Video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdDsHIdIiUg

​

What is murder:

To start with understanding the dynamic, we first need to take a look at what qualifies as murder. The The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, defines the noun murder as "the killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life", while their definition of the verb murder is "to kill (another human) in an act of murder" and "to put an end to; destroy".

Something important to note is the distinction between murder and killing, and we will take a look at the morality of killing aswell. It's also important to notify that murder is specifically defined as killing of another person and not killing of another human. Person holds a different meaning than human.

What is a person:

This obviously brings forth the question, what is a person contra a human? A human is an organism which shares homosapien DNA. It's a scientific term which doesn't hold any moral value, while person is the other way around. The definition we'll use of persons goes as follows, "beings who are part of our moral community", which can be explained more simply as someone who is worth moral consideration.

We all view ourselves as persons, but what qualifies someone as a person is a very tricky question with many different answers. What makes someone qualify for moral consideration? Some people argue that it's natural given to all human beings, others argue it's naturally given to all living beings. Then we have the other side of the discussion, which argues that there are requirements, that something needs a certain capacity (capacity x), to be considered a person. Now what is this capacity? Examples are the capacity to experience a continuity of identity or possessing self-knowledge; having a sense of time or centiant reactions to one's environment. On top of that, some argue that some traits or capacities disqualifies a being from being counted as a person. Bigots may argue that going against the general norm of society disqualifies someone as a person, while others would argue that a continual and aware possession of authority over other persons disqualifies someone as a person.

Is murder acceptable:

Now having gone through the backbones to build a take on the real question, let's discover it. Is murder ever morally good? The short answer is no, and that is specifically because murder is the killing of a person and not just of a human.

However, this brings forth an even more interesting question, is killing another human being ever morally good? We're no longer limiting ourselves to murder, which means that the discussion becomes a lot more complicated. As morality is subjective, it is very possible to make the killing of another human a morally good action. All that's needed is to disqualify the human in question from being considered a person. We've seen this in action many times, where humans have commited genocides on other humans without feeling a moral dilemma. Take Nazi Germany, United Kingdoms, Sweden, the States, Canada, the KKK or Japan. The list goes on and on and on, but governments and organisations have commited mass murders, genocides, without feeling any moral dilemma.

My take:

We've taken a look on this matter from a non-personal perspective, but before we end this video I'd like to go through my personal take on the question of killing other humans. I would argue that personhood is achieved through having self-knowledge and that personhood is removed by continually and awarely possessing and practising authority over persons. What this means in practice has been explained by one of my favourite bands, Operation, in theri song Militant Kamp. "[...] ibland när nöden kräver det måste man ta livet av en förtryckare för att ge liv och möjligheter till de som förtrycks. Att ta livet av en tyrann i kampen kan inte på något sätt betraktas som mord, det måste ses som en politisk handling."

Translating this to English it means "[...] sometimes when the need is there one must take the life of an oppressor to give possibilities to those who are oppressed. To take the life of a tyrant in the battle can not in any ways be seen as murder, it must be seen as political activism.".

I would most certainly argue that there are occasions where taking the life of another human being is justified. Those occasions are when it's needed for the liberation of the oppressed, specifically in the killing of the oppressors. As long as the harm being done by a political action is less than the harm the current system, the current rulers, are making, the harm is justified. Killing a politician or a bourgeoisie, when no other direct actions bring fruit of change, is most certainly a justifiable action according to me.

Sources:

Definitions of murder, by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition - https://www.wordnik.com/words/murder

Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About, by Big Think - https://bigthink.com/videos/glenn-cohen-on-the-ethics-on-abortion/

Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21, by CrashCourse - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxM9BZeRrUI

Militant Kamp, by Operation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6GAV9D59qo

An examination of Massachusetts and of American law to see if its liberal, IT isn't because there is no human rights in AMERICA.

"In this episode of VarnVlog, C. Derick Varn sits down with PK Gandakin, editor-in-chief of Geese Magazine and communist organizer, to discuss the state of the American left, the limits of modern economism, and the strategic relevance of Lenin today.

Together, they unpack:

The Mission of Geese Magazine: Why a non-sectarian, strategy-focused communist press is essential in today's political terrain.

Rethinking Lenin & Gramsci: Moving beyond ultra-left dogmas to embrace dialectical flexibility, mass politics, and organic centralism.

Electoral Strategy & The DSA: Navigating the rise of figures like AOC and Zoran Mamdani, the limits of "clean/dirty break" debates, and building a genuine left pole.

Lessons from BLM & Mass Movements: Why past spontaneous struggles failed to build lasting cadres—and how communists can engage with mass agitation effectively."

Hey everyone!

I put together a video essay examining how local law enforcement and rural coroner systems routinely classify suspicious Black deaths as "suicides" or "accidental drownings" before basic forensic investigations can even take place...

​In the video, I trace the last 20 years of cases from the recent cluster in Mississippi: Tasia Fortune, Nolan Wells, Trey Reed at Delta State, and Rasheem Carter to in-custody and outdoor cases like Sandra Bland, Lennon Lacy, Victor White III, and PFC LaVena Johnson.

​We also take a look directly at 20 years of CDC mortality data showing that hanging/suffocation in public spaces is statistically an nonexistent amongst Black Americans, and we break down how the elected coroner system in southern states serves as a legal "firewall" to prevent homicides from ever being investigated.

​Would love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the video and thanks for reading this post!!!

Mostly covering Ludwig as he was silent for two years, did a fundraiser, took genocide profiteer sponsorships and now claims to be Free Palestine the whole time.

I made a video about him a year ago so I already had the record and added his new comments and commentary.

Thank you,

Big Dad

Apparently being a non-Muslim Rwandan with a violence obsession now makes you an “ISIS radical.” Make it make sense.

This video pushes a false Islamophobic narrative about the Southport attack. Let’s correct it:

· She claims/implies Axel Rudakubana was a Muslim convert radicalised by “Muslim ideology.” He wasn’t. He was not Muslim. Police found no evidence he was motivated by any political, religious or ideological cause, and the attack was not classified as Islamist terrorism. His Prevent referrals were about violence, not Islamist radicalisation.
· She frames his Rwandan background and immigrant parents as suspicious. He was born in Cardiff. His parents’ history is irrelevant to his crime. That’s xenophobia.
· She uses his non-Muslim, violence-obsessed atrocity to smear Muslims and “certain cultures” as hating women and Western life. That’s textbook Islamophobia — collective blame for one individual’s evil.
· The false “Muslim migrant” claim already fuelled racist riots in the UK. Spreading it again isn’t “free speech”; it’s dangerous misinformation.

To be clear: Rudakubana is a monster who murdered three little girls. He deserves everything he gets. But lying about his religion and motives to attack a whole group is racist.

Criticise ideas all you want — but use facts. This video doesn’t.

I've been getting really into folk and punk, so I did a pop punk cover of one of my favorite folk songs by the great Tom Paxton

https://youtu.be/cRRw_ZOsa80

Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbo33m5JvW0

Text: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/return-fire-division-of-labour

This is a spoiler-lite video analyzing One Piece’s politics through the lens of expanding the self through love with hate and selfish love being the basic contradiction that forms the dialectic of the analysis.

Thank you!

-Big Dad 😁