When someone says, "Cut out the cancer" it sounds like a quick deal. But if you watch surgery, it is meticulous. The surgeon very, very slowly cuts between the cancer and the healthy cells. He has spent years learning 1) what cancers look like and 2) exactly what the organs in which the cancer is growing have to do.

That is one reason my approach to thought is so hard for people to catch onto. Instead of telling people I read fourteen books last week, I will read the same book over and over. I will watch the same documentary over and over. I don't believe you can really GET the message in one go. So when I make a comment, it's not just the usual "intellectual" statement where everyone then spills out whatever they were thinking on the same subject.

Once you get used to going with me on this, you will be surprised how enjoyable it is. You are spading over earth that no one has looked at CLOSELY. In fact, it is like the first microscopes. Few people in history have had more sheer fun than the first people to look through microscopes.

But we are looking very, very closely at, for example, 1) Why did he say that? Why did he say that right now? Everybody else is just looking at the information, "So and so said so and so..." But if you put things together and you demand of yourself that you figure out why the simplest things get said, you begin to feel the thrill of a person looking through a microscope for the time: I didn't know those little things EXISTED! They are fascinating.

To give one of hundreds of examples, I noticed that the line on the Neanderthal suddenly changed in all the documentaries. For about two years, everybody absolutely agreed that "modern humans" don't have a drop of Neanderthal blood. Now I remember that before that, for decades, this was an open question. Where id t his conclusions come from?

So I first went back over the documentaries, I enjoy the second time more because I am doing analysis, to find out if there were any NEW FACTS that would lead to this suddenly universal conclusion. Several documentaries and several repeats of each, and I found no change in the facts to justify this sudden, drill-like about-face. Of course, if there had been "facts," I would have wondered about them. I am always suspicious when the Party Line changes so suddenly.

So my antennae were out for a Neanderthal connection.

I found that a guy wrote Ice Man, which was anti-white and a real sensation. He was a new writer and hadn't been checked out ideologically by the media, but this was too good to miss. Then he wrote a follow-up book that connected Jewish traits to Neanderthal traits, arguing they had a greater proportion of Neanderthal genes and not being flattering at all about what it did to God's Chosen People. On the day of that book's publication, it because official doctrine that no modern man had ANY Neanderthal genes.

It was inconvenient when it was recently discovered, through serious genetic study which is not too difficult now that we know DNA, that we have about 5% Neanderthal. But I was the only one who even noticed that all the documentaries switched back and forth with a precision that would make an SS drillmaster green with envy.

Pain is doing a particularly good job of extending what I say. If we are going to cut the cancers out of our society, we are going to have to make a whole new study, in extreme, microscopic detail, if all of the assumptions, where all the information comes from, and try to keep from simply throwing out an old canned opinion.

We are the only ones so far who have this microscope. That's a hell of a responsibility.