Forgive your enemies, but defend your Folk
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
It seems like you agree.
It is not bad to kill people who intend to kill you. Period. In fact, it is bad to NOT kill people who intend to kill you.
As far as morality, it's very, very simple. What is good to one person is not necessarily good to another. In other words, things do not inherently have a "good" or "evil" trait embedded in them. What makes something good or bad is how someone interprets it. Without someone to say "I don't like this" or "this is nice" there is no good or evil at all.
The problem people get into is they think that just because morality is subjective (specifically meaning it depends on the person who is affected by it) that morality is relative (meaning it depends on the perspective of the person looking at it.) Or that people can somehow redefine what is good for them because they prefer death or starvation or things like that, which is nonsense.
Living is good. Death is bad. Food is good. Poison is bad. Etc...
And from there you have to ask what is more important: MY being alive, or YOUR being alive? Obviously, for YOU, YOU being alive is most important, and for ME, me being alive is most important. And then you start to see how one thing can be good for one person but bad for another. Then you see that having power over other people is inherently good, because you get the things you want.
Then I misunderstood. Yes.
> What makes something good or bad is how someone interprets it.
Well, yes. What's good for you is bad for the cow - its meat.
> that morality is relative
Yeah, it's a bit weird. There are some steps in that thinking that are reasonable, but it ends up with some weird conclusion like "therefore we have to consider the feelings of the pedophile rapist sandnigger."
> And from there you have to ask what is more important: MY being alive, or YOUR being alive?
That is very simplified. In fact we have a collective symbiotic relationship and have to consider societal norms. What you describe is a thoroughly calculative way of thinking. Which isn't necessarily bad.
I have no issues calculating the net positive of a given nigger to our people and deciding that it's negative, therefore it has to be taken care of. I also have no issue to declare every single nigger a net negative simply based on large-scale factors, including its future and potential. The dangers of race mixing included.
As of my people, even if a given person isn't particularly a net positive, his children or theirs may be, or in the future he might turn his life around. So by default everyone gets the benefit of the doubt - or of unforeseeable factors. But this is not the way I'd approach it with Whites, I treat people normally with respect. I treat subhumans with certain distance to avoid having to deal with them.