Animals fight for survival,
|Do you know the people you follow?
Some naive (and possible young or dumb) people saw Halvorsen's brilliant exposés and asked me if it was true that I was a Jew, and if I can provide evidence that there really are "V"s on the Israeli tanks!
Halvorsen first began contacting me in 2006. He was friendly and pleasant in the beginning, and he told me that it was lots of fun to go to Thailand for sex. When I showed no interest in going to Thailand, he went by himself.
After he arrived home, he once again told me how wonderful the girls
in Thailand were. He posted some of the photos he took with his cell phone
camera. When I continued to show no interest, he stopped communicating
with me and began exposing me as a "lying Jew".
The Jewish crime network wants secrecy because most of the people who work for them are psychotic losers, criminals, alcoholics, and freaks. They don't want you to know who they are because you would be disgusted if you knew the truth about these people.
What do you know about me or anybody
else in this so-called "truth movement"? Not much, that's what.
When the Jewish crime network is finally defeated, we have to look at
in the truth movement, the government, the police departments, the FBI,
and even the universities.
This is our only defense against the
is not the same as secrecy
The Pope also recently ordered his bishops to set up exorcism squads. What do we really know about the Pope, the bishops, or the people who work for BBC? What do we really know about the organized religions and the news agencies? Not much, that's what.
If an ordinary person behaved like the Pope, he would be regarded as mentally ill, or as a con artist. And if an ordinary person lied to us as much as the BBC and other news agencies, we would be disgusted.
The majority of people will tolerate all sorts of atrocious, selfish, criminal, and irrational behavior from people in leadership positions. Most people behave just like stupid animals who mindlessly follow their leader, regardless of who that leader is and how he behaves.
We have to raise standards for people in leadership positions, and we have to know who our leaders are and who they associate with. We have to distinguish between privacy and secrecy. We could say that everybody deserves privacy when they're alone or with their friends or family members if what they do is of no significance to the rest of us.
For example, we could say that when the Pope closes the bathroom door, he is providing himself with privacy, but when he tries to prevent us from knowing who he is associating with and what type of deals they are making, he is providing himself with secrecy.
We should be able to know who our leaders associate with, and who those
people associate with because the relationships between people in leadership
positions have a significant effect on our lives, and I say we have a responsibility
to ensure that our leaders are not associating with criminals.
Crypto-Jews wouldn't exist without secrecy
Have you seen my article on the issue of Crypto Jews?
There are lots of Jews in the southern states of America, but many of them are pretending to be Christians or atheists. If you are unaware of this, here are three articles on the history of Jews in the South:
Americans reward people who jerk themselves off into a state hysteria,
and people who behave in a rational manner are considered "cold" and "lacking
feelings". An example is this woman:
She should have been grateful that modern technology can help her father survive his heart attack, and she should have been thankful that some people are willing to become doctors and nurses, but she preferred to behave like a lunatic and risk killing other people on her hysterical race to the hospital.
A transcript of the audio
19 April 2008
The recent death of Charlton Heston inspired a lot of people to praise him for defending our right to own guns. The issue of whether citizens should own guns is more significant than it may appear. First take a look at history.
Throughout most of human history, men carried some type of defensive weapon with them. Thousands of years ago humans were among the most defenseless of creatures. There's no way a human can defend himself against a wolf, a tiger, a mountain lion, or an alligator. If ordinary house cats preyed on humans instead of mice and lizards, we would have trouble defending ourselves from those little creatures, especially if they attacked us in a group.
Our ancestors survived against the animals because they developed enough intelligence to make sharp sticks and use them as weapons, and men developed the ability to throw rocks accurately. In case you haven't noticed, human men are the only creatures that can throw an object accurately at high speed. Not even human women have this ability. This is a unique talent, but we didn't acquire this talent because some god wanted us to be good at baseball or darts.
The most sensible explanation for why only human men developed this talent is that thousands of years ago the men who were best at throwing objects were the most successful at hunting and chasing away predators. They would also have been more likely to survive a fight with the neighboring human tribes.
It's important to understand that animals are involved in a cruel and fierce competitive struggle for life. The only way one animal can live as if another animal dies. This is most obvious with carnivores, but it's also true of herbivores. When a cow eats some vegetation, it denies that vegetation for another herbivore. There isn't enough food for every animal.
Watch how wild animals behave. They never truly relax. The birds, goats, and lizards are always looking and listening and smelling for potential predators. Even the pet cats and dogs are constantly looking for potential dangers.
Thousands of years ago our ancestors were living in that same fierce, competitive struggle. Since humans are delicate and defenseless, our ancestors had to use sticks and rocks as defensive weapons. I would bet that every man thousands of years ago carried a stick or some other tool with him wherever he went.
As technology increased, the sticks were replaced with more advanced spears that had sharp rocks at the tip, and then men developed bows and arrows, and eventually metal knives and swords.
In my Dumbing Down article is a painting made in 1597. That picture shows the center of a city in Europe. Several couples are dressed very nicely and casually walking around, as if it's a Sunday morning and they're taking a leisurely stroll to the market or to visit friends. However, notice that most of the men are carrying swords.
Today it seems that almost half the American population has a gun in their house or their car, and many men secretly carry guns under their clothing. Charlton Heston was interviewed by Alex Jones many years ago, and Heston told the audience that everybody should be allowed to carry guns, even women who are taking a walk with their dog.
Charlton Heston wants everybody to be able to protect themselves and their family, just as our ancestors have been doing for thousands of years. However, technology has changed the environment that we live in. We no longer have to worry about wolves or mountain lions. Our only threat today are other humans.
During the past few centuries, some people have decided that they don't want to carry weapons, and so they've been setting up police departments and security systems to deal with the threats by humans. These people would rather have the police deal with the badly behaved people so that the citizens don't have to worry about defending themselves from other people.
The police departments haven't been doing a very good job of stopping crime, partly because so many policemen, lawyers, and judges are dishonest, but the point I want to make is that today human societies have two possible paths to take. One path is to continue the age-old policy of letting everybody carry defensive weapons so that they can protect themselves, and the other path is to design society so that police departments protect the citizens so that the citizens have no need to carry weapons.
Most people believe that we have a right to own weapons and to defend ourselves, but whether citizens should be able to carry weapons or whether the police should handle crime is not an issue of right or wrong; it's an issue of what type of society do we prefer.
Charlton Heston and millions of other people prefer a society in which people are allowed to carry defensive weapons, but I don't think they reached this conclusion after spending time researching the issue and discussing it with other people. Instead, I think their desire to carry weapons is because human emotions were designed for the vicious, competitive struggle in 10,000 B.C.
Take a look at the behavior of the animals around you. The birds and the squirrels and the dogs are constantly looking, smelling, and listening for dangers. All animals live in perpetual fear. Animals never relax.
Thousands of years ago humans also lived in fear. They lived in fear of wolves, or whatever predator was in their particular area. They also lived in fear of other humans, and they lived in fear of disease and bad weather.
The human mind hasn't changed much during the past few thousand years. Our emotions assume that we're in a deadly struggle for life. Our emotions want us to watch for danger and protect ourselves from predators. I think the reason Charlton Heston and other men want to carry weapons is because humans are still savages who have cravings to protect themselves. These men are following their emotions, not their intellect. This is why they have no intelligent arguments for carrying weapons. The men who want to carry weapons never put any intelligent thought into the issue. They're simply following their emotions.
It's important that you realize that our emotions want us to carry weapons for defense, not offense. Understanding this subtle difference will help you to understand Heston's attitude towards guns. Although there are certainly lots of psychotic and violent men who want guns in order to rob banks or kill people for pleasure, most of the men who want guns are hoping that they never have to use them. They want the guns for protection, not because they want to kill somebody.
Thousands of years ago the men carried sticks and rocks for protection against wolves and other people, but they were hoping that they would never have to use those weapons. They didn't want to encounter wolves. The men who want guns today are the same as those primitive savages. They are hoping that they never have to use their gun.
Once you realize that men want guns as an emergency defensive weapon, then you can understand why these men never use their weapons for anything of value. For example, there are millions of men in America with guns, but none of them will pick their guns up and go after the Jewish crime network. In fact, it is impossible to convince the American men to take their guns out of storage and go after Larry Silverstein, Michael Chertoff, Rahm Emanuel, and the other Jews in this crime network.
To understand why the men refuse to use their guns, imagine going back in time to 10,000 BC and trying to convince the men to pick up their sticks and rocks and follow you into the forest in order to find and kill all the wolves. The people in that era would have assumed you were crazy.
There are no animals that try to get rid of their predators. The natural tendency of every animal is to run and hide from predators.
Animals run from danger, they don't search for their enemies and try to eliminate them. If an animal is confronted by a predator, it tries to prevent a fight by making itself appear more powerful than it really is.
Humans behave exactly like animals. We hide from people or animals who frighten us. When we're confronted and forced to face our enemy, our emotions cause us to yell and appear more powerful than we really are in an attempt to intimidate our enemy into backing off and leaving us alone. Animals and humans are not inherently violent. We try to avoid fights. The yelling, hissing, and other frightening behavior that we see with animals and humans is an attempt to prevent fights.
Human men are actually cowardly creatures. This is why gangs of criminals can control millions of people. All the gang has to do is frighten the people, and millions of men will run away, even if those men have guns, and even though they could easily deal with those criminals if they wanted to.
Millions of American men are hiding from Larry Silverstein, Michael Chertoff, and other Jews in this international Jewish crime network, and many of those frightened men have guns. If only a small number of Americans could find the courage to get together and use their guns, they could easily kill all the Jews in this crime network.
They could also go after all of the corrupt lawyers, the corrupt policemen, and even the corrupt military leaders. A lot of people are afraid of military leaders, but they're just men. Military leaders and their families live among us, and they depend upon us for food, electricity, housing, and other items. They are vulnerable, and they can be killed as easily as a cockroach.
The point I'm trying to make is that millions of American men have guns, and they could use their guns to eliminate the Jewish crime network, but instead, they hide in their house like a frightened rabbit and hope that the criminals don't notice them.
Men like Charlton Heston create the impression that they're brave and courageous, and they believe that their guns are proof of their bravery. But they want the guns for defense, not to eliminate crime.
Heston and most of the other men who want guns are cowardly creatures who run from danger. There's no way we could convince them to pick up their guns and help us get rid of this organized crime gang. They don't want guns to fight criminals. They want guns for the same reason a frightened child wants his mommy to hold his hand. And when these men yell and scream at us, it's not because they're brave or courageous. It's because they're frightened, and they're behaving like a cat that's hissing and arching it's back in a desperate attempt to make itself appear large and powerful.
The only way Heston and the other men would use their guns is if they were trapped by criminals and couldn't see any way of escaping. And even then some of the men would not be able to pull the trigger.
Organized crime gangs are operating freely all over the world because humans are just like the animals who hide from danger. It would be very easy for the Americans and Europeans to get rid of the Jewish crime network, and it would be easy for the Japanese to get rid of their organized crime gangs, and the Chinese could easily get rid of their crime gangs. All we need are some men who can face the criminals instead of hiding from them like a frightened animal.
The millions of guns that the American people have are going to waste. There are lots of guns in Switzerland, also, but the men in Switzerland would never use their guns on the Jewish criminals in their banking system or their government.
When discussing the issue of whether people should be allowed to own guns, we have to ask ourselves, how has any society benefited by letting citizens own guns? Most of the men who have guns are too cowardly to face organized crime and actually use their guns. They want the guns only for emotional security. And since the men won't use their guns for anything useful, what good does it do to let them have the guns? It would be more sensible to tell them to purchase a teddy bear.
The only time most men use their guns is to shoot at streetlights, road signs, paper targets, watermelons, and empty beer cans. They cause a lot of damage to public property, and the lead bullets are adding to our problems with toxic pollution.
There are some men who want guns so that they can hunt for animals in order to provide themselves with fresh meat, but those people don't need lead bullets. They can hunt with iron bullets. Furthermore, the desire to hunt for animals might diminish if we redesign our economy so that we have access to fresh food.
I don't see any sensible reason for letting citizens have access to guns. Guns should be used only for controlling animals and law enforcement. The men who have cravings to shoot at targets don't need access to deadly guns or lead bullets. They can have competitions with much less dangerous weapons, including guns that shoot colored paint balls.
Another important issue regarding guns is the problem of organized crime. Imagine setting up a society in which there are no police departments, and instead, the citizens carry guns and take care of themselves. How would such a society be able to deal with an organized crime network?
It should be obvious that we need police departments to deal with organized crime. But if we set up an honest and effective police department, why do the citizens have to bother protecting themselves with their own guns? Why not let the police departments protect us?
Some people will respond that the citizens need guns because the police and courts are corrupt and incompetent. However, when a society has a corrupt legal system, it's idiotic to tell the citizens to purchase guns and learn how to take care of themselves. A more sensible response is to get together with other people and discuss ways to improve the legal system.
If your automobile were to break down, you wouldn't just abandon it and start walking. You would fix it, and if you didn't know how to fix it, you would take it to a mechanic who had more experience with auto repair. And if the automobile was broken beyond repair, you would purchase a new automobile and let the broken automobile be recycled.
Many people are smart enough to understand that when a product breaks, the best solution is to fix it or get a new one. We need this same attitude with social technology. The proper reaction to a corrupt legal system is either to fix it, or throw it in the trash and develop something better. Our system for selecting government officials is also corrupt and ineffective, and it's very expensive. Instead of whining about government officials and corruption, we should try to fix the system, or throw it in the trash and develop a better system.
The only way we're going to improve the world is to start experimenting with different policies towards crime, governments, voting, and other issues. We're not going to improve the world by telling people to purchase guns.
As I've mentioned in other audio files, many of the mental qualities that brought the human race to where it is today are undesirable in our era. The attitude we see with Charlton Heston is a good example. The men who promote guns may be wonderful people who are honest, responsible, and reliable, but if we were to create the type of world that they want, we would be re-creating the primitive life of 10,000 B.C. in which we live in fear of one another, and every man is on his own to take care of himself.
It's very important for you to realize that the human race doesn't have to live in fear of animals or humans any longer. We've reached a level of technology that allows us to move beyond that primitive existence. We could create a world in which it's safe for all of us - even children - to walk around our cities without weapons and without fear of crime.
We've already taken control of the animals, which is why animals are no longer a threat to us, but we haven't yet dealt with humans. As a result, people everywhere on this planet are still living in fear of other humans. At night many businesses roll down metal grates in front of their windows. Cities have streetlights everywhere in order to make people feel safe, and many businesses leave their lights on during the night in order to discourage burglaries. There are security cameras everywhere, and locks on almost every door, and there are private security forces in addition to police departments. Many women are afraid to take a walk in their own neighborhood without a dog or a container of pepper spray, or a gun, or their husband.
Men like Charlton Heston are not helping us deal with crime. Their solution to the problem of crime is to carry a gun, but this is a stupid policy for our era. A better solution is to start experimenting with different policies towards crime and try to reduce crime to such a level that we don't need to carry guns.
Since defective humans are constantly being created by birth defects, brain injuries, and possibly toxic chemicals, we won't be able to completely prevent crime. But we are certainly intelligent enough to improve upon the situation that we have today.
The human race has an opportunity that has never existed before. By dealing with the threat from both animals and humans, we could create a world in which everybody can live without fear. There has never been any species of animal that has been able to live without fear. Humans today have this opportunity.
Consider how different a city would be if we didn't have to live in fear. The city would be especially different at night. Parents would be able to let their children wander around at night without fear. Businesses wouldn't need to roll down metal grates in front of their windows, and they wouldn't need to leave their lights on during the night. The walkways and the roads wouldn't need powerful lights for illumination. They could be illuminated with small ribbons of lights, or we could use ultraviolet lights to cause markers along the pathways to glow. This would allow us to see the pathway, and it would be more decorative than the powerful lights we use today. Furthermore, by reducing the amount of visible light in the city at night, the stars would become more visible.
Charlton Heston and other men insist that we have a right to carry guns, but that argument doesn't make any sense. What is a right? A "right" is whatever you want it to be. I could say we have a right to live in a world where we don't have to be fearful of other people. I could say we have a right to live in a world without organized crime, and without corrupt policemen, and without dishonest lawyers. I could say we have a right to live in a world that doesn't need security cameras. I could say we have a right to be without fear.
We should not be discussing whether a citizen should have a right to own guns. A more sensible discussion is: what do we want the human race to become. Do we want the human race to continue living and behaving like animals?
Today we have so much technology that we don't even have to live in fear of the weather. Although we can't completely deal with tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes, we have the intelligence and the technology to design cities that can handle the most powerful rains and snow storms. And we can handle the worst droughts imaginable.
The human race has the intelligence to create a better life for itself, so why are we suffering so often from floods and snowstorms? Why are we tolerating the dishonest businessmen, the corrupt lawyers, and the organized crime gangs? Why don't we do something to make our lives better?
The answer is simply because most humans have the emotions of a primitive savage. Men like Charlton Heston are trying to take us back to 10,000 B.C. They're not interested in having a discussion about how we can improve our legal system or our voting system. They don't want to think about what's best for society. They're only interested in entertaining themselves, and their tendency is to hide from problems like a frightened animal.
Human emotions were designed for a primitive and brutal existence. We weren't designed to face danger, and we weren't designed to think in terms of what's best for society. Animals and humans are selfish creatures. Most people have no desire to design better cities or deal with crime. They're not interested in experimenting with government systems or school systems. Most people can't even carry on a serious discussion about the Holocaust or 9/11.
Most people are not brave, and they're not courageous. They're not interested in helping the human race. Instead, they're primitive savages who think only of themselves. Charlton Heston would have been a wonderful man in 10,000 B.C., but in this modern era, he and people like him are nothing more than monkeys with speech capabilities. Those people should not be influencing government, the economy, or the future of the human race.
The type of men we need today are men who can face problems and deal with them. We need men who are like gardeners. A gardener doesn't fear the weeds or the weather. A gardener realizes that he can make his garden be whatever he wants it to be. He takes control of his garden and makes it become what he pleases. If a plant dies, he replaces it. If there's a drought, he brings water in from somewhere else. If a plant grows where he doesn't want it, he removes it. The gardener makes the decisions. He doesn't live in fear of the plants or the weather.
Today we need men who can look at the Earth as a garden. We need men who realize that we can take control of this planet and we can make it become whatever we please. We can make our cities become whatever we want, and we can make our economy become anything we want. We don't have to be helpless victims of irrational and selfish consumers, or organized crime gangs, or incompetent government officials, or corrupt businessmen.
However, in order to take control of our world and transform it into something better, we need men who are more advanced than the animals. Animals simply exist from one day to the next, and they only worry about their emotional needs for the moment. Thousands of years ago it made sense for men to be selfish and arrogant, but today we need men can to work together to make a better society for all of us.
Today we need men who can stand up to the human weeds and transform this planet into a beautiful garden where everybody can live without fear. We shouldn't have to worry about crime, and we shouldn't have to worry about being cheated by businessmen or government officials. We should be able to trust the people we live with.
We have the intelligence and the technology to create a better world, and the only thing that's stopping us are the animal-like emotions inside the human mind. Most people are only interested in titillating themselves with food, television, drugs, sex, and jewelry.
If we could get a better group of people in control of the world, then we could bring a lot of improvements to it. Consider a simple issue, funerals.
When a person died in 10,000 BC, his friends and relatives may have provided him some type of simple ceremony, and they may have put his body under a pile of leaves, or buried it in the snow or the dirt.
However, during the past few centuries, businesses and organized religions have taken advantage of our emotions and have turned funerals into elaborate and expensive profit-making ventures.
This would not be a problem if we had the freedom to avoid their expensive funerals, but there is no option. The selfish and corrupt government officials have passed laws that force us to purchase some type of expensive funeral. We no longer have the option for a simple funeral. It's no longer permissible in America to give a person a simple, low-cost burial.
Businessmen, religious leaders, and corrupt government officials are stimulating people's emotions in order to manipulate them. We're not encouraged to deal with death in a serious and intelligent manner. Instead, we're encouraged to cry, feel sorry for ourselves, and get together with other people to tell emotional stories about how we loved the dead person and wish we had spent more time with them. This is similar to pornography, but instead of stimulating our sexual emotions, they're stimulating our emotions of sadness and loneliness. This should be considered as exploitation and abuse.
If we could put more responsible people in control of business and government, and if we could get rid of the organized religions, then people could be encouraged to behave in a more sensible and intelligent manner when somebody dies.
The behavior of people in regards to death is an example of two peculiar qualities of the human mind. One is that we only appreciate something when it's taken away from us. People will ignore one another while they're alive, but when somebody dies, then people get together for funerals and talk about how they wish they had spent more time with the person. The reason they never spent much time with the person while he was alive is because they didn't want to. Most people only care about another person after that person dies.
Humans have a tendency to ignore what we have and wish we had something else. We have a tendency to be unsatisfied with what we have. We want more than what we have, and we want what other people have.
A lot of people don't appreciate life until they're on the verge of death. They have to be blinded before they appreciate their eyes and beauty of the flowers and the clouds and the trees. They have to become crippled before they appreciate the ability to walk.
You can see this behavior with young children, so it's not something that we learn from other people. For example, a young child will often stop playing with his toy if it sees another child with a different toy. Instead of appreciating what he has, he will wants what the other child has.
You can see the same behavior with animals. For example, an animal can be happily eating some food, but if it notices another animal, or a human, eating something else, it will sometimes stop eating and try to get whatever the other people or animals are eating.
Adults behave the same way. We're always trying to have the same type of cars, houses, yachts, and other toys that we see other people with. We have a difficult time enjoying what we have and ignoring what the other people have.
This quality may appear to be a mental defect, but thousands of years ago this would have been a very useful quality. It helped push humans into competing with other humans. It inspired the people to compete with each other to provide their families with food and clothing and tools.
The other peculiar quality about the human mind that's very evident during funerals is that humans love to stimulate themselves. In my articles and audio files I refer to this behavior as "mental masturbation".
The people who become extremely emotional over the death of a family member believe that they become emotional because of the death, but they're deliberately stimulating themselves because they enjoy it. Some people will stimulate themselves for years.
Every one of us is going to die at some point in time, so there's no sense in becoming emotional when a person dies of old age. We should expect old people do die, not be shocked at their death and spend years crying about it.
In May of 2007 a woman was told that her father was being treated for a heart attack at the hospital. Instead of being grateful that modern technology can deal with many heart attacks, and instead of being thankful that some people have spent the time and effort to become doctors and nurses, she decided to stimulate herself into a state of panic. She also decided to drive to the hospital so that she could jerk off in front of the hospital staff.
As she was driving down the city streets at very high speed, a policeman stopped her. As he was trying to give her a ticket for speeding, she decided to drive off towards the hospital, and the policeman chased after her. He arrested her at the hospital parking lot.
If that woman had accidentally killed somebody on the way to the hospital, she would have been considered guilty of murder, but nothing happened, and so the policeman was the person who got in trouble. This is just one example that shows how American society rewards people for stimulating themselves into irrational behavior. Americans encourage each other to jerk themselves off until they've reached such a level of hysteria that they become a danger or an irritation to society.
We don't approve of people who sexually masturbate in public, but most of the world's population considers it acceptable to mentally masturbate in public. I think the reason is because most people don't have the intelligence to understand the concept of mental masturbation.
The human mind is well-suited to life in 10,000 B.C., but today we need people with more intelligence and better control of their animal-like emotions. Many of our emotions are ridiculous or detrimental in our era.
We could develop sensible policies for the disposal of dead bodies, but most people's emotions won't allow sensible policies. Our emotions want us to behave like primitive savages who get together to cry and feel sorry for themselves. A modern funerals is just a public masturbation event in which people jerk themselves off. And because our emotions cause us to be selfish, lots of businessmen and religious leaders take advantage of the situation.
We should expect old people to die, not become hysterical, and we should be thankful that there are people willing to become doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, our animal-like emotions don't want us to be rational or thankful. Our emotions want us to behave like a primitive savage.
The only way we're going to improve this world is if we can find people who are better suited to this modern era and put them into leadership positions. It's not good enough for a person to be nice or honest. Charlton Heston may have been honest and responsible, but in our era, he's just a talking monkey.
Another animal-like quality that was necessary thousands of years ago but which is causing trouble for us today is our tendency to form arrogant organizations and assume that other organizations are inferior or a potential enemy. Take a look at animals to understand this behavior. Groups of animals are constantly fighting with each other over territory. Each group assumes that their group is the only good group, and that the other groups are enemies. They can't see themselves as members of the same species. They can't work together or enjoy one another.
The fights between animals makes sense because animals reproduce excessively, and the only sensible way for stupid animals to determine which of them lives is to let them fight for life. In the long run, the animals with the best mental and physical qualities will survive.
Human emotions were designed for that brutal, competitive struggle. We have uncontrollable cravings to form groups, and we can't stop ourselves from thinking that our group is superior to other groups, and we can't stop ourselves from assuming that other groups are potential enemies.
We cannot think of ourselves as humans, and we cannot look at other people as members of the same species. Instead, we identify ourselves as members of some group, such as a nation, or a race, or a religion.
This particular emotion is extremely detrimental today. It seems to be the emotion that is primarily responsible for causing people to rush into wars with other nations. It's very difficult for us to look at people in other nations in a serious manner, or to look critically at the people within our own nation.
America, Australia, and Canada are excellent examples of this problem. How many Americans can look seriously at their relatives who left Europe? How many Australians can face the fact that they're the descendents of people who were evicted from England?
Americans can look critically at Arabs, Chinese, and Europeans, but they can't look seriously at their own ancestors and face the fact that many of us are descendents of people that we would dislike or despise if we could go back in time and meet them without realizing that they were our ancestors. Instead, Americans tend to boast that we're the descendents of Europe's best people.
We also have an very powerful emotional attraction to our children. Parents will go to tremendous extremes to protect their children, and we assume our children are better than everybody else's children. This emotion makes sense for animals. They will do anything to protect their offspring, including sacrificing their lives.
If you want to believe that there's a purpose for life, than the primary purpose of an animal is to reproduce. Nature doesn't care whether an animal enjoys life. For example, animals eat food only to keep themselves alive, not to enjoy the meal. They have vision only to help them survive, not to enjoy the flowers or a sunrise. They have sex only to reproduce, not to enjoy themselves. Animals are just biological robots.
At some point in human history, our ancestors began advancing beyond merely existing. For example, instead of stuffing food down their throats like an animal, our ancestors started getting together for meals and making their meals look attractive.
Even though humans do more than merely exist, we continue to have animal-like emotions. Unfortunately, most people can't think well enough to realize that many of these emotions are absurd today and need to be controlled. For example, adults receive tremendous pleasure when children smile and laugh, and as a result, adults purchase enormous amounts of toys, games, candies, and other products for children. The children are titillated by these products, and that causes them to smile and laugh and giggle, and that in turn titillates the adults. However, these type of products don't actually help the children.
And there are organizations in America that collect toys for poor children at Christmas, but those children don't need toys. The adults who give toys to poor children are simply stimulating their own emotions. It's similar to giving food to an animal at the zoo. Giving a toy to a poor child will titillate the child and cause him to smile, and that in turn titillates the adult. But the adult hasn't done anything to improve life for the child. And the adult hasn't done anything to make the world a better place, or deal with the issues of poverty or overpopulation.
Our craving to please children made sense to thousands of years ago because the only way to please children in that era was to provide them with something that had real value, such as food, or a soft piece of fur for them to sleep on. But today this craving to please children is causing adults to give them idiotic gifts that have no real value.
Women have such intense cravings for children that they will struggle to keep even the most hopelessly deformed child alive. Thousands of years ago this attitude made sense. The women would struggle to keep every child alive, regardless of whether it seemed defective. The women didn't have to make decisions about which child should live and which should die. The competitive struggle for life took care of that particular issue.
Today there is no competitive struggle, so almost every baby born will survive. The end result is that parents all over the world are taking care of an incredibly large and growing number of retarded babies. Some of these retards are so hopelessly deformed that they have to spend their entire lives under constant medical care. Some parents are sacrificing all of their money and their social lives in an attempt to keep the retarded children alive.
Today we need to make decisions on what to do with defective babies. Unfortunately, the majority of humans cannot discuss this issue.
Our emotional attachments to our children is so strong that many parents can't even face the fact that their own children are retarded. I've known more than one family who has a child that's either incredibly stupid or very weird or partially retarded, but the parents make idiotic excuses for their child's strange behavior. It's very difficult for people, especially women, to face the possibility that some of their children are defective.
You can even see this ridiculous behavior with some of the more intelligent
animals. For example, there are reports and photos of female monkeys carrying
around one of their dead babies for a while. Some people believe this is
simply because the monkey is stupid, but I doubt it. We sometimes see this
same behavior with female humans.
Females have a very strong attraction to their babies, and they have a difficult time facing the possibility that their baby is dead, or that their baby is retarded. It seems as if the most traumatic emotional event for a female is to witness the death or the killing of their baby.
This behavior makes sense for animals and primitive humans, but it's detrimental in our era. It would be better if women could take a serious look at their babies and notice that their babies are no better than anybody else's babies.
An American woman would become hysterical if somebody killed her baby, but she doesn't show any concern about the killing of Arab babies, or Chinese babies. This selfish, animal-like behavior is causing trouble today.
The inability of people to look seriously at their children and relatives also makes it difficult for us to deal with crime. Whenever a crime is committed, the family members of the criminal will rush to his defense and insist that he's innocent. They can't look seriously at the situation. His family members will defend him regardless of the evidence. This is not sensible behavior. This is animal behavior. These are primitive savages who are following animal-like emotions, not humans who are producing intelligent thoughts after analyzing the situation.
Animals have no need to look critically at themselves, and neither did humans thousands of years ago. However, today it's very important that people be able to look critically at themselves. You can't improve yourself, or the work you do, if you can't look critically at yourself. The arrogant people are a problem for themselves and the rest of us.
If people were capable of looking seriously at themselves and at other people, a lot of our problems would diminish. I just mentioned one example, namely that it's difficult to deal with crime because most people can't look seriously at their own family members.
Another example is employment. If people could be serious about themselves, it would be much easier for us to find jobs and employees. Two problems that employers face are the people who lie about their abilities in order to trick us into hiring them, and people who are so arrogant that they exaggerate their abilities. It would be much easier to find jobs and employees if people were less arrogant, less selfish, and more honest.
Imagine a world in which all people are capable of providing a serious description of their abilities, and imagine that people are honest about themselves. In such a case, when a business had a job available, all they would have to do is explain what the job is, and the only people who would apply for it would be those who have the ability and desire to do the job. Employers wouldn't have to wonder if any of the people were lying or exaggerating about their abilities. They wouldn't have to give them tests, or verify references, or waste time with interviews. They would simply pick whichever person they preferred to work with.
This brings up another interesting issue that society needs to make a decision about. Specifically, when a business needs to hire an employee, should they be required to select people only according to abilities, or should they be allowed to pick somebody that they want as a friend? And should businesses be allowed to fire a person who's doing his job properly simply because they decided that they didn't want him as a friend?
In America today, if a business where to turn away or fire a person simply because the other employees didn't want him as a friend, there are some situations in which that person could file a lawsuit for discrimination. But as I've mentioned many times, we have to ask ourselves, why are we living? What do we want to accomplish with our lives?
Should our main priority be producing corporate profit? Or should we be trying to achieve some arbitrary standards of political correctness? What is discrimination, and who benefits from laws against it?
What would you think if the government told you that you must select your friends from all people equally, and that you're not allowed to discriminate against people? What would you think if you selected somebody as a friend, and later decided you didn't want him as a friend any longer, and so he sued for discrimination?
We would never tolerate a policy against discrimination in regards to finding friends or spouses, so why do we tolerate with employment? Our jobs are a significant aspect of our lives. Our lives would be noticeably more pleasurable if we could work among people we enjoyed being with.
Discrimination is considered to be bad, but what exactly is bad about it? We already discriminate with friends and spouses, but nobody is suffering as a result of that discrimination. If one person doesn't want us as a friend, we find somebody else. There's no sense being friends with somebody who doesn't want us as a friend. And there's no sense marrying a person who doesn't want us as a spouse.
The same concept could be applied to businesses because businesses are just groups of people, and within large businesses are departments that are also groups of people. If we allow businesses to discriminate against us, one particular department or business may not want to hire us, but there will be other departments or businesses that will accept us. Nobody would suffer. In fact, it would be more pleasurable if we worked among people that we enjoyed being with and who wanted us to work with them. There's no sense working with people who don't like us.
Because jobs are such a big part of our lives, I think the best policy is to allow people to work among people they enjoy. A lot of the work we do is monotonous or annoying, but going to work each day would be pleasurable if we could work with people we like. The attitude in America is that money is the primary source of happiness, but that's nonsense. People are the most important part of our lives. Life would be more satisfying for all of us if every department and every business was allowed to set up a team of people that they enjoy being with so that we enjoy going to work.
I suppose the people who fear discrimination have a low opinion of themselves and assume that nobody would want to hire them. However, that fear is ridiculous. It's as silly as a person worrying that nobody will want him as a friend or a spouse. There certainly are some people who are so bizarre that nobody wants them as a friend, but those people will have trouble even with laws that prohibit discrimination.
We could apply this same concept to neighborhoods, or apartment buildings, or even entire cities. Why not let the people in a neighborhood or an apartment building where city discriminate against who lives with them? And why can't we evict people from a neighborhood or a city if we decide we don't want them living with us?
American cities are a good example of what happens when we try to stop discrimination. Our cities are very unfriendly. Neighbors don't know or like one another. Sometimes we don't even speak the same language as our neighbors. Who benefits from this?
If neighborhoods or cities were allowed to discriminate, then people who are similar to one another would end up living together, and who would be harmed by that?
Our natural tendency is to live and work among people we enjoy, and you can see this is happening in America despite our laws against discrimination. There are already neighborhoods that are dominated by Chinese, or Koreans, or Mexicans, or Caucasians. Nobody in America is suffering because some Chinese people are living together in a neighborhood of San Francisco. In fact, we consider it to be a tourist attraction and we refer to it as Chinatown.
I suppose the reason the concept of discrimination has a bad image is because it reminds people of the Southern states in America in which the black Americans were forced to use different water fountains and bathrooms and doorways. I wouldn't describe what those southern states were doing as discrimination, however. I would describe it as abuse.
To understand the difference, imagine if the Chinese people in Chinatown were to treat non-Chinese people as inferior species and force us to use different and inferior bathrooms and drink from different and inferior water fountains. I wouldn't use the word discrimination to describe that particular behavior. In such a case I would say the Chinese were behaving in an arrogant and abusive manner.
If a group of Chinese people simply want to live and work among one another, and that they treat the rest of us as humans, they're not causing trouble for anybody. And if they want to dress like Chinese, and eat Chinese food, and have Chinese artwork in their homes, that behavior wouldn't cause any trouble for anybody, either.
Its detrimental if we allow a group of people to use another group as slaves or if we allow them to treat other people as inferior species, and it's detrimental when people make sarcastic remarks about people who eat different foods, or who dress in different styles. I often hear Americans insult Europeans for eating horses, and insulting the Chinese for eating cats and dogs, and insulting the Hindus for not eating cows. And I often hear Americans criticizing other people's religions as inferior to Christianity.
Discrimination doesn't cause trouble, but this animal-like arrogance that we are superior and that everybody else is inferior is detrimental, and it encourages fights between different groups of people.
There's nothing wrong with allowing different groups of people to have different clothing styles, artwork, food, and lifestyles. We don't have to be identical, unisex creatures. There's nothing wrong with discrimination. There's nothing wrong with setting up a world so that people are allowed to live and work among people they enjoy being with.
It's true that some people never find a spouse or a friend. But the solution to loneliness is not to force people to accept you as friend. The solution is to redesign society so that it's easier for us to meet people.
The same is true with jobs. If we allow employers to discriminate, some people may have trouble finding a job, and some people may get fired frequently. But the solution is not to force employers to accept people they dislike. The solution is to change society so that it's easy for people to find jobs so that everybody eventually finds a job around people they enjoy being with.
The same concept applies to neighborhoods, and even entire cities. If we made it easy to find a place to live, then people wouldn't have to worry about finding a home. Instead, they could look for a neighborhood that has people they want to live with. The idea that some people would never be able to find a place to live is ridiculous. Nobody is so strange that there aren't other people similar to them.
We already have discrimination occurring right now in some neighborhoods on a small scale. For example, some neighborhoods have been designed for retired people, so they discriminate against everybody under a certain age. And there are some neighborhoods that prohibit pets, and some neighborhoods don't allow people to park boats or trailers in the neighborhood. Nobody is suffering because these neighborhoods are discriminating against certain people.
There's a tremendous effort in America to force everybody to become identical unisex creature, but why should we be identical? Why does everybody have to dress the same way, eat the same food, and live the same life? How would any of us suffer if different neighborhoods or different cities have different lifestyles? Who benefits by forcing everybody to mix together and behave in exactly the same manner?
This same concept applies to men and women. If a group of men don't want to work with women, why can't they discriminate against women? And why can't women discriminate against men?
We're no longer primitive savages who have to struggle each day for food. Today we can do more than merely exist. We have tremendous opportunities available to us. We could easily set up a world in which we live and work among people we enjoy. Our modern transportation devices make it very easy for us to move from one neighborhood to another, so it would be very easy for us to find jobs and neighborhoods that we want enjoy. Instead of merely surviving like dumb animals, we could create a world that we actually like.
In my social technology articles I mentioned one possible way we could achieve this type of situation. I described a world of thousands of small, semi-independent nations that set their own standards for behavior. We may never live to see such a world, but I mentioned it as an example of how we have unlimited opportunities available to us.
However, my suggestion to allow businesses to discriminate against employees would be impractical today because it's so difficult for us to find jobs. In order for this policy to be acceptable, we would have to make it effortless for people to find jobs.
I started to talk about this issue in my audio file for February 27, 2008. I pointed out that if a person in the military is not performing properly at his job, his boss will assign him to another job rather then send him home and tell him to collect unemployment insurance while he looks for another position.
Imagine if we had an honest government that behaved in the same manner. Imagine that our government helps us to find jobs, and if we don't like a particular job, or if we're not doing any good at it, the government will help us to find another one.
In this imaginary scenario, we would never have to search through advertisements, or contact private companies, or send out resumes. The government employment agency would have our job history, school records, police records, and everything else about us.
When a business needed an employee, they could either look through the database by themselves, or they could ask the government to look through it and suggest some people. In either case, the business would have access to everybody's job history, so we wouldn't have to fill out applications over and over.
However, this type of system wouldn't work with a nation of dishonest, neurotic, or selfish people. Take a look at some of the people in the world right now. There are religious fanatics who discriminate against people who are not the same religion, especially Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish, and the Scientologists, and if any of those religious fanatics were in a government employment office, they would be likely to give special preference to people who follow their particular religion.
And there are angry women who are convinced that men are sexist, and they would likely give preference to women in order to compensate for the thousands of years of abuse that women have suffered from. There are people of different races who would discriminate against other races.
And don't forget about the Jews who believe that they are the superior species. They cheat us and discriminate against us right now, and they would certainly continue this abuse if they were working in a government employment agency. They would give the important jobs to other Jews, and they would be able to acquire even more control over the nation than they have right now.
This brings me back to a concept I stress repeatedly. Specifically, the better behaved a group of people are, the more options they have available to themselves. Conversely, a nation of savages, criminals, retards, and freaks can't do much of anything except live like animals.
A government employment agency would be like a national ID card. Both services would be wonderful for honest, responsible people because it would simplify our lives, but those services would be terrible for a group of freaks because it would allow organized crime gangs to get more control over the nation.
If every human on the planet was honest and responsible, we wouldn't have any need for security cameras, locks, passwords, or police. We wouldn't have to hide any of our personal information, either. All of our medical records, dental records, school records, DNA information, and other personal information could be maintained in a government database that the entire world had access to. Nobody would have to worry about somebody using the data for diabolical purposes. We could use such a database to help people find jobs, and it would be useful for all sorts of analyses, such as for medical research.
For example, if the medical records for everybody was in a public database, some researcher might notice that certain types of health problems are more common in certain areas of the world. This would help us to understand which health problems are caused by chemicals, genetics, diet, sports, and radiation.
There's a widespread attitude that medical records and other information should be kept secret, but how are you protected by that type of secrecy? Thousands of years ago there was no secrecy. People knew everything about one another. They didn't even have bathrooms to hide in.
It might help if we made a distinction between privacy and secrecy. We could define privacy as the freedom to hide the activities that don't harm anybody else. And we could define secrecy as the attempt to hide activities that adversely affect other people. With these definitions, everybody deserves privacy, but nobody deserves secrecy.
For example, when you close the door to a bathroom, or your house, we could say that you are providing yourself with privacy, and we could say that you have a right to that privacy because what you do in your own home or with your friends doesn't hurt anybody else, so we have no justification to observe you or know what you're doing.
However, if two people get together to plan a burglary, their attempt to prevent us from knowing what they're talking about would be described as secrecy, not as privacy, because what they do interferes with the lives of other people.
People in leadership positions deserve privacy just like the rest of us, but we should know who they're associating with and what they talk about. There are only a few people in the government that can truly justify keeping some of their conversations a secret on the grounds of national security or law enforcement. The majority of government employees have no reason to keep secrets from us.
Now consider how these definitions apply to a national database. Should a person be allowed to hide his medical records, police records, and other information on the grounds that it's private information that has no significance to society? Before you try answering that question let me mention two important aspects of this issue.
First of all, most people don't care about your personal information. Everybody, especially men, like to imagine themselves as being so important and so admired that the entire world wants to know the details of their life, but in reality most people are so insignificant that nobody would waste their time looking at their personal information.
Second, and most important, the people might likely to be interested in information about you are your potential friends, spouses, and employers. I would say that when you planning on forming a relationship with another person, they have a right to know who you are and what you've done during your life. I would say you do not have a right to hide your past or deceive us about who you really are.
We have to ask ourselves, what do we want the human race to become? Do we want a world in which people are allowed to create false images of themselves? Who among us would benefit from this type of secrecy and deception? It should be obvious that the only people who would benefit are the people who have something to hide.
The issue is especially significant for people in leadership positions. The reason people can conspire to conduct such phenomenal crimes as 9/11 and the world wars is because we allow our leaders to have phenomenal levels of secrecy. For example, we have no idea what Michael Chertoff does each day, or who he associates with. We don't even know how many people in our government are working for Israel.
We don't know anything about the people in control of our media, our schools, or our police departments. We're not merely providing our leaders with privacy; instead we're providing people with so much secrecy that a Jewish crime network can take control of our nation and we don't even notice.
Some people worry that a database of personal information might be used by organized crime gangs. Ironically, this particular problem is not resolved by hiding information. Instead, the solution is to do the exact opposite. We should release information about people so that we get identify and get rid of the dishonest people in our law enforcement agencies and legal system. Hiding information doesn't help us. It helps the criminals.
A database of information would help us determine who should be put into a leadership position, and it would make it easier for us to figure out who we can trust and who we want as a friend or a spouse or a business partner.
Consider the mysterious people on the Internet who criticize me. One of them says he's a man in Norway, and he's exposing me as a Zionist Jew. If you were to see his messages or the video he produced, you might assume that you are listening to an intelligent man who has discovered that I'm actually a Jew.
However, before this man began exposing me, he contacted me by e-mail and was very friendly. He tried to convince me to take a trip to Thailand to have sex. Weeks later he went to Thailand for such a trip, and when he arrived back home he sent me a link to some photos of the girls he had sex with. When I continued to show no interest in going to Thailand, he stopped talking to me and began exposing me as a Zionist Jew.
Year after year the people in the so-called truth movement have turned out to be drug addicts, pedophiles, criminals, and other weirdos. But on the Internet they are anonymous, and they can easily fool millions of people into believing that they're honest, wonderful people who are struggling to expose crime.
The Internet is not providing these people with privacy; rather, it's providing them with the secrecy to hide who they really are and who they associate with.
Consider Alex Jones. Take a look at all of the important and famous people he's interviewed over the past ten years, such as a member of the Rothschild family, Hollywood stars, and high-level government officials in Japan and Germany. We don't know much about Jones, but he occasionally talks about his life, and he appears to be an ordinary person who's been in an unusual amount of fistfights. Why are so many important people willing to be interviewed by an ordinary person who seems prone to violence?
And who is Daryl Smith? He claims to be an honest, patriotic American military veteran who wants to expose corruption. And I'm frequently asked if I know who creates the website judicial-inc.biz, or who made the video Zeitgeist, or who Michael Hoffman II is.
If we had access to a database of information about everybody, then we could have a better idea of what type of person Alex Jones really is, and who the people are that he interviews, and we would be able to look at Smith's military and medical records to find out if Smith is telling us the truth about his medical history and his health problems.
It's acceptable to provide Smith and Jones and other people with privacy, but these people are trying to influence the world, and so they're not ordinary people any longer. They have voluntarily climbed onto a pedestal and they're trying to convince us that they know more than the rest of us, and that we should follow them. I say we have a responsibility to investigate the people who are trying to control our lives. We should not allow them to have the secrecy to hide their associations with other people, and they should not be able to hide their criminal history, or their military records, or even their medical records. I say we have the responsibility to ensure that the people we follow are honest and in good mental health.
You probably have high standards for your drinking water. You would never drink water from a sewer, for example. But what about your standards for information? Do you care where your information comes from?
Take a look at what we now know about some of the people in this so called "truth movement". Take a look at how violent, psychotic, and dishonest some of them have turned out to be. If you visualize these people as horrible creatures that live in a sewer, it might be easier for you to understand that we're fools to blindly accept the propaganda that comes from their filthy mouths, and put it into our minds.
We also don't know much about the people at CBS, the BBC, and other news agencies, but it's obvious that the media companies are lying to us. The people in the media should also be visualized as disgusting creatures in a sewer. We're fools to accept information from these dishonest news agencies.
Secrecy is not helping us. Secrecy allows crime networks to thrive, and it allows people with defective brains to hide their disorders and trick us into marrying them, giving them jobs, and accepting them as leaders.
When Jimmy Carter was president, he gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Why did Jimmy Carter make this decision? And who in Panama was he giving the canal to? We're fools to allow mysterious and secretive American government officials to give the canal to another mysterious and secretive government. When you consider how many crimes the Jews are involved with, we ought to consider the possibility that President Carter was forced by the Jews into giving the canal to Panama because the Jews have control of Panama. This would allow the Jews to use the canal for money laundering and as a shipping center for illegal products, plus they can profit from the canal, and they might be able to use the canal as a way to bribe other nations.
Secrecy is also the reason that Crypto Jews exist. The Jews can easily pretend to be Christians, or Muslims, or atheists. The secrecy we provide everybody prevents us from investigating the people in leadership positions, so we have no idea who our leaders really are, or who they associate with.
Somebody recently pointed out to me that there's lots of Jews in the southern states of America, but not many people think of the Southern states as having Jews. If you want more information about it, I'll put some links to a few sites that provide some of the history of Jews in the southern states. Don't forget that Jews seem to be the primary slave traders of the world, and they also seem to be the world's primary con artists, and the South has been full of slave traders and con artists for centuries. The South is also where we find that organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is just a Jewish propaganda center.
The only way to improve the world is to put better people into positions of importance, but how can we do that if we're not allowed to take a close look everybody who wants to be leader? We have to stop the secrecy. We have to prevent people from deceiving us about who they really are and who they associate with.
Even if we do get a better group of people in control of society, we'll continue to have problems because no matter who we get, they will be human, but we can certainly improve upon the situation that we have today.
Important message below:
Nobody promotes me or Christopher Bollyn,
except ordinary people like yourself,
so tell people about us.
Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: