This is part two of my audio file for November 21, 2009.
Here's an excerpt from the Alex Jones radio show on Nov 4, 2009 in which he interviews the former US military General named Albert Stubblebind and his wife, Rima Laibow:

Alex Jones:

All right, in closing on the CointelPro and then we're going to calls. To simplify it, we have the Army Field manual, declassified in 2004, written for Latin America, where they say go out and say the local leaders - who are good - are really Feds. Where they teach the Army, in black ops, how to get everybody fighting with each other. And General Stubblebind can certainly expose that.

We see that anybody who is saying we can stand together, we can lead, we can fight the globalists, is demonized because the system knows they're discredited, they have to pose as patriots to then in-fight. In-fighting is the sign of being an operative or one of their mentally ill stooges.

And in closing I'll say this. It isn't Ron Paul that's trying to pass the private Federal Reserve/world government takeover. It isn't Alex Jones that is trying to make you take forced inoculations. It isn't General Stubblebind that's trying to put sodium fluoride in your water. It isn't Dr. Rima Laibow that is federalizing your local police.

It's the big, corrupt, offshore banks. And so, why do all these supposed patriot groups and sites spend all their time attacking whoever is effective? They do that so you'll get sucked off into these in-fights and never become the leaders you were meant to be.

So I'll say this today. Let's just say Alex Jones is bad; I'm pure evil - I'm not, my fruits are excellent, I'm pure of heart, anyone of discernment knows that. Fourteen years of fighting, 15, 16, 17 hours a day.

But let's just say I'm evil. Let's just say General Stubblebind is bad, and he's not a great patriot who's come over to our side - and he was always on our side, but woke up and fully went against the evil. Let's just say he's bad; let's just say Ron Paul is bad.

Okay, let's just get past that excuse. Now, YOU go fight the New World Order. You know what's coming down on you. You know this is real. You know you are good. And so you go out and be a leader, and when YOU get attacked, then you'll understand. We need to reach everybody now, we need to reach out now, we need to understand that whoever is being attacked is who is effective and who is good.

And now I'm done talking about that, but I've just seen particular attacks on our two guests and I know their work is good, I've been watching them for years, researching them for years. Everything they do is good! The fruits are good! That's how you judge a tree. But there is these horrible, sick trees with poison on them that always flap their branches and attack anybody who's good. It's time to see through the mind control.

Nobody can destroy the truth movement simply by encouraging suspicion. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Suspicion cleanses a truth movement by identifying the criminals and liars.

When I encourage people to be suspicious, it is analogous to encouraging you to dip a basket of diamonds into different pots of acid. In case you didn't know, carbon doesn't dissolve in any acid. Therefore, if you were purchasing diamonds, you could verify that the diamonds were real simply by dipping them into a variety of acids.

If the person selling the diamonds is honest, he won't care if you want to put the diamonds into acids because he will realize that the diamonds wouldn't be harmed in any way. Quite the contrary! The acids would clean off the fingerprints and the dirt and make the diamonds look even better.

However, if the diamonds are made of glass, then the seller would allow you to dip his phony diamonds into only the acids that glass can resist, and he will stop you from putting the phony diamonds into the acids that dissolve glass.

It's important that you realize that this concept applies to people as well as diamonds. If you want to determine which people are honest or talented, you have to put them through the equivalent of acid tests. You have to investigate all aspects of them, such as what they've accomplished during their life, who they associate with, what their failures have been, and what they've been saying to different people.

People who are honest have nothing to fear from investigations. Quite the contrary. An honest person would be thankful for the investigations because a thorough investigation is like an acid test in that the investigation will clean away the rumors and accusations and leave the honest person shining.

The only people who are afraid of investigations are people who are trying to hide something. For example, Daryl Smith refuses to tell us what type of work he did for Ilana (or Alonya?), that Jewish woman in New York whose family is involved with the gold and jewelry business. And he doesn't want us to know how many times he's been in jail, or why he was in jail, or how he got hepatitis. He is keeping a lot of secrets from us. And Alex Jones doesn't want us to know much about him or his wife, and Jeff Rense doesn't want us to know anything about him or his associations.

The truth movement is full of people who are keeping secrets from us. Don't assume that these people are secretive because they're afraid of the New World Order. They're not hiding from the government or from the police. They're hiding from you and me. They don't want us to know who they really are, or who they work with, or what they do for a living.

I think almost everybody in this truth movement is actually a criminal Jew, and their true goal is to manipulate our opinions, and if there are trials, they want to influence the decision of who is a criminal and what his fate will be.

Daryl Smith is a good example of this. A couple months ago, in August of 2009, he was very drunk and called me on the phone. It was the first time I talked to him since September of 2007.

He was pleasant and tried to convince me that I'm wrong to accuse him of being a Zionist agent. It appeared as if he was trying to become my friend again, so I played along and suggested that instead of criticizing Christopher Bollyn, we should investigate Illona, that Jewish woman in New York. Here is the excerpt in which I make this suggestion, with his swearing reduced in volume:
 

Me:	You know what you could investigate, is that Ilana, and her, her... their connections. I mean, there could be all kinds of things that we could be doing, you know.
Smith:	My friend Ilona?
Me:	Yeah! I mean she... her relatives, maybe not she, but what about, you said...
Smith:	Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure her brothers, her brothers were @$!# Mossad.
Me:	Yeah, that's what I mean, we could be getting into stuff like that. You must have some information we could get into.
Smith:	Why would I want to do that to my friend?
Me:	Yeah, but is not your friend, it's her relatives that are involved in it.
Smith:	Eric, Eric. Why would I want to do that to my friend?
Me:	Yeah, but you want me to attack Bollyn, what about these people, these are Mossad people. Bollyn's kid, I mean, I don't know about his kid. So his kid has problems? I mean, don't you see, we could do that! That would make more sense than attacking Bollyn's kid. Think about it. I mean, that would be really good information about the connection to the South African gold and jewelry business, diamond business.

Smith is certain that Ilana's family is involved with the Mossad, but he won't criticize her or expose her family, and I think it's because he is working for her. I think the reason Smith got involved with the so-called truth movement is because his criminal Jewish friends are hoping that we are foolish enough to trust him and let him influence the decisions of who is guilty and who is innocent.

Smith told me that he has been in and out of jail throughout his life, and he was addicted to crystal meth for about eight years, and he still has no ability to control his alcohol consumption. He's also been in lots of fights, and committed other crimes.

It's shocking to consider that such a freak could fool people into trusting him as an honest investigator of crimes, but if you look through history, or even at the people we currently have in leadership positions, you can see that this has been going on for centuries, and it's happening right now. A lot of people in leadership positions in our government, police departments, military, universities, and businesses have very serious mental disorders.

However, decades ago, people were very trusting, and it was difficult to investigate people. It was also much easier for people to keep secrets because the people who knew the secrets had to spread the secrets by word of mouth, or by making paper copies. The end result is that most of the population had no idea that freaks were getting control of society.

Fortunately, the Internet has improved our situation dramatically. We can now easily investigate government officials, truth seekers, sheriffs, and university professors. We can analyze what they've done during their lives, and who they associate with. And those of us who know some of their secrets can post the information on the Internet and make it available to the entire world.

For example, it's easy for me to let the entire world know that Smith told me that he was addicted to crystal meth for about eight years. And I can also let you know that Sofia, the woman who made 9/11 Mysteries, lives very close to Smith's cousin Jenny, and during the years that Sofia was trying to become my friend and turn me against Smith, she told me that Jenny told her that Smith was extremely violent with his first wife.

Try to overcome your craving to be submissive towards leaders. Don't be fooled into thinking that you will hurt a person by demanding they stop the secrecy and allow a complete investigation of their lives. Investigations are the only way to determine who among us is what he claims to be, and who is a liar.

For example, Daryl Smith and Noel Ryan have interviewed a woman named Jenny Lake, and as I mentioned in a previous file, I think Jenny Lake is Smith's cousin, but she is using a false last name. On September 25, 2009, Smith interviewed her once again, and this time he admitted that he has known her all his life. Here he is admiting to this, using the expression "donkey years":

Smith:

Today's guest, the person I want to bring up today, is a returning guest. Someone I've known for donkey years, for all my life I've known this person. Very good researcher; quality writer. She's got a blog named Jennifer Lake's blog, and you can find that on the Internet, or on the articles that she's posted on my website and her own blog. Her name is Jennifer Lake, of course, and I bring her up right now. Jennifer, are you with me?

The Internet is making it easy for us to analyze people. We can now see that our government, police departments, military, universities, think tanks, charities, churches, peace groups, veterans groups, and truth groups have been infiltrated with Jewish criminals and other freaks.

So don't be intimidated by people who complain that when we cast suspicion on people we are hurting them, or destroying cohesion, or causing fights. The only way to determine who among us is honest is to throw everybody into an acid bath. We can't show any pity. Point out to people that if they are truly honest, then the acid bath will cleanse away the idiotic accusations and rumors and show the world how wonderful they truly are.

Those truth seekers who complain that I'm starting fights and destroying the truth movement are frightened that you will put them into an acid bath and dissolve away the pleasant image that they created for themselves and expose them for what they really are; namely, horrible freaks.

And they're especially afraid that the police and military will follow my advice and investigate everybody. The criminal Jews are struggling right now to fool us into thinking that they are honest investigators. They don't want us to investigate any of them. They want us to be like submissive babies who do what we're told. They want to be in control of the investigations so that they can determine who is guilty and who is innocent.

So don't let any of these criminals intimidate you. Don't allow them to keep secrets. Insist that everybody who wants to influence the world be put into an acid bath. We should take advantage of the technology we have available today and investigate everybody.

By the way, technology also allows us to analyze people's voices. And recently I've noticed that Barney Frank is not the only person in Congress who can't pronounce words properly. Congressman Alan Grayson has a problem, also.

In case you don't know who Grayson is, he has been getting a lot of publicity recently by the so-called truth seekers because he stood up to the Federal Reserve and demanded to know how they spent the bailout money. He appears to be a hero who is standing up to the corrupt bankers.

However, you should notice a pattern that only the Zionist Jews promote Grayson as a hero. I think Grayson is working with the Zionist Jews, and that the Zionist Jews are fighting with the banking Jews. I think this is one of the divisions that's occurring in the so-called New World Order.

Furthermore, Grayson recently appeared on the Alex Jones radio show, and I think that is more evidence that he works with the Zionist Jews. Although Alex Jones interviewed me a couple times many years ago, he is now afraid to even mention my name. During the past few years, Jones has restricted his interviews to only Zionist Jews or their puppets. And he has access to an amazing number of famous people, such as Congressmen, sheriffs, entertainers, and even a member of the Rothschild family. Jones is not just some ordinary man.

Getting back to Grayson, if you've never heard him speak, listen to how he pronounces the word "federal":
(grayson slurrying "federal" in Congress)

He consistently slurs the word "federal" in that manner, so it's not just an occasional mistake. He also has trouble with the word "administration". Here he is on C-SPAN.
(grayson slurrying "administration")

Some people will dismiss his trivial speech problems as meaningless, but until scientists have a complete understanding of what causes speech problems, we ought to consider it as a sign that these people are mentally defective or geneticially primitive. If the dog couldn't bark properly, you would consider something wrong with it.

Anyway, let's assume that we find enough people who are fed up with the crime, the corruption, and the incompetence and that the police and military start determining who among us is a criminal, and we start the process of removing criminals. What do we do next?

Some people seem to think that all we have to do to improve the world is remove the criminals, but cleansing our nation of criminals will not solve any of our problems. For example, we will still have the same economic system and school system. If you're happy with these systems then you won't understand what I'm complaining about, but I think our economic system is inefficient and irritating, and I also think that it is deteriorating. And I think our school system is expensive, and it does a terrible job of providing students with useful skills and useful attitudes.

Removing the criminals from society doesn't solve any of our problems. It merely creates vacancies in the government, business, school, and other organizations that the criminals were involved with. We have decisions to make, such as, do we take the simple path and merely fill the vacancies?

Or should we take a more difficult path? For example, should we get rid of the Federal Reserve system and make changes to our economy to prevent a small group of people from having control of our banking or monetary supply?

And after we remove the criminals from the media, should we merely fill the vacancies? Or should we make changes to our economic system to prevent a small number of individuals from having nearly total control over television, magazines, school textbooks, and other media?

If you suggest that we take the more difficult path and make changes to the nation, who is going to decide which changes we make? And how do we go about making those changes?

And consider our financial system. Wealthy individuals and investment companies are frequently caught cheating investors and manipulating the price of stocks or gold. Should we merely arrest some of the criminals within our financial companies and then replace them with other people? Or should we make changes to our financial system to reduce the likelihood of abuse?

I'm asking these questions to make you aware that removing criminals from a nation is not going to bring dramatic improvements. We will still have the crude government system, economic system, school system, and other social systems that were designed centuries ago for a small group of primitive farmers and their slaves.

My fantasy is that we make only trivial changes to the nation and spend most of our time designing some completely new cities that are somewhat isolated from the rest of society, and we use those new cities to experiment with. As I described in documents at my philosophy page, each city would be like a semi-independent nation. Each of them would be able to experiment with a different government system, school system, economic system, or whatever they wanted to experiment with. Each city would be allowed to be different from one another, and each city would be able to control immigration and evict people they didn't like. We would then observe life in the cities and determine which of them is doing the best job of dealing with their problems, and which of them has that type of lifestyle that we prefer.

I don't think it's possible for us to figure out what type of government or economic system we would be happiest with. As I described before, we have to change our attitude towards government, school, the economy, and other intangible systems. We have to consider them as "social technology". And we have to realize that developing social technology is just as difficult as developing other types of technology, such as solar cells or airplanes.

The idea that Thomas Jefferson, or any individual, is capable of creating the ultimate government system is as stupid as believing that one man is capable of creating the ultimate airplane. In reality, one person can contribute only a little bit to the development of technology. In order to develop a truly useful government or economic system, we need a lot of people to put a lot of time and effort into the issue. And after we develop a better economic system or a better school system, we have to observe it and look for ways to improve it.

We must change our attitudes towards social technology and stop thinking that it's patriotic to use the technology that a nation was created with. Our first economic system is going to be very crude, just as the first automobile or the first airplane. Therefore, after we build a new city and provide it with a new economic system and a new government system, we must routinely analyze life in that city and look for ways to improve the social technology.

The reason I propose building several cities at the same time and allowing them to be different from one another is to speed up the process of developing social technology. It's equivalent to building a variety of experimental airplanes at the same time.

One reason why I think we need to experiment with social systems is because our emotions interfere with our decisions, whereas this is not a problem when we develop other types of technology. For example, when an engineer is trying to improve a refrigerator, his emotions don't try to influence his decisions. An engineer can analyze a refrigerator in an unbiased and unemotional manner.

By comparison, when we design an economic system, our emotions try to influence our decisions. This would not be a problem if our emotions were designed for this modern world, but our emotions were designed for a primitive life thousands of years ago.

If we create an economic system that we are emotionally attracted to, we will create a disgusting economic system that is very similar to what we have right now. For example, our emotions are attracted to material items, fame, and pampering by servants. Our emotions also give us the impression that we will be happiest when we can avoid the activities that we don't enjoy.

When we contemplate our options in economic systems, we will find that we are most strongly attracted to the options that offer us the potential of becoming rich and famous and avoiding whatever activities we don't like to do.

For example, we are strongly attracted to the option of allowing children to inherit unlimited amounts of wealth from their parents. And we are strongly attracted to economic systems that offer us royalties. We love the concept of being able to write one song, or develop one product, or appear in one movie, and then receive royalties forever.

And consider the issue of investments. We are strongly attracted to economic systems that offer investments. We love the concept of becoming weathly without having to do any work.

We also love the concept of servants and slaves, so if we follow our emotions, we will create an economy that permits the use of people as servants.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we design an economic system or a government system that appeals to our emotions, we will create a disgusting society that encourages parasites, abuse, crime, and inefficiency. In order to design a better society, we have to keep our crude emotions under control.

A lot of people have the intelligence necessary to develop better social technology, but we need more than intelligence to do a good job. We must also be able to keep our emotions under control. Otherwise our emotions will influence our proposals.

Having more intelligence than the average person doesn't guarantee that you will be able to control your emotions better than the average person. For example, our emotions are titillated by food, and if we don't control our emotions, we will eat excessive amounts of food. If intelligent people were better able to control their emotions, then there wouldn't be any intelligent people who were overweight, and all the stupid people would be obese.

Most people cannot control their emotions very well, and it has nothing to do with their level of intelligence. It's simply the way their mind has been designed. The people who are more influenced by their emotions are more like an animal even though they may be very intelligent. A person who thinks more often is a more advanced human, even if he is only of average or below-average intelligence.

The people with the least ability to control their emotions will resemble intelligent monkeys. For example, a man has emotional cravings to be the dominant male, and the men least able to control their emotions will spend more of their life struggling with other men to be important, and they'll be more concerned about who has a bigger house, and who is sitting at the head of the table during meetings or dinners.

We also have attractions to material items, and so a person least able to control his emotions will be more likely to steal, or get married to a person he doesn't care for simply to have access to their money, or he may take a job he dislikes or which is destructive to society simply because it offers more money than the other jobs available to him.

The ability to control your emotions has little or nothing to do with intelligence. Take a look at the men who get caught grabbing at women on crowded busses and trains. They're not stupid. And look at the Catholic priests who get caught having sex with little boys. They're not exactly stupid, either. And consider the billionaire businessmen. Our society considers them to be talented people, but they have so little control over their emotions that no matter how much money they make, it's never enough. I think they're analogous to those incredibly fat people who can't stop putting food into their mouths and are so obese that they can't get out of their bed and need somebody to bring them food and change their diapers.

The point I'm trying to make is that when we design automobiles or refrigerators, we can design them to be emotionally pleasing, but when we design social technology, we must keep our emotions under control. We can't design social technology to be emotionally appealing or we'll end up with a disgusting society. We have to take our emotions into account, but we have to be concerned about how the technology will affect society in the long run.

A long time ago I noticed that what my emotions want is not what I'm happiest with. For example, my emotions want me to eat all day long, but I noticed that food tastes much better when I'm hungry before I eat.

My emotions also want me to avoid work, but I've noticed that life is much more fun when I'm doing something productive for the human race.

We shouldn't design a society to satisfy our emotional cravings. We have to take into account that some of these cravings are detrimental today. For example, our emotions are attracted to the concept of a nation in which we are treated special.

A lot of people claim that they want everybody to be treated equally, but our emotions don't want equality. Both men and women have strong emotional cravings to feel special. We don't want to be equal to other people. We want to be the center of attention. We want to feel important. We want to be pampered and admired and loved. We don't want to be ordinary. We don't want equality. As a result, when we create nations, our emotions prefer the proposals in which we can become a member of the special, pampered class of people. We are not attracted to the proposals in which people are treated equally.

However, I think we would create a more pleasant and stable society in which people are truly treated equally. It may appear as if I'm going to promote socialism or Marxism, but I'm not. Actually, socialism is a fraud. It claims to treat people equally, but in reality it gives special pampering to the poor and defective people.

Socialism promotes the concept that wealth should be divided equally. This is not the same as treating people as equals. There is a significant difference between treating people equally, and dividing wealth equally.

If you have trouble with this concept, consider how it applies to a family with children. The parents are treating the children equally when they require all of them to contribute equally to household chores and when they divide food up among the children equally. By comparison, a socialist family is one in which some of the children don't contribute to the household chores, but the food is still divided up equally anyway.

Socialism and Marxism claim to treat people as equals, but in reality they give special pampering to the parasites, alcoholics, retards, and losers.

That's not what I'm proposing. I'm proposing that people truly be treated as equals. There are lots of variations to this concept, and I'll discuss some of them later, but for now I would explain the concept as similar to that of a family in which all of the children are expected to contribute equally to the household chores. I don't think we should allow some members of society to be treated special. We shouldn't have any political or economic monarchies. Everybody should be required to contribute to society. Nobody should get a free ride in life. We shouldn't allow children to inherit anything of significance from their parents. Everybody should earn what he wants.

I'll discuss this more later on. For now I'll finish what I was talking about earlier, namely that after we start removing the criminals from society, we could design completely new cities and experiment with radically different lifestyles. But what are we going to do? Who will get involved in the discussions? Who will make the decisions?

No nation yet has leaders who are interested in discussing these issues, such as developing new cities or better economic systems. And I don't think any of our current world leaders even have the intelligence to contribute something of value to such discussions. Most of the world's leaders seem to be either puppets of the Jewish crime network, or aggressive men whose primary concern is fighting to be the dominant male, just like a stupid animal.

Therefore, after we remove the criminals from our government, I think we're going to end up with a small group of incompetent government officials who don't have much of interest in anything except becoming rich and famous. I don't think any of our government officials are of any value. I think all of them should be replaced.

But how can we replace an entire government? Do we simply hold elections and allow the ordinary people to vote for candidates as they have been doing in the past? If so, we're going to end up with incompetent government officials, such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

The military makes all types of plans for all types of scenarios, so they should have plans on setting up a temporary government in the case of nuclear war or other disaster that destroys the existing government. And so it's possible that people within our military will secretly get together and start forming a temporary government. And if they are capable of setting up a temporary government with some respectable people, then we will be pleasantly surprised to discover that our situation is not as bad as it appears to be at the moment.

So my fantasy is that the military set up a temporary government, tell all of current officials to go home, and then we start the process of selecting a new group of government officials.

Hopefully you can see that in order to bring significant improvements to the nation, or the world, we have to do a lot more than simply arrest some criminals. We have to spend time discussing our options, coming to some agreements, and then implementing those options. It's going to take a lot of time and effort. It won't be easy. But so what? Do you have something better to do with your life?

Besides, most of you are going to spend your entire life working anyway. Why not work on something useful rather than whatever you're currently doing? We have the resources, people, and talent to improve the world. All we have to do is change the jobs some people are doing. For example, instead of wasting people and resources on developing, producing, and repairing gambling machines or airport security devices, we could switch them to developing more advanced and more attractive trains, and cities, and robots.

As I pointed out earlier, we are happiest when we have something productive to do. Therefore, you should look at our situation as an incredible opportunity to contribute something of value to the human race. We have an opportunity now to change the course of mankind. We can change course from living like animals to living like modern humans. We have an opportunity to work with other people for the benefit of mankind.

All you have to do is change your attitude. Stop thinking that happiness comes from money, or from being pampered by servants, or from being famous, or from receiving a giant plastic trophy. Start realizing that happiness comes from working with other people, solving problems, and improving life for all of us.

I don't know who listens to my audio files, and of those people, I don't know how many of you are interested in the ideas I propose, but I think there are now so many millions of people who are fed up with the crime, and corruption, and incompetence that we will soon be able to start destroying the crime networks. And once that happens, we can start discussing what we want to do with our future. So I'll provide some of my recommendations on what we should do, and hopefully it will inspire some of you to discuss these issues with other people.

And this brings me to one of the issues I wanted to discuss. And that is this issue of discussions. Do you know how to participate in a discussion in a manner that is productive? And are you aware of some of the tricks people use to manipulate us during discussions?

For example, a simple trick that's easy to understand is when a person announces that he worked hard to research an issue. Don't be impressed by people who boasts about working hard, and don't be intimidated into thinking that you owe something to him. Some people work hard for hours to solve a math problem that other people can solve in their head within a few seconds. It doesn't matter how hard a person works. All that matters is what he actually accomplishes. A carpenter with talent doesn't tell you how hard he worked. Instead, he shows you the result of his work. A person who boasts that he worked hard is exposing himself as a failure who didn't accomplished anything to boast about.

Right now Daryl Smith is using a variation of this trick. At the top of his website is the remark:
"I'm Working Around The Clock To Bring You All The Best Info I Can Find And I Need Help With The Money Side Of This Battle Please Help!"

A lot of people have the attitude that if they put a lot of effort into their work, then we owe them a reward. However, it doesn't matter whether a person works around-the-clock, 7 days a week, or for only a few hours a week. All that matters is what he accomplishes. In fact, the people who are most impressive are those who accomplish the most in the shortest period of time. For example, because I'm so skinny and weak, it would take me days to do what a stronger man can do within hours. Would you be impressed if I boasted that I spent 50 hours moving a rock when another man could move it in 20 minutes?

You should be aware of this trick because millions of people are using variations of it on a routine basis. In fact, so many people use one variation that it has become a standard business policy. We refer to as "seniority". This is when an employee believes that he deserves a promotion, or a raise, or some other special treatment simply because he has worked at a company for a long period of time.

From the point of view of society, it makes more sense to judge employees and managers according to their performance, not according to how many years they worked at a company. A lot of people have worked for decades at the same company or government agency, but they're almost as incompetent as they were when they first started the job.

About 10 years ago I saw the homework assignment from a college student who had received a low grade, and who had responded by sending his assignment back to the teacher after writing an angry remark along the top that he is a senior in college, not a freshman, and therefore he deserves a better grade.

The people who use these tricks are the failures who can't boast about their achievements. They are trying to manipulate us. We have to stand up to this trick. We hurt society when we allow people to manipulate us. We have to judge people according to what they actually contribute.

We should change our attitude and consider the concepts of seniority and tenure to be tricks that losers and criminals are using to manipulate us. Employees, government officials, managers, and even teachers should earn their position. Anybody who truly deserves the job that he wants will be able to perform properly at that job. They won't have to intimidate us into allowing them to have a job or a promotion.

When we allow people to use these tricks, we allow people to get into jobs that they can't perform properly at. We end up with incompetent teachers, incompetent government officials, and incompetent managers.

As I described in documents at my philosophy page, I think we should change our economic system and our attitudes so that it becomes very easy to fire people from a job, and very easy for people to experiment with different jobs so that they can find something that they can perform properly at. Our current economic system is chaotic and brutal. It causes millions of people to worry about losing their job, and that in turn causes them to use a variety of tricks to intimidate us into allowing them to keep their job, even if they don't like the job, and even if they are no good at the job.

When an animal is faced with a problem, it reacts by either becoming violent and fighting, or it becomes afraid and runs away. Animals don't get together to discuss the issue.

Most people react to economic problems just like a stupid animal. A few people have violent temper tantrums after they lose their job or their house, but most people react with fear.

The most appropriate reaction to economic problems is for us to discuss the problems and experiment with different policies in order to make it easier for us to find a job that we enjoy and that we are capable of performing properly at.

If the university professors were as intelligent and special as they think they are, then they would occasionally discuss the problems of our schools and our economy, and they would occasionally offer proposals to improve the nation. But instead, these educated and intelligent professors react to the possibility of losing their job just like a stupid animal. They become frightened, and their solution is to demand tenure so that nobody can remove them from their job. They're not helping the nation with these selfish policies.

We have to raise standards for people in leadership positions. Our schools, businesses, government agencies, and other organizations should be under the control of men who react to problems by looking for ways to improve our situation. We have to stand up to the people who react to problems with fear or temper tantrums. By allowing people to intimidate or trick us, we allow people to get into jobs that they can't handle. We need leaders who can discuss our problems and develop policies for us to experiment with.

Everybody should become more aware of how to have a useful discussion, and what sort of tricks people are using to manipulate discussions and intimidate us.

Another very common trick is to respond to an issue by discussing a very slightly different issue. Politicians routinely use this trick in order to avoid answering questions. Many voters will complain when the politicians don't answer the question, but they continue to vote for them anyway. We have to change our attitudes. We should not tolerate people who use this trick. It should be regarded as a trick used by con artists and criminals.

People also use this trick when they don't have any intelligent response to a question. It's commonly used by people who are trying to defend the official stories of the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and 9/11. For example, when I point out that the astronauts should have seen stars, the criminals respond that when a camera has been set for bright objects, it won't be able to see dim stars. People who are unaware of this trick may not realize that they are responding to a slightly different issue. I never said that a camera - or even the human eye - is capable of seeing bright objects and dim objects at the same time.

This trick is also used frequently in discussions regarding euthanasia, abortion, and restricting reproduction. For example, the people who oppose the concept of restricting reproduction have no intelligent reasoning to support their policy that everybody be allowed to reproduce as often as they please, so they tend to switch the conversation to something slightly different, such as the killing of unwanted people. For example, here is a man who supports eugenics leaving a message for Alex Jones:

Anonymous Caller:

I'm in favor of eugenics. You take a walk down... a trip down to your local Wal-Mart, and look around. And about 99% of the people are people that you do not want to be breeding and having babies. Thank you. Goodbye.

Jones responded to him with this:

Jones:

As for the eugenics caller, the elite want you dead, Bubba. See how that works? Sure, you want some living space, some lebenstrou(?). You're not going to be getting it, you understand? YOU are targeted for termination. You're a would-be, wannabe elite. Sure, there are a lot of slobs out there. Doesn't mean you have a right to kill them! You got that, Pal? Why don't you try to help them?

If you weren't paying attention, you might not notice that Jones did not respond to the issue of restricting reproduction. Instead, he implied that the people who support eugenics are arrogant, selfish jerks who want to be a member of the elite class who kill people they dislike, and that they're foolishly supporting their own murder because the mysterious elites don't like any of us and want us all dead.

The people who use this trick, such as Alex Jones, are examples of why we need eugenics. The people who lie, steal, deceive, rape, cheat, or vandalize should be exiled from society and not allowed to reproduce, and the worst of them should be executed. We shouldn't tolerate these destructive and disgusting criminals. We don't owe them anything. Americans should stop promoting the theory that we should feel sorry for underdogs and freaks and losers and the disadvantaged. We need people in this world that we can trust, and who contribute to society. When we allow the destructive, dishonest, unhappy, and angry people to reproduce, we end up with more of them in the next generation.

Since everybody is capable of speaking, everybody assumes that they are capable of having a discussion. Unfortunately, life is not that simple. Almost everybody, including me, is capable of using a pencil to write music notes on a sheet of music, but how many of us can put those notes into a sequence that creates music that somebody wants to listen to?

Having the ability to hammer some nails into wood doesn't mean that you are a talented carpenter. Having the ability to swim doesn't mean that you can win an Olympic swimming contest. Likewise, just because your mind has the ability to contemplate an issue, and just because you have the ability to verbalize your thoughts, doesn't mean you have something to contribute to a discussion.

In order for us to have useful discussions, both the participants and the audience need to have a better understanding of what a discussion should be, and everybody should be watching for the tricks people might use. People who try to deceive or manipulate should be regarded as con artists, and they should be removed rather than tolerated. We have to raise standards for people who are influencing the world. We have to stop making excuses for their bad behavior.

We also have to keep in mind that a man's emotions were never intended for discussions. Men have emotions that cause us to compete with one another for dominance. We try to intimidate and impress one another. It's not natural for us to look critically at ourselves or look favorably at other people.

A man treats his opinions in the same manner that a woman treats her baby. Men have tremendous emotional attachments to their opinions. When we have discussions, we proudly show our opinions to the other men, just like women proudly show their babies to other women.

Almost all of the discussions that I've observed during my life, especially with men, are of absolutely no value. Most men don't make any attempt to understand the issues they're discussing, or understand the opinions of other people. Most men simply boast about their opinions and criticize other people's opinions. And they try to intimidate and manipulate one another with their tone of voice, their facial expressions, and by making certain types of noises.

It's possible that lots of discussions would be productive if our schools would teach boys about their crude emotions and give them practice in discussions, but as of today, most men don't seem to be aware of how their emotions alter a discussion, so they don't make an attempt to control their emtions. As a result, when they have discussions, most of them follow their cravings to feel important, and so the discussion becomes just a worthless struggle for dominance. They argue over right and wrong, smart and stupid. There's no attempt to understand what anybody is saying, or to understand the issue that they're discussing.

In order to have a productive discussion, we have to control our emotions so that we can be critical of our own opinions and seriously consider what other people are saying.

Another very important trick to understand that is extremely successful in manipulating the audience of a discussion, and sometimes the participants themselves, is when people take advantage of our craving to feel special or be the center of attention. Some people describe this as feeding a person's ego.

Political candidates do this in a such an obvious and blatant manner that it's embarrassing. I've seen candidates stand in front of crowds of people and announce that the American people are the greatest people in the world. A candidate should be saying something intelligent, not giving us idiotic complements. The audience should be disgusted and suspicious of candidates who praise us. The audience should wonder if the candidate is a con artist who is trying to manipulate us with praise. But instead, most voters react with incredible levels of applause and cheering. They behave like children who have been given a candy and money by their grandparents.

The Jews used this trick over and over on the New York City police and fire department after the 9/11 attack. The Jews constantly praised the police and firemen for being heroes, and the Jews frequently described them as New York City's bravest, and New York City's finest. I think the extreme amount of praise was because the Jews were trying to make the policemen and firemen feel better so that they were less likely to look closely at the attack.

The people having a discussion should never praise the audience, and they shouldn't even praise one another. They should simply discuss the issue. They shouldn't be concerned about anybody's emotional feelings.

A variation of this trick is for people to give praise to somebody who is losing credibility in an attempt to fool the other people into thinking that he is respectable and has intelligent opinions.

For example, during the past few years Alex Jones has been losing credibility as people figured out that he is a wolf in sheep clothing, and so frequently on his show nowadays, you will hear people call in and pretend to be an ordinary person, and they will praise Alex Jones. And sometimes his guests on the show will spend time praising him. For example, here is his friend George Humphrey on November 18, 2009:
 

Humphrey:	And I, I know you. And for people who listen to Alex for the first time, and we've all gone through our Alex initiation. Alex rants and raves and he shouts, and he raises his voice. And so many people say, 'I can't stand it. He's just too intense!' And I just say, listen to them for a week. And kind of..
Jones:	I don't want to talk about me, but...
Humphrey:	No! Listen to what I'm saying because this is important! And Alex, not only is about 98% of what he is saying, if not 100%, right-on accurate, that you won't get on CBS or NBC or whatever, which is information you need to know, but he also has a heart of gold! As rough and as grumpy as he sounds at times, he's a great guy!

In order to make this trick successful, the Jews arrange for lots of people to call into the show on a routine basis. And the reason this trick can be so successful is because we have an emotional craving to follow the majority of people. If the Jews can create the impression that a large group of people trust and admire Alex Jones, then our emotions will encourage us to join the crowd of people and trust Alex Jones, also.

This brings up another issue that people must understand in order to have useful discussions. Often people in a discussion will support their opinions by boasting that a lot of people agree with them. And they often criticize somebody else's opinion by pointing out that he is the only person who believes it. This is just an attempt to manipulate us by stimulating our emotions to join the crowd of people.

It doesn't matter how many people agree with an opinion. Every opinion needs supporting evidence. Furthermore, the majority of people don't think very well, so it's ridiculous to support a theory by boasting that the majority of people believe it. Take a serious look at the majority of people. Why would you want to follow them? If you're going to follow somebody, follow that small group of people who are capable of facing reality, behaving in a respectable manner, and having sensible discussions. Don't follow idiots, or even the majority of people, and especially don't follow people who are failures.

Another concept that schools should teach children is that it takes a lot of time, effort, and talent to develop an opinion that is worth showing to the world.

As of today, just about everybody realizes that it takes a lot of time and talent to develop a valuable scientific theory or an improvement to a solar cell, but almost everybody believes that even the most stupid and uneducated person can develop valuable opinions about abortion, or religion, or who should be elected president, or whether we should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

As a result of this attitude, every nation believes that every citizen should be allowed to vote, even if they're incredibly stupid, illiterate, senile, or uneducated. Almost everybody follows the philosophy that no talent, education, or effort is needed to select good government leaders. Supposedly, a few moments of casual thought is all that we need to determine who should be elected. However, I think this attitude is ridiculous. I think selecting government officials is more difficult than selecting airline mechanics or engineers.

Specifically, selecting government officials requires doing an analysis of the leadership abilities of the candidates. I don't think many people are capable of doing such an analysis. And most people aren't interested in spending the time on such a task, anyway.

You're not going to develop a valuable opinion after a few moments of casual thought. Look through history and it should be obvious that the people who developed intelligent opinions put a lot of time and effort into them. And they had to make a lot of revisions to their opinions.

Analyzing an issue and developing useful opinions about it is like creating music, or developing a new automobile engine, or designing a new house. It takes a lot of time and effort to come up with something of value, and you're likely to make lots of mistakes in the process. Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that your thoughts are valuable and that other people's opinions are stupid.

We have to remind ourselves that it takes a lot of time and effort to develop an intelligent analysis of the world, and that not everybody around us is an idiot. We have to be as critical of our own opinions as we are of everybody else's.

The best opinions are the result of combining ideas from different people. All of the products that you enjoy today are the result of a lot of people's effort over many centuries. No single person is capable of designing a jet engine, or a computer. It takes a lot of people and a lot of time to develop advanced technology.

Likewise, a lot of people are going to have to spend a lot of time to develop a truly advanced economic system, or a better method of selecting government officials. Don't be fooled into thinking that you alone are going to solve these problems.

When we finally get rid of the Jewish criminals and start holding discussions about what to do next, it's important that both the people involved in the discussions and the people listening to the discussions have a better understanding of what a discussion should be.

We need men who are going to be able to listen to what other men have to say. We need men who can work together to develop social technology, just like men get together to develop airplanes and electric power generators. We have to be able to identify and remove the men who are incapable of contributing to a discussion. We have to pass judgment on which men are contributing, and which are merely struggling to be the dominant male. We also have to watch for the men who use tricks to manipulate the discussion, and remove those men on the grounds that they're con artists.

Businesses already do this with engineers and scientists. They pass judgment on which of the men are contributing, and which are not.

It's going to take a lot of time and effort to improve our social technology. Actually, it's more difficult to improve social technology than it is to improve a jet engine or a solar cell. The reason is because improving a jet engine only requires that we understand the behavior of air, fuel, metal, and other physical items, but developing better governments, schools, and economic systems requires that we have a better understanding of the human mind. We need an understanding of what makes us happy, and what makes us productive.

And we also have to understand how we differ from one another. For example, should men and women be treated as a unisex creature by our economic system? Or should we treat women differently? Should we allow women to have different types of jobs, or different working conditions, or different hours? Developing a better economic system requires we have answers to these type of questions.

Likewise, developing a better method of selecting government officials is going to take a lot of time and effort, and it requires that we have some understanding of the human mind. At the moment we don't have much of an understanding of ourselves, so we have to expect that our first attempts to develop social technology will be crude. However, as the years go by, we will learn more about ourselves, and that will allow us to improve the technology.

So, to summarize what I'm saying, my hope is that some people within the military can put together a temporary government, and start the process of identifying and removing the Jewish criminals. And I hope that they also tell the other government officials to go home on the grounds that they are too incompetent to remain in office. And I hope that they support my idea that we develop a better method of selecting government officials.

Once we develop that better system, we can use it to create a permanent government. This brings me to the next issue I wanted to discuss, which is how do we go about developing a better method of selecting government officials? What exactly do we do?

I suggest that everybody who is interested in contributing to the technology put their ideas into an article and post it on an Internet site that the temporary government has set up for this particular issue.

I suggest we take advantage of the Internet by using it to publish new ideas and research work. Everybody should do their own publishing. Nobody should be in control of what gets published. And nobody should be able to edit anybody's articles.

This is much better than what scientists have to do right now, which is to submit their work to a paper publication that is controlled by criminal Jews. The scientist then has to hope that those criminals will publish his material, and that they publish it before they pass it on to Jewish plagiarists.

By using the Internet for publishing, we can eliminate a lot of paper publications. This will eliminate a lot of jobs that we don't need. The people doing those jobs could do something more productive with their time. It will also reduce the amount of paper that we have to produce, which will reduce pollution and save society a lot of money and resources.

Furthermore, by publishing on the Internet, nobody has to worry about somebody plagiarizing their material before it's published.

It may seem ridiculous to tell scientists and everybody else to post their research work on the Internet, but just look at the past 10 years and you can see that this seemingly chaotic method of publishing information actually works. It gives everybody in the world access to the information as soon as it's ready for publication. And nobody can plagiarize the material. And nobody can edit the material.

One of the most important and useful aspects of publishing material on the Internet is that it makes everybody virtually equal. Nobody gets special treatment on the Internet. It doesn't matter who your father is, or how much money you have, or whether you have a Nobel prize.

I am a good example of this concept. I don't have a college degree, or any of those things that people refer to as "credentials". If I had to submit my articles to a paper publication, nothing would have been published. And even if some paper publication was willing to print one or two of my articles, only a small number of people would have seen that paper publication.

By comparison, by publishing on the Internet, I can publish as many articles as I please, along with video and audio files. And everybody in the world has access to them.

It may seem as if allowing everybody to post whatever articles they please is going to make it difficult to do research work, but it's easy to scan through documents on the Internet compared to scanning through paper publications. And we're doing this right now. We're scanning through enormous amounts of propaganda and stupid websites in order to find some useful information about the Holocaust, or 9/11, or the Crusades.

Once we get rid of the Jewish crime network, the Internet will become even more useful as a publishing and research tool because a tremendous amount of the nonsense on the Internet is coming from criminal Jews. The Internet is loaded with their deceptive articles about historical and news events, UFOs, pornography, and paranormal abilities.

When we use the Internet as a publishing and research tool, nobody can use the excuse that they're being ignored because of their race, sex, age, or education. And after we remove the criminal Jews from Google and other search engines, then all websites will be indexed equally. We won't have to put up with Jews biasing the search results in favor of Jewish websites.

We could also improve the process of searching through articles by providing special websites for the serious articles. This would allow us to restrict the searches to only those particular sites rather than the entire Internet.

And in order to reduce plagiarism, we would need databases to keep track of the date every article is published. That way we can more easily identify the person who created the information. But that's not difficult, either.

I also suggest that we change attitudes towards education to stop allowing people with college diplomas to use those diplomas to gain an advantage in discussions. A person who graduates from college is nothing more than a person who graduates from college. It doesn't mean anything. The most obvious example are the people who graduate with degrees in theology. Their college diploma doesn't prove that they know any more about God or the universe or life than any of the rest of us.

Another excellent example are the people who have PhD's in biology. Some of them know less about life than those of us with only a high school education. For example, at Richard Sternberg's website, he boasts that he has two PhD's in evolutionary biology.
richardsternberg.org/biography.php

He was one of the managing editors of the publication for scientists called The Proceedings Of The Biological Society Of Washington. One of the articles that he approved for publication was written by Stephen Meyer, who has college degree in geology. Meyer is described as a cofounder of the Intelligent Design movement, and he was a founder of the Discovery Institute, which promotes the concept of Intelligent Design.

Sternberg is an example of the problem we have right now in which Jews are determining which scientists are getting their work published. And he's also an example of people who have what we call "advanced college degrees", but whose ability to think is so crummy that those of us with no science education at all can outperform them. I only had one biology class in high school, but I know more about biology than Dr. Sternberg. Actually, since he has two PhD's, I suppose we should refer to him as Dr. Dr. Sternberg.

There are a lot of people with college degrees in biology, genetics, physics, and other impressive fields, but after years of study and research, they have come to the conclusion that God created life, and some even believe that God created Adam and Eve, and then Adam and Eve had some children, and then those children grew up and had incestuous relationships with one another, and after a few generations of these incestuous relationships, the people began producing Japanese babies, African babies, and Eskimo babies. And somehow both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews started popping out, also.

All of these college graduates should be used as proof that a college diploma is meaningless. Even having two PhD's in the biological fields means nothing.

School is a place where children are taught to memorize information. And what I find even more amazing is that the schools don't care whether the information is honest. Students are getting diplomas for memorizing propaganda and lies about the world wars, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and 9/11.

Our schools don't help students practice thinking, or encourage them to face reality or analyze world events. Our schools don't help students to understand themselves or encourage them to discover their talents and weaknesses. Our schools don't even care whether the students learn a useful skill.

Our schools are profit-making ventures that provide jobs for a lot of adults of questionable mental stability. The professors seem to be the worst in the social sciences, the legal field, and journalism. A lot of people describe professors as "liberals", but a more accurate description is that many of them are mentally ill losers, criminals, and parasites. Graduating from one of these disgusting schools means nothing.

Even if we were to improve the schools and bring in higher quality teachers, we shouldn't put much emphasis on graduating from school. We should consider a college diploma as being similar to that colorful glitter that children glue onto pieces of paper. It looks attractive, but it has no significance.

People who boast about their college diplomas should be visualized as idiots who have sprayed themselves with glue and then sprinkled glitter over themselves in order to attract our attention and impress us. Or visualize a carpenter who has glued glitter to all of his tools in the hope that you are so impressed by his sparkling tools that you hire him as a carpenter.

When we put a lot of emphasis on a school diploma, then we encourage people to believe that merely graduating from school makes a person special. This encourages people to use their diplomas to intimidate us, or to justify their theories.

For example, here is an excerpt of Steve Quayle trying to impress us with his college diploma. He is one of the people in the truth movement who promotes Jewish propaganda, and since he can't justify his propaganda with intelligent reasoning, he tries to convince us that his college diploma is proof that he knows what he's talking about:

Steve Quayle (from 25 July 2009):

And I'm a photographer, I have a degree in photography. I've got a couple of degrees, as a matter of fact, so, I mean, I know optics, I know all this stuff that's related.

A person with a college diploma doesn't necessarily know any more about anything than the rest of us. Don't be impressed or intimidated by college diplomas.

When a person justifies his opinions with his college diploma, that means he doesn't have any supporting evidence. And, as I wrote in one of the documents at my philosophy page, when a person boasts about his college diploma, it's a sign that he's such a failure that he doesn't have anything else to boast about.

A talented carpenter or musician doesn't boast about graduating from school. Instead, they are proud of what they created.

My suggestion is to stop emphasizing school diplomas and start emphasizing a person's actual contributions to society. A person who doesn't contribute anything should be regarded as a parasite, even if he was one of the best students in school. And a person who is destructive to society should be considered a criminal, regardless of how he did in school.

In the 1980s I met a man who was giving advice to people who were looking for jobs. He said that his company wouldn't consider hiring a person for an engineering job unless the applicant had a bachelors degree from college. He also said that his company was disappointed with the education of the recent college graduates because they didn't know as much about engineering compared to the graduates 20 years earlier. He said his company was wondering if they would get better engineers if they demanded all job applicants have a masters degree rather than a bachelors degree.

I agree that our schools are deteriorating. And I think one reason is because most of our school administrators and teachers don't care about anything except their salary and their retirement package. I don't see any sign that the teachers or administration care whether the students learn something useful. Instead, I see schools trying to increase enrollment because they want more money, and I see professors trying to attract students to their class in order to justify their job and get tenure.

I also see schools accepting and tolerating students who have no desire to learn anything. From my own personal observations of students in the two colleges near me, namely, the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the Santa Barbara City College, an enormous percentage of the students, possibly most of them, are in college simply because they consider it as a ticket to an easy, high paying, high status job.

I don't see very many students going to college because they actually want to learn a skill or contribute to society. Most students don't seem to care whether they learn anything of value. When I mention to a student that his education about history is full of lies about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, or 9/11, they don't show any concern. They don't care whether they learn propaganda or the truth. Their goal is a diploma, not an education, or a useful skill. They want to look for a spouse or sex, not discover their talents or weaknesses. They don't care if they're abused by the school, or by crime networks. They don't care how long the war in the Middle East continues. They don't care if people are hurt in those wars.

For the past few days, students around California started organizing protests over a proposal to increase the fees that student pay for their college education. Those protests are proof that the students are capable of organizing themselves and facing the police and school administration. However, all they did was complain that they didn't want to spend any more money on education. They also threw food and other objects at the police. How can people who behave like this consider themselves better than the police? These students are arrogant brats, not educated humans.

Students have been staging these protests all throughout our lives, and so these latest protests in California may not seem strange to you. It might be easier for you to understand the situation when you consider what the students could have done.

The students could have arranged protests in which groups of students enter the administrative offices to point out that they have discovered that they have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and lots of other historical events, and that they want their history books and school courses to become more honest.

The students could have been prepared for the arrival of police with documents and DVDs. They could have talked to the police in a calm and intelligent manner to help the police understand that we are being abused on a phenomenal scale by a Jewish crime network. The students could have encouraged the police to find the emotional strength to look into these issues.

The students could have impressed the police, the administration, and the rest of society with their ability to think, research issues, and explain what's going on around us. However, the students didn't do anything like that. Instead, the students behaved like bratty children who are having a temper tantrum because mommy wouldn't give them some cookies.

One of the labor unions printed signs for the protesters. One of the signs says:
"Yes, we can take back our university."
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/11/19/MN9O1ALCKG.DTL

That remark is similar to the ordinary voter who complains that he wants to take his government back.

Well, once again I'm at the 80 minute mark, so I will finish this in part 3.