All nations live in fear of one another, and we all have large militaries for protection. This creates the impression that humans are incredibly violent and dangerous, but as I emphasize over and over in this section, we are fools to live in fear of one another.

I will go over lots of evidence to show that humans are actually very kind, peaceful, and generous. I will show that the reason there is so much crime, loneliness, divorce, starvation, rape, mental illness, sex slavery, alcoholism, obesity, and other problems is because humans are too nice to deal with destructive and defective  people. We want to help people, not hurt them. We want to forgive criminals, not kill them. Our militaries are intended to prevent war, not to start war.

As I will show, we need to be less nice in order to create more peace; we must become more violent in order to reduce the suffering.
 

Animals are biological robots that have no desires or thoughts. They neither enjoy life, nor dislike life. They have no leisure activities, either. Everything animals do has a very important reason for it. For example, we assume that whales are "playing" and "having fun" when they jump out of the water, but animals don't "have fun". All of their behavior that we interpret as "playfulness" or as "leisure activities" developed for a very serious reason simply because the competitive struggle for life does not permit frivolous qualities. Animals have only the qualities that are truly necessary for their survival and reproduction. (I have more about this concept in Part_3 of my Dumbing Down series.)

When fish began adapting to life on land many millions of years ago, they began to lose the qualities that were no longer necessary, such as their scales and slimy coating. After adapting to the land, some of the creatures went back into the water and became whales and dolphins, but they had lost some of the qualities that they needed for life in the water. Their skin, for example, became slightly different after adapting to life on the land. Therefore, it's possible that the reason they jump out of the water so often is to compensate for their different skin. Perhaps this is their method of removing parasites and barnacles.

Some smaller dolphins and whales can jump completely out of the water, and even do flips! People assume that they are "having fun", but these jumps require their full power output, and they would not routinely exert such enormous amounts of energy simply for entertainment. You might find it useful to put on some flippers, go underwater, and then swim up as fast as you can and try to rise completely out of the water. That should show you that this activity is an incredible athletic event, not a casual recreational event.

Every physical and mental quality of an animal is necessary for its survival and reproduction. Animals do not have frivolous or useless qualities. Since humans evolved from animals, that means we can understand our mental and physical qualities by looking at how those qualities were vital for animals and primitive humans. For example, the violent temper that men have makes no sense if you consider humans to be a creation of a God, but the same emotion can be seen in animals, and it can be seen to have a valuable role in their lives. Nothing about the human mind or body is frivolous. All of our characteristics have sensible reasons for their existence.

In order to improve our lives, we need to understand the purpose of our characteristics. For example, in order to improve marriages and relationships between men and women, we must understand that love, romance, and sex developed only to serve a function, not to entertain us. We also have to realize that we have qualities that serve as checks and balances. The more accurately we understand ourselves, the better we will be at understanding our problems and figuring out how to design a better society. We need to face the fact that the human mind is modification of a monkey brain.
 

Animals don't have the intelligence to figure out which animals are truly interested in eating them, and which are harmless, and they have no way of determining whether a loud noise is meaningless, or if it's a sign that they are about to be flooded by a river that has overflowed its banks. The animals that survived the battle for life were those that became extremely alert when they heard a loud noise, or when they saw some other animal die, or when they found themselves in any unusual situation. Animals evolved into a creature that was suspicious of everything, and constantly on the lookout for danger.

However, it is important to notice that there is no animal that engages in recreational killings. Everything an animal does has a reason, but there is no reason for recreational killings. In fact, killing for recreational purposes would be a waste of an animal's energy and time. Therefore, the animals that engage in recreational killings would be at a disadvantage compared to those who didn't have any interest in such an activity. The competitive battle for life favors the animals who put time and effort only into important activities, not recreational killings.

Occasionally an animal, especially a pet cat or dog, will kill another animal for what appears to be recreation, but there is always a sensible reason for their killings. Pet cats, for example, are constantly hunting birds, flies, mice, butterflies, lizards, and other creatures, but not because they enjoy killing. Rather, they have a craving to hunt and feed themselves, but since humans provide them with excessive amounts of food, they're not always hungry enough to eat what they kill.

No animal developed an emotional craving to kill. The carnivores like to hunt, but hunting is not "recreational killing". If any animal truly had an emotional craving to kill other creatures, then they would be doing so all the time. Consider that a dog will try to have sex with your leg. The dog doesn't make any attempt to be romantic with you. He simply grabs your leg and tries to satisfy himself. If dogs had cravings to kill, they would behave in a similar manner. Specifically, they would simply look for something to kill. However, dogs don't want to kill. They want to hunt. Pet dogs want humans to throw sticks for them to chase after because they enjoy hunting. If dogs enjoyed killing, then they would not need us to throw the stick. They would simply attack the sticks, balls, and other objects. The difference may seem subtle, but it's very important in understanding animal and human behavior.

Animals routinely get into fights over territory, status, and mates, and this can create the impression that animals are violent, but it's important to note that they don't actually want to kill one another. In fact, the reason that they make so much noise during their fights is because their first preference is to intimidate their opponent with frightening displays of noise and teeth. Animals avoid violent fights, especially with their own species.
 

Since animals avoid violent fights, that means humans evolved from a creature that avoids fights.  Therefore, the theory that humans enjoy violence or war requires that during the evolution of animals into humans, a new emotion developed in our ancestors; specifically, an emotion that gives us pleasure from violence, or from killings or suffering. However, it is extremely unlikely that we developed a new emotion. Some important concepts in regards to evolution are:

• It is very easy for existing qualities to deteriorate.
• It is time-consuming for an existing quality to be altered by a small amount.
• It is even more time-consuming for an existing quality to evolve into a noticeably improved version.
• It is incredibly rare for new qualities to appear from nothing.

It might help you to understand how this concept applies to our mind if you first consider how it applies to our body. The human body is just a modification of a monkey body. We have the same bones, veins, tendons, and organs that the monkeys have. Humans didn't develop any new physical features. Since we didn't develop any new physical features, what are the chances that we developed some new mental features?

The human brain is just a modification of a monkey brain. It's not likely that we developed any new mental qualities. It's more likely that some of the monkey qualities deteriorated a bit, others were altered a bit, and others became more advanced.

Since animals do not enjoy violence or recreational killings, humans should not enjoy violence or recreational killings, either. And this is exactly what we see all throughout history. Although people are frequently getting into arguments and fights with one another, we go out of our way to avoid killing one another. We don't even like looking at people who are bleeding, and we don't like looking through torn skin at the organs underneath. We have so much of a problem with blood and death that it takes us a while to get accustomed to being a nurse or doctor. Nobody needs to become accustomed to food, flowers, grass, trees, sex, sunshine, or water, but we have to become accustomed to blood, surgery, hypodermic needles, and dead bodies.
 

If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoyed killing and hurting people, then we would have no problem injecting insulin into diabetics. In fact, we would enjoy watching the person suffer a bit of pain. However, we have trouble giving people injections, even when we realize that we are helping the person, and even when we realize that the pain is trivial and very brief.

We don't like the idea that we are hurting a person, and we don't even want to watch a person be hurt, even when it's trivial, such as from injecting insulin. We don't enjoy watching people suffer. We don't even enjoy looking at the photos of needles going into people's bodies. If we truly enjoyed hurting people, we would enjoy these photos. We even have trouble pulling Band-Aids off of children, even though that is even more trivial than giving injections to diabetics.
 

We can easily accept people with minor physical deformities, but we do not like people with serious mental deformities. Some people, especially women, enjoy feeling sorry for the mentally retarded, but we don't actually like them. Nobody wants them as neighbors, spouses, or friends. We don't even enjoy looking at photographs of their bizarre facial expressions, and we don't like listening to their nonsensical remarks and noises. We hide the mentally retarded people in "human garbage dumps", such as orphanages and hospitals.

We don't like retarded people, so why are we letting them live? If humans were truly a violent creature that enjoyed killing, wouldn't we kill the retarded people rather than waste our resources taking care of thousands of them? Why are we willing to take care of people that we don't like? Why don't we kill them? The reason is simply because humans have such incredibly powerful inhibitions against killing people that we don't want to kill even the most hopelessly retarded people. We would rather push the retarded people into a "human trash pit".

Consider how this issue relates to the concept of war and peace. Why should the people in Russia or China be afraid that Americans will kill them when we cannot kill mentally retarded people? One of the most extreme examples that I've mentioned in my files is this mother who is taking care of a baby that doesn't have a brain. If we can't kill a baby that doesn't have a brain, then why would we want to kill healthy, happy people in Russia or China?

It should be obvious that humans have such incredibly powerful inhibitions about killing that we don't want to kill any human, not even the most severely defective people. So why would we kill healthy people? The answer is, we don't want to kill anybody! We are not violent creatures. We do not enjoy death or killing. We do not want war. So why are we building militaries to protect ourselves from war? Who is going to attack us? Who among us actually wants a war?
 

We tolerate minor physical deformities without any trouble, but there are some babies born with physical deformities that prevent them from functioning properly in society. How about these twin girls who are joined at the head? They are apparently sharing a portion of their brain. They are among the very few "Craniopagus twins" who are in good health. Do we consider this creature as one girl with two bodies? Or as two girls with one brain? If this creature wanted to get married, would it need one husband or two?

How extreme does a deformity have to be before we can control our emotions and kill the creature? For example, what if these girls had been joined farther down along their faces so that all four of their eyes were inside their skulls, and only their two mouths were exposed?

These two girls are just as happy as all other babies because they are still very young. However, soon their twin brains will have developed to the point at which they realize that there is something seriously wrong with them. Or maybe one half of the brain will figure this out, but the other won't. They are still too young to know exactly what condition their brains are in.

If each of these girls end up with functional brains, then both of them will eventually realize that people feel sorry for them, but nobody really likes them. They will have a very lonely life, and they will spend a lot of their time wondering, "If there is a God, why did he do this to me and my sister?"

These girls might have some scientific value, but they're never going to be happy. A lot of people talk themselves into believing that allowing these type of children to live is showing "compassion" and "love", but life is however you want to look at it. Allowing these two girls to live is certainly providing them with life, but unless they enjoy life, what good will life do them?
 

Animals are biological robots that merely exist; they do not enjoy life. When animals raise babies, their only concern is that their babies are alive. Animals don't have any concern about the quality of their children's lives. An animal doesn't even care about the quality of its own life. You can cut off the legs and arms of a dog, and you can poke out both of its eyes, and you can cut out its tongue and pull out some of its teeth, but it won't care. It will continue living just as if it was in good health. It will be just as happy. Removing a leg from a dog is like removing a windshield wiper from an automobile. We assume that the dog is suffering, but the dogs don't understand or care. It requires a tremendous amount of intelligence to understand the concepts of life, death, and suffering. It also requires a tremendous amount of thinking to understand the concept of the quality of life.

The human mind is just an intelligent version of that stupid, animal brain. We have powerful cravings to take care of every baby, and we have powerful inhibitions about killing people, and so we will struggle to keep every baby alive. However, we do not have any emotion that is concerned about the quality of our children's lives. We also struggle to keep the old and sickly people alive, even if they have had so many strokes that their brains are no longer functioning. We have no concern whether old people are enjoying life or suffering. Our crude emotions do not want to see anybody die, but we don't care whether they enjoy life. We want to see people alive, but we don't care what type of life they have.

The people who allow severely retarded babies to live believe that they are compassionate, but they are just stupid animals who are following their crude emotions to keep everything alive with no concern about the quality of life. If those two girls who are joined at their heads never enjoy their lives, then letting them live is not compassionate. Rather, it's torturing two girls; it's forcing two girls to suffer a very long, lonely, and miserable existence. We could say that allowing those two girls to suffer is actually very cruel.

To make the situation even more ridiculous, many of the people who believe that they are "compassionate" for allowing retarded babies to live are doing nothing about the Jewish crime network that is starting wars, murdering people, raping children, and cheating people out of their money. How many children were killed in the Mideast war that the Jews started by staging the 9/11 attack? How many children were killed in Europe during the two world wars that the Jews instigated? If the people who oppose the killing of retarded babies were truly compassionate, then their first priority would be to stop the Jews and their incredibly destructive wars, murders, rapes, sex slavery, and other crimes.

There are unwanted children all over the world, many of whom are suffering a miserable, lonely life in orphanages or the city streets, and some of them are abused by government officials and crime networks, but how many of the "compassionate" people care about the suffering that is occurring all over the world? Those compassionate people want everybody to live, but they don't care about the quality of anybody's life. The reason is because they are not truly "compassionate". Rather, they are just stupid animals who are following their crude emotions.
 

A lot of people, especially those who call themselves "conservatives", try to prevent euthanasia, abortion, and the killing of retarded people. However, very few of those people are trying to stop the Jewish crime network. Why are they so concerned about stopping abortion but not a gigantic, international and extremely destructive crime network?

The people who oppose abortions realize that our emotions are directly stimulated by photos, so the title of this article starts with: "How could anyone look at this photo..."

I think the reason people become so hysterical over abortion but not over the Jewish crime network is because our emotions are directly stimulated by images of people being killed, but a crime network is an intangible concept that doesn't directly stimulate our emotions. In order for a person to become upset with what the Jews are doing, he must do some research and thinking, and he needs a certain amount of intelligence to understand how dangerous and damaging the Jews are to the world. 

I think the majority of people have the intelligence that is necessary to understand that the Jews are committing horrendous crimes, but most people don't want to think, or do any research. Most people want to entertain themselves, not deal with the complex issues of the modern world. They want to watch television, get drunk, play with their dogs, gamble, have sex, eat food, and play with children.

We have incredibly powerful inhibitions about death, so we can trigger hysteria in people by showing them photographs of aborted fetuses, but talking to people about the Jewish crime network results in a blank expression on most people's faces. The end result is that people can be easily worked into a frenzy over abortion, but most people are unaffected by discussions about the Jewish crime network, or they try to hide from the issue. This in turn allows the network to thrive and slowly destroy our economy, take over our media, instigate wars, and ruin our culture.

Dealing with the problems of the modern world requires intelligence, discussions, and research. I think the majority of people have the intelligence necessary to deal with a lot of the problems we face, but I don't think many people have the ability to control their emotions well enough to make intelligent decisions. And I don't think many people have much of an interest in thinking, anyway. Most people want to play, not think.
 
 

Israel is the only nation that I'm aware of that has been continuously killing, kidnapping, and torturing people from nations all around the world. The Jews also instigate wars, cheat us in business and banking, and even manipulate the Nobel prizes. Israel is the only nation that can truly be described with such adjectives as disgusting, sickening, nauseating, appalling, and horrible. If any nation should live in fear of being attacked, it is Israel. However, is any nation planning to attack Israel? I don't think so. There are lots of people who fantasize about dropping nuclear bombs on Israel, but most people, once they think about it, would rather destroy the nation peacefully. 

You might respond that the reason every nation is friendly with Israel is because the Jews have fooled us into thinking that they are a wonderful, honest group of people. That theory was valid until recently. Today there are millions of people who realize that Israel is a threat to the entire world, and every day more people discover this. Anger is building towards Israel and Jews, but I don't think any nation is planning to attack Israel. The reason I can say confidently that no nation is planning to attack Israel is because the history of the human race shows that no nation has ever behaved like that. Humans do not want violence. We would rather destroy Israel peacefully.

The only time the police and military use violence is when the enemy either refuses to surrender or shows signs that they are going to attack. Nobody in good mental health starts a deadly fight simply for entertainment. Our first priority is to avoid fights. Therefore, as more people around the world become more aware that Israel and the Jews are our only enemy, there will be a point at which there are so many angry people that there are enough people to confront Israel, and then Israel will have the opportunity to surrender peacefully. And, believe it or not, most of the Jews will surrender peacefully. The reason I say this is because we can see this behavior all throughout history. Most criminals, once the police have pointed their guns at them, will surrender. There are only a few lunatics who prefer to die.

There will be a certain percentage of Jews who would rather die, but they will be the minority. The majority of Jews are going to surrender. Some Jews boast about having a suicidal Samson option if the world doesn't obey them, but that's just an attempt to frighten us into submission. Most Jews are not suicidal. If Israel dared to attack any nation with nuclear or biological weapons, other nations would defend themselves, and that would require every nation to attack all Jews and all supporters of Israel since we don't know which ones are involved.
 

How is it possible that there is only one nation that is a threat to world peace? The reason is that Israel did not develop in a "normal" manner. All nations developed as people fought over territory. Israel is the exception. It came about as a result of a crime network that tricked other people into helping them get established. Israel is not a true "nation". They are a network of freaks and criminals.

No nation wants to start a war with Israel, even though Israel is a dangerous threat to the entire human race. If we are not going to attack an enemy of the world, why would we attack a nation that isn't a problem to anybody? Why would America want to attack China? Why would China want to attack America? Why would Britain want to attack France?

Every nation is behaving like stupid, frightened rabbits. We are building enormous stockpiles of weapons to protect ourselves from... who? No healthy human wants to throw his life away and start a war for entertainment. We don't even want to start a war to protect ourselves from Israel. We are building giant militaries to protect ourselves from imaginary enemies. Our stupid emotions are causing us to live in fear of attack, and causing us to fear the people in other nations, but we have to learn to control our emotions. We don't have to fear the people in Japan, China, or India. They're not interested in war. They don't want to attack us any more than we want to attack them. They want to enjoy life, just like we do. There are only a small number of psychotic, violent people within each nation who truly want to start a war. We are foolishly living in fear of a small number of freaks.

Instead of living in fear of other nations, and instead of pouring resources into stockpiles of weapons to defend ourselves from other nations, the American people should be getting rid of the destructive, parasitic, and psychotic Americans. Those freaky Americans are causing trouble for America, and they are pushing America into wars. Likewise, the Russian people, instead of worrying about the Chinese or the Americans, should start looking critically at the Russian people and they should remove the violent, dishonest, parasitic, and psychotic people from their government, schools, and media. Likewise, the Chinese people should stop worrying about Japan, India, and Tibet and start dealing with the violent, psychotic, dishonest, parasitic, and destructive Chinese people. If every nation would deal with their violent, destructive, diabolical freaks, the entire world would become dramatically and noticeably more peaceful and friendly.
 

Millions of Americans have guns, but not because they want to kill people. Rather, they are like frightened rabbits who want the guns for defensive purposes. There is crime everywhere in America, but the people with the guns will not use those guns to kill or even arrest any of the criminals. Larry Silverstein, Steven Spielberg, Jon Stuart, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, and lots of other Jews are routinely lying to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other crimes, but the Americans who have guns have no desire to kill any of those criminals.

Since the Americans won't kill the Jewish criminals who are routinely killing, lying, and abusing us, why should the Russian, Chinese, or other people be afraid that the Americans might attack their nations? If Americans enjoyed killing people, we would be killing all of the Jews within our nation who staged the 9/11 attack, and who are lying about the world wars, and who are cheating us in our financial and banking system, and who are promoting Holocaust propaganda. Since we don't kill any of these disgusting Jews, why would we want to kill people in India or China who never caused us any trouble?

If humans were truly violent creatures, why would we purchase guns and then leave them in storage while thousands of criminal Jews are living among us? Sometimes the criminal Jews walk past Americans who have guns in their pockets or in their cars, but none of the Jews have to worry that they might be killed. None of the Americans want to use their guns to kill criminals. The Americans purchase guns because they are afraid of criminals, not because they want to kill criminals. The Americans will use their guns only in extreme cases. They want to hide from criminals, and they want the guns only for protection in case a criminal attacks them.
 

Have you noticed that one of the ways the Jews instigate wars is by spreading rumors that another nation is killing babies simply for entertainment? For example, do you remember the incident in 1990 in which we were told that Saddam Hussein and his band of evil Arabs were killing babies in Kuwait for entertainment? (I mentioned that years ago here.)

There are a lot of deaths during wars, and sometimes soldiers kill more people than they "need" to, but there is no evidence that any group of people has ever engaged in recreational killing. All of the killings are the result of anger, frustration, disgust, or revenge, not "pleasure". During war, soldiers are often irritated, frightened, hungry, angry, suffering from lack of sleep or some type of illness, and that in turn can make them much more irritable than they normally are, which in turn can result in a lot more killings. However, it's important to realize that neither animals nor humans truly have a "pleasure emotion" that is titillated by death, blood, dead bodies, or screaming people. Therefore, we cannot truly experience pleasure by hurting people.

Dead bodies grab our attention, but for the same reason that loud noises grab our attention. Specifically, our attention is attracted by anything that could signal a potential danger. We become more alert by death and noises; we do not "enjoy" them. We are not put into a pleasant, relaxed mood by death or loud noises. Rather, we become more aware of potential dangers. Nobody is entertained by death.

If humans truly enjoyed killing babies, then we would love to kill baby Jews. In fact, we might make a television show called "Killing Jewish Babies with the Stars", in which a group of soldiers teach people how to use bayonets. After a period of training, the people would show us their abilities to toss Jewish babies in the air and stab them with a bayonet before they hit the ground. We would judge the participants according to their artistic ability to move gracefully, and their technical skills at performing the movements properly.
 

Religion is giving people a distorted view of humans. If you want to understand yourself, you have to look at animals, not the bible. If you understand why children are afraid of the dark, then you will understand the problem we are facing in regards to war.

Children are afraid of the dark because the children thousands of years ago who had less of a fear of the dark sometimes wandered away from their parents at night, and the end result was they were sometimes eaten by animals or bit by spiders, and sometimes they fell off of cliffs, or fell into ponds and drowned. The children who survived were those who were terrified of the darkness, and who kept their arms close to their bodies while they were sleeping. A child's fear of the darkness is a protective mechanism. That fear is coming from within his own mind. 

Animals evolved for a very brutal, competitive world, and so they assume that danger is everywhere, and that they will be attacked at any moment. Humans still have that fear that we will be attacked without warning, and we are still very cautious and suspicious of everything that is unfamiliar. We are cautious about trying something new.

This fear of the unknown and this fear of being attacked without provocation was vital thousands of years ago to both animals and primitive humans, but today it's causing a lot of trouble. This fear is causing every nation to develop militaries for protection against every other nation. We are getting carried away with this fear. We are wasting enormous amounts of resources on weapons.

The same problem is happening at the level of the ordinary citizen. We live in fear of being attacked by criminals. Millions of American citizens have purchased guns and security devices for their home, but this doesn't stop or prevent crime. Crime is widespread throughout America despite all of these guns, and our government is full of criminals, despite the guns, and our media is a network of criminals, despite the guns. Purchasing a gun and hiding behind security devices is behaving like a stupid, frightened rabbit. Instead of encouraging the citizens to purchase guns for protection, it would make more sense to change our society so that the criminals are pursued and removed from society.

Likewise, when nations build militaries in order to defend themselves from other nations, they are behaving like frightened rabbits. There are only a few people in Russia or China who want to attack America, and they are freaks. Why are we afraid of a few freaks in Russia or China? Every nation should stop building militaries to protect themselves from one another and start cleaning their own nation of freaks, criminals, and parasites. Every nation should try to become an inspiration to the others.
 

We kill rats, mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas, but we don't enjoy the act of killing them. Our first preference is to avoid those creatures. Killing those creatures is not a pleasurable, recreational activity. We kill those creatures only because they are destructive and parasitic. If humans truly enjoyed killing people or animals, we would be doing so as a leisure activity. To understand this concept, consider how large the market is for pornography and dolls. The market for pornography is enormous because men have a strong attraction to sex, and the market for dolls is enormous because women have strong attractions to babies. If either men or women received pleasure from killing, then businesses would offer us animals to kill, and they might also offer the equivalent of Playboy magazines so that we could titillate ourselves with pictures of killing and death. We do look at photos of death, but it is because of our concern about death, not because we get pleasure from death.

When we look at pictures of mountains, attractive people, rivers, and flowers, we become relaxed and we enjoy the images, but when we look at pictures of dead humans or animals, or of people being killed, a completely different emotion is triggered. Photos of death and killing attract our attention, but they don't make us relaxed or happy.
 

If humans truly enjoyed killing people, then we would enjoy the killing of criminals who have been sentenced to death. However, every nation resists executing criminals, and in America, we go to extremes to worry about a prisoner suffering a few brief moments of pain. Why should we care if criminal experiences a few moments of pain? People who die a "natural death" from old age usually suffer more than the criminals that we execute!

Our inhibitions about killing people are so strong, and most people have such a resistance to thinking, that most people follow their emotions and assume that executing a criminal is wrong, and that we are being nice when we let them spend their lives in jail. However, who benefits from this policy? How do criminals benefit by spending their lives in jail? What will the quality of their life be? And what type of a death will they have in jail? They are likely to die in the same manner as the rest of us; namely, a long and slow and painful death as a result of kidney failures, strokes, heart attacks, or cancer.

Furthermore, consider the effect on society of keeping people in jail. Resources that have to be spent maintaining all of the jails and keeping all of the prisoners alive, and that means resources have to be diverted from other projects. If we were to alter society so that criminals were executed in a simple and inexpensive manner, then those resources could go to projects that benefit society. 

Life is however you want to look at it, so we could say that executing the criminals is being nicer than locking them in jail and letting them die slowly.
 

If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoyed killing people, then wouldn't we enjoy killing people who are convicted of crimes? Why would we punish a criminal briefly and then release him so that he can have a second opportunity? And later, when a criminal is convicted of a second crime, why would we once again punish him briefly, and then give him a third chance? And when he is found guilty of committing a third crime, why would we give him a fourth chance? Why are we so nice to criminals? 

If humans were truly violent, and if we truly enjoyed killing people, we would kill criminals as soon as they were convicted of the first crime, and that would dramatically reduce crime because it would never give a criminal the opportunity to commit a second crime. The Japanese would love to kill their Yakusa members, and the Chinese would love to kill their criminals, and we would love to kill all of the pedophiles within the Catholic Church. However, we don't want to kill criminals. We want to be nice to them and help them.

What will we do with the Jewish criminals? Will we try to fix those Jews by punishing them briefly and then releasing them back into society so that they can have another opportunity at life? What will we do if the Jewish criminals behave like children and beg for sympathy?

“We're so sorry that we set up thousands of you to be killed and captured in Vietnam, and that we started the world wars and the 9/11 attack. We were blinded by our crazy religion. But we have since taken Jesus into our hearts, and we  can now see how wonderful you Goyim really are. Now we know that you are the kindest, sweetest, most generous people. We appreciate you now. We love you! Most Jews are honest, wonderful people. There are only a few bad Jews. Please forgive us. We love you! We love you! We love  you! We love  you! We love  you!”

Everybody is going to die, and most of us will die in a slow, painful manner over a period of many years. Some people suffer so much during their final years that they beg for somebody to put them out of their misery. However, we have such strong inhibitions about killing that we have tremendous difficulty putting people out of their misery. The end result is that we show no concern for the suffering of old people, not even our own parents. We are more concerned about whether a criminal will suffer a brief moment of pain during his death. We are giving criminals better treatment than our own parents.

The woman in the photo, who had cancer in her face, asked for somebody to put her out of her misery, but news reports claim that she had to commit suicide because nobody would do it for her. If humans were truly violent, and if we enjoyed killing and hurting people, then we would enjoy putting people like her out of their misery. Of course, we could interpret our refusal to kill people like her as a sign that we enjoy watching people suffer a long and slow death, but I don't think people were letting her live because they enjoyed watching her suffer. I think that most people simply cannot overcome their incredibly powerful inhibitions about killing people.

The intellectual portion of our brain can easily figure out that we are being cruel when we force people like her to commit suicide, but our inhibitions about killing people are so powerful, and most people have so little control over their emotions, that they follow their emotions like a stupid animal rather than follow their intellect like an advanced human. Most people also try to hide from the issue of euthanasia and hope that it goes away, just like a stupid rabbit that hides in the bushes.

A comedy routine could be created about this. For example, old people at a convalescent hospital who want to die would help one another commit murders in order to be executed in a pleasant manner. Since somebody convicted of murdering an "ordinary" person will remain in jail for many years, these old people arrange to kill a policeman, thereby upsetting the other policemen enough to kill them immediately.

That would be a funny comedy skit, wouldn't it? No, I don't think it would be funny. It would actually be a description of the world today. There are people all over the world wishing that they could die in a painless manner, but nobody does anything. Convalescent hospitals have people whose brains are no longer functioning as a result of strokes and other problems. Those people are not even human. They're just pieces of meat that exist. These decrepit old people are a burden on society, and they are an emotional burden on their family members, but we have such inhibitions about killing people that we can't put them out of their misery. 

Furthermore, this problem is getting worse every year because medical technology is allowing us to keep even more sickly people alive for longer periods. The people who want to keep all of these decrepit old people alive are not compassionate people. They are stupid animals who can't handle the advanced medical technology of this era.
 

If humans truly enjoyed the killing, then we would enjoy killing animals at a slaughterhouse. And if we enjoyed killing humans, then we would have a preference for killing the animals that more closely resemble humans, such as monkeys, or animals that make noises like humans, such as pigs. But the opposite is true. The more closely an animal resembles a human, the more difficult it is for us to kill it. This is more evidence that humans do not want to kill other humans.

Slaughterhouses have trouble keeping people at the job of killing animals simply because we don't enjoy killing animals or humans. We can easily kill an animal only when we want to eat it because our desire for food can overpower our dislike of killing.
 

Pigeons are a nuisance in our cities, so if we enjoyed killing animals, we would love to kill those pigeons. However, our inhibitions about killing are so strong that instead of killing the pigeons, we try to chase them away with spikes and other devices. Mice are also living in our cities, and some people have so much trouble killing mice that there are businesses producing traps to catch mice alive so that people can release them after they capture them.

We humans treat animals better than animals treat each other. For example, this article shows us how to catch mice in a "humane" way. Why should we catch mice in a "humane" way? Why not catch mice in the same way that cats, snakes, or birds catch mice? For example, why not develop a small robot that watches for mice, and then grabs them with claws, and then squeezes them to kill them?

We don't like to kill animals because we assume that animals are thinking the same thoughts as us, but that is a ridiculous assumption. Animals don't have enough intelligence to understand that they are being killed. Very young children who are dying from automobile accidents can barely understand the concept that they are dying, and they are much more intelligent than a mouse.

Animals have so little intelligence that we can cut parts of their body off and they continue with life as if nothing had happened. Animals cannot understand the concept that they are missing their legs and arms. Very young children who are born without arms and legs, or who lose body parts from automobile accidents, don't realize that something is wrong with them until they are many years old. It takes a tremendous amount of intelligence to understand these concepts.
 

There is an incredibly large demand for dogs, cats, birds, and other animals, but people are purchasing those animals to take care of them, not to kill or hurt them. If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoy killing and hurting, then businesses would be selling animals to us so that we could entertain ourselves by killing and hurting them. However, there has never been a group of people anywhere in the world that has wanted to purchase animals simply to hurt or kill them.

Some people might respond that there are people who purchase dogs and roosters for fights, but those people are not trying to hurt the animals. Each of them is taking care of his animal. They are behaving very similar to the people who arrange for boxing matches in which humans fight each other. All male animals fight over status and territory, and the females also fight. Fighting is a part of animal behavior, but it's important to understand that the fighting is for a purpose. It is not recreational. No animal kills or hurts for pleasure.
 

On 28 December 2010, the television host Tucker Carlson said that Michael Vick should have been executed for "murdering" dogs. We allow humans to fight in boxing rings, so why not let dogs fight with each other? I suppose the reason we don't like to see dogs fighting with each other is that dogs fight with their teeth, and that causes a lot of bleeding and damage to their faces. Sometimes it results in death. The dogs are too stupid to understand or care about their injuries, but humans have such inhibitions about bleeding and injuries that it bothers us to see a bleeding dog.
(Incidentally, what will Tucker Carlson suggest we do with all of the criminal Jews? Will he suggest we execute them all? Or will he want us to be sympathetic to the Jews? I also have to wonder if Michael Vick would have been sent to jail if he had been a Jew.)

If humans were truly violent creatures who enjoy death and suffering, then some people would kill dogs for entertainment, and nobody would care that people want to watch dogfights. However, we have such inhibitions about killing, and Americans have such an attraction to dogs, that Americans are not even allowed to kill dogs for food.

Furthermore, a lot of people become upset when a child pulls off the wings of a fly. If humans were violent creatures, why would we care about a fly? A fly doesn't have enough of a brain to care whether somebody pulls its wings off, so having a concern about the suffering of a fly is as irrational as being concerned that a refrigerator is suffering as a result of a hot, summer day.

It's important for a society to pass judgment on who among us is exhibiting undesirable behavior, including whether we want to permit dogfights, but I don't think many people are capable of controlling their emotions well enough to make intelligent decisions about these type of issues. Our current policies in regards to animals are irrational because most people are overly influenced by our incredibly powerful inhibitions about death, suffering, and blood.
 

We like to eat animals, but we don't like killing them, cleaning them, or even looking at their blood. We should face the fact that we are not violent creatures. If we were to develop machines to do the killing and cleaning of animals, then we could keep the animals alive until we are ready to eat them, which would provide us with fresh meat.

We should also develop machines to kill some of the animals in our cities, such as rats, pigeons, and squirrels. For example, instead of setting spikes on top of buildings to chase away birds, we could have some type of robotic devices on the buildings to capture and kill the pigeons. We could also create small robotic devices to capture and kill mice, rats, and even cockroaches. We might even be able to develop machines to kill mosquitoes, perhaps with lasers.
 

When you point out to people that they are being ridiculous when they care about a horse that was killed for food, or a fly that had its wings pulled off, or a mouse that was killed in a trap, they sometimes respond by boasting that they are special people who love all animals. Don't encourage this type of behavior. A human is not behaving in a loving manner when he cares about a fly or a mouse. He is actually titillating himself. He is masturbating. You should respond that he should stop jerking himself off and behave in a more intelligent manner.
 

If humans truly enjoyed killing people, then Americans would have used their nuclear bombs during the 1940s to conduct killings of people around the world. They had an unbelievable opportunity at that time to attack other nations. However, instead of attacking other nations, the Americans stockpiled nuclear bombs for defensive purposes. This is equivalent to a lion building a giant wall around himself because he's afraid a few mice might attack him.

The reason America never used its nuclear weapons is simply because no nation wants to use them. We are building nuclear weapons for the same reason a child is afraid of the dark; we are afraid of imaginary enemies. The only people who seem to be pushing for the use of nuclear weapons are the Jews. The Jews have been trying for decades to instigate a nuclear war between America and Russia, and between America and China, and during December 2010, the Jews tried to get a war going between North and South Korea, and then bring America and China into it.

If it were not for the Jews stirring up trouble during the past few centuries, would any nation have bothered developing nuclear weapons? Without the Jews, there wouldn't have been any world wars, terrorist attacks, banking scandals, or economic chaos. The 20th century might have been a very peaceful era during which nuclear energy was developed only for peaceful purposes.
 

Americans didn't casually decide to use nuclear bombs on Japan. Rather, they agonized over it. I think we should look at who in America was pushing for the use of those bombs, and who in Russia was encouraging the Russian soldiers to rape, kill, and torture the Germans at the end of World War 2, and who was encouraging the Americans and British to bomb Dresden and other cities. I would bet that an analysis of the wars would show that they are very similar to the 9/11 attack and the resulting Mideast wars. Specifically, I suspect that we will find that there were Jews secretly operating in the background to instigate hatred and trick people into fighting with each other. We are fools to let them manipulate us into wars and waste enormous amounts of our resources on the stockpiling of weapons.
 

The people who join the military are assumed to be violent, and there are certainly some mentally ill people in the military who are perpetually angry and frequently losing their temper, but most of people in the military are just "ordinary" humans who have the same inhibitions that the rest of us have. For example, in 1993, during the war in Bosnia, a Croatian town of about 6500 people was attacked and invaded by the Bosnian military, and most of the Croatians decided to abandon their town. In the process, they also abandoned several hundred sick, crippled, and retarded people at two of their hospitals. When United Nations troops discovered these abandoned people, they tried to take care of those that were still alive, even though nobody wanted them.

Saving retarded people during a war is like saving a bag of garbage while your house is on fire. Humans have such strong inhibitions about death that we get ourselves into ridiculous situations, such as bombing a city, which kills lots of healthy people, and then struggling to save some unwanted, retarded people. This behavior is idiotic! It is something to expect from a stupid animal, not an intelligent human. It is as irrational as worrying about abortions and euthanasia while millions of people are suffering as a result of wars, crimes, kidnappings, automobile accidents, and pollution.

We assume that the soldiers, especially of other nations, are violent maniacs, but if any nation truly had a military of violent people, they wouldn't waste any of their time or resources trying to save anybody, especially not other people's retarded children. Instead, they would entertain themselves by killing the retarded people. However, there has never been a military that has treated the killing of people as a recreational activity. There is not even a military that is capable of putting retards out of their misery, or providing euthanasia for old people who are begging for assisted suicide.

Every military goes out of its way to reduce deaths. Wars are not nearly as destructive as they would be if we were truly interested in killing one another. A military will fight only when they believe that they are being attacked. As soon as their enemy surrenders, the fighting will stop.

Before that mysterious website, judicial-inc.biz removed its articles and switched to begging for pity and money, they had an article about some US Marines who were being shot at in Iraq. The Americans had a drone in the area, and they identified the location of the snipers, and that allowed the Marines to capture those snipers. However, these snipers turned out to be mercenaries or contractors of some type, not Iraqi soldiers. Later those snipers were released, probably by Jews high up in the US military. People assume that the Marines are violent, but if they truly enjoyed killing people, why would they allow such deceptive saboteurs to be released and possibly kill more military personnel?

This brings up an interesting issue. Specifically what will the police and military do when they are finally pressured into identifying and arresting the Jews and other criminals responsible for the 9/11 attack, setting up American soldiers to be ambushed in Vietnam, and other crimes?

Will they risk their lives trying to capture the criminals alive? Will they put the criminals in jail for a certain number of months or years, and then release them back into society? How many police and military personnel are capable of killing criminals?

A lot of soldiers are willing to kill a person who is attacking him, but once a criminal is arrested, most try to be sweet and adorable. How many soldiers are capable of resisting the apologies of the criminals and killing them? And of the soldiers who can kill criminals, how many could kill them in a simple and quick manner rather than going through an elaborate execution procedure in which they worry about the criminals suffering a few moments of pain? How many soldiers can kill criminals without needing psychological treatment afterwards?

If humans truly had a desire to kill, we would love to kill the Jews and other criminals. And we would have no problem using the healthy criminals as live organ donors. However, when we finally get around to arresting the Jews and other criminals, we are going to have to help people control their emotions so that we can seriously discuss this issue of whether we want these criminals alive, dead, or as organ donors.
 

If humans were violent creatures who enjoyed killing people, then why don't we kill the people who ride skateboards or bicycles on public sidewalks when they know they're not supposed to? Why don't we kill the people who ruin our cities with graffiti or "love locks"? Why don't we kill any of the people who allow their dog to make noises and messes in our neighborhoods and cities?

We have trouble executing people who have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, so how could we possibly kill children for spraying graffiti, or kill a person who allows his dog to make a mess in the city? Humans are non-violent creatures who want to help people, and the end result is that we allow badly behaved children and adults to irritate us year after year, decade after decade. We are too nice for this modern era. We are allowing ourselves to be abused, even by children.
 

King George VI of Britain (photo) never did or said anything intelligent. Actually, he couldn't even say stupid things properly because he had a stammering problem. Some of the monarchs of Europe were even more defective than King George VI. The American government is also full of people who have nothing intelligent to say, and have all sorts of speech disorders, mental disorders, alcohol problems, or criminal affiliations. If humans were truly violent, hateful bullies, then we would enjoy killing all of these freaks. However, humans have such incredibly strong inhibitions about hurting people that we don't even want to complain about the speech problems of Congressmen Barney Frank or Alan Grayson. We don't even want to investigate the possibility that some of these government officials are mentally defective.

Consider how this issue applies to the people in Russia or China. Why should the people in Russia or China be afraid of the Americans when most Americans are so nice that we worry about hurting the feelings of people who have speech problems, or who look like Neanderthals? Why should the people in any nation be afraid of us when our own disgusting government officials, news reporters, and school officials have no fear of us?
 

Even the killings that appear to be random during a war are not truly random. Some soldiers become very frustrated, angry, or irritated with war, and sometimes they suffer from a lack of sleep or proper food. This in turn can cause them to lose their temper more easily than when they are feeling better, and when we lose our temper, we can kill. However, these type of killings are not truly for pleasure. Rather, they are the result of people who are so irritated that they lose their temper when they normally wouldn't.

This same concept applies to the mentally ill lunatics who kill, such as Jeffrey Dahmer. It appears as if these people are killing for pleasure, but they are killing because they are suffering inside, and they are losing their temper very easily. A normal person has to be irritated to a tremendous amount before he loses his temper and is willing to kill, but if a person is suffering from internal pains, it doesn't take as much to push him to the point at which he loses his temper. We describe those type of people as "irritable", but a better description is "mentally defective", or "suffering from internal pains".

If a person with mental disorders could understand that he is suffering from internal problems, then he might look for ways of dealing with his problems. Unfortunately, America encourages the attitude that if you are unhappy, it is due to something outside of you, such as aristocrats, discrimination, sexism, or a lack of money. America does not encourage people to understand themselves and deal with their problems. America encourages people to blame their problems on somebody else or some intangible concept. As a result, mentally ill people are becoming angry at society, poverty, aristocrats, or corporations. When these people lose their temper, they attack what they assume is their enemy, such as society, or the corporations.
 

The feminists claim that men are cruel, but the fact that men allow the feminist movement is proof that the feminist philosophy is nonsense. If men were truly as oppressive, cruel, and selfish as the feminists claim, the feminist movement would have been suppressed as soon as it was established.

“Daddy, how can I enjoy life when men abuse women? I need to be liberated from sexism!” “Yes, dear. Becoming a feminist should make you as happy as a man. I am ashamed that men have abused women for 6000 years.”

In one of my previous files I pointed out that whenever we find a person accused of doing something that has never been done before, we have to be suspicious. Consider how this concept applies to the Holocaust. All throughout history we can see people making an effort to avoid killing other people. You can see this in German history, also. Prior to World War II, the Germans were just like everybody else. They had incredible difficulty killing pigs and chickens, and they couldn't kill homeless people, or even put old people out of their misery. The German students who were studying to be doctors and nurses had to get accustomed to blood, hypodermic needles, and dead bodies.

However, according to the Jews, after Hitler was elected, the German population went through a magical transformation into a type of monster that was capable of transporting millions of Jews and millions of other people to death camps where they were casually executed. And then the millions of dead bodies were casually put into incinerators and burned. And then, after World War II was over, the magical influence of the Nazis vanished, and the Germans returned to their previous condition of having extreme difficulty with the killing of chickens, pigs, and old people. And the Germans once again became squeamish of blood and hypodermic needles.

We could deduce that the Holocaust stories are Jewish propaganda simply because the Jews expect us to believe that the German people behaved in a manner that no humans had ever behaved before or after.
 

Humans are so generous and nice that when the Jews tell us sad stories about how they have been suffering abuse from anti-Semites for 6000 years, we feel guilty because we are related to the anti-Semites. If humans were truly violent and hateful, we wouldn't care that the Jews were abused. Furthermore, if there were anti-Semites for 6000 years, they would still exist today, and the Jews would still be suffering. But there are no anti-Semites today, and there never have been any. Instead, people have been treating the Jews with generosity and kindness for thousands of years. And in return, they exploit us. We are also exploited by the defective people of our own race.

Thousands of years ago our extreme generosity was acceptable because nature took care of the defects and retards, and the Jews were living in their homeland. In this modern era, however, we have to keep our generosity under control. We are hurting ourselves when we are generous to people who don't appreciate our kindness, or when we are generous to people who are destructive.
 

The "official" attitude is that every nation must maintain an enormous military for defensive purposes because other nations may attack us without warning, and without any sensible reason. We live in constant fear of attack, and we assume that we are surrounded by enemies rather than friends, but who are our enemies? Who are we protecting ourselves from? What are the names and addresses of the people in Russia and China who truly want to start a war with America? And why do they want to start a war with us?

How many people in France actually want to stop what they are doing and attack Britain? Let's get their names and addresses and analyze who those people are. Let's get a list of the names and addresses of the Americans who want to attack Iran or Korea. And let's get a list of the names and addresses of the people in Japan who want to start a war with Korea or China. 

If we were to identify and analyze the people who are pushing for war, we would certainly find that those people are a small minority of the population, and they are what we would describe as freaks, criminals, and lunatics. They would not be people that we would describe as respectable or healthy. Some of those freaks will be in leadership positions in the government, media, schools, and businesses, but they are not "respectable" people. There are no "normal" people who want to stop what they are doing and start a war simply for entertainment.

It's important for the people in India, China, and other nations to realize that most of the American people have no desire to attack them. There are only a small number of people in America who want war. Likewise, there are only a small number of people in Russia and India who want violence. Therefore, instead of every nation living in fear of one another, we should all be helping one another to find the emotional strength to look within our nations, identify that small minority of violent freaks, and deal with those troublemakers. We should be dealing with the minority of people who cause trouble, not living in fear of the majority of people.

The American people believe that we will protect ourselves from enemies by building giant militaries, but our enemy is not the nation of Russia or China, so our militaries are doing absolutely nothing to protect us. We have nuclear bombs all around the nation, but we have been under attack for decades by a network of freaks who are "conquering" our government, media, schools, and businesses. They are destroying the nation. Our nuclear bombs are doing nothing to protect us from this violent hoard of freaks. Our aircraft carriers are doing nothing to protect us.

Our enemy is not the Russian people or the Chinese people. It is a small minority of violent freaks and selfish, crude savages. Many of them have acquired leadership positions in business, the media, and the government. We should be identifying and dealing with that minority of violent freaks instead of worrying about people in other nations who have no desire to hurt us. We should be identifying and dealing with the people who are pushing us into attacking Iran and North Korea, and who are staging terrorist attacks, and who are trying to instigate fights between men and women in different races and different political parties.
 

Humans are too arrogant for this modern world, but instead of encouraging people to do a better job of controlling their arrogance, the organized religions are encouraging their members to believe that they are the only good people on the planet, and that everybody else's ignorant or possessed by an evil force.

The religions are also causing trouble for us because they encourage people to believe that intangible evil forces occasionally get into people's minds. Humans have strong inhibitions about killing people, but we don't have any inhibitions about killing intangible evil concepts that don't make sense, such as a "devil". The devils don't bleed, and they don't scream or cry, and they cannot be seen. We cannot have physical contact with a devil, and that means the devils will never affect our emotions, and this in turn makes it very easy for us to kill the devils.

The organized religions claim to be a wonderful influence on people, but they don't encourage good behavior. They encourage arrogance, hatred, and nonsensical concepts. They also manipulate people into giving them money, and they won't disclose the details of how much money they make, or where exactly their money is going. There is also evidence that many church officials are involved with pedophilia or other crimes, but their secrecy prevents us from knowing exactly what is going on.

The religions don't encourage people to work with other people for the benefit of all. Instead, they encourage the hatred of people who follow a different religion. The religions also encourage blind obedience of leaders rather than encouraging people to analyze their leaders and replace those who are not doing a good job. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the Christian religions have been infiltrated by criminal Jews (I have a bit of information here), so getting rid of the organized religions would be another step in protecting ourselves from the disgusting influence of those criminal Jews.

The people who don't think very well, or who avoid thinking because they don't enjoy it, can be manipulated by organized religions into becoming arrogant jerks who want to help people "learn the truth" and become free of the mysterious evil forces. If we were to eliminate organized religions and insist that religion be a personal philosophy towards life, the world would become slightly more peaceful.
 

A lot of influential people are promoting the theory that humans are inherently violent, and that world peace is impossible, but those people are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and other crimes, so a lot of those people may be criminals. Therefore, we should consider the possibility that one of the reasons they promote dreary theories about humans is because they are looking at themselves and judging the entire human race according to what they see in their own mind.

There are some people, such as Josef Fritzl, (hiding his face in the photo), who may truly enjoy torturing people. And consider how many people in leadership positions of the government and the churches have been caught forcing children into sex acts. And consider that there is supposedly a large market for sex slaves, but who is purchasing them? Because sex slaves are expensive "toys", their main customers may be the wealthy and influential members of society.

If Fritzl, the pedophiles, and the customers of sex slaves were to assume that they are typical humans, they could come up with a lot of dreary theories about how the human race is hopelessly violent, selfish, and cruel, and that there is no chance for world peace. And since many of these freaks are in leadership positions of the media, government, schools, businesses, think tanks, and other organizations, they can easily promote their distorted philosophies.

When I'm upset, all sorts of violent and crazy thoughts wander through my mind, but when I am in my "normal" condition, I don't see any craving for violence. I don't see any craving for violence in other "normal" people, either. Rather, I see people going out of their way to be nice to people, even during a brutal war. All throughout history we can see people struggling to help one another, and trying to avoid violence. Policemen are even nice to criminals who are trying to kill them. My conclusion is that world peace is entirely possible. All we have to do is get the more crude, more violent creatures out of leadership positions, and preferably out of society.

This concept of removing criminals from leadership positions might seem sensible, but no nation actually wants to follow this policy. All nations are following the policy that anybody can do anything he pleases, and if a person misbehaves, we can cure him with punishments. We must change our policy and start looking for people who are higher quality rather than trying to fix the badly behaved people. Consider how this concept applies to guide dogs.
 

The people who train dogs to help the blind, elderly, and disabled don't take dogs at random. Instead, they look for dogs that show evidence that they have the appropriate intellectual and emotional qualities necessary for the job, and then they put those dogs into a training program. The dogs are observed throughout the training program, and they are removed and rejected if they show signs that they don't have the necessary qualities. The dogs that get through the training program are given jobs as guide dogs, and if they ever misbehave while on the job, they are removed.

It's important to note that dogs that misbehave or lack the necessary qualities are not sent to jail, or made to take "time-outs", or beaten with a stick. They are simply rejected. The people who train the guide dogs look for dogs that were born with the necessary qualities; they don't try to transform a badly behaved dog into a good dog.

The people who train guide dogs are following the philosophy that a dog's mental qualities are genetic rather than environmental. They do not try to "create" guide dogs; rather, they test and train the dogs that show the potential to be guide dogs.
 

The leaders of businesses, governments, schools, the media, and other organizations could be described as "Guide Humans" because they provide guidance to other people. We allow virtually anybody to become an influential member of society, and when those "Guide Humans" misbehave, we assume that we can fix their bad behavior by making their organization pay a small fine, or by punishing them in some manner, such as putting them in jail for a few months.

Imagine a company creating guide dogs in the same manner that we provide ourselves with leadership. Imagine a company taking dogs at random, putting them into a training program for guide dogs, and then  letting virtually all of them graduate. The dogs that misbehave are punished. When a blind person purchases one of these guide dogs, he is told that whenever his dog misbehaves, he should punish it in some manner, such as by beating it with a stick, or putting it in a jail for a few days.

Probably every adult has the intelligence to realize that we cannot create useful guide dogs by punishing the dogs that do a terrible job, but that is the policy we are using right now to create "guide humans".
 

The concepts that we use in training guide dogs could be - and should be! - applied to human leadership. Actually, those concepts apply to virtually all of the jobs that exist today, such as bricklayers, athletes, singers, dentists, assembly-line workers, and engineers.

Specifically, when we want to find somebody to do a particular job, we should look for some people who show that they have the necessary physical, intellectual, and emotional qualities, and then we put those people through a testing and training program. We observe their performance and remove them if they show signs that they don't have the necessary qualities. After they get through their training program and have been given a job, we occasionally analyze their performance to ensure that they are doing their jobs properly, and if they do not, they are removed.

When somebody doesn't perform properly at their job, we should treat him the same way we would treat a guide dog that isn't performing properly. Specifically, we should remove him from that job and let him try some other job. We should not try to fix him with jail, punishments, "time-outs", or psychological counseling.

It is especially important to apply this concept to people in leadership positions because our leaders are much more critical to society than a sales clerk or a waitress. We should try to find people who were born with the necessary qualities to be a good leader, and who behave properly because they want to. When they misbehave, they should be removed. We should not try to fix them by making their corporation pay a fine, or by putting them in jail.

Unfortunately, all societies today are following the opposite philosophy; namely, that the human mind is whatever the environment makes it to be. Every society is following the philosophy that anybody can do any job that he pleases, and that if somebody commits a crime, we can transform him into a better person with rewards and punishments. There are some people who even promote the idea that homosexuality is an option that is available to all of us, or that homosexuality is due to the manner in which parents raise their boys.
 

Eventually the human race will face the obvious fact that humans follow the same rules of life as the animals and plants. There are subtle differences between people in regards to their physical and mental qualities, and we cannot transform a person's mental qualities through rewards or punishments, and we cannot give a person a talent that he wasn't born with. We must also face the fact that people who are destructive to society must be removed. They cannot be transformed into better people.

Although everybody occasionally loses his temper, the only people who are perpetually angry, dishonest, parasitic, and violent are those who are suffering from mental or physical disorders. Although some people appear to be more closely related to primitive savages, not even the primitive savages were inherently violent. It's more accurate to describe the violence, rapes, tortures, sex slavery, and other crimes as coming from a small number of mentally defective people.

Unfortunately, we are foolishly allowing these defective people to form crime networks, and this is allowing them to make enormous amounts of money, and this in turn is allowing them to get control of businesses, our media, our government officials, and other organizations. Their money is also allowing them to attract a spouse and raise a lot of children. If we don't do something to stop them, we will end up with a race of criminals, assuming we don't already have such a race.
 

Humans are not violent; rather, we are too nice. We have such a problem killing people that we won't even kill the horrible crime networks that are killing us. We are so nice that we are allowing ourselves to be abused. The situation could be described as a paradox because if we were more violent towards the criminals, we would end up with less crime and violence, and more peace.
 

We don't need gigantic militaries to protect ourselves from other nations. Instead, the entire world needs to analyze all of the people and pass judgment on who among us is a contributing member, and who is destructive or parasitic. That minority of people is the only problem the world is facing. We don't have to live in fear of the healthy people.

World peace is possible. All we have to do is start putting higher quality people in control of businesses, schools, the media, the government, and other organizations. It is difficult to pass judgment on a person's mental health and leadership abilities, but as soon as we start the process, we will slowly learn how to do an increasingly better job of analyzing people. There is nothing to fear. We are not going to hurt ourselves!

We must learn to control our stupid emotions so that we can face the criminals and remove them. This will be difficult, but once we start the process, the number of criminals will diminish, and that makes the problem easier and easier. The problem we face right now is analogous to cleaning up a garden that we foolishly allowed to become overgrown with weeds. The job appears to be overwhelming, but as soon as we start removing the weeds, the job becomes easier and easier, and when all of the weeds are finally gone, it will be easy for us to maintain the garden. So, instead of worrying about how big the job is, look forward to this opportunity to transform this planet into a beautiful human garden.

There are tremendous intellectual differences between the animals and humans, but what is the emotional difference between us? If we could measure the mental differences between humans and animals, what exactly would we find? Just how superior are our emotions?

In this section I will show a lot of evidence that we are vastly superior in intelligence, but not so superior in emotional qualities. For example, if it were possible to measure the level of evolution that a creature has been through, we might find that our intelligence is so superior to that of the animals that a chimpanzee would need 2 million years of evolution to reach the level of a human, and a dog would need 50 million years. However, we might find that the emotional differences between us are so much smaller that a chimpanzee would need only 40,000 years of evolution to reach the emotional advancement of a human, and a dog might need only 300,000 years of evolution.

It's important to realize that I'm not discussing this issue in order to encourage pouting. Rather, I think we need an understanding of human emotions in order to understand how the world came to be the way it is, and how we can deal with our problems, and how we can design a society that is better suited to us. One way to understand our emotions is to compare ourselves to animals and try to determine what the difference is between an animal mind and a human mind.
 

In this section, try to imagine if it were possible to turn a knob and increase the intelligence of animals to the level of the human. Once our intelligence has been equalized, the only difference between us - aside from physical differences, which I'm going to ignore - would be emotional differences. What would those emotional differences be? Would humans have better table manners? Would we be more honest? Would we be better able to work in teams? Would we find that the best behaved animals are almost identical to the worst behaved humans?

Of course, it is impossible to answer any of these questions, but thinking about these imaginary scenarios can help you to understand your mind and your emotions. You might also find it entertaining!
 

There were a lot of storms in America at the end of December 2010. A lot of cities once again suffered from rain, snow, and ice. It's important to note that every time there is a large storm somewhere in the world, people make the same stupid remarks over and over, such as this New York Times article with the title, "Outrage at Unplowed Streets? It’s a New York Tradition", in which they point out that every few years there is a big storm in the city and the people whine about the snow on the streets. If this pattern continues, there will be another big storm in the future, and the people will whine again, and then years later there will be another storm, and the people will whine again, and so on, century after century. When are we going to prepare for these storms?

That storm was described as the "sixth largest snowstorm in the history of New York City". Most people reacted as if this is some type of a shocking event. Most people don't seem to fully understand that it's possible to have the fifth-largest snowstorm, or even the second-largest, and it's also possible to have the largest of the past 500 years. It is also possible to have the largest storm in 10,000 years, or the largest storm in 50,000 years. What would the people in New York City do if they experienced the largest snowstorm in the past 10 million years?

Furthermore, there were accusations that some of the city workers were sabotaging the cleanup of the snow. I can understand why people are angry with government officials, but we don't improve our situation by having temper tantrums. We should have serious discussions about creating a better government, and we should be experimenting with improvements. How often are people sabotaging the efforts to clean up from a storm? Is this typical behavior?

Now consider how animals would react to winter storms if they had the same intelligence as humans. The only difference between us would be emotional. If human emotions are truly more advanced than animal emotions, that implies that animals would have an even more idiotic reaction to winter storms. Perhaps the animals would have even less concern about preparing for storms, and their government would be more corrupt, selfish, lazy and inefficient, and they would sabotage the cleanup efforts more often!

A few people realize that the large storms will occur again in the future, but no society is bothering to design cities to deal with the extreme weather conditions. Instead, they design cities for "typical" weather, so every time the weather is extreme, the people suffer and a lot of material items are destroyed. There were floods and mudslides in California at the end of December 2010, but most people have no desire to design their cities to handle large rainstorms. Instead, most people react to the floods by crying, praying to God, or hoping that there is never again another large storm.

Now consider how intelligent animals would react to a flood. If human emotions are superior, then that means the animals would react to floods in an even more irrational manner, but what could be worse than the idiotic reaction of most people?

I suppose we could accuse animals of being worse than humans if they enjoyed a flooded city by rushing out into the water to play.

We don't design our transportation devices to handle extreme snow or ice storms, either, and as a result, during every winter there are significant delays and accidents with airplanes, trains, and automobiles. Rather than do something to improve the situation, most people just hope that they don't become a victim, and they titillate themselves with other people's accidents. Here is a video of cars sliding down a hill in Colorado and crashing into one another. If humans are better behaved than animals, then would intelligent animals have even less concern about icy roads and automobile accidents?

I suppose we could accuse animals of being worse than humans if they ignored their injuries, and played in the snow with no concern that they might bleed to death.

Incidentally, my guess is that we are fascinated with automobile accidents for the same reason that we are fascinated by dead bodies, blood, and injuries. Specifically, we don't truly "enjoy" it. Rather, our emotions are stimulated by death and injuries as a way of making us aware of potential danger. We may also enjoy looking at accidents because it makes us realize that we are still alive. We usually don't appreciate something until we lose it, or watch somebody else lose it. As a result, looking at somebody who is dying from an automobile accident can make us slightly more appreciative of life, at least for a few moments.
 

Before Christianity, many or most Europeans would have celebrations in the middle of winter. The Catholic Church manipulated the winter celebration into Christmas, and later businesses began exploiting Christmas. Today Christmas is a very significant business and religious event, and people do a lot of traveling during this holiday. However, the middle of winter is not a good time for travel. Even if we developed better transportation systems, and even if we protected power lines and water pipes from winter storms, it would make more sense to encourage travel during other seasons.

We should design social affairs, and clothing, to fit the climate. The summer, for example, is a good time to arrange for water related activities, such as swimming, boating, or scuba diving, and for activities in which we want many hours of sunlight. The spring and autumn are wonderful times to get together to enjoy nature by taking walks, riding bicycles, or having picnics. The middle of winter is best suited for local social affairs. Unfortunately, the men who dominate society don't even want to design their clothing to fit the climate, so it's not surprising that they have no interest in designing social affairs that fit the climate. Instead, people are encouraged to travel in the middle of the winter, and on transportation devices that were never designed for large storms. As a result, every year thousands of people are stranded at airports, train stations, and in automobiles. And this goes on year after year, decade after decade. Not many people care. Would intelligent animals care more than us?

Humans foolishly ignore the possibility that there will be another storm next year. I suppose we could say animals are worse than us if they enjoyed being stranded at the airport.

If we designed cities properly, we would be able to enjoy the amazing variety of weather on this beautiful planet.

The people on television frequently describe weather as bad, or miserable, and some of them describe fog as a "fog monster". However, weather is not good or bad; rather, it's a feature of the planet Earth. Whether you enjoy the weather depends upon your personality, and how you must interact with it. For example, in our cities of today, fog, rain, and ice cause a lot of suffering, but we are fools to blame the weather for auto accidents, or delays with airlines and trains. Those problems are the result of our own crude behavior. We all realize that fog, rain, and ice are going to occur on a regular basis, so we should design cities and transportation devices to deal with these routine weather events. It is our own fault that we suffer from the weather. We cannot blame the weather. We will be able to enjoy the weather as soon as we stop behaving like stupid animals.

When an animal slips on ice, it picks itself up, licks its wounds, and continues. When it slips again, it picks itself up, licks its wounds, and continues. Animals don't anticipate or prepare for problems. They also don't notice, appreciate, or enjoy the beauty of the earth. Animals merely exist. Most humans seem to be merely existing, also.

This modern world needs a more advanced human who is interested in taking control of his life, future, and culture. If we were to design cities and transportation devices for extreme weather, then we would be able to enjoy the rain, the lightning, the clouds, the fog, and even the ice storms. The storms are beautiful and fascinating events on this planet. We are denying ourselves the opportunity to enjoy them. If we were to design cities better, we would be able to watch the lightning, the hail, and the snow from the comfort of a beautiful and safe city.
 

Some humans line up for hours or days in front of retail stores waiting for them to open their doors. Humans occasionally trample on one another at sports events, and when the doors open to retail stores, and sometimes they kill a person in the process. If human emotions are superior to animal emotions, then how would animals behave if they had the same intelligence as humans? Would the animals line up in front of retail stores more often than we do? Would their lines be longer than ours? Would they trample and kill one another more often than we do?

Humans have a tendency to mimic one another, as you can see by our clothing and hair styles. What would intelligent animals be like? I suspect that different species of animals would have subtle variations in their desire to mimic one another. Some animals, perhaps sheep, would have a very strong craving to "follow the crowd", whereas other animals,  perhaps the cats, would be more independent. 

The animal species that have the greatest craving to follow one another would be the easiest for businesses to manipulate. The sheep, for example, might be so easily manipulated into believing that "Diamonds are a Sheep's Best Friend" that every sheep, both male and female, might purchase diamonds. It's possible that businesses would even be able to convince the male sheep to wear high heel shoes and makeup, and they might sell "wool care" products to sheep to both straighten and curl their hair. Other animal species, by comparison, might be so independent that advertisements have almost no effect over them.
 

Religious people claim that the reason they are religious is because they have been "educated" to the "truth", and that they are capable of thinking properly. However, I think our emotions are attracted to religion, not our intellect. Our emotions are attracted to the idea that God loves us and will take care of us. I think that women have a stronger attraction to religion than men because they have a stronger craving to follow an older, male leader. People who commit crimes are attracted to the concept that God will forgive them for their disgusting behavior.

Since the attraction to religion is emotional rather than intellectual, I suspect that the animals who have a greater emotional craving to follow a leader would have a greater attraction to religion than humans, and the animals that are more independent would have less of an interest.
 

Humans are committing a variety of crimes every day, and in every nation. The photo shows a prisoner having his tattoos removed. He said that he would steal anything he pleased: Prisoner: I was always the type of person that, if I see something that I like, I go get it. Interviewer. You beat them up? Prisoner: I beat them up.  Interviewer. You shot them? Prisoner: Shot them. Even killed. Interviewer: You've killed people?  Prisoner: Yeah. That prisoner was interviewed for this report about gang members in the US military (Part 2 here shows security video of one of the gang members killing a policeman). Although Russia Today is a Jewish propaganda group, the US Military does have crime gang members within it, although Russia Today won't mention that most of them are  Jewish criminals. The Jews try to fool us into believing that only Mexicans, Africans, and other races form gangs.

Audio excerpt here, 55 K bytes.

All human children grab at whatever they please, but as we get older, we learn to control ourselves. However, some of us are better able to control our emotions. Now consider that if humans are emotionally superior to the animals, then the animals would be even more arrogant, selfish, and abusive. The animals would have even more trouble controlling their cravings for food, sex, status, and whatever else they are attracted to. Therefore, crime would be at an even higher level with animals!

Animals are extremely arrogant. They don't consider themselves as a "gear in a machine", or a "member of society". They consider themselves to be the owner of the world, and they take whatever attracts their attention. If we were to raise the intelligence of an animal to the level of the human, they would be able to understand the concept of personal property, but would they be able to control their emotional cravings? Or would they be so extremely arrogant and selfish that they continue to behave as if they own the world? Would an intelligent dog be able to resist his craving to take food from your dinner plate? Or would he use his intelligence to figure out more clever methods of getting your food?

I suspect that the animals would be even more involved with crime than the prisoner in the photo. It's possible that every animal would be routinely stealing, killing, raping, deceiving, and manipulating both humans and animals. Humans would react by arresting the animals and putting them in jail in order to cure them of their bad behavior, and the end result would be that our jails would be dominated by intelligent animals. 

It's also interesting to consider the possibility that most of the animals would be in jail rather than out of jail. Also, consider how many humans spend their entire lives going in and out of jail. I think an even greater percentage of intelligent animals would spend their lives in this manner. It's possible that the majority of animals, possibly all of them, would be regularly going in and out of jail. It's possible that no animal would be able to even get through one week without stealing something, raping somebody, or getting into a fight.

Would some animals have more of a problem with their temper?

Some animals, such as deer, are passive, so if deer were given the same intelligence as humans, they might be shy, introverted, and peaceful. They might hide from everything that bothered them. At the other extreme, wolves, hyenas, and dogs are aggressive and violent, so if they had the same intelligence as a human, they might be very dangerous when they become upset and lose their temper. Also, they might lose their temper over what we humans would consider to be meaningless incidents. For example, a dog might become angry at us because we didn't follow some silly social protocol properly, and they regarded it as an insult.

Dogs are routinely attacking people and animals simply for coming near their territory. However, the dogs are not attacking us because they are stupid. Rather, the dogs have an emotional craving to defend their territory rather than hide. If all we did was to increase their intelligence to that of a human, then they would retain their emotional craving to attack people who entered their territory. Would intelligent dogs be better able to control their temper than we humans can control our temper? Possibly, but I suspect that humans are better at controlling our emotions.

We like to think of dogs as being adorable creatures, but if they had our intelligence while retaining their crude emotions, I think they would be extremely dangerous. When they lost their temper, they would be able to do a lot more than bark and bite; they would be able to use fire, guns, knives, and other technology.
 

When I was working with Daryl Smith, he told me that his favorite jokes were "fart jokes". In his phone call to me on 2_Nov 2010,  Smith's primary reason for calling was to talk about the "liquid fart" issue. It's important to realize that I've written dozens of documents and have dozens of audio files and videos, but I have only a few paragraphs about the issue of liquid farts (here). However, even though that topic is an incredibly insignificant issue on my website, Smith focused on it.

Smith also insisted that I discussed the issue in one of my audio files, but the only time I talk about it is when crude people, such as Smith, bring it up. For example, Peggy Borger  mentioned that issue in her phone call to me on 26_Dec 2010, although she didn't talk it during that conversation, and some of the other freaks who called me on the phone spent a lot of time talking about the the issue. Why is it that the freaks who are constantly trying to manipulate me have a fascination with the issue of farts? And keep in mind that they don't discuss the issues in a serious manner; they merely make idiotic remarks, like a child.

I don't think it is a coincidence that criminals have a childish fascination with toilet humor. As I pointed out in other files, I don't believe the theory that criminals are "ordinary" people who are suffering from poverty, discrimination, bad parenting, or the devil. I think some criminals are genetically defective, and some inherited primitive characteristics.

The crude behavior of criminals makes me suspect that if animals were given the same intelligence as humans, they would be even more crude than Daryl Smith, Peggy Borger, and the other weirdos that bother me. I think that if animals were more intelligent, they would have an even greater attraction to toilet humor because their emotions would be much more crude than the emotions of the most crude human. Cats, for example, clean themselves by licking themselves, and if we were to increase their intelligence while leaving their emotions alone, they would continue to have a craving to lick themselves. Dogs like to smell everybody's crotch, and giving them more intelligence wouldn't change that emotional craving.

People like to imagine that animals are wonderful creatures, but they are just biological robots designed for reproduction. If we were to increase their intelligence to that of a human, they would not resemble humans. They would be incredibly crude, lewd, rude, and disgusting. 
 

Animal are suspicious of one another. They regard other animals as potential enemies, not as potential friends. Humans also regard the people in other groups as being potentially dangerous. When nations behave this way, we refer to it as "national pride". This emotion is so crude that it is activated whenever we are part of an organization, regardless of the size or type of organization. For example, this emotion causes us to be proud of the particular city, college, race, political group, religion, corporation, or sports team that we are a member of.

If people can keep this emotion under control, then it can be used to inspire beneficial competition between groups, but some people get carried away believing that their group is truly superior to the others. For example, when I was in high school, some of the football players of a nearby school pulled up some newly planted trees at our high school in order to intimidate us and show us how much superior they were to us.

I think that as animals evolved into humans, this particular emotion (or perhaps it's a set of emotions), diminished somewhat, and that allowed humans to be less suspicious of one another and more capable of forming friendships. However, a lot of humans have a problem controlling this particular emotion, and the Jews are making the problem worse by encouraging national pride. The Jews don't want the different nations to cooperate. They encourage us to wave flags, be proud of our nation, and behave like arrogant jerks who live in fear and suspicion of other nations. They want us to fight with other nations, not form friendships with them.

The Jews also encourage pride among different races, religions, and political groups. For example, all of the organizations that promote the concept of "white pride" seem to be secretly under the control of Jews. The Jews are also encouraging pride among the women in order to encourage fights between men and women. It's important to be aware of this desire to be proud of your group so that you can keep it under control and not let Jews or con artists manipulate you into becoming an arrogant jerk who fights with other groups.

If animals had the same intelligence as humans, I suspect that animals would have a much stronger craving to be proud of their group. Their "national pride" would be much stronger than it is with humans, and their "racial pride" (eg, "Chihuahua Pride" and "Baboon Pride") would be much stronger, also. Animals might be much more interested in waiving flags, boasting about the superiority of their group, and insulting the other groups. This in turn would make it more difficult for the groups of animals to form friendships and cooperate with one another. Furthermore, it would be easier for the Jews to instigate fights between the different groups of animals.
 

There are a lot of people who have trouble forming stable friendships or marriages, or who have trouble getting jobs, or who are mistreated by retail store clerks. Many of these people claim that the reason they are being mistreated is because some of us are anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, bullies, or bigoted.

Some of the people who make these accusations are simply trying to cover up their crimes, such as when a Jew complains that we are anti-Semitic when we accuse him of helping to cover up the 9/11 attack. However, some people truly believe that the reason we don't like them, or the reason they did not get a job, is because we don't like fat people, or we don't like their particular race, or because we are homophobic. These people simply refuse to admit to, or be responsible for, their disgusting behavior and the problems they experience in life. They prefer to believe that some of us have an inherent hatred of an entire group of people based on some characteristic, such as religion or race. It is certainly true that humans have a natural dislike of homosexuals, and we have a natural preference to segregate according to our race, but the primary factor determining how well a person fits into society is his personality; his behavior. People who are honest, reliable, and responsible will be treated much better than other people, even if they are homosexual, black, female, Jewish, ugly, and fat. If humans are emotionally superior to animals, then how would intelligent animals react when they experienced problems with friendship or jobs? Would some species of animals be more likely to pout, and others more likely to become angry?

“You are anti-monkey! That's why you would not hire me for that job! That is why you gave the job to a human! We need hate-crime laws to stop this discrimination.”

When I was a child, the television shows and movies didn't show details about what people were doing inside bathrooms or bedrooms, and they didn't show people being murdered. For example, in the Alfred Hitchcock movie, Psycho, we didn't actually see the woman being stabbed. And we didn't see her naked body, either. During the following decades, television and movies began showing more details. Some people describe what is happening as "the movies are leaving less to the imagination". If the Psycho movie were created today, they might show the woman in the shower naked, and then they might show the gory details of her being stabbed with a knife.

I don't think the audience benefits by watching two people making love, or by watching somebody on a toilet or in a shower. Furthermore, we don't need long, detailed, murder scenes. So why are the movie producers putting these type of scenes into so many movies and television shows? Are they trying to create more realistic movies? Or are they adding these silly scenes simply because they don't have anything more intelligent to put into the movie and are trying to occupy some time?

My explanation for these scenes is that Hollywood is being taken over by crude people who enjoy toilet humor and high levels of violence and sexual stimulation. Furthermore, I think that one of the reasons they want detailed sex scenes is because it gives the Jews a chance to kiss and fondle the actresses that they normally would never be allowed to touch.

I think that if animals were as intelligent as humans, they would want even more details, and I think that animals would put more sex scenes into their movies so that they had more opportunities to touch and kiss the actresses.
 

Every organization is a hierarchy, and the people at the lower levels are expected to be submissive to people above them. When a person is promoted in the hierarchy or rewarded for his achievements, there is usually some type of ceremony. At one extreme, a person might get a simple, verbal compliment, and at the other extreme, there may be a large party or elaborate ceremony.

Every organization developed slightly different rules for behavior and slightly different ceremonies. The monarchies of Europe and the British courts have some of the most elaborate ceremonies, although the ceremonies have become simpler through the centuries. For example, until recently, it was common for the judges and lawyers of a British court to wear wigs. I suspect that the intelligent animals would want even more elaborate displays of submission and more elaborate ceremonies than the monarchies of the Middle Ages.

I also suspect that the reason the courts and monarchies of today are still among the most extreme in regards to displays of submission is because they are dominated by people who are more crude than the rest of us. The judge of a court, for example, is treated like a king and sits in that chair that is higher than everybody else, and until recently, the lawyers and judges in Britain were wearing wigs. I don't think this is coincidence. I think the people who dominate our courts and monarchies are more crude than the rest of us. The monarchies are the most extreme. The Kings and Queens don't contribute anything to society, but they expect us to provide them with displays of submission, enormous quantities of material items, and constant pampering.

I criticized judges and lawyers years ago (Part 4 of my Dumbing Down series), so I won't repeat myself, but I will remind you that if any of the lawyers or judges were as intelligent as they claim to be, we would see evidence of their intelligence, but in reality, all we see them doing is covering up crimes and exploiting the fights between people.

What would a legal system be like if it was dominated by intelligent animals? Since human lawyers and judges exploit the courts to cover up crimes and profit from fights, I think the intelligent animals would be even more abusive. They would bring new meaning to the expression, "Kangaroo court".
 

An organization is whatever the people make it. If an organization consists of intelligent, honest people, then they will create a sensible organization, and their policies will be based on intelligent reasoning. Our courts, by comparison, have idiotic procedures that don't make sense, and the courts are doing nothing to help us understand or reduce crime. Actually, our courts are covering up the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust lies, and lots of other crimes! This is an indication that the type of people who dominate the court system are criminals and crude people. They created a court system that has silly displays of submission and dominance because they enjoy those displays, not because they did a serious analysis of human behavior and came to the conclusion that this type of court system is more effective than other types of court systems.

Some people justify the behavior of people in our courts as being necessary to "show authority", but what does that mean? There is no intelligent reasoning to support the behavior of the people in the courts, or any of the procedures that they follow. Our courts are similar to organized religions and monarchies because all of these groups have silly and unexplainable displays of submission and dominance, and none of them actually contribute something of value to society. Rather, they all cover up lots of crimes.

Remember to judge people and organizations according to their effect on society. Don't judge them by what they say about themselves. Take a serious look at these groups of people and ask yourself,

"What are these courts doing to reduce crime or improve society? What are the monarchies doing in return for all of the food, electricity, and other resources that they consume? What are the organized religions doing to improve the world? Why are we wasting resources on these people? What are they doing for us?"
 

Humans and animals are titillated by food, and the larger quantities will titillate us more than the smaller quantities. Since children don't think very well, it is easiest to understand this concept by watching children. When children are hungry and are provided with a variety of different sizes of apples, bananas, and other fruit, they have a tendency to select the fruit that is the largest, even if it's more than they can eat.

What would intelligent animals be like when selecting fruit at a market? Would they be better able to control their emotions? Or would they have a tendency to pick the largest fruit, even if it was larger than they could eat?
 

On the television show V, the queen of the aliens controls people below her with murder, torture, and threats. The people below her are so submissive that she can kill and torture them in front of one another during meetings. Hollywood also depicts some of the top leaders of crime networks as killing and hurting people below them in the hierarchy while they are having a meeting. There are accusations that Joseph Stalin and other communist leaders would routinely kill people below them in the hierarchy, although they may not have done so during a meeting. I suppose the Kings and Queens of the Middle Ages were also sometimes behaving like Joseph Stalin, or like members of crime networks.

Why do the Hollywood Jews have a tendency to depict the leaders of aliens and crime networks as getting their positions of leadership through murder, nepotism, inheritance, treachery, blackmail, threats, and intimidation? And why do the Hollywood Jews show those leaders maintaining their position of authority with shocking displays of violence and torture? Why don't the Jews ever show people earning their position as a result of talent or intelligence? Furthermore, why do the Hollywood Jews depict the lower-level aliens and criminals as being extremely submissive towards their leadership? Why don't the Jews ever show people at lower levels in the hierarchy as having intelligence, or analyzing the performance of their leaders and passing judgment on which of them should be replaced?

I think the Hollywood Jews are inadvertently showing us their personalities. I think that the Hollywood Jews, if they had their way, would rule over us with violence, and they would deal with criticism and competitors with violence. In fact, this seems to be going on with the Israeli government and the Jewish crime network in general. The Jews seem to murder, threaten, and intimidate one another on a regular basis, just like the aliens on the Jewish television shows and movies.

Take a look at human leaders. Some of them, such as Joseph Stalin, surround themselves with submissive servants. They don't want anybody talented in the hierarchy because they don't want any competition. Men like Joseph Stalin do not create a talented "team". Rather, they create something more similar to a medieval monarchy, or the type of hierarchy that we see in a crime network or the television show V.

If humans emotions are superior to animal emotions, how much worse would the animals behave? If a dog was elected president of America, or if a dog became a corporate leader, would he surround himself with even more submissive people who followed his orders in an even more mindless manner? Would an intelligent dog react to criticism and competitors with even more violence, threats, and intimidation?

Or would animals be better behaved than us? Or would an intelligent dog want to earn his position as leadership? Would he want to surround himself with other talented people so that he could create an impressive team? Would he try to impress us with his talent and intelligence rather than intimidate us with displays of violence and threats?
 

I'm not comparing humans to intelligent animals to encourage pouting. As I pointed out in Part 4 of my Dumbing Down series, the only way we can learn about something is by comparing it to something else and looking for similarities and differences. Comparing ourselves to animals can help us understand both humans and animals.

Our technology and our capability of language creates the illusion that we are incredibly superior to the animals, but those are intellectual qualities. How much better are we in our emotional qualities? If animals had the exact same intelligence as us, then what would be the difference in our behavior? And how would different species of animals be different from us? Would rabbits and deer seem timid, introverted, or shy compared to dogs, bears, and hyenas? Would some species of animals be more prone to crime, corruption, parasitic behavior, gambling, drugs, prostitution, sex slavery, or alcohol? Would some species of monkeys be so similar to us that the worst behaved humans and the best behaved monkeys can get along as friends or spouses?

The "typical" human has almost no interest in history, his culture, or the incredible options we have for our future. Most people also care so little about society that they refuse to listen to or discuss the lies about the 9/11 attack and the Holocaust. Most people will occasionally complain about corruption and crime, but they won't do anything to stop it. Only a small number of people are actually willing to help expose or remove the criminals from our media, government, legal system, schools, and businesses. How could an animal behave worse than that? What would be worse than hiding from the lies about the Apollo moon landing, or the Holocaust? How can we boast about our superiority when most people don't care that they are being abused by crime networks? How is the typical human "superior" to a pet dog that allows itself to be beaten?

Humans are obviously more emotionally advanced than animals because we are capable of forming teams, working together, and follow rules of behavior. We can also form relationships with people outside of our own society. However, the point I'm trying to make is that our emotional advancement is trivial compared to our intellectual advancement. Or to put it another way, we are still very similar to animals in emotional qualities and behavior. Therefore, if we were to give animals the same level of intelligence that we have, we might discover that we are not that much more superior to them.

Although we can't be sure exactly how an intelligent animal would behave, as I tried to point out in the section above, and in such documents as this and this, increasing the intelligence of an animal would not make it behave like a human. Actually, I think that if all we did was to increase the intelligence of an animal while leaving its emotions alone, we would create a monster. For example, if we could give some rats the intelligence of a human, they would continue to want to live just like rats, but their greater intelligence would make it much easier for them to find food, escape from predators, and build nests. They would have a much easier time stealing food from us and avoiding our traps and poisons. They would even be capable of killing us and using us as food.

Furthermore, those intelligent rats would eventually figure out our language, and that would enable them to understand what we are saying about them. They would not be able to speak to us because of their crude vocal cords and mouth, but they might eventually figure out how to read our written language, and they might also figure out how to turn on our computers, read our e-mail messages, and send messages to us. They would be extremely dangerous creatures.

It's also important to realize that we would never be friends with an intelligent rat. Even if we were capable of communicating with each other, they would want to live the lifestyle of a rat, not a human. They would not be interested in our manners or our laws. They would want to live, eat, and sleep like a rat. And imagine if a spider had the intelligence of a human. Or how about a flea or mosquito?

A lot of people consider dogs to be adorable creatures, but if they were as intelligent as humans while retaining the same emotional qualities, they would become monsters, also. They would continue to behave just like a stupid dog, except that their greater intelligence would make it easier for them to figure out how to get food from the kitchen, and they would also learn how to be better at manipulating us with displays of "cuteness". Furthermore, consider how often dogs become angry at people and animals that come near their territory. If dogs retained the same emotional cravings to protect their territory, their greater intelligence would allow them to do more than bark and bite us. Intelligent dogs would be extremely dangerous because they would be able to figure out how to use guns, knives, fire, and other technology.
 

Now imagine a less extreme example. Imagine if humans and gorillas were genetically similar enough so that we could interbreed. Imagine women being raped by gorillas, and some men getting female gorillas pregnant. This interbreeding would create a variety of creatures that are neither human nor gorilla. They would be physically stronger than humans, but not as intelligent. They would be able to understand our language, but their mouth and vocal cords would make it impossible for them to pronounce some of our words properly.

They would be too intelligent to fit into a gorilla society, but they would not fit into human society very well, either, because they would consider our laws and manners to be a restriction of their freedom.  I don't think it would be easy for them to be an employee because I don't think they would want to work in teams or follow orders. I think they would be too independent.

If we were to feel sorry for the human/gorilla mixtures and give them jobs, I think they would spend most of their time trying to avoid work. I think they would do the bare minimum necessary to collect a paycheck. I think they would be primarily interested in pornography, food, and fighting for dominance.

The second generation would be more like humans

The first generation from the interbreeding of humans with gorillas would be a creature that is about halfway between a human and a gorilla. If those creatures reproduced with humans, the second generation would be more similar to a human. If that second generation reproduced with humans, then the third generation would be even more similar to humans. Eventually they would produce creatures that are very close to humans in physical and mental abilities. This concept is similar to that of diluting a poison.
 

The interbreeding of humans and gorillas would produce creatures that would be misfits among both gorillas and humans. The creatures would need their own society in order to truly enjoy their lives. If we felt sorry for them and let them live with us, then both of us would suffer.

Although humans and gorillas cannot interbreed, this type of situation may have occurred many thousands of times between the different races of human. There may have been thousands of rapes, kidnappings, and seductions between different races. Furthermore, there were possibly thousands of times when children became isolated from the adults, and they were adopted by some other race who felt sorry for the lonely, hungry, frightened children, creating an "ugly duckling" situation.

If we could analyze all of the people who are misfits in society today, we might find that some of them are genetic defects, and some of them inherited primitive qualities because they are descendants of mixed races of people.
 

Imagine if it were possible for rats and humans to interbreed, and imagine that some of the male rats were raping or seducing some human women. Would you want the resulting creatures to live in our society? Or would you want them living in their own society? Or would you want those human rats to be executed?

Consider that there are various types of criminals and parasites all over the world, and many of them are reproducing. When criminals reproduce with other criminals, we could describe the situation as "increasing the number of criminals" or as "breeding a race of criminals". When criminals seduce honest people, then we could describe the situation as "contaminating the human gene pool", or as "causing the human race to degrade into savages".

Mel Gibson recently had a baby daughter with Oksana Grigorieva, but did they produce a baby human? If Grigorieva is a parasitic woman who was deceiving wealthy men for their money, then Mel Gibson gave birth to a creature that's half human and half devious parasite. Furthermore, consider the possibility that Grigorieva is working for the international network of criminals that is responsible for 9/11, the world wars, and other crimes. In such a case, Mel Gibson didn't produce just an ordinary "parasite". Rather, he created some type of diabolical, sickening, disgusting criminal.
 

No society cares whether a woman is raising the child of a rapist, or cares whether criminals seduce respectable people and contaminate the gene pool. However, this situation cannot continue forever. The societies that don't care about the quality of their children will slowly degrade into retards, criminals, parasites, and freaks. Their economic system will slowly deteriorate as the people become increasingly stupid, parasitic, neurotic, lazy, irresponsible, and undependable. They will eventually be dominated by more advanced societies.

The societies that dominate in the future will be those that show concern about the quality of their children. They will pass judgment on who should reproduce, and they will also prohibit women from raising the children of rapists. Furthermore, when parents are discovered to have terrible mental or physical qualities, society will take a close look at their children and pass judgment on whether those children should be allowed to reproduce. This article will explain why I make these claims, and what I believe will occur in the future.

Some people believe that they have a right to have children with whoever they please, but as I mentioned in my audio file for 23_June 2010, technology allows individual people to have an incredible effect on the entire planet, and so now everybody needs to get involved with who is reproducing, and with whom. Children are not the personal toys of their parents; they are the next generation of people. The entire world needs to get involved with the issue of the quality of the next generation of people. We should not tolerate the reproduction of people with horrible genetic qualities.

Understanding the differences and similarities between humans and animals can help you to understand why the world is such a mess, and how we can improve it. There are possibly hundreds of millions of people who have the intellectual ability and creativity to devise improvements to our school system, or who could assist in the design of beautiful cities that can handle the weather. However, it takes more than intelligence to improve society. We need more advanced emotions. For example:

• We need the strength to face the problems of the modern world rather than be frightened of them.
• We need the courage to experiment with new economic systems, new government systems, and new holiday celebrations rather than be afraid to fail or afraid to try something different.
• We need the desire to help society rather than just titillate ourselves. This requires that we actually enjoy being in gear in a machine who works for society rather than wanting to be a pampered King who does whatever he pleases with no regard to his effect on society.
• We must enjoy thinking, learning, doing research, and discussing our problems rather than looking for ways to avoid work and hoping that somebody else takes care of the problem.
• We must be able to resist the bribes and blackmail traps of crime networks, and the offers from religions of eternal life and salvation.

The world is not suffering from a lack of intelligence, or a lack of technology, or a lack of oil. The world is suffering because most people are still too emotionally similar to primitive savages. There are millions of people who have the intelligence to improve the world, but not many people have the ability and/or the desire to use their intelligence to its full potential.
 

Humans have achieved tremendous technical progress during the past few centuries, and this is proof that our intelligence is far superior to that of the animals. However, we haven't achieved very much social progress. Our governments, schools, and holidays are still about as irrational, inefficient, and/or corrupt as they were thousands of years ago.

Why can thousands of people can get together in a large team to build large ships or design computers but we can't get together in even a small team to design a better economic system or a better version of Christmas? Why can we solve technical problems but not social problems? Why are so many people capable of having calm, serious, and intelligent discussions about repairing an automobile or growing a vegetable garden, but when those same people try to discuss abortion, euthanasia, crime, religion, and other social issues, they grind their teeth, clench their fists, yell, and/or pout?

The reason we can get together to deal with technical problems is because our emotions are not stimulated by technical issues. Engineers, farmers, scientists, and construction workers can use their full intelligence when developing computers, building trains, or breeding new varieties of tomatoes because our emotions don't get involved to influence our decisions. Our emotions are in an idle state while we are dealing with technical issues. Our emotions developed a long time ago in very primitive creatures, so you could visualize them as a group of dinosaurs inside your mind. When we are gardening, solving a math problem, fixing a broken window, or designing a refrigerator, all of our "emotional dinosaurs" remain idle because those issues do not stimulate any of our emotions.

However, when we think about certain issues, such as 9/11, abortion, and religion, some of our emotions are stimulated, and this can be visualized as some of the primitive, "emotional dinosaurs" inside our mind becoming active, coming forward, and snarling in an attempt to influence our decisions and behavior. Your emotions are not stimulated when you think about breeding tomatoes, or killing baby tomato plants, but they become extremely stimulated if you think about killing baby humans. Your ability to produce intelligent thoughts about those issues is partly dependent upon the design of that emotional center of your brain, and your ability to control those emotions.

It might help you understand this concept if you consider the issue of food. All of us have a conflict going on within our mind every time we eat. Our emotions want us to eat enormous quantities of food that tastes good, but the intellectual area of our mind wants us to control our diet. The people who become fat, sickly, anorexic, or undernourished are not necessarily stupid. Rather, for reasons we don't yet understand, their emotions are dominating their decisions more often than they should. Likewise, the people who come to idiotic conclusions about abortion, religion, or crime are not necessarily stupid. They may be equivalent to a fat person who cannot control his emotions.

When I was a teenager, I was under the impression that all intelligent people would eventually reach the same conclusion after discussing an issue, but the reason this doesn't occur in the real world is because even if we all had the exact same intelligence and the same exact knowledge, there will be subtle differences in our emotions and our ability to control our emotions. For example, a man who has a greater craving to be the dominant male, or less of an ability to control his craving, will have a tendency to twist his opinions to make himself look good and make other people look bad.
 

When you think of your mind as having a conflict between an intellectual area and an emotional area, then it might help you to understand why some people become frightened over certain issues, such as 9/11, or the Apollo Moon Landing scam. For example, in 2002, when I first started telling people that we were lied to about 9/11, some people reacted by becoming silent, and they seemed frightened at the thought that a crime network could be that large and violent. They reacted like a rabbit that wanted to run away and hide in the bushes.

Criminals will often behave in violent manners in order to trigger our emotions of fear and cause us to run away. If you can understand this, and if you keep your emotions under control, then instead of becoming frightened by their violent displays, you will be able to remain calm and help to identify, expose, and destroy them.

In order to be well adapted to this modern era, people need better control over their emotions. People today need to be capable of remaining calm when somebody shows evidence that the Jews staged the 9/11 attack. We need people to help identify, expose, and destroy their crime network. The adult men who run away and hide from a discussion about 9/11 or the Holocaust should be regarded as primitive savages who don't belong in this modern world.
 

Animals are designed to interpret interactions with other animals as either friendly or not friendly. If they interpret the other animal as not friendly, then they may respond by running and hiding, or they may remain and defend themselves.

Humans also try to interpret our interactions with other humans (ie, remarks, facial expressions, and behavior) as being friendly or unfriendly. Unfortunately, our emotions were not designed for this modern world, and so we sometimes make ridiculous mistakes when we follow our emotional feelings. For example, in 2002, when I mentioned to my relatives that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, my mother, who considers herself a "conservative", reacted defensively and accused me of being a liberal. Her sister also reacted defensively, but since she considers herself a "liberal", she accused me of being a Nazi. Both of them interpreted my information about 9/11 as an attack on America, and they defended America. Interestingly, the men in the room remained quiet and looked frightened.

If we don't understand and control our stupid emotions, we might react with anger towards people who are trying to help us. We have to follow our intellect, not our crude emotions.
 

The opposite situation can also occur. Specifically, we might react to our enemies with love and kindness. Our crude emotions were not designed for a world in which there are dishonest people. Our emotions interpret smiles, compliments, and gifts as a sign that the other person is a friend who can be trusted. As a result, criminals can easily manipulate us by faking friendship, and by giving us gifts and compliments.

“Such adorable children! Here, have some candy.”

This is a serious problem with political elections. My grandmother once mentioned to me that the reason she liked Ronald Regan is that he smiles a lot. In order to provide ourselves with better government officials, we have to design a voting system that will compensate for this crude emotion. We have to design a system in which the political candidates are judged according to their achievements in life and their effect on society. They cannot be allowed to manipulate people with compliments, smiles, or gifts. For example, I would not allow the candidates to have any contact with the public, or allow them to produce any type of advertisement. The candidates should be like ordinary job applicants; ie, they should be in a submissive role, and their appearances on television should be restricted to serious discussions and analyses. Political candidates who make such remarks as, "The American people are the greatest people in the world!" should be dismissed as con-artists who are trying to manipulate our emotions.

In order to help a person, you have to show him where he is making mistakes. You have to criticize him. Unfortunately, our emotions don't understand this concept. Our emotions interpret criticism as an attack by an enemy. The end result is that people who follow their emotions will do the exact opposite of what they should do; specifically, they become angry or disgusted with the people who try to help them, and they love the criminal who gives them gifts and compliments. (I have more information about this issue in my article about Katie Piper.)
 

A lot of the people I talked to about 9/11 were capable of listening to the information, but they just didn't care enough about society to want to do anything about it. Some of these people were victims of the attack! Some of them suffered - and some are still suffering - serious health problems as a result of getting the demolition debris in their lungs, eyes, and skin, but they didn't want to expose or stop the crime network that was responsible for the attack. All they were interested in was getting some money for their medical treatment. (If you are unfamiliar with the health problems caused by the 9/11 attack, I have this page.)

Most people do not have much of an interest in society, and they don't even care much for thinking about the future. Their primary concern is titillating their emotions, just like a stupid animal. Even when we point out to them that they are hurting themselves in the long run by allowing a crime network to grow and thrive, they don't have enough of an interest in the future or in society to care. They are more attracted to television, alcohol, pets, jewelry, money, babies, and sex.

This lack of concern about crime networks and corruption was even more common when I talked about the Apollo moon landing scam. Many people, especially women, would listen to the information but they would respond with a remark similar to, "I don't care about the moon."
 

There are probably different reasons that the majority of people cannot have calm, serious discussions about religion. Three of them are:

1) Humans and animals have a strong desire to follow an older male, and this is why god is an old, male human. When we criticize a person's religion, his emotions may interpret our remarks as an attack on his leader, in which case he becomes fearful or defensive.

2) Some people seem to have trouble discussing religion because they are using religion to make themselves feel better, similar to the way a frightened child will cling to his mother or a teddy bear. People who are having problems with life, or who are suffering from loneliness or low self-esteem, can make themselves feel better by reminding themselves over and over that God loves them and will take care of them. These people have trouble discussing religion because they interpret critical remarks in a manner similar to how a child would interpret an attack on his mother.

3) Some people use religion as a way to eliminate their guilt for their horrible behavior. After they commit crimes, they ask their god for forgiveness, and then they feel better. These people cannot tolerate critical remarks about religion because they are using religion as a way of making themselves feel better about themselves. When we criticize religion, we are forcing them to face the possibility that they truly are disgusting people, which upsets them tremendously, and so they fight back rather than have a serious discussion. Religion allows them to convince themselves that they are actually wonderful people.

I think that most people have the intelligence to realize that organized religions are cheating people of their money and protecting pedophiles and other criminals, but I think most people are emotionally unable to face the fact that organized religions should be eliminated. They have an emotional attraction to religion, not an intellectual attraction.
 

I think every man is too arrogant for this modern world, but I have met some men who have such extreme cravings to be important that they have trouble discussing even ordinary technical issues. They often interrupt discussions so that they can become the center of attention, or they look for ways to make themselves appear educated, knowledgeable, and intelligent, and make everybody else look like they are stupid or uneducated. They're not truly interested in discussing anything. Instead, they want to impress us. They want to intimidate us. They want us to worship them. They are not concentrating on the discussion; rather, they are concentrating on their image; on how to make themselves look good.

These extreme men are often described as "know it alls", or as aggressive, dominating, or intimidating. Some people describe them as "always having to be right". When you show one of these extremely arrogant men that their opinion is wrong, their reaction can be so extreme that I get visions of how a woman would behave if you were to pull her baby out of her arms and kill it in front of her.

Arrogance is a necessary quality for animals and primitive humans, but humans need to evolve into a less arrogant creature. The men who are too arrogant for this modern world will not make a good team member because they will be overly proud of their own opinions and overly critical of everybody else's opinions. In order to be an effective team member, people have to be critical of themselves, and they must be able to look favorably at other team members.
 

Imagine that there is a complete video documentation of the entire planet, including cameras inside everybody's houses, bathrooms, and offices. Imagine that you have the time to watch the lives of millions of different people. In such a case, you would discover that almost everybody's life is extremely similar to everybody else's life. Almost everybody sleeps for the same amount of time during the night, for example, and almost everybody wakes up in a similar manner, and then gets dressed in similar manner, and they do similar things in the bathroom, and so on, all throughout the day. What is the difference between different people?

If we could observe everybody's life, we would find that there is not much of a difference between us. As I pointed out in another file, many people are afraid that we will see what they do inside their homes, but we can deduce what you are doing in your home simply by looking at what we do and what we have seen other people do. The "typical" people are almost identical to one another. Even the mentally ill people and the criminals are similar to the normal people. Even they eat, sleep, get dressed, and do other things in a very similar manner to the rest of us.
 

It's important to note that the most bizarre people of all, such as Joseph Fritzl, spend most of their time just like everybody else. They sleep like other people, get dressed like other people, do the same things in the bathroom, eat food in a similar manner, and go shopping in a similar manner, and drive an automobile in the same manner. The differences between us are subtle. For example, we all move around during our sleep, but to different extents, and we all make some noises while asleep, but we make different amounts, and at different levels. We all eat food, but we eat different quantities and have slightly different preferences in food. We all clean our house once in a while, but there are subtle differences in how we do it, and how often.

If we had video coverage of each person 24 hours a day, we would find that each person appears to be an "ordinary person" during most of those 24 hours. It would only be on certain days, and only for small portions of that day, that we would find some people doing strange things, such as raping children, or getting together to stage terrorist attacks that they can blame on Muslims.
 

Perhaps more importantly, if there was video documentation of our ancestors 10,000 years ago, we would find that people today are behaving almost exactly the same as our ancestors. The differences in our technology make it appear as if we are very different, but our behavior is actually very similar. For example, families thousands of years ago would sleep in the same manner that we sleep, and for about the same amount of time, and they would wake up in the morning in the same manner, and at about the same time. Their children would spend the day in a similar manner, such as running around and making noises, and the adults would spend their day working. In the evening the people would get together to relax, and some of the adults would work on projects, such as making tools or clothing. Their technology was very different, but the behavior of the people thousands of years ago was virtually identical to the behavior of people today. We would have to go back in time possibly a million years in order to find people who are so much mentally different from us that their behavior was noticeably different.

Observing the evolution of animals into humans would show us that technology changed dramatically during the past few thousand years, but the behavior of the people didn't change. Furthermore, we would notice that as technology improved, an increasingly large percentage of the population became unable to deal with the technology. For example, as alcohol became more plentiful, an increasing percentage of the population became alcoholics because they didn't have the ability to control their consumption of alcohol. As cities grew larger in size, more men got involved with rape, grabbing at women, and pedophilia because their sexual cravings were overly stimulated and they didn't have enough control over themselves. As material wealth accumulated, more people got involved with theft, burglary, and other forms of crime because they were stimulated by the material items but couldn't resist taking what they saw.
 

As I described in other files, an analysis of the history of the development of animals into humans would show us that the social problems that we suffer from today did not arise as a result of the devil, or ignorance, or aristocrats. Rather, the social problems developed as technology changed the environment that people were living in, which in turn caused an increasing percentage of the population to become poorly adapted to the new life. Our ancestors became analogous to a group of fish who were originally living in a beautiful pond of clean, fresh water, but then the weather changed, and their pond began to slowly dry out, and eventually the fish were flapping around in a mud pit. Fish in that situation would suffer, but there's nothing we could do to relieve their suffering. The fish in that situation must evolve to fit life in a mud pit. If we were to feel sorry for the fish who suffer the most, and if we were to help them to survive, we would actually make the situation worse because we would be allowing more of the unfit fish to reproduce, which would increase the number of fish suffering in the next generation, thereby delaying their inevitable evolution.

Likewise, humans began altering their environment with technology, and today a lot of people are suffering. The human race must evolve from a primitive savage to a more advanced human. We must remove the people who cause trouble, and we have to restrict reproduction to the people who are better adapted to this more complex, technically advanced world. If we feel sorry for the humans who don't fit into the modern world, and if we help them to reproduce, then we allow them to produce more children who don't fit into this world, which simply delays the inevitable evolution of the human race.
 

Some of the problems we suffer from today can be blamed on environmental issues, and those particular problems can be reduced or eliminated through education. For example, America is a haphazard mixture of different races, religions, and cultures, and this is creating a society in which people don't get along with each other, and some of us are speaking different languages. This type of problem is environmental, and we can fix this by making more homogenous neighborhoods and/or cities.

For another example, I think most of the problems that men and women are having today are due to the Jews. They are encouraging feminism, and they are constantly titillating men sexually, and they are encouraging women to dress and behave like sluts. Therefore, by getting the Jews out of our lives and putting better people in control of the media, schools, and government, we can create a better environment, and then relationships between men and women will improve.

However, even if we get rid of the Jews and make our cities more homogenous, there are still going to be problems with life today because most people are emotionally too similar to a primitive savage. Men, for example, are not well adapted to the modern women who are very clean and wearing beautiful clothing. A man's sexual craving was designed for the women of 10,000 years ago who lived like animals. Our sexual craving is too strong today. The men 10,000 years ago didn't have to control their sexual cravings, but until humans evolve more appropriate sexual desires, we have to exert some control over ourselves, and the women should help the situation rather than aggravate it.

Married couples today also have to deal with a lot of other issues that our primitive ancestors were never concerned with, such as alcohol, pets, television, material items, jewelry, and video games. Most people are unable to cope with the complexities of modern life. Feeling sorry for them will not help. They must learn to control themselves because the suffering will not stop until the human race evolves the emotional ability to deal with this more complex, technically advanced world.

We need to evolve into a creature that can easily control himself around alcohol, drugs, material items and gambling devices. We need to become a creature that considers children to be young humans rather than as sex objects or toys to play with. Men must evolve into a creature that can see a woman as more than a sex toy, and women must evolve into a creature that sees a man as more than just a source of support, babies, and entertainment. We must also evolve into a creature that enjoys learning, thinking, and discussing issues, and who truly enjoys getting together and working in a team for the benefit of society. We must also evolve into a less arrogant creature that can see the good qualities in other people and make compromises.
 

I don't think the world is suffering from a lack of intelligence. I would bet that the majority of adult men have enough intelligence to understand that organized religions are dangerous, that we must stop crime networks, and that we must control reproduction. Most people also seem to have the intelligence necessary to know that they should control their alcohol consumption, gambling, and sexual cravings, but they have trouble controlling their emotions.

I think the world is suffering because most people don't have the emotional ability or desire to control themselves or deal with the problems of the world. Most people don't want to think, do any type of research, or discuss any of our social problems. Most people want to titillate themselves with money, pets, sex, babies, food, and drugs. If it were possible to measure a person's adaptation to the modern world, I think we would find that most people are below the threshold necessary for life today.
 

Animals do not control themselves. After an animal wakes up in the morning, it does exactly what it wants to do. It doesn't follow any laws or have any concern for what other animals are doing or thinking.

Our distant ancestors were well adapted to life. When they woke up in the morning, they did exactly what they wanted to do. The men would look for food or build a shelter, and the women would take care of children. They didn't need laws or policemen. They did what they wanted to do, and they treated one another in the manner that they wanted to treat each other. They were relaxed and happy.

Today, however, people experience a lot of stress because we can no longer do whatever we please. Since we are all different, some of us are more relaxed than others, but all of us have to occasionally control our cravings for food, material items, sex, or babies. We also have to occasionally control our temper, and we often have to force ourselves to do something that we don't really want to do. We are like fish flopping around in a mud pit. We don't really fit this environment. When the human race has truly adapted to this modern world, people will be much more relaxed. For two examples:

1) Food
When humans have finally adapted to this modern world, they will be able to eat what they want, rather than struggle to control themselves, because their cravings for food will have adapted to a world in which there is an enormous amount of food available. Their bodies will turn off the signal to eat once they've had enough food, and they won't have such intense cravings for sugar. They will have cravings for a variety of foods that are healthy for them, and they will want to eat in reasonable quantities rather than stuff themselves like an animal.

2) Work
Many people today have to force themselves to work because they don't want to work, and they don't want to think or learn. They want to retire, entertain themselves, and be pampered by servants. When humans have finally adapted to this new world, they will not have fantasies of being pampered by servants. Instead, they will have fantasies of getting together with other people and working for the benefit of society. They will enjoy learning and thinking.

Most people today cannot completely relax and enjoy life. They are usually under a certain amount of stress because they are usually struggling to control their emotions. A person who is truly adapted to his environment will be able to relax and do as he pleases. He will be able to be his natural self.

When a person cannot behave in his natural manner, it is a sign that he doesn't fit his environment. Everybody should be able to live the way they want to live. The people who cannot behave the way they want to behave are misfits in this world.

We need laws to coordinate us, such as transportation systems and monetary systems, but we shouldn't need policemen roaming the city to stop us from stealing items or raping children. When humans have adapted to this modern world, they will need laws only for purposes of organization and coordination, not to prevent disgusting behavior.

Some religious fanatics claim that cockroaches, lizards, fish, and other creatures are remaining the same century after century rather than evolving, and therefore, evolution is nonsense. However, even though a cockroach today may have the same appearance as a cockroach from millions of years ago, they are not identical. The cockroaches of today are more advanced, and so are the fish, plants, and insects. Although it's possible for a species to remain the same for quite a while, over a long period of time, every species will improve because the competitive battle for life favors a slow advancement. However, it's not easy for us to see some of the changes because they are internal. The cockroaches of today, for example, may be a bit more intelligent, or have a more efficient digestive system, or have a greater ability to survive shortages of food.

In 2008, a professor of genetics in London, Steve Jones, promoted the idea that the evolution of humans has stopped, and that the people living one million years from now will resemble modern-day humans. However, his dreary scenario doesn't make sense. Humans certainly have been interfering with evolution during the past few thousand years, and especially during the past century, but we cannot stop evolution. All we can do is create temporary problems.

Consider an extreme scenario to understand this concept. Imagine if every society decided to feel sorry for themselves and deliberately breed themselves into freaks by sterilizing everybody except the criminals and idiots. The end result is that every generation would be significantly more stupid and dishonest than the previous generation, but after a few generations, they would begin suffering a severe shortage of scientists, engineers, bricklayers, dentists, electricians, and other skilled workers. They would lose their ability to maintain their railroads, electricity, airplanes, and automobiles. They would begin living in a more primitive state, like the people of the Middle Ages, and at that point nature would begin to take over the decisions of who lives and who dies. Evolution would then resume.

However, no nation is going to deliberately breed themselves into freaks. Instead, the subtle differences between the races and societies will create the competition necessary to allow evolution to continue. For example, if the women of one race have a slightly greater attraction to intelligent men, and if the women of another race are slightly more attracted to men who behave like puppy dogs, then eventually the women with the greater attraction to intelligence will dominate because they will produce slightly more intelligent children, and the other race will slowly breed themselves into idiots.

Evolution will occur whenever there is competition, and it doesn't matter how subtle the competition is. For example, what is the difference between the way women in mainland China select a husband and the way the women in Taiwan select a husband? What is the difference between the way American men deal with crime and the way men in India deal with crime? We may not be able to see the differences, but there are differences. There are differences between people, and there are subtle differences between societies. These differences allow for competition, and the competition allows for evolution. We cannot eliminate the differences between us, so therefore, we cannot stop competition or evolution.

Over a long period of time, the races and societies with even a subtle advantage will eventually dominate, and the other races and nations will go extinct. This has been happening all throughout history with all animals, plants, and humans, and it will continue to occur no matter what anybody does. It is impossible to stop evolution. We can interfere with evolution, but we cannot stop it.

The professors and scientists who regularly get publicity don't seem to be very intelligent. Our schools are primarily a place to learn, not to think, and so a lot of people are getting college degrees because they are good at memorizing information, but they are not very good at thinking, and they are not honest, either. It's also interesting to take a look at the organizations that these famous scientists and professors belong to. For example, Professor Jones belongs to the British Humanist Association, which is another organization that appears to be diabolical attempt to infiltrate, manipulate, and dominate society.

The British Humanist Association was created by Harold Blackham, who helped Jews escape Nazis. After the war he worked with other Jews. He may have been helping the Jews simply because so many people in that era had been fooled into believing the Jews were innocent victims who need our help, but it is wisest to assume that people who work with Jews are doing so because they are part of their crime network. Consider people guilty until proven innocent.
 

I suspect that when our primitive ancestors began developing language, they inadvertently brought an incredibly rapid increase to human intelligence. The people less able to learn and use language, and less able to pronounce words, were at a very serious disadvantage. The groups of people with the greatest ability to use language had a tremendous advantage, and they would have dominated and evolved rapidly into an increasingly intelligent human.

Evolution is normally very slow because the differences between one child and another are so subtle that their differences in intelligence don't have much of an effect on which of them produces the most babies. However, language can change the situation because even a subtle difference in intelligence can make a noticeable difference in a person's ability to use language and pronounce words properly. We can even see this today. Look at how many of the people in the world today - including government officials - appear to be intelligent, but some of them cannot use language properly, and some of them have trouble pronouncing words properly. There is something inferior or defective about their mind and/or mouth, but we wouldn't realize that they had a disorder if it were not for language. Language is very complex, and it can expose even subtle flaws in a person's mind and mouth.
 

Technology has changed the environment that we live in, and humans must and will adapt to this new environment. Our distant ancestors competed primarily in finding food and dealing with the weather. That type of competition put most of the emphasis on physical qualities and intelligence. Today nations are competing to produce robots, computers, and high-speed trains. This requires increasingly intelligent and talented scientists, engineers, technicians, mechanics, and other skilled workers.

Furthermore, nations today must deal with social problems that never before existed, such as organized crime networks, retardation, euthanasia, organized religions, charities, nepotism, monetary systems, and governments. This requires people who have the emotional ability to face problems rather than hide from them like a frightened animal.

People today must also be capable of working in teams, and the teams are becoming increasingly large and complex, and the teams must work for the benefit of society, not simply for themselves. This requires people who can be just an ordinary gear in a machine as opposed to our distant ancestors who could behave like selfish kings who didn't care about their effect on other people.

People today also must be able to provide themselves with leaders for government, schools, businesses, and other organizations, as opposed to our distant ancestors who didn't have to judge other people according to leadership abilities, and who didn't have to analyze their leaders or deal with incompetence.

Life is changing dramatically for us. Our societies are no longer competing with one another to catch wild pigs or build shelters for the winter. The competition between societies is no longer physical. It makes no difference which race is the physically strongest. The competition today is a battle of whose emotional and intellectual abilities are better suited to this complex world. Which society will be the best at reducing crime? Which society will do the best job of providing themselves with competent leadership in government, business, and science? Which nation will do a better job of educating their children?

There are subtle differences between different groups of people, and those subtle differences will allow the people with the slightly higher-quality minds to eventually dominate. The nations that are less able to deal with the modern world will slowly deteriorate, and those people will eventually go extinct. Societies today must produce children with more advanced qualities than those of a savage, but many women are reproducing with criminals, alcoholics, parasites, and weirdos, and many men are only interested in women who are pretty. The races and nations that dominate will be those in which the men and women have higher standards for their spouse, children, and leaders.

Technology has altered our environment, and the human race will evolve into a more advanced, less animal-like creature. Nobody can stop this competitive battle, so nobody will be able to stop this evolution from occurring. The nations that can't cope with these changes will destroy themselves, and some races may go extinct, but other races will continue to advance, and they will eventually dominate.

The human race is entering an era in which there will be rapid advancement of emotions. Humans will evolve into a truly more advanced creature that has more of a concern for society, more of an ability to work together in teams, and more of an ability to face problems. The era of crime networks, parasites, nepotism, monarchies, and deception will end.

Humans will develop a greater interest in learning, discussing issues, analyzing history, and considering their options for the future. Humans will become less arrogant and more interested in critical analyses of themselves and their society, and more able to look favorably at other societies rather than fear other people as potential enemies. Humans will also evolve a desire to earn their position in life rather than look for ways to cheat, steal, deceive, intimidate, or lie, and rather than beg for handouts, inheritances, and other forms of "charity". Humans will evolve into a creature that can face problems rather than hide from them. Humans will develop the ability to calmly discuss and develop policies for abortion, religion, schools, elections, crime, and euthanasia. Humans will evolve into a creature that is more concerned about the quality of their children, friends, spouses, leaders, and other members of society.
 

At the moment, every nation is interfering with their evolution by allowing or helping the low-quality people to reproduce. We are also allowing criminals to kill healthy people and ruin our social environment, thereby interfering with marriages and families. You may be able to see this during your own lifetime. For example, I was a child during the 1960s, and America was a pleasant nation at that time, at least in the areas where I was growing up. It seemed as if America had tremendous potential to become an inspiration for the entire world. Unfortunately, America was - and still is - full of "Underdogs" who love to feel sorry for losers, criminals, retards, and misfits of all types. The Jews exploited this "feel sorry for me" attitude and tricked the Americans into becoming an attack dog for Israel.

America is becoming dominated by criminals, idiots, retards, and parasites. We are also losing manufacturing because businesses are having an increasingly difficult time finding competent and honest management and employees. However, as America slowly deteriorates, some other nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, China, and India, seem to have slowly improved in some respects. The changes that have occurred during my lifetime are subtle, but if this pattern continues over a span of centuries, America will eventually self-destruct, and the other nations will become much better.

However, don't feel badly about the destruction of any nation, or even the complete extinction of any race. In fact, I think that the "Feel Sorry For Me" attitude is the primary reasons that America is degrading. Americans are analogous to a retarded gardener who feels sorry for the weeds and the sickly plants, and who ignores or kills the healthy plants. If America continues to promote the idiotic concept that there is such a thing as an "Underdog", or a disadvantaged group of people who are suffering from poverty or ignorance, then America will continue to deteriorate.

There's nothing wrong with allowing defective people to live, but Americans don't simply let them live. Rather, we allow them to get into government offices, police departments, schools, corporate leadership, and charities. When they get caught committing crimes or misbehaving, we give them second chances, and third chances, and fourth chances. We also allow retards to reproduce, even though some of them are incapable of caring for their children, and some of them don't want to take care of their children. We don't care who reproduces, and we don't care about the quality of anybody's children!

A better society would keep the defective, parasitic, and destructive people under control. Furthermore, we have to control people even if they are our own children or parents. The races and nations that can't deal with these and other issues are going to slowly destroy themselves. And there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.

Don't feel badly when a race or nation destroys itself. Consider it as just another event in history to learn from. The destruction of a nation is similar to the bankruptcy of a business that didn't adapt to modern technology.  Businesses, nations, and other organizations must adapt to changes in life. The organizations that can't adapt to changes are going to suffer. Don't feel sorry for them. That will make their problems worse, and it doesn't do you any good, either. Let them destroy themselves. When a business fails, the employees shouldn't cry. They should simply create a new business or find other jobs. Likewise, when a nation destroys itself, consider it as an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and create a better nation.

Through destruction comes opportunities. Through death comes life. Let nature take its course; let the crude nations disintegrate. Don't feel sorry for losers! Protect the valuable people, and let the savages, criminals, parasites, and freaks destroy themselves. Don't try to fight "nature". In the long run, nature will win, and the more advanced humans will dominate. Be part of the winning team, not the losers.

If we consider "freedom" as being able to do and say whatever you please, then we have to distinguish between freedom in your personal life and freedom in society. People can have a lot of freedom in their private lives, but when a person does something that has an effect on other people, he should not be free to do whatever he pleases. People should not be free to hurt other people.

For example, we can give everybody the freedom to write documents, paint pictures, and make music for their private use. However, when a person sells or distributes his paintings, documents, music, or other creations, or when he plays music so loud that other people are forced to listen to it, or when he creates smoke or fumes that other people have to breathe, or when he takes his pet dog into public locations, then he is affecting other people, and society has a responsibility to ensure that he is contributing to society rather than hurting it.
 

Many artists complain that they want "artistic freedom" to do as they please rather than create the art that other people want. Since virtually everybody today has to either work in a team, or do work for other people, everybody can complain that his creativity is being suppressed because he is forced to follow orders like a slave. However, don't feel sorry for the people who complain about being "a gear in the machine". Artists should not be free to force their art on us. If we don't like somebody's art, that is his problem, not ours.

There are lots of people with artistic talent who are quietly working among us and using their artistic talent to design products, create technical illustrations, make murals, and write songs, but we don't notice them because they are not whining about needing artistic freedom, and they are not pushing idiotic or disgusting art on society. They are working with us, not fighting with us.

I suspect that the artists who whine the most about needing artistic freedom are those with the most serious mental disorders and that they are producing some of the most worthless art. As I mentioned years ago, we can and should pass judgment on what is art and what is trash.

Here is a list of some "street artists" with links to their art, and here is Guerilla Art Gallery's most expensive art, which I assume is the "best" of their art. However, most of us don't like any of that "art". The artists who have trouble dealing with criticism react with anger, pouting, or hatred, and some of them accuse us of not understanding art, or of being Nazis who won't give them artistic freedom. However, we should not feel guilty that we don't like somebody's art, and we should not feel sorry for the artist.

You wouldn't feel sorry for a carpenter who produced worthless furniture, so why feel sorry for an artist who produces worthless art? All of us routinely pass judgment over whether we like the way engineers are designing telephones, automobiles, and cell phones, and we can and should pass judgment over whether we like the songs, paintings, or sculptures of an artist. Don't let the artists intimidate you.

A statue? Or toilet humor?

If we feel sorry for the psycho artists and let them do whatever they please, then we end up with the art that they like, but I think they have a tendency to produce disgusting art. It seems that all throughout history the type of artists who whine about needing artistic freedom are psychotic people who cannot work with other people or produce art that we like, and when we feel sorry for them, we end up with disgusting art. For example, in the 1500s an artist created some stone statues for the Bomarzo Monster park in Italy, such as the statue (photo) of Echidna, a woman from Greek mythology. Her legs are snakes.

Some people justify that type of sculpture on the grounds that it is an aspect of ancient Greek culture, but there were lots of other, more pleasant aspects of ancient Greek culture that we could create statues for. In the previous file of this series, I mentioned that the media gave Miley Cyrus publicity for smoking Salvia, but that was a very small event in her life. They didn't have to give her any publicity, or they could have given her publicity for something else that she did that was more admirable. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if some television reporters installed a video camera in the toilet that Miley Cyrus uses, and then they broadcast the video on the television news and justified it with such remarks as, "Well, our job is to provide the public with information about what our celebrities are doing, and Miley Cyrus was on the toilet many times that day!"

The same concept applies to art. There are lots of aspects of ancient Greek society to create statues about, but that particular artist was attracted to a few of their idiotic religious stories. Furthermore, he chose to put that woman in an idiotic position. I don't think he created any of those statues to help us get a better understanding of ancient Greek society. I think he and other artists are psychotic people, and that they are attracted to the bizarre, perverted, and disgusting aspects of human life. They create toilet humor because they are attracted to that type of "art". They are not creating this type of art to help us understand human history or culture.

The same problem occurs with songs. A lot of songs are about people pouting, hating, fighting, or expressing childish sexual cravings. Why can't we have songs that are pleasant? It seems as if most of the people who want to become musicians and songwriters are miserable people, not people who enjoy life. Many artists promote the concept that an artist must suffer in order to bring out their talent, and it is true that terrible events in a person's life can give him ideas for movies, songs, stories, paintings, and sculptures, but wonderful events can be inspirational, also.

I think the reason that so many artists are suffering and unhappy is because many of them are mentally ill, and I can think of two reasons why so many artists are mentally ill. One possibility is that certain types of mental disorders cause people to become artists by preventing the intellectual portion of their brain from functioning properly, thereby allowing their emotional area to dominate their behavior. Another possibility is that some mentally ill people become artists simply because there are not many other jobs that they are capable of doing. This is especially true of the people who produce "modern art".

Everybody can create modern art, even monkeys. This video shows monkeys at an Amsterdam zoo drawing pictures that are sold to visitors. Nobody can distinguish between the drawings of those monkeys and the modern art that is at a museum. It should be obvious that "modern art" doesn't require much intelligence, or even the ability to read, write, or do arithmetic. There is no "skill" involved in modern art. There is no "talent". It is not even possible to distinguish between modern art and trash.

Regardless of why so many artists are miserable, we can and should pass judgment on whether we want a person's art. An artist should make society more pleasant. We cannot please everybody, of course, but we have to set standards. We shouldn't let the artists intimidate us into thinking that we are Nazis when we complain about their art. We don't have to tolerate art that we consider to be unpleasant.
 

Marco Evaristti created "Rolexgate", which is a sculpture made from diamonds and gold that shows a train of Jewish skeletons entering Auschwitz. Supposedly, 80% of the sculpture is made from the gold that was taken from the teeth of Jews who died in the Nazi camps.

As with other artists, Evaristti shows symptoms of mental illness, such as the dinner he served for his best friends in which he added some fat that had been removed from his body during a liposuction operation. There is nothing "wrong" with considering the human body as a food source, but I don't think he put fat in his pasta dinner for a "sensible" reason. I think he is mentally ill.

Artists who try to manipulate or deceive us are criminals, and they should be treated just like every other criminal. They should be removed from society. We are fools to allow Rolexgate to be described as "art". It is Jewish propaganda, and Evaristti should be removed from society for being a con artist. We should not tolerate abuse from anybody, not even the artists. We should pass judgment on whether somebody's artwork is improving society or making it worse.
 

When a person develops a new food recipe, he is not allowed to demand royalties from you when you use his recipe. Dentists cannot demand royalties every time we use the teeth that they fixed for us. However, artists expect to get paid royalties every time people play their songs, movies, and television shows, and lots of artists have copyright notices on the photographs and other artwork that they post on the Internet. Some musicans today play the music of Mozart and expect to get royalties. To make the situation more ridiculous, there are people in the entertainment business who expect royalties when all they do is package the songs or movies. They don't create any of the art, or even have the talent to create it.

Why should artists own their artwork? Who benefits from this policy? We shouldn't design society to please the artists. We should design society for the human race. If society does not benefit from allowing artists to collect royalties or copyright their art, then we should not do it. What would you think if a mathematician copyrighted geometry or trigonometry and demanded royalties every time somebody uses his math functions?

In Germany, an organization that represents musicians is demanding that kindergartens pay a fee when they copy certain music. The fee is insignificant, but remember the concept of the "Love Locks"; specifically, if we allow a person or organization to abuse us, then they or somebody else will likely do the same or similar abuse in the future. We can't allow people to abuse us even to a small extent, but instead of standing up to this abuse, the nation of Turkey is currently trying to figure out how to protect their national anthem from that German organization. Why should we be afraid of these parasitic people who demand royalties?

I cannot see any justification for allowing artists, and especially the people who only package the art, to collect royalties. I don't think that artists should be allowed to own their artwork or copyright it. Society provides the artists with food, electricity, homes, and other products and services. Every artist can work for a living during his entire life, just like the rest of us. We don't owe them pampering just because they are "creative". Besides, everybody can claim to be "creative". Carpenters are creative, and so are bricklayers, and so are engineers.
 

Our current economic system doesn't provide support for artists, scientists, software developers, or other people who create intangible, intellectual or artistic material, but we could alter our economic system so that people who create these intangible products are just employees of society, and in return, their creations become available to the entire human race.

I think it would be best if the government took control of art and entertainment. Songwriters, musicians, and actors could work for the government as employees. They wouldn't own any of the art that they produced. Everything they produce would go into the public domain, which would allow everybody to produce modifications of their songs, paintings, and theatrical productions. Nobody would have to worry about copyright infringement.

One of the reasons I think we should be able to make our own versions of other people's artwork is because a lot of their art is disgusting, but it could be turned into beautiful art if it was changed a bit. Some songs, for example, need to have only a few of their words changed, and some statues and paintings need only a small amount of alteration to transform them from toilet humor into something much more pleasant.

For example, consider the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas. That song was written for Judy Garland to sing in a movie, but she and other people considered the song to be too depressing, so they had to plead with the artist to rewrite it and make it more pleasant. Years later Frank Sinatra insisted that another line in the song be changed, and years after that another singer changed one of the lines. If the artists were just ordinary employees, they could be told to rewrite it, or some other artist would rewrite it for us, or any of us could do the changes ourselves. We wouldn't have to plead with the temperamental or psychotic artists. 

A lot of people have the talent to modify an existing song, but not many of us have the ability to create a song. By letting all artwork be available to the public, we could modify existing songs into one or more variations. The songs would slowly evolve through the years into a variety of songs that we prefer more than the original. It would be similar to how engineers make variations and improvements to scissors, shoes, cameras, computers, refrigerators, and airplanes. We would also be allowed to make variations of theatrical productions, music, statues, and even photographs.
 

Some artists may claim that because they created their art, that they have a right to control it and do whatever they please with it, but their creations are not truly their creations. Society provided them with food, electricity, and other products while they were developing their art. If an artist was living alone on his own planet, then he would be justified in claiming that everything he does is his own, but every artist is living in a society that is providing him with support, and that makes each artist nothing more than gears in our machine.

If an artist wants total control over something he creates, then he should keep it to himself in his own home. If, on the other hand, he expects society to provide him with money for his art, then his art should belong to society, not to him. If an artist doesn't want to share his art with us, then we shouldn't share our electricity, food, or city with them. We should evict those psychos to the "Land of Misfit Artists".

Imagine if carpenters insisted that nobody be allowed to alter any of their furniture, or if engineers insisted that nobody be allowed to modify anything they create. We shouldn't put up with any psychotic, arrogant, or irrational behavior from anybody. All artists should be told that they either join our society as an ordinary person and contribute to it, or else find some other society to live in.
 

Everybody in the world today has the freedom to eat whatever they please, and in whatever quantity, and as a result, many people are becoming fat, sickly, or anorexic. We also have the freedom to post food related videos on the Internet. For example, I posted a couple of my own, and a Neanderthal in Canada has many videos of his highly unusual food creations. Since I propose a lot of government influence over sports, art, and other fields, you might think I'm going to propose the government control everybody's diet, but I don't think that makes any sense.

Some people want the government to get involved with our diet in order to prevent the stupid and neurotic people from hurting themselves and their children. For example, in Britain there are suggestions that the government use money as a reward to help people lose weight, and there is a proposal for school teachers to check the lunches that children are bringing to school to make sure that they are eating proper food.

There are sensible reasons for requiring schools and restaurants to follow certain guidelines in regards to food production, but I don't think the government should try to control our diet for two primary reasons:

1) It is impossible to control people's diet, especially children. 
Inspecting a child's lunch is a waste of time because the child may throw away the best food. Providing children with nice meals doesn't guarantee that they will get proper nutrition. This is a serious problem for school cafeterias, also. If the schools in America that I have personally seen are typical, then I would estimate that more than half of the food that is produced for elementary school children is thrown in the garbage. We are wasting a lot of food and resources, but most adults are either ignoring this issue, or oblivious to it.

I think a better policy is for schools to teach children about food and health, and for society to provide everybody with easy access to a continually updated database about health-related issues. Also, the so-called health experts should reduce their arrogance by a few orders of magnitude and be honest about which issues they are fairly certain of, which they are not certain of, and which they are extremely confused about. For example, instead of telling us that we must drink 20 glasses of water a day, they should be honest and admit that nobody knows whether we should force ourselves to drink any water.

2) We should not pamper defective people
By providing everybody with access to honest information about health, we can tell people to eat whatever they please. The people who become fat or sickly should be regarded as unfit for this modern era. The ideal situation is to let people be the way they want to be, and then restrict reproduction to the people who have the better qualities. Forcing people to follow a certain diet is putting a lot of stress on them, and it is a burden on society. The ideal situation is to let people behave in their "natural" manner, and if they turn out to be destructive to society, we remove them, and if they only hurt themselves, then they could live with us but they shouldn't be reproducing.

We have to control the diet of a young child, but once children enter school, they should be taught about food and nutrition. Some children will be too stupid to understand the concepts, and some will be unable to control their emotions, and some children won't care about health. The children who cannot control their diet should be regarded as unfit for this modern world, and they should be prohibited from reproducing. We have to become like a gardener. We have to take care of the healthy children and stop feeling sorry for the misfits and retards. The human race has to evolve into a creature that can deal with this modern world.

Some people will respond that we should control everybody's diet because the people who become sickly are a burden on society. While this is true, controlling people's diet is also a burden on society. I don't know which burden is worse, but I think the best policy is to give people as much freedom as possible so that they can behave in their natural manner. It's difficult to control people, and they don't like being controlled. I think it is better to let people have as much freedom as possible, and if they hurt society, we remove them, and if they hurt themselves, we let them suffer.

The Australian Medical Association points out that most of the men in Australia are overweight, and that the overweight people are putting a tremendous burden on the Australian health care system. They propose "shock tactics" to help people lose weight. However, we don't have to feel responsible for people who hurt themselves as a result of their inability to deal with food. For example, when a person becomes so fat that he gets stuck in his bathtub, we don't have to waste our time or resources helping him out of his bathtub and taking him to a hospital. We could tell him that he can sit in his bathtub until he loses weight, and if he dies in the process, that is his problem. We should not feel sorry for people who are obviously incapable of coping with the modern world. We should take care of people who are valuable.

Everybody should have the ability to take care of himself. We should not feel responsible for people who cannot cope with the modern world. We should not feel guilty that they are mentally defective. It's not our fault that their brains don't function very well. We don't owe them anything. Feeling sorry for them isn't going to help, anyway. We have to start controlling reproduction so that eventually all people are capable of taking care of themselves.
 

“I relish the freedom to express my opinions without some would-be, present-day version of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels looking over my shoulder and telling me what I can say and what I can’t say.” - Mike Reagan (here) Note that the people who oppose high standards of behavior  will often complain that such policies are Nazi policies. Get into the habit of analyzing what people say and passing judgment on whether they: a) provide intelligent arguments, or b) try to stimulate our emotions.

According to this poll in November 2010, most people are afraid that allowing the Internet to be regulated would allow the government to promote a political agenda. Michael Reagan, the orphan who refers to himself as Ronald Reagan's son, wrote this idiotic article in which he complains that the FCC "wants to get its grasping hands around the throat of the Internet". Here are some concepts to keep in mind:

1) Our governments are disgusting

As of today, we have a good reason to be concerned with government regulations because every nation's government is full of criminal Jews and their puppets. The Jews are already trying to make it illegal for us to analyze the Holocaust, and we certainly wouldn't want those disgusting Jews to play any role in creating regulations for the Internet.

However, do not fear the concept of government regulations. The proper reaction is to expose and stop the criminal Jews, and stand up to all of the other corrupt government officials. We should try to improve our situation, not hide from the criminals. Get into the habit of looking for ways to improve life rather than trembling in fear of the government or the crime networks. We need to take an active role in our future and start experimenting with changes.

For example, instead of insulting government leaders or being afraid of them, we should start experimenting with better methods of selecting government officials. The voters are doing a terrible job of selecting government officials, and our election system is very easily corrupted.
 

2) The Internet is just a communication method

Some people treat the Internet as if it is a different type of universe in which rules don't apply. They believe that we should have complete freedom to do whatever we please on the Internet. In reality, the Internet is just another form of communication. As of 2010 we have such methods as our voice, paper, television, CD-ROMs, radio, and DVDs. Regardless of whether we spread information with our voice, paper, television, or the Internet, we should follow certain standards, such as rules that prohibit slander, libel, deception, manipulation, and abuse.

Furthermore, the Internet allows us to spread information faster and easier than any other method. Therefore, we should be more concerned with what people put on the Internet than what they say with their voice, or what they print on paper. If a person is deceiving people in verbal conversations, he can only deceive a small number of people. However, if he puts deceptive information on the Internet, he can rapidly deceive billions of people around the world. Therefore, we should be more concerned with what people are putting on the Internet than what they are saying in conversations. Television is also a very effective communication method, and so we must be very concerned about the information that is broadcast over television.

Therefore, instead of providing people with the freedom to use the Internet in any manner they please, we ought to be very concerned that the information on the Internet meet the same journalistic standards as information that is broadcast on television or printed in paper publications. Of course, our standards for television and paper publications are very low, which is why the Jews can so easily get away with publishing Holocaust propaganda, UFO nonsense, toilet humor, and lies about the Apollo moon landing.

3) Only criminals need to worry about standards of behavior

I suspect that the people who demand freedom on the Internet are actually criminals. I can't believe any adult is so stupid as to truly believe that he wants people to have the freedom to post whatever they please on the Internet. Consider an extreme example. Would you want a person to have the freedom to post information about you on the Internet that was false? And imagine if they were also manipulating photos and audio files in order to hurt you.

The people who complain about laws, government regulations, and standards of behavior don't have any intelligent reasoning to support their complaints. They are not discussing the issue; rather, they are trying to manipulate our emotions, often by making references to Nazis. They are trying to make us afraid of the government. Don't let people manipulate you. Tell people to stop the Nazi remarks and either say something intelligent or shut up.

4) We need to stop criminals, not "the government"

The "government" and its "regulations" are intangible concepts. There is no reason to fear a concept. The world is not suffering as a result of concepts. The world is suffering as a result of the specific people who are killing, murdering, cheating, blackmailing, kidnapping, and deceiving. Every one of those criminals has a name and address, and each of them can be arrested or killed.

For example, there are some Jews trying to prohibit investigations of the Holocaust, and some Jews want to stop people from exposing the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack. It's not "the government" that wants to stop discussions about the Holocaust, it is specific Jews, and each of those Jews has a name and address. We could arrest or kill each of those Jews.

We don't have to fear "the government". We have to deal with the criminals who are scattered among us and who are causing trouble for us. As soon as we start removing the criminals, the world will become noticeably more peaceful, and the governments will become more honest, and the media will become more respectable.
 

It doesn't matter whether a person spreads information with his voice, a piece of paper, a DVD, a television show, or the Internet. Everybody who creates information should follow certain standards of quality. Furthermore, I think we should raise the standards for journalism. For example, I don't think people should be allowed to post information anonymously. Whether people put information on the Internet, the television, or a magazine, the authors should be identified. I cannot think of any sensible reason to allow people to put information on the Internet anonymously.

The Internet has thousands of anonymous websites and articles, and most of the anonymous articles are propaganda about such issues as the Holocaust, crop circles, and UFOs. By comparison, the people who are posting intelligent information are identifying themselves. They're not ashamed or embarrassed of what they are doing. Actually, people who create intelligent information are proud of their accomplishments.

We don't need to fear standards for journalism. Rather, we should be discussing what the standards should be. It's not easy to set standards for something as intangible as information, but we can do it. As soon as we start experimenting, we will begin the process of learning how to do an increasingly better job. Doing nothing, however, gets us nowhere. We have to do something; we have to take an active role in controlling our future. We have to stop being frightened, passive animals.

I doubt if many people today would be interested in creating a better language for the human race, but this will happen at some point in the future. The reason I am certain of this is because history shows a trend towards a common language. Here are two concepts to consider:

The development of language would have been so slow that we could not actually say when it began, but if there had been video surveillance of the Earth during the past few million years, we might be able to identify a point in time at which we could say that a group of humans had finally started the development of a language. Animals make noises every day, but they are simply following their emotional cravings. The difference between making emotional sounds and speaking a language is that we are speaking a language when the intellectual part of our mind is putting sounds together in a specific sequence to represent some concept. It's possible that the very first time somebody put sounds together in such a manner, that nobody else understood what he was saying, or perhaps there was one other person in the group who was intelligent enough to figure out what was happening.

The very first sentence to be spoken may have consisted of only two words, or perhaps three words. However, the development of language would have had an incredible effect on the evolution of the human mind. The people less able to speak would have been at a very serious disadvantage. Therefore, once language began, the human mind would advance very rapidly.

As the centuries passed, more words were added to the language. Eventually there were hundreds of words. However, even a thousand words is not very many. It would have been easy for our primitive ancestors to know every word in their language. And since the languages were simple, it would have been possible for people who spoke different languages to eventually understand one another. Learning a foreign language thousands of years ago was considerably easier than it is today, even though the people long ago were less intelligent.

Today there are tens of thousands of words in our languages. It is possible that nobody today knows all of the words in his language. Actually, our languages are so chaotic and confusing that we can't even be certain how many words we have in our language! For example, we have words that were created thousands of years ago but are never used today. Do they count as words in our language? Or should we eliminate them? And what about the words that have more than one meaning? Do they count as one word, or as several words? For example, the word "light" refers to electromagnetic radiation, the weight of an object, and many other concepts. Does that word count as only one word in the English language? Or do we count each meaning as a word?

As future generations learn more about the universe and develop more technology, they will create even more words. Unfortunately, the creation of words is occurring in a haphazard, chaotic manner, and this is making all of our languages even more confusing. For example, sometimes people take an existing word and use it for a new concept, thereby giving an existing word a multiple meaning.

We are also making our language unnecessarily difficult by creating new words that are very similar to existing words. Instead of adding new sounds to our language, we are simply combining existing sounds into new words. This creates words that are very similar to one another. It would be better if we were to take words from foreign languages, or take some of their sounds, so that more of our words are noticeably different and unique. For example, we could eliminate the word "complement" and replace it with the German word "erganzen" so we don't get it mixed up with "compliment". For another example, we could refer to the metal that we call "lead" with some unique foreign word, such as the Spanish word "plomo", so that the words "led" and "lead" can be used only to refer to what a leader does. The words "descendent" and "descendant" are also confusing.

Another problem with many languages is that foreign words become incorporated into their language but are not properly adapted. For example, the words data and datum have been added to the English language, which is acceptable, but we retained the Latin version of those words rather than adapting them to English. The experts of the English language tell us that data is the singular version and datum is the plural version. This is ridiculous because it doesn't follow the rule for plural nouns in English. These "experts" are not experts. They are fools who are defending an irrational language. We should make our language sensible, not mix grammar from different languages and create a confusing, irrational language.

The Chinese language is a good example of a language that is unnecessarily complicated. The Chinese are fools to put such a burden on their children. They gain nothing from this burden. If you think I'm exaggerating, compare a Chinese person in China to a Chinese person in America who knows only English. How does a Chinese person benefit by knowing the Chinese language? How is his life better than a Chinese person who only knows English? The Chinese do not benefit in any way from their primitive language. In fact, they are suffering from it. The Chinese people who grow up in America and learn only English have a lot more time during their childhood for other activities.

Some people in France boast that their language has the nicest sounding words, but every language has words that sound nice, and every language has words that are unpleasant. I've heard Jews ridiculing the "disgusting" sound of the German language, but have you ever heard Hebrew? I think Hebrew is more disgusting than German, and I don't think it's because I'm biased against Jews. I think the reason the Jews complain so much about the Germans is because the Jews are envious of Germans.

People should stop being proud of their language. All languages have unpleasant sounds, and every language is crude and irrational. A language is just a tool to communicate with. It doesn't matter which language we speak. It would make more sense for us to get control of one of our languages, and develop it into a truly sensible language. Then we could boast about our achievement.
 

Thousands of years ago a child had almost nothing to learn in order to become an adult. Today a child has to learn a lot of information in order to get a job and fit into society. The children of the future are going to have to learn much more information. The burden on children is increasing. Eventually it's going to make sense to start reducing the burden, but how can the burden be reduced? One way to reduce the burden is to create a simplified, worldwide language. By simplifying the language, children would be able to learn it much quicker, and by having only one language for the entire world, nobody would have to waste their time learning foreign languages.

In 50,000 BC it would have been easy for a child to learn several different languages, but languages are becoming more complex and confusing every year. The languages of the future will have even more words than they do today. It's becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect children to learn more than one language.

According to some websites, such as this, there are more than 6000 variations of spoken languages, more than 2000 written languages, and about 300 languages that have dictionaries on the Internet. The human race does not benefit by maintaining all of these irrational, haphazard languages, and we do not benefit by having children around the world wasting some of their childhood on the learning of foreign languages.

We are fools to continue a practice that is a burden on us, and the longer we wait to change this idiotic situation, the more difficult it will become. The metric system is an example; the Americans are foolishly putting a burden on themselves by continuing to resist it.
 

I think there would be a tremendous psychological benefit if everybody in the world spoke the same language. It would make the world seem much friendlier. The people in Japan, Hungary, and Tibet wouldn't be mysterious "foreigners"; rather, they would be "people" that we can talk to, and who seem to be just like us. It would be a bit more difficult for somebody to instigate a war.

When we speak different languages, we become isolated from one another. Americans can see this right now by looking at how differently we feel towards Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia compared to other nations. The nations that speak English seem to be full of friendly people, whereas the other nations are full of foreigners.

The nations that almost none of us have relatives in, and which speak a language that almost none of us understand, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, tend to be completely ignored. The toxic sludge that Hungary suffered from in October 2010 is an example of how different languages are causing trouble. Do you know even one person who can speak Hungarian? How many Americans have any idea what is going on in that nation? A couple years ago there were violent demonstrations in Hungary regarding their government, but what was that about? They are isolated from us because we cannot speak to each other. 

Millions of Americans should understand the value of everybody speaking the same language because millions of us have spent years living and working in close contact with people who don't speak English. This is not merely a ridiculous situation. Rather, it is equivalent to putting dirt into a transmission; it's like mixing oil and water. People in a modern society have to become like gears in a machine. However, we can't cooperate when we can't communicate with each other.

Incidentally, a man in Europe, after reading my remarks about the Americans who cannot properly pronounce some of the words in the English language, told me that one of the German leaders couldn't properly pronounce some of the German words. If everybody in the world spoke only one language, then we would notice that some people in foreign nations are not speaking properly.
 

There are thousands of languages in the world today. Nobody can be certain how many languages there are because the quantity of languages depends upon how different two languages have to be before they count as two languages rather than one language. For example, there are several variations of English in Britain, and there are different variations of German in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. Do the Swiss speak a version of German that is different enough to count as a separate language?

All languages have been changing haphazardly, and they are still changing. If they continue to change, then the people a thousand years in the future will not be able to understand what any of us are writing today. Have you looked at the Canterbury Tales, which were written during the 1300s by Geoffrey Chaucer, who was living in London, England? This page has one of his stories with a translation to modern English. It was written only 600 years ago, but notice that it is almost impossible for us to understand his version of English. Will the English language continue to change this rapidly and extensively? If so, the English-speaking people 600 years from now will not be able to understand what you and I are writing or speaking!
 

Another important lesson to learn from history is that nations are as unstable and as unpredictable as businesses and marriages. Nations are constantly undergoing internal changes, and occasionally they self-destruct, split into pieces, merge with other nations, or become dominated by foreigners or other nations. Nations are not stable organizations because they don't have high quality leadership, and none of the people in any nation are dealing with their problems. Everybody in the world is very passive. They don't take control of their culture. They don't make their life what they want to be. They don't try to determine their future. No nation is even bothering to control immigration, reproduction, pollution, or crime. We allow our economy, holidays, sports, language, and all other aspects of our culture to drift about aimlessly.

If we don't change the course of the human race, then the nations 1000 years from now will be very different from what they are today, and the languages will be completely different. And imagine what the Internet will be like after 1000 years of haphazard changes. We cannot understand the English, French, or German that our ancestors spoke in 1100 AD, and if this trend continues, the people in 3100 AD will not be able to understand what any of us are saying. And if this trend continues for another thousand years, then the people in 4100 AD will not be able to understand any of the documents or videos from people of 3100 AD.

It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that at some point in the future the people are going to get fed up with the thousands of constantly changing languages. At some point the human race is going to decide to take control of its nations and languages rather than be passive animals who allow nations and languages drift aimlessly through time.
 

Unfortunately, humans are like trains on track. We don't want to change anything. We have to be forced to change. At the end of World War II, both Japan and Germany could have been forced to teach English to their children. The adults would have continued speaking Japanese and German, but English could have been phased in during less than four generations. Today, more than 60 years later, all of the younger people in Japan and Germany would be able to communicate with us. After one more generation, they would be able to make English their primary language.

I think it would have helped the world tremendously if Japan and Germany had been forced to phase in the English language. Since those two nations are very significant to the world, it would have allowed the most technically advanced nations to freely communicate with each other without wasting time or resources on translations, and it would make our nations become more friendly. Furthermore, it would put pressure on the other nations to learn English. This would make it easier for the entire world to eventually switch to just one language.

However, instead of making Japan and Germany switch to English, we divided Germany up into four pieces, as if it was a pie for the world to eat, and I'm not sure what we did to Japan. Actually, I suggest that the Japanese take a serious look at the people who came to their nation at the end of World War II. Some Americans may have been truly interested in helping Japan recover from the war, but now that I'm aware of how the Jews are manipulating America and Europe, I would bet that the Jews were trying to infiltrate, manipulate, and destroy Japan. I doubt if the Jews were interested in helping Japan. When have the Jews ever helped a nation?
 

After reading my remark in another file about how the Chinese and other languages are primitive and should be abandoned, a man in Europe sent me a message that he heard that the Chinese language is more vague than European languages, and as a result, the Chinese get into more disputes over the meaning of their business documents. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, the Chinese ought to be embarrassed.

If it were possible to measure the "confusion factor" of each language, we would find that languages fit the typical Bell curve. Most languages would be typical in their confusion factor, but one language would be the most confusing of all, and one would be the least confusing. Which language is the most confusing?

A lot of people boast about their nation's technical achievements in computers, high-speed railroads, rockets, automobiles, or robots, but no nation yet boasts about their achievements in social technology. No nation is boasting that they have developed a language that is the easiest to learn and the most accurate, and no nation is boasting that they have developed the most efficient economic system, or the most useful legal system. There is still no serious research or development to develop a better school system, or a better system for selecting government officials, or a better monetary system. And there is no attempt to improve language, either. In fact, most people want to keep their language exactly as it is.
 

When I first started developing software in the 1980s, almost all of the computer software was designed under the assumption that we were using languages with less than 256 characters. Recently Borland, and I suppose Microsoft and others, have put a lot of time and effort into developing software that supports the languages with thousands of characters. They refer to this as "Unicode".

I think we are simply delaying the inevitable by supporting different languages, especially the primitive languages that have thousands of characters. It is acceptable for the Chinese to use their primitive language, and it is acceptable for the Egyptians to use hieroglyphics, but they should be using those primitive languages as their secondary language, not their primary language. The world would be much friendlier and more efficient if we all had the same primary language, and if we all used the same calendar, clock, measurement system, and number system. Did you know that the people in Germany are putting decimal points where Americans put commas, and they put commas where we put decimal points? Why can't everybody use the same number system? At the end of World War II, the Germans could have been told to use decimal points and commas in the same manner as the Americans.

Ideally, we would develop a simple and more accurate language. It would be taught to children as a secondary language, and after a few generations, everybody in the world would know it, and then the entire world could make it the primary language for everybody. At that point there would be no need to teach children their original, primitive language. Only historians and people interested in language would be interested in learning the original, crude languages. However, we don't have to develop a completely new language. It would make more sense to improve a language that is already in widespread use, such as English. For example, we could get rid of the irregular verbs. Consider the verb "be". It would make more sense to use the verb like this:

A person who already knows English wouldn't have to go to school to learn this more sensible version of the verb. In fact, many children use the words in that manner by mistake. 

The English language also has words with syllables that nobody uses. For example, most people ignore the first "R" in the word February, and most people pronounce "poinsettia" as "pointseta". So why not improve our language? We don't benefit from the chaos; rather, we put an unnecessary burden on our children and on the schools. Although people today are not interested in improving language, it will certainly happen at some point in the future.
 

The most primitive aspects of our numbers are those that are the oldest, namely, the first 20 numbers. From the number 40 onward, with the exception of 50, the numbers follow a very simple pattern. The numbers 40, 60, 70, 80, 90 are the words four, six, seven, eight, and nine with the letters TY after them. Therefore, we could simplify our number system by using this pattern for all of the numbers. So, after 9 would come "Onety" rather than ten, and then "Onety one" rather than eleven, etc.

Not many people today would want to change the names for numbers, but do not assume that life will remain as it is today. There may be a time a few thousand years from now at which the people decide that they have had enough of the chaos and decide to simplify their number system.

Comparing animals to humans, and looking at the history of human societies, can give us an idea of how we are evolving, and where we are heading. Here are a few of my assumptions on where the human race is going.
 

Humans are capable of enjoying the variety of plants and animals. We don't hate a particular plant because it wants more nitrogen than another, and we don't criticize an animal because it wants a warmer or colder environment than some other animal. We accept and enjoy the differences between the animals and plants. We do not try to force all of the plants and animals to interbreed and become just one variety of plant and one variety of animal.

However, at the moment, there is still a tendency to force all people into a "melting pot" and become just one variety of people. We still have a fear of people who are different from us. We want everybody to dress like us, eat the same foods, and follow the same religion. However, I think humans will continue to lose their fear of other people and eventually we will reach the point of development at which we do not merely tolerate different cultures; rather, we will be able to truly enjoy different cultures, just as we enjoy different flowers.

It would be nice to have all societies compatible in certain areas, such as our number system, economic system, and language, but we don't need the same clothing styles, music, food, or even sports. For example, the photo shows a portion of a cover album of the Chinese musical group, 12_Girls_Band, and their clothing, music, and instruments are different from those of American musicians. Some Americans may have trouble dealing with those differences, but eventually I think people will enjoy the differences between cultures.

Incidentally, notice that the 12 Girls Band has an English version of their website, and it is slightly inaccurate. For example, what does the word "unsmooth" mean in this sentence:

Throughout his unsmooth life experience, music is the thing that fascinates Mr. Wang Xiaojing all the time.

Their inaccurate translation is another example of how the human race is wasting time and resources by maintaining thousands of different and primitive languages. Governments and businesses waste a lot of their time and money on translations, and schools waste a lot of resources and time on the teaching of foreign languages. These languages are putting a burden on us, but none of us benefit from this burden. At some point in the future, the human race will become advanced enough to realize that they should control their crude emotions that cause them to be proud of their language, and develop a more sensible language for the entire world.
 

Humans have a tendency to hide from or tolerate the parasitic and destructive people. Another example that's in the news right now are the people complaining about the Google Street View photos. There are so many people complaining that the Wikipedia even has an entry called Google Street view privacy concerns. A woman in Japan is embarrassed that her underwear can be seen hanging on her washing line, but anybody walking or driving down the street would see her clothing on the washing line, and in much greater detail. Some people are afraid that criminals will use the Google photos, but hiding from criminals is not the solution. The solution is to deal with the criminals.

As of today, almost everybody in the world reacts to crime and corruption by becoming fearful and hiding, like a frightened rabbit. However, the situation cannot occur forever. When people hide from criminals, they allow crime to continue, and they allow crime networks to grow. They allow their society to be destroyed. Therefore, the societies that have the greatest tendency to hide from criminals will destroy themselves more quickly. To rephrase that concept, the societies that are better able to face criminals and eliminate crime will dominate in the long run.

The human race will eventually evolve into a creature that doesn't hide from corrupt government officials, corrupt school officials, or even corrupt policemen. The humans of the future will identify and eliminate criminals. The future humans will have an interest in the quality control of the people.
 

Now that we are preventing nature from killing the defective babies, the societies that are less able to deal with the issue of restricting reproduction will degrade at a faster pace than the societies that are more concerned about the quality of their children. To rephrase this concept, the societies that have more concern about the quality of their children will dominate. Humans will evolve into a creature that is capable of passing judgment on who among them will reproduce.

The issue is actually very complicated because we have to analyze an enormous amount of physical and mental qualities and then try to determine who's got a better mixture of qualities. For example, the man in the photo is putting suction cups on his back for some type of sexual activity. This man is not hurting anybody, and he may not hurt himself, either. Therefore, there is no reason for society to stop him from doing this, and he has no reason to hide what he is doing. However, we should pass judgment on whether we want people like this to reproduce. He may have lots of wonderful qualities, but do his other qualities compensate for this type of behavior?

There are other people suspending themselves on hooks, as if they are pieces of meat at a butcher shop. We have to decide what we want the human race to evolve into. We have to make decisions on what type of behavior we want to see in the next generation of humans. We have to pass judgment on what type of behavior is "normal". 

This man needed medical help when he got a ring stuck on his penis. There are also lots of businesses that provide S&M services, and sometimes there are accidents at those businesses, such as the math professor who was in a coma for three days. Do we want these type of people reproducing? Is this what we want the human race to become? As of today, these people may be a small minority of the population, but imagine if we allow them to reproduce and they become the majority. Imagine living in a nation in which 90% of the adults must visit the hospital every week for treatment as a result of some sexual activity that went wrong. Imagine that there are so many people in comas as a result of S&M activities that went wrong that thousands of extra hospitals have to be constructed.

If the human race continues on the path that it is on right now, these bizarre sexual activities will increase, and eventually most of the people will be involved with them. Is that what you want the human race to become? Have you ever looked at a catalog of sexual toys that are available today? If we continue on this path, there will be more sexual problems in the future, and more variations of sexual toys, sex robots, pedophilia, gay bath houses, farms that provide sex with animals, and sex with dead bodies at morgues. Have you ever seen the variety of S&M activities and products? If you don't want to look at the actual toys, such as boyfetish, then take a look at the Wikipedia articles, which are more descriptive than pornographic:
• BDSM
• Sex toys

If we allow people with strange qualities to reproduce, then the next generation will have even more of the strange qualities, and their strange qualities will be more extreme. When we allow ugly people to reproduce, we are allowing more ugly people to be created, and that creates more people who dislike themselves and want cosmetic surgery, makeup, and pity. Over a long period of time, the human race will become increasingly ugly. We must be concerned about the quality of the next generation. We also have to stop criminals from reproducing. 

As of today, most people believe that they are being nice when they allow everybody to reproduce, regardless of their ugliness, preferences for food, sexual habits, criminal behavior, and personality disorders, but the societies that dominate in the future will be those that are capable of understanding and following the same rules that farmers follow when they breed plants and animals. The societies of the future will be capable of analyzing everybody's physical and mental characteristics and passing judgment on which of them should be allowed to reproduce.

The world will become "patches of human flowers" 

Animals consider other animals as potential enemies, but humans are evolving into a creature that considers other humans as friends. This change in attitude will have a significant effect on the world because if you can think of, for example, a Japanese person, as one of nature's many beautiful "human flowers" in the Earth's garden, then you will be able to enjoy their different clothing, hairstyles, food, and other culture, just as you enjoy the variety of plants in a garden. We want everybody in the world to cooperate for the good of the entire human race, but we don't need to force everybody to wear the same clothing, eat the same foods, or have the same social activities. We don't even need the same school system. Actually, it would be beneficial to encourage people to experiment with different school systems, sports, leisure activities, and other culture in order to inspire people into looking for ways to improve their lives. The boundaries of our nations are arbitrary, and they have been changing haphazardly all throughout history, and the large nations consist of a variety of different races. I think future generations are going to come to the conclusion that our national boundaries are idiotic. The people in the future may develop some impressive ideas on how humans should divide up the planet, but as of today I think the best solution is, as I described a few years earlier, that we create large cities that are physically separated from one another, and which are allowed to be culturally different, but which are required to follow certain compatibilities so that we are economically compatible. With this concept, a nation such as Japan might become several dozen cities. America might become a few hundred different cities. Allowing different cities to develop different culture would serve a very important purpose. Specifically, it would allow us to observe one another's school systems, social activities, sports, architecture, foods, and other social technology, which in turn would give us ideas on what we might like to experiment with, and it would inspire us to improve our own culture. It's not possible for somebody to figure out the "best" culture. It's better to let different cities experiment, and we then observe the results.

If you haven't seen the variety of artwork in Japanese lunches, search for "bento art"

Once we start encouraging discussions about how to improve our cities and our culture, we will certainly devise all sorts of interesting concepts that nobody has yet imagined. For example, a city could be designed so that different areas have different architectural styles. One section might have what we in America describe as "Southwest", another section might be "Cape Cod", and another section might be "Victorian".

One area of the city might have lots of walls made from abstract patterns of colored glass. Another area might have floral patterns sandblasted onto glass sheets or blocks.

Likewise, the parks of a city could be different. One park might be a mixture of large fields of grass and tall trees, and another park might be serpentine walkways that wander around botanical gardens and picnic areas, and another park might be dominated by artificial creeks and small lakes and plants that like water.

An advantage of this design for a city is that as you travel around the city by foot, bicycle, or in a little rowboat on the artificial canals, the architecture and parks change slightly, thereby providing variety. You wouldn't have to travel to other cities simply to see different types of parks or architecture. One large city would provide a lot of variety.
 

Planning and designing a large, advanced city requires a lot of men to work together and make compromises. I think millions of men have the intelligence and the artistic ability to create very nice cities, but I don't think many men have the emotional ability. I think that only a small percentage of the human population is capable of working for the benefit of society.

In the city I live in, there was a time many years ago when some of the city officials wanted to fix up a very ugly section of the city, but none of the business owners could agree on anything, and eventually the idea of fixing the city was abandoned. When "ordinary" men are put together and told to design a city, most of them are too interested in themselves to develop policies that other people would be interested in. Furthermore, most men are so concerned with feeling important that they treat their opinions the way a woman treats her baby. They don't want anyone criticizing their opinions, and they don't like facing the possibility that somebody else has a better idea. We don't like to compromise.

I think it's going to take some effort to find men who are capable of working together for the good of society, but I think we can do it. As I pointed out in other files, don't worry about achieving perfection. If we can bring improvements to the world, then we have accomplished a lot. And we can certainly improve our situation considering that culture is haphazard and chaotic. How could we not improve upon total chaos?

We are wasting a lot of resouces and engineering talent on the creation of gigantic militaries to protect ourselves from people who have no desire to attack anybody! America does not need to fear the Russian people, and the Russians do not need to fear the American people. If  every nation would start going after the true enemy of the world, we could start reducing our giant stockpiles of military weapons.

The only people who are a potential danger to the world are those that are defective or more like a savage. And they are a threat to all nations, not just some nations. Furthermore, we are continuously producing these crude and defective people simply because we are doing nothing to control reproduction. We don't even stop women from raising the babies of rapists.

Our militaries are protecting us from people who don't want to attack us. Every nation should turn its military on the criminals that are scattered within their own nation. We need to analyze the people we live with and pass judgment on who among us is a valuable, contributing member to society, and who is destructive. Those destructive people are the only enemy the world has to be concerned with.

We have to stop being so nice with people who are hurting us. We don't feel sorry for guide dogs that bite or misbehave, and we shouldn't feel sorry for destructive people, even if they are our children, relatives, friends, spouse, or neighbors. The rule everybody should follow is very simple: Either be a responsible citizen and contribute to society, or get out! Once we remove those destructive people, there will be peace.
 

All animals are healthy simply because the mentally and physically defective animals tend to be the first to die in the competitive struggle for life. Unfortunately, a lot of defective humans have found a way to survive through crime, religion, charities, nepotism, inheritances, and marrying people who will take care of them. These criminals are breeding themselves. Furthermore, lots of stupid and mentally defective people are surviving and reproducing because of government welfare, begging, or private charities.

This page has pictures that show people in India praying and washing themselves in the river, while sewage, trash, and even dead bodies drift by, and are eaten by dogs. Note: the author, Max, criticizes the Indians for using water instead of toilet paper, but water cleans better. Try cleaning a baby without water.

Every nation can be visualized as a garden that is smothered by fungus, weeds, and parasites. If we continue on our current path, the idiots, criminals, and parasites will eventually become such a burden, and the human gene pool will have been so contaminated, that our nations will begin to lose their ability to maintain our high level of technology. It will become increasingly difficult to find engineers, technicians, carpenters, dentists, and other people with skills. The economy will begin to deteriorate, and the nation will begin to degrade to something more primitive. Eventually nature will start playing a greater role in killing the retards, criminals, parasites, and excess children. This in turn will improve the mental and physical health of the human population, which in turn will allow the nations to begin advancing once again, and then the cycle could potentially repeat itself.

However, I don't think the human race is going to continue on this path. I think there are enough people in the world today who can understand these concepts. I think a lot of people can see that we are in the process of degrading right now. Businesses all over the world are having trouble finding people with skills, and who are honest and reliable. There is no shortage of people, but there is a severe shortage of people with skills, honesty, and responsibility. The world is becoming dominated by criminals, parasites, retards, and weirdos.

We cannot continue on this path. We do not really have any options. Either we take control  of the human population, or nature will take control for us. That is not much of an "option". Nature is extremely brutal, so we should take control.
 

Today we have to manage society with our intelligence, not our emotions. We can't judge people by whether we "like them". We can't worry about being "nice". We have to keep our emotions under control, analyze everybody's effect on society, and calmly pass judgment on whether they are a  beneficial member of society. If they don't fit into our society, then they have to be exiled to some other society or an area for unwanted misfits, or they have to be executed. We also have to make decisions about who reproduces.
 

America supposedly has more than 2 million people in jails. When America became an independent nation in 1776, there was about 2.5 million people, and that's counting the children. There are enough people in America's jails to create a small nation, or a gigantic city. Some of the criminals are waiting to be executed, but we have such inhibitions about killing them that they usually remain in jail for years before they are executed. And when we execute them, we make a big, expensive production of it. Who benefits by keeping all of these people in jail? And who benefits by delaying their execution?

Some people point out that we shouldn't execute criminals because many of them have turned out to be innocent, but that doesn't justify allowing criminals to live. That justifies making changes to the legal system so that it becomes more honest and more useful.

We have to face the fact that there is no "solution" to the problem of crime. There are only "policies", and every one will be unpleasant to our emotions. We have to keep our emotions under control and select the unpleasant policy that makes the most intellectual sense. I think we should execute the dangerous and mentally ill criminals, and sterilize and exile the others.

The people who become hysterical over the issue of exiling or killing people should not be regarded as "loving" or "kind". They should be regarded as savages who are misfits in our modern world. A person who cannot exile or kill criminals is equivalent to a person who is covered by ticks and fleas, but who refuses to remove the parasites because he thinks that killing them would be "murder". That type of person is not kind or loving. There is nothing "wrong" with killing people who are destructive.
 

The Jews constantly encourage us to kill, fear, and hate Muslims, Nazis, Chinese, Koreans, and other people. Did you listen to the excerpt of the Jew in Florida, Jordan Dern, who gave a lecture to other Jews about sustaining the hatred and anger of Germans?  The audio is at this page. We are fools to allow people to sustain a hatred of anybody. 

When the Jews instigate fights between us, and the fights are not as violent as the Jews were hoping for, they make sarcastic comments, such as when Jake Gyllenhaal complained that the American soldiers didn't do much during the 1991 war in Iraq other than masturbate. (I mentioned Gyllenhaal in Part 8 here.)

Don't be intimidated or frightened by these aggressive, crude, and disgusting Jews. Don't let them trick you into thinking that it's wrong to kill criminals. For centuries, maybe thousands of years, they have been killing us, kidnapping us, cheating us, and deceiving us into marriage. It's either us or them.
 

This video provides an interesting view into the Schofield family, who have a schizophrenic daughter. Why should anybody be forced to raise a child like this? Furthermore, why should they be allowed to raise children like this? These defective children are never going to fit into society, and they are potentially dangerous. You wouldn't want people raising devils, so why should we allow people to raise potentially dangerous, mentally defective humans? Furthermore, if this schizophrenic girl gets pregnant, what sort of creatures will she produce?

The people who claim to love retarded people don't truly love them, and they don't want any of them as a spouse, friend, coworker, or neighbor. Rather, they are simply following their crude emotions to take care of everybody, especially children. Also, we love to titillate our emotions by telling ourselves that we are heroes for taking care of retarded people. However, allowing these people to live is putting a burden on parents and society, and the retarded people never truly enjoy life. Some of the retarded people don't even understand the concept of life. They are just existing, like a stupid animal.

Now that humans are using technology to prevent nature from killing the defective and unwanted people, we have a lot of complex issues to deal with. The people who cannot have serious discussions about controlling reproduction and killing retarded humans should not be regarded as loving or kind people. They should be regarded as primitive savages who cannot control their emotions and think seriously about the problems of modern society. Those people are like dirt in a transmission. Don't let them intimidate you into thinking that it is you who is cruel or lacking in compassion. It is them who have the problem.
 

Since we don't like the idea of killing people, we should develop a machine to execute criminals. We should stop making a production of executing criminals and make it quick and simple. Of course, before we allow such machines to be used, we need to develop a much more honest government and legal system. We wouldn't want our current disgusting, Jew-infested legal system and government to have the authority and machines to kill people.

We should also develop better methods of euthanasia. We should not be forcing people to suffer a slow death when they want to get their death over with quickly and painlessly. We have to stop thinking that killing is wrong. Killing is a part of life. All of us are going to die, and many of us are going to have a very slow and miserable death. We should have the option to die when we want to. Perhaps we could develop a drug that we could drink that quietly puts us to sleep and then kills us.