So earlier I was reading Brendon Tarrent's manifesto and he made some decent points like "Are you a Fed/shill/mossad agent/false flag/patsv/infiltrator/antifa/glow in the dark etc?
No, but the next person to attack could be, so a healthy scepticism is a good thing.
Just do not allow your skepticism to turn to paranoia and keep you from supporting those that want the best for you." and "If not me, then who?" but despite this decent quotes I am inclined to be morally divided with a statement like "Children are always innocent do you not think you are a monster for killing an innocent?
Children of invaders do not stay children, they become adults and reproduce, creating more invaders to replace your people. They grow up and vote against your peoples own wishes, for the interests of their own people and identity. They grow up and take the potential homes of your own people for themselves, they occupy positions of power, remove wealth and destroy social trust.
Any invader you kill, of any age, is one less enemy your children will have to face.
Would you rather do the killing, or leave it to your children? Your grand children?" I mean it has decent moral argument(s) like PEE (point evidence explain) but it still seems immoral what are your thoughts on this it is something that I do not disagree with nor agree with due to its nature of being well represented whilst also sounding monsterous at the same time and can't children be converted into what is right?
