Those type of cities would be extremely quiet and clean
because the transportation system would be underground. The primary
city noise would be human voices
and chirping birds. Living in
that type of city would allow everybody
to be within walking
distance of their friends, and a variety of gardens,
restaurants, social clubs, and recreational areas.
The mothers with young babies would not get bored or lonely during the
daytime because they would be living in close proximity to
other mothers with babies, and they would have free access to daycare
centers, restaurants, and recreational areas. Furthermore, without free
enterprise, it becomes practical to provide part-time jobs for women
with young children.
I think that type of city would significantly reduce the number of
women who are whining about being lonely and unappreciated. It would
make it very easy for both men and women to find something to do in the
evening rather than sit at home with a dog or a
I think that redesigning cities
and our culture will significantly improve life for both men and
women, but we are never going to start the process of improving
our lives until we find enough people with the courage to experiment
with new cities and new culture. Can you find that
courage in yourself?
Unfortunately, the people with strong conservative attitudes
do not have the courage to step away from
A lot of liberals have the ability to wander away from the crowd, but
they are too neurotic to do something useful.
need to find the small number of men who have enough self-control to
themselves into taking a leadership role. Those men need to start
discussing important issues in public, such as feminism, experimenting
with new cities, the lies about the 9/11 attack, and the pedophile
networks. Try to become one of those
men, and try to inspire other men to find the courage to discuss
important issues rather than Hollywood movies, sports,
and Harry Potter.
Try to inspire other men into suppressing their fear of being
reprimanded by women. If a lot of men come forward
to publicly discuss feminism, new cities, etc., then the less
courageous men will feel safe in joining us, and then we will be able
to have a significant effect on our future.
can help us understand why conservatives oppose abortion
The conservatives have a very strong
opposition to abortion, and animals can help us understand
why the conservatives have this attitude. Their opposition to abortion
did not come from an
analysis or discussion. Rather, it is the result of
people who are following their
emotional cravings to protect children.
female monkey in Thailand risked her life to fight
with a dog that was trying to eat her baby. It is this emotional
craving to protect babies that resulted in the conservative attitude
that abortion is murder.
All animals, especially the females,
are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to
protect their babies.
Human parents have strong cravings to protect their children because we
inherited that craving from the monkeys. However, animals don't care
about the quality of anybody's life, and as a result, the conservatives
who follow their emotions without thinking about what they are doing
will want to protect children, but they won't show any concern
about the quality of life of the children.
The emotional craving to protect children resulted in laws that
prohibit abortion and euthanasia. However, the people who created those
laws don't have any concern for what happens to the unwanted children.
don't care if those unwanted children end up having miserable, lonely
orphanages, or whether those children are used as sex or labor slaves,
or whether the children end up living in the streets and surviving
begging and crime.
An animal does not analyze the quality of
lives. An animal assumes it is doing a proper job of raising children
when it provides food and protection for the children. Likewise, the
conservatives who follow their emotional cravings and resist thinking
will assume that they are wonderful parents simply because their
children have food and protection. Those parents don't look at the
complexity of life and notice or
show any concern that the schools and journalists are lying to their
children about the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and the 9/11
They also don't care that their children are confused or misguided
about marriage and sexual issues as a result of all of the confusing,
conflicting, and idiotic opinions that are promoted by feminists,
or neurotic people. They don't show any concern that
businesses are manipulating their children's desires for toys,
foods, and clothing, or that businesses are sexually titillating their
sons on a daily basis. They don't care that schools are giving
their children diplomas even though they don't have any useful skills.
An animal raises children by following its
crude emotional cravings to give food to children, and to protect them
from danger. Animals do not have the emotional desire or intellectual
ability to analyze the more complex issues of life, such as whether
their children are having a pleasant life.
The conservative humans have tremendous intelligence compared to an
animal, but they don't want to use it. They want to
emotional cravings, not
think about complex issues or exert self-control.
Animals and humans receive emotional
pleasure when we provide food to children, and when we protect
children from danger. The reason people, especially women, love to give
food to animals at
a zoo is because we have a strong emotional craving to feed children,
not because we spent time thinking about the issue and came to
the conclusion that it makes intellectual sense for us to give that
particular food to that particular animal.
do not receive any emotional pleasure when we think
about complex issues, such as whether a retarded child should
euthanized, or that schools and journalists are lying to the children
about historical events. Therefore, the people who want to
spend their lives pleasing themselves are going
to avoid thinking about those issues.
Animals want to titillate their emotions, not think. Animals raise
because they have strong emotional cravings to feed and protect
children, not because they are interested in creating a new generation
of animals. Animals have no concern for what happens to their children
when the children grow up. Animals also do not care whether their
are genetically defective, mentally ill, parasitic, or dishonest.
the more similar a human is to an animal, the more strongly he will be
interested in feeding and protecting children, and the
less he will be concerned about the quality of the children's lives,
and whether the children become productive members of society or
parasites, or lonely, antisocial freaks. To summarize this concept:
• He will want to play
with children, not prepare children to become the
next generation of adults.
You may have heard some teachers complaining that they are under
pressure to give good grades. Where is that pressure coming from? Why
aren't the schools under any pressure to remove the lies about 9/11 and
the Holocaust? Why is the only pressure they feel to give good grades?
Why isn't there any pressure on the schools to teach children useful
skills and prepare them for society?
• He will pressure the schools into giving his
good grades, praise, and a diploma
rather than pressure the schools into providing their children
with useful skills, constructive criticism, and honest
information about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other issues.
• He will want to pamper his children with trust
funds, material items,
and praise. He will not want to put pressure on his children to
learn a useful skill and earn whatever they want.
• He will want his children to have
treatment when they commit crimes.
The reason schools are under pressure to give good grades is because
most people behave like stupid animals. They regard
children as toys to play with, not as the next generation of adults.
They want to play with children, not prepare them for life. They want
to pamper children with praise and food, not make them learn
something useful and earn what they want.
The conservatives boast about
how they are too proud to take welfare or handouts, but they are more
likely than other people to push society into allowing
inheritances, trust funds, special
privileges, tariffs, quotas, and other handouts for their children and
their businesses. Some of them will donate money to a college in order
to bribe the school officials into allowing their children into the
college. How is that different from a "handout"?
If you are a
parent, are you raising your children like a modern
human, or is it
more similar to an animal? Have you shown an interest in teaching your
children to earn what they want? Or do you pamper them excessively,
like an animal parent?
Are you treating your children as devices to titillate yourself with?
Or are you preparing them to become productive
and impressive adults?
Do you put pressure on the schools to give good grades? Or do you put
pressure on the schools to teach something of value?
Would you be willing to support a society in
which none of the children were given trust funds,
or special privileges? Or do you behave like an
animal and demand that your children get special treatment?
If one of your children
were to commit a crime, would you tell him that he is responsible for
his bad behavior? Or are you like an animal parent who will defend your
child no matter how awful his behavior is?
Do you care enough about your children to actually do
improve the future for them? For example, are you willing to support
experiments with school systems, crime policies, voting systems, and
government systems? Or are you too frightened, confused, apathetic, or
selfish to want to participate in improving the future for the human
can help us understand why conservatives oppose euthanasia
have no ability to contemplate or commit suicide, or to assist other
animals in suicide. They also lack the intellectual ability to pass
judgment on which of their members have hopeless lives and should be
put out of their misery.
Animals have such an incredibly strong desire
to survive and reproduce that they will struggle to survive regardless
of how much they are suffering. Animals are just
biological machines designed to reproduce, and they don't care if they
enjoy life. They have no concern about the quality of their life, or
the quality of anyone else's life.
Likewise, the conservatives
don't care whether they or other people enjoy life. They will struggle
to survive, and struggle to help other people survive, no matter how
miserable any of them are. They don't care if a person's brain has
died, and his body is kept alive by machines. Actually, they regard
those people as profit opportunities, and they compete
with one another to
sell the machines and service to keep the brain-dead people alive.
often provide us with news reports of an animal that has suffered
incredibly, and the journalists praise the animal for never
of giving up hope or committing suicide. The journalists make it appear
as if the animal has some special qualities that we should admire. In this
news report, for example, a dog that was burned with hot water and
thrown out of a window was praised for being "tough", but animals are
tough than a refrigerator, cell phone, or oven.
Animals don't care how
severely they have been tortured, or how miserable their life
is. Animals are just machines that are designed
only to struggle for
survival and reproduction. They are similar to
a science-fiction terminator robot that
trying to achieve its goal even as it is slowly being destroyed.
||Conservatives will keep people
alive even if they have
been destroyed to the point at which they resemble a terminator
Our policy of keeping brain-dead and
alive is not
the result of people who thought about
discussed the issue with one another, and agreed that this policy is
the most sensible. Rather, it is the result of people
their crude, animal cravings to survive. It is the result
of people who
avoid thinking and want to
titillate their emotional cravings with no regard to the
In order for a person to be able to understand
and support euthanasia and assisted suicide, he must be capable of
exerting enough control over his emotions to allow him to think about
the issue. People who want to titillate themselves rather than think
are not going to be able to understand or support such intellectually
policies that conservatives follow for
abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide are the result of humans who
want to satisfy their crude, animal emotions, not the result of humans
who are using their intelligence to analyze issues and experiment with
can help us understand why conservatives are so arrogant
Everybody is arrogant, but if we could
measure arrogance, I think we would discover that the people
who call themselves "conservatives" are more arrogant
than the rest of us. I say this because of my casual observations of
people throughout my life. It seems to me that conservatives are the
most likely to look for ways to blame their problems on somebody else,
and to waste a lot of their time boasting about themselves, and
insulting other people.
For example, when
the communist Russian government collapsed, millions of conservatives
in America took credit for the collapse, or they gave the credit to
Ronald Reagan. There is no evidence that American conservatives caused
the Russian government to collapse, but the conservatives are so
arrogant that they will take credit for achievements that other people
have made. They are
always looking for reasons to boast about themselves, and to insult
Our arrogance is another of our characteristics that makes
sense when you consider what life is like to animals and
prehistoric humans. Animals must
be arrogant. Animals do not have the intellectual ability to
problems. They must assume that everything they learned from their
parents is correct. It makes no sense for an animal to have
itself or its group because they do not have the intelligence necessary
to deal with
a self-analysis or constructive criticism.
The best attitude for an
animal is to be proud of itself, and to assume that its family, and
its group, is perfect, and that other animals are potential
dangers. They must have confidence in
themselves and they must
regard other animals as potential dangers.
The conservatives, as a group, seem to have a higher level of
arrogance than the rest of us. They seem
to spend more time than the rest of us boasting about themselves, their
family, their college education, their material wealth, their nation,
college fraternity, their business, and whatever other organizations
they belong to.
Many of the T-shirts that
are produced for conservatives display
angry, insulting, or arrogant remarks, such as those below.
The conservatives are so arrogant and
have such a strong resistance to looking critically at themselves
that they don't notice how hypocritical they are. An
I mentioned earlier is that conservatives boast about how they are too
proud to take
handouts, but if
they practiced what they preached, then it
would be the conservatives who demand an end to inheritances,
trust funds, special privileges, tariffs, and other handouts
for themselves, their children, and their businesses.
would also complain about
credit card companies and PayPal that take a percentage of our
financial transactions rather than a sensible fee. They would also
complain about musicians and other people getting royalties, and demand
that everybody work and contribute to society.
There are a lot of conservatives who
did not earn what they have, and some of them are
involved with crime networks and are cheating to
get what they want. However, when they cheat, they describe themselves
as being "clever businessmen".
It was necessary for our primitive ancestors to be arrogant, but in
this modern world, our
level of arrogance is much too high. In addition to causing lots of
fights and arguments, it causes us to waste some of our short life on
praise for ourselves and our group, and on insults of other people.
Arrogance interferes with progress because neither praise nor insults
can improve our life, our government, our social activities, or anything else.
In order to
improve something, we must be able to critically analyze it,
and that requires exerting some self-control over our arrogance.
people with high levels of arrogance will have a more
time improving the nation, culture, and technology.
be successful at making money in the free enterprise system, and they
might be successful as athletes, musicians, artists, and doctors, but
they will not be useful as leaders for the modern world.
By comparison, a person
with lower levels of arrogance will waste less of his life on
insults, which gives him more time for other activities, such
as enjoying life, discussing issues, or thinking intelligent
thoughts. He will be more productive in his life, and he will be more
pleasant to be around. He will be a flower in the human garden rather
than an arrogant monkey.
Where do you think you
belong on a chart of arrogance? And how effective are you at
controlling your arrogance?
can help us understand why conservatives mimic
The conservatives want to follow one
another, and they put up a
tremendous resistance to changes and experiments. They want to
believe that they are on the
correct path, and that people on a different path are making a mistake.
We can understand this attitude by observing wild animals. Baby animals
will mimic their
parents in regards to what to eat, where to sleep, how to eat, and what
type of animal to run away from. Because of genetic diversity, some of
the young animals are more independent than others, and some do not do
as good a job of mimicking the adults. Observations of those young
animals will show us that the more independent animals have a greater
tendency to die young. For example, the animals that don't do a good
job of mimicking which foods to eat will often eat foods that
result in malnutrition or poisoning.
In the photo to the right, a group of
wildebeest are crossing a river. Notice that they are following a
serpentine path. Why don't they take a shortcut to the land? It is
because they have such a strong craving to follow one another that
they continue to follow one another even after they have been
pushed into a serpentine path by the flowing water. Their
craving to follow one
another is stronger than their craving to think for themselves and
change the course that they are on.
For millions of years, the competitive battle for life has continuously
removed the animals that are "excessively" independent. This has
in animals that have developed a tremendous craving to follow one
another, even when it makes no sense to do so.
Most of the wildebeest would be frightened to take a shortcut to
the land. For
all they know, there is a deep hole in that area, and there are
alligators in the hole. Life is dangerous to a wild animal, and life
does not give an animal a second chance or a third chance.
Animals don't have ambulances and doctors waiting nearby to rush to
their rescue when they hurt themselves when they take a risk. When a
wild animal makes a mistake, it can result in death.
The safest policy for an animal is to mimic
an animal that
is successful, and without questioning why that other animal
is doing what he does.
Humans inherited that craving to follow
the successful people.
We are terrified at the thought of wandering off on our own.
mimic one another because of our crude, emotional cravings, not
because we put time and effort into analyzing the issue and came to
the conclusion that it makes intellectual sense to mimic somebody.
order to wander away from the crowd, a person has to be different
manner. For example, he has to have less of a craving to mimic
other people, or a greater craving to explore the world, or a greater
desire to think, or a greater level of self-control.
How much like an animal are you
in regards to thinking new thoughts and experimenting with new ideas?
Do you have the courage to experiment with a new city
design, new social systems, and new culture? Or does that
During the past century or two, scientists began to realize that some
of the chemicals we were producing are dangerous to our health.
every time a scientist pointed out that a particular chemical was
dangerous, the conservatives reacted with anger. For
example, when the scientists warned the world that tetraethyl lead was
dangerous, the conservatives reacted with anger.
The conservatives have shown no interest in pollution or health issues,
but it's not because they don't have the ability to understand these
issues. It is because they want to follow their ancestors, and their
ancestors had no concern about these issues. If our
ancestors had been concerned about health issues, then the
conservatives would have picked up that concern. In such a case,
anybody who tried to tell them to stop being concerned
them to become angry.
Conservatives react with anger to anybody who tries to change the path
they are on. They don't want to think about where they are going. They
want to follow whatever religion, language, and measurement system
they grew up with, and they want
to follow whatever attitudes they picked up about tetraethyl lead, and
they want to follow whatever beliefs they picked up about clothing
styles and food.
In July 2017, this
article appeared in which some scientists speculated that a chemical is
reducing the intelligence of fetuses in pregnant women. Conservatives
react to those type of articles by responding, "Thank
you for providing this information, and having a concern to keep us and
our children in good health!" Rather, they respond with
My mother is the type of person who will follow authority, like a
conservative. When I told her she should try Stevia, she
resisted because the authorities recommend other artificial sweeteners.
A few years ago I decided to take a bottle of Stevia to her house and
push her into trying it,
but she got too much of it, which makes it easy to notice that it has
an aftertaste, and
she immediately reacted that it was awful, and that she doesn't ever
want to try it again. It felt as if I was trying to make a little girl
eat some lima
beans, or whatever food she is refusing to eat.
A few months ago my mother noticed that I
was frequently buying mushrooms, and she asked how I prepared them. I
told her about my method, which I made this
video about, but after
observing her fear of Stevia, this time I wanted to create the
impression that I was following a common recipe that millions of people
around the world have been using for thousands of years, and
was approved of by the authorities.
I made some mushrooms for her when
I was visiting her, and she loved them so much that she started cooking
them that way for herself. I still have not told her that it was my
concept to cook them in that manner.
All of us have this characteristic of being frightened by something
new, but we have it to different
degrees. When we taste a new food, or when somebody tells us about a
new opinion, new
recreational activity, or new holiday celebration,
our crude, animal emotions will react with fear in order to
make us be cautious. We need to exert some self-control and
give everything a fair chance.
When we try new foods, we may have to push ourselves into eating
them more one time, and over
period of weeks. The reason is because if the food is
significantly different from what we are familiar with, our emotions
need to become so accustomed to the new food that they can relax and
let us truly determine whether we like the new food. The stronger your
fear of something new is, the more difficult it will be for you to try
The same is true of new social activities and sports events. We have to
try them several times before we can truly determine whether we like
them because during the first few attempts at trying them, our emotions
will be telling us to stop and run away.
can help us understand why conservatives see only two sides to an issue
An animal brain seems to
have evolved to categorize everything into one of two
categories: 1) friend
and 2) enemy.
Since we inherited our brain from a monkey, we also tend to put
everything into one of two categories. We have a difficult
everything in life is a spectrum, or a bell curve, rather than a simple
case of good or bad, right or wrong. This is why conservative
frequently insult us as being "liberals" when we disagree with them.
They regard people as being either conservatives or liberals. They have
a difficult time realizing that people don't fit into two, distinct
An interesting example of how we have a tendency to divide everything
into two groups is the issue
of fruit that ripens after picking. Our natural tendency is to classify
every fruit into one of two categories; namely, fruit that ripens after
and fruit that does not ripen after picking.
In reality, if we were to analyze the way
fruit ripens after picking,
we would end up with a chart that resembles the one to the right. Every
fruit ripens after picking, but some ripen for a longer period of time.
Avocados and bananas, for example, continue to ripen for weeks, whereas
other fruits ripen for only a few hours.
When we purchase food
from a market, many of those fruits were harvested several days
earlier, and by the time we get them to our home, they have gone past
the time at which they ripen. This creates the illusion that those
particular fruits do not ripen after picking.
boast about being intelligent and educated, but if that were true, they
would be the people who are the most likely to see the complexity of
issues such as
this. Instead of telling us that some fruits ripen after picking and
some do not, they would create a chart that shows us how long each
fruit continues to ripen after picking.
The same concept applies
to the death of animals. Animals do not die within one nanosecond.
Death takes time, and different parts of an animal's body die at
different rates. With some primitive animals, such as chickens, we can
chop the head off the creature, and if we seal the blood vessels at the
neck, the body will continue living for hours or days. By comparison,
when the head is chopped off of a human, the heart will stop beating
within a very short period of time, and during the following 10 to 30
minutes, the muscles and other organs will run low on oxygen, and they
start to die.
The tendency of conservatives to divide
everything into one of two groups makes it difficult for them to be
effective leaders in this modern world. To a conservative, for example,
every drug, such as marijuana, alcohol, insulin, and aspirin fits one
of two categories, good or bad, or legal or illegal. They can't see the
complexities of life. They can't see that we actually have an
incredible number of options to experiment with.
To the conservatives, we have only two options for our future:
follow the correct path, or we follow an incorrect path. They cannot
see that we can go anywhere we please,
and that we can safely experiment with all aspects of our culture. The
don't want to think about their options, experiment with
changes, explore life, or learn something new. They don't
options. They want to mimic other
I was a child, I would sometimes ask my father a question, but
rather than give me an answer, he would sometimes respond by saying,
"That is like asking,
how long is a piece of
string?" Although his life was full of failures, and he
picked up a
"feel sorry for me" attitude, he could see the complexity of life, and
that might be why I can see it. What about you? Do
you tend to divide everything into two groups? How easy is it for you
to see the complexity of life?
can help us understand why conservatives are all
talk, no action
Animals have no interest in learning,
thinking, or discussing issues. Farm
animals and pets spend their lives eating, lounging, and reproducing
that is what animals prefer to do, not because the
humans are forcing that lifestyle
them. Animals don't want to explore the world, earn the food they eat,
learn any skills, or discuss complex issues. They want to lounge, and
they enjoy having somebody bring them food and
protect them from the
an animal encounters a problem, his preferred method of dealing with it
is to run away and hide from it. When they cannot run
away, they try to intimidate it by
pounding their chest, showing their teeth, and making noises. They try
appear frightening and dangerous so that they can avoid violence and
confrontations. They don't want to fight. They want to lounge,
eat, and reproduce.
Humans inherited those behavioral characteristics from the monkeys.
However, during the past million or so years, humans developed a
greater interest in exploring the world, and getting together with
other people to
do things as a
The more similar a person is to his monkey ancestors, the more
enjoy spending his life like a farm animal; specifically, having
somebody bring him food while he spends the day lounging.
also react to problems like animals. We will either run away and hide
from the problem, or we will react with anger and want to glare at,
yell at, or kick whatever is causing the problem.
Our reactions are sometimes completely
irrational. For example, if we
become upset while working with some material item, we might become
angry at the item, and that can trigger our animal
cravings to hit, yell at, and kick the item. When we yell at or kick a
material item, we are behaving exactly like
an animal that is biting and kicking another animal, but it makes no
sense for us to do this with material items.
Our emotions were not designed for this technically complex world. Our
emotions evolved for a world in which our confrontations were
with animals and people, and those type of confrontations can be
resolved with yelling, biting, and kicking. Our emotions do not realize
that yelling and kicking cannot resolve a problem with a computer,
automobile, or washing machine.
In this modern world, we need to exert self-control and think about
what we are doing. Many of our emotions are inappropriate today.
Our emotions do not push us into researching our problems, discussing
our problems, or experimenting with solutions. Our emotions encourage
us to hide from problems, or yell at and kick the problem. Our emotions
are encouraging inappropriate behavior. The people who follow their
emotions will be failures at dealing with their
problems, and with the problems of society.
Our craving to yell and throw objects
when we are upset is the reason we enjoy running out into the streets
to yell slogans and throw rocks. We refer to these protests as "freedom
of speech", but we should refer to it as crude, animal behavior. It is
equivalent to a
monkey who is biting and scratching another monkey.
Modern society has a lot of irritating aspects, such as overcrowding,
crime networks, incompetent government officials, and pollution. Our
emotions want to resolve these problems by either hiding from
the problems, or fighting with
Unfortunately, it is useless to fight with intangible concepts, such as
overcrowding and corruption, and hiding from a problem was effective during
prehistoric times, but not with the problems we face today.
The only sensible way to deal with modern problems is for us to
research the problems, discuss
possible solutions, and compromise on
experiments to conduct with our culture. Unfortunately, a
person who wants to follow his emotions will
not be interested or able to do that.
The conservatives boast about how they are the leaders of
society, but they are doing nothing
solve our problems. They are ineffective because their preferred
reaction to problems is either to hide from it, or yell at it. They
don't have the desire or ability to get together to discuss problems,
compromise on policies, and experiment with changes to culture.
During prehistoric times, the men with strong conservative attitudes
would have been wonderful as leaders, but today they are ineffective
because modern society needs leaders who can think,
compromise, experiment, and explore. We no longer benefit from
monkey-like leaders who
problems by yelling and kicking.
The liberals are ineffective as leaders, also, because they have a
tendency to react to problems by pouting, having tantrums, or crying.
Furthermore, most of them seem to have intellectual and emotional
defects that prevent them from producing intelligent thoughts.
The majority of people do not have the emotional or
qualities necessary to provide guidance for the
can help us understand why conservatives avoid
using their guns
Animals are not violent.
When they get into fights with one another, they rarely try to kill one
another. Rather, they try to intimidate one
We inherited that nonviolent characteristic from our animal ancestors.
We look for ways to avoid
such as designing a mouse trap that will capture mice without harming
them so that we can release them somewhere else.
If there was a shortage of mice in the world, those traps would make
sense, but the population of mice, rats, pigeons, and certain other
creatures is excessive today because our cities are providing them with
a lot of food and protection, and that has allowed their population to
grow far beyond what was possible during prehistoric times.
We are fools to waste our engineering talent and resources on "humane
mice traps". If we had leaders who could exert some self-control, and
who could think properly, they would prohibit such mice traps and
instead authorize the development of robots that can patrol in and around our buildings,
train tunnels, and cities to find, identify, and kill pigeons, mice,
rats, and other creatures.
The conservatives in America
promote the purchasing of guns, and the end result is that there are
millions of Americans with guns, which might make the human
race seem to be quite violent. However, only a few
of those people
are willing to use their guns to kill people.
Most conservatives who own guns have no desire to
get together with the police or military and help them to kill or
networks that are infiltrating and getting control of our government,
media, and schools. They will not even get together with their friends
to make a citizen's arrest of Larry Silverstein.
gun owners have lots of excuses as to why they will not use
their guns to help stop the crime networks and corruption, but the true
reason is because they
behaving like animals. They are frightened
by crime, and they want guns because they are afraid,
not because they want to get together and do something to get rid of
the crime networks.
A lot of conservative men
will get into fistfights, and they boast that fistfights prove that
they are brave and
courageous, but getting into a fistfight, especially over
idiotic issue, does not show that a person has bravery or courage.
could say that when humans yell at each other, they are doing the
equivalent of dogs that bark at each other, and when humans get into a
fistfight, they are doing the equivalent of dogs that are biting each
other. We should describe yelling and fistfights as typical
animal behavior, rather than
praise it as a sign of bravery.
conservatives were truly as brave and intolerant of crime as they claim
to be, they would be helping to spread information about the crime
networks, and they would want
to get together with other people, including the police and military,
something to stop the corruption.
There are some people in the police and military who are willing to use
guns to help stop the crime networks, but those people are a small
minority. There are tens of millions of American
citizens with guns who could be helping in this fight, but who refuse
to do something as simple as spreading information
about the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings, or the
pedophile networks, or the lies about the Holocaust.
Furthermore, there are hundreds of millions of
people around the world who have access to the
Internet, and they could be regularly
posting links to articles on their websites and Facebook pages that
provide people with evidence that the 9/11 attack was a
fraud, that there is a pedophile network within our government and
that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust and the world wars.
Millions of men could also be using the Internet to publicly disagree
However, only a few of the billions of people in this world are
publicly spreading information about
these issues. Most people are more interested in talking about
video games, sports, and Hollywood.
There are thousands of people using the Internet to talk about 9/11 and
other issues, but almost all of those people are spreading propaganda,
together for dinner, social affairs, or recreational events, they talk
about lots of different political and social issues, but if
somebody talks about the Apollo moon landing hoax, the Holohoax, or my
website, other people will try to intimidate them into becoming silent.
The conservatives frequently boast about their courage, but
none of them are brave enough to discuss these issues in
public. Where are the people with bravery or
courage? All I see around me are frightened animals.
There are individual men in the military and police with the
courage to fight the crime networks, but are there enough of those men
to fight such a gigantic network on their own?
the military were to announce that they need assistance in
the crime network, how
many of the conservatives with guns would volunteer to help?
how many would look for excuses to do nothing?
conservatives use the Second Amendment as justification for
guns, but how many are willing to become a member of a militia and use
those guns to
help the military defend their nation? I suspect that most
conservatives would find some excuse to avoid helping the military.
think most of the conservatives want a gun for the same reason a young
child wants a teddy bear to sleep with at night. I think most
conservatives only boast about their courage, but in reality, they
would run away if the military asked them for help. I think they would
look for excuses to remain in their house
with their TV and ice cream while somebody else deals with the
problems of the world. The Second Amendment was not
intended to provide guns to those type of people.
The second amendment was intended to provide guns to people who are
to get together and use the guns
to defend the nation.
It was not intended for people who want to play with guns,
or shoot at road signs, or hide in their house like a
can help us understand our attitudes toward
was a child during the 1960s, and it was common for adults, especially
women, to push children into eating lots of food. This attitude has
been passed down from generation to generation for millions of years
because food is scarce to animals. Animals struggle to find enough food
for themselves and their children, and when they find food, they want
their children to eat as much as possible. Animals may have to survive
without food for several days or weeks, so when they find food, they
should eat it, even if they are not very hungry. Animals and
prehistoric people are taking a risk if they turn away an opportunity
Animals evolved a strong craving to feed their children, but
they never developed any craving to pass judgment on when they have
provided enough food. The end result is that
animals want to feed
children, but not restrict their food.
Our technology today enables us to produce an excessive amount
of food all throughout the
year, and every year, and so it no longer makes
sense for adults to push children into eating food. Our crude, animal
attitude towards food is encouraging children to become sickly and
today need to make wise decisions about when they and their children
have eaten enough food. We have to do the opposite of what animals do.
Rather than eat whenever we get the opportunity, we need to exert some
self-control over our craving for food, push ourselves into thinking
about food, and using our intelligence to restrict our consumption of
We will suffer emotional pain if we do not eat as much food as our
emotions want to eat, so only the people with certain mental qualities
will be successful at restricting their food consumption. Most of the
population does not seem to have the qualities necessary to do this,
and so they will become overweight, sickly, or anorexic.
To make our situation worse, our free enterprise system
has no concern for how businesses make money, and the end result is
that lots of businesses are competing with each other to sell food
products, and many of those products, such as candy bars
and soda, are foods that we don't need, and can
result in nutritionally unbalanced diets.
We need to analyze our attitudes towards food and
experiment with improvements. We need to be
concerned about the type of foods we produce, and
we especially have to be concerned about the quantities
of foods that we are allowing children to have access to.
Ideally, our leaders
would regularly analyze food related issues and continuously
for ways to improve our food products, farms, restaurants, and other
food related culture in order to provide us with better health, better
tasting food, and more pleasurable restaurants.
most people are still behaving as if they are prehistoric savages, such
eating whenever they please, and showing no concern for the quantities
health aspects of the food. There are still people today pushing food
on children, and most people show no concern
that businesses are competing to manipulate our food desires and offer
us food products that are nutritionally unbalanced.
Many of our
food recipes are also outdated and should be
revised. I mentioned an
example of this years ago when I pointed out that when we are making
bread, we no longer have to follow the medieval custom
of kneading the dough, then letting the dough rise, and then
kneading it a second time, and then letting it rise again, and then
putting it into a pan and letting it rise a third time.
my own bread by grinding wheat, kamut, buckwheat, and other grains.
During the past few years, I have become so impatient that I now make
bread in 30 to 45 minutes. For those of you who have trouble
believing this is possible, I put some information and photos here. If
were to follow this technique, and if we were living in a city in which
we got our food from free restaurants, we would be able to eat
truly fresh bread whenever we pleased.
don't have to boil water to create gelatin products
of our food products are only a few decades or centuries old, but even
though they seem "modern", many of our recipes are outdated. For
example, gelatin is a relatively recent food
product in human
life, so you are likely to assume that our attitudes towards gelatin
products are up-to-date, but they are actually crude and need
It appears that the first people to make gelatin were in Britain during
the 1400s. In that era, there were no thermometers, which prevented
people from creating recipes that specified temperatures. Also, the
stoves in that era were burning wood or coal, which made it difficult
for people to control the temperature compared to modern stoves.
Furthermore, the people did not have high quality kitchen utensils.
They would boil water in a crude metal pot, and then transfer the hot
water to some other container for making a gelatin product. A lot of
people in that era did not have clocks or timers, either.
The crude kitchens of centuries ago resulted in people creating gelatin
recipes that could be summarized like this:
1) Heat some water until it is boiling.
2) Pour the boiling water into a container, add gelatin, and
stir until the gelatin dissolves.
3) Add other items, such as fruit, vegetables, or meat.
4) Let the mixture cool until the gelatin solidifies.
scientists analyzed gelatin. They
discovered that we don't have to boil water in order to dissolve
gelatin. All we have to do is heat the water to about our body
Once you realize that gelatin dissolves in warm
water, you will realize that the recipes that tell us to boil the water
are outdated. Gelatin will dissolve faster in
boiling water, but unless you're in a hurry, you can use warm water.
By making gelatin products with warm water rather
than boiled water, it is easy to make gelatin products with foods that
we don't want to expose to high temperatures, such as fresh fruits,
vegetables, and even avocado. The low temperature also makes it more
practical for mothers to allow their young children to make
I will give an example of how I make gelatin products at low
When my fruit trees produce more fruit than I can
eat, I freeze some of the apricots, plums, and
white peaches. However, from my experiences with freezing
fruit, fresh fruit does
not freeze very well, especially not my white peaches. The fruit seems
to have a longer life and a better flavor if I first remove the seeds
and heat the fruit to somewhere near 50°C for white peaches
apricots, and 60°C for the variety of plums I have, which I assume are
the Santa Rosa plums. However, I have not conducted experiments to
exactly what temperature is best for different fruits.
I assume that the
heat breaks down some enzyme that causes the fruit to degrade. The heat
the side effect of making the fruit slightly sweeter.
want to eat some of the frozen fruit, I sometimes take a chunk from the
freezer, let it defrost in a bowl, add some powdered gelatin and water,
and then put the bowl into a pan of warm water and let it reach about
110°F or 40°C. That temperature is so low that it does not cook the
fruit any further. It is also so low that you can make the gelatin in
Then I put it in the refrigerator and let the
gelatin set, which takes only an hour or two because the temperature
was so low.
This produces a fruit gelatin, but unlike the
commercial fruit flavored gelatins, which is artificially flavored
and colored water, this type of fruit gelatin is a true food
that has nutritional value. And since the fruit was ripe when I picked
it, I don't have to add sugar, although I usually add a bit of
Stevia, especially with the plums because I don't bother to remove the
tart skins. I actually like the sweet-and-sour mixture of the sweet
plums with the tart skin.
The photo below shows some strawberries that I cut into pieces, heated
to about 40° to 50° C, and then added some water and gelatin.
Unlike commercial strawberry gelatin products, it is real fruit.
If you don't add much gelatin,
it will be soft
enough to be used as jam.
Stevia has too
strong of a flavor for mild tasting fruits, such as
bananas and strawberries, so you will probably want to add
some sugar to the strawberries that you purchased from a market since
commercial fruit never seems to be completely ripe.
Unlike commercial gelatin products and jams, you can decide
for yourself how much sugar you
want in it.
However, it will not have as
long of a shelf life compared to the sterilized and preserved
commercial foods, so I
make only as much as I want to eat during one meal.
A lot of
parents complain that the jellies, jams, and gelatin products that are
served in our schools are nutritionally worthless, but schools could be
providing children with jams and gelatin products that are
nutritionally balanced foods. Children enjoy gelatin products, so why
not provide them with gelatin products that are useful as foods?
don't have to continue on the path we are on right now in which
businesses are profiting from food products that are nutritionally
unbalanced. However, changing the course we are on requires that
we provide ourselves with leaders who have the courage to step off the
established path and experiment with our
Do you have
enough self-control to suppress your fear of the unknown to the point
at which you would be willing to allow society to experiment with food
recipes? Or are you so frightened of experimentation that you are
terrified to taste Mochi?
could be a nutritional food
tomato sauce, ketchup, and other foods should also be updated. During
the 1980s, the Reagan administration proposed that schools regard
tomato ketchup as a "vegetable", but some people claim that 25% of the typical
commercial tomato ketchup is sugar.
sauce could be regarded as a vegetable, and pizza could be a
nutritionally balanced food, but businesses in a free enterprise system
are competing to titillate us, rather than competing
to provide us with healthy foods. As a result, they give us foods that
stimulate our senses, rather than foods that are intellectually
One of these days we might find a business offering us some deep-fried
sugar cubes. They will be
artificially flavored with chemicals of unknown safety, of course.
Incidentally, the concept of deep-fried sugar cubes might seem absurd,
but it's not much different from a conventional donut.
The difference is that the sugar on a donut is mostly on the outside
surface, whereas a deep-fried sugar cube puts the sugar on the inside.
there are some businesses selling deep-fried butter,
which might seem
bizarre, but some croissants and butter cookies have enormous amounts
of butter mixed in
Getting back to the issue of pizza, if
we get rid of our free enterprise system, and if we can provide
ourselves with appropriate leaders, we could develop a variety
of pizzas that are
nutritionally valuable. For example, when I make a pizza, I grind some
wheat, kamut, and sometimes other grains, thereby creating a pizza
crust of freshly ground, whole grains, rather than processed,
white flour. I also usually let the dough rise a bit so the pizza crust
is like bread rather than pasta.
the topping, I mix a can of diced tomatoes with
paste, pizza spices, and a small amount of olive oil. It
pizza sauce that is primarily diced tomatoes. I put a thick
layer of that sauce on the
pizza. I don't bother with cheese, although I sometimes sprinkle
Parmesan cheese on top.
think the reason people are putting so much cheese on their pizzas is
because their pizzas do not have much oil. Our mouth evolved to eat
foods with certain flavors, consistencies, and components, and cheese
adds oil to the pizza, which makes it "feel" better to us.
Since my pizza is made from freshly
ground, whole grains, the base of the pizza has a more appropriate
mixture of oil, protein, and carbohydrates. And instead of putting a thin
layer of sugary tomato sauce on top, I put a thick layer of diced
tomatoes in a tomato sauce, and I do not put any sugar in the sauce.
The tomato paste adds enough sweetness for me.
If schools were serving that type of pizza, the children
would be getting a lot of nutrition.
That type of pizza does
not need the oil of cheese, but the main reason I don't add cheese is
because I don't like the slimy, gooey quality of
Parmesan cheese is acceptable because it's more like a powder, and it
is used in small quantities.
on the effect of heating water
I mentioned that we don't need
boil water to
dissolve gelatin. In addition to making it easier for us to make
gelatin products, using warm water instead of hot water might have one
other advantage; specifically, we might discover that it is healthier
to avoid boiling the water.
In July 2008 I mentioned
that when we boil water, tiny silver specks develop, and my
assumption is that the minerals were coagulating. Recently I discovered
something related to this issue that might be of significance.
As the winter of 2016 began, I noticed that the hot water in my house
seemed cooler than usual, and as the months passed, the
water became increasingly cool. We were having an unusually
winter, so I assumed it was because global warming was
Eventually the pilot light extinguished itself, and the
control unit would no longer function.
I purchased a new water heater, but before I removed the existing water
heater, I connected a hose to its drainage valve in order to drain it,
opened the valve, and I was surprised to discover that not even
one drop of water came out. I removed the hose
and shoved a screwdriver into the drainage hole, and discovered that it
was packed with a translucent slush.
The screwdriver got the slush flowing onto my garage floor, so I
quickly connected the hose to
it and let it drain onto the driveway. I assumed it was some type of
gel, but it dried into a white powder, like
I found the receipt for the water heater, and discovered that I
purchased it in 1993, which means that it had an incredible lifetime of
nearly 24 years. My experiences with this water heater bring up
several interesting issues:
1) We can
extend the life of a water heater.
My water heater should have had a life
of only 8 to 12 years, but I
got 24 years because I had put a flap on the top to retain heat, and
resulted in the
pilot light providing most of the heat that I needed, which in
turn meant that the water heater rarely turned on the burner, which
apparently is the primary cause of degradation in a water heater.
Therefore, simply designing water heaters to do a better job of
retaining heat would extend their life significantly.
Incidentally, I updated my drawing of
water heater so that it is more accurate. Click the small illustration
to the right to get a better view of it. Specifically, I included the
connection to the vent on the roof. When the wind is blowing, air is
sucked up the tube, which pulls air up through the water heater,
causing the water to cool down. In order to stop that suction effect, a
large number of holes have to be put into the tube in front of the
vent. Or, the vent has to be redesigned to prevent that type of
Occasional draining might improve performance.
Minerals had been coagulating and
settling along the
bottom of the water heater. After 24 years, the slush of minerals was
so thick that it was reducing the water capacity of the tank, and it
was interfering with the heating of the water. This would explain why
the water was becoming increasingly cool. Therefore, it might be useful
for us to drain the minerals from a water heater every 5 or 10 years.
3) How would water softeners affect the situation?
Do the minerals develop if we have a
water softener? Or does a
different type of mineral develop with a water softener? I had a water
softener for many years, but when the unit broke, I did not bother to
replace it. The water softeners make showers more pleasant, but I don't
like soft water for washing dishes or my hands because it feels as if
the soap never comes off.
4) At what
temperature do the minerals start to coalesce?
In my document from 2008, I pointed out
that clumps of minerals form
when we boil water, but my water heater does not boil the
water. At what temperature do they start to coagulate?
5) Does this have any effect on our health?
When we heat water to make soup,
coffee, tea, or gelatin products, are we causing the
minerals to coagulate? And if so, does this have any effect on
Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, the businesses that produce
water heaters, and the plumbers who replace and repair water heaters,
do not have any financial incentive to conduct research programs on the
health effects of the hot water, or to extend the lifetime of water
heaters, so they are not going to study these issues, or care about
them. Our universities are capable of studying these issues, but they
are currently dominated by people who are more interested in promoting
carbon taxes, feminism, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust.
The sludge of minerals in my water heater is another reason you should
find the courage to push yourself into experimenting with a better
economic system, and better leadership.
if more conservatives had the courage to help me
There are billions of
people on the earth, but I don't expect the liberals to be of any value
in helping us to make the world a better place. However, there are billions
of conservatives who could be doing something useful.
Imagine what would happen if even a small percentage of the
conservatives would find the courage to publicly discuss the issues
that I talk about on my website. In such a case:
• Millions of people would
occasionally encounter a website or Facebook page in which
a conservative was posting a link to
evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with
explosives, and that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust.
The point I'm trying to make is that if even only 1% of the
conservatives had the courage to help me to expose and stop the
corruption, they would have a significant effect on the world. They
rapidly spread information to hundreds of millions of people. This in
turn would make it much easier for us to improve the world.
During lunch at work, millions of people around the world would
occasionally hear some of their conservative coworkers talk
about the WikiLeaks emails, and demanding an
investigation into what John Podesta meant by flying tortillas in from
• At social events and dinners, millions of people would
hear some conservatives discussing the issue of creating some new
and allowing the cities to experiment with new economic and
• Millions of people would occasionally
conservatives who complain that schools are lying to children about
historical events, and
students around the world would occasionally hear a
conservative student ask the teacher about these
That small minority would make life difficult for the crime
networks, and they would put schools under pressure to remove the lies
from the history books, and they would put pressure on NASA to be
honest. They would also dampen the feminist movement.
One of the things that surprised and shocked me when I first began
exposing the 9/11 attack is the incredible apathy and selfishness of
the human race. Most people reacted just like stupid sheep, and most of
them are still acting like animals, almost 20 years
later. Most people want to run away and hide from the
information. They are allowing a very small group of criminals and
mentally disturbed people to abuse us. It is incredible. It is
shocking. It is disappointing.
When Janet Jackson exposed her nipple during the Super Bowl halftime
show, the information and photos were passed around the Internet within
days, and millions - or billions - of people were informed of it,
including people who had no interest in American football. Imagine if
people would spread information about the Holocaust that quickly, or
about the pedophile networks.
Conservatives often rant and rave about schools, but not about the lies
in the history books. Rather, they complain that the schools don't
teach religion or allow prayer. They also rant and rave about the
government, but not about the corruption in government, or the
pedophile network in the government, or that the government is involved
with a fraudulent war in the Middle East. Rather, they complain the
government is allowing abortion. They focus on issues of no importance,
or which are idiotic.
Likewise, the liberals focus on issues of no importance. For example,
some of them whine when the government kills some of the wild
animals that are reproducing excessively, and some whine about people
who eat meat, and millions of them whine whenever a policeman loses his
temper with a criminal. They don't care what John Podesta meant
by flying in tortillas from Mexico. They don't care that Jews are
instigating wars and lying about the Holocaust.
The world has a lot of problems, but not
because of the devil, ignorance, or poverty. Our world is
because humans are just a species of monkey. We have not yet evolved
into a truly intelligent species. Our primary interest
in life is eating and
reproduction, not working together to make a wonderful world for
ourselves. We still have a strong resistance to thinking, learning,
working, criticism, compromising, and cooperating. We are still
extremely selfish and territorial.
In order to
improve the world, we have to identify the people with higher quality
minds, and put them in control. Our governments are currently dominated
by some of
the worst people imaginable; specifically, pedophiles, crime networks,
and lunatics. Our economic system is dominated by people with neurotic
cravings for material wealth. The entertainment business is
by people with neurotic cravings for fame and status, and the pedophile
network seems to be infiltrating the entertainment business, also. We
need to raise
standards for people in influential positions.
are interfering with progress
The world has a lot of problems, but we
cannot expect people with strong conservative attitudes to help us deal
Conservatives cannot provide us with leadership or
guidance because they want to follow their ancestors.
They are terrified of experimentation.
our ancestors had been godlike creatures who had the answers to life,
then it would be wise for us to follow our ancestors, but our ancestors
were ignorant and stupid animals. A human who wants
to follow animals cannot
provide a modern human society with leadership.
we cannot improve anything unless we can look critically at it, but
conservatives have difficulty looking critically at themselves and
their organizations. They become defensive and angry when criticized.
They treat criticism as an attack on themselves and
conservatives behave like monkeys and savages, not humans. The
attitudes were necessary for prehistoric people, but in our modern
world, those attitudes are crude, outdated, and animal-like.
Those attitudes are causing trouble for us. For some examples:
conservatives are causing the human race to degrade genetically and
become overcrowded because they cannot deal with the complex issues of
genetics, abortion, retardation, or birth control.
Our cities are ugly, and they are
providing us with a miserable social environment. There is loneliness
everywhere, and men and women are having an increasingly difficult time
forming pleasant, stable relationships.
There is pollution and overcrowding everywhere, and they are getting worse.
• Their craving to mimic and their fear of change is causing them to
continue promoting idiotic religious beliefs that were developed by
ignorant people thousands of years ago.
They are allowing crime networks to operate freely around the world
because they don't want to do anything to expose or stop them.
Their fear of experimentation causes them to oppose suggestions to
modernize our school curriculum, economy, government, and other culture.
We don't have to live in these miserable
conditions, but improving our situation requires people who can
experiment with new culture and new social systems. It requires people
who can look critically at our culture, discuss these issues, and
compromise on policies.
Unfortunately, we are not going to solve
any of our problems if we put conservatives in control of our world, or
if we ask the conservatives to join us in discussions of what to do.
The conservatives are worthless
in discussions because they
criticism and differences of opinion with anger, suspicion, and fear,
rather than with curiosity and questions.
They don't want to experiment with new ideas. Rather, they complain
that the new ideas are ruining the world, and that we can improve the
situation by mimicking our ancestors. In
America, for example, the conservatives promote the attitude of
"returning to the Constitution", whereas in Japan they promote
following the Japanese people from centuries earlier, and in
China they promote following the ancient Chinese people.
it is difficult for conservatives to compromise on issues because they
are so arrogant that each of them is certain that the culture that he
picked up during his life is correct, and that
everybody else is incorrect. Each of them is convinced that his
particular religion is correct, and that every other religion is false,
and that his particular beliefs on marijuana are correct, and
everybody else is wrong.
Since each of them is convinced that his opinions
are correct, and since it makes no sense to compromise with a person
who is incorrect, they don't want to compromise.
They demand that we follow them.
Conservatives are so arrogant that they sometimes take credit for other
people's accomplishments. For
example, they frequently boast about how they are the leaders of
society, and that they are responsible for causing the human race to
advance from a group of nomadic savages to the advanced nations of
In reality, the conservatives do not get credit for
creating modern human society. That credit goes to the small
of the population who had the courage to wander off the established
path and experiment with something new.
All of the improvements in human life that have occurred during the
past few thousand years have come from the work of a small
minority of people. Many of those people might have
referred to themselves as conservatives, but they were explorers.
They were people who were willing to wander away from the crowd and
try something different. They were people who were willing to take
risks and explore the unknown.
Likewise, the Jewish crime network is being destroyed right now, and
there are people struggling to expose and destroy the pedophile
networks that are infiltrating our government and media, but the people
who are doing that work are not "conservatives".
Although some of those
people might refer to themselves as "conservatives" because they have
more in common with the conservatives than the liberals, there is
different about the people who are fighting the networks. They are in a
minority. They are not typical people. They are at
the edge of the bell curve. They are explorers, adventurers, and
risk-takers. They are people with enough courage to fight the crime
networks, and they are people who will actually use their guns
rather than just pound their chest. They are willing to get off the
established path and do
something about our problems.
Furthermore, those of us who are exposing and/or fighting the
corruption are willing to
work for society and for the future
generations rather than to satisfy our own
selfish cravings. We are willing to investigate and
face problems rather than ridicule people for being
"conspiracy theorists" or "anti-American". We take action when we
have problems, rather than make excuses to lounge at home.
We need a different word to describe the people
who are working to make the world better. They are not conservatives or
liberals. The word "pioneer" would be more
We should define the word "conservative" to refer to a person who
behaves like an animal. Specifically, a person who resists
experimentation, changes, risks, criticism, and thinking. A
conservative wants to follow established procedures like a sheep, not
himself or experiment with changes. He wants to spend his life raising
children, fighting for status, boasting about himself, and gathering
Those of us who are struggling to eliminate the crime networks and
improve the world are not doing this work for our own benefit. We
are working for the human race. We are
adventurers and explorers who are willing to take risks for people we
don't know and who have not yet been born.
Animals don't work in teams to improve life for the future generations.
Only a minority of humans have the intellectual and emotional ability
to work for such intangible and complex goals. The typical
conservative behaves like a selfish, primitive savage; specifically,
his life consists of gathering material items for his
family, raising children, competing
for status, and boasting about himself.
When this crime network is finally defeated, many conservatives will
likely boast that conservatives are responsible for destroying it, but
they are not helping us. They are interfering
with our work by
ridiculing us as "conspiracy theorists", and by refusing to help us
spread information about the crime networks and corruption.
The conservatives around the world are also causing trouble for us by
continuously electing criminals and incompetent nitwits to government
office. The conservative voters do not look for political candidates
with leadership abilities. Rather, they look for candidates who praise
the voters, blame the nation's troubles on other people, and tell the
voters exactly what they want to hear.
The conservatives in many nations are also supporting political
monarchies, and all conservatives, even in America, support economic
monarchies in which wealthy parents pass businesses and
enormous amounts of wealth to their children. By
supporting political and economic monarchies, they interfere
with our leadership and our future.
If the conservatives were as wonderful as they claim to be, they would
be the group of parents most opposed to giving children inheritances,
trust funds, and other handouts. They would be the parents who were
putting the most pressure on their children to learn a useful skill.
They would be the people most opposed to both political and economic
monarchies, and demanding that everybody earn what they want.
They would also be the most willing to turn their own children
in to the police for committing crimes. They would also be
the most concerned about the quality of our food and water,
and the quality of life in our cities. They would also be the most
intolerant of schools that are lying to
children about the Apollo moon landing and the Holocaust. They would
also be the people most willing to support a true investigation of the
9/11 attack, and the attack on the USS Liberty.
Furthermore, if the conservatives were as intelligent, educated, and
open-minded as they boast about, then they would be the easiest group
of people to have a discussion with about the Holocaust, the Apollo
moon landing, the 9/11 attack, and pedophile networks. Instead, we find
that the conservatives are the most likely to make angry and sarcastic
insults about "conspiracy theories".
Finally, if conservatives were truly as superior as they claim to be,
they would have the easiest time controlling their consumption of food,
alcohol, and prescription drugs, and they would do the best job of
controlling their craving for material wealth and sex. This in
turn would result in conservatives having fewer problems with
anorexia, obesity, alcoholism, and drug problems; fewer
problems with getting into debt from gambling or spending more
money than they have; and fewer problems with pornography,
rape, and giggling when they see a naked body. They would also spend
less time boasting than other people, and they would lose their temper
Although the liberals are not as frightened of experimentation or
criticism, they are doing nothing to help our nation improve itself. I
think that as a group, the liberals are worse than
the conservatives, and that it would be more difficult to form a
pleasant, stable society with a group of liberals than a group of
For a brief summary of what I see as the differences between the
typical liberal and the typical conservative, conservatives are like
primitive savages, but liberals are like retarded people. Consider the
system to understand this. The United States is resisting the metric
system, and I would
say that the conservatives tend to resist it because they are
frightened of changes. Conservatives don't want to think, learn
anything new, or change any of their habits. They are like stupid
animals that want to follow a predictable path, even if it is causing
them trouble. They would rather suffer with what they are familiar with
rather than experiment with a better path. They don't want to think
about where they are going, and they don't want to experiment with
their options in the future. They resist changes even when
can see that the change would improve their lives.
By comparison, many liberals can see the advantage of the metric
system, but most of them
resist the metric system, also. However, they do not resist it because
they are afraid to make a change in their life. Rather, they simply
don't want to learn,
think, or work. A significant percentage of the liberals would be best
described as "genetic trash".
I think that if we could measure the quality of people's brains, we
would find that the liberals have a brain that is noticeably lower
quality, and that their defects are causing them a lot of internal
pain. They are not happy people. Their suffering
results in them wanting to avoid work and responsibility. They want to
find relief from their misery, such as becoming famous, or having lots
of sex, or they try to mask or overpower the misery with drugs.
Furthermore, their intellectual disorders cause them to develop idiotic
goals and theories, such as their belief that men and women are unisex
creatures, and that Al Gore can improve the earth's climate with carbon
taxes, and that people who eat meat are cruel to animals.