Things I would do if I ever came into power:

1. Take money out of politics. As it stands now, elections are expensive, and campaigns require a lot of money to finance. Especially presidential campaigns. So what results is that candidates need to find wealthy donors to back them. What this means is that rich people control our political system. Presidents, once they get elected, are beholden to the donors and will pass laws that the donors want. I am sure we are all familiar with this phenomenon. So, to fight this, I propose that we have candidates write down their platforms, their campaign promises, anything that they say to persuade the readers to vote for them, and compile a book out of it. Then this book is freely distributed both online and in paper-form in real life, so that anybody can access these writings very easily. This requires very little money (websites and paper are cheap). Then, we move to ban TVs, newspapers, radio, any other form of media, from mentioning any candidate at all. I want to do this because if we don't, then candidates that have wealthy backers will be able to buy TV time and spaces in newspapers to promote themselves. This gives them an edge over the other candidates who can't afford these things. So the end result is still big money influencing the outcomes of elections. Another bonus with having candidates write their stuff is we get to weed out the dummies. We expect our political leaders to be able to write. And to prevent them from simply hiring some hack to ghost-write for them, we lay out extremely harsh punishments for the candidates and writers who conspire to deceive the public like that.

2. Currently, there is absolutely zero recourse for the public if their president did not fulfill his campaign promises, or otherwise did a poor job as a president. I propose that we have this system whereby, once a president is retired from office, there be an account with all the banks in the country. We ask people whether they think the ex-president did a terrible job or not. If they think yes, they put 300 dollars in this account. If half the population do this, the ex-president goes to jail for an certain period of time. If 60% of people do this, he goes to jail even longer. And the rate at which his jail sentence lengthens goes up exponentially. And if 90% of the people are unhappy with him, he goes to jail for life. My reasoning is that with any president, there will always be some people who are dissatisfied with him. So I set the threshold at half of the population. However, if over 90% of people want to vote him into jail, then this is a very clear sign that he truly did do a terrible job, and an extremely harsh sentence is justified. The 300 dollars is set at such a level that it requires a not insignificant amount of money, so that people won't put an ex-president in jail lightly. But it's low enough that most people can still realistically afford it.

I want to do this because I remember talking to someone online. He was extremely unhappy with a certain law that a lawmaker in his state passed. He said he wanted said lawmaker to think, "if I pass this law, will I make it home alive tonight?" Apparently he was so unhappy that he was willing to commit acts of violence. Even though I share his anger, nevertheless I don't believe that violence is the solution to bad politicians. It's not realistic to expect people to take up arms and violently punish bad political leaders. There needs to be a way, a legal, non-bloody way for people to punish politicians for doing a poor job. Currently, there are zero consequences that politicians have to face for not carrying out the will of the people, so they do whatever they like. They know that they won't be punished in any way. The people know this is wrong, and they get angry. But this doesn't achieve anything. I want people's anger to mean something. Stewing in anger, complaining to other people, writing angry letters, making anger phone calls are currently all that we can do, and trust me these things don't mean anything to a bad politician. This has to change.

(Continues)

(Continued)

3. Conversely, if a president did a good job, he should be rewarded. I propose that there be an account with all the banks in the country that's called the ex-president's account. Anybody can put money into this account. If they think an ex-president truly did a good job, they can put in any amount of money to show their appreciation for him and to reward him for a job well done. Currently, not only are there no consequences for being a poor president, there are also no rewards for being a good one, either. This is very bad and creates a situation where presidents are pretty much guaranteed to be shitty. However, they now know that not only will they go to jail for doing a poor job, they will also be given lots of money for doing a good job. This creates an incentive for them to carry out the will of the people and to do things that benefit the masses. I mean, right now, what do we do for good ex-presidents? We might write books about them, praise them in newspapers, maybe sing songs about them, all of these things, though nice, do not benefit them in any tangible, real way. And this makes it very tempting for them to sell out the people and to cozy up to rich donors, who can and do benefit them tangibly by giving them money. I want to change this.

4. Lastly, I want to create something called The Shaming. Basically it lists the names of the closest blood relatives of a president. If a president fell from grace, not only will he be punished, it will also bring shame to his family, especially his children and other close relatives. This is yet another way to prevent supreme leaders of the land from engaging in behaviors that harm the nation but benefit themselves. The motivation for corruption, bribe-taking and similar behaviors is usually to benefit their children financially. They desire to see their children thrive. I want to use this to our advantage. I want them to know that their unethical behaviors will not pay. If their offspring is associated in the public mind with someone who is on the take, then it doesn't matter how much money they leave him, he will be in a state of shame, and people will shun him. They will not want to associate with him in any way. They will also want to avoid marrying him. I believe this should serve as a very strong deterrent against improper presidential behaviors. It's a weapon we have against corruption at the highest level. It's something our ancestors had done for thousands of years to police one another's behavior. If you do something shameful, you will bring shame on your family. Then your bloodline gets disgraced. It's powerful stuff. Some might think this would be an intrusion on the privacy of the politician's family members. I say, not so. What will happen is the candidate my party puts forth will voluntarily disclose this info. His family gives him permission, because they don't fear that he will do anything to bring them shame. The public sees this, and thinks, "This person has nothing to hide, and his family have complete faith in him. He is the person I want to vote for!" And then, other candidates will have no choice but to follow suit, because they will lose to us if they don't. This way, nobody is forced to do anything, nobody's privacy is trampled on, and my vision is brought to reality. It's pure genius.

Lastly: If the supreme leader of a land is found doing something unconstitutional, he should be punished even more harshly, because he should know better.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 08:26pm

On the feds. The FBI, the CIA, and the similar.

First, let me say that do not physically go to their headquarters trying to shoot them up. Because you will die. And we need our warriors alive so they can fight the war long-term. If we stay legal, and not get ourselves killed by the feds, we can do so much more to them. Besides, when you go shoot them up, even if you succeed in killing a few of them, they will likely be field feds. The really contemptible ones, the office feds, remain un-harmed. So it makes little sense to risk our lives and not really achieve anything meaningful.

Also, I know that some of us are in the position where the feds will try to send moles or other individuals to you, who try to earn your trust. I have seen guides telling people how to "test" a person new to you to see if he is trustworthy. Personally, I would simply do this: don't do anything any differently. Continue to do what you do, and continue to be above-board, continue to be the kind and upright person that you are. Why? Well, you need to realize that the people feds send to you are most likely white. And as such, they typically have a moral compass. When they have interacted with you for an extended period of time, and if you show them with actions that you are not the evil racist intent on causing death and suffering like their fed bosses for sure try hard to convince them of, and that you are a human not that different from they are, they will not only doubt their bosses, but they will also doubt whether they are doing the right thing. You probably won't be able to completely convert them and bring them to our side, however, if you can get them sitting in their cubicle, staring at their computer, and silently asking themselves why they are doing this to another human being, it's a success. I have personally compromised two agents, I know this is possible. So any time a new person shows up in your life, don't stress yourself out trying to find out if he's real or sent from the enemy. See it as an opportunity to weaken the feds.

This is because the feds haven't been working for the people for decades. A lot of people naively believe that agencies like the FBI and CIA exist to protect and serve regular people like them. No. These institutions have long been infiltrated by Jews. Their job now is to protect and serve Jews.

Low tier law enforcement like the police is for us. Higher tier law enforcement like the FBI is for Jews.

No one actually gives a flying fuck.

The impact of certain governmental policies or, in some cases, the government's failure to act, affects the people unequally. Lefties and liberals welcome the illegals, but they are not the ones who have to live and deal with them. They preach love for all humanity and scold others for being intolerant in their nice homes in expensive, exclusive neighborhoods where there are relatively few illegals while the rest of Americans deal with the consequence. In other words, some people (in our case, liberals) push for certain policies, these policies have negative consequences, however, these pushers themselves do not have to bear these consequences. This is a problem of any democratic country and it's not simply because we have liberals. Even if we managed to kick all the libs out of the country tomorrow, the same problem would still persist, only with different policy-pushers and victims. I think this is what we should really pay attention to. Merely saying to kick all the illegals out or all the liberals out will not do much to treat the underlying cause.

We should focus on how to prevent elites and Jew billionaire bankers from having so much influence over sovereign nations and their political processes. Yes money makes the world go round, but we shouldn't let the extremely wealthy hijack our political apparatus. We need to find ways to co-exist with money and currencies. We need to make money work for us, instead of the other way around.

There is actually a very easy way to tell where there is a Jewish presence in any space: when suffering goes up, then it's very likely that there is a Jew involved.


@@@@@


Regarding the Covid "vaccines", which I bet were all bankrolled by Jew multi-billionaires:


We really need to organize a response. Jews want to inject more DNAs into white people's bodies. Put all your efforts behind any half-decent anti-vaxx campaigns. Bring people to D2Jsp.org. Share on Twitter and similar platforms. Talk to people in real life. And do not, DO NOT, ever forgive Jews for this.


@@@@


Here's how the rich Jews see us:

They think that if we are poor, that means we have inferior genetics and we deserve to live in poverty and the squalor that comes with it. They would prefer that we starve to death, so that they won't have to look at us on the street but if that's not possible, then at least we should struggle just to survive and not take up resources that could have gone to them. They also believe that the fact we are not good with money like they are means we are trash and we should become extinct so as to make room on earth for them and their money-savvy, genetically superior offspring.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 08:30pm

Intelligence, good looks, rationality and non-violence tend to co-evolve in a people. Not only that, they could have only evolved in the kind of harsh environment that white people's ancestors evolved in. This is why we sometimes see a seemingly intelligent race such as the Chinese, they are nevertheless ugly and kind of irrational. They only have intelligence and non-violence going for them because the conditions of where their ancestors evolved were different from those on Mount Caucasus.

Have you noticed how Jews talk? They always like to use these positive-sounding phrases that are nevertheless so vague that you actually don't know what they mean: "Improving the state of the world", "rebuild trust"...etc etc. All these phrases do is sound good. They don't really convey any real meaning to anybody. In fact, keep this in your mind, and watch it any time an agency or organization that is Jewish in nature releases any statements. You will find a lot of examples of these empty phrases.

This phenomenon also happens to speeches of world leaders that are under Jews' thumb. My country's leader Trudeau, is known for saying stuff like, "in Canada, better is always possible!" Seriously. That phrase is so vague and generic as to be meaningless. Yet the sad thing is that a lot of people fall for these idealistic-sounding expressions and phrases.