| 1)
Christianity is the most popular
religion |
| Why did Christianity quickly spread throughout the
world? When Jesus was alive, only 12 men and a prostitute were impressed by him, but about three centuries later, in 313, the Roman Emperor Constantine, legalized Christianity. Unfortunately, historians also do not provide a sensible explanation for why Christianity became popular during those three centuries, or why Constantine legalized Christianity. There is a vague remark in the Wikipedia that during the Roman Empire the Christian philosophy promoted the attitude that God regards the Emperor of Rome as the ruler of the Earth. Therefore, one reason, and possibly the only reason, that Constantine promoted Christianity was to fool people into believing that God wanted him to be in control of the world and the churches. In other words, he may have promoted Christianity as a way of manipulating the people so that he could get more control over them. The Jewish religion, and some others, such as Zoroastrianism, do not believe that people can convert to their religion. Those religions have the attitude of animals. Animals do not welcome other animals into their group. Those religions regard themselves as a superior tribe of people, and that everybody else is an inferior and potentially dangerous tribe. Christianity, by comparison, has the attitude of the Roman emperors; specifically, that everybody must become a member of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church wants to conquer the world. The Catholic Church is extremely intolerant of people who refuse to join their religion, but that militant attitude might have come from the Roman emperors, not Jesus. It is most likely that Jesus promoted only a few subtle changes to Judaism, such as the concept that God was like a loving father rather than a vicious, spiteful creature, and that thousands of other people added to his concept during the three centuries after his death. All of our technology and culture developed by people adding a little bit to the work of previous people. Each person contributes only a small amount. It is unrealistic to believe that Jesus created the entire Christian religion by himself. We need dramatic improvements to our culture Historians are giving us a distorted view of Jesus, the development of religions, and most other historical events because a lot of historians are refusing to believe that humans are apes, which causes them to interpret history to fit their particular anti-evolutionary beliefs. To add to this problem, historians are often under pressure by Jews, businesses, government officials, religious fanatics, vegans, carbon tax proponents, and other people to distort history. We need to make some dramatic changes to our culture. For example, we must regard history as a real science, and we must set standards for scientists so that we can ensure that they have enough intelligence and self-control to disregard religion, explore the unknown, and look critically at themselves. A scientist should also have enough of an understanding of evolution and genetics to realize that it is virtually impossible to do a study of a "random" sample of the human population. For example, a psychology professor who does an experiment with volunteers from his class is not conducting an experiment with a random sample of the human population, or the students in that college, or the students in his class. His volunteers will not be physically or mentally the same as a random group of engineering students, athletes, musicians, elderly people, or children. Likewise, a scientist who does an experiment with a random sample of people from a poor neighborhood of Louisiana is not experimenting with a random sample of the human population, or a random sample of the Louisiana population. Furthermore, a scientist must understand that every generation of humans is more genetically diverse and defective because we are not controlling reproduction. Otherwise he will not take into account that a random sample of people today has subtle genetic differences compared to a random sample from previous years, and especially previous centuries. We need to redesign our economic and government system so that scientists are free of the pressure to produce particular results. We must also change our culture to prevent scientists from being pressured by Jews, religious fanatics, vegans, feminists, and other groups of people.  This
research report claims that "organized"
scientific fraud is increasing
significantly. Of course, that
report might be
fraudulent. The authors could be as deceptive as the people who work
for the Climate Science Legal Defense
Fund, who claim
that "science is under siege",
and that they are "protecting
scientists".The authors might be trying to fool us into believing that the scientists who are promoting evolution or euthanasia, or who are denying the Holocaust or global warming, are actually gangs of organized criminal scientists. Every nation is still following the prehistoric attitude of letting everybody say whatever they please. This allows individual citizens and organizations to claim to be "Fact Checkers", or "Myth Busters", and tell us what is a "fact". It also allows people to tell us who is a "scientist", and who is a "conspiracy theorist". We also allow people to tell us the truth about religion, veganism, evolution, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and lots of other issues. We must raise our standards for the information people provide us, and raise standards for the people who provide us with information. We need to prohibit individual citizens and organizations from telling us what to believe, and from altering our culture. We need to raise standards for government officials, and let an agency that we have control over make these decisions. Why were our ancestors so willing to become Christians? The Roman emperors pushed Christianity on the Roman people, and when the New Testament was written around 400 A.D., the Catholic Church sent priests with Bibles around Europe to conquer the pagans. In 2020, about 29% of the world population was considered to be Christian. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world today. It is very difficult to convince a person to switch or abandon their religion, so why would our pagan ancestors be so willing to switch to Christianity? Why would Africans, Asians, and other non-Jewish people want to follow a religion that worships a Jewish man who is described as the King of Jews, but depicted in drawings as a man from northern Europe? The Christian philosophy is the most emotionally appealing Why has Christianity become more popular than the ancient Roman religion, the ancient Greek religion, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and other religions? I mentioned one reason earlier in this document. Specifically, that some religions, such as Judaism, have the animal attitude that nobody can join their religion. However, people are free to choose other religions, so why have so many people around the world chosen Christianity? The reason Christianity is so popular is because it is the most emotionally appealing religion. The Christian philosophy is analogous to sugar, whereas other religions are analogous to vegetables or vinegar. For example, the Old Testament creates an unpleasant God who is vengeful, hateful, and violent, whereas the Christian God is a kind, generous man who loves and protects us. To rephrase that, people were attracted to the philosophy of the Christian religion, not the stories about angels, or a man walking on water. Unfortunately, many Christians have made the mistake of assuming that the New Testament is an accurate, historical document about the life of Jesus, and that Jesus actually said everything that he is given credit to saying. It is more likely that Jesus only started the Christian philosophy. One possibility is that he was a pedophile, mentally ill, and/or homosexual, and he was suffering from loneliness and low self-esteem, and that caused him to want to believe that God loved him just as much as everybody else, and so he created the concept that God was a loving man, rather than the hateful, vengeful creature of the Torah. The 12 men and the prostitute that he attracted might have also been suffering from low self-esteem, which would explain why they were attracted to Jesus and his concept of a loving God. In the biography of Jesus Christ, I pointed out that it required three centuries before people began admiring Jesus, and I asked what was going on during those three centuries. The most sensible explanation of what was going on is that the stories of Jesus and God were evolving as they passed from one person to the next. Nobody who knew Jesus wrote anything about him, or created a painting or mosaic of him, so all of the information about Jesus came from verbal remarks that were passed around among ignorant people. We can be certain that people occasionally and inadvertently made changes to the stories simply because the human memory is imperfect. Furthermore, we can be certain that some people deliberately created fictional stories about Jesus, and altered some existing stories, to make the Christian philosophy more appealing, and to manipulate people. For example, there is no evidence that Jesus gave a "Sermon on the Mount". That sermon may have been added decades after he had been killed, and it may have been altered dozens of times during the following centuries. We can see that type of "evolution of culture" occurring all throughout history. For example, the stories of Santa Claus have been evolving for centuries. Although we don't know what the original story was, when it was created, or who created it, we can be certain that the very first story was very simple. It appears as if the first stories were based on a real man named Saint Nicholas, but Saint Nicholas did not fly around with reindeer, crawl into people's chimneys, or eat cookies that were provided to him by the owners of the house. The song about Santa Claus watching us and making a list of who's naughty or nice was written in 1934. Many adults promote that concept to manipulate children into behaving better, not because they believe it. The story about Rudolph the red nosed reindeer was created in 1939 when the executives of Montgomery Ward decided to create a small book to give away for Christmas as an advertising gimmick. The American government agency, NORAD, created this website to track the flight of Santa Claus and his reindeer, but not because the people at NORAD believe it. There are also individuals and businesses that create or modify stories to hurt other people's reputations, or to exploit us. For example, the Holocaust stories have been evolving for decades as a result of Jews, such as the Rosenblatts, trying to exploit us. The stories in the Bible are much older than the stories of Santa Claus, so we have even less of an understanding of how they evolved through the years. However, it's easy for us to determine that most of the Bible is nonsensical because it creates a world that contradicts the world that was described by the Roman documents, paintings, and mosaics. When a person provides false information, either because of an honest mistake or a deliberate lie, he will not have any supporting evidence for it, and it will contradict other information. This concept is described here in the authorized biography of Jesus. We cannot be certain when a person is lying and when he is making an honest mistake, but people who lie are the most likely to become upset when we investigate their information, or disagree with them. An example are the Jews who become hysterical when we investigate the Holocaust. By comparison, Christians do not become hysterical when we investigate the Bible. Although a lot of Christians are angry with people who refuse to become Christians, none of those intolerant Christians are demanding laws against "Bible Denial" or "Jesus Denial", or whining about "anti-Christianism", which is evidence that they are not lying about Jesus or the Bible. The Christians want us to investigate the Bible because they believe it is true, whereas the Jews try to stop investigations of the Holocaust and Anne Frank's diary because they know or suspect that they are fiction. It is also important to note that the Christian fanatics do not try to stop us from pointing out that the Bible has hundreds of remarks that contradict the writings, paintings, and mosaics of the Romans. Many Christians are aware that the Bible has a lot of confusing and conflicting remarks. By comparison, the people who lie about something become very upset when we point out their contradictions. Modern police detectives realize that people might be liars or mistaken when they provide information that doesn't have supporting evidence, or which conflicts with other information. They are especially suspicious of people who try to interfere with an investigation. However, the majority of people, including most detectives, are not applying those concepts to the Holocaust, the extinction of the dinosaurs, climate change, and many other issues. No adult is stupid enough to support laws that prohibit "Santa Claus Denial", but most people have been fooled into believing that they will be protected when the police arrest "Holocaust Deniers". Christians believe what they say Christians do not demand laws against "Jesus Denial" because the Christians are not lying about Jesus. Rather, they believe what they say. They are analogous to an adult who believes the Santa Claus stories are true, and have become members or priests of a Church of Santa Claus.  Most adults in the advanced nations have enough intelligence and education to realize that the biblical stories of angels and Jesus curing blind people are as unrealistic as the stories of Santa Claus and Pinocchio, but instead of regarding the Bible as a collection of contradictory, confusing, and idiotic stories from ignorant people, and instead of discussing which aspects of the Christian philosophy are beneficial, most people choose to interpret the Bible in a manner that is most pleasing to them. They become religious because it makes them feel good, not because it makes intellectual sense to them. They are treating the Bible as if it is a coloring book.  The Christians assume that the New Testament is an accurate, historical document, and that it tells us what Jesus actually said, but in reality the "Christian philosophy" is the philosophy of the person who interpreted the New Testament, not the philosophy of Jesus. That is why every Christian has a slightly different view of Christianity. The religious fanatics who cannot control their arrogance believe that their interpretation of the Bible is correct, and thousands of them have started a church to teach the correct version of Christianity. This has resulted in about 45,000 Christian denominations, such as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Calvinist, Methodist, and Pentecostal. It also results in people hearing slightly different sermons at different churches. However, since each religious person has a unique interpretation of Christianity, that means that there have been billions of variations of Christianity during the past 2000 years. The people who are religious have such a resistance to thinking for themselves, and/or are so unable to produce intelligent analyses, that they are not concerned that everybody has a slightly different version of Christianity. The religious people do not ask one another to verify their interpretation of the Bible. Instead, each of them believes that they have the correct interpretation, so they insult everybody else as stupid or ignorant. By comparison, the scientists who are truly trying to produce intelligent analyses, as opposed to the scientists who are promoting a lie, (such as the scientists who tell us that the World Trade Center towers crumbled because of a fire) want other scientists to verify their theories, and when they have conflicting theories, they want the conflicts resolved. The end result of scientists being critical of one another results is that every person in the world today has exactly the same concepts about trigonometry, chemistry, and other sciences. We do not have tens of thousands of science denominations. There is no such thing as Roman Catholic Chemistry, Protestant Botany, Southern Baptist Entomology, or Mormon Zoology. Every student of chemistry is taught the same information by every chemistry teacher in every part of the world. Nobody knows what Jesus actually said People who are attracted to the philosophy in the Bible should realize that the philosophy that they are attracted to is their interpretation of the Bible, not the teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, they should promote only that philosophy, not the concept that Jesus was the son of God, or that the baby Jesus was given gold by some Magi. They should also stop promoting organized religions, and the concept that we should donate money to the churches. The people who are attracted to the philosophy they interpret in the New Testament should try to figure out what it is about the philosophy that they enjoy, and whether they truly benefit from it. For example, Candace Owens has promoted such senseless concepts as "Christ is King", and that the Bible will improve our life, but instead of promoting a mysterious Jew as our king, and instead of promoting the even more mysterious Bible, she should try to figure out what it is about Jesus and the Bible that she is attracted to.  Perhaps she is attracted to the fantasy that there is a wise and powerful man watching over her and protecting her. If so, she might be attracted to that fantasy because her craving for leadership is not being satisfied by her husband, our government, or anybody else. Or perhaps she is attracted to the philosophy in the Sermon on the Mount. If so, she should analyze that philosophy to determine if it is truly sensible, and promote only the parts that she believes are beneficial. Christianity can help us control ourselves. Since the Christian religion is analogous to a coloring book, we can use it for beneficial purposes, such as helping us to control our arrogance, or our desire to commit a crime, or our tendency to drink too much alcohol. We can control our behavior by asking ourselves such questions as, "What would Jesus do in this situation? What would God approve of?" However, that is analogous to a person who uses the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus as a way of improving his behavior.  I suspect that it would be better if people switched from using fantasy creatures to using real people, such as asking themselves, "What would impress the people in my city? What would make my parents proud of me?" Or they could use real people from the past. For example, when a person becomes frustrated trying to solve a math or engineering problem, he might be able to control his frustration by asking himself, "What would Isaac Newton or James Watt do about this problem?" |
| 2)
Some Christian attitudes are detrimental |
| The things that we are
attracted to are not
always beneficial The Christian philosophy has lots of emotionally pleasing concepts, but some of the concepts are detrimental. We should not follow a philosophy simply because it is emotionally titillating. We inherited the emotions of an ape, so we need to analyze our culture and figure out what is best for us. To summarize four detrimental aspects of Christianity:
|
| 3) Why do Jews promote Christian fanatics? |
The group of Jews that are trying
to take over the world are giving
publicity to a lot of Christians, including Christians they claim to
dislike. For example, the ADL gives
Nick Fuentes publicity, and so does the
Wikipedia, and so do a lot of other people.
Why would Jews promote Christianity? Three reasons are:
|
| 4) The religious fanatics are mentally inferior |
We differ in our
attraction to religion. If we could remove
secrecy and collect data about everybody's life, we would notice that
some people have no interest in religion, and others could be described
as religious "fanatics". The people who are religious differ in how often they pray, read the Bible, go to church, and give lectures about religion. The atheists also differ in their beliefs. Some of them have strong attractions to evolution whereas others have stronger attractions to the concept that the human mind adapts to the environment. I have only skimmed through the new and Old Testaments, and I see lots of contradictions and nonsense, as well as similarities between Moses and Jesus. However, there are other people who read the Bible completely, and more than once, and some people discuss it with other people, but they see the "word of God". How is that possible that I see nonsense when I read the Bible, and other people see "the word of God"?
We are all the same species, but there are subtle differences in the way our minds operate that can cause us to have significantly different beliefs about life and humans. There are also a lot of people whose brains are defective since nature is no longer eliminating the people whose brains don't work properly. Everybody believes that they have the most realistic beliefs, and we accuse people who disagree with us as being ignorant, racist, sexist, evil, or stupid. How do we determine whose opinions are more accurate? How do we determine whose mind is better at analyzing? If we had a database with details of everybody's life, we might eventually be able to develop software to analyze how we react to problems and other people, and help us determine which of us has a mind that is better able to think. It would be similar to the way scientists observe the way animals behave I mentioned this concept years ago when I pointed out that if the Ashkenazi Jews were truly the superior race, it would be obvious to everybody. For example, their homeland in Russia would be the most advanced and pleasant, and they would have the least amount of crime and bad behavior. Everybody would be impressed by their behavior, opinions, and technology. We want to be their friends and spouse. We would want to live with them. However, the opposite is true. Their homeland in Russia is more primitive and crude than Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and most other areas. Their behavior is so awful that many societies, (some people claim 109 societies), have expelled them during the past few centuries. Until recently, there were also a lot of neighborhoods, universities, businesses, and social activities that prohibited or discouraged Jews. The Jews dominant our government, media, businesses, and many other activities, but most of their success seems to the result of blackmail, bribery, murder, plagiarism, Einsteinism, and other types of crimes, deception, manipulation, and exploitation. If a group of people were truly superior to the others, we would notice it. They wouldn't have to tell us that they are superior. If the Christian fanatics were truly better than other people, we would see it in their behavior and their opinions. However, they show some inferior characteristics. For example, thousands of children in various nations during the past few centuries have complained about being molested or raped at Christian churches, but the religious fanatics continue to send their children to the churches. They ignore the evidence that their churches are infiltrated with pedophiles, and they don't even care that the church officials who get caught are sent to another church rather than removed from society. That type of behavior is what we see with animals, such as when a wolf kills a sheep, and the other sheep merely move away and then continue grazing, or when one bird falls into a trap, and the other birds who witnessed it fall into the same trap a few seconds later. If the religious people had superior minds:
There are so many Christian churches in the world that if they were involved with exposing crime and corruption, they would have a tremendously beneficial effect on the world. Imagine thousands of churches telling their members that they have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, Jeffrey Epstein, and other issues, and encouraging them to do something to stop it, such as electing different government officials, canceling their subscriptions to the dishonest newspapers and magazines, and contacting the police and military. If the religious people would get involved with exposing the lies and corruption, it would be very difficult for government officials, the ADL, CNN, and other organizations to get away with false flag operations, lies, murder, human trafficking, intimidation, and other crimes. It would also be difficult for the officials of a church is to get away with pedophilia. However, the opposite is true. The church officials never expose corruption; they never encourage people to demand that the police or military do something to stop the corruption; and they never encourage people to look critically at Israel. Instead of trying to stop corruption, they entertain people with stories about going to heaven, and that Jesus loves us. They dampen criticism of Israel, and encourage people to believe that they are "Judeo-Christians", and that their duty is to support and protect Israel. Why are the Christians ignoring all of the corruption and pedophilia? Why don't they spread information about these problems, or encourage investigations? The reason is because the type of people who become Christians, especially those who are so attracted to Christianity that they become a church official, are people who want to avoid unpleasant issues and entertain themselves with pleasant fantasies. They don't want to learn about the false flag operations by Israel; they want to titillate themselves with stories about heaven. They don't want to deal with the unpleasant accusations from Jenny Guskin that our leaders are routinely torturing and raping children; they want to entertain themselves with fantasies of being loved and protected by Jesus. The religious fanatics are not a random sample of the human population, or a random sample of the religious people. Rather, they are a minority of people who are at the extreme edge of the bell graph. The more religious a person is, the more inferior his mind is. Although some of the religious fanatics are too stupid to understand evolution, I suspect that most of the religious adults have enough intelligence and education to realize that the Bible is nonsense, but they are emotionally so similar to an animal that they ignore whatever they dislike, and titillate themselves with pleasant fantasies. These concepts also apply to the non-religious people who oppose evolution. Specifically, I suspect that most of them also have a mind that is so similar to that of an animal that they prefer to ignore whatever bothers them, and titillate themselves with the fantasy that the human mind is like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment. It is impossible to have intelligent discussions with people who cannot understand that humans are apes, or refuse to accept it. If they could think properly, they wouldn't be promoting religion or the clay theory. Charlie Kirk said that we should not stop asking questions. Like other religious fanatics, he assumed that he had lots of curiosity, and that he was investigating issues rather than ignoring alternative opinions. Unfortunately, a person doesn't benefit from curiosity or investigations if his mind is not capable of providing sensible analyses. For example, Kirk undoubtedly asked himself the question "Who can I trust?", but he obviously could not provide himself with a sensible analysis of that issue. Kirk asked a lot of questions about religion and evolution, and he came to the conclusion that he should keep Shabbat, and that creationism makes more sense than evolution.  Many of the Christian fanatics regarded Charlie Kirk as a brilliant man who was educating the ignorant college students, but to the some of us, he was a mentally inferior man who was promoting religious nonsense, Jewish propaganda, and detrimental attitudes. Candace Owens also asked lots of questions, one of which was whether the earth is flat or round. Her conclusion was that she is not certain. As I pointed out in other documents, every advanced society is demanding that medicines be useful and safe, but there is no concern yet for the value of the information people are providing to us. If we were to demand that all information be beneficial, then Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, Brett Cooper, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, the ADL, and almost everybody else who is getting publicity as of 2025, would be disqualified for providing unacceptable information. Which group of people has the best behavior? If we had a database with details about everybody's life, we would be able to pass judgment on which group of people has the best behavior. If the religious fanatics were superior to the rest of us, we would notice that they are the least likely to be involved with crime, divorce, yelling, fighting, envy, sarcasm, arrogance, temper tantrums, gambling, drugs, alcohol, pouting, begging, and overeating. If the religious fanatics were more intelligent than us, they would be the most difficult to deceive. For example, they would suspect Alan Dershowitz is covering up for pedophiles when he became very upset in this video about accusations that there are pedophiles in the government. He didn't respond with a remark similar to "go ahead and investigate because we don't want pedophiles in the government, but I don't think you'll find any." Instead, he becomes angry, and tries to convince us that the accusations are nonsense, and he tries to give a bad image to the people who promote those accusations. As I mentioned earlier in this document, when a person has that type of abnormal reaction, it is likely to be because he is lying, and is afraid that we will discover the truth. A database of everybody's life would also allow us to determine which religion has the best and worst behaved people. For example, Jenna Miscavige is the niece of David Miscavige, who is the current leader of the Church of Scientology, and she has written a book and produced videos, such as this one, that claim that the church officials are extremely abusive, deceptive, and dishonest. The adults who choose a religion, as opposed to the adults who follow whatever religion they were taught as children, are not choosing religions at random. They are choosing religions that appeal to them. Therefore, the members of different religions will have slightly different mental characteristics. A database of everybody's life would show us whether the members of Scientology have more mental disorders, or are more stupid, than those of other religions. Likewise, we do not choose jobs at random. We have a desire to find a job that we enjoy, although we don't always get the job that we want. If we had a database of everybody's life, it would allow us to determine whether the people who become religious officials have more mental disorders than those who become carpenters, machinists, farmers, or doctors. We don't yet collect data about everybody's life, so we can only make wild guesses about the behavior and mental characteristics of the religious officials and their members, but my casual, nonscientific observations of people suggest that the more religious a person is, the more likely he is to disregard information that upsets him, and titillate himself with fantasies. That is the Marquis de Sade philosophy, and the behavior of animals. It is impossible to discuss religion with religious adults During the Middle Ages, people became religious because of ignorance, but most of the adults today who chose to be religious are doing so for some other reason, such as:
I suspect that most people create policies to please themselves, rather than think about what is best for the human race. For example, I suspect that most of the adults who oppose abortion are opposed to it for some emotional reason, such as:
The people who oppose abortion for emotional reasons cannot provide intelligent justification for their opposition. Instead, they provide emotional reasons, such as "abortion is immoral", or "abortion is murder". Likewise, the French people who believe that their language is better than other languages are boasting about their language because it makes them feel good, not because they have studied languages and have intelligent reasons to believe that their language is superior. Although the French people can point out that some of their words have pleasant sounds, that language also have a lot of unpleasant sounds. I would say Italian has fewer unpleasant sounds. The same is true of the Americans who boast about being the greatest people in the world, and that America is the greatest nation. They make those boastful statements because it makes them feel good, not because they have analyzed other societies and have developed intelligent evidence to support their boastful claims. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation about abortion, school systems, recreational activities, language, the Second Amendment, clothing, courtship activities, or any other issue, with a person who creates policies for his emotional pleasure. This concept also applies to the non-religious people who refuse to accept the evidence that humans are apes, and that our behavior is genetic. Although some of those people are simply too stupid or intellectually defective to understand evolution, most of them seem to be like the religious people who want to believe whatever is pleasurable, and ignore whatever is emotionally upsetting. As with the religious people, they create policies for emotional pleasure, which is why they are just as incapable of providing intelligent supporting evidence for their policies. For example, if they support abortion, their reasoning is usually something emotional, such as "It's a woman's right". Likewise, many of them want secrecy and privacy, but their justification for that is emotional, such as "We have the right to privacy", or "You don't have the right to pass judgment on me," or "My medical history and school records are my personal information". These concepts also apply to scientists. For example, if a scientist is promoting the Big Bang theory, dark matter, or that a meteor killed the dinosaurs because he is afraid to look critically at those theories, then he is behaving like a sheep, or a religious person, and he will not be able to have an intelligent conversation about those issues. Most of the human population, whether they are religious or not, are examples of why we must now pass judgment on everybody's intellectual and emotional characteristics. The people who cannot understand the issues that we face today, or who want to follow their emotional cravings and fears like a stupid animal, are the least able to provide us with useful guidance and leadership. They will provide us with idiotic, selfish, irrational, or emotional policies. We must restrict the influential people to those who have above-average control over their emotional cravings and fears, and who are among the best at creating policies that are based on intellectual reasoning. We need people who can deal with the unpleasant aspects of life, rather than ignore them and create a pleasant fantasy world for themselves. We need people who can have intellectual discussions, rather than emotional outbursts. Example #1: Heaven A lot of religious people have posted videos, documents, and comments on the Internet to express their sadness about Charlie Kirk's death. Those people are examples of how religious people cannot think properly, and must be prohibited from influential positions. Specifically, Christianity promotes the concept of heaven, but if a Christian truly believed is religion, then he would not be sad that Charlie Kirk was killed. And he would not care if he, his friends, his children, or other people died from car accidents, diseases, or murder. Instead, he would regard death as the most wonderful event of our lives.  A person who truly believed in Christianity would not be interested in taking medicines or going to the hospital when they became sick because they would be excited at the thought that they might soon be going to heaven. Some Christians would be as impatient for death as young children are impatient for their birthday and Christmas. Christians would be able to go skydiving without fear, and if they were suffering from a serious mental or physical disorder, such as cancer or Parkinson's disease, they would want to die. They would refuse to suffer through chemotherapy and other medical treatments. Instead, they would want to know if it was acceptable for them to commit suicide, or if it was acceptable to ask somebody to kill them, so that they can get to heaven sooner and put an end to their suffering.  If
Christians believed in heaven, they would be upset when they lived a
long and miserable life. They would wonder:"Why is God tormenting me with a long life here on the earth? Why doesn't he let me go to heaven? What did I do to displease him?" Millions of Christians have a miserable life, and they would be much happier in heaven. Millions of Christians also cry, become angry, or pout when one of their family members or friends dies or is murdered. Why are they so upset by death? Why are they so afraid of death? Why do they torment themselves with chemotherapy and other unpleasant medical treatments? It is because they want to believe in heaven, but they have enough intelligence to realize that heaven is likely to be nonsense. They have a battle going on inside their brain between their emotional desires and their intellect. For example, when they are not concerned about themselves or their friends dying, they enjoy the fantasy that there is a heaven waiting for them when they die, but when they realize that they or their friends are truly going to die, their intellect frightens them with the thought that heaven is nonsense. All of us routinely suffer from battles between our emotions and our intellect. Everybody could be described as a "virtuous monkey" because all of us have to routinely deal with conflicts between what we want and what is sensible. We need to pass judgment on who is more likely to follow their emotional cravings and fears instead of their intellect. All of the people who oppose evolution should be disqualified from influential positions because they believe whatever they find emotionally titillating rather than what makes intellectual sense. Those people don't "think". Rather, they entertain themselves, like a stupid animal. Example #2: Charlie Kirk After the 9/11 attack occurred, hundreds of people began posting a variety of different, and often stupid, theories on what happened, and who was to blame. Only a few of those people were honest citizens who were investigating the attack. Most of them were mysterious people who appeared to be working nearly full time to watch the message boards and post lots of idiotic messages in an attempt to overwhelm the honest people who were investigating, and to give conspiracy theorists a bad image. The same situation has been occurring with the murder of Charlie Kirk. If it was a murder by Tyler Robinson, as the government claims, nobody would care if people around the world were investigating it. Nobody would want to waste his time criticizing the investigators, or posting idiotic theories and videos about the murder. However, as of December 2025, hundreds of people have put a lot of their time and effort into posting videos, documents, and podcasts about the suspicious death of Charlie Kirk. A lot of their information is conflicting, idiotic, or has no supporting evidence. For example, there have been accusations that Erika Kirk is pregnant with the child of Vice President Vance, and there are other videos claiming that Vance denied this in court. There are also people speculating that Mikey McCoy is homosexual, and other people want us to believe that he is the man who got Erica Kirk pregnant. Some people claimed that George Farmer, the husband of Candace Owens, has filed for divorce. The enormous amount of unverified and stupid information, some of which is coming from secretive people, is evidence that the government is lying to us about the murder, and a large crime network is putting a lot of effort into confusing us about what happened, and make the "conspiracy theorists" look like idiots. Since we provide everybody with tremendous secrecy, the people making the accusations can remain anonymous. Since we allow people to be deceptive, there is no concern for whether any of the information about Charlie Kirk's murder is accurate, regardless of whether the information comes from television news reporters, FBI officials, or secretive people on the Internet. Everybody is free to say anything they please about the murder, without being held responsible for what they say. This secrecy and lack of standards helpful only to criminals.
I am not interested in investigating Kirk's murder, but I've skimmed through some of the videos and documents, and it seems to me that the Turning Point charity consists of "religious fanatics" rather than "normal" religious people, and that it has been infiltrated and dominated by Zionist Jews. It also appears that Charlie Kirk began to notice that some of his friends and Turning Point officials were untrustworthy, and that a lot of the Israeli officials were more deceptive, abusive, and violent than he had assumed. Charlie Kirk believed that he was so educated and intelligent that he was qualified to give advice on life to the college students, but if he was so educated and intelligent, how could he not have noticed the accusations that Israel was lying about the Holocaust, responsible for the 9/11 attack, instigated the world wars, and committed hundreds of other crimes and false flag operations? I suspect that he was aware of some of those accusations, but he was dismissing them as anti-Semitic nonsense. Charlie Kirk was aware of the accusations that Israel was involved with the assassination of President Kennedy because at one of his public events he said: "...who wanted JFK dead the most. Again,
a lot of people said Israel
wanted JFK dead, I'd love to hear that argument,.."
I suspect that he already heard that argument, but since his mind had come to the conclusion that evolution is nonsense, he obviously could not think very well. Therefore, I suspect that he dismissed the evidence that Israel was responsible for the assassination of Kennedy. More than two decades ago, a lot of us put information on the Internet to expose the 9/11 attack as an Israeli false flag operation. I also posted documents, such as this, to explain how one of the tricks that the Jews used to cover up their crimes is to pretend to be anti-Semites, white supremacists, and "truth seekers". We exposed a lot of their tricks, but Charlie Kirk and most of the people who are investigating Kirk's murder don't seem to have learned anything from us. I suspect that they saw a lot of the information that we provided, but they ignored it because they did not like it, or because they are too stupid to understand it. Have the Jews been so successful at controlling the media, schools, and Internet that the people in Charlie Kirk's generation are truly ignorant about me, Christopher Bollyn, Robert Faurisson, David Cole, Carol Valentine, David Shurter, Isaac Kappy, Jesse Czebotar, Vicky Polin, Katy Groves, Karly Franz, a woman who referred to herself as "Tamara", and hundreds of other people, and all of the information that we have exposed about Jews? Or are most of the new generation ignoring the information because they don't like it, and/or are too stupid to understand it? In one of Jimmy Dore's videos, Kurt Metzger mentioned the name of Jenny Guskin, although he didn't provide any details, so that is evidence that he is aware of her, so Jimmy Dore probably knows something about her, also. Perhaps those two men are ignoring a lot of information because they are afraid to be completely honest. However, if they, or other people investigating Kirk's murder, are truly as ignorant as they appear to be, then they are incompetent investigators. Jimmy Dore recently pointed out that the Muslim terrorists tend to attack Americans and Europeans, rather than Israelis, but that was one of the first things I noticed in 2002. He seems to be one the most intelligent people who are analyzing Kirk's murder, but is he just now figuring this out? Can Candace Owens or Brett Cooper understand this trick? Most of the people who are investigating Kirk's murder seem to be either religious, or opposed to evolution, and those people cannot give us a sensible analysis of Kirk's murder, or any other event. They give us a warped view of everything because they prefer fantasies, and/or are too stupid to understand what's going on. On 14 December 2025, there was another mysterious shooting, this time at Bondi Beach in Australia, and immediately the Jewish journalists claimed it was an anti-Semitic attack, and Netanyahu immediately blamed the Australian government for not suppressing anti-Semitism. The Jews don't even bother to wait for some evidence before they start accusing people of anti-Semitism. Although it occurred only a day before I posted this document, some people are already pointing out some suspicious aspects of it, such as the incredible coincidence that Arsen Ostrovsky, the chairman of the Jewish Council of Israel-Australia, was injured in the attack, and he was also at the October 7 attack in Israel 13 years ago. There are a lot of Jews, such as Hans-Jakob Schindler, predicting attacks in Europe, America, and other nations by Muslim terrorists. If Arsen Ostrovsky is at some of those upcoming attacks, will many people think that is suspicious? The anti-evolution people boast that they are educated, honest, intelligent, loving, peaceful, and generous, but their boasting is additional evidence that they believe what they want to believe rather than look for evidence to support their beliefs. An athlete who has repeatedly proven to be the best in a particular field is not necessarily boasting when he says he is the best. He might simply be stating a fact that he and other people can easily verify. However, when religious people boast about themselves, they are making claims that have no supporting evidence. They are telling us what they want to believe rather than what the evidence shows. If the religious people were as wonderful as they claim, then we would rarely find religious people committing crimes, lying, or behaving in an angry, violent, or spiteful manner. Even more important, as mentioned above, religious people would be horrified by accusations of pedophilia and corruption, and the churches would give sermons to demand investigations. In reality, religious fanatics tend to ignore accusations of pedophilia and corruption, and a lot of religious fanatics have been convicted of murder, pedophilia, and other crimes. A lot of organized crime members are extremely religious, also. Some religious fanatics also advocate the murder of doctors who are involved with abortion, and centuries ago some of them advocated the burning of witches, or the punishment or death of "heretics", such as Galileo. The religious fanatics should not be put on a pedestal and regarded as better people that the rest of us. They should be regarded for what the evidence shows them to be. Specifically, people who are mentally inferior to those of us who can understand and accept the obvious evidence that the Bible is a just a collage of idiotic stories. Charlie Kirk would routinely challenge the public to change his mind about religion, evolution, and other issues, but it is a waste of time to discuss issues with people who oppose evolution because most of them dismiss whatever they dislike, and some of them are stupid. The only religious people that we can have a sensible discussion with are those who are religious only because they picked up religion from their parents or peer group and never put much thought into it. However, if an adult put time and effort into analyzing religion and evolution, and came to the conclusion that religion makes more sense, then he has an inferior brain, so it would be a waste of our time to discuss religion or evolution with him. These concepts also apply to all of the non-religious people who choose to believe Freudian psychology, or that the human mind is like a piece of clay, or some other alternative to evolution. They are also intellectually defective and/or prefer fantasies. Most troublesome people are wonderful humans Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens, and Brett Cooper seem to be very honest and dependable people with very pleasant personalities. If we were living with them in 10,000 BC, their cheerful personalities, endless optimism, and tendency to ignore unpleasant issues, would have make our lives much more pleasant. Likewise, we would enjoy living with the non-religious people who oppose evolution and genetics because they would also make us feel good with their pleasant fantasies.  For
example, when we were hungry and looking for
food, they would make us feel good with their fantasies that we will
soon find plenty of food.When we were injured, they would make us feel good by providing us with pleasant fantasies of how we will soon become healthy. When we were dying, they would make us feel better by providing us with cheerful fantasies of how we will start a new life in another world. Our prehistoric ancestors who entertained themselves with fantasies had a better chance of survival than those who were more realistic because their cheerful fantasies kept their morale high when they were suffering from problems. In this modern era, however, we must be able to solve problems. As society becomes more complex, the people who want to ignore problems and titillate themselves with pleasant fantasies become increasingly troublesome. They are also detrimental as journalists and historians because they give us warped views of news events and history, which interferes with our understanding of human behavior and the development of our culture. Furthermore, people need to be much more intelligent today than our prehistoric ancestors. The men have to be capable of doing more than chase after pigs with sharp sticks, and the women have to be capable of doing more than feed their babies, and the men who become our leaders must be able to do more than protect us from wolves and help us to find food. The people who cannot accept evolution and genetics are not capable of dealing with the complexity of our modern world. They are almost as helpless as children. They are troublesome because they can be used as puppets by the crime networks. They can be exploited for money, which provides financing to the crime network, and criminals can get a lot of control over us by putting them into influential jobs, such as journalists, FBI officials, sheriffs, professors, and CEOs. If the criminals can get them elected, then their crime network gets even more control over us. The Turning Point charity, and other religious organizations, are essentially groups of human sheep who are easily manipulated. The reason there are so many Jews donating money to the Turning Point charity, and getting into its leadership positions, is because they want to use the organization to get more influence over our nation.  The Jews have also created or infiltrated organizations for non-religious people, such as the MoveOn organization, which is another organization that attracts human sheep. Some of those non-religious liberals are such a low quality mind that they have been convinced to condemn their own race of people with such idiotic accusations that we have white privilege and white supremacy, and that we are racists who hate and abuse brown people. We cannot improve a person's brain. There is nothing we can do to improve the minds of the anti-evolution people, or give courage to a coward, or cause a homosexual to become heterosexual, or stop a person from having migraine headaches. We also cannot stop a person from eating excessively, gambling, raping, molesting, murdering, or stealing. If a person doesn't have the ability to make intelligent decisions about what to do, or if he doesn't have enough self-control to behave in a responsible manner, he is going to cause trouble for himself and/or other people regardless of what we say and do. Most of the people who are troublesome today would have been wonderful in 20,000 BC because they wouldn't have been able to gamble, eat excessively, get into debt, or rob banks, but they lack the intelligence and/or self-control to deal with all of the emotionally attractive options of the modern world. All we can do is provide people with information, and if they cannot learn from it, we have to accept their mental limitations rather than try to improve or control them through punishments or rehabilitation programs. We changed our environment dramatically during the past few thousand years, and the human mind must change with it. We cannot expect to have a peaceful world when most of the adults are unable to cope with the issues that we face today. Every adult today needs a certain amount of self-control over his cravings for food, sex, material items, status, and children. Every adult also needs to be able to understand some basic scientific concepts, such as the Earth is a sphere. As technology and science improves, the future generations will need an even better ability to deal with it. Since the majority of people dislike the concept that humans are apes, no society prohibits the anti-evolution people from becoming government officials, police officers, FBI agents, college professors, or other influential people, but it is dangerous to let them have those jobs because they promote idiotic and detrimental attitudes, and they are easily deceived and manipulated by criminals. If we had a database with details of everybody's life, I suspect that we would find that the people who , are most opposed to evolution and genetics are the most likely to give lectures to us on how to live, join angry protests in public streets, insult people who have different opinions, or want to censor, arrest, or rehabilitate the people with different opinions. That is animal behavior. When a low ranking animal does not behave as a high-ranking animal wants, the high-ranking animal becomes angry, and tries to control the other animal with punishments, such as biting, slapping, or glaring. All of us are arrogant and want to be in control of the world, but we differ in how demanding we are that other people obey us. Some of us are very tolerant of criticism and different opinions, and at the other extreme are people who become angry at us if we criticize or disagree with them. Some of us offer opinions in a passive manner, and at the other extreme are the people who push their opinions on us in an aggressive manner, such as with protests, sarcasm, yelling, threats, or insults. From my casual, non-scientific observations, the people who oppose evolution and genetics seem to be the most likely to give us lectures, rather than have discussions with us. They are more likely to behave like a dictator, rather than a friend. They are more likely to regard criticism as a hateful attack, rather than as a different viewpoint. We need to collect data about everybody's behavior and pass judgment on who is better suited to an influential position. |
