Hufschmid's main page
Audio page

 
Eric Hufschmid, 14 Sept 2008


Hufschmid-14Sep2008.mp3   18 mb,  78 mins
To download, click your right mouse button and select Save Target As
A transcript is below. Click here to jump to it
Do you think women should be leaders? 
As I discussed in Part 2 of my Dumbing Down articles, I think men and women are significantly different, and that the feminist movement is detrimental.

I suspect that Sarah Palin was selected to be McCain's vice president in order to attract women, and perhaps lonely men.

What are businessmen contributing to society? 
Some businessmen are successful at making money, but what are they contributing to society? Example, the Sarah Palin dolls, FAX advertising services, and UFO items.

Businessmen demand extreme incomes, and they should give us extreme value in return. Otherwise they are parasites.

We should change our economy to switch the competition from making money to improving society.

"Sorry... we're a bunch of idiots!" 
We're fools to allow people in leadership positions to blame their disgusting behavior on incompetence or ignorance or honest mistakes, such as with Hurricane Katrina, or Google's Licence Agreement which demanded "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free" right to whatever people create with their software:
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7597699.stm
"Sorry!"
Bollyn family on vacation in Germany? 
At Christopher Bollyn's website is a photo of him holding a KRIEG magazine. I have a copy here.

He also wrote this article about his family on vacation in Germany.

If he can afford a vacation, why is he begging for money? And if he's free to travel, why is he not free to talk to or visit anybody?

It seems like the type of photo that kidnappers use to show that their victim is still alive.

Learn about wolves in sheep's clothing!
The Zionist network is worldwide and gigantic, and they have an army of weirdos, alcoholics, criminals, and freaks working for them. You better take this seriously!

They post messages on forums, become radio hosts, and infiltrate peace groups, veterans groups, 9/11 groups, etc. I wrote this article for people new to this issue.

And they are very secretive. Watch Sofia, who made the video 911 Mysteries, when asked in a television interview about her life:
Sofia-move-on-now.wmv  only 270 Kb
The complete interview is here:
youtube.com/watch?v=I02cdiX9rMs

She appears to be a sweet and wonderful woman, but here is a very brief audio clip of her yelling and swearing at me (Warning: don't play this in public!):
Sofia_yells_at_me_6Sep2008.mp3  44 kbytes


 

 

 

A transcript of the audio

September 14, 2008

In my last audio file I mentioned that Sofia, who made the video 911 Mysteries, was abused by her father. A couple days later she called me on the phone and yelled at me to remove that remark on the grounds that her father is dying.

She asked me if I considered her to be my friend, but why should I consider anybody in this truth movement to be my friend? Christopher Bollyn trusted a few truth seekers and patriots, and where is he today?

Actually, if you go to his website, Bollyn.info, you'll find an article in which he implies that his family is on some type of cruise along the German rivers, but how can he afford a cruise when he's begging for donations?

At his main page, he has a photo of himself at a Berlin train station holding a magazine. It looks like a photo that kidnappers would use to prove that their victim is still alive. My guess as to what is going on is that the Bollyn family were put on a small, private boat, and every once in a while the kidnappers would stop somewhere, and when they didn't see any police, they'd quickly take Christopher out of the boat, while leaving his wife tied up, and then they took a photo, and then brought Christopher back to the boat. Then they would move to the next destination to take another photo.

If the Bollyns are free to travel, then they're free to talk to people, and visit people. Christopher is not anti-social. His behavior does not fit the Christopher that I got to know.

Furthermore, in his article about his vacation in Germany, he promotes the issue of chemtrails. One of his remarks is, "Are you concerned about so-called "global warming" or polluting emissions in the atmosphere? Ask NATO what their planes are leaving in the skies."

It's well known that governments experiment with weather manipulation and chemical warfare, but Bollyn is not investigating this issue. He simply making vague remarks about chemtrails, which is more evidence that his kidnappers are part of the same global, Jewish crime network that promotes this type of propaganda.

The Israelis and other Jews have been slaughtering, cheating, raping, kidnapping, and torturing people for centuries. We're involved in a vicious and diabolical fight for control of the world. The only sensible policy is to suspect everybody in this truth movement as a potentially dangerous criminal who will kill, blackmail, and manipulate us.

Some people say we should blame only the Zionists, not the Jews, but we have no way of knowing which Jew is a Zionist. We can't even figure out who among us is a Jew. A lot of Jews are pretending to be Catholics, or Muslims, or atheists. We have to be suspicious of everybody. Therefore, why should I consider Sofia to be my friend? Why should I trust her?

By the way, I never saw her show any concern about the disappearance of the Bollyn family. Would she care if I disappeared? 

In my previous audio file I pointed out that we're not dealing with normal people. The Jewish crime network is like all other crime networks. It's a group of freaks, alcoholics, sexual deviates, and psychos.

People like Jeff Rense, Dave von Kleist, the Scholars For 9/11 Truth, and Daryl Smith are very pleasant to the public, but I've been yelled at and threatened by many of them. Sofia even yelled and sweared at me about two years ago when I wrote that Dylan Avery fits the pattern of a Useful Idiot because of his extreme use of marijuana and alcohol. She demanded that I remove those remarks because she assumed that she was the source of that information, and she felt that I betrayed her by publicly disclosing information that she had mentioned to me in private conversations. However, a Sofia is only one of many people who noticed that Dylan Avery is a drug user. It's difficult for a person with a drug problem to keep it secret. Eventually everybody notices.

Sofia was given a radio show on the Republic Broadcasting Network in February 2008, and I doubt if it was because she wants to help us expose crime. Just look at the list of radio hosts on that network. They just added James Edwards to their list. He produces a show he calls The Political Cesspool. It's amusing that he describes his show as a cesspool because he's one of those white supremacists, similar to David Duke. In case you're not familiar with the white supremacists, I've got an article about them at my site that shows that none of them are really interested in exposing 9/11 or the Holocaust or Zionism. It's also important to note that they insist that men landed on the moon. The white supremacists and patriot groups are under the control of criminal Jews.

The people in this truth movement remind me of the story of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde. When they appear in public, they seem normal and pleasant, but when you get to know them personally, you discover that they're actually alcoholics, drug addicts, violent criminals, sexually disturbed freaks, and psychos. Many of them are unemployable because of their mental disorders.

My advice is to be suspicious of everybody in the truth movement, the peace groups, the veteran groups, and the patriot groups. There are millions of psychos in the world, and a lot of them get involved with crime networks. It's a giant army of freaks.

Since my previous files have upset a lot of people, and this file is going to upset Sofia and who knows how many more people, I may as well go farther and bring up an issue that I haven't discussed because I know it'll upset perhaps 50 to 80% of the population. And that is the issue of why some people are attracted to alcohol and drugs.

As I mentioned in my previous audio file, when was a teenager I tried marijuana. I also decided to get drunk because I assumed it must be fun since most of the adult population seems to enjoy it. Somehow, I can't remember how, I got a bottle of strawberry wine, and after the first glass I started feeling the effects of the alcohol, and while that was initially interesting, by the time I finished a second glass, the effects were much stronger, and I started becoming irritated by the feeling, and I stopped drinking.

I tried a couple other times to get drunk, but each time I would fail. As the alcohol started to take effect, I couldn't think properly. An image would appear in my mind that there was a giant parasite crawling around inside my brain, and I wished I could reach inside my head and get rid of that parasite. I didn't consider the effects of intoxication to be entertaining at all.

When I first tried marijuana, I was like a lot of other people who wondered, what is the effect? I didn't notice anything. It is a very mild drug compared to alcohol. I hear that the marijuana of today is much stronger, but when I was a teenager, the marijuana didn't have a much of an effect. Eventually I got tired of it.

If I had been afraid to experiment with alcohol and marijuana, I might still be curious as to why so many millions of people like those drugs, but by experimenting with them I lost my curiosity, and most importantly, I think I know why so many people are attracted to those drugs.

The people who enjoy these drugs claim that the drugs are fun. Sometimes they describe the drugs as “recreational drugs”, which implies that drugs are simply one of our recreational options, similar to playing a game of football or taking a walk through a park.

The attitude that drugs are recreational is similar to the attitude that homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle. I think homosexuality is a serious genetic disorder. Scientists ought to be investigating the cause of homosexuality because if some of them are the result of chemicals in the environment that mimic female hormones or interfere with the development of a fetus, then we would be able to reduce the problem.

My current opinion about drugs is that people who have an attraction to drugs are suffering from some type of mental or physical disorder, and the drug is helping to mask their misery.

The issue of drugs is very significant because every society is wasting a lot of resources in a futile attempt to stop drug and alcohol abuse. And there are enormous numbers of industrial and automobile accidents because of drugs.

Most people believe that we can stop drug and alcohol abuse with laws and jails, but that policy doesn't work. I'm a good example. It was illegal for me to experiment with alcohol and marijuana when I was a teenager, but I didn't care. I'm not a rebellious person who violates laws simply to prove my independence. Rather, I thought about the laws and came to the conclusion that the laws were idiotic, and that my violating of the laws wouldn't hurt anybody.

I haven't been interested in drugs or alcohol since I was a teenager, but it's not because I'm afraid of jail. It's because I tried alcohol and marijuana, and I came to the conclusion that I don't like them.

If everybody in the world was like me, no society would have to discourage alcohol or drug use. A few people would occasionally experiment with some drug, but they would quickly come to the conclusion that they don't like it. Drug dealers would go out of business. There would be only a small beer and wine industry, if any. There would be no such thing as drunk drivers. And coca plants, heroin poppies, and marijuana plants could be planted in public gardens and parks. There would be no reason to make those plants illegal.

Laws are useful for coordinating people, but they can't control human behavior. It might help you to understand this issue if we separate laws into two categories. We could describe one category as laws that coordinate, educate, and supervise people.

For example, traffic laws help us regulate airplane, automobile, and other types of transportation devices. And safety regulations that manufacturers follow help them set up factories that are safe for us to work in.

The laws in this category are valuable, and many of them developed after years of hard work and lots of accidents. You would discover the value of these laws if you and other thousands of other people were sent to a planet to start your own world, and if none of you knew any of these laws. As soon as you tried to set up factories you would have industrial accidents, and it would occur to you that you've got to set up safety rules. However, creating those safety rules would not be easy. It would take a lot of effort and mistakes.

The other category of laws are those that try to improve human behavior, such as the laws that prohibit teenagers from purchasing alcohol, and the laws that prohibit burglary. If you and thousands of other people were to start life on a new planet, and if all of you were well behaved, none of you would need these types of laws. You wouldn't need policemen, either. But if some of you were badly behaved, you would discover that the laws and the policemen can't stop alcohol abuse, the burglary, or other crimes.

To summarize the difference between these two groups of laws, the laws that coordinate us are very valuable. They are what I refer to as social technology in my articles at my philosophy page.

However, laws that try to improve human behavior are worthless. Humans and animals behave in whatever manner their mind has been designed, and laws cannot change the structure of our brain.

Everybody realizes that we cannot control animal behavior with laws, but most people are refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that we cannot control human behavior with laws, either.

The Scottish government is currently proposing that the age for people to buy alcohol be raised from 18 to 21, but a couple weeks earlier a few dozen American college presidents suggested lowering the age from 21 to 18. People all over the world realize that they have a problem with alcohol, and they assume that they can solve the problem by tweaking the laws a little bit.
bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7602090.stm
washingtonpost.com article AR2008081902836.html

However, all of these laws are worthless. We're not going to reduce alcoholism by tweaking the laws. The popularity of alcohol and other drugs is simply due to the miserable condition of the human race.

There are no sickly animals because sickly animals are eaten or they die, and there were no sickly humans 50,000 years ago. However, modern technology, inheritances, crime, and welfare has allowed a lot of defective people to survive and reproduce. The end result is that an enormous number of people today are suffering from serious mental or physical problems.

I don't think many people today are truly happy. It seems that half the population wants to be perpetually under the influence of alcohol or some other drug, and of the remaining people, most of them want to withdraw from reality and live in a religious fantasy, or a Star Trek fantasy, or a video game.

We have to prevent young children from having access to razor blades, chainsaws, and other potentially dangerous items, but no nation should have to stop teenagers or adults from having access to alcohol or drugs. No nation should have to tell its people not to burglarize one another. No nation should have to tell its businessmen to be honest about the products they produce.

The attitude that we need laws to stop people from using alcohol and drugs is as stupid as the theory that rock 'n roll music is the devil's music, and that people who listen to it will become criminals. People who are in good mental health can listen to any type of music without becoming a criminal.

Parents of badly behaved children have to face the possibility that their children are defective, and they have to stop blaming their child's problems on something else. If a child or adult is repeatedly getting drunk, it's not because he has access to alcohol. It's because there's something wrong with him.

Rush Limbaugh described alcohol as an "adult beverage", but a better description is that it's a drug. There's nothing wrong with having beer or wine once in a while, but the people who drink to become intoxicated are not simply drinking a beverage. They're using drugs, and we ought to wonder why they have an attraction to the drug.

A lot of people have noticed that when alcoholics have children, their children often become alcoholics, and when violent people have children, their children often become violent. Many people assume that these patterns are evidence that children are learning bad habits from their parents, but a more sensible explanation is that children inherit the mental and physical qualities of their parents.

Most people assume that if an alcoholic can stop drinking, he has become normal, but if his craving for alcohol was due to a mental or physical defect, he will continue to suffer from that problem even after he stops drinking, and the end result may be that he develops some other problem, such as become addicted to prescription drugs, or become obsessed with gambling, sex, food, religion, or money.

I've met a few alcoholics who quit drinking, and what I've noticed is that they have a fear of alcohol. This is evidence that they still have their attraction to alcohol, and all they've managed to do is suppress their craving for it.

There's a significant difference between a reformed alcoholic and somebody like myself. When I'm with other people, I have no problem drinking a beer or some other alcoholic beverage. I have no craving for alcohol, but I have no fear of it, either.

However, the reformed alcoholics are afraid to drink even tiny amounts of alcohol. And the reason is because they're still suffering from whatever problem caused them to become alcoholics in the first place, and so they still have the craving to get drunk and escape from their misery. If an alcoholic was truly cured of his problem, then he'd be able to drink without fear.

However, just because somebody is NOT an alcoholic doesn't mean that they're free of problems. There's a lot of people who have obsessions with money, religion, sex, fame, gambling, or food. I suspect that these people are also suffering from some type of problem, but they're relieving their misery in a different manner.

If any of these problems are due to environmental factors, such as pollution, then we could do something to reduce the problem. And if these problems are due to genetic disorders, then we could improve each generation by restricting reproduction to people who have fewer problems.

Most people don't like the idea of restricting reproduction, but why give life to a person who is so miserable that he wastes his life in a state of intoxication or withdrawn in a religious fantasy? Parents who deliberately give birth to children who are defective could be described as abusive and selfish. They have no concern for whether their children are happy. They're having children only because they want to entertain themselves. They're using their children as dildos to stimulate themselves with.

John McCain's vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, gave birth to a child with Down's Syndrome. Many people are praising the Palins for letting Trig Palin live, but the people who defend retarded children are hypocrites, just like the people who condemn abortion as murder. None of these people actually care about human life. None of them care what happens to the unwanted or retarded children. They want the children to be born, but after they're born, they ignore them. They want those unwanted and retarded children to pushed aside like pieces of trash.

The people who condemn abortion and who support retarded children are doing what I refer to as mental masturbation. They're stimulating themselves so that they can feel special. They're not making life better for anybody.

People like me who promote the theory that we should restrict reproduction are rarely seen on television, and nobody in the truth movement seems to have this attitude. I think one of the reasons the Jewish crime network doesn't want controls over reproduction is that they want the Goyim to degrade into freaks so that it's easier for them to control us.

Another reason I think the Jewish crime network is afraid of reproductive controls is because most of them are such freaks that they would never qualify as being worthy to reproduce.

In fact, you might find it interesting to consider what society would be like today if our ancestors had been restricting reproduction. How many people alive today would have been born?

Sofia would not have been born if alcoholics were not allowed to have children. I don't know anything about Daryl Smith's father, but Smith was a badly behaved child, and so if we didn't tolerate bad behavior, he would have been exiled or put to death while a child, and so none of us would have known of him, and he never would have had children.

Sofia was furious when I mentioned that her father abused her, and I suppose she's going to be even more furious when she sees what I'm saying now, but as I said before, this isn't a game. She's been trying to become my friend since 2004, which is more than four years. I think it's time we ask, why did she want to be my friend? Was she really interested in helping me expose 9/11 or Zionism?

If her goal was to help me, why hasn't she invited me on her radio show? Why does she prefer to promote Daryl Smith, Clifford Carnicom, John Kaminski, and other people I suspect to be working for Jewish crime network?

The other day somebody told me that Sofia was a guest on an access television show in 2007. A man named Harold Channer interviewed her, and he began in the typical manner by asking Sofia to provide some information about herself. She mentioned that she traveled a lot as a child, and when Channer asked if that was because of business reasons or because her family was in the military, ..well, listen to her response:

Channer:

And so the family was moving around, that's an unusual kind of thing...usually...
Sofia:
Some people do it...
Channer:
Yeah, but, was your family military,


Sofia:

We're going to move on now.
Channer:
Uh, OK, OK, fine! You don't want to talk about that! OK, fine!


We're going to move on now. What kind of answer is that? This woman is trying to influence the world, and she spent years trying to become my friend, but she wants to keep her life a secret. She refers to herself as Sofia Smallstorm because she wants to keep her last name secret, but her full name is on the Internet in several places, such as the lists of 9/11 researchers. And the Internet Movie Database also provides her full name in the description of her video.

So why is she so secretive? Daryl Smith is also hiding his past, and so are a lot of other people in this truth movement. Some of them don't even want us to know which city they live in. Where is Jeff Rense living, for example? And who is he hiding from?

Sofia wrote a novel called The Shadow Man, and in one description of the book at the Amazon website, she's described as a cousin of Salman Rushdie.

Having a relative who may be involved with the Jewish crime network doesn't mean anything. After all, I think my half sister is married to one of Rupert Murdoch's sons. If you search through all of your relatives, you might find some of them are connected to crime networks or the Apollo moon landing hoax, or Scientology, or some suspicious group. However, the difference between me and Sofia is that I don't hide information about myself or my relatives. In fact, I'm the person who discovered the Murdoch connection a few years ago, and I posted it on my website.
HufschmidMurdochCoincidence.html

I have to wonder if the reason Sofia is so secretive about her family is because there really is a connection between her family and the Jewish crime network. If so, that would explain why she wanted to become my friend. She may be another of what I refer to as Zionist whores; namely, women who are willing to use their body in order to trap men or find their weakness, and then set them up for blackmail, death, or kidnapping. And I have to wonder if the reason Sofia wanted to get to know Kay Griggs is to provide the criminal Jews with access to Griggs.

The most common tactic of this Jewish crime network is to have a variety of people try to become our friends.

I suspect that Sofia had two reasons for producing a video about 9/11. One reason is money. Like many people in this truth movement, she was having trouble making a living, and she couldn't find a husband.

I think the other reason is the same reason Dave von Kleist and Dylan Avery produced videos, namely, to draw people over to them and away from me. If you or someone you know is having trouble understanding this trick, try to imagine it on a smaller scale. Imagine that YOU are a member of a crime gang, and imagine that I produced a video that exposes your crime. You couldn't stop people from looking at my video, so what would you do?

One trick you could use is to produce a very similar video but which shifts the blame away from you and onto somebody else, and then you would produce an enormous number of copies and saturate the world with your copies.

Once you understand this trick, you can see that the Jews are using it with 9/11, the Holocaust, and other issues. The site wakeupfromyourslumber is posting lots of articles that are extremely critical of Israel and Jews in an attempt to attract people who are becoming aware of the Jewish crime network. You should not be surprised to learn that the people at wakeupfromyourslumber regularly promote Daryl Smith, but they condemn me.

It seems that every time I post a new audio file or article, the Jews analyze it and tell some of their phony truth seekers to make very similar remarks in order to draw attention over to their sites. It'll be interesting to see how they respond to this audio file.

I've learned a lot about the tricks the Jews are using because a lot of them have tried to become my friend. If they had succeeded in finding my weakness and blackmailing me, then I wouldn't be able to tell you what I've learned about them, but I'm still free to talk. Therefore, I can tell you what I've learned about these people.

Some of what I know is embarrassing to them, but why should I keep that information a secret? These people are trying to influence our lives, and I say we have a responsibility to know who these people are and what their true motives are. If you make a mistake in regards to who to trust, you may end up like Christopher Bollyn and his family. You better take this seriously.

What I've learned is that this Jewish crime network is full of disgusting people, and they are some of the worlds best liars. You have to be careful of them. I'm not kidding when I say they remind me of the story of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde.

Everything they say should be considered a trick. For example, when they promote the philosophy that we should treat other people the way we want to be treated, that's just a trick to fool us into being nice to them while they murder, cheat, and kidnap us. We should not be nice to people who abuse us. We're not nice to fleas or ticks when we find them sucking our blood, and we shouldn't be nice to these criminals. We shouldn't tolerate corruption in the police or military, either. We should be telling them to do their job and arrest these criminals.

But don't think my warning applies only to people in the 9/11 truth movement. I've met some people in the anti-war and peace groups, and those groups are also full of disgusting criminals.

There wasn't any secrecy with people thousands of years ago, and that helped people to make decisions about who to become friends with. We shouldn't allow secrecy among the people who are trying to influence our lives. We shouldn't tolerate Sofia's remark about "We're going to move on now", or the secrecy of Daryl Smith. We should be able to see Smith's military records and his criminal history. And we should also know about the people who are dominating our television networks, our school system, and our military.

There have been some science fiction stories in which a person travels back in time, and he does something that seems trivial, such as causing a man to miss an encounter with a woman, and that apparently meaningless event causes millions of people in the present time to vanish, and it causes dramatic changes to society.

You might find it interesting to imagine what would happen if you could go back in time a few generations and convince our ancestors to prohibit alcoholics, criminals, and other weirdos from reproducing. What effect would you have on the present world? How many people in our truth movement today would suddenly vanish? How many people in top positions of the government, military, and police departments would vanish? How many of the people who are causing us trouble today would disappear?

I think that if our ancestors had been preventing the more defective people from reproducing, the crime networks of today would be much smaller in size, and the world today would be much nicer.

All of us prefer to believe that humans are wonderful creatures, and that our problems are due to some non-human entity, such as the devil, or ignorance, or poverty, but every problem we suffer from can be traced directly to the actions of certain, specific people. For example, pollution and litter is not caused by ignorance, or a lack of money, or a lack of technology. It's due to people who don't care about the environment. Our ancestors could have been concerned about the environment, and people today could be concerned about this issue, but most people truly don't care.

Every problem we suffer from can be traced to people. Therefore, the only way to improve the world is to improve the behavior of people. But how do we do that? Laws cannot make people behave better, and neither can jails. The only way to make people behave better is to restrict reproduction to the people who behave better naturally, and eventually the human race will become a happier, more responsible, and more honest creature.

An example is the recent behavior of Google. A few days ago they revised their agreement regarding some software they developed that they call Google Chrome. The software is open source, which means they are providing it free for everybody. However, their initial agreement claimed that Google had "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7597699.stm

If you don't understand what that means, it's equivalent to a business boasting that they're giving tools to carpenters for free, and in return they have a royalty-free license to everything the carpenters produce with those tools.

A lot of people complained about Google's attitude, and so Google revised it and said that it was due to an oversight. But was it really an oversight?

Government officials routinely claim to be incompetent when somebody complains about their disgusting or criminal behavior. For example, the government claimed incompetence during the September 11 attack, and in regards to the missing $2.4 trillion in the Pentagon budget. They also claimed to be incompetent when the levees in New Orleans broke mysteriously, and they claim the levees broke because the engineers were too incompetent to design proper levees.

If you or I made a mistake that killed thousands of people and wasted millions of dollars, we'd be in a lot of trouble, but government officials never get in trouble for even bigger mistakes.

We're fools to allow people in leadership positions to blame their disgusting behavior on ignorance or incompetence . If they really are incompetent or ignorant, they should be replaced. But I think they're deliberately cheating us. And I think that Google's agreement was an attempt to take advantage of us. Businessmen are always pushing the laws to the limit, and when they get caught doing something that's illegal or immoral, they make it appear as if it was an honest mistake.

Most people react to badly behaved businessmen by demanding that they apologize, or by complaining that the corporation should pay a fine, but that doesn't correct the problem. The problem is that our businessmen are behaving like primitive savages, and they behave like savages because it's their personality. We can't improve their personality by making them apologize or making the corporation pay a fine.

The badly behaved businessmen have to be replaced with people who behave better naturally. It's like I said in regards to alcohol. I don't need laws to tell me not to get drunk. I lost my curiosity about drugs as a teenager. And I don't need a law to tell me to treat my customers with decency.

We need to find businessmen who behave properly because they want to, not because a policeman is standing over them. We have to stop assuming that the badly behaved people can be fixed with punishments. They can't be fixed. They have to be removed. We need people who are naturally more honest and responsible.

Furthermore, even if a businessman follows the law, he's not necessarily somebody that we want in a leadership position. We have to look at whether he's contributing to society. Thousands of businesses are making a lot of money, but they're not doing anything that I would consider to be of value. For example, the businesses that offer telemarketing, advertising, astrology predictions, palm reading, and UFO paraphernalia.

And consider how many businesses are producing toys, "name-brand" clothing, cartoons, and other products for children. I don't think children's lives are better today because of these products. Actually, I think children would become better adults if they spent more time with other children and figured out how to entertain themselves.

The people in these businesses may be honest and hard working, but I don't care. These people are consuming resources and creating waste products, but they're not giving us anything of value in return. That is what a parasite does.

However, I don't think all of these people want to be parasites. I'm sure most of them would prefer to have a useful job. I think these parasitic businesses came into existence simply because a lot of people couldn't figure out any other way to make a living.

Centuries ago it was possible to tell men to find a way to support themselves and their family because almost everybody worked on a farm, but today the majority of people have to develop a skill and find some other type of work. Unfortunately, a lot of people end up finding a way to make a living that doesn't have any value to us.

Our primitive economic system has no concern for whether a business contributes to society, and there are no provisions to help children select a career or find a job. This is a very crude, brutal economic system, and it should be updated for this modern era. The goal of a business should be to improve society, not sell products. We shouldn't allow a business to exist simply because it can make money.

Businesses consume resources and create trash, and so we should change our economy so that we can pass judgment on whether a business is providing advantages that outweigh their disadvantages.

For example, there's a company that makes a doll that looks like McCain's vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.
telegraph.co.uk newstopics Sarah-Palin-dolls-go-on-sale

With our current economic system, these people are considered to be successful entrepreneurs, but we should be asking, "Do we want some of our citizens using resources for this type of product? Or should we demand they do something more useful?"

We should change our attitudes towards businesses. If a business isn't contributing something of value to society, it should be considered parasitic, even if the people are honest.

And if a businessman is not helping to make society better, he shouldn't be in a position of leadership. It doesn't matter if a businessman is nice or honest. We have to look at what they are giving to us in return for the resources that we give to them.

Supervisors routinely analyze the job performance of ordinary employees, but no society yet does any type of evaluation for people in leadership positions. Ordinary employees are fired for being drunk, or not coming to work, or being incompetent, but people in leadership positions can behave in all sorts of criminal and obnoxious manners without anybody firing them.

We have to change this attitude so that people in leadership positions are regarded as employees. They should not be worshiped. We should review the performance of people in leadership positions just like we review ordinary employees. We have to stop behaving like stupid animals who mindlessly follow the dominant male. It's acceptable for the ordinary people to give blind obedience to their leaders, but some of us have to analyze the people in leadership positions.

Furthermore, we should continuously replace the worst-performing leaders, even though they may be doing a good job, so that we can constantly give new people the opportunity to show us their abilities. Compare that to the situation today in which incompetent leaders sometimes remain in their job forever. Supreme Court judges are given their jobs forever, but no business would to that for an ordinary employee.

Unfortunately, as I described in another audio file, losing a job in our modern era is very traumatic, and as a result, people have made it almost impossible to fire people. School teachers demand tenure, ordinary workers want unions to protect them, and government employees are almost impossible to fire.

Everybody would be happiest if they had a job in which they could contribute something of value and work with people they enjoy. Unfortunately, we're young for only a few years, and so we don't have a lot of time to figure out what we're going to do for a living. And it's not practical in this primitive economic system to experiment with many jobs. The end result is that many people end up in a job that they're not very good at, or that they don't like very much, but they cling to it anyway because of the difficulty of finding another job. Society ends up with people who are unhappy and sometimes incompetent at their job.

We have to change this economy so that the government can get involved and help people find jobs and start businesses. Nobody should fear the loss of their job or their business. The government should be like the coach of a high school football team. The coach will let students try different positions, and if a student is not good at a particular position, the coach will tell him to try another position. The coach lets the players experiment so that they can determine their abilities and desires. We need the same attitude with jobs.

A person who is fired should not be angry or ashamed. We should regard the firing of an employee as simply the process we use to help people find a job that they enjoy. With this attitude, a person could be fired simply because the other people don't want to work with him.

We also have to change our nation to make it possible for us to fire people in leadership positions. It's currently impossible for us to fire businessmen and government officials. We can't even remove leaders who are known to be committing crimes. Executives at the television companies are routinely lying to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other crimes, and Larry Silverstein is somehow involved in 9/11, but we can't fire any of these people. We can't even get the police to arrest any of them.

The ordinary employees are closely monitored by supervisors, and we should apply the same concept to people in leadership positions. Actually, it's more important to watch our leaders because our leaders have more of an influence over our lives and future.

Our current presidential candidates are good examples of why we should be watching people. We ought to know who these people associate with and what they've accomplished during their lives that would justify putting them into a leadership position.

I've already criticized Obama, and McCain, so this time I'll criticize McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin.

My primary complaint about her is that she is a woman. If you believe the feminist attitude that men and women are a unisex creature, then you won't see anything wrong with having a woman in a top leadership position, but I've come to the conclusion that men and women are significantly different. In fact, I think feminism is hurting society and relationships. I'll give an example from my own life.

When I was a teenager I believed the feminist propaganda that women were just as intelligent as men. I assumed that I would get married to an intelligent woman who was very similar to me. And I visualized myself having intelligent conversations with my wife, and even with her friends.

However, the girls I met as a teenager seemed rather simpleminded. I started to wonder, where are the intelligent girls? There were a lot of girls in my high school that I didn't know very well, so I wondered if perhaps the intelligent girls were ignoring me.

I could understand why the girls avoided me because each year I became more disillusioned with society, and it was affecting my attitude. I was rather confused in high school. The majority of students were interested in Star Trek, money, beer, sports, and other activities, but I was fantasizing about making better cities, and better transportation devices, and learning a useful skill and getting out of school and doing something.

I was annoyed that we were learning math that didn't seem to have a purpose, and we were memorizing historical information that seemed to have no value. And I couldn't understand why we needed English classes when we already knew the language. I was getting tired of school and wanted to do something useful.

I started losing my interest in going to college. We were told to go to college to make money, but I didn't want to make money. And I didn't like the idea of spending another four years in idiotic courses and with students whose primary interest was television and beer. I didn't want to end up like the people around me. I didn't want to spend my life driving to work each morning though an ugly city to get to some worthless job simply to collect money, and then drive home though that ugly city, and then sit in front of a television set for 7 hours.

When I was in junior high school, the editorials in magazines and newspapers seem very intelligent, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of the Republicans, but by the time I was halfway through high school, the editorials and television seemed rather simplistic.

I don't remember exactly how old I was, probably around 16, but I still clearly remember the time that I was in my bedroom alone and sitting on my bed and staring aimlessly at the wall as I seriously wondered, are there any intelligent people in America? I was wondering why television is so full of stupid people, and why the articles and editorials in magazines were so stupid. And then I noticed the light switch on the wall, and it occurred to me that there must be some intelligent people in this nation because somebody created the electric power generators that were providing electricity, and certainly those people are intelligent. But where are those intelligent people? Why don't we see them on television? Why don't those people ever write magazine articles or editorials?

I became confused and disillusioned with society, and I can understand why the girls didn't pay any attention to me, but I think the biggest problem I had with girls is that I was expecting to meet intelligent girls. There were lots of nice girls in my high school, but I was shocked at their idiotic conversations, and so I would continue my quest for an intelligent woman. It wasn't until many years after high school that I came to the conclusion that women simply don't think very well, and that I was chasing after a rainbow.

Most people believe that the best way to raise children is to protect them from the truth and let them live in a pleasant fantasy. For example, many parents will fool their children into believing that they're good-looking, or talented, or intelligent, and most American parents fool their children into believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Where is the evidence that children who are raised on fantasies end up better in some way than children who are told the truth?

Our natural tendency is to think of children as delicate creatures who need protection, but only their body is delicate. Their mind is more like an animal mind. Children are not bothered by death or sex or anything else that bothers adults. Children will accept whatever we give them, even the truth.

Therefore, if children are raised on the truth, then they'll become adults who accept the truth. But when children are raised on fantasies, they become adults who consider the truth to be bizarre and cruel.

I've met women who believed the feminist propaganda, and they went to college in the hope of becoming engineers or scientists or business executives, but many of them ended up disillusioned or depressed when they either weren't any good at those jobs, or they decided that they'd rather be a mother and a woman. Those women wasted their youth because of feminism.

People today are getting married later in life, getting divorced more often, and having children later. According to the feminists, this is evidence that women today are liberated and happy, but I think part of the problem with relationships today is that children have been raised on feminist propaganda. Women are expecting men to behave like women, and men are expecting women to be intelligent. Neither of us is finding what we're looking for. And when people finally get married, they torture one another because they have unrealistic expectations for their spouse.

There are accusations that the Jews created feminism. I don't know if that's true, but the Jewish media is definitely promoting it. Therefore, we could say that the Jews are responsible for ruining relationships for millions of people by pushing feminism on us.

Actually, I think it's worse than that. I suspect that feminism is increasing the number of defective children. It's been known for long time that the older a woman is when she has babies, the more defects her children have, probably because eggs deteriorate with age. Therefore, by delaying the age at which women have babies, the Jews may be responsible for some of the lower quality children of this new generation.

Furthermore, feminism encourages women to find men who are their equal, but the only men who come close to behaving like women are the men who are dumb, childish, or feminine. These women are going to lower the quality of the next generation of people. Women should be looking for men who are responsible, honest, and intelligent.

In my last audio file I pointed out that if you were to share your dinner with animals, they would eventually become accustomed to having dinner with you, but they wouldn't bring anything of value to the dinner table.

Jews have been moving to America and Europe for centuries, but what do we gain by letting them into our society? As far as I can see, all they give us is disgusting attitudes and crude behavior. They get involved with organized crime, gambling, slavery, drug dealing, and pornography. They try to take over our banking system, our media, our schools, and our businesses. They have excuses for their disgusting behavior, but they're behaving in a disgusting manner because it's their personality. They want to behave like savages. Nobody is forcing them to behave like this.

We must get these Jews out of our lives and teach children that men and women are different. Many women complain that only a few women are scientists, or engineers, or carpenters, or machinists, but the reason so few women are involved in those careers is because most women don't want those careers, and women are no good at jobs that require thinking or physical strength. Most women would rather be mothers.

Many women point out that women were discriminated against for centuries in regards to owning property or starting businesses, and they claim this is evidence that men have been abusing women for centuries. However, the attitude that women shouldn't own property or businesses didn't develop because men are cruel. Those attitudes were simply a reflection of society at that particular point in time.

The issue of circumcision might help you to understand this particular issue. If we were circumcising baby girls today, the feminists would certainly use it as evidence that men consider women as their personal property.

However, when me and my brothers were born, it was common for American boys to be circumcised, and so most of the boys in my generation were circumcised. Why have so many of us been circumcised? Is it because women are sexist creatures who hate men?

I think circumcision is due by children who picked up the practice from their parents, who in turn picked it up from their parents, and so on.

Circumcision is only one of many practices that people picked up from other people. Almost all of your cultural practices and opinions have come from other people. Almost nothing you believe is your own, original creation. Your opinions of life are a collage of other people's opinions, some of whom lived thousands of years ago. Only a few of us have developed a few original opinions. Most people have never developed anything original.

As I mentioned in a previous audio file, children are willing to learn anything, but once they become adults, they don't want to change. Once a child is taught that boys should be circumcised, they become adults who resist attempts to change that attitude.

An interesting example of how adults mindlessly follow practices that developed centuries earlier is in regards to the baking of bread. A couple years ago the New York Times posted a video on YouTube in which a restaurant chef shows that it's possible to make bread without spending any time kneading the dough. The old-fashioned method of making bread was to knead the dough, then let it rise, and then knead the dough a second time, and then let it rise again. This chef pointed out that all we have to do is mix the flour, yeast, and water together, and let it rise, and then cook it.
youtube.com/watch?v=13Ah9ES2yTU

This particular restaurant chef is actually only one of many people who discovered that we don't have to knead the dough. These people assume that they've discovered something new, but it would be more accurate to say that these people are evidence that history courses are pathetic, and that most people have no idea that they're mindlessly following practices that no longer apply in this modern era.

The procedures that we follow today for baking bread were developed centuries ago, and people have been passing those procedures on from one generation to the next without anybody bothering to wonder, do these procedures still apply?

A lot has changed in regards to bread and other food products during the past few centuries. The plants and animals on farms today are not exactly as they were centuries earlier because farmers have been breeding them. The wheat kernels today are more consistent, and modern machinery does a much better job of removing the debris from the kernel. Furthermore, most people today make bread from refined white flour that has been ground into a fine powder. It's extremely easy to make bread with this modern flour, but that type of flour didn't exist centuries ago.

During the Middle Ages the flour was whole grain and it was a coarse grind, not a fine powder, and it had a lot more debris from the plants.

Furthermore, wheat was scarce in Europe during the Middle Ages because farmers hadn't yet developed a variety that grows well in their colder climate. There was much more rye and barley. And as a result, people were often mixing rye or barley with the wheat.

It was much more difficult for people to make bread during the Middle Ages, but we still mindlessly follow those old bread baking procedures.

Most people don't have much of an interest in how their ancestors lived, and they don't think much about the future. They don't wonder where their culture came from. They never ask themselves why they give gifts on birthdays or Christmas, and they never wonder why they teach their children about tooth fairies or Easter bunnies.

Most people just exist from one day to the next, never wondering where they've been or where they're going. They just mindlessly follow the beliefs that they picked up as a child.

Every nation and organization should occasionally look at the procedures they follow because after a few decades or centuries, some of those procedures become idiotic or even destructive. We shouldn't mindlessly follow a practice simply because our ancestors did it. We should occasionally look at our culture and ask ourselves, "Why are we doing this?"

If we were to analyze our bread baking procedures, we would find that our procedures don't apply today, and we would also realize that the bread we make today isn't even a real food. And as I described in a previous audio file, I think we should change our economy so that we can have local bakeries that grind their own grains and produce fresh bread.

Centuries ago children learned about life from their parents and their neighbors, but today children are picking up information from mysterious people all over the world. Furthermore, our media and schools are dominated by a network of criminal Jews, and they're fooling children into believing that Nazis exterminated 6 million Jews, and that Arabs attacked America on September 11, and that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon six different times.

These Jews are also using schools and the media to promote feminism, homosexuality, and the attitude that we should do whatever makes us happy rather than worry about our effect on society. The only scientists who appear on television or at congressional hearings are those such as Jim Hansen of NASA who try to fool us into paying a carbon tax to some mysterious group of people who will stop global warming. The criminal Jews are suppressing the honest and intelligent people and promoting only Jews and other freaks.

Unfortunately, once a child has been raised on Jewish propaganda, he becomes an adult who considers the truth to be anti-Semitic propaganda.

If we can get these Jewish criminals out of our lives, and if we could get better people in control of society, we could stop this feminist propaganda and design the economy and society to take into account the differences between men and women.

As I've written in articles at my philosophy page, I think that the life a woman wants is different from the life that a man wants. We even seem to have different eating habits and preferences for food. Instead of pretending that men and women are identical, we should understand our differences and design society so that jobs and working conditions can be different for men and women.

I think that one of the differences between us is that men enjoy competition more than women. Men love competition so much that we turn almost every activity into a competition. Even close friends will frequently set up brief and informal competitions, such as when they go bicycle riding together and compete to see who can get to the top of a hill quicker.

Men don't care what they compete for, we simply enjoy competition. And since competition is currently the only method we know of to determine who is better at a particular activity, we should take advantage of our enjoyment of competition.

Competition will show us who is better at farming, designing refrigerators, and organizing a group of construction workers. We should design our economy so that businessmen compete against one another, and then we watch the results.

Furthermore, we should consistently replace the worst performing businessmen so that we are continuously giving other men a chance to show us their abilities.

Our current economic system puts men into competition, but they compete for money. I already mentioned one problem with this type of competition; namely, it causes businesses to do things that are profitable but which have no value to society.

Another problem with having men compete for money is that the men most interested in such a competition are the men with very simple desires in life. If we change the competition so that businesses compete to do something useful for society, I would bet that a better group of men will enter the competition, and that will give us better business leaders.

If you're not familiar with this concept, I discuss it in more detail at my philosophy page. To summarize it here, whenever we alter a competitive struggle, we cause different people to enter the competition, and we cause different people to win.

When businesses compete for money, some of us will find something else to do with our lives because we're not interested in such a competition. The men who are attracted to the idea of making of money seem to have very simple desires in life, and their personalities remind me of animals or primitive savages.

Consider the behavior of executives of the Boeing Company. Boeing and its competitors are large and wealthy, and the market for their products is so large that all of them can easily make a living. Each of those companies could concentrate on improving their products. However, the Boeing executives are constantly whining that they're being cheated, and they're constantly getting into fights with their competitors.

It certainly is true that businesses cheat on a regular basis, but I don't see any sign that the Boeing executives are concerned about the cheating. I never see them offer intelligent suggestions or have intelligent discussions on how we can make the economy better or reduce the cheating. I think they fight because they want to fight.

Their behavior is what I would expect from an intelligent dog. No matter how much profit they make, it's not enough. No matter how large their business is, it's not large enough. When a competitor is successful, they become jealous and complain that they've been cheated. They're like stupid animals who are constantly fighting with each other.

The men who currently dominate our corporations are not men that we can turn to for guidance or intelligent opinions about life. They're savages. Their personalities may be appropriate for supervising groups of men, but they're not appropriate for top leadership positions in this modern world.

If the Jews were the superior race, we would see evidence of their superior intelligence and other qualities, and the same concept applies to business executives. If they really were among the most intelligent men, we would see evidence of their intelligence.

If we change the economy so that the competition is to improve society, a lot of people who currently have no interest in becoming a top business leader would suddenly develop an interest in joining the competition. The men who currently dominate businesses would find themselves competing against a new group of men, and I think they would become the losers in this type of competition.

By changing the competition, we cause different people to enter the competition, and we change the qualities that the contestants need to win. This is true regardless of whether the competition is between businesses, athletes, scientists, carpenters, or schoolchildren.

However, competition doesn't work when either the contestants or the referees are cheating. When we allow cheating, the competition changes from whatever it is supposed to be to whoever is best at cheating. This allows some of the most disgusting men to dominate the competition.

If all men were well behaved and responsible, then all competitions would be fair simply because the men want to compete in a fair manner. There would be no need for police or laws or referees. There would be no need for unions or consumer groups.

Unfortunately, each of us is just a random collection of genetic qualities, and so some people end up with some rather crude qualities. At one extreme are the men who compete fairly, and at the other extreme are the men who secretly conspire with other men to kill or sabotage their competition or manipulate government officials.

It might help you to understand what we could do with the economy if you consider how professional sports set up competitions between athletes. A football team is similar to a business, and the referees are similar to government officials. The teams are put into competition with each other, and the referees try to prevent cheating.

However, there is an important difference between sports and business. Sports are only for entertainment, and it is the competitive struggle that people find entertaining, not the final result. Therefore, the teams are set up to be virtually identical in size and abilities. This provides the audience with hours of entertainment.

In the case of the economy, there's no entertainment value in the competitive struggle. We only care about the final result. And nobody cares if one particular business consistently produces the best products. Therefore, there's no reason to force businesses to be virtually identical in talent or size, and there's no reason to break apart businesses that are very successful.

However, the government should have the authority to break businesses into pieces. There's no point in allowing a business to grow to an enormous size unless there's some advantage to society. Consider Microsoft. This is a very large company that produces operating systems, word processors, spreadsheets, and lots of other software. Even if Microsoft had competition, what advantage is there to society when we allow one business to produce so many different, independent products?

Microsoft is equivalent to a corporation that produces shoes, microprocessors, and laundry detergent. What do we gain by putting such different people together in one business? This type of business makes sense for our current economic system because it allows a small group of people to make a lot of profit, but it doesn't make sense from the point of view of the employees or society.

Microsoft is analogous to a giant sports team that has football players, ping-pong players, ice skaters, and basketball players. From the point of view the athletes, there's no sense in having such a combination. This type of a sports team would make sense only for the owners because it would allow them to make more money.

When designing an economic system, we have to ask ourselves "Why are we living?" Do we live merely to help a few people become wealthy? That is what people in the Middle Ages were doing. We have to get rid of this attitude that we're peasants who should serve the Kings and Queens. We should demand that everybody contribute to society, and we should look at every business and ask, How do we benefit from this business?

One of the pleasures of life is working with people we enjoy, and men enjoy competing with each other. Therefore, we should design the economy so that businesses are teams of people who enjoy working together. There's no sense in putting two groups of people in one business if those two groups are involved in work that's so different that neither group ever has contact with the other. It would be better to let each group be a separate business.

Our economic system today is a battleground where businessmen wage economic warfare on one another and try to conquer each other's territory. Businessmen are not truly competing. It would be more accurate to describe their behavior as fighting, as we would expect from primitive savages or wild animals. They fight with other businesses, they fight with consumers, and they fight with the government. And there's lots of cheating.

Businesses should not be allowed to combine with other businesses unless there's some definite advantage to society. Gigantic businesses are justified on the grounds that they're more efficient than a group of smaller businesses, but we can make business activity more efficient in other ways, such as by reducing the paperwork that businesses are required to do.

Most of the paperwork that businesses suffer from is due to our idiotic attitudes towards crime. Our current attitude is that we can prevent crime by forcing businessmen to keep detailed records of everything they do, and by having lots of lawyers create lots of legal documents. But we can't control human behavior. When we encounter businessmen who misbehave, we should remove them.

Consider how this concept applies to the locks that we have on houses. When most people discover that their house has been burglarized, they react like a frightened animal by purchasing locks and other security devices. However, these devices don't reduce crime. They're actually a burden on the honest people. We waste resources on the devices, and we have to carry keys everywhere we go, and sometimes we lock ourselves out of our house.

It would be better to remove criminals as soon as they appear. This will not prevent future criminals from being born, but it will spare us from wasting our time and resources on useless crime prevention techniques.

If we apply this concept to the economy, then the government would remove businessmen who misbehave.

The government should also be able to pass judgment on whether a business should even exist. At the moment our economy cares only about profit, and so a lot of businesses are successful but they don't contribute to society.

We should change our attitudes. Nobody should be allowed to make a living from work that has no value. In my previous audio file I said that we should prohibit organized religions and tell people that religion should be a personal issue. We should apply the same concept to businesses. Children should be taught to get a job that allows them to contribute to society, and in their spare time they can do the silly things, such as fortune-telling or giving religious sermons or make dolls that look like Sarah Palin.

Sports events are often set up months or years in advance, and Olympic events are arranged many years ahead of time. This allows people to plan for the events.

If we give the government more control over the economy, then instead of wondering which products will exist in the future, we could determine what type of products will be developed, and we could make long-term plans and bring about dramatic changes to society.

Consider how much easier it would be to phase in digital television. If the government had more control over the economy, then they could set up a schedule to develop the digital television products. The government would contact certain businesses and tell them that they're going to compete with each other in the development and production of digital television products. It would be like giving football teams a schedule of who they're going to compete with and when.

The government could also set up competitions between businesses to see if any of them could develop a practical way to recycle the analog equipment.

If you have trouble understanding how the government could possibly control the economy in a sensible manner, just think of the nation as a large business, and consider the government as the management. Businesses frequently have to update their assembly lines, or stop the production of one product and start the development of another, or move from one building to another, or upgrade their computer systems. Businesses make these changes all the time, and it's easy for them because businesses are not democracies. The managers of the business simply create a schedule, and then they tell the employees what to do and when to do it.

Phasing in digital television is a problem with our current economic system because there's no way to supervise or coordinate the businesses or consumers. Our economic system is chaotic and uncontrollable. Furthermore, corruption is rampant.

If we could provide ourselves with better quality government officials, and if we give the government more control over the economy, then it would be easy for us to make long-term plans. We could make dramatic changes to our society that are currently impossible, such as the construction of completely new cities, or the development of new transportation systems.

However, allowing the government to have this type of control over the economy requires that the government become responsible for helping people find jobs, learn new skills, and start businesses. As I've mentioned before, most people have an intense fear of losing their job. We have to change society so that nobody is afraid to lose their job because there's no way to make significant changes to a nation without putting lots of people out of work. For example, consider what would happen if we simplified our tax system. Thousands of accountants, IRS employees, software companies, and other people would lose their job.

If the government became responsible for helping people find jobs, then it would be easy for us to make these dramatic changes. The government could get rid of the entire businesses without worry. They would simply tell the employees not to show up for work any longer. Society would support them during their period of temporary unemployment, so they wouldn't have any reason to be concerned. From their point of view, their unemployment would be just an unexpected vacation.

I'll give you an example of how this type of government could change society. Consider how we could transform the computer industry.

We currently have a lot of businesses producing lots of small, personal computers, and there are some large businesses producing larger computers. Everybody who purchases a computer has to deal with the issue of maintaining his hardware and his software, backing up his files, and dealing with repairs and upgrades.

However, we could redesign our cities and our economy and set up a system similar to what we find at universities. A city could set up some different, advanced computers in different parts of the city, and people and businesses would connect to them with monitors and keyboards. The city would maintain the computers, and they would deal with the backing up of files. We wouldn't have to worry about hard disk failures, the noise of cooling fans, or installing software. And we would have access to faster and better computers, and software that we would not otherwise be able to afford.

Laptop computers would be thinner, lighter in weight, cooler, and last longer on batteries because they wouldn't need a hard disk or any advanced processor. All they would need is a wireless connection to the city's computers.

We already expect our city to provide us with water, sewage, electricity, fire departments, and other services, so why not let the city provide us with computer services?

However, this type of service wouldn't be practical with the disgusting people who dominate society today. Imagine what would happen if the Jewish crime network could get some of their people into the government department that maintained those computers. Those criminals would have access to everybody's data, and that would allow them to easily steal technology, and they could look at everybody's e-mail messages, and they could even sabotage people by erasing or altering some of their data. And imagine calling the police to complain about this crime, and discovering that the police are protecting the network, or that the police are afraid to do anything about them. And imagine the television news reporters claiming that the people who accuse the Jews of crime are anti-Semitic neo-Nazis.

This brings up a very important issue that I've mentioned before. Specifically, the more dishonest and selfish a group of people are, the fewer options they have available to them. Conversely, the more honest and responsible a group of people are, the more options they have.

A nation of talking monkeys, alcoholics, criminals, and retards is not going to be able to set up a society in which the city is providing computer services.

It's popular in America to complain about government, especially among Republicans, but there's nothing wrong with the concept of a government. Every problem that people blame on the government can be traced directly to individual people. In other words, it's not the government that causes us trouble, it's the people in the government.

Every government is disgusting because every government is full of disgusting people. If we replace those disgusting people with better people, then we'll have a better government. It's that simple.

The only question I can't yet answer is, are there enough respectable people to create a better government, and a better school system, and a better economy? Or are the majority of people so much like animals that this is the best we can do? How many of 6 billion people in the world today can truly be classified as respectable humans?

Most people are proving themselves to be hopeless, but as I've mentioned before, don't let your friends, neighbors, or relatives become a ball and chain around your leg. The majority of people are going to try to stop you from talking about 9/11 or how we can improve society. They're going to encourage you to watch television and have another beer. Those of us who have a desire to make a better world have to stand up, turn our backs on the majority of people, and walk away from them. Don't feel as if you owe them something.

The Earth could be a paradise. Our cities could be a beautiful mix of gardens, parks, and attractive buildings. We could walk around our cities at night without fear. We could have government officials and businessmen and schoolteachers that we respect and admire.

But we're not going to improve anything as long as we feel sorry for Underdogs. We have to abandon the talking monkeys and retards and get together with the advanced humans.

If we can find enough humans, we can improve this world. So don't give up hope. Let's give it a try!

Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site:
HugeQuestions.com