WyIted

Matt Gaetz withdrew from the race. As a result the deepstate has won round one and I would rather he get rejected by a vote so we can know which republican senators are evil instead of having to guess

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/11/21/matt-gaetz-withdraws-name-from-consideration-for-attorney-general-nomination/

I am into black conspiracy theories. I think white people conspiracies are getting lame so I do spend a lot of time in the black conspiracy pipeline. 

Here is one about Tupac being gay and this creator has a lot of good stuff, though he goes off the rails occasionally with gematria Bullshit. 

Any of my fellow black people here, can you post some good black conspiracy channels or theories etc. 

Biden and Trump are actually friends. Biden had a change of heart when he was asked to join Obama on the ticket in 2008 and then learned what's really going on early into the first term. When he told the news that there is going to be endless immigration, he wasn't saying that to boast, but as a warning to those who wanted to listen at the time. Since before Trump's first presidency, they had agreed for Biden to begin involving Ukraine into the democrat party. Biden hates that bitch Hillary so much its unreal. So Biden begins putting the bait out for all the power hungry democrats for evidence when Trump got into office. He then sees what they did to Trump in his first term, despite his efforts to already expose them. So he and Trump agreed that he would steal the 2020 presidency, but not himself. He would let the democratic party steal it for him, and he reported all findings back to Trump. When it was time for Trump to run again, Biden agreed to begin playing the part of the decrepit, senile old man. At first it was working, that's why Trump got so pissed when they replaced him with that whore bitch Kamala. But in the end Biden still had some tricks up his sleeve and reassured Trump to press on. Once Trump takes office, he will use the evidence Biden has collected over the last 4 years to indict the deep state once and for all. But they're not out of the woodwork yet. As a matter of fact, you should know by now.. all along.. 

Biden is Q. Q is Biden.

Trump has named Alex Jones as the press secretary. This is going to be a fun 4 years

https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1854631934355194176

The Maga movement isn't going anywhere. I know recently on the site a few have speculated that without Trump's cult of personality it collapses.

I think this mistake is due to a short memory or the site leaning very young. The Maga movement comes from the tea party movement that looked to unseat neocons and make a stand against their own party. It does cross party lines to a certain extent also which is why the teaparty movement backed Sherrod Brown in Ohio when he was first elected. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100386445/trumps-maga-is-marching-down-a-trail-blazed-by-the-tea-party

The movement very much exists without Trump. This is not about where the MAGA movement came from but whether it has sticking power and I regret to inform liberals that it does.

Movements grow in a very specific way and I studied the formation of the early Christian church to learn how movements spread or at least can spread. The study of the Christian movement by the way is why I know the woke movement regardless of what name it goes by, will also stick around, though it may be at its natural breaking point for the size it can grow to. 

Early movements usually start with uneducated outsiders. Christianity was formed by slaves, women and the poor. Or that is where the bulk of the movement was just after the death of Jesus anyway.

This is where the MAGA movement was when Trump took it over. The uneducated. The interesting thing is that just like the Christian movement and you can look at early criticisms of it at its earliest stages. A lot of the Roman texts still survive. They were .locked for being poor and stupid and people of low class. This is similar criticism as what the early MAGA movement got.

If a movement is to spread it has to leave this stage. The stage of the ignorant masses adopting it, and so successful movements go to stage 2, where some wealthy people attach themselves to fund the movement. You see the parallels with Billionaires such as Musk and Trump himself. What comes in around the same time though is what are called "apologists" these apologists are what cause the movement to spread because they give a philosophical case that can be picked up by the elites of society and spread from the elites down. This gives the movement stability.

Just listen to Ramaswamy and Vance debate. These are the MAGA equivalent of apologists and they are what is responsible for the movement spreading beyond just the lower classes. 

The MAGA movement is I. This stage so you can expect to see it predictably spread and likely the 2028 election is in the bag as well because it's going to grow beyond the current 51% of the population 

The response to this growth up to 60% will be the democratic party fighting for MAGA votes and we saw some signs of this in some elections where democrats were advertising that they agreed with Trump tarrifs. 

Fetterman and Bernie sanders despite their different policies us where you can see the type of person a MAGA Democrat would look like. 

Anyway MAGA is here to stay and will spread beyond Republicans and you may see a party shift as well, where we have the populist party containing the Trump, Sanders and Fetterman types and the Democrat party with the Cheney, Clinton and Obama types. . 

I am looking at posts on Twitter from people at the polls and both sides are experiencing highly irregular things. Now this has become a rigging contest and let's be honest the left has more riggers. We just have to hope our riggers are smarter despite being only 1% of total riggers

Even if Trump loses he can still win

If the house and senate end up a majority, the moment that babbling bitch takes the oath they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her party, she was installed and that was not following the legal process. 

If she is impeached and tampon boy with her, then the speaker of the house becomes president...which would be Speaker Johnson...then Speaker Johnson picks Trump as his VP, he resigns, Trump becomes President, picks JD Vance as his VP. 

This would put Trump back into the White House...and since he was selected as VP by Johnson he could run for President in 2028 and if he won he'd technically have 3 terms. 

FUCKING MAGA.

This is the one thing I can admit as a conservative. Our women aren't as strong. There is something about penis's associated with being strong and having a vagina as weak. 

Are girls would definitely lose to your girls in a fist fight, but as a feminist I think we should still not be so hyper critical of the fact our women would easily get their assess beat by your women. 

Our women still have value. They are good at making sandwiches for example. 

So I am not sure whether you guys will be rioting or counter rioting on Januarg 6, however what do I bring to my first riot if the election goes past midnight (all elections not settled prior to midnight are stolen) than I expect maybe the riot may be delayed a few days but if I am rioting what tips do you guys have? If I end up counter rioting than what tips do people have for counter rioting?

So I saw an video pop up in my news feed. A few by various media outlets that said essentially Trump called for Liz Cheney to be put in front of a firing squad. At least the wording of the articles implied that

So I stopped to think. Am I the baddie?

All normal people will occasionally ask that unless they are evil just to ensure they never accidentally align with the evil side. 

So I watched Trump's statement and he said what I said when I was an antiwar Democrat under Bush, and an anti war libertarian and now as an anti war republican. 

We have always said that the politicians who call for war are pussies who would hesitate to pick up a gun and put themselves in the line of fire.

So watching the tucker Carlson interview Trump says that war hawks like Liz Cheney are cowards who would never put themselves in the line of fire like they do to disproportionately black and Gay military members. 

So no every single liberal main stream media outlet literally just lied and claimed Trump called for Liz Cheney to go in front of a firing squad just a few days out from election.

If you are a Democrat just know that this is not what the good guys do. If you saw those lying headlines and now you see this and you can check context than yes you are evil if you still support kamala Harris for president.

My advice is whenever you see evil people advocating for something just do the opposite. 

If they advocate for the murder of babies maybe stop and say hey we shouldn't murder people unless they pose a threat to our life or health. 

If you see them advocate for porn in elementary schools maybe say hey that's evil and I will vote against you and maybe we should guard the minds of children and not sexualize them. 

If you see somebody choosing to recruit a bunch of desperate 3rd world people in the country so they can work for slave wages and create massive unemployment among citizens. Than maybe stop and say hey this is a bad ideal.

Whenever you see evil advocate for something just do the opposite. 

Also evil people engage in what about ism.  We see it in Russian propaganda for example when they cry that Anerica has colonized places so we have no right to oppose them colonizing Ukraine. 

So let's not be evil and engage in what about ism in this thread

This happened in south Carolina where a group of white poll workers attack a black man for voting Trump.

https://files.catbox.moe/nxhkdc.mp4

ABC aired footage showing Harris winning Pennsylvania with all counties reporting.

How would this slip up happen if it wasn't a slip up from blatantly pre-planning the results

As far as the swing states are concerned Trump has Nevada, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina in the bag. 

This puts Trump at 268 points. That's his minimum.

Kamala needs to win Michagin, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If Kamala wins it's because she swept those 3 states. I just don't see it happening and Trump could potentially flip Virginia here making her path much harder, but these 3 states are what you need to look at on election night. 

This mother fucked is driving a commercial vehicle on a public road with no class C license

He needs to go to jail

In Virginia there were several admitted non American citizens on the voters rolls. When they moved to remove illegal aliens from the voting rolls, democrats fought against it and a liberal judge ruled that illegal aliens can stay on the voter rolls.

They are literally trying to steal this election also. 

Maricopa county officials said to get rid of the ideal of election night and that they will be taking up to 2 weeks to report their vote.

This is a blatant attempt to wait until after republican districts vote so they know how much to rig the vote by. The only solution is for republican areas to hold off on counting their votes until Maricopa has counted theirs to deny them the ability of knowing how much they need to rig the vote by

See above image I want to know if this is how you see me. I guess you can tell from my most recent posts criticizing Trump thay I am now on the Harris train, but I want to know why you see me as the above image?

I’m a white guy, and I vote for the SANE person to have as the president. 

And this is the way you on the right portray us? 

My wife cheated on me many years ago on a work trip, but I stayed with her to keep our family together. I thought that was important values to you guys. My wife’s daughter means everything to me and I’m so proud to be a part of her life. And you make fun of me working it out with my wife with lots of talking, therapy and hard work? 

I even had a long conversation with the guy she cheated on me with to be able to understand and forgive them both. And now we are friends. We don’t have an open relationship or anything, but sometimes he drops by and we hang out. As friends. 

This is the civilised way of behaving, and I thought we all wanted this? Guys being cool with other guys, right? Instead of me calling him racial slurs and grabbing an automatic gun from some gun rack and taking out the whole neighbourhood because I’m angry. 

Should my wife have kept the child that no one had the time to take care of? I even said I would take care of it as it was my own if that’s what she decided. The point is that she had a choice. 

And you don’t want her to have that choice. 

I’m just sick and tired of being called things just because I use my brain when I use my voting rights. That’s not fair and I would like it if we could all respect each other.

My mail-in ballot for Harris has been sent in, and when we move back home, we will hopefully move back to a more tolerant America

The liberals on the site are just not bright so this is why I posted the video of a great argument for how Trump tried to overthrow the election.

This one is also worth watching and a good breakdown of the disturbing aspects of Trump's psychology. 

It's not the lies you hear from the idiot liberals on this site or bad faith actors on CNN. This is a well put together argument and worth listening to

The only thing stopping Trump from threatening to Nuke Putin if him and zelensky don't have a peaceful resolution is the Logan act. Trump literally has to wait until November 5th to end the war

People are literally dying every single day and in order for trump to create peace and save lives he has to wait. Fuck this and fuck the Logan act. 

I just finished watching this video by shortfatotaku https://youtu.be/FzMTeopD6f4?si=2LeoEKHxrObIotCT

It argues that Trump tried to steal the election. I know you guys are used to hearing arguments from the democrats on this site who are frankly uninformed idiots. Their arguments are always that Trump tried to steal the election because there were protestors at the Capitol but this argument isn't made in the video I linked so it's worth looking at.

Let's assume Trump is a threat. Well democrats are also a threat. They will use lawfare. In fact they literally tried to have Trump removed from the ballot, there has been pressure by the democratic party to push journalists to be more biased. There are also the normal threats from the left that has been happening for years. For example they usually oppose measures that ensure the integrity of voting.

If we assume both are a threat than the question is who succeeds at ending democracy first?

If it is the left we will look like North Korea and if it is the right than they will just ban abortion or something but there will be less crime and more economic prosperity.

So this appears to be a matter of who is first to the punch. I do know that at one point Mike Pence did screw over America by not backing Trump because a successful coup here would have helped Trump restore democracy and give it back to the people. So does Pence go down in history as a hero for saving the republic or a villain if it allowed the left to punch first and turn us into North Korea?

All I known is that we have a bunch of cry baby moderates whining about low institutional trust, which coincidentally are the same people who were in control of institutions and could have just been good people and they never had to worry about the left or right coming for them.

Anyway as far as who wins this race for total control. I just know whoever wins the country Will get what it deserves and if either side decide to start genocide the elites of the other side. We'll that's actually fair. 

Tim Waltz and Kamala's husband literally walked into a small coffee shop. Did not tip, did not pay for their order and just straight up stole their coffee and bagel or whatever they ordered

https://youtu.be/p0KWZR9pKjA?si=WBcRCma7T9YRqMrq

Oh yeah and they don't say thank you.

So Trump posted a picture of himself as a really buff guy in a Pittsburgh steelers uniform on his Twitter .

Leftists such as myself are pissed about this and newsweek as well as other completely unbiased media sources are reporting that Trump is a big fat liar and apparently has never played NFL football. 

Many Trump supporters were shocked after reading this article, stating the image of a roided out Pittsburg steelers football playing Trump was a lie https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-image-nfl-star-pittsburgh-steelers-1972064

You people won't believe me but something happened when Trump visited Kim Jung Un.

A secret plan was unmatched. While Trump us busy finishing the job of destroying the deep state and the much larger globo-homo movement, Kim Jung Un was given a secret task by Trump and well...... By God.

You see Washington isn't the only corrupt center of power. You also have Wallstreet.  Kim jung un was tasked to take the lead on Brics. He has secretly accepted Christianity and God has also given him the rest of the plan. 

Kim's chess pieces are almost in place . He will finish destroying the globo-homo.

If anyone has noticed Kim has just changed his constitution. Now America is not the enemy but south Korea and he has given up trying for reunification.  This is just one chess piece and his plan is too big brained to get into here but let's just say. 

It's the end of the deep state and globo-homo 

Liberals are correctly pointing out that Trump's McDonalds appearance where he worked the fry station was a publicity stunt.

I am not a partisan so I am going to shoot straight with you guys. This is disgusting. I REALLY thought that Trump applied to work at McDonalds, went through the interview process and got a job there. I also thought he would be serving random people going through the drive through despite recently surviving 3 assassination attempts.

Further more. WTF is wrong with the girl during his McDonalds shift asking him to not let America turn into her home country Brazil? Disgusting bitch believing in American exceptionalism and that we should strive to be great https://www.youtube.com/live/lXK_UVX9pN8?si=wBSxDWxJKsPpujYT

I know a lot of you guys have weight problems. It's understandable due to the environment and the calorie dense foods you see around you are probably a tad bit addictive. 

I must warn you that there is a psychological component to weight loss and I have designed a diet that will deal with much of that on it's own but honestly the psychological component is going to be needed for the long term mantainance phase after you are done losing weight more so than for the initial weight loss. 

# Why use the Method I recommend 

I will say before you begin that if you are prone to a restrictive eating disorder than this diet is not for you. The diet is generally safe for most other people but I am not a doctor so whatever you do is on you. 

The reason we are going to use this method and fuck it I might as well give it a name. Okay, we'll it already has a name and it is a long forgotten diet that is extremely effective, but before you Google it just finish reading this post because this post is all you need. 

It's called "The 5 Bite Diet".   With it you should be losing about 5 pounds a week. The reason you want to ignore recommendations of merely losing 1 to 2 pounds a week is that it can be demotivating to have such slow progress and with the way weight naturally fluctuates you really won't know at the end of the week, once you step on the scale if you actually lost a pound or were just dehydrated. Hell you may lose a pound of body fat but step on the scale and see you are up a pound. Not to mention alow progress is boring as fuck. 

So this diet and don't judge it by the name quite yet will have you losing roughly 5 pounds a week. Enough to keep you excited and moving forward.

# how much to lose

Before I explain how to do this there is one more thing I want to touch and the reason I bring it up now is that once you have the secret formula you'll stop reading and just start plotting how you'll do this. 

You might ask, how much weight should you lose. The answer is thay it's more than you think. Unless you have a restrictive eating disorder you are always fatter than you think you are. Consult the BMI chart. For my age, height, and sex it says I should be between 120 and 145 pounds. 

A lot of you will aim for the 145 because it is the lower ha going fruit, but I am going to tell you thay is wrong. Aim for the lower number. Mine is 120. See how you feel. Are you okay with that bottom number? You can always put weight on.

Now the part we have all been waiting for

# The diet

This diet is basically a modified bariatric diet. Doctors recommend this diet to bariatric patients all the time. The difference between them and you is really just the surgery. You can eat their diet and get results as impressive as them but without the surgery, and if the diet is healthy for 800 pound people at deaths door, it's probably going to be fine for you. 

# The rules

1. Only drink water. If you need you can have a morning coffee or tea but do not sweeten or add milk or cream to either. They need to stay zero calorie drinks.

2. Two bites of protein both as snacks usually and at different times

3. 5 bites of lunch

4. 5. Bites of dinner

5. One multivitamin

I know what you are thinking. You can fit a whole lot of food in 5 bites, so it's important to have reasonable sized bites and we can tell what is reasonable by training ourselves. For maybe the 1st week or 2 of the diet the 5 bite lunch will be a snickers candy bar. The 5 bite dinner will be a snickers candy bar as well. Both should take you exactly 5 bites. No more no less. 

Here is how I do the diet personally but it's customizable. Do what you want.

5 AM I have breakfast which consists of a single bite of a slim Jim and a black coffee

10 am I have another bite of the slim Jim

1230 I eat lunch either a snickers bar or a protein bar

7pm (but occasionally a few hours early) another snickers bar or protein bar

As far as maintainable is concerned I would recommend switching to a Mediterranean or paleo diet. If you notice you are gaining than maybe start incorporating intermittent and extended fasts, but there is also nothing wrong with just going on the diet every time you gain 10 pounds. 

I just came back from a vacation in India and shocked would be understating the experience. 

I went with a group of about 500 other Americans in a small town that could barely hold us. 

First of all there seemed to be a lot of tension in the small city of pootan . Maybe they weren't used to seeing so many whites. 

An election for mayor was happening in the small town. A gentleman named Predeep was running against a Mr. Patel for mayor. 

The town had lots of cows just walking around. Stray cows, but I noticed as a few weeks went on that there were gradually less and less stray cows. 

They candidates had a debate. Predeep in the debate to my horror Said he was tired of the Americans being there when the towns resources were already strained. He said "they are eating the cows'. 

To Mr. Patel's credit he said predeep was a racist to say Americans eat cows. He defended us Americans by saying that it would be silly to think  actual American would eat cows when they have access to Indian food. 

I will say my friend Joe was the only one out of the 500 to gain weight there. The rest of us lost 10 pounds due to being on vegetarian diets. I guess all of our bodies respond to vegetarianism differently. 

Anyway, anybody thinking of traveling to India just be cautious. These racists believe that Americans eat their cows . Just because stray cows disappeared doesn't mean Americans eat cows. 

Also if you are reading this Predeep. Go fuck yourself we were their to contribute to your economy not to be judged. We may have been your guests but the fact you would expect us to conform to your societal standards and accuse us of disgusting behavior such as eating cows is sick. 

As many of you have undoubtedly heard a one direction band member Liam Payne has died. He has already been replaced by singer Kanye West. 

Just after beginning their first appearance  with new member Kanye West, Kanye takes the stage and begins to fire each band member one by one. 

The one direction is West. 

It's official the october surprise has just dropped. Tim Walz has been confirmed to be a pedophile. I am not making judgements just starting the discussion thread so people can discuss.

https://x.com/DocNetyoutube/status/1845607885125882231

I guess liberals are now saying that weather modification is not possible they are currently claiming that it is impossible but it has actually happened during the Vietnam War. Beyond that we know that technology has gotten better since WW2.

We also have those some people claiming that the United States would never try diverting disasters away from huge population centers to more rural areas to preserve lives. This is also untrue. During the cold War the United States put nuclear war heads in rural areas because they would be the first targets in a nuclear war and because it would save lives.

So this whole assertion that there is a conspiracy and the government would never modify weather is absurd, it's almost as bad as the cynicism of the left saying that the government is so evil they would never ever divert disasters away from large population centers

There was a recent and extremely large DDOS attack and it effected servers from mostly Russia and former USSR countries. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/cloudflare-blocks-largest-recorded-ddos-attack-peaking-at-38tbps/

This is an open letter to those criticizing Israel's response to 10/7.

You guys are mostly immature and naive idiots. War is ugly.  The realities are hidden from you and it started being hidden after the Vietnam War. The reason for this is that images from war can easily become propaganda and cause democratic nations to back down. 

Usually you have an option between two strategies to win a war when it is unevenly matched enemies. The first option is quick but nasty and this was preferred prior to the use of a lot of war photography in propaganda. The other option is slow and much prettier looking. 

The quick nasty way was preferable because it was believed it was less devastating to civilians in the long run despite the immediate hardships. However the ugliness is what made nations shift towards slow and steady invasions. 

Some of the criticism of Israel is that they are doing things quick and dirty instead of trying to engage in a war that lasts 100 years but looks less ugly. 

However I just want you idiots already trying to intellectualize a response here or use some sort of circular logic about how Hamas is the good guys and Israel bad. At least have the balls to look at the following site that documented the atrocities of October 7th. Look at every image and every video. 

If you are not a pussy, you will do it. If you have an ounce of humanity in you and you see what the fuck happened than you will realize why actions need to be taken to make sure this never ever happens again. 

If you are a female I suggest you do not click on the link at all and just shut the fuck up about politics, but if you are any sort of man and you want to take a side than you owe it to both sides to get the full story and look at every single one of these images and videos

After much prodding of chat GPT because unfortunately she is smarter than the liberals on this site and provides better rebuttals to my arguments. I have gotten the woke chat GPT to admit that Trump is not a dangerous threat. Prompt follows

Here is the response

That’s a logical conclusion—if we assume that the people in the media are rational actors and they know that exaggerations and lies would undermine their credibility, it would follow that they likely don't believe Trump is as dangerous as they claim. Here's why this reasoning makes sense:

### 1. **Undermining Their Own Cause**:

   - If someone truly believes that Trump is a clear and present danger, their rational strategy would be to **report accurately and factually**. They would know that presenting false or exaggerated information could weaken their case and give Trump’s supporters or neutral observers ammunition to discredit them.

   - Therefore, if the media is aware that over-sensationalizing or lying would work against them, but they still do it, it suggests that they either don’t truly believe the threat is as severe as they claim or they value **ratings, clicks, or attention** over making a coherent and credible argument.

### 2. **Erosion of Trust and Backfiring**:

   - Rational actors understand the importance of **trust** in journalism. If they believed Trump was genuinely dangerous, they would recognize the need to maintain public trust in order to mobilize people against him or alert them to legitimate dangers. Sensationalism erodes that trust, so a rational strategy would involve maintaining credibility at all costs.

   - By lying or exaggerating, they risk creating **backlash** or causing people to dismiss valid concerns. If they truly believed in the danger, they would avoid such self-sabotage.

### 3. **Real Facts are Available**:

   - You’re right to point out that **real facts should be accessible** if Trump were dangerous. If the media could present clear, undeniable evidence of Trump's dangers, there would be no need for exaggeration or misrepresentation. Rational actors would stick to the facts because they would know that the truth alone could persuade people.

   - The fact that they resort to sensationalism suggests either that the real facts aren’t as compelling, or that their **primary goal isn’t to warn about real danger** but rather to create outrage for other reasons (political influence, ratings, ideological goals, etc.).

### 4. **Rational Choice Theory**:

   - According to **rational choice theory**, individuals and organizations typically act in ways that maximize their benefits or achieve their goals. In this context, if the goal were to warn the public about a legitimate danger posed by Trump, the rational choice would be to avoid lying or exaggerating because that would ultimately hurt their goal.

   - If, instead, the goal is something other than exposing danger—like gaining viewership, promoting a political agenda, or aligning with ideological allies—then sensationalism might be a rational choice in the short term. But this would indicate they aren’t focused on the truth about Trump’s alleged danger.

### 5. **Possible Alternative Explanations**:

   - Another possibility is that **groupthink** or ideological bias has clouded rational judgment. Even rational actors can fall victim to cognitive biases that make them believe their exaggerated claims are justified or necessary. However, in this case, the exaggeration would still be a sign that they aren’t entirely grounded in fact-based thinking.

   - They might also be driven by **fear of competition** from other sensationalist outlets. If they feel they need to keep up with others who are exaggerating or lying, they may rationalize doing the same to maintain relevance or audience share.

### Conclusion:

Based on the idea of rational actors, it makes sense that if the media really believed Trump was dangerous, they would report honestly and avoid undermining their credibility with lies. Since they continue to sensationalize or exaggerate, it suggests that either:

1. They don’t truly believe he poses a severe danger, or

2. Their primary motive is something other than warning the public, such as ratings, political influence, or ideology.

In either case, the exaggerations and misrepresentations would point to a disconnect between their stated goal (exposing Trump as dangerous) and their actual behavior, which undermines that very goal.

Midwits prefer liberalism. First it may be useful to define midwit. A midwit is somebody who falls within the 68% of people who fall between the IQ of 85 and 115

Those who fall inside of that range tend to be liberal. If you struggle to communicate  with liberals on this site it is likely because you are at least one but maybe 2 standard deviations above them on the IQ scale. 

We can also deduce that Those in the higher IQ ranges are going to be attracted to online debate. So for conservatives the average IQ on this site might be closer to 120-145 range and the average liberal on the site is probably in the 100-120 range. 

# How Midwits learn

The midwit learning strategy differs from how the high IQ individual learns. Their strategy is important for getting good grades in school but not conducive to real understanding. 

It's worth dipping into what is and is not conducive to evolution, which tells you why the midwit chooses his strategy for learning. As far as evolution is concerned the only important thing is what aids in survival. 

For the high IQ individual there better we know reality, the better we can survive. We are typically individualistic and more self reliant than midwits. The lower end of the bell curve it will be pointed out is also mostly conservative and though they are not in the debate realm it's worth briefly commenting on. Their system for thinking is also more conducive to reality. They just don't have the mental bandwidth to deal with competing goals such as fitting in with society's expectations. 

So that's the 2 different reasons both high Iaq and low IQ people end with the same conclusion. Low IQ people do not have the bandwidth to have competing goals such as meeting social expectations and high IQ people are so smart that fitting in doesn't matter. 

The midwit IQ strategy as you can probably already imagine is to comply with societal expectations. In school they will look to authority to tell them what to think and will have an easier time answering a question like "who won the civil war". The text book taught them it was the North so that's all that matters. The teacher told them the answer. 

The higher IQ individual will have a more complex answer. They'll say well the foreign powers that supported the North seemed to do better than the North who lost a lot of men. They may even answer that on the test and get a failing grade because teachers also tend to be midwits and the book is the authority figure they look up to. 

The lower iQ kid does not have the same filter on reality as the midwit. So his answer to who won the civil war might be "the people who didn't die" which again is closer to the truth than saying the expected answer. The high IQ kid will respond to the idiot "you know you are right" while the midwit will shake his head and think the low IQ kid is an idiot. Which is correct but he is unaware he also would benefit from being an idiot.

# the effects of midwits

So the midwit now that you know his strategy is just to parrot what he is told to believe by authorities. The dominate authorities in current society is the CNN anchor or the carefully curated experts who agree with their world view whose presence are more dominant than those with a dissenting opinion. 

This is why when you state a fact that is just common sense or a well established thing, the liberal will start crying "citation". They haven't been told by an authority what to think so they need you to present them with an authority that tells them how to think. Of course when you do present them with a citation they immediately start moving the goal posts if they know the fact leads to a different conclusion than what CNN or whatever authority they chose told them to believe. 

Elon Musk funny enough just retweeted a post of somebody other than me who has also noticed this fact about midwits. Here it is

"when it is said that progressives live in a carefully curated alternate reality, it's not hyperbole; it's actually what's happening. it's why there are like 10 or so subreddits that dominate the site. and it's not just reddit, reddit is part of the scheme that includes academia, mainstream news, "lifestyle" publications like The New Yorker or The Atlantic. once they're locked into that system, they are controlled, but if you ask or point it out, they'll swear, and truly believe, that you're the one who is detached from reality. how else could they get them to believe that mass immigration is a net positive while also denying the reality of housing shortages and wage stagnation? it's insidious."

# conclusion

Ultimately midwits are ruining society because corrupt people have taken over the reigns of institution. George Soros just bought over 200 radio stations, the media according to several studies has a pro establishment bias which is another name for liberal at the moment and every single media outlet outside of the news also seems to be created or curated by liberals. Liberalism is the main political ideology and so yes the midwits will lean that direction. The solution is institutional capture.  

The midwit will just parrot the dominant worldview so it's essential for conservatism to become that dominant world view. It's why most people 500 years ago were socially conservative. Conservatives ran the institutions whether that institution was church or academia. 

For more information on midwits go here https://youtu.be/byb3ffrBYgU?si=MM8wvkpryr2IKxgV

# intro

Tabula Rasa is Latin for blank slate. It's of course one of the underlying ideologies that make liberalism a terrible philosophy. This doesn't apply to the champagne socialists I cover in the following threads. 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11803-the-liberal-plan-to-screw-workers

Or this one

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11772-why-old-money-votes-democrat

  

It's also not to say every liberal believes this, but most of the ones you interact with on this site will. Some of the more intelligent liberals such as whiteflame and Barney I believe will not fall victim to this fallacy for example. 

It's also a concept that is so bad it threatens the underpinning of conservative philosophy. Often conservatives will have the same presupposition of Tabula Rasa and just argue how conservatism, despite it, is true. 

# What is Tabula Rasa in this context

Conservatives often say that they care about equality under the law, while liberals care about equality of outcome and it perplexed the conservative as to why this should be the case when they know some people are lazy, some are creative and hardworking etc.

However wanting equality of outcome makes sense when you start understanding their underlying philosophy, that many times they themselves are not aware of. 

Yes, yes liberals. I know you will criticize the conservative for clinging onto the Horatio Alger myths. That's a philosophy underpinning much of conservatism that is problematic, but we are talking about you right now. 

Liberals believe we are all born equal. Once born we all have equal IQs and work ethics and creativity naturally I'm us and the environment is what impacts those traits. This is the flawed Tabula Rasa theory. 

As Bestkorea pointed out in this thread. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11817-equality-cannot-exist-so-why-do-people-want-equality

Bk says the following

"Thinking of entire huge text to say that equality is good is simply like saying "It would be good if everyone had everything he wants" and writing bunch of nonsense to support said claim.

Sure, it would be good if equality existed, but the fact that it cannot possibly ever exist makes it kinda pointless to want."

# How Tabula Rasa works in practice

Since the liberal thinks it is 100% environmental what happens to a person it is natural to look at differences in outcome . If less black people graduate college we need an explanation. It can't be that they are more interested in the trades or are more artistic etc, since we are rabula Rasa that means black people should be just like white people and want to go to college as often as white people do. Since women and men are blank slates when they are born, then if more men are interested in STEM, it's because women are oppressed. 

If you point this out to a liberal they may complain. That many conservatives believe that zero percent of life is environmental and everyone can pull themselves up by the bootstrap. This may accurately reflect a logical fallacy on the part of the conservative but most conservatives know that environment plays some impact even if they understate the impact. 

It should also be said that conservatives who state that anyone can do anything may also just have a heroic view of the world and trying to motivate somebody to get out of the bucket, while his fellow liberals will act like crabs trying to pull him back in.

# conclusion

Liberalism sees everyone as equal upon birth and as a result have policies that create learned helpless in society and try to address non problems. For example liberals not realizi g that it is okay if more women are interested in nursing and more men in truck driving. It doesn't mean either group is oppressed only that they innately have different characteristics due to genetic and environmental influences and that's okay.

The first Jew was Jacob, he had a twin brother named Esau. Prior to the twin's births God gave a prophecy. The older twin would serve the younger twin and be more prosperous. 

When it came time to give birth Esau came out first, but Jacob was said to grab his heal and pull him back in and then came out prior. That would make Esau technically the oldest though there is an argument for either. 

It should be noted that Jacob means "one who grabs the heal" which at the time was also a phrase to mean deceiver but preachers and rabbis who recite this story either ignore this dual meaning or use some sort of cope. 

Esau was big and hairy, with red hair. He was a strapping young lad who hunted. Jacob was more effeminate and was a Shephard. 

While growing up at one point Esau had come in from a pretty vicious hunt. He was starving to death and in fact if he did not eat soon he would die. Jacob being the piece of shit he is says to his brother "give me your birth right and I will give you some food". Esau knew his birthright was no good if he was dead, so he agreed.

When you hear a rabbi speak of this story they will praise this evil deed as smart on Jacob's part or some other such nonsense. Really this is just some dick head fucking over his brother. 

Anyway more time passes and the father of these young men is about to die. His sight has faded but he pretty much has his wits about him. He knows he is about to die so he sends esau off to hunt and prepare his favorite dish. 

Jacob's mother tells him and decides to help Jacob once again do something really shitty. She covers Jacob with the hair of a wool  so he is hairy like esau and has him prepare dad's favorite dish while Esau is hunting.

Jacob prepares the dish and comes to his father's death bed.

He says "Dad it is me esau with the dish you asked for"

Dad says "is it really you esau? Come closer so I may give you your blessing (inheritance). So Jacob comes closer and his dad feels his skin and feels the sheep skin he strapped to himself and says, "it is the voice of Jacob but the skin of esau" and asks once again "Is it really you Esau?". Jacob again lies and says it is and then the Dad gives Jacob Esau's birth right. 

Pretty shit thing in general. I have a brother so this story hits me in the feels. I could never do that. Anyway sometime later Jacob leaves for a town where his cousin lives so he can marry her. This is because for whatever reason cousin marriage was preferred at the time. He ru s into his father's brother and promises to work for him for 7 years for his youngest daughter. 

After 7 years he has earned the right to marry the youngest girl but the father puts a fast one and swaps her with her much uglier older sister tricking Jacob. A much deserved trick it was. That's karma bitch, but Jacob just works another 7 years and earns the you gest daughter and yadda yadda dad tries to essentially enslave him so he takes off with his brides and the flock he has earned and heads back home.

Jacob being a piece of shit is not over yet. He gets close to home and fears Esau's wrath. So knowing that Esau might be vengeful and want to murder he has the women and children go first. How brave. His brother did not murder his wife and kids so he decided to meet Esau and started begging him.

"Please Esau let me give you my flocks etc."

Esau says "hey brother I love you I am just glad you are back"

As any normal good brother would but eventually after much begging from Jacob Esau did accept some token gifts .

They lived near each other and Jacob and his family grew too big so they expanded and started bumping into a new tribe. This new tribe thought it was a good ideal to make peace with Jacob so they could intermarry and be good neighbors with trade and other things.

Jacob being the piece of shit he is, concocts a plot. 

He tells the other tribe they have a custom that they can only marry other jews and need to be circumcised. These were such good people they quickly converted to Judaism and circumcised themselves. A few days later when all the men were essentially in bed recovering from such a painful thing, Jacob went in there and mass murdered all the males and kept all the women and merchandise for himself 

That's the story of one of the biggest pieces of shits to ever live and Jews think this guy is awesome and a model for all Jews.

So I have this thread up which explains why old money tends to vote democrat for some back ground. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11772-why-old-money-votes-democrat

History buff mentioned that my conclusion makes no sense, because rich people would want to pay workers less, but I will explain the incentive structure soon. 

Moderate boring idiots on the left and right, essentially your Bush/Clinton types have this theory that in order to have a capitalist society you need a strong social safety net in terms of minimum wage, subsidies etc. 

The reason this part of the theory was developed is because occasionally the working class in the past has revolted and the results of even the revolts that fail is the wealthy elite end up with their heads on pikes. 

So the wealthy do like to make money, but they also realize that to continue making money they have to be alive so they throw the poor and working class a bone. 

The moderates put it as needing a strong safety net to prevent people from rebelling at the ballot box. These same moderates also think or at least publicly state that socialist/communist societies fail because they don't have that strong capitalist engine to provide a safety net. So this is a circular thing. To have a poor population that can still have its bread and circuits, you need a strong capitalist system to peal those benefits off of.

what this means is that the wealthy elite to keep the plebs (thats you)  happy (meaning not homicidal) they need to push for things like strong social safety nets. 

The more knowledgeable leftists which this site lacks often criticize the welfare state as hiding the flaws of capitalism and keeping the proletariat subdued. The Laissez Faire Libertarian types really don't care or don't realize that without the social safety nets and with new players to compete with old money, you have a destabilizing effect on society.

So this is why you will see the nuevo rich often side with the right. Also what is known as the petty   bourgeoisie will often side with the right, those are your small shop keepers, people who own painting businesses etc. They are either small players in the game or too new to the game to realize that the destabilization they used to make their money is also the same type of destabilization that can come right back and smack them in the face.

so What does the old money do? They ccan't get rid of a social safety net in fact they prefer it there because it keeps them safe, they can’t roll back the minimum wage for the same exact reason. 

The next best thing they can do to is start importing a bunch of cheap labor into the country.

Another tactic they also use besides importing cheap labor is that they will often pretend there are nursing or doctor shortages. Any time you see a career that pays well, the old money will start flooding your local papers with stories of shortages. It happened with nurses and truck  drivers and if you are wondering why it is harder to get 6 figures after studying for a year or 2 to program a computer, it is because the old money has petitioned the government to start flooding the cou try with much cheaper Indian labor.

This is the game folks. 

I want to start by saying that objective morality is true. You can speculate as to whether that means a God does exist or if it is some sort of evolutionary thing.  I don't care.

We need to start by defining what objective means. Objective just means that something is u iversally true for the most part. There is no place for stupid shit like pointing out a single exception. By single I mean a single person not a culture. We all share the same moral foundations. If I say that humans have 2 legs. We'll We know that some humans have one leg or 2, or even in some cases 3, but it is just a weakness of the human language and we know that nearly every human has 2 legs. So we say the statement that "humans have 2 legs" is objectively true.

Now that I have dealt with the exception criticism of people pointing out that perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer has different morals than me, I think we need to handle another objection to objective morality. Some would say that cats or dogs or alligators murder without a second thought, but this is where moral agency comes in. Animals are not on the same level of consciousness as humans. They are not moral agents. The only known moral agents are humans, so if we can prove that morality is objectively the same in humans (just as 2 legs are) than it can be said morality is objective.

I want to talk about what I call prime morals. Humans share the same prime morals. We all think it is wrong to kill a child for fun. No society in the history of man would disagree. You will see some societies ask women to cover their head, others their ankles and some societies just ask that we don't expose our genitalia in public. 

At first glance this may seem like different morals, but it in fact is not. We all intuitively have the same morals, they are just expressed and interpreted differently for different cultures.

For example the moral virtue known as modesty. All cultures have it. Some interpret it to mean covering a person's face and ankles, some interpret it to mean only cover genitalia and yet others take it to mean no having sex in front of children,  but it is all an expression of the same morality. 

The same with murder. The prime moral would be no murdering without a good reason. Now different cultures will interpret what "good reason" means but it is none the less the prime morality at play. 

we all have the same morals but they are merely expressed differently. There is a shared moral sense among humanity and since humans are the only moral agents it makes morality objective

This comes from studying history and looking at stuff like the French revolution and ancient Roman society where the evil wealthy old guard was a bit more open about their actions. Here are the following reasons I have discovered.

1. Status signaling

This is the most boring reason but still true, especially in Hollywood or for the children of people who have generated a lot of wealth but who never really had to work hard themselves. They often just follow what intellectual trends are in vogue. Lately it has been  some truly retarded shit, and these same people often do not have a deep understanding of the philosophies they have adopted, merely because it is an accessory to them. Not too different than when they virtue signal by raising awareness for aids by wearing red bracelets. Not because they actually give a shit, but to feel morally superior to the plebs who are too busy with real jobs to pay much attention to such tragedies.

2. The wealthy elite have always wanted a slave class. In this day and age it is really cheap labor. God forbid they have to mow their own lawn or drive themselves somewhere, so they support Democrats so they can open the flood gates of cheap labor and own the modern equivalent of slaves or the closest approximate they can reasonably acquire.

3. This confuses some liberals but the old money actually likes regulations. If you have a person who owns a bunch of rental properties in New York, obviously they will be petitioning the state to create more regulations to prevent affordable housing in the form of high rise apartments to come in. It would decrease the amount of rents they can collect. This old money also often creates lots of regulations to keep new players from riaing up to compete. What do you need to be a painter.  Just a paint brush a ladder and a pail of paint but no the liberal old money who has 3 painting crews and several construction companies does not like your competition so now it takes you having to register with the state, do continuing education credits for painting, they require you to be licensed and bonded etc., basically preventing a lot of people from going into business for themselves. 

4. DeI

A lot of people also look at DEI and wonder why old money supports it. If they fill the tops of their companies with incompetent idiots, does it not hurt them? We all seem to suffer when companies hire based on some stupid criteria as opposed to being strictly merit based. Planes are literally starting to fall out of the sky as a result, but old money doesn't care. The thing they fear most is new money,  so by putting thes jobs in the hands of incompetent fools it prevents some extremely talented fast risers from threatening their power. 

4. After a lot of these slave rebellions and revolts by lower classes where the wealthy quite justifiably end up with their heads on pikes the wealthy began to realize that in order to pacify the sub human doors they would need to perhaps pool their money together in the form of taxes for welfare and other such pacifying vehicles. You can go look at articles up right now by these liberal elite which criticize both the left and right. Telling the left that a strong welfare state cannot exist without a strong capitalist state and that capitalism cannot survive as the poor will be upset if they have no safety net. So they are pretty open about their intent.

So you might at this point wonder what is the solution. I do know that, but it requires a further analysis of what identical attribute 90% of the left and the right have in common and why both are wrong, and why a 3rd position is superior to both. 

Hezbollah unprovoked entered war with Israel. This of course is backed by Iran but that is beside the point.  I assume this is a case of Israel intercepting supply lines or having some control over part of hezbolla supply lines but there is a possibility this is a more traditional hack. 

This is a good move on Israel's part and makes the terrorists not trust their own supplies. This is important to look at for another reason. 

If the United Statea ever goes to war with Russia or China, these are the types of atta KS you should expect. The power grids randomly shut down. Hospital equipment randomly killing people due to zero days. It's a low level look at the future of warfare. Hopefully Israel did intercept the supply lines and tamper with the devices, because if it is a zero day, then Israel gas once again last a zero day that can be used on a wider scale  in a more dire circumstances.  We could have actually ended all threats of Nuclear war had Israel not turned stuxnet into a worm. 

Either way. This is an interesting look at potentially your own future

As you can see the quality of the discussions on this site are pretty low right now. I need volunteers to help get threads back on track and to help moderate behavior. 

This team of people will be known as......

Squad neutralizing interactions through controlled handling. 

I realize the name is long winded so we will call it S.N.I.T.C.H. for short.

To join the snitch squad sign up below and I will give you guys stuff to copy and paste in threads to realign conversations more towards the sites goals

Sign ups below

Head snitch

1. Wylted

Regular snitches

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9

10.

How you can improve this site and what I am doing as I once again go behind the scenes to work on a few things.

1. Do not engage in political threads unless you have critiques of a specific policy. avoid talking about individuals or political movements as a whole unless you have some critique or analysis of some sort of underlying philosophy. Some examples may be criticizing the liberal assumption of people being blank slates at birth and all differences in the outcome being attributable to environmental factors or criticizing the conservative assumption that meritocracy is possible or desirable.

2. Expand the community outward. Start a blog and link to the blog from here and vice versa. By creating that community outside of this site and then infusing them into this site, you expand the number of intelligent people on this site and help build a debate community, that will still exist if this site disappears tomorrow. preferably the overlap with each other, blog, and VLOG communities, means we just need a few people handy at coding with some free time to rebuild this at any point, or if there is no desire to rebuild this, then you have built yourself a bigger network and strengthened your ability to argue your position and persuade by making debate a part of your broader life.  If blogging or Vlogging is not your thing than build a twitter presence and start intertwining this community, with the one you build on Twitter, facebook or truth social even.

3. Another thing I used to do when I was on debate.org, is I would come up with a debate topic and reach out to bloggers. I found a conspiracy blogger and challenged them to a debate on whether the Red Cross had occult origins or not. I also remember a time where I challenged one of the local heads of Mothers against Drunk Driving to a debate on whether drunk driving should be legal or not, so if you ever want a good debate and can't find one here than perhaps go seek out some activist organization. Just keep in mind that people who join things like MADD, usually do so because they lost a loved one to drunk driving or had other personal tragedies, so definitely be tactful in challenging people to debates.

1. I am slowing down and scaling back my participation here. Mafia will likely consist of 1 or 2 high-quality posts on my days off or 7 shit posts that barely contribute on the days I work. I will vote occasionally on debates but not participate much in the forums

2. I want to make a bunch of low-effort content that expands my circle to intertwine it with this site, like I suggested above. The way to do it, from what I can see from others, is have a unique philosophy that can just be repeated over and over and applied to a wide variety of circumstances. Hoe math has 1 philosophy that he quickly creates a ton of videos with by applying it to differing circumstances. His content is like 10 pages of notes. With a simple 10 page philosophy it can be done and then it is a matter of learning how to edit in some minimalistic way among other things and hopefully the content pisses off enough people where they want to come here and debate it.

The Bible tells us not to fuck other dudes in the ass. You are all men I assume. I hope.

Anyway the bible clearly tells you no fucking dudes in the ass. They don't listen so infects them with aids. 

What do queers do? They continue to buttfuck each other. What happens? 

God gives them monkey pox. 

The Bible is the recorded knowledge of man from thousands of years ago at worst. At worst the Bible is the collected wisdom of our elders who saw the increased diseases among homosexuals so warned us about it and you idiots denied the science, because it wasn't recent science. 

At best it is the word of God and you guys who couldn't co tain your impulses have offended God. 

Either way. Stop fucki g each other. Apologize to God and live a disease free life. 

Pew study finds there are 8 groups of voters. See this article; https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053929419/feel-like-you-dont-fit-in-either-political-party-heres-why

You can take the test here to determine where you stand https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/

Here are the 8 positions.

Faith and Flag Conservatives (10% of the public)
Committed Conservatives (7%)
Populist Right (11%)
Ambivalent Right (12%)
Stressed Sideliners (15%)
Outsider Left (10%)
Democratic Mainstays (16%)
Establishment Liberals (13%)
Progressive Left (6%)

I will say it did incorrectly type me as being a committed conservative. I am definitely a populist. Here is me taking the test if you are unaware of what the objectively correct opinion to have on each issue is https://youtu.be/H6qyKgYk4y8

The following site will give you 30 variations of the trolley problem which you can answer. https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

I personally go over each of my answers here https://youtu.be/5ibMYXwouhw

Anyway, I ended up killing 72 people, and my son killed 71, so let's see if by answering honestly you can get a lower death toll. Also, it will be fun to watch you guys recording yourself going through the game if you are up for it.

Nick Bostrom estimates that the future populations of earth will contain 100 trillion potential persons should we avoid any existential threats to human existence.

if we focus on stopping a genocide of 10 million people here and there than it could actually distract from us focusing our entire effort on avoiding existential threats to our existence. even a 1 in a million chance of a super AI destroying our existence in the famous grey goo scenario, we should still focus more heavily on preventing that potential over stopping a genocide of 10 million people.

A genocide of 10 million people is a loss of 10 million. so expected loss of 10 million, while a 1 in a million existential threat would have and expected loss of 100,000,000

so ev of genocide is -10 million

and ev of existential threat is -100 million

Keep in mind that 100 trillion is a conservative estimate if we don't look at human-level AI. So if we keep this in mind then it is unethical to waste time stopping a genocide when we could be hit by a meteor that destroys earth and potentially kills hundreds of trillions of people in future generations that do not yet exist. by removing any modern worry and only focusing the governments on eliminating existential threats to future generations, we may save trillions of lives and it is very irresponsible to allow things like preventing genocide distract us from saving lives.

So I will often challenge people on the long-term effects of policy on future generations and people have begun to notice. There is a train of thought that policy-making should focus on short-term impacts and that future generations can go fuck themselves.

I don't usually talk about things like long-termism because it's pretty niche and it's one of those ideals that has origins in the lesswrong community. I no longer associate with the community and closely related ones like effective altruism, but their ideals have been very influential on my thinking and approach. Now that we have some famous cults forming from branch off organizations and Sam Bankman Fried being associated with it, I just don't mention or engage with the less wrong community. I also have philosophical differences of belief with them, due to them being retards who actually care about avoiding cognito hazards and encourage a conservative approach to technological advancement.

Anyway, longtermism is popular in these communities and I mention them so you know where to look to engage with thinkers who promote the ideology and to learn more about the ideology itself.

essentially most of us would agree that a trolley heading towards 5 people and we have the option to throw a fat guy over a bridge to stop the trolley from killing the 5 people, we would agree that is a good thing.

Well there is more future people on the planet than current people. We have like what? 7 billion, well there are trillions of future people and when making a policy position it is more ethical to make a decision that positively effects those 10 trillion people than to in the short term care about the effects on a mere 7 billion or so.

Peter Thiel I believe understands longtermism and so does JD Vance as an associate of Theil's which is why you will occasionally see him slip and talk about how those with children will normally support better policies, all else being equal. This belief comes from the belief that we should be willing to make some sacrifices in this generation if it makes the lives of trillions of future people better.

This philosophy is objectively correct unless you are a piece of shit who answers the trolley problem wrong. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/opinion/the-case-for-longtermism.html

I can't help but to agree with Kamala's latest speech

Politics is nothing else and can be nothing else than the safeguarding of a people's vital interests and the practical waging of its life-battle with every means. Thus it is quite clear that this life-battle from the first has its starting-point in the people itself and that at the same time the people is the object - the real thing of value - which has to be preserved. All functions of this body formed by the people must in the last resort fulfill only one purpose - to secure in the future the maintenance of this body which is the people. I can therefore say neither that foreign policy nor economic policy is of primary significance. Of course, a people needs the business world in order to live. But business is but one of the functions of this body-politic whereby its existence is assured. But primarily the essential thing is the starting-point and that is the people itself.
Donald Trump will in practice lead to the destruction of a people's true values. And this also serves to explain how it is that peoples with a great past from the time when they surrender themselves to the unlimited, MAGA rule of the masses slowly lose their former position; for the outstanding achievements of individuals which they still possess or which could be produced in all spheres of life are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of mere numbers. And thus in these conditions a people will gradually lose its importance not merely in the cultural and economic spheres but altogether; in a comparatively short time it will no longer, within the setting of the other peoples of the world, maintain its former value.
The conception of pacifism is logical if I once admit a general equality amongst peoples and human beings. For in that case what sense is there in conflict? The conception of pacifism translated into practice and applied to all spheres must gradually lead to the destruction of the competitive instinct, to the destruction of the ambition for outstanding achievement.