A transcript of the audio
Sunday, Dec 7, 2008
As of today, the executives of the American automobile companies are
still trying to frighten us into believing that the nation will suffer
tremendous economic problems if we don't give them an enormous amount of
financial assistance.
The importance of this issue should not be overlooked. Every business
has to deal with problems, such as a decrease in sales, or an increase
in expenses, or employees who quit or who can't perform properly at their
job. Running a business is like flying an airplane or driving a car. The
management has to constantly watch what's happening and make adjustments.
The management of the automobile companies should have been analyzing
their sales, expenses, competition, and other issues, and they should have
been having regular discussions about what to do to keep their business
in good financial shape.
When they noticed that their sales were decreasing, or that their expenses
were increasing, they should have reacted by compensating for it. But obviously
they didn't compensate, and that allowed their financial problems to get
worse. Now they're claiming to be on the verge of bankruptcy, and they
want us to feel sorry for them.
It's important to understand that these problems are self-inflicted.
And it's even more important to understand that if the government helps
incompetent businessmen overcome self-inflicted problems, we hurt our nation
by allowing incompetent people to remain in control of our businesses.
If the management of the car companies is truly as incompetent as they
appear to be, we should tell the companies to find replacements immediately
and start dealing with their problems.
Of course, to be fair, it's difficult for businesses to properly deal
with financial problems. One reason is that it's not easy for businesses
to get rid of employees, and it's especially difficult to get rid of management.
Our economic system was designed for a primitive farming community in
which there were only a few small businesses. As I've already described
in other audio files and documents, our economic system isn't well-suited
for our modern era. Our system wasn't even designed to deal with changes
in technology.
From the point of view of a consumer, improvements in technology are
exciting, but from an economic point of view, technology creates problems
that have to be dealt with. Some businesses and some employees have to
change in order to adapt to the new technology, and even though it's easy
for us to deal with this situation, human nature causes us to resist learning
new skills or making big changes in our lives.
For example, when the printing industry began replacing movable type,
a lot of skilled workers suddenly had skills that no business needed. And
some businesses were producing products that nobody wanted. Ideally, all
of these people and businesses would have calmly and quickly adapted to
the changes, but many of the people affected by the new technology were
terrified at the thought of learning a new skill, or finding a new job,
or starting a new business. As a result, lots of people and labor unions
put up resistance to the new technology.
We have to face the fact that most people are not very adventurous,
and they don't want to learn new skills. Most people are terrified at the
thought of finding a new job. People in management positions are so terrified
that they help one another to keep their jobs. The end result is that when
a business has to reduce employees, the management selfishly removes some
of the lowest paid workers, thereby keeping a lot of unnecessary management.
We don't solve this type of problem by giving financial assistance to
businesses that are unable to eliminate excess employees. With our current
economic system, our only sensible solution is to tell those businesses
to quit begging for money and deal with their financial problems. And ideally
we would have discussions of how to improve our society so that it's easier
for people to learn a new skill, find a job they enjoy, and start a business.
The people in the chemical business are an interesting example of this
problem. There's a lot of evidence that many of their chemicals are causing
birth defects, and causing girls to mature years too soon, and causing
boys to become feminine, but the employees of the chemical companies are
so afraid of losing their jobs that they resist attempts to develop safer
alternatives, and many employees are even willing to ignore the possibility
that they and their children are suffering health problems from their chemicals.
It's so difficult to find jobs that people will remain in a job that is
potentially dangerous to themselves and their family. The most extreme
examples that I'm aware of are the poor people in China who roast circuit
boards over open flames in order to remove components for recycling. They
expose themselves and their neighbors to toxic compounds. They're all suffering
health problems, but they continue to do it because they can't find any
other job.
The fear of losing a job is so extreme that many people will work at
a job they are appalled with, and many people will lie about the dangers
of their products. This is not an economic system to be proud of. We have
to stop this idiotic attitude that we're patriotic when we use the social
systems that developed centuries ago. We're fools to use those primitive
systems. Our economic system is crude, and it needs to be updated for our
modern era.
We need an economic system in which we can easily shut down entire industries
if we decide we don't want them. We need an economic system where businesses
can tell large numbers of employees - including people in management positions
- that they're no longer needed. Businesses shouldn't have to fight with
labor unions or worry about lawsuits from employees.
There's a lot of possible reasons as to why the automobile executives
allowed their financial problems to grow to extreme levels. But trying
to figure out their motives is like trying to figure out everybody's motive
for faking the Apollo moon landing. And we don't have to know the details
anyway in order to realize that we have a serious problem.
For example, if the executives are truly as incompetent as they appear,
they should have been replaced long ago, so why weren't they? Where are
the stockholders? They're supposed to watch over the management. Our economic
system is failing us when it allows such incredible incompetence.
And if the executives are working with a crime network, they should
have been arrested long ago. Our legal system, police, and government is
failing us if it allows such phenomenal crimes to occur.
We don't have to know why the executives are begging for money. The
important lesson to learn from their begging is that our economic system,
government system, and legal system needs to be thrown in the trash, and
we need to develop something that's better suited to this modern world.
We have to modernize our social systems just like we modernize our plumbing,
our airplanes, and our computers.
If we force the automobile companies to deal with their financial problems
by themselves, they may declare bankruptcy. This issue of bankruptcy is
another important issue that we have to deal with. Large corporations seem
to use bankruptcy as a way to eliminate debt or get out of certain types
of contracts.
Declaring bankruptcy is a serious problem to the owner of a small business,
but to a large corporation, it's similar to going to a dentist to have
your teeth cleaned. Large corporations use bankruptcy to start over, sometimes
with the same disgusting, greedy, and criminal management.
It's interesting to consider what would happen if we allowed employees
to do the equivalent of declaring bankruptcy. Imagine a factory worker
continually doing a terrible job, and when his boss tells him to find another
job, he declares the equivalent of bankruptcy, and then his boss is required
to erase his history of bad performance and let him start all over. He
then continues on his job as if he had just been hired.
Or imagine watching a sports event in which one of the athletes is doing
a terrible job. When the coach yells at him to get out of the game, he
calls a timeout and declares bankruptcy. His coach, and the television
commentators, then erase his history of bad performance, and then the game
resumes.
We shouldn't recycle incompetent people. When a person cannot perform
properly, we should let somebody else have a chance.
Another area where our economic and legal system is failing us is in
regards to removing abusive or dishonest businessmen. Hundreds of years
ago there wasn't much business activity, and most businesses were small,
neighborhood operations, so it was easy for people to avoid the disgusting
businessmen. I've already discussed this issue in other files so I won't
go into it again, but I haven't mentioned the problem of businessmen who
follow the law but who have a terrible effect on society because they simply
have a very crude personality.
For example, imagine two factories that are producing doorknobs. One
factory is run by a man who wants his city to be beautiful. He spends a
small amount of his time and profit to keeping his factory clean, attractive,
and comfortable. He provides an attractive area for his employees to have
lunch, and he keeps the sidewalk in front of his building clean.
The other factory is run by a man who doesn't have much of an interest
in what his city looks like, or what his own business looks like. It doesn't
bother him to live and work around homeless bums, garbage dumps, ugly
buildings, or businesses that are suffering from so much crime that they're
covered with steel grates and security cameras. This man doesn't spend
any of his time or money to make his business attractive. He doesn't care
if the windows are filthy, or the sidewalk in front of his building is
full of trash and chewing gum. He doesn't care what the inside of the factory
looks like either. All he cares about is making lots of money.
It should be obvious that the man who doesn't have any concern about
society is going to have a financial advantage because he doesn't spend
any of his money or time on non-productive activities. All of his time
and money goes into his factory.
Our economic system assumes that consumers will make wise decisions
about which businesses to support, and this concept works to a certain
extent. Retail stores, for example, are under pressure to provide us with
attractive and pleasant shopping areas because when most consumers are
given the choice between shopping at a filthy, ugly, noisy retail store
and a retail store that's attractive, they'll select the store that's attractive.
As a result, the retail areas of our cities are usually the most attractive
sections.
The ugliest part of our cities are usually where the factories are located.
Our economic system assumes that people will work at the businesses they
are most interested in, but the difficulty in finding a job causes a lot
of people to take whatever job they can find, and most people don't have
much of an interest in their city anyway. Most people are more concerned
with getting a paycheck, and then titillating themselves with television,
alcohol, food, babies, and sex.
The end result is that people with crude and disgusting personalities can
dominate industrial production. It's difficult for normal people to compete
against the factory owners who don't care about anything except money.
Have you ever seen some of the factories that operate in New York City?
There's no sensible reason that Americans have to set up factories that
look like they belong in a Bangladesh slum. Those businesses are disgusting
because the people who are operating them simply don't care about anything
except making money. How is a normal person going to compete successfully
against those type of businessmen?
And how can a normal businessman compete against a businessman who sets
up a factory in a poor nation so that he can use children as low-cost factory
workers?
Consumers are supposed to be driving the disgusting businessmen to bankruptcy,
but most people have no idea where any of their products come from, and
many people don't care anyway.
Cities all over the world are unattractive, disorganized, noisy, and
filthy. There are only a few areas within our cities that are attractive,
and it's usually where there's lot of competition for retail sales. Churches
are often attractive, also, especially if they were built centuries ago.
However, we have the technology and resources to make every building,
bridge, road, and sidewalk attractive. We have the ability to put all of
our telephone lines and power lines underground. Factories could be just
as beautiful as the nicest retail area or church. Factories could even
have stained-glass windows and gardens.
We could make our cities so attractive that we have less an incentive
to travel, and more of an incentive to enjoy our own city. Americans shouldn't
have to travel to Europe to see a decorative building. We should be able
to go to the industrial section of our own city and take tours of our own
factories.
It's even possible to make office cubicles more attractive. I'll post
a photo of an different style of cubicle in the article that has this audio
file in case you've never seen or imagined an alternative to the standard
dreary, gray cubicle.
Our current economic system treats humans as animals. Money is used
as an incentive to make us work, just like a mechanical bone is held in
front of race dogs to make them run around a race track.
We are victims of our current economic system, not masters of it. We
are at the mercy of an enormous horde of consumers and businessmen, many
of whom are mentally ill, dishonest, and irresponsible. We should change
the system so that we can take control of it.
It may be true that the majority of people are not much more advanced
than an animal, but some of us can function without money being used as
an incentive.
An example is a military base. The military is funded with taxes, not
from sales, so there's no financial incentive for them to make their base
attractive. People will continue to join the military even if the bases
are as ugly as our cities. Also, nobody is using money as an incentive
to entice the military personell into cleaning their clothing or combing
their hair.
So, why are the military bases so clean and orderly? Why are people
in the military cleaning their clothing and combing their hair? If humans
don't function without financial incentives, then how do we explain a military?
Why aren't the military bases as ugly as our ugliest factories? Why aren't
the houses on the military bases full of trash and broken windows? Why
aren't the military bases full of unwanted pet dogs and cats? Why don't
the military people dress as sloppy as the rest of the population?
The people in the military are keeping themselves, their clothing, and
their bases clean and attractive because the military is dominated by people
who want to behave like this, not because somebody is holding money in
front of them as an incentive. It's true that a lot of people in the military
are sloppy, dishonest, mentally ill, and disgusting, but those are not
the people who dominate the military.
Imagine if the people who control our businesses had the same personality
as the people who dominate the military. In such a case, every business
owner would keep himself and his factory clean and attractive. And every
businessman would do this without any financial incentives. They wouldn't
do it to attract customers or employees. They would do this simply because
this is how they wanted to live.
People who want to behave in a respectable manner don't need an incentive
to behave properly, and they don't need policemen to threaten them. If
we put people like that into leadership positions, then our leaders will
behave properly because they want to, not because of incentives or threats.
The current attitude all over the world is that badly behaved people
can be corrected with threats and incentives. When a businessman is caught
misbehaving, the reaction from most people is to make his business give
money to his victim, or put him in jail for a short period of time. A better
philosophy is that any businessman who needs incentives or threats should
be replaced with a higher quality person.
We should change our attitudes and quit treating humans as circus animals.
And we should stop pretending that all people are identical. We have to
face the fact that many people are crude, dishonest, or mentally ill. And
we shouldn't try to correct their terrible behavior. We should let everybody
behave in whatever manner is natural for them. If we don't approve of a
person's behavior, we should prevent them from getting into positions of
importance. And if a person's behavior is extremely annoying, or destructive,
then we can exile them to some other city so that they don't bother the
rest of us.
If the only reason a man is making his business attractive is because
he's worried about losing sales, then we don't need him. Those type of
businessmen should be regarded as savages. The ideal businessman is a
man who has a natural desire to behave in a respectable manner.
And if the only reason a school teacher is not having sex with his students
is because he's afraid of the police, then we don't need him, either. The
ideal teacher is a person who has a natural desire to teach students in
a respectable manner.
Imagine living in a world in which the people are honest because they
want to be honest, not because they're afraid of the police. And imagine
people keeping their city clean and attractive because they want to live
this way, not because somebody is holding out money as an incentive.
Our economic system considers a businessman to be successful if he can
make profit, but we shouldn't care about profit. We should care about the
effect the business has on society. We should be able to remove businessmen
- and even shut down entire businesses - if we decide that we don't like
what they offer us.
One of the most extreme examples that I'm aware of is a radio show called
the Opie and Anthony show. There's a video on the Internet in which they're
looking for an intern for their show. They tell one of the men who wants
to become an intern that in order to qualify, he has to allow another man
to vomit in his mouth. As amazing as this may seem, this man agrees to
it, and so one man drinks a lot of eggnog, and then vomits into the mouth
of the man who wants to become an intern.
Opie and Anthony are just two of many people who are very successful
in our current economic system. Howard Stern makes tens of millions of
dollars every year for his show which is similar to that of Opie and Anthony.
Gambling casinos are also very profitable. But why should we care whether
a business is profitable? We should look at the effect it has on society
and ask ourselves such questions as, How is society benefiting from these
businesses? And, How would life be worse for us if we got rid of these
businesses?
A lot of people will respond to me that since I don't like Howard Stern,
I should ignore him. They will tell me that I'm under no obligation to
listen to anything he says or give him any of my money. They will tell
me that Howard Stern isn't hurting me or other people.
However, this issue is much more complex than it seems. The way our
economic system is designed, money is like votes. People with the most
money have the most influence over our economy. I don't know what Howard
Stern does with his millions of dollars each year, but consider what that
money allows him to do.
If he purchases apartment buildings or shopping malls, then he may become
your landlord. If he purchases a business that is competing with your business,
then he can affect your job. If he uses his money to finance political
candidates, then he may gain influence over the nation. And if he helped
criminals create strip clubs or gambling casinos, then he could help finance
a crime network.
The idea that we can ignore businesses that we don't approve of is ridiculous.
Another good example are the businesses that produce products and services
for children. Children are not miniature adults. They don't think very
well, and their behavior is more like a primitive savage or an animal.
As a result, children have a much stronger attraction to products and services
that adults don't care much for, such as the type of entertainment that
we refer to as "toilet humor".
The MTV television station is a good example. They're making an enormous
amount of money by entertaining children with what most adults would consider
disgusting behavior. We shouldn't care that these businesses are profitable.
We should ask ourselves, how are they improving life for us?
Furthermore, their enormous profit gives them an enormous influence
over the world. We should change our economic system so that we can pass
judgment on what type of businesses we want, and who we want in leadership
roles. We shouldn't allow people to become influential simply because they're
capable of making a profit.
We should take control of our economy so that we can put better people
in control of businesses and so that we can determine which products and
services we want.
This also applies to the people who provide us with news articles. Did
you notice the headlines for the news articles that described NASA's recently
developed water recycling device for the space station? Instead of sensible
headlines, such as, “NASA tests water treatment device for space station”
or “NASA develops wastewater recycling machine”, there were hundreds of
headlines such as:
Space Station residents to drink recycled urine
news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10097499-76.html
That headline comes from cnet, which is supposed to be a serious source
for news about technology.
The Associated Press had an article with the title:
Astronauts tinker with urine-to-water machine
ap/article/ALeqM5h1W8dcUP9H70AmlSfDSenPteDT9gD94KUSRG0
The Australian government has a Department of Natural Resources and
Water, and they posted an article that had the headline:
Astronauts drink urine
nrw.qld.gov.au/list_archives/water-recycling/msg02066.html
Imagine a newsstand that sells two different newspapers. Both of them
are the same price, and both have similar articles. However, one of them
is very serious, and the other is full of toilet humor, sexual images,
comic strips, and gossip about Hollywood stars. Most people, especially
when they're young, will select the idiotic newspaper.
Our economic system doesn't pass judgment on which newspaper is more
useful to the human race. From the point of view of our current economic
system, the product that has the highest sales is the better product.
This is not a trivial issue that we can ignore. One reason that crime
networks can be so successful in business is because they're more willing
to engage in abusive advertising and marketing, such as titillating people
with toilet humor, or implying that their product will make us feel special,
or by exaggerating the value of their products.
How are respectable people going to survive when they have to compete
against businesses who are willing to abuse, manipulate, and deceive?
All throughout my life I've seen remarks about businesses becoming financially
successful after they got help with marketing or advertising. And I've
seen remarks that engineers are good at designing products, but they're
terrible at selling products. The sad aspect of this is that the reason
engineers fail at selling products is because most of them are too serious
and honest.
If respectable people competed only with other respectable people, then
serious advertisements would be successful. But when respectable people
have to compete against immoral, crude, and disgusting people, then the
serious advertisements are failures.
The advertisements that are the most successful have the least useful
information in them. Television advertisements are idiotic skits in which
actors simulate excitement about a product. This type of advertisement
is successful because most humans behave like dumb animals who follow one
other. Most people don't like to think, and most people are not very intelligent
anyway, and so they don't respond to intelligent information. Instead,
they respond to smiling faces, and they mimic other people.
Printed advertisements don't have much useful information, either. The
most successful printed advertisements contain phrases, such as “New”!
or “Lemon Freshness”, as well as images that stimulate our emotions for
sex, babies, or status.
The type of advertising that we tolerate right now should be described
as abusive and disgusting. However, we should not try to force the disgusting
businessmen to behave better. Instead, we should look for people who behave
better naturally.
Another interesting problem with our economy can be seen right now during
the month of December. Every year in December an enormous number of businesses
worry about selling Christmas gifts. If people don't purchase a lot of
Christmas gifts, thousands of people will lose their jobs and hundreds
of businesses will go bankrupt. And today China is concerned about the
Christmas shopping of Americans because the Chinese are producing a lot
of these gifts.
It's pathetic that large, technically advanced nations are concerned
every year about Americans purchasing Christmas gifts.
Thousands of years ago Christmas was just a relaxing social event, but
the lack of leadership in our societies and the incredible emphasis on
money has caused Christmas to evolve into a major economic event. But it's
an event of incredible stupidity and waste because a lot of the gifts that
people give each other quickly end up in the trash. The gifts are wasting
resources and creating pollution.
Businesses shouldn't be trying to manipulate us, or grab our attention,
or convince us to purchase their products. Their only concern should be
contributing something of value to human life.
My recommendation is to ignore the financial problems that America and
other nations are suffering from now. Our economic system, government system,
and other social systems are so primitive that I don't think there's any
point in trying to fix them. I think our best policy is to face the fact
that life has changed dramatically for the human race, and it's time for
us to start developing a more appropriate economic system, government system,
and other social systems.
Our legal system is so corrupt that the police won't even investigate
Larry Silverstein's involvement in the 9/11 attack. What is the point of
trying to save such an absurd nation? We have to throw the Constitution
in the trash. We need to start over.
And the Europeans need to throw their monarchies in the trash, and
their economic system, and their policies towards immigration, and their
government systems. They also need to modernize.
The majority of people assume that there are simple solutions to our
problems, such as reducing taxes or getting rid of labor unions. But I
think our problem is that we're trying to function on crude social systems
and primitive attitudes towards life, crime, happiness, and religion, and
I think we have to make some dramatic changes to our nations and our attitudes.
In regards to the economy, I've already explained in other files that
we need to develop an economy that we can supervise, and we also need to
change the competition between businesses from selling products to contributing
something of value to society.
Since I've already discussed this, I won't repeat it, but I'll give
you a couple of actual examples of products that would be very easy to
improve upon if we could get control of our economy.
The first example are the water heaters that we use to provide our homes
with hot water. The water heater that I have in my house right now, and
the heater that was in the house I grew up in, and heater my neighbors
have, is a cylindrical tank that is heated by natural gas. The flames burn
at the bottom, and hot air rises up the center tube to heat the water.
This is a ridiculous design because when the flames are off, a flow
of cool air rises continuously up the tube, which carries away heat. Years
ago I put a lid on the top of my heater to stop this, and I was amazed
to discover that I had to turn off the thermostat because the pilot light
was capable of providing almost all of the hot water that I needed, especially
during the summer, and most of the hot water I needed during the winter.
I'll put a diagram of what I did on the page that has this audio file.
According to the theory of free enterprise, when a person develops a
better product, or an improvement to an existing product, he can put it
on the market, and consumers will purchase it. But in reality this theory
fails all the time for a variety of reasons. For one reason, this is not
the Middle Ages in which products are so simple that we can produce them
by ourselves. Putting products on the market today is extremely difficult.
In order for me to produce this type of water heater, I would have to
get a lot of funding to develop them. And I would have to test them, and
get government approval, and set up a manufacturing plant and a distribution
network. It would not be an easy task.
And even if I did get this manufacturing plant established, I would
have to struggle to get retail stores to carry my water heater, and if
my water heaters sold, my competitors could copy my design and drive me
out of business.
And consider refrigerators. They should be designed like air-conditioning
units. Specifically, they use air from outside of the house to cool the
refrigerant. According to the theory of free enterprise, I could start
a business and produce these type of refrigerators, and consumers would
purchase them in order to save money. But in reality consumers are not
going to purchase this type of refrigerator because they don't fit into
our houses without expensive modifications to the house.
This problem occurs every time new technology is developed. The solution
is for the government to get involved and supervise the transition from
one type of technology to another. The government is doing is right now
in order to allow businesses to switch to digital television. Since television
is the primary interest of most people, the government will do this for
the television industry, but it has no desire to do this for refrigerators
or other products.
And consider the coolant in your automobile radiator. The way my car
has been designed, when the coolant gets hot and expands, the excess empties
into a small plastic container. When the car has been turned off, the coolant
contracts and is sucked back into the radiator. However, the flow in and
out of the plastic container brings air from the atmosphere in and out
of the container, and that causes dust to build up in the coolant. So I
put a plastic bag in the container so that the coolant expands and contracts
within the plastic bag rather than in the atmosphere. This keeps the coolant
much cleaner.
Why don't the automobile companies provide this simple improvement?
Haven't they ever thought about it?
It's possible that they are aware of it, but they ignore it. This brings
up an important problem with our current economic system. Businesses are
only concerned with selling products. As a result, businesses are very
likely to pretend that they don't see an improvement to a product if it
reduces the sale of the product.
The chemical companies that produce radiator coolant don't have any
incentive to reduce the sale of their product. As a result, those companies
are not looking for ways to make the cooler last longer. Instead, they
spend their time trying to figure out how to attract the attention of consumers,
and how to increase their profit margin, and how to sell more chemicals.
It's possible that the chemical companies are truly oblivious to some
of the simple ways to reduce the need for their chemicals, but it's also
possible that they're aware of hundreds of methods of reducing the need
for those chemicals, but they pretend they don't know about them because
they don't want to reduce their sales.
In a better economic system, the goal of a business would be to improve
society, and one way to improve it is to reduce the consumption of resources
and the production of garbage.
It might be easier to understand this concept if you imagine an extreme
example. Imagine that there's a nation on this planet that has the exact
same lifestyle that we have right now. They have the same houses, refrigerators,
cars, and computers that we do.
However, imagine that their products are so efficient that they use
almost no energy, and imagine that they're built so well that they last
for hundreds of years without maintenance.
Your first thought might be that life will be identical in both nations
since we both have the same products, but there would be some dramatic
differences between us. That other nation wouldn't need as many assembly
lines because they wouldn't need to produce as many replacement products.
And they wouldn't need as many repair shops, and they wouldn't need as
much iron ore or oil, and they wouldn't produce as much garbage or pollution.
Fewer people in that nation would be needed to maintain their lifestyle,
and that would allow that nation to put more people on other tasks, such
as research projects, or creating gardens for the city, or making their
buildings and walkways more attractive.
A business will improve life for us when they provide us with the products
we want for the least amount of resources and work. Consider the production
of food if you need another example of this concept.
Thousands of years ago almost every man had to be a farmer because nobody
could produce very much food. Not many people could spend their time doing
research or making decorative buildings for the city.
However, during the past few centuries, technology has allowed a small
percentage of the population to produce all of the food we need. This farming
technology has released thousands of people from the farms. We no longer
have to struggle to produce food. The majority of the human population
today is now free to engage in other activities.
Of course, most of the population today are parasites because they take
a lot of resources but don't provide anything of value in return. A small
percentage of the population is doing almost all of the useful work. However,
it doesn't have to be this way. If we change our economic system so that
we can get control of it, then we could eliminate the worthless jobs in
government, universities, insurance companies, and other businesses. And
then we could tell some of those people to help us do the work that needs
to be done so that we don't have to do it all by ourselves, and the remaining
people can be put on completely new tasks. You have to wonder what would
this world be like if the millions of parasites started contributing something
of value to society.
The more efficient we can make society, the better for all of us. If
we could figure out how to reduce our consumption of steel, electricity,
refrigerators, and other products then some of the people involved in the
production, maintenance, and disposal of those products would be free to
do other activities.
Every business should be looking for ways to reduce the need and use
of their products. People should be encouraged to find a way to put themselves
out of a job.
With our current economic system, nobody wants to put themselves out
of a job, but somebody who can figure out how to do that should be considered
a talented and valuable member of society. And once he figured out how
to eliminate his job, he could be moved to another job, and then we could
hope that he figured out how to eliminate that job, also.
Another example of the problems of our economic system are the low flow
toilets. I haven't found one that works properly. It's possible that the
concept of a low flow toilet is impractical, but I suspect the problem
is their design. They have a narrow passageway and hairpin turns. However,
despite the endless complaints from consumers, these toilets continue to
sell. In fact, I've already purchased three different brands, and I'm ready
to purchase a fourth. But I'm not buying them because I like them. I'm
trying to find one that works.
This is a ridiculous situation. There are people complaining about these
toilets all over the nation, and yet they're still on the market. At what
point are we going to demand that these toilets either be designed properly,
or we abandon the concept of the low flow toilet?
And consider the houses that Americans live in. The house that I grew
up in didn't have any thermal insulation at all, and the house that Christopher
Bollyn grew up in, in Chicago, was even worse. For example, he told me
that the homes in his neighborhood were built with sewage pipes that were
made of some type of pressed paper, which deteriorated after 10 to 15 years.
Everybody in the neighborhood had to replace their sewage lines.
This economic system is ridiculous. Businesses can make sales simply
by producing products that are so crummy that people get disgusted with
them and then purchase another one. In fact, I suspect that Microsoft was
deliberately adding annoying features to Windows 95 and Windows 98 in order
to entice us into purchasing upgrades.
Speaking of Christopher Bollyn, at his website right now is an article
that has a photograph of him shaking hands with the Italian journalist
and 9/11 researcher who produced the film about 9/11 called Zero.
Below that photograph is a photo of Anders Bjorkman. Bollyn claims that
he worked with Bjorkman to organize a Truth Tour in 2008 to talk about
the sinking of the ship "Estonia".
Consider the significance of this latest article and these photos. Bollyn
left Chicago somewhere around June 11, 2007, and in all this time, about
1 year and half, nobody has been seen with Christopher Bollyn or any of
his family members. This is the first photograph that shows him in contact
with another person.
However, this Italian, whose name I can't imagine how to pronounce, is
not just any person. He's one of the Italians that I've been accusing of
being part of the Jewish crime network. And Anders Bjorkman is also not
just any person. About a year ago I complained that Bollyn was promoting
him, and that we should consider him to be following orders from the Jewish
crime network.
I don't think it's a coincidence that after one and a half years of
hiding from everybody, Bollyn decides to have contact with two of the men
I consider to be working for the Jewish crime network.
I think that this latest article from Bollyn is an attempt by his kidnappers
to prove to us that he's alive and well, and that he's free to travel.
However, I say that this latest article is actually more evidence that
this Italian man and Bjorkman are in direct contact with the crime network
that kidnapped the Bollyn family.
And take a close look at the photo of Bollyn. Is it just low resolution?
Or is there something wrong with his eyes?
I haven't received any e-mail messages from the Bollyns for almost a
year, but about two weeks ago I received a message from him. I was on the
cc list. He wasn't actually sending me the message. He was responding to
a Japanese citizen who had asked him about my accusations that he's dead
or kidnapped. Bollyn responded that he's fine and that I'm spreading lies
about him.
So I responded to both of them with an offer to pay for airline tickets
and hotel rooms for the entire Bollyn family so that they can take a trip
to Japan, and I said I would also travel to Japan, and then I can see for
myself that they really are alive and free to travel, and so can the Japanese,
and then the Bollyn family can go on their way and have an all-expense-paid vacation.
I have yet to hear back from either the Bollyns on that Japanese person.
I suppose that Japanese person was working with the Jewish crime network,
and this was just another of their idiotic attempts to convince me that
the Bollyn family is free and safe. I'll post the e-mail messages in case
you're interested in reading them.
Getting back to the issue of world's economic problems, another problem
that every nation faces is that as technology advances each year, there
are fewer citizens who have the ability to become engineers or scientists
or technicians. A few centuries ago an enormous percentage of the population
was capable of becoming an engineer because a man needed only a basic understanding
of math and science to qualify.
Today a child has to spend years in school, and he has to have a lot
of talent in order to become an engineer. And the children 50 years in
the future will need even more training and talent.
Have you seen the robots that are being developed in Japan right now?
How many people in this world today have the ability to design the hardware
or software for a robot? When Japan puts those robots on the market, will
they have any competition from America? If not, don't blame the unions
or the environmental regulations or the taxes. It will be because of other
problems, such as incompetent management, or a shortage of talented engineers.
The other day I posted a news article about Japanese companies that
are encouraging their employees to have more babies. Many Japanese believe
that they can solve the shortage of technical talent by encouraging more
people to have more children, but having more babies doesn't solve the
problem. The world is already full of people. We only have a shortage of
people who truly fit into this modern world. There's no shortage of dishonest
people, mentally ill people, criminals, idiots, alcoholics, or weirdos.
It's interesting to consider the possibility that America actually has
enough technical talent to build robots, trains, and other products that
are just as good or better than what we see from Japan and Germany. It's
possible that one of the reasons American industries are deteriorating
is because we're wasting a lot of our talent on toys, electronic gambling
devices, weapons, X-ray equipment for airport security, special effects
for Hollywood movies, and other idiotic products.
And what is NASA doing with all of their scientists and engineers? Have
you seen some of the suspicious photographs from the Mars Rovers? There's
one that seems to show a piece of wood on Mars. The Jews on Internet message
boards and at the Jeff Rense website are claiming that the wood is proof
that Mars once had forests, but I say the wood is evidence that the Mars
rovers are in the Australian desert.
Every society should occasionally do an analysis of their citizens and
pass judgment on which of them are contributing something of value, and
which of them are just wasting resources. It's possible that if America
did an inventory of its technical talent, we would discover that we're wasting
most of it.
Why should we try to fix this idiotic economic system? We should develop
a system that we can get control of so that we can shift some of our technical
talent and resources away from the entertainment businesses and into products
that are more useful.
We should also take a serious look at the people who call themselves
scientists and professors because I've met some of them, and I think our
schools are giving college diplomas to people who shouldn't be calling
themselves professors or scientists.
The people who get college diplomas in religion are perhaps the most
extreme and obvious example. It's certainly possible for a person to learn
about the different religions and their history, but it doesn't make any
sense for a person to claim that he's an expert on God or the devil simply
because he went to school.
And consider the field of astronomy. We should do an inventory to figure
out how many astronomers we support, and what these people are doing with
their lives. It seems as if we support hundreds of them, and it seems that
most of them do nothing but take photographs. But there are supposedly
billions of stars. Do astronomers plan to take a photograph of every one
of them? Taking photos of stars is like taking photos of the grains of
sand at a beach. There's a point at which we have enough photos. And how
many more telescopes are we going to build?
I'm happy to support astronomers who are helping us to understand the
Earth, its magnetic fields, the sun, and the universe, but how many astronomers
actually have the talent to help us to understand the universe? It's possible
that most of them are just glorified photographers. Furthermore, some astronomers
are promoting the Apollo moon landing hoax, UFO nonsense, and other scams.
Those astronomers ought to be investigated for their connections to crime
networks.
I'm sure a lot of scientists, engineers, and other people will be horrified
at my suggestion of forcing them to find another job, but if we change
our economy to make it easier to find jobs, and if we allow our economy
to be supervised, then I bet a lot of people would love to switch jobs.
The scientists who don't really have the talent to be scientists certainly
have the talent to be successful at thousands of other jobs, such as helping
us develop better cities, or a better school system, or a better transportation
system. And they would get a lot more job satisfaction doing something
useful.
I don't see any point in trying to fix America or Europe. I think our
best policy is to let these nations deteriorate, and try to find people
who want to create a better world. I don't even think we should try to
maintain American cities. Most of our buildings are ugly, and our trains
don't work very well, and many of our industries are using outdated equipment.
Why should we try to save this mess? It would be better to start over and
design completely new cities and a new society.
The idea of building a completely new city might seem absurd, but it's
very easy. All we do is set aside an area of land, design a city for it,
and then build it. How difficult is that?
If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at government statistics.
Last year more than 1 million new homes were built in America, and that's
just houses for people, not office buildings, roads, or bridges. Every
year the American construction crews are building the equivalent of a very
large city. Or, we could say that every year America builds the equivalent
of 10 medium-sized cities.
Right now thousands of individual citizens are scattering buildings
and roads around the nation almost at random. All we have to do is coordinate
all of these construction crews so that they build one advanced city.
The people who insist that we can't design and build new cities are
simply looking for an excuse to avoid the issue. And the reason they want
to avoid the issue is because they don't have much of an interest in improving
society. Their primary interest is satisfying their own emotional cravings
for status, material items, sex, and food. These people should be regarded
as primitive savages. They're like dirt in a transmission. They interfere
with progress because they discourage other people from trying to do something
useful for the human race. They promote the philosophy that each of us
should satisfy ourselves rather than be concerned with society.
It's sad to think that people have been capable of designing cities
for thousands of years. We don't need any special technology to do this,
and we don't need large amounts of money or resources.
In fact, between 4 and 5000 years ago some people in the area of modern
Pakistan and India got together to design cities for themselves, such as
the cities we know as Harappa and Mohenjo Daro. Those cities had extensive
brickwork that set up a primitive sewage system and pathways for the people
to walk on. The cities were technically primitive by our standards, but
they're proof that some people had gotten together about 5000 years ago
to do some simplistic city planning.
harappa.com/har/indus-saraswati.html
Designing and building a completely new city is very simple. It only
requires people who can cooperate for the benefit of society. Our primitive
ancestors 50,000 years ago were capable of planning how to set up a campsite
for themselves.
The only reason we're not designing better cities is because most of
the human population doesn't have much of an interest in this activity.
Take a look at the people who are successful in business. Their primary
interest in life is becoming the dominant male, stockpiling material items,
and having sex. Some of them have gigantic houses, and fleets of automobiles
and airplanes and boats. These people don't care about society. They're
just talking monkeys, not leaders for this modern world.
And the only reason we're not developing a better economic system or
a better school system is because most of the human population doesn't
care about those activities, either.
We don't need any new technology or resources to make this world a better
place. We don't need fusion reactors or solar cells, and we don't need
any more deposits of oil or gold. What we need are some advanced humans
that we can trust and who have the ability to work together for the benefit
of society.
If we could put higher quality men into leadership positions, then it
would be very easy for us to design and build completely new cities. We
could also isolate the new city economically from the rest of society so
that we could experiment with a different economic system, and even a different
monetary system. We could even experiment with different electrical systems,
or different phone systems. We can do whatever we want. We're not helpless.
All we need is to find thousands of higher quality men.
I would also bet that we're capable of designing a better transportation
system. The automobiles and trucks that use internal combustion engines
will probably be of value for a long time in the future, but I think that
by redesigning our cities, the majority of people will be able to get around
the city with other types of transportation devices.
I'll explain one of the ideas I had a few decades ago in the hope that
I can inspire you to think about these issues. Of course, I never actually
developed this concept beyond a fantasy, so it's possible that I'm overlooking
something that would make it technically impractical, but even if my idea
has a flaw, I'm sure the human race has the talent to develop a city with
a better transportation system than what we have right now.
I'll put a diagram on the page that has this audio file to help you
understand my idea.
Our current automobiles travel on roadways that are much wider than
the automobile because we cannot control an automobile precisely. Imagine
that instead of a wide roadway, every road is reduced to two narrow tracks
that are not much wider than the tires. The area between and around the
tracks could be dirt or grass or rocks.
Humans couldn't possibly keep the cars on those narrow tracks, but there
is a third track running along the side of, or in between, the other two
tracks. This third track would have a narrow slot in it. The car would
have a rod that fits into the slot. The car would remain on the track by
adjusting the steering to keep the rod in the center of that slot so that it
doesn't rub against either of the walls.
Inside this third track would be an electrical cable. The car would take
electricity from that cable to power its electric motor. The car wouldn't
need an engine or batteries.
The slot would be narrow, and the electrical line would be far enough
inside that there would be no concern about children touching it with their
fingers.
The cars would be capable of making only left turns or right turns.
Unlike intersections for railroad tracks, these intersections wouldn't
need any moving parts to switch the car from one track to another. In order
to make a left turn, the car simply follows the left wall of the slot.
It would be so easy for the car to make left or right turns onto different
tracks that it's possible to let the car drive itself. When I first thought
of this idea, there were no small computers, so I didn't think of computers
controlling it. Instead, I thought that if a person was traveling on a
certain path on a regular basis, such as from his house to his job, he
could have a long, narrow paper card with notches cut onto its left and
right sides to signify the sequence of left and right turns that he needs
to make in order to get to his destination. He would insert this notched
card into the automobile, and the automobile would follow the sequence
of left and right turns.
With modern computers, this type of system can be automated to an unbelievable
extent. The driver would only have to specify his destination, and the
computer would look in its database to figure out the sequence of left
and right turns from wherever it happens to be at the time.
Since these cars are following tracks, it would be easy to prevent accidents.
Traffic computers could monitor every car on the tracks, and the cars would
have sensors to determine when they are near one another in case they have
to override the traffic computers.
Nobody would have to drive these cars. We would only need a manual override
to deal with electrical or mechanical failures.
Furthermore, we could design society and this transportation system
so that nobody owns any of the cars. Instead, the cars would be analogous
to taxicabs.
When you wanted to travel somewhere, you would request an automobile,
such as by pushing a button next to a roadway, or sending a signal from
a cell phone or a computer. If you frequently traveled to a certain place
at a certain time, such as to get to a job, you could arrange for a car
to be ready and waiting for you at a certain place and at a certain time.
After the car dropped you off at your destination, it would travel along
the tracks to the next person who wanted it, or it would sit in storage
until somebody needed it.
People have a strong attraction to material items, and we want to take
possession of every material item that we see. However, the fewer items
that we own, the simpler our life becomes. If we don't own any of the cars,
then we don't have to maintain them or purchase new ones.
Furthermore, we wouldn't have to worry about parking the cars. Most
of the time you would use them like a taxicab. They would take you somewhere,
and then they would go on their way. The only time you would want to hold
onto a particular car is if you had packages inside it, or if you were
stopping for a short period of time.
For example, if you had packages in your car, and you wanted to stop
somewhere for food or to visit somebody, instead of taking out your packages
every time you stopped and later getting a different car, you would tell
your car to wait for you. Your car would automatically travel to the nearest
storage center, and then it would wait for you to send a signal to pick
you up. It would be like valet parking. And since the car can drive itself,
it could pick you up at a location that was different from where it dropped
you off. Therefore, you would be free to travel from wherever you were
when the car dropped you off. And if you ended up getting a ride home with
somebody else, you could tell your car to meet you at your house so that
you could get your packages.
Children would be able to operate this type of car by themselves. Parents
wouldn't have to drive their children anywhere.
Trucks could be designed with robotic arms so that they could pick up
and drop off packages by themselves. With even more advanced robots, we
could take this concept one step further and have the tracks go into the
farming region so that the trucks can automatically pick up and deliver
fresh food.
This system would be easier for the city to maintain because we would
only have to maintain narrow tracks rather than extremely wide roads.
This would make it easier for the city to maintain extremely smooth tracks.
The tracks could even be made of steel. Smooth tracks reduce the noise
from the tires, and the tires wouldn't need to be inflatable. The tires
would need their rubber tread replaced once in a while, but nobody would
have to worry about flat tires or spare tires.
Since this type of automobile is not locked onto the tracks, when one of
them experienced a mechanical failure, it would be easy for a person to
lift out its electrical arm and push it off the tracks and onto the side
of the road where it could be picked up for repair.
Or, the next car that came along the track could slow down, touch up
against it, and lock onto it, similar to how railroad cars connect together.
After the car dropped off its passengers, it would push the broken car
to a service station.
Because these automobiles would not need batteries, spare tires, or
internal combustion engines, they would be smaller and lighter in weight
than conventional automobiles. The smaller size would allow more cars to
fit on the tracks, which in turn means that fewer tracks would be needed
to transport the same amount of people compared to the amount of roadways
that we currently need.
We could further boost the capacity of the tracks by computerizing the
entire system. Instead of having traffic lights that people have to pay
attention to, the cars would move automatically on the tracks by following
commands from computers that are watching the movement of all the cars.
The cars would move very quickly, just like products flowing on an assembly
line.
The cars would be of different sizes so that you could request a larger
car if you were part of a large group of people, or if you have a lot of
packages to carry. The cars could also be designed to connect together
like railroad cars. By connecting several cars together, large groups of
people could travel as a group. This would also further increase the carrying
capacity of the tracks.
There's a tremendous advantage to being able to move a large number
of people on a small number of tracks. Specifically, it reduces the number
of tracks that a city has to build and maintain. And the fewer tracks that
we have to build, the more practical it becomes to put the tracks underground.
Putting them underground reduces the noise in the city, and it allows the
surface of the city to be used for walkways, gardens, and parks.
Furthermore, by setting up the system so that nobody owns any of the
cars, the city wouldn't have to provide parking lots. We would only need
small storage centers around the city for the cars to park themselves when
they're not needed.
A typical city in America has an enormous amount of land area devoted
to roads and parking lots. The buildings in a city are surrounded by concrete
and asphalt. The constant flow of large, heavy cars and trucks creates
a lot of noise and an endless flow of asphalt and rubber dust. Imagine
how nice our cities would be if all of those roads were replaced by gardens
and fields of grass and parks.
If nobody owns any of the cars, then neighborhoods wouldn't have cars
parked along sidewalks and driveways. And if we provide everybody with
free access to the transportation system, then we wouldn't need to waste
resources or people on parking meters, toll booths, or other type of metering
or billing systems.
Providing everybody with free access to a transportation system might
seem wasteful, but if you've been listening to my audio files for a while,
then you know my attitude is that we should reverse our attitude towards
bad behavior. My philosophy is that we should design society for respectable
people rather than for the worst behaved members. The people who don't
fit in should be removed. We shouldn't impose complicated security systems,
billing systems, or metering systems on society simply because a small
percentage of the people are behaving like selfish or destructive savages.
America was created by, and is still dominated by, misfits and criminals,
and so this nation has always promoted the attitude that we should feel
sorry for Underdogs. However I think America is hopeless, and we should
let it disintegrate. And when we redesign the nation, we should get rid
of this attitude of feeling sorry for Underdogs.
Getting back to my transportation system, if we designed the cars to
be completely under the control of computers, the cars wouldn't need a
front or a rear. Instead, they would be able to travel from either direction.
This would simplify the design of the tracks, and especially the storage
areas. We wouldn't have to provide loops for the cars to turn around in.
The seats could even be designed to swivel so that people could face whichever
direction they pleased.
If we design the city with single-family homes, then instead of providing
each home with a wide concrete or asphalt driveway, each home would have
a short section of track to allow a car to pull off the main track and
stop at the house. The car could stop under a covered area so that people
would be protected from rain, but there wouldn't be a need for a completely
enclosed garage because the car wouldn't remain at anybody's home for a
long period of time.
If the city was designed so that homes are clustered together like apartment
buildings or luxury resorts, then fewer tracks would be needed compared
to a city that had single-family homes, and that would make underground
tracks more affordable. A neighborhood in which the tracks and utilities
are underground would be much more desirable compared to the neighborhoods
of today. This type of neighborhood would be very quiet and clean, and
the area that is currently wasted on roads could become grass fields, gardens,
and pathways. Children would be able to play outside without any concerns
about traffic.
This type of transportation system would also be much better suited
to cities in cold climates. The tracks that are above ground would be very
easy to keep clean of snow and ice. Whenever it started to snow, a group
of snow plows would circulate on the tracks all by themselves.
They would only have to clean the narrow tracks and reduce the snow
between the tracks to a level that the cars can drive over. By moving a
smaller amount of snow compared to the snowplows in our cities today, the
cities would be much more attractive. The streets wouldn't have enormous
piles of snow along the edges. And if nobody owned any of the cars, there
wouldn't be any cars parked along the streets to worry about. And nobody
would have to struggle to start their car on cold days, or scrape ice off
the windows.
A variation of this automobile could be designed for rural areas, and
farms, and industrial zones. These cars would have either a battery or
an engine so that they could leave the tracks. They would also either have
more rugged tires, or a second set of tires that are lowered to the ground
when they leave the tracks.
Well, that's my idea for a transportation system. Since it's never been
anything more than a fantasy, I may be overlooking some important technical
flaws, but the reason I wanted to discuss my fantasy is to counteract the
tendency to feel as if our situation is hopeless. I frequently hear people
complain that we can't do anything, and it's true that by ourselves we
can't do much of anything to improve the world. However, we're not helpless
if we work together.
Most of the people in this so-called truth movement are pumping out
propaganda that frightens or discourages people. We're told that there
will soon be a world war, or martial law, or food shortages, or economic
chaos. We're told that the mysterious New World Order will use their hordes
of mindless policemen and soldiers and put us into prison camps, and that
there's nothing we can do to stop any of this because the crime network
is too large and powerful, and because the police and soldiers are hopelessly
stupid and corrupt.
These phony truth seekers are trying to dampen our enthusiasm, take
away our hope for the future, and cause us to live in fear.
You can also see this with the people who call themselves Holocaust
revisionists. Several of them have been arrested recently, and some have
even been put into jail for short periods of time. However, I think they
are deliberately staging these arrests in order to frighten us. For example,
the Reverend Ted Pike, who has the website truthtellers.org, posted an
article on November 25, 2008 about the arrest of Frederick Tobin, who was
arrested in London for Holocaust denial. One of the headings in Ted Pike's
article is, "Could Germany Come for You?" And his article ends with the
sentence, "Where shall we flee?"
truthtellers.org/alerts/getmanystillhuntstoben.htm
His article is using the arrest of Tobin to frighten us into believing
that we can get arrested for Holocaust denial in any nation, and that we
should be looking for a place to run and hide.
The Reverend Pike doesn't encourage people to stand up to this nonsense
and expose the HoloHoax. He's either a member of the Jewish crime network,
or he's one of their puppets. Perhaps another blackmailed pedophile.
My advice is to ignore these truth seekers and their websites and their
message boards. They will give you terrible attitudes that get you depressed. Some
of these phony truth seekers are so desperate to attract your attention
that they're even more critical of Israel and Jews than my website, but
don't fall for that trick. Their criticism of Israel is just the bait they
put on their hook to grab your attention.
It's easy for us to become disillusioned and assume that our situation
is hopeless because every nation is still completely dominated by criminals,
freaks, alcoholics, and idiots who never have nothing intelligent to say.
But if you can maintain a good attitude and continue to encourage people
to look at my website and discuss the issues I bring up, then we will eventually
be able to find enough peole to do something.
But in case you don't think we're making progress, let me give you some
evidence that we are indeed slowly defeating this crime network.
I started exposing the 9/11 attack in January 2002. The reaction from
the public and the criminal Jews was that I was unpatriotic, a Nazi, an
anti-Semite, and extreme left-wing liberal, and an extreme right wing patriot.
Nobody ever accused me of being a Jew or a Zionist.
However, during the past year or so, more and more people are starting
to accuse me of being a Jew or a Zionist. In case you don't understand
the significance of this, in 2002, many Jews would proudly admit that they
were Jewish, and the most extreme insult was to call me a Nazi. Today a
lot of the Jews are afraid to admit that they are Jews, and the most extreme
insult is to call me a Jew. This is proof that we're making progress.
During the past six years, millions of people have discovered that 9/11
and other crimes are coming from Jews. This information will continue to
spread, and eventally being called a Jew will be the worst insult imaginable.
Soon we might see parents scolding their children with remarks such as,
"Stop acting like a Jew!"
At the top of Daryl Smith's site is a warning message that states: "Eric
Hufschmid is an Agent Provocateur and handler who comes from a Jewish family
and anyone that lends him any support is suspect."
Michael Collins Piper of the American Free Press, has also accused me
of being a Jew, and he's accused Christopher Bollyn's wife of being a Jew.
How can we not defeat this crime network? These people are so stupid
that they don't understand that when they can insult us by calling us a
Jew, it's the Jews who are in big trouble, not us.
As I mentioned in my status report in July 2008, the Jews are losing
their reputation as being a loving, peaceful, innocent people. Every day
more people are realizing that lots of Jews are horrible, disgusting, psychotic
criminals. And these criminal Jews think they're going to get out of this
mess by calling me a Jew?! They're idiots!
More evidence that we're defeating this crime network can be seen with
the mysterious website judicial-inc.org. During the past few years, a lot
of people have been asking me “Who runs this website” and “Can they be
trusted?” I don't know who runs it, but I put a warning on my website to
be suspicious of them. But now we can be certain that they are just another
operation by criminal Jews. They now have a message board, and it's connected
to a website that was originally the New Orleans, Louisiana John Birch
Society. In case you don't know much about the John Birch Society, I have
some information on my website that shows that they were infiltrated by
criminal Jews a long time ago, and they're working with more than just
judicial-inc. They also work with Alex Jones and other phony truth seekers.
The message board that judicial-inc is operating has one sentence to
explain the rules of conduct. Their rule is:
No swearing, and we prefer you use the words Bolshevik, Communist, Neo-Con,
Zionist, etc, but avoid saying Jew.
judicial-inc.org/811judicial_forum_nola.htm
Why would they want us to stop saying the word Jew? If you've seen their
website, then you've noticed that they appear to be extremely angry and
disgusted with Jews, so why would they want people to stop using the word
Jew on their message board?
The only people who seem to have a problem with the word “Jew” are the
criminal Jews. Nobody else seems to care. It's a proper word in the English
language to everybody else, just like the words Catholic, Muslim, Republican,
and Canadian.
I think the sensitivity to the word Jew is because the criminal Jews
have been hiding in the shadows for years, and they've been fooling us
into blaming problems on Communists, Nazis, Muslims, Neo-Cons, corporations,
the military-industrial establishment, and Arabs. For decades all of us
were foolishly blaming our problems on the wrong group of people. The Jews
would laugh as we blamed the Nazis or the corporations.
But during the past few years the Jews have been hearing more and more
people switch from blaming Nazis or Arabs to blaming Jews. The Jews realize
that we're talking about them now. They realize that we can see them in
the shadows. They're not hiding from us any longer.
The Jews are becoming frightened, and that explains why they are trying
to discourage us from using the word “Jew”. Judicial Inc. wants us to use
the words Bolshevik, communist, or neocon. Even “Zionist” is better to
them than the word “Jew”.
We CAN defeat this crime network. It's true that they have a lot of
people in their network, and they may be bribing tens of thousands of people
in our government, police departments, and military, but it seems as if
most of the people in their network are in terrible mental health. It's
possible that they outnumber us, but we're not having a fistfight with
them, so don't get discouraged. We ARE beating them.
I realize that it's easy to get discouraged. In fact, one of the reasons
I haven't posted an audio file for the past two months is because I got
discouraged after watching my relatives and more than 100 million other
Americans arguing over whether we should elect Obama or McCain as president.
It's easy to lose hope for the human race when you realize that you're
surrounded by people who are only slightly more advanced than a monkey.
It can also be discouraging when you see a report about a person who
is caught taking bribes. Crime networks can manipulate most people very
easily by offering them money. Most people are like a circus animal, but
instead of performing tricks for food, they commit crimes for money. It's
depressing, but we have to remain cheerful and optimistic.
Remind yourself that there are lots of higher quality humans on this
planet, and if we can find enough of them, we can work together to transform
this planet into a paradise. The talking monkeys that dominate the planet
are not going to help us, but they're not going to stop us either. So,
just ignore them.
Once we find enough high-quality humans, we'll be able to do a lot more
than just improve our water heaters, transportation systems, and other
products. We will also be able to improve our economic system, school system,
and government system. We're not helpless.
However, improving our social systems requires a major change in attitudes.
Most people consider it patriotic to follow the social systems that developed
centuries ago, but those people are as foolish as somebody who insists
that we use the transportation systems that developed centuries ago.
We need to find people who realize that it's acceptable to throw an
entire government system in the trash and develop something new. The American
Constitution is a crude document, and we need to find people who can throw
it in the trash. And the Europeans need to discard their monarchies in
the trash, as well as their government and economic systems. We need to
find people who will let go of this primitive technology and help us develop
something better.
Well, I'm getting near the 120 minute mark (note:
I should have said 80 minutes, or 1 hour 20 minutes) which
is the limit for an audio CD so I'll stop, but now that I've recovered
from the depressing election, I'll put up another audio file very soon
so that I can finish where I left off because I have a lot more to say. |
Don't
let the majority of people get you discouraged. They won't help us improve
the world, but they won't stop us, either. Think of them as talking
monkeys of no importance.
We don't need them. We can improve the world by ourselves.
If
you need a CAD program, or basic image editing, you can use the CAD program
that I developed, MillWrite. I used MillWrite to create the above drawings,
and some of the drawings in my book and video about 9/11. After I make
the drawings with MillWrite, I use commercial image editing software to
add the fancy coloring. You can download it and get more information here:
