New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
Hello all, how have you been. I'm happy to see this place hasn't been banned yet, even if it seems slower than it used to be.

I think my last post was 2-3 years ago when I gave a little update on how my journey into self-improvement had been going. I figured it's way past time to give another one. Hopefully someone gets a little boost in motivation from this.

For anyone interested, I joined ConPro about when it migrated here from reddit, although I was never really all that active. I doubt even the old users that are still around remember me. This place inspired me to reevaluate most of my life and gave me the push I needed to start actively working on getting better at it.

I started working out a lot more actively. I can confidently say I'm now in the best shape I've been since I was 18. I regularly go out hiking and mountain climbing with people in their early 20s (I'm in my 30s) and I'm consistently one of the last ones going.

I learned a lot of woodland and bushcraft skills. I go camping by myself for days at a time. I picked up a bit of hunting and I'm currently working on navigating off the landscape with minimal tools and supplies. It's been huge fun, I highly recommend it! Still haven't picked up gardening. It brings me no joy and I've the privilege of having access to quality home grown food I can purchase (including meat). Maybe some day.

I also started learning basic skills like cooking (I make 95% of everything I eat), mechanical (I've not called a handyman for anything for a couple of years now) and electronic repair (phone and computer) and am currently wading through learning how to fix serious issues on my own car. I just finished rebuilding an entire VW with a couple of friends.

I also got into basic programming, image and video editing. I'm by no means great at it but I know the basics. I'm planning on focusing more on coding at some point in the coming year since it'll be useful for work and I only really know the basics of a couple of languages (HTML, Java, Python). I really don't enjoy it very much, though. Definitely not for me. Photo and video editing, on the other hand, is quite fun and I've been enjoying it immensely. I even set up a YT channel at one point to get feedback on my video edits, although I've deleted it since then.

I learned how to draw pretty decently and hopefully soon I'll have time to start learning an instrument properly. I'm actually completely talent-less when it comes to any of the fine arts, so this is extremely slow going but an hour or two every other day gets visible results.

I started trying to build up my own business in the field I've always wanted to work in. That failed. Miserably. So I had to go back to working my old job last year which pays well but is incredibly boring to me. At least it gave me a lot more free time to work on things. I've not given up, though. I'm currently gearing up for another try, hopefully with the experience I got the first time around I'll be able to do it better this time. I'm not fucking quitting.

On a personal level, having you lot challenging most of my ideas and worldview made me go back over pretty much every single thing I believe and support, reevaluate it and actually inform myself on the issue. I haven't changed my views that much (although I did skew quite a bit towards what normies consider far right and some libertarian views) and I still don't agree with everything most of ConPro believes but I can confidently say most of my opinions are now informed and logical, rather than basic and emotional. I might still be wrong about some of them, since I'm not God and don't have all the information but such is life. Thanks for that!

That being said, changing that drastically made a lot of people around me uncomfortable and I've lost quite a few relationships I had. It also strained most of the ones I still have quite significantly but I think they came out for the better in the end. It also showed me exactly who I can count on when things get serious which is priceless. I also got to "redpill" (not a fan of that term) a few of my friends and family, so I consider it well worth it. That being said, whoever claims people like change is absolutely fucking lying! Turns out that I can count the people I know who like change on one hand and still have some fingers left over. Keep that in mind.

Anyways, overall I feel better physically, mentally and emotionally than I ever have. Most of my efforts have been directed towards improving in the field I want to succeed in professionally but I've managed to get a decent spread of other skills going. I'm not the happiest I've ever been, that particular peak was when I was a clueless teen who didn't care for anything serious, but I am content with my life and the direction it's going in. The world might be going to shit but I'm not, at least not knowingly.

That's about it. I can go into greater detail if anyone is interested, these are just a few of the highlights. Turns out, you can actually pack a lot of living in a year (or three) if you're not glued to useless things like the TV or games.

On ConPro, like I mentioned, I'm glad you lot are still around (mostly). I'm a bit sad I only recognize a few of the usernames on the current threads but hopefully everyone who left did so for the right reasons. I'll be around for a few days to answer any questions or anything and to get a feel for how the site is doing but I'm probably going to focus on real life again come the new year.


To all the Kings here:
Live well, never falter, never quit! If I can do this shit, so can you!


P. S. I get that things are shit in many ways but that's no excuse to forget the self-improvement posts, the gardenposting, the shitting on blind consooming and, most importantly, the goatposting. WHERE'S THE FUCKING GOATPOSTING?
You must log in or sign up to comment
20 comments:
muhfugginbixnood on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
you're going to keep improoooooooving goyim
deleted 1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
AnotherAlt on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
Good job on beating the jew
deleted 1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
JesusSupporter33 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
>WHERE'S THE FUCKING GOATPOSTING?

:(
deleted 1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 3 children
Congratulations, you seemed to have done a lot. I too like hiking. One time I walked 7 hours, and that was the ~5th time after I began to hike, and the good part it, you need to return. There was no possibility for "giving up." I walked 4 hours, reached my destination, and on the way back I was exhausted and even had to lie down for 15 minutes. The last ~2 hours were quite hard. But ultimately I look positively back on that. One time I also fell into mud, where I had to assume a horizontal position to get out... fun times.

> and I still don't agree with everything most of ConPro believes

Well, what for example? A lot is just about facts. If it's something about jews, I can shower you with evidence.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Thanks, it's definitely been a lot of effort but it's also very fulfilling. I shudder when I think back on the directionless person I used to be.

I'll be perfectly honest, the hiking itself does nothing for me, however I very much enjoy camping and climbing and I need to walk to get to those spots, so hiking is in by necessity. My personal preference is bushcrafting and practicing survival skills, though. There's just something about making things with your own hands that calls to the most primal male part of me. I'm actually hoping I can squeeze in the time to start metalworking at some point in the next year or two.

I am glad to hear you do go out into nature and are enjoying it. There's nothing quite like pushing yourself and breaking through what limits you thought you had. I've yet to fall afoul of mud in that way but I do know people who have and they've told me enough to get me to be careful in muddy conditions. I did, however, get lost in the woods for a bit last winter and at some point had to stop and build a fire to warm and cheer myself up a bit and calm down enough to work out a plan. It was definitely an experience that's quite different than normal outdoor activities when you feel your well-being is actively dependent on whatever skill/craftiness you have.

Ultimately, I got out perfectly fine since the woods I was in aren't large enough that you can't reach civilization within a few hours if you walk in any direction, so I was never in all that much danger but the feeling is quite unique.

Anyways, I hope you keep active in nature and keep finding joy in it. Man is not made to be confined indoors.

As for what I still am not fully in agreement about, I'll continue that in a second post for easier reading.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
As for what I'm not fully behind, there's several things but the two most important are: the spread and depth of control of both globalist and zionist structures and the best form of governance.

1. I know a lot, if not most, of the people here, both now and over the past few years, are serious proponents of national socialism or various ofshoots of it but I personally don't think it would be the best possible governing structure. My problems are less due to it's characteristics and more due to what I believe is the nature of man and society. Ultimately, man and his social constructs (not in the "progressive" sense) are always flawed and corruptible and so the current best possible option, in my opinion, is to limit the scope and power of those constructs (i.e. government). In other words, while I'm not into most of the libertarian way of thinking, I do agree that a small, decentralized and transparent bureaucracy is the best way to limit the possibilities for abuse and that maximizing the freedom of individuals, within clear, logical and culturally conscious boundaries, is the most optimal way to ensure maximum growth, advancement and happiness of both individuals and society. Of course, I realize that such a government would be rather open to outside interference and abuse, especially by large organizations/states, so it's more of an optimal end-goal rather than an immediate solution but I don't think national socialism is the optimal solution either, except perhaps in the short term, as it concentrates quite a bit of power and control into the hands of the government and, ultimately, a limited amount of people. Honestly, the best option would be, in my opinion, a qualified democracy with stringent requirements for voting eligibility (such as basic knowledge on civics and a clear investment into the future of the nation, such as having children) and a clear goal of creating the aforementioned limited state structure.
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
> are always flawed and corruptible and so the current best possible option, in my opinion, is to limit the scope and power of those constructs (i.e. government).

Oh well, I fully agree. It seems others do not agree a lot on this "libertarian" stance. Add to that full ethnic homogeneity as a prerequisite however. And I also concur on the rest of what you wrote.

> Honestly, the best option would be, in my opinion, a qualified democracy

Perhaps. But you have to consider that as long as there is a dependence on government, and it appears to be of absolute power, there is an inherent problem in society. The question is: Should there be anything to vote on? Because everything the government does leads towards higher taxation and more laws.

Maybe people should vote for laws directly instead of parties who are walking busybodies who are oh-so eager to spend their 2 hours per week in work to push laws. In that case I think it's a good idea. The best? I don't know.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
I apologize for the formatting but it's been quite a while since I was active here and I can't quite seem to recall how to quote properly.

"Oh well, I fully agree. It seems others do not agree a lot on this "libertarian" stance. Add to that full ethnic homogeneity as a prerequisite however. And I also concur on the rest of what you wrote."

Ethnic homogeneity is, of course, the most preferred outcome, though I must admit that I am not completely against very low and highly vetted immigration. Ultimately every group has outliers that are exceptional and can be properly assimilated (this part is essential). However, things like dual citizenship and having more than 1-2 % of non-locals is, in my opinion, only a detriment in the long term. That being said, I can also quite happily live without any immigration whatsoever. In the end, I don't really hate any other groups of people, even the most damaging, as I don't think hate of people is a productive emotion. Ideas, on the other hand, I can quite happily despise with every fiber of my being.

"Perhaps. But you have to consider that as long as there is a dependence on government, and it appears to be of absolute power, there is an inherent problem in society."

Personal independence would be ideal, however there should also be a unifying structure to prevent total anarchy. Government, in my opinion, should not have a monopoly on power or violence; it's one of the main reasons why I am very fond of the American 2nd Amendment, even if I myself am not American. There should also, I believe, always be non-violent mechanisms (possibly guaranteed by the potential for violence of an armed populace) for the population to remove an incompetent or malicious government. They must, however, be immediate, unlike current "democratic" voting processes which may give the inept or sociopathic as long as multiple years to entrench themselves or veil their crimes from the population.

"The question is: Should there be anything to vote on? Because everything the government does leads towards higher taxation and more laws."

This is true which is why I am a proponent of a direct democracy. I apologize as I seem to have failed in clarifying that in my previous post. Anyways, a direct democratic process may have been difficult in the past but our current technologies and systems would allow for it to be implemented quite easily. Of course, having the entire eligible population vote on inane matters such as where to put a public lavatory would be beyond inefficient, however issues which might affect society as a whole could easily be put to a referendum nowadays. Switzerland is the closest to this system that I am aware of but even my own country has had periods in recent history where there were multiple elections organized within a single year without much issue. This tells me that referendums are not quite as complicated to stage as our "leaders" would like us to believe.

 "Maybe people should vote for laws directly instead of parties who are walking busybodies who are oh-so eager to spend their 2 hours per week in work to push laws. In that case I think it's a good idea. The best? I don't know."

Term limits for any high-level government position are a must, in my opinion. Having people be members of parliament (or senators and congressmen in the US) for decades is a recipe for disaster. I remember coming across a rather interesting idea in a fiction book I read years ago where people were elected to a particular position by the entire population without their knowledge or consent, at which point they would go on to serve for a limited term (I do not remember exactly how long but it may have been something like 10 years) during which all their assets and salary would be held and managed in an independent trust. At the end of their term and concurrently with the next election, the voters would also have to answer the question "Did ***** do an acceptable job?" and whether they were given back their assets and salary would depend on that question. It's definitely and interesting thought, even if it's almost impossible to implement in practice.

As for whether a direct qualified democracy is the best idea...probably not. Quite frankly, I don't think there is a best idea we've come up with yet, it's simply the least prone to abuse, in my opinion. Although it is, by no means, far from incorruptible. Ultimately, for society to work properly people need to work on society constantly. The past decades of populational apathy are the absolute anathema of a working society.
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
> In the end, I don't really hate any other groups of people

It is not about emotions. Do not think what you'd like to have, but what is best for your people, your family, your children, your grandchildren, etc.

> Term limits for any high-level government position are a must

Not sure if that's a solution. What if a certain person is doing his job so well, that people really want him to continue to have that position? A more algorithmic approach would be better: After 'n' years, in order to remain in power, it requires more votes to remain in power (or each vote counts less). So if a large quantity of people still vote for that person, let him stay. It would be something like a "soft" term limit.

> to answer the question "Did ***** do an acceptable job?" and whether they were given back their assets and salary would depend on that question

That's a good idea. After all these people are servants of the public, not designated aristocrats.

> Ultimately, for society to work properly people need to work on society constantly. The past decades of populational apathy are the absolute anathema of a working society.

Yes. And contrary to others, I don't think this level of apathy is the permanent default. The apathy of today comes from the realization that nothing you vote for really matters, and that corporations and governments will do whatever they want regardless of what the population wants. I think a populace can be quite interested in politics and philosophical questions, if it actually matters and can be manifested. The apathy of today is more like a consequence of a decay, like a Weimar-type era, along with endless amounts of ideological propaganda and indoctrination that doesn't fit well.

Nobody dares to say they hate niggers, but people avoid them. Nobody dares to say that faggotry is just a cycle of degeneracy, but people oppose it.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
"It is not about emotions. Do not think what you'd like to have, but what is best for your people, your family, your children, your grandchildren, etc."

I agree and I do. I am quite certain that an amicable (or at least neutral) decoupling between different peoples is the best way forward for everyone. Europe and America do not need infinite numbers of Africans or Indians and Africa and India do not need infinite numbers of European or American companies exploiting their resources. No, people should be home and actively work for the betterment of that home. Beyond that, I wish them all the best. I would love it if Africa, for example, would become a developed region firstly because I, in the end, do not want anyone to suffer unnecessarily and secondly because it would mean they have no reason to come to our homes.

"It would be something like a "soft" term limit."

I quite like your idea, it is rather elegant. That being said, term limits would be non-negotiable if they are to work, regardless of how excellent one candidate may be. In the end, however, both ideas can work, I think, but only so long as the populace maintains them. Both are possible but also possible to misuse or corrupt. Eternal vigilance, as cringy as it may sound, is not optional.

"I don't think this level of apathy is the permanent default."

I also do not believe it is. In fact, I've had some success in galvanizing some people around me over the years.

The single best way to do this, although by no means foolproof, was when I mention to them that although they might not be interested in politics, politics is very interested in them.

" The apathy of today comes from the realization that nothing you vote for really matters"

This is absolutely a major factor but I don't believe it is the only one. Something equally damaging, if not even more so, is the rampant ego-centrism and hedonism that most people are preoccupied with. Many of the people around me are so preoccupied with thoughts of satisfying their own urges that they have little capacity for anything more. I can't even begin to count the amount of times of heard statements like "Your health is the most important thing", "Do what you want" or "Do what makes you happy". No! Your health is there to allow you to do more! Do what is right! Do what you must!

Of course, completely ignoring the self is also foolish but people need a balance between personal need, duty and morality.

It is rather depressing at times...

"Nobody dares to say..."

Cowardice is the slow death of both the individual and society. To be cowardly is to give up on your self-respect. To give up on your self-respect is to give up on yourself. To give up on yourself is to die, even if you still breathe.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
2. Globalism and zionism.

While I fully agree that both are a problem and actively working to make things worse for most, especially people of European descent, I don't quite believe that they are anywhere as united and coordinated, both inside themselves and with each other, as most people here think. Human nature, at least in my experience, just doesn't work that way. What I feel is correct, instead, is that there are various groups within these (and other similar) problematic ideologies that have various goals and are prone to infighting, as with most groups, however many of their goals are served by similar steps, such as mass migration, so they often work together towards different goals through similar means. For example, globalists and capitalists (I am oversimplifying both groups by using these terms for ease of reading) may want more immigration for either monetary or ideological reasons, whereas many zionists are, at least apparently, supporting it also because of emotional reasons. These people most likely disagree greatly on many levels but each of their interests is served by supporting this idea, so they appear in lockstep to outsiders. Now, realistically, this isn't super relevant currently as their reasons are less important currently than stopping their actions but if we want to solve problems like that definitively we need to understand both the motivations and goals of all the varying groups, else we miss some of them and they rear their heads further down the line when society no longer is as cautious about them as it should be.

I also do not believe that all globalist, zionist or jews are evil. I do think many are culpable, as they shield the unacceptable ones due to their in-group preference but lumping entire populations in a single pile does not sit well with me, especially since I know several jews, for example, that despise everything many of their brethren stand for.
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
> I don't quite believe that they are anywhere as united and coordinated, both inside themselves and with each other

True! What I say is that it's the nature of the jew to be as they are. Their culture, their religion, their sense of nationality are the underlying elements that make them do what they do. It doesn't require coordination (conspiracy) for jews to exert in-group preference, or to do things that harm our countries. Sure, they have their little rabbi meetings, but there are literal jews who push maximum degeneracy even in israel - because that's how they are.

> so they appear in lockstep to outsiders

Exactly.

> especially since I know several jews, for example, that despise everything many of their brethren stand for.

That is a true dilemma. If 50% of a group are either causing or supporting agendas that harm your people, what are you going to do? Go through every single one of them and find the good and bad ones? Mistakes are inevitable, and it will require continuous vigilance to ensure no jew goes rogue again - requiring a lot of government power and laws against **everybody**, not just them. There is one simple way: Total eradication, and the problem is guaranteed to be solved.

See, the "good jews" had plenty of chance to distance themselves from the bad ones. For example by ceasing to be a "jew", or refusing to have their offspring be classified as "jews." I know some too who are just minding their own business and cause no problems to our societies - or are even good, but what if their children are different and become bad jews? What if the "good jews" would resent your people after generations after you dealt with the bad jews?

I don't think the hard way can be avoided here. The price for "good consciousness" is enormous, and it's not you who pays for it.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
"True! What I say is that it's the nature of the jew to be as they are. Their culture, their religion, their sense of nationality are the underlying elements that make them do what they do. It doesn't require coordination (conspiracy) for jews to exert in-group preference, or to do things that harm our countries. Sure, they have their little rabbi meetings, but there are literal jews who push maximum degeneracy even in israel - because that's how they are."

It would appear we are more in agreement than I first thought. While I am by no means an expert on the subject, I absolutely acknowledge that jewish culture as it currently stands is incredibly destructive and damaging to others. Whether this is by conscious choice or a confluence of circumstances, I, quite frankly, have no idea but it ultimately matters little with regard to the issues we currently face. That being said, they are hardly the only negative elements that are active nowadays. In many ways, I don't even consider them to be the most immediately damaging. That particular "honor" falls on the shoulders of "social justice" and lgbt+ (or whatever they call themselves nowadays) as the consequences of those foolish ideas are the societal equivalent of a dirty bomb and will take generations to fix. I am aware that many jews pushed, and still actively push, these ideas but, realistically, they've long outgrown their roots and are a phenomenon of their own. Just look at how they turned on Israel due to the conflict with Palestine.

"See, the "good jews" had plenty of chance to distance themselves from the bad ones."

Oh, I firmly believe these people are culpable in many ways. If I hide a known murderer, even if he was my friend or relative, that makes me culpable to that crime. I simply don't think lumping all these people together is morally justified. I am aware that many people believe that drastic circumstances, and current day circumstances are very drastic in multiple ways, make extreme measures an unfortunate necessity. I vehemently disagree. I do not believe the end justifies the means and my morality would not allow me to cross certain lines. While those lines are much fewer and vaguer than most people might think, at least for me, I would not be who I am if I surrendered them on the altar of survival. Ultimately, for me there are much worse things than death.

That being said, this is my own personal choice and I have neither the right nor the desire to force my stance on anyone. I will, however, caution anyone to consider whether the price is sometimes too steep, even for survival. Especially since I believe there are still ways to solve current day issues without going way too far.

Actively subversive and damaging ideological groups or individuals, however, are and should be considered targets for a clearly defined and expressed justice system.
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
> It would appear we are more in agreement than I first thought.

Yeah... I don't think your views diverge much from ConPro. Even if we deviate from others, it still fits well. Not that I want to lure you back, so if you have better things to do, better do that.

> they've long outgrown their roots and are a phenomenon of their own. Just look at how they turned on Israel due to the conflict with Palestine.

I don't think they can be separated. You have arsonists and a forest fire. The arsonists don't need to do anything to keep the forest fire going once they started it, and the forest fire is a problem in itself. But these arsonists have participated in every step of the way to create the fire, maybe even to make the forest as inflammable as possible. And they continue to set fires.

This woke LGBT ideology is a combination of rampant degeneracy, isolation and increased internet usage, censorship, the idea of "equality" (this one is a massive one btw), feminism, effeminate men, increase in illusions across society (like fake hospitality, playing pretend and playing along). If you deal with the arsonists, the fires will die out. And once the arsonists are gone, there is no problem with forest fires any more (in this analogy at least).

The israel situation isn't even as stark as you think. It's more about "evil white colonizers" doing their thing again. The leftists hate Whites, and they see israel as a proxy of us. Although it makes some people notice.

> I simply don't think lumping all these people together is morally justified.

But is it even a moral question at this point? Or a question of survival, of necessity?

> Ultimately, for me there are much worse things than death.

What about leaving your children and their children in shambles? To let them suffer in poverty, bad environments, oppression, maybe even extinction, just so that you can have a sleep in moral gratification?

This is a sacrifice most people are not willing to take. And neither in the past. Neither did NS Germany. And who pays the price? ALL of Germans since then, and it's only getting worse. The arsonists keep coming back, and they get more vicious, brutal and destructive every time.

Communism has shown us new peaks of unprecedented malevolence. And today we are facing slow extinction through a sickness of apathy. What comes next? Some Black Mirror type dystopia?

> Especially since I believe there are still ways to solve current day issues without going way too far.

But isn't it already too late for "peaceful" solutions? I don't see a good outcome if many people are not willing to make sacrifices - be it physical or psychological. I think morality is a luxury we can no longer afford.
boni1984 on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
"I don't think your views diverge much from ConPro"

I shouldn't, after all this place was one of the main drivers of my introspection and growth. That being said, while I have missed having discussions like ours, it's probably for the best if I still limit my time on the Internet. Although I will probably visit more often than I have for the past couple of years.

"I don't think they can be separated."

Perhaps I did not explain myself properly. I do not believe they should be separated. My approach to solving issues is to divide them into smaller parts until I'm left with a concrete set of steps that I believe I need to follow to get my desired result. With regard to that, I think issues need to be prioritized according to what the end goal is. In this situation, my end goal is the preservation and safeguarding of my people and their culture. When taking that into account, the groups and people that started these ideologies but do not, in my opinion, actively control them are less of a priority than defeating the ideologies themselves, especially since combating either requires actively involving regular people (normies) who are notoriously bad at multi-tasking and taking circumstances into account. As such, I believe these people are not the "immediate" problem, although they are still a problem.

"But is it even a moral question at this point? Or a question of survival, of necessity?"

Here is where I differ from many people. Everything is, or at the very least should be, a moral question, in my opinion. To be without morals is to be less than human. Morality is what makes us who we are as a species/race. To give up our morality is to give up our humanity. It is not, in my opinion, a question of gratification. I have not, in my limited years on this world, ever come across a situation where choosing the moral thing has led to failure or choosing the immoral thing has led to success long-term. Yes, in the short term one may have been more expedient and instantly gratifying (including materially) but over time those actions always lead to positive (moral) or negative (immoral) consequences. I have observed this not only for myself but when it comes to the actions of others.

Of course, it's entirely possible that I've simply been fortunate in my circumstances and I may be completely wrong, however we are our experiences, in many ways, and I cannot ignore what my personal experience has shown me.

"But isn't it already too late for "peaceful" solutions?"

I seem to have left you with a rather mistaken impression of my position. I apologize.

I am not at all advocating for exclusively "peaceful" solutions. While those would be preferable, I am well aware that different situations require different approaches. While my own country, for example, is not so far gone as to be unsalvageable, I think, others, like the UK, are on the precipice of violence being a requirement (although even there it is, I believe, not unavoidable yet). What I am against is what a lot of people would call a "final" solution. Lumping in entire populations with the truly guilty. While as you said, this usually leads to further issues down the line, I do not believe life to be so clear cut as to be essentially solvable.

There will always be issues. There will always be problem groups or individuals. It is human nature. Even if every other group were removed, fools within would still create these or similar problems. The solution to that is not removing others, it is in empowering ourselves and our own. A people more knowledgeable, more capable and more moral that work to counter any negative influences. Discarding our morality would not be a service to achieving this.

There is no utopia in our future, only an eternity of hard work. I, for one, do not see this as a problem.

As you gave NS Germany as an example, I would like to ask you to consider this: Did discarding their morals to pursue violent solutions work out for them? Would they, and us in current times, have been better served by acting as an example of a successful different approach to creating society? Would having a NS Germany in today's world not have been a counterweight to all the foolishness that is flowing out of the collective "West"?

Again, I do not have all (or maybe any) of the answers. I'm simply sharing my own thoughts and ideas. Perhaps I'm wrong and you are right. I don't know but discussing things is definitely stimulating my thoughts on these issues. For that, I'd very much like to thank you, especially since you've taken the time out of your holiday season for this.
TheBubbleBursts on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Not entirely sure how I found this, but thanks for the update. Always good to see people from the original subreddit.
Toast message