A transcript of the audio
(with some additional links)
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
This is part 2 of the audio file that I started on May 30.
In part one I discussed how we ignore orphans, which allows them to
suffer a miserable life, and yesterday somebody sent me links to news reports
about a police investigation into the reform schools run by the Catholic
Church in Ireland. The investigation showed that more than 200 schools
were involved with the abuse and rape of thousands of orphans and other
The news reports point out that none of the people involved with the abuse will be identified. Therefore, some or all of them may continue raping and abusing the children. Ireland's president, who's a woman, said that she and her brothers went to the Christian schools, and she admitted that she and other children knew of the abuse of the unwanted children.
As I mentioned in part 1, it upsets us to think that unwanted children are suffering, but we really don't care about them. We want to push them out of our lives and ignore them. In prehistoric times, this resulted in their death, but today we put them in orphanages, or other schools, which allows religious and government officials to beat them and use them as sex toys. If we don't change our policies, these rapes and beatings will continue for millions of years.
The people who oppose abortions claim to love life so much that they can't tolerate the killing of a fetus, but they don't care if the fetus they save from death ends up in an orphanage and is then routinely raped and beaten by government or church officials. They don't really care about the fetuses.
It's also interesting that the antiabortion people direct their anger towards the doctors rather than to the women, and rarely to the fathers. Perhaps it's because the most fanatical anti-abortion activists are men, and they don't want to face the fact that men are partly responsible for babies.
In fact, Scott Roeder, one of those fanatical anti-abortionists, just
murdered another doctor, George Tiller, a couple days ago. This morning
there are lots of news reports with details on Roeder. He's described as
a mentally ill man with previous convictions and jail time, and he had
a fanatical attraction to the Old Testament.
Roeder is another example of how we foolishly believe that we can fix a person's mental problems by punishing him.
I also find it peculiar that a lot of the so-called truth seekers also condemn abortions while supporting the killing of doctors. Daryl Smith, for example, put a link to a news article about that murder and described it as: "Baby Killer Killed"
Smith could have described it as "Doctor Murdered by Retard", but Smith and many others prefer to describe the doctor as a “baby killer”, and they imply that Scott Roeder is a hero for getting rid of another murderous doctor.
The Zionists are instigating wars, murdering people, kidnapping people, and committing lots of other crimes, so why would such incredibly violent and disgusting creatures care about a fetus?
Years ago I assumed that the Zionists were only pretending to oppose abortion in order to attract the people who oppose abortion. Also, since most abortions are of retarded or stupid babies, I assumed that the Zionists were trying to increase the number of freaks in order to cause our nations, and races, to degrade.
However, after getting to know some of the people that we call truth seekers, I wonder if they oppose abortions because they realize that we consider them to be criminals, drug addicts, retards, and parasites, and if we had better DNA tests to identify defective babies, and if abortion was a safe and simple procedure, then many of those truth seekers would have been aborted.
Anyway, I ended part 1 by discussing the beating of Anthony Warren, and I had a few other comments to make about that issue.
If we look at the situation the way zoologists look at monkeys, we could describe it as a man who is low in the social hierarchy trying to kill a man who was above him. Animals and humans are very concerned about their social status. Men are especially concerned about their position in the hierarchy. We are constantly struggling with one another for dominance. And we consider the men below us to be inferior.
When animals low in the hierarchy attack animals above them, they're attacked. And if a man 50,000 years ago tried to kill a man above him in the hierarchy, the other men might have killed him or driven him out of their group rather than hit him a few times with a stick and then let him demand compensation for the abuse.
This is not a new concept. In fact, America's legal system was designed to counteract these emotions. The men who designed our legal system realized that we have a natural tendency to give special treatment to people in leadership positions, and this allows men in leadership positions to get away with crimes.
And since we're biased against people who are low in the hierarchy, they might be convicted of a crime they didn't commit simply because of these emotions.
So to reduce bias, America's legal system was designed to focus on the crime and hide or minimize the person's social status and history. Unfortunately, telling a judge or a jury to ignore a person's social status is like telling women to stop being attracted to babies. We cannot turn off our emotions.
The Jewish crime network takes advantage of this emotion by arranging for freaks to take the blame for crimes. When a loser is accused of a crime, we don't need much evidence to convict him, and we don't bother to look closely enough at the crime to realize that he's too dumb to have committed the crime.
This emotion is useful for animals because the animals that are high in the hierarchy are those that earned their position. Animals cannot become leaders through inheritances, crime, bribery, or what we refer to as brown-nosing.
In prehistoric times, the men also earned their position. But during the past few thousands of years, men have been getting into positions of leadership through crime and parasitic methods. As a result, our emotions are no longer appropriate. We have to stop behaving like stupid animals. Today we have to be critical of people in leadership positions, and we have to consider the possibility that some ordinary people are actually better behaved and more talented than our leaders.
However, we cannot simply tell a jury to ignore a person's social status. People have to be educated about how their emotions are influencing their behavior, and the people who don't seem to have much control over their emotions should be prohibited from passing judgment on who is guilty and who is innocent.
In part 1 of this file I said that people who can't handle the 9/11 attack shouldn't be allowed to vote, and now I'd like to say that people who can't do a serious analysis of our leaders shouldn't be allowed to pass judgment on anybody's life.
Did you notice how many Republicans were incapable of looking critically at President George Bush? Today we have Democrats who are incapable of looking critically at President Obama. These people are behaving like stupid animals who mindlessly follow their leader. They shouldn't be allowed to pass judgment on any of us.
During the past few thousand years, crime has been increasing, and one of the most significant changes is that crime is becoming extreme among people in leadership positions. Just look right now at the businessmen in the banking and financial markets. They're committing crimes of staggering proportions.
Most people are so much like animals that they will complain when a waitress, who is low in the social hierarchy, doesn't pamper them properly, but they do nothing when government officials commit phenomenal crimes that cause the deaths or suffering of millions of people.
The theory that we will provide ourselves with fair trials by selecting people at random for a jury is as idiotic as the theory that we will provide ourselves with a good government by letting everybody vote. The only people who should be influencing society or passing judgment on which of us is guilty of a crime, are those who have shown an ability to face our problems, control their emotions, and produce intelligent opinions. The majority of people should be told to keep their mouth shut.
Every society has been trying to stop crime by creating laws and then punishing the people who violate the laws. This policy hasn't done anything to help us understand or reduce crime. It has a 100% failure rate, but every society continues to follow it.
One of the problems we face today is that many of our government officials are involved with crime, so we're fools to expect them to help us stop crime. The FBI, for example, has been protecting organized crime ever since their agency was created. Everybody in the FBI needs to be investigated, but since they're part of our government, they can easily prevent people from investigating them.
We have to start experimenting with different policies towards crime. And it is very important for us to stop giving special treatment to people in leadership positions.
We also have to develop policies to deal with businessmen who are following the laws, but who are not contributing to society. For example, during the past few months I received a few letters from the California Department of Healthcare Services in Sacramento, California. At the top of the letter is one of the official logos of California, and underneath it says Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor. It appears to be an official letter from the state of California. But it's actually coming from a private business.
These type of businessmen are obeying the law, but they they should be classified as con artists. If enough people complain about the companies that do this, our government will pass a law to make what they do illegal. But the con artists will respond by changing what they do so that it becomes technically legal. The government might respond by passing another law, but the con artists merely look for a way to circumvent that new law.
This type of battle has been going on between businessmen and government officials for centuries. We can't win this type of battle. We have to change our attitudes towards business and crime. As I described in other documents and audio files, my suggestion is to judge businessmen according to whether they contribute to society, not according to whether they follow the laws, and we should remove the businessmen who aren't improving society. The men who don't help society should be removed from positions of leadership, even if they are very nice and honest.
You wouldn't let a dentist work on your teeth simply because he was nice or honest. You expect dentists to bring improvements to your teeth. Likewise, we should expect businessmen to improve society, and if they can't, they should be considered incompetent and removed from their position. We should judge people according to their effect on society.
We also have to deal with crimes that are so clever that most people don't realize that a crime has been committed. For example, the Zionist Jews are trying to make it illegal to deny the Holocaust, commit hate crimes, and be anti-Semitic. Europe's laws against Holocaust denial are not real laws; rather, they are Jewish tricks to stop people from exposing Jewish crimes during World War II.
The Jews who propose these laws are con artists, and their laws against Holocaust denial are actually crimes, not laws, but how many people can understand this concept?
Thousands of years ago the troublemakers would occasionally cause men to lose their temper, and that would sometimes result in them being killed or driven from society. Today we want men, especially policemen, to suppress their temper. I agree that society is better when men remain calm and rational, but we have to realize that our temper developed for a reason. Men don't have violent rages because of the devil or because of ignorance. This emotion allowed men to kill the troublemakers, including their own children. Therefore, when we suppress our temper, we have to deal with the troublemakers in some other manner. We can't simply ignore this issue. A lot of freaks that are alive today would have been killed if men had been allowed to lose their temper.
Our physical and mental qualities developed for a reason. We can't suppress an emotion without considering the consequences. We may have to compensate for it.
It might be easier to understand this concept when you consider the issue of hair under our arms. During the past century it has become fashionable for women to remove that hair, but that hair developed to prevent the skin from rubbing against itself. Therefore, there are consequences for removing it.
Sure, we can survive without that hair, and boys will survive circumcision, and we will even survive if we remove a kidney, or one of our eyes, and some of our fingers. However, we have to consider the consequences of removing parts of our body.
Likewise, there's a sensible reason that men lose their temper, and since we now tell them to stop it, we have to deal with the troublemakers in some other manner. Another interesting example of this concept occurred near the end of 2008 when a teenage girl called 911 for an ambulance because her father was having some type of medical problem, and the 911 operator lost his temper and hung up the phone a few times.
I listened to that phone call, which is on the Internet, and I would
describe her as a rude and disgusting person. It even resembles a prank
This incident brings up two important issues. The first is that ever since I was a child, I've been grateful that other people are willing to do jobs and learn skills that make my life nicer. For example, many years ago the Mexicans who harvested strawberries complained that it's a very difficult job, and they wanted to be paid higher wages. A lot of people complained about the selfish Mexicans demanding more money, and that strawberries would become too expensive to afford. However, I was grateful that the Mexicans were willing to do the job. Most of us wouldn't be willing to spend our life harvesting strawberries. And giving them a pay raise would increase the price of strawberries by only a small amount, so why were so many people complaining about the greedy Mexicans?
Most people have the same attitude as that teenage girl who was rude to the 911 operator. Her attitude was that she was a goddess, and when she wanted an ambulance, then the lowly peasants better bring her an ambulance immediately, regardless of how she treats them.
Millions of people love to promote themselves as sweet and innocent Underdogs who are abused by arrogant and selfish rich people or corporations, but the main reason people end up in that Underdog category is because they have mental disorders. They're not victims of aristocrats or corporations or the military-industrial establishment. They're victims of their own mental problems.
As I explain in my Sheeple Psychology articles, each of us is responsible for our life. When we fail to achieve a goal, our natural tendency is to behave like an arrogant jerk and blame our failure on somebody else, and it's true that occasionally we are cheated, robbed, and abused. However, people who are perpetually having troubles are suffering because of their mental or physical disorders.
A few days ago the Zionist agent Benjamin Fulford was on the Jeff Rense radio show, and he was once again promoting the idea that the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and other wealthy people who are abusing the world should give up and spread the wealth around so that we can eliminate poverty and suffering. He said that they have so much money that we could all be wealthy if their money was evenly distributed.
Fulford is using the same trick that the Marxists use. He's trying to attract the attention of poor people by promising to distribute the wealth of the rich people. If the world is foolish enough to accept his proposal, the Jewish crime network would continue to exist. His solution to the crime network is actually just a clever form of bribery.
However, you might find it helpful to consider what would happen if all the world's wealth was divided evenly among everybody. And imagine that there is so much money that we all end up with $1 million. How would life change for the poor people if each of them had $1 million? Would they stop drinking or gambling? Would they clean up their homes or their yards or remove the trash that's inside their cars? Would they stop fighting with one another and treat other people with respect?
Most people assume that having more money will make their lives better, but you can easily determine that this concept is false simply by noticing that the poor people of today are already extremely wealthy by comparison to people of the previous century, and they are wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of people 1000 years ago.
The poor people of today could be living in clean neighborhoods with beautiful gardens, and they could be treating one another with decency, but many of them have gambling or alcohol problems, many of them are sloppy or stupid, and many of them have trouble forming stable relationships. Giving them money will not fix their problems. The money will only turn them into wealthy slobs, wealthy alcoholics, and wealthy jerks.
The poor people of the future will have medical and dental technology that we can't imagine, and they will have computers and robots that are beyond anything we are wishing for, and they will have access to foods, transportation devices, and other technology that we can't imagine. However, those poor people in the future will be nothing more than wealthy versions of the poor people in the world today. Even with their phenomenal wealth, they will continue to have problems with alcohol, gambling, and relationships. And they will complain about their poverty, and that they are being abused by aristocrats and corporations.
You might find it interesting to imagine traveling a thousand years into the future and watching poor people with phenomenal wealth crying about their poverty.
You should also notice how many wealthy people in the world today are cheating the rest of us because they don't believe they have enough money to enjoy life. And then consider that in the future the wealthy people will have even more money, but they will also be commiting crimes because they'll also be convinced that they don't have enough money to be happy.
It's important to understand that your life is what you make it. If you're miserable, it's not because of a lack of money or fame, and is not because aristocrats are abusive to you. It's because of your mind and your attitude. Children are forced to follow orders, and so some children can truly make the statement that they are abused by other people, but adults have the freedom to choose their own attitude and their own life.
Consider how this concept applies to the criminal Jews. Some people assume that lots of Jews are involved with crime because they were raised on a religion that teaches them that they are the superior species, and that the rest of us are animals who deserve to be cheated and abused. Sure, many Jews are raised on this attitude, but nobody is forcing any Jew to continue following it after they've grown up. If a Jew was disgusted with this attitude, he would abandon it.
Life is like a smorgasbord. We're exposed to lots of different religions and philosophies and lifestyles. You are attracted to some and disgusted by others.
Are the men who join The North American Man Boy Love Association picking up pedophilia attitudes from the organization? Or are pedophiles attracted to that organization?
I discussed this concept in one of my other audio files, using my mother as an example. My mother was raised as a Catholic, but during her teenage years she started losing interest in the Catholic Church. The god of the Catholic Church is an obnoxious man who is vengeful, violent, and hateful. Some people are attracted to such angry religions, but my mother isn't. My mother is very pleasant, and she wants to associate with people who are pleasant. She's not attracted to a vicious, obnoxious god who has violent temper tantrums and tortures people in Hell for trillions of years.
And have you ever looked at the Old Testament? I think the God of the Old Testament is even more disgusting than the God of the New Testament. Who would be attracted to such a horrible, violent religion? I don't think it's a coincidence that Scott Roeder, who murdered an abortion doctor, had a strong attraction to the Old Testament.
So, are Jews behaving badly because their religion gave them a bad attitude? Or, are disgusting people attracted to disgusting philosophies?
Once you understand that you are responsible for your life, you can see that the troublemakers of society are not victims of poverty or aristocrats or religion. Rather, they behave badly because they want to.
Years ago on television I saw a homosexual man with AIDS yelling during some type of protest that the scientists and government officials weren't doing enough to find a cure for AIDS. At the time I hadn't heard the rumors that AIDS may be a hoax or a manufactured disease, but I was thinking that if I was a medical scientist, people like that man would be taking away my motivation to look for a cure for AIDS. I felt like telling that homosexual that he should learn biology and help understand the disease rather than demand other people to work harder for him.
I've always been grateful that there are people who are willing to grow food, become a dentist, and provide us with electricity. It may seem strange to hear me say that I'm grateful to people when you consider how often I refer to people as talking monkeys, but if that confuses you, consider how many times I've described animals as stupid and selfish, and I consider plants to be completely lacking intelligence, but I love plants. And even though I don't want animals living in my home, and I don't want certain animals living in my city, I'm not abusive to animals.
Likewise, even though I consider most people to be incapable of coping with modern life, I'm not rude or abusive to them, and I appreciate many of them.
The second aspect of that teenage girl's behavior that I wanted to mention is that expect the police and certain other people to control themselves, but we allow the ordinary citizens to be hysterical, rude, angry, and obnoxious. Sometimes we let the badly behaved people file lawsuits and become wealthy.
Why should we have two different standards of behavior? Why not tell everybody to behave in a respectable manner? Why should the police be the only people who have to control themselves?
In one of my other files I pointed out that we have a double standard in regards to defending the nation from attack. Specifically, we refer to most people as civilians, and they have no responsibility to protect the nation, but the military is expected to protect us, and they can get in trouble for running away from the enemy.
This double standard is giving the ordinary citizens an excuse to do nothing to help society. I think a better policy would be to tell every man that he must behave in a respectable manner, contribute to society, and do what he can do to help us with our problems.
I'm willing to allow people to avoid responsibility, but only if we can classify them as second-class citizens, and prevent them from voting, influencing society, and reproducing.
A lot of people want us to consider everybody to be equal, but if we're all equal, then why are citizens allowed to be selfish, obnoxious, and irresponsible? It reminds me of that expression that all people are equal, but citizens are more equal than the police.
By the way, it seems to me that the people who are the quickest to condemn the police are the Zionist Jews. For example, Jason Bermas, who is a small version of Alex Jones, used the incident with the teenage girl to make the police look like lunatics. He made this remark on May 8, 2009:
She's trying to get an ambulance for her father. You don't hang up on somebody who's calling 911 for an ambulance. Give me a break. And this just shows how out of control the police officers are; how they're on power trips.
If we wander into a forest and get lost, society doesn't have an obligation to find us. If we hurt ourselves while doing some idiotic stunt, doctors don't have to stop what they're doing to give us special medical attention.
Furthermore, society should not feel any obligation to provide medical attention to criminals after they get shot by the police, or after their car crashes, or after they hurt one another.
We have to control the emotion that causes us to feel sorry for people. Feeling sorry for misfits, criminals, and freaks doesn't help them, and it doesn't help us. Actually, it hurts us - and the human gene pool - when we pamper the defective people.
My suggestion is that we set up a special city for misfits so that they don't bother the rest of us. If you think my plan is cruel, perhaps you should spend some time imagining how nice it would be to live in a city in which all of the misfits have been removed and everybody in the city behaves in respectable manner and contributes to society. And imagine that every time a troublemaker appears, the police quietly send him to some other city to live.
Why should we force ourselves to live among people who cause trouble, or who we simply don't like? Why should we tolerate bad or wierd behavior?
There's no rule of the universe that requires us to tolerate badly behaved people. It's our choice whether we want to tolerate these people.
The only frightening aspect about killing and exiling criminals is that if our police and government are under the control of organized crime, then instead of removing criminals, they'll get rid of those of us who oppose their crime network.
This is a very serious dilemma. Who will watch over the police and government and make sure that they're honest? And who will watch over the people who are watching over them? This is a difficult problem to solve because the only people available to do this job are humans. So, what should we do about it?
In one of the articles at my philosophy page I asked what you would be willing to sacrifice in order to stop the wars and the incredible amount of technical talent and resources that are going into weapons. I don't think there's any simple way to improve the world. I think we have to make some very significant changes to human life.
And I suggested that we get rid of nations and set up cities as semi-independent nations. Each city would set standards of behavior and control immigration so that they can become slightly different from one another. And we would create some special cities to dump the misfits that nobody wants.
Of course, if we can find enough men who are capable of facing and discussing these issues, we might develop some other proposals that I like even better. But my point is that I think we have to make some significant changes to our lives in order to bring about significant improvements to the world.
My suggestion to improve the world is to start by making just one city because we are certain to make a lot of mistakes the first time we do this. We would design a city for perhaps 50,000 people. It would be on its own plot of land so that it's isolated from all other cities. Immigration to the new city would be by invitation only.
It would be a real-life experiment for us to test a new government system, a new economic system, and other social systems. I would also suggest experimenting with a different transportation system so that we can avoid the current automobiles.
The lessons we learned from that first city would enable us to build an even better city. And then we would build a third city, and so on. Meanwhile, we would let the existing cities deteriorate, and they would slowly be demolished to make room for these more advanced cities. Eventually the entire world would consist of advanced cities.
Converting nations into these semi-independent cities is not going to solve all the problems that we face, but a variation of this policy has been working well for organizations all throughout history. Businesses, sports clubs, and other organizations are semi-independent groups of people that set standards of behavior for their members. The people who can't fit in the organization are told to leave. Why not try this concept at the level of an entire city?
The only unpleasant aspect of this concept is that there are going to be a lot of people that no city wants, such as the criminals and retards.
Our current philosophy is that every city should be a mixture of races, religions, criminals, weirdos, orphans, homeless people, crime gangs, and drug addicts. But why should we follow such a philosophy?
Furthermore, our natural tendency is to separate into groups that we have something in common with. Therefore, my proposal is natural for us.
All humans have emotions that cause us to pass judgment on one another and associate only with people we like. When a large group of people are put together into a society, they segregate into smaller groups.
America should be used as evidence that mixing people together doesn't work. Take a serious look at America. The races separate from one another, and within each race, the people separate according to what they have in common. We separate into groups according to our religious beliefs, whether we like pets, and whether we like sports.
Putting a bunch of different people together doesn't work because they will naturally separate into smaller groups that they have something in common with. Therefore, why continue this policy that everybody should live together in one big mixture? Why fight human nature? Expecting the entire world to live together as one big group is as unrealistic as expecting water and oil to mix together. Therefore, why not design the world to fit human nature? Why not set the world up as a group of small cities and allow each city to become slightly different than the others?
This won't solve our problems, but we shouldn't look for perfection. Instead, our goal should be to find a way to make the world better than it is right now.
Humans have a powerful desire to pass judgment on other people and separate into groups according to who we have the most in common with. Nature did not give us this characteristic by mistake. There is a reason that nature has been favoring humans with this type of behavior.
Thousands of years ago, when a group of people became large, they would split into two or more groups. However, they didn't divide at random. People would split according to who they were most comfortable with. The groups would then compete for life, and nature would make a decision about which of those groups was better. The people who were the most incompetent would end up going extinct.
It might help you to understand this process if you imagine it happening right now in America. Imagine if the American military destroyed the American government and then announced that America is going to be broken into 10 smaller nations, and that each of us has to select between the 10 nations. Imagine that the military selects Pat Robertson to be in control of one of the nations, and they select a Hollywood star to be in control of another of the nations, and they select me to be in control of one of the nations, and so on.
Nobody would select one of those nations by picking one at random. Instead, everybody would look at the 10 different leaders and then pick the one they had the most in common with. As a result, each of the nations would end up very different from one another. If all of our nations had to compete for life, just like people did 50,000 years ago, some of those nations would go extinct.
Our prehistoric ancestors lived in groups that occasionally grew in size and split into two or more pieces. However, they didn't split at random. The inferior people tended to separate from the more advanced people. The competitive struggle for life would then cause the inferior group to go extinct. This is one of the ways nature has been helping the evolution of humans.
This concept is important to us right now because the people who are fighting the Zionist crime network are not a random selection of the human population. The people involved in this fight are higher quality people than those who hide from problems. Therefore, when we finally get rid of this network, it should be us who decide what to do with the world. We should not ask or care what the inferior people want.
Imagine dividing America into two separate nations. In one nation are people who are fighting the Zionist network, and in the other nation are the people who hide from it. I think there would be very significant differences between those two nations. One nation would be able to deal with its problems and improve, but the other nation would slowly disintegrate because they ignore their problems.
The people who are ignoring the world's problems may have been wonderful people thousands of years ago, but they are misfits in this modern era. If it were not for those of us who can face and deal with problems, the rest of these people would be in very serious trouble. We are dealing with the problems while they fool around with video games and dogs and jewelry.
Those of us who are defeating this Zionist crime network are the winners in this battle, and the other people are the losers. But we can't walk away from them in this era, so they are going to get a free ride. However, when we design a new world, we should realize that most of our friends and relatives are the losers in this battle. We shouldn't design the world according to their stupid desires. It should be us who make the decisions.
Incidentally, children also have a strong desire to separate into groups. And since children are even more like animals, they love to torment defective children. As I described in my social technology articles, this behavior developed in animals because it is nature's way of helping animals get rid of their most defective members.
We don't like children behaving in this manner, so we try to stop them from hurting one another. I agree that this behavior is crude and disgusting, but this emotion developed for a good reason, so now that we suppress this emotion, the adults have to deal with those defective children in some other manner. We can't simply suppress this emotion and ignore the issue of defective children.
Nature took care of humans thousands of years ago, but today we interfere with nature because we don't like its brutal methods. The end result is that a lot of people who would have been killed have been allowed to live, and many of them are reproducing. This is ruining the human gene pool, and our lives.
Humans should be evolving into a more advanced species, but instead we're degrading into criminals, parasites, anti-social misfits, alcoholics, drug addicts, and ugly, stinky, deformed, sickly freaks.
We need to find men who can control their emotions, think more often, and create a world in which people are happy and healthy.
Many of our emotions are out of place in this world today, and we shouldn't be allowing them to dominate our decisions. Consider our inhibitions about our bodily functions.
Imagine if the airplane you are about to fly on had smoke coming out of one of the engines, and a mechanic is called to fix it, and his reaction is to throw some breath freshening tablets into the engine.
This is what we do when somebody has bad breath. But when a person has bad breath, it could be a sign that something is wrong, such as his blood chemistry is out of control. We can learn a lot about our health by monitoring our mouth, nose, and waste products. But how many people can control their emotions well enough to have a serious discussion about these issues?
We have trouble discussing any issue that stimulates our emotions. Consider the difference between a discussion about euthanasia and a discussion about a vegetable garden.
It's easy for a group of men to discuss vegetable gardens because the only emotions that will be stimulated during such a discussion are their desires to be the dominant male. Therefore, they will experience the emotional craving to appear important, but their emotions will not try to influence the content of the discussion.
The end result is the men can easily develop intelligent opinions about vegetable gardens, and the discussion will be friendly and relaxed.
By comparison, when men try to discuss euthanasia, in addition to competing for dominance, their emotions about killing people will be triggered throughout the discussion. If they don't have good control over their emotions, then their emotions will have a significant influence over their opinions, and the conversation will be awkward and uncomfortable, and possibly angry or even violent.
Since the majority of people don't have good control over their emotions, their discussions about abortion and euthanasia are full of yelling, clenching of the teeth, and hysteria.
Our behavior and opinions are a compromise between the intellectual area of our mind and our emotions. People who don't think very well, or who don't enjoy thinking, will be more influenced by their emotions than people who are better at thinking, or who spend more time thinking.
Women are often described as being more emotional than men, and I would agree. I think its because their intellectual abilities are less advanced than men. As a result, their behavior is more influenced by their emotions. Children don't think very well, either, and as a result their behavior is more influenced by their emotions.
Another example of how our emotions influence our behavior is that men treat attractive women better than ugly women. A man's emotions are more concerned about a woman's visual appearance than her mental qualities. As a result, attractive women are given better treatment by men, even if they are stupid or psychotic. And ugly women are sometimes abused. Have you ever wondered why we care so much about a woman's visual appearance?
Why are we repelled by a woman with blotches on her skin, or eyebrows that are thick and bushy, or teeth that are crooked? Why do we care so much about meaningless visual defects?
Furthermore, there are some women who have no defects with their skin or their teeth or any other part of their body, but we find them unattractive anyway. There is something different about the proportions of their face that we just don't like. Why are we so finicky? Why don't we love all women equally? Why do we pass judgment on what women look like?
It's also interesting to note that men of all races tend to find the same women attractive. For example, look at the Japanese women who are considered to be the most attractive by the Japanese men. You are likely to agree that those women are indeed attractive, even though they are a different race. And look at the women in India who are considered attractive by the men in India. You're likely to agree that they are attractive
Furthermore, almost all men are attracted to the same type of personalities. The Japanese women who are considered to have the nicest personalities by the Japanese men are very likely to have personalities that appeal to other races, also.
I suppose that the reason men of different races are attracted to the same type of women is because there isn't a very big difference between us. The races were obviously separated from each other long enough for us to develop different appearances and languages, but we weren't separated long enough to develop much of a difference in our emotional or intellectual qualities.
This is why it's possible to put women of different races into a beauty contest. We all tend to agree on which women are the most attractive, even if they are of different races.
However, I don't like the face of the Ashkenazi Jews, such as Barbra Streisand, and I don't like their personalities, either. Some people might respond that this is because I've developed a dislike of Jews after discovering that they are responsible for 9/11, the world wars, the Holocaust, the Nazi movement, the communist movement, and thousands of other crimes, but I don't think so. I was never attracted to Jewish facial features even as a child. It would be interesting to see if this is true of other men because if I'm typical, then it might be evidence that the difference between us and the Ashkenazi Jews is greater than the difference between Caucasians, Japanese, Indians, and other races.
Getting back to the issue of why we care so much about the visual appearance of women, it should be obvious that this is nature's method of helping to deal with defective creatures.
As I mentioned before, there is no perfection among living creatures. Every creature is a random mix of genetic traits. Defects are widespread, and the most defective creatures must be prevented from reproducing or else the species will deteriorate into genetic garbage.
The animals that survived the battle for life are those that developed an attraction to certain qualities, such as symmetry. We consider a person unattractive if their face or body is not symmetrical. We also don't like blotches or other flaws.
If you have trouble understanding this concept, consider why quality control inspectors on assembly lines will remove items for inspection if they notice a visual defect. Their reasoning is that if an item has a visual defect, that could be a sign that something went wrong during its production, which in turn means that there may be other damage that's not so visible.
It's important to note that nobody has to teach this concept to us. This is one of the emotions that is built into our brain.
This emotion can be seen when we shop for products. We prefer products that are visually perfect. When we see a product that has flaws on the outside, we worry that there may be flaws on the inside. We even worry about the appearance of the packaging.
The competitive struggle for life has favored the men who were attracted to the most visually perfect women. If a woman has flaws on the outside, there may be flaws on the inside.
However, this doesn't explain why men have fascinations with certain parts of a woman's body, such as her hair, fingers, and toes. The issue of toes is especially peculiar. Why would men have a fascination with a woman's toes? And why are women willing to torture themselves in high heeled shoes that show off their toes? Why don't we care about their elbows, their ankles, their backbone, or their shoulder blades?
And have you noticed how much we care about the clothing a woman wears? If you were looking for an automobile or a house or a horse, and if it was covered up in clothing, you would want the clothing removed so that you can see the item. You wouldn't judge a house according to the clothing it was wearing. So why do we judge a woman by her clothing? Why don't we want women to take their clothes off so that we can see what we're getting?
I think the answer to these questions can be understood when you think about what women looked like 50,000 years ago. The filthiest area of a woman's body was her crotch, and this would explain why both men and women have been covering their crotch for thousands of years. The next most filthy part of her body would be her feet, and then her fingers, and then her hair.
Imagine a tiny group of humans in 50,000 BC in which there are two young women available. One woman is in good mental and physical health, and very talented and intelligent. It doesn't take her long to do what needs to be done in regards to finding food, and so she has time each day to groom herself. And she's very talented, so she can easily keep her hair clean and free of knots. She couldn't possibly keep the bottom of her feet clean, but she keeps the top of her feet clean, and her fingers and hair. She also has the talent to make some clothing for herself, and she keeps her clothing reasonably clean.
By comparison, the other woman is mentally or physically inferior. The end result is that her simple clothing is uglier, her hair is messier, and her fingers and especially her feet are dirtier.
If a man in that era didn't care about the visual appearance of a woman, then he would select between those women according to some other feature, and that could result in him selecting the lower quality woman, and that would result in lower quality children.
The men who survived the competition for life were those who developed an attraction to women with nice clothing, and clean hair, hands, and feet. And the women who survived the competition were those who had a craving to groom themselves and make nice clothing.
Today it's ridiculous for men to select women according to these features because even retarded women are capable of cleaning themselves and purchasing attractive clothing.
Furthermore, the craving women have to groom is excessive for this modern era. It takes only a few minutes today for women to clean themselves. It's ridiculous for women to spend hours every day fooling around with their hair, fingers, and toes. There's no need for them to curl their hair, or straighten their hair, or color their hair, or put chemicals into their hair. And they don't need to paint their fingernails or toenails.
Women today need to keep their emotions under control. As I described in other documents, we should change our economic system so that instead of producing products according to whether a profit can be made, we should produce products according to whether they have a benefit to society. My opinion is that most of the cosmetic products have no value to either men or women.
I also think it is ridiculous for women to torture themselves in high heeled shoes. And their craving for attractive and clean clothing is so strong they are constantly purchasing new clothing and discarding clothing that is in excellent condition simply because of some trivial flaw.
Women think that they want to groom themselves and wear high heeled shoes because they enjoy these activities, but that's not a complete explanation. The reason women enjoy turning themselves into sexually titillating objects is because their ancestors who didn't enjoy this activity were not as successful in attracting men. Therefore, women evolved a strong desire to groom themselves and appear sexually attractive. However, in our era, this craving is excessive, and it's causing men to be in a constant state of sexual titillation.
Likewise, I think men's sexual cravings are excessive for our era. Our sexual desires developed to give us an attraction to the female savages of 50,000 years ago. Our sexual desires were not designed for women of the 21st century who are always clean, and who are extremely attractive with modern clothing, and sometimes makeup, cosmetic surgery, and jewelry.
Men are being stimulated excessively by the women today. To make the situation worse, businesses and crime networks take advantage of our sexual cravings by using sexual images in advertisements, and by offering pornography. I think we're hurting ourselves with this extreme and nonstop sexual titillation.
And to make our situation even worse, adults are routinely dressing little girls in sexually attractive clothing; sometimes giving them makeup and high heeled shoes, and then they are displayed in advertisements, television shows, movies, and beauty contests. I would describe this as child pornography. We're attracted to the images, but that doesn't justify using little girls to stimulate adult men.
No responsible parent allows their child to do whatever they please. Parents should provide guidance to their children. Likewise, society shouldn't allow adults to do whatever they please. We shouldn't care that adult men enjoy being sexually stimulated by seven-year-old girls who are dressed as prostitutes. The leaders of society should provide guidance to the other adults.
And consider the issue of breast implants. A fascination with large breasts may have made sense 50,000 years ago because back then the only women with large breasts were those who were in good health and well fed.
Today this fascination is ridiculous. Every healthy woman today has large breasts, and since most women are overweight today, most of them have abnormally large breasts. The fascination with breasts is causing women to assume that a normal sized breast is actually small, and so many of them are having breast implants. And some women wear clothing that pushes their breasts upward and outward.
I don't think society should encourage women to behave like this, and I don't think engineers and scientists should be wasting their technical talent, or the Earth's resources, on these type of products.
It's difficult for men to turn away from the sexual titillation, and it's difficult for women to turn away from cosmetics and jewelry, but we should try to control our emotions. We should stop behaving like ignorant savages and start behaving like advanced humans.
An even more important issue that society should deal with is that finding a spouse in our era has become very difficult and awkward. People are getting married later in life, and they often don't have children until they're in their 30s. The feminists claim that this is because life is improving for us, but I think one of the reasons is because it's more difficult to find a spouse today compared to centuries earlier.
It is so difficult to find a spouse that lots of businesses are making
a profit by helping people meet each other. This should be considered a
sign of trouble. We need to deal with this issue rather than let businesses
profit from it.
Our emotions assume that we live in a very small, homogenous group of people who know each other intimately. We were not designed to select a spouse from thousands of different races, religions, and lifestyles. We were never designed with a desire to interview potential spouses, or to be interviewed by them. Actually, our emotions are irritated by interviews.
Our emotions want us to find a spouse in a very simple manner. Teenage girls simply put themselves on display and show off their hair, clothing, fingers, and toes. Then they wait for a man to notice them. The men try to impress the girls by showing how they are one of the dominant males, and that they are capable of acquiring food and other necessities.
This simple method would work in our era if every society consisted of people who were similar to one another. But it doesn't work in nations like America where we're surrounded by people we have nothing in common with, some of whom don't speak the same language.
Depending on where in America you live, you may have to search through thousands of people before you find somebody compatible with you. And this is also true of finding a friend.
Humans were never designed to search through thousands of people in order to find a spouse or a friend. It's a time-consuming and irritating procedure. The human race has to make some decisions about this issue. If we are going to live in cities in which people are randomly mixed together, then society should get involved and help us meet people who are compatible with us.
However, as I already mentioned, I think a better solution is to allow each city to control immigration to such an extent that every city is a more homogenous group of people.
Of course, even if we allow cities to be homogenous, it's important to realize that we have to keep our emotions under control when we look for a spouse because our emotions are out of place in this modern world. Female animals, for example, are attracted to dominate males, but females have no concern for why the male is dominant. Female animals do not pass judgment on whether the male deserves his position. Females simply turn themselves over to the dominant male. This behavior works for animals because an animal cannot become dominant through crime, bribery, or inheritances. The male animals must earn their position.
If our society was dominated by respectable men, then it would be acceptable for women to mindlessly give themselves to the dominant males. But many of the men who dominate society today are disgusting men who achieved their position through crime, inheritances, intimidation, and bribery.
And take a critical look at the entertainment business. These people are extremely wealthy, and they get lots of publicity, and they give themselves awards all the time, such as the Oscar awards. This is creating the impression that they're special people, which in turn causes women to be attracted to them.
In this era, we need to be more concerned about the mental qualities of our potential spouse. We need to keep our emotions under control and think more often.
It is especially important for us to find leaders who can keep their emotions under control. We need leaders who can calmly discuss every issue that we face.
The people who oppose euthanasia, for example, have nothing intelligent to contribute to the issue. All they do is make idiotic remarks about how it's difficult to draw a line, or that it is wrong to kill people, or that if we allow the killing of terminally ill patients, then we will soon be killing people who are in good health. These are not intelligent responses. These people are letting their irrational emotions dominate their decisions.
It doesn't make any sense to claim that killing people is wrong. What is wrong with killing people? What is wrong with eating people as food? These are not right or wrong issues. These are simply decisions that we have to make.
We don't eat people because our emotions don't want us killing or eating our own species, but there's nothing wrong with considering humans as a food source. Wolves eat humans when they have the opportunity, and bacteria and maggots routinely eat humans.
The people who claim that it's wrong to kill or eat people are simply following their crude emotions. They're not thinking.
Hiding from the issues of euthanasia, retards, and orphans will not make the problems go away. Since we don't enjoy killing ourselves or other people, we should develop drugs or machines to do these jobs for us in a pleasant manner.
Those of us who advocate allowing doctors to kill people are considered to be lacking emotions or murderers. And some people accuse of us of being arrogant elitists who think we're better than other people.
But we're not lacking emotions, and we are not murderers. And we're not being arrogant when we claim to be a more advanced human. Those of us who can deal with the problems of the modern world truly are a more advanced creature than the savages who react to problems with hysteria, or by ignoring them, or by feeling sorry for themselves.
We have to stand up to the people who become hysterical over these issues. They're not better than us. They're more like primitive savages or animals.
Thousands of years ago the human mind was well adapted to life, but during the past few thousand years we've developed a lot of technology. We love this technology, but it changes the environment we live in, and so we now have to change, also.
A monkey who develops technology is in a similar predicament as a fish that walks onto dry land. Neither will survive very well until they adapt to the new conditions.
Whenever the environment changes, the animals and plants have to change to fit it. For example, if the rainfall starts to decrease in a particular area of the world, then the animals and plants in that area must evolve to fit the lower levels of water.
Unfortunately, nature is not an entity that can think, and so nature cannot guide the evolution. As a result, the animals and plants adapt to changes in their environments simply by producing a lot of offspring, and then letting them fight for life. Since most of offspring will be poorly adapted to the new environment, there will be a lot of suffering and death. The transition periods can be distinguished from the normal periods by a noticeable increase in death.
The past few thousand years have been a transition period for humans in which we have been making a switch from living like animals to living in large, technically advanced cities. The human mind has to change in order for us to fully enjoy this new environment.
Consider the people who steal items. These people are not evil, and they're not possessed by the devil. They're merely behaving like animals. Every animal grabs at whatever its wants. They have no concept of personal property.
At some point in human history, people began to accumulate tools, clothing, and other material items. This required that the people adapt to the concept of personal property.
Since everybody is unique, some of our ancestors were better able to deal with this concept. The people least able to cope with it became a nuisance. The other people responded by punishing them, or killing them, or driving them out of society.
When our ancestors discovered how to make fermented drinks, the people had to adapt to alcohol. When people discovered gambling, they had to adapt to that concept.
The past few thousand years have been a transition period during which people have been struggling to cope with an increasingly complex world.
The people who had the most difficulty dealing with alcohol, gambling, property boundaries, laws, and other issues became misfits. They might have been wonderful humans thousands of years earlier, but because they were the least able to deal with modern life, they were shunned, tormented, punished, and sometimes killed.
There has been a lot of suffering during the past few thousand years, and it's not going to end anytime soon because most of the people in the world today are not well adapted to this modern era.
Humans have been adapting to their new environment in the same brutal, chaotic manner that animals use to adapt to changes. Specifically, the people just reproduce wildly, and then their children battle for survival. This crude method causes a lot of suffering.
Humans have the intelligence to bring some sense to this process. If we were to restrict reproduction to the people who are the best suited to this modern world, then we can reduce the suffering and increase the rate at which we adapt to this new environment.
For example, if we prevent alcoholics from having children, we would rapidly create humans who are capable of dealing with alcohol. But if we continue our current policy of allowing everybody to reproduce, there may be alcoholics for millions of years.
Sometimes the children of alcoholics are in good mental health, and many people will use this as justification to allow alcoholics to reproduce. I often hear people claiming that everybody should be allowed to reproduce, even those with genetic disorders, because some of their children will be healthy.
I personally think it's cruel and selfish for people with genetic disorders to create more people with these problems. I think these people want children simply to entertain themselves. They don't care whether their children are happy or healthy.
Animals and humans have incredibly powerful cravings to reproduce. I think that most of the people who are having children are doing so only because of their emotional cravings for children. They don't consider the children to be responsibilities. They consider their children as toys, or as dildos to titillate themselves with.
I don't think we should allow parents to use children as entertainment devices. Parents shouldn't be allowed to choose the sex of their child, either, or their eye color. Children should be regarded as young humans. If a person can't treat children as a serious responsibility, then they shouldn't be reproducing.
Another type of person who shouldn't reproduce are those who survive through inheritances, crime, investments, and other parasitic and dishonest techniques. When we allow parasitic people to reproduce, we allow this disgusting behavior to continue. But if we restrict reproduction to people who truly want to contribute to society, then the human race will eventually become a more advanced species in which everybody contributes to society because they truly want to.
I suspect that most of the people who promote freedom of reproduction are concerned that if we restricted reproduction, then they wouldn't qualify to have children. They're not thinking of what's best for the human race.
By comparison, when I think about reproduction policies, economic systems, and government systems, I don't think about trying to satisfy my own emotional cravings. I think about what's best for society. My goal is to design a society that I would want to be born into.
Compare my attitude to other people's attitude. For example, listen to Daryl Smith defend alcoholics on April 14, 2009:
I have great gifts, I know I do, about certain things that I can do quite well, in fact, remarkably well. And then, of course, in other areas of life, I may fall victim to depression, or I may fall victim to alcoholism, or I may fall victim to...I don't care if a few retards created some interesting paintings or songs. That doesn't justify allowing millions of miserable alcoholics, psychos, and criminals to produce millions more miserable people.
We need leaders who can design policies for the human race, not to suit their particular emotional cravings.
It's especially difficult for us to deal with badly behaved children because we have such strong attractions to children. We already set lower standards for children, but a certain percentage of children can't even meet these lower standards. What are we supposed to do with the children who misbehave?
It's easy for us to look at baby rat and realize that it's just a small version of an adult rat, but our emotions don't want us to look at children as young humans. Our emotions see children as special creatures that need protection.
Men have the same problem with women. It's difficult for us to consider women as being nothing more than female humans. Our emotions create the impression that women are some type of goddess.
At the moment our method of dealing with badly behaved children is to punish them in some manner, but that doesn't fix their problem. And did you know that America has hundreds of children in jail for the rest of their lives because they were convicted of murder? Raising children in jail, and keeping them there for the rest of their lives, doesn't help the children, and the only benefit to society is that it keeps the children out of society. It would make more sense to kill the children.
The Supreme Court will soon be making a decision about whether children can be sent to prison for life for other crimes, such as rape and robbery. If this is permitted, then we'll be raising even more children in jail. How many children have to spend their entire lives in jail before we are willing to experiment with different policies towards crime?
Men who are capable of killing badly behaved children are regarded as cruel, but there's nothing cruel about it. Children are just young adults. Furthermore, children are not as valuable as adults. This concept is well known by farmers. A mature fruit tree that produces good quality fruit is much more valuable than a young tree.
I suspect that most of the people who oppose the killing of badly behaved children were badly behaved children themselves, or they have children who are badly behaved, and they're selfishly thinking about themselves rather than what's best for the human race.
A good example are the people in the so-called truth movement. Most of them seem to be freaks, criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, and pedophiles. They are extremely opposed to abortion, euthanasia, police, and other issues, and I think it's because they are the type of people that would be aborted or picked up by the police and killed. They are the type of people that we don't want in society.
They have nothing to say that's intelligent about any issue. They simply appeal to our emotions. For example, on May 5, 2009 Jason Bermas complained about sending children to jail forever. He doesn't support the killing of children. Rather, he supports feeling sorry for them. Here's one of his remarks:
I mentioned earlier that the Supreme Court is going to consider life in prison for juveniles. And why is this a problem? Because they're going to lower what they can send them to prison for life for. You know, it might not just be murder. And if an eight-year-old kid murders somebody else, should they really spend the rest of the life in prison? He's an eight-year-old kid.Well, Jason, I've thought about this issue for years. And my conclusion is that punishing children is worthless. The children who can't meet our standards of behavior should be removed from society. We should treat children as young humans.
Killing children and fetuses is a brutal, disgusting operation, but it's not a right or wrong issue. It's interesting that one of my grandmothers, who is dead now, opposed abortion, but she had two of them. This might seem to make her a hypocrite, but I can understand her reasoning. It was during the depression, and she already had a couple of children, and her husband's salary had been reduced because of the economic problems.
They were just barely surviving and taking care of their family, and like many women in that era, when there wasn't much birth control, she got pregnant all the time. However, she couldn't handle the thought of giving birth to a child that she couldn't adequately care for. And she wasn't willing to give her children away to orphanages.
My grandmother's view of life is that she would rather kill a fetus than give birth to a child that would suffer and cause her other children to suffer. My grandmother was more concerned about the quality of her children's life rather than the quantity of children. She would rather have a few healthy children than a bunch of sickly, miserable children.
My attitude towards abortion is similar to my grandmother's. We shouldn't judge a society according to how many babies they produce. Instead, we should be looking at what life is like in that society. Are the people healthy? Do they enjoy life? Do they enjoy one another?
And consider the women who have been raped. Why should they have to raise the child of a rapist? That child is going to have genetic traits from the rapist. I don't think women should be raising children of rapists even if they want to.
The people who oppose abortions and the killing of children think that they're special people, but they're allowing millions of children to suffer miserable lives.
Every nation has orphans, and just about every city has homeless people, and there are retards stuffed away in buildings all over the world. There are children in jail everywhere, also. It is possible that there are millions of unwanted and defective children in the world right now who are suffering miserable lives. I would describe this as cruel.
The people who oppose abortion and the killing of children are not concerned about the children. They're simply following their stupid emotions.
However, I don't know what effect an abortion has on a woman's body. Every operation is risky, and for all I know, and abortion is worse than an ordinary surgical operation. Therefore, it might be better in some cases for women to give birth to the child and then kill the child after it's born.
I'm sure most people would be horrified at the thought of killing a child after birth, but what difference does it make if a child is killed while it's a fetus or after it has been born? The end result is exactly the same.
I don't think people should be giving birth to children who are going to end up having a miserable life. Children should not be treated as toys. The people who oppose abortions don't really care about the children, and they don't care about the millions who are suffering right now. They don't even want to know how many children are suffering now. They are simply trying to satisfy their crude emotions to protect babies and feel special. We have to stand up to these people. They think they're better than us, but they're primitive savages who can't cope with modern life.
Nature used to kill an enormous number of human babies, but now that we interfere with nature, we must do what nature was doing.
Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: