Form: Reply

Eric Danelaw

So your position is that reciprocity should not be based upon current conditions but past conditions? In other words, we are held accountable for the actions of our ancestors? Rather than engaing in cooperation and exchange today?

I mean, in the past, (1) conquest and genocide has been dominant for all of human history, and the most influential actions peoples can take. (2) migrations in history are the norm not the exception. (3) asymmetric warfare is the norm not the exception. (4) the second generation of land migrants into the norht amarican continent exterminated the first. The romans exterminated the celts. The arabs exterminated five great civilizations of teh ancient world and reduced them to ignorance and poverty. Which past crimes do we correct? Or do we work in the present to cooperate?

Donterell

I think it’s a mixture of both. Current and past.

Eric Danelaw

—“I think it’s a mixture of both. Current and past.”–

That just means you want to escape making a decision so you can justify any action, right?

Here is how we treat it in the west: if you create infrastructure it’s yours. If you don’t create infrastructure you’re a parasite, that’s holding land from more productive people.

The way we viewed it in the past is that primitive people were basically animals. It was the church that asserted we not do so (the scholastics).

So do we ask the muslims for repartions for their destruction of western, north african, egyptian, levantine, persian, byzantine, north indian civilizations?

Or do we just say ‘we know more now today than the past, and how can we come to agreement?’

Donterell

By that logic north America should be owned by the Blacks, Chinese, and Mexicans who built the infrastructure.

(marxist labor theory of value, instead of high trust construction of value)

Eric Danelaw

Interesting thought. So then the only solution is warfare?

Donterell

Hasn’t [warfare] always been the European solution to anything involving people who didn’t look like them? They only use diplomacy in their internal dealings.

For the record America counts in this regard. We dont really war with other white countries. Only ones who are brown lead. Perhaps this has to do with the bankers…who knows.

Eric Danelaw

Um. I can’t think of any reason not to conquer and enslave people other than beneficial cooperation.

I mean, you’re certainly advocating for holding people responsible for actions that were not of their making.

So that’s no beneficial cooperation. It’s just predation.

1 – First question of philosophy: why do I not commit suicide?

2 – First question of ethics: why do I not fight against you and take your stuff?

3 – First question of politics: why do I and mine not war against you and take your stuff?

I mean. either we cooperate or we war.

I prefer war, because I prefer not to tolerate the insults of the underclasses.

But if cooperation is possible and profitable then it is preferable to the expense of conquest.

The only reason to cooperate is that it is more profitable than predation.

The weak don’t have that choice. The strong do.

Morality does not exist outside of cooperation. There are no limits in war.

So I don’t see any value in moralistic arguments since we are either cooperating or we are not. If we are that is good. if we are not then either one is too little trouble, or too costly, or worth defeating, depriving, and ending.

Donterell

I prefer war as well. In that regard, let the black South Africans kill the invaders.

Eric Danelaw

Excellent, then we are agreed to go to war, and reconquer the continent

War is the most profitable and pleasant industry

We are better at that industry than any other peoples.

Might as well get back to it.

We gave the primitive peoples a chance. If they don’t want to join the aristocracy, then they can rejoin the serfs.

Eric Danelaw

I think the time under which white guilt could be used has passed and that we have learned that we must rule or the primitive peoples will just return us to their levels of barbarism.