/fringe/ - Fringe

Also, would it be cowardice if I refrained from killing, purely out of fear of judgement and wanting to live my life peacefully? Would it be doubly cowardly when I feel that I am ignoring the call of duty?

…and this question aside, would it just be plain stupid to strike at the wrong time? Especially if soon the formal killings can begin with the help of Trump?

Even if I try to harm nobody that probably wouldn't guarantee at all that I will avoid harm. Life is a spiritual moshpit, the struggle is unavoidable, so surely others will try to kill me regardless of what I do?

I was talking to Islamists awhile ago and they were annoying the shit out of me with their peace rhetoric. Leftists also have tons of this peace rhetoric. Anyone spewing shit about world peace and the likes is highly fucking suspect, it's usually these individuals that are the most likely to attack aggressively others, while people who spew violent rhetoric are the least likely to ever actually do shit.

Killing humans is the only thing that actually matters. Fortunately only Europeans are human excepting any surviving Aryans who may be extremely long of life or possibly immortal living in the mountains or some shit. But the gist is that karma only applies to humans, niggers jews and such are not human and like animals will kill based not on any overarching logic but rather basic animal instinct.

So the gist is kill jews kill niggers, gas the kikes race war now.

>>88082

According to law of karma, it's impossible to kill a person that didn't "deserve" to die, i.e. accumulated type of karma the would get the killed. The Universe wouldn't let you hurt a saint, with sword or magick. If you're not planning to become a saint, just do what must be done. Any harm that you inflict on others is just fruit of their past actions.

I'm not sure which will bite you back harder, but it should be pretty much same thing. There may be a loophole to this, instead of cursing you enemies, pray to God, asking for them to receive punishment for their past deeds sooner than it would occur naturally.

Forgot to mention that killing in self-defense is ethical and brings no negative karma. In this context whites exterminating jews is ethical. It is not the case with other races, they act out of self interest but do not actively pursue extermination of the white race.

>>Looking at history as precedent, there clearly have been lots of people who've killed plenty

Karma of murder does not fully manifest in the same lifetime, for example you may die of cancer in this life and in the next one you may be born in hell and get killed repeatedly.

>>88099

Well there's a big difference between killing to purge degeneracy from the world vs killing someone to keep word getting out about your corruption… some kill and sicken others for evil reasons.

>>88130

What kind of karmic shit is going to come down on cats that love to kill animals for the hell of it? I know a lot of cats that just kill animals and don't bother to even eat them ever.

You know that saying, it goes something like, the greatest sin is to do something not in your nature?

Probably the right thing to do is just to follow that inner-voice, to follow your own nature. If you feel guilt, that very guilt will draw to you punishment. If you can kill without feeling any negative shit like that, then you're probably on the right path. You could inspire very negative emotions in others though that will be directed at you and which will manifest bad shit upon you.

>>88134

>What kind of karmic shit is going to come down on cats that love to kill animals for the hell of it?

Those that kill animals for the thrill of the hunt will be reborn as predatory animals like lions, alligators, sharks, hawks, etc. I'm not sure, what awaits those, that kill animals through torture, something hellish probably.

>>88135

>the greatest sin is to do something not in your nature

That's right if it means listening to your conscience and not acting against what it says; and it's wrong if it means acting according to your human nature, because human nature is very flawed.

The feeling of guilt is a way for your inner voice, conscience(God within) to tell you did or are about to do something wrong. Suppressing guilt won't change the fact that the action was wrong and will bring the same karmic outcome. If you're concerned with consequences, only kill according to the Natural law. Someone is trying to burn your house? You're free to kill them, though that may get you in trouble with human law KEK

>>88099

why do saint get martyred then ? :')

>>88087

Bah

Too much Angel's Dust!

>>88158

Martyrs usually aren't considered saints before their martyrdom. The ones that get martyred either aren't saints at that moment or are at a point where earthly suffering brings them no discomfort, since they are already with one foot in the spiritual realm - getting murdered for them is just a game. By definition a saint is one that's free of karmic burden.

There's a type of spell or prayer, accelerating manifestation of karma, that normally wouldn't be ripe. It's for those who feel adventurous and masochistic.

>>88155

Sounds like you believe in the arbitrary decree of deities.

I only believe in universal law.

I don't see why the scenarios you describe should logically follow.

Usually, the attainment is the punishment in and of itself. aka getting exactly what you want has a way of punishing you. Virtues help you know what you should really want and steer clear of the stupid vices that would weigh your soul down.

I think killing animals is usually ok for the simple fact that their consciousness is very different and they really don't give a fuck you killed them. They just feel something "uncomfortable" for awhile and can't really think of it as happening to them and they die and their souls dissolve pretty fast.

A human that you kill however feels pretty strongly about it, has a concept of a self that this stuff is happening to, and their souls do not so immediately dissolve after death so they can linger around to fuck your shit up. Furthermore, the emotional pain that may be experienced by all the people that they were intimate with in their lives, might stir things up in the astral in a really bad way for you. Then on top of that, there might be some wizards/shamans/etc. that are operating on a much higher level, who effectively protect the whole tribe/people and who will know what you did and judge you and punish you.

In general I think the higher up the scale of consciousness are, the more privileges you have to do whatever you want with those beneath you. Yeah, that sounds very LHP, and very much like how the attitudes of the elite are described in conspiracy material but it's true. If you are advanced enough, the lives of average humans really don't measure up to you very much, just like how animal lives don't really matter that much. So you can deal with lesser humans and utterly crush and put their souls into an emotional stupor. Shamans have been known to entrance animals and have the animal lay down their life, so they can just slaughter the animal effortlessly. We can do that to humans too.

Morality as such scales with consciousness. You have more freedom to do as you please the more advanced in the scale you are. A spiritual king may fuck a subject, kill a subject, etc. when a pleb can't. That's just how it is. Though he must be wary not to step on the toes of certain important figures in his kingdom.

>>88202

>Morality as such scales with consciousness.

Pretty much, with three caveats.

>not all humans have the same level of Awareness (consciousness) in totality, meaning that if a human actually has a soul/Awareness it has it from birth and so killing them as the child is as killing them as an adult, their consciousness does not change though their intelligence or Will may.

>live by the sword die by the sword, if you use your power to squash the human machines that have no awareness they may eventually kill you, because if you are still low enough that you care to interfere with meat men you are still low enough to be killed by them

>at a certain scale of Awareness there is no point in killing, countless beings could extinguish this planet like a candle but don't because it would mean as much as kicking an antpile over

>>88202

What I've said so far has little to do with my beliefs, I was explaining karma from perspective of Hinduism, where the term originates from. Any other definition of the term is just corruption of its original meaning.

What's the point in discussing karma, if you do not believe in indestructible, immortal soul?

>>88219

>Hinduism

>where the term originates from

Hinduism took the concept from its predecessors.

But the answer to your question is that the Atman exists, and you are not the Atman. The immortal soul exists, but you are not the immortal soul. You are not immortal, you are the flicker of a burning wick.

>>88220

Hinduism, despite popular opinion, is not a religion, it's a set of beliefs shared by several religions originating in region around Indus river.

I'm not familiar with the school of thought, where jiva is a temporary existence. Who are the predecessors of Hinduism?

Is there a TL;DR version of this thread? What's the main point of this?

>>88487

>what's the main point of this?

For you to overcome your ADD. Rise to the ocassion…

>>88082

>>88084

While I can't claim to know for certain, I doubt that there is any true difference between killing in person or through some sort of proxy. If your intent is what does someone in, then you're the one responsible. In the same vein, I could see a definite difference between unintentional killing and intentional killing: something reflected in most systems of justice.

As for refraining from killing or actually killing? It's highly variable.

To give reference on my beliefs with killing: I'm a martial artist of 12 years, an aspiring doctor of biomechanics, and spend most of my free time either researching, studying, or hanging with former/active military or martial artists.

When at all possible, it is best to refrain from violence. Life is fragile, happiness is fragile, freedom is fragile; these the things that should not be violated. Therein comes the paradox: in order to defend these we must sometimes be willing to cast them aside.

Being entirely passive does nothing to halt perpetrators of violence, while being entirely aggressive only serves to foster the environment for more to spring up. So, how do we decide? We pull out the metaphorical scales, and prepare to live with the consequences of our actions. We must ask ourselves if what we fight for is actually just, if our actions are actually moving the world to becoming a brighter and less violent one, or if we are simply falling into the trap of fostering senseless pain.

>>89110

>socrates

>the first notable bullshit sissy wizard