Nostr notes by JessiWan

Hello. I like to observe what's wrong with governments and ...

2026-07-16T00:05:26Z

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?

I want to talk about social security in the US. Roughly speaking ...

2026-07-16T00:05:06Z

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?

This one time, I wanted to buy gold from this place with cash. ...

2026-07-16T00:04:26Z

This one time, I wanted to buy gold from this place with cash. Much to my surprise, they told me that they would need to report any sales involving cash when it was over a certain amount. I was both surprised and confused. However, I had nobody to ask. I didn't know who made up this law, why he made this law, and there was no way for me to challenge this law or voice my concern or even question it in any way.

It's not about the gold anymore. Think about the society we are in, politicians pass all kinds of law, many of which very clearly put restrictions on our freedoms. But we as the people have no recourse when we are in disagreement with these laws. I feel that this isn't right. If there are going to be laws that concern us in such fundamental ways, we need to be able to question and challenge them, and to know who passed them and why.

What I would do if I were a law-maker: I would make it known that I am the author of a particular law. I would then explain my reason for passing this law. I would put all this information very publicly, say, on a relevant government website. Then, I would give people the opportunity to write in to me, to voice their concerns about the law, to question the reason/s behind the making of the law, to tell me that my law is crap, and in some cases, to maybe even change my mind completely and to make me rescind it. All this would be made public for all to see. I imagine it could take the shape of an online forum.

Regarding people not liking certain laws: people don't really have any recourse if they disagree with a law. There are currently very few ways for people to voice their concern/displeasure about a law. They cannot change a law very easily. it's technically true that they can try and lobby their Congressman to get the laws changed, however in practice it's so difficult, time-consuming and potentially expensive that it's not a true option.

Do you think this would be something you could get behind?

If I ever come to power, I will put up a section on the white ...

2026-07-16T00:02:38Z

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.

I have been reading an article online regarding the role the ...

2026-07-16T00:01:44Z

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

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

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

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

I want to talk about making it difficult for divorce to happen ...

2026-07-16T00:00:30Z

I want to talk about making it difficult for divorce to happen for frivolous reasons when the marriage has produced a child. To make it really clear, I think this should only be confined to cases where the couple has a child together. Normally, it's not anybody's business, and certainly not the government's, when someone wants to end their marriage. Nobody should be able to stop them, nor to question them. However, when a child is involved, it's different. The child's needs come first, ahead of either parent's needs. I feel that a child has the best chance of growing into a happy adult if she grows up in an intact family with both biological parents, who are the most likely to truly love her and care for her. I believe that we should force people to make sacrifices for the happiness of their child. If you are simply "unhappy" in your marriage, then I am sorry, that is not sufficient grounds for a divorce. Not when you have a child. I think it's really unfair to a child if its mother divorces her husband casually, only to marry someone, taking the child away from her biological father and forcing her to live with the step-father. Not only is the step-father less likely to love the child, there can be issues of neglect, or worse, issues of molestation or even rape. It's also unfair to the biological father to lose his child, when he hasn't done anything wrong to deserve the divorce. This is why I feel that no-fault divorce should be forbidden when the couple has a child together. People should be required to produce hard evidence that the marriage is no longer bearable, for example if a spouse has committed adultery, or if the husband hits the wife or the child, or if there is evidence of sexual crime, or other similar things of a very serious nature. I mean, we already throw men in jail for failing to pay child support. If we can do this to people in the name of children's welfare, then surely we can legally stop people from casually divorcing their spouse. What I am proposing is not nearly as draconian as what we currently do to men. So I hope people won't complain that the government doesn't have the right to do this. If you didn't protest about the court putting men in jail for not making child support, then you don't have the right to protest about this. So don't be a hypocrite, and more importantly, think about the child's welfare and how important having an intact family is for her. People are adults and I expect them to know that it's not only about themselves anymore when they produce a baby. Now there is another person involved. People should put the child first in everything they ever consider. And if they won't, then we will get the government to force them to. And I don't feel bad about this at all. Yes I admit that this will constitute an infringement on individual liberty, however, the thing is, the government already compels people to do all kinds of things, some of which are reasonable, some aren't. At least with my proposal, there is a purpose. I am trying to protect children. So yes, I feel completely justified. That said, I propose to establish some kind of agency that provides help and guidance to parents who are unhappy in their marriage. I want to help them identify what exactly is causing their dissatisfaction to the point where they are considering divorcing the father (or mother) of their child. I believe that with counselling and good advice, people will be able to work things out with their spouse and salvage their marriage, which is a precious thing. I care about children's welfare, however I also care about parents' happiness too. I want to do everything I can to ensure people aren't miserable in their marriage.

I believe that whether to be racist should be an individual's ...

2026-07-15T23:59:39Z

I believe that whether to be racist should be an individual's decision. If a white person wants to discriminate against someone of another race, he should be free to do so. We all know how lefties would react to this, they would scream "racist", "bigoted", "evil"..etc. I feel that this is psychologically coercive, and very unfair. It borders on bullying. I do not share the lefties' overwhelming compulsion to police people's thoughts and to demand thought uniformity. I feel that it takes all kinds to make a society. As long as someone isn't breaking the laws, then they should be left alone. And these racists aren't breaking any laws . Racism is never a crime. When you get to the bottom of it, it's just someone of one race being nasty to someone of another race. But being nasty is not a crime. When we go through life, there is no guarantee that we will always meet kind, nice people. If we come across someone who is not nice to us, and sometimes this is due to racist reasons, then guess what? it is simply too bad. We just need to know that that's life. Learn to deal with it and move on. Remember, people have the right to dislike anybody, for any reason you want.

A few more things I would do: I want to create something called ...

2026-07-15T23:57:49Z

A few more things I would do:

I want to create something called The Debates. It will be online and interactive. It's essentially an open arena that gives the people a chance to question and challenge anything the government says. I want to do this because there are bad people with bad intentions, and some of them are within the government, actively trying to do us harm. They will couch their bad intentions in a language that sounds good to our ears. They might say things like, "The reason we are going to war in such and such place is because we want to spread democracy", or "Vaccines save lives", or “Diversity is our strength" or "Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity". Basically things that sound good on the surface, however when you dig a bit deeper, you find that you actually have questions. Prior the advent of the computer and the internet, there wasn't much the people could do if they had doubts or questions about the many positive-sounding things their governments spewed out in large quantities. But now, we have the technology to host live and interactive debates where politicians are expected to field people's questions and to defend their positions and statements. I think it's safe to say that there will never be a shortage of bad-intentioned people saying otherwise nice-sounding things, but now, we can probe deeper. If a politician says what he says out of true belief, then he will not fall apart when questioned in depth. But someone who is just trying to trick us will not stand up to scrutiny. In other words, with The Debates, bad people will be shown to be full of it and will be kicked out of the government or even punished. One good thing about The Debates is that it's online. People who want to challenge their government do not have to be physically present at the actual debate, unlike in eras past. Also, everybody can see it. If a politician's position is shown to be indefensible, then he will logically have to give up the position as well as change his behavior accordingly. Anything less can result in people's anger and possible punishment. Furthermore, I want to add that politicians cannot have spokesperson or press secretary or anybody else do their talking for them. I expect them to answer for their own statements and policies. I don't want to hear some lackey explain and apologize on their behalf. By the way, when I say talking, I don't mean it literally. The debates will be in written words, not spoken words. This is so that people don't need to be together at the same time to have a debate. Someone will write something, then the politician will write something back in response and all exchanges will be in text and recorded down so that people can miss parts of it and still be able to come back to see it some time later. I will give an example of how The Debates would work. Let's say, I declare that we should treat animals with kindness. Someone can challenge me and say, "But didn't you eat a hamburger the other day? We saw it on the news. Burgers are made of meat and to kill a cow goes against your principle". Or another person might say, "But we still need to experiment on animals so as to advance medical science. Being kind to animals would halt the advance of science." Yet another person might say, "You are wrong. Human morality evolved as a behavior towards other humans, animals do not fall under the protection of human morality". All of these are valid concerns and are things people might think, so I will need to take them seriously and come back with answers that will satisfy the people who are watching the exchanges and who will be silently passing judgment on my responses. In times past, people could usually only think these things to themselves, the most they could do is mention them to other people in their lives. But now, with The Debates, they can question the politician directly. Gone are the days when politicians could just say whatever they wanted and pass any laws they wanted and just expect us to do as we were told.

Too often, we have experienced lawmakers passing unpopular laws, if not downright unwanted laws. I know that sometimes this is necessary, say in times of war. But the problem is that even in peace-time, lawmakers still pass unpopular laws. They do this because they know that there are no consequences for passing laws that people don't want. We have lost the community feel of law. What does "community feel of law" mean? Basically, think back to the very first law humans made for themselves. It was done by a group of people who got together, recognized the need for an official rule, and they all agreed that they needed something like this. This rule was the precursor of law. This is how the first law came about. Note how this was a community effort of sorts. People got together. It was also voluntary. People actually wanted the law. But now, in our contemporary society, there is no longer a community feel to laws. We have taken the act of passing laws and given it to professional lawmakers. These lawmakers do not consult us the people about what laws we would like, or whether we like the laws currently on the books. So as you can see, laws have lost their community feel as well as become no longer voluntary. Lawmakers also no longer work for us. Instead they act like our overlords, ordering us to obey the non-voluntary laws they unilaterally passed, or face jail time. I want to change this. I say that lawmakers should be required to defend the laws they pass, explain to us why they are necessary, especially in the case of laws we don't want. They do this through The Debates which I described above. I also expect lawmakers to actively look for possible complaints and concerns for the laws they are about to pass, because this is a part of their job. I also expect them to have the judgment to know whether laws they passed are wanted or not. They can conduct surveys, or ask random people on the streets, I don't care what they have to do. They simply need to find out people's will. I fully expect this from lawmakers. If they are intelligent enough to be a lawmaker, then they are intelligent enough to know what people want and don't want. And if they aren't, then it means they have failed as a lawmaker and will need to be punished. When a surgeon made a mistake and cut out a patient's healthy organ, he gets hit with a negligence suit. I want something similar. Let there be a mechanism in place, where people can get together and if their number exceeds a certain threshold, they can abolish a law. When this happens, it is taken as official determination that the lawmaker that penned the law has messed up, and he will face punishment for failing in his job just like the surgeon who blundered. Think of it as malpractice as a lawmaker. Just like a doctor who mal-practiced pays damages to his patient, so should a lawmaker pay damages to the public he has harmed. The damages will take the form of a lengthy prison term as well as being stripped of a percentage of his total assets. Ideally he also gets flogged in public, with his pants around his ankles. This is to deter other lawmakers from making similar mistakes. I want the punishment to have the effect of prevention. It takes a lot of effort to organize the masses and then to abolish a law like that. It's not realistic to expect people to do this very often because of the amount of efforts that are required. So I hope to prevent it from the get-go. Make it so that lawmakers know that if they screw up, there will be an extremely harsh punishment.

Another change I would make is to make sure that money, and all that power that comes with it, is not concentrated in too few hands. I move that we put a cap of 50 million USD as the maximum amount of wealth any individual can have, and 500 million for a business. I know this makes me sound really bad right now, like I am a communist. But please hear me out. I want to do this for two reasons: 1. When someone has an extreme amount of money, he will wield too much power. He can use his extreme wealth to buy up newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, things like that. And he then staffs them with whoever he pleases, meaning people who will advance his political agendas obediently and unquestioningly, since he literally controls their livelihood. He will use these media outlets to influence how the public thinks. He can also use them like a weapon to defame those that he doesn't like. He can use his wealth to contribute to political campaigns generously, thus deciding the outcomes of elections unfairly. He pours money into the campaigns of candidates who will advocate policies that benefit him, policies that will make him even more money. He can also benefit in other ways, for example, if he has a chemical manufacturing plant, his candidate can pass laws that will make it ok for him to pollute the environment, to the detriment of the public, thus preserving his business interests. There are many, many more such things that the extremely wealthy can do, to give themselves a tremendous amount of advantage, at the expense of the rest of us. This is why I want to put a hard cap on the amount of money people can have. I set the cap at 50 million, which I think is very reasonable, because 50 millions is still a lot of money. Think about it. People can still enjoy the many wonderful things that come with being rich, for example, they can eat at fancy restaurants, they can fly first-class, they can hire maids to keep their homes clean, thus freeing them from any household chores, they can hire a chauffer to drive them around shopping, they can put a couple of Mercedes in their garage...etc. However, they won't be so rich that they can buy up newspapers or influence the outcome of elections. Another reason I want to place a hard limit on how much money people can have is that, resources are finite. When some people have too much, it means that they are taking from others. One example I can think of is Trump's son-in-law's family, the Kushners, who own 9000 properties. To this day, I still can't wrap my mind around how many houses that is. I mean, how many houses does one family need? Like I can imagine if a family is very smart and hardworking and they make excellent financial decisions, and they own a couple of properties. They rent these out for rental income, and now they live very comfortably. But 9000 properties is simply too much. The Kushner family literally is taking resources that could have gone to others. Imagine all these properties, they could house thousands of people. And before you say the Kushner family "earned" these properties, I will point out that they haven't done anything to contribute to the community in any meaningful way. They don't generate jobs, they don't create services, they don't work, they just get rich through rent money, which buys them more properties, which in turn generate even more money, which allows them to buy up even more properties. And the cycle continues. I understand that a lot of us believe in capitalism, and resent any kind of government intervention in the financial sphere, we call this by various slurs. But I need to ask you, at what point, is having a huge amount of wealth too much. I am not saying we should go full-blown communist and have the government take away people's money and then dole it out to the masses. I am just saying that we should put a limit on it so that the extremely wealthy will not get even wealthier, and that the rest of the society gets a chance to make some money for themselves. Keep in mind that for a large segment of the population, they are no less smart and no less hardworking than the super-wealthy. The super-wealthy simply have the benefit of having money to begin with, which gives them an edge and helps generate more and more money and at a much quicker pace. And once they are off like that, the rest of us will never be able to catch up. And the distance between us and them will only grow bigger. If we make sure the mega-billionaires can't get any richer, then the excess money will go towards those who are smart and willing to work, meaning the middle class. This way, we make sure money is not concentrated in too few hands, and we build the middle class. It's a win-win situation.

A quick note: Once you get to a certain point of wealth, any more wealth will not make you happier, but it will serve to take wealth from others, and this results in a reduction in happiness.

I want to talk about campaign slogans like, Trump's "Make America great again", Kamala Harris' "Together, we can win this", and from my country, Trudeau's "In Canada, better is always possible". These slogans fall under the umbrella of rousing speech. What is a rousing speech? Basically, it's anything inspirational that someone says to people to stir their blood and galvanize them into action. Rousing speeches have their use in times of great distress. For example, in the olden days when there was an invading army at the gate. Maybe the enemy forces had been burning down buildings, pillaging, killing people, raping women, that sort of things, and the country's leader wanted to rally his people to fight off the invaders. However, in our modern context, I feel that rousing speeches should be avoided, because I believe that an election should be a sober event. Slogans that stir people's blood are bad precisely because they stir people's blood. People can't think straight when they are in such a mental state. We've all seen it at campaigns and rallies, crowds wave mini-flags, they get whipped up, some even cry on TV, saying, "I still believe!!". These things will no doubt help someone get elected, however, they do nothing to make sure the person elected will be a good leader. This is why I will make it so that any campaign of my party will not adopt slogans or otherwise try to whip up the crowd. At first, this will put my party at a disadvantage against candidates who are willing to use slogans. However, I hope that with time, people will come to see that my idea is good. I want people to vote for my party because they have carefully researched my platform and they have decided that my policies are the best. I want people to vote for me for this reason. I don't want people to vote for me because I am able to send their spirits soaring through the use of inspiring but ultimately meaningless speeches.

If my party ever comes into power, I will do this: Every year, set aside a portion of the taxes the government has collected, and use it to buy up farmlands. Then put government workers to plant crops and grow food on them. Do this every year to the point where we can afford to give everybody enough food to eat. I want to do this because I believe anyone who works full time should not go hungry. However, people who cannot work full time, or people who cannot work at all, should not have to starve, either. So the end result is that everybody should not be left by the government to starve. Which means I should hand out food to everybody regardless of anything. I believe that as we advance as a nation, more and more things should be recognized as basic human rights. I believe recognizing essential foods as a basic human right is very reasonable. At first people might think this is ridiculous, but that's also what people thought when the idea was first put forth that people have the right to life, so that their lives could not simply be taken by, say, an angry monarch. Same thing with the right to clean drinking water. People used to think that if you wanted clean, potable water, you had to work for it. But now we have it freely flowing out of our faucets. My point is, we should continuously expand our list of rights that humans should enjoy. This is how we make progress as a species. And I don't think giving people essential foods will take away the incentives to work. People would only have basic food covered, if they want nice things, things that are extra, they have to pay for them themselves so they will still have to work. So I don't fear that the economy will come to a standstill just because people now don't have to worry about food. Besides, if you think about it, telling people that either they work, or they starve, is very uncivilized. It's almost like threatening people. I believe we have reached a point where stuff like that should belong in the dustbin of history. The prospect of starvation should not be a fact of life anymore. People simply shouldn't have to worry about starving when they live in a first-world country. As for how it will actually work, I realize that people who work and pay taxes will in effect be supporting people who either can't work, or won't work, as the case might be. And that's just how it is.

I want to encourage more businesses, but with an emphasis on the ...

2026-07-15T23:54:50Z

I want to encourage more businesses, but with an emphasis on the manufacturing sector. I have seen a lot of small businesses, which is good, however they are mostly service-based. Businesses like, sandwich shops, restaurants, hair salons, bakeries...etc, you get the idea. Some operate consultancy firms. some started with a small restaurant and turned it into a chain. Others produce products like scented candles, little keepsakes, stickers, hand-made jewelries, ...etc. These are fine, I don't have a problem with them, and in fact, they produce real products and services, and they are good for the economy through the taxes that they pay and the jobs that they create. However, selling candles and making sandwiches and the like do not build a nation. What I really want to see is steel manufacturing, the laying of cables, building of ships, cars and planes, manufacturing of turbines, heavy machineries and engines, constructing of power plants, things of that nature. These are in the manufacturing sector, and they do more than contribute to the economy, they form the backbone of a nation. But we do not see too many of these kinds of businesses, and I think it's because they require quite a bit of start-up money, specialized skills, knowledge and technical expertise, which a lot of people simply don't have. I want to know if there's anything I can do to help encourage regular people to star a business in these areas. Maybe we can provide them with the capital or expertise through government funding. I will also clear away any barriers to entry. I firmly believe that by encouraging growth in the manufacturing sector, everybody wins. The country wins, because it has a base that manufactures anything it might need. Workers win because they get jobs. Businesses win because they get to make money. It's a net positive, with absolutely no negatives.

If I ever come into power, I will ban day-trading. Day-trading is ...

2026-07-15T23:54:16Z

If I ever come into power, I will ban day-trading. Day-trading is not investing. It also does not provide a good or service, it's just making money for the sake of making money. It does not contribute to the society in any way. Yes it's legal, but that does not mean it's right or that it should be tolerated. What it really boils down to is just financial sleight of hand. Clever? Yes. Meaningful? No.

Another activity I will ban is interest rate arbitrage. Basically, it means borrow money at a place that has lower interest rate, and then loan it out at a place that has higher interest rate, thus making money through the spread. The exact details aren't important; the important thing is that this activity does not generate any goods or services. In other words, it's making money for the sake of making money, just like day-trading mentioned above. As such, I will ban it on the grounds of it not contributing to our society.

Some people might say that interest rate arbitrage performs a service. They say that they make markets more efficient because by buying low and selling high, they minimize the differences in prices or rates between two markets. To me, this is an incidental benefit. It's not a real benefit. People only mention this "benefit" after the fact. They cite this benefit because they want to legitimize interest rate arbitrage, a useless, parasitic behavior, that nevertheless provides an easy, cushy way to make money. That's why these investment bankers try so hard to persuade lawmakers about these sorts of things. I will not allow this. Until such time comes that people can actually convince me of any real, meaningful service interest rate arbitrage provides, it will remain banned. The above are but a few examples off the top of my head. Believe me, there are a lot more useless commercial/financial activities that do not provide any sort of real benefit or goods or services, nor do they contribute to society in any way, they exist solely for the reason that greedy and lazy people can make money quickly and easily. All such behaviors will be banned. You want to get rich? Work or produce something.

I would make it so that news media of any kind, be it TV ...

2026-07-15T23:53:18Z

I would make it so that news media of any kind, be it TV stations, cable channels, newspaper, magazines...etc, have to operate on a strictly non-profit basis. They cannot be bought or sold by someone with money. This is so that the outlet will not maintain its spirit passed down from its founder and through the many successors, and not become yet another among the many things that the wealthy can simply purchase by whipping out their check-book. If the owner of an outlet wants to retire, or otherwise does not wish to continue owing the outlet, he has to select a successor and then pass on his torch to him/her. And if the owner hasn't got the chance to do that or if he for some reason is unable to find a successor, the government will take over temporarily, run the paper for the time being until such a time comes that a successor that can successfully maintain the spirit of the outlet can be named. The reason is this: These news outlets are charged with the incredibly important function of keeping the population up-to-date with what's going on in the country and the world. People rely on them to make informed choices about not just politics, but literally about everything in the public sphere. And we have been letting these institutions become sellable to the highest bidder, and it hasn't been working out well. People with money to burn are now the gatekeepers of information. They put stuff that they want us to think in their programming, and we gobble it up. If they want a certain candidate to win an election, they promote him and we elect him. They want the country to go to war with another country, they put that in and we go to war with that country. They want to demonize someone, they make him look like the Devil and we demonize him. They have an editorial section in the newspaper, which really is just about opinions, and that actually has nothing to do with news, and we say, "I don't see why we can't have an editorial page!", with the end result editors getting to shape and influence and manipulate the public opinions because most people lack the ability to think for themselves and they blindly follow these editors, whose views are pre-approved by the rich owners. They also put slants as well as spins in their "news" reporting, and the public follows them unquestioningly. News media being sellable means extremely wealthy people wield even more power that their already impressive riches grant them. These uber-rich media moguls staff their teams with people who will do their bidding and say whatever they want, so as to advance the moguls' financial and political agendas further. If occasionally they get resistance, they will just very simply and easily replace him/her with someone more obedient. There is no transparency, there is no real, objective news reporting. It's just endless mass manipulation and the shaping and re-shaping of public opinion disguised as news.

News media should NOT be treated like a product that has a certain price tag on it. Because it serves a very important function, which is to inform the public. This is why I don't want newspapers, TV networks to be able to be bought and sold. Now, this is easier said than done. However, I believe that the technical details can be worked out later. But first we need to have the realization that an apparatus that serves such an incredibly important social function cannot be commercialized, otherwise it becomes a commodity that someone with the deepest pocket can just scoop up. We should keep this in mind.

I would also make certain that news media outlets conform to certain rules to ensure the quality of their news reporting. The first one: on TV, there cannot be any music accompanying news. The reason is because they can play ominous-sounding, "evil" music so that people will associate someone or something with being evil. Manipulation of this kind will be made illegal. The reporting of news and consumption of news should be very sober processes. Newspaper also will be forbidden by law from putting spins on things. This is otherwise known as spin-doctoring. Again, the reason is that the public is easily fooled, they cannot tell when a spin is being worked into the story, and they get influenced in a way they otherwise wouldn't have. I consider this to be a highly unethical, manipulative act, so it must be banned. Also, newspapers will no longer be allowed to have an editorial section. They also cannot have a section where they show reader feedback that they receive. The former because a newspaper is for the dissemination of news. It's not about the opinion of a few editors. If they want to display some dude's opinion, then the "newspaper" is no longer newspaper, it needs to be called opinion-aper. In fact, I would ban the expression of opinion altogether in all newspapers. If we cannot give equal representation to all points of view, then we shouldn't be giving any to any views at all, because that would be the unfair promotion of certain views over others. And I want to ban newspaper from having a reader feedback section because what they actually do is selectively show certain kinds of feedback while deliberately withholding other kinds, or in plain language, they withhold the kind of feedback that does not align with what they already believe. Again, they do this to shape public opinion. They create the illusion that the public consensus is such a way, and the public being the intellectually unsophisticated fools that they are, lap it up. This is incredibly bad and dangerous for a free democracy. It needs to be banned. I will also be playing watchdog to inconsistent reporting. For example, in reports of crimes, if the perpetrator is a minority, and the newspaper or TV neglects to mention this, but in another crime where the perpetrator is white and they make his race front and center, I consider this to be a deliberate act and the agency in question will not simply be fined, it will be forcibly confiscated by the government and the government will assign a new owner to it, someone who pledges that he will not engage in such a dishonest, manipulative behavior. The message I want to send to these news media: I expect you to be honorable, ethical, consistent, and honest in your reporting. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be owning a paper or a TV station. And the above are just the few instances I can think of at the moment, trust me there are many, many more cases where they engage in manipulative, subtly misleading manners. As I encounter these, they will all be punished. Extremely harshly. There needs to be standards in the news media industry. There needs to be an agency that oversees them, regulates them, and punishes them whenever the situation calls for it. It shouldn't be this big open free-for-all where the person with the most money can buy things up and play with them like they are his personal toys.

Things I would do if I ever came into power: 1. Take money out of ...

2026-07-15T23:51:13Z

Things I would do if I ever came into power:

1. Take money out of politics. As it stands now, elections are expensive, and campaigns require a lot of money to finance. Especially presidential campaigns. So what results is that candidates need to find wealthy donors to back them. What this means is that rich people control our political system. Presidents, once they get elected, are beholden to the donors and will pass laws that the donors want. I am sure we are all familiar with this phenomenon. So, to fight this, I propose that we have candidates write down their platforms, their campaign promises, anything that they say to persuade the readers to vote for them, and compile a book out of it. Then this book is freely distributed both online and in paper-form in real life, so that anybody can access these writings very easily. This requires very little money (websites and paper are cheap). Then, we move to ban TVs, newspapers, radio, any other form of media, from mentioning any candidate at all. I want to do this because if we don't, then candidates that have wealthy backers will be able to buy TV time and spaces in newspapers to promote themselves. This gives them an edge over the other candidates who can't afford these things. So the end result is still big money influencing the outcomes of elections. Another bonus with having candidates write their stuff is we get to weed out the dummies. We expect our political leaders to be able to write. And to prevent them from simply hiring some hack to ghost-write for them, we lay out extremely harsh punishments for the candidates and writers who conspire to deceive the public like that.

2. Currently, there is absolutely zero recourse for the public if their president did not fulfill his campaign promises, or otherwise did a poor job as a president. I propose that we have this system whereby, once a president is retired from office, there be an account with all the banks in the country. We ask people whether they think the ex-president did a terrible job or not. If they think yes, they put 300 dollars in this account. If half the population do this, the ex-president goes to jail for an certain period of time. If 60% of people do this, he goes to jail even longer. And the rate at which his jail sentence lengthens goes up exponentially. And if 90% of the people are unhappy with him, he goes to jail for life. My reasoning is that with any president, there will always be some people who are dissatisfied with him. So I set the threshold at half of the population. However, if over 90% of people want to vote him into jail, then this is a very clear sign that he truly did do a terrible job, and an extremely harsh sentence is justified. The 300 dollars is set at such a level that it requires a not insignificant amount of money, so that people won't put an ex-president in jail lightly. But it's low enough that most people can still realistically afford it.

I want to do this because I remember talking to someone online. He was extremely unhappy with a certain law that a lawmaker in his state passed. He said he wanted said lawmaker to think, "if I pass this law, will I make it home alive tonight?" Apparently he was so unhappy that he was willing to commit acts of violence. Even though I share his anger, nevertheless I don't believe that violence is the solution to bad politicians. It's not realistic to expect people to take up arms and violently punish bad political leaders. There needs to be a way, a legal, non-bloody way for people to punish politicians for doing a poor job. Currently, there are zero consequences that politicians have to face for not carrying out the will of the people, so they do whatever they like. They know that they won't be punished in any way. The people know this is wrong, and they get angry. But this doesn't achieve anything. I want people's anger to mean something. Stewing in anger, complaining to other people, writing angry letters, making anger phone calls are currently all that we can do, and trust me these things don't mean anything to a bad politician. This has to change.

3. Conversely, if a president did a good job, he should be rewarded. I propose that there be an account with all the banks in the country that's called the ex-president's account. Anybody can put money into this account. If they think an ex-president truly did a good job, they can put in any amount of money to show their appreciation for him and to reward him for a job well done. Currently, not only are there no consequences for being a poor president, there are also no rewards for being a good one, either. This is very bad and creates a situation where presidents are pretty much guaranteed to be shitty. However, they now know that not only will they go to jail for doing a poor job, they will also be given lots of money for doing a good job. This creates an incentive for them to carry out the will of the people and to do things that benefit the masses. I mean, right now, what do we do for good ex-presidents? We might write books about them, praise them in newspapers, maybe sing songs about them, all of these things, though nice, do not benefit them in any tangible, real way. And this makes it very tempting for them to sell out the people and to cozy up to rich donors, who can and do benefit them tangibly by giving them money. I want to change this.

4. Lastly, I want to create something called The Shaming. Basically it lists the names of the closest blood relatives of a president. If a president fell from grace, not only will he be punished, it will also bring shame to his family, especially his children and other close relatives. This is yet another way to prevent supreme leaders of the land from engaging in behaviors that harm the nation but benefit themselves. The motivation for corruption, bribe-taking and similar behaviors is usually to benefit their children financially. They desire to see their children thrive. I want to use this to our advantage. I want them to know that their unethical behaviors will not pay. If their offspring is associated in the public mind with someone who is on the take, then it doesn't matter how much money they leave him, he will be in a state of shame, and people will shun him. They will not want to associate with him in any way. They will also want to avoid marrying him. I believe this should serve as a very strong deterrent against improper presidential behaviors. It's a weapon we have against corruption at the highest level. It's something our ancestors had done for thousands of years to police one another's behavior. If you do something shameful, you will bring shame on your family. Then your bloodline gets disgraced. It's powerful stuff. Some might think this would be an intrusion on the privacy of the politician's family members. I say, not so. What will happen is the candidate my party puts forth will voluntarily disclose this info. His family gives him permission, because they don't fear that he will do anything to bring them shame. The public sees this, and thinks, "This person has nothing to hide, and his family have complete faith in him. He is the person I want to vote for!" And then, other candidates will have no choice but to follow suit, because they will lose to us if they don't. This way, nobody is forced to do anything, nobody's privacy is trampled on, and my vision is brought to reality. It's pure genius.

I've been thinking about marital property in the States, and ...

2026-07-15T23:50:18Z

I've been thinking about marital property in the States, and about how assets are treated and divided in a divorce.

Personally, I think that we should overhaul the system, and treat assets of a married couple as completely separate and individually owned, unless they specifically designate a particular asset as jointly owned. For example, only the money in a joint account should be considered marital property. And only this money should be equally divided in the event of a divorce. I feel that even though marriage is the merging of two people, we need to recognize that the people involved are still two separate individuals, and their assets shouldn't be mixed. This is important when we consider that they might divorce, something that happens quite often. I believe that the way we currently treat spousal assets is not good enough, and it simply discourages people from thinking about marriage. I am sure you have heard these sentiments expressed, usually by men but can be by women too: "I am really hesitant to get married because I could lose half my worth if it ends in divorce." I want to assure people, especially people who have assets, that it is not financially risky to get married.

A related thing. I remember this divorce case, I forget the details, but basically, the husband was a very successful business man, and the wife was a stay-at-home mother. The husband met a new woman so he initiated divorce proceedings. They were trying to determine how to divvy up the assets, which were quite considerable because the husband made a lot of money. Anyway, they ended up in a court and I believe the judge awarded the wife half, because the wife took care of the home front so that the husband could completely focus on his career. Apparently the judge thought the woman was an indispensable part of the husband's success. I am not saying the wife didn't contribute, I agree that she did in a real way, however, if you think about it, the husband was the one who earned all that money. The wife didn't work and didn't earn any of it, she merely made it possible for the husband to not have to worry about anything at home. Put another way, the wife was necessary for the husband's success, however she alone was not sufficient for that success. She should get some money, but not half. Maybe like 1/5th of the money or some such. A good amount but not half of it. We should treat cases like this really carefully, because I believe the way we currently handle things, we are sending out a message to financially successful men that getting married is very risky, and they could lose half of what they worked hard to earn.

Some might mention pre-nuptials. I just want to point out that these have been over-turned by courts before, so they are not a fool-proof way to protect one's assets in a divorce.

Currently, in the West, there are a lot of risks involved when ...

2026-07-15T23:49:56Z

Currently, in the West, there are a lot of risks involved when starting a business. An entrepreneur can in theory succeed wildly, but there are times when he fails, and when that happens, he can go into a lot of debt. So it's quite risky. And when a business does succeed, most of the profit accrues to the owner. He can and often does not pay his employees in a way that is commensurate with what they help bring in. And in this sense, the workers do not really share in the prosperity, despite the fact they did a lot to help the business succeed. And we can't do anything about it because businesses are private entities, they don't answer to us, they can in theory do whatever they please.

I have a suggestion to improve the situation that will lower the risks of starting a business, encourage more people to start a business, help out fledgling businesses, and ensure workers share in the prosperity that they helped to create. Why don't we have a program where the government specifically invests in start-up businesses? The government will have a stake in a business, either through a loan of money or the providing of technical guidance, analysis, research on the best location for opening the shop, taking on a part of the costs of training employees, helping with retaining staff, making the application for business license and permits easier, and similar things. Basically, being involved and helping out in some way. Helping the owners in a way so as to lessen the risks of starting a new business. And I believe this is good for the economy because more people will be encouraged to start a business. They will see that starting a business is not as risky as before and this would result in more people attempting entrepreneurship. And in return, the business owner will promise the government that he will pay his employees well if his business does take off. Like maybe base their pay on a share of the company's profit. This way, the workers benefit too. The success of a business should not just all accrue to the owner, it should go to the workers as well, people who do the actual work. Also, maybe the government can make businesses promise that they will not outsource their jobs or move their operations overseas, and this protects American workers. If they can't promise these, then the government will withdraw funding or help. The government can also extract a promise from businesses that they will not engage in shady business practices (predatory pricing comes to mind). The government can do this because it has shares in said businesses through its various involvements. And this is just one example, there are potentially many other barely legal, unethical business practices that can be prevented this way. When this happens, everybody wins. And the best part about my idea is that it's completely voluntary. Business owners can choose to refuse government help and go it alone, and this would be totally fine.

I don't know if this is a novel idea or not. Maybe someone's already thought of it. Anyway, I want to create a situation where costs as well as benefits of entrepreneurship are more evenly spread out so that there will be more businesses as well as more people benefitting from the success of businesses.

I have noticed that whenever the topic of foreign workers (and by ...

2026-07-15T23:48:53Z

I have noticed that whenever the topic of foreign workers (and by extension, third world immigrants) comes up, there will always be someone who says people who don't want more foreigners are just "afraid" of competition. I want to ask him, what's so great about competition? You see, his automatic assumption is that competition is always good, especially when it comes from foreigners. And if you don't want it, it's because you are afraid, or some such nonsense.

My position: competition is only good if it leads to innovation. An example: if you compete against, say, the Chinese, they can't innovate as well as Americans, so they might try to compete in other areas. Maybe they make the workers work extra hard. Maybe they will put in huge amounts of over time. The owners might also pay the workers peanuts, so that their products will be cheaper and more competitive. And if Americans want to be able to compete against all that, they might have to make similar sacrifices. This is the bad kind of competition, we don't want that. Now, if the competitor is Germans, the situation is different. The Germans are more like Americans in the sense that they are better at innovating, and their workers are unwilling to work like slaves or to work for poor pay or to work really long hours. So, in order to be competitive, they have to innovate. They have to design truly outstanding products. To compete with that, Americans have to come up with even better products. This is the good kind of competition that we want. My point isn't that all competition is bad. But rather, not all competition is good. I also think it's strange that regular people would embrace foreign workers like that, because having to compete against cheap foreign labor who are willing to work for peanuts only benefits the owner class, regular people don't benefit from it. In fact, regular people lose a lot. Are people being paid to say these sorts of things ? Nobody I know in real life is in favor of foreign workers. This person is, at best, confused; at worst, possibly a shill paid by big money to brainwash us.

There is a related phenomenon: where there are foreigners and immigrants already in the country, and native-born Americans are understandably unhappy about jobs being taken. Some people take a really unsympathetic view towards these Americans. They say that Americans should upgrade their skills or seek further education or anything along those lines, so that they can remain competitive. My response: how would YOU like it if you were put in such a position? To be forced to compete against foreigners who are willing to work for a lot less? Now your days and nights would be filled with endless school and/or training, leaving you little time for yourself and your family, and you constantly have to upgrade yourself lest you lose your livelihood? You would be living in a state of constant worry and anxiety because if you ever tried to slow down your pace to enjoy life, your job could be gone. Nobody was able to answer these questions. Their own job is secure (for now), so they lecture others. I would really love to see how they would react when the shoe is on the other foot. Furthermore, these people get the idea in their heads that people exist solely to make money for their employers. And if they ever cease being useful money machines, they need to go or be replaced. It doesn't occur to them that these workers are people with families and loved ones, and they have their lives that they want to live. The value of a human being does not depend on their financial usefulness.

A few more thoughts on businesses: If I ever come into power, I ...

2026-07-15T23:47:50Z

A few more thoughts on businesses:

If I ever come into power, I will ban any companies or businesses that try to induce the public to become dependent on them. One thing comes to mind: the then Monsanto's terminator seeds. Basically Monsanto had patented certain seeds for farmers to buy and use. These seeds were genetically engineered to grow only one harvest. If the farmers wanted to plant more next year, they had to buy them all over again from Monsanto. Shenanigans like this will be made illegal under my rule. I will also ban planned obsolescence. In plain English, it means companies deliberately design products such that they will break down prematurely, so that customers have to keep buying a new one, thus increasing sales and profit for the business. It doesn't produce anything of value, it's purely a way to make money for money's sake. Not mention also manipulative and unethical. The proper way of making money should be to design a product really well, make sure it works as long as possible, so that the customer gets a big bang for his buck. And then, he will rush out and tell his friends to buy this product, because its quality is so good. THIS, is how a business should make money. It is not to make intentionally shitty products that force customers to have to keep buying replacements.

Some companies employ actuarial science to figure out the optimal price that will extract the most profit for them. What does this mean? Basically, they hire mathematicians to calculate the highest price at which there are the most number of people who can afford the product. For example, a cup of cappuccino. If they price it too low, and even though a lot of people can afford it, they won't make too much money. But if they raise the price too high, very few people will be able to afford it, and they end up with less profit too. So they need to figure out the best, most optimal level, the "sweet spot" of prices.

There are corporations who send their female employees to have abortions, so that they can focus on their careers and make money for the owners. This absolutely disgusts me. But it's partly our fault too, as a society. We have set up our society in such a way that any business that isn't ruthlessly cut-throat, will fail and be replaced by another that's cut-throat and ruthless. A company that treats employees kindly by allowing them time off for pregnancy and child-rearing will likely be outcompeted by a company that is not willing to do those things. So, it really isn't any one business getting out of hand; the entire system is set up so that if it's not one company acting this way, it will be another.

When a business lowers the prices of its products, it is not trying to give you cheaper products. Rather they do this to undercut their competitor. They will lower the prices enough to force out their competitor. This is why you will never see truly low prices. And if you do, the low, low prices won't last forever. Once the competition is gone, the business will raise the price back up. This is what Walmart is known for. And while we are on Walmart, I heard that they get away with paying unreasonably low wages to their employees, and then have sessions where they coach the employees on how to apply for state health benefits to supplement their meager incomes. In other words, your tax money subsidizes these people's existence because Walmart is too cheap to pay their workers a living wage. If I ever come to power, I will look into this matter, and Walmart will be in serious trouble.

How do politicians get bought? Imagine that you are a lawmaker of ...

2026-07-15T23:46:56Z

How do 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 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.

There have been debates about whether to abolish the death ...

2026-07-15T23:44:14Z

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 bad 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 grave 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 give mandatory 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. And when what I suggested is combined this with an environment that generally tells people to be good, we should be able to reduce serious crimes to a very low degree. The criminal 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 after the fact 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 conceivably 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 repay their debts to society that they have wronged. And having gene therapy is a perfect way to go about that. 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 risk creating a lot of future victims. And 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". This statement I stand by. I stand by 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. 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 harsh 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 core 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 with forgiving a criminal. The Him of him will never change. At his core, he will always be the same person.

I think that for the vast majority of us, the best thing we can ...

2026-07-15T22:31:36Z

I think that for the vast majority of us, the best thing we can do for our world is to shut our mouths, and listen more. Nobody needs to be hearing what we have to say. All that talk about "expressing yourself" is actually very bad for our society, because it would only lead to the stupid making a lot of noise, which would drown out the voice of the wise. We need most people to shut up, so that true thinkers' voices can be heard. There is a very, very good chance that we have nothing of value to say anyway.

A key characteristic of good people is that they benefit others, ...

2026-07-15T22:29:13Z

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 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.

I am sure that some have wondered about how white people's ...

2026-07-15T22:27:36Z

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.

I have been thinking about sexual selection versus natural ...

2026-07-15T22:26:26Z

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.

My Guess On How Depression Evolved We all know that depression is ...

2026-07-15T22:25:39Z

My Guess On How Depression Evolved

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

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

We can actually see a modern-day example of the benefit of depression. We all know the phenomenon of a "loser", who is usually male. Such a male typically has inferior genetics, and he cannot secure a mate. So, he has reduced fitness. Nature has selected for such men to experience depression, because if they aren't depressed, and instead exhibit anger that is very frequently seen with men, they could very well walk into a crowded shopping mall with a gun and start shooting people. Depression would cause these men to become too sad to do anything, and this would preserve the group. Of course, I gave an example involving guns and shopping malls because that's what we are familiar with. In our evolutionary past, these things didn't exist, so just imagine that a man with reduced fitness but without depression might, say, pick fights with others very frequently, or otherwise engage in disruptive behaviors that threatened the survival of his group.

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

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

Some people like to say how humans are genetically 99.9% similar, ...

2026-07-15T22:24:46Z

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 will talk about altruism in humans and how it evolved. Altruism ...

2026-07-15T22:23:33Z

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

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

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

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

You can sometimes get people to not break laws, but you cant make ...

2026-07-15T22:22:23Z

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

Men are in a constant war with one another to compete for the ...

2026-07-15T22:15:25Z

Men are in a constant war with one another to compete for the chances to mate with women. Those of them who are "alphas", aka, the ones who have superior genetics and are highly attractive to women, get women easily. Those who possess inferior genetics are called betas. These men get few mating choices. Those of them who have the smarts and ambitions, run businesses to become rich, and this helps with their reproductive efforts somewhat. These betas know that with the genetics they are born with, they don't stand much chance of attracting attractive women. So they hope by having great wealth, they can impress these women. But the amount of money that can made by one man is typically quite limited, unless he's truly intelligent and inventive, which most men aren't. So these beta but smart men need to come up with ingenious ways to get more money than they could on their own, and one big way is by exploiting the labor of other men and women. In other words, they have to become capitalists and business owners and have other people work to make lots of money for them. Now, where do we average-looking women place in this scheme? We are not hot enough to be desired by these men, so, our natural place is to become one of their employees. We work to make these men rich, and in the process make enough to live on, and for those of us who are lucky, maybe enough to raise a family. But we will always be a cog in the economic machine and nothing more. The same is true for our male colleagues. They are neither hot enough to be alphas, nor are they smart enough to be business owners. So their role is to work for the rich men as well. I want the women reading this to realize how men see us. When we are attractive, they want our body. When we are not, they want our labor. This is the true state of the battle of the sexes, with a little bit of economics thrown in the mix.

A word about the role beauty plays in love: Love only exists among blood relatives. The only time it happens for someone who is unrelated is if she is extremely beautiful. By the way, truly unconditional love doesn't exist. People like to talk about it because it's idealistic, it's romantic. But it has nothing to do with reality. Even parents, who are supposed to love their children unconditionally, are largely motivated by cute looks. If babies didn't look as cute as they do, there would be a lot less parental care and love. Furthermore, I am sure we have all heard of the song that goes, "I learned the truth at 17, that love is meant for beauty queens". This captures truth really well. Romantic love exists only for beautiful people. If you are a plain Jane, men will never truly love you like they would a beautiful woman. They might still marry you, however it's only because they want free sex and hot meals.

I am sure we have all heard of the platitude, "There are good ...

2026-07-15T22:12:39Z

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.

When people talk about racial differences, some people, aka ...

2026-07-15T22:08:26Z

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.

A thing about evil: evil can be explained in biological terms. ...

2026-07-15T22:04:00Z

A 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 religions.

I have read that politicians tend to be more financially ...

2026-07-15T21:34:19Z

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.

Have you heard of this thing called "slush fund"? ...

2026-07-15T21:33:23Z

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.

On tolerance. We are constantly being told to be tolerant. We ...

2026-07-15T21:32:29Z

On tolerance. We are constantly being 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 do such a thing, you can be sure that we are looking at something unsavory. 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 crappy 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 like me, I bet you have no idea, either. You just open up the newspaper, or turn on the TV, and messages of this sort will keep washing over you. Ask yourself. Who are the people who keep putting these sorts of messages in there?

I seem to hear this sentiment a lot: Whenever there is any kind ...

2026-07-15T21:31:28Z

I seem to hear this sentiment a lot: Whenever there is any kind of conflict between the government and the masses, some people like to think that the government is always right. This is sometimes false, and not only that, it is also an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. For it means that people will blindly throw their support behind the government, whom they mistakenly believe to always have good, kindly intentions, and then, these people's support, which manifests as tax money, is then used by the government, to oppress and put down regular people but more frequently, dissenters, those who go against the government, the "troublemakers". So, any time there is a conflict between the government and the masses, ideally we want to have an open debate, listen to both sides, to see who really is in the right. And when that's not possible, which is often the case because the government would never allow such a debate to take place in the first place, then the safest thing we can do, is to assume that the government is wrong. For one thing, a government that refuses to have an open debate, is highly, highly suspect. Secondly, do we really trust the government? The entity that has such a huge track record of being dishonest, secretive, hiding things from the public, allowing black sites by key agencies, weaponing the Justice process as well as the FBI to go after someone they don't like...etc etc, the list really is too long, but suffice to say, I truly do believe the government has a very well-deserved, very unsavory reputation. And there really is a very good reason for it. And it is that, the government truly is an force of Evil. So, not only should we not put our trust in our government, we should actively spread awareness among regular people, to alert them to the fact their government is not there to serve them, but rather, to oppress and harm them. Make sure you come with plenty of well-researched examples that people can easily verify for themselves. And try to make sure that they are examples well-known to the masses. People don't like to have to do research on obscure stuff. And don't talk in an antagonistic way. Approach people with calm, friendly, pleading words. Think of it this way, you want to make people see things our way. You want them to realize something you know, but they don't know yet. Go through my writings here for more tips. Alternatively seek out like-minded people who are wise and who have experience with these sorts of things. Failing that, read self-help books on how to influence people and win them over. And do not alienate people in any way whatsoever. We need every ally we can get. Every ally lost is a huge loss. We are literally in a struggle for survival. We have to be very, very, very, very careful.

Oh another quick tip: Don't use big words, because that would not help you at all. Also try and relate to people. Talk to them in a way that makes it easy for them to understand. Whenever possible, tailor your talk according to your audience. This one takes a bit of work, but you must learn to be good at it.

When some kind of scandal breaks out, a lot of people say that ...

2026-07-15T21:29:18Z

When some kind of scandal breaks out, a lot of people say that they are mad. But what does that anger do? Does it lead to you doing anything to punish bad politicians? Does it motivate you to make any real changes? No. All it does is that it festers in your mind, making you unhappy, but it does not lead to anything productive. When you are just angry but don't take any action, then that anger is useless.

And a related thing: I am sure we are aware that some groups have been talking about using force....etc, to take back control. You know what I mean. Well, I agree with the sentiment behind it, for I sincerely believe that most politicians, and almost all who are in positions of power, are literally more like animals than humans. They don't respond to anything other than force. If you try to appeal to their better angels, their softer/higher side, then sorry, you might as well be trying to teach a snake about being kind. However, these politicians, are also very intelligent. They will tell the masses that these people are using violence and that they need to be put down. And then the masses cheer the government because they are too stupid to tell the difference between force, which is legitimate, and violence, which is an illegitimate use of force.

How to tell the government's intent: Normally, it's hard ...

2026-07-15T21:03:14Z

How to tell the government's intent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have seen quite a few investment guides and strategies, written ...

2026-07-15T20:44:04Z

I have seen quite a few investment guides and strategies, written by people who hope to be able to retire as early as possible. Apparently this is what a lot of people dream about. What they don't know is that, the government wants the total opposite of that. The government likes having a lot of workers who pay taxes. It also wants to ensure there is a big pool of labor to work for the corporations that it's in bed with and whose interests it cares about and tries to protect. As such, people who openly talk about an investment strategy that is actually successful work against themselves, because if too many people copy the strategy and start becoming financially independent, this will draw the government's attention. The government will then pass new laws to make the investment strategy stop working. The government does not want a lot of people retiring early and not working to make taxes for it and profit for its corporate cronies.

I want to talk about how bribery works in the West. I believe ...

2026-07-15T20:42:11Z

I want to talk about how bribery works in the West. I believe that would-be bribers don't actually approach a politician and say to him, "I would like to bribe you", or "I want to get you to do despicable things for money". Something like those might fly in a more corrupt country like China or India, but not in the West. Instead, these bribers probably first try to get close to the politician they want to bribe by getting into his life. Maybe invite him out for coffee or lunch a few times. This can be achieved by the bribers claiming to be his constituents and that they would like some of his time. In other cases, maybe the would-be bribers worked with him on his campaign with the aim of getting close to him and connecting with him. My point is that since he is a public official, getting close to him isn't very difficult. Then, the bribers will start showering him with nice things and favors. For example, they will treat him to dinners at nice, expensive restaurants, and give him nice things, things that make his life very pleasant, such as a jacuzzi suit or a Rolex watch or a speed boat, things like that. And they will make it sound totally innocent, they will say that it's a gift to him to show their appreciation for his hard work, or something like that. Then, once he is accustomed to the sweet life, the bribers then come out and indicate to him what they want done, usually what laws they want him to pass. If he has integrity and refuses, then the gifts and nice things stop coming. But he has become accustomed to having them. So now, his brain chemistry will scream at him to do whatever it takes to keep the dopamine hits coming, and that means more gifts and perks and favors. So he does what the bribers want him to do. This is the process by which a normally non-corrupt politician can be bribed and corrupted.

Other times, the bribers start with the politician's family, usually his wife. They will shower her with gifts and nice things. They will do this till she gets "hooked", and then she will implore him to do the bribers' bidding because her brain is addicted to the nice things and she will do whatever it takes to keep the gifts and nice things coming. This is a powerful tactic because even though a principled politician is normally hard to bribe, when the closest person in his life starts putting pressure on him, it's hard to say no to that. So the bribers effortlessly recruited the most important person in a politician's life to persuade him to do what they want.

I want to talk about what I call, political bet-hedging. So ...

2026-07-15T20:41:26Z

I want to talk about what I call, political bet-hedging. So basically, in an election, extremely wealthy donors donate money to candidates who have completely opposing platforms. This is so that no matter who wins, the winner will be beholden to the donors and will do whatever they want, such as pass laws that they ask for.

When I think about something like this, it makes me angry. When I donate my hard-earned money to a candidate, it's because I believe in what he says. I share his vision. My support for him is real and it comes from my heart. And I would never in a million years donate to his opponent. I want the candidate who shares my values to win. But these political bet-hedgers game our system, just because they have a few more dirty shekels than the rest of us. These people, they don't have any political convictions like you or I do. They have no principles, no morals, no ideals, they don't believe in anything. They only care about furthering their influence and making their bank accounts even fatter. In fact, they are exactly the type of people who would persuade countries to go to war with one another, just so that they could profit off the conflict and the deaths and suffering that come with it. They believe in neither side's cause, all they want to do is sell arms to both sides, and make tons of money. The sad thing though is that people like this are very reproductively successful. They tend to have a lot of children, whom they fathered with many women, because their obscene amounts of wealth allow them to keep women around like that. The now-dead Epstein comes to mind. He kept twenty women around, who were all pregnant by him. He probably thought his ability to control, manipulate and blackmail powerful politicians meant his genes were very superior. The fact he was wealthy further cemented this view. He probably genuinely thought he should pass on lots of copies of his genes. A lot of the rich and filthy think like this.

Anyway, back to political bet-hedging. I think it would be very difficult to prove an instance of political bet-hedging. People can donate to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. Even though we all know they donate purely to benefit themselves, not because they genuinely believe in a cause or want to support a particular candidate. I really feel the phenomenon of political bet-hedging is a real, serious problem, however it is one that is not provable, and there is nothing we can do about it.

How to survive the coming storm I believe we pull our money out ...

2026-07-15T20:35:21Z

How to survive the coming storm

I believe we pull our money out of the stock market (which is basically a huge casino waiting to vaporize your hard-earned money) and buy bitcoin, gold, ammo etc, we should also try and buy lots of land. With land, you can grow veggies and raise livestock on it, and this means you will be self-sufficient. Some people like the idea of owning precious metals like gold, saying that it can be used to trade for food when the worthless fiat money collapses. My own thought is that gold is better than fiat money, however ultimately, its still not the best because what is the value of having gold or silver when there is no food that you can trade it for? Owning land means you will have food, which is what a lot of people are going to want. And one thing that proves the value of landownership is the government's reaction to (white people) buying land. Yes, the government tries its level best to prevent white people from owning land. And this very action tells you that it must be a good idea. When in doubt, always do the opposite of what your government wants. In fact this principle works in almost every other area that you can think of. Your government hates you as a white person. It hasn't cared about you in decades. Anyway, living off the land is difficult but possible. Yes people might need food from super markets during the transitional period. But once everything starts to be harvest-ready, they will have very few needs for super markets. Self-sufficiency of this kind is very empowering, which is why the US government treats survivalists and homesteaders as enemies and keeps close tabs on them.

People have been talking about inflation and how the purchasing power of their money is eroding. I don't have any idea how economy works, and I do not know the best way to preserve the value of one's money. However, one thing I do know is that the fiat money that we own, is ultimately worthless. It's fiat, and not backed by anything (such as silver or gold). And the government just keeps printing more of it, thus diluting its value. My recommendation to you is this: spend all your money. Yep, I mean it. But don't spend it on useless things like cheap plastic goods. Spend it in a way that's meaningful. By that I mean, have lots and lots of children. Then spend your money (while it still has value) getting them useful college degrees (not something useless like gender studies or political science, for example). And when you are old, your many children will take care of you. So basically, own land and have lots of children. This is what our ancestors had been doing for thousands of years.

One more thought I want to add: say you do buy land, and lets say the doomsday that some people have been predicting does come to pass. You have to be mentally prepared that you as a landowner with food to spare, will become a target of roving bands of robbers and thugs (most likely made up of minorities). They are going to rob you. So, in order to combat this, buy lots of guns and ammunitions, learn how to shoot. But not only this, you must try and find like-minded people, and form a little community of sorts. You will help one another in times of need, and watch out for one another. And when gangs of minority thugs start to threaten you, your properties, or your families, band together with your neighbors, your fellow landowners, to defend yourselves. In other words, don't become little islands. Though you might be self-sufficient in terms of food, you still need help in other areas, such as defense. So, buy up land with other people who share your vision, or if not that, then aim to become good friends with your neighbors. And did I mention that you should have lots of ammos and learn to become a good shooter?

I just heard that the government is going after farmers. This is their way of telling us how important farmers are. So what I would do is become friends with farmers in your area, talk to them, listen to the problems the government is causing them, help them out however you can. You probably won't be able to completely convert them in one go, but it will be good to earn their friendship. And then, try and sow in their hearts distrust of the government. Help them see the government truly does not have their best interest at heart. Show them real-life examples, which shouldn't be hard, as there will be plenty such examples. You can also consider becoming a farmer yourself, it's your decision. But what I do know is that if you do, it would be a very positive thing, because the government seems to be threatened by white people owning land and growing their own food. Whatever the government wants you to do less of, is what you should do more of.

Just want to add a bit more about becoming friends with farmers: the best to convert someone to our side is not to come at him with stuff you want to say. The best way is to ask him how he is doing, and if he has troubles, listen to them. We would like to believe that humans are persuaded by rational arguments, facts, and logic etc. However, that's rarely how it works. Most people go by how you make them feel. If they like you on a personal level and feel like that they can trust you, then they will be willing to listen to a lot of things you say. So your number one mission isn't to persuade and convince, it should be to win people's hearts. This doesn't only apply to farmers, it also applies to members of the military. In fact, it applies to pretty much everyone. So, be a good friend, be the first one to extend a helping hand, and act honorable. Remember, we are the ambassadors of our cause. We should always conduct ourselves in a way that will make people think, "He is a good guy. He can be trusted".

I mentioned that liberals believe people should do whatever makes ...

2026-07-15T20:33:22Z

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.

Some people like to criticize the Bible as being primitive ...

2026-07-15T20:31:47Z

Some people like to criticize the Bible as being primitive writing. And the Bible does mention practices and beliefs that seem ignorant to us in the modern time. However, I just want to point out that this is not a fair way of looking at it. The Bible is not meant to be a manual. It's about teaching people about matters that are of a spiritual nature, faith, that which is unseen, what it means to believe, and such. Let me put it this way: science, and knowledge, are about not believing anything by faith; whereas the Bible, is all about believing by faith. Now, I am not saying one is better than the other. But rather, they are totally different things. True, you will not be able to find out from the Bible how to build an atomic bomb, or how to cure bacterial infections, or how the human immune system works. and it's because it's not about those things. In fact, the textbooks we currently have, will probably all be obsolete in about a few decades' time. But it's been 2000 years, and some of the things the Bible talks about are still relevant to us today, and will probably remain so for as long as humans stay the way they are. and I say this as a non-Christian. I have read parts of the Bible and I can honestly tell you that it just draws me in. It makes me ponder. I didn't gain scientific knowledge from it, but I have gained understanding, and insight into weighty matters. I am not saying you have to believe in the Bible. Just that it's not fair to compare it to say, a university textbook. That's not what the Bible is trying to be.

Another thing is that people often focus on superficial stuff in the Bible, you know, the unimportant things, and make a big deal out of it. For example, people would say that virgin birth is impossible. I mean, we live in the 21st century, we have come a long way in terms of scientific knowledge, we are taught biology in high schools. Do you really think it's some kind of achievement to point out the impossibility of virgin birth? I am not defending virgin birth, I don't believe it either, but trotting it out as proof that the Bible is a bunch of bunk is just stupid. For the era that it was written in, which is two thousands years ago, the Bible was revolutionary. Yes, there are embellishments throughout the book, but overly focusing on them blinds you to the many messages that the book contains.

Any atheist can criticize the Bible; it takes a special kind of atheist to appreciate it.

The best way to fight inflation is by immediately spending the ...

2026-07-15T20:08:04Z

The best way to fight inflation is by immediately spending the money you have, while it still has value. Use that money to give yourself a good, truly useful education, and then put a down payment on a home. marry a woman who does not believe in covid jabs and raise a big family with her. If you have money left over, put it towards the education of your children. Encourage them to take useful majors such as computer or STEM, medicine, or some kind of professional degree that ensures employment after graduation (definitely no useless degrees like political science or gender studies). Then once you are old, your children will take care of you if you raise them right.

Kids are the best asset you can own, they are better than stocks or gold or bitcoin because they can actually defend themselves against outside threats. A bar of gold is helpless at repelling an attacker, in fact it requires energy and efforts from you to protect it. Same thing for all commodities and assets you can think of. Your children can also fight for your country, have a positive impact on your community, they pass on your blood, not to mention they bring joy and laughter into your life . All of these things aren't financial in nature, however they matter a lot.

If you are worried about being poor when you are in your golden years, I understand this fear. The key thing I recommend, aside from raising a big family, is to own your own home. Once you have that, then you will only need enough money for things like grocery, upkeep, and sometimes medicine. And you can prepare for these things easily, as long as you have some savings. Personally, I put a part of my money into GICs. I am not looking to grow my money, instead I am just looking to have enough money to survive on once I stop working. Then the rest into physical gold bars, which I have much more control over. I didn't put all of my money in GICs because GICs are in the custody of banks, and I have just learned recently that banks soft-freeze people's assets. This is especially true if you are someone the government doesn't like, aka, a political dissenter. In other words, you don't want to put all, not even most, of your money in the "Matrix". In any event, you most certainly shouldn't put any of your money in the stock market. I chose GICs because they are safe and guarantee my principal, compared to the stock market (although they are still vastly inferior to physical gold). Forget about striking it wildly rich by investing in the stock market. The stock market is a huge billionaire run-casino waiting to evaporate your hard-earned cash. I know that some people squirrel away a large portion of their earnings in the hope of having a very comfortable retirement, this is understandable, however, you must realize that the more money you put away, the greater the risk you are exposing yourself to, due to inflation (which, by the way, physical gold and silver bars guard against quite well). So my advice is to spend as much of it as possible, but only on meaningful things such as child-rearing and providing your children with college funds. You better believe some your kids' classmates' parents are devoting all their money to ensure their children get a good education. If you don't do something to counter this kind of sacrifice, you will put your children at a huge disadvantage. So don't just think about yourself, don't fantasize about travelling the world and having brunch everyday in your golden years. Think of your children's future.

A word about investing in the stock market: don't think that playing with penny stocks is the only way it can be risky. Even time-honored, blue-chip, seemingly safe companies can go down in flames. Consider this: I bought shares of General Electric a few years ago. It was one of the oldest names on the New York Stock Exchange. It was the only surviving company on the index ever since the inception of the stock exchange. It was a prestigious company that manufactured advanced instruments. I saw medical imaging equipment in hospitals and they all bore the mark of General Electric. At the time, it also had a very good dividend rate, which I had hoped would give me a steady stream of income that I could live off of. I had reasonable expectations, I wasn't counting on my stock to double or triple in a short period of time. I wasn't hoping to strike it rich in the stock market. I just wanted to have money coming in regularly, in the form of dividend. Surely such an investment strategy is safe and a good idea? Wrong. Ever since I bought it, the share price went into a steep decline, and not only that, the company slashed its dividend. So basically, I was forced to hold the shares, because if I sold, I would lose money immediately. The only recourse for me was to wait for the price to rise back up, just so that I could break even. It had been many years, and I was at a loss for all that time. I had to hold the shares. And not only that, I also lost out on interest payments that I would have been able to enjoy if I had simply stashed my money in GICs. Or consider Nortel, one of the biggest names in Canada. At its height, Nortel accounted for more than a third of the total valuation of all companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Surely a company this big can't go down? Wrong. Nortel filed for bankruptcy in 2009, which left shareholders with enormous losses. My point is, stock markets simply have too many unknowns to regular people like you and me. Even when you have done your due diligence, there are still forces that can work against you. It is incredibly risky and unsafe to put your retirement money in it. My advice is you should only play with the stock market with money you can afford to lose; and if you are an average person like me, that means none. I do not have any money that I can afford to lose whatsoever.

The government does not fear us. I mean, even if a large number ...

2026-07-15T19:54:13Z

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

Immigrants like to think they are contributing to the society ...

2026-07-15T19:52:48Z

Immigrants like to think they are contributing to the society just because they pay taxes. And some very confused white people also think that, too. No, no, no. You see, paying the taxes is just the barest minimum of being a good citizen. I do not consider it to be some kind of achievement worthy of praise. Besides, the fact immigrants have the money to pay taxes necessarily means that that they have jobs. And when an immigrant has a job, it necessarily means that he has taken the job away from a native-born American. Why do I say that? Well, if immigrants themselves could create jobs, they would have done that already when they were in their home countries. And then they wouldn't need to come here. But since they did come to the West, then it must mean that they cannot create jobs (or the kinds of jobs worth having) back home and have to come here in search of it. So, the fact an immigrant is paying taxes is literally him/her declaring to the world: "Hi, I have robbed a native-born American of his/her job".

There exist people who are not motivated by money but rather by ...

2026-07-15T19:50:10Z

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.

Beware though, that the moneyed class do have something up their sleeve. Even though the incorruptible cannot be bought, they nevertheless still need food, shelter...etc, in order to live. So, what the ruling class (essentially the moneyed class) do is they ruin the economy so badly (which is very easy for them to achieve since they possess the levers of finances), that these people who are normally only motivated by principles, have no idea but to bow their knees, just to survive. And this is a key reason why the ruling elites tell the government which they control to let in so many immigrants. More immigrants means more people battling for scarce jobs, this displaces the incorruptible, forcing them to give up on their principles and ideals, just to live.

I want to talk about something extremely nasty, something that ...

2026-07-15T19:47:08Z

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 do, but sending these fathers to jail doesn't really help the overall situation and it certainly does nothing to prevent future cases from happening. 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 culture/the environment. The only thing i know is that we have relatively good control of 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 rapey fathers and their rapey genes stop continuing. And please note I am not saying genes will cause men to rape. No. Genes are complex than that. But I do believe genes can nevertheless predispose men to this sort of behavior, and it would be wise to intervene, genetically. And 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. 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 husbands. However, I say what I say out of a genuine sense of concern for the 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 even 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. And did you know that historically, people needed a reason for divorce? The current system we live under, where people can easily divorce their spouse for no compelling reason, is actually an aberration.