We are a mix of primitive and modern qualities 

If humans evolved from monkeys, wouldn't our gene pool still have lots of primitive traits? And wouldn't this result in each of us having a different mix of modern and prehistoric characteristics?

1) Hufschmid-2Jul2008-Part1.mp3   19 mb,  120 mins 2) Hufschmid-2Jul2008-Part2.mp3   19 mb,  120 mins

UPDATE: In my audio file I mentioned that Andy Hitchcock is Jewish.  He responded that is not Jewish. His response and my opinions are here

We have unlimited opportunities in regards to economic systems, government systems, transportation systems, and clothing. For example, two different types of cities we could create are:

1) Cities that emphasize personal property

We could design some of our cities to provide individual homes on separate plots of land, and with private automobiles, similar to what many people have today.

2) Cities that emphasize community property

We could design other cities to be like luxury vacation resorts in which smaller homes are clustered together into neighborhoods, and the homes don't have garages, automobiles, or complete kitchens.

In this type of city, the resources that would have gone into roads, and private property are put into parks, gardens, community buildings, restaurants, food markets, covered walkways, small electric vehicles, conveyor belts, and underground trains. This type of city would be able to provide spectacular public buildings and gardens compared to a city that emphasized personal property.

Improving the world doesn't require any new technology. It only requires that we get together, discuss the issues, and make decisions. Why is this so difficult? 

Why do we continue to create ugly cities and travel to visit a garden? Why not mix the buildings and gardens together? In such a case, the walkways and roads through the gardens would become the paths that we take to get to work, to visit friends, and to get food.

If we could give cats and dogs the intelligence of a human, would they behave like humans? Would they work together to develop schools, businesses, gardens, science, and art? Or would they continue to be dominated by their crude emotions? Would they continue to fight for territory and remain as independent creatures who have no concern for society?

How would intelligent savages behave?
 

If we could give a prehistoric human the same intelligence and education as a modern human, would he behave just like us? Or would he be dominated by his crude emotions for sex, dominance, and food?

 

The human gene pool is full of animal traits

There was no point in the history of human development at which our primitive chromosomes were replaced with a completely modern set. This would explain why modern men and women can give birth to children who look or behave like our primitive ancestors.

By the way, I created another page of Neanderthals: More-Neanderthals-3.html

A lot of people in the world today don't respond well to education, but they're not always stupid. And a lot of people have trouble resisting their cravings for money, fame, and sex, but they're not always stupid, either.

A better way to describe the differences between us is that some of us have emotions that are more like that of a primitive savage than a modern human.

Animals and prehistoric humans were independent creatures who did whatever they pleased. They had freedom to an unbelievable extent compared to today. They didn't have to follow rules, worry about society, or consider how their behavior might affect other people.

Humans have dramatically changed the environment we live in during the past few thousand years, but emotionally most people are still primitive savages who want to follow their emotional cravings with no regard to the consequences.

Businessmen steal technology from one another, abuse customers, and cheat the government. They cheat the military so often that the military is asking for more investigators! These businessmen are not evil; rather, they are behaving like primitive savages, or like intelligent monkeys.

Their primary interest in life is fighting to be the dominant male. As with animals, they have little or no concern about society, and little or no ability to work together for the good of society.
 

The people who want freedom and who dislike the rules of modern life would have been well adapted to life in a prehistoric era. Today, however, they are irritating animals in a human world.

We've changed our environment, and we must adapt to it whether we like it or not.

Wednesday July 2, 2008

There's an issue that I've wanted to talk about for a long time, but I haven't bothered because I was always assuming that I'll find more information about it, but I still haven't found any information. A few books and Internet pages mention this incident, but only in a sentence or two. And people here in Santa Barbara, where I live, have information about it, but I can't find any verification of what they say, so I'm not sure if what they know is the truth, or how much of it is just wild speculation.

The incident occurred in the 1960s. After Russia began testing missiles and nuclear bombs, there was a lot of paranoia that the Russians might attack us without any warning. Because missiles travel so fast, and because one missile with a nuclear bomb can destroy an entire city, there was no possible way that the US military would be able to defend America against a surprise attack with nuclear missiles.

As a result, America created the Mutual Assured Destruction policy. America would launch nuclear missiles towards Russia as soon as we saw their missiles coming towards us. We would then destroy one another.

In order to make this policy work, the American military had to know when the Russians were launching missiles towards us, and so America built radar stations along our borders, and the most advanced radar units were built along the northern border of Canada and Alaska.

In the mid 1960s some new radar systems along the border of Canada and Alaska were turned on, and they picked up an object rising over the horizon. The radar operators sent out a message that we may be under attack by Russia. According to the official story, after a few minutes the radar operators realized that the object wasn't moving very quickly, and they came to the conclusion that their radar system was so powerful that it was picking up signals that were bouncing off the moon, and so they sent out a message for everybody to relax.

I can't find any details about this particular incident, and the few people who mention it treat it as if it's just an interesting curiosity that shows how powerful the radar systems were, and how dangerous it is to have a policy of retaliating against Russia without waiting to see if they really are attacking us.

However, some of the people here in Santa Barbara say there's more to this story. After those radar operators sent out the message that we may be under attack, orders were sent to Vandenberg Air Force Base to prepare to fire their nuclear missiles at Russia. So the people at Vandenberg got ready to fire the missiles, and after a few minutes they actually received the order to start firing their missiles.

In case you're not familiar with how rockets operate, they're clamped to the launch pad with a very powerful clamp to allow the engine to develop full thrust, which can take a couple of seconds, and then the clamps let go of the rocket.

So the first of the nuclear missiles at Vandenberg was ignited, but just before the clamps were two let go of the missile, Vandenberg received the order to cancel the retaliation. It was impossible for the people at Vandenberg to turn off that type of rocket engine, so one of the men at Vandenberg quickly decided to destroy the electrical equipment that sent power to the clamps in order to prevent the clamps from releasing the missile.

However, nobody knew if the clamps could survive the heat from the missile, and even if the clamps could hold on the missile, nobody knew if the nuclear bomb would remain in one piece or fall into burning debris and scatter radioactive waste around the Air Force Base.

So the people at Vandenberg had to watch in horror as the missile burned on its launch pad. Fortunately, the clamps survived the heat, and after the missile ran out of fuel, the nuclear bomb was still intact at the top of the missile.

However, I can't find any information about this rocket being fired at Vandenberg. Is this just a crazy conspiracy theory that's passing around Santa Barbara? Or did this actually happen? Some people think that this is the event that gave rise to the movie plot in Dr. Strangelove.

When I was younger I believed the official story for the world wars and all of the other strange incidents that have been occurring during the 20th century. At that time in my life my conclusion was that the people in leadership positions, and especially the military leaders, are incredibly stupid. World War I is a great example. A lot of nations attacked each another viciously, but nobody can explain why the war got started. The official story for that war makes it appear as if the world leaders were idiots.

The official story of the radar operators mistaking the moon for an attack by Russia also make it appear as if the military is under the control of idiots.

And in order to believe the official story of the Holocaust, we have to assume that every nation, and the Red Cross, and even the German public, was so stupid that they didn't notice that millions and millions of people were being shipped by trains to gas chambers.

The official story of the six nuclear missiles accidentally loaded on the airplane in 2007 also requires that the Air Force consist of idiots.

And consider the official story of 9/11. We're supposed to believe that the air traffic controllers and the military were too stupid to investigate the airplanes that were wandering off their flight path and into restricted airspace.

I initially believed the official story for 9/11. Since I was already under the impression that our military and government leaders were idiots, I wasn't the least bit surprised when I heard that they once again behaved like idiots.

One of the reasons that it's easy to come to the conclusion that the military is a bunch of idiots is that they never defend themselves. People make all sorts of horrible accusations about them, and they remain absolutely silent. It creates the impression that they're either guilty of whatever people accuse them of, or they're too stupid to defend themselves.

However, today I can see that virtually every war and terrorist attack of the 20th century has been a staged event, mainly by criminal Jews involved in the Zionist movement or in the banking system of America and Europe.

And I suspect that the reason the military never defends itself is because the Jews within the military are suppressing attempt by the military to defend themselves because they don't want discussions about what's going on. If they were to allow discussions then people both within and outside of the military would start realizing that something is seriously wrong with the official stories.

This Jewish crime network has been getting control of our media companies for decades, and they've been using that to suppress intelligent discussions and to saturate us with propaganda to promote Israel and create hatred of Germany, Korea, Russia, China, Iran, and the Arabs.

I now think that the paranoia during the 1950s and 1960s that Russia would attack America was coming from these criminal Jews. That paranoia never made any sense to me. Why would the Russians want to attack America? What would the Russians gain by starting a nuclear war with us? When nations get into a war with one another, the only people who benefit are the people who are not involved in the war. This is especially true when the nations have nuclear weapons. Neither Russia nor America would benefit by dropping nuclear bombs on one another. And this gives us a clue as to who would be interested in starting a nuclear war between America, Russia, and China. All you have to do is ask yourself, who would benefit from such a war?

And consider the Cuban missile crisis. The official story is that America almost started a war with Russia because Russia installed some missiles in Cuba. This is another event that never made any sense to me. Why would the American military care about a few missiles in Cuba? The Russians already had nuclear powered submarines with nuclear missiles, but the US military wasn't worried about them. Why would the US military be afraid of missiles that they can see, but not afraid of missiles that were invisible in the ocean? My attitude was that it would be a big improvement if Russia got rid of its submarines and put all of its missiles in Cuba because that would allow the American military to see and count the missiles.

I assumed that the Cuban missile crisis was just more evidence that the American military leaders are idiots.

However, the Cuban missile crisis, the mistake of assuming the rising moon was an attack by Russia, and all of these other strange incidents will make sense when you realize that both World Wars were instigated by Jews.

The Jews have had tremendous success in taking over our banking system, the media, and other organizations, and they've had tremendous success in tricking the world into starting wars with one another. What are the chances that after World War II was over, the Jews decided that they were finished instigating wars and conquering other nations?

I suspect that at the end of World War II, the Jews laughed and said, "Okay, let's start another war between these stupid Goyim, and let's get even more control of their media, governments, political groups, and other organizations!" And during the following decades they tried over and over to trick America, Russia, and China into starting a nuclear war with one another.

I would bet that the incident in which the rising moon was mistaken for an attack by Russia was an attempt by Jews within the military and government to convince Americans that they can't wait to find out what's happening, that they must launch nuclear missiles immediately.

And I would bet that the Cuban missile crisis was the result of Jews who were trying to trick Americans into starting a war with Cuba and Russia. And I would bet that Jews within Russia were pushing the Russian government into putting those missiles into Cuba. And the blockade of Berlin may have been another of their attempts.

In 1956 there was some incident that historians refer to as the "Suez canal crisis", and I suppose the Jews were trying to trick America or Europe into getting into a fight with Egypt.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster was the result of sabotage by Jews.

The more I learn about Jews the more I realize that the complaints people have been making for centuries are actually accurate descriptions rather than hysterical or exaggerated rumors. Martin Luther made incredible accusations against Jews centuries before there was a Zionist movement. He and others have been complaining that Jews are thieves, parasites, sexual perverts, con artists, plagiarizers, and instigators of fights. The 20th century shows that these complaints are accurate descriptions, not anti-Semitic hysteria.

The Jews whine that we're anti-Semitic when we complain about them, but none of us who are complaining about Jews today were born with a hatred of Jews. The anger that's building towards Jews is because people around the world are starting to see what they really are. The Internet has allowed us to investigate events on our own, and this is causing people to realize that the television and printed publications are full of Jewish propaganda, and it allows us to see that Jews are involved in 9/11, the world wars, and all sorts of other crimes. And we can take a close look at these Jews and see that their success in manipulating us is because of their use of murder, bribery, deception, intimidation, and blackmail. Their success is not due to their talent or intelligence. They're just a gang of liars, thieves, freaks, perverts, and plagiarists.

The Internet is also allowing us to notice that this disgusting behavior is not limited to Jews. There are organized crime gangs in every nation, and there are millions of individual criminals. I don't see any anti-Semitism anywhere. What I see are people who are getting fed up with the crime gangs, the dishonest businessmen, the corrupt government officials, and all other badly behaved people. I don't see anybody who really cares whether these criminals call themselves a Jew, or Japanese, or a Hindu.

The only reason that there's a special focus on the Jewish criminals as of 2008 is because they're currently the largest and most diabolical crime network. However, I don't see anybody who wants to focus only on criminal Jews. I see people who are getting fed up with all types of criminals, regardless of their age, sex, nationality, or religion. I even see people who are becoming annoyed at badly behaved children.

There also seems to be anger developing towards the people who work for these crime networks, either for bribes, or to become rich and famous. Al Sharpton, for example, doesn't appear to be Jewish, but he seems to be helping the Jewish crime network, and I suppose it's because he wants to be rich and famous. According to some survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, the McCain family also sold out to the Jews.

After some Italian gangsters were arrested decades ago, a few of them agreed to expose what they know about how the gang operated, and they said they would routinely give handfuls of cash to policemen, government officials, judges, unions, and businessmen. They had no trouble bribing people.  Millions of people will work for crime networks if they're offered money, or sex, or fame, and I see people getting fed up with this behavior also.

Most people have very little control over their cravings for money, sex, or fame so it's easy for crime networks to get people to work for them. Most people behave like a stupid animal in a circus who will do whatever tricks are necessary in order to get some silly reward. There is anger developing towards these people, also, and nobody cares what their religion is.

There is also anger and disgust developing towards the ordinary citizens. Millions of our own relatives and neighbors are helping the crime networks to thrive because they suppress our attempts to expose and deal with crime networks. I suppose all of you who are listening to this audio file already know that when we try to discuss the 9/11 attack, or the Holocaust lies, or any other big crime, the so-called decent citizens actually make an attempt to stop our conversations, and some of them will ridicule us as “conspiracy nuts” or “anti-Semites”.

We want people to stand back and ignore a problem if they don't know how to deal with it. For example, when there's an accident at a factory and some of the employees are hurt, the people who know nothing about medical treatment should stand back and let other people deal with the problem.

Imagine an accident occurring at a factory, and when somebody tries to help the victims, the other employees ridicule him as a “conspiracy nut” who is imagining that that there are injured employees, and imagine that they switch the conversations to Madonna's latest divorce or the price of gasoline. You wouldn't describe those type of employees as “innocent”. You would describe them as disgusting, or sickening, or retarded, or freaks.

The ordinary citizens would be acceptable if they quietly stood back and allowed the rest of us to talk about 9/11, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing hoax, and other issues, but they actually make attempts to stop us. It doesn't matter if these people are honest. They may as well be on the payroll of the crime networks. Their behavior is as disgusting and destructive as the criminals themselves.

And have you ever tried to point out to people that there's a lot of corruption in government, or that we should demand new presidential candidates? The majority of people respond that corruption has existed forever, and that there's nothing we can do, and they will try to change the conversation. They simply don't want to deal with the problems we face. They want to behave like children, or like animals, who spend their entire lives titillating their emotions.

They have almost no interest in city planning, or transportation systems, or improving the school system, or making a better economy, but these people insist that they be allowed to vote and influence the future of the entire world.

The only time most people will make demands of their leaders is when they go on strike to demand higher wages. They would never go on strike to demand better presidential candidates, or better cities, or an honest investigation of the Holocaust. And some people will demand that schools promote prayers or creationism, but they never demand schools stop lying about the JFK assassination or 9/11.

In order to improve the world, we have to do more than destroy the crime networks and we have to do more than deal with the millions of independent criminals. We also have to deal with this gigantic horde of irresponsible, talking monkeys that we refer to as the “general public”.

It's important to understand that in order to develop better policies towards crime, or the economy, or even our cities, we need a better understanding of human behavior. Our view of humans is the foundation that we build our society on top of. For example, if you consider bad behavior to be due to the devil, then there's no way to deal with crime except to build more churches, or have more exorcisms, because nobody can control the devil, not even God.

If you believe that bad behavior is due to ignorance or poverty, then you have no way to improve society because people today are much more wealthy and educated than our ancestors, but bad behavior is just as common, if not more so.

If you believe badly behaved people can be pressured into behaving properly through the use of jails, security systems, and police, then your policies are going to fail because during the past few centuries, every society has been increasing its quantity of jails, police, and laws, but it hasn't done anything yet to reduce crime or improve the behavior of  businessmen or government officials. It hasn't even stopped policemen from taking bribes or joining organized crime networks.

All of the attempts to reduce crime, improve the economy, and improve schools have been failing for centuries, and I say it's because people are creating policies according to an unrealistic view of humans. We have to design society for what humans really are, not for what we like to think we are.

I think a more accurate view of humans is that we evolved from monkeys, but there was never a point during this development at which some loving god came down from sky to remove the monkey chromosomes and replace them with a completely new set of advanced, human chromosomes.

Instead, the human gene pool is a mix of modern and primitive genetic traits. As a result, when a modern man and woman have babies, each of their children will end up with a different mix of modern and primitive qualities, and the end result is that some of us end up more like primitive savages.

Consider the women who cut open pregnant women in order to steal the baby. Another of these cases just occurred in Washington state. These women are not evil. They're analogous to men who steal or rape. They're analogous to pet dogs that are sexually frustrated and try to have sex with your leg.
metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?in_article_id=200973&in_page_id=64

Humans and animals have intense cravings for certain activities, and we become frustrated when we can't satisfy those cravings. Men have intense cravings for status and sex, and women have intense cravings for babies and attention.

When men don't get sex, we become frustrated, and we may use inflatable dolls as substitutes, or other men, or animals, or prostitutes. And when men haven't achieved much in life, we become frustrated with our low status, and we may feel sorry for ourselves, or we may exaggerate what we've accomplished in order to make ourselves appear more important. The men who don't have much control over their emotions will cheat, steal, or rape in order to satisfy their emotional cravings.

When women don't have babies, they become frustrated. Some women use dogs as substitutes. The women who don't have much control over their emotions may steal babies, and in extreme cases, cut open pregnant women.

According to every poll that I've seen, my view of humans would be shared by only a very tiny percentage of the population.
• gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx
• usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm

Every poll taken on the issue of evolution shows that the majority of Americans believe that humans were created by a god, and of the remaining Americans, most of them believe that humans evolved from monkeys, but that a god was guiding the evolutionary process. Only a tiny number of Americans believe that evolution occurred without a god.

The polls also show that Americans are more religious than our relatives in Europe, but in every nation we find that the majority of people either believe some type of god created humans, or that some type of god is guiding the evolution of us.

If you are part of that tiny minority who believes humans simply evolve from animals on their own, then you may be able to understand my view of humans.

Humans are not evil, or irresponsible, or even obnoxious. We're actually wonderful creatures, just like all of the other plants and animals. But during the past few thousand years we've been developing technology that has dramatically altered the way we live. Humans developed so much intelligence that we changed our environment.

However, when you change the environment of an animal or a plant, you cause some of the creatures to suffer, and some of the creatures who were suffering suddenly become successful.

Consider a simple example, the disposal of trash. Our primitive ancestors didn't produce much trash, and their trash was organic, and the population was very low, so it didn't matter where they discarded their trash.

If a person 50,000 years ago worried about the disposal of his trash, and if he actually spent some of his time trying to dispose of it in a manner that wouldn't bother the environment or other people, he would have been wasting his time, and he would have been considered neurotic. This situation has reversed itself today. The people who worry about the disposal of trash are now more suited to life in this modern era, and the people who discard trash anywhere they please are now irresponsible jerks and criminals.

And consider the issue of food. People 50,000 years ago could eat food whenever they found it, and they could eat as much of it as they pleased. Nobody had to worry about getting fat, and nobody had to worry about the nutritional value of food because all of their food was natural.

Today people have to be able to control their cravings for food, and we need to have some interest and understanding of the concept of nutrition. The people today who are becoming fat, anorexic, or sickly because of their eating habits are not evil. They're behaving just like people did thousands of years ago. However, the environment has changed, and that type of behavior is no longer appropriate.

Humans are wonderful creatures, and so are animals. And we're peaceful creatures who avoid violence. A lot of the violent behavior that we see with animals and humans is not due to evilness or cruelty. For example, when a cat catches a mouse, it will often let the mouse escape, and then it will catch it again, and sometimes the cat will throw the mouse in the air and hit it with its claws. It would be easy to interpret this behavior as a vicious and deliberate attempt to torture the mouse.

However, the cat doesn't think of itself as torturing the mouse. The cat is simply excited that it found some food to eat. The cat doesn't understand that the mouse is a living creature. It sees the mouse as a piece of food. The cat enjoys finding food, and so it will let the mouse go, and then catch it a second time in order to stimulate itself again. This behavior is similar to a dog that brings you a stick to throw. Carnivores love to chase after food.

Children also torture animals without realizing what they're doing. When I was perhaps 8 years old, I decided to unroll one of those creatures that we call “pill bugs” that roll up into a ball when you touch them. But as I tried to unroll it, it broke into two pieces, and as I moved the two pieces apart, an elastic string with a yellowish, wavy object stretched between the two pieces. I had no idea what that stringy object was. But I was fascinated by it.

So I picked up another bug and ripped it into two pieces to see if it also had one of those stringy objects inside of it. I suppose over a span of a few months I ripped open a dozen or more before I came to the conclusion that they all have the identical stringy object.

From the point of view of those bugs, I was a cruel monster who was torturing dozens of them, but from my point of view, I was a wonderful child who was wondering what the stringy object was. I didn't think of the bugs as living creatures. Those bugs were just objects to me, similar to rocks or clouds.

A certain amount of intelligence is needed to understand the concepts of life, death, and torture, and children don't have that level. And neither do animals. This is why children and animals will torture one another, and torture animals, without any guilt.

Josef Fritz of Austria enjoyed keeping his children in a basement for rape and torture. People describe him as evil, but that's a ridiculous description. He's a human, just like the rest of us. A better way to describe him is that there's either something defective about his brain, or he inherited some of very primitive genetic traits that caused his mind to be more like an animal in certain respects.

Fritz's behavior is very similar to a cat that catches a mouse and then puts it into a bathtub so that it can't escape, and then he plays with it. Carnivores love to chase after food, and they love to play with their food before they eat. Fritlz didn't eat any of his children, but did you see the news report about the family in Czechoslovakia that kept two of their sons in a basement, and the mother actually ate a few pieces of their flesh?
telegraph.co.uk news 'Cannibal-relatives-ate-boy-alive'.html

People today are a random mix of animal qualities and modern human qualities. Every man today still has those primitive emotions that cause us to enjoy hunting animals, but we vary in how strong those cravings are. Some men have such a strong craving to hunt that they actually purchase guns and hunt for animals, but they hunt to satisfy their cravings, not because they want fresh meat. Some men hunt streetlights or road signs. Some men hunt other people. The easiest people to hunt are unwanted children, homeless vagrants, and prostitutes.

We also use technology to turn hunting into entertainment for children. For example, there are businesses that put lots of fish into tiny pools so that human children can easily catch the fish with fishing hooks. We don't regard this as animal behavior, or as torturing fish. We regard this as a entertainment for children.

It might help you to understand humans if you imagine what animals might behave like if they had as much intelligence as we do. Imagine if we could give a million ordinary cats and dogs the same intelligence of a human, and we let them have New York City for themselves. They would have the intelligence to become business owners, school teachers, and scientists, but would they be capable of forming stable relationships and working together? Would the intelligent dogs continue to chase after cats and fight with other dogs over territory? Or would they realize that their craving to fight was due to an emotion that was no longer appropriate for them, and that they should ignore the craving? Would intelligent cats continue to mark their territory with pee, or would they ignore that craving? Would intelligent cats and dogs have any concern about society? Would they have any interest in architecture, or gardens, or studying the universe?

And how would the males behave when the females became sexually active? Would the males use their intelligence to behave in a respectable manner, or would they use their intelligence to sabotage other males or rape the females?

Giving cats and dogs the intelligence of a human wouldn't cause the animals to behave like humans. Unless there was also a corresponding change in their emotions, they would use their intelligence to satisfy their crude cravings for sex, dominance, and food. Without an emotional interest in socializing, or science, or gardens, or architecture, they would continue to behave like animals.

Animals care only about themselves, not society. Animals don't care whether they live in an attractive city or a toxic waste dump. Animals don't care whether they live in a world where they can trust other animals, or whether they have to live in constant fear. Animals don't even care whether they're in good health.

During prehistoric times, humans did whatever they pleased. They just followed their emotional desires. There were no laws for them to worry about, and no policemen. They never had to be concerned about society or future generations. Our primitive ancestors had complete freedom to do whatever they pleased.

A lot of the people who are having trouble with life today are wonderful people, but their emotions don't like following the rules of modern society. They're constantly whining that they want more freedom to do as they please. They don't want to be concerned about how their actions affect other people. And many people don't care what type of city they live in, so it doesn't bother them to live among ugly buildings, crime, garbage, or noise. Many people don't have any interest in nutrition, either, or science, or art.

The people who want to do what they please and who don't seem to care about modern society, are not evil people, and they're not necessarily stupid. They're behaving like primitive savages.

The teenage boys who spray buildings with their initials and gang logos are also behaving like savages. Those boys are much more intelligent than animals, but they're using their intelligence to satisfy crude, animal-like cravings to mark their territory. They may have the intelligence necessary to deal with modern life, but from an emotional point of view, they're primitive savages. They would have been well adapted to life in 50,000 B.C., but today they're an irritation.

And consider the businessmen whose primary interest is fighting other men in attempts to become rich. How is their behavior any different from the male animals who fight for dominance? Those businessmen have a lot of intelligence, but they're using it to satisfy crude animal-like cravings rather than doing something useful for society.

If we could measure the effect our emotions have over our behavior, we would probably find that a man's most powerful emotion is the desire to be the dominant male. This would explain why there is such a struggle among men to show off and feel special. And it's why we have so many awards ceremonies. Men want to boast about their Nobel prize, or their sports trophy, or their college degree. And men everywhere are struggling to become rich so that they can show off their house or their car.

And take a close look at men when they get into discussions about crime or abortion or any other issue. You should notice that they don't seriously listen to what the other men have to say, and they don't seriously present their detailed analysis of the issue. None of them have a detailed analysis. None of them put much effort into developing their brilliant theories. Most of their brilliant theories are just bits and pieces of opinions that they picked up from television, their parents, or their friends. Their discussions are not intended to help anybody understand the world. Their discussions are just battles over dominance. They're behaving like stupid animals. They're just trying to prove to the other men that they are the most educated and the most intelligent.

The attempts to help the world so far have failed because most people assume that our problems are due to the devil, or a lack of technology, or a lack of security devices. Most people think that crime will be reduced with more laws and policemen, and they believe that pollution will be eliminated with more regulations and more pollution control technology, and they believe that our energy problems will vanish when we develop fusion reactors or solar cells.

However, the most sensible explanation for our problems is that they're due to the animal-like quality of humans, and we cannot transform an animal into a human with technology, laws, or jails. Consider the issue of cities. Cities all over the world are full of noise, litter, homeless vagrants, unwanted pets, crime, and ugly buildings. The unpleasant qualities of our cities have nothing to do with a lack of technology or a shortage of jails. Thousands of years ago people were capable of building attractive cities with beautiful gardens. Their cities would have been technically primitive compared to ours because they didn't have glass windows or electricity or other modern technology, but people a thousand years ago were capable of creating attractive cities that were clean and quiet and easy to travel around. The people centuries ago didn't have to empty their chamber pots on the streets, for example.

Animals don't have any concern about the city they live in, and neither do primitive humans. Cities have always been a filthy, haphazard jumble of houses, businesses, roads, and garbage dumps simply because most people don't have much of an interest in society or the city they live in.

The human race will develop better cities only when the people develop an interest in such advanced activities. At the moment, most people are more concerned with titillating their crude emotions with television, gambling, alcohol, cosmetics, and babies. There's not much of an interest in the more advanced activities.

Another reason we're can't yet create better cities is because designing an entire city requires a lot of men to work together on a very large scale, and for the good of society. Thousands of men would have to be able to come to agreements on a lot of complex issues, such as whether the city should be designed primarily for private automobiles, or whether we should design cities for some other type of transportation, such as small electrical vehicles, or conveyor belts, or miniature trains, or tiny vehicles that run on compressed air.

And consider how many options we have in regards to how we design our homes. For example, we could design a city so that people live in a manner that is similar to a vacation resort. In this type of city, the homes wouldn't have complete kitchens or recreation rooms or garages. The homes would be small and clustered close together, and the people would walk to restaurants and food markets. Parents wouldn't provide toys or swimming pools for themselves or their children. The people would use community recreation centers, swimming pools, gardens, parks, and picnic areas. Children would be able to walk to school.

The smaller size of the homes would change the emphasis on life from the purchasing of land and the gathering of material items to community property and activities. The homes would be more for sleeping and privacy, not for setting up a kingdom for yourself.

Life in this type of city would be nice if we enjoyed the people we lived among, but it  would be horrible with the philosophy that we see in America today. Americans love to boast about their nation, but the philosophy that Americans follow is disgusting. For example, we consider it acceptable to use other races and nationalities as cheap sources of labor, but this results in a society that is a mixture of oil and water in which different groups of people separate from each other and try to abuse one another. Most of the larger American cities are very unfriendly. Neighbors usually don't like one another, and in some areas the neighbors don't even speak the same languages.

Americans also follow the philosophy that happiness increases as our collection of material items becomes larger. As a result, almost all aspects of American society have been designed to encourage the making of money and the accumulation of material goods. This has created a society in which businesses are constantly struggling to manipulate consumers into spending money, and even universities are more concerned with attracting students than in educating them.

The unfriendly aspect of American society seems to be one of the reasons that a lot of people want to get away from the cities and have a large house on a large plot of land on the outside of the city. Creating a city that is similar to a vacation resort, in which the homes are smaller and there's more emphasis on the community, wouldn't work very well unless we made corresponding changes to the economic system, school system, and government system in order to reduce the emphasis on the accumulation of material items.

It's also important to understand that our cities are never going to be pleasant until we develop more sensible policies for immigration. We can't allow people to use poor people from other nations as household servants or as cheap labor for their businesses. And we can't allow poor people to move into a city simply because they see a job opportunity. This type of selfish behavior is destructive because it creates a society in which people are trying to abuse one another for financial purposes.

Thousands of years ago people determined where they lived simply by fighting other people for land, but today we need to develop rules about when we can move from one city to another.

I think immigration should be by invitation only, and that cities should be allowed to evict people they don't like. If the people within a city don't like one another, it's not going to be a pleasant city. But no city would be able to control immigration to that extent with the type of selfish savages we currently have in control of our government. We need better people in leadership positions before we can deal with immigration issues.

Designing better cities also requires us to make decisions about how much of a variation we want between the wealthiest and the poorest of citizens. When we allow extreme differences in wealth, we have to provide a special area of the city for the rich people so that they can have gigantic castles on enormous plots of land. And we also have to provide housing for the enormous number of servants that are needed to take care of their castles and land.

We also have to deal with the issue of whether housing and other structures should be considered as an economic opportunity or as a community service. Most people perfer the government to build and maintain roads and sewage lines, but we currently allow individual citizens and businesses deal with homes, apartments, office buildings, and other structures.

Designing a new city requires that we make a decision about who is going to be responsible for the structures within the city. Everywhere in the world today we can find endless complaints about businesses and people who create ugly or shoddy structures, and there are endless complaints about landlords ruining neighborhoods by not maintaining their property, or by renting to excessive numbers of people. We have to make decisions about whether we want to continue allowing private citizens to control the structures of a city, or whether we should we put all structures under the control of the community.

Many people believe that creating more regulations will control the landlords, but neither regulations nor jails will transform a primitive savage into a modern human. My recommendation is to let the government take control of the structures of the city. When the government is in control of the structures, we only have to watch over a small number of government officials. But when we let individual citizens and businesses deal with the structures, we have an enormous number of people to watch over. There's a significant advantage to reducing the number of people who make decisions about society because it reduces the number of people that we have to watch over.

Furthermore, letting society handle the structures of a city will prevent citizens from becoming billionaires simply by renting or selling property. I don't think the billionaire landlords are earning their money. They're simply taking advantage of our primitive economic system

As you can imagine, if you were to get a group of men together and tell them to resolve these issues, there would be endless fights over right or wrong. Each man would behave like an arrogant savage who thinks he knows what's best. The end result is that they would never accomplish anything.

How many men even have the intellectual ability to realize that there's no best way to design a city? We simply have to make decisions on what we want the human race to become.

And consider how many options we have with transportation. Transportation devices can be electric or gasoline, and they can be private or public. We can also design a city that provides conveyor belts and covered walkways so that people can travel more often on foot, even during the worst weather conditions.

Designing a better city also requires that we resolve the issue of whether we should allow pets in the city, and if so, what type of pets? Or should the people who want pets have their own city, or should they have their own neighborhood in the city?

We can't build better cities until we have the ability to resolve these and other issues. City planning doesn't require any technology; it only requires a more advanced brain that is capable of discussing the options and making decisions. Unfortunately, most men are too arrogant and selfish. Every man will insist that his emotional desires are the ideal for all other people and for all future generations.

This problem with arrogance is especially significant for men who have accomplished something during their lives, such as the men who made a lot of money, or who have a fancy job title, or who have a college diploma or a Nobel Prize. The winning of an award encourages men to become even more arrogant than they would otherwise be.

I think it would help society to reduce the emphasis on awards. Men have tremendous cravings for awards, but why should we satisfy this animal-like craving to feel special? Some people justify awards on the grounds that it encourages people to behave in a useful manner, but the ideal situation is for people to behave in respectable manner because they want to, not because they're looking for a reward. We should stop treating people like circus animals who do a performance in order to get a reward.

I also suggest we stop providing tangible awards, such as paper diplomas and plastic trophies, in order to prevent men from collecting them. Besides, these awards are a waste of resources, and after the man dies, his awards eventually end up in the trash.

It's interesting to note that the police and military are more sensible in regards to awards. They normally provide tiny pins for their uniforms, and even the larger pins are small compared to the enormous plastic trophies and college diplomas that the civilians give one another.

As I mentioned earlier, as I was growing up I was under the impression that the military was a group of idiots, but I've been amazed to discover that a lot of their attitudes and policies are more sensible than what we find among the civilian population. Part of the reason the military and police have more sensible polices is because they don't have to operate as a democracy. This allows their leaders to ignore what the ordinary people want and make decisions that they think are best for the entire organization.

Unfortunately, the military accepts almost anybody, and the police have been lowering their standards recently, and so there are a lot of mentally ill and badly behaved men in the military and the police. If the respectable men within those organizations could get rid of their corrupt leadership, they would become impressive organizations that could help us deal with our problems.

Most people are frightened at the thought of military or police influencing or dominating a nation, but whether the police and military are beneficial or detrimental depends upon the men within the organizations.

Take a look at a large military base that provides housing for the men. Those bases are essentially small cities, and they could be described as “military states”, or “police states”, but I dont' see any evidence that the people who live at those bases are suffering. The military cities provide homes, running water, gardens, and community areas, just like a regular city. The military families often move around, and that can cause loneliness for their children, but this problem is not unique to the military. It occurs with civilians who travel frequently, also.

Why would anybody fear the military or the police? The answer can be seen by noticing how much cleaner and orderly a military city is compared to a normal city. The military and the police are not very tolerant of littering, vagrants, crime, and certain other activities. And this explains why a certain percentage of our population is frightened of the military and police. The people who don't want to follow the rules of modern life consider the police and military to be cruel men who are extremely intolerant.

The people who whine about freedom and who complain about following the rules of modern life may be wonderful people, but they want to live like a primitive savage. They want the type of freedom that our ancestors had, but that level of freedom is gone forever. We now live in a technically advanced era, and we can't provide people with the type of freedom that our ancestors had. The people who don't want to follow the rules of modern life are outcasts today.

A lot of the rules that we follow are absurd or detrimental because they were created by businesses who were selfishly trying to suppress competition, or they were created by government officials to prevent people from removing them from their job, or they were created by organized crime networks. It makes sense for us to occasionally analyze the rules that we follow and look for improvements to them, but it doesn't make sense to complain that we have to follow rules. The people who whine about the police or who whine that they need more freedom are just savages in a modern world, and they need to be suppressed.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about governments, police, militaries, or even corporations. Whether an organization is useful or detrimental depends upon the people in the organization. The structure of the organization and the rules the people follow are important, also, but the most significant aspect of an organization are its people, especially its leaders.

Governments everywhere are corrupt, but it's not because governments are inherently corrupt. They're corrupt because the majority of people are just primitive savages who have no desire or ability to deal with the issue of selecting leaders for a modern society.

Corporations are selfish and dishonest, but it's not because corporations are inherently evil. It's because the stockholders are selfish savages who deliberately select other savages for leadership, and the primary interest of all of these savages is becoming the dominant male, not helping society. Police departments all over the world are assisting with crime because many policemen are taking bribes or working with the crime networks, not because police departments are inherently evil.

And consider the 9/11 truth groups, the white supremacist groups, the Holocaust revisionist groups, the Veteran groups, and the antiwar groups. All of these groups are dishonest and making money from their members, but their dishonesty is not because these organizations are inherently corrupt. It's because those organizations are under the control of savages and criminal Jews.

Every problem that the world is suffering from can be traced to the behavior of people. Crime, pollution, unwanted children, and wars are the result of animal-like behavior of people. The world will improve when we get better people in control of it, and when we deal with the people who don't fit into this modern world and can't behave properly. Unfortunately, finding better men for leadership positions is not easy because men are so arrogant that we all consider ourselves to be one of those better behaved men.

I'm sure I mentioned somewhere, either in an audio file or an article, that when I'm home alone, I think of myself as one of the strongest and most physically talented of men. The reason that this surprises me is that I'm actually one of the weakest of men.

There is no way that I can stop my emotions from telling me that I'm the strongest, most talented, most intelligent, and best looking of men. I have to continually dampen this stupid emotional feeling.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm the only man with this problem. Every man I've met is an arrogant jerk. Every man thinks he knows everything about life. Even men who have been complete failures in life will climb onto a pedestal and give us lectures.

I can't believe how many men who have never accomplished anything from an intellectual point of view will insist that I'm wrong about something, such as my accusation that the Apollo moon landing was staged here on the earth. These men have no reason to believe that they have the intelligence to understand these issues, but their emotions are telling them that they're the smartest man on the planet. The arrogance of men is truly astounding.

Occasionally you will encounter a man who criticizes himself, and his sarcastic remarks will create the impression that he's less arrogant than the rest of us, but in reality, he's extremely upset that he's a failure, and he's feeling sorry for himself and he's trying to manipulate us into giving him pity.

It's very difficult for a man to take a serious look at himself and understand his talents and his limitations. We have powerful emotions that tell us we're special, and there we're better than other men. When we fail at some activity, we look for excuses, or we make sarcastic remarks about ourselves in order to feel sorry for ourselves and encourage other people to feel sorry for us, also.

This arrogance is necessary for animals and prehistoric humans because it gives a person the confidence to go out into life and face the dangers, but the men who are best suited to this modern era are those who are less arrogant and more able to work together with other men. We need to put those type of men into leadership positions, but how do we determine who among us is less like a primitive savage and more like a modern human?

The issue of selecting leaders is extremely important. This issue even affects organized crime networks. Consider the Jewish crime network, which is being exposed all of the world right now and is slowly deteriorating. How are they selecting leaders? Are they providing themselves with men who have real talent, or do they have the same arrogant, selfish, aggressive savages that we find dominating our corporations and governments?

Fortunately for us, crime networks never seem to select good leaders. For one reason, they seem prefer to promote friends or family members rather than looking for somebody with talent, and many times their leaders are determined when one man murders his rivals. Furthermore, they have to operate in secrecy, so none of the criminals can be completely sure about what is going on during the selection process.

The modern method of selecting leaders is to let citizens vote, but this doesn't work because most people have no significant interest in selecting leaders. Animals and prehistoric humans didn't have to select leaders. Leaders were selected inadvertently when the men competed with one another for dominance. The dominant male became the leader without any of the other men paying any attention to what is going on.

This method of selecting leaders works for animals and savages because their leaders didn't need do much as leader. The men who became leaders during prehistoric times didn't need the ability to discuss complex issues, or work with other men for the benefit of society. And they didn't need any ability to resist bribes from organized crime gangs, either. Any man with an ability to find food was acceptable as a leader.

Today we need leaders with more advanced qualities, but we are foolishly expecting the ordinary citizen to be capable of identifying these men.

Some men think that they're worthy of leadership positions because they're intelligent and educated, but that's not enough. There are a lot of intelligent men who have a personality that's so much like a primitive savage that they want to take us back to a prehistoric era rather than move us forward into a more advanced era.

For example, a lot of intelligent people support the attitude that we refer to as "buyer beware". In case you don't know what this means, when a person is cheated by a business, a common response is "buyer beware". We are told that when we're cheated by a business, it's our own fault for not investigating the company and making a wise decision about whether we can trust them. We're told that we should take care of ourselves and do a better job of investigating businesses.

A lot of intelligent people promote this philosophy, but this buyer beware attitude is exactly what we see with stupid animals. When a wolf kills a sheep, the other sheep, if they could talk, would tell each other, "What an idiot he was. He should have been watching for wolves."

Animals are extremely suspicious of every other creature and every noise. Animals assume that they are surrounded by enemies. They live in constant fear and paranoia. And animals never deal with their enemies. Instead, they hide from danger.

The people who support the “buyer beware” attitude are behaving exactly like stupid animals. This attitude allows crime to flourish, and it encourages us to be suspicious of other people and live in constant fear. It was acceptable for humans 10,000 years ago to be fearful and suspicious, but we don't have to live like that any longer.

The buyer beware attitude isn't even practical for modern societies. We can't expect citizens to investigate millions of people and businesses and make sensible decisions about which of them can be trusted.

It's not even possible for government agencies or businesses to investigate businesses. Did you see the news report I posted a couple days ago in which the US military is trying to hire more investigators? There are so many businesses cheating the military that their investigators are overwhelmed and want help.

It might help you to understand this issue if you visualize the military as a group of sheep, and the businessmen visualized as wolves that occasionally grab one of the sheep. The sheep react by hiring investigators to watch for the wolves, but that doesn't stop the wolves.

Crime is not caused by a shortage of investigators or security devices. All bad behavior is the result of decisions that people make. The only way to reduce bad behavior is to remove or suppress the people who don't behave properly. We don't need any more technology to deal with crime. We only have to change our attitudes. We simply have to get rid of our prehistoric attitudes, such as Buyer Beware, and start facing the fact that we're not living like animals any longer, and so we have to stop behaving like animals.

In a previous audio file I mentioned that Charlton Heston and other men who promote the purchasing of guns are behaving like stupid, frightened animals who hide from crime rather than face the criminals and help us make a better world. We don't stop crime by hiding and living in fear. We have to deal with the people who can't behave properly.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for a society to deal with crime because the criminals are friends and relatives of other people, and most of those other people will resist attempts to deal with the criminals. This requires that we be able to stand up to the family members of criminals in addition to the criminals themselves.

All of us are presented with endless opportunities to cheat, steal, lie, abuse, and even rape. When you go to work, you have opportunities to steal items from your employer, and from other employees. When you visit somebody's house, you have opportunities to steal from them. When you're in a retail store, you have opportunities to steal and alter price tags.

Children are so selfish and animal-like that they often grab at whatever they want, and they often lie, but as we grow up we start recognizing advanced concepts such as personal property, and we start controlling our emotional cravings.

However, there are subtle differences between us. Some of us lie and cheat on a regular basis, and some of us are more respectful. Some people commit only trivial crimes of no importance. What causes one person to steal an item from a store, while another person ignores the temptation? What causes one man to reach over and grab a woman on a crowded train, while another man suppresses the desire?

Some people commit crimes that I wouldn't even classify as a crime. For example, large companies and government agencies often have difficulty discarding unwanted items, and so they put them into a storage room. Sometimes an employee will steal one of those items, but is that a crime? Since the items eventually end up in the garbage, we could say that the employees who steal those items are doing society a favor by putting the items to use rather than letting them go to waste.

Our behavior is determined by our mind. Each of us behaves in a slightly different manner because each of us has a slightly different mind. The only way the world is going to improve is when the people start behaving better and start thinking of what's best for society instead of what's best for themselves.

This issue is especially significant with children. Since children are submissive, when we allow badly behaved children to mix with the better behaved children, the badly behaved children will inadvertently push the other children into stupid activities. I can remember this happening many times to me and other children.

Adults who have mental problems or who are more animal-like, will also be a bad influence on children, and even on other adults. They inadvertently encourage children to behave in an obnoxious manner or conduct idiotic pranks. They also encourage adults to join them in drinking alcohol, or going to a strip club, or playing video games, or gambling. And their conversations tend to be absurd or disgusting.

Crime networks that understand how a person can influence a conversation can use this technique to lure people into doing something that they can be arrested for or blackmailed over. I can give you a personal example of what may have been an attempt to lure me into something.

In December of 2005, Jimmy Walter funded a 9/11 event in Tampa and Miami, Florida, and he invited me, Morgan Reynolds, Dave von Kleist and his wife Joyce Riley, and several other people to speak at the event. Jimmy Walter funded the event, and he arranged for all of us to stay at the same hotels.
thepowerhour.com/news2/floridatour_newsrelease.htm

A few people traveled at their own expense to be in the audience and meet with some of us, such as Nila Sagadevan, Phil Jayhan, and Col. George Nelson.

Dave von Kleist and Joyce Riley brought along a woman that they were paying to help with their advertising. She was an attractive lesbian who spent a few years working in the S&M business. Her girlfriend worked for KPFK radio in California, which was a station that had posted a message on their website that they would not promote me because I'm a "Holocaust denier".

There were several times that I would go in the lobby of the hotel and visit with whoever was down there, and a few times Morgan Reynolds and George Nelson get into a conversation about how that lesbian would become a heterosexual if she were to have sex with them.

Both of those men were perhaps 60 or 70 years old, and Morgan Reynolds was married. I don't remember if George Nelson was married. I can understand men making jokes about the issue, but they weren't making jokes. They were having actual conversations about the issue. It was the type of conversations I would expect from teenage boys. I was shocked that such old men, and married men, could have such lengthy discussions about such an issue, and they got into these conversations several times over the few days that we were together. I didn't know what to say, so I just quietly listened to them.

Perhaps a few months later, Morgan Reynolds started promoting the theory that the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers were holograms, and when nobody seemed to be interested in the hologram theory, he began promoting the theory that the airplanes were blue screen technology. It has since become obvious that Morgan Reynolds is working for the Jewish crime network. I've since decided that just about everybody at that 9/11 event is working for the crime network. Colonel George Nelson, Nila Sagadevan, Phil Jayhan, Dave von Kleist, Joyce Riley, and all the people they brought along with them, who none of you would know.

And now I have to look back at the conversation between Morgan Reynolds and Colonel George Nelson and wonder if it was an attempt to encourage me to think that I could transform that lesbian. If I had shown any interest in converting her, they probably would have arranged for me to have sex with her, and then they would be able to accuse me of rape. Everybody would testify that I knew she was a lesbian, but I was such an arrogant jerk that I was certain that I could convert her to a heterosexual. Since America is loaded with corrupt lawyers, judges, and policemen, there wouldn't be anything I could do to get out of it.

That lesbian was a very attractive woman, and very pleasant, at least around me, and one morning she asked me to have breakfast with her, and so the two of us walked to a restaurant together. She wondered why KPFK radio was creating a fuss about Holocaust denial, and she wondered why I didn't believe the official story of the Holocaust. As we walked back to the hotel, she asked if I would explain my view of the Holocaust to her. So we went up to her hotel room, and she turned on a tiny audio recorder so that she could record what I say, and then she could show her girlfriend, and whoever else wanted to hear it.

During my explanation of the Holocaust, she decided to smoke some marijuana, and she offered me some, but I now have to wonder about this entire incident. Was she really interested in my explanation of the Holocaust? Or was that just an excuse to get me into her hotel room and turn on an audio recorder? Was she hoping that I would try converting her into a heterosexual? And was she hoping that I would show an interest in marijuana or other drugs? Was she just another diabolical criminal who was trying to set me up?

A few years ago there was a time when Lynn Pentz of the 9/11 movement and her Jewish friend Susan wanted to help me improve my video, Painful Deceptions, and so I agreed to let them come up to my house and stay overnight and discuss improvements to my video. But were they really interested in helping me with my video? Or were they hoping that I would try something sexual with one of them?

Is difficult to believe that people, especially women, could behave in such diabolical manners, but the Jewish crime network is turning out to be just like every other crime network. It's full of sexual perverts, drug addicts, pedophiles, and people with serious mental disorders. They don't behave like normal people. Many of these people would be better classified as savages, or creatures, or freaks, rather than as human.

I also let Sofia, who created the video 9/11 Mysteries, stay overnight at my house a few years ago when she needed to talk to somebody in Santa Barbara. She didn't seem to be trying to set me up, but recently she's becoming  rather suspicious. She now has a radio show with the Republic Broadcasting Network, and she's been promoting Daryl Smith, Clifford Carnicom, and other people I wouldn't trust.

It's also interesting that both Sofia and Smith have interviewed a woman named Jenny. They don't tell us at Jenny's last name or anything about her. The reason this is interesting is because Smith has a cousin named Jenny, and Jenny lives very close to Sofia, and Jenny and Sofia know each other.

I have to wonder what's going on. During the time that I was working with Smith, I occasionally had to listen to Sofia tell me horrible stories about Smith, such as how he viciously beat his first wife, and I had to occasionally listen to Smith tell that Sofia is a nasty, bitter woman who lies, and that I shouldn't believe anything that she tells me. I was under the impression that they each intensely disliked each other. So why are they so friendly with one another today, and promoting one another?

And if the mysterious Jenny is Smith's cousin, think about what this means. Smith has a brother named Scott, who works with Rick Adams of the Republic Broadcasting Network, and Rick Adams works with The Barnes Review, which is part of The American Free Press. Therefore, if Jenny is Smith's cousin, that means there are at least three people in this family who are trying to manipulate us. Is this some type of crime family?

I received an interesting e-mail message about a month ago from Andy Hitchcock, the man who wrote a timeline of the Rothschild family. He shows that the Rothschilds have been taking over the banks and media companies during the past couple centuries, and that they've been funding other crime families and networks.

I thought his timeline was a very good exposé of the Rothschilds, and when he decided to turn it into a paper book, he asked me for some help. He's Jewish, but I assumed that he was one of those honest Jews who was truly interested in helping us expose the Jewish crime network, so I was happy to help him, and for free. He didn't need much help anyway, he just needed somebody to set up the cover of the book. He told me what he wanted, so I set it up and sent him a PDF file that he could give to the printer.

But about a month ago he sent me an e-mail message in which he asked me to stop criticizing Smith. Why would a Jewish man who wants to help us expose the Jewish crime network ask me to stop criticizing Daryl Smith?

The answer to this question can be seen by looking at some of the other e-mail messages I get, and some of the messages that are being posted at forums. Specifically, a lot of people right now are pushing an article called The Rothschild Octopus. This is another exposé of the Rothschild family.

If you watched part 3 of my Masquerade Party videos, then you know that I think there's a fight going on between the Israeli Jews and the banking Jews. Hitchcock and the other Jews who are exposing the Rothschilds appear to be honest Jews who are trying to expose the criminal Jews, but in reality they're diabolical criminals who are trying to shift our attention away from Israel and over to the Rothschilds so that we blame the Rothschilds for all the world's problems, thereby allowing millions of other criminal Jews to go free.

This would explain why Hitchcock continues to work with Smith. Actually, according to Smith's recent audio file, Hitchcock and Smith like each other so much that Hitchcock recently traveled from England to France in order to spend a couple days at Smith's house. Who would spend time at Smith's house after what Smith did to me and Bollyn? Only another criminal Jew, that's who. It makes you wonder, is there any Jew in this so-called truth movement who is actually honest?

I also wonder if there is any Christian in this so-called truth movement who's honest. For example, the Reverend Ted Pike is still working with the white supremacists and other liars, and the Christian named Texe Marrs recently interviewed and promoted both Daryl Smith and Victor Thorn of WingTV. Rick Adams also recently interviewed and promoted Daryl Smith.

Everybody in this so-called truth movement is promoting one another, and they try to ignore me and Christopher Bollyn. It's becoming rather obvious that the truth movement, the peace groups, the white supremacist groups, and almost all other organizations are part of a giant Israeli network of liars. It's like a giant smorgasbord. There are thousands of organizations for you to choose from, but it doesn't matter which of them you choose. Every one of them is working for the Jewish crime network.

The Israeli Jews are pouring out propaganda right now in an attempt to convince us that the world's problems are due to the neocons, or the Illuminati, or the Rothschilds, or the Rockefellers, or the CIA. They don't care which of their theories you believe because all of their theories make Israel appear to be either innocent, or a helpless victim of the CIA, or the Rothschilds, or the Illuminati.

I can give you another personal example of how people can manipulate us with what appear to be innocent conversations. It happened a couple years ago. At the time I was still trusting a lot of people in the truth movement, but I had started complaining about some people, such as Dylan Avery and his video, Loose Change. I was contacted by somebody who enjoys taking ecstasy once in a while. It started as any ordinary conversation, and then got into the issue of ecstasy and its effects. Since I hadn't taken it, I was just asking questions. I was told that it helps people to relax and makes them more friendly, and I was encouraged to give it a try.

After a while I was told that Dylan Avery loves ecstasy. And I was told that he admired my work on 9/11, and that he would love to meet me and take ecstasy with me, and become my friend. I was encouraged to meet Avery and take ecstasy with him because it would help us to form a friendship and then we could work together to expose 9/11.

I have to wonder if Avery actually told somebody that he wanted to meet me or take ecstasy with me. It's possible that they were hoping I would show an interest in the drug, and if I agreed to meet Avery, then they would have told Avery that his next assignment was to travel to California to take ecstasy with me. That would have provided them with a lot of wonderful opportunities to have me arrested or blackmailed.

It seems like a lot of people in this Jewish crime network are drug users, homosexuals, gamblers, or people with some type of mental problem. The Jews sent one wierdo after the next to contact me in the hope that one of them finds my weakness. Apparently, they haven't found my weakness yet because I'm still on the loose and doing whatever I please.

When Daryl Smith traveled to England, perhaps a year ago, to be on the Islamic television show, he met with David Shayler, that so-called "British 9/11 truth seeker", and ex-MI5 agent, and he told me that he shared some cocaine with Shayler. If Shayler has a cocaine problem, that would explain why the Jews in the media and the 9/11 truth groups are promoting him as a 9/11 investigator. His ex-girlfriend, Annie Machon, is still in the truth movement and promoting Jewish propaganda, so I suppose that she was his handler, and when he began losing credibility, she abandoned him.

I suppose Smith made a mistake when he mentioned to me that he and Shayler shared some cocaine, but one of the risks that these criminals take is that they may inadvertently provide us with information about themselves in their attempt to become our friends.

A woman who contacted me in 2007 may have given me a lot of important information. She lives in Toronto and told me that when she was a child, one of the boys that she went to school with, Clyde Forshaw, was part of an organized crime family, and that he and his uncle were members of the team of snipers that shot at President Kennedy. She told me that Forshaw and his uncle drove to Dallas in a station wagon, and it was the station wagon that was seen by Officer Roger Craig.

She told me that this family was involved in lots of murders in the Toronto area, as well as the assassination of Martin Luther King, and a lot of arson, such as the burning of the Woodbine Racetrack in Toronto.

She told me that she was going to put all this information together and expose this crime family, and in the meantime, she wanted me to help her conduct interviews with such people as James Corsi and Jim Fetzer and David Hawkins of HawksCafe, and a lot of other people who I considered to be members of the Jewish crime network. So I helped her with her audio interviews, and I posted the audio files on my HugeQuestions website. Those files are still on the site, but I no longer have a link on my main page to them.

But she never did put any information on the Internet about Clyde Forshaw, but when I put some of her information about him on my site, and she discovered it, she became furious and told me to remove it immediately, and she yelled at me and threatened me. I told her that I wasn't going to remove it, and she eventually hung up, and I haven't heard from her since.

It's possible that everything she told me was a lie, but it's also possible that she was giving me some very valuable information in an attempt to become my friend, and that her assignment was to have me help her with interviews in an attempt to fool me into trusting David Hawkins, Jim Fetzer, and those other people.

If the information she gave me is accurate, that means the Jewish crime network has almost total control of Toronto. This would explain why they tested SARS in that city. In order to test biological weapons on the public, you have to have total control over the police, the courts, the universities, the medical profession, the hospitals, and the government.

She told me that Nelson Thall, who has the website cloakanddagger.de and who usually refers to himself as Lenny Bloom, is a cocaine user. She said she used to do radio shows with him. She said his family is very wealthy, and she suspects that his real last name is Rosenthal, and she wonders if was the same Rosenthal family that was involved in nuclear bomb technology.

It would be easy for people in Toronto to check some of her information. For example, she said Clyde Forshaw was working as a streetcar driver for the city of Toronto. It's an excellent job for a top assassin because nobody would expect a highly paid assassin to be working as a streetcar driver. It should be easy for somebody working for the city of Toronto to check if there really was such a streetcar driver. He's supposedly short and bald and wears a toupee. And she says he carries a gun, and since he has police protection, he can use it without fear of getting arrested, so people have to be careful of him.

She says that he doesn't kill like the assassins in the Hollywood movies. He doesn't give any warning. He just pulls out his gun and shoots a person in the forehead and one other location usually for a total of two shots. Then he removes one of the victim's shoes in order to let the police know that it's one of his murders. The police will usually arrest some partially retarded man, and then the public is fooled into thinking that the murder has been solved.

Before I got into all of these personal examples, the point I was trying to make is that some people are a bad influence on society, even if they're honest. Allowing people with mental disorders or animal-like behavior to mingle with normal people can cause the conversations and activities to become more idiotic, or dangerous, or even criminal.

Just because a person is intelligent, educated, or honest doesn't mean that he's a respectable citizen. If his personality is more like a primitive savage, or if he's unhappy, or if has some emotional disorder, then he can be a bad influence on the other people.

When children or adults get together, their conversations and activities depend upon their personalities. The people with the lower quality minds will inadvertently push the conversation towards idiotic subjects, such as converting a lesbian to a heterosexual, or Madonna's latest divorce. They also encourage idiotic activities, such as playing pranks or having a contest to see who can drink the most beer in the shortest period of time.

This is part two of my talk for July 2, 2008.

As I was saying, people with mental disorders or animal-like behavior can influence conversations and activities.

Children are so submissive that it's easy to notice that their conversations and activities are dramatically influenced by one child with emotional disorders. Adults are not as submissive, so they're not as easily influenced, but it can happen with adults. This is especially true when one of the adults is in a leadership position.

Every society is currently dominated by adults with intense, animal-like cravings for dominance and material wealth, and they're a bad influence on society because they encourage extreme emphasis on money and status. Some of these men may be honest, but that's not good enough for our era. We need leaders who inspire people to behave in productive manners.

A lot of corporations behave in a manner that's detrimental to society, and many people blame this bad behavior on the corporation, but this behavior is not coming from the intangible corporation. It's coming from the men in control of the corporation.

Corporate leaders are like primitive savages whose only concern in life is becoming the dominant male. They encourage their employees to steal technology from competing businesses, and use sexual titillation in advertisements in order to boost sales, and they look for ways to cheat the government.

It doesn't matter if our leaders follow the law. That's not good enough for our era. We have to look at what their effect is on society. We need leaders who can contribute something of value to society, and who encourage good behavior from other people. We don't need prehistoric savages who are merely satisfying crude, animal-like cravings for dominance.

I suspect that a lot of the people who assisted with the assassination of President Kennedy, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing hoax, and even the world wars were honest people who were pressured by their leaders into assisting with these crimes.

This brings up the interesting issue of why some people are easier to deceive and cheat and manipulate. Some people become victims over and over, while other people are rarely victims.

Furthermore, I don't think every race of humans has identical mental qualities, so I would bet that some races are easier to cheat than others.

People who are cheated are often ridiculed as gullible, and people who are successful at cheating are often regarded as clever, but there's nothing clever about taking advantage of a person who trusts other people.

I suspect that one of the reasons that Jews have been so successful in crime is because there's an emotional difference between us in regards to our suspicion of other people. Perhaps the Jews are naturally more suspicious of other people. This would make it more difficult to cheat a Jew. And the rest of us may be more trusting, and that would explain why the Jews have such an easy time cheating us. Furthermore, Jews may be naturally more aggressive and more willing to cheat.

As I look over my life, I can see that I've been cheated many times by many different people because I have a tendency to assume that people are honest, and I have a tendency to give people a chance to prove themselves. I've also known other people who have been cheated over and over, but I wouldn't describe them as stupid or as fools. Rather, they also have a tendency to assume that other people are honest.

When I was young I was listening to a Jewish man talk about his former employer, Michael. He told us that one time Michael received a package from United Parcel. And about a week later Michael called the company and complained that he never received the package. The company apologized and sent him another package.

I assumed that he was telling us this story because he was going to criticize Michael's dishonest behavior, but to my surprise, his conclusion to this story was that Michael was a clever businessman. After all these decades I still remember his expression, "clever businessman". What is clever about pretending that you didn't receive a package? This is one of the reasons that businesses want tracking numbers on every package.

It might help you to understand the issue of suspicion and crime if you look at the fear that children have of the dark. And notice that children are afraid to let their arms dangle over the bed because they worry a monster might bite it.

Religious people have no way to explain why a loving god would give children a fear of the dark, but this makes sense when you consider that humans evolved from animals.

Baby animals don't wander far away from their mother. We assume it's because they love their mother, but the baby animals who were more independent or curious tended to wander farther away from their mother, and those babies were the most likely to be eaten or get lost. The baby animals that survived childhood were those that had an emotional desire to be close to its mother all the time.

Since every animal and human is a random mix of chromosomes, there are always variations among the babies, but nature gets rid of the babies that end up with detrimental qualities. The human children thousands of years ago who didn't have much fear of the dark would sometimes wander farther away from their parents at night, and the end result would be that those children would be the ones most likely to be eaten by wolves, or they might step on a sharp object and get an infection.

And the children who didn't care where their arms were when they slept were the most likely to have their arms accidentally stepped on by the adults, and they would be the most likely to be bitten by insects, spiders, and rats.

The fear of the dark is an indication of how dangerous life was for animals and humans. All animals and primitive humans had to be constantly on the lookout for danger, and they had to be suspicious of every creature and every noise and every dark area. All animals and humans lived in fear.

A lot of Jews consider themselves to be clever because they can cheat people, but perhaps the reason it's more difficult to cheat a Jew is because they're naturally more suspicious of other people. I'm sure the Jews would say that their suspicion of other people is a sign that they're superior, but I would say it's because they're actually more like primitive savages. And I would say that the reason the rest of us are more trusting is because we're a more advanced, more modern human who started to evolve beyond that crude, animal-like existence.

If we were to give animals as much intelligence as a human, they would show no interest in society or learning about the universe or treating other animals with decency. Intelligent animals would spend their time trying to stimulate their crude emotions for food, sex, and dominance. This could explain why some people, especially Jews, have a stronger attraction to such activities as pornography, gambling, sex slavery, and organized crime. Specifically, the humans who have a stronger attraction to these animal-like activities may be more like primitive savages than the rest of us.

The Jews have been a bad influence in every society that they lived in. They promote crude animal-like behavior and attitudes. They think of themselves as the special, chosen people, and they may be intelligent, but today I think that they have a more primitive, more animal mind.

But Jews are not the only people with crude behavior. Every nation is full of people who behave more like a savage than a modern human. Every society is full of people who have almost no interest in society, or gardens, or architecture, or science, or dealing with the problems that we face. They prefer to spend their lives titillating their crude desires for sex, drugs, gambling, pornography, slavery, money, fame, and religion. Some of these savages create organized crime gangs and prey on the rest of us.

We shouldn't promote the idea that criminals are clever, or that the victims of crime are fools who should have been watching for danger. There's nothing clever about cheating people or defeating a security system. A person who is truly clever will be able to improve life for us. If the only thing a person can do is cheat, then he has no talent. He's just a destructive, parasitic, freak who doesn't belong in this modern world.

As I look at myself, I can see that the primary reason that Jews have been so successful with crime is because it's difficult for some of us to believe that humans would behave in such disgusting manners. A couple years before the 9/11 attack my father made a remark about the government involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, and I responded that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself. I never investigated the attack, but I was certain that the official story was correct because, as I told my father, the FBI agents would never tolerate such a crime, and schoolteachers would never teach students that Oswald killed Kennedy if it wasn't true. I was assuming that FBI agents and schoolteachers had a personality just like me. If I was a teacher, I wouldn't wan to teach false history, and if I was an FBI agent, I wouldn't help organize crime gangs turn America into a nation of savages in which the men select leaders through murder.

And when somebody first told me that the Apollo moon landing was staged here on the earth, I dismissed it on the grounds that university professors wouldn't teach students that astronauts landed on the moon if it wasn't true, and scientists and engineers would never tolerate such a deception, either.

When I first started telling people about the World Trade Center towers being demolished with explosives and that the attack was a staged event, people reacted to me the same way I reacted to my father. They would tell me that nobody would commit such an incredible crime, and the police wouldn't tolerate such a crime, and the media wouldn't lie to us, and the firemen wouldn't tolerate the crime, either.

The Jews think they're clever because they cab get away with these crimes, but they're not clever. They're simply taking advantage of those of us who were more honest and who have trouble believing that humans would behave in such disgusting manners.

A phrase that's often attributed to PT Barnum is "there's a sucker born every minute". Barnum may not have made that remark, but a lot of people follow that philosophy. They consider those of us who are cheated to be suckers. However, I think that those of us who assume humans are honest are actually a more a advanced human, and that we should deal with the criminals rather than laugh at the victims.

We have to decide what type of society we want. Do we want a society in which victims of crimes are ridiculed as suckers? Or do we want to create a society in which the badly behaved people are removed?

What type of society would you prefer? Would you rather live in a world in which you must be suspicious of other people, and where everybody has security devices in their homes and businesses, and where everybody has to purchase guns or pepper spray and be on the lookout for burglars, rapists, and murderers?

Or would you rather live in a world in which badly behaved people are removed so that we can trust everybody, including the policemen, the government officials, and the schoolteachers?

If we can find enough people who don't want to live in fear like a stupid animal, then we can set up a world in which we can trust other humans. This requires that we deal with people who don't behave properly. But this brings up a very complex issue. Specifically, we have to decide who among us is behaving badly, and we had to decide what to do with those badly behaved people.

There's no dividing line between people who behave properly and people who don't. All of us can be considered as intelligent monkeys, and all of us have flaws. All of us sometimes make remarks or behave in ways that we wish we didn't.

We can't please everybody. We have to make a decision about which behavior and attitudes we want to promote, and which we want to suppress. We have to decide who we want to consider as a "normal" and who we want to consider as “crude” or “animal-like”. We have to decide who we want to please, and who we want to supress.

Consider the issue of television shows that try to manipulate us. Even if you don't have a television, you can watch excerpts on the Internet to get an idea of what modern television shows are like. Take a look at the show called Dancing With The Stars. They refer to it as ballroom dancing, but sometimes the women are dressed like prostitutes in skimpy outfits and high heeled shoes, and recently some of the men have been taking off some of their clothing. And the audience screams and applauds as if somebody installed electrodes in their brains and is pressing the switch every few minutes.

In my teenage years I loved watching the pretty girls on television, and the phony laughter put me in the mood to laugh. But by my late teenage years I had become disgusted with the manipulation. I decided that I would never buy a television or subscribe to newspapers or magazines.

Why is it that I got tired of this abuse as a teenager, but most adults love to sit for hours in front of a television day after day, year after year, decade after decade? Why don't they get tired of the sexual titillation or the phony laughter? Why don't they resent the attempt by businessmen to manipulate them?

And take a look at the show called America's Funniest Home Videos. One of the events that they show all the time is a boy or man who is accidentally hit in the crotch. I giggled at those accidents when I was a child, and I can understand that adults will be amused by these accidents once in a while, but millions of adults giggle about this type of accident day after day, year after year, decade after decade. Why don't they get tired of it?

And consider the nursing of babies. In every society that we consider to be advanced, the women have to hide themselves when they want to nurse their babies. I can understand why people don't want women nursing babies in public buildings because we don't want babies burping and spitting up food inside the buildings or distracting us with their crying or the stinky diapers. But what is wrong with a woman who nurses a baby in an area where she doesn't bother anybody? Why should women have to find a hiding place in order to nurse a baby?

And consider how many television shows and Hollywood movies have what we call "toilet humor", but schools are not allowed to teach children about sex or bodily functions. We allow businessmen to make money from jokes about diarrhea and vomiting, but we won't allow schools to provide any serious information about these issues.

And today there is a campaign to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle rather than a serious defect that should be researched and understood.

We have to pass judgment on what type of behavior is acceptable, and which behavior is infantile, or childish, or animal-like. We have to make decisions about what we want the human race to become. Do we want the human race to become a creature in which both children and adults spend hours in front of a television giggling at men who are hit in the crotch, and who love being titillated with partially naked bodies and phony laughter? Do we want a world in which women have to hide when they nurse their babies? Do we want a world in which schools are forbidden to teach children about bodily functions, but movies such as Borat are allowed to make enormous amounts of profit from toilet humor? Do we want a world in which children are taught that homosexuality is simply a choice that they make?

The future of the human race is going to depend upon who gets to influence it. If we let the primitive savages make the decisions, then the emphasis will continue to be on gambling casinos, strip clubs, organized religions, video games, alcohol, phony laughter, toilet humor, and jewelry.

So who among us will make the decisions? How do we determine which of us should be considered a modern human and which of us should be considered a savage or a retard?

We like to think of all humans as being identical, but the human gene pool is full of primitive traits, and so each us is random mix of modern and prehistoric genetic traits. Some of us end up more like primitive savages than modern humans.

It may help you to understand this concept if you watch what happens to a human egg after it's fertilized. Watching an egg develop into a child is like watching time lapse photography of millions of years of evolution. The egg first turns into a hollow ball, and later it becomes a fish with a tail and slits for gills, and eventually it becomes something that resembles a tiny human.

A lot of people assume that the development process stops after the child is born, but it doesn't. Watching a child develop into an adult is like watching time lapse photography of the evolution of a monkey into a human. Children are not miniature adults. They are more like primitive humans.

The qualities we see in children are an indication of what our primitive ancestors were like. A good example is the speech abilities of children.

I've never met a young child who is capable of pronouncing my first name properly because they cannot pronounce the letter "R". Instead of saying Eric, they pronounce it as Elic or Ehic. Young children also have trouble with the TH sound.

People who believe that humans are a creation of god have no way to explain why young children cannot pronounce certain sounds. Midgets are capable of pronouncing my name, but that's because a midget truly is a miniature adult. Children are not miniature adults. There is something different about children. A child's speech abilities, emotions, and other qualities are more similar to what we would expect from our primitive ancestors.

If it were possible for us to increase the intelligence of a monkey to the level of a human, that monkey would be able to understand what we say to it, but it wouldn't be able to talk to us because it wouldn't have the ability to produce the sounds in our language. A monkey could pronounce some of our words, but not enough to have a conversation with us.

Try speaking some of the languages that have been around since prehistoric times, such as German. During the past couple centuries, thousands of new words have been added to the German language, but pronounce the words that have been around for thousands of years. What you'll notice is that none of them require any advanced speech abilities.

Perhaps it's my imagination, but it seems like half the words in the German language require only the Z sound, such as the common phase, Sind Sie. Anybody can make those sounds, even children, because all it requires is that you be able to vibrate your tongue. And some German sounds are grunting noises. The ancient German sounds don't require complex use of our lips or tongue.

The Chinese language also appears to be very old, and that may be why it doesn't have the more modern R or TH sounds. Their common expression "Wor Aie Nee" is spelled with an R when we convert it to the English alphabet, but when the Chinese make that R sound, they resemble a child who is struggling to pronounce my name. That word may have developed thousands of years before the Chinese had the ability to make the R sound.

If monkeys were more intelligent, they would probably have an easier time pronouncing German or Chinese compared to English.

The issue of pronouncing the R and the TH sound may seem to be of academic interest only, but I think there's a lot of significance to this.

We like to think that modern humans are genetically isolated from our primitive ancestors, but that doesn't make sense. When one creature evolves into another, it doesn't get a completely new set of chromosomes.

When monkeys developed into humans, there was never a point during this development at which the monkey chromosomes were removed by a god and replaced with modern human chromosomes. Instead, a few new traits developed, and some of the monkey traits deteriorated, and some of the monkey traits changed slightly.

Once you realize that most of our genetic qualities are actually very old, then you can understand how it's possible for a modern man and woman to give birth to a variety of children, some of whom behave and speak more like a primitive savage than a modern human.

Listen to the way people pronounce words all over the world. You should notice a pattern. Specifically, the people who live in the poorer sections, or who are in jail, or who join organized crime networks, will often have a noticeably sloppier pronunciation than the rest of us. Most people assume that the different pronunciations are because of regional isolation, and there's some truth to this theory, but that doesn't explain why there are differences in pronunciation between brothers and sisters, or between people within the same neighborhood.

The most sensible explanation for why people pronounce words differently is because we have different genetic traits. Some people seem to have inherited more of a primitive genetic traits, and the end result is that they pronounce words like a primitive savage rather than a modern human.

America, Canada, and Australia were initially created by poor people, criminals, alcoholics, unhappy people, and other misfits. There's a widespread attitude in America that the misfits are victims of aristocrats or corporations or greedy rich people, and we're encouraged to feel sorry for the misfits and refer to them as “underdogs” or as “disadvantaged”.

However, it doesn't make sense to say that these people are victims of other people. As I explained in other files, everybody's primary enemy is himself, not other people. The poor people and the alcoholics and the unhappy people are suffering because of their own mental and physical problems, not because of aristocrats or corporations.

Some people are physically defective, and that makes it difficult for them to make a living, but most of the poor people and criminals are suffering because of their mental defects.

It's possible that most of the poor people and criminals inherited a lot of prehistoric genetic traits, and so they may be more like our prehistoric ancestors, and would make it difficult for them to fit into our modern, technically advanced society.

This could explain why so many of those people have trouble pronouncing modern words. America was created by people from England, so initially American English should have been identical to the English that they speak in England. However, within England there are variations of English, and within America we can also find variations of English.

Most people dismiss the different pronunciations as meaningless curiosities due to the isolation of different regions, but isolation can explain only some of the differences. How do we explain the differences in pronunciation within a city and within a family? The family members are not isolated from one another, so their differences in pronunciation cannot be due to isolation. Instead, the reason brothers and sisters pronounce words differently is because they have different minds, or different vocal cords, or different mouths.

Every society has a variation of its language that they consider to be proper, and in every case that proper language requires the most advanced tongue and mouth coordination, and the most advanced mind. The English that people speak in Australia is a slurred version of the proper English of England.

The English that people speak in Boston and in the southern states of America is also a sloppy version of English. These are not meaningless variations of pronunciation due to isolation. Rather, they are sloppy pronunciations, and it's evidence that the people who dominated those regions and created those pronunciations were people with more primitive characteristics, or more genetic defects, or both.

If you've ever heard somebody speak after he had a shot of Novocain from the dentist, then you may have noticed that his speech resembled the people in the southern states of America, or in Boston. The people in those regions have trouble pronouncing the advanced R and the TH sound. For example, instead of saying "around" they say 'awound' instead of 'stars' they say 'stasss' . These are not regional differences in pronunciation. They're slurs and sloppy pronunciations.

The televison reporter Barbara Walters has struggled to pronounce words properly. Victor Thorn of WingTV has a New England accent. On the Republic Broadcasting Network is a radio host named Lee Rogers who slurs his words. Scott Smith, the brother of Daryl Smith, has a strong New England accent.

We currently dismiss these accents and speech problems, but we should consider the possibility that their sloppy pronunciation is because they inherited primitive genetic qualities, and that they may be more like savages than the rest of us.

Congressman Barney Frank and a lot of other homosexuals have trouble pronouncing words properly. Many people assume that it's because they're homosexual, but how does being homosexual cause you to pronounce words differently? Women have better speech abilities than men, and they have more coordination with their fingers, so if a homosexual man is simply a man who is more feminine than normal, then I would expect him to have better speech abilities and better handwriting, but some homosexuals have terrible speech abilities and sloppy handwriting. I suspect that homosexuality is actually a very serious genetic mistake, not something trivial.

I've never studied any homosexuals so I don't know how the typical homosexual lives, but judging by the remarks on the Internet about their frequent sex partners and orgies, it seems as if a lot of them spend an abnormal amount of time fantasizing about and having sex.

People who have lots of sex boast that they're having more fun than the rest of us, but I think people with intense cravings for sex, money, fame, food, gambling, and other activities are actually unhappy, and that they're engaging in these activities to an excess because they are trying to bring some pleasure into their miserable lives. They're similar to a rat with an electrode in its brain that presses an electrical switch over and over in order to stimulate itself.

We currently ignore people who have speech problems, or we feel sorry for them, but I don't think we should allow them into positions of influence. Just because a man CAN speak properly doesn't mean we can trust them but if a man CAN'T speak properly, why should we take the chance that he can think properly?

If a person practices his pronunciation long enough, he may eventually overcome his stuttering or his lousy pronunciation, but he will still have whatever problem caused his speech disorders, so don't be fooled into thinking that he has been transformed into a normal human. He may have learned how to overcome his problem, but that problem is still there.

Everybody has flaws of some type, so we can't demand that we have perfect leaders, but some defects are more serious than others, and we're foolish to ignore the serious problems. The people with speech problems and other defects will try to make us feel bad for treating them differently, but they ARE different from us, and we're foolish to ignore these differences.

Parents are also foolish to ignore the defects in their own children. Humans and animals have such an incredibly strong attraction to their children that we're certain that our children are better than everybody else's children. But everybody's children are just a random mix of genetic traits, so everybody can produce children with defects and awful qualities. In prehistoric times it made sense for parents to be extremely biased towards their own children, but in this modern era we need parents who can think in terms of what's best for the human race, not what's best for their own crummy children.

I mentioned in one of my previous audio files that a Jewish man has been calling me on the phone almost every night for the past couple of years. He can't pronounce the word gas as in gasoline. He pronounces it as if it was spelled GAZ. There is something wrong with his ability to pronounce certain sounds.

This particular man is an interesting study in human behavior. Anybody who would listen to our conversations would realize that I'm not interested in being his friend. So why does he call me almost every day, and sometimes twice a day? When he misses a day, he will apologize for not calling me.

He is trying desperately to be my friend. His behavior reminds me of the way Jimmy Walter was constantly surrounded by people who wanted to be his friend, and it seems to happen to everybody who has lots of money or fame.

Consider the case of Anna Nicole Smith, the woman who worked at a strip club and ended up marrying a very old and wealthy client, and when he died, she fought a legal battle to inherit an enormous amount of his money. According to the news reports, her lawyer, Howard Stern, fell in love with her during the many years that he worked for her. A photographer also fell in love with her. After she and her son died, both of those men claimed to be the father of her only remaining child. They both wanted custody of that child, and all of the money that the child would inherit.

Some people speculate that she married the wealthy old man because she wanted his money, and some people wonder if her lawyer was pretending to be in love with her because he also wanted the money, and some people even wonder if he arranged for the murder of her and her son so that he could get complete control of her money. But is it possible for humans to behave in such parasitic and disgusting manners?

After watching people pursue Jimmy Walter and struggle to be his friend, and after experiencing a man call me on the phone almost every night for several years, I have to say that this behavior is not only possible, but it's actually happening all the time to lots of us.

However, I wouldn't describe this behavior as “evil”. I would say it is “animal-like”. The animals that form societies have an emotional craving to follow the dominant male. Animals don't pass judgment on which male should be the dominant male, and they don't care about the qualities of the dominant male. They simply follow the dominant male, regardless of who he is or how he behaves.

Humans are exactly the same. Our natural tendency is to follow the dominant male, not pass judgment on who the dominant male should be. Some extreme cases are the British who followed King George two centuries ago, even though people complained that he was insane, and the women who followed Phil Spector while he was on trial for murdering women. Animals and humans don't care if their leader is crazy, or abusive, or disgusting.

This behavior is beneficial to animals, and animals don't have the intelligence to abuse the relationship between the dominant male and the submissive males. However, humans have the intelligence to realize that while they're following the dominant male, they can steal from him, or murder him and take his money. And the dominant human has the intelligence to realize that he can take advantage of the submissive men. And he will realize that he can help his friends get into positions of leadership so that they can work together to get even more control over the submissive men.

Our animal-like desire to give blind obedience to the dominant male is extremely detrimental today because it's allowing crime networks to take advantage of our societies.

Many British citizens will become offended when somebody complains that the woman they refer to as a queen is just an ordinary woman of no importance, and many American citizens become offended if we complain that our government leaders are criminals and idiots.

The humans who are best adapted to this modern era are those who are capable of looking critically at people in leadership positions, and who can pass judgment on who deserves to be a leader. The people who insist on giving blind obedience to their leader, or who condemn us as treasonous when we complain about our leaders, are not patriotic people; they're behaving like dumb animals, and they're allowing phenomenal corruption and abuse.

Most people don't have the intelligence, or even the desire to analyze leaders, so it's acceptable for the majority of people to behave like a dumb animal and give blind obedience to their leaders. However, it's not acceptable for them to insult us as unpatriotic when we try to analyze our leaders. We can't all behave like dumb animals. Somebody has to analyze the leaders and make decisions about who belongs in leadership positions.

All of the problems that were suffering from are because most humans want to act like dumb animals. Consider the issue of rape and theft.

When a dog sees a piece of meat, it will try to grab it and eat it. Dogs don't understand the concept of private property, or personal possessions, or manners. When a dog sees something that it wants, it just goes after it.

When a dog is sexually excited, it will have sex with whatever it pleases, including human legs. The dog doesn't think of itself as a rapist or as a pervert. There are photographs of dogs trying to have sex with a cat, and there's a photograph of a deer trying to have sex with a dog. I've even seen a photograph that shows an animal trying to have sex with a statue of an animal. It's possible that some of these photographs were fake, but if you've ever had a dog try to have sex with your leg, it should be obvious to you that animals are stupid creatures who simply follow their emotional cravings.

Likewise, the men who cheat us or rape us are not evil. A more accurate description is that they're more like animals that the rest of us, and that they are simply pursuing their emotional cravings. Some male monkeys simulate sex acts on other males in order to show their dominance, and so we should consider that some men who rape are simply following this animal-like craving to show their dominance over other people. They may not be raping for sex.

And consider how pet dogs will beg people for food. The dogs don't consider themselves as parasites or as free loaders. Dogs don't understand the concept of personal property or working for its meal. When a dog sees food, its emotions cause it to want the food, and since dogs are stupid, their solution is to whine or jump up on us.

When children beg their parents for food, they're behaving just like a stupid animal. If children were simply miniature adults, they might offer to do something in return for the food, but children never make such offers. Instead, children behave just like stupid, selfish animals. Parents do a lot for their children and their pets, but neither the children nor the pets ever do anything in return.

A lot of people claim that their pets love them, but animals never actually do anything for other animals or humans. Animals only satisfy themselves.

For example, when a mother animal feeds her babies, she seems to be concerned about her babies, and she seems to be doing something to help them. But all she's doing is satisfying her own emotional cravings. Female animals are emotionally titillated by the sight, sound, and smell of babies, and when they feed their babies, it's only to satisfy their own emotions, not because they understand what a baby is or that it needs food. They have no understanding of what they're doing.

You can even see this idiotic behavior with humans. Women play with babies as if the babies are toys. They even pass their babies from one woman to the next so that each woman can take turns holding it and kissing it and titillating themselves with it. Women play with their babies because they want to satisfy their own emotions, not because the baby wants this type of behavior.

Men treat women in a similar manner as women treat babies. We see women as objects to play with and entertain ourselves with. And men like to show their wives to other men, just like women like to show their babies to other women. An amusing comedy routine would be to have men treat their wives in the exact same manner as women treat babies. Imagine a man walking into an office with his new wife, and the other men gather around to look at her, and he passes her around so that the other man can take turns holding her and kissing her and smelling her.

Humans are just advanced animals. We are still extremely selfish. However, some of our emotions cause us to do things that benefit other people, and this creates the impression that we care about other people.

So, if humans are just selfish animals, then how do we explain people such as myself who claim to be interested in making better cities, or better schools, or a better society? Why would I care about a better school when I don't even have any children of my own?

The answer to this paradox is that I am indeed just as selfish as the rest of the human population, but there are subtle differences in our emotions and our mental abilities.

I want to satisfy my emotions, but my emotions are slightly different than those of some of the other men in this world. The typical male animal wants nothing more from life than to become the dominant male, and to have lots of food to eat and have lots of sex. These seem to be the primary goals of most male humans. Take a look at business executives. All they seem to care about is acquiring large amounts of money and material items, and then showing off to other men. They behave just like the male animals who struggle for dominance.

I'm just as selfish as those business executives, and I have the same emotions that they have, but there are subtle differences in our emotions. Those subtle differences cause us to pursue different activities and associate with different people. I'm just like other men in that I'm emotionally attracted to the idea of becoming the dominant male, and having lots of money, and feeling important, and winning awards, and having lots of sex, but there are other things that attract my attention even more than money and awards. For example, when I was a teenager I read about how carbon alters the property of iron, and how heating and cooling the iron can create hardened steel, and I thought this was fascinating. And when I was a child I saw drawings of possible cities of the future, and that interested me more than anything else.

By the time I was in junior high school, I was spending a lot of my free time daydreaming about cities that are clean and quiet and beautiful. I came up with all sorts of different ideas for alternative transportation devices, and I would think of how to make schools more practical, and I would wonder how we could deal with crime so that we didn't need security devices on our homes or businesses or other possessions. I would wonder how to make a better government, and how to make a better economy. I would wonder how we can change the economy so that we could do research into issues that nobody seems to know much about, such as human health.