How can we improve our economy?
|Mike of Prothink.org and I talk to Bollyn
On Monday, Feb 25, Bollyn was on a Utah talk radio station for two hours. They allowed the audience to call and talk to Bollyn. Mike called the station, and he gave the name "Eric" when they asked for a first name.
Then they put him on hold, and he decided to call me to make a 3-way
phone call. Listen to it and see what you think:
Mike talks first. He asks Bollyn about his safety and location, but the radio station immediately turned the music on and switched to an advertisement.
I start talking at 4:23, but my voice is very faint, and then they reduce the volume and cut us off!
The human race has not reached its limit of creativity.
For more of my opinions about how we could fix our world, look at my articles on dumbing down and social technology: philosophy.html#Dumb
another 9/11 investigation!
We can't get rid of an organized crime gang with demonstrations or discussions. A group of people must capture or kill the criminals.
Ideally our police and military would deal with the criminals, and I suppose that some of them are secretly doing it right now. But they must be overwhelmed with the task because the crime network is still operating.
Our police and military are suffering from the same problem that the
rest of us suffer from; namely, they have been infiltrated
by Jewish criminals, and many Goyim have sold
out to these criminals or are simply too
selfish to help.
If the citizens could organize,
The Jews are trying to trick us into being suspicious of Muslims, Chinese, and North Koreans, but it is the Jews that we must be suspicious of.
This is not "anti-Semitism"; this is an "awareness
of a international Jewish crime network".
The Jews are being exposed !
People all over the world are realizing that 9/11 was a false flag operation, and so the Jewish crime network is reacting by promoting themselves as investigators and shifting the blame to Neocons, the Vatican, the Bush administration, or a small number of Jews who they're willing to sacrifice.
The Jews at nuoviso.com recently
produced 911 False Flag for the Germans.
It exposes 9/11 while protecting the Jews and making it appear as
if Americans are primarily responsible. Here is a version with English
You should be able to figure out that it was made by Jews by looking
at some of the other videos they promote, such as:
A transcript of the audio
February 27, 2008
I'll continue my discussion about the economy and how we might improve our situation but I wanted to start by mentioning that Christopher Bollyn was the guest on a Utah talk radio show on Monday. He was on this show at the beginning of September in an attempt to convince us that he hasn't been kidnapped.
The radio show was Dale Williams at that time. They didn't allow phone calls from the audience, but this time the host was Barbara Jean, and they allowed the audience to call and talk to Bollyn.
So Mike of prothing.org called, and when the station asked him for a first name, he decided to give them the name Eric instead of Mike. Then they put him on hold, and he decided to call me to make a three-way call. A few minutes later Barbara Jean let Mike speak. I remained quiet while Mike asked Christopher Bollyn about his whereabouts and his safety, but before he could finish his sentence the music abruptly starts and they switch to an advertisement. I think the people at the radio station panicked and decided that they needed some time to think about what to do.
After the advertisement, Barbara Jean discussed some political news, probably to give Bollyn's kidnappers more time to help Bollyn with his response. Then she returned to Mike and told him that Bollyn may or may not want to answer the question. Why would a radio host make such a remark? She was behaving like his mommy. Bollyn decided to answer the question, and he said that he was doing fine and that his children are in school. Then Mike mentioned that there's somebody is on the line with him, and that's when I said "Hello! This is Eric Hufschmid", but my voice was very faint, and it seemed to fade out quickly, and then we were disconnected.
I don't understand how anybody can listen to that interview and believe that the Bollyns are safe. The behavior of Bollyn and this Utah radio station is evidence that he truly is kidnapped, and that the radio hosts are working with the kidnappers.
Although this international Jewish crime network is still in control of the world, they seem to be slowly sinking ship. Their only method of protecting themselves is to blame somebody else for their crimes in order to make the Jews appear to be innocent victims. For example, last night Jeff Rense interviewed Benjamin Fulford, and both of them tried to make the Jews look like innocent victims of the mysterious Satanists who control the planet. Listen to this:
There are also teams of criminal Jews in China, and some of them are trying to convince the Chinese that the original Jews of Palestine have mixed into their society, also.
A lot of people believe that by ignoring criminals, they avoid become a victim, but when you ignore crime, you allow it to get worse, and eventually it's going to affect you in some manner. Take a look at what's going on in Britain with teenage kids who use cell phones to film the unprovoked beatings that the British refer to as "happy slapping".
The other day a 15-year-old girl in Britain was handed a cell phone camera and told the film a "happy slap". As she filmed the beating, she made remarks such as "Kick him again! I missed that one." The man died a few days later from the injuries.
Most people ignore these crimes on the grounds that it doesn't affect the normal people. These type of attacks are conducted by the losers of society, and their victims are usually idiots, alcoholics, drug users, or retards. However, by allowing these violent teenagers to run loose, we allow the gangs to grow in size and gain the confidence to commit even more crimes.
In fact, the other day another group of British teenagers used a cell phone camera to record one of the boys as he head-butted a policeman and broke his nose. Then they posted the video on the Internet and boasted about "happy slapping" a policeman. So now the British policemen are becoming victims, also.
I suppose the teenage boys in Britain felt safe to attack policemen because the attitude in Britain is that nobody should defend themselves during an attack. Did you see the news item I posted the other day in which a grocery shop owner in Britain was in his car and about to drive home when a man broke his window and tried to rob him? The shop owner decided to fight back, and he managed to get the knife away from the robber and stab him with it. The robber died, and the reaction from the Crown Prosecution Service is that the shop owner might be charged with murder for killing the robber.
The Crown Prosecution Service is a government agency with 8000 employees, and about one third of them are lawyers. I suspect that a close investigation of this agency will show that it is dominated by Jews in this Zionist crime network, and that their true goal is not to help Britain understand or reduce crime but to train the British people into becoming submissive sheep who tolerate abuse.
Jews all over the world are training citizens to do nothing about crime on the grounds that crime should be handled by the police and the courts. This policy appears to be sensible, and it would be sensible except that the police and the courts have been infiltrated by Jewish criminals. Therefore, when we wait for the police and the courts to deal with crime, we wait forever.
For example, the British are still waiting for the police to complete Operation Ore, which was an investigation of pedophilia among government officials, and the Americans are still waiting for an honest investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attack, the assassination of the Kennedys, and many other crimes. And we'll never get an honest investigation of the Holocaust.
Thousands of years ago people dealt with crime by killing criminals or driving them out of society. Police departments and courts would be an improvement over that primitive method of law enforcement, except that the Jewish crime network has infiltrated our legal system and are using it to suppress the citizens and protect their crime network.
It's amazing when you consider that we could easily defeat their crime network if we could form an organization, and if we had the tens of millions of dollars that was wasted on Ron Paul. With that amount of money, we could hire thousands of men who are similar to bounty hunters, and they could travel around the country to do citizen's arrests of Larry Silverstein, Wolf Blitzer, Barbara Walters, Rahm Emanuel, and thousands of other Jewish criminals.
There's no reason that we can't capture these people on our own. They are guilty of horrendous crimes, and the police agencies know it. If there are still any policemen who don't know that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, they would quickly learn about it when they saw Michael Chertoff tied up with rope and dragged out of his office.
Unfortunately, every time the citizens tried to organize, the Jews infiltrate the organization and get control. They have control of the anti-war groups, the veterans groups, and even the police organizations. Part of their success is because most people still believe the propaganda that Jews are victims of 6000 years of abuse, and part of their success is because an enormous percentage of our population is easily bribed with offers of money, sex with children, or acting roles in Hollywood movies.
The Jews are also fooling people into believing that the best way to defeat the New World Order is to remain as independent citizens who ask for a new investigation of 9/11. The Jews want us to remain as submissive sheep who obey the law and wait for our government to solve problems for us. They don't want us to organize, and they don't want us to go after the Jewish criminals. But look at them. They have lots of organizations, and they don't follow the laws.
I think they murdered Dan Wallace, and kidnapped the Bollyn family, and I think they murdered John O'Neill, of the FBI, probably because he was one of the few FBI agents who wasn't under their control. And it seems as if they arranged for more than 100 US military personnel to be killed in that empty section of the Pentagon that was destroyed during the 9/11 attack.
Try to visualize this battle that were in. On one side of the battle are large Jewish organizations that are murdering us, kidnapping us, and lying to us, and on the other side are hordes of foolish, gullible, unorganized individuals who are politely asking for another 9/11 investigation.
The ideal situation would be for our police and military to investigate every Jew in their organization and arrest the Jews who seem involved with organized crime, and watch all of the other Jews very closely. We're fools to take the chance that any Jew is honest.
There is nothing anti-Semitic about being suspicious of Jews. We can justify this policy on the grounds that it's not anti-Semitism; rather, it is due to our awareness of this dangerous, international Jewish crime network.
We have plenty of evidence that the Jews are responsible for 9/11, the attack on the USS Liberty, the world wars, and even the Holocaust. We are justified in being suspicious of Jews.
Jeff Rense, Daryl Smith, Alex Jones, and lots of other people are constantly telling us that most Jews are innocent victims, but there is more evidence that the majority of Jews are aware of this crime network and are secretly protecting it or assisting it.
If the police and military would wise up to this Jewish crime network and get the Jews out of their departments, they could easily destroy this network. I suppose there are already some people within the military and police agencies who are secretly struggling to get rid of these Jewish criminals, but they obviously need help because the Jews are still running loose. If we could find more citizens to help spread information and counteract the Jewish propaganda, we could speed this process up.
And if we could organize, we could start capturing the Jewish criminals, and that would bring an end to this nightmare very quickly. This is why the Jews are so terrified that the citizens might take matters into their own hands. This is why there are so many Jews on television and in the alternative media trying to encourage us to let the authorities handle the problems.
When the Jews notice that the citizens are becoming angry, they try to channel the anger into something obnoxious, such as a demonstration in the streets. A demonstration is as worthless as a child's temper tantrum. We're not going to get rid of a crime network by chanting slogans, and we're not going to make criminal policemen become honest by throwing rocks at them.
All throughout history we can see that the people who choose to be career criminals have never responded to intelligent discussions or niceness. When we're nice to them, they take advantage of us. They regard nice people as suckers.
Don't believe the Jewish propaganda about criminals that you see on television or in the movies. The Jews make it appear as if pirates and gangsters are ordinary people like the rest of us who ended up in crime due to some strange twist of fate. However, as I've mentioned in my other audio files, this is one of the big philosophical differences between me and most of the population.
Take a look at your life and the life of everybody you know. Every one of us started out our life as a selfish and inconsiderate jerk. When we were babies, we behaved like selfish kings and queens. We grabbed at whatever attracted our attention, and we expected people to stop whatever they're doing and give us food or attention whenever we wanted it. If we didn't get what we wanted, we had a tantrum. After we developed the ability to speak, we began lying to other people. We wanted to be pampered by other people, and we wanted them to obey us without question, and we had no inhibitions about manipulating people. If baby boys had sexual desires, we would rape the baby girls, and we'd masturbate whenever we pleased.
Human babies behave more like wild animals than humans. But as we grow older, we start controlling our animal-like emotions. We have fewer tantrums and we become more honest and more considerate of other people. However, we are not identical to one another, so we all end up slightly different. Some of us end up very well behaved, and others end up as career criminals.
What we become depends upon the environment we grew up in and the type of mind and body we're born with. Most people assume the environment plays the biggest role in our lives, but I don't think so. There's not much of a difference in the environment between most brothers and sisters, so if the environment was the primary influence in our lives, then there wouldn't be much of a difference between brothers and sisters. But the only siblings who are similar to each other are identical twins. This is evidence that the genetic blueprint that created us is the biggest influence in what we become as adults.
I think that the people who choose to become career criminals have done so because of their genetic blueprint, not because of their environment. And I don't think we can transform these career criminals into honest, wonderful people. Occasionally we hear about a gang member who became honest after he was put into jail, but that doesn't prove the jail transformed him. There are lots of ways to explain this transformation.
For example, some younger people tend to improve from jail simply because of the passage of time. Consider a baby to understand this concept. If we put a one-year-old baby in jail for ten years on the grounds that he's a selfish brat, we would discover that he's much better behaved after spending 10 years in jail, but the improvement would not have been because of the jail.
If jail truly improved human behavior, then we should arrange for everybody to spend some time in jail so that all of us can become better people.
All throughout history people have been trying to stop bad behavior with punishments, but it hasn't worked yet. We can't transform a criminal policeman into an honest policeman by putting him in jail, and we're not going to make a selfish businessman behave in a respectable manner by beating him with a stick.
We have to face the fact that some of us are simply better behaved than others, and the only way we can improve our government, police departments, media, schools, and other organizations is to raise standards for the people in leadership positions. When we discover dishonest, selfish, or child-like people in positions of authority, we've got to remove them. And we have to face the fact that some of these badly behaved people will not leave quietly.
Michael Chertoff, Larry Silverstein, Wolf Blitzer, Naomi Wolf, and other Jewish criminals didn't become criminals because of some twist of fate. And we're not going to cure them of their criminal behavior by putting them in jail, or beating them, or sending them to counseling. They chose a life of crime. And they don't care what we say about them, so they're not going to respond to intelligent discussions or bouquets of flowers. A team of people must capture these Jewish criminals and drag them out of the government offices, the news departments, and the police departments.
When policies fail over and over and over, we should start experimenting with different policies. If crime was dropping in Britain, then the British could boast about their Crown Prosecution Service, but a news report the other day says that British jails are completely full, and other reports point out that crime is increasing. So the British are putting more people in jail than ever, but crime is increasing anyway.
Americans have an even larger percentage of the population in jail, and a lot of American citizens have guns, which supposedly protects us from crime, but we also have a lot of crime. All of this is evidence that the official attitude towards crime is a failure. We should start discussing alternative policies for crime, and we must start experimenting with alternative policies to figure out what works the best. If we're afraid to try something different, will never improve anything.
Another interesting aspect about that teenage girl who recorded the happy slapping with her cell phone is that her mother asked social services for help in controlling the girl, but the social services didn't help. The stepfather of the victim responded that the mother must take responsibility for her daughter's behavior.
This is a very important issue. Who is responsible for badly behaved children? Are the parents responsible? Should schools take any of the responsibility? What about the people who produce television programs, or advertisements, or movies?
And what about children who are well behaved; are the parents responsible for good behavior?
How about a family in which some of the children are well behaved and some are badly behaved? If the well behaved children are evidence that the parents are good, and the badly behaved children are evidence that the parents are bad, then how do we resolve this paradox that the parents are both good and bad at the same time?
Is there a proper way to raise children? And if so, how do parents learn what it is? Who among us is the expert on raising children? Should we provide school courses on raising children? If so, who among us is the expert to design the school course? Do we want Tom Cruise to write these books? Do we want Naomi Wolf?
People with college degrees claim to be experts on raising children, but getting a college degree doesn't guarantee that you know anything about the subject matter you studied. Some people claim to be experts on children because they work with children at schools, but working with children doesn't guarantee that you know anything about children, either.
Consider religion to understand this concept. A lot of people have college degrees in religion, and a lot of people work in religious organizations, but that doesn't make them experts on God, creationism, Buddha, Moses, Noah's Ark, or any other religious issue.
Nobody can truly claim to be an expert on raising children. Every parent is on his own to figure out how to raise children. But this creates a problem. What should a parent do when he becomes frustrated with his child's bad behavior?
It might help you to understand this situation when you realize that our ancestors thousands of years ago didn't have any problems raising children. They didn't need the police to arrest children, and they didn't need government agencies or private counseling services to help them raise children. Animals don't need assistance in raising their children, either. So why do people need help today?
This brings up that major philosophical difference between me and most of the human population. Most people believe that there are mysterious forces in the world, such as Satan, ignorance, poverty, and discrimination, and these mysterious forces are causing wonderful people to behave in bad manners.
My attitude is that human life has changed dramatically during the past few thousand years because of technology, and most people today simply can't cope with modern life. Most people are trying to live just like their ancestors did 10,000 years ago. They want to entertain themselves, not learn about, discuss, or deal with the problems of modern society.
Consider the issue of providing food for children. Parents 10,000 years ago didn't need to know anything about food. They gave their children whatever food was available. They didn't know anything about nutrition, but the children grew up to be healthy adults despite the ignorance.
Today parents need an education in nutrition in order to keep their children in good health. A simple example is the nursing of babies. No woman 10,000 years ago had to know anything about feeding her baby, but today parents are encouraged to give cow's milk to their babies. This requires that mothers of today have some understanding of how human milk differs from animal milk, and they should also understand about how pasteurization affects milk.
And what about the pasteurized fruit juice or vegetable juice? Should mothers give that to their babies? What about those cooked foods that are specifically created for babies? Is that good for babies? Is it better for babies to have food that is cooked, or is it better to give them raw food?
People today have to know more about food and nutrition than our primitive ancestors because businesses are trying to manipulate us into purchasing their industrial food products. Unfortunately, most people have no interest in learning about health. Most people prefer to eat whatever titillates them. As a result, businesses have very large budgets to develop industrial food products, but there's not much money available for the study of human health.
Technology doesn't do us any good unless we know how to use it, but most people are not interested in learning about it. Most people want to live like primitive savages who do whatever feels good.
Another issue that people need to learn about today is how sperm, eggs, and fetuses can be damaged by alcohol, chemicals, and radiation. Unfortunately, most people don't care about their sperm or eggs. Most people don't even want to know if saunas or hot tubs are causing damage. Most people want to play every day, not deal with these complex issues.
The point I'm trying to make is that parents thousands of years ago didn't have to know anything in order to raise children. They didn't have to make plans about when to start a family, or how many children they would have. They simply had children with no regard to what they were doing. And this is what parents today are trying to do.
Raising children was very easy thousands of years ago. Our ancestors didn't do much of anything as parents, other than provide their children with food and a place to sleep. They didn't educate their children or train them to behave nicely. If a young boy wanted to spend his entire childhood playing with frogs and climbing trees, nobody would have cared. Parents didn't worry about children climbing on furniture because there wasn't any furniture, and they didn't worry about their children getting involved with drugs or crime gangs. Raising children in that era was as effortless as it is for animals.
Technology has changed this situation significantly. Parents today have to be much more educated and spend a lot more time raising their children. Unfortunately, most parents are refusing to deal with the issues that parents have to face in this modern era. Perhaps the best example is the issue of sex. Thousands of years ago children grew up around nudity. The children saw women nurse babies and giving birth. They also saw and heard adults having sex. There weren't many secrets in that era. There weren't any bedrooms or bathrooms for people to hide in, and there weren't any hospitals for women to give birth. Everything was in the open. Children learned about human bodies and sex simply by growing up. The adults didn't have to teach their children anything about sex.
Today we live in a large houses with walls to separate us, and we have clothing and hospitals. Millions of children in the wealthier nations are growing up without ever seeing childbirth, or the nursing of a baby, or sex. Most people today believe that children will suffer psychological damage if they see naked bodies or sex, and as a result, most adults consider themselves to be protecting their children when they prevent children from seeing anything related to reproduction.
However, these parents aren't protecting their children from psychological damage. They're only preventing their children from learning about the human body and reproduction.
To make the situation more absurd, the parents don't care that businesses are titillating their children's sexual emotions every day in advertisements, television shows, and magazines. Police will arrest a person for being naked at a public beach, but they don't arrest businessmen for titillating children sexually.
As I mentioned in one of my articles I wrote a couple years ago, if a businessmen were to come into your house and stimulate your child sexually with his fingers, you would call the police, but when he comes into your house and stimulates your child through the television, you don't say anything.
Most people just don't have the intellectual ability or the desire to understand that there's no difference between somebody using his fingers to stimulate your child, and somebody using a television. Most people can't cope with the issues we face today.
The same problem occurs with the digestion of food. Businesses are allowed to titillate people with jokes about toilets and farting and poop, but there's not much serious information about how waste products from our body can help us to understand our health and show us whether our diet is correct and whether our digestive system is working properly.
All human societies have idiotic policies towards sex and digestion, and I think it is causing children to grow up confused and ignorant about their bodies, and the constant sexual titillation by businesses seems to be causing a lot of boys to become obsessed with sex.
How did we end up with these idiotic attitudes towards sex? Why is it illegal for a woman to nurse her baby in public? Why is it acceptable for businesses to titillate children?
I think it's because the human mind was designed for the simple life of 10,000 B.C., and many of the qualities that were well suited to that era are detrimental today. Humans have strong inhibitions about sex and waste products, and those inhibitions would have been useful thousands of years ago, but today they cause trouble.
Animals don't teach their children about sex, and our primitive ancestors didn't teach their children anything, either. Today parents realize that they should say something to their children, but most people can't overcome their emotional inhibitions.
Parents have no problem teaching their children how to get dressed, and how to eat with forks and spoons, but our inhibitions about our body make it impossible for most parents to teach their children about sex.
One solution to this problem is to design school courses to teach these subjects, but most parents won't allow the schools to do it. These parents insist that only parents should teach children about sex, but the parents can't bring themselves to doing it.
These parents remind me of a dog that brought a ball over to me so that I could throw it for him, but when I reached to pull the ball out of his mouth, he backed away. Then he would step forward with the ball, and I would reach for it, and he would once again back away. He would do this three or four times before he could let go of the ball.
Most parents are behaving exactly the same as that stupid dog. They won't teach their children anything about human bodies, but if we tell them that we'll set up a school course to teach their children, then they insist that they're going to do it. If months later we point out to them that they still haven't taught their children anything, and that we should set up a school course to do it for them, they once again insist that they'll do it.
The only way to describe this irrational, animal-like behavior is that humans were designed for the simple life of thousands of years ago. Everybody today would have been wonderful parents 10,000 years ago, but in this modern era, most people are just primitive savages in a world that is too complex for them to deal with.
Let's assume we could get parents to agree that schools should teach children about human bodies. This brings us to the dilemma of who is going to design the school courses? We already have mysterious people, who are probably Jews, trying to convince us that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, and that men and women are a unisex creature, and that men have been abusing women all throughout history. And there are Jewish psychologists who promote the idiotic theory that our mind is under the influence of mysterious entities such as Castration Complex. Some of these Jews may actually believe what they say, but I think some of them are promoting idiotic theories in order to break down society. We're not going to be able to design sensible school courses until we get rid of this Jewish crime network.
Another issue that parents face today is helping their children find a career. Children thousands of years ago never wondered what they would do when they grew up because there were no choices for them to make. And the children didn't have to prepare for adulthood. They could spend their entire childhood playing with one another with no concern about their future.
Life thousands of years ago was physically difficult, but it would have been very satisfying from an emotional point of view because that's the life that humans were designed for. Take a look at what most people today are fantasizing about. They dream of becoming rich so that they can quit working, quit learning, and spend their life titillating their emotions. They're not interested in learning, preparing for the future, discussing issues, dealing with problems, making society a better place, or being responsible.
Many people today are trying to re-create that simple life that our distant ancestors had. They don't want to learn anything, which is why schools have to put pressure on them to learn, and they don't want to teach their children anything. They don't want to deal with the recycling of garbage, or crime, or 9/11, or Zionism. They want the conveniences of modern technology, such as plumbing, houses, and automobiles, but they want to behave like primitive savages.
We like to think of humans as completely different from animals, but it was just a few thousand years ago that our ancestors were living exactly like monkeys. Today we have lots of advanced technology, but we're still the same creatures.
Technology brings us physical comforts, but it has the side effect of changing the manner in which we live. We can't behave like primitive savages in this technically advanced world. Children today can no longer spend their childhood fooling around. They have to spend some of their time in school, and children of the future will have to spend even more time in school. The simple, unskilled labor jobs are slowly disappearing.
Today we need a school system to educate children and help them make decisions on what they're going to do as an adult. Unfortunately, most people resist learning. Most people are out of place in this modern era, and as technology becomes more advanced, even more people will be out of place.
To make the situation worse, our school system doesn't do a good job of preparing children for adulthood. It's a primitive system that developed thousands of years ago only to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. We've added new courses to the school system, but it's still the same primitive system.
Our schools today should help children figure out what they're going to do with their life because children can't possibly know what jobs they'll enjoy, or which jobs they're capable of doing properly. Schools should help children analyze themselves so that they can understand their talents, limitations, and desires. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my Dumbing Down articles, the concept of analyzing yourself is not yet part of any school system. The end result is that a lot of children become adults with a very confused idea of themselves and what to do with their life.
The situation is aggravated by the propaganda that comes from television. For example, millions of American children decide to become a lawyer or an entertainer after watching television shows. Many of the children who pursue those careers don't realize that they've made a mistake until after they've wasted their entire childhood. Then they have to start over and waste some of their adult years trying to figure out what to do for a living.
The American school system makes the problem even worse by giving almost everybody a college degree. There's no concern in America as to whether a student is learning something useful in college, or even if the student has the talent to perform properly at the job he's dreaming about.
The American colleges are concerned with profit, not preparing children for adulthood. They behave like businesses who are selling products. The colleges are concerned only with attracting students. They don't spend any time analyzing the previous graduates to determine if the students are benefiting from the education.
The people in control of our school system should occasionally review the performance of the school to determine if the students are receiving a useful education, or if the students required additional training after they got a job. The school officials should also occasionally check to see how many students are getting a job in the field they were hoping for.
Unfortunately, our school officials don't care what happens to the graduates, and they don't care if the courses have any value. Our schools are like a factory in a slapstick comedy movie that's producing defective products because the management doesn't have any type of quality control.
Political candidates frequently promise to improve the school system by giving it more money, but when a factory is pumping out defective products, we don't fix the problem by giving money to the managers of the factory. Instead, we fix the problem by replacing the management with better people and by changing the procedures by which the factory operates.
In order to improve the world, we're going to have to replace a lot of the people in leadership positions, and we also going to have to change some of the social systems we live by. Our school system, economic system, election system, and other social systems are not well suited to this modern era.
For example, our free enterprise system was never designed to deal with the issue of mass production or the saturation of a market.
During the Middle Ages, every item was produced by hand, and as a result, all items were in short supply. It was impossible for a businessman to produce so many of an item that he needed a warehouse to stock the item, and it was impossible for a business to saturate an entire continent with a particular product.
However, today it's possible for large businesses to produce phenomenal quantities of an item. Consider a bakery. During the Middle Ages it would have been impossible for a bakery to produce so much bread that nobody could eat it all. The production of bread were severely limited because grain was in short supply, and the bakery had to do everything by hand, including fueling the oven with wood or coal.
It was impossible for people in that era to produce too much of an item, so it made sense to design an economic system that encouraged businessmen to produce as much as they possibly could produce.
But today we have machines to produce bread, and modern ovens can operate 24 hours a day. It's possible for one bakery to produce more bread than the people in the city can eat.
Furthermore, because almost everything was in short supply during the Middle Ages, almost all businesses concentrated on producing essential items. Not many people produced frivolous or luxury items.
People in the Middle Ages were capable of producing frivolous products, such as the pet rock that was selling in America during the 1970s, but most people a thousand years ago would not have wasted their money on such useless products.
Technology has changed that situation dramatically. People today are very wealthy, even the people who consider themselves to be living in poverty. Americans are spending an enormous amount of money on products simply as a joke, or because their children ask for them. The end result is that a lot of businesses today are producing worthless products, and thousands of people, especially in China, are wasting their time producing these worthless products.
In order for a business to survive in our free enterprise economy, it has to produce something that can be sold. However, our system doesn't have any provisions to help businesses make decisions on what type of product to develop. Our system assumes that each businessman will make a wise decision, and this was a valid assumption a thousand years ago because everything was in short supply, so the natural tendency of businessmen was to produce something of real value.
Technology has reversed that situation. Today only a small percentage of the population is needed to produce food and other essential items. The majority of people today don't have to work at all. Most people could fool around all day while a small percentage of the population provides them with houses, food, clothing, and electricity.
We have an interesting dilemma today that our economic system was never designed for. We have to make a decision on what the majority of people are going to do with their lives. Should they stay home and play like children while other people pamper them? Or should we give them some worthless government job so that they can feel as if they're doing something when in reality they're not contributing anything of value to society?
We could create a world in which a portion of the population are workers, and the other portion are like royalty who are pampered by the workers. Or do we want everybody to contribute to society? Do we want to prohibit all forms of parasites, slavery, and inheritances?
This is not an issue of right or wrong. It's simply a decision about what we want the human race to become.
My preference is to make a world in which everybody contributes to society. By altering our economic system, the excess people could be used to reduce the workload of the other people, and they could be put to use on projects that are currently impractical in our current primitive system.
Our current economic system causes us to chase after money with no regard for what we're doing. My preference is to stop the emphasis on making money and start shifting the emphasis to making a nicer life for ourselves. It no longer makes sense for a business to focus only on profit. Businesses should stop asking themselves, "How can we increase profits?" and start asking, “How can we make life better for society”.
For example, the emphasis on profits has caused businesses to develop
doughnut machines that produce 20,000 donuts per hour, and there are bread
machines that can produce even larger quantities of bread. The companies
that produce these machines are continuing to improve them in order to
increase profits, but businessmen should start asking themselves, “Are
these machines making life better for anybody?”
I think we would be happier if we designed cities so that every city had its own local farms so that the people could provide themselves with fresh food. I also think we would be happier if food processing equipment was designed for a very small scale so that food products could be produced fresh when and where they were needed. This requires a different type of economy because our current system doesn't allow restaurants, bakeries, and other food related businesses to survive the competition with large food processing businesses.
The health issue is another example of where our medieval economic system is failing us. Our economic system requires us that we sell a product, but how can we sell the research of human health? That is not a product that can be packaged and sold in retail stores.
Consider the issue of corn chips. I love the industrial corn chips but I rarely eat them today because years ago I ate an entire bag of chips when I was hungry, and I didn't feel too good afterwards. Maybe it had nothing to do with the chips, but I didn't want to take the chance that these industrial products are bad for my health, so I just quit eating them, except in small amounts on rare occasions.
But rather than guess at which food products are safe to eat, I would prefer that somebody study these issues, but how can anybody create a business to study food products? That type of business can't sell a product, so who would invest in it? How is the human race ever going to understand health issues when nobody can make a living by researching health issues?
You might respond that there are lots of businesses doing research into health, but they're doing research only to develop a product. Therefore, their research is biased. The only scientists who can truly do research without any bias are the scientists who are working on their own in their spare time. That's how I produce the documents and audio files at my website. I do this for free in my spare time. But this is a ridiculous way to improve the world. There's a phenomenal amount of money for Harry Potter books, gambling casinos, and Steven Spielberg movies, but there's almost no money available for something productive.
The issue of meat is another example. Most animals prefer to eat fresh meat. Birds eat spiders while they're still alive, and cats eat mice while they're still alive. I've never seen a cat hang dead mice in a refrigerated room in order to let the mice tenderize for several weeks, but this is exactly what businesses are doing with beef and lamb. How do we know that this is good for our health? Crabs, vultures, and maggots can eat rotten meat, but humans may not have been designed for that. Many people have noticed that they feel better when they become vegetarians, but that may be because the meat we eat today is no longer natural or fresh.
It is virtually impossible with this medieval economy of ours for any business to adequately study the issue of meat on human health. Businesses have to sell something, so the health-related businesses are concentrating on the development of drugs or medical equipment, and some businesses sell idiotic weight-loss products or Botox for removing wrinkles. The scientists who work for these businesses are wasting their talent on stupid activities.
Let's assume that we do some research into the issue of human health and we discover that we were designed just like cats and birds in that we should be eating meat before rigor mortis sets in. This means we would improve our health if every city had live animals, and it would require the animals be butchered only at the time they were needed for food. This would create a very unpleasant situation because the slaughtering and cleaning of animals is a disgusting job. The ideal situation would be to develop a machine that could kill and clean just one animal.
However, with our current economic system, no company would develop such a complex machine, and no restaurant or market would want to buy one. The machine would be very expensive, and most of the time it would sit idle, so it would be an economic disaster for any business that purchased one.
In order to allow this type of inefficient machinery, we would have to make changes to our economy so that certain businesses can operate in an inefficient manner. We would have to stop putting emphasis on profit and start putting emphasis on the quality of life.
The seeds from the hemp plant are another food product that might taste better or be healthier if we could get them fresh. As of today our corrupt government won't allow Americans to grow hemp, so the seeds have to come from a foreign nation. That would be acceptable if the seeds were live, but they're not allowed to ship live seeds, so they remove the seed from the shell. This might also be acceptable if the shell could be removed without destroying the seed, but the seeds are broken, either inadvertently due to the deshelling process or deliberately in order to satisfy our corrupt government's demand that the seeds be dead. Unfortunately, once a seed or nut is broken into pieces, it starts to deteriorate. Hemp seeds and other nuts would be better tasting and healthier if they were kept alive in their shells until we're ready to eat them.
It's easy for us to remove the shells from walnuts and almonds, but it's not practical for us to remove the shell from a hemp seed, a macadamia nut, and certain other types of seeds. The ideal situation would be to develop small machines that can remove the shells from very small quantities of seeds and nuts. But no market or restaurant could possibly survive the competition if it were to purchase expensive machines that sit idle most of the time.
We have to start asking ourselves, why do we eat? Are we nothing more than animals who eat simply to refuel our bodies? Or do we want meals to be healthy for us and one of life's pleasures? This is another issue that has no right or wrong. We have to decide what we want the human race to become. At one extreme are the retarded people who eat simply to satisfy their cravings for hunger. And at the other extreme are the people who want their meals to be pleasant experiences in their lives.
At the moment a lot of our food products are coming from factories, and some of it tastes terrible. I think canned peas are disgusting. Frozen peas are much better, and fresh peas are the best.
And there's something strange about canned meat. Canned tuna does not taste like fresh tuna, and canned turkey and canned chicken tastes similar to canned tuna. There is something about the canning process that is causing those meats to end up with a very similar flavor.
We are no longer primitive savages who have to worry about finding food to eat. We have plenty of food today, so we could start to enjoy our food and eat only food that's healthy. We eat every day, and I would prefer a world in which we enjoy our meals.
We can easily provide ourselves with fresh food, and we can easily provide ourselves with machines to process food only when we need it. We could develop a machine to roast only as many coffee beans as is necessary to make one pot of coffee, and we could develop a machine that would grind of small quantity of corn and then make a small quantity of corn chips. What difference does it make if these machines are inefficient?
We have plenty of resources. All we have to do is divert some of the resources that are going into Harry Potter books, war, government paperwork, gambling casinos, and Hollywood movies.
We provide tax benefits to organized religions, but we don't need to do them any favors. We should instead make changes to our economy so that certain types of inefficient businesses can survive.
The human race has not reached the limit of its potential. We can create a better life for ourselves. We have the intelligence and the creativity. However, in order to do better, we have to look critically at our world and be willing to experiment with changes. We have to be willing to face the possibility that our economic system is outdated, and that it needs to be redesigned. And we have to start getting these discussions out into the public. We're not going to improve anything as long as I'm sitting here in my spare bedroom by myself and talking to my computer, and then hoping somebody listens to my audio files. And even if a few people listen to my files, what good is that going to do? We've got to get more people involved in these discussions, and then we have to do start experimenting with our societies.
The reason nothing is improving right now is because our world is currently dominated by a Jewish crime network that has no desire to improve anything. They're trying to suppress and control of us. They're stifling all types of intelligent discussions. They're pretending people like me don't even exist. Who knows how many other people they're suppressing, kidnapping, and killing.
If we can get rid of this crime network, we can start discussing what we want the human race to become, and how we'd like to change our economic system, our cities, and our schools.
We also need to discuss how to improve corporations. A few centuries ago corporations were an insignificant part of the economy, but today they dominate it.
It's no longer possible for an individual man to create some of the products that we need today, such as airplanes or computers. Only large organizations of people can create such complex products. However, there are several aspects to corporations that we could improve upon. One is the method they use to provide themselves with leadership. Corporations are under the control of stockholders. Since everybody is allowed to invest in a corporation, that means everybody is capable of getting involved and influencing the corporations.
This is a variation of a democracy since it puts the people in control. However, the people who invest the most money have the most influence. Imagine this situation in politics. Imagine if your influence in an election is determined by how much money you give to a government official. And imagine that if you give 51% of the money that the government official receives, then you have total control of him. We wouldn't tolerate this system of leadership with the government, so why are we tolerating it with corporations?
One of the reasons a democracy doesn't work with governments is that most of the citizens either don't vote, or they don't pay much attention to the candidates or the government. This problem occurs with corporations, also. Most of the people who invest in corporations either don't vote or they don't pay much attention to what the corporation is doing. Only a small minority of investors get involved in the corporation, but their only purpose is to make themselves profit, not to help society.
I suppose some people will respond that corporations are developing a lot of useful products and functioning very well, and that this is proof that the stockholders are doing an excellent job of selecting corporate leaders. I agree that stockholders have selected men who have the talent to manage a large corporation, but just because they can do the job doesn't mean that they're the best that we can find for leadership positions. The point I'm trying to make is that we can do better than this.
Take a look at the men who were in control of Enron, or the insurance companies, or the banks, or even the automobile companies. Are you impressed by any of them? When has any corporate leader said something that you would describe as intelligent? And look at the fighting that goes on between corporations. Look at how they try stealing each other's products. Look at how they manipulate consumers with sexual titillation and how they look for ways to circumvent government laws. Are these men the best that the human race has for corporate leadership? I don't think so. I think they've risen to the top of the corporate hierarchy because they're well suited to our current economic system, which has degraded into a battle zone. They are economic warriors, not intellectuals.
I'm sure we could find better men to manage our corporations, but in order to find them we've got to change the method that we use to select corporate leaders.
Our current method of selecting corporate leaders suffers from the same problem that we see in political elections. Specifically, both groups of candidates must appeal to the voters. This would be acceptable if the voters were honest, responsible, and intelligent, but most voters are very selfish; they don't have much interest in thinking; and are not very intelligent.
As a result, the men who are selected for corporate leadership are the ones who behave in a submissive manner and promise to serve the stockholders. These are not men who have an interest in improving human life. Their only interest is winning economic battles for the stockholders.
Thousands of years ago there was no need for humans to select leaders. Today the situation has reversed itself. Today we have to select leaders for government, schools, businesses, police departments, and hundreds of other organizations.
Unfortunately, most of the people in leadership today are doing a terrible job. Our government officials are so disgusting that I truly believe we would end up with a better government simply by picking names at random from a list of adult men who have some type of middle management position in business.
However, we're not going to get better government leaders until we abandon the fantasy of a democracy. In my social technology articles, I suggest that we raise standards for voters so that we exclude the majority of people.
Consider how we could apply this concept to the selection of corporate leaders. We currently consider a corporation as belonging to the stockholders, but a corporation could be considered as just another organization of people, similar to a government agency, a football team, a school system, an orchestra, or a police department. We could change our attitude towards corporations and say that corporations belong to society, and therefore, society will choose the leaders of the corporations, not the stockholders.
However, I'm not suggesting that we have a democracy and let everybody in the country vote for corporate leaders. Rather, we would raise standards for voters and let only a more responsible group of people select corporate leaders. These corporate voters would not be allowed to influence a corporation that they work for or have some other connection with. As a result, they wouldn't be concerned about corporate profits. Their only concern would be the effect the corporation has on society.
This system of selecting corporate leaders wouldn't be perfect because it would still depend upon the ability of humans to make decisions, but I'm sure we could develop it into a system that is a noticeable improvement over what we have right now.
We could also apply this concept to scientific laboratories. We could treat scientific laboratories as a special type of organization that belongs to society and doesn't need to make a profit. Society could support the laboratories just like we support public parks. We could have a special group of voters making decisions on the leadership for the laboratories. Since profit would be of no concern, these voters would only be looking at whether the laboratory is producing useful research.
Nobody expects a public park to make a profit. We judge a public park by whether people enjoy spending their leisure time in it. A scientific laboratory could be treated in a similar manner. Instead of asking how much profit a laboratory is making, the voters would ask, Has this laboratory done anything to help us understand life or improve society?
By treating scientific laboratories in this manner, scientists could do research on issues that none of the businesses can profit from, such as human health. The scientists wouldn't have to worry about producing patentable drugs. They could study the issue of health and tell us what they discover with no regards to finding a patentable product.
Putting scientific laboratories under the control of a group of voters who expect to see some benefit from the research would probably reduce what we refer to as pure research, especially for physicists who do atom smashing but never accomplish anything of value. Some scientists might say that this reduction of pure research is a disadvantage, but I think it would be an improvement.
Whenever somebody proposes changes to a government or economic system, other people complain that the proposal has flaws and limitations. But this will always be true because we cannot achieve perfection. The best that we can do is improve upon what we already have.
We will never improve society if we complain that the alternative proposals have flaws. All proposals will have both advantages and disadvantages, so our goal should to bring about an overall improvement.
We have to treat governments, economic systems, schools, and other social technology in the same manner that engineers treat airplanes, computers, and refrigerators. Specifically, we have to discuss the issues, develop what appears to be an improvement, and then experiment with it. We then observe how our new creation has worked, and try to improve upon it. It's an ongoing process that never ends because we can never achieve perfection.
If I was the only person in the world trying to develop airplanes, we wouldn't have any airplanes. It's not possible for one person to develop such a complex product by himself. Or, if we had a democracy in which every person in the nation was allowed to contribute to the design of airplanes, we wouldn't have any functional airplanes because the majority of people would make idiotic contributions. The reason we have functional airplanes is because we restrict the development of airplanes to people who show an ability design airplanes, and we provide them with an income so that they can put a lot of effort into the process.
We have to apply this same concept to social technology. I can only do so much in my spare time. We've got to start bringing these discussions out into the public, and finding other people who can contribute to these discussions.
Another problem with corporations that we need to deal with is that some of them have so little competition that they shouldn't be businesses. For example, the production of electricity, the train system, and the telephone system are not truly products that can compete in the marketplace. During the last century people have reacted to this problem by demanding government regulation of these businesses, but what we end up with is a business that is not truly a business, and it's not truly a government agency, either.
We have to face the fact that some products and services are better handled by the government. We have to design the economy and the government with these type of products in mind so that the government takes care of certain products and services, and free enterprise takes care of others.
The Republicans are constantly complaining that private businesses do a better job than the government agencies, but the only reason governments are crummy is because of people like the Republicans who elect such incompetent jerks as George Bush and Ronald Reagan. If the Republican voters were selecting corporate leaders, then corporations would be terrible, also.
The majority of voters can sense that their government is terrible, but they don't have the intelligence or the emotional strength to realize that their government is crummy because the voters are incompetent and selfish. A government is just a group of people. A government will be incompetent or corrupt only if we put incompetent or corrupt people into it.
The Republicans aren't helping us when they whine about the government. Instead of whining, we should be trying to improve it. If we can devise a better method of selecting government leaders, then we can create a government that's useful and honest. A voter who complains about the government is like an engineer who complains about a refrigerator he just designed. We should try to improve upon our creations, not ridicule them.
Another problem with our economy is that businesses have to appease consumers. This concept would work fine if the consumers were capable of passing judgment on which products and businesses to support, but as I mentioned in a previous audio file, during the Middle Ages the businessmen noticed that consumers don't know what's best, and that's why the businessmen created trade guilds.
We still haven't dealt with this problem. Businesses today are still forced to compete to attract the attention of consumers who don't know what's going on and can't make good decisions about products.
Consider the automobile companies. They produce new models every year, but it doesn't make sense to produce a new model at such a rapid pace. The development cycle for an automobile is many years, so a more sensible schedule would be perhaps 3 to 6 years. By producing several new models every year, they are making unnecessary work for themselves, and for the repair shops that have to cope with hundreds and hundreds of different models.
They produce new models on a yearly basis in order to appeal to consumers, not because it makes sense to produce a new model at such a rapid pace. When politicians behave this way, we say they are pandering to the voters.
Consumers were having trouble making decisions about products a thousand years ago, and today the products are so complex that it's ridiculous to expect consumers to make decisions without assistance. It's time we accept the fact that consumers cannot make good decisions about products. We need another method of selecting products.
If you recall from my previous audio file about the economy, I pointed out that consumer groups and product review magazines developed in order to help consumers make decisions about products. There are hundreds of people and organizations around the world reviewing products, but at the moment all they do is put their opinions into magazines or on the Internet. They have no authority to do anything.
So let's take that concept of a group of people who review products and give them some authority to do something. Imagine what we create lots of teams of people around the country to be product analysts. When businesses develop a new product, they would let the product analysts review the prototypes, and the analysts would make the final determination of whether it can go into production. The ordinary consumers would make the final decisions about whether they want the product, but the group of analysts would make the decision of whether the product is put into production in the first place.
The purpose for putting this group of analysts in between the businesses and the consumers would be to stop a lot of the format wars and other problems that are occurring right now. For example, years ago there was a dispute over whether videotape should use the VHS or Beta format. This fight wasted a lot of resources, and there was no reason for it. Nobody benefited from the fight. If we had a group of analysts making determinations of which products went on the marketplace, they could have picked one of the formats.
You might complain that the group of analysts would sometimes make bad decisions, but so what? Consumers make bad decisions also. It's better to pick a format rather than have businesses fight over the format. When businesses fight, they waste a lot of engineering talent and resources on factories and products that are eventually get thrown in the garbage. Remember, we can't achieve perfection. Our goal should be to improve our life, not make it perfect.
Recently a dispute over DVD formats was settled when Hitachi gave up, and this again was a fight that served no useful purpose. A lot of resources were wasted because of this fight.
We already have lots of individual people and organizations reviewing automobiles, cameras, computers, and other products, but these people have no ability to stop a product from reaching the market. If we were to raise the standards of people who do these product reviews so that they become a serious group of product analysts, then we could give them the authority to block products from reaching the marketplace. Consumers would still have lots of products to choose from, but consumers would not have to make decisions about issues they know nothing about.
Consider laundry detergents. American supermarkets have dozens of different brands and variations of laundry detergent, but what's the difference between them? Consumers have no idea. The first time in my life that I went into a store to buy laundry detergent I was shocked at the choices and a total lack of intelligent information on the packages. There is no sense in giving consumers a choice between 50 different types of laundry detergent when nobody knows the difference between them. People end up purchasing detergent according to the price tag or and the visual appearance of the package.
We need companies to compete with one another because only through competition can we determine who's doing a better job, and we also need more than one company to produce a product because we need alternative suppliers in case of earthquakes or other disasters. However, our current economic system has a tendency to allow this situation of duplicate products to go too far. A group of product analysts could bring some sense to this issue by reducing the duplicates.
Furthermore, consider the packaging and advertising of products. With our current economic system, each business decides for itself how it's going to package its product and how it will advertise the product. If every businessman was honest and respectable, then all products would be described in a serious manner. However, our economy is dominated by selfish, dishonest, and immoral men. Their advertisements are not intended to inform us. Rather, their advertisements are intended to manipulate us into purchasing the product. They try to attract us with smiling faces, shiny packages, sexual titillation, Hollywood stars, advertising songs and slogans, and all sorts of other gimmicks.
My attitude towards businesses is that they should be trying to improve life for us, not treating us as stupid animals to exploit. They should describe their products in a serious manner, not try to manipulate us into purchasing them. But how can they do that in the current economy? If any businessman was serious and respectable, he would lose sales to the more diabolical and dishonest businessmen.
A group of product analysts could improve upon the situation. They would have the authority to reject product packaging and advertisements. Therefore, if they were more responsible and better behaved than the typical consumer, they would be able to prevent the abusive advertisements and product descriptions.
These product analysts could even demand that businesses clearly mention on their package that their product is virtually identical to certain other competing brands. This would allow consumers to realize that their product is simply competition to another brand rather than something different. Some businesses already do this to a certain extent with automobile parts and tiny batteries. In case you've never noticed, some of these automobile parts and batteries mention on the package that they are interchangeable with another brand or model. Product analysts could demand that manufacturers do this for all identical products.
To understand how these product analysts could transform shopping, imagine going into a supermarket to buy laundry detergent. Instead of finding dozens of brands that appear to be identical, you find smaller selection of detergents, and each one has a sensible description of what it was designed for. You would find that one detergent was designed for washing wool in cold water. If there was another package that also was designed for washing wool in cold water, then both packages would clearly state that they're interchangeable with one another. This would let consumers realize that they were competing brands of the exact same detergent.
Another detergent might claim to be for general purpose use, and another might explain that it contains bleach because it's designed for sterilizing white cotton diapers.
By the way, how many people realize that bleach is dangerous? It's not part of the standard school curriculum. There are probably a lot of people breathing the fumes when they use bleach to clean their home without realizing that bleach is dangerous. A group of product analysts could improve this situation by forcing the manufacturers to clearly explain that bleach is a dangerous chemical and that it should be used only on certain applications and in certain situations.
Some businesses are adding a pleasant scent to bleach, but this is as ridiculous as adding a pleasant scent to natural gas or to the bottles of hydrochloric acid that people put into swimming pools. Businesses should not be allowed to hide the dangers of their products. It would make more sense to add a disgusting odor to the bleach.
The most important role that these product analysts would play is in determining how our resources are spent. For example, they could reduce or completely prohibit the idiotic gifts that people give one another during holidays and birthdays. We could even give them authority over television programs, movies, magazines, and pornography.
Furthermore, we could allow these product analysts to operate independently in different regions of the nation so that different regions can develop slightly different social environments. For example, the people in Las Vegas might want to allow a variety of gambling products, prostitution businesses, drugs, and pornography products, while another region might block all of these products, and another region might block tobacco products, pets, and chewing gum.
By allowing different areas to have a different social environment, we would have more variety to choose from in regards of where we live, and it would help us to determine which policies are working the best at reducing crime, or drug addiction, divorce, or other problems.
As I mentioned in a document at my philosophy page, we could take this concept one step further and divide the entire world into semi-independent nations.
The reason I mention these possibilities is to show you that we have a lot of options available. We're not helpless babies. We don't have to continue with the type of world we have today. We can start experimenting with changes whenever we want.
The human race has the potential to create a better life for itself, but we're not going to do anything to improve it until we get these discussions out into the public, get rid of this Jewish crime network, and start doing something.
Another problem with our current economy system is that it can sometimes be difficult to find a job. This is an issue that didn't exist thousands of years ago. Everybody in prehistoric times was his own boss.
Today the situation is dramatically different. Most people today must be employees. However, it's not always easy to find jobs, especially if you have a specific skill and there aren't any jobs in your area for that particular skill. Sometimes there are jobs available in another city, but most people resist moving, especially when they have families and they've made friendships with people in their area.
The problem of finding a job is causing people to fear the loss of their job. This fear is so extreme that people have altered our economy to make it very difficult to fire employees. Our economy depends upon businesses being able to hire and fire employees, but employees are interfering with this practice. The government employees are doing this also, and schoolteachers are demanding tenure to make it impossible to fire them.
The fear of losing a job is so extreme that the Jews are using it to manipulate society. For example, the police and firemen in America are refusing to talk about the 9/11 attack. They can't all be as stupid as they appear. The most likely explanation for their silence is that the Jews have secretly told all of the departments that if anybody dare talk about it, they'll lose their job.
We've got to change our economic system so that people don't have to fear the loss of their job.
In response to the difficulty of finding jobs, some businesses have started employment agencies. Unfortunately, these agencies are profit-making ventures, so their primary goal is money, not helping society. Employment agencies are another type of service that's best handled by the government.
Our government currently offers unemployment payments to some of the people who lose their job, and some unions will also help people survive temporary periods of unemployment, but these groups are not really solving the problem. There simply making the pain a little more bearable.
The military is probably doing more to deal with this problem than any other organization. One of their useful policies is to encourage the men to try different activities. This helps them discover what they're good at and what their limitations are. Another useful policy is that if a man is not doing well at a particular job, he will be assigned to some other job. He isn't told to go home and collect unemployment insurance while he searches on his own for a different position in the military.
The attitude in the military is similar to that of the father who gives his children tasks around the house. If you had a lot of children, and if you noticed that one of them wasn't doing very well at a particular task, you wouldn't tell him to collect unemployment insurance and fill out applications for another task. Instead, you would either help him to learn his task better, or you would assign another task to him.
The military operates like a giant family, and its leaders behave like fathers. We could apply some of the concepts in the military to the rest of society.
I suppose some people will be horrified by my suggestion that we apply military policies to society, but the military is just a group of men, just like a business or football team. The military is developing a bad reputation because of their assistance with the 9/11 attack and their war in Iraq, but it's turning out that all of these wars and crimes are due to Jews. Don't blame the military for these problems. Put the blame where it belongs, on the Jews.
We can blame the individuals in the military for being too arrogant to look at the evidence that the Jews are manipulating our society, and we can complain that the many people in the military are too cowardly to stand up to the Jews, but we shouldn't blame the military for the 9/11 attack or the wars.
The military is just one of many groups that has been manipulated by Jews. The police and universities are also covering up and assisting with the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust hoax, the Apollo moon landing hoax, the world wars, and lots of other crimes.
Did you know that they are several states require a Holocaust education for children? Our schools are promoting Holocaust propaganda, but we can't blame the school system. Put the blame where it belongs, on the Jews.
Have you looked into the Butterfly Project yet? It's a Holocaust propaganda program that the Jews have tricked the school system into accepting. It manipulates children emotionally. You've got to take a look at it to see how diabolical and disgusting these Jews are. I'll put a link to it in the file that has this audio in case you haven't seen it yet. The Jews are like a parasite that get into other peoples minds and takes control.
The Jews also have training programs for the police to fool the police into believing that people such as Christopher Bollyn are anti-Semites.
It's important to expose the fact that world's primary criminals are Jews because the Jews are pumping out propaganda to fool people into thinking that 9/11 and other crimes are coming from the Bush family, and whoever else Israel is willing to sacrifice.
Some Jews in Germany recently released a video called "9/11 false flag" for the German public. This video admits that the World Trade Center towers were brought down with explosives, but it tries to put the blame on Marvin Bush. The video also implies that Pakistan provided financial support for the 9/11 attack, and that most of the people involved in the attack were Americans. We've got to counteract this propaganda by telling people that it was the Jews. If you know anybody in Germany, let them know that my video has been translated into German, and it comes with a second DVD of an interview with me and which I mentioned that the Israelis are involved.
Don't be afraid to use the word “Jew”. The word "Jew" is a proper noun in the English language, so there's nothing wrong with it. I think they're sensitive to the word Jew because they don't want any attention brought to themselves. They would prefer nobody ever speak the word “Jew”. They want to remain invisible. They want the conversations to focus on Islamofascism, or terrorism, or Arabs, or Muslims, or Nazis.
But don't be a sucker. Don't let the Jews remain invisible. Get people used to the word Jew. And get people used to the idea that Jews really are behind all of the horrendous crimes and wars.
Well, I'm getting near the 80 minute mark, which is all you can put onto a audio CD-ROM, so I will continue this discussion about the economy another time and hopefully some of you will burn this to CD and pass it around. Until next time, good-bye.
Important message below:
Nobody promotes me or Christopher Bollyn,
except ordinary people like yourself,
so tell people about us.
Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: