|Wednesday June 23, 2010
Before I discuss issues that are likely to be emotional, I thought I should point out that if you're having trouble understanding my remarks about the importance of robots and computer-controlled lawnmowers, it might help you to watch some of the videos that BP is providing of their robotic submarines. Disregard the very likely possibility that BP is deliberately causing as much destruction as they possibly can. Instead, notice the awkwardness of the robotic arms.
During the 1980's a small company, that I no longer remember much about, was developing a microprocessor for the joints of hydraulic arms, such as those on backhoes and bulldozers. The microprocessors would control acceleration and deceleration of the joints in order to reduce the jerkiness of the arm, and the microprocessors would be connected to stress sensors that would allow it to send feedback to the operator of the machine so that he could sense when the arm was touching something, and how much resistance the arm was encountering.
To understand the value of this type of feedback system, imagine yourself sitting at your computer with your eyes closed. As you move the mouse away from you, the cursor moves towards the top of the computer screen. When it reaches the top, it stops moving, but since your eyes are closed, you won't realize that it stopped, and so you will continue moving the mouse.
Now imagine that you have a special mouse that gets feedback from the computer. As you move the mouse away from you, the cursor moves towards the top of the screen. When it reaches the top, the computer sends a message to the mouse to stop allowing forward motion. The mouse turns on motors that resist forward motion, but allow motion in the other directions. You would realize that the mouse is at the top of the screen.
Now apply this concept to a robotic arm. Imagine yourself wearing gloves that have sensors and motors. When you move your fingers, the sensors send signals to the robotic arm to move in the same manner. When the robotic fingers touch an object, they send back a signal to the gloves to activate motors to resist your motion. You would be able to feel what the robot feels. When the robot touches an object that is very hard, such as a rock, the motors in your glove would put up tremendous resistance, letting you realize that you just touched a very hard object. If the robot touched something flexible, like a rubber ball, the motors would put up only slight resistance, and you would sense that you were touching something soft.
This type of feedback would make it possible for you to do delicate work with robots, and at a rapid pace. You would be able to accurately control the fingers even if you couldn't see very well, such as when the robot is submerged in muddy water. Furthermore, you would be able to easily operate and coordinate two arms at the same time. And each robotic arm could have four independent fingers and an independent thumb rather than a crude crab-like claw.
By providing the robots with several cameras, you could see three-dimensional images. And by providing the robots with different types of cameras, you could switch between visible light, infrared, x-rays, or sonar.
This feedback system would also make it easy for you to control robotic legs. You would put on a suit that has sensors and motors all over it, and stand on a conveyor belt that can rotate. When you move your legs and arms, the robot moves in the identical manner. By walking on the conveyor belt, you don't actually go anywhere, but the robot imitates your motion. When the robot encounters resistance, you will feel what it feels. This type of system would allow you to control robots that walk.
These type of robots would make a lot of jobs much more pleasant. A coal miner would remain in a comfortable office on the surface of the Earth and control robots in a coal mine that would be unsafe for humans. If these robots were advanced enough, an electrician would be able to repair power lines and transformers without fear of being electrocuted and without turning off the power.
We could use these type of robots for exploration. NASA wouldn't have to fake a trip to Venus. They could send a few of these robots and allow human astronauts to explore the planets while remaining here on the earth.
These type of robots could also be used for "virtual travel". If you wanted to visit Antarctica, or a tropical rain forest, you wouldn't have to bother making the trip. You could sit in a comfortable chair and watch the three-dimensional images from a robot that you control. The concept of virtual travel might seem ridiculous, but if you were to experience it, I'm sure that you would immediately realize that these robots provide incredible opportunities. You could go underwater without any concern for temperature, sharks, or alligators. You would be able to walk up to the rim of a volcano. With a tiny robot, you could climb into trees and observe squirrels, birds, and monkeys.
If we could make these robots as small as a mouse, a gardener could send then into a gopher hole to find and kill the gophers. And if we could make robots even smaller, we could send them into a nest of termites to observe or eliminate them. And imagine a robot so tiny that it could be inject it into your bloodstream so that you can explore your veins and your heart.
As of today, our robots are so crude that BP can easily claim that they don't have the technology to fix their leaky oil well because it is so deep in the ocean. And this morning they are claiming that their crude robot accidentally knocked off the loose fitting containment cap. Oil is now pouring out into the ocean at a very high rate. If we had been putting some resources into robotics, then BP would not have any excuse for not immediately repairing this oil well.
The point I want to make is that the human race has a lot of opportunities available to us. Robotics is just one example. There are lots of projects that we could be working on to make our lives nicer. We could be experimenting with different cities and transportation devices, and different types of phone systems and computer networks. Unfortunately, the type of people who dominate the world today are not interested in any of these opportunities. They don't want to experiment with better cities, or more advanced robots. Their primary interests are feeling important and being pampered by servants. They want a large collection of material items. They behave like savages, not modern humans.
Did you see the recent news reports about General Electric pushing government
officials into giving them a contract to produce an alternative engine
to the F-35 military aircraft?
The contract for that engine was given to Pratt & Whitney, and the military is insisting that they don't want to waste money on the production of a second engine. But the executives of General Electric don't care what the military wants. They've been pushing Congress into giving them a contract to produce a second engine anyway.
Imagine this happening on a smaller scale, such as your family. Imagine that you hire a carpenter to build a patio for your house, and another carpenter becomes furious because he did not get the job, and so he spends several years bribing and manipulating your family members into hiring him to build a second patio, even though you insist that you don't want another patio.
This type of behavior is disgusting, but corporate executives are behaving like this on a routine basis. There are lots of useful projects that we could be working on, but our economy is currently dominated by executives who fight with one other, just like stupid animals.
Another area where we could be putting some effort is understanding
the foods we eat. There was a television show recently in which a British
man named Jamie Oliver was sent to a small town in America to teach the
schools how to provide more nutritious meals for their children.
I saw some of his television shows, and he made quite a few interesting remarks. For example, he was upset that both parents and school officials were purchasing large amounts of frozen pizza for the children to have for both breakfast and lunch. However, in one of his shows he boasted that he was making fresh pasta for the children. What's the difference between a frozen pizza and fresh pasta? Both of them are made from highly refined wheat that has been stripped of all of its nutrients, and both are usually flavored with tomato sauces. From a nutritional point of view, I don't see any difference between frozen pizza and fresh pasta. They seem to be variations of the same ingredients.
Furthermore, what's wrong with having a pizza for breakfast? In my video of how I make bread by grinding grains, I sometimes put olive oil and tomato sauce on the bread, then this could be described as a variation of a pizza. What's wrong with eating this for breakfast? Are there certain foods that we should avoid until later in the day?
Furthermore, I make my bread from whole grains, but is this really better than making bread from refined flour? The reason I ask is because when a seed or nut has been removed from its shell, it begins to deteriorate. It might be better for our health if we leave walnuts, almonds, wheat, oats, and other seeds in their shell until we are ready to use them.
Jamie Oliver complained that the children and parents were ignorant about food and nutrition, but the entire human race is ignorant about food and digestion. For example, my mother likes to eat potato skins, and a couple months ago I bought some very small sweet potatoes, and the skin was thin and delicate, and I wondered, why should I bother to peel these? Are the skins poisonous? I decided to leave the skin on the sweet potato, and cut it into pieces. Then I mixed in some molasses, cinnamon, coconut oil, and Stevia. I've done this a couple times already, and I'm still alive to talk about it, so I suppose the skins are safe to eat.
In case you haven't noticed, we get satisfaction when we chew on food. If you had to eat soups or soft food all the time, you would quickly get tired of it and crave something to chew on. As a result, you might occasionally enjoy chewing on potato skins, or you might like to cut a potato into pieces and leave the skin on it so that you have something to chew on.
What about the skins on the tropical fruit called loquats? I have a loquat tree in my yard, and one day I wondered, do I have to peel these? I decided to try eating them with the skins. If the loquat is not completely ripe, the skins are slightly bitter, but if the loquat is fully ripe, the skins are fine. And for all I know, the skins are nutritious.
I was also wondering if the seeds can be eaten, but because some seeds are poisonous, I didn't want to eat them and hope for the best. Eventually it occurred to me that there might be information about them on the Internet, and I discovered that the seeds are slightly poisonous, although I didn't see any information about whether the skins are safe to eat.
It's amazing how little we know about foods and digestion. For another example, is it a good idea to eat meat and raw vegetables in the same meal? The reason I ask is that there were a few times when I ate meat with coleslaw, and I made the coleslaw with raw, purple cabbage. About an hour or two after the meal, my stomach seemed bloated. This happened a couple times, and I decided not to eat raw cabbage with meat, and it hasn't happened since. Was this just a coincidence? Or are there certain foods that we should not mix together in the same meal?
Another issue that we are ignorant about is whether we should drink more water than we want to drink. Some people claim that it's difficult for our kidneys to process our blood if we don't drink a lot of water, but that doesn't make sense to me. How can it be difficult for our kidneys to do a job that they were designed for? What if somebody told you that you shouldn't climb stairs because it's difficult on your muscles?
You wouldn't force oil into an automobile engine, so why should we force more water into our body than it's asking for? It's possible that people who drink more water than their body actually wants are causing trouble for themselves by inadvertently washing away some of the useful chemicals in their blood.
I've seen some remarks where certain types of foods, such as mushrooms, are difficult to digest, but why should we care if something is difficult to digest? The only people who might care about such issues are athletes who don't want food sitting in their stomach while they are performing. They might want to eat a meal that digests quickly.
The point of all this is that there are lots of useful projects that we could be working on, such as understanding food and human health, but our business executives behave like stupid animals that fight over territory, and the FDA is more interested in protecting the sugar industry, and they seem to have a vendetta against hemp fiber. The end result is that we are wasting a lot of resources and technical skills on products with high consumer appeal and profit, such as cosmetics, video games, pills to help us lose weight, gambling devices, and artificial sweeteners.
Now to get into the emotional issues.
To begin with, consider the census that the American government is just
now completing. A lot of people complain that the census is an invasion
of our privacy. There is even a government official complaining, Michele
Bachmann, from Minnesota.
However, I don't think the census data is an invasion of privacy, and in our modern era, a government shouldn't even have to bother conducting a census because all of this data should be routinely updated and available on a computer database and available to the public.
To understand my attitude, you have to realize that I consider a nation to be just an organization of people. It's like a big family, or a business, or an orchestra.
Imagine if the commander of an aircraft carrier had no idea how many people were on his ship, so he asks the sailors to fill out a census form, and the sailors respond that his request is an invasion of their privacy. Or how about the conductor of an orchestra being told by the musicians that he has no right to ask how many musicians are in the orchestra because that is invading their privacy!
Every city and nation should know who is living in the city or nation, and I think this information should be available to the public.
In some of my other files I mentioned that a database with information about us would be very beneficial. The recent arrest of Joran van der Sloot for murdering a woman in Peru is an example. He claims that he killed the woman after discovering her using the Internet to look into his background. He is quoted as saying, "She intruded into my private life”.
It's possible that he's lying about why he killed her, but regardless, the issue I want you to think about is, If a woman investigates a man's history, is she intruding in his personal life?
FBI denies paying thousands to van der Sloot in sting
Should an ordinary citizen be allowed to look at another ordinary persons's criminal history, medical history, school records, and dental x-rays?
My suggestion is that we consider this to be an analysis of a person, not an intrusion into their personal life. And why should any of us be afraid of an analysis of ourselves?
If we had a database that contained detailed information on the lives of every polar bear, nobody would describe the data as an invasion into the personal lives of the polar bears. Instead, people would describe it as a valuable database that allows us to understand both the individual bears and the bears as a group.
What's the difference between a database that contains information on the lives of polar bears and a database with information on the lives of humans? How can one database be dangerous and the other valuable?
It might help you to understand the value of a database if you consider an extreme example in which we are collecting virtually everything about ourselves.
A lot of people already carry cell phones, watches, or purses. Imagine if each of us attaches a medical device to our arm or ankle, and that it transmits a constant stream of data about our blood pressure, heart beat, temperature, and whatever else our medical technology is capable of monitoring. The device also transmits positioning and acceleration information.
This device also has a microphone, and it is transmitting a constant stream of audio data. It would pick up your voice and whatever is in your vicinity. It would record conversations, and noises, and even your sneezes throughout the day, as well as the noises of the people and animals that you are in close contact with.
And let's go one step further and imagine that this device identifies you to video cameras that are located around the city. So as you travel around the city, the video cameras pick up your signal and separate the video of you and tag that video with your name, thereby separating video of you from the video of other people.
The database would also have all of your school records, medical records, job history, and even x-rays.
This type of extreme database would have complete documentation of your entire life. It would show exactly where you've been and what you've done during each day.
I'm sure most people would describe this database as ridiculously invasive and useless, but this type of database would be similar to those reality television shows in which cameras are following people around. How many people, who have been on those reality television shows, have suffered as a result of cameras broadcasting their personal information to the entire world?
This type of database would allow incredible analysis of individual people, and of groups of people. It would help us to understand ourselves and the human race.
A person would be entered into the database as soon as he was conceived, and data about him would be collected continuously until he died. The data on fetuses would be providing useful information about pregnancies and miscarriages. The data that is collected after birth would allow us to analyze how babies develop into children, and how children learn, and how they interact. We would be able to analyze how children change as they develop into adults, and we could analyze how groups of people change through time. We would observe changes in diet, clothing, and diseases through the decades. We could find out which areas of the world have the most problems with allergies or cancer.
As of today we don't have the necessary software to analyze such an extensive database, but if we were to create this type of database, we could create software to analyze it, and we could link that database to other types of data, such as weather data. This would allow us to do a lot of interesting analyses.
Scientists have already discovered that people who don't have much exposure to sunshine can suffer from vitamin D deficiencies, and a database with extensive data about us may uncover other connections between the weather and human health that we don't yet know about. For example, we might find patterns in the way people are sneezing, coughing, or spreading diseases.
This type of database could help you to understand your limitations and abilities. None of us are flawless. We all have imperfections, but do you know what your imperfections are? Analyzing data about yourself could help you to understand your weaknesses, and what you can do to keep yourself in the best physical and mental health. For example, the positioning data in the database would allow you to determine how much exercise you get during each day, and some people might be able to use that information to understand how exercise at different times of the day has an effect on how they feel or sleep.
The positioning data in the database would be also useful for people who are involved with city planning. They would be able to observe the flow of people to determine which areas of the city are the most crowded; where we need to put more transportation lines; and which areas of a park are underutilized.
The positioning data would be especially useful for solving crimes because it would show where everybody has been throughout the day and night, and who they associated with.
The audio and video data would be useful for understanding the human memory, as well as resolving disputes between us. I don't think the human mind forgets data in a random manner. I think that events we find unpleasant or frightening are remembered better than ordinary events. We might also find that men and women have slightly different memories. Women may be better at remembering certain types of information, for example.
At the moment, when you and somebody else disagree over what one of you said or did, you may not be able to figure out which of you is correct. But with this database, you would be able to determine exactly what each of you said and did, and in addition to resolving disputes, it would help you to understand what type of data you have a tendency to forget or remember inaccurately.
Another important use for this type of database would be to determine if a person is a good or a bad influence on other people. There are lots of people who follow the law, so they are considered to be good people, but they are actually detrimental to society. Most of us can probably remember doing things as a child that we didn't really want to do, but we did it because somebody was encouraging us to do it. Some people encourage practical jokes or obnoxious behavior. These people may follow the law, but they are encouraging bad behavior.
There are also people who spread bad attitudes because they are constantly complaining about the weather, or how they are abused. And some people simply have weird or unfriendly personalities.
At the other extreme are people we enjoy being around and who encourage good attitudes and responsible behavior.
An extensive database about us would allow us to observe the locations of everybody throughout the day, and that would allow us to observe who everybody came into contact with, and how much time we spent with each person. We would notice that some people misbehave only when they are in contact with certain other people. We would notice that some people are a good influence, and some people are a bad influence.
By recording audio data for each person, we would notice that the audio level for some adults is consistently higher than for other adults. One reason this happens is because some adults are entertained by children who behave in silly manners, and by dogs that bark and jump around, and so wherever these adults go, they encourage children, animals, and other adults to act silly. By comparison, other adults will have lower audio levels associated with them because they encourage people and animals to behave in a more quiet, responsible manner.
The point I'm trying to make is that if we were to record every aspect of our lives, it would not be an invasion of our privacy. Rather, it would be an extensive database about humans, and it would allow an incredible analyses of us. It would be like living your entire life in a reality television show.
The only people who would suffer from this type of exposure are the same type of people who would suffer by being on a reality television show. Specifically, the people who are trying to deceive us about their true behavior and who they associate with.
But why should we allow people to hide unpleasant aspects of themselves? If a person has some horrible quality, why shouldn't we be allowed to know about it? Why should anybody be allowed to hide his disgusting qualities and deceive us about what he really is? Why should we feel sorry for people who are ashamed of themselves?
The only dangerous aspect of an extensive database is that if we provide ourselves with a corrupt government, then they could fabricate data to make people look bad, and they could delete data that exposes their own criminal activities. They would be able to use the database to get rid of the people they didn't like, and protect their crime network. It would be devastating to the human race.
In some of my other files I pointed out that an organization is a reflection of its members. A nation, business, or orchestra of retards and criminals will not be as pleasant compared to an organization of better behaved people.
Likewise, a database is also a reflection of the people who create and maintain it. A group of criminals and retards won't be able to create a database that is as useful as a database created by honest, intelligent people. This is true regardless of whether the database is about polar bears, or whether it is about people.
In order to develop a better nation, we need to find better quality people to create and dominate it, and in order to provide ourselves with a useful database about polar bears or people, we need to find honest, intelligent people to build and maintain the database. We're not going to create much of a nation - or much of a database - with criminals, freaks, and talking monkeys who don't care about anything except entertaining themselves.
If we could create an honest government, then we would benefit tremendously from a database that provided detailed information about every person on the planet. It would be extremely dangerous to create such a database if the government was full of criminals, but don't be frightened of the possibility that corrupt government officials would abuse a database. Don't react to problems like a frightened animal. We should change our attitude and start removing the destructive members rather than living in fear of them.
And don't be intimidated by the people who complain that databases are an invasion of privacy. The information about you is simply a description of you. If a person is ashamed of himself, that's his problem. We should not allow people to hide the truth about themselves. We should not have to live with, work with, or tolerate secretive people who want to deceive us about what they really are.
Criminals are constantly promoting the theory that governments are dangerous, and that we should be afraid of them. And they also want us to be in fear of criminals. They want us to purchase guns and hide behind security devices. They want us to behave like a frightened rabbit that is hiding in the bushes. The reason criminals promote this policy is because when we hide from criminals, we allow them to continue their crimes. If we lose our fear of criminals, then we will search for them, identify them, and remove them.
A nation is just an organization of people, and so is a government. If a government is dishonest, or if some of the policemen are corrupt, we don't solve the problem by being afraid. We solve the problem by identifying and removing the destructive and parasitic people.
Imagine musicians in an orchestra complaining that their conductor is a violent, dishonest, criminal who is involved with murder, crime gangs, and pedophilia. Imagine the musicians carrying guns to protect themselves in case their conductor tries to rob or murder them. Imagine the female musicians taking training courses in how to fight a man in case their conductor tries to rape them. You would describe such musicians as imbeciles. You would tell those musicians to have their conductor arrested, and replace him with somebody respectable.
The people who are constantly pushing for secrecy claim that they are protecting our freedom, but they're protecting their disgusting behavior.
For another example, if we had access to a database that had every person listed in it, including all of their job information, we would be able to determine who is operating the robotic submarines for the BP company, and who the managers are, and who all of these people associate with. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that criminal Jews are in control of those robotic submarines.
The nations of today are so large that I think people become confused into thinking that a nation is somehow different from other types of organizations. It might help you to realize that a nation can be as small as one family. We could describe our primitive ancestors of 50,000 years ago as living in tiny nations rather than living in tribes.
When you think of a family or a primitive tribe as a nation, it might be easier for you to understand how secrecy protects criminals, not honest people. For example, imagine that your family and your house are an independent nation. Imagine somebody you never met and know nothing about knocks on your front door, and he tells you that he wants to be a tourist in your home and visit with your family.
What's the difference between letting strangers visit you in your house, and letting them visit your nation? And what's the difference between allowing strangers to immigrate into your home and allowing them to immigrate into your nation?
You would never allow secretive, suspicious, or dangerous people into your house to visit with you or move into your home. You would want to know who these people are. And you would insist that all tourists and immigrants into your home be by invitation only.
This concept applies to all organizations. Every city, orchestra, social club, and business should be able to analyze a person and make a determination if they want the person to visit or join the organization.
Those of us who are trying to expose the September 11 attack are frequently contacted by people who want to become our friends. They want to get into our lives. I trusted a lot of these people during the first few years. Christopher Bollyn also trusted some of these people. I didn't know who they were. It took many years to notice that most of them are Jews, and most of them don't have jobs, or they have criminal histories, or they have serious alcohol or drug problems.
If we had access to an extensive database, we would notice that most of the people who were contacting us, and who were trying to get into our lives, are freaks and criminals and Jews. But as of today, these people are allowed to keep themselves and their history a secret, and this is allowing them to fool a lot of people into trusting them. Why should we tolerate this?
In May 2010, people such as Alex Jones posted the audio of a Canadian
couple that was arrested for asking questions as they tried to cross the
border into America.
The Canadian couple recorded the conversation. I think the incident was planned, and that this Canadian couple deliberately irritated the border guards and recorded the conversation because they were trying to start fights and give the government and police a bad image.
Here is an excerpt. The Canadian man has already irritated the border guard and was told to get out of his car and now he's being told to take his seat in the office.
Guard: ...over this way.The Canadian man eventually sat down, and then he complained to another guard about his treatment.
Canadian: And I was told to come and sit down, and I asked, 'what's the reason?', and he kept yelling - this gentleman right here - kept yelling, sit down; sit down; sit down! He wouldn't give me a reason!This incident is another example of how useful a database would be. I suspect that an extensive database would show us that this Canadian man is a Jew, and that he associates with other Jews who have a history of causing trouble. And I suspect that all of the people who are promoting this video are also associated with Jewish criminals. But without a database, we don't know who this Canadian man is, or who he associates with. And we don't know any of the mysterious people who are promoting this video and trying to give the police a bad image. Why should we tolerate this type of secrecy? And why should we allow this Canadian man into our nation?
What would you think if that Canadian man tried to get into your house to visit your family, and he told you that he's not going to obey your orders because he doesn't understand the reason for them? You wouldn't tolerate people behaving that way in your home, so why should a nation tolerate it?
Nobody should be obligated to let another person into their home, and no nation, city, or other organization should be obligated to let a person into their organization. Every nation should be allowed to investigate the people who want to cross the border, and every nation should be allowed to tell a person that they don't want him as a tourist or as an immigrant.
Furthermore, no organization needs to give a person a reason for not wanting them. You don't have to explain to people why you don't want them as a friend, or a visitor, or a spouse, and no nation should have to waste time explaining to a person why they don't want him as a tourist or an immigrant.
We shouldn't encourage people to behave as if they are the rulers of the universe. We shouldn't encourage people to think that they are so special that they can go anywhere they please, ignore the laws that they don't understand, and treat police in a sarcastic manner.
This brings up some interesting philosophical issues. For example, every once in a while there is a news report of a person who violates traffic laws while taking a friend or family member to a hospital. Each of these cases has to be considered individually because in some small towns there is so little traffic and so much visibility that it's safe for them to pass through red lights. In those particular situations, the people are not risking anybody's life when they cross a red light. Rather, they're simply not wasting their time to stop at an empty intersection. But in some cases, people are actually risking the lives of others. And the reason they behave like this is because they consider themselves and their friends to be more important than the rest of us.
I don't think we should encourage people to think that they are so special that they can risk other people's lives in order to save themselves or their elderly parents.
I think we should pass judgment on who among us truly is more valuable. We should never risk the lives of people who are most valuable in order to save people who are worthless, or destructive, or parasitic. And we shouldn't allow people to risk the lives of young, healthy people in order to help an elderly person who is on the verge of death from old age.
When the police encounter people who are obviously dangerous, the police should not feel any obligation to risk their lives in order to catch them alive. We shouldn't risk the life of an honest policeman in order to save a person who's worthless or destructive.
And I don't think anybody should have to risk anything in order to save an animal. Every time the police shoot the dog of some criminal, people on the Internet make a fuss about it, but why should any policeman have to tolerate the dogs of criminals? My attitude is that if you don't want a policeman to shoot your dog, then don't behave in a manner that causes policemen to come into your house with their guns pointed at you.
If dogs were an endangered species, then perhaps I would tell the policeman to be more tolerant of dogs, but there are millions of abandoned dogs all over the world, and they are reproducing rapidly. We're already wasting a lot of tax money picking up and executing unwanted dogs. So why should the police tolerate the dogs of criminals?
Furthermore, why should we tolerate people who cross the border illegally? What would you think if you told a man that you don't want him in your house, and then later that night you find him climbing in the window? What's the difference between a man sneaking into your house, and a man crossing the border of a nation without permission?
If somebody were to sneak into your house, you would be allowed to kill them. By comparison, when people cross into a nation illegally, we are expected to treat them with decency and give them a ride back to their nation. But we don't owe anything to any trespasser. We could kill trespassers if we wanted. Or we could use them for medical experiments.
As I mentioned in some of my other files, we should change our attitude and tell people that society doesn't owe anybody anything. Rather, every person has a responsibility to behave in a respectable manner. If a person doesn't want to behave in a respectable manner, then we can send him to heaven where he can live in paradise and do as he pleases.
In case you think I'm supporting the killing of Mexicans who come into America illegally, consider that most of the Mexicans who come to America illegally are doing so because Americans are providing them with jobs. It might help you to understand this issue if you imagine it happening at the level of a family. Imagine discovering Mexicans climbing into your house through the windows at night, and the reason they're doing this is because your spouse and children are offering them money to do their homework and other chores.
Would you complain that those Mexicans are committing a crime? Would you be justified in killing those Mexicans on the grounds that they are intruders who have broken into your house?
During the 1980s, a restaurant chain called TGIF was adding another restaurant in Sacramento, California, and I happened to see it while the interior was being built. I noticed that there was lot of brass, and I mentioned to one of the carpenters who was installing some brass items that it must be a lot of work to keep all of that brass clean, and he told me that the restaurant chain routinely takes a bus to Mexico, picks up some Mexicans, drives them to the restaurant to polish the brass, and then takes them back to Mexico. I've also heard that some farmers are also bringing Mexicans in to harvest crops, and then taking them back to Mexico when they're finished.
Americans cannot complain about illegal immigration when businesses are routinely shipping Mexicans back and forth across the border in order to use them as a cheap source of labor, and when wealthy Americans, such as Arianna Huffington, are hiring illegal aliens as domestic servants and gardeners.
This concept also applies to the issue of drugs. Imagine discovering that your spouse or children are routinely hiring a bus driver to bring drug dealers from Mexico to your home so that they can purchase drugs at a lower price than they can get from the local, American drug dealers, and after purchasing the drugs, they pay the bus driver to take the drug dealers back to Mexico. It would be ridiculous for you to complain about the Mexican drug dealers. Or, if you complain about the Mexicans, then you should complain about your family members, also.
For a more extreme example, some men boast that if they find a drug dealer selling drugs to their children, that they will kill the drug dealer. Imagine discovering that your son has an orphan boy in a cage in his closet, and that he purchased this boy for use as a sex slave. Would you proudly boast that if anybody steps in your yard to sell another orphan to your children, you will shoot him? What's the difference between a father shooting a dealer of drugs, and a father shooting a dealer of orphans?
When a nation is suffering from a problem, it might be easier for you to understand the problem if you imagine it occurring on a smaller scale, such as in your family, or an orchestra, or a sports team.
For another example, the Arizona government officials want the police to ask for proof of American citizenship of anybody they suspect of being in the nation illegally. Imagine applying that policy at the level of a family. Imagine that you have discovered that Mexicans are sneaking into your house at night in order to work for your spouse and children. Would you hire security guards and tell them to check the identification of everybody they find in the house who may not be a member of the family? The security guards may occasionally catch one of the Mexicans as a result of this policy, but they wouldn't solve the problem that you're suffering from. Your family members would continue to hire Mexicans, and the Mexicans would continue to sneak into your house at night.
I don't think the Arizona government officials are seriously trying to stop illegal immigration. I think they're trying to create racial fights. If they truly want to stop illegal immigration, then they should tell the police to check out people who fit the profile of a businessman who hires illegal aliens, and who fit the profile of a wealthy person who hires illegal aliens as nannies and gardeners.
By the way, the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, signed this suspicious
immigration bill on April 23, 2010. Two days later somebody edited her
Wikipedia article to add the remark that she was raised in a Jewish home.
The person included a note in the editing section in which he boasted:
However, 15 minutes later, his remark was removed by another editor.
You can see this in the editing history for April 25, 2010.
When I was a child the Jews were proud of themselves, and they would boast that the Jews were the most educated, wealthy, talented, generous, loving, kind, and peaceful of all people. But during the past few years, they have been hiding their Jewishness. They are becoming ashamed and secretive.
Once you realize that Jews are committing an incredible number of horrible crimes, you ought to wonder, why should we allow Jews to hide their Jewishness and deceive us into thinking that they are Muslims, or Christians, or atheists? It should be obvious as to who benefits from this type of deception.
A database would allow us to determine who among us is Jewish, and who is associating with these Jewish criminals.
No nation is going to reduce crime until it becomes more serious about the causes of crime. And we have to remove the secrecy that is protecting criminals. We have to expose the criminals, not let them hide and deceive us.
I wonder if one reason some people have trouble dealing with crime is because we all find criminal thoughts running through our mind occasionally, especially when we are upset, or while watching a television show that glorifies criminals. A lot of people may then wonder, "How am I any better than a common criminal?"
However, there is a significant difference between having criminal thoughts wander through your mind, and actually committing a crime. You can't judge yourself according to the crazy thoughts that you find in your mind. You have to judge yourself by what you actually do. And it's especially important to consider what you do repeatedly because you want to, as opposed to something that you've done because you were pressured into it by a supervisor or by the people you associate with. A lot of people have done something ridiculous once or twice, especially when we are young and around other people, but that's not the same as people who are repeatedly committing horrible crimes because they want to. And even if you have committed a few crimes in your past, that doesn't mean you have to be a criminal forever. You could repay society by helping us to destroy crime networks.
Getting back to the issue of illegal immigration, Americans cannot stop this problem until we stop American citizens from providing the illegal aliens with jobs and homes and other opportunities. In some of my files I suggested that we start building completely new cities that are economically and physically isolated from the rest of the nation. Imagine one of those cities in which immigration is by invitation only, and the people who don't follow the rules are exiled, or if they're dangerous, executed.
If a person were to sneak into such a city illegally, he would not be able to find a job, or a home to live in. He would never become classified as an illegal "immigrant" because he would never have the opportunity to become an "immigrant". He would be equivalent to rat inside our house. He would have to hide from the residents of the city. He would have to sleep in the bushes and look for scraps of food to eat. He would classify as a "trespasser" rather than an "immigrant", and the city wouldn't owe him anything. The city wouldn't have to waste their time catching him and sending him back to his nation. He would be equivalent to a stray dog, and the police would be justified to use a robot with night vision and infrared vision and hunting him down and killing him.
By comparison, the people who cross into America illegally are not equivalent to stray dogs. They can easily find jobs, rent apartments, start businesses, and raise families. They are also provided with medical care and public schools. They become members of American society, even though they are not officially considered as citizens. A nation cannot stop illegal immigration when it treats trespassers in such a nice manner.
By the way, while I'm on the subject of killing people, have you ever noticed that the people who believe in heaven don't believe in it enough to want to go there, or send anybody else to it?
If there really was a heaven, and if I knew I could get into it, I would kill myself right now! Wouldn't you? Why would anybody bother with life here on the earth when there is a paradise available to us? This is especially true of people who are deteriorating from old-age, or suffering from cancer, or who are blind. Why would they want to continue suffering? Why not go to heaven and enjoy life?
And consider the religious parents who have a retarded child. They insist that when their child dies, god will give him a new and healthy body, and he will live happily ever after in heaven. So why don't these parents take one of their kitchen knives and slit the child's throat and send him to paradise? Why do they want to torture their retarded child?
The people who believe in God will often boast that during times of war the soldiers will become more religious, and that may be true, but when a person is truly on the verge of death, they don't look forward to joining the other dead people in paradise. Instead, they become very frightened, and they struggle to remain alive. They don't want to go to heaven. The attraction to religion is emotional, not intellectual. Religion makes people feel good, but most people are intelligent enough to realize that it's just a farce.
If religion was nothing more than a philosophy of life, then religion would be harmless. Unfortunately, many centuries ago criminals and parasites discovered that they can make lots of money by creating organized religions, and Jews discovered that they can use organized religions to promote Israel and the hatred of Muslims.
My suggestion is to prohibit all forms of organized religions and force religious beliefs to be a personal philosophy towards life. The majority of people have a strong attraction to organized religions, but we can't design a society according to what people like. Our emotions were designed for the type of life that animals have, not a technically advanced nation. We have to design society for what humans must evolve into, not what we are right now.
As I described in other files, when the environment for a plant or animal changes, there will be a transition period during which the creature adapts to the new environment, and there will be tremendous amount of suffering and death during this transition period.
This concept applies to humans, also. We are no longer living in small tribes like animals. Humans must change both physically and mentally in order to be well adapted to modern society. This evolution is going to happen regardless of how many people oppose it. The nations that resist it will deteriorate into criminals, retards, and freaks. The nations that survive will be those that are capable of adapting to this new world.
Unfortunately, most people are going to suffer during this transition period because most people will be best suited to life as it was thousands of years ago, not life as it is today.
I'll give you another example of this concept of how humans must change, and this may help you to further understand why I proposed my city of castles as one of the better design possibilities for future cities.
Specifically, we have to change our attitudes towards children. The children in primitive societies are the possessions of their parents, but children of modern societies must become the responsibilities of society.
To understand this concept, imagine what life was like 50,000 years ago. A child growing up in China 50,000 years ago had no effect on the people living in France, and a child growing up in Japan would have no effect on the people living in Africa. In fact, none of these people even knew of the existence of one another.
By comparison, in the modern world, the situation is completely reversed. For example, consider Henry Kissinger. If he had been born 50,000 years ago, only a few people in his local area would have known of his existence or been affected by his life.
But modern technology allows people to affect the lives of people in every nation. Have you heard the accusations from Kay Griggs that Henry Kissinger was one of the Jews involved with instigating the Vietnam War? She also says Kissinger raped a few young American soldiers during that war.
If Kissinger had been born long ago, only a few people in his local area would have known of his existence or been raped by him, but today he can instigate wars that cause the suffering of millions of people, and he can rape boys on every continent.
Likewise, Theodor Herzl, Larry Silverstein, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Edgar Bronfman, would have been insignificant to the world if they had been born thousands of years ago. Today they can get together with other Jews and create worldwide misery.
A child can no longer be considered the personal possession of his parents. Parents can no longer be allowed to treat their children as toys to titillate themselves with. Technology allows a child to have phenomenal influence over the planet. If a child is beneficial, then the entire planet benefits from his existence, but many children are destructive, or parasitic. Children in modern society must be treated as the next generation of humans. Children must become the responsibility and concern of the entire world. The people in Japan cannot ignore the children who are being born in England, and the people in Vietnam cannot ignore the Jews who are being born in Russia. Today people everywhere have to be concerned about everybody else's children. The entire world must watch all over the children and remove those that are destructive. Children today are the responsibility of the entire planet.
A lot of people are going to have trouble with this concept. Their minds are so much like an animal that it's going to be difficult for them to allow society to pass judgment on whether their children are acceptable. These people are going to suffer a lot of emotional stress if society determines that their children must be killed or exiled. But why should we care if they can't handle this concept? It's their problem, not ours. We have to stand up to the parents who want to behave like animals. We have to tell everybody that we're no longer living like animals, and if a person can't behave like a modern human, then he either suffers quietly, or he will be removed, also.
Thousands of years ago nature made the decisions of which child lives and which reproduces, but today we must make those decisions. The parents who want every child to live and reproduce are not loving or kind. Rather, they are crude savages that cannot cope with modern life. We have to stand up to them. We can't let them intimidate or frighten us.
The world can no longer ignore children who are destructive. Children must become the responsibility of the entire human race. Children are the next generation, they are not toys for parents to play with. We must start passing judgment on which children live, and which children die, and which children are allowed to reproduce. And we have to ensure that the children of other nations are in good health, also. We can't ignore other nations. The area where Henry Kissinger came from has been a breeding ground for horrible, parasitic criminals for centuries, and those creatures have been migrating to other nations and causing suffering on every continent. We can't allow any area of the world to become a breeding ground for destructive freaks.
The people in Japan have to get involved in the decisions of which children in Britain survive and reproduce, and the people in France have to get involved with the decision of which children in Africa are allowed to live and reproduce. We have to look at the planet as a garden, and every nation should help to remove the weeds, fungus, and gophers.
The people who are going to have the most trouble with this policy are probably women. Women have such incredible attractions to children that mothers will sacrifice their lives for children. This attitude made sense thousands of years ago, but it's ridiculous today. A woman in our era who sacrifices her life for her child is equivalent to a farmer who sacrifices his life for a seedling. In 50,000 BC, parents had to protect every baby, but there's no shortage of babies today. The only shortage we suffer from today are honest, responsible adults.
Now consider how my city of castles would make this policy much easier.
In the typical American city today, most people don't like their neighbors. They have to travel long distances to be with somebody that they consider a friend. The end result is that a lot of people are spending a lot of time at home with their dog, television, and children. Many American parents are developing absurdly close relationships with their children.
By comparison, the city of castles are designed to encourage adults to get out of their house and spend more time with adults. For example, the homes don't have complete kitchens or dining rooms, so adults and children are encouraged to get together with other people just for meals.
The castles are also designed so that children can easily walk to school and recreational areas. Parents don't have to waste their time driving their children around the city. Since the city controls immigration and removes criminals, parents can safely allow their children to wander around on their own.
During the first 10 to 14 years of a child's life, he will spend a lot of his time with his mother, but teenagers start developing independence, and this type of city would make it easy for them to move out of their home while teenagers, and become independent.
I won't go into the details, but I think we are making a mistake by treating people as children when they are in their 20s. College students are not children. They should be considered as adults.
I don't think we should be encouraging adults to even be in school during their 20s. I think we should change our school system so that most children are finished with their education while they are teenagers. Schools should be reduced to courses that are useful. If an adult wants some additional education, he can take classes while he is working and raising a family. I don't see any reason for adults to be full-time students.
By the way, we could reduce the time children spend in school if we would fix our language to make it more sensible. Children are wasting a lot of time learning irregular verbs and the spelling of words that don't make sense.
The Chinese and Japanese are putting a terrible burden on their children by forcing them to learn a very primitive language.
If we can find enough people to develop completely new cities, we ought to spend some time discussing some of the changes we could make to simplify life in the new cities. A lot of proposals would be silly, but they can be entertaining to think about. For example, have you ever considered switching from base 10 to base 8, and how that would change our clocks, science books, and math books? How about switching to a calendar that remains the same year after year? Or switching to a 24-hour clock?
We probably won't make very many drastic changes at first, but my point is that we should stop clinging to the past and start considering what the future could be. The human race didn't get to where it is today from people who cling to the past and who avoid changes. The human race advanced as a result of people who were willing to try new activities and explore the unknown.
The Chinese and Japanese especially need to let go of the past and start thinking about what they could become. They have a lot of potential, but they have to let go of their stupid language and some of their primitive attitudes. And, yes, their language is stupid. We shouldn't be afraid to tell them that. In fact, they should realize it themselves.
And we should point out to the French that although their language does have some nice sounding words, it also has lots of guttural, unpleasant sounds. We shouldn't encourage people to boast about themselves or their culture. We don't improve life by waving flags and boasting. We improve life by looking at ourselves critically, exploring things, and experimenting.
Getting back to the issue of children and cities, I think teenage girls are at their most flirtatious when they are 14 to 16 years of age, and I think the reason for this is because nature intended for them to start looking for a man at that age.
The 16-year-old girls in America today are so confused about life that they aren't ready for marriage, but I think if we were raising children in a better society, and if the children weren't so stupid and retarded, they would be much more relaxed and happy, and much less confused, and the girls would be ready for marriage during their late teenage years. I think women should be having their children while they are young, not when they are in their 30s or 40s.
Most of the Americans who I've heard who talk about marriage have developed the opinion that people should wait until they are in their 20s or 30s before they get married, and they should wait a while longer before they have children. They developed his theory by looking at their own lives and the lives of other people. They were very confused when they were young, and they see confusion in other people, and their solution is to assume that everybody will always be confused, and therefore everybody should wait until they are much older before they get married and have children.
In one of my other files I pointed out that most people react to problems just like a stupid animal. For example, when most people are faced with crime, they buy guns, or they teach their children how to fight strangers. They hide from crime like an animal. A more appropriate reaction would be to understand why divorces are increasing, and why teenagers are so confused. We should be experimenting with changes to society to reduce the divorces and confusion.
I think if we were to create a better society, girls would be ready for marriage when they are teenagers. That is the age at which they become restless and want to get away from their mother and find a man.
I think the main reason that we have so many divorces today is that our societies are a mixture of different people who don't get along with each other, and many people are parasitic, dishonest, and mentally ill. Many people end up married to somebody who is incompatible with them, but they don't figure this out until they have been married for a few years.
The process of finding a spouse is especially difficult because of the attitude that we shouldn't pry into anybody's personal life. People are keeping a lot of secrets from each other. Some people have been married for several years before they discovered that their spouse has a problem with drugs, gambling, mental illness, or criminal behavior.
We should change our attitude toward secrecy. We have a right to know who we are living or working with, and who we are going to marry. Nobody should be allowed to deceive us into friendship, jobs, or marriage. We have to make a distinction between when we are providing a person with freedom, and when we are protecting a criminal.
It might help you understand the problem with secrecy if you imagine an extreme example. Imagine living in a city in which immigration is tightly controlled, and all parasites, criminals, drug addicts, and other weirdos are removed from society. Imagine that you like everybody in this city. Imagine everybody has a wonderful personality and is responsible, nice-looking, healthy, honest, and reliable. In such a case, you could pick a person at random to become a friend or spouse. You wouldn't have to search through anybody.
When we allow a city to become a mixture of criminals, parasites, mentally ill freaks, and weirdos, and when we allow people to be secretive about themselves and lie about themselves, we make life miserable for everybody, including the freaks.
Imagine how nice life would be in a city in which the police behave like gardeners and remove all of the troublesome people. Imagine a city in which everybody is honest and well behaved. If the electrical wiring in your home were to need repair, you could leave a message for the electrician to fix the problem. You wouldn't need a lock on your front door, so the electrician would drop by when he was finished with his other jobs. You wouldn't have to wait for him, and you wouldn't have to worry about leaving children alone with him. You wouldn't have to worry about him stealing any of your items.
Growing up in this type of city would make it very easy to find friends and a spouse. You would like the people that you grew up with. I think that the girls who grew up in this type of city would be ready for marriage during their teenage years. I don't think they would be afraid of marriage, or afraid of men.
Many people today are afraid of marriage because they worry about divorce, but being afraid of divorce is like being afraid of crime. We're not going to improve our life by being afraid. We have to stop acting like stupid animals.
We shouldn't have to spend 20 years of our lives searching through people in order to find a spouse. We shouldn't need businesses that offer dating services. People shouldn't be using the Internet to find friends or a spouse.
Children should grow up in a society in which they enjoy the people they live among, and can trust. So instead of hiding from the problems of divorce and loneliness, we should be experimenting with changes to society to make it easier for us to find friends.
By the time a girl is 16 years old, she should have met hundreds of boys already, and boys should have met hundreds of girls. They should be able to find a spouse from all of those people. We shouldn't need dating services.
Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for criminals, retards, and other misfits, but allowing them to live in our society is like mixing oil and water. It creates a society in which the people separate from each other. Some of the misfits can deal with the rejection and loneliness, but others become bitter, angry, envious, or vengeful. In the long run, we hurt both ourselves and the misfits.
An example is Lewis Carroll, who wrote the book Alice in Wonderland. Some people wonder if he was a pedophile because he spent a lot of time with children. But he had a stuttering problem, and he may have felt more comfortable around children.
People with stuttering problems and certain other defects are misfits that most of us don't want as friends or spouses. These misfits either live alone, or they associate with other misfits, or animals, or children. They are not necessarily pedophiles. Some of them may be otherwise wonderful people who are simply suffering from some particular defect that causes them to be shunned by the adult population.
Our tendency is to avoid people like Lewis Carroll, and this may seem cruel, but it makes sense to you if you consider that we are animals. Have you ever wondered why we consider some people to be ugly? Why do we care so much about a person's physical appearance? Why do we care whether a person can speak properly? Why should a person who stutters be abused by society? Why do we dislike people who stink, or who have crooked teeth? Why do we dislike people who are cross-eyed? Why don't we love all people equally?
The reason animals and humans care so much about the physical and mental qualities of our species is because the animals who survived the competitive struggle for life were those that developed a dislike for defective creatures. Our shunning of defective people is cruel, but it's the only method available for animals and primitive humans to keep their species in good genetic health.
Humans today are aware of how cruel this behavior is, and so after we abandon an unwanted child in an orphanage, we provide him with food and other supplies so that he can live. And if a defective adult is capable of making a living on his own, we allow him to live among us. But allowing these people to live is not solving the problem. They are alive, but they are not part of our society. They are simply existing from one day to the next. They are not accepted members of society. They are simply tolerated. People treat their pet dogs with more love and care than we treat people who stutter or who are ugly.
We consider ourselves to be compassionate when we let unwanted people live among us, but there's nothing compassionate about abandoning people. We are making them suffer lonely, miserable lives. Some of the unwanted people are capable of accepting their sad situation, and they make the best of it, but some of them become angry and they try to get revenge on society. And some of them are not capable of making an honest living, so they end up surviving from crime, or inheritances, or marrying people with money, or charities.
The policy of shunning the defective people is creating an unpleasant society. One of the serious problems that all nations are suffering from right now is that a lot of the defective people are capable of making a living, and so they are living among us, but since we don't like them, we ignore them, and as a result, every city is full of people that nobody wants as a friend, spouse, or neighbor. And we sometimes don't even want to work around them.
It might help you to understand how disgusting this policy is when you consider it happening on the scale of a family. Imagine that you have a neighbor who considers himself compassionate and loving, and so he's allowed some unwanted children and adults to live in his house.
However, he and his family members don't actually want contact with those unwanted people, so the entire family avoids them. When your neighbor has dinner, only he and his family members sit at the dinner table. The unwanted people eat by themselves.
Your neighbor has conversations with his family members, but he doesn't feel like talking to those unwanted people who live in his house. He might occasionally smile at them, but he's not interested in talking with them. Your neighbor would walk by them, as if he doesn't see them. They're in the same house, but there's no actual contact between them.
Would you describe that as a "happy family"? Would you describe your neighbor as loving and compassionate?
This situation is occurring in every city and in every nation. All around us are unwanted children and adults. Some of them cannot support themselves, and so they are dumped in orphanages, are some are living in the streets. And some have jobs, but nobody wants them. So they hide from us, and some come out late at night when we are asleep.
Our policy of ignoring unwanted people is not compassionate or loving. It's a disgusting policy that comes from the minds of intelligent monkeys who don't have the emotional ability to face the problems of unwanted people. Our policy is cruel, and it's not solving any problem. Instead, it's allowing the problem to get worse because it allows the unwanted people to reproduce and create more unwanted people.
The more of these miserable people we have in society, the more of an
influence they gain. There was an interesting remark in New York Times in June 2010. It said
that an increasing number of federal judges around America are coming to
the defense of people involved with child pornography.
America has so many pedophiles in leadership positions, and there are so many people who don't care about anything except entertainment, that our judges don't have to worry about newspapers publishing articles about how they protect pedophiles! And do you realize that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are still going on? Most of the American population seems to be ignoring the wars, just as they ignore the lies about the 9/11 attack and the Holocaust.
Tolerating defective people does more than allow criminals to continue their destructive behavior. It is allowing them to reproduce, and that in turn results in more defective people for the following generation, which results in even more pressure on society to be even more tolerant of crime.
A nation that feels sorry for criminals, retards, and underdogs is equivalent to a gardener who feels sorry for weeds, gophers, and fungus.
The human race must evolve into a creature that is capable of dealing with the issues of crime, reproduction, death, and euthanasia.
And the human race WILL evolve into a more advanced creature simply because that is how competition works. In the long run, the better humans will win this competition.
The Jews have been very successful in the past, but their techniques don't work so well today. They may destroy America and a few corporations, but they're not going to be able to take over the planet, or even save themselves.
We now have the opportunity to replace the freaks who dominate this planet with a better group of people, but that requires that we find lots of better people, and we start thinking about our opportunities. We still have a lot of work to do, but consider it as an adventure. Think of yourself as one of the immigrants to America a few hundred years ago who is going to start a new life with a new group of people.
Don't be afraid! Be excited!
Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: