JessiWan

"1d54d559cf52c198790f65d15d811638cd3053a7d5ee930597b6dcd95e0850ee8fe86a1e6301098eaba8faa34918f4c5fee0d161744dbf7051b6178ba0799ca2"

Last Notes

2026-07-15 21:29:18 UTC

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.

2026-07-15 20:50:24 UTC

I have always said that the ultra-wealthy, owners of huge corporations live off of the profit generated by their employees. Some people might counter that they also have to think hard to come up with strategies to keep their business growing and to compete against their rivals. To that I say: This is called wealth management. It's not truly working in the sense that regular people understand it. Yes it requires mental effort, however, so do a lot of other things. When a working stiff opens up his online banking to manage his money, he is also putting in mental effort. But nobody would call this working. So let's all stop this, "Let me make excuses for the wealth class", ok?

2026-07-15 20:50:08 UTC

By giving someone your business, you are not simply deciding who to buy a product or service from. You are literally choosing whose life you sustain, with your money This is very powerful. You are deciding who gets to thrive and who goes home and puts nothing on the dinner table. You have enormous power and it resides in your wallet. Use it wisely.

2026-07-15 20:48:23 UTC

Ruthlessness and betrayal in a government really pays off. I remember reading about the story of William Buckley, a CIA agent captured by Islamic jihadists. He eventually died while in captivity. The CIA claims to have attempted to rescue him. I don't know if that's true or if they are only putting on a show so that other CIA agents will think that their bosses care about them. But it made me think. If the CIA is heavy on doing the right thing, and really did try hard to free Buckley, all those efforts will cost resources for the agency. But, if they choose betrayal, and just say, "Screw him", they will save lots of resources and energy, which they can use to simply train more agents to replace him. An agency that does the latter will always beat out the one that tries to do the right thing.
This reminds me of a related thing. Imagine that on a battle-field, there are soldiers. The government has decided to retreat, so it needs to bring the soldiers home. However there is one soldier missing, they can't find him. Warzones are dangerous, plus it takes a non-negligible amount of effort and resources to find one stray soldier. So, the government might choose to betray him, and just go home with the rest of the soldiers. Naturally, this would make people angry. They would criticize the government. Maybe they would urge or even somehow make the government spend resources to locate the one missing soldier. These things are all easy to do. However, what people fail to understand is that, if the opposing government is cold-hearted and callous and it chooses betrayal, then it will have saved huge amounts of resources, which gives it an advantage over a government who cares, and who wants to do the right thing. So, what I am saying that it's easy enough to criticize the government, but it doesn't do anything meaningful. We need to realize the principle that treachery, callousness and generally being cold-hearted will always have an advantage and that we should do something about it. Otherwise, any good government that manages to arise will always lose.

2026-07-15 20:47:49 UTC

During the Pandemic, we heard about things like infection rates, hospitalization rates, and death rates...etc from covid. We hear them in the form of news, either from TV or newspapers. However, the thing is, for the vast majority of us, there is simply no way for us to verify the truthfulness of these claims. It seems to me that people hear something on TV, and they just assume that it's true. They probably think, "They would never show it on tv if it weren't true. TV is consumed by hundreds of millions of people. The stuff on it must have been carefully verified." I bet this is the mindset of a lot of people.
Note I am not saying that TV and newspapers are definitely lying to us. I don't have proof of that. But I just want to point out that we as consumers should always take the stuff we see on TV and read in papers with a grain of salt. Not because they are lying to us; but rather, because they could be lying to us. And more importantly, we simply have no way of personally verifying most of it, which is why we should always be a little doubtful. And if someone (usually from the internet but not always) disagrees with the official narratives, we should hear him out. mustn't be quick to write him off just because he says stuff that's different from what we see on TV or read in newspapers. Almost all major news outlets and TV networks are owned by a tiny cabal of billionaire oligarchs. They control the flow of information, what gets shown on TV and what doesn't, what gets talked about and doesn't. And they censor people who contradict their narratives. Dissenters have no platform from which to speak, and the internet is the last place for them, where they can have their voice heard. So, true, we shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet. However, when I see something on the internet that conflicts with the official narrative, I am inclined to believe the nobody online. He is almost certainly an average person just like me and he likely has no agenda.
Newspapers, TV networks...quite often deliberately neglect to report certain news, news that can be argued as being consequential. They do this to keep their readers and viewers in a state of ignorance. I am just wondering if you think this is a problem, and if yes, what we can do about it. It seems to me that it's very difficult to prove that they are intentionally withholding certain news. They can always say, "Oh, we didn't know", or other times, "We didn't think it was news-worthy". We all know it's a lie, but we can't prove it directly.
Anyways would love your thoughts.

2026-07-15 20:46:22 UTC

Hello, in my country, we have laws against employers discriminating against potential hires based on certain grounds. Race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin...etc etc. You probably have something similar in your country.
See here: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/rights-workplace.html
What I don't get is, why is it any of the government's business whether private businesses want to discriminate? I get it, the government should be for everybody, it should be fair to everyone, so they decide that they will not discriminate. This is fine. But if I am a business owner, then I am a private entity. Whether I want to discriminate should not be any of the government's business.
In my opinion, the government can only intervene when there is a criminal matter. For example, when a private individual has committed a crime, such as murder, rape, assault, that type of things. However, discrimination is not a criminal matter. It's a civil matter. And it's only against the law because the government says it is. There is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about discrimination. Discrimination is not morally wrong like rape or murder is. In fact, the fact that there are so many people, people who are otherwise normal, law-abiding individuals, who nevertheless discriminate. This highly suggests to me that discrimination is normal, that it's part of being human. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so common.

2026-07-15 20:45:29 UTC

I watched a few groups reacting to my government's totalitarian measures in response to the Pandemic, and I realized something: When ordinary people are unhappy with their government, very often there is little they can do, because they are usually too busy working and making a living, or otherwise too busy living their lives to find the time to organize themselves against the government to any meaningful degree. They don't put up much of a resistance and just let themselves be ruled, despite the fact they are superior in number. The government is made up of a much smaller number of people, however it has three advantages over regular people: 1. It's more organized, 2. It's unified against a common opponent, namely the masses, and 3. It makes a living out of ruling. The last one means it doesn't have any other job or work that demands its time and efforts. As a result, the government can completely focus on ruling, and it has the upper hand over average citizens whenever conflict arises between them. People who are unhappy with the government not only need to be able to find time out of their lives to reach the masses, they also face the additional difficulty that those that they are able to reach might themselves have trouble taking time out of their lives to organize effectively. Besides, there are many many things the government can do to the people very easily since it's already in the ruling position. However, the masses can't really do much to the government, outside of acts of revolution, which are rare, hard to organize, and often undesirable even when successful. Another advantage for the government is that it's sustained by the taxes. It doesn't have to worry about where the money that it needs is coming from and how it can keep fighting. But the people have to come up with money when most of them have to work to make a living. This is another difficulty the ordinary people face.
A related thing is, the government doesn't need to make sure everybody agrees with it. We all know about the existence of political dissenters, basically people who disagree with the government. What a good government would do is to either try and come up with better laws, polices...etc so as to satisfy the dissenting, unhappy people, or try to talk things out with them, to find out why they are unhappy with the government. But a bad government doesn't need to do any of those things. It just needs to make sure that there are enough people who agree with it, and that these people work and pay taxes, which sustains it. Then the bad government will have steady money coming in, which enables it to hunt down the dissenters, without having to do the right thing, which is mending its ways.
Can you think of more ways that governments have an advantage over their citizens?

2026-07-15 20:44:42 UTC

Trump's son-in-law Kushner, his family owns over 9000 properties. Can you imagine that? How many houses does one family need? I really think we should start putting a hard cap on how much wealth a single person can have. This isn't communism or jealousy of the rich. This is to ensure that resources are shared more equitably. People like Kushner essentially take finite resources from others and hoard them. Why should this be legal? i really feel that nobody should own such an absurd amount of resources, because there is only so much to go around. When one person has so much, that necessarily means he's taking it away from others. I mean if a regular American works hard and owns like 300 acres, that's one thing. Those belong to him, because he put in the hard work and he earned them. But owning 9000 properties, it's just impossible to justify resource-hoarding on that level. Look at the Kushner family. What work did they do to earn those 9000 houses?
I mean, imagine it. Bill Gates owns hundreds of thousands of acres of land. He can lease out these lands to farmers, simply because he had money to begin with. Now these farmers have to pay money to him every month, just for the right to use his land to make a living for themselves. What has Bill Gates done to deserve this much land and to have these farmers working for him as if he were a feudal lord? Why should he be able to sit on his butt doing nothing at all and receive money from people who labor hard? Just because he has some money? How is this fair? Why should rich people be able to benefit from other people's labor, just because they had some money to begin with? Why should they be able to buy up the means of production just because they have more money than we do? Why is this a good way to organize our society? Why do we allow this? By the way, I mention Kushner and Bill Gates because they are what people are familiar with. There is a company called Blackrock, they own even more.
I believe the land thing I just mentioned touched upon something deeper. It's not just land, it's resources in general. There has never ever been any formal, agreed-upon-by-everyone way to divide resources among members of a society. So pretty much they are up for grabs. So normally, some of the "better" people grab a disproportionately large portion for themselves. "Better" people can be defined in many ways, but in our context, it means people who are more intelligent, more ambitious, more driven, more business-minded, and more aggressive. In fact, that there are "better" people is actually a fundamental fact of human life. There will always be people who are better than other people in some ways. They can be better in the ways I described above or in other ways, but this isn't important. The important thing is that some will be better than others. And it is from this inequality that some other even greater inequality will come. In the case of resources, this usually means "better" people will end up with an unequal amount that is grossly distorted in their favor. We actually already see this in the US, where the richest 1% owns more than the bottom 20% of the entire society, or something like that. I feel that it's about time that we as a society look at this huge gap, doesn't matter if it's in income or wealth, what we need to do is to make sure that the "not-as-good" people still get their portion of the resources, while the "better" people get a bigger portion, but not so monstrously big as it currently is. In other words, we need to re-organize the way our society is, especially when it comes to how to divide up resources. The exact details of how this is to be done can be worked out later. What we need right now is the realization that the rich/the better shouldn't get too, too rich, and the poor/the not-as-good should be reasonably taken care of and be assured of a minimum level of comforts in life.
Also, I called Bill Gates a feudal lord. It might have been a joke, but I really think it's not too far off. We in the modern world would like to believe that kings and queens and monarchs and dukes and barons don't exist anymore, and that we are not ruled like subjects like our ancestors were. But guess what? We still are, it's just that those who rule us have other names now. Now we have people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, various people who are rich and powerful, regardless of what their actual names or titles are. Notice the similarity between these people and the kings and queens of the olden days? That's right, these people also don't have to do any work, and they all entirely live off the labor and sweat of the masses. In the olden days, the were called the peasants. Today it's called the workers/employees. The names have changed, but the fundamental nature and qualities haven't changed. We are still the bottom-most layer of society, and we work hard to sustain those above us.

2026-07-15 20:44:04 UTC

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.

2026-07-15 20:42:11 UTC

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.

2026-07-15 20:41:26 UTC

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.

2026-07-15 20:37:10 UTC

Random political thoughts:
Politicians love helping themselves to the taxpayers' money.
My country's prime minister, Trudeau, went on a six-day trip, accompanied by his son, to “strengthen ties” in the Indo-Pacific region in September. The trip cost taxpayers nearly $ 2 million, with nearly $ 200,000 spent on in-flight catering. And Mary Simon, another official of a very high rank, racked up an $ 80K in-flight catering bill on a trip to the Middle East. MLAs (which stands for members of the legislative assembly, a type of lawmaker in my country) are entitled to claim $ 61 per day to cover the cost of meals when working. To me this is bull. When I am working, I bring my own lunch. I don't get to expense my meal. In fact there is nobody to expense it to. And if I try to get someone to pay for my lunch, they will say to me, "what kind of fool do you take me for?" Yet, we pay for MLAs' lunches. We've been fools for far too long. It needs to stop. MLAs should pack their own lunch. They already get paid a salary, they can use that money to make their own lunch to bring to work, just like everybody else. This isn't unreasonable at all. And the same principle extends to politicians in other countries, too, such as the USA. I am sure Americans also have a problem with politicians spending the public funds on themselves.
I say that we should severely restrict expenses associated with trips to foreign countries, and meetings with foreign leaders. Yeah, I get it, top officials are technically working as they dine with these foreign politicians. But I don't see why the food has to cost a lot of money. Why can't we restrict the food items to coffee and cookies, or something equally low-cost? Presidents and prime ministers shouldn't be able to have banquets just because they are working. And if foreign leaders feel slighted when they see that they are served with just coffee and cookies, no problem, just explain to them that this is the will of the people. If they are our allies, they will understand. We should also drastically reduce trips to foreign countries, as these cost a lot of money too. They are the perfect way for politicians to enjoy themselves on the public dime. We now have teleconference technology, we should put it to good use. If the president needs to hold a meeting with another country's officials, do it on a computer screen. I don't see any reason that they must meet the latter in person. Whatever they need to discuss, it can be done remotely. The details can be worked out, but the key is to prevent politicians from spending the public money on themselves.
Another thing:
I remember reading about my country's federal budget of 2024. There is an item in there that allocates money to me and similar people, who have a particular need. It is a good amount of money, however, since there are many of us, when that money is equally divided among us, we each don't get too much. I can't help but think that if we limited the number of people receiving the money, I would get more. The fewer the people, the more I could get. And if there were nobody else, then in theory I would get all of it. But of course, two things stop me from realizing this. Number 1, I would feel bad. I can not in good conscience deny other people of this benefit, because I know that they need it just as much as I do. Secondly, and more importantly, I do not have the means to make this a reality. I don't have access to the ears of lawmakers. I can not influence them to pass laws that benefit me personally. In other words, I have nobody to lobby for me, I have no mechanism to shape and influence things to my advantage. However, there are people who do. They not only have a fleet of lobbyists working on their behalf, who persuade lawmakers to pass laws and enact policies to their advantage, they also don't have any compunction about hoarding money to themselves. They don't care that by diverting money to themselves, they are harming other people with genuine needs. These people are known as special interest groups. And they need to go.

2026-07-15 20:36:21 UTC

About 911 and any other similar event, here’s the thought process that I use: basically, I look at all the improbabilities that have been pointed out. By itself, any one such improbability does not constitute proof that the thing was staged. However, when you have many improbabilities, then, the possibility of them all being accidental becomes low. In short, I look at the cumulative effect. In the 911 attack, someone apparently captured footage of people jumping out of the burning tower. It was very strange that anyone would just happen to have his camera out to record the trade towers, on a random day, where, at the time, nothing was happening. If you use this as proof that 911 was staged, people will argue with you, and you will likely back down yourself because there is a technical possibility that someone would really just happen to have his camera out on a random day. So you chalk this up to “improbable, but possible”. However, when there are multiple such improbable but possible events that also took place, then the chances of all of them being complete random, chance events are much lower. This is why I personally believe 911 was staged, not because I have concrete proof of any single thing, but because there were too many improbabilities.
Another thing: Nobody is saying that they have absolute proof that 9-11 was an inside job, or that it was deliberately allowed to happen by the feds. But some people have this tendency to violently reject anything that smells like a "conspiracy theory" to them. They have this overwhelming urge to explain things away. To them, everything has a benign explanation. They think that conspiracies can never happen. These people are almost always white, who grew up among and spend all of their time with white people. They are shielded from reality. They only know people who are good and non-evil. They cannot comprehend that there are people out there who are extremely evil and who not only intend for but actually do carry out extreme harm.

2026-07-15 20:35:21 UTC

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".

2026-07-15 20:23:26 UTC

Here's how the rich see us:
They think that if we are poor, that means we have inferior genetics and we deserve to live in poverty and the squalor that comes with it. They would prefer that we starve to death, so that they won't have to look at us on the street but if that's not possible, then at least we should struggle just to survive and not take up resources that could have gone to them. They also believe that the fact we are not good with money like they are means we are trash and we should become extinct so as to make room on earth for them and their money-savvy, genetically superior offspring.
Oh and by the way, do you know what's really behind all this talk about protecting our environment and saving our planet, about how we should try and reduce our carbon footprint and all that? Well I will tell you: it is the elites, who see themselves as vastly superior to us. And of course, to them, their own offspring are also vastly superior to us. But they see us use up resources, space, eat up food, produce waste products and all these things all end up polluting the planet in someway, the planet that their superior offspring should be able to enjoy in a pristine state. So, they talk through the various media arms their vast riches bought them, to brainwash us into reducing our consumption and sometimes even into limiting our own reproduction, just so that we plebs will get smaller and smaller in size, which makes room for their superior bloodlines. This is why you often see glaringly hypocritical display of elites flying everywhere in their jet planes that take up huge amounts of gasses that they told us we should try to emit less, and they do pretty everything they preach us not to do. Don't fall for it. I mean, I dont have a problem with protecting the planet, but they key thing is that everybody should do their equal part. I will not stand for being told that I should eat less meat or drive an electric car when some billionaire jet all over the globe in their planes.

2026-07-15 20:10:18 UTC

Good people should encourage their kids to become doctors, this is so that there won't be a landslide of "experts" recommending gender-bending therapies for kids, or doctors prescribing Ritalin to kids who are just very energetic. We also need more good doctors who are good people exposing the dangers of Covid "vaccines". Not to mention that regular folk need doctors who genuinely care about them. Did you know? The Natural Sciences are some of the least politically correct spaces in academia.
The kids of good people should be encouraged to go into all positions of power, especially the military, the media and the federal government. While grassroots efforts are much needed, we also need warriors occupying the upper echelons of power.