|Businesses should not control
The free enterprise system allows businesses to have control
of search engines, video sites, Internet encyclopedias, and all sorts of
messaging and social networking sites. Since these are private businesses,
their primary goal is money, not providing a nice life for any of
Furthermore, I suspect that the criminal Jews are getting control of
search engines, video sites, and social networking sites so that they can
manipulate us in various ways, and observe us. For example, the Jews at
YouTube are promoting certain videos and suppressing others, and the Jews
that control Wikipedia are promoting Jewish propaganda about historical
events, suppressing whatever truth that they don't want us to know about,
and suppressing the people they don't like or cannot compete with.
If we had a sensible legal system with honest judges and lawyers, they
would be justified in arresting the people that control Wikipedia for such
crimes as covering up the 9/11 attack and promoting propaganda about the
Holocaust. If we were to investigate the Jews at YouTube and Google, I
bet that we would find reasons to justify arresting them, also.
We have to take a more active role in life. We are like passive
sheep who are allowing Jewish and corporate wolves to manipulate us.
We should consider the Internet to be similar to the water supply or the
transportation network. These services should belong to society,
not businesses or crime networks.
We don't need secrecy on
Allowing people to post information on the Internet either
anonymously or with a phony name is equivalent to allowing people to come
into your house while wearing masks and lying about who they are. Only
criminals benefit from this secrecy.
It doesn't matter if a person comes into your life through your computer's
Internet connection, or whether they are walking through the front door.
You have a right to know who is trying to influence you. Don't be intimidated
into thinking that we need secrecy on the Internet. Instead, demand evidence
that you and other honest people are going to benefit from such secrecy.
Internet videos should play
like DVD players
The companies that allow us to post videos, such as YouTube
and Vimeo, were never interested in providing a useful service for society.
Instead, their goal was profit, manipulation of the public, promotion of
Jewish propaganda, and entertainment. As a result, they do not provide
us with useful playback controls over the videos, and they don't want us
to download them.
In order for Internet videos to be useful for educational purposes,
we need to have the same control that a DVD player provides. We should
be able to easily control the playback speed, go forwards and backwards,
and pause to freeze a frame. We should also be able to easily download
videos so that we can edit them.
The businesses and the criminal Jews want us to watch the videos,
not control the videos or edit the videos. They want us to
be passive sheep who sit in front of the computer and mindlessly
accept the information that they provide us. When you consider that the
YouTube Jews are promoting certain videos and suppressing others, then
the situation becomes even more ridiculous. Not only are we supposed to
be passive sheep, we have to passively watch the videos that those criminal
Jews want us to see. We are truly suckers
for putting up with this abuse.
In order for the videos on the Internet to become more useful, no business
or crime network should be allowed to promote or suppress any of them.
Only society should be able to pass judgment on whether a video should
be promoted or suppressed.
Which videos should be restricted
There are certain videos that YouTube has restricted for "mature"
audiences. We are supposed to sign in before we watch them, but how does
signing in do any good? Children can sign in, and with phony names, so
what purpose does it serve? There is no verification on the Internet of
who anybody is, so who are these restrictions helping?
I suppose that these restrictions are partly to appease parents who
worry that their children will watch sex or violence, but I also suspect
that these restrictions are partly because the Jews want to figure out
who among us is watching those restricted videos. By asking us to sign
in, the Jews can determine who is watching those restricted videos, and
although they may not know our real names or addresses, it will give them
the name and e-mail address that we were using when we signed up for YouTube,
and they might be able to identify some of us from our e-mail address since
so many people in law enforcement and Internet service providers are working
with these criminals.
The information about who among us is looking at certain videos, especially
child pornography videos, is valuable to a crime network. It would allow
the Jews to identify people that they can blackmail and offer jobs
to in Hollywood, police departments, and government. It would also allow
the Jews to find people who are so mentally unstable that they would be
valuable as a patsy in a false flag operation.
Should any videos be restricted to adults only? If so, how do we determine
which ones should be restricted? At the moment, we are foolishly allowing
to determine which videos will be restricted, and I would describe their
decisions as abusive and irrational. For example, the Jews at YouTube are
providing us with unlimited access to videos that promote lies about the
Holocaust, lies about 9/11, and lies about Arab terrorists. They also provide
us with unrestricted access to "toilet humor". Children are also allowed
to watch videos from teenagers who show them techniques to hide
septum piercings from parents and school teachers. Have you seen any
videos yet? How about this
video on how to apply lipstick with seven piercings in your lip? Here's
a young girl talking about her 46 piercings. YouTube prohibits videos that
provide serious information about childbirth, sex, war, and human waste
products, but they allow videos to encourage children
to get piercings and deceive their parents and school teachers! Do you
approve of the policies that YouTube is imposing on us?
Society, not businesses or crime gangs, should be determining which
videos and other information should be restricted to adults only.
Most people want the Internet, television, and other media
to censor violence. However, I don't think our censorship policies regarding
violence make any sense. For example, we have free access to incredible
amounts of violence from Hollywood and television. Slapstick comedy is
full of violence, but we laugh at it rather than complain about
it. Cartoons for children are also full of violence. The people who want
to censor violence do not want to censor the phony violence that
actors provide for us. Rather, they want to censor the actual violence
that is occurring all around us on a daily basis.
The news reporters are prohibited from showing us videos of people being
killed or mutilated in wars, and of people being killed, raped, or beaten
by criminals. There are only some types of actual violence that we are
allowed to see. For example, we are allowed to watch policemen kick and
hit Rodney King. Actually, we don't merely have the freedom to watch that.
Rather, we are forced to watch it over and over.
The news reporters hide almost all of the violence that is occurring
in the world, except for a few selected acts. The particular acts of violence
that they put on television are not intended to inform us of world events.
Rather, they are selecting the violent acts that they hope will instigate
fights between nations, races, or sexes. They also show us violence
when they think it will encourage hatred of Arabs or pity for Jews. The
news journalists are trying to manipulate us, not educate us about news
We need to create more sensible policies for censorship. Should the
violence that occurs in war be completely prohibited from history books,
news reports, or the Internet? Should violence be restricted to people
of a certain age? What about simulated violence by actors? Should
that be regarded as family entertainment? Or should it be restricted? Is
violence more dangerous to us than simulated violence? What is the
difference to a child between watching a Hollywood simulation of a murder,
and watching a real murder? What is the difference between watching an
actor get killed in a Hollywood war movie, and watching a real soldier
get killed in Iraq? Do children or adults suffer by watching the real violence?
Do we benefit by watching imitation violence?
Why do we consider fantasy
violence to be entertainment?
Television, children's books, children's cartoons, and movies
are full of images and descriptions of "fantasy" murders, tortures, rapes,
beatings, and stabbings. This type of fantasy violence is treated as harmless
entertainment for the entire family.
Why do we consider fantasy violence to be entertainment, but real violence
to be disgusting? I think it is the result of our emotions. When our eyes
see a scene that shows real violence, such as a dead body, the visual signals
are sent to our brain, and our brain decodes the signals and figures out
that we are looking at a dead body. The information then triggers a certain
portion of our brain that reacts by creating fear.
This emotion was designed for our protection. In prehistoric times,
when our ancestors encountered a dead human, or a human who is seriously
bleeding, or a child who was screaming, they would become emotionally stimulated
because death, blood, and screaming was a sign of danger. For example,
there may be a wolf in the area, or a violent tribe, or sharp rocks.
Furthermore, since the primary purpose of all living creatures is reproduction,
this emotion causes us to be most concerned about children. In other words,
when we see dead bodies or people bleeding, we are most concerned that
the children are in danger, and we want to protect the children.
By comparison, when we watch slapstick comedians on television, the
violent images are decoded in our mind in the exact same manner as images
of real death, but our mind realizes that we are watching actors
on television, and so the portion of our brain that responds to death is
triggered. As a result, we do not experience fear when we watch phony
violence. Those emotions are triggered by actual death and suffering,
not by imaginary acts. That emotion is triggered by real blood,
not by tomato ketchup, red paint, or red roses. It is triggered by real
screams, not screams by actors.
Most people follow their emotions like a dumb animal. When they see
violence, their emotions trigger a high level of fear, and they react by
trying to run away and protect their children. By comparison, when those
people watch phony violence on television, their emotions are not
triggered, and so they do not feel like running away from it, and they
do not consider their children to be in danger from it. Rather, they consider
the phony violence to be harmless entertainment for all ages.
Most people judge something according to its emotional effect. If something
upsets them, then they assume it is bad. This behavior was vital for animals
and primitive humans, but it doesn't make sense in this modern world. Our
emotions are causing us to "protect" our children from reality, and entertain
them with fantasy violence. We need to think more often. What evidence
is there that fantasy violence is beneficial? Where is the evidence that
reality is harmful?
As I pointed out here, humans
and animals are not violent. We abhor
violence. We become emotionally upset at the site of death, suffering,
and even blood. We don't even enjoy looking at a placenta, which represents
not death. We don't like looking at blood or body parts. However, simulated
violence does not trigger the emotion that is activated by real
We have to control our emotions. If we mindlessly follow our emotional
feelings, then we will be horrified by real violence, and even by childbirth,
and we will want to hide from it and protect the children from it, but
we will giggle at phony violence. We will mistakenly assume that the real
events are harmful, and the simulated violence is family entertainment.
I think that we are creating problems for us by following this emotion
because it is creating the impression that war is fun. When the 1991 Desert
Storm war was being promoted, for example, tens of millions of Americans
were promoting that war, but most of them had never seen a real war, or
even a dead body. I don't think many of the men who were promoting that
war had even seen a placenta, or a woman giving birth to a baby. The only
blood most American men have ever seen is from minor injuries. Many American
men have never seen menstrual blood, either. Most Americans learned about
war and death from Hollywood movies. As a result, most Americans had the
idiotic belief that the Iraqi war would consist of dropping some bombs
for a few months to kill a few evil people, and then everybody would live
happily ever after.
After 9/11, many of those same people who had no idea what a real war
is, supported a war in Afghanistan. That war continued year after year,
and then it expanded to Iraq, but the news reporters hid most of the images
of violence. The war is still going on today, as of July 2012. The wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq have provided Americans with phenomenal opportunities
to get video of real deaths, real mutilations, real brain damage, and all
sorts of real suffering in hospitals, but instead of watching the real
violence for free, the Americans have been spending phenomenal amounts
of money to create hundreds of television shows and movies with
violence and phony suffering. Does this behavior make sense to you? This
is the behavior we would expect from a talking monkey, not a human.
This is an animal that is following its emotions without thinking about
what it is doing.
We are encouraging violent
In America, violence is more than entertainment. We have television
shows, such as America's Funniest Home Videos, that encourage violent
and destructive acts. That particular television show gives prizes, as
much as $100,000, to people who have the funniest video, but most of what
that show considers to be funny are potentially dangerous accidents, such
as falling off of a ladder. This type of television show encourages people
to do something risky or idiotic while somebody else is filming them.
YouTube allows these types of videos without restriction, and if the
video becomes popular, the person can make a substantial amount of money
because YouTube will pay them advertising fees. This is encouraging people
to behave in reckless manners in an attempt to create a popular YouTube
Our society encourages us to behave in dangerous and reckless manners.
We consider reckless accidents and stupid behavior to be funny. We also
spend a lot of money to simulate violence, suffering, rape, and misery.
Who benefits from these type of policies? I think that we would create
a more pleasant society if children were encouraged to face reality and
behave in a responsible manner.
We should not encourage them to consider idiotic or reckless behavior
to be funny, and we should not encourage them to perform idiotic stunts.
I think we are foolish to offer financial rewards, special treatment, or
publicity to children and adults who do stupid stunts. People who do stupid
things should be regarded as idiots. When they destroy material
items they should be regarded as destructive, and when they injure
themselves and expect medical treatment, they should be described as a
Are children harmed by real
If our history documents had photos and videos of actual scenes
from wars and crimes, the children would be initially upset to see them,
but they would not be damaged. Those photos will trigger this protective
emotion and cause the children to become upset and a bit frightened, but
they will not be harmed from it. All they have to do is understand the
emotion, and then they can continue with their history lessons.
We are not harmed when our emotions are triggered. Our emotions
create sensations, and we have the option to override them
with our intellect. If a person chooses to panic or become hysterical,
then he is behaving like a stupid animal rather than a modern human. Don't
make excuses for these people. This modern world needs humans who think
more often. None of us benefit by having these talking
monkeys living among us.
If you have trouble understanding this concept, consider the issue of
pee and poop. When somebody talks about those issues, your emotions will
be triggered and you will experience what we refer to as "disgust", and
you will want to turn away and hide from it. However, this emotion is simply
a protective mechanism. Our ancestors evolved a strong disgust of waste
products in order to prevent them from touching it, playing with it, and
especially from eating it. There is nothing disgusting about our waste
products. It is our stupid emotions that causes us to believe that there
is something disgusting about it. If we could control our emotions, we
would be able to study our waste products.
Do you think your kidneys are 100% perfect? There are very few people,
if any, whose kidneys are "perfect". If everybody could control their emotions
towards waste products, and if we had more medical knowledge, then each
of us would be able to analyze our pee and discover what is wrong with
our particular kidneys. For example, you might discover that you need to
eat more salt, or more of a certain vitamin, because your kidneys are accidentally
releasing some of those chemicals. Or maybe your kidneys are not releasing
enough of a chemical, so you need to compensate for that. Some people might
discover that caffeine is detrimental to them, and others might benefit
from it by forcing their kidneys to release more waste products.
The people who complain that their waste products are "disgusting" are
following their emotions, not their intellect. All of us experience those
feelings of disgust, but we need to control our emotions so that we can
learn about human health.
Likewise, we have to control our emotions in regards to death, blood,
and crying. I suspect that we would create a better society if we stopped
treating phony violence as entertainment. I think this is giving people
the wrong impression of violence. There's nothing amusing or entertaining
about violence. I also think it would be better if history books and other
documents were allowed to use photos and video of actual violence when
it helped to explain the material. I would not include violent images simply
for the titillation. Rather, I would include them when they helped to explain
Children in prehistoric times occasionally saw real violence, and they
survived. Children are not damaged by images of real violence. Rather,
their emotions are titillated, and they will become very alert and want
to turn away from the violence. They are not harmed, however. They merely
experience an emotional reaction. All we need to do is understand our emotions
and think more often. We have to stop letting our emotional feelings dominate
A lot of people like to blame their terrible behavior, or the terrible
behavior of their children, on experiencing strong emotions of fear or
anger during their youth, but emotions do not alter our brain circuitry.
Emotions simply give us feelings. We can deal with those feelings. Encouraging
people to believe that emotional feelings during childhood can ruin our
entire lives is encouraging people to feel sorry for themselves. It would
make more sense to encourage people to believe that emotional stimulation
is beneficial by helping us to learn about our mind.
Likewise, a woman experiences strong emotional feelings when her child
dies, but encouraging her to feel sorry for herself is making the problem
worse. Tell her to deal with it, and if she cannot deal with it, then consider
her to be a talking monkey rather than a modern human.