Don't try to come up with stratagems and machinations, because those are Jews' specialties. Rather, try to fight them out in the open. You will never beat them at being covert. Jews (and their minions, the federal agents) are good at rooting these sorts of things out, since they have so much experience lurking in the shadow and being on the sly. Jews have had lots of practice being secretive, having lived among hostile gentiles for thousands of years. My advice: Once you have decided to become "public", make as many things public as you can afford to, and remove any need to keep things secrets. Make the political theater public and watch Jews flounder. When you think about it, there really aren't too many secrets that we have to keep, anyway. Apart from the list of people we truly trust. Our goal is to spread our message to as many white people as possible, and Jews know already. We really have no secrets we need to keep hidden. Another thing: I remember that many years ago, when I first learned that I have become a target of the feds, I was extremely scared. I almost shat my pants. And yes being a target to the feds indeed sucks, however, soon I came to realize that it wasn't nearly as terrifying as I thought. I am still alive, and I still say whatever i want online. They haven't murdered me yet. This is because I am so massively famous, and so many people know about me that if I die or disappear, people will immediately know who's behind it (See below). So, generally speaking you should try to remain anonymous, as becoming public like me is costly. It's probably not literal death, but is something you should only do after very careful consideration. Now, regarding becoming "public". As a rule, you shouldn't, as this protects you. But if for some reason you want to become a known figure, or maybe you are forced to become public, do this: Take it to the extreme and make sure as many people know about you as possible. You see, they constantly think about ways to stop us, and they will stop at nothing, which means murder is never off the table for them. If your murder would alert too many people to their evil, murderous ways, they might think twice. Don't get me wrong, murderous thoughts will still stir within their blackened Jewish hearts, and they would probably just try and think up alternative, undetectable ways of murdering you, but at least this would give them some sort of a pause.

Don't say things like how you want to genocide Jews. Because Jews just use this to their advantage. They will point to it and say to white people how we are a bunch of evil Nazi murderers. This is how they get sympathy from white people. But saying that we want to kick them out of the West is a perfectly non-violent suggestion. In fact Jews hate this more because they can't use it to sound like a victim. They are terrified of it because deep down they know they can't exist without white people. Being kicked out of the West means certain death for the Jewish race. And soon you will realize all this Jewish talk about preventing genocide is a crock of shit. Because saying you want to kick them out of the West will land you in bigger trouble than saying you want to genocide them.

I remember a story I read, about King David. He was regarded as one of the greatest Jewish kings. Anyway, he once had to settle a fight between two women. These women were fighting over a baby, both claimed to be the mother of the child. Back then, there was no DNA testing, so no one could tell who was the real mother. So the king came up with an idea. He casually said to cut the baby in half, and give the halves to both women. The real mother immediately gave up the fight, allowing the other woman to have the child. And this is when the sage king said, "This is the child's true mother." This Jewish king was brilliant, although my point isn't to praise him, as Jewish egos don't need any more stroking. Rather, what I want to draw your attention to is the woman who claimed to be the child's mother, the faker. Can you imagine the gall, the nerve, that she must have had, to do something like this? To pretend so brazenly to be something you are not, and then fight so fiercely to the point where it got escalated to the king? This woman is a sign of how deteriorated the Jewish gene pool must have been. We need to keep the time period of this story in mind when studying Jews because it tells us the Jewish gene pool had been in a very steep decline since ancient times.

Another thing Jews love to do: They really like to over-emphasize how much they have in common with white people. You will often see over-the-top expressions of their human-ness in the various books, magazines, publications, shows and movies they pump out in large quantities. Pay attention next time, and see if you can see what I see. Anytime something comes up that showcases Jews' humanity, watch the Jews over-act and dramatize about how similar they supposedly are to white people. Jews feel the need to do this because they want to make their inclusion in the West secure. They don't pass up any opportunity to convince white people that they are "just like them" and should be allowed to live among them. Speaking of over-acting, I still remember this piece that I read a long time ago. I don't recall the exact details, however I remember it was one of those tear-jerking Holocaust-themed stories Jews never shut up about. So basically, this particular Jew wrote of his father who was in a Nazi-occupied country during World War 2. He had a garden, in which he planted a few trees. On the eve of being sent to a concentration camp, he was hugging the trees and saying to them, "Good-bye, tree". I mean, it was such a transparent, naked attempt to get white people's tears flowing. It was so over-the-top, so shameless, so blatantly obvious that it nearly made me puke. However, unfortunately, white people ate it up, failing to notice that the Jew was laying it on too thick. So now that you know Jews' trick, you should be able to identify this behavior more quickly and accurately. You will now be able to see how they play on white people's heart string with not one shred of shame. It's absolutely disgraceful.

Another thing I have observed about Jews: When you point out very obvious, blatant wrongdoings on the part of some Jews, Jews will always react by screeching and protesting and denying, either "No, that's an anti-Semitic trope", or if the evidence is truly damning, "Not all Jews are like that". It's like they don't care about whether white people are being harmed by the actions of their fellow Jews. They only care about themselves and their descendants. They only care about securing their place in the West. They do not ever reflect on whether charges against their race are legitimate, whether white people might have genuine grievances. They do not care about white people at all, they only care about themselves.

Jews think of the ability to lie as clever. If someone can think quickly on their feet and produce convincing lies on the spot, this to Jews is a sign of intelligence. They are impressed by it, and they don't think there is anything wrong with it. I remember watching this episode of Friends, the popular sitcom back in the day. Phoebe was talking to someone on a mobile phone. When she was getting to a difficult part of the conversation, she disconnected the phone, and said with a smug smirk to the other characters, "Going through a tunnel". Jews do not see anything wrong with deception like this. In fact, they praise this behavior, thinking that it's very smart. Understandably, white people's trusting nature is not seen as a virtue by Jews. In fact, they consider a trusting nature to be a weakness, and they call trusting white people "suckers". Furthermore, Jewish men love to really play up their sensitivity to impress upon white women that they are soulful and sensitive, and are therefore ideal mates for them. They sometimes even go as far as to fake a vulnerability. But it's never something truly bad that will undermine their attractiveness to white women.

If we want to see Jews' true colors, look at Israel, where Jews get to be among themselves. They don't watch what they do and say because there are few white people around whose opinions they have to worry about. They get to really be themselves and they don't have to pretend to be something they are not. Their behaviors are not constrained by white people. Jews are always pretending they are just like white people, it's all an act. Jews do this because it got them good reviews. So, to see Jews in their natural habitat, a good place to start is Israel. You can also try any private Jew-controlled space. Start with these and you will see what jews really think, about everybody else but especially white people.

(Continued)

WELL SAID

I remember talking to someone about the Israel-Palestine conflict. He said that it was unreasonable to insist that Israelis care about Palestinians' human rights. He was saying that Jews' ancestors survived extreme persecution and so Israelis should be pardoned for not caring about the human rights of people who want to exterminate them like an animal. I thought that he brought up a good point. I feel that Jews have had to endure persecution and intense prejudice for thousands of years, and this must have shaped their evolution. Imagine this: Jews' ancestors needed to struggle ferociously in order to live. There must have been a tremendous selective pressure on them to evolve to be harsh, brutal, nasty and insensitive to others' suffering. They had to be this way, that's about the only way they could have survived and passed on their genes. Any kind, gentle, peaceful, sensitive Jews had their genes culled. So now we are left with a ferocious, lying, cruel, callous, and some might even say evil, people known as modern-day Jews. It all makes sense.

Imagine a cornered dog. It has to snarl and bare its teeth and generally act really ferocious, just to live. When you do this to not just one dog, but to all its descendants for thousands of years, what you will end up with is a breed of dogs that have ferocity written in their DNAs. This is what happened to Jews. I remember something I read in school many years ago. I read that Jews, in their struggle against Hitler, once considered smearing feces on his pants, in an effort to make him look bad in front of his troops. I was thoroughly disgusted by this. I thought to myself, "If I were a Jew, I would not do this. For what is the point of defeating an enemy, if I had to reduce myself to something like this?" Of course, any Jew who thought like me likely would end up losing the war against Hitler, and his genes would be lost. Jews who could have survived were the ones who really would smear people's pants with poop. They would have been the only ones to pass on their genes. The ones who had moral objections to something like that would find their genes weeded out of the gene pool pretty quick. It wasn't just Hitler. It's about being against white people in general. Jews have been living among white people for thousands of years, and were subjected to persecution for thousands of years. So, this is the kind of extreme selective pressure that has been acting on their gene pool for multiple generations, and it has shaped them to be a desperate, cornered people, who will do literally anything to survive. And this is indeed what we see. It is the mechanism by which many other odious traits like nastiness, both of the mind and behavior, lack of remorse when caught doing something wrong, a general, pervasive maliciousness, a supreme inability to be moved by non-Jews' suffering have come to be become fixed in their DNAs.

Now, about the numerous Jew-apologists who never fail to bleat whenever the topic of Jews comes up: These people never ask why Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years, and by pretty much everyone they came into contact with. They (the apologists) seem to think it's very plausible that people would really just rise up against a whole race of people for no good reason. I have been speaking against Jews for literally decades, and all but one person asked me why. None of these apologists ever thought of asking me why I hate Jews so much. I am not saying they have to agree with me. I am pointing out their astonishing inability to ask what, to me, is a very basic, logical question. In our daily lives, we ask people why they do certain things or feel a certain way. We do this constantly. But these Jew apologists are really abnormal in their complete lack of curiosity. This is why I don't take them seriously. Not because they are disagree with me but because they are total clowns.

When someone says to a Jew, "Why aren't you in Israel?", the Jew might say, "I was born here!". He doesn't know that this question is not meant to be answered literally. Rather, it shows that people don't want Jews in their country. Of course, Jews don't know that, they don't understand the real sentiment behind questions like that. They just clap back and argue. I call this an inability to engage in introspection. Another similar thing is the typical Jewish response to blood libel. Basically, there was a rumor that Jews killed Christian children and then used the blood to make Passover bread. So Jews deny it and say we never did that. But the real issue isn't whether Jews used the blood to make bread. Rather, it's the fact that such a rumor even existed in the first place and people believed it. This tells us that white people's perception of Jews was extremely negative. Again, Jews don't know this. This is a severe inability to engage in introspection.

A very important thing about genetic engineering, is that people's love and respect will finally mean something. Imagine there is someone who is very kind, honorable, helpful, considerate, and just all around a stand-up guy. He loves to help people, often literally takes money out of his pocket to give to those in need. He is nice, friendly, generous, and he cares about people's feelings. He's just awesome. Before the age of genetic engineering, someone like him didn't enjoy too many tangible benefits. Sure, he might get invited to dinners or bars after work, people might throw him surprise birth parties, maybe rally around him when he needs help. The most that would happen is people might give him a job. He might get these nice things, but not much else. In other words, people's love and respect, though nice, aren't really worth any money. And this is acutely understood by someone who is only after money. He doesn't care to behave in a way that will win people's love and respect, because to him these things are worthless. He is hyper-aware that love, respect...etc won't give him material goods or riches. The end result? He is widely hated, but he owns half the town and is in a position to have lots of children, who will likely grow up to be money-hungry and detestable just like him. But now, things are different. We have tools for genetic engineering. People's love and respect for a kind person will still not be worth any money, however, they will now have true meaning. People will actively engineer human genes so that there will more people like the awesome guy I described above. Unpleasant people with their greedy, grubby, money-grabbing ways will, for the first time in human history, lose out to ungreedy, kind, nice, good people in a real, meaningful way. Because people will actively engineer their nasty genes out of the gene pool.

I remember watching this video, where a small white girl just got a dog. She was so overjoyed that she started crying. We can infer from her behavior what was going on in her brain. She must have felt an incredibly strong surge of emotions. Now, a lot of kids like animals, both white ones and non-white ones, this isn't unusual. What's unusual is that the white girl liked an animal so much that it caused her to cry. There must be something going on in her brain that is different from what goes on in a typical non-white child's brain when they both have just gotten a dog. If I were to guess, the white girl's brain is either more sensitive than a non-white child's brain to neurotransmitters, or it releases more of them. I reach this conclusion from my observation of her ultra-intense reaction. White people's brains are very probably wired differently than non-whites', or they experience heightened sensitivity to neurotransmitters. I don't know exactly in what ways they differ, I am not a scientist, but I just know that they differ. We can't directly see what goes on in people's brain, but we can observe their behaviors and from there try to guess what's going on in their mind. Often times white people do things that appear excessive to a non-white, while others appear inexplicable, if not down right crazy. And that's because whites experience the world differently than non-whites do due to the differences in their brains. And it's not just about getting a dog, it extends to other areas, too.

I am reminded of this adult white woman I read about. So basically, one day, some kind person dropped off gift cards at the doorsteps of homes in her neighborhood. She got one, too. And she was moved to tears. She was literally crying and shaking, she couldn't believe there were people who were this kind. Again, this behavior can be seen as a bit excessive. Yeah, sure, someone anonymously giving you a gift card to brighten up your day is very wonderful indeed, but how about just quietly feeling grateful and appreciative in your heart? This is what a typical non-white would do, but not this white woman. The feelings she felt were so strong that she behaved in an excessive way. Again, from this, we can infer her brain state. And this is another example where white people behave very differently from non-whites, which gives us insight into what's going on in their brains. I want to clarify that I don't mean all white people will cry or behave this strongly in response to something. Rather, the white girl and white woman I mentioned are heightened examples meant to make a point. Typical white people probably don't have as strong of a reaction. But they still feel things much more deeply and intensely compared to other races due to differences in brains. Furthermore, neurological differences like this tend to persist throughout life.

I watched a few groups reacting to my government's totalitarian measures in response to the Pandemic, and I realized something: When ordinary people are unhappy with their government, very often there is little they can do, because they are usually too busy working and making a living, or otherwise too busy living their lives to find the time to organize themselves against the government to any meaningful degree. They don't put up much of a resistance and just let themselves be ruled, despite the fact they are superior in number. The government is made up of a much smaller number of people, however it has three advantages over regular people: 1. It's more organized, 2. It's unified against a common opponent, namely the masses, and 3. It makes a living out of ruling. The last one means it doesn't have any other job or work that demands its time and efforts. As a result, the government can completely focus on ruling, and it has the upper hand over average citizens whenever conflict arises between them. People who are unhappy with the government not only need to be able to find time out of their lives to reach the masses, they also face the additional difficulty that those that they are able to reach might themselves have trouble taking time out of their lives to organize effectively. Besides, there are many many things the government can do to the people very easily since it's already in the ruling position. However, the masses can't really do much to the government, outside of acts of revolution, which are rare, hard to organize, and often undesirable even when successful. Another advantage for the government is that it's sustained by the taxes. It doesn't have to worry about where the money that it needs is coming from and how it can keep fighting. But the people have to come up with money when most of them have to work to make a living. This is another difficulty the ordinary people face.

A related thing is, the government doesn't need to make sure everybody agrees with it. We all know about the existence of political dissenters, basically people who disagree with the government. What a good government would do is to either try and come up with better laws, polices...etc so as to satisfy the dissenting, unhappy people, or try to talk things out with them, to find out why they are unhappy with the government. But a bad government doesn't need to do any of those things. It just needs to make sure that there are enough people who agree with it, and that these people work and pay taxes, which sustains it. Then the bad government will have steady money coming in, which enables it to hunt down the dissenters, without having to do the right thing, which is mending its ways.

Can you think of more ways that governments have an advantage over their citizens?

@@@@

Hello, in my country, we have laws against employers discriminating against potential hires based on certain grounds. Race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin...etc etc. You probably have something similar in your country.

See here: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/rights-workplace.html

What I don't get is, why is it any of the government's business whether private businesses want to discriminate? I get it, the government should be for everybody, it should be fair to everyone, so they decide that they will not discriminate. This is fine. But if I am a business owner, then I am a private entity. Whether I want to discriminate should not be any of the government's business.

In my opinion, the government can only intervene when there is a criminal matter. For example, when a private individual has committed a crime, such as murder, rape, assault, that type of things. However, discrimination is not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter. And it's only against the law because the government says it is. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about discrimination. Discrimination is not morally wrong like rape or murder is. In fact, the fact that there are so many people, people who are otherwise normal, law-abiding individuals, who nevertheless discriminate. This highly suggests to me that discrimination is normal, that it's part of being human. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so common.

I am Asian and I would not want a non-white person helping me with anything that has important consequences. Whether it's dealing with the government regarding an important matter, or talking to a medical doctor when I have a serious illness, dealing with a large amount of money at a bank. For all of these things and everything else, I want to deal with a white person. I used to be on the receiving end of this, and at the time I just called it racism and did not give much thought to it. But now, I am doing the exact same thing myself, being racist. But i have a good reasons for doing so. I find that white clerks, personnel, workers..etc tend to know their stuff. But that's not all. They genuinely care. They tend to do their job well and it's not simply because white people are smarter, I mean on some level they are, but that's not all. The one thing I really notice is that they give a crap. I remember ordering food at this Chinese place in a food court. The cashier helping me was an Asian girl. They had a card where people could accumulate points that could then be used for food, similar to loyalty cards at grocery stores. So, after watching her do her thing, I asked her, "Did you give me my points?" She said yes. Then I asked for receipt, because I wanted to see exactly how many points I had received. And this is when she admitted that she didn't give my points. Now, this has nothing to do with ability or competence. Adding points to a card is very easy, especially for an Asian. A white clerk in this situation, when she said she added points to me card, she meant it. She really did give me my points. She cared enough about doing her job properly. I don't want to emphasize on the lying too much. The Asian girl felt the need to lie about such a thing, yes, but it was expected because she was Asian. Rather what I want to draw attention to is the fact that she did not care enough about doing her job properly. This is a key area where white people differ greatly from non-white people. I can really understand why "evil racists" would only want to deal with white clerks/waitstaff/personnel. Non-white people mess things up, not only because they are incompetent, but also because they don't give a crap. This is a major reason why so many patients have died under the care of a non-white doctor/physician/surgeon. Some non-white doctors have caused so many deaths, that they earned the nick-name, "Angel of Death". Also, note that when I say white people and non-white people, I mean in a statistical sense. There will always be exceptions such as a white clerk who doesn't give a crap and a non-white clerk who does. But they are exactly what they are, exceptions. So don't bother writing me about it.

@@@

In the West, there is a known general sense that one is never to speak ill of Jews. That to criticize them is tantamount to wanting to genocide them. We are told that antisemitism is not just bad, it is the ultimate evil. White people are incredibly sensitive to this pressure. I was struck by how uniform this pressure was. It was something that was literally everywhere and it just hung in the air like a cloud that was both lead in color and poisonous. Normally for an concept to take hold, it takes some time to spread among the public. It shouldn't be seemingly overnight and everywhere just like that. And so uniform. It takes time for something to be adopted by everyone. And I do mean everyone, just look at the reaction of every living white person in the West when it comes to criticizing Jews. This level of saturation is suspect. It makes me think it didn't spread organically. It was likely planned deliberately and then applied to the white population methodically.

@@@

Jews have lived among white people for thousands of years. Back in the olden days in Europe, white people were the dominant social group, they were the majority. They owned land, they held positions of power, they had jobs. Jews had to live among them, sometimes even work for them. Jews needed to learn to hide and disguise their true feelings and what they really thought just so that they could get along with white people and keep their job. So even though Jews might disagree with white people about certain things, maybe even vehemently, they did not dare to talk about it openly, because it might bring wrath upon them. So they learned to keep things to themselves and hide their true thoughts. Any Jew who spoke his mind wouldn't leave his genes behind, because he would lose his job. This is how Jews evolved to be good at dissembling. Btw, this isn't limited to Jews. Any time you look at a minority living among a majority for a long period of time, this is bound to happen. They don't even need to be of different races. Think of the many ethnic minorities in China and how they have to behave to put up with the surrounding Han majority. And its not just in China; the same principle applies everywhere.

I move that we make it necessary for would-be voters to pass a test in order to be eligible to vote. Even though I believe that voting is a right, I don't think we should let just about anybody over the age of 18 vote. There needs to be a system in place to make sure that only the politically literate can vote. It's kind of like passing tests to get a driver's license. Yes driving is a right, however that doesn't mean we should just let anybody drive. We need to make sure they are competent drivers, so that they don't cause accidents. Similarly we don't want politically illiterate people to choose our nation's leader, as this can have serious consequences.

The test: there will be two sections. In the first section, people are tested on their ability to think for themselves. A few examples: people will be given sentences and short speeches, and be asked to identify what's wrong with the sentences. They need to be able to figure out what logical fallacy is present. People will also get tested on whether they can pick out instances of spin-doctoring (as in, the act of putting a spin on things). Critical thinking skills will be tested. This section will not be structured in a way to test for specific knowledge, but rather, it will be in a general way that tries to see if the test-taker has the ability to see through lies, to see through spins, to detect sophistry, to detect arguments that appeal to the emotion rather than the mind, to think critically, and to be able to identify cases where such attempts are made to fool them. In the second section, political knowledge is tested. People are asked about general knowledge about national and or world events, be tested on who the leaders are in key countries, what's going on in the news, and things of that nature. The purpose of this section is to weed out those who are politically apathetic. I operate on the assumption that people who bother to pay attention to politically related news care about politics. It's not a perfect measure but it's good enough. Not only do we not want people who can't think to vote, we also don't want those who do not care about politics to vote, either.

During the Pandemic, we heard about things like infection rates, hospitalization rates, and death rates...etc from covid. We hear them in the form of news, either from TV or newspapers. However, the thing is, for the vast majority of us, there is simply no way for us to verify the truthfulness of these claims. It seems to me that people hear something on TV, and they just assume that it's true. They probably think, "They would never show it on tv if it weren't true. TV is consumed by hundreds of millions of people. The stuff on it must have been carefully verified." I bet this is the mindset of a lot of people.

Note I am not saying that TV and newspapers are definitely lying to us. I don't have proof of that. But I just want to point out that we as consumers should always take the stuff we see on TV and read in papers with a grain of salt. Not because they are lying to us; but rather, because they could be lying to us. And more importantly, we simply have no way of personally verifying most of it, which is why we should always be a little doubtful. And if someone (usually from the internet but not always) disagrees with the official narratives, we should hear him out. We mustn't be quick to write him off just because he says stuff that's different from what we see on TV or read in newspapers. Almost all major news outlets and TV networks are owned by a tiny cabal of billionaire oligarchs. They control the flow of information, what gets shown on TV and what doesn't, what gets talked about and doesn't. And they censor people who contradict their narratives. Dissenters have no platform from which to speak, and the internet is the last place for them, where they can have their voice heard. So, true, we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet. However, when I see something on the internet that conflicts with the official narrative, I am inclined to believe the nobody online. He is almost certainly an average person just like me and he likely has no agenda.

Newspapers, TV networks...quite often deliberately neglect to report certain news, news that can be argued as being consequential. They do this to keep their readers and viewers in a state of ignorance. I am just wondering if you think this is a problem, and if yes, what we can do about it. It seems to me that it's very difficult to prove that they are intentionally withholding certain news. They can always say, "Oh, we didn't know", or other times, "We didn't think it was news-worthy". We all know it's a lie, but we can't prove it directly.

Anyways would love your thoughts.

Richard Nixon's ousting was a double-victory for Jews. Nixon was what we would call an antisemite. He would heap racist abuses on the Jew Henry Kissinger, who held a high post and was in constant contact with Nixon. So naturally, we can imagine that Kissinger must have hated Nixon badly. My theory is that Kissinger worked with the Jewish bosses of various TV news networks to bring down Nixon. So this cabal of Jews (Kissinger included) worked together and brought down a Jew-unfriendly president, while giving the masses the sense that the mass media in their country were capable enough, as well as honest enough, to oust a president. Then the masses had even more faith in the Jew-controlled mainstream media. This was a double-win for Jews.



Some people are somewhat familiar with Jews and what they are, but they seem to think that if Jews would get a good talking-to, they would change their ways. No. You cannot undo the nature of a people that has been hewn by evolution for thousands of years, with one session of rebuke. Jews have literally evolved the ability to just say sorry and look remorseful when they get caught doing something. They do this because they know that this is how you get out of punishment with white people. Inside, they are still full of malicious intent and will do the same thing again, except more cleverly next time. There is a world of difference when a white person shows regret, and when a Jew does. The former truly feels it, the latter merely shows it. Some people think I am being unfair towards Jews, but it's not true. I am this way because i have no illusions about how human nature works, and in this case, Jews' nature. There are people who are simply born bad and no amount of teaching, talking to, punishing, will do anything to change them. It doesn't matter if Jews choose to be this way, or that it was evolution's fault that they are this way. The fact is that Jews are a a problem and something must be done about them.

I want to expand on what I mean by it's not possible to undo a people's nature. i will give an example. This example involves a dog, but I am not saying Jews are like dogs. Anyway. In China, there was a man who chained a dog to his car, then drove for miles, dragging the dog with the car. The dog's paws were seriously injured and its issues were worn off to the point where bones showed. He was discovered by a team of animal lovers, who tried to help him. He was said to be wagging his tail and being super friendly when he saw the people who were trying to help him. You might think that this dog was stupid, or overly trusting, after what a human had done to him. He should have become very wary of humans after what happened to him. But, he wasn't afraid at all.. He was friendly to the rescuers because his nature was hewn by tens of thousands of years of evolution. Evolution has made dogs friendly towards humans. He was not about to change his basic nature just because of one session of abuse at the hands of one human. Maybe becoming wary towards humans would be the prudent and rational thing to do, but there simply hasn't been enough time yet for evolution to re-shape dogs' nature like that. This is what I meant by it not being possible to change Jews' nature with one session of rebuke. Jews' nature was shaped by a really long time of evolution, and even though we hope Jews will change their ways after being told off a few times, they simply won't.

I believe that whether to be racist should be an individual's decision. If a white person wants to discriminate against someone of another race, he should be free to do so. We all know how lefties would react to this, they would scream "racist", "bigoted", "evil"..etc. I feel that this is psychologically coercive, and very unfair. It borders on bullying. I do not share the lefties' overwhelming compulsion to police people's thoughts and to demand thought uniformity. I feel that it takes all kinds to make a society. As long as someone isn't breaking the laws, then they should be left alone. And these racists aren't breaking any laws . Racism is never a crime. When you get to the bottom of it, it's just someone of one race being nasty to someone of another race. But being nasty is not a crime. When we go through life, there is no guarantee that we will always meet kind, nice people. If we come across someone who is not nice to us, and sometimes this is due to racist reasons, then guess what? it is simply too bad. We just need to know that that's life. Learn to deal with it and move on. Remember, people have the right to dislike anybody, for any reason you want.



I want to talk about making it difficult for divorce to happen for frivolous reasons when the marriage has produced a child. To make it really clear, I think this should only be confined to cases where the couple has a child together. Normally, it's not anybody's business, and certainly not the government's, when someone wants to end their marriage. Nobody should be able to stop them, nor to question them. However, when a child is involved, it's different. The child's needs come first, ahead of either parent's needs. I feel that a child has the best chance of growing into a happy adult if she grows up in an intact family with both biological parents, who are the most likely to truly love her and care for her. I believe that we should force people to make sacrifices for the happiness of their child. If you are simply "unhappy" in your marriage, then I am sorry, that is not sufficient grounds for a divorce. Not when you have a child. I think it's really unfair to a child if its mother divorces her husband casually, only to marry someone, taking the child away from her biological father and forcing her to live with the step-father. Not only is the step-father less likely to love the child, there can be issues of neglect, or worse, issues of molestation or even rape. It's also unfair to the biological father to lose his child, when he hasn't done anything wrong to deserve the divorce. This is why I feel that no-fault divorce should be forbidden when the couple has a child together. People should be required to produce hard evidence that the marriage is no longer bearable, for example if a spouse has committed adultery, or if the husband hits the wife or the child, or if there is evidence of sexual crime, or other similar things of a very serious nature. I mean, we already throw men in jail for failing to pay child support. If we can do this to people in the name of children's welfare, then surely we can legally stop people from casually divorcing their spouse. What I am proposing is not nearly as draconian as what we currently do to men. So I hope people won't complain that the government doesn't have the right to do this. If you didn't protest about the court putting men in jail for not making child support, then you don't have the right to protest about this. So don't be a hypocrite, and more importantly, think about the child's welfare and how important having an intact family is for her. People are adults and I expect them to know that it's not only about themselves anymore when they produce a baby. Now there is another person involved. People should put the child first in everything they ever consider. And if they won't, then we will get the government to force them to. And I don't feel bad about this at all. Yes I admit that this will constitute an infringement on individual liberty, however, the thing is, the government already compels people to do all kinds of things, some of which are reasonable, some aren't. At least with my proposal, there is a purpose. I am trying to protect children. So yes, I feel completely justified. That said, I propose to establish some kind of agency that provides help and guidance to parents who are unhappy in their marriage. I want to help them identify what exactly is causing their dissatisfaction to the point where they are considering divorcing the father (or mother) of their child. I believe that with counselling and good advice, people will be able to work things out with their spouse and salvage their marriage, which is a precious thing. I care about children's welfare, however I also care about parents' happiness too. I want to do everything I can to ensure people aren't miserable in their marriage.

@@@

Ruthlessness and betrayal in a government really pays off. I remember reading about the story of William Buckley, a CIA agent captured by Islamic jihadists. He eventually died while in captivity. The CIA claims to have attempted to rescue him. I don't know if that's true or if they are only putting on a show so that other CIA agents will think that their bosses care about them. But it made me think. If the CIA is heavy on doing the right thing, and really did try hard to free Buckley, all these efforts will cost resources for the agency. But, if they choose betrayal, and just say, "Screw him", they will save lots of resources and energy, which they can use to simply train more agents to replace him. An agency that does the latter will always beat out the one that tries to do the right thing.

This reminds me of a related thing. Imagine that on a battle-field, there are soldiers. The government has decided to retreat, so it needs to bring the soldiers home. However there is one soldier missing, they can't find him. Warzones are dangerous, plus it takes a non-negligible amount of effort and resources to find one stray soldier. So, the government might choose to betray him, and just go home with the rest of the soldiers. Naturally, this would make people angry. They would criticize the government. Maybe they would urge or even somehow make the government spend resources to locate the one missing soldier. These things are all easy to do. However, what people fail to understand is that, if the opposing government is cold-hearted and callous and it chooses betrayal, then it will have saved huge amounts of resources, which gives it an advantage over a government who cares, and who wants to do the right thing. So, what I am saying that it's easy enough to criticize the government, but it doesn't do anything meaningful. We need to realize the principle that treachery, callousness and generally being cold-hearted will always have an advantage and that we should do something about it. Otherwise, any good government that manages to arise will always lose.

@@@

One shouldn't be quick to assume white people are in control of the country just because the faces he sees in magazines, billboards, and on TV...etc are white. What if the actual people behind the throne are not white? What if they are actually an alien race, such as Jews? I am not pulling this out of thin air, there are actually a lot of Jews in all levels of your government, this is verifiable. Some of these Jews even openly brag about how much power they. You have probably heard of the New World Order and how Jews desire global domination. Guess what? Rumors like these don't come from nowhere.

@@@@

The Japanese indeed sound like really upright, honorable people. Who knew they could have done all those terrible things to the Chinese in the WW2? I still remember the story of a girl who was gang-raped by Japanese soldiers. She lost her marbles. I saw a picture of her face, too.

Have any of you heard about the book, Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang? It chronicles the atrocities committed by the Japanese against Chinese civilians during the war. I don't know if this book is still around, they probably scrubbed it clean just they did with a lot of things. The author of the book, Iris Chang, committed "suicide". She was probably driven to suicide by the FBI at the behest of the Japanese government. The Japanese do not want white people to know that they are capable of certain things. They want westerners to continue to want to marry their women. The Japanese emperor still hasn't apologized to countries that their armies brutalized during the WW2. He is probably hoping that if he will just wait, all the eye-witnesses will die of old age.