Hufschmid's main page
Audio page

Eric Hufschmid, 13 February 2010


The page with the audio is here

The mp3 file is here.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The other day I received an e-mail message from a man who looked at my articles about the City of Castles. He disapproved of my idea of restaurants that have tables for one person that are large enough for the person to use a laptop computer. He complained that he didn't like the idea of people using a computer while they are eating.

His complaint brings up two important issues that I wanted to mention. The first is that he misunderstood my idea, and the second is that we need to get discussions like this out in the public because I can't adequately explain my ideas in a few audio files or articles, and there are certainly thousands of other people who have intelligent opinions or questions.

Regarding the first issue of how he misunderstood me, I wasn't intending for people to use a computer while they are eating.

One of the points I was trying to make with my city of castles is that if we design restaurants, food markets, and picnic areas to be pleasant and offer a wide variety of food and services, then the people would have no desire to have their own private kitchens or dining rooms. This in turn would save a lot of resources, and it would cause people to get out of their house, enjoy the city, and socialize.

But in order to get rid of everybody's desire for their own personal kitchens and dining rooms, the city has to provide the same type of options that we have in our own homes. For example, when you finish a meal at your own home, you don't have to quickly leave the table. You can remain there by yourself, or you can sit there with other people and talk. Or you can play card games, work on a computer, or read a book. Or you can spread out pages of paper and help your child with his homework.

Therefore, the restaurants and picnic areas in my city of castles must also allow people to sit at the tables before or after their meal. Also, there must be plenty of tables so that nobody feels rushed or crowded.

Also, I mentioned that the tables for one or two people would be placed near the windows, and the tables would be large enough for you to spread out pages of paper, or use a computer, or read a book. The purpose of designing tables for one or two people in this manner is that if you had some work to do, you could sit at the table and do your work, and then you could eat, or you could eat first, and then do your work. Or you could simply relax at the table and enjoy the view.

Furthermore, since there would be lots of restaurants and picnic areas, you could sit at one table on one day, and then at another table, or at another restaurant, on another day, thereby providing you with a lot more variety than you would ever have in your own home.

In order to remove everybody's desire for their own kitchens, the city must offer a wide variety of food. This is one of the reasons I suggested that people be allowed to operate a restaurant a part-time basis, such as one day a week, or even one day a month. I assume that there are people who would love to operate a restaurant, but not on a full-time basis. In that city of castles, they would have that opportunity.

Furthermore, some people may not want to operate a full-service restaurant. One person might want to operate a restaurant one day a week but provide only a few types of salads. Another person might operate a restaurant one day a week and provide a certain type of dessert, or bread, or pizza.

You could visit several restaurants if you wanted to get different types of food from different places. You would also be allowed to sit in a restaurant without eating. For example, if you weren't hungry, you could sit with your friends without any obligation to eat.

There could also be restaurants for women only, for men only, or only for mothers with babies. There could be restaurants with music, or restaurants that are very quiet. Each restaurant manager would provide whatever food and service that he pleased. As long as there was an interest in a particular type of restaurant or service, the city would support it.

If you wonder how it could be practical for people to operate restaurants only one day a month, remember that this is an extreme city in which the people get along with one another, just like a big family. If you have a family, consider that all of you share the same kitchen and dining room. On one day of the week, you could make a meal for your family. On another day somebody else in your family could make a different meal but using the same kitchen and dining room.

In my city of castles, some of the restaurants would be specifically designed for part-time operators. These restaurants would have large kitchens with enough equipment for everybody, and the sign in front of the restaurant would be easy to change. It could be an easily removable sign that hangs over the door, or it could be an LCD screen.

On one day of the month, the restaurant would have a particular name, and a particular manager would produce a particular type of meal. The next day a different manager would use the same restaurant and kitchen, but the name of the restaurant would be different, and he would provide a different type of meal and service.

The second important issue that his e-mail message brings up is that we need to get discussions like this out into the public. I can't adequately explain my ideas in a few articles or files. And besides, I have thousands of different ideas. I'm only discussing a few of them. And there are certainly thousands of other people around the world with intelligent opinions that we should have access to, and thousands more people who have intelligent questions for us.

Unfortunately, all of us are pushed aside and suppressed by the Jews. They fill the newspapers, talk shows, school textbooks, and magazines with idiotic opinions and Jewish propaganda.

The only people who get publicity are those who are approved of by Jews. This would be acceptable if the Jews were truly the superior race, and if they were promoting responsible people, but the Jews promote only the people who are destructive to society.

In Part 4 of my Social Technology articles, I mentioned John McCain's wife and daughter, but keep in mind that I selected the McCain women to use as examples simply because at the time I was putting that article together, those two women were in the news for posing for photographs to promote homosexual marriage, and so they caught my attention. John-McCains-wife-Cindy-becomes-poster-girl-for-same-sex-marriage

Meghan McCain is just an example of people who get publicity but who are actually destructive to society. For example, in one of her articles she writes:

"It seems to me the male-dominated media suffers from a Goldilocks Syndrome that keeps women from shattering the glass ceiling. Worse, I fear it will prevent tomorrow's female leaders from even seeking office." 2009-11-09/the-goldilocks-syndrome

I wouldn't describe the media as being male dominated. It is true that most businesses are dominated by men, but the important characteristic of our media is that it's dominated by Jews. Furthermore, she promotes the theory that there's such a thing as a "Goldilocks syndrome" and a "glass ceiling".

The theory that there is a glass ceiling is ridiculous. Men and women live differently because we're different, not because men are evil, or we have created a magic "glass ceiling" that prevents women from doing whatever they want to do. By promoting the concept of a glass ceiling, Meghan McCain encourages women to feel sorry for themselves, and to become angry at men. She isn't helping us to understand why men and women choose different activities, and she isn't encouraging us to study or understand the differences between men and women. Rather, she's encouraging anger and pouting. She's destructive to society. She's like dirt in a transmission.

The Jews give publicity to the women who encourage women to fight, hate, and pout. The Jews want women to compete with men, and prove to us that they are the same as we are. However, nobody benefits from this type of fight, except perhaps the Jewish crime network who is trying to break down our nation. If women were as intelligent as they think they are, they would realize that they're fools to waste their lives trying to prove to us that they are the same as men. They should enjoy being a woman and stop comparing themselves to men.

A few years ago Kelly Kulick became the first woman to qualify for the Professional Bowlers Association Tour, and the other day she won a bowling Tournament of Champions. The Jews in the media reported this with idiotic expressions such as she is "smashing a glass ceiling". The Jews also praise her for being the first woman to win a men's bowling tournament. kelly-kulick-woman-win-professional-bowling-tournament

The Jews make it appear as if this woman has helped release women from bondage, but she hasn't done anything to improve the life of any woman. Every woman's life is still the same. She's probably doing more harm to women by encouraging women to compete with men.

I explain some of the reasons why I think feminism is ruining life for both men and women in Part 2 of my "Dumbing Down" articles, so take a look at that article if you want more of my opinions.

We need to get a higher quality group of men in control of society, and they need to stand up to the feminists and explain to the women that there's nothing wrong with men and women having separate social activities and organizations. Women don't have to compete in men's bowling tournaments. They can compete in women's bowling tournaments.

Men don't demand that we be able to compete in women's activities. Women should stop competing with us, and stop trying to prove that they are the same as we are. We don't have to be mixed together all the time. Actually, I don't think men and women should spend much time together because I don't think we have much in common. I think we would enjoy one another much more if we were in contact with each other only for brief periods of the day.

I think women would be much happier if they spent most of their time with women and children, and men would be happier if we spent most of our time with other men. We have to face the fact that men and women have different personalities, and different mental and physical abilities.

In Part 4 of my Social Technology articles, I pointed out that the reason the New World Order has to be secretive is because they're disgusting people. This concept also applies to the issue of feminism. The men who currently dominate our government, think tanks, charities, television, universities, and military have to be quiet about feminism because if they announced that feminism is nonsense, and that women should look to men for guidance, an enormous percentage of both men and women would respond with angry remarks that those men are incompetent, arrogant jerks who can't even provide leadership to themselves, and they shouldn't tell the rest of us how to live.

The men who currently dominate the world are disgusting. Many of them can't even control their drinking of alcohol. However, if we could put together a group of respectable, intelligent men, then most people would be impressed by them, even if they didn't agree with all of their opinions. And this would make it much easier for those men to tell the women to stop trying to liberate themselves from oppression, and start enjoying life as a woman.

Furthermore, I think the top leadership positions should be restricted to men. Women can handle lower level management positions, but the top positions should be restricted to men who can provide intelligent analyses of our problems. If women were capable of producing intelligent analyses, then we would have seen proof of this by now. Billions of women have had thousands of years in which to produce intelligent opinions, but we are still waiting for them to create an intelligent opinion.

Some women claim that they're just too busy taking care of children, but that is a ridiculous excuse. Men are busy, also, but somehow we find the time to create intelligent thoughts.

The Jews have fooled a lot of people into thinking that men and women have identical mental qualities, but we don't. Women seem to be better than men in certain qualities, such as finger coordination, speaking, and language, but they don't have much of an interest or ability in science or engineering.

Men have a tendency to describe women as stupid, but a woman is not the same as a stupid man. A ordinary man can outperform an intelligent woman in a lot of tasks, such as repairing an automobile, and a woman can outperform a man in certain tasks, such as language related tasks.

If we could reduce the intelligence of a man, he would become a stupid man, not a woman. Likewise, if we could increase the intelligence of a woman, she would become a more intelligent woman, not a man.

There is something different about a woman's mind. We should study the difference between us and try to figure out how to alter society so that life is better for both of us. Pretending that we're identical is causing trouble for both of us.

But how can we understand the differences between us when the men who dominate society are criminals, pedophiles, blackmailed homosexuals, alcoholics, and freaks? We need a better group of men in control of society, and they need to be able to stand up to the feminists.

A lot of men assume that they're making their daughters and wives feel better by telling them that women are just as intelligent as men, but we don't help people by lying to them. We have to tell them the truth. The people who can't handle the truth should be regarded as savages who don't fit into this modern era.

A lot of people consider reality to be cruel, but reality is beautiful. Reality is cruel only if your mind can't handle it. It might help you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to the climate.

If penguins were intelligent enough to have conversations, we would never hear them complaining about walking barefoot on snow, or swimming in ice water. However, if one of the Penguins was born with a defect that prevented him from staying warm, he would complain that the ice water is painfully cold, and he would want to wear shoes to keep his feet warm.

Nature takes care of the plants and animals. Every animal enjoys the environment that it lives in because the creatures that can't handle their environment end up dead. The creatures that survive are those that are well adapted to their particular environment.

During the past few thousand years, humans have been counteracting the effect of nature. For example, penicillin saved a lot of people's lives. This in turn allowed sickly people to survive and reproduce, creating more sickly people. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of antibiotics, but if our ancestors had restricted reproduction to the people who didn't need penicillin, then there would be fewer sickly people today.

There are two completely different methods of dealing with diseases. One is to find cures for the disease, and the other is to restrict reproduction to the people who are naturally capable of resisting the diseases. The best policy is to do both; namely, develop medical technology, but restrict reproduction to people who don't need the technology.

For another example of this concept, there are two completely different ways of dealing with bad eyesight. We can develop technology to correct the problem, such as eyeglasses and surgery, or we can restrict reproduction to people whose eyes are naturally in excellent condition. Of course, once again, the best policy is to develop the technology but restrict reproduction to the people who don't need it.

Unfortunately, we currently only look for cures for health problems. We are not yet restricting reproduction. As a result, the human race is degrading. We are becoming sickly, ugly, stinky, deformed, and physically weak. If our ancestors had been restricting reproduction, most of us today would be able to eat food without fear of salmonella, our wounds would heal faster; we wouldn't need eyeglasses; we would have much higher quality teeth; we would be in wonderful physical and mental health, and we would be better looking.

The people who oppose restrictions on reproduction are either too stupid or ignorant to understand the importance of it, or they are defective freaks who enjoy feeling sorry for themselves and want to see more miserable people so that they don't feel alone. These people are not thinking about what's best for the human race.

We have to stand up to the people who oppose restrictions on reproduction. It is them who have a problem, not us. They are the ones who are having trouble with modern society and reality, not us.

We have to think of what's best for the human race. Nobody benefits by allowing sickly or mentally ill people to reproduce. The people who can't handle this issue should be regarded as freaks who are harmful to the future generations of the human race. Some of them may be too stupid to understand this issue, but I think most of them are trying to avoid the issue because they can't handle reality. They want to live in a fantasy world in which there is no such thing as genetics.

As I described in my audio file for May 30, 2009 in which I mention Josef Fritzl's attempt to hide from cameras, there were advantages for people 50,000 years ago to ignore unpleasant aspects of life and live in a fantasy world, but today this type of behavior is destructive. The people who can't handle reality are primitive savages in a human world. Don't let them intimidate you.

This concept applies to feminism, also. It should be obvious that men and women are different, both physically and mentally. The people who can't see this are either incredibly stupid, or they are ignoring reality and living in a fantasy world. Regardless of what their problem is, they are misfits in this modern era.

I think that one of the reasons so many people believe that men and women are equal in intelligence and leadership abilities is because the men who currently dominate society are no more intelligent than the women, and they don't provide leadership any better than the women. The men in our government, and all of the men who get promoted on television, never say anything that is more intelligent than what the women say, and they don't provide better leadership than the women, either. This can create the impression that men and women have equal abilities.

Furthermore, a lot of the men in our government and who appear on television are often exposed as drug addicts, pedophiles, alcoholics, or criminals, and this can create the impression that men are truly disgusting creatures.

We have to change our government system so that we can put higher quality men in control. Imagine a government that is full of men who have intelligent analyses of life. This would make it more obvious that women don't belong in top leadership positions.

Sarah Palin is another example of why women don't belong in leadership positions. However, keep in mind that I'm not picking on her. She just happens to be getting a lot of publicity right now because a lot of conservative Jews are promoting her for president of America, and a lot of liberal Jews are complaining about her. Fox News is going to put a television studio in her living room and put her on television. And she's been traveling around the country to give speeches at Chamber of Commerce meetings, at protests, and on television.

It's ridiculous to put her into a top leadership position. For example, did you know that she quit her job as the governor of Alaska for no sensible reason? What would you think if you signed a four-year contract with a man, and he quit for no sensible reason before his time was up, and then, after a few years of unemployment, he offers to do an even more important job for you?

Furthermore, she quit her job after accusations appeared that she was involved with something dishonest, so we ought to consider the possibility that she quit because she was worried about the crime being exposed.

Regardless of why she quit, her strange resignation should disqualify her from a top leadership position. And there were other bizarre events in her life. For example, when she was in Texas for a conference in 2008, she said that she was pregnant, and she said some amniotic fluid leaked out and she felt some contractions, but she didn't bother going to the hospital to have the baby. Instead, she continued with her meetings. Then she got on an airplane to fly back home to Alaska. The flight stopped in Seattle, and that gave her the chance to think about what she's doing and go to a hospital to have the baby, but she decided to continue flying, despite the possibility that the rest of the fluid would pour out of her at any moment. After arriving in Alaska, she traveled to her personal doctor to have the baby.

What would you think if you were sitting next to a woman on an airplane who had leaked amniotic fluid, but showed no interest in giving birth to her baby? Apparently some people consider this behavior as proof that she's true leadership material because she considers serving the nation to be more important than the safety of her baby.

However, her strange behavior is causing some of us to wonder if she's hiding something. One possibility is that since she knew her baby had Down's syndrome, but since she opposed abortion, maybe she was hoping that she would lose the baby naturally. If she was trying to kill her baby, then she's just another hypocritical conservative who promotes a policy that she doesn't want to follow. This is similar to the conservatives who demand tough law-enforcement, but only for drug dealers and shoplifters, not business executives or government officials.

Another possible way to explain Sarah Palin's strange behavior is that she was only pretending to be pregnant because it was her young daughter who was pregnant, and she was trying to hide her daughter's pregnancy. If that's what she was doing, that means she is willing to lie to us and ruin her reputation in order to hide her daughter's dumb mistakes. In such a case, why would we want her in control of society? Her priority would not be to help society. Her priority would be to hide the idiotic behavior of her children, even if it hurts her in the process.

Sarah Palin is like other women; they never show leadership qualities. So what kind of men would regard her as a leader? The first few minutes of her speech at the Tea Party Convention on February 6, 2010 reminds me of a typical mother who is reading a bedtime story for her children. She doesn't say anything intelligent, but she has a very pleasant, happy personality, and she gives out lots of compliments, and she's visually attractive. She makes us feel good. I suppose the men who are attracted to her are those who want a mommy to take care of them.

We have to face the fact that women were never designed to be the leaders of society. They were designed for raising babies and socializing. Furthermore, they don't enjoy working in teams. Throughout most of human history they have been their own boss. They are capable of working in teams, but it's not the same as with men. Perhaps the easiest way to see the differences between us is to watch a volleyball or basketball team. The behavior of both the male and female athletes is very similar, except that the women spend a lot more time giving one another complements. A man is capable of working for long periods of time without compliments or reassurances that he's doing a good job. Women, on the other hand, need constant reassurances or else they lose their motivation.

I think one of the reasons a lot of people have been fooled into thinking that Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, and other women are qualified for top leadership positions is because the men who currently dominate society are no more intelligent than these women, and that allows the women to easily mix among the men and appear to be of equal abilities.

It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine that the Jews are controlling the baseball teams and allowing only the most uncoordinated men to get onto the teams. Imagine watching a baseball game in which the men are throwing the baseball in the same awkward manner that women throw baseballs. A woman would easily be able to join those teams because her abilities would be equal to those men.

A child watching those type of baseball games would come to the conclusion that men and women are equally talented in baseball. The child wouldn't realize that men are actually better at throwing baseballs until he saw the abilities of men that the Jews are suppressing.

Right now, in virtually every nation, the Jews are suppressing the men who are truly intelligent and respectable. Women can easily blend in among the disgusting and dishonest men that the Jews are selecting for leadership positions.

When women can blend in with a group of men who are in top leadership positions, or who are engineers, car mechanics, carpenters, brick layers, or scientists, it's a sign that those men are not very talented.

When John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his vice president, a lot of Republicans considered the two of them to be a talented team rather than a terrible mismatch or a publicity stunt. Imagine if McCain had selected a chimpanzee for his vice president, and imagine nobody complaining that the chimp seems out of place in the government.

If any nation had truly competent leaders, then women would seem out of place in the government. And so would children and chimpanzees.

Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, and the other women appear to be just as qualified for government positions as the men in government simply because the men are so incompetent. Furthermore, the women can behave in bizarre and suspicious manners without appearing out of place because the men also behave in bizarre and suspicious manners. We have a government of freaks.

If we could put a group of truly intelligent and respectable men in leadership positions, then it would become easier for people to notice that men and women are not the same, and that women are not suitable for top leadership positions.

We should not even allow women to become candidates for top leadership positions. And I don't think we should even let women to vote. It might make sense to let them to vote on some of the issues that affect women, but they shouldn't be allowed to select leaders for society because they don't have enough interest in society, and they don't have the necessary intelligence to make good decisions. And besides, they're so submissive that they tend to follow their friends rather than make their own decisions.

Women have been voting for decades in a lot of nations all around the world, but there's no evidence yet that any nation has improved after letting women vote. Their primary concern is babies, children, and other people's relationships.

Of course, most men shouldn't be voting, either, because most men don't have the emotional ability to deal with society's problems, and they don't have enough of an interest in society, and they don't have enough intelligence to make good decisions, anyway.

The majority of men behave like primitive savages. They don't study and discuss the problems of society. Instead, they form political parties that fight with one another.

The parties consist of arrogant, selfish savages who assume that the other parties are the cause of the world's problems. They fight with each other just like stupid animals. None of the groups provide us with intelligent analyses of our problems, and none of them can face the fact that Jews are lying about 9/11, the world wars, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing, and other crimes. None of these political parties have the ability to select competent leaders, either.

Furthermore, none of the political parties can look critically at themselves. Perhaps the most arrogant of the groups is the conservative party. A lot of conservatives are business owners, or they have a lot of money, and this causes them to boast that they're better than the ordinary working people who live on a fixed income. The conservatives boast that they have wonderful qualities, such as initiative, ambition, motivation, and an ability to carry through with their plans rather than quit before they're finished.

However, if the conservatives were capable of looking critically at themselves, they would realize that a lot of the people in their party are criminals or mentally ill. The conservatives assume that everybody who becomes a business owner, or who makes lots of money, is a better person than the ordinary working-class people, but that simply isn't true. There are lots of people who become business owners, corporate executives, or wealthy because of crime or mental illness.

Perhaps the most obvious example are the people who marry wealthy people for their money, not because they're interested in the person. Probably all of us have had occasional fantasies of marrying somebody who is rich or famous, but there are only some of us who actually pursue wealthy people and try to deceive them into marriage. It's natural for females to offer themselves to the dominant males, but I don't think it's natural for men to behave like this. The men who do this are parasites, or con artists, or freaks.

How many of the men who were pursuing Anna Nicole Smith were truly interested in her? And how many were thinking only of her money?

The men who are successful with this deception become very wealthy, but they are abusive, disgusting, selfish men who should not be allowed to influence society. A man who is a parasite with his wife is not likely to provide society with leadership because he is more likely to treat society in the same manner that he treats his wife.

Caroline Kennedy has a Jewish husband, but was he truly interested in her? Or did he want her money? Or is he part of the crime network that killed her father, and did he marry her in order to control her?

There are also a lot of different reasons that people become business owners. You shouldn't assume that a person who owns a business is better than an ordinary employee on a fixed salary. Some people end up in business for themselves simply because they are so anti-social or independent that they can't work with other people.

Some of the men who end up as independent salesmen are even worse. Some of them have terrible criminal backgrounds. I described one of them in my audio file for September 3, 2008. Since some of these salesmen are on commission, some of them have the potential to make an enormous amount of money, and that allows them to have a lot of influence over society. And they can pass their wealth on to their children, thereby creating a monarchy of freaks.

From my personal observations of people, most of the men who have become extremely wealthy, at least in America, are disgusting.

Certainly you've encountered men during your life who've complained that they're never going to be able to make much money on a fixed salary, and so they look for opportunities to own a business, or become a commissioned salesman, or an investor. These type of men cannot be happy with an ordinary salary, or an ordinary life. They have to be wealthy, and they have to be special.

The men who struggle to be wealthy and important often boast that they have some special qualities, such as ambition and initiative, but I think that some of them are unhappy and are hoping that money will relieve their misery, and I think some of them are like primitive savages who have intense cravings to be the dominant male.

When these type of men become wealthy, they don't provide society with leadership because they're not interested in society. They became wealthy because they have intense cravings for material items, or because they want to feel important. They're not leaders for this modern world.

People who are extremely wealthy, such as Warren Buffett, are sometimes referred to as geniuses, but if they were truly among the most intelligent humans, then there would be lots of evidence of their incredible abilities by now. Warren Buffett has been alive for decades, so he's had plenty of time to provide us with at least one intelligent opinion. But what has he ever said or done that can be considered intelligent? All he's done is acquire money, and I suspect that his success is the result of his participation in the Jewish crime network, not because of his intelligence.

We can't allow people to influence society simply because they have lots of money. We have to change our economic and government system so that the people who influence society are people who are truly concerned with society, and who are actually capable of coming up with ideas that help us. We need men who can do more than promise to bring improvements. We need people who actually have the talent and the desire to spend their time thinking about our problems and looking for solutions. We have to avoid the men who spend their time thinking about yachts, and mansions, and statues of themselves.

The people who dominate the world today are not leaders. None of them are helping us to understand or improve ourselves, or society. Instead, they chase after money or fame, or they're involved with crime networks. None of them say anything that's worth recording for future generations. They either tell us something we already know, or they promote Jewish propaganda. We're fools to tolerate leaders who can't lead. If a leader doesn't know any more than you, then he's not your leader. And if you know more than your leaders, then they should be following you.

Another issue I wanted to clarify is that in Part 4 of my social technology articles I mentioned that we shouldn't be afraid to discuss controversial issues, and I put the word controversial in quotes because we shouldn't use the word "controversial" when describing these issues. Instead, we should refer to them as just plain, ordinary, issues.

If your automobile was making strange noises and vibrating, would you describe the problem as "controversial"? Of course not. Likewise, the issues of euthanasia, raising standards for voters, and controlling immigration should not be described as "controversial". Instead they should be described simply as "issues that affect modern society".

When we describe these issues as "controversial", we are implying that there is something special about these issues, and that fights will erupt over them. However, we should be able to discuss the problems of society in the same relaxed manner that we discuss gardening or food recipes. We should not be afraid that somebody will have an outburst of violence or tears. People who can't discuss these issues calmly should be regarded as savages. Don't let them intimidate you. We have to stand up to them. They are the people who should be ashamed of themselves, not us. It is their behavior that's disgusting, not ours.

A lot of people are afraid that if we discuss these issues in public, the ordinary people will react with violent demonstrations and form lynch squads, but history has shown that the ordinary people don't behave like that. We don't have to fear the sheeple. There are millions of sheeple in America and Europe who now realize that they have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, and many of them also realize that they have been lied to about the world wars, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing. However, none of them are interested in participating in demonstrations or forming lynch squads. They react to the information the same way a dog reacts when you beat it with a stick. They just lick their wounds.

I am even more amazed that the sheeple don't even bother to complain that history books are full of Jewish propaganda and lies. Parents are spending enormous amounts of money to send their children to college, but they don't care that their children are being taught to memorize lies about the JFK assassination, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, and the Holocaust.

My brother's son is now in college, but neither he nor his parents care that his history books are full of lies. None of them is asking for the history books to be corrected.

We are fools to be afraid of these talking monkeys. We should bring discussions of the world's problems out in the open, and if any of the sheeple complain, we should tell them to either contribute something intelligent to the discussion, or keep their mouth shut and find something else to do.

Another issue that I mentioned in that article is that eventually the people who are fighting the Jewish crime network have to end the secrecy, identify themselves, and bring this fight with the Jews out in the open so that we can see who is on our side, and who is working with the Jews. Right now we don't know exactly what is going on, or who we can trust. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Jews within the crime network are as confused as I am.

For example, a Nigerian man supposedly tried to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day, and a few days later President Obama stopped his golf game and rushed home because some child had a minor accident, and the next day in Afghanistan a group of CIA officers were killed. What were those three events about? And who was responsible for them? Were they false flag operations? How many Jews within the crime network can explain those three events?

Here are some propaganda articles about those three events:
 • News&file article id=9951
 • President-Obama-sparks-scare-rushing-holiday-home-golf-course

Then, less than a month later, the day before the World Economic Forum meeting was to start, Markus Reinhardt, the man in charge of the police force that was providing security for the meeting, committed suicide in a hotel room. Some reports implied that he killed himself because he had an alcohol problem. I suppose he killed himself at a hotel because he didn't want to create a mess in his own home. He was replaced by a man named Marcel Suter. I don't know anything about him, but a man with the same last name, Dominic Suter, was owner of the Urban Moving Systems, which was an Israeli company involved with the 9/11 attack. Anyway, it's a strange suicide, but how many of the Jews within the crime network know the truth about what happened? They may be as confused as you and I.
 • 2748704878904575031280719364858
 • Head-security-Davos-dead-apparent-suicide-ahead-World-Economic-Forum
Here is a propaganda article about it:
Here are Christopher Bollyn's articles that mention Dominic Suter
 • Bollyn-dancing-Israelis.html
 • Bollyn-Chertoff_roots.html
 • Five-men-detained-on-911.html

And then, a couple days after that suicide, on January 28, the FBI surrounded the house of a pedophile photographer in the Los Angeles area, but he killed himself. The propaganda site claims that the suicide was actually an assassination by President Obama of one of Israel’s top Mossad agents. How many Jews know the truth about that suicide?

The attacks on Tiger Woods are another example. Why are the Jews continuing to publish critical remarks about him? He is the cover story for the February 2010 issue of Vanity Fair, and they're publishing photographs that were taken years ago by the Jewish photographer Annie Leibovitz. I think the Jews are trying to tarnish his image, but why?
 • 2010-01-04_tiger_woods_shirtless_and_pumping_iron_in_vanity_fair

Also, Gerald Posner recently provided details about the criminal connections of Rachel Uchitel's family, who is that woman I mentioned in my December audio file, and Posner wrote another article and boasts that he solved the mystery of what happened with Tiger Woods. Since Posner lies about 9/11, the JFK assassination, and other crimes, we can be certain that he's mixing propaganda into his article about Tiger Woods and the women involved with him, or that Posner is omitting critical information.

But why are so many Jews continuing to attack Tiger Woods? Are they getting revenge on Woods because he was starting to rebel against them? Are they trying to intimidate their other blackmailed puppets? Or are they doing this for financial reasons, such as to break advertising contracts? 

And why would Gerald Posner bother to write articles about the criminal connections of Rachel Uchitel? And why is he trying to convince us that he knows what happened with Tiger Woods?

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Jews are as confused as I am about this issue.

And then recently the Jews began attacking John Edwards for having a child with another woman. The Jews apparently knew about this for years, so why are they bringing it out now? It's also interesting that a couple years ago somebody discovered a videotape of Edwards having sex with that woman.

Furthermore, have you noticed that the Jews focus their anger on John Edwards and Tiger Woods rather than the women? Why don't they attack the women for being golddiggers, or sluts, or whores? I think the Jews are ignoring those women because at least some of the women are working for the Jewish crime network, and they were deliberately pursuing the men in order to blackmail them.

Now there are reports that John Edwards lost his temper and beat his wife. And once again the media ignores his wife's role in the problem. The Jews imply that she is an innocent victim of a violent, unstable maniac.
 • john_edwards_beat_wife_elizabeth_bones_broken_cops_called

The feminists try to convince us that men enjoy hurting women simply because men are violent and irrational, but that doesn't make any sense. Men have strong cravings to protect women, and women have strong cravings to protect children. A man will beat a woman only when he loses his temper, and a woman will beat a child only when she loses her temper. People with certain mental or physical disorders will lose their temper more easily than normal people, but something has to trigger the anger. Men don't beat women simply for entertainment.

When we don't observe the events that led up to the beating, our natural tendency is to assume that the violent person is at fault, and that the person who was attacked is innocent. However, this assumption is often incorrect.

When people get into fights with each other, we need to understand why the fight got started. We can't simply assume that the person who was beaten is innocent. A man will not beat a woman unless she does something to annoy him to the point at which his anger overpowers his craving to protect her. You can think of if as a hurdle, or a barrier. A woman has to do something to raise the man's level of anger high enough so that it overcomes his desire to protect her.

This concept is even more important in regards to children. Both men and women have intense cravings to protect children, so when we find a man, and especially a woman, attacking their own child, it is very likely that the child is truly a troublemaker. It's extremely unlikely that a well behaved child will be beaten by his own parents. It's also very unlikely for a well behaved woman to be beaten by her husband.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if government officials, Hollywood stars, and other rich and famous people have more fights with their spouses and children than ordinary people, and I wouldn't be surprised if their fights are more vicious, also. The reason I say this is because I think the people who are struggling for wealth and fame are either more like primitive savages than the rest of us, or they have more serious mental disorders and are hoping that money and fame will relieve them of their misery. If rich and famous people were better than the rest of us, then they would have fewer alcohol problems, fewer drug problems, fewer divorces, and their fights would be less nasty.

This brings me to an important issue that I wanted to discuss. Right now it's illegal for parents to kill their children, but why do we need such a law? What would happen to society if this law was removed? And what would happen if the government offered to do the killings for parents who couldn't do it by themselves?

Some people seem to think that if it were legal and easy for parents to abort babies, or kill their children, then people all over the place would start killing their children and aborting their babies. However, I doubt if many people want to kill their children.

And I would bet that the only children who would be killed would be those with serious mental or physical defects.

Having the freedom to kill your own children is like having the freedom to commit suicide. Specifically, nobody wants to do either. The issue of suicide might help you to understand this concept. Imagine that it's legal for you to commit suicide, and imagine that a hospital or other organization offers a free service to help you commit suicide if you can't do it by yourself. Imagine that they provide you with a pleasant room to relax in, and they provide you with a drink that will put you to sleep, and then kill you while you're sleeping. Would you take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to commit suicide in a peaceful and quiet manner?

Almost everybody would ignore that free, assisted suicide service. Only a few of us would consider that service, such as when we are about to die from old age or disease and we are in terrible pain. And of the people who consider the service, only some of them would actually take advantage of it. Most would think about the service for a while, and then decide to continue living in pain.

Some people who oppose assisted suicide will use the argument that many people who have attempted suicide were grateful years later that they failed, but society doesn't need people who are on the borderline between life and suicide. And we certainly don't need people like that reproducing. Imagine an entire nation of people who regularly attempt suicide. Anybody who takes advantage of a free suicide service would have to be suffering from some type of mental or physical disorder. We should consider a suicide service to be putting them out of their misery, not hurting them.

Right now Angelina Jolie is in the news because she is supposedly breaking up with Brad Pitt, and the National Enquirer is claiming that she has had suicidal tendencies throughout her life. Some people might complain that if assisted suicide was promoted by society, then she might have killed herself by now. But my response is, so what? If she's one of the people who is teetering on the verge of suicide, and if one day she is especially sad and decides to kill herself, what is the problem with that? If she was not rich and famous, nobody healthy would want her as a friend or a spouse. She would be too depressing. angelina_jolie_suicide_attempte_prevented_by_brad_pitt

I think that most of the people who are struggling to be rich and famous are suffering from serious mental disorders. They don't seem to enjoy life like the rest of us. They can't be happy on an ordinary salary or as ordinary people. They can't even be happy with an above average income. They have to be extremely rich and extremely famous. If suicide clinics were available, and some of these unhappy people took advantage of the service, what would be wrong with that? We would allow them to put themselves out of their misery in a quiet and painless manner.

On February 7, 2010, Professor Phil Jones, one of the people involved with the climategate scandal, said he contemplated suicide several times after being exposed as a liar in this global warming fraud. If Britain had suicide clinics, and if he had killed himself in one of them, why should we care? Actually, we should exile or execute the criminal scientists, not feel sorry for them.

A scientist that works for a crime network is as dangerous as a policeman or government official or judge who works for a crime network. We have to set high standards for people in positions of authority. We need leaders that we can trust and look to for guidance.

The people who oppose assisted suicide think of themselves as wonderful people who are loving and caring, but they are forcing old and sickly people to suffer a slow and painful death, and the mentally ill people who want to commit suicide are forced to do it themselves, which is so difficult that they usually don't succeed.

I don't see any sensible reason to try to prevent suicide, or for the police to waste their time trying to stop people from committing suicide. I think it makes more sense for society to provide a free and pleasant suicide service. The people who don't want the service can ignore it. Nobody is harmed by the service.

Likewise, we don't need laws to stop parents from killing their children. In fact, we could offer a child killing service, also. I suppose some people will think I'm making a joke, but seriously imagine if this service is available right now, and free of charge. How would it affect your life? Would you take your children to this agency and have them killed?

Most parents would ignore the opportunity to have their children killed. And the parents who took advantage of this service would kill defective children, not wonderful, healthy children.

Our primitive ancestors were free to kill their children, and the human race survived this freedom. Today, however, a lot of people have the attitude that the police must stop parents from killing their children. But we don't need the police to waste their time trying to stop parents from killing their children. In fact, it would make more sense for society to offer a child killing service. Why should parents of defective children have to waste their lives taking care of freaks? And why should society encourage parents to raise freaks?

The world would become a much nicer place for everybody if parents were encouraged to think of their family as a patch of a human garden on the planet earth. Parents should be encouraged to remove the weeds from their particular section of the garden.

I would bet that the men who oppose the freedom to kill their own children are the men who realize that they are the people who should have or would have been killed by their parents. And unfortunately, our world seems to be dominated by these type of men. Instead of learning a skill and getting a useful job, these freaks seem to end up in government, charities, think tanks, and even the truth movement. The scum of society has risen to the top. And they promote the destructive philosophy of feeling sorry for criminals, and encouraging us to raise retarded children.

We have strong inhibitions about killing both animals and humans. However, we can't follow our emotions in this modern world. We have to suppress our emotions and we have to think about what we're doing. Millions of people are releasing dogs and cats in the neighborhoods because they can't kill their unwanted pets. And people also dump unwanted children in orphanages and hospitals because we can't bring ourselves to killing them.

Our primitive ancestors didn't have to deal with the issue of unwanted pets or unwanted children. Our ancestors took care of all children, and nature made the decision of which of them would live and die. But today we have to make decisions of life and death, and we also have to decide who is going to reproduce and who won't.

Why should parents be forced to raise defective children? Why should they have to deal with that burden? And when those parents die, why should society take the burden? There's no rule of the universe that requires us to use our technology to keep defective children alive. It's simply a decision that we have to make.

Take a serious look at the adults who are causing trouble in the world today. And notice how many of them were causing trouble when they were children. There's no reason that we have to tolerate this abuse. We don't owe any of these troublemakers anything. We're under no obligation to take care of retarded or defective children, or give them a second chance, or third chance.

Actually, I would say it's cruel to bring defective children into this world. Their lives are miserable, and they make life miserable for other people. So who benefits by letting them live?

Did you see the recent news report of a baby girl who was born without eyes? The parents of this girl are taking care of it, not asking to put it out of its misery. But what kind of life is this girl going to have? Some people will respond that there are a few blind people who can make a living and who seem to enjoy life, but so what? Those particular blind people don't justify bringing more blind people into the world. 2010-01-28_baby_born_without_eyes

Defective babies are as happy as all other babies, but after a few years they begin to notice that something is different about them, and eventually they figure out that they are defective. They'll look at the other children with envy or sadness. They'll wonder why they had to be born with defects. They'll wonder if there is a God, and if so, why he would be so cruel as to torture a child who didn't hurt anybody. They'll receive lots of pity from lots of people, but they won't have the pleasant, happy relationships that other children have. And when they get older, they'll start feeling the rejection and the loneliness that all defective people suffer from.

Another problem with allowing retarded and other unwanted children to survive is that they become available for crime networks to use as prostitutes and to sell as sex slaves or labor slaves. This in turn allows crime networks to make money from them, and to blackmail their customers.

Furthermore, some of these unwanted children end up living in the streets. Even if they never commit crimes, why should we have to put up with unwanted people or animals living in our city?

I wonder if some of the people who advocate that we protect and care for the homeless and retarded are promoting this policy in order to destroy society. And I wonder if the charities that provide food for starving people in India, and Africa, and other nations are trying to destroy those nations. To understand why I say this, imagine if these charities were doing this in the neighborhood that you live in.

Imagine that there are homeless people living in the streets of your neighborhood, and imagine charities visiting them to provide them with food and medicine. Imagine these homeless people raising families in front of your house, and all along the streets of your neighborhood. You wouldn't tolerate that. Why should India or Africa have to tolerate it?

Who benefits from this type of policy? The homeless people don't benefit, and neither you or I. The only people who benefit are the Jews who are trying to destroy society.

All nations should get rid of the charities that feed the homeless, retarded, and hungry people. Imagine how nice Africa and India would become if they reversed their attitude towards hungry people and began sterilizing or executing their homeless and hungry people. Africa and India would eventually become beautiful sections of the human garden.

I think the Jews are the primary group of people promoting this policy of feeding the homeless, and I think they're doing it to ruin society.

I also wonder if the Jews are responsible for the anti-abortion movement. Most of the people who oppose abortion are religious and consider themselves to be conservatives. I suspect that the Jews are taking advantage of this group of nitwits by convincing them that Jesus doesn't approve of abortion, and neither should conservatives.

Abortion is a dangerous medical procedure, but the people who oppose abortion don't care about the dangers of it. Instead, they oppose abortion because they think abortion is somehow wrong. But what's wrong with aborting a fetus? It's only wrong if you want it to be wrong.

In 1991, millions of Americans who opposed abortion were emotionally titillated at the thought that Iraqis were being killed in that war. The people who call themselves religious conservatives are hypocrites. They don't care about human life. There is death and suffering all around them, and they often support it, but they don't care about any of it. They don't try to stop it. These religious conservatives are primitive savages who simply can't cope with this modern world. We need people who can stand up to them.

There are more than 1 million abortions in America every year. At the National Right To Life website is a page that claims that 49 million people have been aborted since 1973. Who would benefit if those 49 million unwanted people had been allowed to live? There are already lots of unwanted people in orphanages, and living in the streets, and in crime networks. Who would benefit if there were 49 million more unwanted people in America right now? And how many of those religious conservatives would be willing to adopt some of those unwanted children?

A lot of the people who oppose abortion don't even want abortion to be allowed when a woman has been raped. Who benefits by forcing a woman to raise the child of a rapist? I wouldn't be surprised if Jews are behind this policy, also. A better policy would be to kill the children of criminals and rapists, even if the woman wants the child. Why should a woman be allowed to raise the child of a rapist? Imagine an extreme example. Imagine that there is such a thing as devils, and imagine a devil rapes a woman and gets her pregnant. Would you want her to raise the devil's child?

The people who oppose abortion are not thinking about the issue. They're simply reacting to their emotional feelings, just like a stupid animal. Thousands of years ago it was acceptable for people to struggle to save every child, even if it didn't have any eyes, because nature made the decision of which child lived and which died, and most children died before they became adults. Today most children survive, and so we have to make the decision of which child lives and which dies. And we have to decide which adult will reproduce and which won't.

We have to stop treating children as toys to entertain ourselves with. Children are the next generation of humans. Since nature is no longer killing children for us, or determining which of us reproduces, we have to make these decisions. The people who can't deal with these issues are misfits. They are primitive savages in a human world. We have to stand up to these savages.

The people who oppose the killing of children boast that they are wonderful, loving people, and they criticize the rest of us for being vicious and cruel, but don't let them intimidate you. As I've mentioned before, a good example is Congressman Barney Frank. An orphan has already accused Congressman Frank of raping him and other boys at parties. However, the people who oppose the killing of unwanted children are doing nothing about the rapes that are going on at the orphanages, or the churches, or among the government officials.

If the people who oppose the killing of unwanted children were truly concerned about the children, then they would do something to stop the rapes, and they would do something to help the homeless people. But they don't do anything to help these children because their opposition to the killing of children is simply because they are following their crude emotions that cause us to protect children. When they hear somebody mention the concept of killing children, their emotions are stimulated, and then they react by complaining that we should never kill children under any circumstances. These people are not thinking about the issue. Instead they are reacting to their emotions like a stupid animal. We have to stand up to them and tell them to shut up. We need people who can discuss the problems we face.

Another issue I mentioned in Part 4 of my social technology articles is that the Jews are trying to make us afraid of government databases and a concept that they refer to as "Big Brother." However, we should not be afraid of government. Instead, we should remove corrupt officials and create a government that we can be proud of.

I think that most of the people who are afraid of government databases are criminals who are worried that they're going to be exposed.

Incidentally, one of the organizations that Jesse Ventura mentioned in his Big Brother television show is called Infragard. This organization was started by the FBI in 1996. This organization tries to attract people in leadership positions in our businesses and schools. The FBI claims that the goal of this organization is to protect America, but I think it's another trick by the Jews. By fooling people into joining these secretive organizations, the Jews can more easily manipulate them with propaganda, and the Jews can also observe the members to see which of them might become one of their potential enemies.

Another of Jesse Ventura's television programs is about the theory that there will be a major disaster to the planet in the year 2012. He interviews some people who claim that NASA has determined that in that year there will be an enormous solar flare that will destroy a lot of electronic devices and power stations, thereby causing tremendous economic problems and food shortages. educational_and_howto v196631574Q29qg8b

Supposedly a mysterious group of wealthy people are preparing for this event by building underground bunkers for themselves at some military bases, and under the Denver airport.

I think there is some truth to this 2012 propaganda. Specifically, I think the Jews are hoping that by 2012 they will be able to stage some type of worldwide chaos, and they are hoping that by that time there will be lots of underground bunkers for them to hide in. In other words, the Jews are fooling the people who joined their New World Order organizations into creating the bunkers, and then the Jews will trick them into staging a catastrophe, and then the Jews will go into the bunkers and everybody they don't like will be left outside to die.

The members of the secretive organizations that we could call the "New World Order" don't seem to realize that the reason their organizations are secretive is because the Jews don't want the members of the organization to know what's really going on. The members are fools who are helping their enemy. Instead of improving life for the human race, they are wasting resources on wars, Israel, airport security devices, and underground bunkers.

The 2012 conspiracy and the Denver airport is just another example of why we shouldn't allow secrecy among people in leadership positions. If an organization is truly respectable, and if their goals are sensible, then they can openly discuss their goals. They don't have to hide.

A lot of people are afraid to discuss certain issues in front of the sheeple, such as the killing of unwanted children, but I don't think we have to hide from the sheeple. And besides, the sheeple are not as stupid as they appear. I think the reason they seem so stupid is because they are emotionally very similar to a primitive savage. They don't like to think, and they don't want to deal with problems, and they are extremely arrogant. Their crude personality creates the illusion that they're idiots, but most of them are capable of understanding that we have to do something about reproduction, crime, and other issues.

The sheeple are not as ignorant as they appear, either. For example, here is Alex Jones explaining how he knows that the American people are ignorant:


Makes me think of Penn and Teller when they go out to environmental meetings, and everybody agrees to sign a form to ban dihydrogen monoxide, which of course is water. H2O. We've done that ourselves. We've gone out... I've been on airplanes, asked people if we should ban table salt, but I use the scientific name for table salt, which is scary sounding. And they say, "Oh yes! Ban it immediately!" And that's what the media is going off of, is just how ignorant large segments of the population are.

I think the primary reason the sheeple appear to be extremely ignorant is because they assume other people are honest. Most of us are very trusting. However, as I've mentioned in other files, the Jews seem to be more suspicious of other people, perhaps because they're even more like an animal than the rest of us. The Jews seem to consider other people as potential enemies rather than as potential friends. This in turn makes it much more difficult to deceive a Jew.

The Jews think that they're superior to us, but if they're more like an animal, then they are inferior to us. And this would explain why they want to live with us rather than their own kind. It would also explain why so many Jews have trouble pronouncing the words in the modern English language, and why so many Jews have the physical characteristics of a Neanderthal.

I'm getting near the hour and 20 minute mark, but before I end, I thought you might like to listen to Alex Jones from his radio show of January 20, 2010 as he tries to convince us that he's not a wolf in sheep's clothing. The ability of these people to lie is just incredible. Listen to this.


But there's something so much more evil about cloaking yourself as a sheep when you're a wolf. About lying to people who admire you and have confidence in you. But I've noticed reading criminology and studying it and seeing it in life... evil people - psychopaths - sadistic psychopaths - they enjoy the conning of the people. And it's so alien to me... it's so alien... and then watching innocent, good people be conned and abused... is very painful!

And here he is on January 31, 2010 as he tries to convince us of how honest he is:


And there is nothing I admire like courage. There's nothing I admire like the truth. And there's nothing I won't support like the truth. I support truth 110%!

We don't have to live in a world in which we are suspicious of everybody. We can cleanse the world of its destructive people and create a world where we can trust one another. If we can find enough people who are willing to stand up to the criminals and the primitive savages, then we can turn this world into a paradise. So help us find these people, and let's do it!


Important message:

Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: