I have founded a new philosophical school. I consider all destruction

File: saturn.jpg (474KB, 588x969px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 588x969px

I have founded a new philosophical school.

I consider all destruction of life to be morally just and all creation of life to be immoral.

It is taking the tenets of antinatalism to their logical end by removing the ingrained biases of conventional ideology.

My main objection to antinatalism in its prevalent form is that it is a form of liberalism, which makes it self-defeating.

By that I mean that antinatalists are generally people who are childless, want to remain childless for antinatalist reasons and want to convince others to do the same. They claim to consider reproduction to be the worst thing you can do, but they aren't consistent in it, they don't really mean this. They are liberals. This is demonstrated by the fact that they consider the act of reproduction not worse than intervening with someone else's right to reproduce. If they were true antinatalists, they would intervene.

If they considered the creation of life to truly be the greatest sin, they would consider violence a justified method of combating existence.

A real antinatalist would not only intervene in other people's reproductive behaviour, he would oppose, by all means necessary, the continuation of life in general.

A real antinatalist would be someone who considers every act that diminishes life to be the morally right thing to do, and every act that aids the continuation of life to be morally wrong.

A real antinatalist would consider planting a tree to be infinitely worse than stabbing a pregnant woman in the belly.

A real antinatalist would be an extinction accelerationist.

A real antinatalist would rather be called an omnicidist, meaning a person who actively strives to destroy all life, to end the existence and continuation of every single lifeform.