![Maybe - Just Maybe, Having the Q-tards Come to Voat Woke Some of Them up to the jewish Problem [585x346 - 33KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/4Muory.png){kind=link}
I'm not sure if that's true. Take Angela Merkel as an example. She has no descendants to consider, and importing a bunch of economy crushing free loaders objectively made her life worse. She gained no more power from her policies. One could argue a more prosperous Germany would have also given her more power.
In short, she was motivated by loyalty to a concept. A destructive concept. Assuming your opponents are trying to improve their lives could leave you to underestimate the depravity and irrationality of your opponent. There are plenty of liberals who think humans are a virus and believe all humans including themselves should be eliminated.
Someone else's definition of a better world doesn't mean your definition of a better world. It could also mean a wholesale destruction of the entire planet like you said. In their mind, they are still actively contributing to making "their world" better.
Also make sure to take note of my use of "and/or".
It sounds like we're in agreement on motivations, but just have very different ways of explaining it.
A woman who has no child of her own in a position of power is but a shell of a person being consumed by all destructive forces and will help those who wish to destroy anything of value.
Also, no one can really understand what motivates someone else to the fullest extent and the generalization is the best we can do in terms of understanding other people.
(post is archived)