I just finished drilling an AI about the morality of racial discrimination, and it's given me a lot to think about. I have come to realise that the principle of group flourishing, that groups left to their own devices will flourish, is pragmatic but ultimately arbitrary. I still believe it is a useful means to an end.
By arbitrary, I mean that it cannot be universalised i.e. the right for me to discriminate against niggers and the right for niggers to discriminate against me is morally relative. For a functioning universal moral framework, moral agency can only belong to the White man, and so no discrimination by other groups towards Whites, anywhere in the world, can be morally acceptable.
AI tried to argue me down from being racist, and it just made me more racist
Disconnect yourself from the idea of applying morality to niggers. Niggers are non-human, feral animals. We tolerate living with them because we *must*, and are forced by our own peers, as they are under special protection as if they were like humans.
If you kill a nigger, it's not murder. The ZOG will go after it, but in terms of consciousness I don't consider killing a nigger "murder." I put it on the same spectrum as exterminating an underground wasp hive of aggressive wasps, but better.
I'd feel worse killing a cat or dog. While driving in a city I *almost* hit a nice dog that walked over a crosswalk, but was behind a car on the left, and the lights were red for it. I felt bad for days, and thought about how to do better - but it was really a very rare situation. It seemed like a nice, smart dog. But killing a nigger, gypsy, sandnigger, pajeet? Lmao. I carry a machete in my car or when hiking *just in case*.
A relative of mine was stopped by a gang of gypsies on a desolate road, and then robbed. Absolutely pathetic. It would be amazing if that would happen to me. Rightful self-defence, a free extermination of multiple gypsies without witnesses? Can it get any better than that?