A transcript of the audio
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
A few people have been asking me when I'll create another audio file.
To help you understand my situation, since I'm almost completely ignored
by the media and people on the Internet, I don't know what to talk about
next, or if I should clarify something I've already spoken about, so I
just wait for something to inspire me. For the past couple of weeks I've
been working on my software, and that has inspired me to continue my previous
discussion about how we might improve our economy. I'll start with my ideas
on software.
I've been in business for myself since 1991, and I've been making software
for industries. The other day somebody who works at a large corporation
called me to complain that the old Microsoft DOS version of my software
wasn't working any longer. He told me that he's been working at the company
for 13 years, and that my software was there when he arrived, and he has
no idea where the original disk is.
This is not the first time somebody has complained that they either
can't find the original floppy disk, or the disk has some type of data
error, or their new computer doesn't have a floppy disk drive so they don't
know how to load it onto their new computer. Some of these people never
bought the software from me in the first place. Some are just using a copy
that they got from somebody else, and that's why they can't find the original
disk.
Usually I send these people a new copy for free by email because they
wouldn't pay a replacement, and I don't feel like wasting my time arguing
with them.
Our economic system was never designed for software. Businesses have
to sell products in order to survive, but it's not easy to sell software
because the human mind has a resistance to purchasing products that are
intangible.
During the 1980's and early 1990's, people were even less familiar with
computers and software, so the resistance to purchasing software at that
time was even more extreme. It seemed that almost all of us were at least
occasionally giving out software for free to somebody. It took people a
while to get used to the concept of purchasing something that is invisible.
Because of the resistance to purchasing intangible items, some software
companies are putting their disks in oversized packages in order to make
it look like we're getting something of value for our money, but businesses
shouldn't have to resort to deception in order to sell software. Besides,
the oversized packages are wasting resources.
Another problem with selling software is that it never wears out, so
people don't need to purchase replacements. Some of my customers have been
using my software for 15 years. They purchased my software in the era when
Microsoft DOS was their operating system. In the following years they purchased
new computers, and are now running Microsoft Windows, but they continue
to use my old DOS software. It's possible that some of these people will
be using my old DOS software for another 10 or 20 years.
We need to redesign the economy to deal with software. I think the best
thing to do is change the economy so that we don't have to sell software.
All software companies should be able to put their software on the Internet
with all the updates for free, and let everybody have free access to it.
This would allow people to experiment with software, and they use software
that they can't afford.
By providing software for free, none of the software companies would
have to be concerned about sales or advertising, and nobody would care
if people were passing around copies of the software.
So, how would I get paid if I'm providing software for free? One method
is similar to what I described for restaurants in my social technology
articles at my philosophy page. Specifically, the government would provide
me with an income as long as people were using my software.
This would require that the government set up a agency to check which
software is actually being used. The agency wouldn't care if people are
downloading or experimenting with software, they would only want to know
which software was being using on a regular basis. If people were using
my software, then the government would assume that I'm must be doing something
useful for society, and so they would send me a paycheck. They wouldn't
give me royalties for every copy that was in use, and they wouldn't give
me money according to how many copies were in use. Rather, they would send
me a monthly paycheck as long as I was doing work that people appreciated.
If the government noticed that the people were losing interest in my
software and switching to a competitor's software, they would warn me that
I better start improving my software. If I continually failed to produce
something that people wanted, the government would stop paying me.
With our current economic system, software companies are under pressure
to sell software. They accomplish this by boasting about exciting features
and claiming that their software is easy to use. Unfortunately, we often
don't know whether software will give us what we want until we purchase
it and use it for a while.
With the system I'm proposing, a software company would not get paid
for software that was abandoned. The government would pay people only for
software that was in long-term use. As a result, software companies would
have no incentive to trick people into downloading their software. Instead,
they would concentrate on producing software that people truly wanted to
use on a long term basis.
This system of funding software companies would eliminate the competition
to sell software and allow companies to concentrate on competing to make
the most desirable software.
During the Middle Ages, advertising and marketing was a trivial aspect
of business activity, compared to today. There weren't very many businesses
a thousand years ago, and because everything was made by hand, and in short
supply, businessmen didn't have to worry about producing something that
they couldn't sell. If they had trouble selling a product, all they had
to do was lower the price.
Compare that situation to today. There are millions of businesses, and
it's very easy for them to produce excessive quantities of products. Today
there are always more products available than there are customers, and
lowering the price will not sell all of the products. Even if the products
were offered for free, people want only so many Harry Potter books, toys,
and even automobiles.
A thousand years ago, a businessman would be successful if he could
produce desirable products, but today that is no longer a guarantee for
success. Today there are millions of businesses pouring out billions of
desirable products. In order for a business to be successful today, they
have to do more than produce a product. They have to figure out how to
attract customers and convince them to purchase their product rather than
the competitor's product.
The emphasis in business activity has changed from the production of
a product to the sale of a product. This is causing businesses to compete
for customers. Businesses today put a lot of effort into manipulating us.
Some companies have even developed to conduct research into the manipulation
of people. We refer to them as advertising and marketing companies. And
there are professional salesmen who waste their entire lives trying to
manipulate us into purchasing products.
All of the time, effort, and resources that's going into advertising,
marketing, and sales is more than merely a waste. It's detrimental to society
because it creates bad attitudes by causing businesses to treat us as animals
to exploit, and it causes us to be suspicious of businesses and their advertisements.
Ideally, we would trust businesses and be proud of them, not look at them
as selfish, dishonest, greedy jerks.
We shouldn't have any research programs on how to manipulate people
into purchasing products. The only research programs a society should have
are those that are intended to make life better for us. Businesses should
not compete to sell products; they should only compete to produce something
of value to society. There should be no marketing or advertising companies.
The purpose of an advertisement should be to provide serious information
about a product or service. Advertisements should not be designed to sell
products.
We're wasting a lot of money and resources every year on the attempt
to sell products, and the people involved with sales and advertising should
be doing something more useful with their lives. We provide these people
with food, houses, electricity, and in return they try to manipulate us.
However, we cannot get rid of advertising unless we're willing to experiment
with dramatic changes to the economy. We can't simply prohibit advertising.
We've got to design an economy that eliminates the competition to sell
products and leaves only the competition to produce something of value.
But we're not going to make such significant improvements simply by electing
a different president or passing a few new laws. We've got to have to find
the courage to experiment with major changes to our economy and our government.
My proposal to allow the government to support software companies would
probably frighten a lot of people because there's currently a widespread
fear and disgust of government. However, a government is just an organization
of people, so whether a government is useful or dangerous depends on which
people we put into it, and how we design the government.
Many people claim that governments are inherently dangerous because
everybody will become corrupt when put into a position of leadership, but
that theory is ridiculous, as I explained in my audio file for November
3, 2007. Our governments are crummy because the majority of voters consistently
make terrible decisions.
Most voters all over the world are still refusing to face the fact that
the 9/11 was an Israeli false flag operation. And even fewer people can
look at the evidence that Jews were responsible for the world wars and
they're lying to us about the Holocaust and the Apollo moon landing. Most
people are mentally incompetent, irresponsible, and extremely selfish.
Women and children are submissive, so we have to expect them to ignore
world problems, but the adult men who cannot carry on a serious discussion
about 9/11 or the Holocaust should be classified as mentally disturbed.
All of us who have tried to discuss 9/11 or the Holocaust have been
shocked that the majority of men absolutely refuse to face reality. If
only a minority of people had this mental disorder, then we could dismiss
it as a genetic defect, but since the majority of people have this problem,
this is evidence that the human mind was never designed to face reality.
My assumption as to why the human mind has this problem is that it has
never before been necessary for humans to face reality. In fact, thousands
of years ago the people who created a fantasy world for themselves probably
had an advantage. For example, when a spouse or child died, the sad and
confused people could comfort themselves by imagining that only his body
is dead, and that he's actually still alive but in another, more wonderful
area of the universe. When people were lonely, they could talk to imaginary
friends, or they could talk to the ghosts of their friends. And if people
were frightened about dying from lack of food, or when they became lost
in the forest, it probably helped them to remain calm by imagining that
a loving god was watching over them and protecting them.
Today, however, this tendency to create a fantasy world is extremely
detrimental. The people who refuse to face reality are allowing phenomenal
crimes, and organized crime gangs, and wars. And they are easily manipulated
by people who claim to speak for their particular fantasy god, or by the
people who claim to have contact with the ghosts of their dead relatives.
And these people are so out of touch with reality that they don't notice
that their political candidates are not even close to being appropriate
as world leaders.
The majority of people enjoy believing in ghosts, leprechauns, devils,
gods, angels, and other fantasies. This behavior may have been beneficial
10,000 years ago, but it's unacceptable for this modern era. We have to
face the fact that many of the mental qualities that were useful ten thousand
years ago are detrimental in this modern world. Humans today have to be
more than intelligent monkeys. The qualities that brought humans to this
modern era are not the qualities that we need for the future. We are no
longer living like animals, and so animal behavior is no longer acceptable.
Have you ever noticed how many people are withdrawn into fantasies?
The University of Kansas has a Center For The Study Of Science Fiction,
and its been there since 1982. The director of the Center, Professor James
Gunn, was recently awarded the silly title "Damon Knight Memorial Grand
Master" He was given that title by the organization called Science Fiction
And Fantasy Writers Of America, Inc. This behavior reminds me of when I
was in elementary school.
A significant percentage of our population is living in a make-believe
world. The adult men seem to prefer science-fiction, cowboy, or religious
fantasies. I suspect that we would help the world tremendously simply by
restricting voters to the men who are capable of having serious discussions
about 9/11, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing.
Putting more restrictions on voters will not allow us to achieve perfection
because even a smaller subset of voters will be humans who occasionally
make mistakes and get into arguments, but we could certainly improve the
situation compared to what we have today. And I suggest we prohibit retired
people from voting, regardless of whether they retired because of old age
or because they made a lot of money and have no interest in doing anything.
Getting back to my suggestion of allowing the government to fund the
software companies, this system would allow us to prevent people from becoming
rich from software. The government would not provide royalties, and it
would not give a company extra money simply because their particular market
happens to be large.
The government could offer different salary levels depending on what
type of work a person was doing, but it would be impossible for Bill Gates
to become a billionaire with this system.
A company that produced software for a small group of people, such as
industries or scientists, would make the same amount of money as a company
that was producing software that millions of people used. The government
wouldn't care about the quantity of people using the software.
This brings up the issue of whether we want a society in which there
are incredibly large differences between the wealthy and the poor. I ended
my previous audio file by mentioning that the military has a lot of policies
that could be adapted to the rest of society. One of those policies is
that the military doesn't provide phenomenal differences in income. The
highest-paid military officer makes more than the lowest paid soldier,
but the differences are not nearly as extreme as they are in the rest of
society. Why not apply this concept to society? Why not set a limit on
how wealthy a person can become? How do any of us benefit by allowing some
people to become extremely wealthy?
The primary argument to justify extreme differences in income is that
money is an incentive that causes people to develop businesses and take
risks, and if we remove this incentive, nobody will want to do much of
anything.
This theory treats humans as race dogs, and money is analogous to the
mechanical bone that the dogs chase after. With dogs, this concept actually
works. Without the mechanical bone or rabbit, the dogs have no incentive
to run around the track at high speed.
The majority of humans are so much like animals that the only way to
get them to work is to offer them some money. But that doesn't justify
the phenomenal differences in income. That only justifies paying a person
for doing some work.
I personally cannot see any justification for phenomenal differences
in income. I think these huge differences are detrimental to society. For
one reason, extremely wealthy people and their children don't fit in with
the rest of society. Another problem is that it causes society to waste
resources on mansions, yachts, private jets, jewelry, and other luxury
items. I think we should dramatically reduce the difference between the
wealthy people and the ordinary workers.
In my previous audio file I suggested that society be in control of
corporations, rather than the stockholders. If we combine that concept
with the concept of restricting income, we could reduce the income of everybody
in a corporation to a sensible level. A few decades ago the typical business
executive was making about 20 times as much as the ordinary worker. Why
do we need any more of a difference than that? Actually, we don't even
need that much of a difference.
It's possible that some of today's businessmen would have a temper tantrum
and refuse to be businessmen if they were not allowed the opportunity become
billionaires, but my attitude is, so what? The men who refuse to run a
business for a reasonable income should be pushed aside. There are lots
of people willing to run a business for a sensible income. We don't need
businessmen who work only if we provide them with a gigantic mechanical
rabbit to chase after. Those type of men should be regarded as intelligent
dogs.
The ideal situation is to find men who want to run a business because
they truly want to do something useful for society. There may not be any
humans who are that ideal, but we can certainly find men who are better
than the intelligent dogs who currently dominate our businesses.
Another reason why I think we should prohibit people from becoming billionaires
is that I don't think it's possible for a person to become that wealthy
in an honest manner. I suspect that every billionaire has a connection
to a crime network.
Furthermore, the billionaires seem to be using their money to expand
their crime network. The Rothschild family, for example, gave funding to
the Rockefeller family. Paul Allen, who became wealthy by working with
Bill Gates of Microsoft, provided financial backing for Steven Spielberg,
Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen to create the movie company DreamWorks.
The billionaires also create philanthropies, and this creates the impression
that they want to help society, but I don't see any society improving from
their philanthropies. Some of their donations seem to be to satisfy their
own particular fantasies, such as when Paul Allen gave the city of Seattle
a Science Fiction Museum. But some of the philanthropies appear to be deliberate
attempts to manipulate schools and promote Jewish propaganda. A good example
are the donations to the Public Broadcasting Service. They recently broadcast
a television show called Bush's War. This is an attempt by the Jews to
blame the Iraq war on George Bush. A more honest television program would
have described it as Israel's War. And the Public Broadcasting Service
should be referred to as the Jewish Propaganda Service.
By preventing people from becoming extremely wealthy, we can significantly
reduce the problem of criminals who use their money to expand their network.
By the way, most of the so-called "truth seekers" are trying to convince
us that only a small number of Jews are involved in this crime network,
and that the majority of Jews are innocent victims, just like you and me.
But there's no way only a few thousand Jews could be producing so much
propaganda in so many nations, and there's no way only a few thousand Jews
could be manipulating so many schools, businesses, government officials,
and police departments all over the world. We're suckers if we don't assume
every Jew is guilty until proven innocent.
Besides, the Jews don't care about the innocent Goyim, so why should
we care about the innocent Jews? The innocent Jews can either do something
to help us, or be considered as guilty as the other Jews. An innocent Jew
who does nothing to help us is not truly innocent.
Getting back to my proposal for software development, another advantage
of it is that it would allow society to make judgments on which software
we should develop.
With our current economic system, software companies have to get their
operating money from sales, and the end result is that there's a tremendous
amount of money available for the development of video games, special effects
for Hollywood movies, and other entertainment. By comparison, the market
for industrial, scientific, and medical software is very small, so there's
not much money available to develop that type of software.
Businesses in our current economic system are in a submissive position.
They have to do whatever the consumers want. This would be acceptable if
consumers were responsible and intelligent, but as I just mentioned, most
people have such a crummy mind that we can't even have a conversation with
them about 9/11 or the Holocaust.
With my proposal, society would have control over software, so we would
be able to pass judgment on which software deserves to be developed. Instead
of being at the mercy of irrational consumers, we would be able to determine
how much money we want to put into games and other entertainment, and how
much we want to put into more useful areas.
We could also pass judgment on when a software company is too large.
With our current economic system, there is a tremendous advantage for companies
to become gigantic because it allows them to dominate the economy. However,
we should not care what is best for a few businessmen. We should be concerned
only about what's best for society.
We need competition in the economy because competition is the only way
to determine who is doing a better job. But competition has no value when
it's unfair, and it won't be fair if one company is a thousand times larger
than all of its competitors.
I think that companies such as Microsoft should be broken into pieces,
but it's important to realize that there's no way to determine exactly
which policy will turn out to be the best, so sometimes we have to experiment.
Many people seem afraid of experimenting with society, but we're not going
to hurt ourselves. For example, if we break apart Microsoft and later decide
a better solution is to create larger companies, we can put the pieces
together again. We can't be afraid to take control of the economy and experiment
with it.
We have no control at all over our current economic system. Our current
system is a democracy that's under the influence of a horde of unorganized
and irrational consumers. As consumers spend money, they inadvertently
determine which businesses survive and which products will be developed.
There is no way we can control this type of economy. And there's no way
we can make long-term plans, such as phasing in new types of automobiles
or railroads. And there's no way we could design and build a completely
new city.
As I described in other documents and files, we should stop promoting
democracies. Instead of letting everybody influence the economy, we should
restrict the people who influence society to a smaller subset of people
who have shown signs of being better than average in regards to responsibility,
honesty, and intelligence. This subset would operate like a democracy,
but if they were a better behaved group, they would do a better job of
influencing society.
The only way to improve the world is to restrict the people who influence
it. This is actually a very old concept. People have noticed for thousands
of years that the majority of people cannot make wise decisions about their
own lives, or society. Unfortunately, nobody has yet figured out how to
set up a society in which the better behaved people are in control. How
do we figure out who among us belongs in positions of leadership? How do
we determine who among us should be allowed to vote or influence the economy?
How can we improve the world when those of us who want to improve it
are in a very small minority? For example, my proposal to prohibit people
from voting if they believe in angels, leprechauns, or ghosts would prohibit
the majority of people from voting, but would they tolerate such a policy?
We have in a serious dilemma. The majority of people behave as if they
are primitive savages in 10,000 B.C., and those of us who want to improve
our situation are a very small minority of the population. How are we going
to fix this world when there are so few of us?
Furthermore, those of us who want to help the world have to compete
with the international Jewish crime network. As I've mentioned in other
files, we actually have two problems. The first is getting rid of this
Jewish crime network, and the second is figuring out how to improve the
world. Judging by the behavior of the Jews right new, their network is
deteriorating, but after it's gone, what do we do to fix this world?
These problems may seem overwhelming, but we should not try to achieve
perfection. Our goal should simply be to improve upon the situation we
have right now, and that is certainly possible. After we get rid of the
Jewish crime network, we will have access to the television, and that will
allow us to bring these discussions out into the public and get more people
involved. Certainly we will then be able to develop some improvements.
After all, if we're smart enough to fake a man on the moon, we're smart
enough to improve our world.
For example, if the majority of people refuse to allow us to put more
restrictions on voters, then we could do what the Jewish crime network
is doing right now. Specifically, we could allow only the candidates who
are truly qualified to be leaders. The voters don't notice or care that
their current candidates have been selected for them by a crime network,
so why would they care or notice if we're selecting candidates for them?
One of our top priorities has to be getting better people into leadership
positions because we can't do much of anything to improve society until
we have better leaders. For example, my proposal for funding software development
requires that the government be able to figure out which software is actually
being used. There are different ways to determine this, but the easiest
and lowest cost method would be to provide computers with software that
occasionally send statistical data to the government over the phone lines
or the Internet.
My proposal requires a government that is more honest and more intelligent
than what we currently have. At the moment a lot of businesses would resist
allowing the government to monitor them, and I doubt if many people would
want such software on their home computers. The governments of the world
today cannot be trusted. And we can't trust the FBI, or Scotland Yard,
the KGB, Homeland Security, or any other law enforcement agency.
The system I'm proposing is also easy for businesses to take advantage
of. Since the government would give tax money to whichever companies were
producing successful software, the businesses could cheat by putting their
friends and family members on the payroll, even though they're not actually
doing any work. Businesses could also create fraudulent expenses for themselves.
This particular crime is occurring right now in governments, schools, and
businesses, and it's especially significant with government contractors.
We can be certain that this crime will continue to occur with the system
I'm proposing.
The system I'm proposing would be especially easy for the government
to abuse. Our governments are already cheating us on a routine basis, so
if we were to create an agency to supervise software development, we can
be sure that it would be as dishonest as the FBI, the FDA, and other corrupt
agencies. We can be certain that the agency would give money to their friends
and cheat the businesses that they didn't like or who were not part of
their crime network. And they might also secretly fund software to aid
them in false flag operations, or crimes in banking or the stock markets.
You may suggest that I reevaluate my proposal and develop a system that's
not so easy to cheat. It's true that certain systems will be easier to
cheat, but the problems of crime are due to people, not the system or the
lack of security procedures. A nation in which a significant percentage
of the population cannot control their cravings for money will always have
a lot of crime, no matter what we do. And if a nation is dominated by people
who live in a fantasy world, they won't be able to do much for themselves,
either.
A nation is whatever its citizens make it. People with crummy brains
are going to make a crummy nation no matter how they design their government
and no matter how many security cameras they install. And it doesn't matter
if the people are honest. People today have to be more than merely honest.
People today need the ability to face problems of the modern world, and
they need the ability to develop sensible policies for these problems.
We already have a few honest people in positions of leadership, but
they don't have what it takes to help us. An example are the people who
are trying to force automobile companies to produce cars that get better
gas mileage. This seems like a sensible policy, but what will it accomplish?
If we could increase the efficiency of automobiles, each person would
use less oil, but the population is rising, and more people are using more
energy for video games, Christmas lights, and television sets. And if automobiles
got better gas mileage, some people would drive more often, and some people
would purchase a larger automobile. Furthermore, as crime gets worse, people
want more streetlights, security cameras, and other devices that use energy.
There are also people deliberately burning buildings for insurance money,
and that's wasting energy.
Increasing the efficiency of automobiles while the population is rising
and while people are using more energy is as useless as a fat person who
reduces the amount of sugar he puts into his coffee while increasing the
amount of food he eats every day.
Take a look at the history of automobiles. Every decade they became
more efficient, but what problem has been decreasing as a result of the
increasing efficiency?
Airplane engines, computers, refrigerators, and all other products have
also been increasing in efficiency. But what problem has this solved?
We certainly want products to be efficient, but we're not going to solve
our problems with a more efficient automobile engine, or lower cost solar
cells, or even fusion reactors. The problems we suffer from are coming
from the animal-like behavior of millions and millions of people. The only
way the world is going to improve is if the people improve their behavior.
Consider how this concept applies to crime. Many people believe that
we can stop crime with more advanced security cameras and other types of
crime prevention devices, and some people believe they'll stop crime by
purchasing guns.
One of the more amusing crime prevention proposals is referred to as
the EMD safety bracelet. This is an electronic device that looks like a
wrist watch. The company that designed it proposes that airlines give each
passenger one of these bracelets rather than tickets. It would identify
the passengers so they wouldn't need tickets. The primary purpose of the
bracelets would be to prevent terrorists from taking over an airplane.
If any of the passengers turned out to be a terrorist, a crew member would
activate his bracelet and cause it to give him an electrical shock.
Billions of dollars are wasted every year around the world on security
cameras, guns, X-ray equipment at airports, and other types of crime prevention,
but it's not doing anything to reduce crime. The reason is because crime
is not caused by a shortage of security devices. It's caused by the human
mind. No matter what type of security system we develop, it will be defeated.
In order to reduce crime, we have to deal with people. There's no sense
wasting any more money or engineering talent on crime prevention technology.
We have to deal with the fact that most of the population simply can't
cope with the modern world. They can't control their emotions; they can't
think very well; and most of them refuse to face reality.
We can dress a monkey in human clothing, but its going to behave like
an animal no matter how many security cameras are watching over it, and
no matter how many times we beat it with a stick.
The reason we have trouble dealing with crime is because a lot of the
crimes are trivial, and a lot of the criminals are our own relatives and
friends. It's difficult for us to do something about a person who is wonderful
99% of the time and only occasionally causes trouble. We can also see the
temptation to commit crimes within our own mind. All of us have the same
animal-like cravings. However, it should be obvious that the situation
with crime is getting worse, and we must start experimenting with different
policies.
Throughout most of human history there was no pity for people who couldn't
behave properly, but during the past couple centuries, especially in America,
Canada, and Australia, there has been an attitude that we should feel sorry
for the misfits. Unfortunately, feeling sorry for people doesn't help them,
and it doesn't help us.
We can't create a better world when a significant percentage of the
population is cheating us. We also have to deal with the people who are
honest but who simply can't behave in an appropriate manner for this modern
era.
Consider the problems concerning automobile traffic and housing. Many
people propose changing zoning laws to allow more apartment buildings in
order to reduce housing shortages, and many people suggest widening the
roads or switching to bicycles in order to reduce traffic problems. But
these proposals won't do anything to solve the problems because the problems
are due to the inability of people to control their reproduction.
This is not 10,000 B.C. People can no longer have as many babies as
they please. Nature used to kill the excess babies, but today they're not
dying. Even the most retarded babies are surviving today. The people who
refuse to tolerate controls over reproduction are making a mess of our
world, and they have to be dealt with, just like the criminals. They are
either intellectual defects, or they're people who can't face reality.
Regardless of what their problem is, they must be dealt with. It doesn't
matter if these people are nice. We have to look at what their effect is
on the world. A lot of dogs are nice, but you wouldn't want a dog to vote
or influence policies on reproduction.
People aren't of any value if they destroy their own world. We need
people who can take care of this planet and create a pleasant life for
themselves and rest of us.
We have to face the fact that the world's problems are coming from people
who don't fit in with this modern era. And we cannot make these people
behave better. It doesn't matter how many security cameras we install,
or how many police we hire. In fact, our law enforcement agencies and courts
cannot be trusted.
This brings me to the issue I stress repeatedly. In order to create
a better world, we need better people. Take a look at professional sports
teams if you have trouble understanding this concept. If you want to put
together a successful football team, you have to find people who have enough
talent to win without cheating. You won't create a successful team if you
feel sorry for misfits and let them play simply out of pity, or if you
allow organized crime members to get on the team by using bribery or murder.
Sure, I probably repeat myself a lot, but the Jews have discovered that
repetition is the key to promoting the Holocaust and other Jewish propaganda,
so perhaps repetition is a good way to promote beneficial attitudes, also.
With a better group of people in control of society, we could make long-term
economic plans that are currently impossible, such as the development of
cities, or the development of a more advanced train system. It's impossible
for us to make long-term plans with our current economic system because
there's no way businesses can get together with one another or with the
government.
Our primitive economic system assumes that businesses are individual
men who bake bread or make shoes. Our system has no provisions for businesses
to make long-term plans for society. If businesses were to get together
to make plans, it would be considered collusion or a conspiracy. This simplistic,
medieval economy is inappropriate today.
Our government is also idiotic. It was never designed to provide leadership,
or work with businesses, or make long-term plans for society. It's just
a group of submissive representatives who do whatever they're told. This
is a stupid government system, and it's based on stupid theories. The constitution
needs to be thrown into the trash, and we need to develop something better.
Some people hope to phase in electric automobiles or a more advanced
train system, but America is such a disorganized nation that we can't even
phase in the metric system. America is like just like a bunch of monkeys
that nobody has control over.
By the way, whenever I mention the metric system, the majority of Americans
panic at the thought of switching. Americans often boast that they're hard-working
people, but if Americans were truly interested in working, they wouldn't
have purchased so many African slaves, and they wouldn't be bringing millions
of Mexicans into the country every year to use as cheap labor, and there
wouldn't be so many Americans fantasizing about becoming rich and being
pampered by servants.
The majority of Americans are frightened at the thought of learning
the metric system, but this fear is absurd. For one reason, the ordinary
people don't have to learn the system because it can be phased in over
a generation or two, and for another reason, it doesn't take much effort
to learn it. Furthermore, it is slowly being forced on America because
the rest of the world is using it.
The Mexicans who are coming into America already know the metric system,
and at the rate they're coming into the country, they'll eventually dominate,
and they're certain to force the metric system on us. The Americans who
resist the metric system are fighting a lost cause. And if they're too
lazy to learn the metric system, what are they going to do if the Mexicans
switch the primary language to Spanish?
America should be used as evidence that a democracy is an idiotic concept.
America is slowly destroying itself and there is nobody in control of this
nation to do anything to stop it. The only people with significant influence
over America are the organized crime gangs.
Congressman Ron Paul and other so-called "patriots" believe that we
can solve our problems by a mysterious action that they refer to as "returning
to the Constitution", but the Constitution is what has failed us. The Constitution
set up a very simplistic, idiotic government. We need to develop something
better.
One of the most serious problems with the Constitution is that it promotes
the theory that everybody is virtually identical, and that we're all equally
qualified to be government officials and businessmen and voters. We have
to face the fact that people are not identical. Some of us are better behaved
than others, and some of us are more talented, and some of us have serious
mental disorders. We should design a society in which we have higher standards
for people in leadership positions rather than pretend that everybody is
equal.
And we should stop the attitude that we can cure the badly behaved people
by putting them in jail or by making their corporation pay a fine. The
people who have trouble controlling their cravings for money or sex or
fame are going to continue to have this problem no matter how much we punish
or threaten them. And the people who want drugs are going to use drugs
regardless of what you and I say. We can't control people, so there's no
point in trying.
A better policy would be keep the badly behaved people out of positions
of importance. We could also restrict them to certain areas of the city,
or to certain cities. We already have zoning laws that require certain
types of businesses to remain in certain sections of the city, and we could
take this concept even further and create special cities for certain activities.
People who want drugs, gambling, or prostitution could be evicted to the
cities that have been specially created for those activities. That would
allow those people to live the life they want without bothering the rest
of us.
We could also set up some cities for criminals, but unlike Australia,
these criminal cities would not be independent nations, and the criminals
would not be allowed to reproduce.
We need to start experimenting with different policies towards crime.
People who misbehave are not evil. They're humans just like the rest of
us, but there is something different about their minds. Perhaps in the
future people will know enough about the human mind to figure out how to
correct some of their problems, but as of today, we have no sensible method
of correcting their problems. These people have to be removed from positions
of leadership, and in some cases they have to be removed from society.
By providing ourselves with better leadership, and by controlling the
badly behaved people, we could start experimenting with all sorts of policies
that are currently impossible. For example, we could let the government
take control of the entertainment business in a manner similar to what
I suggested for the software business.
At the moment entertainment companies demand royalties whenever people
purchase or play music or television shows, but this is a ridiculous method
of dealing with the problem. Furthermore, these entertainment businesses
are abusing the situation and exploiting both the artists and the customers.
For example, Sony developed video recording equipment in the 1970s,
and in 1976 Universal City Studios took them to court to stop the development
of the product. The people in control of Universal Studios didn't want
anybody to have the ability to record a television program. They weren't
thinking about what's best for society. They were simply worried that they
would lose money if people were capable of recording television shows.
The courts decided that Sony was allowed to produce home video recording
equipment, but the people in control of the entertainment businesses refused
to accept this. So they've been continually pressing for laws to restrict
our ability to record audio and video, and today they're trying to stop
people from using the Internet from passing music and television shows
around.
The purpose of royalties is to allow people who produce intangible entertainment
products to make a living, but many entertainment companies are doing more
than merely making a living. For example, according to Forbes magazine,
Steven Spielberg had an income of $340 million in 2005, and the radio host
Howard Stern had an income of $308 million.
Some of their money may have come from other businesses, but the point
is that these people are not simply making a living. They are making a
phenomenal amount of money, and yet they complain that they're being cheated
by people who copy their material. These people are selfish animals who
are never satisfied no matter how much money they have. They don't belong
in positions of importance. They're examples of people who need to be replaced
with better behaved people.
Furthermore, many entertainment companies advertise to children. As
I mentioned in other files, I don't think we should allow any business
to advertise to children. I would describe this as exploitation of children.
According to the theory of free enterprise, competition will prevent
businesses from making excessive amounts of money and from exploiting the
public. So, where are the better behaved and lower cost competitors to
Steven Spielberg and Howard Stern?
Julia Roberts was paid $25 million for her role in the movie Mona Lisa
Smile. Where is the competition to Julia Roberts? Why don't other actresses
offer to do the same work for less money? How can a business survive the
competition when they waste $25 million on just one actress in just one
movie? And where is the competition to Tom Cruise, Mike Wallace, Barbara
Walters, Wolf Blitzer, Sumner Redstone, and Oprah Winfrey? How is it possible
for these people to dominate the entertainment business for decades?
Most people assume that Spielberg and the others dominate entertainment
and make phenomenal amounts of money because they're special people with
special talent, but the evidence suggests that they're part of the Jewish
crime network, and they discriminate against everybody who's not part of
their network.
By the way, somebody told me about an old television show from the 1960s
called The Invaders. It's another variation of the story of aliens coming
to the earth to take control. The aliens look just like Caucasian humans.
One of the remarks an alien makes to the humans is "Our mission is to take
over the news media of your country." It seems to be another production
in which the Jews are laughing at us for not being able to see what they're
doing.
This Jewish crime network seems to think of themselves as special people,
but they're just criminals. They're successful because they exploit people
who have cravings for money or sex or fame, or who don't want to face reality.
Their success doesn't come from talent. If they were truly superior to
us, we would have seen some evidence of it by now. Their opinions about
life, for example, would be more intelligent than ours, but their opinions
are as stupid as those of the ordinary people. The human race would not
suffer one bit if their idiotic opinions, movies, television shows, books,
and magazine articles were discarded in the trash. The only time these
criminal Jews have something intelligent to say is when they plagiarize
the material.
The issue of plagiarism is actually very significant. When I was a teenager,
I noticed that after Einstein created his two theories, he never did much
of anything intelligent again. That seemed peculiar, but I assumed it was
because the human mind deteriorates with age.
However, there's a lot of evidence that Einstein was just another criminal
Jew who plagiarized his theories. If you've listened to the Kay Griggs
interviews, then you may remember a vague remark she made about Einstein
being involved in homosexual pedophilia while he was at Princeton University.
This is the type of behavior we see with the Jewish crime network, not
with real scientists. Even the photographs of Einstein and the descriptions
of his personal life appear to make him some sort of weirdo.
There is a Jew named Christopher jon Bjerknes, who has the website JewishRacism.com,
and he posted a lot of evidence that Einstein is a plagiarizer. However,
as I mentioned in other files and documents, Bjerknes is just another Jewish
criminal himself. His exposing of Einstein seems to be the bait that he
uses to lure naive people over to his site.
When I was younger I thought of plagiarism as a trivial crime. I heard
of scientists or businessmen complaining about other people who were copying
their work, and I thought it was just a trivial argument over who should
get credit. But plagiarism is detrimental to society for lots of reasons.
For example, in regards to scientists, the plagiarizer could end up getting
funding for additional work. The end result is that society gives money
to a criminal who can't produce anything of value. America gave special
pampering to Einstein, but what did he do in return? If Kay Griggs is correct,
all he did was have sex with teenage boys and fool around with the other
weirdos at Princeton University.
And when we allow businesses to plagiarize, then they profit from their
criminal activities, and the more honest companies are denied sales.
Perhaps the worst thing about allowing plagiarism is that when people
don't care where the information comes from, they allow crime gangs to
kill or kidnap the source of information and take control of it. This seems
to be what they did with Christopher Bollyn. He and his family claim to
be in hiding, but it's been more than nine months. The most sensible explanation
is that he is a prisoner. The Jews may have been doing this trick for centuries
without people noticing.
Daryl Smith tried over and over to convince me to sell my house and
buy the house next door to him in France, but I now think that if I had
done so, I would have ended up as a prisoner, also. And I bet they would
be producing material under my name, but just like Christopher Bollyn is
doing today, they would be slipping in deceptive material and sending you
to deceptive websites.
Whenever you hear an intelligent opinion, you should get into the habit
of asking yourself, am I listening to the person who created this opinion?
Or am I listening to a criminal who stole the idea from somebody else?
If a stranger were to offer you an expensive wristwatch at a very low
price, you would likely wonder if he's trying to sell you a stolen, broken,
or fraudulent watch. You should be just as suspicious when people offer
you valuable information. You should wonder if they're offering you stolen
or fraudulent information. Don't be impressed just because somebody says
something intelligent. Look for people who are creating the material and
not just stealing it.
You shouldn't look for advice from people who steal material, or who
need speechwriters. As it is right now, people consider it normal for a
government official to have a speechwriter. Some officials supposedly spend
hours in front of a mirror practicing the speeches that other people write
for them.
To understand how ridiculous this is, imagine going to George Bush for
some dental work. Since Bush knows nothing about dentistry, he asks a real
dentist to write instructions on what to do. Then Bush spends a few hours
in front of a mirror to memorize the motions he has to make with his hands
and the tools. He then tries to repeat those motions on you, just like
a dumb robot.
You would never tolerate such a dentist, but it's considered acceptable
for government officials to behave in the same idiotic manner. We have
to be more demanding. We have to put the sources of information into positions
of leadership, and we have to stop plagiarism and speechwriters.
Our leaders are so incompetent and helpless that they can't even deal
with questions from reporters in uncontrolled situations. The people we
have in our government are like helpless babies who have to be pampered
and protected. A real leader doesn't need other people to prepare meetings
or interviews. A real leader will tell other people to stand back while
he deals with the situation.
Many of the people who get to the top of society are doing so through
crime. Hollywood seems to attract some of the most psychotic of these criminals.
I think that's one of the reasons the movies and television shows are so
full of psychotic behavior, and why they promote pirates, Italian crime
gangs, horror stories, and ghosts.
The Protocols of Zion and Harold Rosenthal show that part of the reason
the Jews are promoting psychotic behavior is to break down society, but
I think part of the reason is because Hollywood is under the control of
people with serious mental disorders, and they actually enjoy this material.
If we could get better people in control of government, we could put
society in control of the entertainment business. We could treat entertainers
in a manner similar to how I described for software developers. In this
scenario, the artists would be provided with a reasonable income to produce
music, perform at concerts, and do other tasks. It would be like a regular
job. Their artistic creations would be provided to society for free, and
all of us would be able to copy it for free. The artists wouldn't collect
royalties, either.
I'm sure that a lot of artists would have a temper tantrum and refuse
to accept this policy, but so what? There are lots of people willing to
be artists for a reasonable amount of money. We don't need artists who
insist on becoming extremely wealthy from just a couple hours of work and
who spend the rest of their lives taking drugs, buying jewelry, and acting
like retards.
I don't collect royalties on the software I make, and I don't collect
royalties when you listen to my audio files. Carpenters don't get royalties
for the houses that they build for you. Dentists don't get royalties when
you use the teeth that they fixed for you. The people who build airplanes
don't get royalties every time you fly on one of their airplanes. Why are
we treating artists differently than the rest of us? Why can't they work
for a living just like the rest of us?
If we were to treat artists as ordinary people, they would live in ordinary
neighborhoods with ordinary people, and they would be able to walk down
the streets without hordes of idiots chasing after them for autographs.
Furthermore, if we were to treat artists as ordinary people doing an
ordinary job, then we could prohibit the use of children as professional
entertainers. Although some children are entertaining, such as Shirley
Temple, Michael Jackson, and most recently, Connie Talbot, using children
as professional entertainers deprives them of a normal childhood. Furthermore,
there are already lots of children giving performances in school, and I
don't see any reason society to go beyond those amateur activities.
We don't allow children to work full-time in factories, and if professional
entertainers were provided with an ordinary salary, then parents would
never let their children become professional entertainers. But when parents
are offered phenomenal amounts of money for their children, many of them
will take the offer.
There are some people in the military with artistic abilities, and occasionally
they'll put on a performance, but the military doesn't provide those artists
phenomenal amounts of money for a few hours of work. The military doesn't
exploit children as professional entertainers, either. We should apply
this concept to the rest of society. Artists should do a job just like
the rest of us.
We could also apply this type of policy to the people who produce serious
information, such as encyclopedias and textbooks. It's not easy to sell
this type of material. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is available on the
Internet, but it's not free. But who among us wants to pay for encyclopedia
articles? Millions of people will subscribe to pornography sites, cable
television, Hollywood gossip magazines, and newspapers, but we don't want
to purchase serious information.
We could let the government fund the companies that produce encyclopedias,
textbooks, and other serious information so that this information was available
to society for free. Unfortunately, we don't have a government that is
honest enough to put in control of information. We can't even trust businesses
to provide us with information. Our textbooks, encyclopedias, newspapers,
and other media are full of Jewish propaganda right now. Children are being
lied to about 9/11, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and who knows
how much else.
The propaganda in our media is another example of how the problems of
the world are coming from badly behaved people. We're not going to fix
our media by installing more security cameras or hiring more policemen.
We have to deal with the people who don't fit into this modern era.
We already have a Federal Communications Commission that is supposed
to watch over the media companies, but they're doing nothing to protect
us from this crime network. Our government is just a bunch of criminals
and savages who don't fit in to this modern world.
And consider the Food And Drug Administration. They're supposed to help
protect us from abuse, but they are deliberately keeping hemp products
off the market in order to help their friends in the wood pulp and cotton
industries.
And look at NASA. How much longer are we going to pretend that astronauts
landed on the moon? NASA claims they have two rovers on Mars, but I have
a feeling they're both in the Australian desert.
How are we going to improve this world when there are so many people
trying to cheat us? We can't even trust the scientists. We don't need any
more security cameras. We have to deal with the people who cannot be trusted
and who refuse to contribute something of value to society.
In January I saw a news article about people in Britain living near
a cell phone tower and worrying about the health effects of microwave radiation.
I looked around on the Internet for more information about cell phone towers
and I noticed an article by William Robert Johnston, who is getting a Ph.D.
in physics. His article showed that microwave ovens and cell phones do
not cause cancer.
I don't know how to determine if Johnston's article is accurate, so
I looked at some of his other articles to see if he wrote about a subject
I'm more familiar with, in which case I might have a better idea of whether
this man can be trusted.
I noticed that he's studying outer space and radiation belts and other
issues regarding space travel. So I sent him a brief e-mail message to
take a look at some of the peculiar aspects of the Apollo moon landing
and the mysterious collapse of Building 7. I sent him a link to my Science
Challenge about whether astronauts should be able to see stars, and I sent
him a link to HugeQuestions.com so that he could watch a video about Building
7 and the 9/11 attack.
He responded to my Science Challenge with the typical, idiotic argument
that photographs cannot show dim stars and bright objects at the same time.
And he told me that there's nothing mysterious about the collapse of Building
7. He sent me a link to that stupid article in the Popular Mechanics magazine
called "Debunking the 9/11 Myths". And he also told me that his father
was an engineer in the Apollo project.
Judging by his response, I wouldn't trust anything he wrote about cell
phone towers. He's either lying because he's part of a crime network, or
he's too cowardly to be honest, or he is one of those people who live in
a fantasy world, or he's stupid. His obsession with the television show
Star Trek makes me wonder if perhaps he prefers living in a fantasy. And
at the bottom of his "About Me" page, he writes, "Do you know how to go
to heaven?" And he provides a link to an article that is called "How To
Become A Christian", and it tells us that Jesus loves us and he wants us
to have a personal relationship with him. Well, Jesus loves me. Isn't that
wonderful! And I suppose Jesus will protect me if I get lost in the forest
and a big bad Wolf tries to eat me.
In the world today, anybody who gets a Ph.D. is referred to as a scientist.
We assume that scientists are intelligent people who we can look to for
advice, but we're not going to get sensible advice from an educated monkey.
Don't be impressed by a college diploma. The people who graduate from
college are certainly capable of memorizing information, and some excel
at performing math operations, but many of them are criminals or mental
defects. Just look at how many of them are lying to us right now about
9/11, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust. For a few examples, Professor
Steven Jones is a physicist, and Kee Dewdney is a mathematician, and Jim
Hoffman, who works with Professor Jones, is some type of math expert.
One of the scientists that the BBC looks to for advice is a physicist
named Brian Cox. He's involved with lots of impressive organizations, such
the high-energy physics group of Europe. The BBC produced a video documentary
with him, and in this video he insisted that the Apollo moon landing really
did happen.
There are also lots of scientists pushing us into accepting a carbon
tax, but they don't have a proper explanation for who will be in control
of the carbon tax, or why we should believe that our corrupt governments
will improve the weather with it. They can't even provide evidence that
humans have control over the weather. There is more evidence that the carbon
tax is just a trick by the Jewish crime network to collect money and manipulate
societies.
We're all impressed by people who excel in math, and we assume that
a person who is good in math is also intelligent. When I was in junior
high school I noticed that perhaps 10 to 20% of the students were better
at math than me. There were even some girls who were better than me. I
assumed that this meant that about 10 to 20% of the population was more
intelligent than me.
As the years passed, I noticed that some of the people who are better
at math than me don't have anything particularly intelligent opinions about
life. If 10 to 20% of the population is more intelligent than me, then
where are all of these millions and millions of intelligent people? I don't
see many signs of intelligent life on this planet.
By the way, I just got interrupted by a phone call from another person
who complained my software isn't working properly. I asked him to tell
me which version he has, and it turns out that he has a copy that I had
given to the machine tool dealer to evaluate. It was a version that has
some limitations because it was only for evaluation. This dishonest dealer
wanted to sell a machine, so he offered my software to the customer, and
he never told the customer that it was a limited evaluation copy. The customer
had been using this limited version for a couple months, but today he needed
one of the features that it didn't have, and so he called me in a panicky
state because he didn't know what to do.
This is not the first time something like this has happened. We're not
going to solve this problem with security cameras or jails. We have to
get rid of that pressure on businesses to trick people into purchasing
their products, and we have to deal with the people who can't be honest.
Getting back to the issue of whether people who are good at math are
intelligent, some people who have had brain injuries or birth defects are
phenomenal in math, or art, or music, or memory. They are often referred
to as "idiot savants". Some of them cannot even survive without assistance
from other people. If performing math operations requires intelligence,
then how can people with brain damage perform certain math operations better
than the rest of us?
One man, Daniel Tammet, is not an idiot, but he suffered from a brain
injury as a child, and that may have been what caused his truly spectacular
math and language abilities.
The savants are evidence that there are different sections of our brain
with different abilities. We assume that intelligence and mathematical
abilities are the same mental quality, but it's possible that these are
coming from different areas of the brain, and they're controlled by different
genes on different chromosomes. We assume that if a person excels in math,
he must also be extremely intelligent. But if there is a special section
of our brain with math abilities, then a person could have tremendous math
abilities but not be very intelligent.
And if another section of the brain is responsible for musical abilities,
or artistic abilities, then a person could excel in art or music even if
he's not very intelligent.
The integrated circuit of a modern computer processor has different
sections for different functions. One area is referred to as the logic
unit, and it does the thinking for the computer. Another section is the
math unit, and another section is the memory. Computers also have special
chips for processing audio and video data. All of these sections are independent.
If the math unit is defective, the logic unit could take over and do the
math. It will achieve the same results, but it will take longer to get
the results. And if the audio chip is defective, the rest of the computer
will continue to function, but without any audio capabilities.
Our brain may also have different sections for different purposes. The
part of our brain that we consider our consciousness, which is the part
that we talk to when we talk to ourselves, may be analogous to the logic
unit of a microprocessor. The logic unit doesn't have any control over
the other sections of our brain, or even an awareness of the other sections.
We can do math with this logic unit, but there may be another section of
our brain that is specifically designed for math.
When I was in elementary school, I noticed that when I was doing arithmetic,
answers would just appear in my mind, as if by magic. This was most noticeable
when we did flash cards. For those of you who don't know what flash cards
are, it is a stack of paper cards, and each one has a very simple equation
printed on it, such as 7 plus 12, or 4 times 9. The teacher would hold
a card up, and we would try to give the answer as fast as possible, and
then she would hold up another card up, and so on.
I noticed that the only way that I could solve the equations rapidly
was to not think about them and instead respond with whatever answer magically
appeared in my mind. I assumed that the answers were coming from my memory,
but perhaps there's a section of our brain that is actually capable of
solving certain types of math equations.
It's difficult to believe that our brain has a math unit inside it,
but a math unit would be useful for processing visual data to identify
objects and determine their positions and motions in three-dimensional
space. It would also be useful for creating and manipulating three-dimensional
images in our mind.
A computer does math operations with transistors, and since stupid electronic
circuits can do math, I suppose it's possible for living cells to do math,
also.
Take a look at some of the objects around you right now. Unless you're
blind in one eye, you can make very accurate guesses as to which objects
are within your reach, and which are farther away. How does your mind measure
the distances?
If I had to develop software for a robot so that it could measure the
distance between itself and other objects, and if the only devices I had
to work with were its two video cameras, and if those cameras swiveled
just like human eyes in order to focus on an object, then I could determine
distances simply by looking at the angle the two cameras are making. I
would multiply the tangent of half the angle with half of the distance
between the two cameras. But does the human mind have the ability to calculate
tangents and do multiplication?
Or is our mind simply memorizing distances based on experience? In other
words, does our mind remember that when our eyes are forming a certain
angle, the object is a certain distance away, and when our eyes make a
different angle, the object is another distance?
If you were given a baseball and told to toss it at an object that is
very close to you, you would very likely hit the object with the ball.
If you were told to toss the ball at an object that is farther away, you
would contract your muscles to a greater extent in order to give the ball
a higher velocity, but how would your mind know how much more to contract
the muscles? Is all of this the result of practice and memorizing of procedures?
Or do we have some type of math unit to assist in these decisions?
And if the human mind has a math unit, animals should have one, also.
I don't know what goes on inside a woman's mind, but all men seem to
have the ability to visualize three-dimensional images. We can rotate them,
disassemble them into pieces, and put them together again.
My software can display a wire frame image in three-dimensions with
perspective, and allow the user to rotate it, but I couldn't figure out
how to do this on my own. I had to pay somebody who is better at math to
write the function for me. I can only handle two dimensional geometry to
some extent, but rotating objects in 3-D and providing perspective requires
three-dimensional geometry. How does our brain allow us to manipulate three-dimensional
images? Is it possible that our brain can perform such complex math operations?
Or is our brain using some other technique that doesn't require math?
Our brain has a lot of amazing functions that we have no awareness of,
such as its control over muscles, digestion, and breathing. When we decide
to walk or speak, our muscles just start contracting in very complex sequences
without our conscious mind having any idea of how it happens.
We are completely oblivious to the constant flow of information from
our nerves, and we are oblivious to all the data our brain is sending down
those nerves in order to control the muscles. The part of our brain that
we call our consciousness seems to be a very small part of our brain, and
it's completely isolated from the part of the brain that does all the rest
of this work.
If somebody's conscious mind was accidentally picking up signals from
his stomach or his lung, he would be able to sense parts of his body that
the rest of us are unaware of.
And if there's a math unit inside our brain, and if a person's conscious
mind had a better connection to that math unit, he would be able to perform
math much better than the rest of us, and much quicker, and this would
create the impression that he's incredibly intelligent, when in reality
he would simply be accessing a feature that even a dumb animal has.
Perhaps the primary difference between an animal brain and a human brain
is that we have a much more advanced logic unit. Perhaps animals have the
ability to perform certain types of math operations but we don't realize
it because they have no ability to use that feature for anything except
the processing of visual or audio data.
When electronic circuit boards are not designed properly, one section
of the board can pick up interference, or crosstalk, from another section.
If the electronic circuit is a radio, the end result is low-quality audio
with a low level noise in the background.
What would happen if a person's conscious mind was not properly isolated
from other parts of the brain? If his conscious mind was accidentally picking
up random signals from other sections of his brain, that interference might
make it difficult for him to sit still and relax. He might want to spend
most of his time on drugs or looking for some extreme stimulation to overpower
the low level of noise inside his mind. And perhaps people who experience
hallucinations are picking up signals from the processing of visual or
audio data.
When we go to sleep, our conscious mind turns off, but it doesn't seem
to completely shut down, and the rest of our brain continues to operate.
When we wake up, we sometimes remember that we were dreaming. Many people
assume that their dreams have some significance, but I don't think so.
I suspect that dreams are just meaningless nonsense that results from our
conscious mind operating in some type of idle condition.
When I wake up, I often realize that I was dreaming, but normally my
dreams fade away so quickly that I can't remember the dream for more than
a few minutes. There have only a few times my dreams stayed with me long
enough that I can remember them.
Some of the people who remember their dreams think of themselves as
having a special ability, but I think it's a symptom of a poorly designed
brain. And I think it's a dangerous defect. The reason I say this is because
there were a couple times when I was a child that I woke up believing something,
and then later I realized that it was a dream. For example, there was one
morning that I was laying in bed and I heard my grandmother, my mother
and other people talking in the kitchen as they were making breakfast.
My grandparents lived in another city, so I jumped to the conclusion
that they had decided to visit us, and they arrived late at night while
I was asleep. Since they were in the kitchen talking, I assumed that I
was the last person to wake up, so I got out of bed, and I immediately
noticed that my two brothers, who were in the same room as me, were still
sleeping. When I opened the bedroom door, I noticed that the house was
still dark, and everybody was asleep. I was so shocked to discover that
I got a dream mixed up with reality that I still remember the incident.
That incident made me realize that we can't trust the information in
our own mind. It also showed me that there's no way to distinguish between
dreams and reality. When our mind puts information into its memory, it
doesn't add a tag to identify when or where the information came from.
We cannot determine whether the information was put into our memory at
night while we were asleep, or whether it came from an event during the
day. We have no control over our memory.
The only reason I figured out that my thoughts were actually a dream
is because the dream happened to be about a situation that was verifiable.
But if I had dreamed something that I couldn't verify, then I would have
continued to believe it.
Fortunately, most of our dreams are so idiotic that we realize they
were dreams. But if a realistic dream were to get into your memory, it
could cause serious problems for you and other people. For example, if
you were to dream about having a conversation with a certain person, and
if you didn't realize it was a dream, then when you later encountered that
person, he wouldn't remember the conversation, so both of you would wonder
if the other person is lying or merely forgetful.
A person who gets dreams mixed up with reality would pass a lie detector
test because he would be telling the truth about what he remembered. If
his dream had a lot of details in it, he would be able to explain so many
details that other people would be convinced that he must be telling the
truth.
We like to think of humans as superior to animals, but the human mind
is just a monkey brain. It probably doesn't matter if an animal has random
data getting into its memory while it sleeps because animals don't work
together or conduct business deals. And it probably didn't matter if people
10,000 years ago occasionally got dreams mixed with reality. However, people
today need higher-quality minds. People who have a tendency to remember
their dreams should not consider themselves as special people with magic
abilities. They should consider themselves as having a potentially dangerous
problem.
The reason I wanted to mention the possibility that we have a math unit
inside our brain is because until we have a better understanding of the
human mind, I think it would be best if we considered math, intelligence,
musical abilities, and other characteristics as separate, independent qualities.
Schools should not teach children that they're intelligent simply because
they can do math. And schools should not tell children that they are stupid
simply because they're not very good at math.
We currently consider people who excel in math as being super geniuses,
but if our mental qualities are independent, then you don't need to know
much about statistics to realize that if a person is lucky enough to born
with phenomenal math abilities, he's not likely to excel in intelligence
or other areas.
Take a look at the physicists and mathematicians of the world. They
have phenomenal abilities with math, but if they were also phenomenally
intelligent, then they would have the most intelligent opinions about life.
But their opinions about religion, evolution, city planning, and other
issues are nothing special. And I think they're wasting a lot of our money
on their atom smashing experiments.
If we were to change our economy so that society has control of it,
then we can have the mathematicians and physicists do something more useful
with their time.
John Carmack, for example, who did the programming for the three-dimensional
graphics for such video games Doom and Quake, is obviously exceptional
at three-dimensional geometry, but he wastes his talent on video games.
He's also fascinated with space travel and he's involved with a private
company that is trying to develop rockets.
Paul Allen, of Microsoft, and Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines, are
also involved in funding private companies that build rockets. The Apollo
moon landing hoax has fooled a lot of people into believing that space
travel is easy and fun. People assume that if NASA could get to the moon
with the crude technology of the 1960s, then private companies today could
easily build more advanced rockets for a lot less money.
This reasoning would be valid if NASA really did put men on the moon
in 1969, but no nation has the ability to do it today. I think it's important
to expose this moon landing hoax so that people realize that space travel
is difficult and dangerous. We should put our effort into making the Earth
a wonderful place to live. We shouldn't be encouraging Star Trek fantasies. |
