|Thursday November 26, 2009, Thanksgiving day
This is part 3 of the audio file that I started November 21.
I ended part 2 by pointing out that the California university students, who are staging demonstrations about rising educational costs, and who are complaining they want to take back their university, are behaving similar to the voters who complain about taxes and how they want to take back their government.
Both the students and the voters are willing to complain and throw objects at the police, but they won't do anything to understand the problem or discuss possible solutions. Instead, they behave like bratty children who are having a temper tantrum.
We could say that the students are correct when they complain that the universities are under the control of a small group of selfish people who are more concerned with their salaries than they are about the education of the students. And the voters are correct when they complain that our government officials are following the wishes of small groups of people rather than doing what's best for the nation.
Unfortunately, we don't solve problems simply by complaining. In order to solve a problem, we have to figure out why the problem is occurring. And if we were to study the issue of how small groups of people can exert tremendous influence over a government or a school system, we would discover that the reason is because the majority of voters and students are allowing it to happen, and the reason they allow it to happen is because most people can't cope with the problems of modern life. And the reason they can't cope with life is either because they lack the intelligence, or they are emotionally too much like an animal to care enough about society.
Most of you who visit my website have probably tried many times to explain to people that we are being lied to about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other historical events, and you've certainly noticed that the majority of people ignore us, or ridicule us.
Most people routinely insult government officials and complain about corruption or taxes, but they refuse to do anything about our problems. They don't want to learn about our problems, or discuss possible solutions.
And what amazed me the most is that the majority of people actually try to stop us from talking about these problems. They want to live in a fantasy world, and they don't want us injecting reality into their lives. They can't handle the modern world or its problems.
They will complain about corruption, but they don't want to learn about it or do anything about it. And since they don't do anything to stop the corruption, they allow it to get worse.
The ordinary person is behaving like a retard who has a thorn in his finger and is complaining about the pain, but when you tell him, there is a thorn in his finger, he ignores or ridicules you. And by doing nothing, his finger gets infected.
The majority of people don't want to deal with economic problems, or the Federal Reserve, or crime networks, or incompetent government officials. They want to live the simple life that our primitive ancestors were living tens of thousands of years ago. They want to titillate their emotions. They want to think only about themselves. When faced with problems, all they want to do is complain or pout or hide. And some will pray for God to solve the problem. They are behaving like an intelligent monkey, not a human.
Successful businessmen are considered to be better than the ordinary people, but they behave like monkeys also. They don't care about society or its problems. They spend a lot of their time fighting with their competitors, and looking for ways to evade government laws and manipulate consumers. They're more concerned about the size of their house, or their social status, or their income than they are about the city they live in, or whether life is pleasant for their employees or their customers, or whether there is corruption in government. They don't care that their health, or that of their children, may be harmed by chemicals that their own business produces. They don't care that they and their children are being lied to by school teachers. When businessmen have meetings, they ask such questions as "What have our sales and profits been during the past year?" rather than such questions as, "What effect have we had on society during the past year?"
And consider that the businessmen who have convinced the government to outlaw Stevia as a sweetener, or outlaw the use of hemp for fiber and food should be described as criminals and con artists who are abusing us. And the government officials who support these abusive policies could be described as criminals also. And consider how much cheating is going on in the financial markets, and among the government agencies that are supposed to be supervising the financial markets.
Most people assume that we can make businessmen behave in a better manner simply by forcing them to pay fines, or putting them in jail for a short period of time, or by giving them psychological treatment. However, even though all animals and humans have an ability to change their behavior, we all have limitations on how much we can change.
Nobody is making the businessmen fight with each other, or look for ways to evade government laws, and nobody is making them compare their income to that of other businessmen and worry about who makes more money. They chose to behave in this crude manner because this is their personality. This is the type of people they are. They are "business monkeys", not "business men". I'm sure it's possible to train a business monkey to behave more like a human, but no matter what we do, he will still be more like an animal than the rest of us.
Each of us differs slightly in our emotional characteristics and mental abilities. Instead of trying to force the badly behaved people to behave better, we should look for the men who are truly better behaved simply because they have a more advanced mind. We need to look for the men who show an interest in society and who will manage their organization from the point of view of how to improve life for everybody.
Most people realize that cats and dogs have slightly different personalities, so when they select a pet, they look for the animal that shows the nicest personality. They don't simply take an animal at random and if it turns out to have a terrible personality, try to make it into a better animal by putting it into jail or beating it with a stick.
The organized religions encourage people to think that humans are radically different from the animals, but our bodies have the exact same parts and bones, and we follow the same biological rules. Our brains are very similar, also.
When we select people for leadership positions, we need the same attitude that people have when they select a pet dog. We have to realize that all male humans have strong cravings to fight for dominance, so when we select leaders, we have to look for the men who are the least interested in fighting for status and the most interested in making a better society.
The same concept applies to schools. A lot of people realize that American schools are terrible, but most people believe that the solution is to give the schools more money, or put the teachers through more testing. The only way to improve the schools is to find men with more advanced minds. We need to look for the men who are the most interested in helping us develop schools that are useful and who show the least amount of concern about their status or their retirement benefits.
Everybody is selfish, and everybody also has some interest in society, but we differ on our concern about society. When selecting people for leadership positions, we have to pass judgment on which of them is more concerned about providing leadership, and which is more concerned about himself.
Some people don't seem to have much concern at all about where their money comes from, or whether their job has any value. I have met a lot of people who truly don't care where they get their money. They don't care if they get money from cheating, inheritances, gambling, or by marrying somebody with money. And they don't care if their job is worthless or even destructive. Most people have almost no concern about society. They live and behave very much like an animal.
When these people go to college, they become educated savages. A lot of them end up in management positions in government agencies, think tanks, charities, schools, and businesses, but because they don't care about society, they don't contribute anything. All they do is make money and entertain themselves. Many of these people follow the law and they treat people nicely, but that doesn't justify putting them into leadership positions. Some cats and dogs are very nicely behaved, but that doesn't justify putting them into a management position. A leader has to do more than follow the laws and be nice to us. He has to provide leadership. If the primary concern of a leader is his salary, or his retirement, or the size of his house, he should not be a leader.
We have to judge people by their effect on society. If a leader isn't doing anything to make life better for the people he provides leadership to, then he's a parasite because he is taking a lot of food, electricity, and other resources, but giving nothing in return. It doesn't matter how nice he is, or how hard he tries.
Actually, leaders who don't do their job properly are making things worse by preventing a better person from having the job. Incompetent leaders are analogous to clumps of hair in a bathroom sink that prevent the water from flowing. We wouldn't tolerate an assembly line worker who didn't do anything, but we tolerate leaders who never accomplish anything.
So perhaps you can now have a better understanding of my attitude that nothing is going to improve in this world until we get higher quality men in control of our government, businesses, schools, and other organizations. This is why I suggested that the first thing we do after we get rid of the Jewish crime network is to develop a better method of selecting government officials.
Once we put a better group of men in control of the nation, we have incredible opportunities available to us. But how do we develop a better method of selecting government officials? What exactly do we do?
The human race hasn't yet formed an organization to develop social technology, so nobody truly has experience in this field. Nobody can provide guidance or suggestions on what to do or how to do it.
All of the world's government systems, school systems, and other social systems have been created by people who didn't really understand what they were doing.
As I described in documents at my philosophy page, after America was founded in 1776, the first government, which they called the Articles of Confederation, was a complete failure. When the founders of America decided they had to create a better government, they had no idea what to do or how to do it. They ended up creating a trivial variation of the British government, which was a variation of the crude governments before it.
We are in a situation that could be described as "priming the pump". My suggestion on what to do is that, assuming our military provides us with a temporary, transition government, then we could set a date a few months in the future for everybody to complete their ideas. Remember, developing social technology is as difficult as developing a jet engine. Therefore, you would be foolish to think that you are capable of developing a truly advanced system all by yourself. Most people would probably have just one or two ideas to contribute, and some people might have only an issue that concerns them that they'd like to bring to our attention. Only a few people would want to bother trying to develop an outline for the complete system.
Anybody who had something to contribute, even people in other nations, would develop their ideas into one or more articles. Then on the date the articles are due, everybody would post their articles at a website that the transition government set up for this purpose. The website would be free and open to the public, so everybody could contribute articles, as well as look through all of them.
As we review the proposals, we are certain to discover that some of them give us ideas on how to improve our own proposals. Some of the proposals would be outlines of a complete system, and some would focus on one small aspect of the process of selecting leaders. In order to create a complete system, we would have to combine ideas from different people.
And so we would start the next cycle in which people either combine ideas into a complete system, or they post their new and revised proposals.
I expect that we would have to repeat this cycle a few times before the complete systems have reached the point of development at which we feel safe enough to select one of them.
As with the development of jet engines, we can't spend forever developing a system to select leaders. At some point in time we have to stop the development and select one of them and put it into operation. We then observe it and try to improve upon it.
I may seem to be suggesting a chaotic and inefficient method of developing social technology, but I don't know how else to get the process started. Besides, something similar to this is happening right now, and it's working. Me and thousands of other people are posting information, opinions, and proposals on the Internet, and millions of people around the world are looking through our websites and thinking about what we say. From this chaotic process, all of us are learning about 9/11, the Holocaust, Zionism, and lots of other subjects, and we sometimes find ourselves changing our opinions and attitudes. The process is hampered by the Jewish propaganda, but the process is working. It's helping the world tremendously.
I don't see any reason why we can't use the Internet to develop a better method of selecting government officials. In fact, it is a great way to do it because it allows us to take ideas from people all over the world.
If you wonder why somebody in another nation would want to help America develop a better method of selecting government officials, that's like asking why a scientist in India would want to help a scientist in Japan. The entire human race benefits when we get a better understanding of the world and ourselves, and when we develop new technology.
It's going to take a few cycles of posting and reviewing proposals before we are ready to start making a decision on which of the proposals we should implement. This brings us to a hurdle that we have to overcome. How can we select one of the proposals? Who is going to determine which proposal is selected?
In the first part of this audio file I mentioned that I don't know how we're going to get rid of the Jewish crime network, and that my only hope at the moment is that the military police clean up their organization and then start removing the criminals. If the military, or some group of Americans, can form an organization to identify and remove the criminals, then perhaps they'll be interested in going further and setting up a transition government so that we can experiment with changes to the nation.
If America doesn't have enough people interested in developing a better method of selecting government officials, or building new cities, then of course none of this is going to happen here in America. But don't let that bother you. We should continue thinking about the incredible opportunities available to the human race.
One reason is that we might inspire some other nation to start developing social technology. They may be inspired to build some new cities, or experiment with a new economic system, or a new method of selecting government officials.
And another reason is that nations are just intangible organizations of people, just like a business or sports club. Nations come and go, just like businesses and marriages and other organizations. It doesn't matter if America continues to disintegrate, or if some European nations disintegrate. The human race will survive and slowly learn from its mistakes.
If America destroys itself, then we will have the opportunity to create a new nation, and we will do a much better job of creating a new nation if we already have spent time thinking about how to develop a better method of selecting government officials, or how to design better cities, or what sort of economic system we would like. So whatever we learn in regards to social technology will be useful at some point in the future to some group of people. We won't be wasting our time.
Returning to my fantasy that the American government set up a transition government, that transition government would have to analyze and discuss the different proposals for selecting government officials, and then they would have to make a decision on which one to implement. This brings up the issue of how should they go about discussing these proposals?
Should they have discussions like we see on television in which people sit around a table and chat with one another? Or should they hold discussions similar to that of the presidential candidates in which the people who created the proposals stand at podiums, and a moderator asks them about their proposals? If we have moderators, who selects the moderators? And who decides which questions will be asked?
I'll discuss some of my ideas on how to structure the discussion later. Right now I want to discuss some more of the tricks that people use to manipulate discussions. The reason it's important to understand the tricks is because there are discussions all the time on television, and the people who watch the discussions think that they're learning something, but they're just picking up propaganda and being manipulated. I've been criticized by people for not watching television, and for not reading newspapers, magazines, or books, but most of the material that is coming from our media is deception, not useful information.
Both the people involved in the discussions and the audience must have a better understanding of the tricks that people use to manipulate us, or it won't do any good to have a discussion.
I'll start by mentioning a trick that I mentioned before but I'll go over it in more detail because I used to be a victim of it. Also, this trick is in such widespread use that I don't think many people are aware of it.
The trick could be summarized as a person who creates a false image of himself. For example, he may condemn behavior that he actually engages in, or he may claim to be something that he isn't.
Once you are aware of this trick, it's embarrassing to admit that you
were fooled by it.
He even gave me some examples of his incredible honesty. For example, he'd tell me that once he was standing in line in a supermarket and blurted out some honest remark to a person in line next to him. I can't remember what he said, but it was the type of remark many of us think to ourselves but would never actually say. He told me the story to show he is such an honest person that he will tell the truth even in public, and even if it embarrasses people.
Smith also told me that he had trouble getting along with people because of his tendency to say what he truly believes. He just couldn't lie to people.
I assumed that Smith was telling the truth. He didn't just tell me one time that he was honest; rather, he told me over and over, month after month. And he told me many times that his wife can't tell a lie, either. When somebody lied to him, he would be furious. I assumed that Smith must be honest. Why else would he become so upset about liars?
You can often find politicians and church officials using this same trick. For example, they may routinely condemn homosexuality or pedophilia. Notice that they don't just condemn it once. They repeat it over and over. And they don't just disapprove mildly; rather, they become very upset with pedophilia and homosexuality.
After observing the people in this truth movement, I've discovered that people who repeatedly make claims about themselves are simply trying to create an image of themselves for us to believe, and because it's an image rather than the truth, they have to repeat it over and over. The truth only has to be said once, and sometimes you don't even have to tell the truth even one time because a lot of the truth is obvious. But lies don't last very long. Lies have to be repeated over and over.
Whenever you find somebody repeating something over and over, you should ask yourself, why is he saying this so many times? You have to consider that what he's trying to do is train you, like an animal, to believe a lie.
This is why the Jews repeatedly remind us of the Holocaust. They don't want us to look into the issue. They are trying to put deceptive information into our memory, and the only technique to put a lie into somebody else's memory is to repeat that lie over and over and hope that he eventually memorizes it.
Watch out for anybody who tells you that he's honest, or that he hates pedophilia, or that you can trust him. Nobody has to convince you of the truth. They only have to convince you of lies.
Some people might respond that when we talk about 9/11 or the Holocaust, most people ignore us, and therefore, we have to repeat this information over and over. But that's a different issue. When we show people the evidence that they have been lied to about 9/11, almost all of them can understand that we are providing them with the truth.
However, most people either become frightened at the thought of standing up to a crime network, or they don't want to deal with the problems of society because they're too selfish or overwhelmed with the complexity. Therefore, we must repeat the information in order to put pressure on them to stop acting like animals.
When you encounter a person who tells you something about himself over and over, you have to consider that he is creating a false image of himself and trying to convince you that the false image is actually the truth. He may be hoping that his false image will satisfy your curiosity about him so that you don't investigate him or ask any questions about who he is.
While I was growing up, the news reporters often told us over and over that the media is our watchdog. That was the expression they were using at that time. They are "watchdogs". They told us that they were investigative reporters who wouldn't tolerate crime or corruption. They boasted over and over that they were protecting us and watching over us and exposing crime. I believed them. I believed that the 60 minutes television crew was an honest group of investigative reporters who were protecting us. I trusted them.
During the past few years I've gotten to know some of the people in this truth movement, and I've noticed that they are incredible liars. And I've also noticed that the people in the media routinely lie to us about news events and historical events. However, all these people boast about their honesty. In case you don't waste your time listening to them, here is Alex Jones on November 12, 2009:
Because I'm not a hypocrite, ladies and gentlemen. And they're just as bad, and I'm sick of it! I'm sick of injustice; I'm sick of hypocrisy, and I'm tired of it! And I'm not putting up with it any more!Wow, Jones is so upset with hypocrisy that he's yelling! If that isn't proof that he's an honest man, what is?
A more complicated trick that people use in discussions is to make accusations that don't have supporting evidence for. I'll give an example that happened to me recently.
In my previous audio file for September, I complained about a man named Adam Austin, and a couple days later he called me on the phone to defend himself. He told me that he was going to record the conversation, and he told me that he would give me some time to turn my recorder on, also. So I turned on my recorder. But our conversation seemed so worthless that I didn't bother to post it on my website.
However, he posted it on his website, and a couple days later some people told me that they had listened to it, and they pointed out that there were some suspicious aspects to Adam Austin. For example, he boasts that his name, phone number, and address is publicly available, but a couple people told me that they couldn't find his phone number anywhere on his website. Some people also said that he seemed to be very frightened while talking with me.
These people got my curiosity going, and so I downloaded the audio that Austin had posted on his website. After listening to his recording, and then listening to the audio file he created after that phone conversation, it occurred to me that he provides a few good examples of what to watch for when we start having discussions.
A very important lesson to learn from Adam Austin is that it's not our responsibility to disprove other people's accusations. Rather, it is their responsibility to provide supporting evidence for everything they say.
For example, Austin repeatedly called me a Jew while he was yelling at me, and after the conversation was over he proudly boasted in a subsequent audio file that I didn't respond to his accusations, and, therefore, that proves that I'm Jewish!
However, since he accused me of being a Jew, it's his responsibility to show that his accusation is sensible by providing evidence that I'm a Jew. I don't have to defend myself against an accusation that nobody has evidence for. People who make accusations that they don't have supporting evidence for should be regarded as con artists or idiots. Regardless of what their problem is, they should be removed from the discussion rather than tolerated.
You wouldn't tolerate a salad at a restaurant in which some of the ingredients were rotten. Likewise, we have to raise standards for people who are influencing the world. We have to pass judgment on which of them are rotten, and then remove them.
By comparison, if somebody were to provide sensible evidence that I'm
Jewish, or a pedophile, or a drug addict, then people would be justified
in demanding that I respond to the evidence, and if I ignored the evidence,
then they would be justified in claiming that I'm ignoring the evidence
because the accusation is true.
An even more important lesson to learn from that phone call with Adam Austin is that the Jews are constantly trying to try to trick us into saying something that they can use to ruin our image, or start fights.
In my audio file for September, I played an excerpt in which Fred was trying to trick me into saying something terrible about somebody I don't know. I think Adam Austin was trying to trick me into saying something ridiculous about Jews so that the Jews could make me look like a paranoid lunatic.
Austin began this trick by defending himself against my accusation that he's a Zionist agent who is trying to protect the criminal Jews. He told me that if I had listened to his audio files, I would have heard him clearly state that his goal was to put all of the Jews on rockets and send them to the sun. He described this policy as "Solar Zionism". However, I had heard his remark about "Solar Zionism," but I considered it to be a joke, not a serious policy for dealing with criminals.
When I asked him for some details on his policy, he told me that he wants all of the Jews to be killed. I responded by asking him if we should also kill the people who are only partially Jewish, and he responded that everybody with Jewish DNA needs to be killed. He also said that their bodies need to be incinerated so that nobody in the future can extract any Jewish DNA from the dead bodies and re-create the Jewish race.
I think Austin was trying to trick me into agreeing with his policy, but if I had done so, I bet that Jews all over the world would have proudly boasted that Eric Hufschmid agrees with Adam Austin that everybody with even a tiny amount of Jewish DNA needs to be killed and then incinerated. They might have even given me publicity on television if I had agreed with Austin. The Jews would have been able to make me look like a paranoid, anti-Semitic, lunatic.
Furthermore, if I had agreed with Austin's policy of incinerating everybody with some Jewish DNA, I bet the Jews would have released whatever horrible information they have about Austin in order to give him a terrible image. Then the Jews would have proudly boasted that Eric Hufschmid agrees with an anti-Semitic lunatic who's also a pedophile, alcoholic, or whatever Austin happens to be.
Fortunately, I am familiar with this trick, so I refused to agree with Austin's idiotic Solar Zionism policy, and I pointed out to him that not everybody with some Jewish DNA is a criminal.
To my surprise, about a week later, Daryl Smith and Noel Ryan claimed that my remark is evidence that I'm actually trying to protect the criminal Jews. No matter what I say, the Jews try to use my remarks to ruin my image. This brings up another important trick that the Jews use, and that is that they will use anything against you, even if it's a harmless remark, and even if it doesn't actually make sense.
A good example is how they gave Howard Dean a bad image during the 2004 presidential campaign when he was running for president. The Jews apparently wanted John Kerry to be the candidate, not Howard Dean. So since Dean was becoming popular, the Jews in the media made a very big fuss about him ending one of his speeches by yelling the word, "Yeah!". If you search for the phrase "Dean scream", you will find tens of thousands of pages, and even an entry in the Wikipedia.
What Dean did was something we find millions of people doing on a routine basis. Some people will yell such words while watching television, or when they're playing games with each other. And it's very common for people in sports contests to yell something when they win a contest.
However, the Jews used that meaningless and irrelevant event as evidence that Dean is partly insane. First of all, they played only the audio from his microphone, and so all we hear is him yelling that remark. If you listen to the audio from a microphone that was in the audience, you find that the audience was making so much noise that people could barely hear Howard Dean, which is why he was yelling.
The Jews created the impression that the room was very quiet, and that Dean was yelling simply because he had no control over his emotions. It's amazing to consider that the Jews fooled a lot of people into believing this meaningless event is evidence that Dean is insane.
The point I'm trying to make is that if the Jews want to make you look bad, they can do so with even a completely meaningless remark that you made. All they have to do is get a lot of Jews to start repeating over and over that your remark is a sign that you have lost your mind, or that you are dishonest, or whatever. If they repeat it enough times, people will start to believe it.
Bobby Fischer, the chess champion, is an even better example of how the Jews can fool people into believing a lie simply by repeating it over and over. They fooled most of the world into believing Fischer had gone insane, but they never provided any evidence. They simply repeated the lie over and over and over. They even fooled me into believing Fischer had somehow gone insane.
We have to be very careful believing what somebody tells us. We don't live in a world in which we can trust people. We live in a world in which we are surrounded by people with all sorts of mental disorders. We can't be like babies who eat whatever somebody puts into our mouth.
This brings up an interesting issue. Animals are extremely suspicious of everything around them. They are suspicious of noises, changes in light, movements of any type, and all other animals. Animals are constantly on the lookout for danger. Humans who are more like animals may be less susceptible to con artists because they may be more likely to be on the lookout for danger. By comparison, a more advanced human may assume that other people can be trusted. Therefore, it's possible that the reason the Jews are so successful at cheating us is because they are more like animals.
Getting back to what the Jews say about me, they've been struggling
for years to find some way to ruin my image, and since they can't find
anything, they just make things up. For example, that mysterious, secretive
Zionist agent named Curt Maynard posted an article on his website that
accused me of protecting Jews. One of his more amazing remarks is:
And he also writes that I am NOT the person who discovered that my half sister is married to Rupert Murdoch's son. He says I got that information from Michael Collins Piper of the American Free Press.
I wouldn't be surprised if you never heard of Curt Maynard because he never achieved much success in the so-called truth movement. It is very easy to figure out that he is a liar. But I wanted to mention him to point out that when the Jews can't find sensible criticism of a person, they just make something up. You can also see this behavior with the Holocaust. Consider how many Jews were eyewitnesses to Holocaust events that never occurred. Their ability to lie is phenomenal.
Furthermore, their lies sometimes contradict one another, and they don't
care. They create a smorgasbord of different theories about me, about 9/11,
and about the Holocaust, and they don't care which of their lies you believe.
Their only concern is that you listen to one of them rather than somebody
Another trick that Adam Austin used is to lower the volume level of my voice so that his voice stood out. It's similar to the way some television advertisements are louder than the programs.
Both of us recorded the same phone conversation, but in my recording,
our voices are at about the same volume, but in his recording, my voice
is noticeably lower. It's possible that my voice truly was at a lower level
by the time it reached his equipment, but I've seen this problem before.
For example, on April 23, 2009, I was interviewed by Susie of the Patriot
Dames, and it was recorded by the BlogTalk radio website. My voice is at
a noticeably lower volume level, and the quality is lower, also. Considering
that this website routinely records phone conversations, they should be
able to do a better job recording my voice. Fortunately, I recorded most
of that conversation, and I posted my recording on my website. My own recording
shows that both of our voices are at about the same volume level and similar
Another trick that Adam Austin uses is to play the role of the victim. A good con artist does this in such a subtle and clever manner that we believe his sad stories and we feel sorry for him, but Austin is such a lousy con artist that I felt like telling him to shut up.
Specifically, there were times in our discussion when he complained that I was interrupting him. He dominated the entire discussion, so it was ridiculous for him to complain that I was interrupting him. And besides, there was one time when it seemed to me as if he was deliberately interrupting me. First, here is an excerpt of him complaining when I interrupt him:
<I interrupt Adam Austin and he complains, from 23 sep 2009>
Now listen to him interrupting me three times in a row:
<Adam Austin interrupts me 3 times, from 23 sep 2009>
Austin promotes the theory that some mysterious group of people are spraying us with chemtrails. It's entirely possible that criminal Jews are experimenting with diseases or poisons, but I haven't seen any evidence that the Jews are using commercial airplanes to spray chemicals. The people who promote the chemtrails theory may be trying to fool us into investigating commercial aircraft so that we don't notice that the Jews are using private airplanes or trucks to experiment with diseases to kill honey bees, or people, or farm crops. And the Jews may also be using cruise ships to test their diseases. They may also be trying to secretly put diseases or poisons into the flu vaccines, or vaccines for farm animals.
The people who promote chemtrails have no supporting evidence for their
theories. Therefore, they can't allow me to speak freely about the issue.
They have no choice but to interrupt me, or insult me, or try to dominate
the conversation in some manner.
This brings up another very important concept. Specifically, it no longer matters if somebody interrupts us or talks louder than us.
The reason is because technology allows us to record our thoughts. To understand this concept, compare how different a discussion today is compared to several thousand years ago. Thousands of years ago all conversations were verbal. Since there was no way to record a conversation, nobody could be certain of what somebody said a few moments earlier in time. And it was impossible to review what somebody said days or years earlier.
When conversations are entirely verbal, the most aggressive men can easily dominate the conversation and exert the most influence over other people because his opinions would become the most well known. At the other extreme, the most introverted men would never be able to adequately explain their opinions.
Take a close look at men when they discuss issues. When one man hears an opinion he doesn't agree with, he is very likely to react by talking louder, or trying to interrupt the other man. Our natural tendency during a discussion is to behave like dogs who fight over territory. We try to dominate discussions so that people listen to us rather than our opponent.
However, modern technology makes this behavior ridiculous. We don't have to fear interruptions, and we no longer have to be concerned that somebody else was speaking for a longer period of time. And we don't have to respond immediately to anybody, either. We can think about the situation and respond days later, or even years later.
For example, when Daryl Smith threatened me on the phone in September of 2007, I didn't bother responding immediately. I just waited to see what he was going to do. I responded weeks afterwards. But it didn't matter that I responded weeks later. The effect was the same as if I had responded the next day.
After I posted that file of the conversation I continued to occasionally think about Smith's threats. After a few more weeks I decided to post an additional analysis of Smith. And during the following years, I posted more remarks about Smith. And I'm still making remarks about Smith. I suppose I'll make a few more remarks about him in the future.
This concept is more important than it may appear. And it also applies to scientists. Modern technology is helping us tremendously because it prevents people from dominating conversations, and from dominating scientific research. Decades ago the people in the media and the universities could easily suppress a scientist simply by refusing to publish his material. It was also easy for people to plagiarize material decades ago because it was difficult for people to prove that they were the original source.
However, with computers and the Internet, everybody is now free to show our opinions to the entire world. No person or crime gang can restrict or control the publishing of material. And everybody in the world has access to all of the information. A government is capable of blocking certain websites, but they can't stop information from flowing around the world.
I can publish whatever I please, and I can make audio and video files. Nobody can interrupt me or censor me. And nobody can control which documents or audio files you listen to. It doesn't matter if another man is more aggressive than me because he can't interrupt me. And it doesn't matter if he intimidates people with his facial expressions or noises because you're not going to see his expressions or noises.
It also makes no difference who speaks first, or who speaks last. We don't have to rush any longer, or worry about who gets what we call "the last word". I can post documents weeks or months after some event. It doesn't matter when I post the information. All that matters is whether my information appeals to you. The Internet takes away the need to be the first to speak or the last to speak. It takes away the need to be loud and aggressive and make intimidating facial expressions. The Internet makes us equal, and so it puts emphasis on the quality of our documents. Those of us who can create something intelligent and original will eventually attract people, but people who merely restate common opinions in different words, or who produce documents that are difficult to understand, they will be ignored, even if they have a Nobel Prize and several PhDs.
It doesn't seem to me as if any of the people in leadership positions right now have anything intelligent to say. Two good examples are Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Both of them are currently receiving a lot of favorable publicity by the Jews who control the media, but what has either of them done or said that would justify putting them into a top leadership position?
If the candidates for government office had to be judged according to documents they wrote and posted on the Internet, I don't think we would even know of Barack Obama or Tony Blair or Angela Merkel. I don't think any of them are capable of writing something original or intelligent. However, when we judge them by their ability to raise money and give speeches, then they are much more successful than the rest of us.
It might help you to understand this concept if you realize that a candidate who is applying for a government office is performing events for judges, similar to an Olympic ice skater, or the contestants in the television show in which people compete for ballroom dancing.
As I describe in more detail in documents at my philosophy page, by changing the events of a contest, you change who wins the contest. Our current method of selecting government officials requires that the contestants gather money and give speeches to crowds of people. If we were looking for people who excel at gathering money and giving speeches, then this would be an excellent way to find them. But if we want to find people with leadership abilities, then we've got to change the events so that their leadership abilities can be compared and evaluated.
Developing a better method of selecting government officials is like developing an Olympic ice skating contest, or a ballroom dancing contest. We have to figure out what the contestants should do, and how they should be judged. We must figure out how to design a contest that shows us their leadership abilities. Should we make the candidates do something, such as participate in discussions? Or should we look through their past performance and analyze them by ourselves? Do we need them to do anything other than answer a few questions? Or should we let the candidates evaluate one another? Would it help us to see their own analyses of one another? What should we be looking for in the candidates? What qualities are important, and what are irrelevant, in regards to leadership?
After getting to know some of the people in the so-called truth movement, and after learning about some of the leaders in government, schools, and churches, here are some of my recommendations on what we should look for and what we should ignore when trying to select leaders.
We should ignore college diplomas, Nobel prizes, and all other types of awards. There are too many neurotic, dishonest, and incompetent people with diplomas and awards. And it often seems as if these awards are given for political purposes.
Incidentally, I wonder if giving awards for intellectual achievements even does society any good at all. I don't see how it's possible to say that one scientist deserves an award but not another. It's possible to determine the winner of an Olympic sports contest, but how can intellectual work be judged?
Awards are justified on the grounds that it provides an incentive for scientists, but I don't think it's a good idea to treat scientists as if they are circus animals. These awards may provide some incentive to the emotionally disturbed scientists, but we shouldn't encourage people with low self-esteem to become scientists. A better scientist is a man who is happy with himself and is doing research because he truly wants to help us understand life. He should be working because he enjoys understanding the world, not because he is trying for a Nobel Prize.
Another of my recommendations is that the voters get into the habit of passing judgment on the mental health of the candidates. Since we don't know much about the human mind, each of us will have a different opinion on what good mental health is, and all of our opinions will be vague and confusing, but I think it's important that we get into the habit of looking critically at our leaders, especially their job performance and their mental health.
Encouraging voters to pass judgment on the mental health of candidates would encourage the voters to look at the candidates in a manner similar to how the judges of an ice skating contest or dancing contest look at their contestants. It encourages the voters to analyze some important qualities rather than meaningless qualities, such as how well they give speeches, or their visual image, or what their spouse looks like.
Also, analyzing the mental health of a candidate might help counteract our tendency to become submissive towards them. It would be an interesting experiment to encourage the British citizens to pass judgment on the mental health of the Queen and her family members. And it might help the Americans if they were encouraged to discuss the mental health of people in television and Hollywood. Is Tom Cruise in good mental health, for example? How about Madonna, Steven Spielberg, or Barbara Walters?
When we are encouraged to pass judgment on the mental health of political candidates, or Queen Elizabeth, or Barbra Streisand, it forces us to make decisions on what good mental health is. Is a person in good mental health if he routinely gets drunk? Is a person who wants several giant mansions and yachts showing symptoms of mental illness, or is this simply evidence of success?
As I've described in other files, I don't see anything wrong with a person, especially as a teenager, experimenting with alcohol or drugs, but my recommendation is that people who show an interest in drugs should be prohibited from leadership positions on the grounds that they probably have something seriously wrong.
As I've mentioned before, I think criminals are similar to cancer cells. Both criminals and cancer cells are defects; retards; genetic garbage. And I don't think that we can cure badly behaved people, although it is possible for people to control themselves to a certain extent. We have to isolate or destroy the destructive people. Our law-enforcement system should be analogous to white blood cells that are on the lookout for destructive people. We should remove the defects immediately rather than try to make them behave better.
When we feel sorry for criminals and allow them to reproduce, they are most likely to reproduce with other defective people. There is some information about the personal lives of members of the Gambino crime network and other organized crime gangs, and it shows us that criminals have a tendency to reproduce with other criminals, and their children often join the crime network. If this breeding of criminals were to continue for centuries, they would eventually create a separate race of humans that depend upon crime for a living. In fact, this may have already happened. That might explain some groups of Gypsies or Jews.
When analyzing somebody's mental health, I suggest that we be able to analyze his childhood. Most people try to dismiss childhood as being irrelevant, but from my casual observations of people, the adults who cause trouble for society were showing signs of problems during their childhood.
For example, consider Daryl Smith. He told me that he routinely got into very serious physical fights with his stepfather. He would blame his stepfather, of course, but Smith never got along with anybody else, so it can't be his stepfather's fault. For example, Smith was evicted from his high school. It was obvious to the adults at his high school that there was something wrong with Smith, but all they did was dump their human garbage into somebody else's house. This is as foolish as a white blood cell discovering a cancer cell in your liver, but instead of destroying the cancer cell, it tells the cancer cell to go the stomach. Our society did nothing about Smith, and so he grew up, reproduced, and is now trying to protect the Jewish crime network.
Another example is Steve Quayle. He claims to be an honest investigator who is helping to expose the New World Order, but listen to this excerpt as he describes himself as a teenager:
Steve Quayle on 25 July 2009:
I was on the street at 13, okay? I was a teenage alcoholic. And the bottom line is, is that, I partied hard, and by the grace of God, two times in my life, I almost died of alcohol poisoning. Not because, you know, I drank a few beers, but because I just thought I could set the world's record on fifths of, you know, whiskey. And in those days I was a skinny guy, I was about 135, 138 pounds, you know? And the thing is, is that I guess there's a saturation point, but God has his hands - that was before I got saved, you know? But again, you pay a price. I tell people that have never lived a wild life, 'Oh, I'm so grateful you never did. You don't have the scars, and you don't have sorrow that goes along with it.' But God can heal the scars and heal the sorrow.
Steve Quayle on 25 July 2009:
Listen, I was as wretched as they come. I was as profane as they come. My mouth was sewage, and I'm talking sewage. My actions followed what a total, total, hedonistic, self-centered... you know, and I'll leave it at that! And, God reached out to me, and I said, Lord, this is very cool that you can love somebody is wicked and vile!There were probably a lot of adults who noticed that Steve Quayle was a very badly behaved child, but society never did anything about him. As with Smith, he was allowed to grow up, reproduce, and is now struggling to protect the Jewish crime network and convince us that he is one of the honest truth seekers who will save us from the New World Order.
Alex Jones is another person in the truth movement who should've been identified as a potentially dangerous person while still a child. He admits that his childhood was full of violence. Some people may respond that Jones was a victim of his environment, but children who get into fights on a routine basis are doing so because they want to. I think Jones enjoyed the violence. Here is an excerpt of him playing music that he likes and reminiscing about getting into fights during high school:
Alex Jones from his radio show on 25 Sep 2009:
We used to go to... meet people from school that, high school, that wanted to get into a fight. We'd pull into a field, just crank it up, slide out of the car, and just start going wild, but you know what? I've put all that energy into fighting the New World order now.
We should analyze humans the same way a farmer analyzes his plants and animals. When a farmer discovers that one of his baby animals is retarded, he doesn't assume that the animal will magically become healthy as it grows older.
Humans follow the same rules as the animals and plants, but we resist the concept because we don't want to deal with this issue. When one of our relatives or friends is defective, we prefer to convince ourselves that they will grow out of it, or that they can be cured by having psychological treatment, or by beating them with a stick, or by sending them to a military academy.
We have to change our attitude and start facing the fact that defective children will become defective adults.
It's true that some children learn to control their problems, but that doesn't eliminate the problem. He is still the same person with the same problem. If you have trouble understanding this concept, compare me to a reformed alcoholic. Neither of us has a drinking problem, so we may appear to be the same, but there is a significant difference between us. The difference is, I don't have to control myself when I am around alcohol because I don't have any problem with it. But when the reformed alcoholic is around alcohol, he becomes like a dog on a choke chain. He has to pull on his chain and beat himself in order to stop himself from drinking. We are not the same people. I am free and relaxed around alcohol, and I can even drink it, but a reformed alcoholic is tense and suffering from stress in the same situation.
This brings up the issue of happiness. Can a reformed alcoholic be as happy as people who don't have such a problem? Before I discuss that issue, consider the issue of swearing.
In my previous audio file, I mentioned that Adam Austin boasted that he swears all the time, and he boasts that his swearing is evidence that he's a normal man who's being honest with us rather than putting on a phony image. I don't know Austin, so he may be telling us the truth that he routinely swears, in which case he is telling us the truth when he says he's not putting on a phony image.
By comparison, Daryl Smith would routinely swear and make all sorts of angry and insulting remarks in private conversations with me, but whenever he was interviewed or making audio files, he would suppress his swearing and temper. Smith is not being honest with us when he is being interviewed. He is controlling his behavior and trying to fool us into thinking he is somebody he really isn't.
Smith is not the type of person who can be open and honest with us.
He is one of many people who has to control himself when he's around other
people. He has to put on a phony image of himself. As he grew up he learned
that other people don't like his behavior, and so he learned to control
his behavior in order to fool us into thinking he's a better person than
he really is. He knows that we would be disgusted if we knew what he was
A lot of people describe swearing as adult language, but as I described in more detail at my philosophy page, I think swearing is the human equivalent to barking or growling. There's no intelligent content in swearing. People swear merely to express emotions, usually anger, but some people swear simply to express any high level of emotion, such as happiness, or surprise, or excitement. People also swear in an attempt to intimidate or frighten us.
Most people believe that they are protecting children from danger by not letting them hear swearing. However, the words themselves are harmless. The reason the words upset us is because of our memories of how the words have been used. These words are normally used by people who are very angry, or who are trying to intimidate us. When we hear these words, we recall the images of violence and anger. Those images are unpleasant, and most people make the mistake of assuming that the words are unpleasant. But it's not the words. It's the memories of how those words are used that we find unpleasant.
Rather than refer to swearing as "adult language", it would be more accurate to describe it as crude, animal language. It might help you to understand this issue if you imagine hearing somebody bark instead of swear. For example, imagine hearing somebody say this about President Obama:
I don't like President -bark- Obama.
The first time you heard somebody bark in their conversations you would probably find it amusing, but after a while you would find it annoying, and eventually you would find it disgusting. A person who swears throughout his conversation is behaving in the same crude manner as a person who barks during his conversation.
Adam Austin claims that swearing is a normal activity, and I would agree with him to a certain extent. All animals make noises when they are emotionally stimulated. Humans are the same as animals, but we usually say a word rather than make a meaningless noise. For example, the word "Wow" is a meaningless word that we say when we are excited or surprised. It's equivalent to the meowing of a cat, or the quacking of a duck.
A word such as Wow doesn't upset people because we don't have unpleasant images associated with it. However, even if the swear words didn't have unpleasant images, we wouldn't want people to use them on a routine basis because those words don't have any intelligent meaning. Consider the word "Wow" to understand this concept. If a person were to use the word "Wow" all throughout his conversation, and if he did this day after day, year after year, you would be annoyed by him, and you would wonder if he was mentally ill. It would be equivalent to a person writing a document and putting an exclamation mark after every sentence.
I agree with Adam Austin that it's normal for us to make meaningless noises to express our emotions, or to swear, but Adam Austin was swearing far beyond what any normal man would do. I wonder if he was swearing to an extreme as a marketing gimmick to attract people to his website.
It's possible that some adults swear a lot because they grew up around so much swearing that they simply got into the habit of it. However, I think most of the adults who swear all the time are either more like an animal than the rest of us, or they're suffering from some nearly constant physical or mental pain.
You may have noticed that when you are in pain for a long period of time due to sickness, or an accident, or dental work, that you become upset much more easily, and you're more prone to yelling or swearing or making critical remarks.
A child who grows up around swearing may treat the words as if they're ordinary words. And he may use them in a calm and relaxed manner in ordinary conversations. But that's not what Adam Austin or Daryl Smith are doing. When they swear, I sense anger or bitterness in their tone of voice. I don't think they are swearing simply because they grew up around people who swear a lot. I think they are suffering from internal pains.
When people like Austin and Smith go out into public, they have to put a choke chain around their neck and try to control their swearing. Some people have to also control their craving to grab at women on trains, or fondle children. And some people have to struggle with themselves not to steal items from a retail store.
A lot of people talk about the issue of freedom, but what is freedom? Most people have no idea what they're talking about. Is Adam Austin free? Is Daryl Smith free? If a person has to struggle with himself to control his swearing, or his cravings to grab at children, or his tendency to get drunk, is he really free?
I would not describe those people as free. I would describe those people as constantly torturing themselves in order to coexist with the rest of us.
What is the difference between a policeman following a man around in order to stop him from grabbing at women on the public trains, and a man who watches over himself and struggles with himself to stop grabbing at the women? In both cases, the man is being tortured. Whether he is being tortured by a policeman or by himself, what is the difference? In either case, this man is not free. This man is like a wild animal who is living in a human world. He doesn't fit in with the rest of us, and he is suffering constant torture.
What is the difference between an alcoholic who is being followed by a policeman in order to stop man from drinking, and a reformed alcoholic who constantly watches over himself and suppresses his craving to drink alcohol? In both cases the alcoholic is being tortured. What difference does it make whether he is being tortured by a policeman or tortured by himself?
In one of my other audio files I mentioned that somebody could bring a truck full of drugs and alcohol to my house, and it wouldn't have any effect on me. I wouldn't have any trouble resisting the alcohol or the drugs. Somebody could also bring hundreds of children to my house, and I wouldn't have any trouble controlling my sexual cravings.
People like myself are free. I can freely walk around retail stores without having to struggle with myself not to grab at the items. I can freely walk around children without having to struggle with craving to grab at the children.
Furthermore, people such as Adam Austin and Daryl Smith cannot even have a relaxing conversation with us. When Smith would make an audio file, he would have to control himself because he knew that his normal manner of speaking would be considered angry and nasty. So, in our private conversations, he was frequently making angry remarks about people, he was swearing all the time, but as soon as the interview began, he would put a choke chain around his neck and pull on it all throughout the interview in order to control himself.
Smith and many other people are like that character Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. When they are home, they are angry, miserable creatures, but when they go out in public, they put a choke chain around their neck and pull on it every once in a while to force themselves to resemble a respectable human.
By comparison, the way I speak to you in these audio files is the way I speak to my neighbors, relatives, and everybody else. I don't have to put on an act. I don't have to control myself when I make these files. I can relax and say whatever I want.
I can walk around in public completely relaxed. I don't need a choke chain on myself. I don't have to worry about how I behave. I don't watch over myself. I don't have to beat myself with a stick to stop myself from stealing items, or grabbing at children.
People like me are free, but a large percentage of the population seems to be like wild animals that are constantly watching themselves and torturing themselves in order to fit in with the rest of us. These people are not free, and I don't see how they can be happy. The only way they could be truly free and happy is if they were living in their own society with people similar to themselves. Then they would be able to relax and be their natural self.
Of course, if we sent all those misfits to their own nation, they would
probably create a nation that was extremely violent, crude, and unpleasant.
And this brings up an issue I've mentioned before. Namely, the crude people
prefer to move to the more advanced societies. They don't want to live
with their own kind. They would rather live with more advanced humans,
but since they don't truly fit in with us, there is constant tension between
us. They regard us as anal retentive, or stuck up, or arrogant, or boring.
But from our point of view, they're like animals, or obnoxious children,
or savages, or retards.
The world is full of violence and crime and corruption, and the majority of people assume that we can improve the situation with more security cameras, or more policemen, or more laws, or better training of children. But we can't change a person's behavior. The only way for the world to become a better place is for the people to become better. We need higher quality humans. If jail were capable of improving people, then Daryl Smith would be much better than almost all of us because he's been in jail a lot.
The only way to reduce crime is for the human race to improve into a more advanced species. We need humans who behave in respectable manner simply because they want to, not because they're afraid of being arrested.
People like Smith are under a lot of stress when they go out in public. They're like wild animals who are dressed as humans. A lot of Jews are in the same situation. Consider how many Jews have to hide their activities, such as their bizarre murder rituals, or sex with animals. Those Jews realize that we wouldn't approve of their activities, so when they're in public, they put on an image to fool us into thinking that they are just like us, and when they're around other Jews, they relax and behave in their more natural manner.
A lot of people wonder what happiness is and how to find it. And most people think that happiness comes from money, or giant houses, or pampering by servants, or by becoming famous.
I think one of the reasons that so many people are unhappy is because they don't fit into this modern world. They can't relax and behave in their natural manner. Instead, they are constantly reprimanded and tortured by policemen, school teachers, their employer, and even by themselves.
Consider how many children are growing up in a constant state of emotional torture. They are reprimanded on a routine basis by school teachers, their parents, other adults, and even other children. The emotional torture that they suffer during their childhood may teach them to control themselves, but how can they ever be happy? I don't think a person can be truly happy when he lives in constant fear of being reprimanded or arrested.
A lot of these misfits have been through so many emotional beatings that they try to avoid us. Have you ever noticed that the people who come out late at night are a different group of people than those during the daytime? The people that we find in our cities during the nighttime are the misfits who don't feel comfortable around the rest of us. The businesses that cater to people at night are not exactly the same, either. A lot more alcohol is sold late at night, and the music is much louder.
I think that one of the reasons people are so miserable and constantly searching for happiness is that an enormous percentage of the population is like a wild animal that is constantly trying to control itself. I don't think these people will ever be truly happy. I think it's one of the reasons that they waste so much of their life searching for happiness. They live with endless fear and stress, but they make the mistake of assuming that their misery is due to a lack of something, such as a lack of money or drugs or sex.
By comparison, people like me can be relaxed throughout our entire lives. There were a few times in my childhood when an adult would reprimand me for something, but it was always something trivial, and I could understand why they were complaining. I didn't react with anger or hatred. And I never feared policemen.
Actually, I should say I never feared policemen until Christopher Bollyn disappeared. The police in my city seem to be respectable and honest, but the elected officials, such as the sheriffs and district attorneys, seem to be just as weird and corrupt as those in Chicago and New York. I think the best attitude for everybody is to assume that every elected official is a criminal on the grounds that the only people who get funding and publicity are the people who are approved of by the Jewish crime network.
Anyway, people like me can be relaxed throughout our entire lives. I don't have to control myself or put on a phony image of who I am. I behave in my natural manner both at home and in public.
It's true that idiotic thoughts often wander through my mind, but I can easily control those thoughts. For example, when I was using Windows 98 they were often times that I would fantasize about throwing my computer monitor at Bill Gates. However, it's very easy for me to control those thoughts. If Bill Gates had actually been in the room with me, instead of throwing my monitor at him, I would have told him he's a neurotic, introverted freak who shouldn't be in a leadership position.
The current philosophy towards crime and bad behavior is to punish the badly behaved people, but the badly behaved people are already torturing themselves in an attempt to control themselves. Increasing their level of torture doesn't fix their problem. Besides, it's a burden and a nuisance for the rest of us to treat other people in this manner.
The ideal world is one in which all people are naturally well behaved and naturally happy with life and themselves. Nobody should have to go through life punishing themselves, and we shouldn't have to punish one another. We shouldn't need security cameras to watch over us, or guns to protect ourselves from one another.
The only way to truly improve the human world is to start restricting reproduction to the people who are naturally happy and naturally well suited to this modern era.
We have to stop trying to force people to become something they're not. If a person wants to have sex with animals, then we should let him. But people like that shouldn't reproduce. And if another person can't control his cravings for drugs or alcohol, then let him have drugs or alcohol. Just don't let him reproduce.
We should let people behave the way they want to behave. And as I've mentioned before, every city should be able set standards for behavior. If we don't like the way a person is behaving, the police should send to a neighborhood, or another city, where his behavior is allowed. And if there is no neighborhood or city that wants his type of behavior, then we could send them to a special city for the misfits that nobody wants.
Once again I'm near the 80 minute mark so I'll continue this in part 4.
Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: