No Such Thing As An Opinion!

Donald Trump: How The 74th Smartest Person In The World Can Lead You To The Presidency...

June 16, 2016

Donald Trump:

HIRE ME AS AN ADVISOR!  I will do wonders for you, significantly increasing your chances of beating Hillary! 

I've spent many hours writing this 26 page letter to you.  I'll start with a brief summary of my ability:

I'm remarkably capable. On a measure of math / memory and spatial ability (all valid components of traditional IQ tests), I placed 74th out of an estimated 1.25 million people world-wide.

I outsmart experts regularly, and easily. See for yourself, here's a sample of my articles:
(You'd probably love the article I wrote about Michelle Obama's college thesis...and the article I wrote about Barack's odd birth certificate number).

I call things as they are, I do not let bias interfere.  See for yourself, here's a summary of my positions:

Imagine what I could do for YOU.
All you need to do is entice a small percentage of people to switch their vote from Hillary.


(For the rest of this letter, I'll be referring to Trump in the third person).

If you want to know why I want to help Trump, go to the conclusion.   I'm going to get straight to the point:

As I've watched him throughout the Republican primaries, I've noticed that although he provides excellent answers in explanation of his policies, there are even better, more thorough answers he can provide.

His explanations may very well be crucial in beating Hillary.   Why?  Because some people consider certain topics to be subjective. Abortion, trade and immigration.  That provides opportunity to sway their opinions.
Regarding those topics, evidence and logic absolutely demonstrate which policies are harmful to the country.  As my site is named, there is No Such Thing As An Opinion.  Logic can only favor one idea over the other.

Trump simply needs to present a more thorough explanation, one that will get people to realize that these subjects are not subjective. And once that occurs, it can only tend to benefit conservative ideals, because conservative ideals tend to be far more logical.
And that's where I come in.  To offer my services to him as an advisor.

Let's look at the issues:


Early on in his campaign, Trump correctly noted that illegal immigration is a huge problem, because many illegal immigrants are criminals.  Trump correctly senses that illegal immigrants are disproportionately prone to committing crime.


"Illegal immigrant" is too tame, because the word "immigrant" provides some legitimacy to them, don't you think?


Trump needs to add some statistics to back up his arguments.   With proper statistics, there really is very little Hillary could do to combat his insinuation that illegal trespassers are more prone to committing crime.

He needs to hammer this point:

Compared to an American citizen, a noncitizen is much more likely to be an inmate in federal prison.


The proportion of federal prison inmates who are noncitizens is much greater than their proportion among the general population.

As for the actual figures, they all have one thing in common, even though there is debate as to the actual figure:  Noncitizens are much more likely than Americans to end up in federal prison.  That is true regardless of  whether you are looking at figures from the early 1990s, 2000s, or the present.

The figures I've seen range from 20% to 33%, meaning 20-33% of all federal prison inmates are noncitizens.

In contrast, according to

In 2000, 6.6% of the American population were noncitizens:

People have debated the figures over the years.  Some look at the Bureau of Prisons figures.  Some look at the Congressional Record.  Some debate definitions, noting that noncitizens aren't entirely made up of illegal trespassers.

Should the noncitizens be broken down into illegals versus non illegals?  I'm not sure that liberals would like to see that breakdown, because I suspect illegals are even more likely to commit crime than other noncitizens.  Perhaps far more likely.  In other words, the 20-33% figures would actually be an underestimate.
But as for the debate about the precise figures:

WHO CARES!  Who cares if the figure is 20 or 33%?  The point is, a noncitizen is far more likely than a citizen to be a criminal!

Trump needs to hammer home this point:

Illegal trespassers are several hundred percent more likely to be in federal prison.

Now what could Hillary possibly do or say to combat Trump's figures?  Very little.  When you break things down more objectively, using math, there is very little Hilary could do.  (But I'm sure I could come up with an easy counter to whatever Hillary does come up with).

Trump needs to be aggressive in attacking Hillary, because logic is not on Hillary's side:

Hillary, do you support cracking down on these people who are, firstly, trespassing, and secondly, committing crime in large numbers? Yes or no Hillary?

I should note that I first became aware of the seriousness of illegal immigrant crime in the 1990s, when I read a fantastic book by Peter Brimelow: Alien Nation.  How prescient he was.  I don't have the book in my collection, but I remember Peter's point about how prevalent noncitizen crime is.  I also recall that Peter pointed out how rare it is for non-western countries to allow whites / Westerners to immigrate to their country.


Trump should make all of these points:

Imagine you have a community of 100 people living on an island.  Imagine that they allow immigration, but want to screen people who come in legally.  Imagine that people are trying to trespass  illegally, running off boats and hiding on the island.  And surviving by taking the food and raw materials owned by the others on the island. Would people be outraged? YES.

Imagine that some trespassers try to take jobs from people sympathetic to their cause, by offering to work for a lower wage.  Would people be outraged? YES.

Now imagine that those same trespassers are much more likely than citizens to commit serious crime.  They begin to rob, rape and murder the citizens.  Would people be outraged? OF COURSE!

Now imagine that trespassers are sneaking on the island and having babies.  Would the community pass a law that automatically makes the babies citizens? OF COURSE NOT.

Imagine that a trespasser falls seriously ill on the island.  Would the community help him?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  But I highly doubt they would pass a law making it mandatory for the 100 members of the community to provide their own money to pay a doctor to treat every trespasser that falls sick. Why?  Because it provides an incentive to attract more illegal trespassing!

Imagine that these trespassers are more willing than citizens to do certain work (although that's debatable).  People would correctly point out that said benefit does NOT come close to outweighing the many problems associated with the illegal trespassers.  And if they truly needed certain work done, and had trouble finding someone who would do it...wouldn't it make sense to let market forces play out, by raising wages enough to convince someone to do the work?

Morally, the situation America is in is no different than the situation the community of 100 is in.

But I'd argue that the problem becomes graver the larger the community becomes, because people living in one region can't easily see the effect of illegal trespassers in other regions.

Trump needs to make it clear:

It certainly is possible to deport most or all of the illegal immigrants in America.  The large absolute number of illegals means nothing: The illegals came in over a span of decades, so why couldn't they be deported over a span of decades?

If Hillary disputes this, Trump should plainly say:

Hillary, do you understand math and numbers?


(I started writing this letter May 31 - Trump's June 13 speech in response to the Orlando Islamic attacks uses the word "community", just as I'm about to recommend he do.  Bravo, Mr. Trump!)

Although Trump has called for banning immigration of Muslims into America, I don't ever recall hearing him say that he wants to entirely ban immigration into America.

It's certainly possible that he would consider it, given his statements about how European cities have become a shell of their former self.

(Note that Trump's June 13 speech said: "Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities.")

I think that Trump should build on the theme prevalent in his anti-Muslim and anti-illegal immigrant arguments.  That theme is commonality.  Community.  Wanting to select immigrant with similar values. He's now mentioned it in his June 13 speech.  I think he should really, really emphasize that.  Talk about community ever single time he speaks.  Who doesn't want a community?)

The idea is simple: Have an immigration policy that serves the citizens.  Would the people ever want their government to enact an unwanted immigration policy? Of course not.

The people have been forced into embracing unwanted immigration policies, even though dislike of immigration policy is rampant.


Trump needs to hammer home some statistics. He can pick from among many poll results listed here:

"64% of Americans are dissatisfied with the level of immigration to the United States; 28% expressed satisfaction.  Of those who were dissatisfied, 42% indicated that they wanted the immigration level to be decreased, while only 6% said it should increased (Gallup, January 2012)."

" 50% of American think immigration to the U.S. should be decreased, while only 14% want to see an increase in immigration to the U.S. (Gallup, August 2009)."

Trump needs to make it clear that immigration polls actually tend to underestimate the level of dissatisfaction among Americans for two reasons:


Everyone doesn't have equal access to information.  It's plausible (I would say likely) that when citizens are provided with more information, anti - immigrant sentiment will increase.


When you strip out the opinions of immigrants themselves, I suspect that anti-immigration sentiment will rise.  Is it fair to strip them out?  I would say so, considering that most Americans didn't want many immigrants to be here in the first place, so why would their opinions be as valued in determining policy?  And if one wanted an unbiased opinion, why would a pollster ask an immigrant whether they agree with immigration?
If Hillary tries to claim that stripping out immigrant opinion is unfair, Trump simply needs to refer to the community of 100:

Imagine you have a community of 100 people, with a government of 5 people.  Imagine that those 5 people are somehow able to allow legal immigration to occur, against the wishes of the majority of the 100 citizens.  Imagine that the community grows to 150 people a few years later, with 40 of the 50 new people being immigrants.  If you want to find out what people tend to think about immigration, should you poll the entire 150 people, including the unwanted immigrants, or should you poll the 110 non immigrants?  The answer is obvious.

Current American immigration policy is an absolute disgrace.  The fact that immigration has been so unpopular for so long, yet has many other acts, by a government against its people, are as egregious?


The purpose of an immigration policy (or any policy) is simple.  The benefits of it should outweigh the costs.  Let's examine some of these factors:

Immigration can be incredibly powerful in shaping the character of a nation.  And it can be incredibly powerful in destroying a nation, as well.  Let's examine.


Trump is already on the right path here: He cited one of the many surveys showing that large numbers of Muslim Americans have views radically different than non-Muslim Americans.

Trump needs to delve deeper, and say:

Most people want to feel like they are part of a community.  Don't they?  People tend to prefer to be around others who they have something in common with.  It's human nature.  After all, do you select friends that you enjoy being around?  Or do you select friends that you tend to argue with?

At the same time, people don't forcibly breed other people, like they breed dogs.  So, is there no way to increase the degree of commonality within a country?

Of course there is.  You simply use immigration policy to select immigrants that have the traits citizens want.  Immigrants who will increase the happiness levels of existing citizens.  You admit so many immigrants that have the traits that you want, so that you start to drown out the others with traits you don't want.

Bizarrely, most Western governments do not do this.  In fact, they do the opposite!

Trump can easily summarize this by hammering a consistent theme:


Trump could also say:

Do you notice that people often praise diversity, as if it's automatically a positive?  Yet they never actually provide any reasoning that can explain why diversity would be a positive. Diversity equals division!

What would Hillary say to counter this?

Perhaps she would say that it is racist to select immigrants based on how common they are to existing citizens (even though race doesn't necessarily even need to be a factor.  But one should absolutely consider using race as a consideration in the selection process). Yes, God forbid, I said one of the most politically incorrect things that can be said (yet one of the most logical things that can be said) - consider restricting immigration to whites only.  (Don't worry Hillary. I'm not racist.  I'm just rational).

Trump needs to counter with these points:

There is no obligation or moral reason to serve the interests of foreigners over the interests of your own citizens.  Common sense, people.  Hillary, tell us, why do you prefer to help foreigners at the expense of Americans?


Calling someone racist for selecting immigrants based on race is like calling someone an ageist for determining life insurance policy rates based on age.  Either race and age or a factor, or they aren't.  It's quite simple.  So Hillary, tell me, why do you believe in not acting logically?

Trump should definitely mention Japan:

Hillary, are you suggesting the Japanese are racist because they choose to virtually exclude non Japanese from their country?

Among industrial nations, the Japanese are the only ones I know of that have done the rational thing: restrict immigration!  I have much respect for the Japanese.

If America wants to build a community again, it has to rebuild the sense of community, which likely means restricting immigration almost exclusively to whites, since whites are by far the most populous race in the country (and since they were the ones who got robbed by their own government's , immigration policy over the decades).  Just as Japan limits non-Japanese entry, America should strongly consider limiting non-white entry.

Hillary might claim that minorities would be harmed by a whites preferred immigration policy (and she'd likely be unconcerned with the benefits to whites, of course).

My first response to that would be:

Where were the liberals when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was being debated?   Where was their outrage over the effect the Act would have on whites?  (I don't know the entire context surrounding the passage, but I think it's safe to say that liberals were the ones leading the charge to pass the Act).

And shouldn't the outrage by liberals have been even greater back then, given that the population being affected (whites, about 90% (?) of America) is greater than the population that would be affected by my present day immigration recommendations? (minorities, 28% of the population as of the 2010 Census - higher, if you include the Hispanics who identify as white).

My second response is:

The purpose of the policy isn't to harm anyone at all.  It has nothing to do with deporting minorities.  That would be cruel.  It's not about that.  At all.   So why the negativity, Hillary?

It's simply about building a community, and that can be achieved by rebuilding the white presence in the community (country).

How would minorities be harmed? All that would transpire is the opposite of what's been transpiring since the 1960s.  Instead of immigrants being mostly minorities, immigrants would be mostly white.

In fact, if anyone should be able to relate to white desire for a white community, it's minority immigrants themselves, who tend to plant roots in neighborhoods with low proportions of whites.  An East Indian friend of mine worked in a racially diverse city.  He once told me that when he travelled to a suburb that was about 90-95% white,  he felt "uncomfortable".  Yes, you read that correctly.  I, a white person who recognizes that white immigration is preferential, had a non-white friend. God forbid, a white person can actually be rational about immigration, prefer white immigration, yet not be a racist?  I socialize with many minorities; my workplace has large numbers of minorities (and I'm already getting tired of writing an explanation that I shouldn't need to write).  I evaluate people on an individual basis, yet I recognize that group differences exist, that there would be a much greater sense of community, among other factors, if there were more whites living in my racially diverse region of residence.

Perhaps Hillary would claim that a whites preferred immigration policy would result in some whites being more likely to express hidden anti-minority hatred.   And I'm sure it would, just as I'm sure that current immigration policy has impacted whites negatively (and blacks too, by the way).  You don't think there are anti-white (and anti-black and anti-East Indian and anti-Jewish) minorities out there?  Would Hillary really want to delve into those statistics?  Let's be honest.  You don't see white protestors attacking minorities who attend Hillary rallies, like you see minority protestors attack whites who attend Trump rallies.


It's common sense that people want to be around others similar to themselves.  That's why whites tend to move out of communities when minorities move in.  That's why people form cliques in high school.  That's why people go to war over religious and ethnic differences.

Trump needs to emphasize this:

Imagine you have a community of 100 people.  That community is governed by 5 people, and those 5 people are implementing a legal immigration policy that a majority of the community doesn't want.  The policy results in people immigrating to their community. 

As immigrants enter, the existing citizens, disliking that the immigrants tend to be significantly dissimilar to themselves, tend to move out of their community and create new communities.  This is happening everyday in America.

Would the community of 100 people ever allow the government to continue with this bizarre immigration policy? OF COURSE NOT. Why would they? 

Trump should say:
Why does immigration policy fight the natural tendency of humans, rather than work with it?


This is very important! A visual of it should be used in a commercial:

Imagine you are viewing the entire map of the world, from 700 years ago, in 1316.  You can see the entire map in your line of sight.  You see people living in regions far apart from each other.  They are not able to travel by plane or car. 

The video zooms in to different regions, and a voiceover states that each region's people tend to evolve by adapting to their circumstances.  The people who survive their region's unique environment are the ones who pass down their genes.   People in different regions have different religions, different beliefs, different morals, and different languages.

The video zooms out again, with the entire map in the line of sight.  And time starts to progress.   Each second would represent a year's worth of time.  1316 would change to 1317, 1318 etc.  As you view it, you'd notice that population masses wouldn't change or migrate much.

In the 1500s, you'd notice a steady stream of people leaving Europe, primarily England, to move to North America.

Within each world region, a voice over lists endless conflict both between and within countries.  It is clear that many countries have ethnic and religious strife.

At one point, you'd see a large stream of people coming from Africa, into slavery, and the voiceover would mention slavery and racial strife.

In the final 50 seconds of the video, starting at year 1965, a voice mentions the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.  "The floodgates have been opened".

You suddenly see migration to America accelerate, in a much different manner.  Suddenly, you see people from many Third World countries steadily stream into America, drowning out the simultaneous stream of immigrants arriving from Europe.

The point is clear:  The immigrants who founded the country are no longer growing the country.  Several disparate groups, groups from countries full of strife and conflict, are converging.

As this is being shown, the voice over should say:  How can you build a community of people by combining people from different communities?

The video can play again, this time faster, so that the contrast becomes more noticeable:  Relative population stability quickly and suddenly changes. And it changes by allowing newcomers who are different.

The video ends with this voice over:

One thing is clear: today's immigrants are different, and a community doesn't thrive by choosing to select differences over commonality.  Over community.  Never forget, the amount of harm liberals have inflicted is simply mind boggling.
One reason why political correctness has become so ingrained in Western society is because people fear being called a racist so much that they simply shut up.

Trump needs to help make it acceptable to talk about all relevant factors again. He already has.

People who throw around the term "racist" for no good reason are real scumbags.  They really, truly are, because they've enforced political correctness, which has resulted in erosion of the sense of happiness and community in western countries.  They have caused so much fear that people have frozen, afraid of reporting minorities who appear that they may be preparing to murder others.  Think about that!  Liberal are to blame for that!

If Hillary tries to call people racist for wanting to build a community of similar people, Trump should respond as follows:

It's absurd to think that if someone prefers being around someone similar to them, it must mean that they hate dissimilar immigrants, it must mean they can't get along with dissimilar people.  How absurd! Every day, people have to deal with others who are dissimilar, regardless of race.  Hillary, don't make this about hate.
Hillary, don't you prefer some things over others?  Hillary, do you normally choose to buy things that you prefer?  What about those dresses that you tried on?  Do you say to yourself "damn, I like that dress, but I think I'll buy the other one instead"?
Trump needs to redirect the conversation to immigrants themselves, and show how immigrants themselves act highly racially selective.  This will prove that racial preferences are human preferences.  They are not exclusive to whites:

In fact, immigrants themselves engage in the most racially selective practices.  The reason why immigrants often congregate disproportionately in certain cities is undoubtedly because immigrants want to be with other immigrants of a similar background and language.  In other words, they want their own community.

And I don't fault them for that. At all.  As I said earlier, an East Indian friend of mine worked in a racially diverse city.  He once told me that when he travelled to a suburb that was about 90-95% white,  he felt "uncomfortable".

Liberals cannot be allowed to scrutinize racial beliefs of whites while completely ignoring the racial beliefs of minorities. Trump needs to redirect the conversation:

Are the incoming immigrants racist against whites? No. It's human nature. They want a community.  Forgot the word racism entirely, Hillary!  It's simply about community.

As Trump says: "Do you want a country?"  Exactly.  EXACTLY!  It is brilliant of him.  A country of citizens with little in common with each other isn't a country at all.  It's a collection of people.

He could expand this to say:

"Do you want a community, or a collection of people?"


Race doesn't even need to be a factor in immigration screening at all, by definition.  If you're going to build a community of people similar to each other, you could select by screening only for personality traits.  It's something that should definitely be considered.  And Trump should definitely throw the idea out there, and garner feedback on it.   There are some potential disadvantages of selecting by personality trait, including cost.  Although testing would result in a society where people will tend to share similar values, because the society will still be racially diverse, it will give the impression of diversity, and there may be something inside of people, from evolution, that makes them feel less connected to racial outgroups (and there almost certainly is.  After all, visual stimulus occurs before touch and smell).
So, apart from personality screening, the only other way to identify a tendency for commonality is by selecting by region and/or race.  But a potential problem with selecting only by region/race is that...although the people you would select would tend to be more similar to each other than they would be if you selected people randomly, regardless of race...they won't have as much in common as if you selected according to personality traits, regardless of race.

There's a solution.  Perhaps the ideal is to select both by race and personality.  It might cost money to test personality, but isn't it worth it, given that you're building a community of people that will pass their genes on to their children?

Oh, there should be one other trait that immigrants are screened for.  I didn't mention it yet, because I've devoted a section to it:


Trump should say:

How could America ever create an ideal community by selecting immigrants from regions who don't speak English as their first language?  It's not enough to select immigrants who can speak English as a second language.  And I'll tell you why. 

When a person knows two languages, they seem to almost always revert to using their first language, when possible.  That's why, in lunchrooms across the world (mostly Western countries, I assume), there is such division and segregation within the lunchroom. 

Again, think of the video of the map of the world.  People speak different languages across the world.  They suddenly converge in America.  So why would we expect them to speak English during the conversations they don't need to speak it?

(Perhaps commentary on language should be added to that video!  Yes, it definitely should).

Trump could go on to say:

I don't blame immigrants for choosing to speak their first language in front of others who don't speak that language.  Some might consider it to be quite rude of them, but I think that, generally, it's simply easier for them to form the words by speaking in their first language.  Their mind doesn't have to work as hard.

So, you can't blame the immigrant for this.  But that doesn't mean it's desirable to have a lunchroom, or a sidewalk, where multiple languages are being spoken!

How could that ever benefit society?  It could never make you feel like you are living in a community.  What's more crucial than language in creating a community?

Isn't it great being out in public, hearing someone speak, and chiming in?  Isn't that fun?  Unfortunately, that sense of community is eliminated when two people don't speak the same language.

Worse, hearing another language spoken can be annoying at times.  Think about it.  If you were sitting in a lunchroom, you wouldn't enjoy hearing random utterances, noises, etc, would you?  Well, that's exactly what a foreign language sounds like to someone who doesn't speak the language.  It's simply distracting background noise.  I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but why would an American immigration policy ever choose immigrants that don't speak English as their first language? It's almost like American policy pricks itself in the foot, with a pin, every single time they allow entry to someone whose first language isn't English.

And there's another significant problem regarding language, and Trump should address this too:

When immigrants do speak English as their second language, it's often not fluent.  This can create communication problems in business.  People will often either not understand, or, perhaps worse, misunderstand the immigrant. 

Imagine a scenario where an immigrant gives direction to a co-worker.   But subtleties in language meant he actually said something different than he actually meant to say. The co-worker takes his direction, finishes the project.  Although he followed directions properly, the directions were not accurate.  He now needs to redo the project.

Typically, this isn't too serious of a concern.  But imagine this happening daily, thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of times! Imagine the drain on productivity!

And for what? What did America get in return for allowing this immigration?
I realize that Trump's wife is foreign born, and perhaps didn't speak English as her first language.  That wouldn't invalidate my point.  A policy is either logical, or it isn't.

I dated a black woman who was also an immigrant.  She didn't speak English as her first language.   Did I enjoy her company? Yes.  She's a kind person. But that in no way invalidates any of the points I made. Current immigration policy is quite irrational.

In fact, my interaction with this woman actually provides fodder for my anti-immigrant argument. Here's how:  She is black, and often commented on how she felt that whites' actions or words made her feel that she was being looked down upon.  When she provided me with examples, I almost always felt that she was overreacting.  Her concerns didn't seem to be plausible.  But I do think that at times she likely did correctly perceive an attempt to make her feel like the "other".  It's the law of large numbers.  Eventually, someone will come along and do something like that.

My point is:  why does society insist on grouping together as many different people as possible?  People can be so sensitive about other groups that they perceive negativity even when it's not there!  Why doesn't society try to build communities, to avoid this tension?


Trump needs to say:
People in different regions differ greatly in ability.  And why wouldn't they, considering that people evolved in different regions?  Average test scores vary widely across the world.  If you want to build a community to become more capable, why wouldn't you consider taking into account the capability of the immigrant? After all, every single immigrant has an effect on the community around him, and the immigrant especially affects the future, through the ability of his offspring.

If Hillary says that Trump is discriminating, and being biased, Trump should respond:

Yes, I am.  Why don't you want to choose more capable immigrants, Hillary?


Trump should say:

Crime rates vary greatly across different regions.  Why wouldn't an American immigration policy choose immigrants from regions exhibiting lower crime rates?

Please note: there is one way to select law-abiding immigrants from crime prone regions, and that's to test for intelligence.  You could select intelligent immigrants from crime ridden regions, because low intelligence is a predictor of crime. Read the Bell Curve for more on that.


I left this part for last, because the general assumption among the vast majority of people, whether liberal or conservative,  seems to be this:

Regardless of what you think of illegal immigration, some form of legal immigration is fine.

But is it?

Trump, and America, need to be aware that there is a negative associated with any mass immigration policy.  One that's so powerful that it suggests mass immigration should perhaps be banned!



Here's why:

An immigrant tends to drain far more wealth from the country than he initially brought to the country.  It's that simple.

Let's say America has 100 citizens, with an average net worth of $100,000.  The country is worth $10,000,000.

Then an immigrant arrives. With a net worth of $200,000. There are now 101 people, with a total net worth of $10,200,000, or an average net worth of  $100,990.10.

Has the average net worth of Americans increased? Yes, but only temporarily.  The immigrant has transferred his wealth from his home country to America.

But the instant the immigrant starts receiving a salary or government benefits in America...he starts draining wealth from America.

Think about it:  The foreigner brings in $200,000 to America.  But then starts earning an annual salary of, say, $40,000.  After five years, the foreigner will have taken $200,000.  Where did that $200,000 come from?  Other Americans, of course.
At that point, the immigrant has drained the entire $200,000 he initially brought to the country.  Going forward from there, the total net worth of Americans falls below the initial $10,000,000 mark.  The average net worth of Americans has now fallen as a direct result of allowing the foreigner to immigrate.

If the immigrant lives in America for 40 years, the amount of wealth he drains from other Americans would be:

$200,000 - (40 * $40,000) = $1,400,000.

The net worth of the 101 Americans would go down from $10.0 M to 8.6M, and their average net worth would fall from $100,000 to $85,148.51.

That's a decrease in wealth, per American, of 15%. That's incredible!  And it's quite damning of immigration itself.

The example shows the effect that a single immigrant has per 100 Americans.   If that occurred annually, that's an annual immigration rate of only 1%.

Now, I believe that America's immigration rate is currently less than 1% of its population, but immigration has been occurring for many, many decades.  To the point that the proportion of  Americans who are foreign born was 16% in 2013!

That's 41.3 million people.  Once you realize that, you realize America has a serious problem on its hands:

Namely, wealth is being drained from America at a mind boggling rate.
Trump needs to emphasize:

A foreigner brings far less to the country than he takes from the country.  It's quite simple.  The salary and benefits he receives from America are far greater than the amount of money he brought into America.

My math seems irrefutable, right?  But how could my conclusion be correct?  How could it be that wealth is draining from America?  It's very difficult for people to reconcile that with their existing perceptions.

Hasn't American overall net worth gone up over several decades?  Yes. I'm pretty sure it's at, or very close to, all time highs. Isn't GDP increasing?  Yes.

So how could my numbers even be possible?  Are my numbers correct?  YES.  Math is irrefutable.  It shows that an immigrant definitely drains money.

So there must be some explanation that allows for both the drainage of wealth and also the perceived increase in net worth.

I figured it out.  The net worth figures are incorrect.  They don't include all assets.  They exclude huge amounts of assets, such as underground raw materials!

The drain in wealth isn't easily noticeable, because it isn't resulting from a drain in currency.  It's resulting from a drain of underground raw materials, like oil, metals, etc.!  (And also overground assets, such as trees, etc).

Think about it.  When a new person enters the country, that means an extra person needs to be fed, clothed, housed, transported, etc.  How is that achieved?  Oil wells are drained, and resources are mined.  These are limited resources!! (although some resources can be replenished; crops and tress can be planted).

The immigrant appears to cause no drain in overall wealth among Americans.  He brings his $200,000 and spends some of it, buying food, cars, housing, etc.

But you can't get something for nothing.  The money he spends results in the supply of limited resources dwindling even further.

Think about all of the things he buys, and trace the components of those items to their original, raw material state.  Visualize that, for every single immigrant.

So the question becomes:  Is there a chance that limited resources run out? Of course there is.

Trump needs to urgently address the situation, by pointing out that we have limited resources, that immigrants are draining them.  Mass legal immigration needs to immediately end, in light of this.

A task force should be created, one that estimates how long our limited resources will last.  After first determining that, one can move on to other issues, like determining whether there are any benefits of mass immigration that could potentially outweigh the costs associated with the drain of resources.

Is it likely that resources will run out?  Of course.  They are limited.  They will run out eventually, unless technology eliminates a need to use these resources.  World population increases by the day, just as resources simultaneously decrease by the day.

Trump needs to say:

Mass immigration can not only weaken the host country, but, ironically, immigration can actually strengthen the country that the immigrant emigrated from! That country's underground assets will deplete at a slower rate, leaving more wealth for its existing citizens, who will end up with a higher average net worth.

What's going on here?  We are losing doubly!  We are losing wealth, draining our resources to support an immigrant.  And what are we getting in return? Often, an immigrant that isn't the ideal fit into our community!
And what about running another commercial?
A graphic could show huge stockpiles of underground resources slowly dwindling as immigrants pour in above ground.

And what about the community of 100?

What would the community of 100 do, if they felt their assets were depleting, at risk of running out?  Would they allow immigration?  Of course not!

The question becomes: why isn't mass immigration banned?  Are the leaders and thought leaders unable to figure out what I've figured out?  I've never once seen anyone else show that it's mathematically irrefutable that immigration drains a country of its wealth. 

Am I the first?


Yes, it is possible! Again, look at the math:

1) You'd need to select immigrants that would bring in assets in an amount greater than the value of the assets they extract from the country.  It's simple.  In the example above, that would be $1.6M.  That means you'd be narrowing down the list of potential immigrants considerably.  Limiting immigration to multi-millionaires.  America should certainly consider this policy.

But even then, you'd have to weigh this financial benefit versus the negatives that could be caused by an immigrant not being an ideal fit into a community, in terms of language, degree of commonality, etc.

The solution would be to select the wealthy immigrant who tends to provide a sense of community.  A white, English speaking immigrant, from a region with values common to American values.

2) Is it possible for an immigrant to offset his $40,000 annual drain of wealth by working in a job that results in a trade surplus to America?  The problem is, it's basically impossible for a single individual, on average, to contribute $40,000 worth of trade surplus annually.

Don't believe me? 

For starters, consider that America has a massive trade deficit.   It's not even a surplus. At all.

Second:  consider that when you look at countries that do have a surplus, the average surplus per citizen isn't even close to $40,000.  Look at Germany, one of the richest countries in the world by trade surplus:

In 2015, the surplus was 247.8 billion Euros. With a population of about 80 million people, that means the average person generated a surplus of 3,000 Euros.  That's not even close to 40,000!

Again, it's absurd to think that an average immigrant could create enough of a trade surplus to offset the drain on the country's resources.

3) Perhaps the strongest argument for allowing mass immigration is this:

Although it drains America of its assets greatly, by accumulating a large population faster, America is more likely to invent things that could be helpful to society's happiness, productivity, and national security. 

But isn't that kinda like spending money?  It's nice to spend and get things in return, but it's not very nice when your money runs out.

Would those achievements be worth the massive loss in wealth simultaneously occurring?  Outside perhaps of the achievements in the area of national security, I doubt they are worth it.  

Well, let's put it this way.  Some people might not care much if their country is being drained of underground resources.  Until they are the ones holding the bag when the resources run out.
Why not consider restricting immigration, to avoid the loss of wealth?  America could rely on its own inventions and products, and when needed, simply use the saved wealth to buy inventions created by other countries?  Sure, you pay a mark-up above their cost price, but that mark-up may be less than the wealth you would've lost by allowing mass immigration.   You'd have to do an analysis to estimate whether the benefits would outweigh the costs.   Would America's resources drain faster through immigration or through paying for other countries' inventions?

What about national security?  Well, mass immigration isn't needed to find the best minds that can help invent technology to secure the country.  You could simply apply a very restrictive immigration policy that allows the best and the brightest to immigrate.  Sure, those few immigrants might drain the wealth of America by a small amount, but that could very well be worth it if they help ensure the safety of every single American!

In fact, mass immigration, in its current form, can be quite damaging to national security, because it results in the immigration of many people who don't feel particularly strong allegiance to America.


What about social security benefits? Are immigrants required to maintain that system?

Of course not.  Immigrants pay into that system, yes.  And that's what distorts people's perceptions.

Think about it.  Immigrants are paying into the system with funds that they have extracted from other Americans!  They are receiving, say, $40,000 a year in salary from Americans!  And a portion of that salary, received from other Americans, ends up going back into the Social Security system.  Why bother transferring the money through the immigrant in the first place?  The money is being transferring from an American to an immigrant and back to an American (and the immigrant) through the Social Security system.

Immigrants are not contributing to the system at all.   In fact, they are draining from it.  They are draining the overall wealth from America, and hence there will be less wealth in the country, per person, by the time the immigrant receives Social Security himself!

Why do people think that a declining population is a bad thing?

Do you ever wonder why people act like a declining population is a bad thing?  How absurd.

Think about it.  If a population's birth-rate starts declining, that means there will be more families with one child than with two children. 

How is that bad for the country, financially? 

When the parents pass away, the wealth will be given to the one child, instead of two children.  Therefore, the average amount of wealth per person will increase!! (Which is exactly what I've been saying all along in regard to immigration: if you have the same amount of assets, but fewer people, the wealth per person is greater).

Another benefit of a lower birth rate: Because fewer people will be born, fewer raw materials will be consumed.


Here's the problem:

If you ban immigration, and leave the population as is, America is stuck with a population that's quite diverse.  Different religions, different languages, different beliefs, different values, differing crime levels.  I think it's certainly fair to say that America is not a community anymore.  But even if there still was a sense of community in America, it's certainly far, far weaker than it could be.

The solution, as I mentioned earlier, is to rebuild the community by either:

1) restricting immigration to white (because they are the dominant group in America), English speaking immigrants from regions where people share American values.


2) conducting some type of personality testing, some type of trait selection; but immigrants of all races, from all regions, could be allowed. 

The problem with 2) is that...there would still be physical diversity, since a community would include members of various races.  That diversity might result in less of a feeling of community than would be achieved if virtually all people were the same race.  (Again, it's the visual aspect of evolution, people.  You can't outmuscle evolution). 

The problem with 1) (and 2, actually) is...mass immigration results in a drain of wealth from the country!

(Boy, past leaders REALLY fucked up America with immigration, didn't they).

So the question is, what's more important, a sense of community, or resources?   If you opt for community, and allow mass immigration of whites, you'll run out of limited resources sooner. 

And earlier, I mentioned that mass immigration can have a positive effect on productivity and inventiveness,  but those effects are similar to spending: It feels good to spend, but it doesn't feel good once the resources are gone.  But when I said this, I was referring to endless mass immigration. Endless mass immigration rapidly depletes limited resources.

In the 1) scenario above, allowing mass immigration of whites, I refer to temporary immigration. I refer to allowing enough immigration to restore a high sense of community in the country again.  I suspect that would take decades, until whites become about 90-95% of the population.

So what's my decision?  Should mass white immigration occur, even though it results in a drain of resources?


I would argue yes.   I would argue that rebuilding a sense of community in America, by allowing temporary  mass immigration of whites, outweighs the negatives associated with the drain of resources.  But I would be open to considering opposing arguments, because although I feel strongly about my choice, I don't feel certain.

Which leads me to my next point.


A taskforce should be created , estimating just how long our natural resources will last (or perhaps you could just let me figure it out myself, if you give me enough time!)

The answers will help determine whether it really is a good idea to rebuild the white community at the expense of drained resources.

If it's determined that it's very likely that technology will never be able to solve the problem of limited resources, one could make the argument along the lines of: "If we're going to die eventually, why not enjoy ourselves as we go along?"

It's also important to note that if limited resources do run out, although our lifestyle would change dramatically, we would still have food: animals and crops, of course.


Regardless of whether you choose a policy to allow mass immigration of whites, the following should being:

A very limited immigration program, one which selects for extremely bright individuals who can immediately contribute to national security and other crucial areas.  (One potential problem is that a foreigner may be more likely than an American to sabotage national security.  So, that should be a consideration).


In normal circumstances, mass immigration should likely be banned, regardless of source country, unless you are certain that technology will eventually solve the problem of limited resources.

But these aren't normal circumstances.  America should only take immigrants that contribute to the country:  immigrants who can rebuild America's sense of community, immigrants who can contribute to national security, etc.

One of the first times I felt quite excited about Trump was when I heard him speak about trade. About how China is manipulating the United States.  About how Trump would implement a tariff on Chinese imports immediately, in order to bring them to the bargaining table.  Trump gets it!

Trump needs to be more specific about the harm that's caused by free trade with low wage countries. So that more people can relate.

Again, the math is irrefutable. Let's examine:

If an American company hires an American worker, they typically have to pay the American a greater wage than they'd pay a foreigner.  The American company would earn less profit (at least in the short term - more on that later).

But the downside is that the American worker is out of a job.  That's certainly a negative, in the sense that it enriches a foreigner at the expense of a fellow American.  Also negative is the fact that the foreigner is receiving a wage that may be greater than he would have earned had the American company not hired him in the first place (in the context of trade, it's a negative, because it's enriching a citizen of a competing country).

But the key to understanding trade is to follow the money.  The math:

Trump needs to say:

If an American company pays $15 an hour to an American, a high percentage of that $15 will stay within America - spent on living life in America. Let's assume the figure is 90%.

In this case, only $1.50 will leave America (10% of $15).
But if an American company pays $7 an hour to a foreigner, a high percentage of that $7 will be spent outside America - spent on living life in their home country.  Let's assume the figure is 90%.

In this case, $6.30 per hour would leave America.

What's better? $6.30 / hr leaving America, or $1.50?  It's quite a difference.  America is being drained of wealth, big time.
Trump needs to find out the exact figures, and pound the point down everyone's throat.  (Well, he doesn't actually need to find out the exact figures, because it should be obvious that there's a wage discrepancy, and obvious that a foreigner would spend most of his money in his home country).

But what about the American companies?  Won't their profit suffer if forced to hire Americans?

First, the profit of companies shouldn't be the main concern, America overall should be the main concern.

The truth is that when American companies hire lower wage foreigners, they are more profitable, but only temporarily.

In the medium to long term, they will be less profitable!  Yes, less profitable!  Surprised?  Here's why:

Trump needs to make this clear to Americans:

Because Americans will be earning less, they will have less money to spend.  That translates into American companies selling less.  Retailers and others start to lose sales, profit, and eventually go out of business.

Think about it:

Company A hires foreign workers instead of Americans. So do their competitors, companies B, C and D.

They each earn a greater profit on each sale, due to lower costs.

But because Americans are now out of work, or earn less, Americans cannot spend as much buying from company A, B, C or D.

So, the overall sales of companies A, B, C and D go down.  The weakest of them (let's say D) goes bankrupt, and most of their customers are forced to buy from their previous competition, A, B and C. 

It might appear that the sector is healthy, because A, B and C might actually have more sales than they did when D was around.  No.  The sector is weak, and dying, because overall sales are decreasing.  And the sales are decreasing because the very same companies chose to transfer money to foreign workers instead of their own customers.

It's quite simple, really.

Or is it?  I haven't seen one single expert figure out what I have.  Donald, that should tell you that I should be your advisor!!

I do have a very important point to make regarding America's finances:

I think it's important to realize that there are unconventional ways America could resolve inherent trade unfairness. 

They say the Chinese are manipulating their currency, pegging it artificially low, which artificially props up Chinese exports, right?  Well perhaps American government has a plan to screw them in return.  Maybe insiders don't plan to repay the debt the Chinese have purchased.  Perhaps that's why they haven't labelled the Chinese as a currency manipulator.

If that's the case, it could be a serious impediment to Trump trying to balance the budget.  Trump might even want to go along with such a plan, as a way of screwing the Chinese.  But if Trump had already campaigned on a promise to try to balance the budget, how would he renege on that, if he can't explain the reasoning publically?

As a result, I think that Trump should consider not claiming he will balance the budget.  Perhaps he should just say that he will review America's finances and make choices that are in America's best interest.


Donald Trump seems to believe that abortion is immoral.  And I'm pretty sure he's correct, at least when it comes to looking at individual abortions, not macro policy.

But when it comes to convincing others, it seems that perception is a hurdle.  It seems that conservatives value the life of the baby over that of the mother, with liberals valuing the life of the mother over that of the baby.

There's an easy way to figure out who is right.  Again, it comes down to math.


Before I get into the math, and before Trump gets into the math, I would recommend that Trump be clear:

A fetus is, at least at some stage, certainly a baby.  There should be no doubt about that.

Take a look at this photo of the developed hand of a 21 week old fetus.

The fact that babies are born as early as three months premature is testament to the fact that the fetus is indeed a baby at same point.


Next, the math.  This is what will really damage pro-abortion arguments.

Trump should make this clear:

Remember, it seems that conservatives value the life of the baby over that of the mother, and liberals value the life of the mother over that of the baby.

Think about that.  By ending a baby's life early through abortion, you are taking away about 80 years' of the baby's life.

By taking away the ability to abort, you are presumably lowering the quality of the mother's life, for the rest of her life, about 60 years  (the exact figure isn't important. The point is that the figure will be far less than the baby's life expectancy).

80 vs 60.  80 vs 60!  Shouldn't it be a no-brainer that abortion causes far more harm to babies than does restriction of abortion to pregnant women, at least when looking at individual abortions?

(Donald, have you ever heard any other expert use math in this way? Perhaps I should be your advisor!)

And the correct comparison isn't even 80 vs 60, when you consider that each of the 80 years aren't equal to each of the 60 years.

80 refers to the number of years that a life has been eliminated.  60 doesn't refer to eliminated years of life.  It refers to the number of years of lower quality of life (and even then, 60 isn't the correct figure, because the mother might be unhappy for only a portion of those 60 years.  She might give away the baby to adoption, etc.  She might let her child move out once he/she turns 18.  And in some cases, she might eventually be happy that she had a child.

So, the correct figure is not 60.  It might be 40. Or 20.  Or 10. But let's be conservative and say it's 40.

But is 80 also a correct figure?  After all, some unwanted babies will have mothers that regret having them, and won't treat the child as well as she'd treat a wanted child.  Some unwanted babies will be put up for adoption, and may be put in an orphanage, while waiting for adoption.  I would argue that the 80 figure should also be downgraded, say, to 70.

My point is:

The damage done by restricting abortion can never surpass the damage done by allowing abortion (at least on an individual level - more on that below). It's mathematically impossible.

There are, however, some macro factors that could influence abortion policy.  Let's examine.

Illegal Abortions

The first is this:  If abortion is outlawed, some mothers will get abortions illegally, or may try to abort the baby themselves.  Either could result in health risks.

I'm sure some that some women would try to illegally abort, and some would harm themselves.  But should abortion be allowed, should a baby's 70 years of life be jeopardised, simply because someone might be self-harmed while breaking the law?

Using that would liken that it shouldn't be illegal for criminals to assault someone, because if you made it illegal, some people would assault others anyway, and the perpetrator would be harmed by being sent to prison.

Demographic Policy

The other argument to allow abortion would be this:

Allow abortion so that the population can be manipulated.

Want a smaller population? Allow abortion (a smaller population does mean greater average levels of wealth, because fewer people are competing for resources).

Would abortion result in a population that is less prone to crime?  How would it affect intelligence levels?  Well, it all depends on who does the aborting.  Who prevents their genes from being passed down.  You'd have to look at the crime rates and intelligence of the women who have abortions, and then compare.

And even if there is a demographic advantage to allowing abortion, you'd then have to quantify that, and compare those benefits to the 70 vs 40 cost of allowing individual abortion.
But would even Donald Trump be as bold as to get into a discussion of using abortion policy to alter demographics?  I wouldn't count on it.  I certainly don't think Hillary would get into that, either.

And perhaps it isn't fair to discuss individual abortion policy without also discussing macro policy, unless one is unconcerned with macro policy.  But all factors should always be considered.

I believe that if Donald Trump sticks to discussion only of individual abortions, his use of the 70 vs 40 argument cannot hurt him.  Here's why:

I would think that people who already oppose abortion are extremely unlikely to change their mind when presented with the 70 vs 40 argument.  And why would they?  70 vs 40 supports their conclusion.

But people who currently are for abortion?  I would imagine that some of these people are pro-abortion because they feel that having an unwanted child would negatively impact a mother's life.  But when you can show the hard figures, 70 vs 40, at least a portion of them will become anti-abortion, as they realize that it's indisputable that an abortion harms the baby more than the mother.

Exceptional Circumstances

Of course, policy exceptions could be made in exceptional circumstances, such as rape. And why wouldn't they? Whenever circumstances change, the assessment could change.


Readers know that I hesitate to label myself as conservative or liberal.  I do so in order to avoid being labelled.  I don't have a serious problem with being labelled, but I believe that labelling can be problematic in the sense that it can cause others to presume what my beliefs are.  I believe that society may progress if we could get to a place where people concentrated only on determining the soundness of policy, without being influenced by whether a policy is typically liberal or conservative.

But this is election time, and so I will identify myself:  I'm much more conservative than I am liberal.  Why?  Because conservative ideals are by far more logical than their liberal counterparts.

Which leads me to:


Are you wondering how I know that the top minds lean conservative?  Here's how that came about:

I kept seeing statistics insinuating that the brightest people tended to vote Liberal.  For example, people with postgraduate degrees voted for Obama by a margin of 55-42.

I read that people who identify as "very liberal" have a higher IQ than people who identify as "very conservative".

I was flabbergasted.  Why would smarter people tend to vote liberal?  That didn't seem to make sense.  After all, I am positive that conservative ideals are far more logical.  Why?  Many of my articles easily find clear fault with the logic employed by liberals.  In addition, liberals often seem to get overly emotional.

So what could possibly explain the seeming finding that smarter people tend to vote liberal?

I came up with a theory that would explain it:

People that are smarter than average (say, the top 10%) tend to vote liberal.

But the smartest of them all (the top 0.1% to 1%) tend to vote conservative.

That would explain things.  But how could I prove this?  I wondered how I could find a list of people who are likely among the smartest of them all.
I decided to go to, where debaters debate each other in written form.

Isn't debate a very good test of intelligence?  I think it's a fantastic measure of ability.

It turns out that there is a leaderboard that ranks the best debaters. It turns out that each debater has a profile that lists their political leanings.

In June 2016, I recorded the leanings of the 60 top debaters, and here's what I found:

The most common reported leaning was Conservative, with 14
2nd was: Won't say, 14
3rd was: Libertarian, 8
4th was:  Moderate, 6
tied for 5th were: Liberal, and Other, 4 each
tied for 7th were: Undecided and Socialist, 3 each
9th was Progressive, 2
tied for 10th were: Anarchist and Labor, 1 each

(The top two identified debaters were both conservative.  And the #1 ranked debater had an ELO score of 9,000, about 15% higher than the #3 ranked debater, and about 50% greater than the 10th ranked debater)

So, conservatives were, by far, the best debaters in the world.

But what about the liberal and conservative subgroups? What happens when you combine their figures?

If you group together the liberals with the far leftists, the total comes to 11.

But what about libertarians? I would argue that libertarians lean more conservative than they do liberal. Wouldn't you? Just look at their platform:

That would make the final tally: Conservatism 22, Liberalism 11.  That's a 2:1 ratio. 

When you look at the leanings of the top 10 identified debaters...the breakdown is
7-3 conservative (includes 2 libertarian).

Dare I to continue to browse the list, to total the tally?  Someone else can do that.  I doubt conservatives will fair poorly.  I've looked at the very best debaters, and they are conservative, by a large margin.

Think about that.  Liberals overall have a higher IQ, but when you look at the political leanings of the brightest of them all, suddenly there is a large shift towards the conservative spectrum.  That suggests that there is something about conservatism that the best minds find to be quite logical. 

Unfortunately, it suggests that only the brightest minds are capable of understanding exactly why conservatism is most logical.  It suggests that even very bright professionals with postgraduate degrees, like doctors and lawyers, aren't bright enough to understand why conservatism is most logical.
How does this all tie in with Trump?

I think that he should diplomatically proclaim that that evidence suggests that the most highly intelligent minds tend to favor conservatism.

This should put liberals on the defensive.  They are already on the defensive, because logic doesn't support many of their ideals.  They often seem to avoid direct debate over ideas.  They will become even more defensive if they have to fend off credible claims that the top minds don't favor liberalism.


Some people seem to believe that Donald Trump is not fit to be a leader.  That he might cause tension with foreign leaders.

To some, he seems rude and outspoken.  Brash.  Let's assume, for argument's sake, that he is all of the above.

So what?  His policies are logical!!!

Would you rather have:

Trump:  Someone who implements beneficial policies 24/7, steering the nation in the right direction, with the possibility that his personality will occasionally turn off others from agreeing to accept his America-friendly policies?


Hillary: Someone who implements harmful policies 24/7, steering the nation in the wrong direction, all while doing it in a manner that's so politically correct she couldn't possibly offend anyone to the point they would not want to accept her American-unfriendly policies? Oh, wait a minute.  They would accept her America unfriendly proposals regardless of whether she's friendly or not, wouldn't they?

Trump should clearly state: 

Do you want me, a brash leader who is implementing America friendly policies 24/7, or do you want Hillary, a politically correct robot who is implementing harmful policies 24/7?

And think of the positives of Donald Trump's outspokenness.  If he can manage to steer politics to the point where politicians speak their mind more often, can't that elimination of political correctness benefit society?

Trump should be clear:

I want to encourage everyone to speak their mind, so that voters know exactly what they are getting.  I want politics to morph to the point where honest people are not afraid to become a politician.  Are not afraid to speak their mind.

And an important point that Trump may want to note:
If anyone truly doubts Trump's ability to control his emotions when it's in his favor to do do you explain the fact that Trump seemingly kept his politically incorrect beliefs hidden for dozens of years?


Some people claim that Trump is anti-women.

How absurd! I've seen absolutely no evidence to support that.

People who believe he is anti-women seem to be quite illogical with their reasoning.

Has Trump come on strong towards some women?  I would say yes.  But he's also come on strong towards men, too (remember the Macy's boycott?) 

How come people aren't calling him anti-men?  In fact, I would say that he's acted brash towards far more men than women.

I've also noticed that the vast majority of the time, he acts brash towards people who apparently attacked him first.
Here's what I think may be happening: 

Trump is extremely intelligent. When someone voices an illogical opinion, it can be difficult for the more intelligent person to comprehend how someone could actually disagree; how someone could actually believe their stated position.  This is especially the case if the more intelligent person explains their reasoning clearly, yet still hasn't garnered agreement. 

Why might it be difficult for extremely intelligent people to comprehend that others disagree?  Things seem so clear in the minds of extremely intelligent people.  It seems as obvious as 1+1.  It seems that less intelligent (yet still intelligent) people seem to have much difficulty comprehending the explanations of the extremely intelligent.  Just as the top 10% in IQ don't see things as the top 1% do, politically.

So, when others disagree with Trump, it's possible that he thinks something like this:  Jeez, my reasoning is so clear.  Yet they still disagree.  Are they being difficult?

And then you add in scenarios where others are blatantly being unfair (liberal media bias), and it would put Trump even more on the defensive.

And then add in an outspoken, brash personality like Trump's, and you can see why he may react the way he does. 

I think Trump should be clear about this, to ward off claims that he is anti women.

He can just say:

I've been brash to women, but brash to men.  I'm just brash.  It's absurd to say that I'm anti-women, and it's disgusting for people to make such unfounded claims.  You have to wonder about the motivation of the people who make such claims.

In addition, you'll note that I almost always come on strong only in instances where I feel I've been attacked.


Here's why I want to help Trump.

When you look at Trump's policies, how much better could they be?  His policies are quite intelligent.
I find his ascension to be absolutely marvelous.   And incredibly hopeful for the country.

In fact, I believe he may be the last hope for the country.  If he's not elected, then by the time the 2020 elections occur, the demographics may have shifted to the degree that you end up with endless Democratic governments, which, unfortunately, tend to support illogical ideals.  Ideals that are extremely harmful to a country and its people.

As for my support for Trump? I am hardly jumping on the bandwagon.

Consider that back in 2011 I included Donald Trump on a list of three celebrities that I found to be particularly intelligent.

(Said list also included Ann Coulter, who seems to be a strong supporter of Trump.  By the way, it is not a surprise to find that extremely intelligent people like Trump and Coulter are conservative.  In fact, as mentioned, when you look at the profile of each of the 60 highest ranked debaters from, conservatives outnumber the others, by far).
Consider that back in 2011, when Trump first flirted with running for President, I tried to offer my services to him.  I faxed my offer to the only public fax # I could find. 

So, now that the primaries have ended, I decided to try again.
That's why I decided to write this letter/article.  And I will try to forward it to him, however I can.  If he is just able to put his eyeballs on my articles, I truly think he'd be impressed.

Trump has the correct views about topics that are integral to deciding America's future.  This is why it is crucial that he be elected President.

I think I've written enough.

I've been quite convincing, haven't I?

Hire me, will ya, Mr Trump?!

Contact me:

Twitter -  @74thInTheWorld

Email -

HTML Comment Box is loading comments...


Make a free website with Yola