Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Moral High Ground = Win


AP gives the formula and the rationale.

Think the chap above understands?

You'd best be able to grasp when your opponent does not share your rule set, and play the ensuing game accordingly.

Unlike you like life on the rez, that is.

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The concept of a "moral high ground" assumes from the beginning that you and your opponent are on the same plane morally, and that your opponent is consciously choosing to "cheat", or use dishonorable or "immoral means", according to your moral code, to win a fight."

Retaining the moral high ground is for your benefit, not the enemy's; it doesn't matter how the enemy judges the morality of your approach. Retaining the moral high ground helps you retain your sanity and your humanity. You don't run amok because then your personality is damaged.

"War is immorality objectified. Any who partake cannot remain clean. It just is not possible."

And politics is war by other means.

April 24, 2011 at 6:48 AM  
Blogger Sean said...

When the ball commences, the "moral considerations" will still be there, abeit, they may not be considered. Guys like Kent will not be there. They'll be protecting their own tribe. If it goes well for us, they live. If not, they won't. But all this discussion, while fun, is unimportant. What actually transpires will not make anyone happy, and "moral considerations" will not actually have much to do with it. In war, all the stuff that doesn't count, still doesn't count. It will take a gargantuan effort and treasure, to remain "moral". It costs a lot.

April 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When the ball commences [...] Guys like Kent will not be there. They'll be protecting their own tribe."

That's where guys should be, they should not be sending their young men far away in search of monsters to slay. If an evil empire doesn't seem to be targeting them, they won't make preemptive war.

"If it goes well for us, they live. If not, they won't."

Why? Can you expand on this? How did you reach this conclusion?

April 24, 2011 at 8:12 PM  
Anonymous TPaine said...

As the "other side" in this particular battle has no morals, ANY morality becomes the high moral ground. Our problem is that we're too moral to play their game.

As Patton said, the idea of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. If we're not ready to play in the dirt with these cheating, thieving low-lifes, what is it going to get us to stay the high moral ground?

And to those who say we shouldn't "start it", I posit that it is already started. Per the old "frog in the kettle" situation, isn't it "started" when the flame is applied to the bottom of the kettle? Will we wait until the smell of fresh boiled frog legs wafts through the kitchen, or will we put the damned fire out?

When the ball commences? Dude, the band has been playing for hours!

April 25, 2011 at 1:26 AM  
Blogger Arctic Patriot said...

Anon 6:48

Define the moral high ground, please.

I say to you, such a thing does not exist, for you and everyone else will always hold the moral high ground in your own eyes.

If everyone holds it, it is an illusion, a product of the ego and imagination.

The point of the article was not whether or not to hold the MHG. I believe you may have missed that, or I failed to communicate clearly.

The point is this:

"Moral High Ground" does not exist.

Win.

Or do not fight.

AP

April 25, 2011 at 6:00 AM  
Blogger Sean said...

Kent will protect his own tribe, while me and a lot of others go off to deal with OPFOR, in a death match. If we win, Kent is ok. If OPFOR wins, they will double down on all remaining resistors. Not only with more laws and regs, but with both feet on anyone still armed and self-sufficient and insisting on personal sovereignity. Since Kents' tribe is small, they can either surrender to the NWO, or perish. It's that simple. Those who want to sit on the sidelines, and protect their own are ok with me, but the results will be that they will prosper or perish based on the outcome of something "they don't want to be involved with". Remeber Austria, circa 1938? They didn't resist Hitler, and more than a million Austrians died anyway. Hundreds of thousands were pressed into the Werhrmacht, and died in Russia,et al, and hundreds of thousands of Austrian Jews were rounded up and exterminated. So, if you sit on the sidelines, and expect results to be favorable, you are whistling past the graveyards of history. I've heard and debated this all before. If you don't want to be part of it, fine. Just don't expect me to carry your water.

April 25, 2011 at 7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is important, as I am not preaching mass murder as a means to ensure victory.

I am.

To date, not a single person other than myself has even attempted to acknowledge this elephant in the room.

In any restored/separated version of our country, what will be done about the demographic problem? There isn't a single location where we're in the majority. Even if we win, we'd be voted into the same slavery we have now.

April 26, 2011 at 2:56 AM  
Blogger upa1 said...

And to those who say we shouldn't "start it", I posit that it is already started. Per the old "frog in the kettle" situation, isn't it "started" when the flame is applied to the bottom of the kettle? Will we wait until the smell of fresh boiled frog legs wafts through the kitchen, or will we put the damned fire out?

If it has already started the question is where is the battlefield and what are the rules of engagement?

April 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM  
Blogger upa1 said...

If it has started where is the battlefield?

April 26, 2011 at 4:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AP asks: "Define the moral high ground, please."

Moral rules are lessons learned from survival challenges in the past, simplified to teach to children. A moral high ground is when moral rules are observed with a maximum of consistency. Consistency means moral rules apply equally to all human beings, in every time and place -- the golden rule. A person occupying a moral high ground behaves according to the same moral rules, no matter if they are at peace or at war. If for example you've decided that taxation is the crime of extortion, then it is always extortion even when your liberating army is freezing their bare feet in the snow and they "need" your money more than you do.

If you feel it is wrong for Hispanics or Muslims to have lots of children who grow up to vote, and use their majority rule to impose their laws on you, then similarly it is wrong for you to use your current majority rule to impose your laws on others. If you advocate a "government" of any kind, you aren't occupying a moral high ground. If your professed approach is to win at any cost and with any method, then you don't have standing to complain if your enemy wins by some really ugly method. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

April 26, 2011 at 5:41 AM  
Anonymous aughtsix said...

Anon. @April 26, 2011 5:41 AM

Sez:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Live your principles and, by your steadfast and utterly consistent adherence to same, die at the hands of those who have NO such concerns.

There is no completely consistent political or moral philosophy which, if followed to the letter in spite of reality to the contrary, will not get you killed or enslaved.

All you dogmatic anarchists, who insist that any cooperative effort to oppose enslavement amounts to "statism" or "collectivism", and who will sit out the coming fracas on your fundamental behinds, will find yourselves asses in the wind and lonely as hell... until you die at the hands of the slavers.

Likewise all you moralists. Where will your moral sensibilities be is the socialists and/or the muslims win?

"May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may we forget you were ever our countrymen."

Except that we'll likely be dead and, ooops! so will you.

Jon III

April 27, 2011 at 4:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All you dogmatic anarchists, who insist that any cooperative effort to oppose enslavement amounts to "statism" or "collectivism""

You aren't attacking the dogmatic anarchist position, you're attacking a straw man. Voluntary cooperation in military defense is a fine thing. No problem with that. Whereas forced participation in defense such as "selective service", "draft", "conscription", "press gang", etc. is enslavement and statism.

"There is no completely consistent political or moral philosophy which, if followed to the letter in spite of reality to the contrary, will not get you killed or enslaved."

And therefore you believe all constitutions are subject to suspension for the duration of the emergency? Government boosters preach that any behavior is acceptable as long as government is doing it, says it's for the little people, and brass bands are playing. The only principle government abides by at ALL times is: you will obey or they will kill you.

April 27, 2011 at 2:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home