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

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


@@@@


I answered a question on Quora: "People with unusually high IQs, why are you still unsuccessful?" I was not able to find the link for the question, but anyway, just know that people were giving their answers to this question and trying to figure it out. I answered, as well, and I would like to share my answer below.

....

When some people wonder why smart people aren’t “successful”, what they really mean is that why these smart people aren’t making a shit-ton of money like they could have. The people who would ask such a question, while I know nothing about them, what I do know is that they are different people from me. I am not saying I am smart or anything, but I can honestly tell these people that to some people, wealth, status, fame, power, women/sex…etc mean very, very little.

Have we not heard of missionaries who followed their vocational calling, and moved to a foreign land, learned the local language, and devoted their entire lives to spreading their religious faith and helping the local people? To me, these missionaries are incredibly, incredibly successful. But this is something some people will never understand.

I scanned the thread/question, and let me just say, based on the answered that I saw, it was simply depressing. I can’t believe there are so many people in the world who are technically smart but who are nevertheless absolutely clueless. By the way, this topic actually goes beyond why smart people fail to succeed, it has more to do with what’s really important to a Homo Sapiens, and what really motivates a person to do something. These sad-fucks don’t understand that some people believe in something. They have a cause. Some have a burning desire to change the world for the better. Some simply see the way things are in the word, and say to themselves, “No, things shouldn’t be this way”. These people don’t understand this, no, they don’t understand at all. And they go on in their semi-retarded little brain about how smart people aren't successful because they have too many interests to pursue or they experience existential crises, or they prioritize learning over making money…etc, things that are not simply wrong, but are actually extremely depressing, if people are truly this clueless about what moves a human.

I am not a Christian, but I want to become a missionary of some sort. Not the kind to spread religion, but the kind who believes that she has important work to do. Very similar to an actual missionary, I feel that something is calling to me. Words like "calling", "mission", and "vocation" really, really speak to me. But, there are so few people who understand this. Either they are soulless lefties and feds, who upon hearing the word "missionary", immediately think of Christianity and then attack both me and it relentlessly, or people on the other side, who are not as morally degenerate as lefties and feds, but they are also clueless about why some people can feel a burning sense that there is something that they really need to do. If I try to explain it to the second group of people, it's less exhausting, because at least they won't immediately start attacking me, but they are still utterly confused as to what I mean by I want to be a missionary and that I have important work to do. I read about things like endogenous personality, origin of genius, the creativity triad, and related stuff, all written by well-meaning, un-wicked people, in other words, people who aren't feds. But they, too, do not understand. It seems everybody in the entire world is touting intelligence, creativity, being a genius, as if these things were the most valuable things in the world. I mean, I can understand it if feds say this, feds are morally bankrupt, spiritually dead quasi-animals, it is expected of them to not know anything about what's truly important. But if good people also fail to get it, then something is seriously, seriously wrong.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I remember talking to this fed. He told me that he was able to feel sympathy for people through a rational analysis of it. Basically, he would take in info, and then based on what happened, he would have various degrees of sympathy for the different victims. He told me that this was a "unique ability" that he had. His exact words. I wanted to laugh except it was so sad. this is exactly what most people do. it is absolutely nothing special. Yet this fed was stupid enough to believe it. I bet he was told that by his fed bosses, who probably said that to every fed. Honestly, I can't believe some feds can actually think something like this is actually unusual. Much less unique. This exchange led me to think that feds are probably not as clever as we think they are. granted, he was probably a low-tier fed, but still. They are thirsty for praise just like we are. We want to feel that we are unique in some way, and apparently some feds do, too. And the Jew fed bosses know this and prey on it. This dumb fed was white, surprise, surprise.

@@@@@

Read about Operation Northwoods here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, my goal here isn't to argue about whether this operation was real or not. But rather, I want to discuss something that I feel is a very big problem facing us. Namely, how can we prevent high-ranking government officials from carrying out false-flag attacks against the populace under the guise of another country, so as to drum up support for going to a war against that country? They contemplate these highly unethical, evil acts because people generally do not want wars, so they need some sort of excuse to overcome that sentiment, and then successfully go to war.

Again, I am not trying to prove that they do this. But rather, I want ask the posters here that if this is true, what can we do about it? Proving it seems very difficult, too.

@@@

I am sure we have all heard of "domestic terrorists" and "anti-government groups". If there are "anti-government groups" then the FBI should ask themselves why these exist, and if they have any legitimate grievances, instead of just labelling them as hate groups. But I am sure the FBI won't ask such a question, so it's really up to us the regular people to ask this question.

Personally I tend to sympathize with these groups. Going up against the US government is lethally dangerous. I really don't think people would make this decision lightly. They must have very good reasons for choosing such a dangerous path.

I don't need to be convinced of bias in printed and traditional news media because I know it already. Now I want to talk about something else: bias in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a strong neo-Liberal bias. The site seems to have been weaponized to smear anybody and any organization to the right of center. A list of words they like to employ: the far right, extremist, conspiracy theorist/theory, Trump supporter...etc etc and these groups and people are all political dissenters and the regime's detractors.

Also, It bills itself as the free and impartial encyclopedia that anybody can edit, however, the reality is that they seem to have dedicated staff whose only job is to watch for any edits people make and instantly change it back to what it was before. A regular person with a job and a life can never win these "edit wars". Wikipedia likes to brag about how anybody can edit their articles, which technically is true. however, what's the point of it, if they have dedicated staff sitting on the board whose only job is to change any edit back?

Anyway, just wondering what your experience with Wikipedia is.

@@@@

I have read that politicians tend to be more financially irresponsible than the citizens that they rule, and one way this manifests is that they tend to rack up national debts. They do this because while the debt and the servicing of said debt is shared equally among all citizens, leaders nevertheless have the power to disproportionately reward their cronies using money from the debt. And they don't ever worry about how we as a nation are going to have to pay down the debt, because that is the problem for the next administration.


@@@@@@

​
And by the way, both liberals and feds are very offensive, off-putting, and just all around very unlikable. this is because the people who they take their cues from, aka Jews, are themselves offensive, off-putting, and unlikable. these people simply leave a very bitter taste in your mouth if you are unfortunate enough to have to deal with them. And this is why after dealing with the federal government, you will taste this bitter taste in your mouth which is very unpleasant, and it's because the top levels of the federal government are permeated with Jews.

@@@

Jews and the various fed institutions they control, have been trying hard to stop me. They do this by sending honeypots at me, in other words, they throw at me men who they hope i will find attractive. Some of these men come from real life, others from online spaces I hang out at. But there is one commonality that they all have: They are clever in some way. By that i mean, they are what an average person would call intelligent. Jews certainly think they are intelligent. I call them clever because these men aren't truly intelligent in my book. Anyway, this isn't important. the important thing is, by doing this, Jews betray their mentality to me. They themselves see intelligence as the ultimate desirable trait in a mate. They genuinely believe that if they send to me a man who is clever/intelligent enough, I will fall for him. This is clueless and laughable, as intelligence is only one among many, many things that make someone attractive to the opposite sex. I am sure you have met a woman like this: She sees that a quality man is with a plain woman. So she thinks to herself, I bet she is really good in bed. This thinking reveals to us that this woman is horribly clueless in her understanding of human attraction. She thinks that the only way a woman can be attractive to a man is by being attractive and great in bed. It's the same thing with Jews. They think that aside from physical beauty, intelligence is the ultimate factor in human attraction. When you tell them that intelligence isn't the only thing in attraction, they literally don't understand what you mean. And they think that it just means they need to send someone who is smarter than the previous guy. It's really scary when you realize the people at the top of the intelligence agencies are like this. This is unsurprising though. Jews have never been known to be truly deep. For a race that is considered smart, Jews are very clueless. In fact, I think that Jews seem to have this peculiar "imbalance", a certain lack of well-roundness, to them. What I mean by that is that they are not well-rounded. They remind me of a university science student who did not take any humanities courses at all. He is very good at calculating stuff and carrying out experiments, but he is horribly untrained in things beyond his area of expertise. He can't write, he is poor at communicating, he has no idea how Christianity shaped Western civilization, he shows profound ignorance at philosophical matters. This is what I mean by not well-rounded. Jews have a lot of expertise in many fields of disciplines, I will give them that. But they exhibit astounding insufficiencies in certain matters. The stuff i mentioned above is one example. Jews literally do not understand that intelligence isn't the be-all and end-all in human attraction. And when you try to tell them that there are other traits that people look for in a mate, for example, virtues, they will scratch their heads because they genuinely don't know what you mean. And it's not just about matters of human attraction. They show this lack of understanding in many other areas, some of which have important implications. By "they genuinely don't now what you mean", I don't mean that jews literally don' understand the words that you are saying to them. I mean that obviously they know the dictionary definition of the words, how they are spelled, and most importantly, they know on a conscious level that white people value these qualities. But on the gut level, these words have no significance to Jews. They don't understand say, "keep your virginity till marriage", or "I value sexual modesty", or "humility is a virtue". These concepts and related, are alien to Jews.

I mentioned that we can tell what Jews believe in by looking at the behaviors of their God as described in Old Testament. I say this because of the very simple reason that religion is something that comes from the minds of men. It's a construct of men, it is not something that's actually out there. God or gods most likely do not exist out there, they only exist in the minds of men. I am sure you are familiar with the charge that there are almost as many different flavors of Christianity as there are Christians. In fact, look at the entire humanity as whole, and you will find all kinds of different beliefs about either God or some kind of deity. And the actual beliefs themselves are also incredibly different and diverse, just like the different cultures of men. Now that we know religion is entirely man-made, we can try to learn about the nature of a people by the deity they thought up. Look at the God Christians believe in. He is all about love, forgiveness, mercy, justice and grace. He is this way because Christians are all about those things themselves. They are this way because they tend to be white, and white people are about love, forgiveness, and all that. Now look at Jews' God. He is inconsistent, jealous, authoritative, wrathful, and genocidal. And this is because Jews are all these things. I have seen many edgy white boys who are quick to point out Christian God's many failings. But they never ask themselves where this God came from. when I tell them that Christianity came from Judaism, and therefore the concept of God is really Jewish in origin, suddenly these white boys' rational minds stop probing. Or I should say they stop working. they probably know what I am getting at and in a vague sense they know I am right, but they are scared to "go there". They know the direction of where this line of inquiry is going, and it's leading them dangerously close to the nature of Jews as a people. And this makes them shit their pants.


Look, If you are going to criticize organized religion, then at least be consistent and criticize all religions. For you to pick on Christianity but not Judaism, you are just being inconsistent, and a scared little bitch to boot. You are being cowardly because we can all see that you are afraid to touch Judaism. You are a selective iconoclast and there is no respect afforded to people like you. I can smell the stink of your double standard from a mile away and I am amazed by your ability to fool yourself into thinking you are some sort of Prometheus when you steer clear of That Which Is Not To Be Disparaged like the good little goy that you are. Mentally you are a slave to the Good-Think just like Christians are a mental slave to their religion. That said, I don't really care that you tiptoe around Judaism. Religion isn't as important a topic as race. I want to talk about Jews as a race. Their religion is just one way that helps us learn about them as a people. What Jews are like, what their nature is like, are all topics that we should be able to discuss freely, but don't. And it's for the same reason that I mentioned about, where the edgy white boy destroyers of Christianity suddenly soil themselves. This is a form of self-censorship. It is a mental block. It is something that prevents us from rational inquiry. We haven't even gotten to whether Jews are wicked and people are already peeing themselves. Ask yourself. Why are you afraid to talk about Jews? What are you afraid of? Is it because, deep down, you know that Jews are evil and you don't want to have to come to the conclusion of what must be done about them? Genocide has been planted in your mind as the ultimate evil since you drew your first breath, so you instinctively avoid any talk that seems like it might be leading you in that direction. I understand that. But talking about Jews does not necessarily lead to genocide. There are ways to make Jews less evil and make them less likely to harm people, all without killing them. And I am talking about genetic engineering. Very soon, we will have the technology to re-write people's genes. We can make Jews change their faulty DNA with this technology. Yes, Jews are evil and intent on harm, but in a sense, it's not their fault. They did not choose to be born with these evil genes. They are born into these bad genes, just like white people are born into good genes. Now, we are offering them a way out of their inborn wickedness. They can choose to edit their genes for the good, in which case they will get to remain in the West and will be loved just like any other people. If not, then they can go to Israel, taking up to $20 million USD with them so they can live out their lives comfortably. But they will not be allowed to come live in the West. Neither will their descendants. It's a choice.


A related note: I have read that Jews consider themselves to be "light onto nations". I am sure quite a lot of you have heard of this saying, too. What I don't get, is why Jews cannot be light in their own nation. Why do they have to go into other people's nations, and shove their wonderfulness in other people's faces?


Jews underestimate white people. In their shows and movies, Jews always like to portray white people as dumb. They portray white women as being ditzy and clueless. White men are made to look like fools. Yes, white people are more trusting and tend to see the good in people, however, they are not idiots. You can fool white people, maybe even more than once, however, catch on they will. And when that happens, it won't be pretty. Jews are playing with fire.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 22 2025 04:52am

There have been debates about whether to abolish the death penalty. I refrain from participating in this debate, because to me personally, there aren't many differences between being imprisoned for life, and being put to death. In both situations, the criminal will never be able to have children anymore, so his shitty genes will be removed from the gene pool. What I am concerned about, is criminals who have committed heinous crimes, but the crimes themselves aren't grievous enough that the criminals will either be jailed for life or be given the death penalty. They might be jailed for a long time, but they will eventually get out. And some of them, especially the men, can still potentially have children. His genes, which we can imagine must be bad in some way, will get passed on. This is why I advocate that we mandate germ-line gene therapy for criminals who have committed very serious crimes. Germ-line gene therapy means their sperm will be Genetically altered so that the propensities towards committing serious crimes will be permanently deleted. Of course, we probably don't have the technology yet. We can't say for sure which cluster of genes is responsible for criminality. But the principle behind it is sound. There is a genetic component to all human behaviors. The only questions are to what degree and how it interacts with environmental factors. We have tried to exert control over the environment, for example, we try pretty hard in schools to teach young people not to commit crimes, that it's wrong to rape/kill/steal...etc. It's not perfect but at least we are trying. However, we haven't done anything on the gene front. We just let everybody have babies. Good people have babies, but so do bad people. We do nothing to make sure bad genes don't proliferate. This is bad and it needs to change. We should exert influence on genetic factors that contribute to criminality. One way to achieve this is through what I suggested above, namely to force serious offenders to alter their genes. Then, combine this with an environment that generally tries to tell people to be good, we should be able to reduce serious crimes to a very low degree. The justice system as it currently is, is not good enough. The only reason we still have it around is because it's better than having nothing. Sure, it does it best to catch criminals and jails some of them. But jailing people and then letting them out doesn't really do a whole lot in terms of preventing future crimes. Ex-cons will likely still have urges to commit crimes again, and their bad genes will certainly predispose their offspring to criminality, to a certain degree. I say this is a pointless exercise. Jailing people is no longer enough. We need to do better than that. Forcing serious offenders to undergo genetic therapy will have material effects on actually preventing crimes, something that truly matters. As for forcing people to change their genes--some might have a problem with it. I don't. I can do it with a clear conscience, because offenders of serious crimes should be grateful that we haven't done anything truly harsh to them. They should look at what people in the third world do to serious criminals. There is another issue: Some people might say, but what if the criminal repents? I understand this concern. We should give people a chance to repent their old ways, in fact this is why some prisons are called penitentiary, basically a place where people go to repent. I say that I believe some criminals do genuinely repent. However, the problem is, some don't, but they are shrewd enough to realize that if they tell us they have repented, they get breaks. Personally, I would rather be very unforgiving, for the protection of the society. I am not flint-hearted. Rather, if your heart gets too soft and let those go who you shouldn't let go, you will be creating a lot of future victims. I personally think protecting innocent people trumps giving felons a second chance. Another thing: some people might have an issue with "ex-cons will likely still want to commit crimes again". I say this because a lot of criminals commit crimes out of compulsion. They literally cannot stop themselves from committing a crime. The prospect of prison time only deters those criminals who are more rational. They know that if they commit a crime again, they will get locked up, which they don't want. But a lot of serious offenders aren't rational and prison-time does nothing to deter them. They have almost an urge to commit crimes.



Finally, on whether people can truly change. My thought on this is that some people, aka criminals do repent their way. But they are still the same person on the inside. They vow to never commit crimes again and maybe they even do make good on this, but I believe in a lot of cases, it's because they don't want to go to jail again. It's boring in prisons. They want the freedom of being a free man. people are drawn to the idea that criminals can be reformed and people can change, because it's romantic and dramatic. But it has nothing to do with reality. People believe it not because it's true, but rather, because they want it to be true. I am reminded of this man that I used to talk to. He was incredibly off-putting, so I cut off contact with him. If he approached me and asked for forgiveness and wanted to be friends again, I would say no. And it's not because I am unforgiving and don't want to give people a second chance. But rather, I know that the overall unpleasantness that characterized time spent with him would always be there. He might make a conscious effort not to say things that would offend me, and maybe he would even succeed. However, his personality and thought patterns would never change. Forgiving him would just mean subjecting myself to his unpleasant self all over again and then I would eventually have to block him again. It's a pointless exercise. And it's the same principle here with criminals.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 22 2025 05:23am

Some people (usually those who lean left politically) like to say that there are only cosmetic differences between the various races and no internal differences between them. They probably know some non-white person personally, who is generally a good person, and this convinces them that there are no mental/psychological/emotional/moral/intellectual differences between whites and non-whites whatsoever. This is an incomplete view of things. races are made up of billions of individuals. It doesn't matter that a few non-white persons are good individuals. We need to look at the proportion of such good individuals in a particular race and then compare it to another. what we are talking about here is a statistical phenomenon. We are dealing with groups with a huge number of members, we are not looking any single individual, because no individual can be representative of an entire group made up of hundreds of millions of people. The good non-white person some people like to tout could just be an exception of his race.

I want to talk about something called gene frequency (the exact scientific term is allele frequency). Basically it means how often a gene in found in a population, and this is compared to the frequency in another group. Now, we apply this concept to human races. Imagine that we are measuring the frequencies of the genes for blond hair. We look at two races, the Caucasians and the Asians. The gene frequency for blond hair in the former will be higher than in the latter. This is why when people say "blond", they think of white people. However, if you look really really hard, you can actually find some blond-haired Asians. It's just incredibly rare, is all. This is an example of the two races exhibiting different gene frequency for certain traits and how having an exception (aka a blond Asian) does not mean that blond hair is now a trait associated with Asians. And now we take this concept to apply it to the genes for traits that are less tangible. Such as the propensity to violence. This time, we look at Caucasians an Negros. The genes for the tendency to be aggressive likely have a higher frequency in negros compared to the Caucasians. This is another example of different races having different gene frequencies. An African that is as smart, peaceful and hardworking as a typical white person could be an outlier and might not be representative of the entire Negro race. His existence does not prove that Africans and whites are completely the same in all mental/psychological/emotional/moral/intellectual aspects. We can apply this principle to pretty much all traits imaginable, both the physical and the internal.

Differences in gene frequencies for internal traits can have a big impact on the experience living in one society compared to another. For example, let's say there is 20% of people in China who are considerate and polite. And lets say there is 80% of such people in Sweden. Neither country has a monopoly on considerate-ness and politeness, however your experience living in each country will be very different.

When people talk about racial differences, some people, aka liberals, act like we are saying white people are all saints and minorities are all children of the devil. Literally nobody is saying that. We are just suggesting that different races, which evolved under different environmental conditions, could means there are differences in not just what's on the outside but also possibly what's on the inside. The lefty position "all humans are completely the same on the inside" is too extreme. It's also wishful thinking. not only that, they forbid us from questioning it, which technically makes it a dogma.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 22 2025 07:22am