I am sure we have all heard of cases where social media platforms, remove or silence people for allegedly spreading "covid disinfo". To me this is just such bullshit. Why do the people behind these outlets feel that they are qualified to judge for other people, whether something is disinfo or not? The whole point of having a social media platform is so that a public discourse can take place. So we can find out for ourselves what's truly disinfo and what isn't. But these platforms and the people behind them have already made up their minds. They are not interested in having a genuine debate. They think they can unilaterally
decide, not just for their children or other such dependents, but also for other, sane adults, what's truth and what's falsehood.

I should remind you that X, or any social media outlet for that matter, is not our babysitter. It should not have any business deciding for us what kind of info is true or isn't true, whether something is fit for our consumption or isn't. Only we should be able to make that decision for ourselves. We are adults. And if we want to believe stuff that is allegedly "disinfo", or stuff that is bad for us, then guess what? That is within our rights. We are not helpless little babes in the woods who need constant guidance and protection from the social media platforms that I am just SURE have such kind, noble intentions. By the way, this reasoning also applies to the "Nanny State". You know what I mean, the phenomenon whereby the government passes all kinds of unreasonable laws, or laws that severely infringe on our basic rights and freedoms. They always say, "Oh it's because we care about your safety", or it's because of this or that noble intention. It's all bullshit. Back the fuck off, and let me take care of myself. I don't need constant supervision and "care" from the government. In fact, the fact the government wants me to believe it cares about me, is extremely, extremely suspicious.

Anyway, back to the social media. When a platform does not allow for true debates and instead promotes certain views and narratives to the exclusion of others, they can be rightfully considered a propaganda outlet. They have ceased being a platform where all views are given a chance to be considered.

Questions to you: Who gets to decide what's disinfo? Do you want a social media platform deciding that for you? Why do these establishments and the people who run them act like they have the monopoly on truth? Do you think a social media platform should take it upon itself to protect us from disinfo, or do you think that we are adults and we should get to decide for ourselves what kind of info we want to consume?

When a social media platform says what they block is "disinformation", that is purely an excuse. They want to block something, but they know they need to justify their bullshit behavior somehow, so they call it "disinfo", which rather works to their advantage, because it is not easy to determine whether something is disinfo or not. The nature of misinfo is such that it is subjective. And people can define it in such a way that suits them and makes their wrongful action look not too egregiously wrong. True disinfo doesn't need to be blocked. If I were to say, "Humans don't need oxygen to live", it would be disinfo of the highest order, however, it was so blatantly false and idiotic, they would simply leave it there and let me get laughed off of the platform. The only kind of "disinfo" they feel the need to block is reasoned, well-thought out arguments that can sway people. This kind of "disinfo" is what is dangerous to them and what they feel they absolutely must block.

It's NOT ok for any social media platform to decide for us what info is fit for consumption. Only we can decide that. I don't care if there are bad consequences. Nobody gets to tell another adult what to think and believe in, period. I don't care if doing this would cause the universe to implode on itself. You just don't do it.

By the way, I read that a former FBI employee was working for some company that basically looked through stuff online to try and find "Covid disnifo" and then squelch it. Firstly, that an FBI fed would take on a job like this, should tell us everything we need to know about the FBI. Secondly, it also tells us, unequivocally, that Covid "disinfo", which the social media platforms try so damn hard to block, might just be actual Truth, which, when known, will cause people to not want to get the vaccines. This proves beautifully, that the Covid "vaccines", must be absolute poison.

Hello. See a definition of hate crimes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

So basically, they are giving extra harsh sentences to people (usually white) who have committed a hate crime. Personally, I feel that this isn't right. A crime is a crime, and it shouldn't matter to which marginalized group it is committed. When they make hate crimes a thing, they are essentially saying that one group of victims are more special than other groups of victims.

Besides, when you think about the kinds of people who tend to be the victims of hate crimes, they all seem to possess certain traits that might repel a normal person. I am not saying it should therefore be ok to commit crimes against certain groups of people. Obviously crimes are wrong, no matter who the victim is or whether he is "offensive" in some way. But we really cannot fault the perpetrator for feeling these hatred, antipathy and revulsion. It is a very understandable, normal impulse. A normal reaction to something grotesque. Again, I am NOT saying it is now OK to commit crimes that arouse feelings of revulsion in one. Just that, we really should try and understand things from another person's perspective. It is all too easy to just scream, "Hate crime!!" whenever a white person did something to a marginalized group. What we really should do, is ask ourselves. What causes a white person to commit "hate crimes"? But of course, we all know such a question is never asked, and not only that, if you even try to ask such a question publicly, very often, you will be met with either strong criticism, censure or you might have nasty names heaped upon you, such as "racist", "bigot", "hateful"...etc. This just goes to show how unreasonable our society has become.

@@@@@

I want to talk about social security in the US. Roughly speaking it's government money given to people who have worked and are now retirement age.

This program has been facing problems for a while now, mostly because the number of people drawing benefits have outpaced workers who contribute into the program. I have a solution. Instead of relying on social security to cover one's old age, why don't we make people dependent on their children? Maybe we can make people's working-age children pay 5% of their incomes to support them. This makes sense because parents worked hard to raise their children and once the children are grown, it is their moral duty to give back to and care for the people who have made it possible for them to be the adults that they are today. Also, this would encourage people to have more children as the total amount of money they will get will be more if they have raised more children. This would solve the problem of falling birthrates in the country. It's a really nice bonus. Another benefit: it fights inflation. The money people currently pay into the program doesn't get taken out till decades later and inflation can really eat into it. But if people instead get paid from their children's incomes then this money will have "come from the future". In other words, people will need retirement money in the future and the future is when they get the needed money. As such, inflation doesn't cause an issue.

Of course I think regular social security should still exist, for people who decide to not have children. But if they want to be selfish and just enjoy life without putting in the hard work to raise children to be future tax contributors, then they shouldn't expect to be treated the same way as people who put in the work to raise children.

So what do you think of my idea?

Here, our government (I am Canadian) charges GST, which stands for goods and services tax. Every time we buy or sell something or eat out, we have to pay this tax. I understand that governments need to levy taxes, this is how they run their various services. I get that. However, what I don't get is, they already make us pay income tax. So how can they tax us again? They are levying these taxes on top of our incomes which are already taxed. This is technically double taxation, which isn't right.

@@@@

I've been following the struggles of PPC, which stands for People's Party of Canada, an opposition party in Canada. Even though I am happy it exists, nevertheless, it is still not an ideal situation. I don't want it to be such that any time the people are not happy with their government, their only recourse is to start an alternative party. It's simply too time consuming and too difficult. It requires too much effort. There should be a better, easier way for people to change the course of their country, without needing strenuous efforts.

Another thing: it appears that the other parties have started to adopt some of the PPC's stances. This shows me that these parties have no real principles that they stand for. They are just going with whichever way the wind is blowing, doing whatever they think will help them get elected, which is pure opportunism. But the sad thing is that the voters have zero ideas, and they truly think that these imposter parties who steal other parties' ideas, are good parties with good ideas.


@@@@@

If I ever come to power, I will put up a section on the white house's official website that's called, "A revolution is the last resort". What this section does is allow dissent, and dissatisfaction about the government, to be freely and openly shared among people. The content will be available to everyone, including the government. The exact details are to be worked out, however one thing I know is that there will be very light moderation. True to its name, this section will permit talks of revolution. I want to do this because currently there is very little that the people can do when the government does something that they don't like. It is incredibly difficult to coordinate any kind of effort among the masses that can meaningfully change the government's actions. This proposal gives people a centralized platform, where they can gather, talk among themselves, air their dissatisfaction, and connect with others who feel the same. With it, someone who uncovered government wrongdoings can more easily make people aware of it. It also introduces dissenting voices that the masses otherwise might not know about. Essentially, I want there to be an easy way for the people to organize themselves politically, and especially to form some kind of opposition to the government, in a peaceful way-- this proposal will greatly reduce the need for a revolution. Some people's reaction to government misdeeds is having a revolution, which in theory can punish a wayward government, however it is very bloody and violent, and is therefore not an ideal solution. I figure that if the government sees that their actions have incurred people's wrath, it will give them a chance to correct themselves, and to put themselves back on the right track to re-win people's approval. I mean, I am pretty sure that nobody wants bloodshed. If they can help it, nobody wants to be involved in a revolution. Not the government, and not the people, either. Nevertheless, this section sends a clear message to the government: You better do what we want you to do, or there will be very unpleasant consequences for you. We the people want you to know that, a violent revolution, is always an option with us. So if you don't listen to us talking to you peacefully, you will talk to the business end of our guns. The choice is yours.

N.B. Something like this might still not work, due to the fact that even if a revolution does take place, the government still won't care, because the people who the revolutionaries would be physically fighting with and potentially harming and injuring, are either foot-soldiers of the government or low-tier government bureaucrats, or the police or the armed forces, or essentially people that those who are in charge simply do not give a shit about. So, we must keep this in mind, if the time does come. Our anger, and all the manifestations of it, should be aimed at the right people.

@@@@@@@

Hello. I like to observe what's wrong with governments and then try to come up with solutions. Not saying I will ever have the power to change anything, nevertheless it's fun. And today I wish to talk about how to prevent presidents from being bribed. I say that Americans should impose incredibly harsh sentences on a president and the person bribing him. I mean a minimum sentence of 40 years imprisonment if they are found guilty. I believe this would work because of the nature of the people involved. Unlike the average people who sometimes commit crimes out of passion or other forms of impulses, the president and the would-be briber are rational. They know what they are doing and they know the risks involved.And they have calculated that the odds of being caught and the resulting punishment are small compared to what they will get if the corrupt deal goes through. So, if we tell them that now there would be an extremely harsh sentence, this should greatly reduce the instances of presidential bribery. And if they try to bypass the law by going through a third-party, for example, if the briber goes to the president's spouse or his son, and then give money to this third-party, there will be an even harsher punishment. I say life imprisonment for all parties involved for trying to circumvent the law like that. And not only that, all three people's assets will be seized by the government. All this money will be awarded to and divided between the person who tipped off the authority about this deal, and the person who provided evidence to help the authority successfully prosecute the criminals. And if these two people are the same person, then he gets all of the money. This way, people know that not only will they be doing the right thing, they will also get quite wealthy rooting out corruption. This will work better than the authority working alone to try to catch bad people. This huge financial reward will really incentivize people to watch presidents and would-be bribers like a hawk.

So, what do you think of my idea?

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 10:50pm

Another thought: I have been thinking about the death penalty. It's highly controversial, and my own thought is that it should be kept, and not only that, we should be executing a lot more criminals than we currently do. I believe that there are crimes that are so heinous, and that the perpetrator had so much malice in his/her heart, that killing them is justified. I will give you some examples. In my
old country, we had a law that said truck drivers who accidentally hit a pedestrian would be on the hook for his injuries. However, if the pedestrian actually died, the amount of compensation drivers would pay to their family was lower. So, a driver, after discovering he had accidentally hit someone, actually backed his truck over the victim with the intention of killing him, because it would actually cost him less. This type of malice is absolutely unforgivable, and this driver, once found guilty in a court of law, should face nothing short of death. While we are on the subject of the death penalty, I want to expand this punishment to juvenile offenders who committed extremely heinous crimes deliberately. My reasonings are two-fold: 1. If they know enough to commit a crime deliberately, then they are old enough to know what they are doing. I will give you one example of an extremely heinous crime deliberately committed by a minor. In my old country, there were two girls. One was very beautiful and intelligent. So the other girl was jealous of her. So, one day, she plotted and asked the prettier girl to come to her house under the guise of asking her homework questions. So the pretty girl came. But she didn't know that there were 4 boys hiding in the offending girl's home. The offending girl had talked to these boys who had lusted after the pretty girl for a long time, because she was so beautiful. she asked them if they wanted to rape her. They said yes, so she told them she would trick the pretty girl into coming to her home and then they could rape her to their heart's content. So the pretty girl arrived, and the 4 boys emerged and gang-raped her. To me, this kind of plotting, the deliberateness to completely ruin another person's life, is absolutely unforgivable. I don't care that the offending girl was a minor. She knew perfectly well how horrendous it was for a young girl to be gang-raped. That's why she did it. She wanted to make the other girl suffer tremendously for the rest of her life. She knew how to go about it, and she carried it out after careful planning. To me, this girl needs to die. I want to emphasize that I reserve the death penalty only for extremely heinous crimes carried out deliberately, not petty things like theft, vandalism, assault...etc. I base the decision on two factors: Intent and the severity of the crime (in other words, how heinous the crime is). Assault doesn't deserve the death penalty because it is usually done impulsively. I don't think too many people deliberately plan to assault people. And for theft, yes, it can be deliberate, however it is not very severe. People covet things they see, they can't afford them, so they steal them. The intention behind this isn't severe enough to justify death.

My second reason for sentencing some minors to death is that it actually benefits our society if we kill off juvenile offenders who deliberately committed something extremely heinous. We need to come to the realization that some people are simply born extremely rotten, and no amount of education, admonishing or reformatory efforts are going to make them normal. There is no way to change them. The only thing we can do is to forcibly remove them and their genes from our gene pool. Kill off the those who are truly beyond redemption, before they have a chance to reproduce. And what better way to accomplish this than to minors, who typically haven't reproduced? I know I probably sound like a monster to a lot of people right now, but I assure you I am not. I am simply logical enough to put aside my feelings to see what's best for the society. A lot of people have their judgment clouded by their feelings when they see the word "minor". It conjures up all kinds of images in their minds. Their hearts bleed for these young offenders because they look so much like the other young people. Other people do not want to believe that some minors cannot be rehabilitated. They probably believe all people are inherently good and only turn into criminals due to bad environments. This is not so. Some people are simply born bad, we need to realize this, and then deal with this in a manner that is not emotional. Some might say we need to give minor offenders a chance. But to this I say, there are millions of minors who did not commit heinous crimes. Why should we give a chance to the former, and risk having them bear future criminals and then having similar crimes repeated, when we have tons of normal youth, who never committed any heinous crime at all, and are likely perfectly normal citizens? We need to realize that if we are too lenient with criminals and emphasize on their rights too much, we put society and our future generations at risk of victimization. So, basically, we are faced with a decision. We can either prioritize criminals' rights, and endanger society, or we can be harsh on criminals, and in so doing, prevent a lot of future crimes. Personally, I think the prevention of crimes outweighs any single criminal's rights. Maybe a few minor offenders could be rehabilitated and grow up into normal adults. Maybe. But I am not going to find out. Protecting innocent people is more important than giving criminals a second chance.

I have discovered that there exists censorship, not just from the government or on social media platforms, but from our fellow citizens. I remember it was during the height of Covid, and I posted a post on a political forum telling people that they didn't need the vaccines. It wasn't anything bad or illegal, and I will post it below for you to see for yourself. And my post was immediately yanked. Posting that post below for you to see and judge, that I said nothing bad. The only "crime" I committed was saying something that was hugely unpopular:

~~
I know I won't be getting the vaccines.

For one thing, Covid is not that deadly to the average person who is relatively healthy. Just eat healthy and drink plenty of water. You most likely won't die from Covid if you are in good health, and that is assuming that you catch it. Covid is essentially a super flu.

And I don't like how the vaccines are being pushed. It's like everywhere you go, you cannot help but be bombarded by, "Have you had the vaccines yet" types of messages. I have seen quite a few videos on youtube from the government pushing these vaccines. It just makes me really suspicious. The government wants me to think that it cares about my health, and that the vaccines are to keep me safe. In fact ,the more they push them, the more suspicious I get. Why do you want me to get jabbed so badly? What's really in the vaccines? I for one do not believe that virtual strangers, which is what all government are made up of, care that deeply about my health.

If you don't know what's in the vaccines, then you shouldn't take them. Do not allow foreign, unknown substances to be injected into your body. Governments are not benevolent entities. In fact, they have been shown throughout history to be malicious forces acting against the masses. Don't trust your government blindly.

~~

I mean if they disagree with what I say, that is fine. But what they should have done is kept it on the forum, so that other people can read it and decide for themselves, Or debate me if they disagree with anything I say. The issue isn't whether I am wrong. I mean if I am wrong, by all means let people pick apart my nonsense. But they instead yanked my post. I guess they feel the need to censor me because in it I was urging people not to trust their government blindly. Some people apparently take it upon themselves to play watchdog against fellow citizens. They feel that they should censor one another, when what they really should be doing is praise someone for having the courage to doubt the government and question what they do. I cannot live in a world like this.

@@@@

I want to talk about something extremely nasty, something that nobody wants to talk about, however it exists nevertheless. And it is fathers raping their daughters. There is little that we can do to prevent this, I mean no men are going to announce that they intend to rape his daughter. That doesn't mean we won't punish them when they are caught, we should, but sending these fathers to jail doesn't really help the overall situation. I feel that what we should do as a society, is to counsel the daughters, victims of incestuous rape, to not have any children. This is because they likely carry genes from their fathers that predispose them to this kind of behavior. Now, I don't want to get into a big debate about whether human behaviors are caused by genes or the environment. The only thing I know is that
we have relatively good control over the environment. I mean, we always teach men to love their children, and that rape is wrong. However, on the gene front, we do absolutely nothing. We don't do anything to ensure bad people and their bad genes stop continuing. And please note I am not saying genes will cause men to rape. No. But I do believe genes can predispose them to this sort of behavior, and it would be wise to intervene, genetically. I mean in the meantime we will keep researching genes, and maybe one day we will be able to isolate genes that predispose raping behavior, In which case, we should offer raped daughters the chance to engineer their genes so that they will not produce sons who might rape incestuously. But until this happens, we do the best we can, and that is to counsel raped daughters to not pass on their genes anymore. I know some of you reading this might think that I am "punishing" the victims, but I am not. I merely want to do something meaningful that will actually prevent something awful. Yes, it sucks for a girl to be raped by her father and then to be told that she should not have any kids. I know it's a terrible feeling, but it is the prudent thing to do. It is too late to help women who were raped by their father, however it is not late to try and prevent similar things from happening to future generations of girls.

And while we are on this very unpleasant subject, I want to talk about something related. And it is girls being raped by their step-fathers. If some men are depraved enough to rape their own biological offspring, then you can only imagine how much worse the situation is for young girls who live in close quarters with men who aren't their biological father. And this is why I want to implement something that will make it very difficult for women to divorce her husband (the biological father of her children) for no good reasons. I know how bad this makes me sound right now, women are going to scream that I don't get to decide whether they have "good reasons" to divorce their husband. However, I say what I say out of a sense of concern for their children, and more specifically their daughters. I have heard of too many cases of step-daughters being molested or worse by their step-fathers ( sometimes it's step-brothers). I want children to be able to have an intact family to grow up in, where both parents are related to them, as I believe this keeps the chance of molestation or worse, rape, as low as possible. Biological fathers, when compared to step-fathers, are less likely to rape their daughters. and what I am proposing isn't a new idea, there is already a movement to end no-fault divorce.

I believe that homosexuality cannot be cured by talking about it, or through some kind of therapy or shock treatments and the like. And it is because it is a condition that is caused by genes mostly. That said, it is still a diseased state. It is a disorder of the mind. And just because gays themselves can't do anything about it, it doesn't mean it's not a disease. Just like people can't do anything about having an illness such as cancer, it doesn't mean the cancer isn't an illness anymore.

@@@@

On tolerance. We are constantly told to be tolerant. We should tolerate the many immigrants in our countries, we should tolerate drag queens and transsexuals, and many such things. Anytime we are being told to be tolerant, you can be sure that we are looking at something grotesque. You tolerate something bad, you don't tolerate something good. You don't tolerate a beautiful woman, you don't tolerate the brilliance of a scientist, and you don't tolerate someone saint-like, like Mother Teresa. we only tolerate things and people that are shitty in some way. By the way, have you ever asked yourself, who are these people who keep telling me to be tolerant? If you were me, I bet you have no idea, either. You just open up the newspaper, or turn on the TV, or go on mainstream online forums (which by the way, are pretty much all fake and run by feds) and messages of this sort will keep washing over you. Ask yourself. Who are the people who put these messages in there?

@@@@

Have you heard of this thing called "slush fund"? It's basically money set aside by an organization for illegal purposes, such as bribery. When I first heard this, I was extremely angry. Then I became very ashamed. I was shamed for us as a society. Together, we have allowed our society to stoop so low, that such a thing would exist, and not only that, people seem to think it's normal to have it. I am talking about people who, when I mention slush fund to them, are like, "Oh yeah, slush fund exists". I am even more outraged by these people. They are seemingly regular citizens, not someone corrupt like a politician or someone in the financial or entertainment business. They are supposed to be outraged by the presence of slush funds but they are not. The apathy of these people is an even stronger sign that our society is sick.

@@@@

Before I came to the West, I had heard things about white people, and some of the things they did. I remember thinking to myself, either white people are crazy, or they really like to exaggerate. I am talking about the poem of a woman who said she would walk a thousand miles, just to touch the bottom lip of a very handsome man. Or stories of men who were in such relentless pursuit of a woman, to the point that they sounded literally insane to my Asian ear. But now that I have been in the west for some time, I realize that these people are not crazy. In fact, their reactions are perfectly normal and also very understandable. Because, when a white person is truly good looking, he/she is very, very, very good-looking indeed. So much so that anyone who looks upon him (or her) can't help but behave in an irrational manner. I have seen an incredibly good-looking white guy, for whom the only description that fits, is Aryan god. Same thing for good looking white women, for whom the word "goddess" was invented. Now, what sort of a point am I trying to make? Basically, I want to tell the various minorities in the West that human perfection has been reached, and we can all stop procreating now. There is no point in continuing our bloodlines, and one of the reasons is that we are so ugly. Physically ugly. We should have the self-awareness to know this, without white people having to broach the topic with us. If white people had to say that we are ugly, it would cause fights and discord and it would just be unpleasant for all involved. So, it is up to us to realize it ourselves without needing to be told. We are ugly, and our genes are shitty. There really is no good reason to insist on passing on our genes. Ok, maybe the above is slightly facetious, but I do have a point I wish to convey to the minorities in the West. I believe that we should ask ourselves this question: What am I doing in the West? Is it because I want a better future for myself, maybe a good job that will pay for a car and a house in a nice, safe neighborhood? I am pretty sure most of the answers I'd get would involve around those things. Then I will simply ask, why is it that we cannot achieve those things in our countries? In other words, why do we have to come to the West in search of the good life? Why do they call it the American dream, but not the Indian dream, or the Chinese dream, the Vietnamese dream, or Iranian dream? There is a reason for that, once you start thinking about it. Once you realize that answer, you can't help but self-sterilize.

@@@

I like to talk about politics with people, and very often, it will turn into what the government's intentions are, why they do the things they do. And whenever I claim that the government's intentions are such and such, someone will invariably demand "evidence" for it. To that, I say, I don't need "evidence" when I try to guess what people's intentions are.

Humans have never been able to ascertain others' intentions/motivations with certainty, ever. It's all done by guessing of some kind. You can never know for sure that your girlfriend or wife truly loves you, although you can certainly surmise, and usually you are right. But this is technically still guessing, and you technically still cannot truly prove that she loves you, with any amount of certainty. This happens for the very simple reason that we cannot physically get inside people's brains to find out how they truly think or feel. In fact, it's really unreasonable to demand evidence when it comes to this stuff. When you are in a dark alley and someone jumps in front of you with a knife, are you going to say to yourself, "I think I will need evidence before I can say if he is trying to rob me!!" Don't be ridiculous. In fact, whenever I see someone like this, someone who demands evidence for things like motivations and intentions, I know that I am dealing with a very stupid individual. Evidence is important, yes, but for other stuff. One does not demand evidence for things like people's intentions or motivations, because those things can never ever be proven objectively or factually, so "evidence" for them is impossible, and demanding evidence for them is pointless. These individuals probably took a few science courses at university, and they were told that evidence is important, so now, they apply the concept without regard to whether it's applicable in the current situation. This is how I know they are stupid.

A key characteristic of good people is that they benefit others, often at a cost to themselves. For example, let's say there is a very poor woman. She cannot find a job to support herself, so she has to become a prostitute, just to survive. Nearby a man with a kind heart, knowing her plight, offers to give her money to live on, so that she will not have to turn to such a degrading profession. So essentially this good man is incurring a cost to himself, just to help others, all without much tangible benefit to himself. Now contrast this with a bad person. A bad person doesn't care about others, nor about helping them. He doesn't give money to this poor woman, so, the end result is that he ends up with more money than the good man does. This gives the bad man an edge. Now I am not saying that by giving some money to someone else will make or break someone's fortune. But what we can't deny is the principle that bad people always seem to have an edge over the good. And since good people tend to do other good deeds, this really adds up, and the end result is that bad people will eventually win out against the good, everything else bein equal. We need to realize that being a good person is energetically expensive, compared to being a bad person. Which brings me to my next point. I feel that Christianity is a religion that is meant to preserve good people, and give them a fighting chance over bad people. I had previously thought that the gospel was just about making people believe in Jesus Christ, it was only now that I realize that it is the good news that good people bring to other good people that there is a way to triumph over bad people. It feels as though Jesus realized what I described above, and came up with a way for good people to outbreed the bad, or at least to not be outbred by the bad.

Christianity does this by teaching its followers, who tend to be good people, to band together with one another, help one another out, to marry one another, and then have many children. This does not cause bad people and their bad genes to go away, but at least it maintains the good people's good genes in the gene pool. It doesn't improve the gene pool, but it stops it from becoming worse. Without Christianity, evil bad people and their evil genes would have won out a long time ago. (In fact, the advent of Christianity, how it grew, and how it preserved the Europeans for centuries should make a very fine topic for gene-culture co-evolution, a new field of study in biology.) Of course, Christianity started 2000 years ago. Times are different now, we have a diversity of people from all corners of earth, and we understand so many things that our ancestors didn't understand 2000 years ago, so it is not realistic to expect everybody to follow Christianity anymore. Instead, we have a very powerful tool that can preserve good people like what Christianity has done for thousands of years, and that is genetic engineering. Now its in theory possible to find out which genes are responsible for good, ethical behaviors. And if we don't have this knowledge yet, sooner or later we will. Then it's only a matter of us outlawing the genes responsible for evil, selfish, harmful, unethical behaviors. The technology is either already here, or will be here very soon. Another thing we should note, is that we will also be able to designate certain racial groups as naturally more inclined to evil. There is nothing impossible about this, we are only against this idea for political or ideological reasons. We don't want to believe that some races can be naturally evil. We are scared that this might lead to genocide. But this is self-censorship, it is a hurdle to truth. The truth is, there is absolutely nothing impossible about certain people being more inclined towards evil, because evil, just like so many other human traits, is hereditary. Much like beautiful mothers will give birth to beautiful daughters, or brave fathers will give rise to brave sons, evil people give birth to evil children. Once you get past your anxiety and moral panicking, you will see that what I just described is totally possible. Also, you might say, what about the influence of the

Another thing about evil: evil can be explained in biological terms. Evil isn't just a concept found in religion. The very fact that evil as a concept exists is proof that there are evil people. People didn't sit down and say, "Hey, let's create a religion and then add the concept of evil to it". No. Evil humans came first, then religion came second. First there were evil people, and they became the inspiration for the devil in (Abrahamic) religions.

By the way, it's not just good people that Christianity has preserved. It preserves many other good traits. One thing I can think of is selflessness. I personally donate money to causes. This results in less money for myself to spend. Every time I donate my limited money to a charity, I can't help but think, if I kept this money to myself, I would have more money to buy things I like. I look at someone who makes similar amount of money as me, and I can't help but notice they could afford more nice things like snacks and lattes than I do. Now, I am not saying that donating 20 dollars to a charity will make or break someone's fortune. But rather, I wish to draw attention to the principle that selfless people seem to be at a disadvantage, compared to someone who is selfish. Imagine this: If I regularly donate a sizable amount of money to a cause, I might have trouble saving up the money required for a home. Now consider someone who does not donate money. she keeps all her money to herself, never donating to any charity. She will be in a better position to buy a home than I am, everything else being equal. So, by being selfless and generous, I lose out to the less giving, more selfish person. And if I am selfless in multiple areas of life, the aggregate effect is that the selfish, un-giving person will have a huge advantage over me, and will likely be in a better position to raise more offspring than me. Christianity solves this problem. It tells selfless people that they are good people, and should multiply. They should also band together and help one another. So the mechanism I described above for preserving good people, also works for preserving selfless, giving people. This is a very important function Christianity has served for thousands of years. In fact, you can apply this principle to many other good, noble traits. environment? Perhaps you think it's possible for naturally evil people to not manifest as evil. I don't want to get into a huge debate about nature versus nurture, however I just want to say that most of us are sane enough to create the kind of environment where evil, harmful behaviors are discouraged. However, we don't do anything on the gene front. We still let evil, bad people pass on their genes. Now imagine we try to do something about this, such that evil genes really go down in frequency. And then we combine this with an environment that discourages evil. What will happen is we will end up with very, very few, almost zero, instances of the evil, the bad, the harmful, the selfish, the cruel...etc etc manifesting themselves.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 10:56pm

On donating: A lot of times, I have doubts about giving money to causes and charities. My mother is very critical of it, she doesn't understand why I just give my money to strangers. She believes that for all that she's done for me, I should use that money to take her out to nice restaurants, to spend it on her to reward her for all the things she's done for me. My brother doesn't say anything, but I get the sense he silently thinks if I had loaned him all that money I donate, he could pay down his mortgage a lot quicker. I catch flak from strangers too. Someone literally called me retarded for donating to charities. Not to mention the painfully obvious realization that if I kept the money to myself, I could buy myself a lot of nice things. All these things, taken together haunt me as I lie in bed at night. Am I doing the right thing? Should I keep donating? People laugh at me, my family doesn't understand, I get no benefit out of it. Why do i do this? Should I have chosen the path of a less giving, less generous person? I never knew fighting for what I believe in, would be this difficult.

@@@@

Some more musings on bad people having an edge over good people.

Bad, unethical people tend to have an advantage over the good. And they tend to leave more children, too. I am reminded of some news that I read. There was a fertility clinic. Couples who were unable to conceive would go there for treatment. Now, the treating doctor of that clinic was very unethical. He substituted his own sperm for husbands' sperm and got many women pregnant. As a result, he has dozens upon dozens of biological children. This is an exaggerated example, but it does illustrate the point that that bad, unethical people tend to have an edge over good, ethical people, especially in terms of fitness.

Another example I can think of is a corrupt politician who takes bribes. This is a very bad, immoral behavior, and the politician in question can be thought of as a bad person. However, compared to good politicians who don't take bribes, this politician buys mink coats, yachts, huge mansions in the Hamptons, eat at expensive restaurants and just generally lead a very good life. He will also be in a better position, financially speaking, to have children. He will also have more money to provide his children with. Now the honest, non-corrupt politician, in comparison, will have less money to provide his children with. Again, this illustrates the point that bad people easily have an advantage over good people. If we leave things to naturally unfold on their own, it is inevitable that the bad will swamp the good.

Yet one more real-life example of good, kind people incurring a cost to themselves: Imagine there is a dishwasher who keeps breaking dishes however her boss won't fire her because he wants her to keep her job so she can feed herself. Now, dishes cost money, which she keeps breaking. Imagine there is a rival restaurant owner, who has no trouble firing poor-performing dishwashers. As we can easily see, the latter will easily beat out the former. Or consider traditional Taiwanese people who do not eat beef because they feel that water buffalos work very hard pulling the plough in rice fields. They don't have the heart to eat a retired water buffalo. They want it to have a pleasant the rest of its life. However, people who do not have such compunction will have no trouble killing and eating their retired water buffalos. And they obtain more nutrients than the people who are unwilling to eat their retired water buffalos. In this way, the bad people are again having n advantage over the good.

On a related note: A lot of us bemoan the fact politicians all seem to be corrupt. We think the solution is to vote for honest politicians. However, it isn't as simple as electing good, honest people. If we don't recognize the various ways that bad, unethical, corrupt politicians have an advantage over good, honest politicians, we will be right back where we started.

@@@
I have often heard of things such as: "There is no "German Gene" anymore than there is a "French Gene" or a "Nigerian Gene".

I just want to say, that that is a very stupid thing to say. Nobody is saying that the genes between different groups are qualitative. The genes themselves differ only quantitatively; for example, maybe in one group, a particular gene codes for a protein that folds 20 times, whereas in another group, the gene codes for pretty much the same protein except that it folds 40 times. This is a quantitative difference on the genetic level. Yet, on the phenotypic level, the differences are seen as qualitative. The two proteins, though similar in structure and their amino acid sequence, likely produce very different traits. These resultant differences can then be put in distinct categories. For example, blue versus brown eyes, blond versus black hair, a violent disposition versus a non-violent disposition...etc. And when we are talking about different human groupings, these distinct categories translate into a German versus a Frenchie vs. a Nigerian vs. a Chinese vs. an Indonesian...and so on and so forth.

I will give a real-world example. There is a species of moles that form life-long monogamous pairs. There is a related species that behave very differently, they don't form any long-lasting pairs. These behavioral differences are qualitative, as in, we can put them in two distinct groups, "faithful" vs "non-faithful". However, on the genetic level, the differences between them are merely quantitative. Both groups have a gene that codes for a protein that determines mating behavior. When the protein is shorter, it leads to promiscuous behavior. When longer, it produces monogamous behavior. Yet, just because the genetic differences between these two species of moles are only quantitative, (in your language we would say there is no such a thing as a faithful gene) nevertheless they produce behaviors that are different enough that we can put the two species in two totally distinct categories. So yes, technically you are correct that there is no "German" gene or "French" gene, however that doesn't mean categories like Germans, the French, Nigerians... etc etc are now meaningless.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 10:58pm

I am sure that some have wondered about how white people's physical looks, such as blond/red hair, and green/blue eyes, have evolved. Some scientists speculate that white people have developed pale skin so as to let in more sunlight, to make vitamin D, and these hair/eye colors come with pale skin. But I disagree.

I believe that these traits evolved, because white people's ancestors needed to have attractive physical looks in order to survive. I am sure we all know that people treat other people differently based on how they look and that better looking people get better treatment. It's the same principle back on Mount Caucasus. It was an extremely harsh environment, and people needed help from others in order to survive. Help in hunting, or help in caring for one's offspring...etc. And by having blond/red hair, blue/green eyes, and therefore being more attractive, it increased the odds of survival, because people were more willing to help those who were better looking. This had an enormous survival advantage. The same mechanism is also what's responsible for white people's better looks in general. Good looks, as in, more attractive, refined, facial features, work just like blond/red hair, blue/green eyes, in that they draw people in. They make people like the person better, and they are more willing to help him/her. Such a person would enjoy greater fitness compared to another person who is less attractive.

Also, parents also tend to favor fairer looking offspring. Have we heard of the term, "Fair-haired child"? It means a favored child. And this makes sense. Blond hair is attractive, therefore the blond and more attractive child will receive more attention, food, love, protection....etc and just more resources in general. This helped them survive better.

Another thing I want to touch on, and it is the concept of positive selection, versus negative selection. In layman's term and very roughly speaking, positive selection is when a trait (could be physical, or it could be mental) has positive survival value, and it helps the person who has this trait survive better and leave behind more children. Now, negative selection is when a trait isn't really advantageous in any way, however its rival traits have negative survival value, and as such, these rival traits get removed, the genes responsible for them are removed from the gene pool, leaving behind only the trait that is negatively selected behind. An example of a trait that positive selection would select for, is intelligence. An example of a trait that a negative selection would select for, is blond hair. Blond hair does not really have much survival value, I mean, blond hair doesn't really do much for the person who has it. However, back in the kind of environment where the blond hair trait evolved, the conditions were such that its rival trait, such a black hair, was selected against and removed from the gene pool. This then left behind the blond hair trait and that genes that go with it. This is an instance of negative selection.

@@@@@

When you notice someone exhibit these following behaviors, you should be very on guard:

1. When they say, "I have been completely honest with you about ____". Especially when you don't know them that well yet. Anytime someone you don't know well tries to tell you this, they are trying to bring down your guard. No one will be that honest with someone that they don't know very well yet.
2. When you are hesitant about whether to trust someone completely, and they act really offended. This is manipulative behavior. It is not only reasonable to have some doubts about someone, it's in fact healthy for you. Everybody should regard someone else with a certain degree of suspicion, especially if this person isn't family or isn't someone that you have known for a long time. By acting offended, they want to manipulate you into trusting them and what they say.
They don't have your best interests in mind and are just looking to get you to do whatever they hope you will do. Be on guard.
3. Anytime someone says to you, "trust me". Jews do this a lot.

@@@@

When white people see a being that is weaker, could be a human or an animal, their instinct is to protect them. When Jews see the same being, their instinct is to prey on them.

@@@@

I believe that Jews need to be kicked out, however they are not the root cause of everything that's wrong with the country. The causes are always there, Jews simply make the existing problems worse.

@@@@

A lot of People know the system is broken. They are angry, and they know the government is largely responsible. However, they do not know the exact cause behind our dysfunctional system, nor do they have any good solutions for how to solve it.

@@@@

You are a good person. You are worthy. You ought to be the focus of your government and you should pass on your genes.

@@@@

There exist people who are not motivated by money but rather by ideals and principles. There aren't many of them but they do exist. As moneyed interests try to buy these principled individuals off, invariably they will fail. For the big money is up against something that big money does not, and can never, understand.

@@@@

When I see a problem, I try to solve it. And now I see a very big problem, so I invite everybody to put our heads together, to try and fine a solution.

It's not just about being elected into office. I want something bigger than that. I want to restore people's faith in the political process.

@@@@

A lot of non-white immigrants like to think they are contributing to the society just because they work and pay taxes. While it is true that immigrants certainly do work and pay taxes, however their reason for doing so, is purely because they want to make money for themselves. It is not because they genuinely want to do something nice for their new country or to contribute to it in any meaningful way. They know that the best, safest way to make money, is through working. As in, instead of doing something illegal. So, this why they got jobs. And when you have a proper job, you then pay taxes. These things immigrants do, do technically benefit the US, however, the way it happens, is entirely accidental. Immigrants never intend to intentionally do something nice for Americans. They just know to work, and make money, and this process itself just happens to benefit the country. Like I said, it's entirely accidental.

He cant keep getting away with this.

This post was edited by ChaunceyCulpeppa on Oct 21 2025 11:01pm