Ethics & Values

[Tsar]

You seriously think that we are going to topple the Jewish elite and New World Order by simply placing "virtuous White Christcuck men" in power??? The only way in which we can defeat the longest-running and most tenacious tribal mafia in the history of the world and bring down its nefarious NWO system is through well-coordinated military force and that certainly does require the warrior spirit! The enemy isn't going to give up without a fight!

I think war may become necessary to remove the NWO from power. But the Ancient Pagans would not have made a distinction between guilty, elite Jews, and ordinary Jews. Rome did not... The Roman empire engaged in mass, genocidal violence on three separate occasions against the Jews. This is not to say that the Jews were completely innocent victims, but I don't think mass murder of civilians is ever justified. And the Romans actually killed the majority of living Jews in each of those instances.

I am in favor of a revival of the Roman Empire's genocide of the Jews. They slaughtered the Jews, supposedly destroyed their temple, and actually accomplished what Hitler didn't. They could easily go door to door with swords and cut down every Jew they found. Ransack the valuables like gold and distribute it to the soldiers or melt it down for the empire. Could you imagine if 99% of all Jews were wiped out in 2022?

I imagine humanity would see progress on a scale unseen in human history for at least 500 years. Humanity would advance like it was a second renaissance.

The Jews disappearing (being wiped out) would be one of the Top 5 best things that could happen in the world. I won't explain why but anyone would know why if they know about the evils of the Jews and the illegitimate "Jewish State" called Israel.

That's just my opinion. I don't honestly see any reason to show mercy to the Jews after all they've done and continue to do.

[Lucas88]

You can't encourage people to cultivate a warrior spirit without it resulting in gratuitous violence. Some individuals may be able to control it, maybe most will even, but many will not. And as I've mentioned before, the group of people who is committing all the violence and causing all the destruction in each particular country is actually a pretty tiny group of people. There are only 100,000 gunmen and enforcers for the cartels in Mexico in a country with 130 million people yet look at how much destruction that 100,000 people cause? And yes, the numbers are slightly misleading given how many of them are dying and being replaced, but the total number of people who have joined the cartels, and specifically taken a job that would've involved killing people, is well under 1 million. Meaning that significantly less then 1% of the population in Mexico is turning it into one of the most homicidal nations on Earth.

Nuclear weapons essentially make your country immune from being invaded... Perhaps not from being subverted, but from being invaded, yes. And countries that have insisted on sticking to more Ancient, warlike ways have never managed to develop into the kind of countries that could compete with nuclear armed nations. Even North Korea wouldn't stand a chance because their own military is starving and infested with parasites.

You can't suppress the warrior spirit without it resulting in the weakening and vulnerability of a people. That is precisely why the NWO is currently relentlessly pushing for the feminization and pussification of men throughout the West and elsewhere: they want to make us weak and easy to subdue and defenseless against their envisioned totalitarian system known as the Great Reset. Our own resistance against the NWO will undoubtedly require a strong warrior spirit for it to be a success. This is not even up for debate. And any established noble civilization will also require a strong warrior spirit for its ensured continuation against both internal and external threats. This is simply a law of nature.

All modern nations have advanced militaries which would put any ancient military to shame. Countries like USA, Russia and China have droves of men enlisted and with the warrior spirit cultivated and trained in state-of-the-art combat techniques. Even though many wars in the modern world are illegitimate, contrived and serve hidden agendas, those men at least formally are there to protect the territory and geopolitical interests of their respective nations. They and their warrior spirit are necessary for the survival of their own civilization should an external threat emerge. As for the Mexican cartels, imagine how much more destructive they would be if there were no primally masculine and warrior-spirited military police to keep them in check. The military force of a modern Kshatriya class is indispensable for the safeguarding of law and order within a nation and that obviously requires warlike men who form part of a disciplined and noble order. Warlike men are needed for the elimination of the cartels and other problematic criminal organizations. In Mexico I felt safe precisely because there were military police patrolling the town in jeeps and armed with assault rifles.

I am in favor of a revival of the Roman Empire's genocide of the Jews. They slaughtered the Jews, supposedly destroyed their temple, and actually accomplished what Hitler didn't. They could easily go door to door with swords and cut down every Jew they found. Ransack the valuables like gold and distribute it to the soldiers or melt it down for the empire. Could you imagine if 99% of all Jews were wiped out in 2022?

Given the Jews' one-of-a-kind perverse anti-Gentilism and tendency to view us as nothing more than beasts of burden to serve their vile asses, I can understand why the Romans would have wanted to eradicate them. In hindsight, it would have been much better if the Romans had succeeded. Obviously, I'd rather it be them (the Jews) than us. Unlike Christcucked Gentiles with their naïve slave values, I care much more about the survival and independence of our people than false universalistic moral ideals. Even the Talmud states that a Jew must never reveal to a Gentile what the Jews teach about us because, if we were to find out, we would openly kill them.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88

Look I’m sorry but y’all are off the deep end. If you guys are making me look like an ideological/political moderate by comparison then something is wrong. You are taking this too far, not every Jew is an evil person. Sure I don’t like them, I’m well aware of what many of them have done… But there’s a difference between self defense and genocide. There is no good reason to commit genocide. There never has been a good reason.

The Romans didn’t slaughter without reason but they also were very willing to respond disproportionately to people they perceived as enemies. There is nothing about Ancient Rome that I want to return. Despite its technology, Rome was a very savage culture and all three of you would probably be dead by now if you had actually lived in Ancient Rome.

[Lucas88]

@Tsar @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88

Look I’m sorry but y’all are off the deep end. If you guys are making me look like an ideological/political moderate by comparison then something is wrong. You are taking this too far, not every Jew is an evil person. Sure I don’t like them, I’m well aware of what many of them have done… But there’s a difference between self defense and genocide. There is no good reason to commit genocide. There never has been a good reason.

The Romans didn’t slaughter without reason but they also were very willing to respond disproportionately to people they perceived as enemies. There is nothing about Ancient Rome that I want to return. Despite its technology, Rome was a very savage culture and all three of you would probably be dead by now if you had actually lived in Ancient Rome.

I understand what you mean. The idea of genocide is ugly to a noble soul like myself and even makes me shudder thinking about it. However, I have no compassion for those who view us as beasts of burden or who otherwise want us dead and would have no problem killing those perverse dickheads or seeing them being killed. I am in part a warrior soul - although my inner philosopher tends to predominate - and recognize that we are in a state of war. I hate those who hate me and will not turn the other cheek. I long for the destruction of those who seek to harm me. That is only natural and life-affirming.

I also recognize your point that not all Jews are bad people. I often wonder what percentage of Jews are absolutely evil, moderately evil, and barely evil at all on a genetic and/or soul level. The Jewish elite behind the NWO obviously consists of Jews who are absolutely evil, then in everyday life you can encounter Jews who are moderately evil (like they simply scam Gentiles in line with their Talmudic upbringing or talk about wanting us dead), and finally there are Jews who seem relatively normal and don't harm anyone. Of course, the criminal Jewish elite and its lackeys should be mercilessly slaughtered for the unforgivable crimes that they have perpetrated. That should be obvious. I also believe that the moderately evil Jews should be hunted down and killed too (or at least sterilized). Those inbred mutants are a perversion amidst the gene pool. I'm not sure about the Jews who are barely evil at all. I don't know whether they should be segregated to their own ethno-state but without the political power of present-day Israel or simply assimilated into the Gentile population. Maybe among those Jews, Jewish sociopathy is greatly diluted or infrequent, perhaps due to a higher frequency of exogamy within their lineage.

When I spoke about the Romans eradicating the Jews, I was speaking hypothetically, like an alternate "what if" scenario. Yes, the Romans were brutal and responded disproportionately to some peoples whom they perceived as enemies. My point was that, given what we know about the Jews today and all of the damage which they have caused, it would have been preferable if the Romans had responded disproportionately to that extremely problematic group as opposed to some other poor barbarian tribe. The Jews have definitely been the worst race of people in all of known history. I definitely perceive something "off" or "demonic" about them and even doubt that some of them are fully human.

[WanderingProtagonist]

@Tsar @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88

Look I’m sorry but y’all are off the deep end. If you guys are making me look like an ideological/political moderate by comparison then something is wrong. You are taking this too far, not every Jew is an evil person. Sure I don’t like them, I’m well aware of what many of them have done… But there’s a difference between self defense and genocide. There is no good reason to commit genocide. There never has been a good reason.

The Romans didn’t slaughter without reason but they also were very willing to respond disproportionately to people they perceived as enemies. There is nothing about Ancient Rome that I want to return. Despite its technology, Rome was a very savage culture and all three of you would probably be dead by now if you had actually lived in Ancient Rome.

I understand what you mean. The idea of genocide is ugly to a noble soul like myself and even makes me shudder thinking about it. However, I have no compassion for those who view us as beasts of burden or who otherwise want us dead and would have no problem killing those perverse dickheads or seeing them being killed. I am in part a warrior soul - although my inner philosopher tends to predominate - and recognize that we are in a state of war. I hate those who hate me and will not turn the other cheek. I long for the destruction of those who seek to harm me. That is only natural and life-affirming.

I also recognize your point that not all Jews are bad people. I often wonder what percentage of Jews are absolutely evil, moderately evil, and barely evil at all on a genetic and/or soul level. The Jewish elite behind the NWO obviously consists of Jews who are absolutely evil, then in everyday life you can encounter Jews who are moderately evil (like they simply scam Gentiles in line with their Talmudic upbringing or talk about wanting us dead), and finally there are Jews who seem relatively normal and don't harm anyone. Of course, the criminal Jewish elite and its lackeys should be mercilessly slaughtered for the unforgivable crimes that they have perpetrated. That should be obvious. I also believe that the moderately evil Jews should be hunted down and killed too (or at least sterilized). Those inbred mutants are a perversion amidst the gene pool. I'm not sure about the Jews who are barely evil at all. I don't know whether they should be segregated to their own ethno-state but without the political power of present-day Israel or simply assimilated into the Gentile population. Maybe among those Jews, Jewish sociopathy is greatly diluted or infrequent, perhaps due to a higher frequency of exogamy within their lineage.

When I spoke about the Romans eradicating the Jews, I was speaking hypothetically, like an alternate "what if" scenario. Yes, the Romans were brutal and responded disproportionately to some peoples whom they perceived as enemies. My point was that, given what we know about the Jews today and all of the damage which they have caused, it would have been preferable if the Romans had responded disproportionately to that extremely problematic group as opposed to some other poor barbarian tribe. The Jews have definitely been the worst race of people in all of known history. I definitely perceive something "off" or "demonic" about them and even doubt that some of them are fully human.

Outcast Christianity and mostly all Old testament style type religions were savage as hell too in most parts of the world, look what they did to Joan of Arc. Burned that goddamn woman alive for no good damn reason other than accusing her of treason and all sorts of shit she didn't even do. But they still went Twisted Metal Black On her ass anyway just because they could.

[WanderingProtagonist]

https://moviesjoy.to/watch-tv/rome-the- ... 07.8748163

[Tsar]

@Tsar @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88

Look I’m sorry but y’all are off the deep end. If you guys are making me look like an ideological/political moderate by comparison then something is wrong. You are taking this too far, not every Jew is an evil person. Sure I don’t like them, I’m well aware of what many of them have done… But there’s a difference between self defense and genocide. There is no good reason to commit genocide. There never has been a good reason.

The Romans didn’t slaughter without reason but they also were very willing to respond disproportionately to people they perceived as enemies.

Anyone who completely rejects every last vestige of Jewish influence in a culture and nation realizes that the only way is to replace anything that has Jewish influence is removing anything even remotely related to the Jews.

The National Socialists were effectively pagan, Himmler was a pagan, but Hitler decided to preserve the Catholic Church and Christianity, not because he entirely wanted it specifically, but because it was a cultural thing and he wanted to eventually replace it with a State religion. That's what I read.

Nazi Germany is honestly probably similar to what a modern Roman Empire would resemble.

Not every Jew is evil, but they have an inherent predisposition towards evil.

I also ask, what exactly is a Jew?
Is it their genetics? Their religion? Maybe a combination?

Therefore, would a Jew who lives in a world where they don't know the Jewish religion or have any exposure to the Jewish history or culture, still be evil? We can't know the answer to that.

If I was tasked with formulating a response to people who would shelter the Jews during a real genocide, here's one one of them:
A family is suspected of given refuge to a Jewish family. A search has determined there's no Jews in the house, but there could be a hidden room somewhere or a place to hide beneath the floorboards, or a bookcase hiding concaved walls. My soldiers would give the family 5 minutes to get belongings they want to keep. Then, my soldiers will burn their entire house to the ground. If there's any screams, then the family gets gunned down. If the family were telling the truth, they will have their house rebuilt by the government, up to a certain amount. Mansions wouldn't be rebuilt by the government. Burning is a painful way to die. That's why with time, no one would give shelter to the Jews, and the Jews wouldn't seek shelter in anyone's homes. It's effective, psychological, and brutal, but it's also fair.

Imagine that I am the leader of a nation and I am at war with another nation. Let's say I rule "Tsar Island" and the US in this hypothetical scenario, sanctioned my nation for choosing to directly intervene against NATO interests. I had warned the world years before that if my nation was ever sanctioned, I would annihilate cities in any nation that puts sanctions on my nation. Imagine that I have both nukes and "god rods."

Let's just say that this is what would happen to Washington DC (District of Corruption), New York (Jew York), and Los Angeles (Satan's City). I wouldn't care about the innocent lives. They're insignificant collateral damage in a war their elites and leaders chose.



If I had that weapon, 50 cities across the world would be immediately annihilated. Mostly cities in the Anglosphere and NATO. I would probably add any city worldwide with over 50000 Jews living in it. Israel would go from Holy Land to holey land. That's because a weapon of mass destruction that leaves no environmental contamination in the aftermath can be used without hesitation. The mass slaughter of human lives doesn't matter because there's about 8 billion people. What matters more are the plants, the animals, and that better people survive. Who cares if Jews, liberals, and evil vermin die? It doesn't matter if it's war and to create a better world. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. I might think twice before using nukes, but using "god rods" doesn't require any thinking because there are no consequences except extreme loss of human life and mass destruction. Mass destruction and mass loss of human life are acceptable in some contexts. Sentimentality has no place in war.



Here's a clip from an anime that I recently watched. I agree that genocide is cruel, but it can be made to be as merciful as possible.


Modern war is ineffective because it's fought to create perpetual conflicts. A conflict must be seen through to the end and permanently resolve the problem.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

I would say, we are only justified in killing the people directly in charge of the NWO scheme or the people willing to risk their life to defend the people implementing that scheme. Those are basically the settled upon rules of war that Europeans have tried, not always successfully, but tried to observe for centuries. Its kind of like, if a thug attacked me and tried to kill me, then I would be justified in killing the thug. I wouldn't be justified, however, in killing everybody the thug knows including his family, upon the assumption that they will be angry I killed him and try to come after me.

Its the same with war. An honorable war is only fought for the sake of cultural self preservation, and never deliberately targets people who have not raised their weapons against us. Nor should we kill people when it is not necessary to do so. A nation that fights honorably will not instruct its soldiers to kill wounded soldiers or surrendering soldiers from the enemy army who pose no threat.

@WanderingProtagonist

History is my lifelong passion and something I have obsessively studied since I was in middle school.

First of all, you have to keep in mind that the history of Christian, theocratic rule in Europe is much much longer then the Roman Empire was. Christian theocratic rule lasted for 1,200 years. The Roman Empire lasted for 500 years, if you include the powerful years of the Roman Republic, it was more around 700 years.

Yes, atrocities were committed by the Christian church and by Christian rulers during the middle ages. I did not deny that atrocities were ever committed. What I am saying is that the scale of such atrocities, the frequency with which they were committed, and the level of justification regarding them, was extremely different from the standard set by the Roman Empire. The era we may call "Medieval Europe" lasted from about 1,000 AD to at least 1600 AD, maybe 1700 AD. It definitely ended in 1700, but either way, we are talking about a very long period of human history. Much longer then our current era of democracy and classical liberal philosophy.

Some moments during the Medieval era were very brutal, and cruel. The worst atrocity in the Medieval era, committed by the church, was without a doubt the Albigensian crusade. Unlike "the Crusades" that people are aware of. The Albigensian crusade was not waged against enemy armies but rather waged on completely ordinary people. It is possibly the only act of true genocide that the church committed in Medieval Europe... Approximately 500,000 people were slaughtered. Definitely the darkest moment of the Medieval era.

But the thing is, other then this specific event, most of the dark moments of Medieval Europe still have some light at the end of the tunnel. For example, during an early example of the Christian inquisition... One particularly zealous enforcer in Italy during the 1200s had some 200 or 300 people burned alive in one day as heretics. The outrage from the population was severe, and the church responded to this by sacking him and ending the inquisition entirely. During the inquisition we all know of, the church actually didn't set out to torture and kill people. There were quite a few regulations surrounding the inquisition in-fact, and interrogators were instructed not to draw blood or torture suspects. Given how difficult it was to enforce regulations back then though, zealous inquisitioners tortured them anyway. Still, the Spanish inquisition only resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 people... 2,000 of whom died from 1480 to 1540. Hardly the blood soaked episode of mass murder that anti-Christian people make the inquisition out to be. There is also Bloody Mary, a queen infamous for her cruelty and atrocities. So much so that her name passed into legend as an evil queen.

Yet she only killed 280 people? How is it possible that a queen who's responsible for fewer deaths then many modern dictators who the average person walking around has never heard of, would become so famous? Well, the reason why, is because people in her time period were not accustomed to monarchs acting the way she did. There was a tremendous level of uproar and outrage over both Queen Mary's persecutions, and the abuses of the Inquisition.

Now let's take a look at Ancient Rome. Julius Caesar slaughtered 1.2 million people in Gaul. In the first Jewish war, the Romans slaughtered 1.3 million Jewish civilians. In the second one, 200,000 Jewish civilians were massacred. In the third one, 600,000 slaughtered. Rome also slaughtered about 500,000 people just in their destruction of Carthage. Rome committed many more massacres in their campaigns against the Britons and Germanic tribes. They also brutally put down countless revolts across their empire from normal peasants who couldn't tolerate Roman rule anymore. This doesn't count the countless slaves who were legally murdered by the Roman regime. After one slave murdered his master for example, Roman law dictated that every single slave he owned was to be killed. They killed somewhere between 400-500 slaves in a single day. Slaves could be legally executed for any reason their master wanted. Slaves were tossed into snake pits every day.

People largely did not bother with documenting atrocities on the level of the inquisition or Bloody Mary's persecutions in Ancient Rome, because that stuff was just daily life. If you saw people shitting in the street every day, you wouldn't write about it every time you saw it. If you've never seen someone shit in the street, then the one time you do see it, you will definitely write about it.

[Tsar]

@Lucas88

I would say, we are only justified in killing the people directly in charge of the NWO scheme or the people willing to risk their life to defend the people implementing that scheme. Those are basically the settled upon rules of war that Europeans have tried, not always successfully, but tried to observe for centuries. Its kind of like, if a thug attacked me and tried to kill me, then I would be justified in killing the thug. I wouldn't be justified, however, in killing everybody the thug knows including his family, upon the assumption that they will be angry I killed him and try to come after me.

Yes, but that depends on the level of the thug. If it's just a random idiot, sure, maybe it's okay to just kill him.

However, let's say that a 60 year old Senator or a 60 year old billionaire ordered the hit. The billionaire or Senator gets abducted. They would watch videos of their entire family get gunned down, their friends murdered, maybe their places of work bombed to kill their associates and employees, their home turned to ashes, and their line removed with the final act being a dagger through a baby if they have any. Then, I will have their knees broken and tendons cut so they can never escape. They will be kept alive for awhile to suffer and know that their actions to kill me were responsible for destroying their family, friends, and people who know them, then end them when they've been completely broken in mind, body, and spirit. It would also send a message to anyone who would try to kill me that if they were to fail, that's an example of what would happen to everyone they know and love, and then them.

That's why in some contexts, it's necessary. If someone kills Bill Gates or any European Royal Family or George Soros or Klaus Schwab, then their entire bloodline of 5 or 10 generations must be exterminated, with all the friends and associates of their direct line, and closest employees and subordinates. Same goes for the Clintons, Bushes, Bidens, Obamas, Reagans, etc. They all must be slaughtered without mercy and end their bloodline.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar @Pixel--Dude @Lucas88

Look I’m sorry but y’all are off the deep end. If you guys are making me look like an ideological/political moderate by comparison then something is wrong. You are taking this too far, not every Jew is an evil person. Sure I don’t like them, I’m well aware of what many of them have done… But there’s a difference between self defense and genocide. There is no good reason to commit genocide. There never has been a good reason.

Is genocide committed in self defence justified and moral? The Jews want to subvert our culture, which they are doing through the dissemination of all these harmful ideologies such as LGBTQ shit pushed in schools and also vaccine mandates which f**k up our genetics and outright murder us. They seek to weaken us through weak programmes of servility and pacifism. But some of us want to fight and protect our future.

Nobody has "gone off the deep end" everything is civil, but brutally honest. I think you are right about not all Jews being evil. I think in rare cases some Jews just want to be left the f**k alone like everyone else. We could easily resolve this problem by firstly eradicating the Zionist Jewish elite currently in power. Secondly, to prevent another group of Zionist Jewish Elite from rising to power and infiltrating Gentile government we should also eradicate Jews which espouse the same Zionist philosophy as these people are also our enemies and dysfunctional belligerents who will do no good if left alive.

Jews who are happy to assimilate into Gentile society, post eradication of the Zionists should be left alone, but maybe sterilised so their lineage does not continue. This is the best solution for everyone. There is no point pretending that everyone can hold hands and sing kumbaya. The Jews are too belligerent and seek to destroy all cultures and all values which are not their own. They are immoral. And therefore the moral thing to do is to fight them. I agree with @Tsar though. I think they will always be more inclined towards evil, so any left alive should be watched closely.

The Romans didn’t slaughter without reason but they also were very willing to respond disproportionately to people they perceived as enemies. There is nothing about Ancient Rome that I want to return. Despite its technology, Rome was a very savage culture and all three of you would probably be dead by now if you had actually lived in Ancient Rome.

Rome was a nation comprised of militaristic individuals who sought to expand their empire and impose their ideals onto other nations. If the nation resisted they were fought and eventually assimilated into the empire. Expansion was the goal, not slaughter. The Romans aren't a model for a perfect, moral civilisation, but it can't be ignored how successful they were.



This historically accurate clip lists just a few positive things the Roman Empire contributed to society. technology which made civilisation more advanced. What did Christianity contribute to anything aside from more advanced methods of torture for those who refused to worship a tyrannical cosmic imposter Christianity is likely one of the main reasons the Roman Empire collapsed in the first place.

And of course all three of us would be dead if we were alive during the times of the Roman Empire. There is no "probably" about it. The Times of the Romans were thousands of years ago. Everyone who was alive back then is now dead.

Oh please, anti-Christian people are obsessed with trying to prove that Christianity somehow added nothing to civilization yet you are living in the remains of a Christian civilization. Look around you, virtually all of that was built by Christian men. The reason you have an internet connection and aren’t stabbing some dude in a gladiator pit is because of Christianity. The reason you can walk down the street without a gun or sword at your hilt and feel fine is because of Christianity.

I know you and Tsar hate labor and working… well you know the average man had to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, as well as employ his wife to work the same hours, and all of his kids who were 5 years old or older just to barely scrap by feeding his family? People had to be careful about not having too many kids in quick succession because if they had too many mouths to feed before the first kid was old enough to be productive, they risked starving the family. There was no safety net in Rome, if you didn’t have enough money to feed yourself, you died. Lots of people died this way.

In Medieval Europe on the other hand, most people could feed their families working 8-9 hours a day. And if you didn’t quite make it, the church (that you hate so much) had stocks of grain saved up for the poor. It was literally the world’s first welfare system. During times of severe famine this could not be relied on because the grain stocks ran out but during normal times… People did not starve anymore.

You knew exactly what I meant when I said you would be dead by now. Don’t play dumb.

[Cornfed]

There was no safety net in Rome, if you didn’t have enough money to feed yourself, you died.

Actually, for quite a long time most people in the city of Rome were on welfare.

[Tsar]

I know you and Tsar hate labor and working…

I don't hate working. I hate working when it's a bad deal. I also hate my work enriching other people if I am not rewarded for my work.

Modern work is mostly pointless and it's feudalism. Why work if there is no real reward?

People can either work to maintain something or build something.

Working with little or no rewards is effectively slavery. That's what most modern workers are in a country like the United States but it's often the case everywhere.

When money is fiat currency, it redistributes all the wealth to the top.

[Outcast9428]

@Cornfed

Depends on what you call welfare.

@Tsar

Yes and Rome had legal, institutional slavery where you could be executed for not obeying your master. Even if you weren’t officially a slave, all of the work you did was to enrich the top 1%. You had no choice, if you did not work you died.

[Tsar]

@Tsar

Yes and Rome had legal, institutional slavery where you could be executed for not obeying your master. Even if you weren’t officially a slave, all of the work you did was to enrich the top 1%. You had no choice, if you did not work you died.

Yes, but that was in ancient times.

In many cases, people in 2022 are more slaves than the slaves in ancient times.

The monetary system in 2022 is designed to be negative. It's created out of nothing, backed my nothing, and it's a unit of debt. People are saving units of debt, not units of something with real value.

People in 2022 need to effectively beg for a job. They also need to be selected. That's effectively lower than slave. Begging to work is unnatural. People should either get whatever work they're suited for or if not, given free money because their work isn't needed.

A slave to a king in a palace is probably going to be clean and better treated than most commoners.

Also, slaves had value. Theoretically, they must be fed, clothed, cared for, and kept in a condition to work. The slaves were their property and property has a value.

[Outcast9428]

In many cases, people in 2022 are more slaves than the slaves in ancient times.

No they aren’t.

Modern people are whiny as f**k. They feel shockingly entitled to not show up to work, not do their jobs, show up late, or leave work in the middle of their shift. If you did that as a Roman slave you’d be beaten within a half an inch of your life. In the modern workforce we can’t even get our boss to agree to punish them in any way.