The "Privilegium maius-forged royal" Habsburg crime family's Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the founders of what is known as moral relativism.
He once wrote, "There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, 'These birds of prey are evil, and does this not give us a right to say that whatever of the opposite of a bird of prey must be good?', there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument - though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, 'We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb.”
Nietzsche argued that although it was evil for a bird of prey to eat a lamb alive and eventually kill another living thing - this was only evil from the perspective of the lamb - because from the perspective of the bird of prey, this was the opposite of evil, because the same allowed the bird of prey to survive, and if denied the ability to kill the lamb, this would be very evil for the bird of prey, even radical.
The same is known as moral relativism, and is Donald Trump's, his ally Benjamin Netanyahu's, and/or the child rapist and sex trafficker that connects them (via Elud Barak), Jeffrey Epstein's, best defense for all of their crimes and harm against other people - because their crimes against their victims are good for them.
From Nietzsche's moral relativism perspective, it is extremely "evil" and "radical", for Jeffrey Epstein's child raping orbit, which includes Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's Elud Barak, to not allow them to victimize others, and when in illegitimate positions of power, it is "treasonous" and "terrorism" to try and hold Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and/or their orbits accountable for stealing elections, for unlawfully seizing power, for murder, treason, sedition, insurrection, espionage, corruption, and/or other harm.
Because from the moral perspective of rapists and murders - anyone, including a victim, law enforcement, et cetera - trying to stop criminals from reaping the benefit of murder, fraud, rape, treason, sedition, terrorism, sedition, and/or espionage - is a "radical" or "evil", is how moral relativism works.
"Destroying OUR great country" from the perspective of moral relativism, includes "radicals" and "evil" people who would try and stop ongoing organized criminals, traitors, seditionists, spies, terrorists, insurrectionists, and/or child rapists from Jeffrey Epstein's crime syndicate from doing the same, and/or who would try and hold them accountable for the same, is how moral relativism works, because it is evil and radical from the perspective of criminals.
"Make America Great Again" from the perspective of moral relativism, could well include a time when many Americans were enslaved, subjected to rape, beatings, murder, subjected to slave labor, squalor living conditions, and/or locked up in WWII internment camps, and/or the subjects of fake royal dictators.
As Benjamin Netanyahu overtly furthers the war crimes of ICC's child sex trafficker Putin and Russia, at the cost of the American taxpayer, this is good for Benjamin Netanyahu, Putin, Russia, Trump, the GOP, GOP financiers, and the like, and anyone who challenges their right to commit genocide, is "evil" and a "radical", from a moral relativism perspective.
But from this perspective, didn't the Nazis have a right to exist and to defend themselves with France, and doesn't Putin have a right to exist and defend himself in Ukraine, and doesn't a rapist have the right to exist inside and defend himself against the person he rapes?
Shouldn't we have shamed the French for "resisting" their genocide by the Nazis, for French's radical and evil ways?
Shouldn't we shame the child sex trafficking victims of Putin in Ukraine for being so radical and evil, by denying rapists their right and freedom to rape?
Shame on victims for not allowing themselves to be victimized?
That's the problem with moral relativism. It gives the worst people in the world and across history, the best possible defense to their most disgusting crimes, because it is good for them, regardless if the same is evil to others.
In philosophy, moral relativism is born out of the difference between subjective and objective reality.
Objective reality is what is real, what does exist, and doesn't include what doesn't exist, which isn't real.
Subjective reality is what we think is real - and short of creativity - we don't give much credence or thought to those things we have not been taught or experienced, which is why, for example, people who aren't Chinese, who weren't raised religious, and who haven't studied non-linear mathematics, usually don't speak Chinese, don't believe in God, and aren't great at non-linear mathematics.
Similarly, this is why those who were raised to hate colored people (who they share common African and/or Indian and/or Iranian ancestors and heritage with) often hate colored people, and those who were raised to believe in the forged royal Habsburg's version of Christianity - which embraces the total opposite teachings of Jesus Christ, for example, murder, hate, revenge, hoarding, and exploitation - embrace the total opposite teachings of Jesus Christ. Because a moral relativist taught them this subjective reality.
Objective reality, or what is real, gave birth to subjective reality, what we think is real, and subjective reality gave birth to moral relativism, in such a manner that what we think is good or evil is what others teach us is good or evil, regardless if what they teach us isn't true.
From the perspective of objective reality, no situation or conduct is truly good if it is evil for any other people or any other living thing, because to be good, something has to be void of any evil. From the perspective of subjective reality or moral relativism, a situation that is evil for other people or living things is good if it is good for at least one person.
Accordingly, from the perspective of objective reality, it is not good that a small group of people, Hamas, who were financed by the allies and/or orbit of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, attacked Trump's ally's Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel, because that was evil, even if the same was subjectively good for Trump, Netanyahu, Russia, insurrectionists, Putin, and/or the orbit of Jeffrey Epstein.
And from the perspective of objective reality, it is not good that American taxpayers have to pay for Jeffrey Epstein's orbit's Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel to engage in genocide conduct towards 2 million people in Palestine, after Jeffrey Epstein's orbit financed Hamas to attack Jeffrey Epstein's orbit's Israel, to distract from Jeffrey Epstein's Trump's orbit's crimes against the United States and its taxpayers (including espionage revelations days before Israel was attacked, when it was revealed that Jeffrey Epstein's Trump betrayed the United States a new way, by stealing top secret documents from the government, include America's nuclear weapons secrets, and then sharing them with a foreign billionaire, Anthony Pratt, who then shared them with foreign leaders, and/or about 45 other people, in a criminal conspiracy with Trump to share America's top secret military secrets, in a manner similar to the Rosenbergs doing the same, and then being executed for the same).
From the perspective of objective reality, that's really evil, because this conduct and situation harms many different people many different ways.
From the perspective of subjective reality, overtly furthering this criminal conspiracy was "great" or "perfect" for Trump, Netanyahu, Russia, Putin, insurrectionists, the GOP, and/or others, because the attack on Israel provided them a distraction from their corruption and crimes, and a new means to divide and conquer the hearts and minds of people in the US and Israel, and allows them to posture that they are heroes, and that anyone opposed to their decades of crimes is a villain, radical, traitor, terrorist, and the like, especially if they are trying to protect the United States and Israel from all of the same.
From the perspective of rapists, murderers, enslavers, haters, traitors, seditionists, spies, terrrorists, insurrectionists, and organized crime - "freedom" means the right to do all of these things - and from their perspective, others are "evil" and "radicals", if others don't let them, or try and hold them accountable.
From the perspective of their victims, "freedom", means the right to not be raped, murdered, enslaved, hated, betrayed, spied on, terrorized, overthrown, nor be subject to any crime, but to be free of all of the same.
Employing the 1/25 statistic from Harvard's Dr. Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door, about 1/25 people, the sociopaths (far right, rapist and dictator types), rage against the 1/25 people who oppose them, the altruists (far left, activist and democracy types), in a battle to sway those in between, the 23/25 people, into supporting their values, because doing so is good for each polarized group.
Our research has found that the best way for sociopaths to move support towards them is to not just scare the public into a sacrifice of blood and treasure but to engineer scarcity (increase inflation, keep wages flat for decades, and destroy all social safety nets, to basically engineer others into poverty and economic slavery, while inciting them to overthrow the country). The same increases sociopath or corporate culture.
Our research has found that the best way for altruists to move support towards them is to reassure the public, and engineer abundance (decrease inflation, increase wages, and increase safety nets, to basically engineer others into a position of abundance, savings, investment) and to bring the country and people together. The same increases altruism or equilibrium culture.
This is our understanding of how and why evil exists in the world and how and why it remains - because it is good for a few thousand evil rich people to engage in the perpetual evil that makes them richer and more powerful - and it is bad for good people being impoverished and scared, to try and stop these few thousand rich people (and their more than a million multi-millionaire proxies) - even if doing so is good for billions of other people and most other living things.
Photo: https://unsplash.com/@thatsherbusiness