Sign into an existing account

The thing with the left is that they love slavery.

Living as slaves appeals to them as the ideal way to live, they just don't want to be called slaves, it's only the name which they find degrading. There are inherent advantages to being the property of another compared to self-ownership, especially if you can delude yourself into thinking you are free, or be able to say your are free to others without being challenged.

Just like how there's no issue to having a disability when you live in a world where everyone else is expected to have the same disability as yourself.

Their leaders understand that and they provide what is in demand from these people who now make up the most vocal segment of all populations, they are like cuckoos in the nest of a different species of bird, where only those who shout out the loudest and are willing to remove any voices that dissent from their own matter, unlike every other political orientation the left loves doing such things to their opponents.

The left hates those who would rather not live as slaves so they must impose their own bondage upon others, it must be shared universally with the sole exception of those who would be the masters.

If they are left to be free, they will live better lives than them and that cannot be permitted, they know their ideas are bad, and will produce a life that people would rather not live.

They also believe that they themselves cannot live a good life outside of the state's bondage, as such a life is hard: It's easier when everything is provided to you, nothing is your personal responsibility, and you are kept safe from the dangers of life and the consequences of your actions.

For some people that's the only way they CAN live, and they are acutely aware of this fact, dysgenics leads to the craving of a system that puts everyone but a select elite down, because then the inferior do not appear to be so, since all share in being at the bottom. The envious would rather hide their lower status by forcing it upon others than respect the achievements that they themselves are incapable of.

The costs of a life lived as livestock to the state does not matter if everyone is trapped within the same fate and there is noting else to escape to, the whole of the world must be enslaved for their slavery to remain stable and without shame. Then they would have a better chance of getting laid since chad looks more like them, or chad get dragged out and shot for being chadly and standing out among the masses of sheep that know not to wander too far outside the pen, hooray for artificially limited choices in mating options!

Those who suck crave a world where it sucks for everyone else, too. Demographics dictates destiny, this is what happens when you try to lift up the worst among you, or to make sacrifices so that those worse off can live better than they had before.

Machiavelli said this - that those who you save or empower will not thank you for it and they will not love you, they will fear you less and they will hate you more, or they will see you as a source of yet more tings that they can take from you, and they will repeat in producing whatever conditions caused your compassion or generosity until they have drained you dry or you refuse to give anything more of yourself for them, then they will attempt to destroy you for denying them what they now see as being rightfully theirs, because you conditioned that in them.

In this way, people are not so different from animals, wild animals who get fed by humans will return with the expectation of receiving more.
If denied they will turn aggressive because you are seen as refusing them what they now perceive themselves as being entitled to, you had enough food to freely give some away to another species, so withholding any of it is inexcusable.
Perhaps these animals attacks are the result of an animal's sense of fairness being violated by "selfish" humans.

People tend to be less resentful of you when your help comes with some perceptible benefit to yourself, or some expectation of reciprocity down the line.

Freeing the negroes only led to blacks holding the fact that we had members of their race as our slaves for a time over our heads forever, and using it to justify doing whatever they want to us, or demanding everything we have from us.

Saving the jews from death only led to them using their past endangerment as a means of taking over everything, turning it all against us, and gleefully arranging for our eventual destruction.

Kindness is repaid for in cruelty not for any reasons about human nature, but from a purely strategic perspective, it is the best thing to do.

If you had a button that gave you what you wanted whenever you pressed it, and there was no cost for doing pressing it, would you not be wise to hammer that fucker until those two conditions changed into something giving you reason not to?

For blacks and jews, we are that button, hitting the white guilt or other triggers they know exist in us causes us to give them everything they desire, even if that thing is nothing but a demand for our own extinction.

There is almost no chance of us retaliating against them for leeching everything our of us and leaving us dead, so why wouldn't they hit that button? guilt? shame? moral principles? We've been telling them for their entire lives that we did them wrong, and had done such harm to them that anything is justified in retaliation against us for those past crimes.

When we ourselves are encouraging them to destroy us, and telling them that it is only justice for them to do so, why would they feel bad about it? the message has been reinforced into them by us: we say to them "we are monsters who deserve nothing less then death, please take everything you can for us as compensation, and then kill us off for our unforgivable sins against you".

At this point that message is self-sustaining, and if we stopped caving into their demands they would then just do the next rational thing and proceed to destroy us, not because of anything to do with human nature, but simply because its the best move to make for strategic reasons.

We might come to resent them for taking advantage of us for so long, we might become a threat to them once again, we were monsters before, and we only stopped being monsters when we hated ourselves enough to give them all we had, us cutting them off means an potential indication that we will have returned to evil conqueror mode (let's face it, it's not too far outside the realm of possibility, so it wouldn't be wise to take the chance with keeping us around once the relationship changes).

I say it's like living in an abusive domestic household, oftentimes when an abusive partner finally kills or seriously harms their other half, it's when the victim makes it clear that they will no longer be willing to remain a recipient of abuse from their partner, for white people, we can expect a similarly explosive response from jews or blacks if that were to happen, when whites become self loving, and start taking a stance that is unambiguously for themselves, we can expect the other two groups to turn against us immediately.

It could also be out of an unwillingness to accept that the entitled groups are finally getting the things they've come to take for granted be denied to them by those who they had previously perceived as being guaranteed to provide such demands made.

Look at white people as if they were a single person, and other races in the same way, look at the interactions between these groups when they are characterized as individuals. then look at this checklist and start ticking off boxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFHWnAn9ULk

It makes the kind of relationship whites have with other groups seem a lot more clear, and it also makes the self-hating attitudes of white people more understandable, this is usually how people trapped in such relationships feel about themselves and their relation to the abusers, and it serves as a coping method.

I've got more tangents to go rant about but I'll just end it here.

deleted

deleted