Correct! They are seen as expendable. They're only important to the forces that want to collapse America insofar as they're seen as a bioweapon. After their work is complete, they will be liquidated as "useful idiots," or allowed to starve once the largesse of white people dries up and the EBT cards stop working.
The Communists are not here to make life better for people. They actually WANT suffering. Bella Dodd found this out . . . which is a huge reason why she left the Communist Party.
Quote: “As I began to prepare for the work I was assigned to do I was amazed at the lack of files of material on social questions such as housing and welfare. When I complained about this, Gil said: ‘Bella, we are a revolutionary party, not a reform group. We aren't trying to patch up this bourgeois structure.’ I began to realize why the Party had no long-range program for welfare, hospitals, schools, or child care. They plagiarized programs from the various civil-service unions. Such reforms, if they fitted in, could be adapted to the taste of the moment. But reforms were anathema to communist long-range strategy, which stood instead for revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Communists in South America had a phrase: "El peor es el mejor". That translates as "The worse things are, the better".
Blacks gullibly believed that Communists came to make things better for them . . . to institute reforms to enact "social justice". In reality, the Communists were cynically using them.
Communists exploited a hole in black American psychology: Their predisposition to be passive and to expect white people to be responsible for their destiny. This is a holdover from the slave period.
De Tocqueville in 1830 noticed this propensity among blacks to assume that they weren't responsible for their own food or shelter or healthcare; but that the white man would provide. Here's a quote from "Democracy In America":
"The negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born: nay, he may have been purchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he began his existence. Equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to himself, he learns, with his first notions of existence, that he is the property of another, who has an interest in preserving his life, and that the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power of thought appears to him a useless gift of Providence, and he quietly enjoys the privileges of his debasement. If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery; for having learned, in the course of his life, to submit to everything except reason, he is too much unacquainted with her dictates to obey them. A thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of the knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which it is necessary to contend with, and he has learnt only to submit and obey. In short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him."
This insight is lost on modern conservatives, who try (fruitlessly) to market independence and freedom to black people. It never occurs to them that blacks do not want these things. They fear that, if they had to compete on an equal basis with whites, they will lose. Liberty terrifies them. What they want is what they longed for in their slave period: For whites to be responsible for their welfare, their food, their housing. Essentially, the Democratic Party is offering ELECTIVE slavery. And 94% of blacks are eager and willing to take that deal.
De Tocqueville warned that blacks had to fight for their own freedom. Like all peoples, they had to yearn for independence. If they didn't (and if whites fought for them instead) he said that "Great evils will arise from this". Because blacks wouldn't appreciate something that they themselves didn't fight for.
A great quote might bear repeating in this context: "Power isn't something you give; it's something you take".
To this day, blacks are demanding that white people "give" them power. The Communists exploited this naivete'.
Correct! They are seen as expendable. They're only important to the forces that want to collapse America insofar as they're seen as a bioweapon. After their work is complete, they will be liquidated as "useful idiots," or allowed to starve once the largesse of white people dries up and the EBT cards stop working.
The Communists are not here to make life better for people. They actually WANT suffering. Bella Dodd found this out . . . which is a huge reason why she left the Communist Party.
Quote: “As I began to prepare for the work I was assigned to do I was amazed at the lack of files of material on social questions such as housing and welfare. When I complained about this, Gil said: ‘Bella, we are a revolutionary party, not a reform group. We aren't trying to patch up this bourgeois structure.’ I began to realize why the Party had no long-range program for welfare, hospitals, schools, or child care. They plagiarized programs from the various civil-service unions. Such reforms, if they fitted in, could be adapted to the taste of the moment. But reforms were anathema to communist long-range strategy, which stood instead for revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Communists in South America had a phrase: "El peor es el mejor". That translates as "The worse things are, the better".
Blacks gullibly believed that Communists came to make things better for them . . . to institute reforms to enact "social justice". In reality, the Communists were cynically using them.
Communists exploited a hole in black American psychology: Their predisposition to be passive and to expect white people to be responsible for their destiny. This is a holdover from the slave period.
De Tocqueville in 1830 noticed this propensity among blacks to assume that they weren't responsible for their own food or shelter or healthcare; but that the white man would provide. Here's a quote from "Democracy In America":
"The negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born: nay, he may have been purchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he began his existence. Equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to himself, he learns, with his first notions of existence, that he is the property of another, who has an interest in preserving his life, and that the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power of thought appears to him a useless gift of Providence, and he quietly enjoys the privileges of his debasement. If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery; for having learned, in the course of his life, to submit to everything except reason, he is too much unacquainted with her dictates to obey them. A thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of the knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which it is necessary to contend with, and he has learnt only to submit and obey. In short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him."
This insight is lost on modern conservatives, who try (fruitlessly) to market independence and freedom to black people. It never occurs to them that blacks do not want these things. They fear that, if they had to compete on an equal basis with whites, they will lose. Liberty terrifies them. What they want is what they longed for in their slave period: For whites to be responsible for their welfare, their food, their housing. Essentially, the Democratic Party is offering ELECTIVE slavery. And 94% of blacks are eager and willing to take that deal.
De Tocqueville warned that blacks had to fight for their own freedom. Like all peoples, they had to yearn for independence. If they didn't (and if whites fought for them instead) he said that "Great evils will arise from this". Because blacks wouldn't appreciate something that they themselves didn't fight for.
A great quote might bear repeating in this context: "Power isn't something you give; it's something you take".
To this day, blacks are demanding that white people "give" them power. The Communists exploited this naivete'.