The obsession with being 'better' than one's enemies is always perplexing. There is no need for a comparison when your enemies are dead and you are not. Be the last side standing, and you're the best by default.
It was a learned helplessness ploy. Teach generations of white western boys that 'violence never solves anything' and they'll respond with a shrug to the slow invasion of shitskin savages raping and murdering as they please.
This is exactly what happened. Go find a YouTube channel with 90s commercials. You will see a 19 year old Will Smith tell you about how “keeping your cool is cool” and that “brains will win over muscle every time”.
There is something to be said about trying not to slide towards unhealthy attitudes (sadistic, sociopathic, etc etc) but the "message" is something that's been preached to an exaggerated level.
Yes, sometimes there are other solutions to consider. Sometimes you can resolve things with an enemy, let the past go, and move on. Sometimes a conflict is an escalation over a small misunderstanding or disagreement.
But there's also a certain threshold where defending yourself or others with lethal force is necessary. Or where an enemy who clearly won't back down or can't be reasoned with needs to be put down. Sometimes it's worth eliminating a threat even when it's not imminent, because you know they'll keep coming around trying to hurt you or others. Some enemies just can't be redeemed.
The problem is it's an egalitarian argument. It assumes everybody starts from scratch and you should teach everyone not to kill others. In reality there are genetically moral and genetically immoral people and they need to be taught the opposite lessons.
I think the other part is actually an earnest culture failure rather an enemy action.
Being alive at the time, it really DID seem like things were mostly okay, wee just had to adress a few misalignment and it'd all be dandy, for the most part nothing was too bad for anybody, and so if somebody was violent or depressed or otherwise anti-scocial, it wouldn't take much to get them back on track.
As for everybody else, prisoners dilema was the word. Teach everyone to pick option A and humanity flourishes.
You're watching a high trust society propagandized high trust. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but as soon as the context changes it looks self-destructive.
Look past the "violence never solved anything" I get that that's the focuse because if you did that it'd help the current situations. But the other messages that were common at the time were consistent with the idea of cooperation. Do your part. Work together. We are more than the sum of our parts. Leave no trace. Etc etc.
The cultural Moores of cooperation, self-control, kindness to the less fortunate were all positive moral lessons. The problem is that Enemy actors co-opt the language while using an ethical framework. The rule of their system is, note the groups most willing to cooperate and then working to accumulate reasons for them to "share" with you to your advantage.
"Youre a bad person if you dont give me what I want"
The other part that is missing is the Christian responsibility portion. It's all well and good to say wives be submissive to your husbands, but the other ethical standard of correcting your own behavior first preempts the obvious social loophole of saying "the Bible says put others before yourself, so you should put me before you and give me what I want"
There's also a difference between "someone you're in conflict with" and an enemy.
There are lot's of Whites betraying their race because they've been had by the propaganda, but they aren't my enemies. If I have to beat them, I will, but I'd just as soon get them to wake up to reality.
The people pushing the propaganda in the first place? They are my enemies, no quarter.
Oh I agree. I suppose I was trying to be broad in what I was defining as an enemy for the sake of considering the whole enchilada of ethical hypotheticals and dilemmas.
What's truly insane is how often our ancestors have pitted against each other for largely pointless wars over petty squabbles between leaders at the top. And now when we have a situation where we're actively being invaded by foreigners that were never invited by citizens, foreigners that don't belong and can't get along, now we're suddenly just letting them take it instead of banding together and fighting them off our land.
Obviously it's because our leaders have become absolutely and royally compromised and the people have been eating the propaganda for fear of being 'bad and racist'. But it's still absurd when you think about it in the grand scheme of things.
When I was young, I bought into the propaganda that violence is bad.
I am no longer young. I fully believe violence is the only way to fix most issues. A dead enemy doesn't have the ability to use propaganda and violence to destroy my clan. I'll let God decide whether violence was right or wrong later.
Also, man, I watched every episode of Mighty Max. Loved that show. I can still hear those damn fowl jokes.
Back in the old days, kids growing up with Grimm's fairy tales used to learn the really valuable lessons for life.
Like solving your problems by gouging your enemy's eyes out.
Or grinding misbehaving kids into small pieces and feeding them to your ducks.
Sometimes when you strip off the bright colored space lazers, old kids cartoons were unfathomably based at times:
Without parents, grandparents, family, the past is meaningless. Without children, the future is only darkness. Without tradition to guide us, without posterity to judge us, we live in a moral void as empty as space itself.
The obsession with being 'better' than one's enemies is always perplexing. There is no need for a comparison when your enemies are dead and you are not. Be the last side standing, and you're the best by default.
It was a learned helplessness ploy. Teach generations of white western boys that 'violence never solves anything' and they'll respond with a shrug to the slow invasion of shitskin savages raping and murdering as they please.
This is exactly what happened. Go find a YouTube channel with 90s commercials. You will see a 19 year old Will Smith tell you about how “keeping your cool is cool” and that “brains will win over muscle every time”.
Our enemies defined our morality.
I suspect that was the subliminal message every time G.I. Joe went up against Cobra and nobody could ever seem to kill anyone.
There is something to be said about trying not to slide towards unhealthy attitudes (sadistic, sociopathic, etc etc) but the "message" is something that's been preached to an exaggerated level.
Yes, sometimes there are other solutions to consider. Sometimes you can resolve things with an enemy, let the past go, and move on. Sometimes a conflict is an escalation over a small misunderstanding or disagreement.
But there's also a certain threshold where defending yourself or others with lethal force is necessary. Or where an enemy who clearly won't back down or can't be reasoned with needs to be put down. Sometimes it's worth eliminating a threat even when it's not imminent, because you know they'll keep coming around trying to hurt you or others. Some enemies just can't be redeemed.
The problem is it's an egalitarian argument. It assumes everybody starts from scratch and you should teach everyone not to kill others. In reality there are genetically moral and genetically immoral people and they need to be taught the opposite lessons.
I think the other part is actually an earnest culture failure rather an enemy action.
Being alive at the time, it really DID seem like things were mostly okay, wee just had to adress a few misalignment and it'd all be dandy, for the most part nothing was too bad for anybody, and so if somebody was violent or depressed or otherwise anti-scocial, it wouldn't take much to get them back on track.
As for everybody else, prisoners dilema was the word. Teach everyone to pick option A and humanity flourishes.
You're watching a high trust society propagandized high trust. Which isn't a bad thing at all, but as soon as the context changes it looks self-destructive.
Look past the "violence never solved anything" I get that that's the focuse because if you did that it'd help the current situations. But the other messages that were common at the time were consistent with the idea of cooperation. Do your part. Work together. We are more than the sum of our parts. Leave no trace. Etc etc.
The cultural Moores of cooperation, self-control, kindness to the less fortunate were all positive moral lessons. The problem is that Enemy actors co-opt the language while using an ethical framework. The rule of their system is, note the groups most willing to cooperate and then working to accumulate reasons for them to "share" with you to your advantage.
"Youre a bad person if you dont give me what I want"
The other part that is missing is the Christian responsibility portion. It's all well and good to say wives be submissive to your husbands, but the other ethical standard of correcting your own behavior first preempts the obvious social loophole of saying "the Bible says put others before yourself, so you should put me before you and give me what I want"
There's also a difference between "someone you're in conflict with" and an enemy.
There are lot's of Whites betraying their race because they've been had by the propaganda, but they aren't my enemies. If I have to beat them, I will, but I'd just as soon get them to wake up to reality.
The people pushing the propaganda in the first place? They are my enemies, no quarter.
Oh I agree. I suppose I was trying to be broad in what I was defining as an enemy for the sake of considering the whole enchilada of ethical hypotheticals and dilemmas.
What's truly insane is how often our ancestors have pitted against each other for largely pointless wars over petty squabbles between leaders at the top. And now when we have a situation where we're actively being invaded by foreigners that were never invited by citizens, foreigners that don't belong and can't get along, now we're suddenly just letting them take it instead of banding together and fighting them off our land.
Obviously it's because our leaders have become absolutely and royally compromised and the people have been eating the propaganda for fear of being 'bad and racist'. But it's still absurd when you think about it in the grand scheme of things.
So (((perplexing))).
Context: That guy killed the family of Norman, the man with the axe.
The show is called Mighty Max.
I remember waking up early to watch that show. Loved it.
my next project is making cartoons for kids using AI. have you all realizedthe powerof tjis shit for our cause?
Have you seen The Will Stancil Show yet?
https://xcancel.com/AlfredAlfer77/status/1975629219905282556#m
Mighty Max fuckin’ ruled, good pull.
When I was young, I bought into the propaganda that violence is bad.
I am no longer young. I fully believe violence is the only way to fix most issues. A dead enemy doesn't have the ability to use propaganda and violence to destroy my clan. I'll let God decide whether violence was right or wrong later.
Also, man, I watched every episode of Mighty Max. Loved that show. I can still hear those damn fowl jokes.
Back in the old days, kids growing up with Grimm's fairy tales used to learn the really valuable lessons for life.
Like solving your problems by gouging your enemy's eyes out.
Or grinding misbehaving kids into small pieces and feeding them to your ducks.
Sometimes when you strip off the bright colored space lazers, old kids cartoons were unfathomably based at times:
Mighty Max was a weekday cartoon.
Guy can’t even get cartoon airing time right expects me to care about his political takes. Let me know when red wall is on dork
https://epguides.com/Redwall/
Thanks
Nah.
Looking things up is stupid.
Right, Mongoose?
Yeah, look things up, since everytime someone is in court now their search history is used as evidence against them. Fed.
And where has that approach gotten you, hm?
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Wait until you learn the truth about who runs the archive sites.
Do you really think they run at massive losses out of the goodness of their hearts?