Ehrlich) default that counsels absolute skepticism where the polestar of
meaning shifts into frame.
Put it this way: I think that Camus was right to reject political and philosophical appeals; I think he
was wrong to make nice with the abyss that remains after such appeals have been filed and cert.
denied. Mortality salience is keyyour death and mine, as Jim Goad puts it. Its just that I am no
longer convinced that the inevitability of death endows a lifeor life itselfwith any special
significance. The inarguable fact is that every one of us has been dropkicked into a life we didnt ask
for, that leads to death. And the world ends when you die. Not a metaphor. Zeros dont multiply. The
apple isnt just rotten; its shot through with poison.
You say this kind of thing and people respond in predictable ways. I will be enjoined to throw myself
off the nearest bridge. I will be advised to man up for the struggle. I will be told that I am a coward
or that God is the answer. Dont think for a second that I havent thought it through. There are
plenty of shiny distractions to keep my interest for the time being. There are animals to be fed,
deadlines to be met, and I want to see how Breaking Bad ends.
But deep pessimism is where aesthetics breaks down for me. In particular, its what impels me to
reject appeals to transcendent survival that resound in racialist and environmentalist rhetoric. Pace
every zombie movie ever made, I dont think survivalin the literal, generational, tribal, or
metaphorical senseis anything to celebrate. Its just a Darwinian tic.
I believe I first came to think about antinatalism when I was reading Murray Rothbards essay on
childrens rights in The Ethics of Liberty. Its an infamous bit of libertarian theory that sort of tests

the limits of the non-aggression principle. The weird result is that Murray, ever the stickler for
consistency, ends up defending some repugnant conclusions, such as that parents have no strict
ethical obligation to care for, or even feed, their children. The reasoning follows after an ethical
abhorrence of the initiation of force. While we might condemn the category of inaction that permits a
helpless infant to die for lack of provision, Rothbard argues, strict libertarian ethics precludes the
imposition of forcesuch as by dint of legal sanction or punishmentagainst non-intervening
bystanders, including parents who do not actively aggress against their offspring but merely allow
them to die.
Now I am aware that there are many ways out of this knot, including some that dont violate
Rothbards cherished non-aggression axiom. But I was trying to think it down on his terms, just for
the sport of it, and when I considered carefully his emphasis on initial force, well, it occurred to me
that maybe he wasnt being so bravely consistent as he liked to imagine.
Wasnt the hypothetical childs life itself the result of a more germinal initiation of forcethe
procreative force that would inevitably result in a human death? Well, it certainly wasnt something
that he consented to, any more than so many subsequent floggings and taxes and zoning ordinances
that he might endure and that Rothbard would surely condemn if said hypothetical child were lucky
enough to be sheltered and fed through his helpless phase. I might emphasize that my armchair
rejoinder was little more than a nostrum, nothing epiphanic. But it did stick with me. And then one
day I was revisiting the whole business in conversation with a friend, who suggested in turn that I
read this new book by a philosopher named David Benatar.
The book was called Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Most people
think the title alone is absurd, and when they first hear about the hedonic asymmetry that
undergirds and informs Benatars antinatalist conclusion, they think its just plain silly. I think most
people havent thought very hard about it and dont want to. I think its also possible that most
people accept the asymmetry at face value, but recoil when they sense were it leads. The asymmetry
is simply a formalized way of expressing the relationship between pain and pleasure, and perforce,
harm and benefit. Its usually shown in a box divided into quadrants (like Pascals Wager), but it goes
like this:
1) The presence of pain is bad; and
2) The presence of pleasure is good.
3) The absence of pain is good (even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone); but
4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a
deprivation
The conclusion thats intuitive to some but repugnant to others is that no matter how much good
stuff occurs in a given human life, the alternative of never being brought into existence is always
better. Sure, never being brought to life means never enjoying a slice of pizza or such other arguably
more refined pleasures that you might care to name. But it also means never experiencing an iota of
pain. It means never experiencing the pain of a pricked finger or the pain associated with any
number of possible infirmities and misfortunes, from broken bones and influenza to the more
emotionally resonant anguish that comes with, for example, the loss of a loved one.
You might think that a super-duper perfect life is enough to offset the imbalance. Its not. This is
because the special category of absence that applies to those who are never brought into existence
entails the absence of deprivation. The person who is never born may never know the pleasure of
pizza-eating or the pain of a pinprick, but he is eternally spared the latter and he experiences
absolutely no sense of deprivation in missing out on the former.
Now, one reflexive response that many people come up with when they first encounter the
pleasure/pain asymmetry is some version of the counterclaim that Pain is NOT bad! People will say,
I had cancer, and Im a better person for it! or My divorce was terribly painful, but later I met the
love of my life, and Im better for it! or they might hang their rejection on the textbook case of the a
child who navely touches an open flame thereby triggering a nerve-sensory response thereby
inculcating the useful lesson that, as Phil Hartmans Frankenstein character would put it, FIRE BAD!
The problem with this kneejerk response, of course, is that it confuses the instrumental value of
(some) pain with the underlying quality of pain itself, which is always, by definition, bad. Thats why
its pain. If you dont accept that, you can just as easily tweak the formulation to apply only to

non-instrumental pain, which invades every human life.

A more sophisticated objection rests on something called the non-identity problem, or simply
non-identity. This refers to the notion that qualitative states (pain and pleasure) cannot be
meaningfully applied to nonexistent or potential beings and that therefore the absence of pleasure or
pain is only relevant when applied to already-existing beings.
It sounds impressive at first blush, but people who rest their counterargument on non-identity
usually fail to consider how intuitive and commonplace non-identity premised reasoning is in our
day-to-day experience. At the front, its worth noting that most practical and moral decisions are
brokered in consideration of some potentialbut presently non-existentstate of affairs. Otherwise
no one would take out insurance policies, plan for retirement, save for college, etc., and the entire
legal basis for negligence would be nonsensical.
The same intuitive orientation is just as common where the future welfare of potential humans goes.
Think of the childless couple who chooses to buy a home near a good school because they are
planning a family. Or think of the last baby shower you were dragged to. Or, if such examples
seem a mite trivial, consider the case where a husband and wife both carry the gene for Tay Sachs
and contemplate having a child. Does anyone really think that the non-identity problem obviates
the moral dimension of a decision that entails a 25% chance that a child will be fated to live a short
life characterized by excruciating pain? The truth is that the non-identity problem is taken seriously
only when it is posited in countermand to philanthropic antinatalist reasoning. Its more of a refuge
than a serious philosophical problem.
Beyond the fact that I happen to be an antinatalist, theres much that interests me about the subject.
I find it fascinating that antinatalist conclusions can be derived fromor are consistent with to cite
that bordering-on-meaningless refrainso many different religious and philosophical vantages. Im
an atheist, but for Christians who believe in the reality of eternal damnation, the decision to create a
human life comes with the risk that a child may fail to toe the scriptural line and thus be consigned to
an eternity in Hell. For deontologists who place a premium on autonomy, procreation poses the
problem that no person can consent to his own creation. Anti-abortion votaries who base their
argument on the premise that the life begins at conception might consider that the biological
continuum they so cherish also ends foreseeably in the harm of death, that the act of procreation is
as much of a death sentence as a D&C procedure. For utilitarians, particularly those who skew
toward a negative utilitarian calculus, the problems are obvious.
There is also the fact that antinatalism is spectacularly provocative. Ive observed first-hand how
people who come to the subject convinced that the idea is merely silly often become hostile if not
downright vituperative as the discussion progresses. And such hostile reactions arent confined to
popular forums; theres a scholarly article by Sami Pihlstrm that argues, inter alia, that antinatalism
falls under this weird category of ethical unthinkabilities that should be proactively refused entry
into the open court of academe. In this regard, my interest in antinatalism overlaps with my interest
in other taboo subjects that tend to provoke acrimony, such as Holocaust revisionism, human
biodiversity, and a number of troublesome bioethical issues, such as the unorthodox exploration of
suicide ethics that animates Sarah Perrys work. Controversy, when it has a prickly, emotive quality,
can be a gateway to insight.
Jims book (Confessions of an Antinatalist) is a great one, and it seems to have found a bit of a cult
following. I can announce that a revised second edition is in the offing. The new edition will feature
an expansion of the Faux Q&A section, along with a new afterword by Jim, an introduction by me, a
new cover design by Kevin Slaughter, an interview with Jim, and maybeprobablyan annotated
bibliography that will be useful to people who want to explore the subject further.
I was probably premature in my announcement of Sarah Perrys forthcoming book, Every Cradle is a
Grave: Rethinking the Ethics of Birth and Suicide, since shes still plugging away at it. But Ive had
the opportunity to read several chapters, and I can assure her readers that their patience will be
rewarded. For those who dont know, Sarah hosts an excellent blog called The View from Hell under
the pseudonym Sister Y. Ive learned as much from her as I have from anyone online, including
Steve Sailer.
In the same wheelhouse, 9BB has agreed to publish a book by Colin Feltham called Keeping
Ourselves in the Dark. Its a collection of loosely interwoven, pessimistically intoned essays that
constellate around the crisis of meaning. Feltham has written a number of scholarly books, perhaps
most significantly in present context, Whats Wrong with Us: The Anthropathology Thesis. Im very

excited to be in a position to publish his work.

So, do you have any children?
No. And I dont work for the government.
Your discussion of anti-natalism is fascinating, but it gives me pause. The existence of a
tightly-argued literature for basically doing away with the human race, combined with
technologies like birth control, could be taken as a sign that high intelligence is an
evolutionary dead end. The kind of people who voluntarily limit reproduction include
intelligent people capable of foresight and planning, and socially and ecologically
responsible people concerned with the common good of mankind and the planet. But that
means that the selfish, irresponsible, and dumb will inherit the earth, which will just make
every additional birth even more tragic.
Well, high intelligence may very well be an evolutionary dead-end. Im certainly at a loss to come up
with a good reason as to why a once-adaptive trait that you and I happen to value should enjoy
special pleading before the blind algorithmic noise that is natural selection.
But even if the brawny-brained do figure out a way to defy gravity before the sun explodes, I think
there are yet reasons to question whether the galloping ascent of mind is really worth cheering on.
Futurist geeks will inform us that there are myriad tech revolutions afootall spearheaded by
smarties, to be sure. And I would suggest that such of these that converge on the gilded promise of
quantum computing and nanotechnology might advise a second reflective pauseone that comes by
way of Harlan Ellisons I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream and settles at what grim solace
remains in the darkest explanations that have always surrounded Fermis Enigma.
Maybe Im being cryptic. What I mean to consider is simply that the evolutionary trajectory of
intelligence can, has, and may yet lead to very bad things. It may one day be possible, for example,
to create sentient experiencelets not be so bold as to call it lifenot out of gametes but in the
deep quick of quibit states, and if this much should come to pass, it isnt so far a stretch to imagine
that such intelligent simulationsokay, theyre alivewill be capable of suffering, or that such will be
made to suffer, perhaps for sadistic kicks, perhaps in recursive loops of immeasurable intensity that
near enough approximate the eternal torture-state thats threatened in every fevered vision of Hell to
render the distinction moot.
What I further mean to consideragain against the hope we assign to intellectual progress, caught
up in the story as we areis that if and when the problem of scarcity is tidily resolved under the
reign of nano-bots, that maybe then well be left with basement nukes on the cheap. Or perhaps itll
be some other smarty-tech-hatched wizardry with which to hasten the final curtain. We havent
heard from the ETs is all Im saying, and theres a reason.
Or perhaps no such things will happen, or perhaps they arent worth considering in any case. Could
be well just march forward a bit longer, getting slightly stupider or slightly smarter or somehow
holding onto the present equilibrium, each of us meeting our own private endslittle apocalypses
allas we continue to behold the dumb show of a natural order that seduces us at turns with
chimerical notions of progress and myth and meaning. A bit more of the same, lets say.
Well. The sun will still explode.
I dont mean to be impossible or captious. Because the problem youre getting atits actually one of
the more gnarly consequentialist objections to philanthropic antinatalism that Ive encountered since
I first dipped my toes into these turbid waters. The relationship between happiness, dysgenics, and
antinatalism is parsed a bit further in an online comment thread [6] that Ive kept on file. Feel free to
click the link and put on your thinking cap, but the meat is nested in the exchange between Sister Y
and Jason Malloy, where Malloys statistically informed speculation is that antinatalist memes may
indeed fuel a kind of idiocracy effect leaving more people exposed to greater suffering in a social
environment that would tend to be hostile toward the escape valve of suicide.
To amplify the crux of your question, then, it could well be that belief in the philanthropic case
against reproduction practically entails unintended consequences that would perpetuate, rather than
alleviate, the very harm it seeks to avoid. I think the matter is yet to be empirically resolved, and Im
actually quite serious when I point to the potential dark side of intelligence worship. Still, Ill admit
its a troublesome wrinkle.

Whats important to keep in mind is that the reality of an idiocracy effect does not refute the
descriptive or axiological bases for the view that it is grossly indecent (or worse, if youre a
deontologist) to force new people into existence. For antinatalists who are also committed
consequentialists the problem may carry more difficulty, but for those of us who have a constitutional
aversion to treating people as means, the idea that we should bite the bullet and have childrenor
simply refrain from promoting antinatalist reasoningin order that the aggregate measure of human
suffering should diminish or remain stable is unpersuasive. Its a bit like asking a conscientious
objector to take up arms because theres a calculable scenario under which one more war is likely to
reduce the likelihood of future military engagements.
Of course, the problem could be addressed in other ways, which reminds me of Aschwin de Wolfs
provocative discussion of antinatalism in Cryonics, where he suggests [7] that theres an illiberal seed
at the core of antinatalist ethics. Ive gone on long enough, but if youre interested in understanding
why I think there might be something to Aschwins suspicion (though not in the sense he means),
my relevant comment is preserved here [8].
The long and short is that theres this other idea that we might think of as antinatalisms mutant
conjoined twin, like Belial in Basket Case. Its something that, as far I know, has yet to be formally
exposited, though it has penumbral resonance in the hard logic of negative utilitarianism, and it may,
more arguably, be deciphered through a Straussian (i.e., paranoid) reading of David Benatars
long-form argument. The idea has a name: promortalism. I dont know what to do with it. Lets just
hope our future Friendly AI overlords dont catch wind.
Your anti-natalist arguments appear to be based on essentially individualistic
assumptions. What if individual suffering really did not matter that much, and the object of
concern was the nation, the race, or the welfare of the universe itself? What if one did not
regard each human life merely as an end in itself, but as a means to higher ends, such as
the unfolding of high culture, grand politics, science, exploration, etc.? That sort of vision
would give intelligent and responsible people reasons to reproduce, and also furnish an
argument for reducing the reproduction of the selfish, dumb, and happy-go-lucky.
Im not blind to the romance of human achievement. If I were, I wouldnt bother publishing books,
and my reading list would start and stop with instruction manuals. But the Greater Good always
strikes me as being a cunt-hair shy of the Greater God, and I lack the imagination to believe in
either.
Such abstract objects of concern that could be enthroned above the intractable reality of forced
mortal suffering can be better understood, I think, as distractionsor as secular iterations of the
transcendental temptation. In Confessions of an Antinatalist, Jim Crawford discusses some of the
escape strategies that people deploy to avoid confronting the prospect that the universe might
reduce to so much useless malignancy, and he makes the important point (I touch on this above)
that stories of trans-generational survivalwhether of races or nations, humanity or Christianity, or
even knowledgeare really stories of vicarious (which is to say, fake) survival. If youre in thrall to
the romance of the long march, theres little I can say to dash your enthusiasm. You should be
aware, however, that the soldiers you conscript for the grand mission may not share your sense of
adventure, and are sure to die in battle.
Jim cuts it to the marrow when he says, Hope is my enemy. And however its phrased, the hope of
tomorrows promise (also Jims line) is subsumed under the broader teleological conceit that I
reject on all grounds. Its the granddaddy of delusions, this notion that theres a purpose to any of it.
Its the monster conspiracy that lurks above Ligottis marionettes.
Your combination of scientific rationalism and pessimism brings to mind H. P. Lovecraft.
Are you a reader of his work?
I made the usual rounds with Lovecrafts fiction when I was young, but it never reached the point of
obsession. I just loved the storiesthe sense of dread, the adverbially layered, almost
schizophrenically-tinged descriptions of nameless, timeless, inchoate horror. It always seemed that
he was trying to capture that rushing apocalyptic frisson that wakes you from a nightmare just as
some terrible apocalyptic truth is about to be revealed.
Theres a scene in David Lynchs film, Mulholland Drive [9], that reminds me very much of this aspect
of Lovecrafts horror writingthe part that takes place at Winkys Diner, where the guy anxiously
recounts a recurring dream thats been traumatizing him . . . as the details he describes quietly

manifest and the day-lit environment assumes a sinister pall. I mention this only because the horror
that Lovecraft was plying seems at once so fragile and so familiar; like it wants to vanish upon
analysis.
Those other aspects of Lovecrafthis voluminous antitheist writings, the criticism, the rationalpessimist philosophical essays, the traditionalist conservatismthat all came to my attention much
later, mostly by way of Houellebecqs biographical portrait and Ligottis brilliant treatise, The
Conspiracy against the Human Race. A few of Joshis essays, too. I have yet to delve as far as I
really should.
It does strike me how this dire appraisal of the universe that resonates in the work of Schopenhauer,
Zapffe, Lovecraft, and some few others, stands at such implacable remove from the delusional,
smiley-faced brand of new atheism thats championed these days by writers of sundry polemical
bestsellers. This is something I explorewithout, alas, explicit reference to Lovecrafts
importancein my introduction to a collection of the nonfiction work of Edgar Saltus thats being put
out soon by Underworld Amusements. Saltuss works on offerThe Philosophy of Disenchantment
(about deep pessimism) and The Anatomy of Melancholy (about antitheism)were written around
the turn of the century, and its such a bracing shock to contemplate the gulf that separates his
dismal viewpoint from such cheery cant that animates the present-day Dawkins cult. I suppose I
would be tempting a joke if I were to call it depressing.
I see you are bringing out Hollister Kopps Gun Fag Manifesto [3] with a Preface by Jim
Goad. Tell us about that project
Yeah. This ones a hoot. Im doing it in collaboration with Kevin Slaughter of Underworld
Amusements, so its actually a 9BB/UA releasehopefully the first in a series of Resurrection
reprints of great zines. We have others in our sights.
Gun Fag Manifesto was one of my favorite things to come out of the halcyon days of zinedom, and,
as with so many other DIY publications from that micro-era (the mid-90s), it seems to have
disappeared down the memory hole. The subtitle said it all: Entertainment for the Armed
Sociopath. GFM was lovingly, obsessively, psychotically, and irresponsibly devoted to guns, gun
culture, gun counterculture, gun rights, gun art, gun porn, and . . . ammo. The writing is obsessive
and funny as hell, blending a hilariously over-the-top (but not ironic) pro-gun editorial stance with a
powder keg of smart-witted gonzo reportage in the spirit of ANSWER Me! Im really tickled that Jim
Goad will be kicking off the festivities. His name belongs on this thing for reasons that go way back.
The book itself is just what youd want: a facsimile reprint of all three issues with a perfect new
introduction by Hollister and, of course, Goads preface. Therell be some new artwork to jazz things
up at the edges, and maybe a cool promotional gimmick, but thats the gist. Ive been wanting to do
this one for such a long time, but Hollister was hard to track down. Once I found him, it didnt take
much to convince him. Hes one of the good ones.
What do you envision for the future of Nine-Banded Books? Where would you like to be in
ten years?
I remember seeing an interview with John Waters where he described his cinematic achievement as
a footnote that fought its way into a paragraph. The footnote seems like a cozy enough redoubt for
what I do, but Im content to operate further below the cultural radarbeneath even the footnotes
and the asterisks appending the footnotesas long as I can continue to publish some few books each
year that I believe matter in whatever way. Theres no shortage of ideas; I enjoy following my
instincts and being surprised by the next obsessive charge that comes. I think Im a reasonably good
editor (though Im a crappy proofreader, which is why I rely on Ann Sterzingers laser eye), and I
enjoy working closely with writers. In practical terms, I guess Id like to fatten up the stock of
non-9BB titles on offer, if only to better showcase more of the provocative and overlooked literature
that catches my attention. Theres good stuff being put out by other niche publishers. The catalog
will grow is all I know.
As far as more immediate future plans go, I can make at least a few relatively firm announcements
about whats on the front burnersome things that havent been mentioned above.
First, theres this nasty little collection of short fiction by Paul Bingham called Down Where the Devil
Dont Go. Ive been sitting on it for too long, but its very nearly ready for press now. Id describe it
as a kind of postmodern picaresqueor houellebecqesque if I may coin a silly term. Despicable
characters leading despicable lives in a loosely interconnected sequence of misanthropically intoned,

pulp-noir-descended stories revolving around themes of alienation, anomie, and cultural

degeneration. The flavor is reactionary, and the satirical inflection is pitch-black.
Next in the queue might or might not be Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy
by Kenneth Humphreys. Ken is an articulate and reliable gadfly for the mythicist opposition to the
regnant Jesus historiography, and this book presents the thesis in entertaining bite size chunks. Its a
primer, sort of like those Very Short Introduction monographs that Oxford has been churning out
over the years.
Lets see . . . Ive already made note of Colin Felthams book and the future releases by Crowell and
Bowden, so that leaves me to mention The Nine-Banded Sourcebook and Reader, which is this
giant-ass compendium Ive been working on in fits and starts for some time. I guess you might call it
a magalog in that it features flagrantly self-promotional content cheek-to-cheek with a bunch of
interviews and articlessome reprints, some newthat sort of coalesce around the 9BB brand, such
as it is. If you remember the old Whole Earth catalogs or the Loompanics Unlimited annuals, well,
thats sort of the spirit Im hoping to capture. The cover art is by Billy Spicer, and its a fucking
knockout.
If its not too far afield, Id like to close with a plug for two writers in the 9BB stable whose work has
thus far gone unmentioned. These writers are Ann Sterzinger and Mikita Brottman.
Anns books may not mesh so obviously with the countercultural and metapolitical currents that
provoke rubbernecking, but I dare anyone to read her novel NVSQVAM (nowhere) [10] and not agree
with me that shes a criminally overlooked writer. Ive since had the opportunity to read the first
draft of a science fiction novel that shes still perfecting, and it was so good it made my elbows itch
(or maybe that was spilled salt on the bar? . . . regardless). I hope to hell she gets her shot with a
top-drawer publisher before the last call. I think she will. She deserves it. Shes worked for it. I do
worry sometimes that Ive jinxed the odds by publishing her first.
And then theres Mikita, whose subversive cultural studies have made such a lasting impression on
me. Mikita Brottman is that rare bird who can turn out razor-sharp interdisciplinary scholarship in
one stroke and pitch-perfect psychological fiction in the next. She gets in your head, and under your
skin. Just read Thirteen Girls [11]. Youll see.
Thank you Chip, this is been an amazing, mind- and world-expanding interview for me and
my readers. I look forward to your future writings and publications.
My pleasure.
Editors Note: All Nine-Banded Books titles can be purchased direct from their website
(http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/ [2]) or at Amazon.com [12].

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/interview-with-chip-smithon-anti-natalism-cosmic-pessimism-and-his-plans-for-the-future/
URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Molochblake.jpg
[2] Nine-Banded Books: http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/
[3] Gun Fag Manifesto: http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/gun-fag-manifesto/
[4] Confessions of an Antinatalist: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616583452
/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1616583452&
linkCode=as2&tag=countecurrenp-20
[5] Every Cradle is a Grave: http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/every-cradle-is-a-grave-02/
[6] comment thread: http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/genderdimorphism-in-intelligence-in-our-future/
[7] suggests: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-antinatalism-illiberal.html

[8] here: http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-antinatalismilliberal.html?showComment=1292693961036#c597186451555238036

[9] Mulholland Drive: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/07/mulholland-drive/
[10] NVSQVAM (nowhere): http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/nvsqvam-nowhere/
[11] Thirteen Girls: http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/thirteen-girls/
[12] Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&
creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=countecurrenp-20

Copyright 2011 Counter-Currents Publishing. All rights reserved.