The best kind of writing is the kind that creates a connection between you and the reader. It is not a piece that you have crammed a lot of big words into. I can honestly tell you, people do not think, "Wow, this author has certainly used a lot of words that I don't understand. I better be persuaded by him!" When you write, you need to know who you are writing to and what your goal is. In our case, we are writing to the general public, and our goal is to convert them to our side. You need to write in a way that your audience can understand, and using a lot of big words is counterproductive to that end. When people read something, they want their experience to effortless and flowing. Peppering your writing with big words makes your piece very unpleasant to read. When people come across a word they don't know, either they skip it, or they have to look it up in a dictionary. The latter is called studying, and nobody likes to do that. There are so many other media out there that compete with us for people's attention, media that are much more entertaining. What's stopping people from closing your webpage and then turning on the TV or watching a clip on youtube? My point is, we have a lot of competition for people' attention. If you make your writing boring or otherwise unpleasant to read, people will simply not read it. Then we lose readers. We can't afford that. So heed my words, do not make your writing difficult to read by using a lot of big words. It serves absolutely no purpose. Remember: Simple is beautiful. Another really dumb thing is to make your writing really long. Some people pad their writing and really drag it out, thinking that it will make it good. It won't. The best writing is one that involves the least number of words. It's very similar to golfing. In golf, the best player is the one that uses the least number of strokes to get the ball into the hole. It's not the one with the most strokes. Writing is the same. The author who wins is the one who can get his point across by using as few words as possible. In fact, I would say that apart from technical textbooks and novels, most books that currently exist are unnecessarily long. I bet a lot of times you could easily pare it down to half and still retain the author's key message. While we are on the subject of books, I just want to point out that not every book is worth reading. Similar to how in real life, not everybody who can speak has something insightful to say, it's the same with books. Some books are simply not worth your time. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that someone who can write a book must have important ideas that you should pay attention to. A lot of authors are just educated morons, whose only ability is that they can put words on paper. So, when you come across a book, exercise your judgment and don't automatically assume it has wisdom in it. I mean, you wouldn't listen to just anybody talk, right? It's the same thing with books.

We want to hook people with our writing and one thing to achieve that is to make it as smooth and flowing as possible. So don't stress out thinking that you have to memorize an entire dictionary to be an effective communicator. Speaking of which, I just want to emphasize that we are not true writers in the sense that we don't make our living as a writer. What we are is a communicator. We are communicating ideas to our readers. And it is because of this, I say that we don't have to be creative, or innovative, or have to come up with fresh imageries, similes, metaphors..etc. If there is a well-worn phrase, however it works extremely well to capture your meaning, and people are familiar with this expression, then you should use it. Our goal is to get the things in our brain to other people's brains. We are not here to impress them with what fantastic writers we are. So no need to get creative.

Another tip for the would-be communicator: To save time and effort, you can completely ignore the language of fields that aren't relevant to your purpose. For example, I do not put in any effort whatsoever into learning the language used in sports and skincare. It's because these fields have nothing to do with politics. The kind of message I want to send uses very few words from these two fields, so I cut them out so as to save time. There are literally thousands of fields out there, it's not possible to be familiar with all of them, so, in order to be efficient, you have to know what to ignore, otherwise you would get bogged down. When I try to improve my English by reading a book, I only bother with subjects that I think will help me. This allows me to cut out all the noise, all the unnecessary stuff. It saves me a tremendous amount of time.

I have been thinking about starting my own political party, because I really believe I have good ideas. Now, below are a collection of thoughts and ideas that pertain to my would-be party.

I will expect certain standards of behaviors from all of my party's candidates. I expect them to not only not break laws, they must also act ethically. This is because I believe political candidates should aspire to a higher bar of behavior than regular people. If their behavior falls short of the standards which I will outline below, they will be ejected from my party, no matter how much money they bring in or how popular they are. I am doing this because my goal isn't merely to get elected into offices. My goal is to set a new way for politics to be conducted. I want people to stop thinking that politics is dirty and that people involved are all sleazy, unethical liars who are out to make themselves rich. I want to restore people's faith in our political process. I want to show them that there are politicians who have integrity and who act ethically.

I will ban all evasive behaviors in my candidates. I expect my candidates to take responsibility for what they did. When the public grills them about something they did, they cannot give a word salad. A word salad is answering someone's question with a lot of words, which though are numerous, nevertheless do not convey any real meaning. I consider this to be a form of evasive behavior and it will be banned in my party. I also expect my members to answer a yes or no question with either a yes, or a no. Any other answer will be considered evasive behavior and will be banned. The only exception is when they are asked a loaded question. A loaded question is something like, when someone asks you, "Have you stopped beating your wife" when you in fact haven't been beating your wife. Or if someone asks you, "How long have you been taking bribes" when you haven't been. This is the only instance where my candidates are allowed to not answer with a yes or no. But I expect them to answer in this way: "I refuse to answer that, because it's a loaded question. It's loaded because I haven't been taking bribes". They have to follow this format because I don't want to create an opportunity for people to duck out of questions. They also have to call a spade a spade. For example, if someone lied to the congress, they cannot say, "I'm afraid he might not have been completely truthful to the congress". That's word-mincing. I expect them to have the courage, honesty, and forthrightness to say, "He lied to the congress". Another thing: I feel that changing the name of Department of War to Department of Defense is deceptive. I vow to change the name back to Department of War. It doesn't matter whether we are really just defending ourselves or we are going into another country. Any time we mobilize our forces, we will be engaging in a war. Calling it "Department of Defense" is a ploy to manipulate the public's perception about the coming bloodshed and deaths. Similarly, the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" will be banned and the proper word, which is torture, will be used.

I will also ban stonewalling. Stonewalling is behaviors that are done to avoid facing a problem face-on. They make it impossible to find solutions to problems and they make productive discussions difficult. Examples of stonewalling: changing the subject, dismissing people's concerns, pretending you don't understand the question when you do, being unwilling to enter into a discussion about a problem, refusing to communicate, trying to leave even though the problem hasn't been solved or the question hasn't been answered, being silent when asked a question. There might be more. I will forbid my party members from engaging in any such behaviors. It's like I said, I expect them to take responsibility for what they did. If they did something questionable, and the public grills them about it, they need to answer the questions honestly.

I want to create something called The Debates. It will be online and interactive. It's essentially an open arena that gives the people a chance to question and challenge anything the government says. I want to do this because there are bad people with bad intentions, and some of them are within the government, actively trying to do us harm. They will couch their bad intentions in a language that sounds good to our ears. They might say things like, "The reason we are going to war in such and such place is because we want to spread democracy", or "Vaccines save lives", or “Diversity is our strength" or "Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity". Basically things that sound good on the surface, however when you dig a bit deeper, you find that you actually have questions. Prior the advent of the computer and the internet, there wasn't much the people could do if they had doubts or questions about the many positive-sounding things their governments spewed out in large quantities. But now, we have the technology to host live and interactive debates where politicians are expected to field people's questions and to defend their positions and statements. I think it's safe to say that there will never be a shortage of bad-intentioned people saying otherwise nice-sounding things, but now, we can probe deeper. If a politician says what he says out of true belief, then he will not fall apart when questioned in depth. But someone who is just trying to trick us will not stand up to scrutiny. In other words, with The Debates, bad people will be shown to be full of it and will be kicked out of the government or even punished. One good thing about The Debates is that it's online. People who want to challenge their government do not have to be physically present at the actual debate, unlike in eras past. Also, everybody can see it. If a politician's position is shown to be indefensible, then he will logically have to give up the position as well as change his behavior accordingly. Anything less can result in people's anger and possible punishment. Furthermore, I want to add that politicians cannot have spokesperson or press secretary or anybody else do their talking for them. I expect them to answer for their own statements and policies. I don't want to hear some lackey explain and apologize on their behalf. By the way, when I say talking, I don't mean it literally. The debates will be in written words, not spoken words. This is so that people don't need to be together at the same time to have a debate. Someone will write something, then the politician will write something back in response and all exchanges will be in text and recorded down so that people can miss parts of it and still be able to come back to see it some time later. I will give an example of how The Debates would work. Let's say, I declare that we should treat animals with kindness. Someone can challenge me and say, "But didn't you eat a hamburger the other day? We saw it on the news. Burgers are made of meat and to kill a cow goes against your principle". Or another person might say, "But we still need to experiment on animals so as to advance medical science. Being kind to animals would halt the advance of science." Yet another person might say, "You are wrong. Human morality evolved as a behavior towards other humans, animals do not fall under the protection of human morality". All of these are valid concerns and are things people might think, so I will need to take them seriously and come back with answers that will satisfy the people who are watching the exchanges and who will be silently passing judgment on my responses. In times past, people could usually only think these things to themselves, the most they could do is mention them to other people in their lives. But now, with The Debates, they can question the politician directly. Gone are the days when politicians could just say whatever they wanted and pass any laws they wanted and just expect us to do as we were told.

(Continues)

(Continued)

Too often, we have experienced lawmakers passing unpopular laws, if not downright unwanted laws. I know that sometimes this is necessary, say in times of war. But the problem is that even in peace-time, lawmakers still pass unpopular laws. They do this because they know that there are no consequences for passing laws that people don't want. We have lost the community feel of law. What does "community feel of law" mean? Basically, think back to the very first law humans made for themselves. It was done by a group of people who got together, recognized the need for an official rule, and they all agreed that they needed something like this. This rule was the precursor of law. This is how the first law came about. Note how this was a community effort of sorts. People got together. It was also voluntary. People actually wanted the law. But now, in our contemporary society, there is no longer a community feel to laws. We have taken the act of passing laws and given it to professional lawmakers. These lawmakers do not consult us the people about what laws we would like, or whether we like the laws currently on the books. So as you can see, laws have lost their community feel as well as become no longer voluntary. Lawmakers also no longer work for us. Instead they act like our overlords, ordering us to obey the non-voluntary laws they unilaterally passed, or face jail time. I want to change this. I say that lawmakers should be required to defend the laws they pass, explain to us why they are necessary, especially in the case of laws we don't want. They do this through The Debates which I described above. I also expect lawmakers to actively look for possible complaints and concerns for the laws they are about to pass, because this is a part of their job. I also expect them to have the judgment to know whether laws they passed are wanted or not. They can conduct surveys, or ask random people on the streets, I don't care what they have to do. They simply need to find out people's will. I fully expect this from lawmakers. If they are intelligent enough to be a lawmaker, then they are intelligent enough to know what people want and don't want. And if they aren't, then it means they have failed as a lawmaker and will need to be punished. When a surgeon made a mistake and cut out a patient's healthy organ, he gets hit with a negligence suit. I want something similar. Let there be a mechanism in place, where people can get together and if their number exceeds a certain threshold, they can abolish a law. When this happens, it is taken as official determination that the lawmaker that penned the law has messed up, and he will face punishment for failing in his job just like the surgeon who blundered. Think of it as malpractice as a lawmaker. Just like a doctor who mal-practiced pays damages to his patient, so should a lawmaker pay damages to the public he has harmed. The damages will take the form of a lengthy prison term as well as being stripped of a percentage of his total assets. Ideally he also gets flogged in public, with his pants around his ankles. This is to deter other lawmakers from making similar mistakes. I want the punishment to have the effect of prevention. It takes a lot of effort to organize the masses and then to abolish a law like that. It's not realistic to expect people to do this very often because of the amount of efforts that are required. So I hope to prevent it from the get-go. Make it so that lawmakers know that if they screw up, there will be an extremely harsh punishment.

Another change I would make is to make sure that money, and all that power that comes with it, is not concentrated in too few hands. I move that we put a cap of 50 million USD as the maximum amount of wealth any individual can have, and 500 million for a business. I know this makes me sound really bad right now, like I am a communist. But please hear me out. I want to do this for two reasons: 1. When someone has an extreme amount of money, he will wield too much power. He can use his extreme wealth to buy up newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, things like that. And he then staffs them with whoever he pleases, meaning people who will advance his political agendas obediently and unquestioningly, since he literally controls their livelihood. He will use these media outlets to influence how the public thinks. He can also use them like a weapon to defame those that he doesn't like. He can use his wealth to contribute to political campaigns generously, thus deciding the outcomes of elections unfairly. He pours money into the campaigns of candidates who will advocate policies that benefit him, policies that will make him even more money. He can also benefit in other ways, for example, if he has a chemical manufacturing plant, his candidate can pass laws that will make it ok for him to pollute the environment, to the detriment of the public, thus preserving his business interests. There are many, many more such things that the extremely wealthy can do, to give themselves a tremendous amount of advantage, at the expense of the rest of us. This is why I want to put a hard cap on the amount of money people can have. I set the cap at 50 million, which I think is very reasonable, because 50 millions is still a lot of money. Think about it. People can still enjoy the many wonderful things that come with being rich, for example, they can eat at fancy restaurants, they can fly first-class, they can hire maids to keep their homes clean, thus freeing them from any household chores, they can hire a chauffer to drive them around shopping, they can put a couple of Mercedes in their garage...etc. However, they won't be so rich that they can buy up newspapers or influence the outcome of elections. Another reason I want to place a hard limit on how much money people can have is that, resources are finite. When some people have too much, it means that they are taking from others. One example I can think of is Trump's son-in-law's family, the Kushners, who own 9000 properties. To this day, I still can't wrap my mind around how many houses that is. I mean, how many houses does one family need? Like I can imagine if a family is very smart and hardworking and they make excellent financial decisions, and they own a couple of properties. They rent these out for rental income, and now they live very comfortably. But 9000 properties is simply too much. The Kushner family literally is taking resources that could have gone to others. Imagine all these properties, they could house thousands of people. And before you say the Kushner family "earned" these properties, I will point out that they haven't done anything to contribute to the community in any meaningful way. They don't generate jobs, they don't create services, they don't work, they just get rich through rent money, which buys them more properties, which in turn generate even more money, which allows them to buy up even more properties. And the cycle continues. I understand that a lot of us believe in capitalism, and resent any kind of government intervention in the financial sphere, we call this by various slurs. But I need to ask you, at what point, is having a huge amount of wealth too much. I am not saying we should go full-blown communist and have the government take away people's money and then dole it out to the masses. I am just saying that we should put a limit on it so that the extremely wealthy will not get even wealthier, and that the rest of the society gets a chance to make some money for themselves. Keep in mind that for a large segment of the population, they are no less smart and no less hardworking than the super-wealthy. The super-wealthy simply have the benefit of having money to begin with, which gives them an edge and helps generate more and more money and at a much quicker pace. And once they are off like that, the rest of us will never be able to catch up. And the distance between us and them will only grow bigger. If we make sure the mega-billionaires can't get any richer, then the excess money will go towards those who are smart and willing to work, meaning the middle class. This way, we make sure money is not concentrated in too few hands, and we build the middle class. It's a win-win situation.

A quick note: Once you get to a certain point of wealth, any more wealth will not make you happier, but it will serve to take wealth from others, and this results in a reduction in happiness.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I want to talk about campaign slogans like, Trump's "Make America great again", Kamala Harris' "Together, we can win this", and from my country, Trudeau's "In Canada, better is always possible". These slogans fall under the umbrella of rousing speech. What is a rousing speech? Basically, it's anything inspirational that someone says to people to stir their blood and galvanize them into action. Rousing speeches have their use in times of great distress. For example, in the olden days when there was an invading army at the gate. Maybe the enemy forces had been burning down buildings, pillaging, killing people, raping women, that sort of things, and the country's leader wanted to rally his people to fight off the invaders. However, in our modern context, I feel that rousing speeches should be avoided, because I believe that an election should be a sober event. Slogans that stir people's blood are bad precisely because they stir people's blood. People can't think straight when they are in such a mental state. We've all seen it at campaigns and rallies, crowds wave mini-flags, they get whipped up, some even cry on TV, saying, "I still believe!!". These things will no doubt help someone get elected, however, they do nothing to make sure the person elected will be a good leader. This is why I will make it so that any campaign of my party will not adopt slogans or otherwise try to whip up the crowd. At first, this will put my party at a disadvantage against candidates who are willing to use slogans. However, I hope that with time, people will come to see that my idea is good. I want people to vote for my party because they have carefully researched my platform and they have decided that my policies are the best. I want people to vote for me for this reason. I don't want people to vote for me because I am able to send their spirits soaring through the use of inspiring but ultimately meaningless speeches.

If my party ever comes into power, I will do this: Every year, set aside a portion of the taxes the government has collected, and use it to buy up farmlands. Then put government workers to plant crops and grow food on them. Do this every year to the point where we can afford to give everybody enough food to eat. I want to do this because I believe anyone who works full time should not go hungry. However, people who cannot work full time, or people who cannot work at all, should not have to starve, either. So the end result is that everybody should not be left by the government to starve. Which means I should hand out food to everybody regardless of anything. I believe that as we advance as a nation, more and more things should be recognized as basic human rights. I believe recognizing essential foods as a basic human right is very reasonable. At first people might think this is ridiculous, but that's also what people thought when the idea was first put forth that people have the right to life, so that their lives could not simply be taken by, say, an angry monarch. Same thing with the right to clean drinking water. People used to think that if you wanted clean, potable water, you had to work for it. But now we have it freely flowing out of our faucets. My point is, we should continuously expand our list of rights that humans should enjoy. This is how we make progress as a species. And I don't think giving people essential foods will take away the incentives to work. People would only have basic food covered, if they want nice things, things that are extra, they have to pay for them themselves so they will still have to work. So I don't fear that the economy will come to a standstill just because people now don't have to worry about food. Besides, if you think about it, telling people that either they work, or they starve, is very uncivilized. It's almost like threatening people. I believe we have reached a point where stuff like that should belong in the dustbin of history. The prospect of starvation should not be a fact of life anymore. People simply shouldn't have to worry about starving when they live in a first-world country. As for how it will actually work, I realize that people who work and pay taxes will in effect be supporting people who either can't work, or won't work, as the case might be. And that's just how it is.

Now I want to switch gear and talk about Jews, because I feel that I don't have much time left. I feel that I am being poisoned slowly. By whom? Well, I have no proof, but probably the CSIS or Jews. Anyway.

I want to talk about the origin of Doublethink, a chiefly Jewish phenomenon:

Some of you probably know that I think some white men are very good looking. But I realize that the attraction could be one-way only. What if, there is an incredibly good looking white man whom I adore, but he is racist towards me? He might even call me chink. Honestly, I don't know what I would do in such a situation. But luckily, I don't have to worry much, because such a thing happens very rarely in our contemporary society. However, things were very different in Europe, thousands of years ago. Imagine a Jewish man who saw a beautiful white woman, but she considered him to be a cockroach. So basically, someone you consider very beautiful spits on you. Now, what was a Jew to do? He evolved. I believe Jews have evolved the ability to hold two conflicting thoughts in their heads simultaneously. A beautiful white woman is beautiful, but she is also not beautiful. Jews needed to believe she wasn't beautiful because they were not about to call a woman who exhibited clear disdain and hatred towards them beautiful, but on the other hand, she was also objectively beautiful. This is the origin of Doublethink, which is a largely Jewish phenomenon. Yet, very few people know about this. Look at anything Jews touch, and you will see a very clear sign of Doublethink. We can actually see a modern-day example of Doublethink in our contemporary society. Imagine the two statements, which we are all too familiar with: "Our society is an open society, and we can talk about any topic we want", and "There are certain topics we should never talk about, such as racial differences or Jewish influence in the media and the government". Now, I am not saying we should be able to talk about racial differences or Jews. But rather, my point is, you can't have both of these statements being true at the same time. These two statements are mutually exclusive. Either you have a truly open society and you can talk about any topic you want, in which case you should also be able to talk about racial differences and Jewish influence, or you cannot talk about racial differences and Jewish influence, in which case you don't have a totally open society and that there are certain topics you cannot talk about. Yet some people have no trouble believing in both statements at the same time. This is Doublethink. These people have been conditioned to think like Jews. In fact, I would say that the presence of Doublethink is a very reliable sign that there are Jews involved somewhere.

I want to talk about the origin of Jewish ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism means members of an ethnic group sticking together, helping one another out, defending one another, being clannish, and all that. First, a story from my personal life. I remember taking the train with my friend. She was ethnically Chinese, just like me. When the train came, she pushed her way into the train car without letting passengers out first. This was a very typical behavior of Chinese people. I knew this was wrong, she should have waited and let people out first, but I didn't say anything. Now, the other passengers didn't say anything, either. Some of these passengers were white. But I thought, what if they did say something? Perhaps things like, "Don't push your way in like that. Wait for people to come out first". If that happened, I don't know which side I would take. Should I follow what I thought was right and wrong, and agree with white people, or should I defend my friend, even though I knew she was in the wrong? Fortunately, I did not have to deal with this dilemma, as nobody said anything. But, during the thousands of years of Jews living among white people, things were very different. White people had always intensely disliked Jews, furthermore, they tended not to have a "filter". Having no filter means if they saw a behavior they disapproved of, they would make it known. Now, if this behavior came from a group of aliens that they already disliked? Well, I think you can imagine. So, Jews faced the same dilemma I described earlier. Should they side with their fellow Jew, even though deep down they knew he did something wrong, or side with white people, whom they knew were right, but who were their enemy, an object of their intense hate? I believe that at the beginning, there were probably some Jews who did the former. AKA the right thing. They had a conscience, they knew what was right and what was wrong, in other words, they followed the dictates of their conscience. So they condemned the Jew who did wrong. These good Jews, however, probably failed to pass on their genes because the other group of Jews who stuck up for the bad Jew would reject them as ones who agreed with the enemy, the hated white people. They were probably seen as traitors. The end result is the rest of Jews would refuse to cooperate with and help them in the future, and this must have been deadly for these righteous Jews' genes. White people would reject these Jews as well, because to them, they were still Jews. So, the only Jews that managed to survive and pass on their genes, were the ones who defended the bad Jew. When you have this happening for many, many generations, eventually you will end up with a people who are very ethnocentric, and who will try to cover up one another's bad behavior. And this is indeed what we observe.

Another interesting thing is that Jewish ethnocentrism isn't "innocent". Some white people read that Jews are ethnocentric and think nothing of it. They probably think ethnocentrism is a good thing, because to a white person, sticking to one of your own and helping one another out is a good thing. However, Jewish ethnocentrism, as we saw above, often entails Jews pardoning and condoning bad, wrong, unethical, and sometimes even illegal behaviors of a fellow Jew. In fact, we see this in our contemporary society. Did you know that the true mafia in the United states, is actually not Italian, but Jewish? You should look up Jews' involvement in organized crime. How there has never been any serious charges against or investigations into their activities. And it's not just the mafia. There have been many cases of a Jew breaking a law in the States and then fleeing to Israel, who then protects him from prosecution. All of these are verifiable. Jews will defend another Jew, no matter how atrociously he behaved.

(Continued)

(Continued)

When a Jew is being extremely deceitful and Machiavellian, other Jews don't condemn him, instead they applaud him. To them this is a sign of high intelligence. This is very hard for a white person to understand. I am reminded of this man I read about. Apparently, he could blush on command. We know what blushing does to the person who sees it. It elicits tender feelings in her. It endears the blushing person to her. But when the blushing is fake, as in this man's case, it is then a blatant form of manipulation. Manipulation of a very high order. This man apparently was not bothered by the fact he was manipulating people with his fake blushes. In fact, he genuinely thought this ability meant he was superior. Genetically. I can think of another person just like: the Jew Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein put his babies in 20 women. Apparently he thought his predatory ways meant he was genetically superior. So what's the message? The message is that good people like us should realize that we need to stop deceitful, manipulative, and just plain bad people from declaring their genes superior and then passing them on in greater and greater quantities. We need to take control, because these people genuinely believe their ability to prey on and manipulate others means they are genetically superior.

I think by now we are all aware of Jews' ethnocentrism. However, this does not mean that a Jew loves his fellow Jews. He is only nice to Jews whom he knows personally, who are his friends. He cooperates with them not out of love but because he derives personal benefits from associating with them. Maybe together they can protect one another from white people's wrath more effectively, or something like that. Anyway, all the other Jews have no place in his heart and would only matter to him if they were of use to him in some way. This is why we see the supposedly ethnocentric Jew be so quick to throw another Jew under the bus, when the situation calls for it. In fact, look up Jack Ruby, of the JFK assassination fame, and you will see what I mean. Another thing. We all know that Jews love living among white people. They love being around white people. And they certainly love marrying white people. There are many reasons for this, but one of them that I want to touch on, is that Jews actually can't stand being around other Jews, either. When white people see Jews stick to one another, they think that Jews must really love one another. No. This is a white person's way of looking at the world. The reason Jews stick to one another is because they have to. White people's ancestors had been persecuting them for thousands of years. Any time they feel a threat mounting, they stick together. This is for self-preservation. However, in peaceful times, such as in our contemporary society, you see Jews marrying white people in great numbers. And this is because white people aren't constantly trying to plot, scheme, connive, machinate, and shaft other people like Jews are. White people say what's on their mind, so you know where you stand with them. This is beyond refreshing to Jews, it's literally liberating to them. I remember this fed that I had been talking to. He really liked me, apparently. I really think part of the reason he liked me so much was because I was not like his fellow feds. You see, feds are trained by Jews and as such, they are Jewish in spirit. They plot and scheme and connive and machinate, just like their Jewish bosses do. This fed knew only too well. And trust me, nobody can stand that crap. Not even the feds themselves. This is why feds don't end up marrying other feds as frequently as would be predicted. Yes, a fellow fed is equal to one in terms of intelligence, professional standing, and educational attainment. She is probably also confident and beautiful. She might even be charismatic. But none of that can over-ride the fact that she sees nothing wrong with deceiving, lying to, manipulating, tricking, misleading, confusing, gaslighting people. A fed sees this too often. And nobody can stand that. That's why this particular fed couldn't resist me, even though I wasn't hot at all. And this is also a major reason why Jews love being in the West so much. Because being in Israel, and being surrounded by other Jews, is literally unbearable.

Jews always like to brag about how smart they are. I can see why they'd do that. They think beauty and intelligence are the two most desirable traits a human can possibly have. So they act like they have intelligence, and it's because they know they are certainly not going to be the beautiful ones. They know that they have to be good at something else. Speaking of intelligence, it is totally possible to fake it. Beauty is very hard to fake, I mean either you are beautiful or you are not, and people can judge beauty very easily and accurately just by looking at you. But intelligence? Some people act confident, a bit cryptic too, and then spew a few things that are purposely difficult to understand, and this fools many into thinking this person must be smart. Most people are too dumb to figure out what true intelligence is or if someone's just putting on air. Jews know this, and they use it to their full advantage. They further impress upon others about their purported high intelligence by preferentially giving one another prestigious awards. Jews often make up the judges of panels for prestigious contests, they do this by helping one another out. If one Jew gets on the panel of some contest, very soon a whole bunch of them will get on the panel too, all thanks to the first Jew. Jews have a strong, innate in-group bias, and they shamelessly help one another out, to the disadvantage of non-Jews. This is also the mechanism by which the various levels of governments in the West are saturated with Jews. Once a Jew gets in, he will bring along with him a whole bunch of his racial brothers and sisters. This is how Jews are able to infiltrate organizations of all kinds so easily. Just in case you might think this proves Jews' "superior intelligence", it doesn't. It merely means that Jews are very good at scheming and forming little groups (otherwise known as cabals). Also, I don't understand why white people don't just rise up and kick all the Jews out of their governments, and then out of their countries. Would this be racist? Yes. But who cares? You should only think about whether an action is justified, or in some cases, whether it will rid you of influences that are harmful to you. The whole concept of racism is strictly of Jewish origin. It is a concept born of Jewish mind to paralyze white people when it comes to racial matters. I mean, have you ever witnessed a minority doing something bad, however you pulled yourself back from criticizing him because it would be racist? This is what I meant by racism paralyzing white people. Don't fall into this trap. If a minority did something bad, you should not let it pass. Call him on it. Furthermore, you are under zero moral and legal obligation, to share your living spaces and your country with any alien race. Again this can be considered racist, however if it is, then maybe racism is not such a bad thing after all. In fact, there are many benefits of not allowing alien races, especially Jews, to live among you. You shouldn't let anybody tell you what to think. I shouldn't be telling you you must not let other races live among you, just like Jews shouldn't be telling you that you must let other races live among you. The only ones who can decide that are you and your people. Don't let anybody push you around.

By the way, regarding the award thing: Jews are naturally smart people, and many of them rise to prominent positions, including panel judges for various contests. Contest winners, enjoy many benefits. And Jewish judges are certainly not going to give awards to Gentiles if they can help it. Let's say there are two contestants, one a Gentile and the other a Jew. If their achievements are comparable, or maybe the Gentile's are even a bit better, Jews will still declare the Jewish contestant the winner. The key benefit this has for Jews is that it will raise their collective stock in white women's eyes. By giving prestigious prizes to Jews disproportionately, they advertise their fitness as romantic/sexual partners to white women. This is the major reason why Jews talk up Einstein so much. They talk him up excessively, all the time and everywhere, you can't escape it. It's because he was Jewish and the Jews behind the scene are trying to improve their collective mating success. There were many other Gentile scientists in Einstein's time who were just as accomplished, however they got little limelight, because they weren't Jewish. I want to let all the white people know that, prestigious awards used to be about talents and accomplishments. However, Jews have perverted these awards. Now, awards are given to people that the judges, which are overwhelmingly Jewish, like, to elevate the winner's prestige and status, which in turn improves said winner's mating success. There is politics involved more than anything.

Jews love to conspire together to undermine the better-looking white man, their major sexual competitor. They use every psychological weapon at their disposal, such as publicly mocking and ridiculing the white man in the shows and movies they pump out in large quantities, making him look bad in front of white women, brainwashing white women into thinking that white men are unsuitable partners for them...etc. Basically, they engage in really underhanded and dirty tactics. Jews also don't forget to portray themselves as the soulful, sensitive ones who white women should choose as mates (Ross from the TV show Friends is a very good example of this). In fact, look at the movies and shows being churned out by the Jewish Hollywood. Keep your eyes peeled, and you will see I am not making this up. By the way, have you ever wondered about the successful pop group the Beatles? Notice how every member of Beatles has dark hair. This is done on purpose. This is a huge psych op that Hollywood Jews carried out. They wanted to see if they could prop up plain-looking men through fame and prestige enough that it would over-ride women's innate attraction to attractive, fair-haired men. In fact, very few truly successful male stars from Hollywood are blond, which is statistically improbable, because there are quite a few blond men around in the US. It is unlikely that so few of them go on to become a big star. This happens because Jews in Hollywood actively undermine blond artists. Blond men are formidable sexual competitors of Jews. They are certainly not going to make them big stars so that they can have lots of money, fame and the resultant women to sleep with. Jews also conspicuously pair blond-haired women with black-haired men on screen, partly to humiliate and demoralize blond men, and partly to brainwash impressionable blond girls into choosing black-haired men as mates in real life, which results in blond men having fewer and fewer blond women to mate and have blond babies with. My point is, Jews band together to conspire and connive in cabals, to undermine white men.

(Continued)

Jews love blending their genes with white people's genes. You can see lots of this coming out of Hollywood, which is a Jewish stronghold. Jews really love to depict whites procreating with Jews on-screen. For example, the song "Uptown girl" by Billy Joel. This song is essentially about a Jewish man's (which he cryptically refers to as a "downtown man" in the lyrics) desire for a white girl, which he again cryptically refers to as an "uptown girl". In the hugely popular tv show, "Friends", we see rampant Jewish desire for mating with white women. One of the main characters, Ross Geller, is a Jew. He married a white blond woman early on, and had a son with her. Later on, his wife turned out to be a lesbian. She had a lesbian partner, who was hostile to Ross and diminished him. She referred to him as "Bo-bo the sperm guy", showing how little regard she had for him. Ross's ex-wife, the blond woman, bore him a blond son. In one episode, the child was seen as saying, "I am Jewish!" while running through the living room. Now, this makes zero sense. In the show, he was raised by two lesbians who had little regard for Ross, referring to him as a mere sperm-donor and such. Why on earth would they instill in the child that he was Jewish? And this is where we as smart TV-viewers should step back, snap ourselves out of the show, and look at this picture of absurdity for what it is: the genuine desire on the part of the show's Jewish writers for having a blond child as a Jew. They covet blond hair and want one of their own to be blond. So they wrote this into the show, even though it made zero sense. Jews inadvertently revealed their true desire through the fiction that they wrote. This actually happens a lot more than you think. Another thing, the Jewish writers not only want to mate with white women, they also try to take them away from white men as much as possible. The way they wrote Ross' ex wife into a lesbian was seen as double-triumph for Jews: she bore them a blond child and then was taken out of the gene pool, making her unavailable to white men. Yet another thing Jewish writers and TV studio executives love to do is subtly suggesting to white men to pair up with older women, who cannot bear them children anymore. Phoebe's brother, fell for an older woman. He was seen and understood to be a white guy. Jews held him up as an example to all the white male viewers of the show that they should consider dating older women, thus giving even more of their women for Jews to mate with.

Jews also fantasize about impregnating as many white women as possible. Rachel, one of the other main characters, bore Ross, the Jew, a child. However, she didn't marry him, instead she went off to Paris to raise the child on her own. This is a very classic Jewish fantasy. They like to fantasize impregnating a white woman, who will choose to raise the child on her own, thus freeing the Jew from fatherly duties, which enables him to produce more offspring with more white women. By the way, the men aren't the only ones who fantasize about procreating with white people. The sitcom, "The Nanny", which starring the Jewess Fran Drescher, was about a Jewish nanny who worked in a white household, and who had romantic feelings for her employer, a white man. Eventually they married, and she was shown to have born him not one, but two, offspring, at a time. In fact, if you pay attention, you will see that a lot of shows and movies all show this theme. Jews simply love to breed with white people, that's pretty much all they think about, and the shows they produce invariably betray this. Another thing: for "Friends", there are 6 main characters. Two of them are a Jewish brother and sister pair, so two of them are overtly Jewish. Phoebe, even though in the show is depicted as a white female, is actually played by a Jewess. Joey, who is Italian, is questionably white. Italians have a long history of not being recognized as real white people. So this leaves two characters, Rachel and Chandler. These two characters are proper whites, however they are both involved in a romantic relationship with a Jew. Therefore, out of the entire cast, there is not one proper white person capable of carrying on the white race. This is a mental victory for the show's Jewish writers and producers. Now, regarding lesbians, Hollywood Jew writers also like to portray lesbianism very positively. I remember watching this TV show, it was from a really long time ago and I think it was some teenage drama aimed at teenaged white girls. I forgot the name of the show. The show had two young white girls, and they fell in love with each other. In one scene, they were about to kiss. They were shown to be levitating in the air, gently twirling and turning, with soft glowing light and glitters falling on them. The only thing missing was angels singing in choir in the background. Again, this made zero sense, because these two girls did not have super-natural powers in the show whatsoever, so how could they have flown up, and then twirled in the air? And why would there be heavenly lights when you kiss? Again this is where we need to snap out of the show, get back into reality, and see this as yet another instance of Jew writers with their agenda. They wanted to make lesbianism look good, like it was beautiful. The message they wanted to send to the young white girls watching the show: "If you become hot for your female friend and try to kiss her, you will flow in the air with lights on you and you will look like an angel!!!" I am not making any of this up. Think back to all the shows from Hollywood you have seen that dealt with homosexuality in some way. I bet you would find that almost all of them, depicted same-sex relationships in either a romantic or otherwise very positive way. Still don't believe me? I have two words for you: "Brokeback mountain". Go see this movie and you will see that there is an unmistakable agenda pushing for the normalization and romanticization of homosexuality by Hollywood.

Regarding the Jewish actress Yasmine Bleeth. I remember one TV commercial, where one white boy saw her at some beach, and then was shown sending a text message to all his friends that said, "She's here". And then a horde of white boys showed up to gawk at her. Now, I am not saying Bleeth isn't attractive. Of course she is, but she is not as attractive as the ad tried hard to make us believe. A bunch of white boys thought so much about Bleeth to the point that she could be identified simply as "she"? Oh please. Tons of white women are much more beautiful than she is. I also remember watching some TV show. They were saying, here comes the internet's most downloaded porn-star, or something like that. They were really hyping it up. And then Cindy Margolis came out. Again, I am not saying Margolis isn't attractive. She is, but she simply isn't attractive enough to be the most downloaded porn-star. I simply do not believe it. I don't watch porn, but I sometimes watch a bit of TV, and I see tons of white starlets who are a hundred times more attractive than she is. And Margolis is Jewish. These are but two among the many, many instances where Jews talk up one of their own.

(Continued)

Another thing Jews in Hollywood love doing: They like to cast white men in very unflattering roles. I don't know if you have seen the movie Outbreak, it starred Dustin Hoffman and Cuba Gooding Jr. Basically it's about a bunch of heroes who are non-white males saving the day. They had to go up against an evil military leader type of guy, who was played by a blue-eyed, conspicuously white, man. In another movie, Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, again there was a very unflattering role played by a blond-haired white man. And it's not just these two movies, I mention them because they were the ones that I have seen. I am sure that if you are a regular Hollywood movie consumer, you would have come across many more such cases, although you were probably not aware of it on a conscious level. Basically, the producers and writers in Hollywood, who are overwhelmingly Jewish, do this for a reason. And it is this: What happens in movies seeps into real life. By this I don't mean that people can't tell movies apart from real life. I mean obviously they can, on the conscious level they know movies are all made up. If you ask them, "Are movies real?" They will say, "No". However, they will still be influenced by what's on the screen, albeit on the subconscious level. In other words, when they see a lot of white men being cast in evil roles, they will start to think of white men as being evil in real life. I don't know if you are aware of the following phenomenon, but basically, there are certain roles that a white male actor will not play, such as a role that depicts him as having a romantic relationship with a minority female. He does this because he wants to be able to sleep with white female groupies in real life. If he is shown on the screen as to have romantic interest in a minority woman, he will get fewer white female groupies to sleep with. This happens because white female groupies fall prey to what I described earlier, they can't tell that his interest in minority females is only acting, it's not his real romantic inclination. But people are stupid, and they let their thinking get influenced by the fake stuff that they see on-screen. This is a well-known phenomenon in Hollywood, but is little known to regular people like you and me. So, when Jews consistently cast white men in stupid or evil or otherwise unflattering roles, they are subtly brainwashing the movie goers that white men are not to be trusted, are stupid, foolish, or just plain undesirable. They do this in the hope that white women will develop an aversion to white men in real life without even knowing why, and then they (white women) will want to date white men less, and marry them less, which will result in fewer white babies being born. Just in case if you think I am making this up, why don't you go to any country that's not in the West, such as Japan, or China, or even Israel, the country of Jews, and you will see that they all naturally put their men in very positive, flattering roles. It is only in the West that white people have their own men thus denigrated. And the reason this happens is because your entire entertainment industry, the whole of Hollywood, is dominated by Jews, a race of people that is foreign as well as hostile to you.

A related thing to note: Being manipulative might help Jews influence people's behaviors and achieve goals in the short term, however, it is very harmful to them in the long term. People don't like being manipulated and once they catch onto it, they will get very angry and resentful, and they will think, "So that's what you've been doing all along!!" Interacting with a manipulative person is highly unpleasant, furthermore, it calls into question the manipulator's motives as well as his character. People who engage in manipulative behaviors are essentially playing with fire. In extreme cases, it can lead to something that has very serious consequences, when white people realize that these manipulators are all Jews.

I want to comment on evil. Contrary to what we might think, pure, unadulterated, indiscriminate evil does not exist, or if it does, it doesn't last long. By this I mean, people who are so evil as to harm their friends, close associates, family members or children, do not really exist. Their genes would be very quickly weeded out of the gene pool. However, a selective kind of evil, the kind where its bearers are kind towards their relatives and in-group, however are very nasty towards outsiders, can and does exist. In fact, we see this evil in one foreign people very often, namely, Jews. Have you ever wondered why so many Jewish politicians are war-mongers and sometimes even war-criminals (Henry Kissinger comes to mind)? And how there are so many Jewish crime-bosses? It's because of their unique psychological make-up. They see non-Jews as non-humans (they even have a name specifically for this in their language), who deserve to be exploited, lied to, manipulated, and just generally mistreated and victimized. Take Henry Kissinger. He had absolutely no regard for human life, and no regard for human suffering, either. Let's see what he "accomplished" during his political career: In his first two years in office, he helped Richard Nixon sabotage Vietnamese peace talks for his own political gain, expanded that war into Laos and Cambodia (the destabilizing effects of which would pave the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the death of up to two million people). He advocated the bombing of, in his own words, “anything that moves.” In 1971, he backed Pakistan in its war against Bangladesh despite evidence of massacre and rape. In ‘73, he orchestrated a military coup against the democratically elected Allende regime of Chile, installing in its stead the violently oppressive Pinochet dictatorship. And in ‘75, the then-Secretary of State lent his tacit support to President Suharto of Indonesia―himself a despot already responsible for the mass killings of hundreds of thousands―in the deadly conquest of East Timor. Kissinger, in proposing an intervention in Cyprus, summed up his philosophy best: “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” (original link: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/1/31/galant-welcoming-war-crimes). In fact, there is a very good way to tell whether there is a Jew involved in something: If suffering goes up, then it's a very good sign that there is a Jew involved somewhere. Take communism, which has killed literally hundreds of millions of people world wide, and this is not taking into account other forms of suffering such as mass starvation, rape, slave labor, psychological terror and more. Communism is Jewish in both nature and origin.

Most of us might read the above, and think I am just an anti-Semite. You probably think that Jews are regular people just like you. To which I will simply ask, "How many Jews do you know? And in what capacity?" Chances are, you barely know any Jews intimately. And no, just because you might have dated a few does not mean you know them well. And most importantly, the kinds of Jews that the average white person has the chance to encounter tend to be the more harmless ones. The real Jews, the truly powerful ones, the ones that easily rise to high positions in politics and entertainment and finances, are very removed from our immediate surroundings. Their true nature is also very different from that of the more typical, more harmless, everyday Jews that we see. These powerful Jews' nature is beyond our understanding. I mean, do you personally know a Jewish politician? Or do you know a Jewish media mogul intimately? If you don't, then you shouldn't be so quick to defend Jews. "Jews are just like us!! You are just an evil anti-Semite!!" No. I would not risk becoming a social pariah, for no good reason. Surely you know how extremely serious it is to be openly racist against Jews. I am risking my reputation, my social standing, and I am even risking becoming a target to the feds, to bring you a very unpopular message. Maybe you should ask why someone would want to do that, and then maybe pause for a few moments to ask yourself whether you should hear what she has to say.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 09:59pm