Counting each position as "two" ties them together within ones mind. Posi (potential) tion (action) implies a separation from one another.
one logical and one incredibly unpopular
Logic implies circular thinking (popular or unpopular) turning into a conflict of reason (popular vs unpopular). It's logic which tempts ones mind to tie two positions together.
you can't have an anti-Islam party that isn't also natalist.
"I wasn't lying...it was real in my imagination"...who are you to decide what another can't have in his imagination?
Of course, it's classic Jew rhetoric; truth is subjective so what I imagine is as equally valid as whatever anyone else thinks, and I complain the loudest!
Obviously Muslims are "natalist"; just look at how many kids they have. I don't know how any anti-natalist could tolerate Islam in any degree. But, obviously, Christians are bad, right? Because it's real in my mind...
truth is subjective so what I imagine is as equally valid as whatever anyone else thinks
Nature implies equal; being implies differential...subjecting to true or false information equalizes differences among one another.
Nature cannot be true or false...only ever changing, hence offering equal value.
I complain the loudest
Which only works because natural sound implies silence, while artificial words imply noise. Nature neither articulates sound into words, nor does nature com (together) plain (to spread)...it sets instruments apart from one another.
natalist
-ist (natialist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (natalism)...which one can only do after being born (natal).
-ism implies consensus; -ist implies consent...natal represents the distraction used to harvest consent into consensus.
just look at how many kids they have
Looking/locking onto another is unjust to ones offspring. Nature implies singularity...a jew suggests the rhetoric "how many" to tempt gentiles with plurality.
how one could tolerate Islam
Islam/salam - "peace/piece" implies each piece within all of God aka law of all (al-lah). Tolerance vs intolerance among one another tempts one to ignore that.
Nature gives and takes each beings life...no matter how tolerant or intolerant one chooses to be to one another.
Being implies in front of (life) way (inception towards death)...not a right vs wrong aka good vs bad conflict, but a separation during a transfer representing christ (to anoint) and islam (to separate into piece).
A jew suggests the rhetoric "religion of peace" to tempt gentiles into "war" with one another. What's religion? Re (to respond) ligo (to bind) aka binding pieces together within war.
Because it's real in my mind
One responds (re) to all (al) perceivable, while holding suggested within ones mind....that's why anything fake is also real.
If one fights others (real vs fake), then one cannot discern self as response (re) within all (al).
Christians are bad. So are Islamists. One is a cult that controls people through soft power and the other is a terrorist empire.
The question I have is why can't we hate both the obsessive breeders using 1984 as an instruction manual and the suicide bombers? Why is it labeled as a choice between two awful options? It's like nobody ever put defund women's sports on the table when everyone was impotently debating the "trans invasion".
A false dichotomy reinforced by censorship to prevent a better third option being discovered.
Anti-natalist globalists (((we all know who they are))) spent 50 years churning out propaganda telling us to stop having kids; that the Earth is "dying" because overpopulation, that women should work through their fertile years, that hoarding money for retirement is better than investing in the next generation, etc.
When White countries succumb and birthrates crater, the very same people tell us that we have to import infinite Browns to prevent "population collapse". The people responsible for our education system tell us that our own people can't compete with Indians.
Then the (((globalists))) can implement any draconian law or policy they like and all the Whites will be too busy fighting Browns to stop them (how many more people would be focussing on stopping digital ID if we didn't have to seriously argue whether democracies can survive infinite immigration from cointries hostile to our way of life?). Browns won't ever fight because they can't imagine how they would feel not having eaten breakfast, let alone five minutes into the future. They don't understand how we acheived and maintain our prosperity and they will drag the entire system down in their attempt to enrich themselves in the short term, like a panicky drowner.
The (((Globalists))) think they can reduce the world's population to a few hundred million serfs and maintain their standard of living. Whether they have some plan I'm not aware of or they actually think race is separate from IQ, they think they can replace Whites with Brownoid and still have space ship and private jets. More likely, they'll get dysentary.
Anti-natalism leads to civilizational collapse, for everyone, period (and hey, I guess it's more "equitable" for Browns if we're all living in mud huts eating our elderly, but I'd still prefer not to). It is evil, as Imp full well knows, being a Jew. I just want to make sure everyone is totally clear on what she's advocating, seeing as how she's usually barely coherent.
I think (((their))) plan involves “transhumanism” and “the technological singularity” - which is to say that (I assume) the race of the slave won’t matter much once all the slaves get brain chipped aka “neura-linked” (to the herd that is, and its digital antichrist shepherd)
Counting each position as "two" ties them together within ones mind. Posi (potential) tion (action) implies a separation from one another.
Logic implies circular thinking (popular or unpopular) turning into a conflict of reason (popular vs unpopular). It's logic which tempts ones mind to tie two positions together.
"I wasn't lying...it was real in my imagination"...who are you to decide what another can't have in his imagination?
Of course, it's classic Jew rhetoric; truth is subjective so what I imagine is as equally valid as whatever anyone else thinks, and I complain the loudest!
Obviously Muslims are "natalist"; just look at how many kids they have. I don't know how any anti-natalist could tolerate Islam in any degree. But, obviously, Christians are bad, right? Because it's real in my mind...
Nature implies equal; being implies differential...subjecting to true or false information equalizes differences among one another.
Nature cannot be true or false...only ever changing, hence offering equal value.
Which only works because natural sound implies silence, while artificial words imply noise. Nature neither articulates sound into words, nor does nature com (together) plain (to spread)...it sets instruments apart from one another.
-ist (natialist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (natalism)...which one can only do after being born (natal).
-ism implies consensus; -ist implies consent...natal represents the distraction used to harvest consent into consensus.
Looking/locking onto another is unjust to ones offspring. Nature implies singularity...a jew suggests the rhetoric "how many" to tempt gentiles with plurality.
Islam/salam - "peace/piece" implies each piece within all of God aka law of all (al-lah). Tolerance vs intolerance among one another tempts one to ignore that.
Nature gives and takes each beings life...no matter how tolerant or intolerant one chooses to be to one another.
Obvious aka ob (in front of) via (way).... https://www.etymonline.com/word/obvious
Being implies in front of (life) way (inception towards death)...not a right vs wrong aka good vs bad conflict, but a separation during a transfer representing christ (to anoint) and islam (to separate into piece).
A jew suggests the rhetoric "religion of peace" to tempt gentiles into "war" with one another. What's religion? Re (to respond) ligo (to bind) aka binding pieces together within war.
One responds (re) to all (al) perceivable, while holding suggested within ones mind....that's why anything fake is also real.
If one fights others (real vs fake), then one cannot discern self as response (re) within all (al).
Christians are bad. So are Islamists. One is a cult that controls people through soft power and the other is a terrorist empire.
The question I have is why can't we hate both the obsessive breeders using 1984 as an instruction manual and the suicide bombers? Why is it labeled as a choice between two awful options? It's like nobody ever put defund women's sports on the table when everyone was impotently debating the "trans invasion".
A false dichotomy reinforced by censorship to prevent a better third option being discovered.
lol
This really isn't complicated:
Anti-natalist globalists (((we all know who they are))) spent 50 years churning out propaganda telling us to stop having kids; that the Earth is "dying" because overpopulation, that women should work through their fertile years, that hoarding money for retirement is better than investing in the next generation, etc.
When White countries succumb and birthrates crater, the very same people tell us that we have to import infinite Browns to prevent "population collapse". The people responsible for our education system tell us that our own people can't compete with Indians.
Then the (((globalists))) can implement any draconian law or policy they like and all the Whites will be too busy fighting Browns to stop them (how many more people would be focussing on stopping digital ID if we didn't have to seriously argue whether democracies can survive infinite immigration from cointries hostile to our way of life?). Browns won't ever fight because they can't imagine how they would feel not having eaten breakfast, let alone five minutes into the future. They don't understand how we acheived and maintain our prosperity and they will drag the entire system down in their attempt to enrich themselves in the short term, like a panicky drowner.
The (((Globalists))) think they can reduce the world's population to a few hundred million serfs and maintain their standard of living. Whether they have some plan I'm not aware of or they actually think race is separate from IQ, they think they can replace Whites with Brownoid and still have space ship and private jets. More likely, they'll get dysentary.
Anti-natalism leads to civilizational collapse, for everyone, period (and hey, I guess it's more "equitable" for Browns if we're all living in mud huts eating our elderly, but I'd still prefer not to). It is evil, as Imp full well knows, being a Jew. I just want to make sure everyone is totally clear on what she's advocating, seeing as how she's usually barely coherent.
I think (((their))) plan involves “transhumanism” and “the technological singularity” - which is to say that (I assume) the race of the slave won’t matter much once all the slaves get brain chipped aka “neura-linked” (to the herd that is, and its digital antichrist shepherd)
I concur.
Are they in the room with you right now?
Still denying reality then. The high birth rates were a post war anomaly.
What giant stretches. Also, https://dictionary.com/browse/non-sequitur