Google shows more than a million pages discussing this theory. Amazon offers books on it. A lot of people believe in this theory.
 

As I try to show in this article, what is happening should be classified as a crime, not a dumbing down process.

Hopefully you are aware that most of the people in the 9/11 and Holocaust "truth movement" are trying to cover up the crimes and confuse us, not expose the crimes.

This should then lead you to wonder if the dumbing down theory is also intended to cover up what is really happening.

The dumbing down theory encourages you to feel sorry for yourself, your friends, and your children.

“Oh, dear Jesus... my wonderful children are now dumb because they watched television and attended publc schools. I am such a terrible father for letting this happen. I should have educated them at home or in a private school.”

However, if you realize that an organized crime network is getting control of our nation, and that they are deliberately suppressing information and lying to us, then you will understand that the dumbing down process is actually an attempt by these criminals to deceive and exploit us.

You will realize that these criminals have names and addresses, such as Edgar Bronfman, Nathan Rothschild, Sam Newhouse, Sumner Redstone, Mike Wallace, and Wolf Blitzer.

You will realize that there is a simple solution to this problem: Get rid of the criminal network! After we remove this criminal network, we can start the discussion of how to improve our school system and media. As I try to show in this article, this is a more interesting issue than it appears.

Millions of children have already passed through school systems around the world.

After a few years of education, all children are capable of performing arithmetic, reading, and writing. This is true of every school we analyze. Every school is educating its students.

After a few more years of schooling, all students learn more about science, geography, history, and/or other subjects.

No student leaves school with less of an education than when he started. A school cannot remove a person's education, nor can it remove intelligence. Even the schools that are criticized as lousy are providing an education to the children.
 

Sending children to a lousy school is better than not providing them with an education.

It doesn't make sense to accuse schools of "dumbing down" students. The expression "dumbing down" implies that the school is making the students worse. The only sensible complaint about our schools is that they could be doing a better job of educating students.
 

Almost every teacher in Europe, Canada, Australia, and America is promoting lies about the September 11 attack, the assassination of President Kennedy, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, Zionism, and the world wars.

If a poll taken in the summer of 2006 is accurate, 16% of Americans believed explosives brought down the towers:
seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279827_conspiracy02ww.html

More than a third of the population suspects that the government assisted in the attack, or did nothing to stop it. Shouldn't similar percentages of school teachers reach similar conclusions? And shouldn't similar percentages of firemen, policemen, engineers, and scientists also be able to figure this out?

There are 3 million teachers in America in the elementary and secondary public schools, and a smaller number of teachers in universities and private schools. Do the math; even if teachers are less intelligent than ordinary Americans, there should be hundreds of thousands of teachers in America who don't believe the official story about 9/11.

How is it possible that millions of citizens can figure out that 9/11 was a false flag operation, but only a few teachers can figure it out? Are teachers really as stupid as they appear?

The most sensible explanation is that a crime gang is dominating our school system and forcing the teachers to lie to the students. Instead of complaining that schools are dumbing down the students, the school officials who are stopping teachers from talking about 9/11 should be arrested as accessories to the crime.
 

The television news programs, magazines, and newspapers expose crimes every day, but there are certain crimes they refuse to discuss properly, such as 9/11, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and sex slavery. The most sensible explanation is that the media companies are part of a crime network, and they are willing to expose the crimes of other people, but they cover up the crimes of their own gang.

However, their lies and deception is not a "dumbing down" process. Rather, it is a criminal activity. The people in control of the media should be arrested, and so should the news reporters and other employees who are committing these crimes voluntarily.
 

The media personnel also treat us as idiots to exploit. For example, the television reporters provide previews of upcoming news every few minutes.

“Coming up next, a horrible murder in Miami, plus another Islamo-fascist suicide bomber kills innocent people! And that's not all! Stay tuned to this channel because we love you! We give you the most exciting news!”

The reporters look into the TV camera in an attempt to simulate friendship. The news reporters are behaving like teenage boys who fool a retarded girl into providing them with sex. Their exploitation of people is legal, but it should be described as abusive, immoral, disgusting, appalling, and revolting. We don't have laws against this disgusting behavior, but citizens should have the sense to drive them out of business.
 

Why do so many people believe that there is such a thing as a dumbing down process? To understand this, consider similar, but extreme, issues:

If an analysis of gamblers showed that the people who gamble had a lousy understanding of statistics, what would be your conclusion:

a) Gambling dumbs us down. b) People with a lousy understanding of statistics are most likely to gamble.         The image is a portion of a mural in Pompeii from 1 AD that shows men gambling.

  2) Can cannibalism dumb us down?

If an analysis of criminals showed that cannibals have more mental disorders than murderers, rapists, and car thieves, what would be your conclusion:

a) Cannibalism dumbs us down b) Only people with serious mental disorders become cannibals today

  3) Can homosexual sex cause us to lisp?

Many people have noticed that homosexual men, such as Barney Frank of Massachusetts, speak with a lisp. What would be your conclusion:

a) Homosexual sex can cause a man to lisp.   b) Whatever causes men to become homosexual may also interfere with their ability to speak properly.

  4) Was President Bush dumbed down?

President Bush spent many years in school.

Is it safe to send children to Yale University when this is the result?

By the way, are you smart enough to figure out whether it's possible for a person sitting on a couch to lose consciousness while eating a pretzel, and then fall forward onto the floor and hit himself in the face and lip, as President Bush did in that photo?

We needn't worry about being dumbed down

It should be rather obvious that we can gamble without worrying about losing our math abilities, and we can engage in homosexual sex without worrying about developing a lisp. We can even eat other people without worrying about becoming dumb! So what are the chances that going to school or watching television will make us dumb?
 

The dumbing down phenomenon is an illusion. Most parents have an exaggerated view of their children. Almost every parent considers his children to be much more intelligent, good looking, and talented than they really are.

When children do lousy in school, some parents refuse to believe it is because their children are actually dumb. Instead, they look for an excuse, and the most popular excuse today is that the school and television transformed their children into idiots through a magic and mysterious dumbing down process.

People who believe that the school or television made their children stupid are simply showing an inability to be realistic about their children.
 

If we measure the height of every man in America, we would find that half the population is below the average height, and half is above the average height. Most men are close to the average height. Only a few are exceptionally short or exceptionally tall.

The curve may not be perfectly symmetrical, and it may not have such a sharp peak, but it will have a similiar shape.

If we measure the height of every woman, we would find the graph is the same shape. However, the graph for women would be offset from the graph for men.

The average woman is shorter than the average man. We could summarize this by saying that women are shorter than men. However, the tallest women would be taller than the majority of men.

If we were to measure the ability to juggle balls, or the speed at which we can run 100 meters, or our ability to perform math, or our ability to remember visual information, we would find that the graph has this same shape in every case. No matter what quality we look at, we would find that only a small number of people are exceptional.

We would also find that the people who are exceptional in one area are average in other areas, and below average in still others.
 

If you put our rotten fish into an oven, you're going to end up with a rotten fish, regardless of how well the oven bakes it.

Likewise, when we put dumb people into a school, we get dumb graduates, regardless of how good the school is. A school cannot increase a person's intelligence. A school can only offer information and help students practice skills.

The same is true of schools that train animals. Those schools cannot make the animals stupid, and they cannot make them more intelligent.
 

Many people who have tried to explain the 9/11 attack to their friends and co-workers have noticed that the people who watch the most television have the most unrealistic view of the world, and they don't seem interested in learning about the attack.

The most popular explanation is that television has dumbed down the people. However, this is as ridiculous as blaming Yale University for President Bush's stupidity.

Most television shows are entertainment or sexual titillation. The news and talk shows are propaganda. The quiz shows are a test our memory, not our thinking ability, or our ability to deal with unpleasant issues, such as the 9/11 attack.

Nobody is forced to watch television. Most people watch several hours of television a day simply because they enjoy what the television offers.

Television never would have become a popular consumer product if the only shows available were serious educational shows that taught skills, such as dentistry or plumbing, and if the only talk shows were engineers discussing technical issues, mechanics discussing how to repair airplanes, and farmers discussing how to maintain productive farms. In such a case, television would be regarded as an educational product.

Conversely, sales of school textbooks and scientific journals would increase if they contained jokes, comic strips, gossip about Hollywood stars, sports scores, pornographic photos, and "scratch and sniff" stickers of Hillary Clinton.

To summarize this, television is not dumbing us down.  Rather, the people most attracted to television are the people least interested in thinking, learning, and facing problems. They would rather lounge for hours in a passive condition and let a television entertain and titillate them.

It is not surprising that such people are the least interested in learning about -- and doing something about -- the corruption in the world. Don't blame the television; blame the person.
 

The people in control of television are abusing and exploiting our society, but the majority of people defend television programs on the grounds that they enjoy them. According to this line of reasoning, if something makes a person happy, then it is good. Shouldn't we do things that we receive pleasure from?

This issue of whether we should be allowed to do whatever makes us feel good is not a simple issue. Consider an extreme example with children:

Imagine school officials trying to boost sales of food at the school. What would you think if children were discarding the lunch their mother made for them and buying candy, soda, pies, and cakes, some of which were full of MSG and other artificial stimulants?

How would you feel if the children defended the school officials with remarks such as:

"The food at school tastes better than yours. Why shouldn't I enjoy myself? What is the purpose for life if we can't enjoy it?"

We consider it wrong for men to trick retarded girls into letting them have sex, so why isn't it wrong for media companies to take advantage of people?

It doesn't matter that the majority of people enjoy the television shows. The people in control of the media are criminals, and they are taking advantage of people in legal ways, also. The most extreme example of their abuse was their nonstop propaganda in the days following the September 11 attack. They saturated the television with lies and deception. They stimulated anger and hatred and instigated a war in Iraq that is still going on.

A few decades earlier they fooled the world into thinking astronauts landed on the moon. They also bombard us with Holocaust propaganda, and they have convinced tens of millions of people that there are creatures from other planets flying around the earth in spaceships.

What would the 20th century have been like if this criminal network had not been stirring up hatred, wars, and fear of terrorist attacks?

Wha would life be like today if we had been putting our time into making nice cities, and a nice life for ourselves?
 

The lies, deception, and abuse that we received from our schools and media are not the result of incompetence or mistakes. Rather, a group of people are making decisions to abuse us, and some group of people is enforcing these decisions. It's not difficult to figure out who is responsible for this. Three popular explanations:

	The Vatican
	The Neocons; ie, the Bush family, the Rockefellers, the Council of Foreign Relations
	Secret organizations, such as the Illuminati, or the New World Order.

Hopefully you realize that the popular explanations are popular because they are incorrect. The people in control of our media, schools, and government have names and addresses. Take a look at who they are, and who they work with.

They are not Catholic church officials, and only a few of them have connections to the Bush family or secret organizations. Most of them are Zionist Jews. Here is one list for the conventional media:
radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/frnklin.htm#medias

You can also determine that they are Zionists by comparing the crimes that they are happy to expose with the crimes that they try to suppress. It's not difficult to figure out that they are protecting crimes by Zionists, and that they are trying to shift the blame for their crimes onto some other group of people.

The Zionist movement is the most significant movement of the human race. It is the largest, most diabolical, and most destructive. The Zionists are using the media to trick us into fighting their wars, giving them pity, and funding their movement. They are also trying to get control of our schools in order to manipulate our children.

Getting the Zionists out of our lives is only the first step in making the world better. We then have to take the second step, which is discussing the issue up how to make our schools and media more useful.

This may seem to be a rather boring issue, but I will bring up a couple issues to show you that it can be interesting.
 

History classes teach lots of facts and figures about military battles and political leaders, but most people have no need to know that some English and French soldiers had a battle in 1647, or that some man became governor of Maryland in 1832.

The most useful aspect of history is how life has changed. Looking at how life has changed can help us understand how the world came to be what it is today, and it can help us understand what we should do with our future. An example is how leisure time has changed during the past few centuries. First, consider animals.
 

Domesticated animals have a lot of leisure time because they don't have to spend find searching for food. They spend most of their leisure time sleeping. Wild animals have less leisure time, but they also spend most of it sleeping.

We could describe this as laziness, but it is not a bad quality. What else would an animal do with its leisure time?

Today we have the technology to provide alternative activities for animals. For example, in the 1950s a couple of psychologists inserted an electrode into a rat's brain. The electrode was connected to a switch in the rat's cage. When the rat pressed the switch, a tiny jolt of electricity was sent into its brain.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4880272.stm

In most areas of its brain, the electrical shock caused an unpleasant sensation, and so the rat would avoid touching the switch.

However, when the electrode was placed in a particular part of its brain, the rat enjoy the sensation, and it would press the switch over and over, sometimes until it was exhausted.

This rat is pressing a switch to send a mild electrical shock down a wire that is going into his brain.

We could develop this technology into a product for pet owners. Veterinarians could implant radio controlled electrodes into the pet's brain. The pet owner would be provided with a remote control unit to stimulate his pet. This device would be useful for training the pet, and simply to make pet feel good.

The pet owner would have the option of proving a remote control unit that his pet could operate so that the pet could stimulate itself when it was alone in the house. Therefore, instead of sleeping most of the day, pets could spend their leisure time pressing a switch to titillate themselves.

Actually, we could take this product one step further and develop a model for human children. Instead of providing children with television sets, video games, and other toys, parents could install an electrode(s) into their brain and let them lounge in the bed and stimulate themselves for hours.

This issue brings up such questions as:

• What is the best way to enjoy life? Is it to do only the activities that bring us pleasure, and avoid the activities we dislike?

• If a person enjoys an activity, doesn't his enjoyment prove that the activity is making his life happier?

• Is it possible for us to receive more enjoyment from life when we are forced to do things we don't want to do?

In the painting below, from Jan Steen, in 1663, the people are talking, playing with children, dancing, and making music. The National Gallery of Art provides it here as a very high quality image suitable for printing. The high-resolution image shows more details, and can help you get a better feeling of life in that era.

 

In 1663 people were forced to spend their leisure time with other people because they lived in close contact with one another, and because there were very few activities in that era that they could do alone.

The barrel in the center of the painting may have been for brewing beer or wine. Although alcoholic beverages have been around for centuries, they would not have been available in the phenomenal quantities that we have today.

Furthermore, the beverages in that era were not likely to have tasted as good as they do today, which would dampen a person's desire to drink excessive amounts.

What would have happened if we could go back in time and provide those people with television sets, CD players, pornography videos, gambling casinos, Sony Playstations, and virtually unlimited supplies of alcoholic beverages, distilled liquors, marijuana, and other drugs?

There is a good chance that most of the people would have behaved just like people today; ie, they would have spent most of their leisure time watching television, getting drunk, masturbating, and playing video games.
 

What is the difference between:

• a rat pressing a switch over and over in order to stimulate itself

• a human stimulating himself hour after hour with a television set, gambling, a pornography video, sugary foods, a video game, or shopping?

Technology could be used to make our lives better, but the majority of people are using technology to stimulate themselves hour after hour, day after day, just like stupid rats.

There are already people trying to improve upon the television set by providing a video image for each eye so that the images are three-dimensional. These devices will be much more titillating than a flat television screen, especially for video games and pornography.

At the moment these video helmets are experimental, but within 10 or 20 years the engineers -- who have no idea why they waste their talent doing this instead of something more practical -- will develop this technology into a product for consumers.

Optional accessories: • a tube to deliver a nutritional paste into your mouth • a vacuum sytem to remove waste products • pneumatic cuffs for your legs to ensure blood circulation • vibrators for your sexual organs

Is life really improving for the human race? Or are most people getting carried away with the abilty to stimulate themselves?
 

The painting from 1663 shows some people making music, and one couple dancing.

One of my grandmothers was born in 1906. She grew up in a small town in Iowa, so it is possible that her experiences were somewhat different from the children growing up in the big cities.

When she was a teenager, people had to make their own music and sing their own songs. She told me that sometimes when the teenagers got together after school, she and some of the other girls would sing, and occasionally a few of them would dance.

She said most of the boys would just watch, even at the school dances. She said the girls would usually dance alone or with one another.

She also told me that because the first movies did not have any sound, the theater owner would leave a piano by the movie screen, and anybody from the audience could play the piano while the movie was showing in order to provide music.
 

The situation with singing and music has changed dramatically during the past century. Today most people are afraid to sing, dance, or make their own music.

Mothers rarely sing to their children today. Instead, they provide their children with television sets and toys.

People have always been self-conscious about singing and dancing, but it has become so extreme that people today will sing or dance only under special circumstances, such as with Karaoke machines, or in dance clubs.

Furthermore, women today rarely dance by themselves or with other women because they believe that women must dance with men. As a result, women can frequently be seen pressuring their boyfriends or husbands into dancing. How is any of this an improvement in human life?
 

Women today are afraid to dance by themselves and most people are afraid to sing, because they worry about being ridiculed. People were not ridiculed during my grandmother's era, or before that. What has changed during the past century to cause people to ridicule one another for doing what used to be an accepted social activity?

One of the changes is that technology allows us to record and distribute the singing and music of the world's most talented people. The side effect of this technology is that we have become spoiled.

You can see this effect all the time in your life. Once you become accustomed to something that you enjoy, it is difficult to go back to something less enjoyable. For example, the apricots that supermarkets offer lose their appeal once a person has the opportunity to pick fresh apricots from a tree.

While this will explain why many people today have little or no interest in amateur singers, it doesn't explain why people are ridiculed for their singing, and it doesn't explain why women are ridiculed for dancing by themselves or with their girlfriends. Where does this nasty behavior come from?

Perhaps it is partly due to television. The "comedy" shows on television are full of "jokes" that you would describe as snide, rude, insulting, or smart ass if anybody were to say them to you.

Allowing a child's mind to fill up with these horrible attitudes and images may be one of the reasons the children are becoming smart ass brats who are awkward, lonely, socially dysfunctional, and confused.
Television shows -- and advertisements -- seem to have a very significant effect on children. For example, a young girl living next door to me imitated Beavis when she was about five years old. She walked around with her arms in the air and her T-shirt over her head (just like in the cartoon) and repeated the sentence:
"I am Cornholio, I need TP for my bung hole"

If you don't know about Cornholio, an excerpt of the cartoon is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii8H2tYcFYY

There are lots of people imitating Beavis, such as this man:
youtube.com/watch?v=wp1-lhaZHuo  (Update: he made that video private)

and this 4-year child:
youtube.com/watch?v=FtDwEI8jm74

The show has even been transcribed so that this valuable addition to American culture can be clearly understood by future generations:
bunnweb.org/smbunn/david/cornholio.htm (Update: that site has vanished)
 

Children only watch television if they want to. As a result, the adults who design television shows for children are competing with one another to attract the attention of children.

Some people might describe this as pandering to children. We might even be tempted to describe this behavior as disgusting, revolting, and appalling. The result of this competition is that the successful television shows for children are entertainment.

Is there any evidence that children benefit from television shows that they find appealing? For all we know, the best way to raise children is not provide them with any entertainment, whether it be television, video games, or toys. This would force children to spend their time with other children and create their own activities.

Furthermore, is there any reason to believe that children benefit from advertisements? How can it be beneficial to have groups of adults compete with each other to manipulate the children into desiring certain products? We could classify this as a criminal activity.
 

People today ridicule one another for their amateur singing, but amateur singing doesn't hurt anybody. Even if you are spoiled by the professionals, it won't hurt you to listen to an amateur once in a while. In fact, you might enjoy life and your friends a bit more if you learn to relax.

By comparison, people encourage amateur opinions on world affairs.

When people get together today they often arrogantly inform one another about the proper policy for abortion, which nation should be bombed, which religion is correct, and who should be president.

Ideally, the opposite situation would be the best. People should be encouraged to relax, socialize, sing, and dance. And they should be told to stop getting into arguments about world affairs.

Amateur singing is a social activity, and people can enjoy it, even if they have been spoiled by the professionals. By comparison, amateur opinions on world affairs is a waste of time, and creates stress and fights.

Therefore, instead of insulting people for their mediocre singing abilities, when your friends or relatives tell you about world affairs, respond with such remarks as: 

 Most people are ordinary. The best policy for the majority of people is to shut up about how to manage the world, and spend more time socializing, singing, and dancing.
 

Professionals have spoiled us with their phenomenal singing and music, but none of us have been spoiled by the brilliant opinions of our leaders in government, business, the media, or the military. Instead, the exact opposite situation is occurring. Specifically, most people look down on their government leaders as idiots, fools, or criminals.

If the people in control of our nation were intelligent and respectable, they would impress us with their opinions. This would help dampen the arrogance of the ordinary citizens.
 

Notice the wide variety of clothing styles in that painting from 1663. There was obviously no attempt to copy any particular style. Everything was handmade in that era, even the thread, but despite their crude technology, they produced a variety of styles.

Their clothing was more functional than it may appear. For example, what appear to be frivolous ruffles around their necks was a method to protect the clothing from oil in their hair and neck.

Clothing was difficult to make, and washing the clothing was difficult, especially during the winter in areas with cold climates, so it was more practical to let the ruffles get dirty. The wealthy people, such as this English King in 1606, had more elaborate materials and designs.

Abel Grimmer painted the picture below during the 1590's. Even in that primitive era the clothing was decorative.

A very high quality, high resolution image of the painting is here, at the National Gallery of Art, and they let you download a high quality image that is suitable for printing.
 

Because clothing was so difficult to make hundreds of years ago, the poor people wore simple, bland clothing. Only the wealthy people could afford decorative, colorful clothing.

Technology has changed the situation dramatically. Today we can produce clothing with phenomenal colors, patterns, and styles. Even the poor people of today can afford clothing much more decorative and colorful than the kings and queens a hundred years ago.

Today we have elastic bands, stretchable materials, Velcro, snaps, buttons and other technology to make clothing fit better and be more comfortable. We can easily afford to have tough, durable clothing for work, and comfortable, decorative clothing for leisure.

You might expect that as technology increased, everybody would acquire durable, functional clothing for work, and more comfortable, decorative clothing for leisure. However, this has not happened. The tendency of men to form hierarchies has resulted in their clothing styles degrading into a uniform.

Modern clothing for men. For all nations. For all climates. For all seasons. For both  work and social affairs.

Clothing for men has become less decorative, more impractical, less colorful, and more bland. Men's suits are only tolerable when a man is standing upright and motionless, and in a cool area. If a man were to wear the type of decorative clothing that men wore 400 years ago, he would be ridiculed as homosexual or insane.
 

Women have a much wider variety of colors and patterns, but most women wear shoes that are painful, awkward to walk in, and deform their feet. Some women have their toes altered by surgery so that they can fit into the shoes, and others have surgery to correct problems caused by the shoes. However, the surgeries don't always correct the problem or make it easier to wear the shoes, as one news report explains:
wpxi.com/news/3911601/detail.html

Clothing used to be designed to be attractive and functional, but today a lot of women's clothing is designed to sexually titillate men. Men may respond that they enjoy being titillated, but what we want and what will make our lives happiest are often two different things.

Women today also spend a lot of their time and money on cosmetics, hair colors, fingernails, piercings, and cosmetic surgery.     An extreme case of cosmetic surgery is Jocelyn Wildenstein.

Breast implants are also becoming popular. Teenage girls are also getting breast implants, and the number of teenagers doing this is increasing every year. Supposedly 329,000 American women had breast implants in 2006.
A news item with some statistics is here.

The implants are also getting larger, especially for actresses in pornography films.

How is any of this behavior making life better for men or women? Does the feminist movement approve of this behavior? Or is the feminist movement part of the reason that women have degraded to prostitutes?

Why not take this behavior one step further and insert electrodes into a man's brain, and give the remote control units to single women?

In such a case, a woman wouldn't have to bother with breast implants, cosmetics, or high heeled shoes. Instead, when she finds a man to marry, she simply activates him.

After she gets married, she can give him the remote control so that he can entertain himself while she shops, eats, and watches television.
 

My grandmother never pierced her ears, and she told me that it was extremely unusual for anybody, male or female, to pierce any part of their body when she was young. During her lifetime (1906 - 1996), piercings went from being extremely rare, to extremely common.

Is the increase in piercings because the human race is improving?

Or, are these piercings increasing for other reasons, such as raising children with MTV and Hollywood movies? If you have never seen how extreme body modifications have become, you've got to look at this magazine:
bmezine.com/pierce/bme-pirc.html   Main page: bmezine.com
 

Most people don't care whether their clothing or shoes are practical, and they don't seem to care whether their piercings are painful or dangerous. They are more concerned that everything is shiny and free of stains.

Some people will discard clothing for nearly microscopic stains. Some people will not purchase a automobile, applicance, or can of food if it has a scratch on it.

What would you think if you owned a hardware store, and your customers were refusing to buy shovels and nails that had scratches on them?

“Hey,Dude!  Do you have any shovels without scratches?”

The concern about stains and scratches is absurd and wasteful. We should accept the fact that clothing, cars, and all other products, slowly get stained, chipped, scratched, and broken. The lack of proper leadership is causing people to put emphasis on issues of no importance.
 

The painting from 1663 shows a man wih a chicken in a basket on his head, and there is another basket hanging above the people, apparently with chickens.

Since there were no prepared foods in that era, having a meal meant doing some work. The process of preparing food, eating the food, and cleaning up afterwards would have taken hours every day.

The attitude today is that "work" is bad. Most people believe that the happiest people are the people who do the least amount of work.

As a result of this attitude, it is widely believed that rich people who are served meals at restaurants are happier than people who prepare their own food.

This attitude also results in the extreme processing of foods. Prunes and dates are pitted; oats are flattened and pre-cooked; beef is aged so that it becomes softer; and carrots are sold in bags already cleaned and peeled.

Americans took the processing of foods to an extreme in 1953 with the development of the "TV Dinner".

The most pleasurable aspect of life is having something to do, and having people to do it with. Lounging in a chair is pleasurable only for brief periods, or when you are tired or sick.

If you want to enjoy life, you've got to do something. If your goal in life is to avoid work and be pampered by servants, you will be miserable if you ever achieve it.

It is impossible to do everything yourself. You cannot make all of your clothing, grow all of your food, prepare all of your meals, build your own house, and play your own music. Therefore, we must make decisions on what we want to do for ourselves, and what we want to pay other people to do for us.

All throughout history one of the daily pleasures in human life was getting together with other people, preparing meals, eating, and then cleaning up the meal. Hours were spent during this process.

Today people claim that they are too busy to engage in such time-consuming activities. But how could we be too busy? Technology should make life easier for us.

People are not too busy to socialize. Rather, they want to spend more time with their television.

Life should be more relaxed today, not more stressful

For most of human history, most of the men spent most of their time producing food. Today the situation has reversed; only a small percentage of the men are needed to produce food. The other men could develop cities, trains, computers, electricity, and public water systems.

Unfortunately, most of the men today, especially in America, are doing absolutely nothing of value, or they are detrimental to society because they are lying, cheating, or manipulating.

The IRS is an interesting example. There are thousands of people working for that agency, but they contribute nothing of value, and they cause a tremendous amount of work for the rest of us. To make the situation more pathetic, videos such as the Money Masters show that the IRS is actually a scam by the Rothschilds and other banking families.

The FBI, ATF, CIA, and Homeland Security have tens of thousands of people working for them, but instead of contributing something to society, they protect organized crime. Our school system has an enormous number of people on the payroll, but only a few of them actually contribute something of value to the education of the students. Worst of all, many school employees are deliberately trying to deceive students about history and current events.
 

If everybody in the world were willing to contribute to society, life would be easier than it was hundreds of years ago.

Furthermore, if people had an interest in doing something of value, they would resist jobs that are useless or detrimental, and the end result is that we would have beautiful cities, fresh food, and other quality products.

Unfortunately, the attitude with most people, especially in America, is that "work" is bad and "play" is good. Most people fantasize about becoming rich, retiring, and having other people serve them. They are not interested in working.

 
Most people work only because they can't figure out how to avoid it. They want a free ride in life. And some people will go even further and cheat us. The end result is that the people who are willing to do useful work are often under pressure to work a lot more than they should simply because there is nobody to help share the load.

If everybody was willing to do some useful work, then nobody would have any excuse not to find the time to socialize and relax.

We can do better than this

There will always be problems in human life, but we can certainly improve upon the chaos and warfare that we see today. We could have beautiful cities and gardens, and have a wonderful life together.
 

 
But we're not going to improve anything until we get rid of organized crime and put better people in control.

Are people today happier than people in 1663?

We have more technology today, so our lives are physically much easier, but socially I think we have degraded. I think people today are more lonely, awkward, inhibited, and confused.

People today spend a lot of time stimulating themselves with sugary foods, shiny material objects, television, drugs, and sex, but how many people are truly happy?

How do we measure happiness? How can we compare our level of happiness to the people from hundreds of years ago?

If rats could talk, and if we asked a rat with electrode in his brain if he is happy, he would certainly respond that he has been estatic ever since the electrode was installed.

Most of the people today seem to be like the rat. They are stimulating themselves constantly, and they believe that they are ecstatic, but does this stimulation really provide happiness? If stimulation was truly the way to enjoy life, then we will achieve the ultimate in happiness when we finally perfect those video helmets.

Actually, the ultimate in happiness would be to put our brain into a jar of nutritional fluids, throw our body away, and connect electrodes to our brain.

We could then spend our entire lives stimulating ourselves without having to worry about muscle cramps, blood circulation, tooth decay, or arthritis.
 

People today live longer than ever before, but the fear of death is incredible. There is also a tremendous fear of gray hair, baldness, and wrinkles.

Many people believe that they fear death because they are so happy that they want to continue enjoying life. But if people were truly happy, why would they care about the visual effects of aging, such as gray-hair, baldness, and wrinkles? Why can't they enjoy life with gray hair?

I think the people who fear aging and death are people who have never truly been happy. The thought of getting old makes them sad because they feel like they missed out on life. When it comes time for them to die, they are crying inside

“Please, God, or Budda, or whoever created this universe! It's not fair that I die now. I want to have some friends, I want to enjoy life, and then I can die!”

When it is time for you to die, will you be reminded of painful memories of loneliness, suffering, and frustration? Has your life been nothing more than artificial stimulation?

Or have you already experienced the wonders of life? Have you noticed how beautiful the planet is? Will you smile as you look back at all your pleasant memories and think to yourself, "What a wonderful world!"