Our schools treat history as a form of entertainment rather than a serious scientific field. The people who specialize in history are referred to as historians, but nobody considers historians to be scientists, and historians have almost no job opportunities because everybody considers their education to be worthless. Most people care so little about history that they don't care about people distorting it. For example:

• Nobody cares that colleges are teaching lies about the 9/11 attack, the HoloHoax, the assassination of President Kennedy, or the Apollo moon landing. However, if professors of chemistry were to routinely lie to students about chemistry, I think that both students and parents would be furious.

• During the past few weeks there have been reports that the governor of New Mexico is considering the deliberate distortion of Billy the Kid in order to increase tourism. By comparison, I think that most people would be disgusted if the Governor were considering the distortion of arithmetic in order to increase tourism.

• As I pointed out a couple years ago, Hollywood is distorting history about pirates and other criminals, but most people don't care whether they have an accurate view of history, or whether criminals are glorified, because they don't consider history to have any value.
 

The human mind has a characteristic that we have to be careful of. Specifically, the human and animal mind was designed to make quick decisions according to the available information; we were not designed to spend years researching and discussing an issue. As a result, we assume that whatever we know is all we need. If some information is missing, we simply guess at what is missing. 

We don't like making the statement, "I don't know", and we don't like to do research. Perhaps the best example is the variety of religious fantasies that millions of people have created rather than admit we have no idea how the universe came into existence. We also do this with historical events. We don't know much about Billy the Kid, for example, even though he lived from 1859 to 1881, which was not that long ago, and even though we have a photo of him and he had been arrested a few times.

The human mind wants to fill in the missing information about Billy the Kid. We can't stop our mind from doing this; instead, we have to be careful that we are making sensible guesses rather than following our stupid emotions. For example, a person who likes to feel sorry for criminals will have a tendency to fill in the missing details about Billy the Kid with information that makes him appear as a wonderful young man who was victimized by the brutal police. By comparison, I am more likely to fill in the missing details with information that makes him look like a genetically defective freak.

Your personal life may not be affected by the way you fill in missing information about Billy the Kid, but your life will be affected by the way you fill in missing information regarding the people in your life. We are constantly guessing at what other people are thinking and doing, especially when we are looking for a spouse. When we fill in missing information according to what we are emotionally attracted to, we may hurt ourselves, such as when we assume somebody is in love with us, or that somebody can be trusted, or that somebody cannot be trusted.
 

Billy the Kid spent a lot of his life in the area we refer to as the American Wild West. Photography developed during this period of time, and there was a lot of printed and written documentation about life in that era. However, despite all that information, we don't know much about that era, and a lot of information about the Wild West has been distorted for entertainment and profit.  For example, Hollywood has transformed the disgusting, filthy saloon into an exciting social center where cowboys wore guns around their waist, played poker, and had sex with adorable prostitutes who were free of disease and never got pregnant.

Furthermore, you should already be aware that thousands, maybe millions, of historians, artists, government officials, lawyers, news reporters, and teachers around the world are lying to us about the HoloHoax, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and thousands of other events. There are so many people lying to us about historical events that we would be fools to assume that this is the very first time in history that people have lied about history. We should assume that people have been lying about history all throughout history.

Also, consider that some government officials, such as Joseph Stalin and some ancient Egyptian leaders, have been accused of destroying historical information in order to promote themselves or their philosophy. This should make us wonder, have any historical documents been destroyed without anybody realizing it? Have church officials or historians also destroyed information? Has history been altered by these diabolical people?

We cannot even trust scientists! Consider how many scientists are lying about global warming, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack. There is also evidence that cheating, plagiarism, and sabotage is occurring among them. Take a look at the evidence that Einstein plagiarized his material. And consider the strange case of the Piltdown man. Perhaps it was the result of an envious scientist who wanted to ruin Charles Dawson, or perhaps Dawson was a fraud, and another scientist thought that a phony fossil would drive him out of science. Regardless of what happened, it is more evidence that we have to be careful trusting scientists.
 

This painting of a man being knighted was created in 1901 - not the Middle Ages - by Edmund Leighton. I suppose the painting is accurate because even today Queen Elizabeth performs this ceremony. However, I suspect that the details about life in the Middle Ages are more distorted than the descriptions of the Wild West because the fantasies about the Wild West are kept under control by all of the photos, newspaper articles, and other documentation. By comparison, there is almost no information about life in the Middle Ages.

The less we know about an issue, the more we have to speculate, which allows us to make more mistakes. Consider the creation of the universe. We have no information about that issue, which means our theories about the creation of the universe are 100% speculation and 0% fact. As a result, we are very likely to be 100% wrong.
 

One of the two main points of this article is that history could be a very useful scientific field. Historians could be similar to geologists or zoologists, but instead of studying rocks or animals, they would study humans over time. They would study human culture; our "social technology". They could help us understand how we arrived at the "cultural location" we are currently at.

The second main point I want to make is that the more documentation we have on ourselves, the better. I've complained in many of my files that we cannot stop crime with guns, security cameras, or steel grates over windows, but video cameras have tremendous value for documentation and scientific research. If video cameras had been documenting human life for the past 10,000 years, we would be able to resolve a lot of today's issues. For example, if we could look back at video that was recorded 2000 years ago in Palestine, we would be able to determine if there really was a Jesus, and if so, what race he was, whether he ever walked on water, and exactly what he said to other people. There would be absolutely no confusion in regards to Jesus.

In this document, I will show you that even a simple, casual analysis of some paintings from centuries ago can help us to understand such issues of feminism, clothing, and architecture. This should help you to understand that if we had video rather than paintings, we would do an even better job of understanding ourselves and our history. And it should also help you to understand that if we were to get rid of all of the criminals from our school system and alter our attitudes towards "history" so that it becomes a serious scientific field, then historians would be valuable scientists who help government officials make plans for our future.

The first images I will show are from a set of paintings known as Très Riches Heures. Although many of them depict nonsensical biblical scenes, there are 12 paintings that give us a glimpse of life in France around the year 1412. Each painting depicts typical events during a different month of the year. The two women below are in the painting for the month of June. As you look at these paintings, consider what they tell us in regards to the issues of feminism and clothing.

These three men with sickles are in the same painting as the two women above. All of the paintings made in this era show both men and women helping with farm work, but the men always do the more physically demanding tasks.
The painting for the month of July shows a man and a woman shearing sheep. The paintings of the Middle Ages show often men and women working together when the job is not physically demanding. The men are separated from the women only when they are doing physically demanding tasks.

The painting for the month of July also shows men with sickles.

Our ancestors rarely wore pants

One of the complaints of feminists is that men force women to wear dresses and skirts rather than allow them to wear pants. The feminists claim that this is due to abuse and sexism. However, the paintings from centuries ago show that pants were very rare. The reason should be obvious; it's much more difficult to make a pair of pants than it is to make a dress, kilt, or skirt.

By the way, if we could observe people as they developed clothing, we would have a better understanding of why we refer to pants as a "pair of pants". From what we know about the development of clothing, the reason pants are referred to as a "pair" is because it was so difficult to make pants that people would make pants for just one leg. The very first pants were similar to a sock or a shoe. Therefore, if a man wanted to wear pants on both legs, he had to put on two pants, thereby creating the expression that he was wearing a pair of pants.

I mentioned that historians could be valuable in government, and the expression about a "pair of pants" is a very simple example. Historians could help us understand how our culture developed, and that in turn can help us make decisions about what to do with our future. Historians could point out to us that the expression about a "pair" of pants no longer applies to clothing today, and so we should stop referring to pants as a "pair".

The people who dominate our society occasionally tell us to alter the words we use, but they seem to be trying to instigate fights, not improve language or society. For example, when I was a child, a certain group of people were referred to as Negroes, and then we were told to refer to them as colored, and then as black, or was it African-American? Later we were told to refer to the people from the Orient as "Asians" rather than "Orientals". We need real historians who can analyze our culture and make intelligent recommendations.

		The people in the early 1400s did not have zippers, and it was difficult for them to create button holes.  It was also a lot of work for them to put a pocket on their shirt and pants. Not surprisingly, both men and women in that era tended to wear very crude skirts and dresses. (The man scattering seeds is from the drawing for October, and the man plowing the field is from March.)
		In the painting for December, these two men, a team of dogs, and one other man, just caught a wild pig. Even though the three men were hunting wild animals in the forest, they wore dresses, not pants. The men and women wore very similar clothing. The only difference seems to be that the women's clothing was slightly more decorative, cleaner, and had slightly fewer holes. I don't see any sign that the women were suffering from that mysterious stuff that feminists referred to as "sexism". In fact, the women seem to have been taken care of, or even pampered.

The man to the right (in the painting for November) is feeding domesticated pigs. This particular drawing provides the largest, most detailed view of a man's clothing. Notice that there are no buttons on his dress. He has a belt of some type around his waist, but his dress is open in the front, thereby exposing his underwear. Look back at the three men with sickles in the painting for the month of June. One of the men has a similar style of dress that is open along the front, and another man is wearing a dress that is open along the side.     The painting for the month of February shows a man chopping wood in the snow while wearing a thin blue dress that is open along the front.

The feminists complain that men have been forcing women to wear dresses because men are "sexist", but if we had more documentation about human life, and if historians were honest, then they would be able to determine how clothing styles developed around the world, and why men ended up wearing pants more often than women. I suspect it was because men had a tendency to work outdoors, and pants are less likely to get caught on vegetation and equipment. Also, during winter, pants do a better job of keeping our legs warm.

The clothing centuries ago had to be made by hand with very crude technology. How many women centuries ago wanted to go through the trouble of making pants for themselves or their children? If a family purchased their clothing rather than made their own, they would have been most likely to purchase inexpensive dresses and skirts for their children and the women.

As technology improved through the centuries, pants became increasingly practical for both women and children. However, the technical improvements were so gradual that most people were unaware of them. Furthermore, people are like a train on track; specifically, we resist changes to our lives. Therefore, there was never a point in time at which people said, "Hey! We don't need to wear dresses any longer! We can wear pants!"

This photograph shows Gerald Ford in 1914; the man who later became president of America. The feminists complain that men have been ruining life for women by making girls wear pink dresses and allowing boys to wear blue pants, but both boys and girls have been wearing dresses until quite recently in human history.  (A page of paintings and photos of boys in dresses during the past couple centuries is here.)

All of us have a tendency to resist anything that tries to change the course we are on, but we differ in how resistant we are to changes. Some people will resist changes even when they realize they must make the changes because they are headed towards financial trouble, or some other problem, but they cannot control their emotions well enough to actually make the change, and so they end up hurting themselves. An example are the wealthy people who ended up losing their house and living in a car because they couldn't bring themselves to reducing their spending habits and changing course to a more ordinary life.

Of course, keep in mind our media is full of criminals and freaks who lie constantly and who encourage the "feel sorry for me" attitude, so when they write articles about these homeless people, (such as this or this) they make it appear as if these people are helpless victims of financial problems, as if a financial problem is analogous to a tornado that comes during the night without warning. In reality, these homeless people should have compensated for their reduced income, but they couldn't control their emotions well enough, and so they continued behaving as if they were wealthy, and eventually they became homeless.

Understanding this behavior can help you understand why clothing styles don't change very easily, or attitudes towards politics, drugs, crime, or anything else. We resist changes even when we realize that we should make the change. An example is the metric system. Many Americans realize that we should stop fighting the entire world over the metric system, but since nobody is forcing Americans to change, most resist it. Of the people who use the metric system and speak English, they pronounce the words "kilowatt" and "kilogram" by pronouncing "kilo", but when they say "kilometer", most of them say "ki-lom-e-ter" rather than "kilo-meter". If you point out to them that it would be more sensible to be consistent, some of them will agree with you, but they will resist making the change.

It's amusing to consider that if the human mind had no resistance to change, then we could bring changes to our culture as easily as we do with computer software. For example, we could set up a group of people to review our language, and every once in a while they could update some of our words or grammar, and then announce, "Here is version 6.5088 of the English language, which brings about such changes as referring to a 'pair of pants' as just 'pants', and changes to the pronunciation of 'kilometer'." And people would make the updates immediately without resistance. We could also update our clothing styles like that, and our marriage ceremonies, and the manner in which we celebrate Christmas.

Our resistance to change is one of the reasons the Jewish crime network has been so successful. When the Jews get control of a school system and provide children with propaganda about the Holocaust and how the Jews have been innocent victims of anti-Semitism for 6000 years, the children become adults who resist attempts to change their attitudes towards Jews. Most people need quite a bit of pressure to change.

Sometime during high school I came to the conclusion that the suit and tie was impractical because it severely restricted mobility of our arms. I also considered them to be very bland and dreary. I prefer clothing that is more functional, colorful, and decorative. I wanted to design my own clothing, and one day I decided to try making a jacket. However, I had no idea how to design clothing, and I never saw anybody make clothing, although I had seen my mother do simple repairs on clothing. My plan was to use an old, long sleeve shirt as the inner liner to the jacket. I would build a jacket around the shirt. I assumed that this would give me the proper size and shape. 

Since this was my first attempt at making clothing, I wasn't going to try making it decorative. I just wanted it to be functional, and I was especially interested in trying to add some material under the arm to create the equivalent of a bellows to allow my arm to have more movement than the typical jacket. I also had the brilliant idea of cutting up an old wetsuit and then using the neoprene as insulation. I can't remember the details, but I think the neoprene was only 3 or 4 millimeters thick. I assumed that the neoprene would provide good insulation without making the jacket heavy or bulky.

Since illiterate and uneducated people during the Middle Ages made clothing with almost no technology, I assumed it must be easy. Since they didn't even have pencils, and paper was in short supply, I assumed they didn't need to bother sketching their clothing on paper, so I shouldn't have to bother designing it on paper, either. I assumed that I could create clothing simply by cutting material up with some scissors and sewing it together.

I won't bore you with the details, and I forgot a lot of them anyway, so I will summarize this event by pointing out that I eventually added the bellows to one of the arms, but as I was trying to add the neoprene to that arm, it occurred to me that the reason nobody uses neoprene as insulation for clothing is because it's ridiculous for clothing.

I also came to the realization that jackets and certain other types of clothing are a very complex, three-dimensional design problem. Using the shirt as a liner for the jacket made it possible for me to know the proper size and shape, but it was difficult to work with the shirt because it wouldn't hold any particular shape. I was thinking that maybe I would be able to complete this project if I had a mannequin, but I wasn't sure if even a mannequin would be enough. It made me wonder, how did people in the Middle Ages make jackets, shirts, and pants? Did they use mannequins? Or did they use one another as models?
 

My brilliant idea about using neoprene as insulation for clothing reminded me of when I was a young child and noticed the black soot that comes from the tip of a candle flame. It occurred to me that powdered carbon would make an excellent pigment for black paint. I wondered why the adults had never thought of such a brilliant idea. The lesson I eventually learned was:

Whenever we develop a brilliant idea and wonder why nobody else thought of it, it's most likely that lots of people already thought of it, experimented with it, and abandoned it because it is actually stupid.

Most people, especially as children, are not aware of all of the people who have lived before them, and so we often don't realize that we are thinking many of the same thoughts as thousands or millions of people before us.

Students in math, physics, and chemistry are told of the work of previous scientists so that they can understand how the science developed. This helps students to understand which ideas have already been conceived, which have already been proven false, and which ideas need further investigation. This helps students avoid making the same mistakes that previous scientists have made.

As I will show in this document, we need to apply the same attitude towards human history. History courses right now have no actual purpose; they just make the students memorize facts. History should become an analysis of human life through time so that we can get a better understanding of ourselves and how our culture developed. This would help us to avoid making the same mistakes that previous generations made, and it would give us an idea of what we might want to do with our future.
 

Many years later I tried to make clothing once again, but I failed again. However, I was successful in making a pair of sandals. I still have these sandals (in the photo). They are perhaps 15 years old, but I've only worn them on hot days, so they'll last quite a while. I didn't like the flip-flop sandals that were common at that time because they had a tendency to fall off. I wanted straps around the ankles. The base is made of several sheets of leather, with a top layer of suede. I sewed the pieces together with some very thick, waxed thread.

Today there are a variety of sandals with straps, and they're more practical than mine because they have rubber soles, but the straps are so stiff and strong that they hurt my skin. The straps on my sandals are very soft and flexible. It seems that my skin is becoming more delicate as I get older.
 

Incidentally, it's interesting to note that there are two main styles of human feet. With me, the second toe extends farther than the others, but with other people, the big toe is the longest, and the other toes are increasingly smaller. I don't know if there's any significance to this, or if one style is more common with men, or more common with a particular race of people. However, I would think that shoe stores should offer two, different styles of shoes.

By the way, I'm going bald on my legs, but the hair on my arms has become longer! Some aspects of the human body make me laugh at the people who promote the concept of "Intelligent Design". It would make more sense to claim that humans are the result of Idiot Design.

Another interesting aspect of the paintings from centuries ago is that we can often see people's underwear, and sometimes nudity when the people are swimming or bathing. However, none of this was intended for sexual stimulation. It was simply due to the lack of clothing. For example, in the painting below (from the month of February in the group of 12 paintings in Très Riches Heures), take a close look at the two people warming themselves in front of the fire.

The man and woman are not wearing underwear, and they are doing something that would be considered perverted today, and possibly illegal. They would be described as "exposing themselves". In the painting for August, and in many other paintings from centuries ago, people would swim naked in rivers, or wash themselves naked. Bathing suits, especially for children, were rare. Why were people in that era more tolerant of nudity? Was it simply because they had grown up around nudity?

There is an isolated beach in my city where some people will go to be naked. The police cannot drive to this beach, so sometimes they travel by horse to arrest some of the people who are naked. Nobody centuries ago would have been arrested for being naked in an isolated area, so why do Americans send armed adult men on horseback to arrest people in an isolated area who are simply naked?

But wait! Before you answer that question, keep in mind that while these armed men are arresting naked people at an isolated beach, there are thousands of businesses and advertising agencies that are sexually titillating both adults and children in television shows, advertisements, movies, songs, and magazines in order to sell products. Furthermore, there are businesses profiting from beauty pageants in which young girls look and behave like miniature prostitutes!

So, how do you explain our intolerance of harmless nudity but the acceptance of constant sexual titillation, some of which is bordering on child pornography?

But wait! Before you answer that question, consider that we allow obnoxious toilet humor on television, movies, advertisements, and artwork.

Have you seen this artwork of Jesus that was put in a church in Oklahoma? How about the "Suri Cruise Bronzed Poop"?		How about this CNET news article about Stephen Hawking's ideas on aliens? Is that your idea of selecting a photo that fits the article?		The toilet humor in children's cartoons is often explained as due to sloppy drawings, such as this Bugs Bunny scene, or this priest in The Little Mermaid.

So, now how do you explain our sexual attitudes?

But wait! Before you answer that question, consider that we allow "subliminal messages" in advertisements and cartoons (this video shows some). It doesn't matter whether subliminal messages are actually altering our attitudes. The issue we should think about is: Why do we tolerate people who are trying to manipulate us with subliminal messages?

So, now how do you explain our sexual attitudes?

But wait! Before you answer that question, consider how we ignore all of the evidence that Congressman Barney Frank and other influential men are routinely raping orphan boys all throughout America and Europe, and some men are purchasing children as sex slaves. And nobody seems to care that Josef Fritzl may have been just one of many members of a pedophilia network. Some people complain about the molesting of children in the Catholic Church, but they seem more interested in profiting from it than in stopping it.

So, now how do you explain our intolerance of harmless nudity and our acceptance of manipulation, abuse, constant sexual titillation, borderline child pornography, toilet humor, raping of children, and sex slaves? When I was a teenager, it seemed to me that our attitudes were backwards. What about you? Who do you think should the police arrest?

a) The naked people at isolated beaches.
b) The people in our media, government, schools, advertising agencies, churches, and businesses who produce or promote toilet humor, or who use sexual titillation or subliminal messages to manipulate us, or who are involved with pedophilia or sex slavery.

 

Years ago I was riding a bicycle on a hot summer day, and the bike path passed by a small river, and some areas were deep enough to go swimming. I was getting so hot that I couldn't resist the desire to jump in the water, but I didn't have a bathing suit. So I stopped near an area that was somewhat isolated, took off my clothes, and jumped in the water. When I got out I had to stand naked in the sunshine for a while in order to dry off. It's possible that somebody saw me and called the police, but the police would have arrived after I was gone.

I'm not advocating public nudity or nudist colonies. Actually, I pointed out in part 2 of my social technology articles that there are sensible reasons to prohibit nudity in buildings. However, when people are outdoors and want to go swimming in a river or lake, and if they don't have a bathing suit, what is the problem with them doing so naked?
 

I discussed the attempt by feminists to change our attitudes in Part 2 of my Dumbing Down articles so I won't repeat myself, but to summarize it, when I was a child, there was a nationwide campaign by feminists to change our attitudes. For this article, I'd like to point out something I didn't mention before, namely that we were told that women during the Victorian era (about 1837-1900) were miserable because of the extreme prudishness of the era. We were shown drawings of women at the beach completely covered in elaborate Victorian swimwear (more drawings are here). Why would anybody want to swim while dressed in such clothing?

I also remember being shocked to hear the feminists complain that Victorian women were not supposed to enjoy sex or have orgasms.

At the time, I and other children assumed that the feminists were telling us the truth, just as we assumed we were told the truth about the Nazis killing 6 million Jews. However, once you realize that people in the media and schools routinely lie to us, we should demand evidence that a significant number of women during the Victorian era were swimming in those costumes, and that women were truly trying not to enjoy sex.

Furthermore, we need to know why women were wearing those costumes at the beach. Was it because men were forcing them to do so? Or were only wealthy women wearing that elaborate clothing at the beach, and were they doing so because they wanted to?

Take a look at how women are behaving today. A lot of the cruel and idiotic things that women are doing to themselves are self-inflicted. For example, although a lot of men promote high-heeled shoes, there are also a lot of men telling the women to stop it. However, the women don't support the men who oppose these shoes; rather; they ignore our complaints and torture themselves in those shoes.

The situation is so ridiculous that women are even dancing on television while wearing high-heeled shoes. If you are a man, it might be easier for you to understand how ridiculous the situation is if you imagine yourself wearing high heeled shoes during extremely difficult physical activities. Would you tolerate it? How ridiculous does the situation have to get before women complain? What if the female gymnasts, tennis players, and swimmers were wearing high heeled shoes?

Some women also get breast implants even when their boyfriend or husband doesn't want it. Did you listen to Mel Gibson insult his ex-girlfriend for getting breast implants while she was nursing her baby?

If women had more sense, they would support the men who encourage better behavior from both men and women. Unfortunately, most men and women behave like stupid animals. A lot of the suffering that is going on in this world - by both men and women - is self-inflicted. In some cases, such as with high-heeled shoes and other clothing issues, people are doing what everybody else does. The only way Americans are going to switch to the metric system, or stop wearing high heeled shoes, or stop referring to a pair of pants as a "pair", is if we get real leaders who force these changes on the nation. The people are not going to make the changes voluntarily or willingly.

Of course, if there are people who want to implement my idea of building some completely new cities, then we can bring these changes to the new cities and ignore everybody else.

The point I want to make is that if historians were honest, and if they had access to adequate documentation, they could help us understand the Victorian era and resolve such issues as whether women were suffering from "sexism". And real historians would be valuable in helping us to decide what we want for our future.
 

In every group of animals, plants, and people, we will find that some are doing wonderful, some are on the verge of death, and most are ordinary. Therefore, when we analyze animals or humans, we have to look at a large, random sample or we will end up with a distorted view. For example, as I mentioned here in part 4 of my Dumbing Down articles, if we were to judge Ireland according to the immigrants to America about a century ago, we would assume that the primary food in Ireland was the potato, and that everybody was on the verge of starvation.

For another example, when I was a teenager I met a couple from Greece, and when I asked them why they moved to America, they said it was because there were no jobs in Greece. I visualized a Greek newspaper in which the section for employment opportunities was almost completely empty.

If the earth had been covered with video surveillance cameras for the past few thousand years, we would be able to get a very accurate understanding of human life and history. For example, we would be able to analyze everybody in Ireland during the potato famine, and that would allow us to determine who among them depended upon potatoes as their primary food. We would have noticed that some of the Irish people had plenty of food to eat because potatoes were a small part of their diet. We would also have noticed that some potato crops were doing fine. And if we were to look at Greece, we would have found that there were jobs all over the area.

Unfortunately, since we don't have video surveillance of previous generations, the only way we can determine what life was like centuries ago is to analyze what the people left behind, such as their paintings, books, music, and material items. However, we have to be careful making assumptions based on that limited information because it may not reflect all of society. One artist, for example, may paint pictures of wealthy people, whereas another artist may prefer to paint the poor people, the beggars, and the drunks. In such a case, neither of those two artists would be giving us adequate information about society. An artist would have to paint the "ordinary" people and their "ordinary" activities in order to give us a good idea of what was going on. In fact, the reason I selected that group of 12 paintings in Très Riches Heures is because they appear to be showing ordinary scenes from ordinary life.
 

Since you are reading my articles, you probably already realize that the American and European media is promoting propaganda about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and thousands of other events. And you probably realize that my opinions are available to you only because of the Internet, and that the people who dominate the world right now do not want to give me or my opinions any publicity. Even the people in the so-called 9/11 "truth movement" have become so frightened of me that they no longer give me publicity. If it were not for the Internet, you wouldn't even realize that I existed. Instead, you would know about Kieron Williamson's ordinary - or priceless - paintings.

Keeping the value of the Internet in mind, imagine if the Americans had gone into a wild frenzy after the 9/11 attack and inadvertently triggered a world war that caused so much destruction that the world reverted to a primitive existence, similar to the Middle Ages. In such a case, centuries from now, historians would try to figure out what happened by looking at the information we had left behind in newspapers, television, and history books. It should be obvious that they would end up with an incredibly distorted view of life in our era. For example, they would come to the conclusion that the Nazis had killed 6 million Jews, and that the Muslims were terrorizing Europe and America, and that most intelligent scientists were convinced that humans were causing the planet to become warmer, and that the solution was to impose carbon taxes. They would also believe that we had put men on the moon six different times, and that Al Gore and Barack Obama won the Nobel prizes because they were two of the most intelligent men of our era.

Those future historians would eventually figure out that we lied about the Apollo moon landing, but it's possible that there wouldn't be enough information available for them to figure out who was truly responsible for 9/11, or that the Jews were lying about the Holocaust.
 

The Internet is allowing me to circumvent the censorship around the world, and this brings up some very important issues:

1) Why should we trust any historical document?

There may be millions of news reporters, history professors, government officials, scientists, and other people lying to us right now about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and global warming. It doesn't matter whether those people are lying because they want to or because they're afraid to tell the truth. The lying is so extreme and so extensive that we ought to wonder, how many years has this disgusting behavior been occurring? Were the news reports, history books, and other documents that were created in America around the 1700s also full of lies and propaganda? Were people during the Middle Ages also putting propaganda into their documents?

There are official documents from government agencies, universities, and scientists that prove that that Nazis killed 6 million Jews, and that astronauts landed on the moon. Since we cannot believe the official documents of the past few decades, why should we believe the official documents that were created centuries ago? Is there any propaganda in the ancient Greek and Roman documents? What about the hieroglyphics that the Egyptians left behind?

I suspect that the propaganda increased by a significant amount once the Zionist movement became officially established in 1897, but organized crime networks have been in existence in many nations for centuries, and individual people have been lying ever since people have existed. Therefore, the best policy to follow is to be suspicious of all documents and try to verify all information.

This concept also applies to the documents from churches. The Catholic Church, the Mormon church, and other churches are doing absolutely nothing to expose the lies about 9/11, the Holocaust, etc., and many churches are involved with pedophilia, or the making of money. We have to consider that this type of disgusting behavior has been going on with churches for centuries. Furthermore, it's possible that the early churches were even more disgusting than they are today because centuries ago it was difficult for people to see what was actually going on in the churches. Therefore, the churches may have been even more of a refuge for freaks than they are today.

2) How many people have been suppressed and murdered?

The entire world is under attack by a network of freaks, most of whom refer to themselves as "Jews". As with all criminals, and they cannot beat us in fair competition, except perhaps in a few areas, such as boxing, and possibly some areas of math. Their methods for achieving success is to murder their competitors, or marry people who are successful, or suppress us in some other manner, such as kidnappings, blackmail, and damaging our bodies (such as breaking the legs of athletes). It makes me wonder how many people have already become one of their victims. How many wonderful people have they killed, kidnapped, or suppressed? How much damage have these disgusting criminals done to the human race? What would life be like today if our ancestors hadn't been so tolerant of crime, monarchies, and nepotism?
 

An ordinary person will never win the Olympics, or be elected to a government office, or do anything unusual. He will live a very ordinary life. If a person achieves something that's unusual, his achievement is proof that there is something unusual about him. 

This concept may seem obvious, but the American people don't seem to understand it. For example, the attitude in America is that "ordinary" people are capable of becoming president because we have a fair and honest democracy. However this concept doesn't make sense. The idea that an ordinary person can become president is as idiotic as the idea that an ordinary person can win the Olympics, or that an ordinary person will be among the best carpenters.

After Ronald Reagan was elected president, I heard some Americans boast that Reagan was proof that ordinary people can become president of America. However, Reagan was not ordinary. There is evidence that he was assisted by the gigantic crime network of Jews who were trying to get the Bush family into the presidency, but George Bush didn't appeal to enough voters, so they used Reagan to attract people's attention. Reagan was a puppet of a gigantic crime network, not an "ordinary" person.

An ordinary person will never get into a top leadership position. Ordinary people live ordinary lives. It's one of the rules of life that you can't beat. The leaders of a nation will always be "unusual" people. They will be ordinary in some qualities, but there is something unusual about them. Ideally they are unusually good at leadership, but during the past few centuries it seems as if most (or all?) of the men who have risen to the top in society have achieved their success because they are puppets of a crime network, or because they inherited their position, or because they excelled at manipulating, frightening, intimidating, bribing, murdering, lying, or deceiving.

Our natural tendency is to assume that the leaders of an organization are better than their members, and this was certainly true during prehistoric times. However, the people who are getting control of nations today, and who are getting control of churches, charities, think tanks, and schools, are not desirable people. They seem to be involved with crime networks. They also seem to have extreme cravings for fame, material items, and pampering by servants. Therefore, we have to be careful judging an organization according to the behavior of the people in leadership positions.

The Catholic Church might be a simple example to explain this concept. The Catholic church officials are not "ordinary" men. There is something unusual about them. First of all, they are religious fanatics, and secondly, they are much more involved with homosexuality and pedophilia than the members of the church. Therefore, the church officials do not represent the members of the church, so we cannot understand the lives of the members by looking at the behavior, friends, or relationships of the church officials.

Consider how this concept applies to the feminist movement. For example, the feminists claim that women were miserable during the Victorian era, and that they weren't allowed to enjoy sex, but I suspect that if there had been video surveillance in everybody's bedroom, we would discover that most women were living the same type of life as their ancestors. I think the strange sexual attitudes of the Victorian era were coming from the weird people in leadership positions, not the ordinary people.

It's possible that the reason the Victorian era developed an image of prudishness and of women who never enjoyed sex is because the men who rose to top leadership positions during that era may have been very strange. For example, some of them may have been too selfish or neurotic to satisfy a woman sexually, and some men may have selected a woman according to the political benefit her family provided him, in which case there may not have been any affection between them.

Furthermore, according to Kay Griggs, a lot of our top military leaders are homosexual, and they get married in order to create the illusion that they are heterosexual. This idiotic situation may have occurred during the Victorian era, also. In such a case, some of the women may have been married to homosexuals, and the women may not have realized it! The homosexual men may have hid their homosexuality by promoting the theory that women shouldn't enjoy sex or have orgasms. If that seems like a crazy possibility, consider that the Catholic Church promotes the attitude that church officials should never get married. I suspect that they created that rule simply to hide their homosexuality and keep the heterosexual men out of the church.

For another example of this concept, Barney Frank is a congressman from Massachusetts, but we wouldn't be able to understand the lives of the people in Massachusetts by looking at his life and relationships.

The point I'm trying to make is that when the feminists complain about the Victorian era, or the Puritans, or any other group of men that seems abusive to women, we have to keep in mind that those men may be a very small group of very weird men.
 

Some aspects of the feminist movement appealed to me as a child, such as the concept of girls becoming more sexually active. However, as I grew up I began to notice that the feminist attitudes were idiotic and unrealistic. For example, I eventually encountered women who were raped, or who weren't 100% certain who the father of their child was, and I noticed that they really were the low quality women. From my own casual observations, most of the women who have been raped were raped by men that they associated with. The reason for this is very simple. People tend to associate with people that they have something in common with. Women with mental disorders tend to associate with men who have mental disorders, and then the two of them have strange relationships. Also, women with mental disorders often do annoying things that cause men to lose their temper.

If America had been dominated by people like me, the feminist philosophy would have ended long ago. As I mentioned in my audio file for 14 December 2008, Sweden also went through a dramatic sexual revolution when I was a child. Why is Sweden continuing to promote this philosophy? Obviously, people like me do not dominate Sweden, either. So, what kind of people are in control of our world?
 

I was most "sensitive" to sexual issues somewhere between the ages of 10 and 14. At that time I was easily embarrassed by nudity and sexual issues, and I was also attracted to, and stimulated by, the sexual titillation on television and in advertisements. I also enjoyed "toilet humor", and I was impressed by the intelligent material in television shows, magazines, and newspapers. Even the advertisements seemed intelligent.

However, as I grew up, I lost my interest in toilet humor, and I became much less embarrassed by sexual issues. The constant sexual titillation became annoying, and television and other media seemed idiotic and obnoxious. I also lost my embarrassment of nudity. I was even more confused by the total lack of information about childbirth. We are allowed to observe animals give birth and nurse their babies, but we are not allowed to observe human women give birth or nurse their babies. Why not? Furthermore, we allow toilet humor about childbirth, such as this idiotic statue of Britney Spears giving birth while on her hands and knees.

The attitudes in America towards sexual issues remind me of my own attitudes during my early teenage years. At that age it would have been impossible for me to have a calm discussion about childbirth, masturbation, or any sexual issue. I would have giggled, become embarrassed, and felt extremely awkward. It seems as if the human mind, at least boys, go through some type of changes during our teenage years that makes us very sensitive to sexual issues.

By my late teenage years I was so disgusted with American society that I decided to never get a television set, or purchase magazines or newspapers. I wanted to avoid American society, not become a member of it. It felt to me as if the people who dominate America were at the emotional level of a child; as if they had never completely matured. They reminded me of the time when somebody in my family put a cocoon in a jar so that we could watch it transform into a butterfly, but one of its wings didn't properly develop. I wasn't sure if we had damaged the cocoon in the process of picking it and putting it into a jar, or if it was defective for some other reason. Regardless, the men who dominated America reminded me of that butterfly that didn't completely mature. We are dominated by men who have the bodies of an adult, but they have the emotional attitudes of a teenage boy.
 

I think our sexual attitudes should be reversed. I would get rid of the toilet humor and the sexual titillation, and I would allow people to swim naked at beaches and rivers. I don't have any problem with nudity. Also, I don't consider naked children to be sexually appealing. I think young girls are more appealing when they are dressed as miniature prostitutes, and especially when their photo has been edited, as this one has. These visual images fool my mind into thinking that I'm looking at a young, beautiful woman rather than a little girl who has been dressed like a prostitute and then edited to appear even more beautiful.

Sure, the edited photo of that little girl is attractive, but who among us wants this kind of deception and manipulation? Why should we allow businesses to profit from this type of photo editing? I think we should stop this abuse, but, obviously, people like me don't dominate America. So, what kind of people dominate America? What kind of people will complain about somebody who is naked at an isolated beach while enjoying toilet humor and constant sexual titillation? That particular attitude reminds me of when I was 12 to 14 years old.

If we were to reverse our sexual policies and allow nudity at beaches and rivers, there would probably be a lot of incidents in which men have trouble controlling themselves around the naked people. Children might complain that they are being stared at, or touched, and women might complain that men are brushing up against them or making lewd remarks. Most people would react to the abuse by wanting to bring back the policy of prohibiting nudity, but as I mentioned in part 2 of my social technology articles in which I complain about providing separate beaches or trains for women, we shouldn't change society to fit the badly behaved people. Rather, we should design society for the high quality people, and remove the people who can't fit in.
 

If we had a database that had details of everybody's lives, we would be able to determine how similar we are to one another. For example, how many people besides me have tried to design their own clothing? Is that unusual or typical?

For another example, when my mother was teaching me how to use a toilet, I was confused as to why there were so many pieces to it. There are actually just a few pieces; namely, a bowl, a seat, and a lid, but to my little mind, it seemed like a lot of pieces because I couldn't understand the purpose of the lid or the seat. I was wondering why we don't remove those apparently unnecessary pieces and sit directly on the porcelain bowl.

I wondered about the purpose of those pieces for months, maybe years, before one day I became so independent that I decided to find out if they are really necessary. I decided to sit directly on the porcelain bowl, and if everything went fine, then I would proudly announce to my mother that we don't need those plastic pieces. However, as soon as my skin touched the porcelain, I jumped up and understood the purpose of the plastic seat. Do I need to tell you that the porcelain is very cold, and that it is not shaped to fit our body, so the edges are uncomfortable? Or did you and most other children also do this same experiment?
 

One silly project I did as a teenager that I don't think many other people have done is when I became fascinated with gas turbines and jet engines. I wanted to build my own jet engine. However, I didn't have the slightest idea how to design the curvy turbine blades, and there was no possible way I could have manufactured such a thing even if somebody gave me the blueprints, but I was so fascinated that I decided to make a simple centrifugal fan (like the black fan in the photo below) by cutting the pieces from a steel, Almond Roca can and welding the pieces together.

Since I knew that I couldn't possibly create a fan that had any value, I didn't want to waste too much of my time, so I didn't bother trying to draw anything on paper, or even measure any of the components. I wouldn't have known what to draw or measure anyway. And I wouldn't have known how to do the math that was necessary to design the fan. I decided to create this fan visually with an acetylene torch. I cut the bottom off the can, slit the cylindrical part of the can, and flattened it so that I had some metal to work with. My plan was to cut the parts with an acetylene torch according to what looked visually accurate, and then weld the pieces together. As I look back at this now, I can't help but laugh. It seems like a joke. But there was a reason I wanted to do it, as I'll explain later.

I started cutting blades visually according to what I thought they should look like. However, I didn't have a cutting tip that was small enough to cut such thin steel, so I used a welding tip, which creates very sloppy cuts. Droplets of steel would collect along the edges. Some droplets were larger than I was expecting, and the cuts were sloppier, also, so I could see that the fan was going to become much worse than I had imagined, but I kept going anyway.

After cutting the pieces that I wanted, I used a grinder to get rid of some of the large drops of steel, and to smooth out some of the rough edges. I didn't bother trying for perfection, however. Then I welded the pieces together. Unfortunately, I wasn't a good welder, especially not with thin steel, so it was a crummy job. But I kept going anyway. Eventually I welded all the blades together, although they didn't fit very well because each was a slightly different size and shape, and my welding was terrible. I can still faintly remember what it looked like. The Almond Roca can was pink on one side, and the torch burned the pink paint along the edges, so the components were pink on one side, bare metal on the other, and black along their edges. So the completed fan had a lot of pink.

I attached it to a 3 hp electric motor, turned it on, and was amazed at how much it vibrated. However, it didn't destroy itself. And then I tossed it in the trash.
 

You might wonder why I would bother making something that I knew would be worthless, and why I would do a sloppy job of it. One minor reason was that I've always wanted to do something when I was a teenager. I didn't want to shop, or be pampered by servants, or sit in a classroom. I wanted to make things and think about things. But the main reason I built that centrifugal fan was to get a better understanding of my mind and my thoughts. When I was a child I noticed that a lot of what I visualized in my mind was unrealistic. For example, I could visualize myself picking up a pencil and then drawing a perfect circle on a piece of paper. But when I tried to draw a circle, I could never make one accurately. Obviously, I couldn't trust my own thoughts. This was rather confusing, and a bit disappointing.

Also, as a child I had seen lots of cartoons in which the characters would cut up pieces of wood with no apparent effort, and then nail the pieces together into elaborate houses or furniture. They made it look very easy. When I got older and my dad let me use a wood saw, I was amazed at how difficult it was to make accurate cuts, and that it was much more effort than the cartoons made it appear.

There were also many times during my childhood that I discovered that some of my brilliant thoughts were ridiculous. As a teenager I was often wondering which of the ideas in my mind are realistic, and which are ridiculous. Sometimes I would do a silly experiment just to get a better understanding of my mind and my abilities.

In my mind I could easily build a jet engine all by myself, and one day I became so annoyed over the issue of whether these thoughts were realistic that I decided to put my brilliant ideas to a test by building a centrifugal fan just to find out if it was as easy as it seemed in my mind. In my mind I could pick up a torch and cut blades out of a sheet of steel with incredible precision, but is that realistic? Or is my mind completely out of touch with reality? Could I move my hands smoothly? And how long would it take to weld the blades together? In my mind I could weld the entire fan within a few minutes. And what would the welds look like?
 

These type of experiments may seem worthless, but they helped me to realize that my mind has no idea what reality is, and that I must find something to "connect" my thoughts to reality. These experiments also helped me to understand how people could believe in perpetual motion machines, and why they would believe that they were capable of turning iron into gold. These experiments also helped me to understand why millions of apparently intelligent people can believe in God, psychic abilities, devils, and witches.

The human mind was never designed to understand the universe. It was designed to look for food, sleep at night, raise children, and then die. We were not designed to analyze the universe, create jet engines, or even develop software for computers. I design software for a living, but it took years for me to get used to the stupidity of a computer and enjoy this. A lot of the jobs we do today are not "natural" to us. The type of jobs that are natural to us are searching for food, and looking for a hiding place when something frightens us. It's not natural for us to spend hours a day trying to control a stupid piece of electronic equipment.

Our mind was never designed to deal with reality. Our mind is so out of touch with the real world that we can develop theories that don't make any sense, such as, the sun is being carried around in a chariot, or that there is an alternative universe in a fifth dimension. What is a "fifth dimension"? How can a person develop a theory about "another dimension" when nobody can explain what "another dimension" is? Obviously, the human brain is nothing but an advanced monkey brain.

I often became irritated with some of the thoughts I found in my mind, so I would conduct experiments to put some of my thoughts to the test. This helped me to realize that the human mind has no inherent sense of reality. We have to learn to be critical of our thoughts and look for evidence in the real world to support our brilliant theories. These experiments also helped me to figure out what I like and dislike, and what I'm capable of, and what I'm not very good at.

However, I don't want to create the impression that I conduct risky or dangerous experiments. I did these experiments to understand myself, not to risk death or find excitement.
 

For another example of my idiotic experiments, when I was a preteen child, I wanted to fly like the Superheros in comic books and cartoons, and when I climbed trees, I wanted to jump from one branch to the next. One day I thought to myself that maybe I am actually capable of flying. I could fly in my mind... so... maybe I could do it in real life! How would I know if I don't give it a try?

I decided to try, although I didn't have much confidence, so I didn't put much effort into it. I decided to run a few steps, and then jump into the air while throwing my hands up in the air like the superheroes. As you might guess, I flew only a short distance. However, that simple experiment ended my curiosity about whether I could fly. That was one of the many simple experiments that helped me to realize that my mind is out of touch with reality, and that I have to be very careful believing the thoughts that I find inside my mind.

This might seem to be an obvious concept, but I'm not sure that many people have a good understanding of it. An example are the scientists who develop detailed theories about how the universe was created in a Big Bang, or they come up with intricate details about an animal or human based on a piece of a bone. 

And have you heard of their idiotic concept of a wormhole? Is this some type of intellectual humor? Or do some scientists actually believe in a theory that is 0% fact and 100% speculation? Stephen Hawking even claims it will affect time, and allow us to visit other universes, (or the people who claim to speak for Hawking make these stupid claims. Maybe Hawking doesn't actually speak - maybe he is another Howard Hughes or Jimmy Walter who is kept on drugs while parasitic people benefit financially and pretend that he is alive and well).
 

Different people have different interests, so they conduct different experiments. One of my brothers was more curious about foods (he is the second tallest child in the photo of my movie about Holocaust Denial Survival). For example, one day he took some snails from our backyard, let them live in cornmeal for a couple days, and then fried them and ate them. I wasn't interested, however. Another time he ate a small rattlesnake that he caught. I wasn't interested in that, either.

My final example of my personality is that during my late teenage years I was questioning the claims of cosmetic companies that we must spend a lot of time and money with hair products. I was wondering how our ancestors survived without shampoo, combs, or brushes. Animals don't use cosmetics or tools, either. So why do we need them?

I decided to stop brushing my hair and see what happens. At the time I had long hair that was touching my shoulders, and I was losing interest in society so I didn't care what people thought of me. And to speed up the experiment, I decided not to use my fingers to remove the  tangles that form. I wanted to see what would happen if I just left my hair alone, as if I was living in 10,000 BC and was too busy to worry about my hair. I didn't use any soap or shampoo on my hair, and it's possible that I even avoided getting it wet in the shower, but I can't remember the details.

After a couple weeks a small tangle had formed at the back of my head. I thought that it might continue to grow, but when I finally stopped the experiment after about six weeks, it was still about the same size. When flattened, it was about a centimeter in width and about 2 cm in length. I suppose that if I had been sleeping in the dirt and leaves like people did 20,000 years ago, it would have become larger because it would have collected dirt and twigs.

The rest of my hair remained fine. My hair never became filthy or stinky, and nothing bad happened to my scalp. My hair didn't get increasingly oily, either. It just reached a certain level. I didn't have droplets of oil coming out of my hair.

The conclusion of this experiment is that people with hair like mine only have to brush it slightly in the morning to prevent tangles. I also came to the conclusion that we should not use soaps or shampoos on our hair because the soaps remove the natural oil from our hair. The soap will create fluffy hair, which might look attractive in photographs, but dry hair is difficult to control, and it gets full of static electricity.

I think the cosmetic companies are exploiting people, especially women. Our hair doesn't need much maintenance. If you get motor oil in your hair, you need to use soap to remove it, but you can remove dust and perspiration with a quick rinse in plain water. And that will leave most of your natural oil in your hair.
 

Last night I decided to watch the ABC television show Nightline to see how they described the suspicious event that day in which James Lee took three people hostage at the Discovery Channel. They didn't have much to say about that strange incident but afterwards they had a report about head lice. The host made a remark that there is a method of preventing lice "if you can stomach it". Amy Goldreyer, who started The Hair Whisperers to remove lice, said that we can prevent lice simply by not washing our hair. She said that our natural oils make it difficult for the lice to cling to our hair. However, as she said this, she made an awful facial expression and said that it would give us "really gross hair".

This is not true! Our ancestors never washed their hair. Sometimes they rinsed their hair with water, and their hair often got wet from the rain, but they never used soap or shampoo. Animals never wash their hair, either. If your hair becomes filthy or stinky when you don't wash it, it's because you have a problem; it's not a characteristic of the human race. Every species of animal produces oils and fragrances for their hair, and every animal should smell nice to other members of their species. Likewise, every opening in your body has some way to protect itself from bacteria, insects, and other potential dangers. Your ears produce a "wax", for example, and it should have a nice fragrance.

You need to use soap to remove motor oil and certain other materials, and your crotch and hands need daily cleaning, and you need to brush your hair slightly to prevent tangles, but otherwise, our bodies don't need much maintenance. If the human race is becoming stinky and filthy, it's because we are becoming increasingly defective.
 

Incidentally, my hair got longer and longer during high school, and I discovered that the reason is because humans have a tendency to resist changes. When I was a child, my father would cut our hair very short, and when he stopped doing that, I cut my own hair. Every time I cut my hair I thought I was cutting the same amount that had grown the last time, but slowly my hair grew longer and longer.

The lesson I learned from cutting my own hair is that when something happens to us gradually, we don't notice it. But when something changes rapidly, we not only notice it, but we might resist it, even if it's harmless, and even if it's beneficial, and - the strangest of all - even if we want to do it! I wanted to cut my hair, but I had trouble cutting as much as I needed to because my mind was resisting the dramatic changes. So I ended up with long hair even though I didn't actually want it! When I left home at age 19, I decided to start over, and so I cut my hair very short, and then I kept it under control after that.

I would describe myself as a misfit in America because I don't like this nation's attitude. When I was a teenager, I often assumed that there's something wrong with me, but today I think that there are a lot of people like me around the world, and that the reason we feel like misfits is because the world is becoming dominated by a crude group of people. Those crude people were the misfits centuries earlier, but now they dominate, so people like me are the misfits today.

I would explain the sexual revolution that occurred in America as a change in the type of people who were dominating society. Specifically, decades ago people like me had a lot of influence over America, and they created a certain standard of morality. At that time the women who were raped, and the men who were doing the rape, didn't like being treated as freaks. Eventually those freaks were in such large numbers and getting so much control over the government and media that they began imposing their standards of morality on the nation. They began reversing attitudes and encouraging everybody to have more casual sex, and to stop being ashamed of themselves for getting raped, or being a rapist, or picking up a venereal disease.

When people like me dominate society, the crude people feel oppressed. From their point of view, people like me are prudish, stifling, and oppressive. They react to people like me by hiding their activities and fantasizing about becoming free of the abusive aristocrats who prevent them from enjoying life. They consider themselves fighting for freedom and happiness.

When the situation reverses and the freaks become the dominant group in society, then they impose their crude attitudes on us, and people like me become the misfits who feel oppressed, and we fantasize about liberating ourselves. From my point of view, they don't provide us with sexual freedom. Rather, they are neurotic, abusive, selfish, and crude.
 

A society is "oppressive" only if you want to do something that society doesn't want you to do. We don't like being forced to control our desires. Conversely, you will consider a society to be providing you with freedom if you can behave as you naturally want to behave.

From the point of view of many of our government officials, school officials, sheriffs, district attorneys, lawyers, and business executives, freedom is being able to purchase children and use them as sex slaves, or - as with Josef Fritzl - using your own children as sex toys. To the people who enjoy drugs, freedom is being able to use drugs. To the men who want to follow the "buyer beware" policy, freedom is being allowed to openly carry guns in society and have fistfights and shootings in public. To the people who want to have sex with animals, freedom is being able to do that without being arrested or ridiculed.

I don't think America provides me with the type of freedom that I want. I want the freedom to walk anywhere in my city without worrying about the people I live among. I want the freedom to trust the people that I live with. I don't want to live in fear of them. I want the freedom to walk away from my house without locking the doors, and without worrying about somebody vandalizing or stealing my items. I don't want to follow the "buyer beware" philosophy. I want the freedom to purchase products without fear that I'm going to be cheated. If I had children, I would want to have the freedom to let them wander around the city by themselves. I don't want to be a bodyguard for my children. When I get on an airplane, I want to be able to trust the mechanics who maintain the airplane. When I go to a dentist, I want to trust him and his abilities.

Everybody makes mistakes, so I'm tolerant of mistakes, but I don't want to live around people who deliberately cause trouble. I want them exiled or killed. But I am forced by society to tolerate the abuse by destructive people. I am oppressed. I want the freedom to exile or kill criminals. I hate living in fear of my own government officials, lawyers, businessmen, and history teachers. I want to live among people I can trust and respect. What about you? What is freedom to you?
 

When I was a child, I assumed that the different races of people were just different shapes and colors of the same human, and that the people who were causing trouble were genetically defective, or suffering brain damage as a result of accidents, strokes, or disease.

However, I now suspect that there are some significant and incompatible differences between the different races of people. In such a case, it would be impossible to mix all of the different races together in one society. Instead, we would have to allow different races to have different nations or cities.

If it turns out that some people really are a more primitive race, then they will never fit in with us modern humans. Those primitive races would need their own nations. They would then be able to openly carry guns for protection and follow the "buyer beware" philosophy. They could tell fart jokes without embarrassment and show beastiality on television. NAMBLA could be a respectable social club, and Barney Frank could host a television game show in which the grand prize is a vacation at an orphanage.
I think the "melting pot" philosophy in which all of the different races coexist peacefully, is unrealistic, and besides, what is wrong with different nations having different "social technology" (ie, culture)?
Imagine a society in which there is a particular race of Indians who have a particular style of food, clothing, rules for marriage and dating, and architecture. How would your life be harmed by those people dressing in a different style than you? How would your life be harmed by those people eating a different style of food? As long as every society cooperates with the others, there is no problem if we are different. We don't have to force everybody to wear the same style of clothing or eat the same foods.

The people who are causing trouble in this world are those who are committing crimes, starting wars, blackmailing people, or being parasitic. Therefore, our concern should be removing the destructive and parasitic people and creating a world in which the people cooperate with each other and contribute to the human race. We don't need to force everybody to be identical.

Every society should be under pressure to use the same system for measurements, calendars, and numbers, and ideally we would all be able to speak one common language, but we don't need to force all people to follow the same culture. In fact, I think it would make the world much more interesting if different societies had different architecture, clothing, food, etc. Therefore, rather than pressure the Japanese, Indians, Chinese, etc., to dress and behave like us, we should tell them to do as they please.

Another fascinating aspect of those 12 paintings of the month  in Très Riches Heures is that they show castles that are amazingly decorative, at least considering that the architects and construction workers of that era had very crude technology. As you look at the the following castles, ask yourself, "What would these people have built if they had access to modern materials and technology? Would they have made even more decorative structures? Or would they have preferred to make the rectangular buildings that are popular today, such as the World Trade Center towers?"

I doubt if any of the men who painted pictures centuries ago were anticipating people in the future analyzing their paintings in order to understand their attitudes and lives. Therefore, I don't think any of them were concerned about accuracy. This in turn means we have to be careful making assumptions based on their paintings.

However, hopefully you can understand one of the main points of this article, which is that history should be a serious scientific field to help us understand our culture and make decisions about how to improve the world. If we had no understanding of history at all, we would never realize that the "brilliant" crime prevention policies that we follow today are the same policies that have been failing for thousands of years all over the world. History can show us that each generation tends to behave in the same manner as previous generations. We're not learning much from the mistakes of the past.

The other main point of this article is that the more documentation we have on human life, the better of an analysis we can do. We should not consider documentation to be an invasion of our privacy. Rather, video, medical records, and other information about us should be regarded as valuable data about the human race. We have a few paintings from the Middle Ages, but certainly you can understand how much more useful it would be to have complete video coverage of the Middle Ages.

Have you seen the claim that a DNA analysis shows that Hitler had some Jewish ancestors? If the human race had been under total video surveillance for the past few centuries, we would be able to determine exactly who Hitler's parents were, and who their parents were. We would also be able to determine how many Jews were killed at the Nazi prison camps, and which Jews were killed, and why those particular Jews were selected for death, and who selected them to be put into the prison camps.

Video documentation of the human race is incredibly valuable for helping us to understand ourselves. You might be embarrassed to have some information about you available in a database, but that information will not ruin your life.

Most of the people who are involved with the 9/11 attack, the world wars, etc., may refer to themselves as "Jews", but this network might not be just one race. It may consist of several different races. So until we have a more accurate understanding of exactly who these creatures are, I'll sometimes refer to them as Reptilians. 

The issue I'd like to bring to your attention now is that these creatures have ancestors, and we ought to wonder where their ancestors were living a few centuries ago. Were some of them living in Europe? And if so, what influence did they have on Europe?

Take a look at how the Reptilians are behaving today. They start wars, instigate fights between different groups of people, and are involved with pornography, charities, religions, banking, and the media. Were they behaving in a better manner, or the same manner, or a worse manner during the Middle Ages?

If we had complete video surveillance of that era, we might discover that the Reptilians were the primary group responsible for the fights between the different cities. They may have been the primary group of people promoting the concept of Kings and Queens, and the concept of allowing people to inherit their position in life rather than earning it in a fair manner.

And consider the issue of the knights. Long ago, before the Internet, but I don't remember when, I read in a book that the people during the Middle Ages were shorter and stockier than people today, and the author based this assumption on the suits of armor. However, I don't think it's possible to judge the men of the Middle Ages by looking at the armor. It was extremely difficult to make armor in the Middle Ages, so nobody would have made armor for a man who is skinny, or even ordinary. The only men who would've been provided with armor were those who were unusually strong. Furthermore, there would be no sense making armor for a man who wasn't interested in becoming a knight and fighting. Those men would not have been a random sample of the population.

The author of that book assumed that people during the Middle Ages were short and stocky because of bad nutrition or because life was physically difficult, and it's possible that all people were shorter during the Middle Ages. However, if we look around the world today, we can see that there are lots of short, stocky men, and we can't blame it on bad nutrition or physical hardships because they are in the same environment as the rest of us.

Therefore, we ought to consider the possibility that the short, stocky men of today and during the Middle Ages inherited certain genetic qualities from some primitive race of human. The Knights of the Middle Ages, and possibly a lot of the Kings and Queens, may have been a different race than the better behaved Europeans.
 

Historians, artists, and other people who describe the Middle Ages create the impression that there was just one style of life in Europe during the Middle Ages, but I'm sure that if there had been complete video documentation of Europe, we would discover that life was different everywhere.

Some cities may have had reasonably respectable leadership, and there may not have been much fighting between cities in that area, and if there were knights in those cities, they may have been the type of men who become policemen today. However, there may have been some areas of Europe that were dominated by crude people, and the knights in those areas may have been more like assassins of an organized crime network.

If we had complete video documentation of Europe, we might find that the areas that had the most fighting, religion, rape, crime, and other problems were the areas dominated by the crude races. We might also find that some of the crude races were native to the area, and others had migrated from Asia.
 

I wouldn't be surprised if attitudes towards nudity were inadvertently altered by the Reptilians. There are several possible reasons as to how crude people could have altered attitudes towards nudity.

A lot of Reptilians have slanted foreheads, and their neck slants forward, giving them a different posture. It's possible that if we could see everybody naked, we would notice other differences between us. For example, perhaps their bodies have more hair, or perhaps their women don't have the same type of figure as our women. And perhaps they don't smell as good.

During the Middle Ages, the Reptilians may have been insulted for their bad posture, and they may have had trouble attracting a spouse because people didn't like their bodies. If so, the Reptilians would have reacted by encouraging everybody to wear clothing.

Imagine if nudity were common at public beaches and you saw an adult man becoming sexually aroused near children, especially young boys. I don't know if the Reptilians have this problem, but if they do, then they would want to promote clothing at beaches so that nobody noticed that they were getting sexually aroused around children, or in other, inappropriate situations.

A third possible reason as to how crude people may have inadvertently influenced attitudes towards nudity is that society may have become disgusted with their lewd comments, their staring at naked bodies, and their brushing up against people. Take a look at how the Reptilians behave today, such as their toilet humor, and their lewd, sexual remarks.

Society may have reacted to their crude behavior by promoting clothing. We could refer to this as the "Burqa Response". People in the Middle East responded to lewd behavior by telling the women to cover themselves. In Japan there are some special trains for women, and in Italy there is a special beach for women. Unfortunately, these are not solutions to the problem. The solution is to remove the men who can't cope with modern life. 

Surveillance cameras should be considered as serious, scientific, data collection devices. If there had been video surveillance of the planet for the past few thousand years, and if the video coverage was so extensive that we even had video cameras inside homes and bedrooms, it would be incredibly useful for us in understanding the intimate details of human behavior, such as sexual behavior.

We would be able to figure out what percentage of every society is homosexual, how many of the homosexuals are really homosexual and how many are actually heterosexuals who are lonely, and how many people were just temporarily experimenting with homosexual sex and eventually decided they didn't like it. If nobody realized that they were being watched by video cameras, we would also be able to see how many young boys were raped, and whether this problem occurs more often in certain churches or among certain races of people.

Some people have claimed that when a society is having financial or other problems, religion becomes more popular among the people. I don't know if they are correct, but if we had complete video documentation of the human race, we might find that during those times of trouble, there is also an increase in the number of pets, and that the people form closer relationships with their pets. We might also find that there is an increase in sex, including homosexual sex between heterosexual people.

We might also discover that homosexuality increases when certain types of pollution increase. We might also discover that certain races of people produce more homosexuals than others.

I could give you lots of other examples of the value of video surveillance but I give you one final example that you may not have considered. Specifically, I suspect that we would discover that when different races interbreed, there is a period during which they produce a lot of genetic variety. Some of their children will be an improvement, but some will be weird, bizarre, neurotic, and retarded. We might discover that the reason America has such an incredible variety of sexual problems, personality disorders, and medical problems is because a lot of different races are mixing together. The mixing of races increases variety, which can increase the rate of evolution, but only if the defective people are not allowed to reproduce.
 

Almost everybody would resist having video surveillance inside their homes, but it would allow us to observe how many people are coughing, sneezing, picking their nose, and having trouble sleeping. This could help us to understand disease and allergies. For example, during the first few decades of my father's life, he frequently had headaches. He eventually decided to stop drinking milk, and his headaches vanished. He had some type of bad reaction to milk, but since he didn't realize it, he suffered from headaches and irritability for decades, and this in turn may have been one of the reasons his life ended up a mess, such as getting divorced from my mother. Later he discovered some other problems he had. Unfortunately, by the time he started figuring out how to feel better, he had already ruined his life and was too old to start over.

When a person has a very severe allergy, such as a life-threatening reaction immediately after eating a peanut, then it's easy for him and other people to realize that he has a serious medical problem. However, if a person has a very mild allergy, then instead of experiencing a headache or a runny nose, he might feel a slightly unpleasant for several hours. It may never occur to him that he has a medical problem.

However, his mild allergy could change the course of his life for the worse because he would not be in his optimal mental or physical health. His problem makes him slightly more irritable, thereby affecting his social life and the decisions he makes. The problem might also reduce his ability to concentrate at school or at work, which in turn could alter his school and job opportunities. However, his problem may be so mild that he never realizes that he has a simple disorder that could be easily corrected.

Most people follow the practice of preventative maintenance with gardens and material items. For example, airline mechanics don't wait for an engine to suffer a problem; rather, they routinely inspect the engines and try to keep them in such a good shape that they never experience problems. However, we don't follow this philosophy with the human body. Schools are not teaching children to analyze themselves to determine their strengths and weaknesses, or to maintain optimum health. Our medical researchers are not interested in health, either. They are developing cosmetics, weight loss pills, and drugs for old people.
 

Judging by the stories of people who discovered after many years that they were suffering from some medical disorder, my father is apparently only one of millions of people who have suffered unnecessarily from runny noses, sneezing, headaches, digestive problems, rashes, and fatigue. I find it especially sad that common allergens are dairy products and pets, neither of which are natural or necessary aspects of human life. Ideally, our society would help children figure out what they might be allergic to, and our medical profession would help adults maintain their optimum health.

Incidentally, this drawing is at a page in which the author claims that women suffered during the Middle Ages. He boasts of being a history teacher and of having "in-depth knowledge of History", and he advertises an online college education! He is another example of why we need to raise standards for history teachers.

I wonder how many thousands or millions of people would have followed a more pleasant and more productive path in life if they had realized at an early age that they had a problem that could be corrected by altering their diet or environment. What about you? Are you in your optimum health? Have you considered the possibility that you have a minor and easily correctable problem that is preventing you from reaching your full potential?

In order to help people maintain their optimum mental and physical health, we must first understand the human mind and body. Unfortunately, we can't completely understand ourselves by studying a monkey or a tomato. We must be able to study ourselves. But we can't study ourselves if people are ashamed of themselves and hiding what they consider to be their "personal" information. In order to understand problems, we have to study the people with the problem. It doesn't do us much good to study a healthy person. Therefore, the people with problems have to stop being ashamed and let people analyze them.

People need to change their attitude. We tend to think that we are different from other people, but we all have the same physical and mental characteristics. There are only subtle differences between us. The thoughts in your mind are similar to those in other people's minds, and your body is very similar to other people's bodies. There may be some significant differences between the races, but people of a particular race are extremely similar to one another. You shouldn't think that you are unique. You shouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed about your body or your mind.
 

Most people believe that they can hide their personal life, but all you can hide are some of the details. Closing the door to your home, bedroom, or bathroom doesn't prevent us from knowing what you do inside those closed rooms because the majority of people are extremely similar to one another. We can accurately deduce what the "normal" people do because they are virtually identical to other people of their age and race. Even the small minority that is the most different is similar to the rest of us.

If there was total video surveillance of the planet Earth, it would quickly become obvious that all boys of a certain age and race behave similar to all other boys of that age and race, and all girls of a certain age and race behave similar to other girls of that age and race. There are only subtle differences between us. For example, some people have more digestive problems than others, some people eat more food; some people masturbate more than others, some people spend more time combing their hair. Even without video surveillance inside your home, we can accurately guess at what you do inside your home. You can't really hide from other people. We don't know the details, but we can accurately guess at your activities simply by looking at humans who are similar to you.

The only people who have significantly different behavior are those who are mentally defective. Furthermore, it's possible that there truly is a more primitive, crude race of humans living among us, and that their behavior is significantly different from the rest of us. Also, modern humans occasionally give birth to a child who coincidentally inherits qualities from our distant ancestors, thereby causing that child to look or behave more like a primitive savage than a modern human.

Consider Josef Fritzl. Was he mentally defective? Or did he just happen to inherit some of the crude qualities of our primitive ancestors? Or is he a member of a truly different race of people that routinely behaves like that? How many other people are behaving like him?

If there was video surveillance of the entire human race, we would be able to answer these type of questions. Collecting data about our personal lives might seem to be an invasion of our privacy, but it is similar to an airline mechanic who gathers data about engines that aren't working properly. We need information about our problems in order to figure out how to recognize the problems and maintain optimum health.

There are already wireless video cameras available to allow parents to watch their babies. The babies benefit from this surveillance. Likewise, this type of surveillance would make it easy for us to monitor a friend or family member who is sick or old. This surveillance would also be useful when we had to do a dangerous job. Data about our personal lives and our medical condition is not an invasion of our privacy. Rather, it is documentation of the human race. It is valuable scientific data. The more data we have, the more we can learn about ourselves. For example, if we had a database of everybody's lives and their medical condition, and if this database was being updated every few minutes, we would be able to look on the computer and see who is sick at any particular moment in time, and with what disease. If our body temperatures were also recorded, we could see who had a fever. This information would allow us to watch diseases as they move from one person to another. We would be able to determine if certain diseases are more common in certain areas, and what effect pollution, weather, and food has on human health.

An honest person would not suffer as a result of this type of database. The only people who would be frightened by a database of medical information are people who are trying to deceive us about their medical condition, or who are spreading diseases. For example, some people have known that they have a venereal disease, but they didn't care, and they allowed other people to pick up the disease from them. For another example, a database could help us to determine where the SARS in Toronto a few years ago came from, and we might discover that Jews have been fooling people in different nations into funding medical research programs that the Jews were secretly using to develop a disease to exterminate the Chinese people.

Would you be afraid of a database that held medical information about plants or animals? Yes... you would be frightened of such a database, if you were involved with spreading diseases among plants or animals. For example, this type of database might show us that the mysterious disease that was affecting chickens a few years ago was the result of Jews who were trying to sell their particular strain of chickens. Or perhaps the database would show us that there never really was a disease, but that the Jews were poisoning the chickens and pretending that it was a disease in order to sell their chickens.

The point I'm trying to make is that criminals are the only people who worry about databases. The rest of us benefit from them.
 

From the point of view of an individual animal, human, or plant, anything that helps their survival and reproduction is good. An individual human may benefit from rape, deception, and murder, and by hiding his problems with mental illness, bad breath, headaches, allergies, and snoring.

There is no way to prevent genetic mistakes from occurring, but if our ancestors centuries ago had been observing everybody's mental and physical characteristics and restricting reproduction to the people who are in the best mental and physical health, then through the centuries the human race would have become increasingly "better".

You might find it interesting to imagine being born in a world in which reproduction had been controlled for centuries. Imagine being born into a world in which you and everybody else is nice looking, has excellent eyesight and hearing, and has a mouth that keeps itself so clean that you don't have to brush your teeth or worry about bad breath. Imagine a world in which there are very few problems with allergies, diabetes, or headaches. Imagine a world in which almost nobody has eyeglasses, problems with obesity, or dyslexia. Imagine having a body that is nice-looking, doesn't become fatigued easily, doesn't have any joint problems, and can keep itself so clean that you don't have to spend much time washing it. Imagine your nose keeping itself so clean that you rarely have to blow your nose or pick your nose. Imagine being able to get to sleep without any trouble, sleep without snoring, and wake up in the morning without any trouble. Imagine a world in which women can give birth as easily and painlessly as animals, and imagine that human babies are better behaved than those of today.

If you had been born into such a world, you would be grateful to your ancestors for restricting reproduction, and you would look back at our era with sadness at the thought of all of the suffering, and all of the people who didn't like themselves.

We have to decide which path we want for the human race. Do we continue to allow people with problems to hide their problems and reproduce? Or do we start closely watching people and passing judgment on who should be allowed to create the next generation?

When we allow a man or woman to deceive another person into marriage and have children, we are allowing the next generation to be even more deceptive and diabolical than it is right now. When we allow a woman to raise the child of a rapist, we are allowing the next generation to have even more men with this problem, and even more women who don't care whether they are raising healthy children or more rapists.

From the point of view of an individual animal, the best policy is to do whatever helps him to survive and reproduce. It is acceptable for animals to behave in an incredibly selfish manner because nature makes the final decisions in regards to who lives and who reproduces. Today we have to pass judgment on who we want creating the next generation. If we don't care, we're going to allow the human race to degrade into diabolical, disgusting, treacherous, parasitic, dishonest, sickly, miserable freaks.

If we start controlling reproduction, we can do things that wouldn't likely happen naturally. For example, we could reduce the amount of time that adults need to sleep. A lot of people fantasize about living longer, but we could provide ourselves with more life simply by reducing the time we waste sleeping.

It's interesting to imagine how life would change if adults didn't need to sleep. Our homes and cities would be different because we wouldn't have to go home to sleep. We would have the entire night to do things, but what would we do?

As I pointed out in other files, if we were to remove the badly behaved people, our cities would be safe at night. We would be able to wander around freely without fear. We wouldn't need metal grates on our windows or security guards all over the city. And we wouldn't need bright lights to illuminate the city. Instead, the lighting at night could be decorative. Pathways could have small lights running along them, and we could use ultraviolet and colored lights for decorative purposes. We could have decorative lights in the water of swimming pools and fountains. Our cities could be beautiful at night.
 

In that Nightline television show I mentioned earlier, Amy Goldreyer made one remark that I agree with. Specifically, she pointed out that one reason lice is spreading in America today is because many parents are ashamed to let people know that their child has lice, and so they remove the lice secretly, but by keeping it a secret, other children don't realize that the child has lice, and so the lice have a chance to spread to other children.

Some people claim that they have the right to be secretive about lice, venereal diseases, tuberculosis, and even their mental illness. However, we should respond to these people by pointing out that their mental illness has an effect on other people, and so does their tuberculosis. They have no right to keep those type of secrets from us. We have a right to know if somebody living with us has a disease, or a mental illness, or lice. We have to stand up to the people who behave like stupid, selfish animals. If they can't handle the modern world, that's their problem, not ours. Don't let them intimidate you.

My point is that we have to control our emotions because we will destroy the human race if we continue to behave like selfish animals. When we allow people to reproduce who deceive, rape, cheat, sabotage, plagiarize, murder, and hide their physical and mental disorders, we allow the human race to degrade into freaks. The freaks assume that they are benefiting from their secrecy, crime, deception, and abuse, but in reality this policy allows the entire human race to degrade. Eventually the human race would reach a point of deterioration at which there aren't enough healthy people to keep the others alive.
 

If everybody who had an allergy was ashamed of himself and hiding his allergy, it would be impossible for medical researchers to do research on allergies. In order to understand allergies, the people with allergies have to do the equivalent of laying down on a table and allowing scientists to analyze their problems.

Or, for a more extreme example, imagine if the people who are left-handed were so ashamed of themselves that they never let anybody know about their problem. In such a case, we would not realize that anybody is left-handed, and every left-handed person would assume that he is the only person who has the problem.

The concept applies to homosexuals. They have to stop being ashamed of themselves and stop hiding. They need to come out in the open and tell people, "I am homosexual", or partly homosexual, or whatever they are. They have to be honest about themselves and then let scientists do an analysis. Homosexuals think that they're helping themselves by hiding, but in reality they are allowing themselves to be blackmailed. They should think of themselves the same way people who are left-handed think of themselves. They should consider themselves as different, and we should try to understand why they're different. I suspect that if homosexuals would describe their lives and their fantasies, we would discover a lot of variety, as is true of heterosexuals. Furthermore, I bet a lot of them are not even "real" homosexuals. The reason I say this is because I once met a man who was asked why he was homosexual. None of us had thought of him as homosexual. He seemed like just another weird man to me. For example, he couldn't hold a job for more than a few months.

He told us that he went to an all-male high school, where there were a lot of homosexuals. He said that after about three years he became capable of kissing another man. He also said he was disgusted at the thought of having anal sex with a man. That doesn't sound like a homosexual to me. That sounds like a lonely, confused, heterosexual with a mental disorder. I suspect that a lot of the people who call themselves "homosexuals" would be more accurately described as "mentally ill".
 

Should an organization be allowed to deny membership to somebody who is homosexual, blind, or left-handed? Should an orchestra be forced to accept deaf musicians? Should the military be forced to accept homosexuals? Should left-handed people or homosexuals be allowed to get married?

I don't think any organization should be forced to accept anybody they don't want. Forcing an organization to accept somebody is like rape. The rapist assumes that he's having a wonderful time, but if he was having such a wonderful life, he wouldn't have to rape. Likewise, when a homosexual forces a group of men to accept him as a member, he may think that he is benefiting, but he's a fool who is wasting his life. He should find a group of people who are happy to accept him.

Homosexuals may be afraid that if people are allowed to discriminate against them, that they will be isolated and alone, but that's not true. A person's ability to fit into society is affected more by their personality and talents than their sexual behavior. If a person is well behaved, honest, and contributing to society, he will have an easy time fitting in, even if he is homosexual. By comparison, a person who is angry, psychotic, or dishonest, or who tries to fondle us, or frequently makes lewd remarks, is going to have a difficult time being accepted by society regardless of his sexual tendencies.

In fact, some homosexuals are quite useful for certain types of jobs. For example, I think that "normal" men are annoying as newscasters, and especially annoying as moderators in a debate, because men try to control situations. I haven't watched many newscasters or moderators, but of the men I've seen, I think George Stephanopoulos is the best because he doesn't have the dominating, arrogant attitude of a heterosexual man, but he doesn't have the femininity of a woman, and he doesn't have the speech problems that some homosexuals have. He has a pleasant personality. Also, now that he's older, he looks like a man rather than a large boy.

I haven't paid much attention to the issue of marriage among homosexuals, but it seems as if the only reason they want to be married is for the financial benefits that businesses and society provide to a spouse. However, rather than discuss whether homosexuals should be allowed to get married, I think we need to reevaluate the concept of marriages and weddings. Why are heterosexuals getting married? Have you noticed that many young girls seem to be more focused on the wedding than on their potential husband or the responsibilities of children?

Furthermore, take a look at how much time and effort a woman will spend analyzing wedding options, and she will get assistance and advice from family members. By comparison, she picks out a husband the same way a stupid animal will pick out a mate. She doesn't put nearly the effort into analyzing potential men as she puts into analyzing wedding options, and she doesn't ask her family members to help her select a husband.

I think the problem with marriage is the same problem that we have with Christmas. Specifically, businesses and religions are trying to manipulate us in order to sell products and promote religion. We are foolishly allowing our culture to be distorted by businesses and religions. Therefore, instead of telling homosexuals to join the heterosexual victims of this exploitation and abuse, we should reevaluate our culture.

What is the purpose of having a Christmas holiday? What is the purpose of a marriage or a wedding? Do we really want the purpose of our lives to be boosting corporate profits or promoting Jesus Christ?
 

When a homosexual has trouble fitting in, it's more likely because of his personality. It's important to understand this concept because it applies to more than just homosexuals. For example, when a woman doesn't get a job, she might assume that it's because she's a woman, but it could be because the other people just didn't like her personality. I've heard some women complain that they have trouble finding a husband because men prefer stupid women!

Likewise, when a person of some minority race has trouble fitting into society, he may assume it's because the other races are discriminating against his race, but it could be simply because his personality is annoying.

My point is that homosexuals should be pleasant and try to join society rather than be angry and try to force themselves on us. They may have trouble fitting into certain organizations or jobs, but there are lots of other jobs and organizations for them. Also, for centuries they have done very well in the social and artistic areas, such as interior design, dancing, and clothing design. Their fear of rejection is ridiculous. When they try to force themselves on us, they make the situation worse by creating a conflict between us.
 

Take a serious look at your feelings. Do you really hate homosexuals? Just about everybody that I've known feels sad for homosexuals. Most people seem to regard homosexuality in the same manner that they regard allergies, Down's Syndrome, blindness, or Siamese twins. I suspect that the Jews are secretly encouraging fights between homosexuals and heterosexuals in order to exploit the homosexuals by blackmailing them. I don't think they want us to get along together peacefully. If homosexuals were accepted by society, then they couldn't be blackmailed.

Are the people in the Westboro Baptist Church truly just "ordinary" religious fanatics? Or are Jews secretly manipulating these fools?

Do you hate people who are allergic to peanuts? If the people with peanut allergies continue to file lawsuits, behave in an angry manner, and make demands that nobody be allowed to eat peanuts in restaurants, schools, airplanes, etc., then they will make people angry with them. People who have peanut allergies and other problems need to discuss their problems peacefully, not file lawsuits against us, or make idiotic accusations that we are deliberately being cruel to them. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if Jews are encouraging the lawsuits and fights over peanut allergies, also.
 

Unless George Stephanopoulos is only partially homosexual, his marriage is an example of how homosexuals are hurting themselves when they hide their problem. It is much more ridiculous for a homosexual to live a phony life than it is for me to be so ashamed of my baldness that I wear a Phil Spector wig. Or do you think I look better in Brad Pitt wig?

There are accusations that a lot of the people in Hollywood are being blackmailed over their homosexuality. All of the homosexuals should stop being ashamed of themselves, and stop allowing themselves to be blackmailed.
 

As I've pointed out in other files, everybody is responsible for his reputation. The police in Chicago have a reputation for corruption because they have been working with organized crime networks for decades. They are responsible for their bad reputation, not the people of Chicago. If the Chicago police want a better reputation, then it's up to them to start behaving in a more honest, responsible manner.

Likewise, the image that we have of homosexuals comes from the homosexuals that we meet. If the best behaved homosexuals remain quiet and hidden, we don't see them. If the only homosexuals that we know about are those who make lewd comments to us, touch us, or get publicity after being arrested for raping young boys, then we develop the image that homosexuals are annoying and disgusting creatures.

The same concept applies to black people. When I was a child, the most famous black man was Bill Cosby, and he was giving black people a very pleasant image. Diana Ross was also giving black people a nice image. But those people have been shoved aside, and today the black people we see on television are those who can't speak properly, are violent, have insane cravings for money or jewelry, or have weird personalities. Furthermore, I think the Jews are secretly encouraging black people to speak a distorted variation of English, such as Ebonics, in order to give black people a bad image. The respectable black people should complain that those freaks that appear on television do not represent black people.

The clothing worn during the 1400s while farming or hunting was very simple, but in the drawing below, for the month of April, a couple are exchanging rings, perhaps for some type of engagement or wedding ceremony, and their clothing is amazingly decorative and colorful when you consider how crude their technology was. However, the point I want to make is that the wealthy men of that era wore decorative clothing; it wasn't just the women.

The feminists complain that men and women should become more unisex. An interesting aspect of this complaint is that the paintings of centuries ago show that clothing styles were more unisex centuries ago when sexism was supposedly rampant. During the 1400s and earlier, both men and women often wore unisex dresses and skirts! Furthermore, the clothing of wealthy men was almost equally as colorful and decorative as the women's clothing. For example, the man and woman to the right are from a painting that I mention in Part_1 of my Dumbing Down articles. It was painted in 1597 (click it for a larger photo). Pants were still rare in that era, but buttons had become more common. However, both men and women were wearing decorative clothing.

Why has clothing for wealthy men become bland?

I discussed clothing quite a bit in Part 1 of my Dumbing Down articles, so I won't repeat myself. In this article I want to bring up the question of why the wealthy men prefer a bland style of suit and tie that restricts movement of their arms so much that they resemble penguins.

The "ordinary" men wear clothing that is sensible, but I think that many of the younger people today are wearing clothing that is absurd or disgusting. For example, we have the ability to create clothing that fits properly, but some young men are deliberately wearing pants and shoes that don't fit properly. Another example is that we have the ability to create high quality pants, but some companies are creating a style of pants that they refer to as "distressed". There are also websites that explain how we can convert high quality pants into distressed pants.
 

Our ancestors were capable of creating distressed clothing. Actually, it was much easier for them to make distressed clothing because they didn't have to first make high-quality clothing and then ruin it. All they had to do was make some cloth in a quick, sloppy manner, and then sew the cloth together in a quick, sloppy manner. Actually, they probably made the equivalent of distressed clothing once in a while simply because they were in a rush. However, I doubt if they deliberately created sloppy clothing as a "style" of clothing. Some questions to think about are:

• Is distressed clothing new in human life because nobody had conceived of the concept until recently? Would our ancestors have created distressed clothing if they had though of the idea? I don't think so. So why are we creating this sloppy style today?
• In regards to the children today who wear pants and shoes that don't fit, our ancestors were capable of wearing clothing that didn't fit properly, so why didn't they?

Take a look at the people who prefer sloppy clothing. Are they your idea of happy people? The people who prefer sloppy clothing seem to be the misfits of society. As I mentioned in this article about childhood, when people are miserable, they often try to create a life for themselves that is completely different from what they grew up with, such as wearing different clothes, using slightly different expressions in their conversations, and trying to avoid contact with us. They want to separate (or isolate) themselves from us.
 

I think the reason men in leadership positions today are wearing virtually the same bland, impractical style of suit and tie is because we are slowly being dominated by a crude group of men who are more like primitive savages.

I think the reason these men are attracted to the suit and tie is because they want to impress, intimidate, frighten, and manipulate us. As I pointed out in my article about the Desperate Reptilians, a con artist is most successful when he can talk to us in person. I don't think it's a coincidence that the suit and tie is comfortable only when a man is standing upright and not using his arms very much. I think this style of clothing was designed for a man who is standing in front of us and talking to us. It was never designed for men who do real work.

Furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that this style doesn't have any type of colors or decorations. Rather, I think it was designed this way because the human mind is most intimidated by dark colors and sharp angles. A man appears to be much friendlier when he is wearing colorful and decorative clothing.

To summarize this, I think the suit and tie was not designed to be practical, decorative, or attractive. Rather, it was designed to assist these crude, selfish, violent, savage men in their attempts to intimidate, impress, frighten, and manipulate us.
 

When a group of men (or women or children) wear the exact same style of clothing, it becomes a uniform, and that makes the men appear to be an organization. If the uniform is designed with the type of colors and patterns that our emotions consider frightening or intimidating, then we are more likely to seriously listen to whoever is in the uniform. Therefore, it makes sense to provide the police and military with uniforms that cause people to treat them as authorities. At the other extreme, if men are dressed in uniforms that our emotions find amusing, such as clown suits, then our emotions will expect them to be amusing or friendly.

Uniforms are sensible to only certain groups of people. Sports teams benefit from uniforms because it allows both us and them to distinguish between the teams, and uniforms help in retail businesses because it identifies customers from employees. However, I don't see any sensible reason for every business executive on the entire planet wear the exact same style of suit and tie. Why are businessmen in Japan wearing exactly the same clothing as the businessmen in America? Why are the businessmen of General Motors wearing exactly the same clothing as the businessmen of the Ford Motor Company? This is equivalent to every football team on the entire planet wearing the same uniform, or every branch of every military service on the entire planet wearing the same uniform.

The inability to move your arm in that style of jacket, and the lack of colors, decorations, and variety is stunning; it is shocking, it is significant. I think the reason businessmen wear these suits is because the type of men who are dominating the world today are primitive savages who get together in groups to fight and cheat other businesses. They are waging economic warfare; they are not competing in a fair manner. Their personality causes them to prefer an intimidating uniform. They don't want clothing that is practical or decorative. They want to fight, cheat, kill, and sabotage.

When a group of men wear colorful, decorative clothing of different styles, they appear to be individual men rather than members of a team, and they appear friendly as opposed to frightening or intimidating. For example, the painting for January shows a feast (the main portion of the painting is below).

Today we have the technology to produce a much wider variety of styles, colors, patterns, and decorations, so it's possible for a group of men today to wear even more variety than in that painting from 1412. Imagine being invited to a meeting of corporate executives and finding the men dressed like that. They would appear friendly rather than intimidating, and as individuals rather than team members.

A businessman should be a leader. His success should be the result of his intelligent research and analyses and the guidance that he provides. A man should not become successful in business because he intimidates, frightens, murders, blackmails, or uses other diabolical tactics.
 

It's important to notice that the police and military have different styles of uniforms for different jobs, and they change their styles according to the weather. For example, a policeman who rides a motorcycle has a slightly different uniform compared to a policeman who drives a car. A military pilot has a slightly different uniform than the mechanic who repairs his airplane. The military and police also have different uniforms for different climates and terrain. Furthermore, note that the men in our police and military force change their clothing when they are off duty. If you invite a policeman or a Navy sailor to your wedding, or to your house for dinner, they don't come dressed in their work uniform, unless they don't have time to change. By comparison, the wealthy men who dominate society today wear the exact same suit and tie regardless of the social affair, with only a few exceptions, such as when they are swimming or playing golf.

We don't have leaders; we have predators

The men who dominate society today don't think for themselves, and they don't provide guidance to anybody. I have never heard any business executive, government official, or school official say something intelligent about life. There are more intelligent opinions coming from what we would describe as "ordinary" people.

I think we have become dominated by a more crude, savage group of men. I think they have achieved their positions through diabolical tactics, such as marrying people according to the political and financial benefits, murder, intimidation, blackmail, inheritances, brown nosing, and crime. They fight and cheat rather than compete. They are aggressive, dishonest, violent, crude creatures. They are predators who are trying to get control of us and eliminate their competition. There may be some businessmen who are respectable, but the businessmen who dominate the financial markets, the media, and many other areas remind me of packs of hyenas and crime gangs.

This would also explain why salaries for business executives have been rising to absurd levels during the past few decades. Businessmen today demand phenomenal amounts of money. How can we explain their intense cravings for material wealth? How can we explain a man who wants a house that is so large that he can't even use more than a fraction of it? How do we explain a man who has more cars or yachts than he can possibly use?
 

What would you think if a policeman, dentist, carpenter, factory worker, or salesclerk had such an intense craving for money that he became involved with crime networks and became so wealthy that his primary house had 100 rooms, and he also had several yachts, a few other houses scattered around the world, and several dozen automobiles? Wouldn't you consider his cravings for material items to be so excessive that it was a sign of serious mental illness?

There are people all over the world who are not happy making an ordinary income, and so they are committing crimes in order to make more money than they can make in an honest manner. When we catch an "ordinary" person committing a crime, we are disgusted with him. By comparison, when a businessman is caught cheating on a much larger scale, many people admire him for being clever. For example, George Soros is living in America because the French wanted to arrest him. Americans give him sanctuary. Would we give sanctuary to an ordinary French car thief or burglar? We are not merely tolerating abuse by businessmen, we are protecting the freaks! American policemen should not be protecting the criminals of other nations, and they definitely should not risk their lives to protect criminals.

 

I seriously think that you should consider that many of our business leaders, school officials, and government officials are a more crude, predatory race of people. Not only would this explain their disgusting behavior, but it would explain why so many of them have the physical appearance of a Neanderthal, and why so many of them have trouble pronouncing words properly.

When I was a teenager, I saw a brochure from a corporation that had a page of photos of its top executives. As I was looking at their photos, I was thinking to myself that if I didn't realize I was looking at business executives, I would have thought I was looking at mug shots of retarded criminals. Since I'm not attracted to men, I think most men -including myself - are somewhat unattractive, but an amazing number of men in leadership positions are not merely "ugly" to me; rather, they are weird looking, and some are almost frightening, or disgusting. An example is Rudolf Hess (in the photo, and also at my Neanderthal pages).

Ugliness depends upon your mind so I suppose the Neanderthals consider themselves to be nice-looking, and they may consider people like me to be ugly. For example, my neck is long and thin, and after I stopped working with Daryl Smith, he insulted me as being a "pencil neck". Alex Jones also sometimes insults the people in the "New World Order" as "pencil necks".

When I was a teenager I noticed that almost everybody on television has a short, thicker neck. I remember standing in front of a full-length mirror and wondering something like, "Why is my neck so long? Do I have an extra bone in my neck?" I realized that I was skinny, but even if I had as much muscle and fat around my neck as a normal man, I would still have a longer and thinner neck than most of the people on television and in leadership positions. Today I wonder if I'm simply a different race than the men who have short, thick, Neanderthal necks. 

The people 600 years ago did not have very much technology. As a result, their farming equipment seems extremely crude in comparison to modern farming equipment. Their homes and other buildings should also seem crude to us. However, some of their castles, churches, bridges, and other structures are so decorative that we are amazed, and we preserve them as tourist attractions rather than tear them down.

The concepts that I mentioned in regards to clothing also apply to architecture. Specifically, the architects of today should be designing much more decorative buildings. Furthermore, because they have computers to do complex math, they can make the parts fit together with incredible precision. Therefore, modern cities should be far superior in visual appearance, comfort, and function.

Our buildings today are definitely more comfortable, but I don't think they've improved in visual appearance. I think architecture has become increasingly bland. Most of the buildings today are just rectangles, and they consist of rectangular rooms, with rectangular doors, and rectangular windows. Inside the rooms are rectangular cubicles that have rectangular desks. Even the overhead light fixtures are rectangular pieces of plastic in a grid of square ceiling tiles. Where is the decoration?
 

The people who dominate America and Europe today are promoting a bland style of clothing and architecture. They describe this style as "modern" or "contemporary". However, this doesn't make sense. Our ancestors centuries ago had very little technology, and so it was extremely difficult for them to make decorative clothing and architecture. If humans truly preferred the simple, modern, contemporary style, then our ancestors would never have gone to the trouble of making decorative clothing or architecture.

   1) Society is dominated by crude people

I think architecture has become bland for the same reason that clothing styles have become bland. Specifically, centuries ago there were more people like me influencing society, but during the past few centuries, we have been dominated by crude people who are more like animals or primitive savages. Their primary concern is status, sex, fame, and having servants who pamper them. They don't care about society, or decorations.

In all of the paintings that were made centuries ago, almost all of the people are doing some useful work. There were only a few parasites (eg, religious leaders, government officials, salesmen, prostitutes, and criminals). Most of the people 1000 years ago did useful work. Today the situation is reversed. Most people are trying to avoid work.

If we remove the parasites, there would be an enormous burden released from society. We are currently providing millions of worthless people with homes, electricity, automobiles, and other resources. If we were to remove that burden, we would be able to put those resources into our cities.
 

One of the paintings in the Très Riches Heures is a ridiculous scene of two women looking out of a decorative window at Jesus nailed to a piece of wood (it is identified as Folio 75 The Man of Sorrows). In the background were castles. It reminded me of my concept of a "City of Castles". So I removed Jesus and added a couple more castles and created the collage below. The paintings in that collection, especially of the 12 months, make me wonder, what would life be like today if we could get more higher-quality men in control of the world?