Not even i can read this fast

I have been reading an article online regarding the role the government should play in public healthcare, mostly in the American context. Now, I know little about economics, however, I believe that we do not need to know much about economical theories to figure out some very simple, basic principles for ourselves.

I want to point out that healthcare, falls under the class of things called public goods. Public goods are things like, national defense, education, and of course, public healthcare. Note that this class of things is very different from things that fall under the class of businesses, such as those that we would typically find in a market. I will give an example of the latter: A burger joint, or a coffee chain, or a bookstore, or a car mechanic, that sort of things. Basically, they produce something, then sell it to make money, and in the process making a profit. Now, this distinction is important, because we need to realize that the pursuit of profit only sometimes converges with the increasing of human happiness (or the reduction of human suffering, which is pretty much the same thing). And in the case of healthcare, the pursuit of profit often directly runs counter to the reduction of human suffering. I will give an example of how the pursuit of profit sometimes converges with the increasing of happiness: Imagine that there is a burger joint. They make delicious burgers. You go to their restaurant, buy a burger, which gives them a profit. You eat the delicious burger, and your happiness goes up. This is when the owner of the burger joint will say that his business serves a legitimate function, because even though his ultimate aim is to make a profit, he does also provide some kind of benefit, and he does, because his burger gave you an increase in happiness. Now, I will give an example of how the pursuit of profit will actively run against the increase of happiness/the reduction of suffering. Imagine that there is a hospital. There is a cancer patient, who is crying out in pain. Now, the staff at the hospital has two choices: Give him a painkiller to relieve his pain, which would result in the reduction of his suffering, however, it will give them a reduction in profit, as painkillers cost money. Or, they could choose to just let him cry, and not give him any painkillers, which would increase their profit, as they would be saving money by not giving out their painkillers. If you are a believer in that healthcare should be run like a business, as in, you should healthcare would be more "efficient" in a free market-style environment, free of government intervention, then the necessary conclusion is that the hospital should act in pure, rational self-interest, which means they should withhold the painkillers from the cancer patient, so as to save money. Which of course, would result in suffering going up. And it's not simply a matter of us saying that the staff should give the painkillers to the patient. Of course we can tell them to do that, this is easy enough to do, however, another hospital that is willing to withhold the painkillers will always have an edge over the one that is not willing to just let the patient suffer. This is an inherent part of being a profit-seeking business. This imaginary example is simplistic, but nevertheless I believe it captures my point very well, and that is, when it comes to public goods like healthcare, it is a very bad idea to run it like a profit-seeking business. The reason that such a debate even exists is because Americans have an innate dislike of government intervention in spheres of the public life; they see this as communism or socialism. I just want to tell them that the issue really goes beyond left wing-right wing, capitalism versus socialism. It comes down to something that's actually not that political anymore and is in fact something more philosophical, namely that the pursuit of profit is fundamentally incompatible with the having and delivering of public goods. We see a similar theme with national defense, too. Nobody in their right mind would suggest we run the armed forces like a business, and that is because not only is there pretty much no opportunity to make a profit, one would actually have to sink money in, to generate some kind of result. And this result, though it's something that is very good, namely the ability to defend our country from foreign threats, is nevertheless not a profit. Hence, national defense should not be run as a business. There simply is no profit in it. If a business actually tries to run it with the aim of obtaining a profit, it will not only fail, but it will also imperil our country. So, I hope this again reinforces my idea that things that are of the public goods nature, should not be run like a business. We should leave it to the government, not because the government will run it well, but because if we leave it to the "market", it will be even worse.

A related topic: Some people are talking about the role government should play in the training of medical doctors. For example, they talk about whether the government should subsidize medical training and things like that. I just want to say how I feel: In my country, which is Canada, there is a phenomenon called brain drain. Basically, it is a situation where Canadian-trained doctors, upon receiving their license, move to the US in search of higher pay. I remember eyeing these medical students with resentment. I remember thinking to myself, "You take up spaces in our medical school programs, spaces that could have gone to people who actually cared about serving Canadians and caring for their health. When you are all trained up, you go somewhere else, only to make more money for yourself. Do you care about anything else? Do you care about the fact that there are a huge number of Canadians who cannot find a family doctor?". I didn't understand why we allowed such a thing to happen. Why should we waste our educational resources on people who only care about making money? I believe that the ultimate goal of our schools is to train people so that they can help and serve the population that they are a part of. These people should have a stake in our country, whose well-being and prosperity they should care about. And if in serving Canadians like that, they also make a nice income, that's pretty nice and I see nothing wrong with it. But if we just train people in the hopes that they might deign to stay around and serve our populace like they are doing us a favor and that we should be so grateful for these intellectually elite professionals to want to serve us, then we are totally going about it wrong. My solution? Make it so that it's like a contract. Any student who is accepted into a medical school should sign a contract with the government promising that they will serve Canada for a certain amount of time. After this period is up, then they are free to go elsewhere. We already have something similar to this in the private sector. I believe that some companies send their employees to training and make them sign a contract promising that they will stay with the company for a certain amount of time before they can go for other opportunities. It sounds very reasonable to me.

The two issues I mentioned really don't have too much to do with healthcare. They have more to do with how we should organize our societies. Also, for my second point, what role that certain actors of our societies should play. We should recognize that everybody that exists in a society does not just have entitlements to resources, they also have obligations, some sort of responsibilities, towards the society that has provided for them in many ways and is in fact a very big reason that they are able to be the successful individuals that they are today.

Another thing: I have noticed that people tend to talk about things in a way that is very difficult to understand. I am someone who has some college education under her belt, so I think I am pretty representative of the level of the understanding of the public when it comes to matters like this. And I find it difficult to follow the discussion ( You can see what people talk about in this link: https://www.econlib.org/health-care-markets-fail-so-government-must-intervene-kenneth-arrow-said-no-such-thing/). I don't know why people talk that way, do they see no need to dumb it down because they feel that they are talking to their intellectual peers, whom they feel should know about this stuff? Or are they trying to show off how learned they are? If it's the former, I apologize. If the latter, then I really want to let people, and not just the ones in the link I provided, but everybody in general, know that our role as the intelligentsia is not to sound smart and feel superior to the masses. Our proper goal should be to act like the guiding star, and show people the way out of the messes we find ourselves in. And the way to achieve that, is by talking in a way that people can actually understand. In other words, we should strive to talk like the way I do, right here in this post and the one that precedes it. We want people to understand us, we don't want people to admire us.

Regarding the Ruby Ridge Standoff:

I believe that Randy Weaver was set up by the government. He got a letter to appear in a court, but the court date was changed, and he wasn't informed. So technically, he failed to appear in court. Now, the government had an excuse to come apprehend him. I have no proof, but I really think this mix-up in court date was done deliberately, so that the government would have a pretext to deploy hardcore feds, first the US Marshals, and then the FBI.

By the way, I am sure that Vicky Weaver was shot dead by the feds deliberately, even though she was un-armed, and a woman. In fact, she was holding her baby while she was shot. The FBI came up with some bullshit excuse, I don't remember because it was so disgusting, but basically the gist was it was an accident. I think this is bull, because they next used a megaphone to speak to her husband Randy Weaver, something like, "We had waffle for breakfast this morning. What did you have for breakfast, Mrs. Weaver?" You know, something extremely ghoulish. When confronted with this act of extreme and deliberate psychological torture, the FBI claimed that they weren't aware that she was dead, which was such a blatant, brazen-faced lie that no one who was sane should ever believe anything this evil organization ever said, ever again. Also, the super-honest Wikipedia completely omitted this ghoulish taunt from their entry. The Wikipedia tries to lay claim to honest reporting, which is a bunch of bull. They only report these things, and things like various CIA wrongdoings, because they know that people are starting to realize things. They know that certain things cannot be concealed from the public any longer, so they are forced to act like they are for honest reporting, because the alternative is to lose their status as the gatekeeper of information and lose people to alternative sources of knowledge.

By the way, the FBI agent who shot Vicky Weaver, was given a slap on the wrist for "accidentally" shooting and killing her. I have no proof, but I believe he was given an explicit order to kill her. Of course, they can't let this be known, so they told him to keep quiet by promising him a very lenient sentence. As for why they hated Vicky Weaver so much, well, I believe that she had been writing a bunch of angry letters to various government agencies, saying nasty things in general but especially against Jews, calling them something like Khazars, which must have really offended the various Jews who had already infiltrated the ranks of key, top-level government agencies. And you know how Jews are, they are not only blood-thirsty, violent and murderous, they also really, really hate it when white people point out their inferior blood, because it's the truth. The Jews probably hated Vickey Weaver more than they hated her husband. They have always wanted to kill her, and in fact, I have proof. There are photos of her that they took, as part of their surveillance efforts at the Weavers' home. Again, this was strange because I really thought it went against the protocols of the FBI, because Vickey Weaver was an un-armed woman. I mean I can understand watching and taking pics of Randy Weaver, who was armed, but why Vicky Weaver? There was no reason for watching her, other than the fact the Jewish bosses hated her.

I have been talking to a few people online, who loved squawking about "international laws". I asked them, what is the entity that came up with these international laws, and more importantly, how is it going to enforce them? However, nobody so far has been able to answer these important questions in a satisfactory way. I also asked them to show me a website that directly lists these mysterious international laws. I also wished to find out exactly who came up with these laws. Another logical question is, what will happen, if a country does not obey these international laws? It appears to me that these international laws are rather similar to the United Nations. The UN only has power to the extent that its member countries are willing to submit to its rule. If one country says, "Screw you", there is nothing the UN can do. And it's the same thing with these international laws.

Some people also love mentioning how there are certain rules for military occupation. Below are the things I found: maintaining public order, respecting existing laws, and ensuring basic needs are met..etc, as the obligations of the occupying power. Now, I am not saying these things are bad, obviously they are good, but, what I don't understand is, why would a country use its military, to attack another country, go into it, only to respect the laws of the conquered people, to ensure the needs of the conquered are met..etc? Wouldn't it be easier to, you know, not attack them in the first place? Again, I am not saying that these things are bad or that an aggressor country should just rape and murder and pillage, but rather, I am asking what is the point of using military aggression to invade another country, only to serve her people? Also, if a country is willing to attack another country, what makes us think that it will be willing to abide by these laws and rules? It's almost like asking a rapist, as he is about to rape a woman, to only rape her softly, but not too harshly. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The very fact that there exist rules for military occupation, is messed up. It's like, we know that military occupation is wrong, but we will let countries engage in it anyway. But our conscience (which is very, very tiny), feels pricked very slightly. So we came up with these B.S. rules (that conveniently are not really enforceable by any entity), so as to make us feel less bad. But what we really should do, is to completely ban military occupation, which we know is bad, evidenced by the fact that we felt the need to come up with these rules. This is so stupid, I actually cannot comprehend how anybody who has a conscience that is even half-way functional, can sit there and think to himself: "Look at how I promote and plaster these things all over the internet. I have done my duty to humanity". By the way, just in case I wasn't being clear enough, I am asking everybody who is reading this article here right now, directly. Do we honestly believe that allowing military occupation at all, is a good thing? What is our rationale for not completely banning military occupation?

Also, I have noticed that, in a lot places on the internet, that there are now more and more voices against Israel and Zionism. Now, obviously I don't know what else people also do, but it seems to me that they are all online activists. They say a bunch of stuff online, but in strategic corners of the internet, where what they say won't be able to influence the masses enough, but it nevertheless is sufficient to target and change the minds of certain individuals that the government wants to control, aka the troublemakers. I feel that these fake activists are installed to give the masses the illusion that people are waking up, that others share the same sentiments that they feel but did not dare utter before. I really feel that the free-flowing internet truly is changing the face of public discourse, and the Powers that Be is starting to realize that some things cannot be concealed from the masses forever. So they try to do damage-control by sending out state actors online to try and influence the direction of conversations so as to prevent real change from taking place. By the way, this is also the reason why there suddenly seem to be a lot of "exposes" on events that used to be very secret, hush-hush, that were not to be talked about. Again, it's because the masses are waking up, and certain truths can no longer be contained. So the government tries again to steer the direction of conversations by doing these "exposes". It's just their way of controlling narratives.

I read a news story online, and I would like to make a few comments on it. You can see the story at the following link:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/society-culture-and-history/social-issues/jewish-visitor-to-halifax-confronted-with-heil-heil-heil-at-palestinian-rally/ar-AA1Ktwn5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ACTS&cvid=689d0d48ce3d407da88e58c9072aba8a&ei=14

Basically, a Jewish lawyer by the name of Dan Goldstein and his wife, were greeted with cries of "Heil, Heil, Heil" from a crowd of Palestinian protestors, somewhere in Halifax, Canada. Goldstein shot back at the crowd with: "Remember the Bibas family, don’t forget them with the people of Gaza. And don’t forget the hostages."

Now, I want to comment on the Bibas thing. I am pretty sure that for most Canadians, very very few know about the Bibas family. And it's because the Bibas were a family that lived on the other side of the globe, and not only that, most Canadians have neither cultural, nor blood ties to them. Hence, almost no Canadian knows about them. I certainly don't. But here, Mr. Goldstein did. I guess you can try and argue it was because he was well-read and well-informed in world affairs, what with being a lawyer and all. But I honestly think the actual reason is that he is Jewish first, and Canadian second, he identifies with being Jewish primary, and he cares more about Israel and what happens there. This is why he is so familiar with something that is so obscure to most Canadians. I see this happen regularly in my own community (I am a non-white immigrant myself). Everyone is very well informed about what goes on back home. Everybody who wasn't born here, identifies with their home country, rather than Canada. This is a very, very common occurrence. In fact, I see it in the States, too. Apparently, the famous singer Selena Gomez, who was born in the US and is a US citizen, literally referred to some Mexicans as "my people". These non-white immigrants, it doesn't matter how long they have been in the West, still strongly identify with their home countries and their people. It just shows that blood is much stronger than geography.

Now, back to the story. The Jew Goldstein decided to make a big stink about it by filing a complaint and going to a newspaper. I am sure he trotted out stuff like being able to live free from harassment or religious persecution or whatever, you know, things that Jews always like to say, as they again and again try to change the host country they're in, to make it a more hospitable environment for themselves. Jews always do this, they can only think about themselves, how to make their lives in the West more comfortable, how to make their existence in the West more secure. They don't ever care about any higher ideals, they only spew these ideals, because they know that they appeal to white people. To Jews, these ideals mean absolutely nothing. They just want to be able to survive and thrive and enjoy their time in the West. Nothing more.

Another thing I noted: What Goldstein should have done, is to reflect to himself, "Just what exactly did my people do, that causes everybody in the world to hate us so much?" You know, like what a normal person would do. But instead, all this Jew could say was, "You guys did stuff to us, too". And what amazes me even more, is that some people actually defend this. They almost act like self-reflection is wrong, and to be avoided, especially when it comes to Jews and their Jewish homeland Israel. This demonstrates to me the Left (the people who defend such things are usually those on the political left) truly is psychologically abnormal, and they are horribly, horribly different from normal people. Because I have interacted with enough normal people to know that, when someone evidently hates me or my people this much, the first thing I'd do, is to self-reflect, and ask myself questions. But for whatever indiscernible reason, this is considered bad by the Left.

I came across a tweet on the social media X, that went: John Solomon is releasing an email from Obama’s Deputy AG Sally Yates, which was found by Kash Patel, that explicitly told FBI agents who were investigating corruption at the Clinton Foundation to “shut it down”. And then I heard some people say things like, whistleblowers are beginning to move this investigation forward. The Dems and their Deep State are in big trouble. I just want to say that, I wish the Deep State was in trouble. Seems to me that they (the Deep state) know that as more and more stuff comes to light, their position is becoming increasingly insecure, and they are becoming more and more vulnerable to being found out. So they decided to sacrifice a few unimportant, small players, to satisfy people's cry for blood. It's just a strategic act of self-preservation on the part of the Deep State, nothing more. So let's not get our hopes up.

A similar phenomenon is Trump signing an executive order to use military on cartels. I mean, it's good to do something about cartels, but, cartels aren't a strictly domestic issue, they are an international issue, or, at least, they involve another country, mainly Mexico. How is Trump going to stop all the cartels and to keep them from supplying drugs into the US, when they are mainly based in Mexico? He would need help and cooperation from the Mexico government, right? Anyway, I am not saying that it cannot be done, just that it will be very, very difficult, if it is to be done properly. Call me paranoid, but I think this is just political posturing on the part of Trump to fool his supporters into thinking that he cares about the country.

@@@@

Sometimes, I come across discussions about right wing conspiracy theory websites. Invariably, someone will trot out some fact-checking sites or sites that rate the trust-worthiness of other sites. Now, I am not defending "right wing conspiracy theory websites", but people really should think about the credibility, trustworthiness, and objectivity of these sites that attempt to rate other sites, and whether they should place their trust in them. I mean, it's one thing if people use their own judgment to judge for themselves, and they have genuinely determined certain sites to be "conspiracy sites". But when they rely on these sites that purport to fact-check and rate other sites, that really is fundamentally no different from placing one's trust in conspiracy sites. Both are sites that contain other people's thoughts, rather than one's own.

@@@@

Trump slapped sanctions on India for buying Russian oil, thinking he’d force them to back down. Instead, he got the complete opposite of what he wanted. A lot of people don't realize it, and this doesn't just apply to politics, it applies to pretty much all spheres of human interactions, is that when you use strong-arm tactics, or some form of coercion, very very often, you will only alienate people, push them away, or make them dig in their heels and become more determined to oppose you. I am not saying to never use coercive measures, but rather, these should be used only as a last resort. If you want people to do something, you should first try and persuade them, using logic, and soft, kind, pleading words. Saying things like how you are gonna put sanctions on them, or how you are waiting for them to do something so you can lock them up, will only drive them further away from you, and make them dead-set against you.

@@@@

Where I live, we have a homeless problem. Our government says it's doing something about it, but I honestly don't see anything concrete being done. I really feel that the government is secretly hoping that the homeless will just die off, it doesn't care, these people do not work, nor do they pay taxes. I bet the government probably secretly thinks that these people are dead-weights, or, "useless eaters". Of course, they are not gonna come right out and say, "We are doing as little as we can, in the hope that all you bums will just die off eventually", so, they just pay lip-service in the mean-time, saying things like how much they care and what steps they are taking and such, when in reality, absolutely nothing that's actually helpful, is being done. I have noticed this tactic employed by governments, and not just on the homeless front, but in a lot of other areas, too.

When I am discussing with someone regarding the conspiracies surrounding 911: Very often, they will accuse me of being unduly suspicious. However, I am being suspicious, not because I think I am right, but rather, because I think it's good to always have a healthy amount of suspicion. Especially when it comes to dealing with the government and their official narratives. I am not being paranoid; rather, the government and its track-record of lying, deceiving, intentionally confusing/misleading statements, cover-ups...etc etc have severely shaken my faith in them and their integrity. This is even more so when it comes to an organization such as the CIA, who has a very, very unsavory reputation. Their reputation is so insanely bad, to the point that anything they ever say, I will believe the complete opposite of it. In fact, I can prove it. I was looking stuff up in Google, and I came across how the CIA has developed some kind of poison dart, that will stop the heart and will dissolve upon entering the skin, leaving no traces. It is also not detectable in a pathologist's examination. Again, people will probably try and blame this extreme detestation of the CIA on me. But they really should be blaming the CIA for their awful reputation, not me.

@@@@

I was talking about the Ukrainian war with someone. He said he would be very angry if the politicians of his country decided to send young men to the front-line. He did not want to see any of his 3 sons go through that.

Which is very understandable. They're his sons, they carry his genes. But, his politicians don't care. His sons are not their sons, so they have no problem sending them to fight in a war. If his sons die, his genes are lost. But these politicians' genes aren't lost. On a related note, I just don't understand why US has to involve herself in foreign wars. Yeah I get it, the current climate is that it is perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even desirable, to go overseas and meddle in other countries' affairs. It seems that people are very stupid and easily fooled by their politicians. These politicians keep their own children safely secured in some mansion, and they send other people's children to die in a war thousands of miles away. And people cheer this, thinking that they are sending their young men and women to die for a "just cause". I cannot believe the stupidity of it all.

@@@@

Sometimes people claim that there is an illegal problem in the States because Americans wanted people to clean their toilets and pick their lettuce. I counter with, it is not such that Americans wanted cheap labor, so they let illegals in. Rather, it's more like, the illegals snuck in first, and since they're here now, Americans try to make the best of it by using them for cheap labor. When people say things like that, I know that their brain doesn't work very well, and they all lack an investigative mind. They kind of look at a phenomenon, see that it exists, but they don't go deeper and try to find out why, what caused it. They just come up with the easiest but also the laziest explanation. It is what some might call, an intellectual low-hanging fruit.

@@@@

I have heard a lot of people talk up Trump. They be like, Trump is no role model but his policies are working and what the majority of Americans want; the biggest being a secure border and illegal immigration enforcement. I agree that Dems are utter shit, however, that does not mean Trump is now good. "They" put him forth, with all those really nice policies, because they realized that they have to. It's not because they want to. They still don't want to do anything good for Americans, but they are shrewd enough to realize that they have to look like they do. Case in point: Trump is still pushing the Covid death-jabs, is he not? This shows that the Regime still has very vicious intentions towards the American people. That's why they keep pushing their clot shots.

@@@@

I have come across a lot of clueless semi-retards who claim that the reason the Left keeps pushing these policies that really are just poison, is because it wishes to solve population explosion. To that I say, solving population explosion? I wish the Lefties cared about humanity that much.

It's never about that. They only say that, to make it look like they are good people and that they have noble intentions. Truth is, they only want to depopulate the West, so that there will be no more white people.

If it really were about population control, they would go into countries that have unbridled birth rates, such as China or India, and preach to those people to have fewer babies. But are they doing that though? Nope. Therefore, they are full of it.

I don't see any mention of Kingpoww the grander wolf of grandeur.

When I am discussing with someone regarding the conspiracies surrounding 911: Very often, they will accuse me of being unduly suspicious. However, I am being suspicious, not because I think I am right, but rather, because I think it's good to always have a healthy amount of suspicion. Especially when it comes to dealing with the government and their official narratives. I am not being paranoid; rather, the government and its track-record of lying, deceiving, intentionally confusing/misleading statements, cover-ups...etc etc have severely shaken my faith in them and their integrity. This is even more so when it comes to an organization such as the CIA, who has a very, very unsavory reputation. Their reputation is so insanely bad, to the point that anything they ever say, I will believe the complete opposite of it. In fact, I can prove it. I was looking stuff up in Google, and I came across how the CIA has developed some kind of poison dart, that will stop the heart and will dissolve upon entering the skin, leaving no traces. It is also not detectable in a pathologist's examination. Again, people will probably try and blame this extreme detestation of the CIA on me. But they really should be blaming the CIA for their awful reputation, not me.

@@@@

I was talking about the Ukrainian war with someone. He said he would be very angry if the politicians of his country decided to send young men to the front-line. He did not want to see any of his 3 sons go through that.

Which is very understandable. They're his sons, they carry his genes. But, his politicians don't care. His sons are not their sons, so they have no problem sending them to fight in a war. If his sons die, his genes are lost. But these politicians' genes aren't lost. On a related note, I just don't understand why US has to involve herself in foreign wars. Yeah I get it, the current climate is that it is perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even desirable, to go overseas and meddle in other countries' affairs. It seems that people are very stupid and easily fooled by their politicians. These politicians keep their own children safely secured in some mansion, and they send other people's children to die in a war thousands of miles away. And people cheer this, thinking that they are sending their young men and women to die for a "just cause". I cannot believe the stupidity of it all.

@@@@

Sometimes people claim that there is an illegal problem in the States because Americans wanted people to clean their toilets and pick their lettuce. I counter with, it is not such that Americans wanted cheap labor, so they let illegals in. Rather, it's more like, the illegals snuck in first, and since they're here now, Americans try to make the best of it by using them for cheap labor. When people say things like that, I know that their brain doesn't work very well, and they all lack an investigative mind. They kind of look at a phenomenon, see that it exists, but they don't go deeper and try to find out why, what caused it. They just come up with the easiest but also the laziest explanation. It is what some might call, an intellectual low-hanging fruit.

@@@@

I have heard a lot of people talk up Trump. They be like, Trump is no role model but his policies are working and what the majority of Americans want; the biggest being a secure border and illegal immigration enforcement. I agree that Dems are utter shit, however, that does not mean Trump is now good. "They" put him forth, with all those really nice policies, because they realized that they have to. It's not because they want to. They still don't want to do anything good for Americans, but they are shrewd enough to realize that they have to look like they do. Case in point: Trump is still pushing the Covid death-jabs, is he not? This shows that the Regime still has very vicious intentions towards the American people. That's why they keep pushing their clot shots.

@@@@

I have come across a lot of clueless semi-retards who claim that the reason the Left keeps pushing these policies that really are just poison, is because it wishes to solve population explosion. To that I say, solving population explosion? I wish the Lefties cared about humanity that much.

It's never about that. They only say that, to make it look like they are good people and that they have noble intentions. Truth is, they only want to depopulate the West, so that there will be no more white people, and hence no more white dudes, which means they, and their Jewish masters, can finally stop feeling really, really inferior.

If it really were about population control, they would go into countries that have unbridled birth rates, such as China or India, and preach to those people to have fewer babies. But are they doing that though? Nope. Therefore, they are full of shit.

How to tell the government's intent:

Normally, it's hard to tell someone's intent. You have to take into account not just the words of what he says, but also observe his behaviors, to see if actions match up with words, to note if there is any inconsistency in what he says...etc. My point is, it's hard. But, when it comes to an entity that is not an actual human, such as the government, it's even harder.

I am sure that you have heard of things like how the governments in the West are attempting white genocide. Now, I am not here to try and convince you that that truly is the case. Rather, I want to give you some tips, on how to figure out the true intent of an entity such as the government.

Let's say you are an American. If you look at some of the polices of your country's government, I bet you can't help but get the feeling that some of them actually harm your interests in some way. I won't give concrete examples here, you can go find them yourself, and this is assuming you even need to. Nowadays, it seems almost every white person who is not a complete moron, has this weird, uneasy feeling about their government. But anyway. You will notice that, any time your government puts forth something, it can be a law, a policy...whatever. You look at it, think about it, and notice that something about it seems off. But of course, the communication between you and the government is one-way, as in, everything comes from the government to you. Nothing comes from you to the government. This works extremely well for the government, because that means you cannot ask them to explain the things that make zero sense in their policy/law..etc. Now, the government knows this, it knows that intelligent people, which means mostly white people, like to know the "Whys" behind things, and they like to ask questions. So, they will give some half-assed explanation, that goes: "We are doing this because blah blah blah". This is what they call in psychology, a cover story. It's something that a malevolent agent feels that he must supply, in order to field the very logical questions of the other person that he is trying to dupe. So, keep an eye out for this. Look at the many, many policies your government puts forth, that are on the surface innocent-sounding enough, but are actually absolute, total poison for white people. In other words, the government always has some sort of explanation for why this poison is necessary. Again, it's called a cover story, and it's always incredibly unconvincing, lame-ass, and only leaves you with more questions, which, like I established above, you have no way of asking your government on.

I can actually think of one quick example off the top of my head. I remember reading this page on some government website, where they were trying their best to persuade the masses to take the Covid shots. One question went: "Will the vaccines change my DNA?" The website then said some worthless garbage which I refuse to recall, because it would just be a huge insult to my memory cells. But believe me, the "explanation" was weak as dish-water. This is one example of the cover story thing that I mentioned above. By the way, another thing I want to point out, is that the government felt the need to include this question on their website, and then provide some sort of answer to it, in the first place. You see, very, very few normal people would wonder about the vaccines' effects on their DNA. And it's because something like this is not on the average person's mind. Personally I have interacted with quite a few regular people, and I can honestly tell you that this is NOT something the average person thinks about. So, why did the government feel the need to include this question on their website? Well, it's actually very easy. The government knows that there are people out there who are free-thinkers, and who are onto the government's agenda. They suspect, and very correctly so, that the shots have devastating effects on their bodies, the most extreme of which being that they can alter their DNA forever. The government knows this, so they want to pre-emptively quiet the minds of regular people who might otherwise be persuaded by the free-thinkers into not taking the shots. This is why we see such an incongruent, completely unexpected, and completely out-of-place question on the government webpage.

You are unable to look at the behaviors of your government in order to tell its intent, because its not an actual human, it doesn't have behaviors you can observe. However, it does have policies. So, what you should do, is to study the effects of these policies on you, and your loved ones. Do they actually benefit you, or do they actually harm you? So, why don't you go do this for a few minutes. And then, ask yourself this question: "Could my government actually have bad intentions towards me?"

Regarding the Covid vaccines that the government is trying so very hard to push. I don't know the science of vaccines, and I don't know the RNA technology behind it, either. But then again, I don't need to. The fact that the government wants us to take it so badly, tells me that that stuff is poison. In fact, look at the draconian, Orwellian stuff that the government does, to people who refuse to take the vaccines. This should give you a very, very clear idea on whether the shots are good, or actually bad, for you.