The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Not My Friend

 The enemy of my enemy, by definition, is not my friend. To say otherwise, is an inversion of the truth. To be a friend would require additional qualities to base that on. It’s rhetoric, and rhetoric is emotionally convincing.


It’s possible they’re also my enemy, my friend, useful, an ally, or just somebody. They may be not my enemy, but also be instrumental in keeping my enemy in power over me, or kill me along with that enemy.


Here is where mental technicality needs be set aside. When dealing with a people that will:

  • brand someone a criminal, on the face, when the person is innocent, because their reputation was not so pristine that it was not above reproach;
  • or kill off a family to several generations, for the actions of a few individuals within it;
  • After war, colonized a people to extinction;

Why in the world would one leave the parasite and also the enemy of the parasite in any position of strength?


The better move would be to make the enemy of the enemy ineffectual, and remove the parasite in the process.  Unless one was a fourth party, hoping that the enemy of the enemy would wipe away the strength of a host occupying your ancestral lands, would kill the enemy, and because of historical rights and mutually animosity against the host, reinstate you, the fourth party, into management of that territory.


If one were to leave a birth land, reject 3/4+ of their DND, vow never to go back due to one of their family being incarcerated, refuse to go back once the person has been released, and call a historical government the people treacherous since the beginning, a people that lead centuries of genocide against the 1/4- DNA claimed, how is it possible listening to such might not end well for people of the 3/4+?


Preference would not be a substantive road, as preference could include having all of one’s extremities cut off but the head, or only the head and no other. Preference may be honest, or it may be Wormtongue.


When someone asks which bondage you would prefer, bad or really bad, do not think it is a question other that what sort of slave you would prefer to be. The better answer is the refusal of compromise, and to say neither. Whether one is 3/4+, or 1/4-. To any would be enslaver.


Does this mean the 1/4- does anything out of any animosity toward the people of the 3/4+? No. 1/4- may be working toward the best that the 3/4+ could hope for, given the circumstances, even to the point of being overly optimistic. And the result is still the result.


The better preference for the 3/4+, is to be free of the parasite. This does not come through detente, but by war and through bloodshed. That comes by the wrecking of the New World Order in such a way that “violence is never acceptable” becomes rhetorically dead. Anything less than that is slavery, as an individual or as a group. And if a few cities are lost over the refusal to surrender to anyone, then they are lost, while the West lives on. That is the way of war. And there will be war.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Perspective and Locks

Subversion- The Name Of The Game

If There Was A Beginning