The Supremacist. 11. Love

The Supremacist Episode11: Love.

What’s the difference between “like” and “lust” and “love”?

Is it possible to have “love at first sight”?

What is the biological purpose of our emotion of love?

How has jewry ridden our race off the rails in terms of love, family, and race?

Answers are here.


Jim Laffrey


  1. An excellent appraisal of what Love is.
    Excellent, interesting content overall with your new video series. Clearly; for those of us who are aware of those that control the world: this info is hugely significant.

    Interesting you mention belief. I see you mention ‘belief’ quite frequently and not in a good way!
    Thats more than understandable of course, however: what of the people who ‘believe’ you?

    I would look at the info you disseminate with gratitude and full believability, but millions wouldn’t.
    The small band of people who know (like you) who run things behind the scenes; would be open to your info and (if like me) would discern quickly that your video’s and written content are true, without the need to go through what’s necessary to verify your claimed facts.
    Surely, do you not want or require your listeners/viewers to ‘believe’ you? I wonder then: what would you think of people who simply choose to ‘believe’ you and your video’s without verifying everything you say or claim.
    If your audience doesn’t want to verify what you say, would you not be critical of them/us, given your views on peoples ‘beliefs’ and the necessity to obtain verifiable facts?

    • Thank you for your comment and your questions. I will repeat and answer your questions:

      * “Surely, do you not want or require your listeners/viewers to ‘believe’ you?”
      I don’t “believe,” so both naturally and consistently I neither want nor require anyone to “believe” me. In my shows, I usually provide some decisive verifiably factual evidence. But whether I do that or not, my CREDENTIALS Page and other sources and resources on my website provide the knowledge for people to reach conclusions that agree with mine. Usually, intelligent people can quickly reach at least tentative conclusions and accept what I say as true. That’s what I want to happen: either tentatively or firmly accepting the knowledge I share as true.

      (Please note that when I say things I don’t know but about which I have educated guesses or opinions, I try always to say explicitly “my opinion” or “I guess.”)

      * “I wonder then: what would you think of people who simply choose to ‘believe’ you and your video’s without verifying everything you say or claim.
      If your audience doesn’t want to verify what you say, would you not be critical of them/us, given your views on peoples ‘beliefs’ and the necessity to obtain verifiable facts?”
      I hope that people would not ignorantly “believe.” I hope that they compare what I say with what they already know and then realize the value in what I say or take one or more steps to verify (or disprove) whatever they think needs verification. Over time, it may be that people gain trust in the knowledge I share and trust in my judgment, and then they might do less verifying.

      We all make decisions, whether fully aware or not, about what we think is verifiable fact and solid knowledge, and what we hold tentatively as fact/knowledge waiting for further info, and what we reject because it is contrary to what we know, and what we set aside as unknown or even unknowable.

      I know that most people have never thought all this through and haven’t arrived at this set of distinctions. Therefore, I’m teaching it. I try to not be critical (negatively critical) of my fellow Whites for innocent ignorance. I, myself, was totally ignorant of truth about jewry until after I turned 50 years old! I become critical, negatively critical, of adamant ignorance, the refusal to learn. To me, that qualifies as stupidity.

      Maybe I should repeat how to distinguish between “ignorance” and “stupidity.” Ignorance is not knowing yet, and learning can overcome it. Stupidity is being unable to learn. Therefore, I say that those who are adamantly ignorant are stupid.

      Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. I’ve come to realize that one of my great strengths is this area of critical thinking, noticing contradictions, making distinctions, etc. A related strength is identifying jews, identifying crypto-jews, and sharing the evidence and techniques involved. Meanwhile, I certainly have weaknesses. Calculus and other higher math seems to be beyond me. Also, to go deeper than basic html coding of websites hurts my head and may be beyond me. Also, even when I have a good business idea, I seem to lack a necessity to make it come to financial success.

      Perhaps I’ve said too much! 🙂

      • An interesting reply. Thank you.
        As I read it: I was almost expecting a dressing-down at each paragraph; expected from watching many of your vidoe’s which often express an adversarial front aimed with a sharp tongue against our foe and ’stupid’ whites. I wasn’t looking forward to receiving a terse reply and so i was quite pleasantly surprised!

        Your explanation and repeated tutorial regarding stupidity and ignorance reflects what i think i’ve heard and read from different articles on your website. Thank you for the reminder on what these words mean – though i am sufficiently aware.

        {Please note: there is no need to ‘preech to the converted’ as you and i are on the ‘same page’ with respect to views on who controls the world.}

        I’m interested in aspects of your research that confidently point at gaps in my own knowledge – particularly your prolific dissemination of information regarding crypto jews. I’m just not sure that your ‘verifiable facts’ stand firmly enough.

        {Briefly, as a side-note:
        My limited reservations with your work; do relate to your condemnation of ‘belief’ due to the examples I’ve already given and expand on below. Ironically (in your reply) you mention ’trust’. Well, I would imagine the it is reasonable to put ’trust’ and ‘belief’ side by side for a very similar, if not, compatible meaning.Therefore, peoples ‘belief’ in you and ’trust’ in you should count for something.}

        I’ll continue with my limited reservations:
        (On the topic of naming crypto jews) i am uneasy [that despite your guidance and affirmations to openly advise or insist with people that your work is consistent with your principles of always obtaining ‘verifiable facts’] I struggle to find many in your work that would make me able to confirm that those principles have full integrity – especially when your audience is ignorant of the jew problem.
        Example: I refer to your work informing people that certain politicians or celebrities are jewish: Many veteran’s of this knowledge would likely agree with you when you say that Brad Pitt is a jew because of the reasons you state (his brother looks jewish and his obvious vocation). However: where is the proof? Similarly: Obama’s mother
        (Again: these are just examples to illustrate my point)

        Jewish sources (I reference the ‘times of Israel’ or the website: ”jew or not confirm that brad is not a jew.
        Yes I know: for obvious reasons ‘they’ would never confirm that a crypto jew is actually jewish for obvious reasons. So, for me:surely in order to provide verifiable facts: you would need to provide genealogically rock-solid evidence that can be considered a ‘verifiable fact’ before making that claim and not just rely on vocational or physiological traits.
        Having said that: I choose to ‘Believe’ YOU that he is. (Therefore ‘belief’ IS relevant) I do so because I can appreciate and agree with your analysis. However the ‘evidence’ you give (for me) is not ‘verifiable fact’.

        If you have solid, verifiable facts that genealogically, George Washington (or whoever) was a jew – could you not post that GENEALOGICAL evidence on your website?
        Yes you have a narrative making the claim in a video, but content listing the alleged ‘verifiable facts’ would surely be the evolutionary step to provide increased integrity to your principles.

      • Hi. Since you gave a different “email address,” your comment was not automatically posted and had to wait for my approval.

        I want to be brief in my reply this time. First of all, since the jews don’t give us their cryptos, we must find evidence and decide whether we have enough evidence, enough clues, to form a conclusion. It’s a little like holding a trial for murder without having a confession and without the murder weapon with the perp’s fingerprints. Nonetheless, a lot of juries correctly reach guilty verdicts. You, as a juror, may reach whatever conclusions, or not, as the case may be.

        I’m not debating. I’m offering info and my reasoning and judgments.

        I would not say “trust” and “belief” are similar. A proper distinction, as opposed to a jewy blurring of distinction, is that “trust” is factually informed whereas “belief” is not factually informed or is very nearly not.

        Let’s conclude with the topic of George Washington as an example of having evidence but not your desired genealogical evidence, which I take to mean confirmed ancestry as opposed to the evidence expressed by his genes. Back in 2014, I wrote and posted the following LINKED article on my previous website. Once you are there on that website, you’ll find that some of the links work, and you can delve further into those saved pages of my old site. I have a similar old article on Obama, likewise on some other infamous characters. But I’ll just provide the link to the Washington article as it covers a lot of ground and is a great explication of the process — when the jews don’t give us the “proof” as you desire.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *