So many women, so few options! Peggy Borger is the only woman interested in marrying me, but I'm not bitter about my lack of choices, or envious of the men who have no trouble attracting women, such as Phil Spector or Roman Polanski. Rather, I'm surprised that during the past couple weeks she has been calling me on the telephone almost every day to tell me that she loves me, and to beg me to marry her. I was under the impression that the article I wrote about her in January would terminate our "relationship", but obviously she continued to love me. A few days ago she asked me to remove that article, but I told her that I would instead take a look at what I had written, and post an update (which is what you are reading right now).

Peggy and her son, Frank.  Click for larger version

Peggy was initially a bit upset with the article I wrote about her in January 2010, and she decided to tell her side of the story. She contacted a few people who do interviews on the Internet, such as Ognir (Noel Ryan) and Adam Austin. (The reason I know that she was contacting them is because she sent me copies of the messages she sent to them. Perhaps that was her way of saying to me, "You criticized me, and now I may criticize you!")

That secretive man in Sweden who calls himself "Joe Blow" talked with her, and he posted the audio on the Internet, but from what I remember of that silly conversation, she didn't criticize me, or say much of anything that was worth listening to.

I think it was sometime in February that she resumed sending me e-mail messages to tell me that she loves me. I was wondering something to be effect of, "Didn't I make it clear that I'm not interested in her? I guess not!"

After another few weeks she began to also send me paper greeting cards and letters. For a few weeks during late spring or early summer I was receiving several e-mail messages each day from her, and several paper cards and letters every week.

When I wrote about her in January, she was married and living with her husband and son. She told me that she was planning to divorce Keith for the second time (she had married and divorced him years earlier), but the divorce laws of Indiana required that she be a resident of the state for six months. Her divorce became final at the beginning of August 2010. As of today (19 August 2010) she is still living with her son and her ex-husband, who supports her financially.

When her divorce became final, she began calling me nearly every day to tell me that she loves me intensely, and that she is very unhappy with her current life, and that she wants to marry me. On August 11 she called me at least 12 times, from the early morning to late at night! She brought a new meaning to the word "persistent". I wouldn't be surprised if she makes Ryan Seacrest look like a quitter. Peggy would make an excellent Professor of Persistence at Reptilian University.

Incidentally, in 2009, Ryan Seacrest was seen flirting with (or running away from!) Rachel Uchitel, one of the women who later became famous in the Tiger Woods scandal. How does she manage to meet so many wealthy and famous men? Are these men easily accessible to the public? Or is she getting assistance from the Jewish crime network? This photo reminds me of my "relationship" with Peggy (I'm assuming that Seacrest is running away from Uchitel.)

In a recent phone call, Peggy asked me to remove the article I had written about her. As is typical for me, after I post an article or audio file, I rarely look back at it, and as a result, as time passes I slowly forget some of the details. My memory of the article was that it described my concerns that she may be mentally ill, or that she may be a criminal in the Jewish crime network.

I told her that I'm not going to remove the article, but I would read my original article to see if there was anything that I no longer agree with. So, I looked back at what I had written, and I discovered that I had actually written about her twice, but the first time was just a few paragraphs that I posted on 14 January 2010. At the bottom of that brief section I was amazed to discover the following remark:

Update 18 January 2010 
I no longer want anything to do with Peggy.

So, on 18 January I did make it clear that I wanted to end my "relationship" with Peggy, didn't I?  Apparently, she didn't think so, and  she continued to pursue me. Her persistence is more significant than it may at first appear. For example, it brings up the issue of what a man or woman has to do in order to terminate a relationship. At what point does a person cross the line from being "persistent" to being a "predator" or a "nuisance"? At what point should society (the police and courts) get involved with our relationships and deal with the people who won't stop pursuing us?
 

Resolving this issue of "predators" is more difficult than it may at first appear because male and female animals were never designed to have loving relationships with one another. Rather, animal emotions developed to survive the competitive battle for life. Male and female animals form extremely crude relationships only to reproduce, not to love one another. Furthermore, the relationship between a male and a female is antagonistic. For example, the females put up a resistance to the males in order to force the males to prove themselves worthy of reproducing.

Humans are very similar to the animals. Women make themselves look pretty and then put themselves on display. They pretend that they're not interested in any of the men, thereby forcing us to pursue them. Men have to guess at when it is acceptable to pursue a woman, and when she is truly not interested. This is not as easy as it seems because different women have different personalities.

Our crude "mating rituals" are more examples of why the human mind must evolve for our new, modern world. Both men and women have to evolve into creatures who think more often. It is no longer appropriate for humans to behave like animals. Furthermore, we would improve our situation by making our cities more homogenous. It's easy for people with different personalities to work together, but when it comes to socializing, we would be much happier and more relaxed if we were around people who are similar to ourselves.

I don't believe that we can create a pleasant or stable society when we randomly mix different races and personalities. I think a more realistic policy for the human race is - as I described in other files - to allow each city to control immigration so that the people in each city are compatible with one another. Each city would be a different patch of "human flowers". We shouldn't force everybody to be the same. Every city should be free to develop their own clothing styles, food, and whatever else they pleased.
 

Males were designed to pursue females; we were not designed to turn them away. A woman who pursues a man is behaving like a cherry pie that chases after a hungry person and begs to be eaten. It is not easy for a man to turn away a receptive woman that he finds attractive. When a male animal becomes dominant, many females offer themselves to him, and he will want to take all of them. Criminals exploit this characteristic by sending whores to influential men. The men assume that their teenage fantasies have finally come true; namely, that they are so important that women can't resist them. When men get caught in these type of traps, their wives and other women often become angry at the men, but society should remove the criminals.

“I love you!”

Men and women are designed to keep one another under control

Male and female minds are designed with checks and balances. For example, men have strong cravings for sex, but women do not. The women keep the men's sexual cravings under control. When a group of homosexual men get together, there are no women to counteract their cravings, and so they may have casual sex with an unbelievable numbers of partners.

For another example, women have such strong cravings to take care of babies that they will take care of anything that resembles a baby, such as retards that don't have brains, dangerous animals, criminals, and inanimate objects (such as dolls). By comparison, men are repelled by the appearance, smell, and behavior of babies, especially babies that are defective. In prehistoric times, a man would counteract a woman's intense cravings for babies, but today men are forced to control their temper and love all babies.
 

In addition to the checks and balances between male and female minds, nature also provided checks and balances. Our craving for food is probably the easiest example to understand. We have powerful attractions to food and sugar, but these intense cravings rarely, if ever, got out of control during prehistoric times because of the scarcity of food, and especially the scarcity of sugar.

For another example, women have intense cravings to look pretty. During prehistoric times, their craving was kept under control by their lack of technology, and because they had to spend most of their time on more important activities. Today, however, women can spend many hours a day grooming themselves.

In our modern world, we need leaders who provide guidance to society. We need leaders who do research into food and nutrition and help us to remain in good health, and who provide guidance to the women in regards to grooming. Unfortunately, the men who dominate the world today exploit us rather than provide guidance to us. For example, when they develop food products, their primary concern is profit, not health. And rather than provide guidance to the women, they exploit the women by encouraging them to purchase absurd amounts and varieties of cosmetics, shampoos, perfumes, jewelry, breast implants, and surgeries.

My remark about a Reptilian University may seem to be a joke, but do you think that the Reptilians would tell their agents to do kidnappings, murders, blackmail, etc., without training? I would bet that they have training courses for a lot of their criminal activities. They probably also have the equivalent of apprenticeships in which the younger criminals assist with crimes while being guided by the more experienced criminals.

I would also bet that before Alex Jones started doing live video broadcasts, he spent time in one of their classes to practice moving his hands as he talks so that he is more entertaining to the television audience. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if Peggy is getting assistance from the Reptilian whores who have been successful in trapping men. Perhaps Monica Lewinsky or Oksana Grigorieva is giving advice to Peggy!

If you underestimate the Reptilians and their training, you may become one of their victims. I also suggest that you consider that the episodes in television show Mission Impossible are an indication of how far they will go in order to trick us. Don't dismiss the plots of television shows and movies as somebody's wild imagination; many of the plots seem to be based on actual crimes or their fantasies for crimes. A good example is the television show The Lone Gunmen. The first episode, which was broadcast six months before the 9/11 attack, was about a group of criminals operating inside the US government and who were trying to take control of a passenger airplane by remote control and crash it into the World Trade Center tower in order to fool the world into thinking that America was under attack by terrorists.

Reptilians don't fit into human society

I grew up believing the propaganda that the innocent, honest, loving, peaceful Jews got involved with pornography, gambling, loaning money at high interest rates, and other undesirable or destructive activities because they were discriminated against during the past 6000 years, and the only way they could make a living was to do the jobs nobody else wanted, or to get involved with illegal or disgusting activities. However, during the past few years I've come to the conclusion that the Jews have been choosing these activities because they want to.

Each of us differs in our concern for society, and some races may have less concern than others. The people that are referred to as Reptilians have never shown much of an interest in learning a useful skill or contributing to society. Like an animal, they're more concerned with stimulating their crude emotions for sex, status, babies, and entertainment. They want money, but they don't care how they acquire it. As a result, many of them get involved with gambling, charities, religion, pyramid schemes, advertising, sales, politics, religion, charities, and other activities where they can deceive, intimidate, threaten, and manipulate us. I suggest that you seriously consider the possibility that they have acquired a lot of knowledge about exploiting the human mind. Many of them seem to be experts in deception and manipulation. Don't underestimate their abilities to:

• Push us into doing things that we wouldn't otherwise do.
• Fool us into trusting people that we wouldn't have trusted.
• Convince us to forgive a person we wouldn't otherwise forgive.
• Trick us into a blackmail trap.
• Manipulate us into donating money to their organizations.

Women may think they're better than men because they're not easily manipulated with offers of sex, but women can be manipulated just as easily as men. For example, the Reptilians use photos of hungry or sick babies to attract and stimulate both men and women, and they fool the people into believing that our complex problems can be solved simply by donating money to mysterious, secretive organizations.

Throughout most of human history, food and tools have meant more to people than anything else. However, as I've mentioned in my "City of Castles" articles, modern technology allows us to produce food and material items in such phenomenal quantities that we should consider providing the basic necessities to everybody for free. We should shift our emphasis from material items to the quality of life.

For example, a person who steals an item from your home or cheats you out of your money is considered to be a criminal, and the police will arrest him (unless he is working for the criminals within our government, but that's a different issue). By comparison, a woman who deceives a man into marriage so that she can get access to his money is not considered to be a criminal, and the police will not arrest her.

Likewise, a man who rapes a woman is considered to be a criminal, but a man who deceives a woman into a relationship so that he can use her for sex is not considered to be a criminal, and the police will do nothing about him.

I suggest that we change our attitudes. Your life and your happiness should be considered more valuable than your material items. Being deceived by a woman into marriage does more harm to you than having some of your money stolen, especially if you end up reproducing with that disgusting woman and then raising a bunch of disgusting children. And a woman who is deceived by a man into having a relationship simply so he can have sex will suffer more than if he had stolen her purse because he will waste a lot of her life, and she may get pregnant with his disgusting child or pick up a disease from him.
 

A woman who uses a man for money is described as a "gold digger", and I don't know if we have an expression to describe a man who uses a woman for sex, but these type of people should be described as savages, or criminals, or con artists. They are not respectable humans. They are behaving like a mosquito that is looking for a host. They are crude people who are not worthy of reproducing.

Don't be intimidated into thinking that we must tolerate abusive people. We should follow the philosophy that we have a right to create a world in which we can trust and respect one another. Actually, we should say that we have an obligation to the human race to sterilize and evict, or execute, the abusive people because it is irresponsible for us to allow abusive people to ruin the world. If an abusive person can show that he is incompetent rather than dishonest, then we should exile him to the City of Idiots.

Most people are following a philosophy that encourages deception and abuse. For example, the government agencies and businesses that help people to find jobs are encouraging us to "promote" ourselves, which encourages us to exaggerate or lie about our abilities. And businesses are told to tolerate this abuse rather than complain about it. Businesses are told that it is their responsibility to investigate the claims that people make about their education and experience. These are the attitudes of a stupid, frightened animal that hides in the bushes when it hears a noise. These attitudes create a world in which we are suspicious of one another. We should reverse these attitudes. We should stop being a victim of abuse and start eliminating the people who abuse us.

Businesses should not be told to investigate the claims that people make about themselves. Instead, people should be told to give honest descriptions of themselves. If a person claims to be an experienced mechanic or electrical engineer, we should be able to trust him. If he turns out to be deliberately deceiving us, he should be removed from society.

Schools should not encourage children to exaggerate themselves. Instead, schools should help children to analyze themselves to determine their strengths and weaknesses, abilities and desires. Children should be taught to give honest, accurate descriptions of their education and experience.

When we take a trip by airplane or train, we shouldn't have to worry about whether it has been maintained properly. We shouldn't have to worry about whether a dentist is lying to us about his abilities, and we shouldn't have to worry about whether a policeman or a government official is honest. We shouldn't have to put locks on all of our doors and windows and purchase guns to protect ourselves. We should create a world in which we are proud of other people and feel safe around them. When we encounter people who are abusive, they should be removed rather than tolerated. We should raise standards for people and stop promoting the "buyer beware" attitude. We shouldn't laugh at victims of deception, or tell them that it's their own fault for being so trusting. We should create a world in which it is safe for us to trust one another.

No society yet cares whether men and women deceive one another into relationships. It's not illegal to be a "gold digger". However, we should change this attitude. None of us should have to worry about whether another person is trying to deceive us into a relationship. We should be able to relax and enjoy the people we live among, not be suspicious of them. If we suspect that somebody is deceiving us, we should be able to complain to the police, and if an investigation determines that the person is indeed parasitic, deceptive, or destructive, then they should be removed from society.

Thousands of years ago these issues were taken care of by "nature". For example, a man would kill a woman if he came to the conclusion that she was abusing him, and a father would kill a man who he believed was abusing his daughter. Today society has to pass judgment on who among us is a weed in the human garden, and society has to remove the weeds. 
 

On August 17, 2010, a court in America said that it's not against the law to make false claims about military honors. I shouldn't have to explain to you that the only people who benefit by allowing citizens to lie about their military service, or their education, or their job history, etc., are the criminals, freaks, parasites, and retards. And it should also be obvious that the American courts are not interested in helping the human race. They are helping criminals and freaks.
 

The photos of Mel Gibson's ex-girlfriend and baby daughter (I have one at this page) are more evidence that our legal system is helping criminals. Our legal system allows those type of photos as evidence of abuse because it's not a legal system. Rather, it's a group of criminals who are trying to protect their crime network.
 

Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, said in a recent interview "I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time." He is also reported to have said that when children of the future become adults, they should be allowed to change their names so that they can hide from all of the information that accumulated about them during their childhood.

Schmidt is one of the many people who promote the hysterical and paranoid theory that if everybody in the world has access to details of everybody else's life, all of us would suffer tremendously. He wants to allow people to keep secrets and hide their history. However, it should be easy to understand that the exact opposite is the truth. In other words, the more information we have on one another, the better the world will become.

I discussed this issue to a certain extent in my audio file for 27_February 2008, and in Part_2 of my audio file for 21 November 2009. To summarize this concept, if the entire earth was covered by video cameras, and if all of the data was freely available to everybody, then we would be able to closely observe anybody we pleased, and we could look through earlier recordings to see people days or years earlier. We would be able to observe how a person gets dressed in the morning, what he eats for breakfast, how often he picks his nose, what time he goes to sleep at night, and whether he gets up during the night to go to the bathroom.

This may seem to be an incredible intrusion into your privacy, but it would simply return us to the level of openness that humans have lived with for millions of years. It would be similar to going on a camping trip, or living in a submarine.

If you go on a camping trip, you lose an incredible amount of your privacy. However, your life will not be ruined as a result. Actually, the opposite will happen. You will be in such close contact with your family or friends that you will develop more intimate and satisfying relationships. Most friendships today are shallow or superficial because we don't get to know one another very well.

However, not everybody will benefit from a lack of secrecy. The people who will suffer are those who don't fit in. The analogy I used in my earlier file is that removing the secrecy from all people is equivalent to putting rocks into an acid bath. The acid quickly shows us which of the rocks are ordinary rocks and which are diamonds.

When we remove the secrecy from our lives, we let people see what we really are. Our ancestors lived without secrecy for millions of years, and we could return to that level of honesty, if we wanted to. The transition period would be brutal, but we would survive it, and it would help the human race tremendously because it would make it much easier for people to figure out who among us is a troublemaker.
 

Another concept to understand is that all of us have behaved in ways that were ridiculous, crude, selfish, or embarrassing, especially when we were young. And all of us have been pushed into doing things that we didn't really want to do. However, almost every event in your life that you are embarrassed about is already known by somebody, or several people, or hundreds of people. What difference does it make if a few more people learn about it? What difference would it make if millions of people in China and India also learn about it? And why would you care if people in the future look back at the information about you and learn some of the intimate details of your life?

And consider the opposite situation; namely, consider what would happen if you had access to the intimate details of other people's lives. For example, imagine that there are video cameras all over China, and that you can watch any of the Chinese people all throughout the day and night. How would your ability to observe them have any effect on their lives?

The only people who would suffer from this type of exposure are those who are doing something illegal or incredibly bizarre, such as keeping children locked in their basement and using them as sex toys. No respectable person has to worry about video cameras.

And imagine if there had been video cameras all over the planet for the past few thousand years, and imagine that you could look through a gigantic video database to observe Michelangelo throughout the day and night, or watch a person 2000 years ago in Scotland. Who would be harmed by your access to that information?

If we were to remove the secrecy and allow everybody to see how everybody else lives, the transition period would be brutal because a lot of criminals would be exposed, and a lot of us would be horrified to think of other people watching us. However, after the criminals were removed from society, there would only be "normal" people remaining, and we would quickly come to the conclusion that people are very similar to each other, and we would get tired of watching people live ordinary lives. We would eventually forget about the cameras.

This concept also applies to a person who goes on a camping trip for the very first time. He may initially be embarrassed at the thought that other people will learn some of the intimate details of how he sleeps or gets dressed in the morning, and he may be fascinated to watch other people, but after a while he would get used to it.

The people who are ashamed of themselves or who are involved with crime are constantly pushing us into allowing secrecy. They fool people into thinking that secrecy is protecting us, but it's protecting criminals. The reason a gigantic, international network of criminals has been able to get away with lying about the Holocaust, blame the 9/11 attack on Muslims, and start numerous wars, is because they have tricked all nations into allowing an incredible level of secrecy.

It's difficult for us to get honest information about potential friends or spouses. Businesses also have trouble figuring out if job applicants are lying about their experiences or education, and now the courts are making it legal for people to lie about their military history. We can't get much information about the people in our legal system, either, or about our presidential candidates, sheriffs, news reporters, or university chancellors. We are not even certain how many people are living in our nation!

As a result of the secrecy, I don't know much about Peggy, or her family. For example, in 2009 her niece was in the 15th Reconnaissance Squadron of the Air Force, but did she join the Air Force to protect America? For all I know Peggy, her niece, and many of her other relatives are part of that gigantic, international network of  Reptilians. It's also possible that Peggy is simply a lunatic, and that her family members are decent, honest, respectable people. How can I possibly figure this out when everybody is allowed to keep secrets about themselves and lie about their history?

Don't be intimidated by freaks into thinking that they have a right to deceive you about who they are. Don't be fooled into thinking that they should be allowed to lie about their history. Stand up to them! Tell them that we have a right to remove their mask and see who they really are, and if they're ashamed of themselves, that's their problem.

The transformation of a baby into an adult is an amazing process. I was fascinated with some aspects, and irritated with others (such as having my teeth fall out), but overall, I enjoyed it. I have lots of wonderful memories of exploring the creeks; of "finger painting" at school; of climbing trees; and of helping my mother make a cake with oranges and cranberries. I don't remember how the cake tasted, but I remember the time I spent making it with my mother, such as her telling me to cut the cranberries in half so that the 4-sided pattern would show and make the cake more decorative. I also have amusing memories of putting butter on slices of bread, eating the crust, and then folding it over, smashing it, and forming cubes, spheres, and other shapes. I even have pleasant memories of when I was sick, such as the time my mother put a blanket on the grass in the backyard, and she sat in the sun with me, and I watched the swallows fly around and build a mud nest under the roof of our house. I don't remember feeling sick. Rather, I remember being happy with my mother, and I remember the birds, the sunshine, and the grass. I also have wonderful memories of my mother reading books to me, and my grandmother telling us stories at night, and my father taking me and my brothers on hikes in the hills behind our house. Children don't have any cares or worries, so childhood should be a time for us to enjoy everything and accumulate wonderful memories of meeting people, exploring the world, and experimenting with different activities. When we become old, that collection of childhood memories will make us smile and laugh. Unfortunately, not all children have a pleasant childhood, and not many adults seem to be very happy, either. Why not?

Why are some children happy and others miserable?

Whether a person's childhood is happy or miserable depends upon both the environment and the child's genetic qualities. If a child is genetically defective, he may be miserable regardless of his environment. And if a child is raised in an environment of pollution, corrupt policemen, pedophiles, kidnappings, crime, and poor nutrition, he may have a miserable childhood even if he is in good mental health. There's not much we can do to help the genetically defective children, but we have the ability to create an environment that is pleasant for children.

Our childhood memories seem to be much more intense than those we develop during adulthood. If a child has a wonderful time, then he will become an adult with a mind full of pleasant memories, but if his childhood is full of miserable memories, he will become an adult who wants to avoid being reminded of his childhood. Have you noticed how many adults make nasty remarks about how a particular style of clothing or furniture reminds them of their parents or their childhood? Those particular adults look for activities, clothing styles, and furniture that is completely different from what they grew up with. They believe that they are happy by being different from their parents, but I think they are simply trying to avoid evoking the miserable memories of their childhood.

Whether you like or dislike a particular style of clothing, food, weather, or furniture depends partly upon your experiences in life, and partly upon the design of your brain and body. I think that if all children were in good mental health, and if we were to create a pleasant environment for everybody, then children would become adults with lots of wonderful memories of their childhood, and they would be happy to continue living in the exact same environment. They would be happy to have the same furniture, the same clothing, and the same food. I think that when an adult struggles to create an environment for himself that is completely different from his childhood, and when he doesn't have any sensible reasons for why he wants to be different, it is likely to be a sign that he didn't enjoy his childhood, and he's trying to escape from it.

This brings me to an important concept. In order to maintain the mental health of the human race, we have to create an environment that is wonderful for all children. When everybody is raised in a nice environment, nobody can blame their misery on their environment. The children who don't enjoy life can be classified as defective. For example, in one of my descriptions of a "City of Castles", I suggested you consider a society in which everybody has virtually the same level of material wealth, and everybody is in the "middle class". When a child is raised in that type of environment, he can't blame his misery on "poverty". Since everybody in that type of city is virtually "equal", nobody would be able to complain about being disadvantaged, or discriminated against, or abused by rich people.

If we were to create a world in which life is wonderful for all children, and in which everybody is treated equally, then it should be obvious to everybody that the unhappy people are not suffering from a lack of money, fame, or sex. Therefore, we could tell the unhappy people to face the fact that their misery is coming from inside of them, perhaps because their brain is defective, or perhaps because their body doesn't properly control their blood chemistry. Some of those unhappy people would be able to reduce their misery by controlling their diet or by taking certain types of mental health drugs, but we don't have the ability to fix their problems.

A lot of the people who created America were unhappy, and they gave America the idiotic philosophy that we are capable of pursuing happiness. However, happiness cannot be pursued. If you don't have happiness when you wake up in the morning, you're never going to find it. We should stop promoting the philosophy that we will become happier when we acquire more material wealth, or when we become more famous, or when we have more servants to pamper us. And we should stop promoting the philosophy that we can cure the miserable people by putting them in jail or by offering them rewards for better behavior.
 

Our enemy is not the devil, or poverty, or the Muslims, or the Nazis, or a lack of oil. Our problem could be described as the flaws that occur from the random mixing of genetic characteristics. We can't defeat this type of enemy. We have to accept it, understand it, and find ways to deal with it.

Everybody ends up with a variety of flaws and imperfections, but some people have such serious defects that they can't enjoy life, or they lie, cheat, deceive, kidnap, murder, steal, vandalize, or abuse. We can't prevent or cure the abusive people. Perhaps future generations will figure out how to cure some of these defects, but all we can do today is exile or execute the abusive people. We don't have any other option.

We don't have to live in fear of crime networks, or corrupt government officials, or dishonest lawyers. We don't have to tolerate people who lie about their military service, their education, or their job history. We don't have to be suspicious of businessmen or teachers. All we have to do is change our attitudes and convert the police into human gardeners who search for destructive people and remove them whenever they appear. The police should be cleansing society of troublemakers rather than protecting crime networks, liars, and retards.

As I mentioned in another document, when I was a child I was attracted to the genie in the television show, I Dream of Jeannie, although it was not a sexual attraction. As an adult I occasionally develop sexual attractions to women on the Internet and on television. Sometimes we find ourselves attracted to a person because of his talents or achievements, even if he died long ago. And sometimes we are attracted to fictional characters in books or movies.

For "normal" people, these attractions to people we've never met are harmless. We don't think of these attractions as "obsessions", or as "evidence of insanity". For example, when a "normal" person develops an attraction to a person who died long ago, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, or General George Patton, we don't refer to his attraction as a "neurotic obsession". Instead we might refer to it as an "admiration" of a person's talent. And when a normal person becomes sexually attracted to a person they see on television, we don't regard it as a neurotic obsession; rather, we consider it to be a harmless daydream.

All humans have the same talents, limitations, and qualities. As I pointed out in Part_1 of my Dumbing Down articles, if we could identify every human quality and measure that quality in every person, we would find a bell curve for every quality, and we would find that our positions in the curves are different for every quality.

For "normal" people, an attraction to people we've never met is meaningless, and in some cases it can be useful for inspiring us to develop our talents or deal with the problems we face. However, to the people who are at the extreme end of the bell curve, these attractions become neurotic obsessions. These people may become a nuisance or a danger to the people that they admire. For example, as I mentioned in my January file about Peggy, it's possible that she is not a criminal; rather, she may have developed such a strong attraction to me that she has become a nuisance to me.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world have an attraction to Jesus Christ, but none of these people even know what Jesus looked like, or what race he was. Furthermore, the concept of Jesus is ridiculous. For example, he had magic powers, such as being able to walk on water and turn fish into wine, but the only people who were attracted to him was a prostitute and 12 (homosexual?) men. Why didn't any of the respectable members of society show an interest in such an incredible man?

Also, Jesus was supposedly surrounded by people who were constantly begging him to cure their leprosy or their blindness, and give them courage or send them back to Kansas, but the Roman soldiers couldn't pick him out in a crowd of people, so Judas had to kiss him to identify him. Why would the Romans need help in identifying such a magical man? And why weren't the Romans excited to meet such an incredible man? Why would they consider beating and killing a man with such phenomenal powers?

It should be obvious that nobody is truly attracted to Jesus. Rather, they are attracted to a nonsensical fantasy of Jesus. For a "normal" person, this attraction to Jesus is harmless, and it may sometimes help them remain cheerful during times of trouble. However, I would say that a lot of people have a neurotic obsession with Jesus, and there are lots of con artists, parasites, and pedophiles taking advantage of the people who have strong attractions to Jesus. For some examples:   • Some people deliberately hurt themselves at Easter to show Jesus how much they love him, such as the man in the photo who put a drill through his tongue. • Millions of people are fooled into giving large amounts of money to organizations that claim to represent Jesus. • Some people have such an intense attraction to Jesus that they cannot tolerate people who have no interest in Jesus. • Some people do nothing to help society on the grounds that Jesus will soon return to the earth and take care of us. • Some people believe that Jesus forgives them every time they steal, rape, lie, and cheat.

If a man put a drill through his tongue to show a Hollywood actress how much he loves her, or to show a dentist how much he admires his talent, he would be described as a lunatic. So why not consider people to be lunatics when they behave like this for Jesus?

Imagine a man who frequently burglarizes houses, rapes children, and burns buildings, but he has no guilt because after he commits a crime, he asks the ghost of Charlie Chaplin for forgiveness, and Chaplin's ghost tells him that he is forgiven. How is such a man any less crazy than a man who commits a crime, and then prays to Jesus or God, and then believes that he has just been forgiven?

Imagine calling the fire department to report your house on fire, and the fireman responds, "Don't worry! Jesus loves you. Pray to him, and He will put the fire out." How is such a fireman any less crazy than the people who pray to Jesus or God to solve their problems?

We have to pass judgment on when a person has crossed the line from "normal" to insane or dangerous. We can no longer ignore individuals who are antisocial, destructive, parasitic, or irresponsible. As I pointed out in my 23_June 2010 file, technology allows individual people to cause tremendous damage and suffering, so we have to pass judgment on who we want living with us, and who we want influencing our lives and our future. We can't follow the philosophy of live and let live; we can't allow people to do whatever they please. We have to make sure that people are contributing to society rather than destroying it.

If an organization was collecting 10% of their member's income on the grounds that they have a spiritual connection to Michelangelo, they could be arrested as con artists. But what is the difference between people collecting money in the name of Michelangelo, and people collecting money in the name of Jesus? Why not arrest the Mormon and Catholic Church officials?

We have to ignore the boastful claims of people and organizations. We have to conduct our own analyses of people and organizations, and we have to pass judgment on which of them are helping society, and which are hurting it. Religious organizations have been claiming for centuries that they help society, but in what way have they helped us? I think they are parasitic organizations that consume a lot of resources but don't actually contribute anything of value. They occasionally give some food to a poor person, but that doesn't help society.

Actually, religious organizations are worse than parasites because they hurt society. For example, all of them are helping to cover up the lies about the 9/11 attack and the Holocaust, and no religious leader is encouraging us to discuss the problems we face or experiment with policies to improve society. Instead, they are encouraging people to ignore our problems and to pray to some God and beg him to solve our problems. The religious leaders of the world are not providing leadership. Rather, they are parasitic, con artists who indirectly support crime networks and encourage destructive attitudes. Don't be submissive around them. They don't deserve your respect. They should be removed from society.

“I am an expert on Jesus and his Holy Ghost. Give me money, and don't worry about anything. God will take care of you because He loves you! Jesus died for you. Be submissive and forgiving. God is testing you when he abuses you, so enjoy the abuse, and show Him that you want more of it!”

I never forgot how suspicious I was of Peggy, but after reading the article I wrote in January about her, I was reminded that I was actually disgusted with her. This makes me wonder, did I merely "forget" some of my unpleasant memories of her? Or does the human mind have some type of "house cleaning service" in which it deliberately helps unpleasant memories fade away?

It's possible that unpleasant memories fade away simply because we avoid recalling and refreshing them. However, I wonder if our mind actually assists in the destruction of memories we don't care for. This would be a useful feature because it would allow the pleasant memories to dominate our mind. For example, I don't want to remember people blowing their noses, or children arguing with each other. Regardless of whether unpleasant memories fade away because we avoid them or because our mind assists in their deterioration, this feature could be exploited by criminals and political candidates. If a person is only mildly annoying, after a while we would forget some of the details of how annoying he was, and that would allow him to abuse us a second time, and then we would start to forget how annoying he was, and that could allow him to abuse us a third time. We have a tendency to "forgive and forget" the people who are only mildly annoying, but this is not a good policy for this modern era. We should keep track of the troublemakers.

Does our mind have a "cleaning service"?

America has very low standards for mental health

Peggy insists that she's not crazy, but what is "crazy"? What is "normal"? A nation's leaders set the standards for "normal" and "mentally ill". They don't want to define "mental illness" in such a manner that they classify as mentally ill. As a result, we can determine what type of leaders a society has by looking at their laws and their standards for behavior. And when the standards of behavior for a society start to drop, that's a sign that their leaders are becoming worse.

For example, have you noticed that what is considered to be "normal" for television today would have been considered worthless, stupid, psychotic, disgusting, pathetic, or degrading just a few decades ago? And there are lots of accusations of pedophilia in churches, schools, and government offices, but our leaders seem to be less interested in stopping pedophilia today than they were a few decades ago.

The people who dominate America today are such freaks that a person has to be incapable of feeding itself before he can be classified as "mentally ill". Many of our leaders even look like freaks - or like Neanderthals - and many of them can't pronounce words properly. We don't have high quality humans in control of society; we have freaks.
 

How could Peggy continue to believe that I might marry her after I posted that article about her in January? She ignored what I wrote in January, and in our recent conversations I reminded her many times that I think she is frightening, and that she may be crazy, but she ignores my complaints and continues to tell me that she loves me, and she continues to beg me to marry her. She will not accept no for an answer. She is unbelievably persistent.

I think her persistence is evidence that she is working with the Reptilian crime network, and that they are desperate to kill or control me. It makes me wonder, if she were living in the same neighborhood as me, would she be following me around? Would she be coming over to my house? Furthermore, if Peggy is involved with that crime network, then some of her relatives may be involved also, and her son may become a member.

Some influential people are pursued by criminals, and some are pursued by people who are mentally ill (such as the man who pursued Katie Piper). Unfortunately, I, Katie Piper, and other people who have to put up with predators cannot call the police because no society yet considers it illegal for people to behave in such a manner. The British courts eventually got involved with Katie Piper, but their solution was to put the two men in jail for a while, and then release both of them back into society.

There is no rule in the universe that says we have to wait for a predator to cause physical damage before we can complain to the police about them. Gardeners don't wait for weeds to cause serious damage. Likewise, we can raise standards for human behavior and remove troublesome people before they cause damage. The troublemakers will claim that they have the right to live with us, but we should respond that we have a right to pass judgment on who among us is behaving properly.

Businesses, sports teams, orchestras, and other organizations set standards for behavior, and they remove the members who misbehave, even if they haven't caused any physical damage. Cities and nations should follow the exact same policy. We should remove people from society simply because we don't like the way they treat us. We are fools to wait for the annoying people to do physical damage.
 

Peggy's unbelievable persistence reminds me of how I can expose Daryl Smith as a liar, but he continues to promote the same lies over and over (I wrote about that here). Alex Jones and all the other Zionist agents behave in the same manner. Their technique makes sense when you imagine yourself as a horribly disgusting criminal. What would you do if somebody exposed you? Would you give up, admit to the crime, and allow yourself to be executed? No; you would behave as if nothing had happened and hope that other people don't notice, don't care, or don't understand the significance of what is going on.

Criminals don't give up simply because somebody has exposed their crime. We have to capture them, and then we must either exile them, or kill them. There is no other option. We can't fix them.

I rejected Peggy in January, and she had the option of giving up, or pursuing me a second time. If she had given up, then she couldn't possibly have been successful in trapping me. So from her point of view, why not try again? She had nothing to lose and a lot to gain.

How do I get Peggy  to stop pursuing me? The police won't do anything to stop her. So, I will start recording our phone conversations and posting them on the Internet, and if that doesn't stop her, I will post information about her sisters and their husbands, and her nieces and nephews. Perhaps her relatives will put pressure on her to leave me alone and pursue some other man. I could also post information about her ex-husband and his family members. (In the process of trying to become my wife, she gave me quite a bit of information about herself and her family.)

By the way, since I'm not going to marry Peggy, that means I'm still available!