On 7 September 2014, Bollyn announced on his website that he would be visiting three cities in California to speak about 9/11. He would first speak in Oakland on 11 September, then near Los Angeles on 13 September, and then San Diego on 14 September. 

On 10 September, Bollyn announced that he had joined the "Face of Truth" campaign. That organization not only promotes Bollyn, but it also promotes some of the websites that I have criticized as Jewish propaganda.

On 11 September 2014, Bollyn's trip to America was given publicity on the official blog of the ADL. As with David Duke and David Irving, Bollyn was criticized for being an anti-Semite.

Also on 11 September, Bollyn posted another document to announce that he will also speak at Davis on 17 September.

I suppose that the Jews are so desperate to counteract my accusation that they have kidnapped the Bollyn family that they believe that dragging him around California for a while will convince people that he is free to travel and talk to people.

Sure, he is free to spend thousands of dollars on a tour of America, but he is not free to get a job, so we must continue donating money to him!

Have you noticed that most of the 9/11 truth seekers and websites are constantly begging for donations? Rather than accept this as sensible, you should consider it as a sign that there is something seriously wrong with this group of people.

I suppose the Jews gave only four days notice of the trip because they are not trying to attract an audience. They merely want to be able to claim that Bollyn went on a speaking tour of America.

Some Jews give Bollyn publicity as a 9/11 truth seeker, and others give him publicity as an anti-Semite, but he's not getting much publicity. The trip appears to be just a propaganda stunt.

The sheeple would certainly be fooled into believing that he is not a kidnap victim, but the sheeple do not know who he is, and they don't want to know. They don't care about world affairs.   Will the Jews fool anybody of importance with this trick?

During 2014, the winter was cold and long, and the summer was cool. South Dakota had snow on 11 September 2014, which has never happened  since 1888, when people started keeping weather records. The arctic ice cap grew larger.

Some people interpreted the cold temperatures as evidence that global warming is nonsense, but the people who promote carbon taxes claim that 2014 was a cool year simply because that is the way global warming works. Global warming produces both warm years and cold years. We are told to have faith. How is this any different from having faith that God is real?

There is a very important lesson to learn from 2014. Specifically, since nobody has much of an understanding of the Earth's climate, the supporters of global warming can explain everything that happens to the Earth's climate. Nobody knows enough about the Earth's climate to verify anything they say.

This issue may seem insignificant, but we would be in a horrible situation today if we had allowed carbon taxes to be implemented a few years ago. The reason is because the supporters of carbon taxes would boast that the reason 2014 was a cool year was because the carbon taxes were successfully reducing the global warming. 

The "ordinary" people, who cannot think very well, and who don't like to think, would easily be convinced that carbon taxes were helping to keep the earth cool. It would be impossible to convince them otherwise because nobody has any proof for anything regarding global warming. Al Gore would become like Jesus, but instead of boasting that he can walk on water, he would boast that he can control the Earth's climate.

If we had foolishly allowed carbon taxes to be implemented, the global warming supporters would be able to explain everything that happens to the Earth's climate, no matter what happened. For example, during a cool year, they would take credit for cooling down the Earth. During a warm year, they would claim that people have been producing too much carbon dioxide, and that we need to increase the taxes.

If there were many warm years in a row, then they could blame foreign nations, such as India and China, for increasing their production of automobiles and factories. If there were many cold years in a row, they would blame the people for getting carried away with their reduction of carbon dioxide, and that they should relax.

No matter what happens to the Earth's climate, the global warming fanatics will always be correct because nobody knows enough about the issue to prove them wrong. The global warming supporters are in the same position as religious leaders, who can make any statement they please about God because nobody can prove them wrong. We must raise standards for scientists. A scientist who lies to us should be regarded as an "educated criminal".

Somebody with direct access to the Apple iCloud network made copies of photos that some famous women had taken of themselves while naked. On 31 August 2014 he posted the photos on the Internet for the entire world to look at. Since the journalists focus on Jennifer Lawrence, I will describe this as the Jennifer Lawrence Affair.

There are a lot of interesting aspects to this issue, but before I begin I want to remind you to be careful about making conclusions about current events because our information about the issue is coming from journalists, police departments, and the FBI, and those people have a history of lying to us about crimes that Jews are participating in.

Whenever a crime occurs, we should wonder if we are being told the truth about it. We can never know for sure, but by analyzing previous crimes, we can see that there are certain things to look for. For example:

• If the Jewish crime network is involved with a crime, then journalists and police will keep a lot of information a secret from us; they will provide us with deceptive information; they will destroy evidence; they will try to dampen our curiosity by convincing us that they know exactly what happened before anybody has conducted an investigation; and the investigation will be superficial.

For example, immediately after the 9/11 attack, the FBI, police, and journalists were telling us that we were attacked by Osama bin Laden, and that the World Trade Center towers crumbled into dust because the fires were so intense. None of the journalists or police waited for a proper investigation of the incident. Actually, the government prevented an investigation by destroying the World Trade Center rubble.

• If the Jewish crime network is not involved with a crime, then the journalists and police will provide us with lots of details on what happened; they will admit that they are confused about certain aspects of the crime; the police will cordon off the area to prevent contamination and destruction of the evidence; and they won't come to definite conclusions until after the investigations have been completed.

So, are Jews involved with the Jennifer Lawrence Affair? We will never know for sure, but I don't feel as if the journalists or police are interested in investigating this crime. It seems to me that the journalists are trying to convince us that this was another "lone gunman" style of crime in which one psychotic man is responsible for everything. I suspect that we are being given deceptive information about this issue, and that a lot of critical information is being kept secret from us.

Why is the media focusing on Jennifer Lawrence?

This news report has a list of the 101 women whose photos were posted. Most of the names are unfamiliar to me, but if I was a journalist, I would describe the photos as "photos of famous women". I find it peculiar that the media usually refers to Jennifer Lawrence when they refer to these photos. If somebody wants to pick just one name from the list, why Jennifer Lawrence? Why not refer to them as the Kim Kardashian photos, or the Winona Ryder photos, or the Scarlett Johansson photos?

To be fair to the journalists, there may be a sensible reason as to why they focus on Jennifer Lawrence. For example, perhaps Lawrence was the most active of the women in holding news conferences, threatening lawsuits, and whining about the embarrassment, and perhaps they ignored Jenny McCarthy and Rihanna because those two women never made a fuss about the issue.

Or perhaps the men were most attracted to the photos of Lawrence, and so the men referred to them as "the Jennifer Lawrence photos", and the journalists mimicked their expression.

Or perhaps the person who posted the photos was referring to them as the Jennifer Lawrence photos, but why would he describe them that way when there were photos of 100 other women in the collection?

If you are aware that a Jewish crime network is trying to dominate us, you ought to consider the possibility that the focus is on Jennifer Lawrence because she is the primary target of a campaign by the Jews to intimidate and dominate the influential women.

Technology makes crime worse

The Jennifer Lawrence Affair is an example of what I mentioned in other documents of about how technology is allowing crime to become more complex and dangerous, and affect more people. This crime was impossible 200 years ago because there were no computers or photographs.

During prehistoric times, a person could commit only a few types of crimes, and his crimes would affect only a few people in his local vicinity. Today our technology allows us to commit a tremendous variety of complex crimes, and those crimes can affect enormous numbers of people, including people in foreign nations.

Technology can be used for beneficial purposes, or it can be used for crime. For example, the Google maps can be used to help us find our way around a city, or it can be used by criminals to plan their crimes. The drones that are being developed to deliver packages can be used for beneficial deliveries, or criminals can use them to shoot policemen with poison darts. Robots and driverless cars will also provide criminals with more options. The more advanced our technology becomes, the more destruction a criminal can cause.

Focus on the crime, not the nudity!

Both men and women have very strong inhibitions about sex and nudity, and we also have strong cravings for sex. The men are most likely to be sexually titillated by the photos, whereas women are more likely to have their sexual inhibitions stimulated. If a person does not have good control over his emotions, his emotions will interfere with his analysis of the crime.

For example, the people who are sexually inhibited are likely to be so focused on the nudity aspect of the crime that they don't notice any other aspect of it, and they may come to the conclusion that the women are responsible for the crime because they took photos of their naked body. Some people have made remarks similar to:
"Those women deserve it. Anyone who doesn't want their naked photos going public should not have taken them."

Those inhibited people cannot properly analyze the crime because they are focused on the sex and nudity aspects. Their inhibitions are causing them to become angry at the women and be oblivious to the fact that a crime has been committed.

How many people know what a "cloud" is?

Some people seem to have trouble analyzing this crime because they don't have a good understanding of the Internet or the concept of a "cloud". Therefore, it might help those people to imagine the exact same crime taking place in 1950, before computers existed.

Imagine if a photographer in 1950 were to break into the homes of hundreds of famous women. Once inside, he searches through their collection of photographs, and when he finds a photograph that shows their naked body, he takes a photograph of it. He does not steal or destroy any of their photos; rather, he takes photographs of their photos. He then makes copies of those photos and posts them around the city on telephone poles and bulletin boards.

A person who breaks into your house and takes photographs of your photos is not stealing anything from you or causing any damage to your property. He is not harming you in any way. Therefore, he is not a burglar, thief, or vandal. So, is he committing a crime? How would people in 1950 have reacted to that type of crime? Here are some possibilities.

1) Some people might have responded with a remark similar to:
"Those women deserve it. Anyone who doesn't want copies of their naked photos posted on bulletin boards and telephone poles should never have taken the photos."

2) If the police were to catch that photographer, and if he turned out to be a sexually inhibited, religious fanatic who was trying to embarrass the women that he regarded as morally corrupt, then some people might consider him to be doing a "community service" by exposing and embarrassing the sexual deviants who take photos of their naked bodies.

3) If the police discovered that the photographer was a psychotic man who was trying to hurt women for not providing him with sex, many people would be disgusted with that man, and they would consider his act to be a crime.

4) If the police were to discover that the photographer was working with a gang that was trying to manipulate the famous people in the city in order to exert control over the city, some people would consider the act to be a serious crime against society.

Imagine the Jennifer Lawrence Affair without nudity

Another interesting way to look at the issue is to imagine the crime occurring, but without any connection to sex or nudity. Imagine if a photographer were to break into the houses of famous women and take photographs of their refrigerator, and then post those photos around the city. Who would respond, "Anybody who doesn't want photos of their refrigerator posted on bulletin boards should not have a refrigerator."

When a criminal commits a crime that stimulates one of our emotions, it can be visualized as a criminal inserting an electrode into your brain and triggering your emotions. If you cannot control your emotions very well, then that stimulation will interfere with your ability to think properly about the situation. If two different criminals commit the exact same crime, except that one of the crimes has some connection to sex, you may come to two different conclusions, even though the crimes are identical.

In this modern world, schools should be teaching children about their emotions, and giving them practice with controlling their emotions. Children need to become adults who can ignore the sexual aspect of a crime and calmly discuss the crime, without giggling, hysteria, or anger.

The "Buyer Beware" attitude is for animals, not humans

The people who reprimand the women for taking photos of their naked body believe that the solution to this problem is for everybody to refrain from taking such photos. That particular attitude is not much more sensible than telling parents who complain about pedophilia that the solution is to stop having children.

Unfortunately, this is a common attitude all around the world. For some examples:

• The first automobiles did not have any security devices. When criminals began to steal cars, people did not react by experimenting with policies to stop crime. Rather, people responded by experimenting with locks and keys to make it more difficult for criminals to steal the cars.

• If a child rides a bicycle to school, but does not bother to lock it to a post, and if his bicycle is stolen, most adults will respond that it is his own fault for not locking his bicycle to a post. The adults do not have any interest in creating a world that is safe for children to leave their bicycles unlocked.

• When a person's house is burglarized, the victim does not respond by advocting society experiment with better methods of preventing crime. Rather, he responds by experimenting with better security devices in an attempt to make it more difficult for criminals to steal his items.

• When children are molested or kidnapped, some people respond by telling parents to watch their children more closely. They do not respond by suggesting society experiment with policies to eliminate these crimes.

Why would a person tell the parent of a molested child that the crime is his fault for not watching the child more closely? For the same reason that people scold Jennifer Lawrence and other women for taking photos of their naked body.

The reason for our bizarre attitude is because an animal's natural reaction to crime is the "Buyer Beware" attitude. This attitude is natural for animals because animals are in a competitive battle for life, and each animal is on his own to take care of himself. Animals do not get any protection from a police force, a government, or the other animals. As a result, every animal is always watching out for predators and potential dangers. Animals live in constant fear and paranoia. They are suspicious of unusual noises, sights, smells, and creatures. They are always ready to run away or fight.

When an animal is killed by a predator, the other animals - if they could talk - would respond with a remark similar to: "He should have done a better job of watching for predators."

As I have mentioned in other documents, the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives" are pushing us into a life that is very similar to that of the animals. They encourage us to carry weapons, live in fear of attack, and be suspicious of one another.

When somebody is killed by a criminal, the conservatives will often respond with a remark similar to, "It is his own fault. He should have carried a gun." When there is a shooting at a school, the conservatives often respond, "If the teachers could carry guns, this would not have happened." When a business is burglarized, the conservatives tell the business to get security cameras, rolldown doors, and security guards. When a child is raped, the conservatives teach children how to fight adults, or they tell the children to stay inside the house and hide from potential danger.

The conservatives claim that they are preventing crime, but it would be more accurate to describe them as stupid sheep who are preparing themselves for an attack by a wolf. They do not try to remove the wolves from their life so that they can live in peace; rather, they get ready for attacks by wolves.

I am not implying that the liberals have a better attitude towards crime. Actually, their attitude is just as idiotic. They encourage us to feel sorry for criminals, and to give criminals a second chance, and then a third chance, and so on. They are neither preventing crime nor preparing for it. They are equivalent to a group of sheep who put wolves in jail for a few months in an attempt to rehabilitate them into vegetarians, and who end up becoming victims of the same wolves over and over.

Neither the liberals nor the conservatives can help us reduce crime or develop a better society. Both groups of people are following their emotions like a stupid animal rather than analyzing issues like a human. The difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that they are following different emotions. The conservatives promote fear and anger, and the liberals promote pouting and pity.

Getting back to the point I want to make, many people are letting their sexual inhibitions dominate their thoughts about the Jennifer Lawrence Affair, so let's take the sex out of the issue. Let's assume that somebody found a way to look into the personal collections of photos of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities, but he took copies only of photos that the women had taken of flowers and sunsets. He then posted them on the Internet with the description of "Photos of flowers and sunsets taken by famous women."

In that case, nobody's sexual cravings or inhibitions would have been titillated, and there would be no powerful desire among men to look at the photos. New Zealand would not have suffered a serious Internet problem when men assumed they were downloading those photos but were actually downloading a computer virus. Jennifer Lawrence and the other women would have been irritated that somebody got into their personal collection of photos, but there would be no hysteria from women. It is possible that none of the women would bother to threaten the websites to erase the photos.

If we take the sex out of the Jennifer Lawrence photos, all that remains is the crime of a person breaking into a computer network. That is a crime that needs to be dealt with, but most people ignore that type of crime. They consider that type of crime to be "boring", and they expect the computer technicians to deal with it.

Some people break into computer networks in order to steal credit card numbers or to steal technology from their competitors. That is a much more destructive crime than posting photos of naked women. However, there are more people making more of a fuss about the photos of naked women than there are who complain about the more serious crimes. Therefore, I suspect that if the person had posted photos of flowers rather than naked women, I don't think many people would have been interested in hearing about the crime.

Businesses discovered long ago that a simple way to attract male customers is to use sexual titillation. If we were to remove the sexual titillation from advertisements, television shows, and movies, a lot of men would lose interest in them. I have not seen The Hunger Games movie, but I would bet that a lot of men would lose interest in it if the women in that movie had been ordinary, and even more men would lose interest if the women had been ugly.

Advertisers know that sex will grab the attention of both men and women. The men are attracted to the titillation, and the women become hysterical over it. This ought to make you wonder why somebody searched through all of the photos of those celebrity women and selected only those that were sexual. If all he wanted to do was annoy those particular women, he could have picked photos at random. Why did he pick sexual photos?

It is possible that he is like Elliot Rodger; namely, a sexually frustrated freak who is angry that he can look at celebrity women but cannot touch any of them. He may have decided to get revenge by hurting those women, and the only method he could think of was to display photos that cause women to become embarrassed and angry.

However, I suspect that the person who posted the photos was working for the network of Jews that is trying dominate our nations, and those Jews specifically chose the sexual photos because they wanted to intimidate the women as much as possible, so they selected photos that the women would become upset with.

If my speculation is correct, that leads us to wonder why the Jews are trying to intimidate those women. What have those women been doing to cause the Jews to become angry with them? What are the Jews afraid of?

If those photos were posted by Jews in an attempt to intimidate the women, then the people who reacted with hysteria or who scolded the women were inadvertently helping the Jews put pressure on those women. They were making the situation worse, not better.

If the public had remained calm and quiet, and if they had encouraged the celebrity women to remain calm, they would have been able to sabotage the attempt by Jews to intimidate the women. 

At the beginning of this document I mentioned that a lot of details about this issue are hidden from us. Until we know exactly what happened, we are fools to come to conclusions. All we can do now is discuss the bits of information that we have been provided with, and speculate on the missing details. We don't even know if some of the women were pushed by Jews into taking those photos.

If you have looked through my other documents, then you have seen a lot of evidence that Jews are trying to instigate wars, racial fights, fights between men and women, and fights between different nations. When an event happens in this world, don't react like a stupid animal. Think about the issue, and consider that a crime network might be involved. Don't become one of the suckers that inadvertently helps a crime network to manipulate or intimidate somebody. Don't become a sucker who is tricked into starting a war, or hating some group of people, or hating some nation. Remember what George Bush said about "Fool me once."

It is OK to take pictures of your naked body

Some people criticize women for taking photos of their naked body, but this issue is similar to what I have mentioned about sports, recreational activities, and holiday celebrations. There is no sport or a holiday celebration that can be described as "intelligent". All of our activities can be described as idiotic.

Likewise, we can criticize all of our photographs for being stupid, unnecessary, silly, or wasteful. When a person first get a camera, he is especially likely to take photos that are silly simply because he's having fun taking photos.

Most people take photos of themselves, their family members, their pets, and their friends, and there is nothing intelligent about a photo that shows some people sitting around the dinner table, or children at a beach, or people visiting the Grand Canyon. Why criticize a woman for taking photos of her naked body but not for taking photos of her naked baby, her naked pet dog, or naked flowers?

In previous documents, I pointed out that a society should pass judgment on what is and is not "art". We should do the same with photographs that are intended for the public, but if a person is taking photos for himself, then his photos are his own personal preference.

If Jennifer Lawrence and the other women had been pushing their photos on society, such as by putting them in museums, putting them on display outside of public buildings, trying to sell them to the public, and putting them on the walls of school classrooms, then they would be pushing their photos on society, and we would have the right to pass judgment on whether we want them. However, those women took those photos for their own use, and they had no intention of letting the public see them.

Photographs are a snapshot into a person's life. They are moments frozen in time. Different people have different interests in life, and so different people are taking photographs of different moments of their life. We should not tell a person which aspects of his life he should be taking photos of. If the photos are for his own use, then he can decide what he likes.

The photos that titillate our sexual emotions could be classified as "pornography", but if a person is keeping them in his own private collection, rather than putting them on display in public, then it has no effect on any of us.

You may not want to look at the sexual photos that some woman has taken of herself, but I may not want to look at the photos that you have taken of your dog or your children. We will not improve society when everybody is acting like an arrogant dictator who tells everybody else what type of photos they should be taking for their private collection.

Before they were photographs, people used their memory to remember whatever they enjoyed about life. To scold a woman for taking a photo of her naked body would be equivalent to going back in time several hundred years and scolding a woman who looked at a reflection of her naked body in a shiny piece of brass, and then remembered that image. What is the difference between scolding a woman for remembering what her naked body looks like, and scolding a woman for taking photographs of her naked body?

If a person wants one of his photographs to be displayed in a public area, then society should pass judgment on whether we want that photo in our lives. We should decide whether the photo will improve our lives, such as by helping us to relax, or by inspiring beneficial attitudes, or whether it will be detrimental, such as by irritating us with optical illusions, or by stimulating our sexual feelings, or by evoking unpleasant emotions.

If a person takes photographs for his own use, we don't need to tell him which photographs are acceptable. However, a society should provide advice on creating a personal collection of photographs. It might seem impossible to provide people with advice about a personal issue, but if a lot of older people were to analyze their photo collections, we would learn something useful from it. For example, we might notice that most of the photos are rarely looked at more than once. By analyzing photo collections, we would be able to give advice on which photos are most likely to be treasured later in life.

We might discover that people have a tendency to take excessive amounts of photos during emotionally exciting events, such as a marriage, the birth of their first baby, or a pet. We might discover that many people have thousands of nearly identical photos of their first baby. Therefore, we may advise younger people to control their emotional cravings and delete all but a few of the best quality photos of their first baby.

A society could also advise young boys to be cautious about collecting pornographic photos. We could explain to boys that modern technology allows them to stimulate themselves to excess with pornographic images, and that in turn can cause them to become a nuisance to women, interfere with their relationships with women, and cause them to waste a lot of their life on sex and masturbation.

By providing advice to people about how to take photos, and what type of photos they are most likely to treasure when they get older, we are helping children make wise decisions. However, if a person disregards the advice and takes thousands of pictures of his first baby, let him. If a man disregards the advice and takes lots of pornographic photos, let him. We don't need to worry about a person unless he becomes a nuisance to society.

Although society does not need to dictate which photos a person can keep in his personal collection, society should set rules us for taking photos in public. For example, we can prohibit people from using cameras to look inside other people's homes; we can prohibit people from taking photographs of people in public bathrooms; and we can prohibit cameras at beaches and parks that allow nudity. We could also prohibit cameras at theaters so that we don't have to be bothered by flashes of light or by people holding up cameras in front of us.

It might seem contradictory for me to suggest prohibiting cameras in certain areas of the city when I also propose security cameras around the city. The difference is that the security cameras are sending video to a computer, and most of that video will never be seen by a human. The security video is only useful for scientific research, and for dealing with crimes.

So, although society should not dictate what type of photos a person can have for his personal collection, a society should educate its children and provide them with advice to help them make sensible decisions. For example, instead of providing children with hysterical nonsense about how pornography is evil, we should be honest and serious.

Children should be taught that there is nothing wrong with having pornographic images, but they should not be fooled into thinking that pornography will improve their lives. Food titillates our emotions, but we are not going to improve our life simply by eating more food. Likewise, pornography can titillate us, but there is no evidence that men who stimulate themselves with pornography are having a better life than the men who do not.

Furthermore, children should be taught that there is a difference between nudity and pornography. We should explain to children that some statues and other artwork have nudity, but we don't want pornography in public because it can be irritating, distracting, and even dangerous. For example, when men are operating certain types of machinery, they need to be able to concentrate on their job. It would be dangerous if those men were becoming sexually titillated while they were trying to work.

Likewise, when we are eating dinner, we want to enjoy the food and the people. It can be distracting and irritating to eat a meal while there are pornographic movies playing, or when people next to you are having sex or masturbating.

Getting back to the Jennifer Lawrence affair, I think most people are focused on the sex aspect of the photos because they don't understand their emotions, and they have trouble controlling their emotions. Nobody is going to suffer if parents take photographs of their naked children for their personal collection, or if people take photographs of their own naked body, or that of their spouse or friends.

Actually, there are intelligent reasons for people to collect photos of their naked body. For example, as I mentioned in another document, I became incredibly skinny during 2011, and when I finally discovered that I was low on thyroid hormones, I decided to take some photos of my naked body from different angles to see whether I was improving as a result of the thyroid supplements.

I rapidly regained my weight, and I stopped taking photos of myself since there was no longer any purpose for them. The point I want to make is that photos of your naked body can be useful in helping you figure out what is going wrong with your body. In fact, doctors take photos of people's naked bodies when they have to deal with certain medical problems, and they often continue to take photos to determine if the person is improving as a result of the treatment.

Nudity could help with medical research

If people could control their sexual inhibitions and their paranoia of being observed, then we could create a database that included photos of our naked body, and at different points during our life. This process could even be automated so that doctors don't need to be bothered doing it.

For example, we could build a machine that resembles the scanners at airports. These machines would be placed around the city near medical centers or recreational centers. A person would take his clothing off, step into the machine, and the machine would take photos of his body, including thermal photos. The machine could also use probes and sensors to measure whatever else we have the technology for, such as temperature, weight, blood pressure, and the chemical composition of our breath. That information would then go into the database.

By putting a treadmill in the room, and taking thermal video of the naked person as he exercises, we might gain an even better understanding of his circulation system, and how his muscles are functioning.

By placing these machines at different locations in the city, everybody would have easy access to them. If a person wanted a more detailed analysis of his medical condition, he could visit one of the machines throughout the day and evening so that he could see how his body changes during the day.

This database would be useful for people who have a medical problem but don't know what it is. By searching the database for photos and descriptions that match their particular symptoms, they would have a better idea of what their problem might be.

For example, as I mentioned in another document, starting at about age twelve, I slowly began developing certain symptoms, such as feeling colder than everybody else, and feeling as if my lungs and throat were on fire when I expended a lot of physical effort, such as when running. I also noticed that the skin on my palms and the bottom of my feet were yellowish rather than pinkish. I knew something was wrong with my body, but I had no idea what it could be, and doctors told me everything was fine. I assumed my problem was too complex for the current level of medical technology.

If I had lived in a city in which these machines were scattered around, and if I had been able to go to them periodically, the thermal images might have made it obvious that something was going wrong with me because they might show that as the years passed by, I was becoming noticeably colder. Who knows what else those machines would show.

That type of database would make it easier for doctors to diagnose problems compared to the situation today in which most of us have so little understanding of what is going on with our bodies that we make vague remarks to doctors, such as, "I don't feel right", or "I seem to get colder than some other people."

A database with details of everybody's naked body could also help scientists understand how the human body changes through the years, and why some people are aging at different rates. It might help mothers and doctors to figure out if their babies are developing properly.

The database would also be able to provide us with entertainment. For example, we could ask the computer to display the sequence of photographs of our naked body, thereby creating a video that allows us to watch ourselves develop from a newborn baby into an adult.

The more detail that type of database has, the better we will do at understanding our bodies and our health. For example, imagine if computers were keeping track of all of the food you eat, and cameras around the city were keeping track of where you go, how often you pick your nose, and the sound quality of your voice. If you were to tell the computer to analyze the database for all of the nose picking you have done during the past year, you might discover that you do more of it on certain days and at certain times of the day, and if you then tell the computer to search the database to see what is different about those particular days and times, you might notice that there is a correlation between certain foods and nose picking, and that could indicate that you have a mild allergic reaction to those particular foods.

This concept also applies to a database that keeps track of our voice. Unlike computer voices, the human voice does not remain exactly the same throughout the day, or throughout our lives. Our voice may change when we are physically exhausted, when we are sleepy, when we are sick, and when our body is not properly controlling its hormone levels. We don't know much about what affects our voice, but if microphones were all over the city and recording people's voices, scientist might eventually start noticing that some people's voices change more than others, and that could help them figure out what factors are affecting our voice, and why.

For an example of how this information could help us, if a computer can sense the changes in our voice that occurs as we start to fall asleep, then people who are operating certain types of machinery might benefit by having a computer talk to them once in a while and analyze their voice, and when the computer senses that they are showing signs of sleepiness, it would send a message to somebody to replace them with somebody who is more alert.

Or imagine if scientists discover that when certain types of illnesses start to develop, our voice starts to change in a particular manner. If a computer is monitoring everybody in the city, including our voices, then when the computer senses that a person's voice just made that change, the computer could send him a text message that he may be on the verge of getting that particular disease. The person might then be able do something to prevent the disease.

The people who want to keep secrets about themselves, or who are paranoid of nudity, are interfering with our understanding of ourselves. We should not encourage their idiotic behavior.

If people could allow sensors in their bed, or the room they sleep in, we might be able to get a better understanding of sleeping, such as why some of us will sometimes sweat a lot while we sleep. Throughout most of my life, sweating while sleeping was a very rare event, and it would happen only when I was suffering from a cold or a sore throat. I concluded that it was the result of my body increasing its temperature to fight the disease, and my skin was reacting to the heat by sweating.

However, I have not been sick for many years, but this problem has happened many times anyway. There was a period of several weeks that it was happening every night, and it was happening during the winter, which made it especially annoying. I was sleeping in two cotton undershirts and a cotton pajama top in an attempt to soak up the moisture, and all three of them would be wet. My pillow would be wet, and my face would be wet. My legs did not seem to sweat, however. Since the air in the room was cold, as soon as I got out of bed the sweat would become cold. This problem hasn't happened to me for about two years, but there are occasionally some nights when I perspire excessively.

Several years before I had this problem, a man about 20 years older than me mentioned that he was sweating so much at night that he was wearing two undershirts, and both of them were wet when he woke up in the morning. That problem eventually stopped for him, just as it did for me. This makes me wonder, does everybody go through this at some point in their life? What is causing this? Is it a change that some of us go through as we get older?

Humans excel at self-stimulation

Have you ever wondered why humans are emotionally traumatized by nudity, childbirth, breast-feeding, masturbation, and other issues? In other documents I discussed this issue to a certain extent, and I will now add more details to it.

Notice that animals do not have any inhibitions about their body or its functions. They are naked all the time, and they have no problem having sex in front of other animals, or peeing or pooping in front of other animals. They will also masturbate, give birth, and breast-feed their babies in front of other animals.

Furthermore, nothing seems to "stink" from the point of view of an animal. It may only be humans who consider some smells to be stinky. Animals consider some smells to be attractive, and some to be sexually titillating, but most smells seem to be neutral to them. As a result, animals will occasionally eat rotten meat or fruits, as well as waste products, and they have no concern if those things get smeared on their fur. Animals do not keep other animals as pets, but if an animal were capable of having a pet, it would have no desire to toilet train the pet.

If animals were intelligent enough to create homes for themselves, cats would be one of the few animals that would want toilets and trash cans. However, the cats would not use toilets because they are disgusted with their waste products. Rather, cats have a natural desire to hide all traces of themselves, thereby making them invisible to both predators and their prey. Cats are not bothered by the smell of waste products or rotten meat. In fact, female cats will eat the waste from their babies, and cats will eat it off of themselves.

For reasons we may never fully understand, as monkeys became more intelligent, those that survived the competitive struggle for life were the ones that developed certain inhibitions about their bodily functions, and they also developed a distaste for the smell of certain chemicals in rotten materials and waste products.

If you can imagine life as it was 50,000 years ago, you should be able to understand how these inhibitions were beneficial to the people. For example, by disliking the smell of waste products and rotten materials, they disposed of those materials far away from their living area. This resulted in them keeping their home, food, clothing, and children much cleaner than if they didn't have a problem with those smells.

Their inhibitions about nudity and sex caused them to engage in sexual activities and masturbation in private locations rather than in public locations. This had a beneficial effect on their society because when people have sex in front of other people, it is similar to watching pornography. It will stimulate the sexual emotions of men, and sometimes of women. If people were having sex in public, other people would occasionally become sexually titillated, and they might start engaging in sex, thereby titillating more people. It would be like a nuclear chain reaction, but of sexual activity.

Most animals are not sexually aroused by visual images. Most of them seem to respond more to the scent of a female. Therefore, pornography to most animals would not be photographs of the females. Rather, it would be the fragrance of the female. A dog would want a "scratch and sniff" photograph of Jennifer Lawrence, not just a photograph.

If we were to produce pornography for dogs or other animals, we would notice that one of the significant differences between animals and humans is that the animals would be titillated by pornography only as long as they are in direct contact with it, but humans can be titillated by it even after it has been taken away from them. Humans have this ability because we have a much better memory. We can easily recall images from our memory, thereby stimulating ourselves over an event that happened in the past. We also have a much better ability to fantasize, and our fantasies can also titillate us.

A dog will become sexually titillated when he smells a female dog, but as soon as the wind changes direction, he will quickly forget about it and notice some other smell. By comparison, when a man looks at a photo of a pretty woman, that image will still be in his mind the next day, and the day after. He may titillate himself with it for months.

Women also use this technique to stimulate themselves, but they don't always do it for pleasure. For example, Jennifer Lawrence and other women used this technique to stimulate their anger, embarrassment, and hysteria. They reminded themselves day after day that men are looking at their naked body, thereby keeping themselves angry and frustrated.

The human mind has the ability to stimulate itself for decades. For example, when a woman has a miscarriage, or when one of her children dies, some of them will spend the entire rest of their life occasionally reminding themselves of the death, thereby stimulating feelings of sadness and misery.

Unwanted sexual stimulation is annoying

If we could go back in time a few million years, we would find that our monkey-like ancestors were not much affected by other monkeys having sex. As their mind increased in intelligence, and as it developed an increasingly better ability to stimulate itself with its own thoughts, the people became more affected by sexual activities of other people. If the people were not in the mood for sex, they would regard the sexual stimulation as an unwanted irritation.

For example, imagine a man 100,000 years ago trying to make a flint knife by chipping rocks. He is trying to concentrate on the task. If a couple next to him starts having sex, or if a woman starts masturbating, he might glance over and then quickly turn his head, but the image will remain in his mind, and that image may continue to stimulate him, thereby distracting him from what he is trying to do. He may find himself getting angry at the couple for interfering with his work, especially if he destroys his flint blade.

Likewise, a woman who sees a couple having sex might find that her sexual inhibitions are stimulated, thereby creating an unpleasant feeling in her mind. Even if she turns away, that image will be in her mind, thereby continuing to stimulate those unpleasant inhibitions. She may become angry at the couple for bringing these unpleasant feelings into her life.

Furthermore, the young boys might also become stimulated by the sex acts, and they might react by trying to have sex with the young girls, even if they are too young for sex. That would cause the young girls to complain, and the adults may react by becoming angry at the couple for stimulating the boys.

The point I am trying to make is that animals do not care if another animal is having sex, but as humans became more intelligent, and as their activities became more complex, both men and women would occasionally find themselves irritated by the unwanted sexual stimulation. They would react with anger, and they would tell the people to stop having sex and stop masturbating in front of other people, especially in front of young boys.

The people with stronger sexual inhibitions would be more willing to keep their sex and masturbation a secret, and the people who didn't want to annoy other people would also be willing to keep their sex activities a secret. However, the people who didn't have strong inhibitions, or who didn't care what other people wanted, were more likely to continue having sex and masturbating whenever and wherever they pleased. Their refusal to be considerate would sometimes result in fights breaking out, and it would cause them to develop a reputation for being crude and impolite.

The fights and the bad reputation would make those particular people slightly less successful with reproduction. It might have been an imperceptible reduction, but over thousands of generations, the people who were most successful were those who fit best into society, and they were the ones with strong sexual inhibitions and a strong desire to follow the rules rather than do as they please. Our ancestors inadvertently bred themselves into a creature that has strong sexual inhibitions, and who will follow one another like sheep.

Sexual inhibitions make a woman appear civilized

I think another reason that female humans developed strong sexual inhibitions is because the females with the stronger inhibitions appeared more "civilized". Animals don't care about manners, but as the men became more intelligent, they started noticing subtle differences in the women. For example, when a woman has to pick something up from the ground, if she has no inhibitions about her body, she is likely to bend over at the hips, thereby exposing her crotch to the people behind her. You can certainly imagine what a sight that would be in prehistoric times. By comparison, a woman with sexual inhibitions will try to keep her crotch hidden, and so she is more likely to squat down.

The same concept applies to women who sit on the ground. When a woman with no inhibitions wants to sit on the ground, she will not care whether her legs are spread apart. By comparison, a woman with inhibitions will keep her legs together. In addition to sparing everybody from looking at her dirty crotch, in the areas where there are lots of flies, the woman who keeps her legs together will have fewer flies around her crotch. Keep in mind that the people lived outdoors, and so they had no protection from flies.

The women with inhibitions were more attractive to the men. Furthermore, the women also preferred women to keep their crotch hidden.

The same concept applies to men. How many men or women want to look at another man's anus? Both men and women would have a preference for the people who keep their crotch and sexual activities a secret. The end result was that both men and women inadvertently bred the human race into having strong sexual inhibitions.

Furthermore, the women with inhibitions would have a tendency to cover their crotch with clothing, and if the women were talented at making clothing, the clothing would be a decoration that makes them look even more attractive than if they were naked.

It is not easy to create attractive clothing with prehistoric technology. It requires a certain artistic talent, a certain type of intelligence, and a certain amount of finger coordination. Since the men would have a preference for the women with attractive clothing, they inadvertently bred women to have these particular talents.

The inhibitions that we find in women today evolved to fit life as it was thousands of years ago. If we could go back in time, we may not even realize that the prehistoric women were as sexually inhibited as the women of today. For example, we would notice that nudity was much more common in their area than it is in ours, especially with children, but none of the women complained about it. There were no bathing suits in that era and so both children and adults would swim and wash themselves while naked, but none of the women would whine about the nudity.

It would appear to us as if prehistoric people had less sexual inhibitions than people today, but it would just be an illusion. Those prehistoric people grew up with nudity, so nudity was a normal part of life. Their sexual inhibitions didn't prevent nudity; rather, it caused them to develop what we would describe as "manners".

The prehistoric humans did not have pajamas or bedrooms, and so all of the people slept near one another, and all of them were naked. In the colder climates, the people would have some furs to cover themselves during winter, but those furs would not hide their body in the morning when they woke up. Every morning the children would see both naked children and naked adults. The prehistoric children would also occasionally see and hear their parents and other adults having sex, giving birth, breast-feed babies, masturbate, and eliminate waste products.

The prehistoric women were just as inhibited as the women of today, but because of their primitive technology, they could not prevent nudity. By comparison, modern technology allows us to satisfy our sexual inhibitions to such an extreme that it causes problems for our lives. For example, women today can keep their bodies covered all throughout the day, and even when they are sleeping. We can provide ourselves with homes that have isolated rooms, thereby preventing family members from seeing one another naked, eliminating waste products, masturbating, nursing babies, having sex, and sleeping. We can build hospitals that women can hide inside of when they give birth, and we have special garments that allow women to nurse babies without anybody observing what is happening.

Prehistoric women had the same powerful sexual inhibitions as women today, but their low level of technology prevented the women from getting out of control. When prehistoric women satisfied their inhibitions, they developed manners, and they became more attractive to men. By comparison, when women today satisfy their sexual inhibitions, they cause their children to become ignorant about human bodies, sex, childbirth, and breast-feeding. This in turn causes the boys to develop an abnormal curiosity about women's bodies and sex.

To summarize this: Humans developed strong sexual inhibitions simply because we prefer people who keep their crotch and sexual activities a secret. Nudity, sex, and masturbation is not evil. Children are not harmed by learning about sex or nudity, and a woman will not suffer if somebody sees her naked body.

Why were the women upset with those photos?

When the photos of the celebrity women were posted on the Internet, some of those celebrities, and many other women around the world, became angry or hysterical. The women demanded that the photos be removed, but since those photos were not actually harming anybody, why would any woman care? What exactly was going on inside their mind that would cause them to become so angry?

It might help you to understand this if you imagine what the world would be like if voodoo dolls were real. Imagine somebody creates a voodoo doll of you, and he sticks a needle into that voodoo doll. Even though he may be on the other side of the planet, you would feel the pain of that needle. If you were walking down the street, the pain might cause you to stumble and fall down, and that might cause you to chip one of your teeth. If you are a surgeon who is operating on a patient, your muscles would twitch from the pain, and you might hurt the patient.

The point I want to make is that every time a needle was put into the voodoo doll, you would feel the pain, even if you could not see the person who is doing it, and even if you did not know who he is. If 100 needles were put into that voodoo doll, you would feel the pain 100 times. You would not know if 100 different people each put one needle into the doll, or one person put 100 needles into the doll, but you would know that it was 100 needles.

Now consider how this concept applies to the photos of the celebrity women. I have not seen any of those photos, so imagine somebody emails a set of them to me. If I look at a photo of Jennifer Lawrence, would she feel any pain? Would she realize that a man has just looked at her photo? If I then look at a photo of Kate Upton, would Upton suddenly feel pain? Obviously, the answer is no. So why would they care if a man looks at the photos?

The women are creating the impression that every time a man looks at one of their photos, they experience pain, and that as more men look at the photos, they experience more pain. When the photos were first posted, only a few men saw the photos, and so the women expect us to believe that they experienced only a small amount of pain. They wanted the photos removed before other men saw those photos because they expect us to believe that as more men see the photos, their pain will increase. They are behaving as if voodoo dolls are real.

Before I continue, consider the difference between men and women in this regard. If you are a man, imagine if photos of your naked body, and photos of dozens of other men, were put on the Internet, and women around the world began downloading them and looking through them. Would you stop whatever you are doing, contact a lawyer, and threaten to file a lawsuit against any website that did not immediately remove those photos? Would you become angry and hysterical?

I suspect that many men would be proud to think that women want to look at their bodies. Furthermore, I suspect some men would wonder which men the women enjoy looking at the most, and they would be disappointed if they discovered that women were ignoring their photo and looking at photos of the other men.

If the women in those photos were fat, ugly, or deformed, I could understand why they would be embarrassed to have their naked body exposed to the world, but Jennifer Lawrence and the other celebrity women have nothing to be embarrassed about. They could have reacted in a sensible manner, such as by calmly describing it as a crime in which somebody has broken into their private collection of photos.

Furthermore, the women had the option of choosing to react to the situation with pride. They could have been proud that men consider them to be attractive. If the women discovered that some teenage boys were looking at the photos in order to learn about women's bodies, they could have been pleased to think that they were helping to compensate for the sexual ignorance of modern society by allowing the teenage boys to see a variety of naked women.

Women are sexually inhibited monkeys

Why would a woman choose to become angry and hysterical when a man sees her naked body, rather than choose to remain calm and ignore it, and rather than be proud that men enjoy her appearance? The reason is because when a man looks at a naked women, it triggers her emotional inhibitions about nudity. That emotion then creates an unpleasant feeling. The purpose of that emotion is to make her so uncomfortable that she covers up her naked body, and as soon as she does that, the emotion will turn off, and she will be able to relax.

In a primitive era, that emotion would be triggered when a man looked at her naked body with his eyes, and the woman would react by either changing her position so that she is not pointing her crotch at him, or by covering up her crotch. Unfortunately, that emotion was not designed for photographs or the Internet.

When Jennifer Lawrence was told that her naked body was on display at a website, her mind visualized a man looking at her photo. Unfortunately, that image triggered her emotion exactly as if a real man was looking at her naked body with his eyes. Her emotion then yelled at her: "A man is looking at your naked body! Cover your crotch!"

Unfortunately, as long as she foolishly continues to visualize men looking at her body, she will keep that emotion in an active state, and it will continuously yell at her, "He is still looking at your naked body!"

The only way she can turn that emotion off is if she stops stimulating it. She has to stop imagining that men are looking at her naked body and think of something else, or she has to become proud that men enjoy her. She has to learn how to control her thoughts and emotions.

When a woman becomes upset that somebody is looking at a photo of her naked body, she is making herself become upset. The person who is looking at the photo is not hurting her in any way. She is solely responsible for her misery. She is stimulating herself, but in an unpleasant manner. She is masturbating, but not for pleasure. She is masturbating in order to torture herself. We could describe people who do this as foolish, or as idiots, or as masochists, or as stupid monkeys who have no understanding or control of their emotions.

How is a woman who stimulates her sexual inhibitions in public any more desirable than a man who masturbates sexually in public? I would say that both of them ought to do it in private rather than in public.

If we give pity to Jennifer Lawrence, we are creating a social environment in which we encourage people to make a public spectacle of stimulating themselves into a state of anger or pouting over the thought that somebody has seen their naked body. We should not encourage this type of behavior. We should encourage people to understand their emotions, control their emotions, and make intelligent decisions on how to behave.

The actress Emma Watson posted the remark "Even worse than seeing women's privacy violated on social media is reading the accompanying comments that show such a lack of empathy." What exactly does Emma Watson want us to do? Are we supposed to cry for the women? How is "empathy" going to help society or deal with this crime?

The women are behaving like young children who are upset, and who want mommy to stop what she is doing, rush over to comfort them, and give them a kiss. That type of behavior is acceptable for young children, but we should not encourage adults to behave this way, especially not in public. If a woman wants to be treated like a little girl, she should do it with her boyfriend or husband in the privacy of her own home.

If voodoo dolls were real, and if somebody was sticking needles into voodoo dolls of famous women, then each of the women could truly claim that she is being injured every time somebody stuck a needle into her doll. She could justify asking for medical assistance and pity. However, when somebody looks at a photo of her naked body, whatever pain she feels is self-inflicted. She does not need or deserve our pity.

I agree that a crime was committed when somebody posted those photos, but we will not improve society by giving pity, pampering, or money to the women. We need to deal with the crime from the point of view of how to improve life for everybody. We don't need to be concerned with the emotional pain that Jennifer Lawrence has brought upon herself. Let her cry. That is her choice. We should not feel guilty when an adult chooses to make herself miserable.

Women are encouraging one another to become hysterical over a meaningless issue. All throughout history humans have regularly been exposed to naked bodies. Nobody is harmed by the sight of a naked body. Women are letting themselves get carried away with their sexual inhibitions. Women need to be told to learn about life, get control of their emotions, and stop acting like stupid, sexually inhibited monkeys.

People torture themselves over money and fame, also

Women are not unique for tormenting themselves over imaginary issues. Men do it also, but for different reasons. Men torment themselves over the thought that other men have a larger salary, a more impressive job title, a better office, more fame, a better wive, more sex, a larger house, or a more expensive watch.

Every American who has a job or is on welfare is incredibly wealthy compared to people in the past. Even the poor Americans have electricity, houses, glass windows, medical and dental technology, refrigerators, foods from around the world, and all sorts of other amazing luxuries that people a few hundred years ago did not even dream about.

Every day that an American wakes up, he has the option of enjoying the amazing luxuries of the modern world. Even the people in the poor sections have the option of enjoying their luxuries. They could be thankful that they were not born hundreds of years earlier. They could be thankful that they have sewers, running water, toilets, bicycles, and trains.

Unfortunately, a significant percentage of the population choose to focus on what other people have, rather than enjoying what they have. They remind themselves over and over that somebody else has a larger house, or a more expensive car, or maids to clean their house. Just like Jennifer Lawrence, they torment themselves, and they do it day after day, year after year.

Some of the people who do this are above-average in wealth. They have more money than almost everybody on the planet, but they cannot enjoy it. They instead focus on somebody else who has more money than they do.

Why do people torment themselves over their lack of money or status? I think the main reason is because animals are competitive. Men have a natural craving to compete with other men for leadership, and to compete for the attention of females. The women have a natural craving to compete with other women for both status and men.

During prehistoric times, this craving for competition was beneficial because it pushed the men and women into competing for beneficial things, such as food, tools, and clothing. The competition between women to look pretty inspired them to keep themselves clean, make nice clothing for themselves, and keep their home attractive. The people benefited from that type of competition.

In this modern world, however, our technology allows men and women to get carried away. Men and women are struggling to acquire houses that are so large that they don't use all of the rooms, and some women are accumulating so much clothing and jewelry that they need gigantic closets to hold it, and they lose track of what they have.

A man who torments himself over the thought that other men have larger houses is just as foolish as a woman who torments herself over the thought that a man has seen her naked body. Actually, these people are not merely "foolish"; they are a disruption to modern society because they encourage bad attitudes and undesirable behavior.

If everybody in a city could get control of their emotions and stop convincing themselves that they are miserable because somebody else has a bigger house, or because somebody saw their naked body, or because somebody else has more fame, our social environment would be noticeably more relaxed and pleasant. There would be no whining about "poverty", and no anger and bitterness that somebody else has more money. The men would compete for something that makes sense, such as bringing improvements to our social affairs, transportation system, holiday celebrations, city parks, and economic system.

Furthermore, if everybody could stop worrying about who has a bigger pile of material items and a larger home, we could create a city in which all of the homes are identical in quality, and everybody has free access to material items and food. However, I plan to discuss this in more detail in the next document.

Sexually titillating photos of women are everywhere

A significant aspect of the Jennifer Lawrence Affair is that it shows one of the irrational aspects of modern society. Specifically, it is acceptable to produce advertisements, movies, magazines, and photos that are sexually titillating for both young boys and adult men, as long as the photo doesn't show a woman's nipple, vagina, or anus.

The reason this is an idiotic policy is because allowing us to see nipples, vaginas, and anuses will not increase the sexual titillation or cause harm to anybody. Actually, women are more attractive in certain types of clothing than they are naked.

I think a woman's vagina and anus looks better in clothing than naked. Their breasts look better in certain types of clothing, also.

Advertisements, television shows, and movies are allowed to show all parts of a woman's body except for those three tiny areas. However, I think women are more sexually titillating when those three areas are covered with pretty clothing.

If other men are similar to me, then men are more titillated by the "acceptable", non-sexual photos than they are by the supposedly more dangerous "sexual" photos.

I do not want to look at Jennifer Lawrence's anus, and I doubt if her vagina is much more attractive than her anus. Her nipples are just larger versions of what I have on my body. I have no fascination with men's nipples, and women's nipples are just bigger versions of ours, not better versions. I think women look better in pretty clothing.

Why do all advanced societies have a policy of hiding those three tiny areas of a woman's body? And why do we have to hide the penis of a man? This policy is the result of people who follows their emotions like an animal. Our sexual inhibitions are triggered by nipples, vaginas, penises, and anuses. The curly hair that we have in our crotch may also trigger this.

When we see one of those body parts, our sexual inhibitions are triggered, and that causes an unpleasant feeling in our mind. That emotion was designed to make our prehistoric ancestors cover up those particular areas of the body, but people today are interpreting that unpleasant feeling to mean that those areas are bad or dangerous. Adults foolishly believe that they are protecting their children by hiding those particular areas.

Ironically, by hiding naked bodies and allowing advertisers and television shows to expose boys to women in beautiful clothing, they are sexually titillating the boys more than they would be if the women were naked. This irrational policy is creating more sexual titillation, not less.

Most of the women in the Jennifer Lawrence Affair already have lots of sexually titillating photos of themselves in magazines, movies, and on the Internet. This is especially true of the women who do modeling. There are hundreds of photos of them in various attractive dresses, bikinis, underwear, jumpsuits, wedding dresses, and skirts.

If I am correct that the women are more titillating in clothing than they are naked, then why do so many men have such a fascination for naked women? I think it is because naked women are extremely rare in modern society. The greatest fascination for naked women is with boys, not older men who have seen lots of naked women. After a man has seen a lot of naked women, he starts to notice that women are more attractive in certain types of clothing. A young boy might be excited at the thought of becoming a gynecologist, but after looking at a few dozen vaginas, he is going to realize that they are not very attractive.

Why were prehistoric women tolerant of nudity?

Prehistoric women not only tolerated nudity, but they could nurse babies in front of other people, and they gave birth in front of other people. How could they handle nudity so much better than the women of today?

The primary reason seems to be because humans are frightened of the unknown. We behave like trains on a track. When a child grows up in a prehistoric environment, nudity is a part of his daily life, so he becomes accustomed to nudity. By comparison, when a child is raised in modern America, he rarely, if ever, sees a naked body, sex, childbirth, or breast-feeding. He will be accustomed to people who hide their body, and he will assume that this behavior is "normal". He will want to behave like everybody else and follow the crowd, so he will become an adult who continues practicing this fear of nudity without ever thinking about the issue.

I think that we have created an inappropriate social environment for ourselves as a result of going too far in our attempt to satisfy our sexual inhibitions. We are doing such an effective job of preventing children from learning about human bodies, sex, and childbirth that they are becoming ignorant adults who develop idiotic and irrational cravings and curiosities.

Boys in prehistoric times did not have any curiosity about a woman's body. The teenage boys did not waste any of their time wondering what a girl looks like. The prehistoric girls were not bothered by boys who struggled to look underneath their clothing. The prehistoric boys did not have a fascination with women's breasts or nipples. None of the teenage boys wondered what sex was, or what childbirth was, or how babies were breast-fed. They knew all of this, and more.

The fascination that men today show for naked women and breasts is the result of an improper social environment. The boys and men who are showing a fascination with naked women could be described as "emotionally crippled" as a result of growing up in a sexually inhibited environment that is the result of people getting carried away with their desire to satisfy their sexual inhibitions.

Society should educate children about their bodies

In other documents I suggested a society encourage nudity at public beaches. There are valid reasons to keep naked people out of public buildings and off of furniture, but I think that nudity and breast-feeding should be encouraged at certain beaches and parks in order to provide children with the opportunity to see a variety of different naked bodies. Furthermore, I suggest the schools provide additional information to children about sex, their digestive system, childbirth, and other issues that parents are currently struggling to keep a secret from their children.

We will never know for sure what the best environment is for us, and there may be subtle differences in sexual emotions between the different races of humans, but I predict that this type of policy would give young boys such a good understanding of naked bodies and sex that they will become teenagers who don't have any fascination with nudity. I suspect that our societies would become much more pleasant for both men and women. By the time a boy became sexually mature, he would have seen hundreds of naked women of different ages. He would not have a craving to see what a girl's body looks like. Actually, I think most boys will be tired of looking at naked girls, and they would become more interested in the girls who are wearing pretty clothing.

The adult men 50,000 years ago did not giggle like children when they saw a naked body, and they did not yell at women to cover themselves when they were nursing babies. So why are men today giggling like children over nudity and becoming hysterical over breast-feeding? It is because we are raising boys in an improper environment.

However, we need to make a distinction between nudity and pornography. When I suggest that we encourage nudity at public parks, I and referring to nudity, not sexual titillation. I am not suggesting that people have sex or masturbate at public parks, or that women behave in sexual manners at a park.

We should increase the restrictions on our activities

As I mentioned in another document, one of the changes that has been going on in human societies is that we have begun restricting our activities. For example, we restrict the elimination of waste products to the areas that have been designated as bathrooms. These restrictions deny us some freedom, but provide us with other freedoms. For example, we deny ourselves the freedom to pee and poop wherever we please, but we provide ourselves with the freedom to know that wherever we walk, we will not have to worry about stepping or sitting in somebody's waste products.

If we increased the restrictions on waste products, such as keeping wild animals and pets out of certain areas of the city, we would interfere with the freedom of pet owners and the people who want to feed wild animals, but we would provide ourselves with the freedom of knowing that we can go into those sections without having to worry about getting messy from animal waste.

For another example, if we restrict courtship to only the designated courtship activities, then men and women will be denied the freedom to pursue one another whenever they please. However, it provides a woman with the freedom to relax as she rides a public train or swims naked at a beach. She would be able to say hello to the men without worrying about them interpreting it as a sign that she has a romantic interest in them. She will realize that any man who is interested in meeting her will go to the designated courtship activities.

For another example, if we put restrictions on cell phones, such as blocking their reception in certain restaurants, music concerts, or parks, we deny people the freedom to chat on the phone whenever they please, but we give people the freedom to know that when they go to those areas, they won't be bothered by their phone, or by the phones of other people.

Of course, restrictions on our activities are worthless if the people don't want to voluntarily follow them. For example, if a city restricts pets from a certain park, some pet owners may take their pets into that park anyway and justify it by claiming that they clean up after their pets, and some pet owners may respond, "I don't tell you what to do, so don't tell me what I have to do."

Because people have slightly different personalities and intellectual abilities, it is impossible for a society to please everybody. There will always be some people who do not like the rules of behavior. This is not a problem if they are willing to obey the laws, but there are a lot of people who do not want to obey the laws that they don't like.

No society has yet been able to deal with this problem of people who violate laws, so it may seem to be a difficult issue to deal with, but businesses and other organizations have been dealing with it for centuries. Businesses tell the employees that they must follow the rules or they will be fired. Employees are told that if they don't like something about the business, they either remain quiet, or they make intelligent suggestions to their supervisors.

We could apply the same policy for a society. Specifically, a city would tell its residents that they either follow the laws, or they will be evicted or put under restrictions. Any citizen who doesn't like a law would be allowed to provide intelligent suggestions or constructive criticism, but he would not be allowed to participate in riots.

The pet owners who take their pets to areas that have been designated to be free of animals need to be either evicted, or restricted to certain areas at the edge of the city where they won't bother the rest of us. Likewise, the men who cannot resist flirting with women in public areas rather than at the courtship activities, need to either be evicted, or restricted to a certain area of the city, or prohibited from being near women.

We have to stop trying to fix the misfits, and stop being intimidated by their temper tantrums and their riots. Life will be much more pleasant when we are living among people who behave properly because they want to, and that requires getting the misfits out of our lives; either by pushing them to some section of the city where they won't bother us, or by evicting them.

How many people can handle 21st-century technology?

Modern technology can be useful, but our emotions were not designed for it. For example, our ability to produce food can be used to provide us with a variety of healthy meals, but our emotions respond by encouraging us to eat excessive amounts of food, and to eat the foods that taste the best even if they are not healthy for us.

We also have the ability to produce a wide variety of clothing, and we can use that technology to produce durable clothing that protects us while we are working at our jobs; decorative clothing for social affairs; and practical clothing to keep us warm on cold days and dry during rainy days. However, if we cannot control our sexual inhibitions, we will create clothing to cover our bodies to such an extreme that children become ignorant about human bodies. And if we cannot control our cravings to follow tradition, or our cravings to follow other people, we will mimic the clothing of our ancestors or the Hollywood celebrities, rather than develop sensible clothing.

Everybody has some ability to control their emotions, but if we could measure a person's ability, I suspect that the majority of people would only be able to handle the technology of 10,000 BC, and that only a small minority can adequately handle 21st-century technology.

This document discusses one example; namely, most people cannot handle 21st-century clothing. If the people alive today had been born 10,000 years ago, they would have had no problem coping with the nudity and primitive clothing of that era, but when provided with 21st century clothing, they create a sexually dysfunctional world in which children are ignorant about human bodies and sex, and in which there is fascination for nipples and vaginas.

Food is good example of how some people cannot handle modern technology. If the people alive today had been born 10,000 years ago, they would have no problem dealing with food, but when provided with 21st century foods, many of them struggle to control their weight, and some become anorexic. As technology improves, food will become even more desirable. The future apricots and cantaloupes, for example, will have been bred into much tastier fruits. The future generations will also develop foods that we haven't even imagined. Nobody 10,000 years ago would have believed that there could be such a thing as potato chips, sausages, lasagna, or bacon. We cannot imagine what type of foods will be available 10,000 years from now.

There are a lot of cheeses available in the world today, but many people have trouble with dairy products, and humans do not actually like the consistency of cheese. Cheese is gluey, sticky, and slimy. We don't eat cheese because we like it's consistency. Rather, we like the aroma. Therefore, as biologists learn more about bacteria and mold, they may figure out how to grow the tasty bacteria and mold on something more desirable than milk, thereby creating a type of cheese that has a better texture, and which doesn't cause allergic reactions or digestive problems. This will make the cheeses of the future even more irresistible.

Some of the people who are controlling their consumption of food today might have a difficult time controlling their consumption if they were transported 10,000 years into the future.

This problem is also evident with pornography. Nobody 10,000 years ago had a problem with pornography because pornography didn't exist. Today there are some people who spend hours every week with pornographic magazines, videos, and inflatable dolls. Some of the people who can control their craving for pornography today might find it more difficult if they had access to future technology, such as sex robots and headsets that give realistic, 3-D images of women.

There are also lots of people who have trouble controlling their craving for material items. This problem will also increase in the future because there will be an even greater variety of material items. Also, and if we continue on the path we are on right now, the discrepancy between the poor and the rich will increase, causing even more people to struggle to be one of the rich.

People are breeding dogs to become more like what our emotions want. The dogs that the women are attracted to are becoming more like babies, and the dogs that men are attracted to are becoming better substitutes for friends. The future dogs will have been bred into creatures that are even more emotionally titillating to us. People who can resist pets now might have a difficult time resisting pets in the future. And the people who have just one or two pets now might want dozens of pets in the future.

Not many people today can adequately cope with the modern world. They are primitive savages in a human world. In this recent poll of British women, about 65% of them admit that they have trouble saying the words ‘vagina’ or ‘vulva’. That poll also shows that many adult women are so sexually inhibited that they have trouble going to gynecologists. More amazing yet, the poll claims that only about half of the younger adult women could identify a vagina on a diagram of a female human body.

We must expect children to have trouble controlling their emotions, but in order for adults to truly fit in this modern world, they should be able to discuss the issues that we face, including their own health issues, and that requires they be able to say the words in our language, and be able to talk to doctors. Schools should help children deal with these issues, but most parents have so little control over their sexual inhibitions that they won't allow schools to teach sex issues. The majority of people are just primitive savages who are inadvertently creating a world of sexually dysfunctional people.

Many parents want to stop schools from teaching children about sex, and they claim that parents should teach these issues, but how is a mother going to teach these issues when she is so inhibited that she doesn't know what a vagina is, and cannot say the word?

Animals never developed a curiosity about the world, or about their own bodies. An animal has no need to identify its body parts on a diagram. Animals are only concerned with surviving and reproducing. As animals evolved into humans, the men began developing a curiosity about the world and a desire to explore it. Men developed a curiosity about everything; the rocks, the trees, the pigs, and human bodies. Men began exploring everything around them, including their own bodies.

Unfortunately, women never developed much of a curiosity about anything. As we see with female birds, human women prefer to sit on a nest, take care of children, and chat with other women. They are not interested in exploring the world, becoming leaders, fighting for territory, or looking closely at their bodies. They have no interest in knowing what is between their legs, how their digestive system works, where babies come from, why they have a blind spot in their eye, or how their knees work.

How many adult women are truly able to cope with modern society? Most of them are sexually inhibited monkeys, not advanced humans. However, I am not implying that men are better than women. If the men were truly better than the women, the men would provide intelligent guidance and advice to the women. Instead, most men are so overwhelmed with the modern world that they don't know what to do. Most of them end up pandering to the women, thereby encouraging their sexual inhibitions and their feminist attitudes.

Neither men nor women are better than the other. We are simply different. Men are not as sexually inhibited as women, but men have problems controlling other emotions, such as their arrogance and their craving for territory and status.

We must put better people in control of the world

Why is the world the way it is? Because the people make it this way. An organization is whatever the people make it. For example, this world is sexually dysfunctional, and there is widespread hysteria and paranoia of nipples and penises. The reason is simply because the world is dominated by people who cannot control their sexual inhibitions.

Why is there so much fighting for money? Why are so many people spending more money than they have and getting into debt? Why are so many business leaders struggling to become billionaires? The reason is simply because most people have trouble controlling their craving for material items.

Why are so many people obese or anorexic? It is simply because they have trouble controlling their emotional cravings.

When we start experimenting with new cities, we must restrict them to the people who show a better ability to control their emotional cravings and cope with the technology and social issues of the 21st century. We have to pass judgment on who among us can deal with this modern world, and who is just a savage who should be chasing after a wild pig with a sharp stick.

We are allowing our governments, businesses, schools, and media to be dominated by people with very crude characteristics. They are cheating us, lying to us, and treating us as peasants. We need to raise standards for people in leadership positions, and we need to stand up to the people who cannot cope with the modern world and tell them that they don't have the qualities necessary to vote or influence the future.

Some of the women whose photos were posted on the Internet threatened to file lawsuits, and that threat caused the websites to remove the photos so rapidly that only a tiny percentage of the population has seen the photos.

It should be noted that the websites reacted to the threats from the women; they did not respond to demands from the police or legal system. The American legal system does nothing about a crime until a citizen or a police department decides to take the case to court.

Since we grew up with this type of legal system, it will seem "normal" to you, so to understand my remark, compare the differences between the way our nation reacts to bad behavior, and the way a business reacts.

When employees of a business create a disruption, their supervisors will investigate the situation and try to resolve it. The supervisors do not wait for somebody to file a complaint. They take an active role in resolving disputes, and the reason is because they are true leaders. They are people with the initiative to do something on their own. Their goal is to keep the team working together efficiently, and they are given enough authority to allow them to deal with troublemakers. They watch for troublemakers, and they deal with troublemakers.

By comparison, the American government officials are not supposed to be leaders. They are supposed to serve the people, not lead the people, and none of them were given much authority. This is true of all government divisions, including the legal division.

America's legal system is not in the role of a supervisor. Our legal system is more like a marriage counseling service that waits for angry couples to ask for help, and then profits from their misery. Our legal system is not intended to analyze cases according to what is best for society, and it is not responsible for maintaining the efficiency or morale of society.

Our legal system, like a marriage counseling service, focuses on serving the particular people who filed a court case. This is allowing people to use the courts as a way of making money by suing businesses, doctors, and government agencies, and it allows businesses to hurt their competitors by filing lawsuits that cause them to waste their money and time.

A legal system would be more useful to a nation if the people in the system would have a role that is similar to the supervisors of a business. Their purpose should be to understand why people are getting into arguments with one another, and they should be suggesting methods to reduce these arguments so that the team is more efficient, and the morale remains high. They should not wait for a person to come to them with a complaint. They should have the initiative to do something whenever a fight occurs.

One way to understand this concept is to imagine if the incident with Jennifer Lawrence had happened at IBM. All large companies have a computer network with a lot of data, and some of the data are photographs. A business is likely to have a lot of different types of photos, such as photos of some of their products, some of the employees, the company's anniversary party, or their building. They may also have photos that help employees understand a particular maintenance or assembly procedure.

Imagine if an IBM employee secretly got access to the company's computer network, and he posted some of those photos on the Internet. Even if he posted photos that are harmless, such as photos of their anniversary party, the managers will react by investigating the incident. They would not wait for one of the employees to file a lawsuit. They have the initiative to do something on their own.

It should be noted that the management of IBM would react to all types of inappropriate behavior, regardless of what it was. The management would not care whether the employee was taking photos from the computer network, or whether he was breaking into the maintenance closet and taking mops, or whether he broke into the company cafeteria and took food.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the management would not care whether the employee did any actual harm. For example, if he were to break into the company cafeteria, and walk around a few tables, and then leave, he would not have done any harm, but the management would consider his behavior as inappropriate, obnoxious, and unacceptable, and they would investigate and make a decision about what to do.

The goal of the supervisors is to keep their team members working properly, and they will react whenever they find a member causing a disruption. They don't care whether the disruption is "harmless", such as posting a photo of the company's building, or something serious, such as setting trash cans on fire. They will react to all types of disruption.

An employee who commits a harmless prank might justify it by claiming that he was "having fun", but the managers of a business judge an employee according to his effect on the team, and they make a decision about what to do according to how their decision will affect the team.

For example, if the managers allow an employee to commit "amusing pranks", then they will encourage more amusing pranks. Since an "amusing prank" is different to different people, that can result in some employees getting involved with dangerous or unacceptable pranks. Therefore, the managers of a business are likely to prohibit employees from doing amusing pranks.

Since different managers have different personalities, we will find that the managers at some companies allow certain pranks, dress codes, and other behavior that would be prohibited at other companies. However, ignore the personality differences. The point I am making is that the managers make decisions according to what is best for the team, not according to whether a particular employee has done damage to the company, or according to what one particular employee wants.

By comparison, the American legal system has no concern for what is best for the team. The American legal system focuses on whether a person has technically violated a law.

In a business, an employee might be fired for doing something harmless, such as breaking into the cafeteria and running around in circles. Even though that employee does not directly harm the company, he would be considered as a bad influence. Some managers would also consider him to be emotionally unstable and, therefore, a potential danger. Although it's becoming increasingly difficult to fire people, many businesses still have the freedom to fire an employee simply because he is a disruption to the team.

By comparison, the American legal system would never evict a person from society simply because he was a bad influence. The American legal system does not care about the team, or its morale.

I suspect that we would have significantly fewer problems with crime if we had a legal system that was similar to what we see in businesses, the military, and other organizations. The people in the legal system should be like the managers of a business or military. They should have the responsibility to watch over the team and ensure that the people are working together. They should be looking for troublemakers and disruptions, and their goal should be to understand the problems and find ways to reduce them. They should not wait for people to complain about problems, and they should not allow people to profit from crimes or disputes.

If we had that type of legal system, then our legal officials would consider it their responsibility to analyze the incident with Jennifer Lawrence's photos. They would not care whether Jennifer Lawrence wanted to file a lawsuit or not. They would not care what she had to say. They would analyze the issue from the point of view of how it is affecting society, and what is best for everybody as a group.

What would IBM management do if an employee broke into their computer system and posted some photos that he was not supposed to have access to? The first thing they would do is investigate the incident. Unlike the "ordinary" people, who create opinions without bothering to investigate the issue, people who are truly capable of providing leadership will do some research before they make decisions. For example, the management of IBM would want to know who the employee was, and whether he was working alone. If he was working with other people, that would complicate the situation tremendously.

The managers would also want to know why he did it. Was it merely a prank? Or was he testing the security system because he was planning to do a much more significant crime in the future? Or was he working with a group of people who are trying to embarrass certain managers in order to get them fired? Or is he working for one of their competitors and is trying to hurt the business?

Our legal system should have the same attitude that we see among the managers at IBM. The first thing our legal officials should do is investigate the person who posted those photos. The officials would want to know who he was, whether he was working alone, and how we got access to those photos. They would also want to know which photos he posted, and why he selected those particular photos. And they would want to know why he posted photos from certain women but not others.

A lot of journalists are trying to convince us that a sexually frustrated and bored young man "hacked" into the iCloud network and took some photos of pretty women, but I doubt that one man did this by himself. I suspect that the Jewish crime network is responsible for this.

Furthermore, I don't think the Jews just recently took these photos from the iCloud network. I suspect that the Jews regularly collect information, photos, and video of everybody who becomes famous and influential in order to provide the Jews with material that they can use to blackmail a famous person, if necessary, thereby giving the Jews control over all of the famous people.

If you have looked through my other documents, then you may recall that ever since I began exposing the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings in January 2002, I have been contacted by lots of people, all of whom were very friendly. I was contacted by homosexuals, lonely women, lesbians, people who smoke marijuana, and people who liked other drugs. Trond Halvorsen tried to convince me to join him on a sex trip to Thailand.

All of these people appeared to admire me for my work on exposing 9/11, but in reality they were Jews, or working for the Jews, and they were probing me for my weaknesses. They were looking for material that they could use to blackmail me with. They also contacted some of my neighbors, relatives, and whoever else they thought might have some information about me, or might be able to influence me.

Don't assume that I am the one and only person that the Jews have treated in this manner. A more sensible conclusion is that they have been doing this to everybody who shows the potential of becoming influential or famous. Whenever they notice somebody is getting attention in politics, or becoming famous in athletics, or attracting attention in the music business, they will start probing him for his weaknesses and looking for material that they can use to control him. When somebody shows signs of causing trouble for the Jews, the Jews use their blackmail material to embarrass or intimidate him.

If the Jews cannot find any material to blackmail a person with, then they try to prevent the person from becoming famous, such as by murdering him, refusing to give him publicity, or by incapacitating him in some manner, such as getting him fired from his jobs and breaking up his marriages and friendships.

On 4 September 2014, an artist announced that he was going to create life-sized reproductions of those photos of Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton for an art exhibit. Is he really an "artist"? And did the journalists give publicity to this artist because they truly believed that his exhibit is an important news item that we all need to be informed of?

I suspect that the Jews conceived of this art exhibit as a way of increasing pressure on the celebrities to obey the Jews, and I also suspect that the Jews told some of their journalists to give it worldwide publicity since it would have no effect unless it got a lot of publicity.

If there was no secrecy in this world, then we would be able to figure out who posted those photos of Jennifer Lawrence, and if there is any connection between him, this artist, and the journalists who are giving publicity to the exhibit.

Incidentally, this art exhibit brings up an issue that I mentioned in other documents; namely, we should not be afraid to pass judgment on what is and is not "art". People can have whatever type of art they want in their home, but no artist has a right to tell society to accept his art. Don't let the artists intimidate you into tolerating their art.

Imagine a more extreme example of this particular artist. Instead of taking photos from the Internet, imagine if an artist were to break into your house and steal a few of your photos, and then break into your neighbor's house and steal a few of his photos, etc. And then he put all of those stolen photos on display in a museum. Would you consider his display to be a work of "art"? Would you consider that person to have artistic talent?

Is every celebrity a puppet?

How does somebody become a "celebrity"? How does somebody become "famous"? There are millions of people who can sing, for example, so why is Lady Gaga getting so much more attention than all of the others? Is it really because you and billions of other people prefer her to all of the other singers?

There are millions of women who can act, so why does Jennifer Lawrence get so much more money and publicity than the other women? Is it really because you and billions of other people prefer her to all of the other women?

Before you try to answer that question, consider that in addition to celebrities, there is the opposite of a celebrity, which is a person who "infamous". These are the people who get a lot of publicity, but the publicity is intended to make us dislike them. For example, David Duke and David Irving get a lot of unfavorable publicity for their anti-Semitism.

There are millions of people making critical remarks about Jews, so why do David Duke and David Irving get so much publicity and most of us get none? I have lots of critical remarks about Jews on my website, so why don't I get to go on television? Why won't the ADL condemn me? Is it really because you and other people prefer to listen to David Duke?

Some people might respond that the Jews ignore me because I am a "nobody", but most famous people were originally a nobody.

If you are observant enough to notice that a group of Jews has gotten control of our media, then it should be obvious to you that a small group of Jews is making decisions about who becomes famous and infamous. And that observation should lead you to the conclusion that the Jews are giving preference to the people that they have some influence over. What is not obvious is how the Jews are keeping the famous people under control.

In the case of infamous people, such as David Duke, my guess is that they are controlling them through blackmail rather than bribery, propaganda, deception, or threats of death. The reason I say this is because these people seem to be increasingly miserable every year. I interpret that to be a sign that they are like prisoners who are serving a life sentence, and who are becoming increasingly depressed with their situation.

In the case of famous children, the Jews can easily keep them under control with deception and propaganda. It is also very easy to keep children under control with threats, such as threatening to kill their parents if they complain about being raped.

In the case of the famous adults, the Jews seem to control them in the same manner that we control circus seals. Specifically, the Jews tell them that if they want a job in Hollywood, they have to follow certain rules, such as keeping their opinions to themselves, and never criticizing Jews.

Incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews demand that the celebrities donate money to certain charities as a way of encouraging "ordinary" people to support those charities.

When one of the celebrities show signs of rebellion, the Jews can keep him under control by threatening to release some information about their embarrassing or illegal behavior.

If you are young, or if you have never had any experience with the Jewish crime network, or if you have never seen the extremes that some people will go to in order to get money, then you may have a difficult time believing me when I describe the celebrities as being like circus seals. You may regard celebrities as being intelligent, independent people who do and say what they want. You may find it difficult to believe that they will get on their hands and knees and squeal like a pig if you hold money out in front of them and tell them to start squealing.

If you have trouble understanding this, just search through news reports about people who have been caught hiring other people to break legs or murder people. For example, the two men who were hired to break Nancy Kerrigan's leg agreed to do it for only $6,500. It doesn't take much more money to hire people to murder somebody.

Since there are people willing to break an Olympic athlete's leg for only a few thousand dollars, and they will murder a person for only $50,000, what sort of crimes will they participate in when they are offered $1 million or a role in a Hollywood movie? And what sort of sexual services will they provide the Hollywood executives?

Hollywood is offering jobs that provide enormous amounts of money and fame. There are a lot of people who will become a circus seal when given that offer.

Which celebrities voluntarily became a puppet, as Bob Dylan did, and which of them are being blackmailed or threatened into this position?

If you still have trouble believing this, watch this interview with the 60 Minutes television show in which Bob Dylan made a vauge remark about how he sold his soul to the devil.

He refused to explain the remark, but it doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that the "devil" are the Jews who dominate the entertainment business, and that the deal he made with those Jews is that he will follow their orders in return for becoming rich and famous. He refers to it as selling his soul to the devil because he had to give up his freedom.

Katy Perry also said that she sold her soul to the devil after her singing career was a failure.

Don't assume that Dylan and Perry are the only two people to have sold their soul to the Jewish devils. We should assume that all of the famous celebrities are guilty of becoming circus seals for the Jewish crime network until proven otherwise.

If any celebrity is refusing to be a circus seal, the Jews will push him out of Hollywood, as they did with Bill Cosby, or the Jews will try to ruin his image, as they tried to do with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Two years ago I wrote that the video that Lady Gaga created, Marry the Night, seems to have hidden meanings about her acceptance into the Jewish crime network. The video implies that she had some type of surgery, and I wondered if perhaps she really had some type of surgical procedure, such as the removal of male sexual organs. It is also possible that the surgery was just an analogy for allowing Jewish surgeons to remove her freedom and independence. She was being surgically transformed from a human to a puppet.

She may never tell us the truth about the hidden meanings in that video, but it should be obvious that the celebrities are puppets of a crime network. This is the only way we can explain their strange behavior. For example, have you noticed that the celebrities rarely have opinions about current events? Bob Dylan, for example, has nothing to say about any issue. Do you really think his mind is as blank as it appears to be?

Celebrities are faking stupidity

When "normal" people get together for dinner, social activities, or recreation, they talk about something. They may talk about children, religion, politics, or issues that are in the news. Most people's opinions are just simplistic bits and pieces of other people's opinions that they picked up during their life, but the point I am trying to make is that "normal" people talk to one another. They are not silent. Their minds are not blank.

By comparison, the celebrities are amazingly silent, as if their mind is completely blank. All they do is pose for photographs and shop for expensive items. They appear to be zombies. When they express an opinion, it is very likely to be the same opinion that other celebrities are promoting. For example, many celebrities expressed their support for gay marriage and homosexuals in the military.

Why do thousands of celebrities remain silent for years and then suddenly a large group of them develop the urge to promote gay marriage or homosexuals? Why don't any of them find the urge to talk about the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives?

Many years ago, before I realized that the entertainment business was under the control of Jews, I assumed that the lack of intelligent remarks from the celebrities was because they were truly as stupid as they appeared to be. I assumed that they got involved with entertainment because they couldn't do much of anything else for a living. I assumed that acting was a very simple job.

Occasionally I would see an interview with an entertainer in a magazine or on television, and I was surprised to notice that the person showed signs of having above-average intelligence. This confused me. If some of them are intelligent, why do they appear to be so stupid? Why don't they ever say anything intelligent?

I have since come to the conclusion that all of the famous entertainers have above-average intelligence, and that their stupidity is just an illusion. They are puppets who are following orders to remain silent. They are not independent humans who are free to say what they think. They are suppressing their intelligence because they consider wealth and fame to be more important than their freedom.

It might help you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to organizations, such as businesses. The employees of a business must work as a team, not fight with one another over politics, feminism, euthanasia, or religion. When a person agrees to become an employee of a business, he is making a deal with the business to become a team member and give up his freedom and independence. While he is working, he agrees to follow orders rather than do as he pleases. We could describe an employee as "selling his soul to the devil", except that as soon as his work day is over, he is given his soul back and regains his freedom.

All of the people who become wealthy and famous, regardless of whether they are involved with the entertainment business, government, charities, or manufacturing, are above-average intelligence. Therefore, they should be providing us with a variety of opinions, at least some of which ought to be reasonably intelligent.

However, celebrities tend to remain silent; government officials tend to make vague remarks in an attempt to avoid upsetting people; and business executives tend to remain hidden from the public. When one of the people in an influential position decides to express an opinion, it is likely to be an "ordinary" or "politically correct" opinion, not an opinion that we consider worthy of passing on to our friends or the future generations.

If the people dominating our society truly had leadership qualities, then they would regularly provide us with intelligent opinions and analyses of current events and the problems we face, and they would regularly provide us with intelligent suggestions on what we could do with our future. We would be so impressed with their opinions that we would look to them for guidance and advice.

The fact that none of the thousands of people in influential positions have anything intelligent to say about any issue, and the fact that when they do say something they all tend to say the same thing, is a sign that they are secretly working in a team and being told what to say, and when to keep their mouth shut. But who is controlling the team?

Consider that when they do express an opinion, it tends to be Jewish propaganda, such as that Muslims attacked us on 9/11; that Israel has a right to defend itself; that we should support homosexuals in the military; that we should impose carbon taxes to save the planet from global warming; and that Hitler put 6 million Jews into gas chambers. We can conclude that the celebrities and other famous people are under the control of the same group of criminal Jews that is responsible for 9/11, the world wars, etc.

The only issue we cannot easily determine is which of them voluntary sold their soul to the Jewish devils, such as Bob Dylan and Katy Perry, and which of them are obeying the Jewish devils out of fear and who are secretly wishing that they could destroy those devils.

Celebrities are silent about suspicious deaths, also

More evidence that the famous people are puppets of the Jewish crime network is their non-human reaction to the mysterious deaths of other famous people, such as Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, or Robin Williams. There are videos on the Internet in which animals show more of a concern about the death of another animal than these famous people show for the death of other famous people.

The manner in which famous people reacted to the death of Robin Williams is a good example. The day after he was found dead, his body was cremated, and the ashes were tossed into the ocean. Even if a person doesn't know that it is illegal to dispose of a body before the police can determine the cause of death, a person should consider such an incredibly rapid cremation to be evidence that his wife didn't want the coroner to examine the body. Her immediate destruction of his body should remind you of the immediate destruction of the World Trade Center rubble.

Immediately after Robin Williams died, thousands of people on the Internet posted remarks about how they suspect that Robin Williams was murdered by his wife or other Jews, but none of the thousands of celebrities, government officials, or business leaders expressed such a concern. Most famous people were silent about his death, and the few who said something made some generic remark about how they were sad that he was dead.

What are the chances that thousands of ordinary people around the world would suspect that Robin Williams was murdered by his wife, but not one famous person was interested in discussing such a possibility? How is it possible that thousands of famous people independently came to the same decision; namely, to remain silent? Why isn't there any difference of opinion between them? Why do they all behave exactly the same?

I consider their silence to be evidence that they are following orders to keep their mouth shut, and that the orders are coming from the same network of Jews that murdered Robin Williams.

Whenever there is a suspicious death, the police first consider the possibility that family members or friends are involved because most murders and rapes are conducted by people who know one another. This is especially true when a very wealthy person dies mysteriously, and his spouse benefits financially from the death. However, the police showed no interest in following their standard procedures with Robin Williams; namely, to suspect his wife was involved. The journalists and famous people also showed no interest in investigating such a possibility.

Near the beginning of this document I pointed out that when the Jews are involved with a crime, they will tell us what happened rather than investigate. For example, after Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston died mysteriously, famous people and journalists reassured us that there was nothing suspicious about their deaths. Celine Dion announced that she didn't see any reason to give Whitney Houston an autopsy, and other famous people came forward to tell us that Houston and Jackson had drug and psychological problems, thereby implying that their deaths were tragic accidents rather than murders.

A similar situation happened with Robin Williams. In addition to journalists and celebrities immediately trying to convince us that there was nothing suspicious about his death, his wife tried to justify his suicide by telling us that he suffered from early stages of Parkinson's, as well as depression and anxiety.

Other people tried to justify the suicide by claiming that he was suffering from financial problems. For example, in the first paragraph of this news report, we find: "Battling depression and tormented by cash problems, Robin Williams looked a shadow of his former self before he took his own life, a neighbour has revealed."

Other people said Williams did not have financial problems. The police ought to wonder why the neighbor said he had financial problems, but they don't seem to care about this issue.

 Comedians could create a slapstick comedy routine based on his death:

A wife murders his husband, and when the Keystone cops come to investigate, she tells the police, "My husband committed suicide because he had anxiety, depression, and early stages of Parkinson's."
The police respond, "OK, that explains his death. However, we are required to do an autopsy, so I will call for a truck to pick up his body."
While the cop is asking the police station to send a truck for the body, the woman puts her husband's body into the fireplace and burns it, and then flushes all of his ashes down the toilet. When a policeman arrives with a truck, she tells him, "Sorry, we just cremated his body and flushed his ashes into the ocean. But he died of suicide, so put that on your report."
The idiot policeman scribbles, "Death by suicide" on the autopsy report, and returns to his station.

A couple weeks after Robin Williams died, Simone Battle, a healthy, 25-year-old woman, who was becoming wealthy and famous as a singer, supposedly committed suicide. As with Robin Williams, she hung herself in a strange manner. The journalists once again began trying to convince us that it was an understandable suicide. For example, this article claims that she was depressed over money issues.

It is also interesting to note that on 8 August 2014 an anonymous person posted this message on a forum with the title, "Are people bracing themselves for the fact that Robin Williams will die soon?" He didn't provide any details for his remark, but three days later, Robin Williams committed suicide.

If I was in the police department, I would investigate that person. However, I don't expect the police or FBI to investigate that person because the fact that the Jews can get away with burning a dead body before the police can conduct an autopsy should be considered as proof that our police departments, district attorneys, layers, government officials, FBI, and other people in influential positions are working with the criminal Jews.

Perhaps Robin Williams thought that by marrying a Jew, he would be protected, but when you sleep with dogs, you get bit by fleas. There is no evidence that any of us are safe from the Jews. Actually, history shows that they will also kill one another. For example, they sacrificed one another during World War II in order to create Israel, and the Altalena Affair is another example of Jews killing each other. Nobody can trust Jews, not even other Jews!

Is Jennifer Lawrence sleeping with dogs?

Jennifer Lawrence is upset that her photos were put onto the Internet, but we should consider the possibility that she, like Bob Dylan and Katy Perry, made a deal with the Jews, and that the Jews posted her photos in order to reprimand her for misbehaving. In such a case, Lawrence is deceiving us about what actually happened.

Lawrence is creating the impression that she is an innocent woman who was the victim of a crime, but if her photos were put on the Internet by the criminal Jewish network that she made a deal with, and if they are trying to control her and other famous women through embarrassment, then we are witnessing a fight between a crime network and their blackmailed puppets. In such a case, our response to her whining should be, "Sleep with dogs, get bit by fleas." A crime would still be committed, and we should deal with that crime network, but we should not consider those women to be innocent victims.

In August 2014, two men were found tortured to death and thrown into a river by a gang of criminals. Do you feel sorry for them? Those two men had made a deal with a crime network to purchase drugs, but they wasted the money at a casino instead. The gang retaliated.

I would describe those two men as "criminals", not as "victims". If I were a policeman, and if I had observed the gang members killing those two men, I would have quietly walked away and let the gang members complete their murders. I would not stop criminals from killing each other.

The gang of Jews who blew up the World Trade Center, and who are currently struggling to start a war in Iran, Ukraine, North Korea, etc., are creating misery for billions of people. Everybody who makes a deal with this network is helping the network. We should describe those people as "criminals".

Dirk Benedict said that there are hundreds of murders in Hollywood.
Dirk-Benedict-Hollywood-murders.mp3   240 kb

Corey Feldman said that pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood. If those two men are telling the truth, then why are none of the Hollywood celebrities complaining about it? Why would Jennifer Lawrence and other women demand that law enforcement agencies investigate the posting of her personal photos while not demanding that law enforcement agencies investigate the murders and pedophilia? Is she so self-centered that she considers her embarrassment to be more important than murder and pedophilia? Or is she truly oblivious to the crimes that are occurring in Hollywood? Or is she one of the victims of the Hollywood pedophiles and afraid to talk about it?

Neither Bob Dylan, nor any of the other celebrities, are complaining about the crimes that the Jews are committing. I would bet that some of those celebrities are more aware of the crimes that the Jews are committing than any of us. I would also bet that some of them have participated in some of the crimes. Actually, one of the requirements for working with that crime network may be for a person to commit some type of crime that they can be blackmailed over.

Each of us has a different personality, and that causes each of us to be attracted to different types of activities, jobs, people, and lifestyles. Hollywood appeals to people all around the world because all humans have a strong attraction to money and fame.

However, even thought lots of people fantasize about becoming a Hollywood celebrity, nobody can become a celebrity simply by wishing for it. In order to become a celebrity, you have to travel to Hollywood and then compete with thousands of other people who are struggling to become celebrities. Are the people who win that competitive battle really the people with the most talent?

If we could remove the secrecy in this world and study everybody thoroughly, we might find that in some cases a truly talented person becomes a celebrity simply because they stand out among the crowd. However, we are likely to find that some of the people who become celebrities are willing to do whatever is necessary to win the battle, including murder and providing sexual services to Hollywood executives.

Everybody is attracted to the concept of being wealthy and famous, but how many people have enough of an interest in becoming a celebrity to provide sexual services to Hollywood executives? How many people want to be a celebrity so badly that they will overlook the pedophilia in Hollywood? How many have such a craving for wealth and fame that they will ignore or participate in murders?

The people who win a competition are not a random sample of the population. They are not ordinary. The winners of a competition excel in something. Exactly what they excel in depends upon the competition. For example, if it is a competition to run 100 meters, then the winner is the person who can run that distance faster than the others.

We like to think that the competition in Hollywood is over talent, in which case the winners are the people with the most talent. However, with all of the evidence that Hollywood is under the control of a crime network, we should consider that the winners may somehow be involved with that crime network.

Our emotions cause us to assume that the people who are higher in the social hierarchy than us are better people than us, and that was certainly true in prehistoric times when people had to earn what they want in a fair manner, but it is not true in this modern world. People today can rise to influential positions through crime, inheritances, gambling, and divorce settlements.

If the celebrities, executives, and other people involved with Hollywood and television were "better" people than the rest of us, then if we could remove the secrecy and see exactly how they behave and treat one another, we would be impressed by how responsible, considerate, and honest they are. However, there are a lot of reports about their drug and alcohol problems, unstable relationships, shoplifting, and other problems.

If we could remove the secrecy in the entertainment businesses, we might decide that a lot of those people have more emotional problems than the average person. We might be shocked to discover that a lot of the Hollywood celebrities and executives are aware of the murders and pedophilia Hollywood, but they don't care, and some are participating in those crimes. We might discover that they are aware that the Jews blew up the World Trade Center towers, but they don't care about that, and some are participating in the cover-up of that crime.

Women are submissive, so their natural tendency is to let the men deal with the world's problems while they focus on children and looking pretty. Therefore, a lot of the female celebrities may be aware of the problems in Hollywood, but doing nothing about it simply because they are, to put it bluntly, female.

I can understand why the female celebrities are doing nothing about the problems in the world, but I am not so tolerant of adult men who refuse to take an active role in society. There must be a lot of adult male celebrities who know what the Jews are doing.

All of the celebrities behave as if their mind is a complete blank, and that they have no curiosity about the world that they live in. It is impossible that thousands of celebrities, all of whom seem to be of above-average intelligence, cannot see what millions of us can see, such as the demolition of the World Trade Center towers. We are fools to assume that the celebrities are truly as zombie-like as they pretend to be. They are faking stupidity and ignorance.

Hopefully we will soon see an investigation into the crimes that the Jews are committing, and we will discover which of the celebrities is secretly helping us to destroy the network. The celebrities that are helping that crime network should be regarded as criminals.

Unfortunately, because humans are monkeys, it is very difficult for us to consider a celebrity as a "criminal". Our emotions cause us to regard anybody who is higher in the social hierarchy as being better than us. We have a natural tendency to overlook their disgusting behavior, no matter how horrible it might be. This is the reason that so many famous people get away with pedophilia, murder, and other crimes.

We don't regard Bob Dylan as a "person". We regard him as a "celebrity". If we were to encounter him or another celebrity, our emotions would push us into getting on our hands and knees and behaving like a submissive child. However, if an investigation of the Jewish crime network shows that Bob Dylan has been participating in their crimes, we need to control our emotions and treat him just like any other criminal.

Although some of the female celebrities may be oblivious to what is going on, and some may be submissively waiting for men to deal with the problems, it is likely that some female celebrities are involved with crime. If any of those women are attractive to men, then it will become even more difficult for us to consider them as criminals. In addition to an emotion that pushes us into getting on our hands and knees and asking her for an autograph, we will also have our sexual emotions causing us to fantasize about marrying her or having sex with her. Our emotions will push us into considering her as a Princess, not as a disgusting criminal.

What does Jennifer Lawrence know about the crimes that the Jews are committing? It is possible that she has so little interest in the world that she still has no idea what the Jews are doing. She may have spent her entire life focusing on clothing, makeup, weddings, and food. She may be a typical woman who has no interest in exploring the world or becoming a leader, and who submissively lets the men deal with the world's problems. She may be just like my mother and my other female relatives.

It is also possible that she recently began to learn about what the Jews are doing, and that she has become disgusted with their crimes. Perhaps the Jews are worried that she might expose their crimes. This could explain why the Jews decided to release her photos and focus attention on her.

How could a woman ignore pedophilia and murder?

In case you find it difficult to believe that a woman would ignore murders and pedophilia, just look at female animals. For example, when a female falcon is raising her babies, all she wants the male bird to do is bring animals for her to eat and to feed to her babies. She doesn't care whether the male bird steals a mouse from some other bird, and she doesn't care whether the male gets into a fight with some other bird and kills the other bird. She is focused on her babies, and she doesn't care how the male is finding food for her.

During prehistoric times, human women were exactly the same. They would focus on raising babies, and they expected the men to bring them food, furs, and other items. The women did not care how the men were finding that food. They would never reprimand a man for stealing a pig that belonged to a neighboring tribe.

When the men got into a fight with a neighboring tribe, and if a man killed one of the neighbors, the women did not scold the man for being a murderer. The women let the men do what they wanted to do, and the women concentrated on raising children.

Many women today are behaving like primitive savages. There are a lot of organized crime networks in the world, and none of the men in those gangs have trouble attracting women, which should be evidence that there are a lot of women who don't care what their husbands are doing for a living.

Those women want men to provide them with food, money, and entertainment, and they don't care where the man gets it. They ignore what the men are doing. They focus on themselves and their children.

A woman's lack of concern for what the men are doing also allows women to consider a man who inherits money to be just as desirable as a man who earns his money.

It is possible that some of the women in Hollywood are ignoring the murders and pedophilia for the same reason that the wives of gang members and female animals ignore such issues. Specifically, the women may have personalities that are more like an animal than a modern human. They may have intense cravings for money and fame, and they may not care where it comes from, or who dies in the process of providing it to them.

Would you sell your soul to the devil?

If we were to create a new city, and if we allowed men like Bob Dylan to live with us, how could we get rid of crime networks? Men like Bob Dylan will sell their soul to the devil. People like him are circus animals who will do tricks for crime networks in return for money or fame.

In order for a city to be free of crime, the people must not only be able to control their own cravings to commit crimes, they must also be able to resist offers from crime networks. Can Jennifer Lawrence resist offers from crime networks? If not, I would not want her in my city. How many of our government officials and policemen can resist offers from crime networks?

Imagine if we create a new city, and somebody announced that there are hundreds of murders occurring in the city, and that pedophilia is the number one problem in the city. What would you think if everybody ignored the accusation?

Women and children are submissive, but we should not make excuses for adult men. An adult man who does not become an active participant in society should be considered as a big child, or as a primitive savage, or as a talking monkey. He should not have the same privileges as the other men. He should not be allowed to vote, influence the economy, or influence the schools, for example. Ideally, those men would not reproduce, or they would be restricted to just one child.

A human who has no concern for society will spend his life just like an animal; specifically, struggling for food, status, territory, material items, babies, and sex. A city that is full of those type of people will resemble a pack of monkeys. Each person will independently struggle to satisfy his particular emotional cravings rather than consider what would be best for the team. Those type of people don't have the emotional qualities we need for a modern society.