Natalism literally disproves every argument people make about deportations. If there aren't enough jobs, why are you subsidizing births?!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
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.