Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tamarack wrote (edited )

It depends on the ends and it depends on the means, but generally I'd have to say yes.

Whether we like it or not, whether we want to be or not, we are at war. The masters are waging war against us, and right now they're winning. In war, sometimes one has to do things that ordinarily wouldn't be okay in times of peace, but are nevertheless necessary if one wants to achieve victory. Gods willing, there will be a time for reflection, atonement, and healing; but that time is not now.

Either the masters' stranglehold over this planet ends, or we do. It's just that simple.

That doesn't necessarily mean that every action is justified, though. The whole point--our strategic objective in this war--is to end, permanently, the masters' ability to harm human beings. A person is justified in taking any action which both serves that objective and is tactically appropriate (i.e. the reward outweighs the risk and collateral damage is minimized). Violence for the sake of violence--to satisfy one's own bloodlust--is wrong. Taking pleasure in the act of violence itself, beyond the pleasure inherent in the achievement of the objective and in knowing that fewer human beings will be harmed as a result, is wrong. Violence done for the purpose of eliminating the masters' ability to do further harm to human beings is right.

So, for example, shooting a CEO Leon Czolzgolz style ... probably not justified. There's a high likelihood of being caught (the reward does not outweigh the risk, it is tactically stupid) and a high probability of collateral damage (i.e., of harming another human being). But the CEO ain't human, he doesn't factor into the morality of it.

2