Unsure why the British people marched?

[accelafine]

I agree that Israel's settlements on the West Bank are illegal and it needs to stop and the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories needs to improve. But, wanting to destroy Israel is not a realistic goal, nor any more moral than Israel's desire to destroy the resistance in Gaza once and for all. The destruction needs to stop on both sides.

'Illegal' in what sense? Didn't they win the 6 day war? Who's the 'occupier'?

I believe there was a UN accord that prohibits Israeli settlement of the West Bank. It's mentioned quite a bit in news on the region and many have attested to its illegality.

Who gives a crap what the UN 'says'? It's an organisation of parasitic, bloated, 'murder, rape and torture-supporting and funding'' ex politicians that is oddly quiet about all the countries that really ARE doing evil things. Why should Israel give a fuck what it says?
Meanwhile, the US has been slaughtering people in the ME for decades and apparently that's 'heroic'. Keep 'supporting the troops' Gary

[godelian]

Nature abhors a void. Nature insists that the population must be filled up to capacity. Nature even addresses the fundamental problem by filling up the void in an anti-natalist population with natalist immigrants.

Humans reproduce like rabbits when we're impoverished and have little more to do than have sex and tend gardens. Professionals tend to have fewer children. So it's not entirely true that nature insists that population must be filled up to capacity. And the Earth is not a limitless habitat for humans to over populate. Look at the environment, global climate change, fresh water supply scarcity in places, endangerment and extinction of vital species. Out of control reproduction is not a good thing.

By justifying anti-natalism, you are not addressing the issue that there exist natalist populations that are busy replacing you. Defending anti-natalism does not solve that problem. Natalists want to continue humanity. They are given priority over you by nature. Worse, according to nature, anti-natalists have no right to exist long-term.

It does not matter why you are anti-natalist. The only thing that matters, is that nature has placed you on the elimination list.

Natalist populations tolerate your existence as long as you are not an obstacle to their natalist goal. However, if you turn out to be an impediment to the continued survival of humanity, they will not hesitate to remove you.

Tommy is an anti-natalist who expresses hostility towards natalist immigrants because of their natalism which makes him feel estranged as an anti-natalist. He does not change the inevitable outcome -- wholesale replacement -- by doing that. He merely fuels their hostility.

Replacements of dead anti-natalists don't get born. That is the strategic essence of anti-natalism. Therefore, when natalists clash with anti-natalists, the final outcome is a foregone conclusion. That is why Tommy is a threat to the anti-natalists themselves.

[accelafine]

Doesn't alter the fact that the people who are breeding like flies are the last people humanity needs more of.

[godelian]

Doesn't alter the fact that the people who are breeding like flies are the last people humanity needs more of.

You are trying to justify anti-natalism.

In fact, anti-natalism sounds otherwise rational.

However, this flies in the face of the fact that the existence of life itself is not rational. Why does it exist? Why does it even try to survive? Isn't all of that plain ridiculous?

Life only exists because it consistently insists on continuing to exist. If it didn't, it would have disappeared a long time ago. Natalism subscribes to the seemingly absurd irrationality of life itself. Indeed, what is even the goal of such stubborn efforts?

Generation after generation, every living being gets imbued with the irrational and inexplicable desire to stay alive and to reproduce. The cats and the dogs do it too. They will adapt in order to avoid dying and in order to bring new generations onto this world.

I understand why you do not want to do it, because indeed, it does not make much sense.

But then again, if you try to prevent other living beings from implementing and following the innate mandate of life, they will mercilessly and ruthlessly eliminate you.

They are not evil when they do that.

According to the mandate of nature, the survival of living beings who actually want to survive resolutely takes priority over the survival of beings who do not want to. You get wiped out. Your views get wiped out. No replacement for you will be born. Therefore, you can peacefully sit it out until you die of natural causes, or, you can try to impose your anti-natalist views onto natalists and mercilessly get attacked.

According to the laws of nature, your anti-natalist views are a disease that needs to be eradicated. Your enemy are not the natalists. Your enemy is nature itself.

[attofishpi]

But then again, if you try to prevent other living beings from implementing and following the innate mandate of life, they will mercilessly and ruthlessly eliminate you.

They are not evil when they do that.

accefaline is not anti-natalist, not many in the West are - we just don't believe as you do, and many disgusting Muslims do that using women as breeding machines to spread and enforce the extrememy EVIL ideology of Islam. Your views are precisely what I am trying to get the sleepy heads British citizens on this site to become aware of.

ISLAM - in a nutshell.

The British being so soft allowing Muslims (such as those mentioned in the earlier video from Paul Joseph Watson) where 65% of people have never worked in their life - bumming of the honest days work of British people so that they can breed their disgusting ideology into our society.

--- ---

..thoughts?

[godelian]

accefaline is not anti-natalist, not many in the West are

It is not what you say that matters but what you do. You can claim all day long that you are not anti-natalist but if your birth rate just keeps dropping in the direction of zero, then you effectively are anti-natalist.

many disgusting Muslims do that using women as breeding machines to spread

That is what all life does. Maximizing reproduction is a core mandate of nature. If other people maximize but you don't, then they will out crowd you.

Again, you are complaining about nature itself and its laws.

Your views are precisely what I am trying to get the sleepy heads British citizens on this site to become aware of.

The only alternative course of action that they have, is to step up, compete, and match the reproduction rate. If they don't, they are toast. In the meanwhile, both of us know that they won't do it. That is why they are essentially finished.

Why don't you simply admit that your anti-natalist views are inferior now that it has become obvious that they jeopardize your long-term survival?

The British being so soft allowing Muslims (such as those mentioned in the earlier video from Paul Joseph Watson) where 65% of people have never worked in their life - bumming of the honest days work of British people so that they can breed their disgusting ideology into our society.

Face the truth! Natalists will take over, regardless of what religion they have. You are doomed. You won't make it into the future. You are getting destroyed by your own anti-natalist ideology. Why do you blame others for your own destructive choices?

[Gary Childress]

Nature abhors a void. Nature insists that the population must be filled up to capacity. Nature even addresses the fundamental problem by filling up the void in an anti-natalist population with natalist immigrants.

Humans reproduce like rabbits when we're impoverished and have little more to do than have sex and tend gardens. Professionals tend to have fewer children. So it's not entirely true that nature insists that population must be filled up to capacity. And the Earth is not a limitless habitat for humans to over populate. Look at the environment, global climate change, fresh water supply scarcity in places, endangerment and extinction of vital species. Out of control reproduction is not a good thing.

By justifying anti-natalism, you are not addressing the issue that there exist natalist populations that are busy replacing you. Defending anti-natalism does not solve that problem. Natalists want to continue humanity. They are given priority over you by nature. Worse, according to nature, anti-natalists have no right to exist long-term.

I'm not against having children. I just want children to be able to grow up in decent environments. Destroying the Earth by overpopulating to the point where the ecosystems collapse doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I mean, do you care about the future of the children you produce? Do you care about the future of the human race? People like me didn't have children as a gift to those who do to make more room for others, and now you're rubbing it in my face as you pump out one kid after another until the ecosystem completely collapses?

You seem to be driven by hate right now. That's a nasty sentiment. I suggest losing the hate.

[godelian]

I'm not against having children. I just want children to be able to grow up in decent environments.

That is just another anti-natalist excuse. Face it. It is just anti-natalism. Imagine the cave men had thought the same? Children should not grow up in caves! We would not exist today, if that is what they had thought.

Destroying the Earth by overpopulating to the point where the ecosystems collapse doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I mean, do you care about the future of the children you produce?

That is again an anti-natalist justification. Poor people should not have children! Look, humanity started out dirt poor. We would not exist today, if our ancestors had thought that poverty was a reason not to have children.

Do you care about the future of the human race?

You've got it upside down. It is the anti-natalists who have no future, and not the natalists. Since you cannot know what will happen in the future, it should never be a factor in the question whether to have children or not.

People like me didn't have children as a gift to those who do to make more room for others

This is exactly what I have been pointing out. You are being replaced because nature demands exactly that. It is a good thing that you do not object to being replaced, because whether you like it or not, you will be.

You seem to be driven by hate right now.

No, because it is totally pointless to be emotional about nature and its laws. I simply accept the truth about the biological reality of life. If you do not badly want to survive generation after generation, you simply won't. It's like wildebeest in a herd. We have to run faster than the lion, or else, we are toast for his lunch. In fact, I do not really need to run faster than the lion. I only need to run faster than you.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not against having children. I just want children to be able to grow up in decent environments.

That is just another anti-natalist excuse. Face it. It is just anti-natalism. Imagine the cave men had thought the same? Children should not grow up in caves! We would not exist today, if that is what they had thought.

Destroying the Earth by overpopulating to the point where the ecosystems collapse doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I mean, do you care about the future of the children you produce?

That is again an anti-natalist justification. Poor people should not have children! Look, humanity started out dirt poor. We would not exist today, if our ancestors had thought that poverty was a reason not to have children.

Do you care about the future of the human race?

You've got it upside down. It is the anti-natalists who have no future, and not the natalists. Since you cannot know what will happen in the future, it should never be a factor in the question whether to have children or not.

People like me didn't have children as a gift to those who do to make more room for others

This is exactly what I have been pointing out. You are being replaced because nature demands exactly that. It is a good thing that you do not object to being replaced, because whether you like it or not, you will be.

You seem to be driven by hate right now.

No, because it is totally pointless to be emotional about nature and its laws. I simply accept the truth about the biological reality of life. If you do not badly want to survive generation after generation, you simply won't. It's like wildebeest in a herd. We have to run faster than the lion, or else, we are toast for his lunch. In fact, I do not really need to run faster than the lion. I only need to run faster than you.

Wow! Nice person you are.

[godelian]

Wow! Nice person you are.

It's called "tough love".

Either you do whatever it takes to survive, to reproduce, and to instill into the children the same stubborn determination to survive and to reproduce, or else, you will experience your biological environment as being insane and fiendishly cruel.

To some extent, humanity manages to shield itself from the dog eat dog reality of biology. We hide the law of the jungle behind a veneer of civilization. In reality, it is still there. There are periods in which civilization breaks down and in which the law of the jungle reasserts itself with a vengeance. Ultimately, we are and remain biological beings that are part of nature, whether you like it or not.

So, how do you transmit the desire to survive to the next generation? How do you rationally explain that it makes sense? Why are we even here in this world?

From our point of view as living beings, the answer to this question is highly irrational. It is impossible that it would not be. There cannot exist a rational answer from our human point of view because we could not possibly have created ourselves for reasons that are from ourselves. Hence, the answer lies outside of us. Nothing illustrates this truth better than the following verse from the Quran:

Quran 51:56. I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.

There is absolutely no way to rationalize the desire the survive and reproduce. It cannot be done. The answer necessarily lies outside of us. No system can justify its own existence because that would inevitably be circular. Therefore, the true answer will always sound nonsensical. That is why I gave you a completely true and for us nonsensical answer. So, either you agree to survive from generation to generation, or else, the laws of nature will push you from the 12th floor out of the window to make place for people who do agree. The choice is yours.

[attofishpi]

Wow! Nice person you are.

It's called "tough love".

Either you do whatever it takes to survive, to reproduce, and to instill into the children the same stubborn determination to survive and to reproduce, or else, you will experience your biological environment as being insane and fiendishly cruel.

To some extent, humanity manages to shield itself from the dog eat dog reality of biology.

Actually, you have no idea about humanity nor do most stupid Muslims. Civilised society is not about dog eat dog bullshit.

In fact, even packs of dogs look out for each other, wolves will bring food to an injured pack member.

But clearly you being the extremely stupid version of Muslim *and that's saying something*...are comparing yourself, as a human to animals. Under_stand_able for an idiot. Atheists think similarly but even (most) of them, the more intelligent ones understand that civilised society has reasoned out laws for the benefit of a societal structure of more intelligent "animals" where we can all live with each other in peace.

Unfortunately, even with democracy where the pack gets to vote that which leads them, stupid people???

.. ..

, ,

.. ..

.. ..

...this WOKE that needs to AWAKEN - the weak minded that think ALL religions are equal, anyone is welcome ...love ...love ...love - (because all along - the story of religion was love - Christianity - though they won't admit it) - ISLAM - just another "religion", one of peace in fact - NOT a RADICAL IDEOLOGY that insists on changing the LAWS of the lands its cancer spreads to...

Are they stupid? Nah...just ignorant, certainly weren't aware just how biased their media had become. How much Islam is already dictating things in London and other major cities.

But they'll label me racist - without a shred of evidence. Sculptor (Chaz Wyman) stooped to the lowest level of deceit for his cause...quoting me as if I had said the most vile things towards people of "colour" ...wow.

I wonder if they are going to Ys up for this election? I wonder if they will support the diggers, the tommies that were in the trenches fighting for the right to TAKE THE PISS OUT OF ANY RELIGION INCLUDING MOR HAM MAD ....because FUCK ME SIDEWAYS...blasphemy is already being patrolled by the pathetic police.

A Jewish man gets arrested simply for calling out Capo - "traitor" - SOMEONE from London pleeeeaaaasse explain to me, why we in Britain can now be arrested SIMPLY for speaking our mind? While in Mosques (once Christian churches where respect and love was insisted) Imams are there now preaching HATE toward US.

[Gary Childress]

Wow! Nice person you are.

It's called "tough love".

Looks a lot like hate to me.

[attofishpi]

Wow! Nice person you are.

It's called "tough love".

Looks a lot like hate to me.

= ISLAMe

[godelian]

ISLAM - just another "religion", one of peace in fact - NOT a RADICAL IDEOLOGY that insists on changing the LAWS of the lands its cancer spreads to...

British law in Britain reflects Christian traditions because Christianity used to be its state religion. This is no longer the case. It is currently some form of woke atheism that is Britain's state religion. A government must not impose the moral values of one religion or ideology onto the practitioners of another religion. That is beyond any government's authority to do.

Britain has always been very well aware of this limitation to man-made law and the role of government in matters regulated by religion. Even the British colonial administration always respected that any matter already regulated by religion cannot be regulated by the government. In 1772, the East India Company issued the following regulation in that respect:

Under the East India company, Muslim Law was enforced except when Muslims left the disputes to be determined according to Hindu Saastras.[4] The Regulation 11 of .1772 by Sec. 27 enacted that

"in all suits regarding inheritance, succession, marriage and caste and other religious usages or institutions, the laws of the Quran with respect of Mohamedan and those of the Shastras with respect to Gentoos (Hindus) shall be invariably adhered to."

The British Raj confirmed this in the Shariat Act of 1937:

The British Raj passed Shariat Act in 1937 is followed in India in matters related to marriage, divorce and succession among Muslims.[1][5]

Therefore, as already firmly established in 1772 and confirmed in 1937, neither the British government nor British parliament have the authority to overrule Muslim religion in matters between Muslims that religion already regulates, i.e. marriage, divorce, succession, and charity. Therefore, Muslims will not hesitate to hold the British government to the commitments that it made in 1772 and 1937. The British government remains bound by its treaties.

[godelian]

Wow! Nice person you are.

It's called "tough love".

Looks a lot like hate to me.

You are seeking to be exempt from the laws of nature. That cannot be achieved.