I mentioned that liberals believe people should do whatever makes them happy. I want to talk a bit more about this. Humans are animals, and as animals, we do what gives us pleasure. We like to eat delicious food, drink rich and smooth coffee, we like to play computer games, we like to watch entertaining TV shows, we want our beds to have silky, comfy sheets...etc etc, you get my point. I am not saying these things are bad. It is natural to want pleasure, to feel good, to want comfort and to enjoy. But, the problem is that we have made these things the only things in our lives. We pursue happiness to the exclusion of everything else. We have neglected things that are just important, and in fact have been an integral part of what we are as Homo Sapiens. I am talking about things like spirituality, believing in something, honor, having principles to live by, being a good, moral person...etc, and these are just what I can think of off the top of my head, trust me there are many, many more. These things might sound old-fashioned at first, however, when you really study them, you will see that they have been with us ever since the dawn of our existence. Proof: the ascetics and Spartans, Medieval monks who eschewed earthly pleasures and lived in monasteries , modern-day Catholic nuns who live lives with devotion and strict moral codes..etc. The fact that these people exist or existed, proves my point that humans are never meant to pursue pleasures as the only aim in their lives. For humans, the pursuit of happiness, in and of itself, is not inspiring. Coming up with better and better ways to stimulate the pleasure center in our brains does not lift up our spirits. And this is because we haven't evolved to be this way. "Man does not live by bread alone" is not just a religious saying, it is a truthful observation of (some) humans. Some humans have a spiritual side to them, that cannot be nourished by any material things or pleasures of the flesh.

Of course, I am not saying to go and join a monastery. I am also not saying to give up all things that make you happy. It is fine to live an enjoyable life, just don't make it the only thing in your life. You might ask, so what should I pursue in addition to pleasures? Well, personally, I believe in developing oneself spiritually, alleviating suffering and being of service to others. I also place importance on having a cause and I encourage others to take up a cause as well. Everybody will have something different, something that has particular significance to them, and that is all totally fine. Some people want to save the planet, some want to spread their religion, some want to spread democracy, these things are all very good. For they are beyond satisfying immediate needs and gratifying the senses. And I agree that it might feel a bit too high-minded at first. You might think, "that's too idealistic". But once you try and put it into practice, you will find that it's satisfying on the soul level. It gives you something that food or sex or TV can never give you. After all, I trust that you don't want to be someone who is, say, only interested in sex. When people talk about you, you don't want them to say "he's a sex addict". You don't want people to say, "he only cares about food". Nor, "he's a competitive gamer and he games all day everyday". I don't know about you, but I know that I want people to say this about me: "she crusades". Thank you for reading.

This article is addressed to women. I have been reading incel literature on the internet, and one thing really stood out to me: men are complaining that women are attracted to all kinds of unsavory men, such as bullies and narcissistic men. Even literal criminals and murderers. I don't know if this is true, however, my own observations are that a lot of women do seem to make really poor choices in a mate. Quite a few of them seem to genuinely think NBA players, rock stars, hedge fund managers, the famous, the powerful...etc are top choices for them. About this I really lament. These people have a patina to them, they look good, and most women are fooled by it. They don't know that these people don't build a great country, they don't maintain our societies, they don't cure diseases nor do they help the helpless. I want to tell women of our world that, by our choice in a man, we decide what our society will look like. If we all mate with convicts, then the next generation will be full of thieves, rapists and murderers. If we all mate with football and basketball stars, which is not as bad as the previous example, the next generation will simply be good at sports, which in and of itself isn't something worthwhile. Athletes don't build a peaceful, prosperous, just society. So what, a woman might ask me, makes a truly good mate? I am glad you asked. The answer is, a man of virtue. The word virtue sounds a bit archaic, so I will use a different term: a man of virtue is essentially a man who has admirable personal qualities. Think salt of the earth, the men who really make the country what it is today.

I will give a list of admirable qualities in a man, that women should value:

compassion
kindness
moral integrity
honesty
considerate of other people's feelings
spiritual; wants more than just money out of life
does not think about how to harm or swindle or cheat or otherwise mistreat a fellow human
believes in something
honor


So basically, things that sound boring at first, but are actually incredibly important when we think about it. Contemporary society might try and tell you that these ideas are outdated, that they are not "cool" or "hip" anymore. Don't listen to it. A man who checks quite a few of this list (doesn't have to check all of them) is not only someone who will build and maintain society, he will also treat you very well. Your marriage to this man will be happy and blissful. Furthermore, he will love your children as well as be a role model to them.

Of course, the qualities I listed aren't the only ones that matter. There are quite a few others that are also very important but are not absolutely necessary:


conviction (this means having strong beliefs)
spartan courage
contemplative
crusading
perseverance in the face of adversity
humility

And many others, depending on what you personally value.

You will find that I did not list intelligence and reason on either list. It's not because I don't think these are important. But rather, l left them out because I feel that there is an overemphasis on them in our contemporary society. And the qualities I mentioned have fallen by the way side. Also, I left out charisma, which some people are fascinated by, but it is actually a pretty useless quality in my book. A prosperous society is not built on the backs of charismatic people. In fact, the more plain and ordinary a man is, paradoxically, the more he builds and contributes to society.

I also left out good looks, for similar reasons. Of course, not saying it doesn't play a role in attraction, just that it's not so important that it eclipses these essential qualities. As long as a man isn't positively ugly to you, it's good enough.

Lastly, a few words about some stuff I read on the incel wiki. I have seen the pictures of supposedly very ugly incels like eggman and blackopssaint or whatever his name is. These men don't look that ugly to me. I feel that they are just very average looking men. True, they are no Brad Pitt. But they aren't demonically
ugly either. If there is a man in real life who looks like eggman, but he is truly courageous, honorable, and he has strong principles that he is willing to die for, then he is the ideal man to me and I will totally overlook his less than perfect physical looks. Nothing is sexier than a man who has virtues.

I want to talk about how our politicians get bought:

Imagine that you are a lawmaker of a very high rank. You pass laws, which must be obeyed. So, naturally, wealthy people flock to you. They want your ear. They want to influence you. Maybe you get approached by someone sent by, say, Blackrock. They want you to pass certain laws that are favorable to them. Maybe laws that allow them to grab even more land, at the expense of regular people. If you say yes, they will give you a $2 million check on the spot, plus they promise to donate to your next campaign generously when your term is up. Now consider the other scenario: you want to do the right thing by refusing their offer. You want land to be more accessible to regular people. Do the people know you are doing this and then thank you for it? Most likely, no. But Blackrock will be immediately displeased. Not only will you not get a $2 million check written to your name, they might hint at you that they will donate to your rival's campaign at the next election. So, doing the right thing is thankless and it kills your political career. This is how our politicians get bought by big money. We can get mad all we want when a corruption scandal breaks out, but not realizing the true mechanism by which corruption occurs means we will just get the same thing over and over. Kicking out individual corrupted politicians is simple enough, but it doesn't solve the problem on a fundamental level. We need to completely overhaul the way we conduct politics.

What I described above is very closely related to lobbying. And by lobbying I mean the in-person kind, we have all seen it, men in business suits surrounding legislators, trying to talk to them and to get them to pass certain laws. I feel that this is essentially legalized bribery. They are giving gifts and money, and doing favors to lawmakers so that the latter will pass laws that are favorable to these lobbyists' organization or company. Why should we allow this to happen? What good does lobbying do for the country? It does absolutely nothing. It's just rich people finding one more way to game our political system to benefit themselves.

I believe that people should be able to present their concerns to their lawmakers so as to influence what laws get passed. However, everybody should go through the same channel. People can write lawmakers letters or emails. Nobody should have in-person access to lawmakers because this simply means people with money will be able to gain an unfair advantage over the average person, who doesn't have the time nor the money to lobby. I say that we ban lobbying. Who's with me?

A related thing: I think that politicians should have a way to boast about what they have done for the people. And get rewarded for it. Otherwise, there will be a temptation to sell the people out. And if a politician has truly done something wonderful for us, I don't see why he can't draw attention to it. We should create a centralized platform where politicians can freely tell people what good they have done. And everybody will be able to verify any claims on it, because everything will be publicly available. On this platform, they can also talk about any sacrifices they have made personally in order to put the people first, or their heroic refusal of large amounts of money from lobbyists who try to bribe them.

Very often, the government's interests are at odds with regular people's interests:

You, as a regular person, want the economy to be good, so that you can find a job, and have an income. You want to make money, so you can find a wife, buy a house, and then raise two kids in that house with her. These things are what's good for you and your genes, so you want them. But look at things from the elites' perspective. Why should they work hard to make the economy run smoothly so that you can raise a family? This does not benefit the elites, nor their genes. So they don't care and run the economy into the ground in a way that harms you but benefits them. Once you realize this about them, everything will start to make sense. It will start to become clear why governments do seemingly stupid things that harm their citizens; and it's because governments are controlled by elites who do not share the same genetic destiny as you. They want to harm you.

It really helps to put ourselves in the shoes of these Jewish elites. I imagine this is how they think: "How do I run things in a way that will benefit me and my cronies but screw everybody else." You see, they aren't satisfied with enriching themselves, they actively want others to suffer. It literally bothers them to see us well-fed, happy and carefree. If something is a win-win for everybody, they will go out of their way to avoid it. It's hard for normal people to imagine there can be this kind of people, but trust me they exist. Evolution has made them so.

I remember this news I read about a prince of the king of some third world country. This prince was said to have presented a very famous American singer with a 5 million dollar necklace. Do you think the prince did any kind of work to have earned that $ 5 million for himself? I am sure he didn't. That necklace was paid for by the sweat of the people his father ruled. You see, giving expensive jewelry to a famous singer has benefits for him. Maybe she will sleep with him for a few nights. Why should he forgo that just so that a few more people in his country will not starve? This is how nations' rulers see it. And I can assure you the elites of your country see things this way too. So they take and take and take from us. Taking from us is good for them in another way-- it makes the men among us unable to compete with them for mates. Men with superior genetics can normally obtain desirable women. However, they will be put at a severe disadvantage by elites who manage to impoverish them. Poor men tend not to be able to attract women as easily. This is how the elites keep their sexual competitors down. Ensuring the masses are prosperous is not only hard work, it also prevents the hoarding of women. We need to forget about fairness, justice, creating a better world...etc. Also forget about appealing to these elites' sense of nobility. We have to know that these people did not get to where they are by being fair, high-minded and noble. These elites are Homo Sapiens in name only. In essence, they are very intelligent animals. So to know what they think, we need to think like an animal. We need to know that asking these elites nicely to take care of us does not work. They literally need to be forced to do so. Sometimes violently.

I have read online that the government might use the military to force the covid "vaccines" on the unwilling. Not sure how credible a threat this is, but we should prepare for it, just in case.

I think we should reach out to members of the armed forces, most of whom tend to be white (for now), and therefore have a conscience and are not terribly likely to do something barbaric like that. I have known about militia groups, and while I think the idea behind them is good (the populace should always arm itself), nevertheless we must not treat the military like it's our enemy. Yes the military is technically a part of the government, however its members are regular people just like us. They are not super opposed to us like, say, the FBI.

I say we should bring them to our side, reach out to them just like we do regular Americans, and do not antagonize them. Make them see things our way. In fact, I think the benefits of doing so go far beyond vaccines. If we have the military's support, we can in theory seize power and the government (this is known as a coup). Not to mention we will also be able to neutralize the feds, if it really comes to that. It's like Chairman Mao said, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. In fact, the fact Jews in the government have been trying hard to put Mexicans in the military tells us about the strategic importance of the military. So, I say, go forth and win the hearts and minds of servicemen, servicewomen, privates, generals, and everyone in between.

We often hear that we as consumers can change how businesses are run, this is only true to a very limited extent. The truth is, the changing demographics do dictate what is depicted in ads, but it's not because we the consumers are the boss of businesses.

There is a new model for women's apparel called Ashley Graham. She is plus-sized, and has dark brown hair. We think that she's chosen to represent brands because companies are listening to what we are saying, but the truth is very far from that. She is chosen because most women in our societies have become fat. So they picked a fat woman so that we can relate better. And as a whole, we are getting darker and darker due to shifting demographics, and companies realized that having a blond-haired model would not resonate with the average woman as much. But they got us thinking that we changed the face of the advertising industry. No, we didn't.

Advertising is full of tricks intended to fool us. Have you noticed how the woman used in advertising that is directed at men, is very often blond? For example, books on how to attract women usually have a blonde woman on the cover. When online dating sites want to draw in clients, which is typically male, often the image of a blonde is used. This is because businesses and advertisers know that a lot of men desire and fantasize about these women. Ads for high end jewelry also feature blond-haired women very often, because advertisers know that men covet blondes and will spend huge amounts of money on them to keep them in a relationship. Whereas in ads for jewelry that tends to be more low-end (read: they are cheaper), very often a brunette is used. Brunettes like jewelry just as much as blondes, but they are not as desired by men so the amounts men are willing to spend on them tend to be lower. Hence the lower-end and lower-priced jewelry. When an ad is directed towards women, very often a brunette is used. Ads for things like, a new seltzer drink, crackers, cosmetics, fashion, jewelry...etc, things that the ordinary women consume. And this is because the majority of the female consumers are dark-haired. But they tell us that there is true diversity in advertising, which isn't a lie, but what they neglect to tell us is that we are simply being marketed to. We are merely consumers to whom products are sold. We don't actually have a whole lot of power over what's seen in ads, and there are formulas in advertising that companies adhere to closely.

(Continues)

(Continued)


Now, I want to talk about the racial component of broadcasting in media and prints. I remember reading an article, it was about a father who tried to come into terms with his daughter's lesbianism. He talked about how he initially struggled with it but eventually accepted it. The magazine ran a huge picture of the father-daughter duo, where both were very conspicuously blond. The famous lesbian Ellen Degeneres is blond, her lesbian partner is also blond, and they are very often photographed together in pictures that are plastered all over magazines. In articles about transgenderism, which claims to want to help transgendered youth gain societal acceptance, very often blond subjects are utilized. All these things are not accidents. They are being planned very carefully by the publications' executives and owners, who are overwhelmingly Jewish. Jews deliberately choose blond haired people in these pieces because they want to devastate the blond population among white people by subliminally suggesting alternative lifestyles that directly make them infertile (such as transgenderism) or indirectly (such as homosexuality). Why do Jews do this? The answer is very simple, we just don't want to accept it because it's too harsh and "racist": it's because Jews hate white people, especially blond-haired white people, and they want to make them disappear. If you don't believe me, next time pay attention any time a movement comes up that discourages or harms white people's reproductive success, and you will see that 95% of the time, the subject used is a blond person. Ads for abortion feature white and often blond women. Oh by the way, inter-racial pairings between a white person and a minority also feature blonds/blondes very often, and this is because when a blond haired white person mates with a non-white person, their blond hair gets mixed out of existence. The end result is fewer blond people in the future, a goal that is very much desired by the Jewish media execs and owners. And in a similar vein, the Jewish-owned motion picture industry likes to portray such mixed unions as full of joy and bliss. Think the recent movie "Marry me" featuring Jennifer Lopez and Owen Wilson, a blond. They made it look like the relationship with a non-white person was very joyous and full of laughter for Wilson. And don't take my word for it. Search for all movie and TV depictions of inter-racial couplings and you will only see happiness and romance. And it also goes without saying that both the big and small screens never, ever show two blond-haired people being together or, god-forbid, have children together. I am not making this up, all this is searchable and verifiable. I bet you can count on-screen double-blond pairings on one hand, and this is incredibly weird when you consider that we are in the West, the home of blond people. There might not be a whole lot of them, but there are some. So how is it statistically possible that there is no depiction of such a coupling on screen? It defies probability, when you think about it. And it is my hope that you will eventually come to the realization that it's planned this way deliberately.

I am sure we have all heard of the platitude, "There are good and bad people in every race", or something similar, from a clueless, annoying liberal. Here the word race is used interchangeably with human groups. I want to point out how stupid this statement is. There are only a few races (or human groups) on earth, and there are billions of humans. Every race has hundreds of millions of people in it, if not more. Do you really think it's possible that there is absolutely not one good person out of hundreds of millions of humans? No, of course not. So saying that there are good and bad people in every race is so generic that it has no meaning. I think what's truly important, and this has something to do with what "evil racists" believe, is the proportion of bad people to the good, in a given race. Take, for example, the Chinese people, and the Swedish people. I say that there is a higher proportion of bad people in the first group, whereas there is a lower proportion in the second group. I don't have real numbers, so I will just assign some arbitrary numbers to illustrate my point to you. With the Chinese, let's say 9 out of 10 people are bad. With the Swedes, 1 out of 10 people are bad. So even though the statement "There are good and bad people in every race/human group" holds true for both populations, your experience of living among the Chinese will be vastly different from that of living among the Swedes. This is what's truly important, the ratio of bad to good people in a given race/human group.

I think this is an important concept to grasp. We have two groups of people who hold completely opposite views: liberals and "racists". Liberals believe that if they can find one minority who is a good person, then this means minorities are good people just like white people. Racists on the other hand believe that if they can find one minority who is a bad person, then it means minorities are bad people, unlike white people. I think both views are incomplete. The correct view is mine. It is meaningless to put forward a single specimen as if representative of the entire group. We have to realize that we are talking about groups of humans, and these number in the billions. When we have billions of something, we are talking about a statistical phenomenon. I will give an example of what that means. You take a Swede, and look at his eye color. He will either be blue-eyed, in which case, he is 100% blue-eyed, or he will have eyes that aren't blue, in which case, he is 100% not blue-eyed. He cannot be 30% blue-eyed. But, when you look at the entire Swedish population, then these numbers make sense. The Swedish population can certainly be, say, 30% blue-eyed. This is what I mean by statistical phenomenon. Every time we talk about race (or human groups), we have to keep this in mind. We need to realize that putting forth one or even a few specimens of something is not meaningful.


Another example is the tendency towards spirituality. If you say, "Man does not live by bread alone" to the Chinese people, almost no one will understand what you mean. You say this to white people, you will get some who get it. If you say it to Christians, almost all of them will know what you mean. So, this is another example of something being a statistical phenomenon. In our case, it is how spiritually inclined different human groups are. The few Chinese people who get it does not disprove that most of them don't.

Pard

We know that, for some people, there is little job security for them, due to the types of jobs they tend to get. It could be a fast food restaurant cashier job that is in danger of being replaced by automation. It could be unskilled labor positions that can easily be replaced by newer and newer machines. So, naturally, a lot of us go for jobs that are more difficult to replace. These are typically jobs that require a lot of training, such as medical doctor, for one example. What we don't realize, is that in the eyes of the elites that run our world, doctors are still replaceable, for the very simple reason that they serve the public, rather than the elites themselves. Doctors think they are essential members to society because they diagnose and treat diseases. But the people they treat and diagnose, namely the public, are themselves of little value to the elites. Reality is that if some or even quite a few of the public become ill and die off, it is of little concern to the elites. The elites only have use for the few doctors that keep themselves healthy. The rest of the doctors, are expendable to them, because the public that these doctors serve is expendable to them.