Obama opposes reparations, so what does this mean: "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work." washingtontimes.com 2008/aug/03 What "much harder work" does Obama want us to do, and who among us should do this work? And did Congressman Cohen introduce this apology legislation to help Africans? Or to stir up racial fights?

Why isn't Central Asia the most advanced part of the world? 

I think Western Europe, Taiwan, and Japan are more advanced and more desirable than the rest of Asia. Is it a coincidence that these areas are at the edge of Asia? Or is it because they were protected from the hordes of savages in central Asia? If the Ashkenazi Jews are the superior race, why isn't their homeland the most advanced area?

Are the primitive qualities of mainland China due to isolation? 

China's written language and culture hasn't changed much for thousands of years. Are their crude qualities due to isolation? Did Japan and Taiwan become more advanced because of contact with America and Europe? Or is China primitive for the same reason the rest of Asia is primitive?

Years ago we had to struggle to convince people that Israel and Zionists were involved in 9/11.

Today millions of people are aware of that, and every day hundreds of people discover that the Jews also lied about the Holocaust, the world wars, the attack on the USS Liberty, and many other crimes.

Today the issue many of us are wondering about is, how many Jews are involved in this crime network?

By the way, Daryl Smith and mysterious people, such as Khanverse, are worried that we consider all Jews to be guilty. If you want to check out their absurd fight regarding the video 911 Missing Links, here is one of their pages:
khanverse.com/news/2008/08/are-all-jews-guilty.html

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 

The nomination of Barack Obama as one of our two presidential candidates brings up the interesting issue of reparations. Obama is like most politicians in that you can't understand anything he says because he's extremely vague and he says something slightly different to different people, but he has made a few interesting remarks about it, such as when he said:

 "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

That remark implies that we owe reparations to African and Native Americans, and that we shouldn't be allowed to simply write a check because that would allow us to avoid the much harder work. What exactly is the "much harder work" that he wants us to do?

To make this issue of reparations more interesting, at the end of July 2008, the House of Representatives passed a resolution from Congressman Steven Cohen to apologize to African Americans for slavery.

Hopefully the people who listen to my audio files already know enough about Zionism to understand this resolution. Congressman Cohen is a Jew, and his resolution doesn't actually do anything. I think Cohen created this resolution only to encourage racial fights.

As I mentioned in some previous audio file, I think the Jews selected Obama as a presidential candidate because they expected him to lose against Hillary Clinton. I think Obama is one of their puppets, but he's not the puppet that they prefer as president. Furthermore, I think the Jews selected Obama because he is one of those black people who encourages bad attitudes.

Consider the issue of reparations. Obama claims that we owe African and Native Americans some hard work, but why do I owe anything to black or Native Americans over events that happened centuries ago? My particular ancestors didn't even arrive in America until decades after slavery was abolished.

And even if some of my relatives were slave owners, why do I owe anything to anybody over events that happened centuries ago?

The issue of reparations might be more understandable if you consider that slavery is just like other businesses. We could say there are three groups of people involved in every business. We could call them the producers, the dealers, and the customers. Slavery could not exist without all three groups. Somebody has to provide the slaves, somebody has to distribute and sell the slaves, and somebody has to purchase the slaves.

In the case of the illegal drug business, most of our anger is directed towards the dealers, and in some cases the producers, but in the case of slavery, the anger is focused on the consumers.

The illegal drug business wouldn't exist without all three groups. It doesn't make sense to say that only the dealers and producers are guilty. Likewise, the slave business wouldn't have existed without all three groups. Therefore, why not say all three groups owe reparations?

History was not well documented during the slavery era, but it appears as if most of the slaves came from the African people. Therefore, we could say the African people owe apologies and reparations to the African-Americans.

And consider the dealers of slaves. It seems that many of them, perhaps most of them, were Jews. Therefore, we could say Congressman Cohen and other Jews owe apologies and reparations to the African-Americans.

The issue of reparations is absurd. All throughout history differing groups of people have been fighting with each other and abusing one another. Every group of people could whine that some other group owes them reparations for abuse that their distant ancestors suffered from.

The issue of reparations is also absurd when you consider that we may not have an accurate understanding of slavery. University professors, historians, and the media are lying to us about 9/11, the JFK assassination, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and lots of other crimes that Jews are involved with. Why should we believe their analysis of the slave trade when they lie about so many other issues that concern Jews? Before anybody claims that we owe reparations, we should destroy the Jewish crime network, find some honest historians, and get a more accurate view of history and the slave trade.

It's also interesting to consider that Congressman Cohen introduced the apology legislation only to create racial fights. We could say that he owes everybody an apology and reparations. Actually, we could just arrest him for instigating fights rather than tell him to apologize.

Some people claim that America owes the Iraqi people reparations for destroying their nation, but I didn't destroy Iraq, neither did most of the other people in the world. We could say the Iraq war is due to the Zionist false flag operation commonly known as the 9/11 attack. It makes more sense to say that if somebody should make reparations to the Iraqi people, it's the Zionists.

Furthermore, none of us owe the Palestinians or the Arabs anything, anyway. They have to take care of themselves. The Arabs are not my responsibility, and you're not responsible for them, either. If they can't take care of themselves, that's their problem. Societies that can't take care of themselves will deteriorate.

This concept applies to America. If America deteriorates into a primitive nation dominated by poor people from other countries, or dominated by the Jewish crime network, that's too bad for us. Nobody owes us anything. If we don't take care of our society, we lose it.

This concept also applies to the poor nations. Wealthy nations don't owe anything to poor nations. It's not our problem that some nations are so corrupt or ignorant or stupid that they can't develop modern technology or create stable governments. It's up to them to take care of themselves. If they can't take care of themselves, that's their problem. We shouldn't feel sorry for them. That only encourages them to cry, and beg for handouts.

This issue of reparations to the African-Americans becomes even more complicated when you consider WHICH of the Africans were sold as slaves.

The African Americans like to imagine that the Africans were selling their finest people, but this's as ridiculous as the Caucasian Americans claiming that the best Europeans emigrated to America. The evidence doesn't support these theories. The evidence suggests that most of the Africans who were sold as slaves were the people that nobody wanted. They were the retards, freaks, criminals, and weirdos. And most of the people who left Europe for America, especially during the era of the wooden sailing ships, were also the weirdos, alcoholics, mentally ill, and criminals.

Many of the Africans who were sold as slaves would have ended up dead if they had remained in Africa. Those particular slaves should have been thankful that they were sold because it gave them the opportunity to continue living in a new land. Therefore, the descendants of those particular slaves shouldn't be asking for apologies or reparations. Rather, they should be thanking people for selling their ancestors as slaves.

Many of the Africans who are living here in America would never have been born if there wasn't a slave trade because many of their ancestors would have been killed by other Africans if they had remained in Africa. And if they had been born, they would have been born and raised in Africa. But would they be happier today living in Africa than they are here in America?

Slavery has allowed a lot of Africans to grow up in a much more advanced nation. Very few of these African-Americans want to go back to Africa and be with their relatives. They would rather live here with us Caucasian Americans and complain about us.

We see this same situation with many of the Jews. They insult us as dumb animals, and they think of themselves as superior species, but they don't want to live with their own people. They would rather live with us and complain about us.

America is like a mixture of oil and water. We have different races and religions that don't like one another and don't get along well with each other. However, none of these different people want to leave. They would rather live with one another and complain about each other. Europe is also becoming like this.

The recent Olympics in China caused me to once again think about these issues of immigration and of different races of people trying to live together. And China's behavior during the Olympics gave me some new ideas on an issue that has been confusing me all my adult life. Specifically, I've always been confused as to why China, with its enormous population and natural resources, seems to be so primitive.

I've never been to China, or anywhere in Asia, but I've met Chinese people here in America, and I've been impressed by them. They seem to be above average intelligence, very honest and polite, willing to work for a living, and all-around very impressive.

I realize that some Chinese are stupid, and some are mentally ill, but most of the Chinese that I've personally met are very impressive people. But this creates a dilemma. If the Chinese are intelligent and wonderful, why is China such a mess?

The Olympics helped to show some of the strange qualities of China. Consider how they had to prepare for the Olympics. Every nation spends a lot of time and money trying to make their city look nice for the Olympics, but the Chinese were doing things that no advanced nation should have to do. They had to struggle just to keep the air reasonably clean, and they were trying to convince their people to behave in a respectable manner.

And during the athletic events, there were reports of blatant cheating, such as allowing girls as gymnasts who were several years too young.

Why would such intelligent people behave in this manner? I've always been confused as to why the Chinese people that I've personally known are so impressive, but the nation of China is almost embarrassing.

China has an enormous population, and so they should be able to develop their own technology, but a lot of their technology has come from America or some other nation. Why aren't they among the world leaders in science and technology and art and music? What is their problem?

I was discussing some of these issues via e-mail with an American who moved to China many years ago. He was telling me that he prefers China overall, but there are several qualities about China that he doesn't like very much. I'll put some of his remarks together in a document and post them on my site in the next few days so that you can read his description of China.

He told me that he thinks the problem with China is that the Chinese people are not teaching their children any sense of morality. He doesn't believe that the Chinese people are dishonest by nature. Rather, they just don't teach their children the morals or manners that are taught in Europe or America. He gave me some examples, such as that the Chinese in his city rarely stop for red lights because they don't pay attention to traffic rules, and they spit, pee, and vomit on public sidewalks with no embarrassment.

He said the cities of full of sex slaves, and the factories are full of children who were sold by their own parents. He says that cheating is widespread in China, but the Chinese people don't consider cheating to be wrong. They see it as simply as a survival technique.

His description of China reminds me of how I've described our primitive ancestors and how I've described animals in some of my other audio files and documents. Consider how dogs behave. If you are eating a piece of meat near a dog, he will try to take it from you. It he can't grab it from you, he'll beg you for it. However, the dog does NOT consider himself to be a thief or a parasite. Dogs simply don't understand the concept of personal property, or manners, or morality.

What would happen if human children were raised in a society that never taught them any sense of morality or manners? It's quite possible that those children would become adults who behave very similar to the Chinese adults.

So one possible way to explain the primitive qualities of China is that the Chinese people have done such an incredibly good job of isolating themselves from the rest of the world that millions of people in China are still living like their primitive ancestors.

People thousands of years ago didn't teach their children to use bathrooms, or obey traffic laws, or respect other people's property. Our distant ancestors lived just like the animals. They had to struggle for life. There was intense competition for food, and there were fights over territory. Nobody thousands of years ago would have considered himself to be a thief for picking apples from a tree that was in a neighbor's territory. Primitive humans didn't have the concept of property boundaries, so they didn't recognize anybody else's boundary.

The descriptions of the Chinese people make it seem as if millions of them are behaving just like the primitive savages. So perhaps the reason the Chinese here in America are so much more impressive is that they were raised with European morality.

The written language of China hasn't improved much during the past few thousand years, either. The Chinese seem to be proud of their written language, but what would you think if the Egyptians of today were still using hieroglyphics, or if the Europeans were still using one of their crude, early written languages? Those primitive languages should not be a nation's primary language. It's a burden on the children to learn such a language, and it's a burden on their school system, and on society. And it's also been very difficult for the Chinese to use their written language with computers.

The primitive behavior and language of China could be used as evidence that the Chinese have isolated themselves so well that they've remained almost frozen in time for thousands of years. This brings up an interesting issue in human behavior. Specifically, the issue of how humans and animals resist changes.

A child will accept whatever language, religion, clothing styles, and food that he's given by his parents. Children are not interested in thinking for themselves, and they can't think very well, anyway.

When we become teenagers, we start thinking for ourselves once in a while, and most of us start experimenting with different religions, or clothing styles, sports activities, career possibilities, drugs, or sex. During these years of experimentation we figure out what we like and what we don't like, and eventually we settle into a particular lifestyle. Once we've chosen a lifestyle, we resist changes to it, even if the changes will improve our lives dramatically.

A child is like an off-road vehicle that will go anywhere, but an adult is like a train on a track that doesn't want to change its course.

You can see this resistance to change in every group of adults. Every business, religion, nation, and sports organization resists changes.

One of the reasons the American steel industry was having economic problems a few decades ago was because they were resisting modern technology. There were trying to operate with the same equipment and technology that was developed decades earlier. Businesses routinely resist change, even when that resistance means bankruptcy. The executives of the steel companies preferred to beg for pity and tariffs rather than change their technology.

Nations also resist changes. The British resist every attempt to get rid of their monarchy, and Americans resist the possibility that the Constitution should be replaced with something that's more appropriate for our modern era. Every nation, business, and other organization is trying to remain frozen in time.

Adults will make small changes to their lives, but most adults won't make a major change to their lives unless they suffer from a very serious disaster. Many business executives have to be on the verge of bankruptcy before they'll consider changing their operation. The American people are not likely to consider replacing the Constitution until this nation has switched the primary language to Spanish, by which time, of course, it will be too late.

It's interesting to note that Japan has changed a lot since World War II, and it seems to be due to Americans forcing some European attitudes on them. The Japanese were willing to make these changes only because they suffered a major defeat. The Japanese consider World War II to be a terrible event in their history, and I suppose they resent the Americans forcing changes on the society, but would Japan be better today if there had never been a war? Or would they be more primitive?

We will never know the answer to that question, but it's possible that the Japanese should thank the Americans for defeating them in that war, and that the Japanese might even want to thank the Jews for instigating the war.

Animals have no interest in research, thinking, discussions, or creating a better life for themselves. They spend every day doing the same simple activities over and over, such as looking for food, fighting for territory, and reproducing. They have no other interests. After an animal satisfies his need for food, and if he doesn't see any dangers around him, he'll do absolutely nothing. He'll just lay down on the ground and take a nap.

Humans behave just like the animals. Most of the human population has no interest in understanding the universe, or trying to create a better city, or developing methods to reduce pollution, or devising a better economy. Most people live a very simple life that consists of doing some work during the day in order to get some food and material items, and then spending the evening lounging in front of a television set or computer game. This is the behavior that we see with animals.

If the majority of people had their way, they would remain frozen in time forever. They would never make any changes to their lives, or their nations, or their businesses.

Human life has changed a lot during the past few thousand years, but all of those changes are the result of a very small percentage of the population. The majority of people are not contributing. Actually, the majority of people have been resisting changes all throughout history. They even resisted changes that were obviously an improvement, such as mechanized farming equipment.

All of us have an inherent tendency to resist changes. I'll give you a personal example in regards to food.

Years ago I came up with the idea that if I were to cook a hamburger in a pan that had a little bit of water on the bottom, then it wouldn't make such a mess for me to clean up afterwards. But what I discovered is that when you cook hamburger in water, it has a terrible smell. Eventually it occurred to me that the reason is because hamburger meat is extremely low quality, and it's suffered tremendous deterioration. So eventually I decided to buy a small meat grinder, and grind my own hamburger meat.

The beef that seems to taste the best to me is some of the toughest meat. So I bought one of those tough steaks and ground into about a dozen hamburgers, and I froze all but one of them. The one I cooked had a wonderful odor, but as soon as I put a piece of it into my mouth, some unpleasant visions from my childhood appeared in my mind. There were a few times when I was a child when I was eating some meat, and I got some type of tendon, or something that I couldn't chew, and so I took it out of my mouth to see what it was, and then I put it back in my mouth to eat whatever I could from it.

As I was eating my hamburger that was made from a ground-up steak, some of those childhood memories appeared in my mind. What I think was happening is that my mind was analyzing the data that was coming from my mouth, and it came to the conclusion that I was eating steak, but the consistency didn't match my memories for steak. However, the consistency matched my childhood memories of when I put a piece of meat in my mouth that I had already chewed on.

The end result is that my mind was telling me that I'm eating steak that has already been chewed. It was impossible for me to enjoy the hamburger, but I had made about a dozen of them, and I didn't want to throw them away, so I decided to force myself to eat them, but I would never again make my own hamburger meat.

However, by the time I'd eaten several of these hamburgers, my mind had become accustomed to them. And what I discovered is that they are much better tasting, and the juice is so good that I didn't want to lose any of it. Today it's the commercial hamburger meat that I can't stand to eat.

The commercial hamburgers taste so bad that most people either barbecue them to an extreme in order to give them a smoky flavor, or they have to cover them with a sauce in order to mask the flavor. However, once you become accustomed to hamburgers made from freshly ground steak, you discover that you don't need to put any sauce on them, and you don't need to barbecue them.

You might wonder why anybody would want to chop up a perfectly good steak and make it into hamburgers, but there's actually a valid reason for doing this. From what little I understand about cows and buffalo, their meat is extremely tough, especially if the animal is living a natural life. Because of this problem, the beef producers are deliberately overfeeding their animals in order to cause the meat to become saturated with fat. Some meat is also aged for up to several weeks in order to allow it to decompose a bit, which makes it easier to chew. However, is this type of meat healthy for us?

We might get healthier and better tasting meat if we let the animals have a more natural diet and life. Their tough meat could be ground immediately after the animal has been slaughtered, and then it could be frozen for hamburgers, sausages, lasagna, or whatever.

The reason I bring this issue up is to point out that the human mind resists changes, even in regards to the food we eat. When I heard that people in Italy used olive oil instead of butter, I decided to try using olive oil, and that was another change that took some time and effort.

We like to think of ourselves as superior to the animals, but the human mind is just an intelligent monkey brain. We should try to understand our characteristics and limitations rather than pretend that were some phenomenal creation of a loving God. We have to be aware of our inherent resistance to change so that we can regularly check ourselves to see if we're resisting a particular change because we have sensible reasons for it, or if we're resisting simply because of this crude characteristic of our mind.

Getting back to China, I suspect that there's more to China than simply their isolation and their resistance to change. Take a look at a map of the world, and identify the areas that you consider to be the most advanced. This is a personal opinion, of course, but I would identify Western Europe, Taiwan, and Japan as being the most advanced societies. Notice where these areas are on a map of the world. They are all at the edge of Asia.

Why isn't Central Asia the most advanced? This is where the Ashenazi Jews come from. If they are really the superior race of humans, why hasn't that area been the source of the most brilliant opinions, and the area with the most beautiful architecture, and the nations with the most advanced cities? Why would Taiwan be more advanced than mainland China? Taiwan has less natural resources and fewer people. Has Taiwan simply become more advanced simply because of European influence?

My current speculation on this issue is that if we could go back in time tens of thousands of years, we would have found that the only place that modern humans could get established was at the edges of Asia.

Take a look at Asia even 1000 years ago. Our history books describe it as dominated by savages, such as Khazars, Huns, and Mongols. If those people were truly the most advanced humans, then they would have been the most advanced societies 1000 years ago, but even today those areas of Asia are primitive, full of crime, and ugly.

This morning I noticed what is probably going to be the first of many news reports about a Russian archaeologist who discovered what they describe as the "long-lost capital of the Khazar Kingdom". The report mentions that the archaeology was partly financed by the Jewish University in Moscow and the Russian Jewish Congress.

What are the chances that the Jews are going to allow the archaeologists to do an honest job? I would bet that as this city is excavated, the Jews will distort the findings in order to make their ancestors appear to be much more advanced. The Jews might even give us sad reports about how their ancestors suffered abuse from neighboring tribes who were anti-Khazar.

Some people might respond that my accusation is a nasty insult, but have you looked at the information at my website about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and 9/11? The Jews are deliberately lying to us in news reports and in history books, and professors at universities are supporting these lies. The Jews are lying to us right now, and they've been lying for centuries. Only a fool would trust a group of people who have lied so often. A more appropriate reaction to the disgusting behavior of these Jews is to wonder if we really are different races of people with different ancestors.

Most people want to believe that all races are identical because to believe otherwise implies that some races may be more intelligent, or more honest, or stronger, or have better physical coordination, but there are physical differences between us, and it's not possible for two races of people to develop physical differences while maintaining identical brains. When a group of people or animals split into two groups and remain isolated from each other for so long that they become physically different, we have to assume that there are some internal differences also.

The physical and mental differences between the different human races is very small, but even small differences can be significant. I suspect that Western Europe, Taiwan, and Japan became the most advanced because they have a higher percentage of the more advanced humans.

The Jews can boast that they are the superior race all they want, but if they really were superior, then their homeland in Asia would be the most desirable and most advanced. And the mainland Chinese can boast that they are superior to the Taiwanese, but if that were true, then mainland China would be more desirable and more advanced than Taiwan.

The most sensible conclusion is that most of Asia is primitive because the people that live there really are a more primitive group of humans.

Unfortunately, Western Europe has not been doing a good job in regards to immigration issues. For the past few centuries the primitive people from Asia have been moving into Western Europe because they're attracted to the material wealth and the better behaved people, and the more advanced cities.

A similar situation is happening with America today. A lot of poor people, criminals, and weirdos are moving into America, but they're not interested in joining American society. They're only interested in acquiring our material wealth, or escaping the miserable conditions of their primitive nation.

It's interesting to note that this exact same situation will happen with animals if you allow it to. For example, if you live in an area where there are birds or other animals, and if you eat outdoors on a regular basis, those animals will eventually notice that you have food. If you allow them to have some of your food, they will become accustomed to visiting you. You will eventually have flocks of birds coming to eat with you, and possibly raccoons, squirrels, dogs, and cats.

Some people would consider it entertaining to have dinner with animals, but what do animals bring to the dinner table? They take our food, but in return we get nothing from them except noise, fleas, and poop. And they occasionally fight with one another.

America and Europe are attracting a lot of people from around the world, but how many of them are actually bringing something of value to our societies? How many of them even want to be part of our society? Most of them seem to be moving into our nations simply because they want access to our food, material wealth, or better living conditions. Or they're trying to escape the police. I think these people are ruining our society. Their behavior is similar to that of an animal. Consider dogs.

Dogs will grab at whatever food they're interested in, and they will have sex with whatever they please. We can see this same attitude among the primitive people who are moving into Europe and America. They want what we have, and many of them try to take it by cheating, plagiarizing, murder, and deception. They're behaving like intelligent animals. The same is true of the mainland Chinese. They want the technology and other advanced qualities of Taiwan and Hong Kong, but they want to take it through manipulation or warfare, they don't want to earn it on their own.The mainland Chinese are behaving like dogs who are trying to grab meat from the Taiwanese dinner table.

This brings up this issue of jealousy. This is another characteristic of humans that religious people cannot explain. Why would a wonderful, loving God give us an emotion as disgusting as jealousy?

This emotion makes sense only if you consider that humans are just intelligent monkeys. You can see this same emotion with animals, even pet dogs. People who have two dogs will sometimes feed both of them at the same time, and often one or both of the dogs will ignore the food that he's been given, and try to take the food that the other dog has. Even though both dogs have plenty of food and appear to be friends, they have a very powerful emotional craving to chase away other animals from food and other resources.

Animals are incredibly selfish. Their only goal in life is to survive and reproduce. They have no concern about society, or gardens, or learning about the universe, or carrying on discussions about life. They take whatever they want. They have no concept of personal property or manners.

If a dog sees another dog with some food, it will try to take it away. It doesn't care whether the food belongs to another animal. Animals don't have any concept of personal property or manners. Their goal is to satisfy themselves, and they have no concern about hurting other animals in the process. Any animal that gets in the way of their attempt to satisfy themselves is treated as an enemy.

Humans behave exactly the same as animals, but we have more intelligence which creates the illusion that we are somehow different. But our behavior is identical. Consider the issue of jealousy. When you see somebody who has something that you want, such as material items, or intelligent opinions, or a brilliant scientific theory, or a desirable woman, your emotions will give you thoughts of grabbing the item. Our emotions don't recognize personal property, and we don't care if we hurt somebody in the process of satisfying ourself. Our emotions want us to take whatever we please. When somebody has something we want, and if they don't give it to us voluntarily, our emotions will regard him as an interference in our life.

If you don't have much control over these crude, selfish emotions, you may steal the item, or you may look for a way to deceive the person into giving you the item, or you may kill him, or you may plagiarize his theories. If he has a woman that you want, you may try sabotaging his relationship.

Years ago I assumed that it was a coincidence that Communism and Marxism developed in Russia, but today I suspect that it developed in that area of the world because that's where primitive people dominate. It seems to have developed in the homeland of the Ashkenazi Jews.

Marxism appears to be a nice philosophy because it promotes sharing and loving, but the people who promote these philosophies are not interested in sharing what THEY have. Rather, these people are behaving like animals. If animals were intelligent enough to talk to us, but not intelligent enough to get a job and earn a living, I suspect that they would propose that we share our food with them. The birds, raccoons, dogs, and squirrels would tell us that it's not polite to eat in front of other creatures, and that since we have so much food and they have so little, we should share what we have.

Notice that animals never share what they have. Furthermore, animals want more than just food from us. Dogs expect us to throw objects for them to chase after, and they expect us to scratch them, and they expect us to tolerate their attempt to have sex with our legs and their sniffing of our crotch. But how many dogs would throw footballs for us to chase after? How many dogs would scratch us if we wanted it? How many dogs would tolerate our attempt to have sex with them? Animals don't share anything. They're incredibly selfish creatures whose only concern is themselves.

Our distant ancestors would have behaved exactly like the animals. Their goal in life would have been nothing more than satisfying their cravings for food, babies, status, and sex.

The humans of today are much more advanced than animals, but we're are not identical to one another. Some of us are more advanced, and some of us are more like animals. The people who are attracted to Marxism seem to be more like the animals. They want the items that we have, and their attitude is to beg us for it.

As I pointed out in other files, this begging is very common among 9/11 investigators, charities, religions, think tanks, and other private organizations. These organizations are dominated by people who have no embarrassment about begging. And the reason they beg is because they don't produce anything of any value. They have nothing to say that's worth listening to, unless they plagiarize it, and they don't produce anything of value, unless they steal it or purchase it.

People who beg for money are behaving just like animals. The people who commit crimes are also behaving like animals. They're taking what they want with no regard to the concept of personal property or manners. Unfortunately, criminals often end up as very successful businessmen or government officials. And it seems that some of these criminals are becoming famous scientists. Have you seen the evidence that Einstein plagiarized his material? There are even some people claiming that Charles Darwin plagiarized some of his material. It makes me wonder how many successful scientists have become successful only because of plagiarism.

The people who cheat can become successful very quickly because they're taking a shortcut. Instead of working for what they want, they just take it from somebody who's already done the hard work. And when these criminals work together, they can create very successful crime networks.

During the past few centuries, there's been a significant flow of people away from the primitive areas of the world and into Western Europe and America. If we don't deal with this immigration issue, the primitive people are going to dominate and ruin our societies. Our societies will become dominated by idiots, beggars, criminals, retards, and savages.

Unfortunately, we can't deal with this immigration problem until we face the fact that many of our own citizens are supporting the immigration because they want the cheap labor.

We have a natural tendency to avoid looking critically at our own citizens, but the only way to improve a nation is to look critically at it, identify some problems, and then experiement with possible solutions. This requires that we look critically at everybody, including our own relatives.

Each of us is related to a lot of people, and many of our relatives are married, and that causes us to be indirectly related to even more people. We can't be concerned about any of these relationships. Our goal should be to improve society, not give special privileges to somebody simply because they have some connection to us through family members.

We have to treat our own relatives in the same manner that we treat other people's relatives. Everybody should be judged according to their behavior; according to whether they contribute to society, or hurt society. We shouldn't be concerned with who a person is related to.

I mentioned in a previous audio file that a few years ago I was starting to think that a small number of Jews were taking over the world because Jews really are smarter than the rest of us, but as I have gotten to know some of the people in this so-called truth movement, I've since come to the conclusion that the Jews are actually more like primitive savages. And not all of the people in this crime network are Jews. And I no longer think that they're more intelligent than the rest of us.

I think their success is due to their exploitation of the animal-like characteristics of humans, such as our arrogance, and the craving men have to be the dominant male, and our craving for material items and sex, and our tendency to avoid looking critically at our friends and relatives. The Jews are using the media to encourage animal-like behavior, and they suppress intelligent discussions and behavior.

But rather than describe this as a conflict between Jews and Goyim, I now think it's more accurate to describe this as a battle between the primitive humans who want to cheat, steal, exploit, and beg, and the more advanced humans.

One of the reasons I've come to the conclusion that this crime network is a group of disgusting, primitive humans is that I've gotten to know many of them. Ever since 2002, when I first started exposing 9/11 and other crimes, mysterious people have been trying to become my friend, and I've been to some 9/11 meetings, and I've met a lot of people.

My contact with these people has allowed me to observe their techniques, and I've also gotten to know how some of them live. And what I've noticed is that the people who work for this network are the type of people that I've been trying to avoid all my life. They're not impressive people. But I've learned a lot by observing them.

My first reaction to people like Alex Jones was that they're just regular people trying to expose 9/11. However, most of these 9/11 truth seekers seem to have serious emotional problems and very unpleasant childhoods. It reminds me of remarks made by people such as Kay Griggs who point out that emotionally disturbed children who have had miserable lives are often used by crime networks because they're easier to manipulate than happy, normal children.

For example, Daryl Smith told me that when he was a child, he was frequently beaten by his stepfather, and that he was thrown out of high school because he was so much trouble. Smith was secretive about the most awful aspects of his life, but he told me that his life was full of drugs, alcohol, fights, and crime. He also said that he has been inside lots of jails, usually for short periods due to public drunkenness or fights.

Smith is the type of person I normally would never get to know, but because he was the only person interested in helping me expose 9/11, I got to know him to a certain extent.

Alex Jones sometimes boasts about the fights that he's been in, so I suppose he's another aggressive, violent man with a violent childhood.

A woman named Suzette tried to become my friend a couple years ago. She also told me that she had serious drug problems in her past, as well as lots of sex and failed relationships. She desperately wanted to visit me at my home, and she even complained to Christopher Bollyn that I was resisting her. She was hoping that Bollyn would put pressure on me to let her visit me, but she's also the type of person I've been trying to avoid. I let her manage my page at myspace for a while, but I didn't want to meet her.

A man named Dave, who runs the website 911blimp, didn't tell me much about himself, other than he likes marijuana, and that he can get high by putting powdered cocoa under his tongue, so I suppose he likes to experiment with drugs, also.

I've also noticed that a lot of men in the so-called truth movement don't seem to be able to support themselves. They live off their wives, or their girlfriends, or by begging for donations. When I first met Ken Jenkins, who's one of so-called "truth seekers" in San Francisco, his girlfriend was supporting him.

Phil Jayhan had trouble holding a job during the time that he was trying to become friends with me and Christopher Bollyn. Jayhan didn't say much about his life, but he told me that something happened during his childhood that he won't tell anybody about, so I suppose his childhood was bizarre, also.

A lot of people, especially during our teenage years, will experiment with drugs or sex, or get into idiotic situations that we later regret, but a lot of people in the so-called truth movement are not what many of us would describe as “typical”. Most of them seem to have had usually miserable childhoods. Even Sofia, who made the video 911 Mysteries, told me that she was regularly abused by her alcoholic father.

Is it just a coincidence that the people I've personally met in this truth movement had miserable childhoods, and that their lives have been full of alcohol, drugs, unemployment, crime, violence, begging for money, or fights? Sure, it may just be a coincidence, but I suspect that the people I've gotten to know are typical among the people in this crime network. After all, who else would be interested in joining this crime network?

These criminals seem to think of themselves as superior to the rest of us, but I suspect that they're actually miserable and lonely.

I also suspect that the reason they're not bothered by all the suffering their crime network is causing is because they're miserable, and they prefer to see other people miserable so that they don't feel like they're the only ones suffering.

It would be very sad if we get beaten by this group of weirdos.

Our natural tendency is to avoid people we don't like, but it can be useful to get to know organized crime gang members because it helps us to understand their techniques. Since I got to know Smith better than any of the others, I can learn a lot from him. For example, many times he would complain that people were accusing him of pedophilia, but I never once heard or saw anybody accuse him of pedophilia. I assumed that he was getting e-mail messages from somebody, but who would send him such an e-mail message? And why would he make public statements to deny his pedophilia if the only accusations are coming from private e-mail messages?

If an anonymous person sent you an e-mail message accusing you of pedophilia, would you make a public statement that you're NOT a pedophile? If somebody accused me of pedophilia, I wouldn't care. Why should I? They wouldn't have any evidence. So why would Smith care?

Smith would also tell me that he couldn't understand why anybody would want anal sex. Several times he made a remark about how he doesn't even enjoy the feeling of wiping his butt on the toilet. I wouldn't say anything, but the image of him on the toilet was not pleasant, so I would think to myself, "Okay, you don't like anal sex! Quit bringing this issue up! Change the subject to something more pleasant."

However, now that I'm more aware of the tricks the crime network is using to deceive us, I have to wonder about Smith's remarks. One of their deception techniques is to condemn an activity that they secretly engage in. They pretend to be the opposite of what they really are. For example, consider how many government officials and religious leaders have repeatedly denied or condemned homosexuality or pedophilia, and later they were exposed as either a homosexual or a pedophile. And sometimes an investigator of pedophilia is actually one of the pedophiles himself.

Here's how I would summarize this particular trick. When you first meet one of these people who's using this trick, they try to create a certain image of themselves, such as by telling you that they're an honest person who can't stand liars. They want you to accept their image of themselves so that you don't bother analyzing them, and creating your own idea of who they are.

You can visualize what's happening by imagining yourself walking down the street and encountering a stranger who's completely covered in clothing. You can't see his face, or any part of his body. Your natural reaction would be to wonder who he is and what he looks like. But if he's dishonest, he doesn't want you to wonder about him; he wants you to believe the image that he's created for himself. So he immediately gives you a photograph of a nice-looking man and tells you that he is the man in the photograph. If you are a trusting person, the photograph will satisfy your curiosity, and you'll stop wondering about him.

The only way to avoid becoming a victim of this trick is to never accept somebody's description of himself. Ted Gunderson, for example, claims to be an investigator of pedophilia, but why should we believe him? Where is the evidence that he actually investigates pedophilia? The other FBI agents also claim to be honest investigators who fight crime, but the evidence suggests that they're all criminals who are struggling to cover up the 9/11 attack, pedophilia, and other crimes. We can't believe a person's description of himself. The FBI seems to be arresting only the criminals who are not part of their particular crime network, or who they regard as enemies or competition.

You can see variations of this trick in e-mail addresses and website names. Many people refer to themselves as "truth seeker" or "American patriot" or "no more lies". These people are trying to create an image of themselves and hoping that we mindlessly accept that image rather than decide for ourselves who they really are.

Salesmen, government officials, and people in the so-called truth movement frequently use this trick by telling us over and over that they're honest people who can't stand liars. Smith used this trick again when he was a guest on a South African radio show on Aug 29, 2008. Here's an excerpt:

Smith:
"I'm a man of fair play. I'm a man of honesty. I try to tell the truth, even when it hurts me. Even when it goes against what I... it's going to cost me if I tell the truth."

Whenever you meet somebody who tells you that he's honest, you should wonder "Why is he telling me that he's honest?" Do you tell people over and over that you're honest? Do you regularly deny your homosexuality? I don't. Why should I? I don't feel a need to prove myself to anybody. So why does Smith feel a need to prove that he's honest, and that he's NOT a pedophile, and that he can't understand anal sex?

Perhaps his sensitivity to these issues has something to do with the wealthy Jewish woman in New York City who provided him with financial support. He mentioned this woman again in his interview on August 29. And he also used this as an opportunity to once again tell us that most Jews are innocent victims. Listen to this:

Smith:
"When I was going to New York University studying there, of course, living in Manhattan is extremely expensive, and being a student at the time, I could barely make ends meet and still eat. Well, of course, who came to my aid for no other reason but kindness, was a Jewish woman and I befriended her and her son and became close to her in many ways because she was so kind. She's still kind, she is kind. She's a wonderful human being, and I take a stand here that all Jews are not involved. My friend in New York is not involved. I have friends I grew up with in my hometown that I know to this day. Their Jewish; they're not involved in this. The simple fact of the matter is that across the world and across America there are MILLIONS of Jews who are not aware of the depth of this crime wave."

It's not easy for me to believe Smith's story that this Jewish woman, whose first name is something like Ilana (or Alyona?), would give money to a man with Smith's personality simply because of kindness. Ilana's family is involved in the jewelry business, and they have contacts with people in the South African gold business.

I suspect that Smith was doing some type of work for Ilana, and that he's afraid to admit what that work was because it's illegal. And I think that it's because of Ilana's contacts with South Africa Jews in the gold business that Smith was given a radio show with a South African radio station.

Ilana has a retarded son, and Smith told me that he loved that son, but not in a sexual manner. However, I have to wonder about the manner in which he loved that retarded boy. I suspect that the person who was making remarks about Smith being a pedophile is working for Ilana, and that they were sending those messages to Smith in order to keep him under control.

We can learn a lot from Smith. Consider what his role seems to be in this truth movement. His primary message is that most Jews are innocent victims. It's easy to be fooled by this theory because if you closely watch the Jews that you personally know, you'll never see them receive orders from any Israeli or Zionist. You could monitor their bank accounts and their phone lines, but you would never see them receive orders or receive money. It would be easy for you to come to the conclusion that most Jews truly are innocent.

This is a very important concept to understand. It might help if you first understand how this concept applies to ordinary Americans.

Immediately after the 9/11 attack, millions of Americans were angry at the Arabs. Those of us who tried to explain the attack was a false flag operation by Israel were ridiculed and insulted. Even my own brother and other relatives were attacking me.

How many of the Americans who insulted us for exposing 9/11 were working for the Jewish crime network? And how many of those people were receiving money from Israel? If you were to closely watch all of the Americans and monitor their phone lines and bank accounts, you would have discovered that only a few of them were actually getting phone calls or money from Israel. Most of the Americans who attacked us were operating independently, on their own, because they wanted to. It's important to understand that these Americans were not working for part of a group. They were not paid to attack us. They were simply following their personal desires to protect America.

Now consider how this concept applies to Jews. Many Jews consider themselves to be Jews, not Americans, or British, Germans, or even humans. They see themselves as the superior race; the Chosen People. A Jew with this attitude is not likely to care about you or me. They're more likely to care about Jews.

When Israel is accused of committing a crime, these particular Jews are likely to defend Israel without being told to do so. Because they operate independently, you won't be able to find any connection between them and other Jews. It's a crime network in which many of the criminals are completely independent.

These indepentent, criminal Jews will help Zionism and Israel in whatever manner they can think of, such as suppressing talk about 9/11, or promoting the Holocaust, or firing a Goyim who seems to be aware of their crime network, or giving preference to a Jew when they have to hire somebody. These particular Jews are criminals, and they're working for the Zionist crime network, but they're working independently, and at their own expense, so it's not easy to realize that they're a member of the crime network.

Once you understand that many of the Jews in this crime network are independent volunteers, you can see that this crime network could easily consist of millions of Jews all over the world.

Years ago we had to struggle to convince people that Israel was involved in 9/11. Today there are millions of people who realize this, and so today the issue many people are wondering about is, "how many Jews are involved in this crime network?"

Judging by the recent behavior of some of the so-called truth seekers, I think the Jews are becoming very concerned that we've figured out that their crime network is enormous. For example, somebody told me the other day that Daryl Smith and some other mysterious people have switched from supporting Mike and John of prothink.org to accusing them of being agent provocateurs because of their latest video, 911 missing links.

I'm not going to waste my time investigating this idiotic fight, but I glanced at a couple of their articles. A remark from the website of a mysterious man who calls himself Khanverse is:

"Many of those who want to claim that ALL jews should be considered guilty are in an endless search for a boogeyman on which to blame every problem on the planet.

What's wrong with assuming all Jews are guilty? We can see that during the past hundreds years there have been some phenomenal crimes, and we know that Jews are involved in all of those crimes, but we don't know how many Jews or which Jews. The only sensible policy is to investigate all of them.

If a murder occurred in a city in which the police department was honest, the police would investigate everybody who had a possible connection to the murder. Who would complain about that policy? It would be the only sensible way to solve the crime.

Don't be intimidated by this trick. They're trying to make us feel guilty for being suspicious of Jews, but all they're really doing is exposing themselves. For example, when I first heard of Khanverse I assumed he was an honest man, and I was under the impression that he was a Muslim, but now it's obvious that he's working with the criminal Jews.

Furthermore, they inadvertently show us that their network is much more diabolical than we had imagined. For example, many of the people who have been exposed were claiming to be Christians or Muslims or atheists, such as Professor Kevin Barrett of the Scholars For 9/11 Truth, who claims to be a Muslim. It doesn't matter whether Barrett or Khanverse really are Muslims who sold out to the Jews, or whether they're Jews pretending to be Muslims. Since their primary activity is defending and protecting Zionism, the lesson we should learn from them is that we have to investigate everybody, regardless of their race, religion, or nationality.

The Jewish crime network is the biggest and most diabolical, but getting rid of that network isn't going to be enough. We also have to get rid of all of the other crime networks. And we have to deal with all of the other destructive, parasitic, and selfish humans. As I said before, I think it's better to consider this as a battle between the more advanced humans and the savages, rather than as a battle between Jews and Goyim.

We can improve this world simply by bringing better people into positions of leadership, but how can we determine who among us is better suited to leadership positions? We have to be able to investigate people, but when we try to investigate people, we're accused of prying into people's personal lives, or casting suspicions on honest people.

In my audio file for April 19, 2008 I pointed out that we need to differentiate between privacy and secrecy. People who want to influence the world should not be allowed to have secrecy. We should be able to analyze potential leaders just like we inspect houses before we make a decision on whether we want to purchase it.

This brings up the issue of whether bad behavior in a person's distant past should be ignored. For example, let's assume we're considering a particular man for leadership, and we discover that in his past he had some serious problems with drugs or crime. And let's assume that he hasn't had any problems for decades. Should we dismiss the problems of his past as irrelevant? Should we assume that he overcame those problems and ended up becoming a better person?

Before I give you my answer to that question, let me give you a personal experience.

For many years my mother owned and operated a tiny retail store for women's clothing. Many times she would order clothing from a traveling salesman. One day a salesman arrived in her store near closing time, and if I remember correctly, she started ordering some of his clothing but she wanted to get home for dinner, and so she invited him over to our house for dinner, and she would finish the order afterwards.

My first impression of him was that he was a very nice man. He was nicely dressed, and he looked nice, and he was very polite. While we were eating dinner, my mother brought up the issue of how teenagers today are experimenting with marijuana or not behaving very well. I'm sure she brought the issue up because we were teenagers at the time and we were experimenting with marijuana. And I suspect that she invited him for dinner so that we could get that lecture that he gave us.

He responded that he no tolerace of bad behavior among children. He said the reason is because when he was a teenager in high school in Chicago, he didn't have much discipline from his parents, and he got involved with a crime gang. He said he made a lot of money, and he purchased an expensive automobile that he had to hide from his parents. His parents thought that he was walking to school, but he was actually walking to where he parked his expensive car, and then he would drive to school. He said that one of his jobs was to collect money for the gang. He said there were times that he and other gang members had to tie somebody to a telephone pole and beat him with a baseball bat for not paying his debts.

He said that he is no longer involved with crime and that he's very honest today, and he wouldn't tolerate bad behavior among children.

After dinner my mother finished the order for clothing, and he went back to his motel, and we never saw him again. Several weeks later the clothing my mother ordered from him arrived at her store, and she went through the usual routine of checking to see if what she had ordered had actually arrived, and she discovered that he added items to her order that she never wanted. My mother was aware of this trick, so she was always watching for it.

The point of this story is that when this particular salesman was a teenager, most people would have described him as a disgusting criminal. If America had no tolerance for bad behavior, then men like him would have been exiled or killed while they were children. But he was allowed to live, and as an adult he claims to have stopped his life of crime and become an honest person, and he claims that he won't tolerate bad behavior among children. But what has really changed? He was badly behaved as a teenager, and he's still badly behaved.

The only thing that changed is the manner in which he abuses people. Instead of committing crimes with a group of other criminals, he cheats retail stores as an independent salesman. But he's still cheating people. He still has that same primitive personality that causes him to take whatever he wants. The only thing that has changed in his life is the type of crime he commits.

And take a look at Richard Branson. In my previous audio file I made the remark that Branson may be a wonderful person, but after I posted that file, I looked a little more into Richard Branson and noticed that he was arrested twice for trying to cheat people, and the second time he decided that he will never again do something that puts him in jail.

Some people will look at that incident and say that jail transformed Branson into an honest man, but did jail really transform him? Of course not. Jail cannot change a person's emotions or personality. The only thing jail could possibly do is to help people suppress their animal-like emotions, or teach them to cheat in a more clever manner.

Jail is not a solution to badly behaved people. Nobody is foolish enough to think that jail would improve a badly behaved animal, but most people insist that jail will improve badly behaved humans.

Daryl Smith is more evidence that jail is worthless. He told me that he was in jail many times. Therefore, if jail improves a person, then Smith would be one of the finest humans on the planet. But Smith still has a problem with alcohol, and while he may not be stealing cars or whatever he used to do, he's struggling to deceive us, and he begs for money like a parasite.

I think that overlooking a person's bad behavior during his youth is a serious mistake. From my own personal experiences, the behavior that we see during a person's childhood is an indication of what his mind is like. Some badly behaved children may learn to suppress their terrible qualities, but those terrible qualities will remain forever inside their mind. There is no way to transform or improve the design of your brain.

We also have to make a decision on when bad behavior is due to experimentation or peer pressure, and when it's a sign of mental problems. For example, a lot of us have experimented with alcohol or marijuana, but how many people experiment with burglarizing a house, or beating a person chained to a telephone pole? When a teenager gets drunk a few times, we could describe it as experimentation, but when somebody burglarizes a house, or remains involved with drugs for decades, we should consider him to have a serious problem.

So let's assume that you agree with me that we need to raise standards for people in leadership positions, and let's assume that we come to some conclusion on what exactly to look for in a leader. This brings me to my next point which is that raising standards isn't enough to bring real improvements to the world. We have to do more than this.

I don't think the world is going to improve much until we reduce the number of people in leadership positions to the bare minimum possible. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is that the more people we have in leadership positions, the more people we have to watch over.

One lesson we should learn from the organized crime networks is that there are apparently millions of people around the world willing to join together to commit crimes. And there are millions of individual people with crude or psychotic minds who commit crimes on their own. The more leadership positions we have, the greater the chance that some of these selfish and crude people will get into leadership.

Consider the American government. Our government is so large that I don't think anybody knows how many people are working for it. We have a federal government, 50 state governments, thousands of city and county governments, and possibly thousands of government agencies. There may be a total of hundreds of thousands of people in leadership positions within the American government. How can we possibly watch over so many people?

We should make changes to society so that we can reduce the size of government in order to reduce the number of people that we have to watch over. Political candidates are always promising to reduce government, but they never do. This is not because it's impossible to reduce government. It's because they don't want to. It's actually very easy to reduce it.

For example, I know somebody who works for a county government and the only work their particular office does is to defend the county in lawsuits that citizens and businesses file against the government.

If we were to change the attitudes in our society, we could prohibit lawsuits, and then everybody in this department would be unnecessary, and it would also reduce the need for lawyers and courts.

America currently has the attitude that mistakes and bad behavior can be corrected by punishments. As a result of this attitude, citizens and businesses are allowed to sue the government and each other whenever a mistake is made or whenever a crime has been committed. For example, if the roots of a tree push up a piece of a sidewalk, and if a citizen stumbles on that piece of the sidewalk, he's allowed to sue the city for not maintaining a smooth sidewalk. If a person is cheated by a business, he's allowed to sue the business. If a doctor makes a mistake, his patient is allowed to sue him. If a business makes a mistake in the design of a product, the consumers are allowed to sue the business.

Imagine family members suing one another every time one of them made a mistake. You would be disgusted with such a family.

People don't sue each other for intelligent reasons. Rather, we do it because of that crude, animal-like emotion that we refer to as “revenge”. And in some cases people file lawsuits simply because they see an opportunity to profit from a problem.

In a more sensible society, when a problem is discovered, the proper reaction from the government would be to investigate the problem, discuss possible solutions to it, and look for ways to prevent similar problems from occurring in the future. We don't improve society by allowing people to get revenge on each other or by encouraging people to profit from problems.

Prohibiting lawsuits won't reduce the number of people in leadership positions by very much, and it will create some new leadership positions because it would require the government to investigate problems, but it's one small improvement that we should make.

We should also reduce the number of people in the private organizations that try to influence society, such as the charities, political groups, educational organizations, unions, business associations, religions, consumer organizations, and scientific organizations.

The people in control of these private organizations are not considered to be leaders, but they ARE leaders because they're trying to influence society. Have you heard of the organization called AIPAC, which works for Israel to influence our government officials?

We should watch over these organizations and pass judgment on whether they're helping society. We should get rid of the organizations that don't contribute something of value. But the way our nation is currently designed, we have no control over these groups. We're foolish to allow these mysterious, private groups to influence our government, schools, businesses, and citizens. And there are thousands of these organizations. We're suckers to allow this ridiculous situation.

My recommendation is to make changes to society so that these private organizations are prohibited. Some of them serve a useful purpose, such as unions and consumer groups, but they're not doing a very good job because I think they're infiltrated with criminals and incompetent people.

We should change society so that a government agency does the job that these private organizations are supposed to be doing. That way we only have to watch over the government agency rather than thousands of corrupt and incompetent, private organizations.

In the case of organized religions, I would prohibit them on the grounds that religion should be a personal philosophy about life, not an organization or a business venture. If religious people want to get together to listen to sermons or sing songs, they can do so on their own, just as people arrange to have picnics, or weddings, or company parties, or family reunions. Religious people should not be given special privileges. They already have the special privilege of living in eternal bliss in heaven while the rest of us suffer forever in hell. Why do they need special privileges during their brief period of time here on earth?

I don't see any sensible reason to tolerate organized religions. They collect enormous amounts of money, and they influence governments, schools, and businesses. They also encourage hatred of other religions.

Some private organizations get financial support from businesses or the government, which means that society, namely you and me, is supporting them indirectly. Therefore, we ought to wonder what we're getting in return for our money. People routinely complain about the government wasting money, but nobody seems to care that these private groups are wasting our money.

From my limited observations of these private organizations, I've come to the conclusion that most of them are under the control of the Jewish crime network. They refuse to help us expose 9/11 or other Jewish crimes, and I don't think it's because of incompetence or fear. Just look at the history of these organizations and the people who are in control of them. We can often find obvious connections to the Rockefellers, or the Rothschilds, or some Zionist group.

The organizations that don't seem to be infiltrated by Jewish criminals seem to be dominated by incompetent people who either can't get a regular job, or who are too proud to get a regular job. I mentioned this problem in one of my previous audio files. Specifically, as technology advances, the jobs available to us become increasingly difficult. There are already an enormous number of people today who don't have the talent to do the technically advanced jobs, and they're too proud to take an ordinary job. So they end up in some private organization where nobody notices or cares that they don't have any particular skill or talent.

The coach of a professional football team would never let a man on the playing field if his abilities were mediocre. A coach doesn't feel sorry for people. If you're not one of the best, you don't play in the game.

Our society needs a similar attitude. We shouldn't allow people to get into leadership positions simply because they have a college diploma and are too proud to get an ordinary job. If a person isn't truly capable of providing leadership, he should be forced to get another job. Feeling sorry for people doesn't help them, and it doesn't help us.

I mentioned that there were two main reasons for reducing the number of leaders, and the second reason is that the more leadership positions we have, the more leaders we have to find to fill those jobs. If you believe that all people are identical, then you won't consider this to be a problem, but if you realize that we're not identical, then you should be able to understand that there aren't many people who truly qualify for leadership.

There is a widespread attitude that everybody can be easily replaced, but that only applies to people with ordinary abilities. It doesn't apply to people who are the best in a particular field. We can't easily replace one of the best scientists, or carpenters, or athletes.

If you were in a personnel office and had to fill 100,000 jobs for unskilled labor, you could do it because most of the 6 billion people in the world are capable of doing those type of jobs. But how would you fill 100,000 jobs for top leadership positions? How many of the 6 billion people are truly capable of providing leadership to the world?

We must reduce the number of people in leadership positions to the bare minimum so that we have a better chance of filling those positions with people who truly have the talent.

Unfortunately, American society promotes the attitude that everybody can be the president or a scientist or an Olympic athlete if he tries hard. This is the philosophy of an arrogant jerk who refuses to face the fact that he doesn't have any talent to be an athlete or a scientist, so he insists that he could be an athlete or a scientist if he wanted to train for it.

In reality, people have subtle differences in their abilities. Most people are ordinary, and half the population is below ordinary. Most of the population would be failures as scientists, carpenters, engineers, and leaders. Therefore, we need to reduce the number of people for critical positions because there aren't that many people who can do these jobs effectively.
 

If we get rid of the organized crime gangs, and bring better people into leadership positions, we could do a lot to improve our world. But since I'm getting close to the 80 minute mark, which is all that fits on an audio CD, I'll discuss some of my ideas on what we could do with our economy and our city in the next audio file. In the meantime, don't let the crude people, or even your own crude relatives, get you disillusioned. We can make the world a better place. The majority of the population is not much better than animals, but they're not going to stop us from improving the world. They're just not going to help us. So we can do it, if we can find enough people. 
So until my next audio file, goodbye.