Capitalism pretty much hinges on exploitation for it to work. Think of a business owner with his employees. If he paid the employees for what they actually brought in for the business, he would have no profit left over and he would not be able to grow his business. The entire reason businesses take off is because owners pay their employees less than their true worth.

@@@@

The goal of education isn't so that the masses can think. But rather, it is so that they will have the ability to see how they are wrong, when a true thinker comes along and points it out to them

@@@@

When you put someone off or offend them or otherwise alienate them, they will simply stop talking to you. No explanation given, no more communication. That's it, you are out of their life. The concept of talking it out and giving someone a second chance is a very recent phenomenon. It hasn't been with us throughout our evolution as a species. Life does not give second chances. We should keep this in mind, and be very careful in our dealings with other people. If you make a mistake, very often it cannot be undone, and you lose that person forever. So be very careful.

@@@@

Have you ever had that feeling of being extremely mad, but you don't know who to stab?

@@@

If you act like a jerk, people will hate you. Everybody knows this, except Jews. It appears that evolution has shaped Jewish behavior in such a way that, not only do they offend and alienate people for no apparent reason, they have also lost the ability to foresee the consequences of behaving in this manner.

@@@@

Hate is a normal human emotion. Don't just just accuse people of hating. Don't just judge them for hating. Ask them why they hate. Their answer might make you think.

@@@@

You can sometimes get people to not break laws, but you cant make them care. By that I mean, you cannot make people feel the emotions that would stop a normal person from not breaking a law in the first place. For example, we have laws against murder. When we have these laws, we can sort of prevent people from committing murder. But the ideal way, which is also the normal way, is for people to be born with a conscience that tells them that murder is wrong. This, is the most effective way of preventing murder. When compared to the conscience, laws are very, very ineffective. This is why when we look at third-world countries and can't help but marvel at their lawlessness. The more naive and stupid among us might suggest that they pass laws so as to make their societies less lawless. No, these laws wouldn't do much. These third-world people's lawlessness is the result of their makeup. It is not the cause of it.

@@@

Should you enlist in the military?

You would be required to take Covid jabs, which very probably mess with your genes or your ability to reproduce. So my advice is only apply if you are not planning on having kids.

That said, we need white people in the military. The reason the regime hasn't yet sic'd the military on white Americans is because there are still people who have a conscience in the military, aka white people. By occupying a place in the armed forces, you prevent Americans from being outright slaughtered by the federal government and the Jews in it. Jews know this, which is why they try very hard to phase white people out of the armed forces. I believe they were last seen trying to recruit illegal immigrants into the armed services by offering them citizenship.

@@@@@@

When you have financial independence, you have power and you have dignity. People cannot mistreat you or give you crap. If they do, you can just up and leave. Having money is having power. It is the second best thing, right after having knowledge. Jews know this, and it is part of the reasons why they want such a tight hold on white countries' source of money. In the US, this takes the shape of the Federal Reserve. In other countries, it takes the shape of their Central Bank. Jews don't just want the power that comes with having money, they also want to take money from white people, which takes power away from them. And when they (Jews) are in control of the money supply, they can achieve that very easily.

One thing minorities and their lefty allies like to do is to drill into white people the idea that non-whites are human just like white people are. They'd use tons of stories (often tear-jerking) and anecdotes, examples..etc to show white people that non-whites are not that different from they are. But what I don't get is, why can't non-white immigrants be human in their own countries? Nobody is saying that minorities aren't humans. why do they have to come to the West and shove their humanity in white people's faces?

Not only that, minorities constantly try to outdo white people in anything you can think of. They need to convince the world that they are superior to white people. This becomes an obsession with them, and the longer an ethnic group has been with white people, the more severe it is. They never ask themselves why, if they are so smart and capable, that they have to come to the West?

Building up on the above, are you aware that Jews call themselves, "Light onto nations"? It's like, Jews literally need to believe they are better than white people, in order to have a healthy self-image. Again, the question is very simple: If Jews are so wonderful, why aren't they all in Jew-land, aka, Israel? Why do they all insist on being in the west and shoving their wonderfulness in white people's faces? Another thing: Jews, especially the older ones, like to always cry about how bad they had it in the West. My response to that is, none of this would have been, if you or your ancestors had stayed in your own land. But nobody ever says this to them, even though it's a very sensible, logical response. In fact, I believe none of the feds Jews oversee says this to them. This is proof that feds can't think. Further, for a long period of their history, Jews did not have their own land. And how can you exist as a people, if you don't have your own land? This is a very powerful proof of Jews' parasitic-ness. I am not saying this out of hate for Jews. I say it because it really is the case. When a people do not have their own land, it necessarily follows that they have to become parasites, because that is the only way they could have survived. and reality bears this out. Look at the role Jews used to fulfill: merchants, money-changers, usurers. You can observe similar thing in our modern time, too. Jews are over-represented in the financial field. Lots of investment bankers are Jews. You will almost never find a Jew in a field like plumbing or electrical work, aka, something that demands hard work and doesn't pay that well. Consider the period of time of Jewish history in Europe: This was in the pre-industrial eras, where there were no factories, and people lived by raising livestock and growing crops. Without land, you literally could not produce meat, milk, butter, eggs, wheat, flour bread..etc, which people needed in order to live. So how did Jews even live? This is a totally logical question and asking it is not being aggressive towards Jews.

Also, Jews seem to create enemies wherever they go. They are always going on about how the whole world is against them; they even sing about this in Israel's national anthem. But they never ask themselves why this is so. It's like the ability for introspection has been permanently bred out of the Jewish gene pool. I don't know about you, but if people dislike me, the first thing I do is think about whether I have done something to offend them. This is a very basic, logical, natural response. But not for Jews.

I was reading up on antisemitism in Wikipedia. The article was long and it kept listing the many persecutions of Jews by white people/Europeans. But, predictably, it never asks this key question: What were Jews doing in Europe? Why couldn't they have stayed in their own country, or wherever it was that they were originally from? Also, these persecutions clearly show that white people didn't want Jews in their lands. So why do Jews insist on living in Europe, among white people? Why can't they go live in Israel? I am sure you have witnessed Jews' incessant cries about antisemitism. So wouldn't the logical thing be to live as far away from white people as possible? For a group that's allegedly oppressed, they sure don't want to live away from their oppressors.

By giving someone your business, you are not simply deciding who to buy a product or service from. You are literally choosing whose life you sustain, with your money This is very powerful. You are deciding who gets to thrive and who goes home and puts nothing on the dinner table. You have enormous power and it resides in your wallet. Use it wisely.

@@@

I have always said that the ultra-wealthy, owners of huge corporations live off of the profit generated by their employees. Some people might counter that they also have to think hard to come up with strategies to keep their business growing and to compete against their rivals. To that I say: This is called wealth management. It's not truly working in the sense that regular people understand it. Yes it requires mental effort, however, so do a lot of other things. When a working stiff opens up his online banking to manage his money, he is also putting in mental effort. But nobody would call this working. So let's all stop this, "Let me make excuses for the wealth class", ok?

@@@

It might take too much time and energy to persuade those who are too far gone, such as lefties, most people who reside in blue states, people who have deep trust in the goodness of the government...etc. It's best to focus our energy on those that show promise, such as people who live in red states, people who are vaccine-resistant, people who eye the government with suspicion..etc.

@@@

When trying to convert people, I find one good way is by asking questions. Asking questions takes the edge off, compared to straight up contradiction. Saying "No" to their position and trying to argue them out of it is seen as confrontational and leads people to dig in their heels. Personally I like to get them to think and examine their beliefs through the use of questions. It seems to work better because it doesn't put you in the position of an antagonist.

@@@@

Do not use racial slurs. It might be satisfying, however it's damaging to our cause. It drives away any white person who is curious and scoping things out. Know that white people aren't going to magically start hating Jews just because they see the word "Kike" a few times.

@@@

After you interact with a Jew, there will be a bitter taste in your mouth. This is why the federal government tends to leave a bitter taste in people's mouths, what with its strongarm tactics and the coercive use of its power. The federal government is permeated with Jews. Remember how it forced people to take Covid jabs or lose thousands of dollars in income every month. This is marginally better than holding a gun to people's temple and telling them to do something.

@@@

Jews thrive in one-way communication but flounder badly in two-way communication like the kind found in the real-world, or online forums before they were all taken over by feds, where there is an actual exchange going back with forth, with questions being asked and answered. Jews don't like debates and they certainly don't like questions, which is why they prefer ads on TV and Youtube that do not allow people the chance to have a dialogue with them.

@@@

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

This phenomenon also happens to speeches of world leaders that are under Jews' thumb. Justin Trudeau, is known for saying stuff like, "In Canada, better is always possible!" Seriously. That phrase is absolutely meaningless. Yet the sad thing is that a lot of people fall for these idealistic-sounding, empty phrases.

@@@

The government does not fear us. I mean, even if a huge number of us manages to congregate on the front lawn of the White house brandishing firearms and shouting angry slogans, the government still won't make any meaningful changes that we demand. And this is because it knows that all it has to do is to placate us enough to stave off immediate violence, eventually we will disperse. We have to eat, drink, pee, poop, and sleep. We cannot protest indefinitely and the government knows this.

I will talk about altruism in humans and how it evolved. Altruism in humans can be roughly defined as a selfless act for the welfare of others, at a cost to self. I have read a few theories trying to explain this phenomenon, because an organism incurring a cost to itself only to benefit others defies what we know about genes. Some people say altruism evolved due to kin selection, others say it's due to group selection. I say it's neither. I have come up with my own explanation: altruism evolved in white people (you will soon see why I said white people), because in the kind of environment where their ancestors evolved, being altruistic had survival benefits, not just for others, but for oneself as well. Imagine: A selfless, altruistic person extended a helping hand to others who were in need of help. Those who were altruistically helped tended to feel grateful, and would look for opportunities to repay his kindness. They would be very willing to help and cooperate with the altruistic person, and this benefited the altruist and helped him pass on his genes. Whereas selfish behavior was punished, because people who were on the receiving end of such nasty behavior would hate the selfish person, which meant they would refuse to help or cooperate with him in the future. In other words, the selfish person would be left on his own. This was extremely costly, in the type of environment we are talking about, where people had great trouble surviving without the help of others. As such, selfish, un-altruistic individuals tended to die out, and their genes became lost. And altruistic individuals with their genes survived. Now, I mentioned white people, and it is because altruism is not a human universal. Only (some) white people are capable of altruism. Altruism is not a concept that is ever heard of in other races. Altruism can only evolve in extremely harsh environments where losing the support, help and love of other humans is deadly detrimental. And since only white people evolved under such conditions, only they have evolved to be altruistic. I know that this line of thinking is unthinkable to most biologists. They call this "racist", even though it is the truth. This is a prime case of how political correctness rots the mind. In their effort not to be racist, and to think politically correct thoughts, biologists who are otherwise pre-eminent thinkers fail to see something that is very plain to see. A phenomenon that could have been explained very easily becomes a sphinx' riddle that stumps bright minds for decades. This is both stupid and pathetic. It is also a very good example of how political correctness can interfere with knowledge, and halt the advance of science.

I want to further expound on the spread of altruism in (white) humans. Some of you might say, it's all fine and good that altruism evolved because people loved altruists and would be more willing to cooperate with and help them. But wouldn't this mean that this capacity to feel grateful, and to want to repay kindness, also needs to be present too? Because it could be just as possible that people who were helped by altruists just went on with their lives, never bothering to thank them or help them in the future. This makes sense indeed. And I just want to say, the genes responsible for these behaviors, gratefulness and the tendency to want to return favors, could have spontaneously arisen in the population, just like all the other genes that have ever existed. We are not surprised by this, because we know genes mutate all the time. Somewhere along the timeline of white people's existence, the genes for feeling grateful and wanting to repay kindness must have arisen, we know this because we know such people exist, in our contemporary world. Although I will say that, the genes for altruism necessarily had to have arisen after these gratefulness genes did. For the following reason: If an altruist individual came upon the world, he selflessly helped others at a cost to himself, but there were no others around who would appreciate him and be nice to him back, the altruist would be at a disadvantage and would likely die out. However, if there were already grateful individuals around, then the altruist would do quite well. Genes for the inclination for gratefulness...etc very probably did not produce any physical tangible effects on the person who had them, because they conferred a mental state only. They weren't helpful in helping people survive, but they weren't bad for people, either. So they probably stayed around in white people's ancestors for quite some time, until such a time came when the first altruist person was born, at which point these gratefulness genes could be said to start to have an effect. This is why I think the genes for altruism must have come about later than the genes for gratefulness and for the tendency to return favors.

A word about these genes that give rise to inclinations to be grateful when helped, and to want to return favors. These things aren't physical, as in, they are merely mental or psychological states. They require negligible amounts of energy to produce and maintain, unlike physical things like eyes, heart, arms, muscles...etc., which require quite a bit of energy to produce and maintain. This is why ancient humans could afford to have them essentially sitting around doing pretty much nothing until the first altruist came on the scene. The reason these genes weren't selected out of the gene pool is because, while evolution is quite efficient, it's not 100% efficient. It relentlessly removes deleterious genes from the gene pool and keeps good ones around; however, genes that produce traits that are neither good nor bad don't get removed. As long as they don't actually do anything bad for the person who has them, they stay around. Another related phenomenon is junk DNA. These are DNAs that just sit on chromosomes and do nothing. They don't kill the person who has them, but they do nothing to help him survive and reproduce, either. This is a good example of evolution not being 100% efficient.

Another thing I want to point out. There are many ways to group different kinds of genes. One way I like to do so is to group them into "social" genes, and "non-social" genes. By social genes, I mean the genes whose trait requires a second person in order for them to work. Non-social genes do not. I will give an example for what I mean by each. Imagine the genes for making a person smart. So, basically, genes for intelligence. Intelligence is a non-social gene because it doesn't require a second person to work. An intelligent person might be better at hunting, or at memorizing hunting routes, at making tools, at outsmarting prey animals...etc, and these things produce a positive effect for the individual regardless of whether he is with other people or whether he's completely alone. Now, social genes give rise to traits like beauty, likeable-ness, or in our case, altruism. It is not enough for an individual to be beautiful, there must be another person around to perceive her beauty. There is a social component to it. Beauty gives certain benefits to the person who has it, in the form of preferential treatment from other humans. For example, people might be more inclined to give help or free food to a beautiful person. But no such advantages happen when said beautiful person is on her own, without other humans around her. Without another person to perceive her beauty, it doesn't matter how objectively beautiful she is, it just won't produce any result for her. When an objectively beautiful human goes into the wild, and is starving, the trees won't feel sorry for her and then start dropping apples for her to eat. Because trees aren't humans, and as such, they do not perceive that she is beautiful. Same thing with how she might get eaten by a lion because, again, a lion does not perceive her to be beautiful. She only truly becomes beautiful when there is another human being around to perceive her beauty. This is what I mean by social genes. And altruism is one such kind of genes. It doesn't matter how selflessly altruistic one is, without another human around who possesses the ability to understand, benefit from, appreciate, and then reciprocate back, it doesn't do anything for the person who possess the altruistic traits.

Some people like to say how humans are genetically 99.9% similar, therefore we should all love one another. What this really means, is that that we should especially love humans of a different race, as we are not that different. However, let me tell you why this line of thinking is wrong. It doesn't matter how similar we are, because what really counts are our differences. For example, I am pretty sure you also share 99.9% of your genes with a convicted murderer. But would you want your sister to marry such a person? Remember, he shares 99.9% of his genes with you! So that's enough reason to love and accept him as a member of your family, right? No, I am sure you would not love or accept him, nor would you want your sister to marry him. And it's because it doesn't matter how much similarity he has with you, the things about him that set him apart from you ( his criminality and bloody past) override everything else. This illustrates my principle that it is the differences that count.

Furthermore, drawing the line at 99.9% is arbitrary. Because, why not draw the line at 98%? 98 is still a pretty high number. If we are going to get all "loved out", we might as well start loving other primates. In fact, why stop at 98? Why not extend the circle of love to 97, 96, 95, and all the way down to 50, which means we would have to start loving amoebas and ring-worms. There really is no difference between genetic similarities of 99.9 versus 50%. They differ only in degree, but not in kind. They are fundamentally the same thing, both are numbers drawn up arbitrarily. I hope this exaggerated example shows how stupid it is when people (usually lefties) say we should love one another because we are so similar genetically.

My Guess On How Depression Evolved

We all know that depression is a major disorder of the mind, yet it's quite prevalent. Many theories have been proposed to explain how such an apparently maladaptive trait could have evolved and become so widespread. And I have my own theory:

Depression evolved because while it's bad for the individual, it is good for the group. Think back to how our ancestors evolved. Depression typically happened when an individual experienced something bad that reduced his fitness, for example, a man lost a limb (something that reduced his fitness) when hunting for an animal, and he became depressed. Or when a child was born with disfigurement of her face (a reduction of their fitness), she would also become depressed. Regardless of whether the unfortunate events that befell them were genetic or acquired, the consequence of these events is that it made it much more difficult for the people to reproduce. For example, it would cost the forementioned man who lost a limb, or the child with the disfigured face much more resources to have babies due to the fact their conditions would make them a lot less attractive to mates. This would happen to such an extent that it would be better if they had refrained from reproducing and just left more resources for healthy individuals. Now, this is a tricky thing for nature to do. Very few organisms will give up resources like food and mates without a fight. And this is where depression comes in-- it acts to psychologically depress the afflicted individuals and suppress their normal drives. This frees up valuable resources for people who stand a better chance of reproduction. It also puts the afflicted in such a funk that they can't physically act out their anger at their lot. Imagine the following: The aforementioned unlucky individuals' depressed states caused them to eat less, which means their group would have less competition for food, a valuable resource. They would also lose the motivation to do anything, which means they would not take their anger or resentment out on their group or otherwise do anything to disrupt their social group. They also withdrew from sex, which means healthy individuals would get more mates, and it also means fewer fights between the depressed and other group members for mates, which contributed to the stability of the group. So, depression evolved because it prevented organisms that have been struck down by life from threatening the survival of the group. In fact, when you examine the various aspects of depression, you will see that almost all of them have a social component.

We can actually see a modern-day example of the benefit of depression. We all know the phenomenon of a "loser", who is usually male. Such a male typically has inferior genetics, and he cannot secure a mate. So, he has reduced fitness. Nature has selected for such men to experience depression, because if they aren't depressed, and instead exhibit anger that is very frequently seen with men, they could very well walk into a crowded shopping mall with a gun and start shooting people. Depression would cause these men to become too sad to do anything, and this would preserve the group.

There is a way to see whether my theory is correct, and it is by observing the incidences of depression in different human groups. I think that groups that evolved in harsher climates, such as Europeans and East Asians, should be predicted to have higher rates of depression, compared to races that evolved in less harsh environments, where stability of the group wasn't as important, such as Negroes.

Another thing to note: What we today know as depression, probably did not exist back then. What likely existed, was depressed psychological states. In other words, people felt kind of "blue", but not full-blown depressed like the depression patients we know today. Why? Well, actual, full-blown depression is very debilitating, not just for the sufferer but those around her as well. So, back in the our evolutionary past, a bona-fide depressed individual would likely "drag" her kin down with her illness. But if she was merely feeling kind of blue, then it wasn't bad enough to drag anybody around her down, but enough to make her not have the energy to do anything or to compete for resources. So, genes responsible for these semi-depressed mental states flourished. Then, as time went on, these genes spread. Different people in the population carry copies of these genes that encode for this state of "I feel kind of blue" to various degrees. When two people who both happen to possess genes that encode for very high levels of this kind of semi- depressed-ness come together and have a child, depression as we know today, happens. It's similar to the phenomenon of physical beauty. We have all heard of stories of women so beautiful, that they drove men to all kinds of insane and harmful behavior, for example, a woman is so beautiful that men would risk jail-time so they could rape her, or men going to war over a beautiful woman (the story of Helen of Troy was probably inspired by a real-life event). I believe that such extreme levels of beauty evolved by the same mechanism. Back in our past, nature probably did not straight up select for such an extreme level of beauty, as it would be bad for the group. By that I mean, if a woman was excessively beautiful, she might cause men around her to not want to eat, not want to hunt, and just want to sit around all day thinking about her. This would be bad for the group. But women who were kind of beautiful did exist, and they passed on their genes, which encoded for a middling amount of physical beauty. Then, as time went on, people branched out from these sort-of beautiful women ancestors. They possessed genes for various levels of beauty. When two individuals who both happen to possess genes that encode for a rather high amount of beauty, we get women who are insanely beautiful. So, I hope this illustrates the point that depression was not directly selected for by evolution, as it was a diseased state. But genes that encode for lower levels of this diseased state did exist and their bearers prospered.

I have been thinking about sexual selection versus natural selection. We all know that species evolve through these two mechanisms. Today I want to talk about how these apply to humans, more specifically white people. I feel that sexual selection couldn't have been the driving force behind a lot of the positive traits white people exhibit, because women, when they have the ability to freely choose their sexual partners, are very poor judges of what are good traits, and what are bad traits for civilization. I mean, look at what women choose. A lot of them choose basketball stars, egotistical, arrogant, obnoxious men, men with anti-social behaviors, men with the Dark Triad traits...etc, and men with good qualities tend to be overlooked. My point is, in order for sexual selection to work, as in, in order for women to choose and make babies with men such that civilizations can be created and maintained, it requires that they possess the ability to see these desirable qualities or traits in men. In other words, women have to have discernment in some way. And this is when a new question arises: What would cause women to be able to see these desirable traits in men in the first place? And this is why I feel sexual selection is not a good explanation, because we would have one more thing that we would have to explain. Given that the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation, this (sexual selection) is probably not it. So, I turn to the other explanation: Natural selection. I maintain that the reason white people are able to build impressive civilizations is due to natural selection acting upon and improving their gene pools, not sexual selection. Natural selection doesn't depend on having discerning females to work. It works by having a people evolve in harsh environments that culled the weak, the undesirable, the stupid, the undisciplined, the un-conscientious, and generally people with "bad" genes, from the gene pool. In other words, those who were unfit, were killed, and their genes removed. Those that survived, tended to be in possession of good genes that are compatible with the building and maintaining of civilizations. In fact, I would say that sexual selection in the natural world can sometimes lead to bad things. Think peacocks. The females of the species love the long, colorful tails of the males a lot. They have selected for the tail to be so long, that it makes it hard for the birds to escape predators. This is an example of sexual selection running amok, and how it has harmful effects on the population (the proper term is runaway sexual selection). Conversely, sexual selection could also be similarly bad in humans. Just look at the types of men women in sexually liberated countries naturally gravitate towards. Women don't seem to gravitate towards smart, hard-working, conscientious, brave, humble men who have integrity and foresight. Instead women tend to love mating with unsavory men with bad character. Hence, sexual selection in humans is quite possibly also bad.

A related thing that I want to mention, is patriarchy. Feminists like to scream it's bad, but I disagree. Patriarchy is good in the sense that women don't have complete and total freedom to choose their sexual partners to their heart's desire. As I have shown above, giving women complete freedom in sexual matters can be downright disastrous for civilizations. Instead, under patriarchy, female sexuality is constrained to a significant degree, and a woman's family, especially her father, does most of the choosing for her. He will likely look for signs that the would-be son-in-law has good character, is dependable and honest, and is capable of providing for his daughter's children. And it just so happens that men who fit these criteria tend to be better at running a society, compared to more irresponsible men with unsavory traits. Also, another thing about patriarchy is that one man has one wife, and most men, as long as they are "good" men, are able to find a wife to have babies and pass on their genes. In other words, one man has babies with one woman. So from generation to generation, the gene pool of the population stays more or less constant. Whereas compare this to what we currently have in sexually liberated societies, where in theory the species' genetic landscape can be changed in just a few short generations, often for the worse, by many women having babies with relatively few men. Therefore, patriarchy does not improve the gene pool, however it stops it from becoming worse. It does this by keeping the gene pool relatively constant from generation to generation.

you all caught up here?

id like a tldr version.

A few words about intelligence: Intelligence is important, and in some instances I would say it's very important, however, intelligence by itself, is not enough to build and maintain the kind of world that we would want to live in. I don't know if I am intelligent or not, by some's standards I am probably a tiny little bit intelligent, however, I can honestly say that nothing that I have said that really mattered, has come from my intelligence. Instead, everything that I have ever said that truly mattered, came from my sense of what's right, and what's wrong. I never use the word "genius", and I never talk about it, unless other people talk about it first, in which case I tell them to stop mentally masturbating, because that's that they are doing. Instead, if you've noticed, I use words like "Homo Sapiens" and "human", a lot. And this is because I want to let people know that we are significant not because we are intelligent, but rather, we are significant because there is something about us that separates us from animals. It's like I've said before, a lot of animals have intelligence of various kinds and degrees. However, only we have things like morality, a sense of what's right and wrong, and many such things. So, I want to beseech people to stop drooling over the concept of genius. I can honestly tell you that intelligence can only do so much. Without other stuff that is also important, intelligence does pitifully little to create and maintain civilization. In fact, in some cases, when there is a high degree of intelligence, but there is no corresponding sense of heightened morality to go with it, we end up with an evil genius. Someone who is both evil enough, and capable enough, to do a lot of really bad things. I will give a very simple hypothetical situation to show what I mean. Imagine that there is someone really smart, but he doesn't have a sense of morality. Now, he creates a powerful weapon, that can destroy all human life on earth, in 3 seconds. Does something like this require a high degree of intelligence? Of course. But would you say this is a good thing? A worthwhile thing? A lofty thing? No, it's not any of those things. And this should show us that intelligence alone is no guarantee for greatness. I hope we can all keep this in mind.

We humans do have a really impressive amount of intelligence, compared to non-human animals. However, when you think about it, intelligence really is nothing special. It is merely an ability that helps us to survive. It is not that different from the muscles in a cheetah, that enable it to run fast and catch prey. It is not different from the eyes of an eagle, that enable it to see far and catch prey. It is also not different from the ability of a plant to photosynthesize, which again, enables it to live. Intelligence, when you get down to its essence, is pretty much the same thing. Would you say that fast muscles, keen eyes, the ability to photosynthesize, are very inspiring? No, I am sure you would not. And this is how I feel about intelligence. There are a lot of people, many of whom are men, and many of them lean left politically, who absolutely adore the idea of them being intelligent. I cannot stand these people. I don't know them, so I can't say if they are truly very intelligent. But even if they are, and let's say they are truly insanely, insanely smart, guess what? It is still nothing impressive. They are of a species that rely on intelligence to make a living in this world, of course some of them are going to be smart. Now, they possess such a high degree of it that they are able to comprehend, say, the secrets of how consciousness arises from physical matters. Pretty impressive, right? No, not really. It does not matter how hard a subject is, and it does not matter that one can figure things out when others cannot, what it really is that one simply is born with a high degree of intelligence. He did absolutely nothing. What's truly impressive, is being able to, say, create consciousness. I don't know what was/is responsible for this, it's either God or Nature. It doesn't matter which, the only thing I know is that this arrogant lefty is neither.

I don't think I can stress enough how much I hate people who like to crow about how smart they are. I want to tell these conceited, self-congratulatory lefties (although there are some that are on the other side, too. It seems that almost all men delight in the thought of being intelligent) that I am a thousand times better than they are. Not because I am smarter than they are, I am pretty sure I am not. However, I have something that they not only do not have, it is something that they cannot even begin to comprehend. Let me put it this way: I am nowhere as great as Jesus, however, I want to be like him. I want to go out there, and heal the world. This is what makes me better than these people.

I want to say something about liberals. First, let me mention Christians. Now, I don't believe in supernatural beings, and I think that God probably does not exist. However, what we cannot deny is that these Christians believe in something. Whether we agree with that something is beside the point. The fact is that they believe. Now, contrast this with the typical liberal (also known as a lefty or a progressive), who believes in nothing. I mean it's one thing to not believe in, say, Jesus, but the liberals are worse than that. They don't have a sense of the sacred. By that I mean, firstly, there is nothing sacred to them. Secondly, when other people have something that they hold sacred, liberals will not only fail to understand, they will actually be crass enough to mock people for it. This happens because liberals have no frames of reference for holy things. They themselves hold nothing to be holy, so as a result, they genuinely struggle to comprehend that other people can have things that are holy to them. For example, sex to them is just inserting the penis into the vagina (If we are lucky. Some of them want to insert the penis into another man's butt-hole). To them, there is nothing sacred about sexual union, it's just something that one does which gives one a lot of pleasure. Kind of like scratching an itch except that it feels a lot better. They support women's right to abortion, and they see the unborn as just a tadpole, because that's what it appears to them, visually. When someone tries to tell them that he believes in the sanctity of life, the liberals will laugh at him. When someone tells liberals that he is willing to die for his cause, where the cause is not something that the liberals approve of, they will say to his face that he's being theatrical. And then they will probably laugh at him, too. Liberals are ok with homosexuality, transgenderism, giving hormone blockers to young people whose bodies are still developing, and all kinds of depravities, because, again, nothing is sacred to them. They go by the principle of, "Do whatever makes you happy", which when we really think about it, is basically telling humans to act like animals. Animals do things that make them happy, or, things that give them pleasure. Animals don't believe in anything, they just follow that which gives them a dopamine hit. Apparently to liberals, this is what humans should aspire to.

Liberals are spiritually barren. By spiritually barren, I don't mean that they don't believe in Jesus or God. One can be a non-Christian and still be very spiritual. Unlike a normal person, liberals don't have any beliefs, they only know that racism is the ultimate wrong. Which brings me to my next point: Liberals like to call themselves tolerant, they pride themselves on it, and indeed, and some of them truly do live up to this word. That said, if you look at the concept of tolerance more critically, you will see that it simply means one will sit idly by and abide all kinds of abominable things. Someone snuck into the country illegally and then popped out a kid to get citizenship? Let's tolerate that. Someone wants to cut off the foreskin of little boys who cannot give consent? Let's tolerate that. Political agitators encourage people to riot and set things on fire and then say they are juts peacefully protesting? Let's tolerate that. People in our societies get literally darker and darker, and we are surrounded by sounds of foreign tongues whenever we go? Let's tolerate that. Foreign nationals want to come into the country and to buy up land and important facilities, as well to influence the outcomes of elections through political donations? Let's tolerate that. High-level government agencies are hijacked from within and then weaponized to persecute certain political players? Let's tolerate that. Someone in high office was found to have lied again and again to investigating authorities? Let's tolerate her lies because again, tolerance is apparently the highest virtue in our modern world, right? And so on and so forth, you get my point. I want to emphasize that we have been letting these morally anemic, spiritually dead, pieces of trash liberals boss us around for long enough. It is time to tell them to shut their mouths and go sit in a corner quietly. We, who are intolerant of all that is bad, are taking back control. We believe that believing in something is what humans should aspire to. We believe that we have a spiritual side to us, and we want to nourish that. We believe that tolerance leads to the flourishing of bad things, and we are jealously intolerant of that. And we are proud of it.