Hiding from problems
|All humans were well adapted to life in 50,000 BC, but as people developed
technology and settled into cities, life became increasingly complex.
This complexity was no problem for certain situations, such as weddings. Below is a portion of a painting of a wedding by Jan Steen in the 1660s. Everybody was capable of enjoying themselves at weddings.
However, by the 1600s, a lot of people were having trouble dealing with certain aspects of modern life, such as alcohol, money, and gambling.
Below is a portion of another of Jan Steen's paintings that shows men getting into an argument over a game.
Life today is even more complex than when Steen made that painting, so people today are losing their temper more often, and over issues that never existed before. Did you hear this argument when a teenage girl called for an ambulance? And how about this video of police hitting an unconscious criminal? Some people condemn the police for losing their temper, but if the citizens were better behaved, the police would remain calm.
During prehistoric times, every man could "make a living" because all they had to do was look for food and a place to sleep. As society became more complex, men had to develop a skill and work with other men. Schools became increasingly necessary. The children least able to deal with school were punished, as in another of Steen's paintings, below, in which a teacher is slapping a student's hand with a wooden object.
Unfortunately, punishments cannot fix people who have trouble dealing with modern life. Humans must evolve into a more advanced creature.
Nature, ie, the competitive struggle for life, used to decide who lived and who died; who reproduced and who didn't. We don't like nature's brutality, so we use technology to interfere with it. However, by preventing nature from doing its job, a lot of people who would have been removed from the human gene pool are now successfully reproducing.
A transcript of the audio
(with some additional links)
Saturday May 30, 2009
Well, there's still no nuclear war anywhere, and the frustration is
showing at some of the Zionist propaganda message boards. For example,
yesterday at Surfing the Apocalypse, someone posted a message about how
he watched the CBS news the night before and he writes: "Even though North
Korea is threatening the world with nuclear war, there was no mention of
Once you know the tricks of the Zionist crime network, it's easy to see that these concerned people are actually wolves in sheep's clothing, and that they're struggling to start a nuclear war. One of their primary methods of manipulating us is to provoke fights between men and women, nations, religions, and races.
The criminal Jews must look back at World War I as the "good old days". Back then they could start a world war just by killing one person. But today they can't get a war started no matter what they do.
A few days ago a car bomb exploded in Pakistan in front of their intelligence agency. Like so many of these car bombs, it excavated a deep crater, this one about 8 feet deep. Most people don't realize that explosives have to be underground in order to excavate in such a manner. This was certainly another false flag operation to provoke anger, but it didn't have much of an effect.
And I suspect that Israel is helping North Korea develop or test missiles, and possibly nuclear bombs, but so far most people don't care about North Korea. It must be frustrating for the Zionist Jews, but they're going to stop, so I suppose North Korea will try again to provoke us.
However, I don't think it's makes any difference what the Jews do now. I think they've passed the point of no return. Information about their crimes and tricks is circulating around the world, and there are now millions of people who know that Jews were responsible for 9/11, the world wars, and lots of other crimes.
Many of the Jews realize that they're in very serious trouble, also. For example, in my audio file for March 2009 I played an excerpt of Daryl Smith in which he says it would be wrong for us to kill all Jews. Here is a portion of that excerpt to refresh your memory:
"If we say that they are all bad, and that they are all needing of elimination, and so forth, what we're going to find is that we are killing people who have no clue about why they're going to die."Smith is aware that anger is building towards Jews, and his reaction is to convince us that we shouldn't kill the Jews because some of them wouldn't understand why we're killing them. But is this something we really need to be concerned with? If so, we could solve the problem simply by playing a recorded message to the Jews as they wait for their execution.
Jeff Rense, Benjamin Fulford, Jason Bermas, and lots of other so-called truth seekers are also frightened by the anger that building towards Jews. Years ago they tried to confuse us about 9/11, but today they try to convince us that Jews are innocent. Bermas went even further during his show on May 8, 2009:
Not everybody is Jewish that's doing this. Not everybody is a child of Israel. There are plenty of Anglo-Saxon people in this. There are plenty of people down in South America that are helping with the New World Order. There are plenty of people who are in Europe helping with the New World Order. There are plenty of people in Russia helping with the New World Order.
The criminal Jews are extremely worried that they're losing this battle.
Their fear and frustration is also showing on some of the Internet message
You might respond that they're only faking defeat in order to trick us into becoming arrogant and relaxed, but if this is just a trick, they're taking a very big risk. By addressing the issue of exterminating Jews, they're making it a topic of conversation. The last thing they need is for people around the world to be discussing the issue of whether we should exterminate Jews.
However, Bermas, as usual, mixes some truth with his propaganda. Specifically, he's correct that even if we did exterminate the Jews, we wouldn't completely fix the world. The reason is that even without the Jews, the world would be full of criminals, pedophiles, lunatics, and all sorts of other freaks. To truly improve this world, we have to deal with troublemakers of all religions and races.
So, since the Jews are now bringing up the issue of killing Jews, I thought I should discuss such issues as what we should do with criminals, and how we could start experimenting on a small scale with new governments and economic systems so that we don't take the chance of ruining the world with our experiments.
By the way, it's possible that some citizens are already so angry that they're starting to attack the criminal Jews. For example, both Alex Jones and the singer Aimee Allen claim to have been beaten recently, although Jones blames it on the "New World Order".
If you think that Alex Jones is too insignificant to waste your time on, take a look at who has been on his radio show during the past few years. One amazing guest was a member of the Rothschild banking family. People have often wondered if I have a connection with Rupert Murdoch, but the Murdochs don't talk to me.
By comparison, Jones not only talks with the Rothschilds, he talks with politicians, Hollywood stars, scientists from other nations, government officials from other nations, television talkshow hosts, policemen, and the leaders of many organizations, such as the American Legion and the free software groups.
I have the impression that Jones is the man that the Jewish crime network has been depending on to control the type of people who would listen to me. The Jews use the television to manipulate the ordinary sheep who don't want to know what's going on, but Jones seems to be their primary Pied Piper to identify and manipulate those of us who know about their network and want to destroy it. And Jason Bermas is his apprentice.
Therefore, I think it's significant that Jones and Bermas are becoming frightened. And if Jones really was beaten, that could be significant, also. He briefly mentioned the beatings on his show for May 25, 2009:
They had the Ron Paul girl in here last night, I didn't know that, but she was on my show last time. They were waiting for her outside. Yeah, Aimee Allen. With crowbars, stealing nothing, just putting her in the hospital, you know, breaking bones. That is the type of intimidation.Did you notice that he enjoyed the beating? The people who did it should consider doing him a favor and beating him again. And perhaps if six people beat him the next time, he'll proudly announce that you don't really live until six people are pounding on you.
Yesterday, May 29, Jones went even further and said this:
I have to control myself looking for a fight all the time. I mean, I want to attack people all the time because I'm a man. But the point is, I mean I want to get in fights. I hope some big guy starts a fight with me at a subconscious level.So, let's hope that some big guy decides to give Jones what he wants, perhaps as a gift for the Fourth of July or Christmas. Actually, in the case of Jones, it would be better to give it as a gift for Passover or Hanukkah. Too bad Jones didn't ask for a skinny old man to start a fight with him because I would love to give it to him.
Anway, listen to Aimee Allen describe her beating to Jones. This was from his show two months earlier on March 20, 2009:
I didn't know about this, that right after you were on my show, it looks like, this has happened to me, that they've been punching me and telling me to shut up, you know, don't talk about..., beating you with a crowbar and then not stealing anything, uh....Allen:
It was very bizarre. It was very bizarre. It was three people, I mean there's three of us. And they pushed one of... they pushed my friend out of the way to target me, and there were two guys beating my head and face, and that's it, just my mouth, broke my jaw, and beat me with a crowbar. And... <both talking at the same time>Jones:
Well, you still look extremely lovely, just the same as you did before.Allen:
Thank you. It was last summer, but they uh, thank you, but they dumped out all of our purses, of the two waitresses, they had tons of the cash, I had tons of cash, they dumped on our purses, telling them to take our money, and they kicked it, they kicked the money and left, and walked away, and left us.Jones:
What did they look like, it's important how they were dressed and what they looked like.Allen:
Umm, they were, you know, I think, I think they, I don't know, they were umm, you know, Mexican gang members... most likely.Jones:
So it was either the government or somebody hired them or it was a gang initiation.Allen:
Correct. But it was bizarre that I was the only one that they hit. They didn't touch the other two...Jones:
Well, in LA it's on record in congressional testimony; the big gangs work for the CIA.Allen:
Well, the police told me that they're probably illegal aliens so we're not even going to pursue it. You know, they're probably not on record anywhere, they...Jones:
Yes, that's how it is. They're just invincible. They're the fake IDs... they do whatever they want. So, they were beating you with a crowbar?
Yes. I almost died. My brain... my mouth... I have some, uh, memory loss, but...
It's also worth noting that some of the websites that put out Jewish
propaganda, such as altermedia.info, focus on the racial aspect of the
attack on Aimee Allen in an attempt to provoke anger between different
races. Here are three remarks from one of their articles:
• Thank God that Aimee Allen survived this vicious attack by invaders into our country.
By the way, did you notice that Jones said that the CIA was controlling all of the big gangs of Los Angeles? A pattern you should notice with the so-called truth seekers is that they're always trying to direct our anger towards the CIA, the military, the police, or some group besides the Jews, Zionists, and Israelis.
Richard Gage, the leader of the Zionist propaganda group called Architects
And Engineers for 9/11 Truth, is traveling around the world exposing 9/11
to an extent that I've never seen before. He had an amazing interview a
few days ago in Fresno, California in which he calmly explained - on televion
- that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished with explosives.
I think his appearance on television is a sign that the Jews are having trouble holding back the information about 9/11, and so they want their agents to expose it so that they can shift the attention away from Larry Silverstein, the Israelis, and other Jews. When Richard Gage is asked who is responsible for demolishing the towers, he says he doesn't know, but that we should look at the directors of the company that was involved with the security of the towers. If we look at those directors, we'll find Marvin Bush was one of the directors for a short period of time.
Richard Gage, Alex Jones, and all of the other truth seekers are willing to blame the Bush family, the bankers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and a few other people, but this is just a trick. The Zionist Jews consider those people to be expendable. Actually, I think the Zionist Jews are trying to trick us into arresting the banking Jews so that the Zionist Jews can get control of the banking system. We'd really be suckers if we fell for that trick.
If you've been looking at my documents, then you know that I don't trust Alex Jones, and I recommend that you be suspicious of every person in this truth movement, without exception. Everybody the truth seekers promote should also be considered part of their crime network.
For example, David Rehbein of the American Legion recently appeared
on the Alex Jones show. This should be considered evidence that the criminal
Jews have infiltrated the veterans groups, and this would explain why the
veterans groups never help us expose 9/11, the Holocaust lies, or Zionism.
Aimee Allen's connection with Congressman Ron Paul and Alex Jones should be considered as evidence that she's part of the crime network, also. Furthermore, she may be lying about her beating. Criminals are always fighting with each other, and a lot of entertainers have drug and gambling problems, so for all we know, she was slapped around by some of her criminal friends.
It's possible that both Jones and Allen exaggerate or fabricate stories of abuse. The Jews are always playing the role of a victim in order to fool us into feeling sorry for them.
However, there are now millions of people around the world who realize that Jews are responsible for 9/11, the world wars, and lots of other crimes, and anger is building - not just towards criminal Jews - but crime and corruption in general. This anger can't build forever. Eventually the military and police will have to get involved to investigate and determine who is truly involved with this crime network.
As I've mentioned in other files, some of the people who assisted with 9/11, the world wars, and other crimes were merely following orders and didn't understand what they were doing, so they should be described as innocent victims, but after the military decides who is guilty, they have to figure out what to do with the guilty people.
Have you considered the possibility that there may be millions of Jews involved with this international crime network. What are we going to do with millions of criminal Jews?
Our current method of dealing with crime is to punish the criminals and hope that the punishment makes them more honest. This policy has failed all throughout history, so why should we assume that it's going to work on millions of criminal Jews? I think we need to start experimenting with different policies.
Crime is rampant in every nation despite enormous amounts of security systems, police, jails, and punishments. Organized crime gangs are everywhere, and there are millions of independent criminals committing burglaries, and possibly millions of businessmen committing what we might describe as economic crimes. We also have criminals operating within our police departments and military.
We have to face the fact that our current attitudes about crime is failing, and that our law enforcement and legal system is also a failure. We need to start experimenting with different policies.
If you're familiar with my opinions, then you know that I also think we should experiment with different government systems, economic systems, school systems, and other social systems, and that we should be planning cities rather than letting them develop in a haphazard manner. But we shouldn't make global changes to the entire world at once. We should start on a small scale and watch the results so that we can do these experiments without taking the chance of ruining the world.
Before I talk about those issues, I think it will help if I discuss the fascinating photos of Josef Fritzl at his trial.
Fritzl went to trial in March of 2009. I didn't pay any attention to the trial, but I couldn't resist looking through the photos of him with his face buried in a large binder. People frequently make attempts to hide their face after they get arrested, such as by turning away from the cameras, or putting their hand in front of their face, but Fritzl went to an extreme. As he walked into the courtroom, he used both hands to hold a large binder in front of his face. I expected him to put the binder down after he sat down in the courtroom, but to my surprise, he continued holding it in front of his face even while sitting in the courtroom.
His behavior was so shocking that when he finally had to put the binder
down, a photographer got a picture of his face, and the BBC proudly published
an article with the headline:
When Bernie Madoff was arrested, he didn't hide his face. The BBC never boasted "Madoff's face is caught on camera".
I don't think we should dismiss Fritzl's behavior as meaningless. We're tempted to assume that people who behave in strange manners are different from the rest of us, but there is only one model of human, so when we find a human behaving in an idiotic manner, we have to assume that we have the same idiotic characteristics, also.
I think the reason Fritlz and other people hide their face after being arrested is because they don't like the thought of people seeing them in handcuffs, and the human mind has the irrational characteristic of ignoring the information that we dislike. Our mind doesn't care what reality is. If we don't like a particular thought or conclusion, we simply ignore certain information and then reprocess the information to give us the conclusion that we find more appealing. We don't care about the evidence. If we don't like certain evidence, we ignore it. We could describe this as ignoring reality and creating a fantasy world.
Perhaps you've noticed that when young children are frightened, or when they play the game of hide and seek, they sometimes just sit down somewhere and cover their eyes with their hands. They're not hiding, but they assume that because they don't see anybody, nobody sees them.
You might respond that the child's irrational behavior is the result of his tiny, undeveloped brain, but how do we explain adults who think that they're hiding from us when they hold their hand up in front of a camera or when they cover their face with a binder? Certainly every adult has the intelligence to realize that he's not hiding from us, and that the photos of him will appear all over the world despite his attempts to prevent it.
You might respond that criminals such as Fritlz are mentally defective, but if you take a look at yourself and other supposedly healthy people, you should easily see that all of us have this idiotic characteristic of assuming that we can ignore information that we don't like.
A simple example is how we will make an effort to ignore what people do inside bathrooms. Most of us don't want to know what people are doing in bathrooms, and so we try to block that information. If somebody were to play you a video of your mother in the bathroom, you would be tempted to turn it off or destroy it or walk out of the room. You wouldn't want those images in your mind, and if you had the ability to erase information, you would erase them from your memory.
Those of you who have tried to talk about 9/11 or the lies about the Holocaust have certainly noticed that most people react in the same manner. They don't like this information, and so they make an attempt to keep it out of their mind. They change the subject, or walk away, or reprimand you.
The human mind sees what it wants to see. And since each of us have different intellectual abilities and emotional preferences, each of us will see the same world in a slightly different manner. For example, I can look at your mother and your children and you in a different manner than you can look at yourself, your mother, and your children.
Imagine if video cameras behaved like the human mind. Imagine dozens of video cameras pointed towards the exact same location, but each of them is giving a different image because each of them is removing different aspects of the image that they personally didn't like. Or how about telephones removing portions of the audio that they didn't like? Or a mirror that removes sections of your face that it didn't like?
All of us ignore certain aspects of reality, but we have to make a distinction between ignoring irrelevant information, such as what people do in the bathroom, and ignoring problems, such as 9/11, corruption in government, lies about the Holocaust, and organized crime gangs. People who ignore problems are hurting themselves and the rest of society. They're behaving like a child, or like that freak, Josef Fritzl.
If a man cannot face the problems of the modern world, how could he possibly develop intelligent opinions about life? People who hide from problems should not be allowed to vote or influence the economy or society in any way. They should be classified as second-class citizens who lack the ability to face reality. Their opinions are not merely stupid; rather, they're based on a distorted view of reality.
In fact, I just saw another example of this a few weeks ago when I was once again together with some of my relatives. My brother's girlfriend mentioned that she recently missed one of her airline flights because she was selected at random by the airport security personnel for a more thorough security check. My other brother, Brad, responded that random security checks are idiotic because only Muslims are potential terrorists, so only Muslims should be put through security checks.
My brother Brad and his wife are two of millions of people around the world who can't handle 9/11 or any of the other problems the world is suffering from. They calmly listened to me many years ago when I first told my relatives about 9/11, but they eventually realized that I was correct, and their reaction was to ignore everything I say. Both of them are still ignoring information after more than 7 years. As a result, their opinions about life are beyond idiotic.
Only a couple of my relatives are capable of talking about 9/11, so when I get together with my relatives, it feels like I'm sitting in a room full of people like Josef Fritzl, all of whom are holding binders in front of their face. The situation is so extreme that I haven't said much of anything to my brother Brad or his wife or their two children during the past few years, even though we sometimes sit next to each other.
In the early 1990s I told my relatives that America is losing manufacturing and engineering, and that we are slowly degrading into a Third World nation. None of my relatives believed me. Most of them simply thought that my analysis was incorrect, and some of them thought I had bad attitude towards life. One relative described me as promoting "doom and gloom".
During the past few months, it has become obvious to some of my relatives that America's economy is having trouble, but their reaction is to assume that it's merely a temporary problem that will be over in a few months, or maybe a year.
My mother's reaction to the economic problems is like a gambler's reaction to his losses. For example, when the stock market goes up, she'll tell me that the economy is finally turning around. When the stock market goes down the next day, or when there is some other bad economic news, she ignores it and talks about something else. And then when the stock market goes up the following day, she once again says the economy is getting better. What she is doing is ignoring the bad news. She is behaving like a gambler who says nothing when he loses, but every time he wins, he proudly announces that he's making money.
My brother Brad is almost identical to my mother in this respect. The end result is that all I ever hear from my mother and brother is that everything is wonderful and life is improving every day.
What they're saying is actually true. It's true that life is improving for the human race. If you look through the past few thousand years you can see that even though there are temporary problems, the human race is slowly improving through time. We are slowly learning about ourselves and the universe, and we are slowly learning from our mistakes.
However, even though my mother and brother are making truthful statements, they're not giving us an accurate view of the world. They're focusing only on the pleasant aspects and ignoring the problems.
To understand how dangerous people like my mother and brother are, imagine if they were airline mechanics, and if they ignored problems with the airplanes just like they ignore problems with society. Imagine my brother inspecting the airplane that you are about to take a flight on, and he notices that some of the turbine blades are broken, but instead of reporting the damage, he becomes so upset at the thought that the engine is broken that he ignores the broken blades and tells the boss that the oil levels are fine, the bearings are in great shape, and the engine is in wonderful condition.
You wouldn't dismiss my brother's behavior as amusing. You'd be disgusted. You'd describe him as a dangerous, psychotic freak who never should have been given a job as an airline mechanic. You'd describe him as suffering from some very serious mental disorder.
Airline mechanics have to be able to critically look at their airplanes and they have to deal with the problems they find. You wouldn't tolerate an airline mechanic who became so traumatized by problems that he ignored them.
What is the difference between an airline mechanic ignoring problems with an engine, and a voter ignoring problems with society? In both cases they're putting people's lives in danger and allowing problems to get worse.
Likewise, what good is a policeman if he is so traumatized by 9/11 and other organized crime activities that he hides from the issue? How can we expect military leaders to do their job properly if they're traumatized at the thought that their Jewish friends are actually their enemies?
The majority of people cannot cope with the problems of the modern world. Most people ignore crime networks, teenage gangs, corrupt government officials, dishonest policemen, and pedophilia at the churches. They focus on the issues that make them feel good, and they ignore everything that they don't like. They could be described as creating an unrealistic, fantasy world for themselves.
There's nothing adorable about this behavior. It's disgusting. It's dangerous.
The human mind has the intelligence and creativity to make the world a better place, but most people don't have the ability or desire to deal with society's problems. Most people don't even want to deal with their own personal problems, such as their alcoholism or their craving for money. They want to spend their time entertaining themselves.
If my relatives had been put into one of Eisenhower's death camps, they would have behaved exactly like the Germans. They would have ignored the possibility that they were going to slowly die of thirst or starvation and they would have concentrated on pleasant issues, such as how nice the weather was that particular day, or that soon they will be released from the camp.
If you wonder how the human mind could have developed such a serious flaw, all you have to do is imagine what life was like 50,000 years ago, and you can see that this flaw was actually a wonderful quality back in those days.
If you had lived with my mother and brother 50,000 years ago, you would have loved to be with them. No matter how frightening your situation was, my mother and brother would tell you that life is wonderful, and that everything was improving day by day. You could be on the verge of starvation, but both of them would have a smile on their hungry faces, ignore the unpleasant possibilities, and they would tell you not to worry because soon you'll have plenty to eat.
My mother and brother would help you remain cheerful and happy. You would have enjoyed their presence. Both of them would have been very pleasant. In fact, you probably would have preferred to be with them rather than me.
However, humans have made significant changes to the environment we live in. As a result, some of the mental and physical characteristics that were useful, or vital, in prehistoric times are now destructive or dangerous. It's no longer acceptable for people to hide from problems and live in a fantasy world. People today need the ability to face problems in their personal life and in society. The people who can't handle reality should not be allowed to influence society in any way.
Just about every person on the planet can be described as nice and friendly, and most are reasonably trustworthy, but being nice or honest is not enough for this modern world. We can't judge a person according to how often he smiles or whether he's friendly. We have to judge people by their effect on society.
Our primitive ancestors could do whatever they pleased because their behavior didn't have much of an effect on anybody else. But today we live in large societies, and each of us inadvertently effects the lives of other people. People today must be able to fit into society and contribute to it. The people who hide from problems are allowing our problems to continue. These people are a danger to us and themselves.
The human brain has a lot of characteristics that are acceptable for animals and primitive humans, but which are dangerous in our modern world. Another example is how we tend to hide from danger.
For example, a couple weeks ago the Drudge Report promoted a news article
about the rising crimes at hotels. The article provided tips from government
officials and hotel security experts on how we can deal with the rising
crime rates. However, they promoted the typical attitude that we should
live in fear and hide from criminals. Here are 4 of their suggestions:
Those type of suggestions don't help us to understand why people commit crimes, and they don't help us to reduce crime. Instead, those suggestions encourage us to behave like frightened rabbits. This in turn allows the crime networks to grow and thrive.
Many people assume that male humans are brave and violent because human history is full of militaries, wars, fights, and killings. And one of our primary activities is developing and stockpiling weapons.
However, humans are actually a very peaceful, and easily frightened creature. Our natural tendency is to run and hide from crime and other problems. As I mentioned in another audio file, Charlton Heston and the other men who want guns are not violent men. They want those weapons because they're frightened of crime. They want the weapons for defensive purposes, not because they want to use them.
And when men yell at one another, it's an attempt to avoid a fight by intimidating their opponent. Likewise, America's enormous stockpile of weapons is an attempt to avoid war by intimidating other nations. We didn't develop those weapons because we want to use them.
Humans are actually very peaceful. Even during the most destructive war you can see this. For example, there are lots of reports of soldiers during World War II who had difficulty shooting at their enemy. And consider that the military makes an attempt to reduce deaths by forcing the soldiers to follow rules about when they can kill. If we were truly a violent species, the military wouldn't treat war as if it was a game.
Animals and humans have strong inhibitions about killing their own species. It's true that animals and humans fight with one another all the time, but most of those fights are intended to set territorial boundaries and dominance.
Our inhibitions about killing our own species is so extreme that we don't want doctors to kill people who are on the verge of death and who are begging for assisted suicide. As a result, every day around the world, thousands of old and sickly people die a slow and painful death.
Did you look at the news report about the French woman with cancer in her head that I put on the page that has this audio file? Doctors had no idea how to stop that particular type of cancer, so there was no possibility of a cure, and she was in pain and on the verge of death. So she asked the doctors if she could be put out of her misery, but the French courts said no. So she had to kill herself.
There are lots of reports of businessmen, policemen, and other people committing suicide in strange manners, and this might have given you the impression that suicide is a simple and popular method of dealing with problems, but I think most of the suicides by otherwise normal, healthy people are actually murders.
Killing yourself is one of the most difficult things that you can do. In order for a healthy person to kill himself, he has to be suffering terribly. Most people claim that it is wrong to let doctors kill terminally ill people, but I think it's cruel to make people suffer to the extent at which they're willing to kill themselves.
I think that people who oppose euthanasia are simply incapable of controlling their emotions enough to think about this issue seriously. They're allowing their inhibitions to dominate them rather than use their intellect to develop a sensible theory. This would explain why they have nothing intelligent to say about euthanasia. All they do is repeat the phrase that euthanasia is wrong. But why is it wrong? They don't know why it's wrong because they're not thinking about the issue. They are simply reacting to their emotions like a stupid animal.
These issues don't have a right or wrong. Or, if you want to believe that these issues do have are right or wrong, then I would claim that making people suffer is wrong. And I would claim that we deserve the freedom to die when we please, and we have the right to have other people kill us so that we don't have to do this horrible job by ourselves.
The people who insist that euthanasia is wrong but who have no explanation for their theory are simply following a crude emotion which is no longer appropriate in this era.
Of course, to be fair, this issue is complicated by the fact that many people who oppose euthanasia are simply following the culture that they picked up during their childhood. This is another very important concept to understand. As I described in some of my articles at my philosophy page, children pick up language, clothing styles, and other culture by mimicking people around them. Children don't think very much, and they don't think very well. They are analogous to a sponge.
When we become teenagers, we think a bit for ourselves, but even during adulthood we rarely question the culture that we picked up during our childhood. Furthermore, because all animals are extremely arrogant, we assume that our culture is the only proper culture. This is why Americans will insult other nations as crude, or evil, or disgusting for eating horses, dogs, seaweed, and insects.
Humans have considerable intelligence, but we differ in our desire to think, our intellectual abilities, and our arrogance. As a result, we spend different amounts of time thinking, and the more arrogant people have almost no ability to look seriously at themselves or their culture. People who are equally intelligent may appear to be very different in intelligence simply because one thinks more often, or because one is more arrogant.
Animals don't have much of an ability to think. Animals simply react to events, sort of like chemicals reacting when you mix them together. If there's nothing for an animal to react to, it does nothing. For example, when an animal has had enough food to eat, and when it doesn't have any problems to deal with, it puts itself into a type of idle mode. It just lays down and does nothing.
The behavior of humans and animals is incredibly similar. Even though humans have the ability to think and research issues, most people don't want to think. Most people will think only when they are under pressure to do so by a teacher or their boss.
When we've had enough to eat, and there is nothing bothering us, and we can do whatever we please, we tend to behave just like an animal. We put ourselves into a type of idle state in which we sit down and do virtually nothing, sometimes for hours. Some people actually take a nap just like an animal, but most people do something while they're in this idle state, such as drink beer, watch television, have a conversation, or play a game. However, even though they are doing something, their mind is idling rather than seriously working.
When men have discussions in this idle state, they're not seriously thinking about what the other men are saying. Rather, their conversations are for entertainment. The men try to show one another who knows the most and who is the smartest. The men are titillating themselves by imagining that they are the dominant male. They are not seriously trying to understand or solve any problem.
The criminal Jews take advantage of our tendency to mindlessly follow whatever beliefs we picked up as children by infiltrating and manipulating our school system and media. They want to promote Holocaust and other propaganda to young children because we tend to blindly follow whatever beliefs we picked up as children.
The criminal Jews also use the media to manipulate us for profit. One of the examples I've mentioned in other files is that Jews in the diamond businesses have convinced women that diamonds are a girl's best friend. Millions of women have been raised on this propaganda. Since women don't think very well, and neither men nor women want to think much anyway, it's extremely difficult to have a serious conversation with a woman about diamonds or jewelry. Most women are mindlessly following idiotic advertising slogans.
You might expect men to become disgusted with criminal Jews and other businesses that manipulate us into purchasing products, but most men don't want to think, and a lot of men don't seem to have the intelligence to fully understand this type of manipulation. And of the men who are capable of understanding it, most of them prefer to behave like Josef Fritzl and ignore the issue.
You have to wonder what television and movies would be like if there weren't any Jews influencing them. An interesting example of how businesses and criminal Jews are making a mess of life is the reaction of people to the British television show, "Britain has talent". For the past few years people around the world have been repeatedly shocked to discover that there are people with amazing singing abilities.
I think that the entertainment businesses have been taken over by criminal Jews, and that they promote only a very small number of people as singers, such as Barbra Streisand and Madonna. They suppress millions of people who can sing just as well or better. They've created the impression that only a few dozen people have talent. As a result, people are shocked when they discover that there are people who can sing just as well or better than Barbra Streisand.
I also suspect that the criminal Jews promote only the scientists who are part of their crime network and that they're suppressing other scientists. This would explain why the scientists and Nobel prize winners who get publicity have nothing intelligent to say about anything. Furthermore, by suppressing honest scientists, the Jews may have delayed the development of some scientific knowledge, and they may have prevented some important research projects from getting funding.
Unfortunately, it's not going to be easy to improve our situation because most people hide from these issues like Josef Fritzl. We need to find men who enjoy thinking, and who are capable of taking a serious and critical look at their nation and their culture. We have to push aside the arrogant men who wave flags and insist their nation is perfect.
Another example of how people's behavior today is inappropriate is the reaction to our current economic problems. Millions of us have suffered a decrease in our income. Unfortunately, many people did not compensate for the decrease. As a result, some of them were evicted from their homes.
Of the people who were evicted, some of them left quietly, but others
had temper tantrums and vandalized their house. There was a man in Las
Vegas who spent so many days vandalizing his house that his neighbors complained
about the noise and the fumes, and a television crew had plenty of time
to go over and film him as he destroys his house. Since he owned the house
at the time, the police didn't make any attempt to stop him.
This vandalizing of houses brings up two interesting issues. First of all, why would humans, especially men, have developed this destructive quality? Why don't we react to problems by thinking about them and discussing the issue?
Temper tantrums make sense when you consider what life is like for animals and prehistoric humans. Animals can't discuss issues, and they can't call the police. Therefore, when an animal is irritated or in danger, its only options are to become violent and fight, or become frightened and hide.
Primitive humans also had no real options other than fight or hide. But in this modern world, these emotional reactions are often inappropriate, and sometimes dangerous. Today we get angry at inanimate objects, such as computers and tools, and sometimes we get angry with concepts, such as traffic or taxes. Humans need to evolve into a more advanced creature that reacts to problems by analyzing the situation and discussing possible solutions.
We all have temper tantrums when we're irritated, but there are subtle differences between us. Our tantrums differ in the level of violence, and in their duration. And after we calm down, we differ in how much time we spend thinking about the problem. The reason I have so much to say about society is because I've been annoyed by life many times, but after I calmed down I spent time thinking about how we could make a better society.
Unfortunately, I haven't met anybody who wants to join me in discussions about these issues. There are millions of clubs, fraternities, and other organizations for all sorts of activities, such as playing chess, tasting different types of wine, or talking about computers. But are there any organizations for people who want to talk about designing a better economy, or designing a better city? Am I the only person who is interested in these issues? If I created an organization to develop a better society, would I be the only member?
People have occasionally asked me what my hobby is, and I would avoid answering the question because I was embarrassed to tell people that my favorite leisure time activity is thinking about how to make a better society.
I also enjoy stereo microscopes, although I would describe that as just an occasionally interesting activity rather than a hobby. In case you don't know what they are, they are low powered microscopes that provide three-dimensional images. They're like the magnifying goggles that jewelers and dentists have. There's an entire universe around us that we normally don't see because it's too small for our eyes.
Anyway, when I get frustrated with problems, I feel the same emotions that other men feel. For example, many years ago, when I was using Microsoft Windows98, I would get frustrated with the idiotic qualities that Microsoft seemed to have deliberately put into the operating system, and I would fantasize about throwing my computer at Bill Gates.
Somewhere around the year 2000 I became convinced by the Linux fanatics that I should switch to Linux. And so I put Linux on my computer and was soon appalled to discover that it was even worse than Windows98. Linux is acceptable for a person who does nothing but browse the Internet and other simple tasks, but I had to develop software, and Linux wasn't a replacement for Windows in my particular situation.
I was very annoyed with the people who had been promoting Linux as an alternative for every person and every business. However, I didn't simply get angry. Instead, I thought about the issue of operating systems and software, and I ended up posting my analysis of the issue on the Internet. At that time I didn't have my own website, but I was using America Online for e-mail, and they gave everybody a few megabytes of free web space, so I posted it there.
A lot of people and businesses switched to Linux in the year 2000. I know I wasn't the only person who became disgusted with it because I saw other people posting angry messages on message boards. But how many people reacted by thinking about the issues and posting documents about it, as I did?
By the way, the reason it occurred to me to mention my Linux articles is because my memory of those articles was refreshed the other day when Alex Jones interviewed Richard Stallman. His name is seemed vaguely familiar, and I wondered if he was one of the men I had written about. So I searched my Linux articles and I discovered that not only did I write about him, but I implied that he was mentally ill.
At the time I wrote about Linux, I didn't know much about Zionism, and at that time in my life I wasn't paying attention to anybody's religion, so it didn't occur to me to consider the possibility that the people involved in the free software movement might be connected to the international Jewish crime network.
Instead, I was just looking at the issue of Linux and free software.
I find it interesting to look back at those articles because my conclusions
about the free software issue are very similar to my conclusions about
the 9/11 truth movement. Specifically, I criticize the leaders of both
groups as being criminals, Marxists, parasites, or mentally ill.
I also find it interesting that one of my complaints about the free software movement is that the people were always begging for money. They insist that their software is free, but they beg us for money in order to cover their expenses. They won't acknowledge, or they're too mentally ill to understand, that software cannot truly be free. Somebody has to pay for it.
This begging for money is also widespread in the 9/11 movement, the Holocaust revisionist movement, and other organizations that are full of Jews. They're always begging for money.
If you've looked through my documents and audio files, then you know that I think that software should be free, also. However, I believe in competition, and I realize that software developers have to be supported. Compare my proposal for free software to the proposals by Richard Stallman and the others.
By the way, I doubt if it's a coincidence that Richard Stallman appeared on the Alex Jones radio show. As I mentioned in another file, people such as Alex Jones used to interview me, and they sold my book and video. But during the past few years their crime network has been so thoroughly exposed that they are now frightened to give me publicity, and there are probably other people besides me that they are frightened to give publicity to, also.
During the past few years they have been giving publicity only to the people who are part of their crime network. Therefore, I don't think we should dismiss the appearance of Richard Stallman on the Alex Jones show as just a coincidence. We should consider this a sign that the Zionist Jews really are involved with the free software movement. This would explain why their philosophy is so similar to that of Marxists.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that when I became upset with Windows and Linux, I reacted by analyzing the issue and writing about it. By comparison, most people react to problems by ignoring the problems, or becoming angry, or feeling sorry for themselves. This crude behavior was acceptable in prehistoric times, but it's not acceptable for this modern world. We need more advanced humans who are interested in solving problems, and who have a concern for society.
Getting back to the vandalism of houses, another interesting aspect of this vandalism issue is that the police don't stop it because it's legal for a person to destroy his own property. We don't allow people to kill their children, but we allow them to destroy their home, car, computer, and even cut off their fingers.
Imagine a society in which everybody was reacting to problems by having violent temper tantrums and destroying their property.
Imagine that every time a person burned himself in the kitchen, he had a tantrum and destroyed his kitchen. And imagine that every time a person got frustrated with his computer, he destroyed the computer. And imagine that every time a person became frustrated with his house or car, he destroyed his home or car.
And finally, imagine that after every time they destroyed their property, the television news reporters proudly announced that the latest act of vandalism will help the economy by creating more jobs for people to replace the broken items.
You would certainly be disgusted by such a society, but when the same behavior occurs on a smaller scale, we have a tendency to make excuses for it, or ignore it. However, if behavior is disgusting on a large scale, it is just as disgusting on a small scale. A related concept is: if behavior is disgusting when strangers or other nations do it, it's just as disgusting when your friends or nation do it.
For example, when we shop for food, we sometimes decide that we no longer want an item that we put into our shopping basket, but some people are too lazy to put the item back, or they think they're too special to put it back because they have a college degree or they make lots of money, so they just abandon it somewhere, even if it's a frozen item.
All of us do this at our own home. We often pick something up at one location, and leave it somewhere else. However, it doesn't cause trouble for us because most of us eventually put the item back in its proper location.
Imagine a society in which everybody routinely picked items up at their homes, at retail stores, and where they worked, and then abandoned them somewhere else. Imagine items scattered all around the retail stores, offices, factories, and restaurants. You would be disgusted with such people. You would describe them as irresponsible, filthy, and selfish.
People who behave like this are a nuisance to society, and some of the frozen foods end up being wasted. However, we don't make any attempt to deal with people who behave like this. We just ignore them. We won't do anything about this problem until there are so many people doing it that we become irritated to such a level that we lose our temper.
Incidentally, this is another example of why men have temper tantrums. When we become irritated to a certain extent, we lose our temper, and that overpowers our inhibitions and we face the problem that is annoying us.
Men often won't do anything about their problems until the problem becomes so serious that it makes them angry. Men today need to be aware of this because once you realize you have this idiotic tendency, then you realize that you need to deal with problems before they reach the level at which you lose your temper.
Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to worry about people who didn't put things back in their proper place, and they didn't need laws or policemen. They behaved in whatever manner they pleased. They had freedom to an extent that we can't imagine. For example, they could do more than destroy their personal property. They could kill their own children without anybody complaining.
The reason this extreme level of freedom worked for them is the same reason that works for animals. And that is because nature made the final decision in regards to who is behaving properly and who isn't. If we could go back in time thousands of years, we would find small groups of humans around the world, and we would find that even though they're all similar to each other, they each developed slightly different attitudes towards retarded children, marriage, religion, and other issues. And we would find that some of those groups go extinct, and some grow so large that they split into two groups, thereby increasing the number of people with their particular attitudes.
To understand how nature decided which of our primitive ancestors had the best culture, imagine three groups of humans living near each other in 50,000 BC. Imagine that all three groups are identical except in their treatment of retarded children. One group kills their retarded children. The second group cares for their retarded children as best they can. The third group tries to ignore their retarded children, which results in the retards dying a slow and painful death due to neglect and starvation.
If the American court system were to pass judgment on these three groups of humans, the group that kills retarded children would be classified as murderers, and they would all be put into jail or killed. The group that ignores their retarded children would be considered unfit parents and the government would take their retarded children away from them. And the group that cares for the retarded children would be praised as wonderful.
However, nature is not an entity that can think or have pity. Nature is just a competitive battle for life. We can easily determine which of those three attitudes nature prefers simply by looking at the people alive today and throughout history and noticing which attitude is dominant. And what we will discover is that the people who survived the competitive struggle are those in that third group I mentioned; namely, the people who ignore retarded children and let them die a slow and miserable death.
People have been ignoring retarded children all throughout history. We considered retarded people to be disgusting. We don't want them as a friend or a spouse, or even as a neighbor. However, we don't want to kill them, either. Our preference is to behave just like that psycho Josef Fritzl. We perfer to put a binder in front of our face and ignore the retards.
We treat orphans the same way. We don't want to kill them, but we don't want them in our life, either. During the past few centuries we have been dumping them in orphanages. This allows them to survive, but most of them have a lonely, miserable existence, and many of them end up as sex toys for the pedophiles in our government, churches, and universities. If somebody brings up the issue of orphans, we try to push it away from us, just as we would push away a video of our mother in the bathroom.
We also ignore the homeless people in our streets. Some of them are so mentally ill that we don't even bother trying to put them in a homeless shelter. We just pretend they don't exist.
We also try to ignore old and terminally ill people. However, since they are our mother and father, we put them into a much nicer building, and occasionally we visit them.
Why would humans develop this characteristic of ignoring retards, orphans, and other people? Why don't we want to help these people? Or why don't we put them out of their misery and kill them in a painless manner? Why do we pretend they don't exist?
It should be obvious as to why humans didn't develop an attraction to retards. First of all, it would be a terrible burden on prehistoric humans to care for retards, and second, if we had an attraction to retards, we would be reproducing with them, and that would ruin the gene pool.
The humans that survived the competition for life were those who were disgusted by retards. However, that doesn't explain why we prefer to ignore them rather than kill them. When our primitive ancestors ignored retards, they caused the retards to die a slow and miserable death, which could be described as cruel. So why do we prefer to torture these unwanted people? Why don't we prefer to put them out of their misery by arranging for them to be killed?
Furthermore, why don't we kill criminals and other troublemakers? Why do we prefer to punish them and lock them in cages?
I think we can answer this question by looking at animals. In order for an animal to kill its retarded offspring, it would have to pass judgment on which of them classifies as retarded. Unfortunately, there is no distinct division between a retard and a healthy creature. And there is no perfection with living creatures. Every animal and plant is just a random mixture of genetic traits. The end result is that every creature is defective.
The only difference between one creature and another is the type of defects and the quantity of defects. Therefore, in order for an animal to kill its retarded offspring, it would have to understand this complex issue, and then it would have to analyze its offspring and pass judgment on which of them has defects that are so serious that they should be killed.
Animals and plants can't possibly make such decisions. As a result, they simply reproduce in large numbers, and then they let their offspring battle for life.
Our ancestors eventually developed the intelligence necessary to make these decisions, but intelligence alone is not enough to make such decisions. They also needed a certain amount of knowledge about genetics and other issues. Without that knowledge they wouldn't be able to make sensible decisions. Even with all of the knowledge we have today it would be difficult for us to pass judgment on which children are so defective that we should kill them.
It's important to note that we don't like to see people suffer. When we see people suffering, especially a child, we want to help them. So this creates a dilemma. We don't want retards, orphans, and certain other people to be part of our life, but it hurts us to see them suffer.
Our solution to this dilemma is to behave like my mother and my brother. As I mentioned earlier, my mother ignores the bad economic news, and focuses on good economic news. Likewise, we ignore the thousands - or is it millions? - of retards, orphans, terminally ill people, and homeless people, and whenever somebody notices that one of those people is happy, we convince ourselves that he is representative of the entire group of unwanted people.
In reality, our behavior is irrational and cruel. We really don't care about orphans or retards. We don't even know how many orphans there are. Are there thousands of them? Or are there millions? We don't know, and we don't want to know. How many terminally ill people are there? How many retards? How many homeless people are living in our streets? We don't know, and we don't want to know. We don't want to think about these people. We want to put a binder in front of our face when the issue comes up.
The people who claim to care about orphans and retards are telling a partial truth. It's true that we don't like to see them suffering, but we don't want them in our lives. So we dump them somewhere so that we don't have to see them but where they can survive. I would describe this as stupid animal behavior, and I would say that it is very cruel.
Unfortunately, no society has been able to develop sensible policies for euthanasia, orphans, abortion, or retards because most of the human population cannot control their emotions enough to discuss these issues seriously.
Of course, I suspect that one reason so many Jews in the government and media are opposed to the killing of retards, orphans, and criminals is because the criminal Jews are using those unwanted people in initiation ceremonies in order to blackmail people. I think that they are telling people that in order to join the New World Order, they've got to do something, such as kill a homeless person or a retard. These same Jews will push for laws against killing unwanted people, thereby allowing the Jews to blackmail everybody who does this.
Getting back to the issue of why we have such trouble killing people, I think our mind has two, independent areas that influence our behavior. One area could be described as our intellect, and that is where we think. The other area is what we could describe as our emotions. These areas appear to act independently, and as a result, there is a constant battle between these two areas for control of our behavior.
For example, when a man looks at attractive woman, the emotional area of our brain is stimulated by her visual image, and that creates what we describe as feelings. Those feelings influence our behavior. They give us desires to touch the woman or talk to her. There is no way we can prevent or stop those emotional feelings from occurring. All we can do is try to control or ignore them. If we don't have much control over our emotions, we may do what those emotions want us to do, such as grab at her.
Perhaps the best example of this concept of how our emotions can interfere with our decisions is the difficulty parents have of explaining sex to their children. Our primitive ancestors never had to teach their children anything about sex. Their children grew up around nudity and sex, and so they learned everything they needed to know simply by observing the adults around them.
As a result, humans never developed the desire or ability to teach their children about sex. The only emotions we have in regards to sex are the desire to have it, and inhibitions that cause us to keep sexual activity private.
Today children have to be taught about their bodies and sex. Children are growing up around people who wear clothing all the time, and women give birth in secrecy, and everybody has bathrooms and bedrooms to hide in.
Many parents realize that they should teach their children something about sex, but when we try to talk about these issues, certain emotions are stimulated. People refer to these particular emotions as "inhibitions". They are similar to the emotions that cause us to hide when we are in the bathroom.
These type of emotions do not encourage us to do something, and they do not create pleasant feelings. Rather, these type of emotions are triggered when we do something that we're not supposed to do, and their purpose is to put pressure on us into changing our behavior. These emotions are analogous to a policeman who beats us with a stick every time we disobey his orders.
However, these emotions are so stupid that they are triggered even when we try to educate children, or when we try to talk about a sex related issue with a friend. You should be able to sense the conflict going on inside your mind when you try to do this. The intellectual area of your mind will be producing thoughts, and quite possibly some intelligent thoughts, but when you try to say the words, your emotions will be triggered to torture you, and the torture won't stop until you stop talking. These emotions are so strong and most people have so little control over their emotions that they can only get a few words out before they give up and stop talking.
Perhaps humans will eventually evolve into a creature that can calmly talk about sex, but until then, schools should teach children about these issues. Unfortunately, schools haven't been able to do a good job teaching these issues because a lot of parents are putting pressure on the schools to keep the sex education to a minimum. And, of course, we have Jews trying to promote homosexuality and all sorts of other types of sex activities.
When we look at the human mind as having an intellectual area and an emotional area, and that these two areas compete for control of us, then we can explain our irrational and cruel treatment of retards and orphans. And once we understand that we have powerful inhibitions about killing people, especially children, then we can understand why men have this ability to lose their temper.
Specifically, when a man is irritated to a certain extent, he will lose his temper, and this particular emotion will momentarily overpower all other emotions, and he can then kill the person that's irritating him, even if it's his own child or spouse. There doesn't seem to be any emotion that is more powerful than this one. Once this emotion has been triggered, his body will suddenly have an enormous amount of energy, and almost nothing will stop him from becoming violent.
Since all men have this characteristic, this could not be an accident. The men who survived the competitive battle for life were those that have this ability to have violent temper tantrums. Nature has been favoring this type of man all throughout history.
However, today we try to suppress our temper. This allows a lot of people to live who otherwise would have been killed. This in turn requires that we deal with these troublemakers in some other manner. We can't simply ignore this issue.
An interesting example made the news the other day when five policemen in Birmingham, Alabama were fired from their jobs.
The video from one of the police cameras has been posted on the Internet. It shows Anthony Warren trying to escape from the police in his van, and as he drives away, he tries to hit a policeman who is standing on the road. That policeman survived, but the other policemen became angry. They chased after Warren, and he soon lost control of his van, and it rolled over onto the side of the road, and he was thrown out and he laid down on the ground. The police didn't try to figure out whether he was dead, unconscious, or faking unconsciousness. They just ran up to him and started hitting him with their sticks.
It turned out that Warren was unconscious, and so the police were fired for beating an unconscious man, and now Warren is expected to file a lawsuit and demand money for the abuse he suffered.
As I mentioned in another audio file, allowing people to file lawsuits
is idiotic. However, if we are going to allow criminals to file lawsuits
against the police, why not let policemen and citizens file lawsuits against
By the way, the police should be reminded of that expression, when you sleep with dogs, you get bit by fleas. The American police and military have been best friends with Jews for decades, and the police and military should start facing the fact that their Jewish friends are stabbing them in the back.
For example, there is a video on the Internet in which three commentators
on the CNN network are discussing the beating of Anthony Warren, and they
defended Warren, not the police. They said that the officers definitely
should have been fired, and that they should've come to his aid rather
than beat him.
The criminal Jews promote a feel sorry for the criminal attitude, and they glorify pirates, crime gangs, and freaky Hollywood stars. And the Jews in our court system and government stab the police in the back, also. And consider the ADL, which has training programs for the police. The ADL never comes to the assistance of the police or military.
The police and military should also notice that the so-called truth seekers are actually trying to give them a bad image. Alex Jones is typical, but he's also one of the most amusing. For example, he refers to the police as gods. Here is an example from two days ago on March 28:
He's at a distance videotaping the gods.Later in that show he made this remark about the police:
Soon they'll just be executing us on the side of the street.The police need to realize that the Jews are not their friends.
Well, its been an hour and 20 minutes, which is all that fits on an audio CD, so I'll continue this in another audio file.
Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: