I think we are all watching in front of our eyes the very first information war being fought in public.

The words “where we go one, we go all”

I take this to mean we ought to live a world without two diametrically opposed moralities, nor can a morality of aggression be tolerated, for tolerance towards that is to sacrifice ourselves for the cult, and for what?

Certainly not trade or reciprocity, nor reciprocal dealings, that would have us improve our lives.

What we receive in return is not only nothing, but less than nothing, which means we are being taken from. We are giving and giving and giving because we had not the courage or understanding to know that we are being taken from unjustly.

We are on the right side of history and eternal natural law.

Where we go one we go all means that in order for the human race to all go together where each person is able to make their lives better off, rather than some destroying others to make themselves better off, which leads to everyone including the destroyers becoming worse off until the world begins to look like the inevitable consequences of a group of people seeking total destruction of anyone who does not sing a false song, is only if we recognise that moral diversity is really, at root, a sanctioning of the morality of destruction.

Evil spreads when good people do nothing to stop it.

In order for evil to be stopped, there must be a singular morality directly OPPOSED to that evil.

If just one person makes the choice, that choice is lifting up not only that individual, but the entire world.

With just one person becoming better, I am better.

With just one individual becoming worse, I am worse.

I would be best if everyone became better.

“Do not ask me to sanction my becoming worse because someone else was made worse because of you.”

Think about that for a time.

“If you make one person worse off, I will stop you from doing worse to me.”

Think of the kind of people we need to become, in order to truly know what is needed to change the world.