So, let's dive into why Moral Relativism is dangerous.
In the Inauguration thread, Jon, I mean EnkiTruth, quoted a text from the so called Ascension Glossary that explains what the term Anti-Christ means in the context of that glossary. I now want to talk about this snippet here:
"There is no enemy patterning in Guardian Host, Christos unity consciousness, however, when the anti-christ gestalts have agendas to torture and annihilate other species, they will protect and defend the consciousness if it is the choice that has been made by that being, such as the earth."
So, they will only help if the victim asks for help. This reminds me of how Courtney describes the ethics of the so called good ETs. In his words, they are "free will fanatics", and they won't help humanity as long as humanity doesn't make a free will choice to be helped.
In other words: They will only help when the victim wants it, not because it's right.
This is a clear sign of Moral Relativism, which states that every action shall be guided by what someone wants. In this worldview, a victim that is not choosing to be helped doesn't express a free will choice, so it can be ignored.
Do you get why this is dangerous?
A real good being would help even if the victim doesn't want it, based on the assessment wether the victim is able to understand its situation and wether it can make informed decisions or not. For example, a child that is sexually abused and doesn't understand why this is wrong is unable to call for help. Good people would help that child, because they know that the child doesn't know that it is a victim of a crime.
In the same way, most humans are unaware of the crimes they fall prey to. The whole prison planet, the death traps, the control system, the genetic and social engineering, the dumb down education – all this hassle is there to lower consciousness and prevent informed decisions. The whole purpose of the system is to make people not know that they are victims, and how they are abused – just like a child that doesn't know why sexual abuse is a crime.
Real good people would see that. They wouldn't wait until the victim gets that it's a victim all by itself. They would end the crime first, because it's necessary to restore the ability to make informed decisions.
Moral relativists who tell you that you chose to be a victim are pure evil. Nobody chooses to be a victim. It's a logical contradiction, because you are breaking the definition of what a victim is. Victimhood can never be chosen, because you can only become a victim involuntarily!
I already explained it with the example of slaves: A person who chooses to be a slave is not a slave at all, because a slave is someone who doesn't want to be owned by another. So if you choose to be a slave, you actually stop being a slave and become a wilful order follower. There is no word in human language I know of, the next best term is "household slave", or servant.
Whenever I see someone believe in Moral Relativism, I know that this person is either wilfully evil, or stupid.