Hufschmid's main page
My previous comments

My comments on recent news events

So many conflicting suggestions!
Who should we kill

11 August 2022


Why do we want to kill each other?
We have intense cravings to be a hero
Which killings are beneficial?
Our crude culture encourages superheroes

Why do we want to kill each other?

Why does the Supreme Court ignore the anger?

In May 2022, a secretive person told journalists that the Supreme Court might reverse the Roe versus Wade law. Instead of calmly discussing the issue, many people reacted by insulting each other, some protested in the streets, and a few threatened to kill one another.

In June 2022 the court did as predicted and reversed the law. Considering that it was obvious that reversing the law would result in a lot of anger, the judges should have made an attempt to reduce the anger by providing an intelligent explanation for why they reversed a law that had such a significant effect on American culture.

For example, they should have explained how the nation would benefit, what they were trying to accomplish, and what sort of disadvantages they anticipated.

Instead, they justified it with some vague adjectives, such as saying that the original decision was "exceptionally weak", "an abuse of judicial authority", and "egregiously wrong".

Why would they ignore the people who were insulting one another, protesting, and threatening to kill one another?

Is the Supreme Court trying to instigate fights?

If the leaders of a business, school, or orchestra were to reverse a policy, resulting in their members arguing with one another, they would do something to reduce the anger, not allow their team to be disrupted. Likewise, if parents were to reverse a policy, causing their children to fight with one another, the parents would try to calm the children down.

Why would judges in such high level leadership positions have no desire to reduce hatred, death threats, and protests?

And why do they not want to identify the secretive person who told journalists about their plans in May?

I think it is because their goal was to instigate fights, not improve American culture.

A few days later the court announced that the U.S. Constitution allows public school employees to pray in front of their students. Although that decision did not create as much anger, some Jewish groups began whining that it might ruin their lives, and this Jew claims to "know from experience" that the court's decision is "supremely wrong".

Can Muslims pray in school, also?
Can Jews perform Kapparot?
Can scientologists pray?

One of the primary goals of the U.S. Constitution was to prevent the government from pushing a religion on the citizens. It was the first amendment to the Constitution, undoubtedly because it was so important to the people writing the Constitution.

Therefore, the court should have explained why they were promoting praying in schools, how the nation would benefit, and how that decision does not violate the First Amendment.

However, once again the judges showed no desire to justify their decision or encourage people to remain calm. I think that their lack of concern about reducing the anger is more evidence that they made that decision only to instigate fights.

Update: 16 Nov 2022
In case you wonder why the Court would want to instigate fights by opposing abortions and promoting school prayer, one possible reason is to make people angry at Donald Trump, since Republicans are the primary supporters of such policies.

An example of the desperation of the Democrats is this article about two mysterious organizations that boast about supporting free speech but are trying to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential election.

They do not want to provide a candidate who can beat Donald Trump in a fair election, so they look for ways to manipulate, deceive, and cheat. Their attempts to convince us that Trump was colluding with the Russians seems to be failing, so perhaps they are experimenting with some new tricks.

Although the fighting over the abortion issue decreased significantly after a couple of months, the possibility that the Supreme Court judges were trying to instigate fights brings up two interesting and important issues:

1) Why is it so easy to instigate fights?
2) Who is advocating righteous killings?

1) Why is it so easy to instigate fights?

The social animals are constantly competing for leadership, especially the males. The males have the attitude that they should be the dictator of their group, and they regard other animals as inferior. When they encounter an animal that irritates them, their solution is to use intimidation and violence to force him to change his behavior.

Humans inherited those crude emotional cravings, which is why we want to:
• Regard ourselves as superior to other people rather than equal to them.
Give orders rather than receive orders.
• Want praise rather than constructive criticism.
• React with anger when irritated, rather than analyze the situation.

Our emotions are so crude that we react with anger when we are irritated by inanimate objects and intangible software.
To instigate a fight between people, all we have to do is arrange for the people to irritate one another. We can do this very easily by starting a discussion about a topic that they disagree on. Since each of us is an arrogant monkey, we regard the people with different opinions as being stupid, uneducated, or mentally ill. We are easily irritated by their "inferior" qualities, which stimulates our anger.

Children often react to conflicting opinions by "running away and hiding", but adults often react with anger. This can result in insults, sarcasm, angry facial expressions, demonstrations in the street, beatings, and murders.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to react with anger when somebody irritated them because they would not have been irritated very often. They lived in small tribes of close relatives, and there was not much of a difference between the people in regards to their opinions, behavior, clothing, or other culture. Furthermore, the prehistoric people were in much better physical and mental health compared to people today, so there was less abnormal behavior.

Today, however, we live in direct and indirect contact with billions of people of different races, cultures, intellectual abilities, educational levels, emotional characteristics, mental illnesses, and physical disorders. We must also deal with issues that prehistoric people never had to deal with, such as organized religions, crime networks, illegal immigration, government corruption, homeless people, abusive business executives, telemarketing, spam email, inflation, traffic congestion, and Zionism.

Our modern era is causing us to frequently become irritated by somebody's behavior or opinions, and that results in our anger emotion being stimulated significantly more often than during prehistoric times.

If it were possible for us to put probes in our mind and keep track of all the times we become angry, and if we could go back in time and put the probes into the prehistoric people, we might find that prehistoric people became angry with one another an average of only once a month, whereas today some people become angry dozens of times each day.

We routinely become annoyed with some of the passengers of airplanes and trains.
We can become angry several times a day simply by traveling a short distance in an automobile or public transportation. In addition to being annoyed by traffic congestion, we are annoyed by some of the people, such as the man in the photo to the right who is eating on a New York City subway, which was not intended for eating food.

When we watch a 30 minute television news report, we can become annoyed several times at the events that are occurring in the world, and by the advertisements.

Some businesses create advertisements that are intended to fool us, such as the advertisement that made it appear that cell phones could pop popcorn. Businesses consider those type of advertisements to be "clever" and "entertaining", but I think they are irritating. I am not entertained by deceptive advertisements.

We are also frequently irritated by modern technology, such as software and machinery, and by locks, keys, passwords, and other crime-related items.

Modern humans are irritated so frequently that I suspect that it is causing us to get into the habit of ignoring problems and suppressing our anger, which has the detrimental effect of causing us to become passive victims of abuse.

As I pointed out in previous documents, humans have a violent temper because that is an animal's only method of solving problems. For example, when a prehistoric man lost his temper with somebody, he may have reacted with violence, and that in turn can cause the irritating person to suffer in life as a result of injuries, or because it lowered his position in the social hierarchy.

That violence would be unpleasant for everybody, especially if it was directed against a child, but it would have been a very brief event, and it would have been beneficial to the group because it would cause the lower quality people to be less successful at reproduction and leadership. However, modern culture forces us to suppress our anger, and this allows the low-quality people to survive and reproduce, and get into leadership positions.

Today we need some type of security force, courts, and quality control agencies to deal with the low-quality people, but our police, military, courts, and other law enforcement agencies have become dominated by criminals, blackmailed puppets, Zionists, and lunatics. This allows the badly behaved people to live among us, torment us, and get into influential positions in journalism, law enforcement, government, universities, businesses, churches, and other organizations.

2) Who is advocating righteous killings?

All animals are naturally peaceful, and they become violent only when they are irritated or frightened. Humans inherited that characteristic, but I think that as humans evolved, we became less selfish and violent, and developed a stronger desire to work in a team and protect one another.

Humans are more aware of, and concerned about, the suffering of other people, including people who are outside of our particular social group. We are even concerned about the destruction of plants and the suffering of animals.

Although we want to protect people, plants, and animals, we also have a desire to kill the "bad" people, plants, and animals. Unfortunately, there is a significant difference between us in regards to which people we put into the category of "bad". For example:

Some people believe that they will protect us from drug abuse by killing drug dealers.

Aruna Khilanani boasted that she wants to kill "white people" who "get in her way".

Some people want to protect us by killing Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, racists, sexists, homophobes, misogynists, anti-Semites, or supporters of Donald Trump.

Can we kill the brown people
who "get in our way"?

We enjoy hurting people, also

In addition to advocating the killing of "bad" people, we also enjoy tormenting them. For example, many people have publicly announced that they want some particular criminal to suffer in jail for the rest of his life rather than be executed.

Furthermore, if that criminal commits suicide, some people complain that they have been denied the satisfaction of knowing that he is suffering in jail. Those people don't want to merely remove criminals from society. Rather, they want to torture them for the rest of their life.

When we are irritated by a rat, flea, or other creature, our emotions want us to react with violence, but only a few people go to the trouble of hurting animals, such as the man who tortured the rat in the photo to the right. However, a lot of us, perhaps all of us, have trouble refraining from hurting people.

We get so much emotional pleasure from hurting people who irritate us, and it is such a popular activity, that our language has a lot of different words to express it. For example, we refer to our violence as "getting revenge", and we describe "revenge" as "sweet", and as "best served cold". We also have lots of other words to express our craving to hurt people, such as retaliation, vengeance, reprisal, avenge, repay, and payback.

“I want justice to be served”

All cultures today are encouraging us to create the false image that we are opposed to violence. There is no culture that encourages people to acknowledge the evidence that humans are just a variation of a monkey, and that we have the same crude, animal characteristics that other monkeys have.

The pressure that we are under to pretend that we are peaceful creatures results in most people refusing to admit that they enjoy hurting other people. Therefore, when they want to hurt a criminal, most people describe it as "serving justice" rather than as "torture" or "getting revenge". Only a few people can admit that they enjoy hurting people, animals, and inanimate objects.

How is life in prison better than executions?

Some people boast that they are so peaceful that they oppose the death penalty. They boast that instead of killing criminals, they want to put them in jail or a mental hospital for the rest of their life.

Whether putting a person in jail forever is more peaceful or kind than executing him is a personal opinion, not a right or wrong decision. My opinion is that putting people in jail forever is a way to torture them, whereas executing them is "putting them out of their misery" and allowing them to avoid a life of suffering. Furthermore, putting people in jail forever is a burden on society, which in turn means that it is detrimental to all of us.

Putting a person in jail or a mental hospital brings us emotional pleasure because it allows us to hurt the person without feeling the guilt of killing them. However, putting people in jail forever is as useless and burdensome as putting fleas, rats, cockroaches, and mosquitoes in jail.

Are humans peaceful or violent?

We boast about being peaceful while at the same time we advocate killing some people and tormenting others. Why are we so hypocritical?

The only way to understand this hypocrisy is to analyze the mind of an animal because a human brain is just a variation of a monkey brain, not the intelligent creation of a supreme being, or a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment.

The violence and hypocrisy that we see in humans is identical to that of all of the other social animals, especially the animals at the top of the hierarchy. The dominant monkey, for example, reacts with violence towards any monkey that irritates him.

The monkeys at the bottom of the hierarchy, by comparison, are more likely to have the attitude of a liberal, socialist, child, or Marxist. Specifically, the low-level monkeys are likely to want pity, handouts, second chances, and third chances. However, if a low-level monkey could get into a top position, then he would become just as demanding, arrogant, and selfish as the other monkeys.

Animals are violent to help one another

It is important to realize that the dominant monkey does not regard himself as being cruel, or as hurting other monkeys, when he hits them or glares at them. Rather, he regards himself as a compassionate and responsible leader who is trying to help the badly behaved monkeys improve their behavior, which in turn helps the entire group.

Animals use violence to improve one another's behavior and keep the team working properly, not to hurt one another.

From the point of view of the dominant monkey, he is a hero when he intimidates and hits the badly behaved monkeys.

He considers himself to be improving his team.

When high ranking chickens pluck feathers out of the low ranking chickens, it appears to us to be a form of cruelty and torture, but it is nature's way of having stupid animals improve their group, and improve the genetic qualities of the future generations.

The low ranking animals that suffer from the violence and temper tantrums of the higher ranking animal could be described as "collateral damage". In other words, their suffering is not the purpose of the violence. Their suffering is a "side effect". The purpose of the violence is to help the group and improve their gene pool.

Humans are violent to help one another

Humans inherited the animal's desire to use violence to help one another. However, since our goal is to help people, we don't regard ourselves as being cruel or violent, and we don't regard ourselves as "murderers" when we advocate the killing of "bad" people. Instead, we regard ourselves as protecting the "good" people. We regard ourselves as heroes who are helping to improve the world. For example, one of Aruna Khilanani's violent remarks was:

"I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a favor."

She does not regard herself as a murderer. Rather, she regards herself as a hero who is doing the world a favor by killing the "white" people. She expects the non-white people to praise her for her killings, not arrest her for murder.

Likewise, the people who want to kill Trump supporters, climate change deniers, anti-Semites, racists, and sexists also believe that they are heroes who are helping to improve the world.

Instead of boasting that humans are peaceful creatures who oppose murder, we should admit that we are monkeys, and that we oppose the murder of certain people, but we support the murder of certain other people.

Our preference is to hurt people, not kill them

It should be noted that the dominant male monkey rarely kills another monkey. His emotions prefer to hurt the other monkeys physically and emotionally. Therefore, it should not be surprising to notice that humans often fantasize about killing people, but we rarely carry through with our murderous fantasies. Instead, we usually restrict ourselves to hurting people physically and/or emotionally.

We have such strong desires to hurt people that we regularly hurt the people that we like the most, such as our children, spouse, friends, and coworkers. However, we don't regard ourselves as "hurting" people. As with the dominant monkeys, we regard ourselves as trying to help the person become better.

For example, when married couples become annoyed with one another, they often react by trying to hurt their spouse in order to help them improve their behavior or opinions. Likewise, parents often hurt their children in order to help them become more responsible, do better in school, or behave in a more pleasant manner.
Can we encourage the
  punching of "anti-Goys"?

The Google executives also enjoy tormenting people. For example, they allow their employees to promote the absurd concept of "How to Punch a Nazi", and they made a public spectacle of the firing of James Damore.

The executives and employees of Google who support the punching of Nazis or the firing of James Damore believe that they are heroes for helping the world. They are proud of themselves. They do not regard themselves as lunatics, criminals, sadists, or oppressors of free speech.

We have intense cravings to be a hero

We want to help one another

We have strong desires to kill and hurt one another because we have intense cravings to be the dominant animal in the hierarchy, and an intense craving to help our group become better. Our craving to be important causes us to look for opportunities to become heroes.

Unfortunately, the modern world is too complex for most people, and this results in many people coming to idiotic conclusions on how to become a hero. For example, some people believe that they will become heroes by destroying the statues that are "racist", or by changing the pronouns that are "sexist", or by changing the words that hurt people's feelings, such as replacing "midget" with "little people".

We have strong cravings to be respected, but not many people have the intellectual and emotional ability to realize that their attempts to be a hero are idiotic, destructive, useless, and/or wasteful. An example is Mike Forcia, who believes that he is a hero for destroying a statue of Christopher Columbus (below).

Likewise, the Hawaiians who are opposing the Thirty Meter Telescope believe that they are heroes, but they are not improving anybody's life. If they opposed the telescope because they thought the resources should be put into developing a space-based or moon-based telescope in order to provide superior images, then they would be providing a sensible alternative that would be worth discussing.

Another example of our intense cravings for status, and our desire to help people by hurting them, are the sarcastic and insulting messages and videos that people post on the Internet. They are posted by people who are struggling to feel important, but they have come to the idiotic conclusion that they will become important simply by ridiculing somebody.

Étienne Klein, a French physicist,  is an example of how even the most intelligent and educated people can make idiotic decisions about helping us. He posted a photo of a sausage on Twitter, but claimed that it was a photo of a star from the James Webb telescope.

He eventually admitted that he was deceiving people, but he referred to it as a "scientist's joke", and that he did it for the noble purpose of helping people "be wary of arguments from people in positions of authority".

If his joke was successful in helping people become more critical of people in positions of authority, then we could praise him for discovering a technique that improves people's attitudes towards leadership, but is there any evidence that anybody's attitude improved as a result of his "joke"? I would say that my documents are doing more to help people be critical of authority.

Furthermore, his "joke" doesn't provide us with any useful information about which authorities we should be critical of, or which theories. For all we know, his goal was to trick us into becoming critical of whoever criticizes carbon taxes, or whoever claims that Jews are lying about the Holocaust. That would explain why he does not want to tell us who or what he wants us to be critical of. By comparison, I explain what I want people to be critical of.

We must suppress our craving to be heroes

The craving to be respected, high in the hierarchy, and help our group is a vital emotion for social animals and prehistoric humans, but our modern societies are so large, and our technology is so advanced, that we can cause a lot of destruction, wasted resources, death, and suffering if we make idiotic decisions on how to be a hero.

We also hurt ourselves when we appease or ignore the "heroes" who cause trouble, rather than point out to them that they are causing trouble, and demand that they stop their "heroic" activities. For example, the US government tries to appease the Hawaiians who oppose the Thirty Meter Telescope, but pandering to those Hawaiians is detrimental because it encourages them to continue with their idiotic attempt to titillate their cravings for importance, and it encourages other people to get involved with idiotic, "heroic" activities.

Likewise, if we were to giggle at Étienne Klein's "scientist's joke" we might encourage Klein and other scientists to create more "jokes". We need leaders who can stand up to such worthless behavior.

Our modern societies are so complex that we need a higher level of intelligence, better control of our emotions, and more of a desire to think, do research, and look critically at ourselves compared to our prehistoric ancestors. Unfortunately, the majority of people seem to be mentally equivalent to prehistoric people. They do not have the intellectual or emotional characteristics necessary to make wise decisions on how to become a hero, and the result is that they frequently choose to do something that is useless, wasteful, irritating, or destructive. For some more examples:

1) In May 2022, an unidentified French man threw cake on the painting of the Mona Lisa in order to make us "think of the Earth".

In July 2022 five people decided to help the Earth. Their method was to spray "No New Oil" on the wall, and glue one of their hands to the frame of The Last Supper.

Some vegans regularly get together for protests, such as this protest inside a restaurant, in order to help us realize that we should stop using animals for meat, leather, and fur.

Stew Peters posts video interviews on the Internet, and on 10 May 2022 he starts an interview by accusing the people at Planned Parenthood of being among the "worst mass killers in the history of the world". He claims that  "abortion is murder", and in his interview with Abby Johnson, he says that "those who carry it out should be executed":
   Stew-Peters-execution-for-abortion-with-Abby-Johnson.mp3   2mb

Then he interviews Chad McDowell and boasts about supporting freedom, including for people who have opinions he disagrees with:
   Stew-Peters-supports-freedom-with-Chad-McDowell.mp3   1mb
   The entire audio file is here.

Peters supports freedom, except for the people who provide abortions, in which case he wants to kill them. However, Peters does not regard himself as a violent serial killer who has a psychotic obsession for murdering abortion supporters. Rather, he regards himself as a hero who is protecting babies from murderers.

I would not be surprised if he titillates himself with fantasies that the future generations will glorify him in movies or comic books.

Daniel Lee gives religious sermons in public areas, and he posts videos and documents on the Internet. He believes that all children should be homeschooled, and in one video he said that "parents who send their kids to public schools ought to be shot, hung, and publicly executed".

YouTube deleted all of his videos, and although he has created new videos for Rumble, the video of that particular complaint about the public schools seems to be gone. Fortunately, I saved the audio, and here is the section in which he suggests killing the parents:
    Daniel-Lee-kill-parents-who-send-kids-to-school.mp3   2mb

I would not be surprised if he also titillates himself with fantasizes about future generations glorifying him.

“Daniel Lee is an oddball. I am not similar to him!”

Some people will dismiss Daniel Lee, Stew Peters, and Aruna Khilanani as abnormal people for advocating killings, but the only unusual aspect of those three people is that they made their proposals publicly rather than privately.

Everybody occasionally has violent thoughts, but most of us keep those thoughts inside our mind, or among close friends or family members. When we are in a public location, most of us put on a phony image of abhorring violence, wanting peace, and tolerating differences of opinion. Only a small percentage of the population has the intelligence, education, and emotional ability to notice their crude, animal qualities, and an even smaller percentage of people have the emotional ability to admit to having those animal qualities.

To make the situation worse, every nation is dominated by people who pressure us to deny that humans have animal qualities. If a person admitted to having violent thoughts, he would be regarded as a dangerous deviant, not as an intelligent human who has a better-than-average understanding of himself. Rather than admire his intelligence and honesty, some people might call the police to warn them about his violent thoughts.

Our cultures have evolved to give us what we want, which is to impress people with phony images, be secretive about the characteristics and previous behavior that we are embarrassed or ashamed of, and pretend that we are important. We would create a better environment for ourselves if our culture encouraged us to be honest about ourselves, and to accept reality.

We should admire the people who can acknowledge the evidence that humans are animals, and we should consider the people who claim to not have any animal qualities to be ignorant, stupid, emotionally defective, or mentally ill.

All humans are violent

In my document about sprouting seeds, I pointed out that it would be absurd to believe that there is somebody with a perfect immune system, or believe that we can divide people into those with allergies and those without. The same concept applies to violent thoughts.

It is absurd to believe that we can divide people into two distinct groups; namely, those who have violent thoughts, and those who do not, because that requires finding an explanation for how a haphazard mixture of genes is creating two different and distinct types of people.

If violent thoughts were the result of only one gene, then it would be possible for some people to have that violent gene, and others to be peaceful, but it is much more likely that our brain is designed by thousands of genes, and that hundreds or thousands of genes are influencing our tendency to react with violence.

Violence is an animal's natural reaction to problems, so it is much more sensible to believe that all humans inherited that tendency to react to problems with violence, and that we all occasionally have fantasies about hurting and killing the people who irritate us.

The differences between us are subtle, such as how strong our various emotional feelings are, what will trigger them, how long they remain triggered, how much self-control we have over our emotions, how intelligent we are, and whether we have a tendency to think about what to do or just do whatever feels good.

Without self-control, we would kill one another

Since we cannot agree on who should be killed, if each of us were to carry through with our fantasies of killing people, we would kill almost everybody.

If we did not have enough self-control to refrain from
killing one another, we might exterminate the human race.

The reason the Earth has so many billions of people is because almost all of us have enough self-control to restrict our killings to a small number of convicted criminals.

Most proposals to kill are bluffs

Stew Peters, Daniel Lee, and most other people who make public suggestions to kill somebody, or bomb some nation, are expressing their emotional feelings, but they would never kill the people that they propose killing. They would even hesitate to kill a criminal who was breaking into their house to burglarize it. If they had the opportunity to give the burglar a chance to give up, they would do so.

I selected Stew Peters and Daniel Lee as examples because both of them occasionally make violent proposals but both of them are actually very tolerant of people who have different opinions. For example, Daniel Lee has given many lectures in public locations and on college campuses, and although I have only skimmed through a few of those videos, I never saw him make any attempt to kill or threaten anybody who disagreed with him. Likewise, Stew Peters has not attacked any of the people who disagreed with him.

Instead of trying to kill people, both of those men are often spending many hours a day trying to help us. Their primary goal is to be a hero and improve society, not to kill people.

Most people spend hours a day trying to entertain themselves, and they show no concern for society, but Stew Peters and Daniel Lee spend hours a day trying to help us. Their conclusions on how to help us are idiotic, but the point that I am trying to make is that their goal is to improve our lives, not hurt anybody.

Although they might seem to be hypocritical to promote killings while putting so much time and effort into helping us, this attitude is exactly what we see in the animals. The violent proposals are just bluffs to intimidate people. Two reasons that animals put on these violent bluffs are:
1) When a high-ranking animal becomes irritated by a low ranking animal, he tries to help the other animal improve his behavior by intimidating him with some type of violent display.
When an animal is frightened by a possible predator, it will pretend to be larger, stronger, and more courageous than it really is.

For example, a cat will arch its back; a dog will bark; and a gorilla will pound its chest. These displays are attempts to intimidate their opponents for the purpose of avoiding violence.

Humans inherited that animal behavior. As a result, when we become irritated or frightened, we put on a phony image of strength, courage, and violence in an attempt to intimidate the other person.

The men who are described as "conservatives" have made so many violent proposals about killing drug dealers, bombing other nations, killing people who support abortions, and putting nations on economic embargoes that they have frequently been described as the angry white men.

However, their anger is not the result of a violent mind. Rather, they are irritated by other people's behavior, and are reacting like an ape that is pounding his chest and trying to intimidate the ape that is irritating him. Most of the "angry white men" are actually very generous, honest, and kind. Their violent proposals are just a bluff.

Those angry white men also purchase a lot of guns, but not because they want to use the guns or kill people. Rather, they are frightened by the crimes of the modern world. The guns provide them with emotional comfort. That is why the vast majority of them never use their guns to stop any of the crime or corruption in the nation.

Our leaders should help people remain calm

The violent proposals from Stew Peters, Daniel Lee, and other people should be considered as symptoms of a society with bad leadership, and that our culture is inappropriate.

If we had better leadership and culture, then our government officials, business executives, teachers, and other influential people would encourage us to acknowledge and control our animal cravings, and help us to remain calm when world events caused us to become frustrated or frightened.

Unfortunately, instead of helping people relax and deal with modern life, our Supreme Court judges seem to be trying to instigate fights. There are other people in influential positions that encourage the frightened and angry people to purchase guns, and other leaders encourage obnoxious protests. Our leaders are encouraging animal behavior, not advanced human behavior.

Only governments allow violent proposals

Imagine an orchestra tolerating members who were advocating the killing of the other members who had a different opinion about abortion, politics, religion, or public schools.

Or imagine if a Pakistani or Indian manager at IBM made an announcement to the other employees that he would like to unload a revolver into the head of any "white" employee who "got in his way", and that he would have no guilt because he would be doing the company a favor.

The leaders of most organizations realize that it would be detrimental to allow their members to propose the killing of one another, so they do not tolerate that type of behavior.

However, government officials are so incompetent, corrupt, and mentally disturbed that they don't care if the citizens are angry and frustrated, or if some citizens occasionally make public announcements about killing, rehabilitating, or arresting people who have different opinions.

Which killings are beneficial?

It is destructive to kill critics and competitors

The government officials and business executives who want to kill their competitors or critics are destructive to society because their killings suppress exploration, experimentation, constructive criticism, and alternative opinions. Ideally, our leaders would do the opposite. They should encourage their competitors to become better, and they should encourage discussions, constructive criticism, experimentation, and exploration.

The crime networks and Zionist organizations kill people who expose their crimes or try to arrest them. Those groups are more destructive to society than the government officials and business executives who kill their competitors because they kill a lot of valuable people who have the courage and initiative to fight crime networks.

We have to conduct imaginary experiments

The ideal way of determining which of us is proposing the most beneficial killings would be to create identical copies of the Earth, and allow each copy to follow somebody else's proposal. We would then observe each of the planets and pass judgment on whose killings were the most beneficial.

For example, Stew Peters would be in control of one copy of the Earth, and he would be allowed to execute everybody that he believes should be killed, and you would be in control of a different copy of the Earth, and you would be allowed to execute the people that you want to kill.

Unfortunately, we cannot make copies of the Earth, so we have to conduct those experiments in our imagination, which means that different people will end up with different results. However, imaginary experiments are the only way we can pass judgment on whose killings might be the best, so let's consider a few examples.

1) What effect would the killings of Stew Peters have?

Killing the people who provide abortions would result in a few million more unwanted and defective children, and the women who got pregnant through rape would have to take care of children who had the rapist's genetic characteristics. Through the decades, the number of idiots, rapists, retards, sickly, and defective people would increase.

Although Stew Peters would boast that he has stopped "baby murders", he would eventually start complaining about all of the unskilled idiots, rapists, lunatics, homeless people, criminals, unemployable people, and retards who need a lot of welfare and medical care. After many centuries, his planet would resemble a zombie movie.

What effect would the killings of Aruna Khilanani have?

Would she create a better world than Stew Peters by killing the "white" people who "get in her way"? Which white people are getting in her way? Would she kill me?

Her remarks are so vague that I suspect that she is another example of a mentally ill person who is being exploited. Specifically, I suspect that somebody showed her some excerpts of remarks that people like me have made, such as my remark that the Africans who were sold as slaves should have be grateful that they became slaves, and the modern descendants of Africans who were sold as slaves should also be grateful.

By showing her that remark, but without explaining what I meant by it, she could become angry at "white" people, and then she could be encouraged to stand up to the selfish, cruel, and psychopathic white people.

Therefore, if she were put in control of a world, the world would actually be under the control of whichever criminal was the most successful in manipulating her.

What effect would the killings of vegans have?

What effect would the vegans have on a world by killing those of us who want to eat meat or use animals for leather? The vegans would boast that none of the animals on their planet are suffering on farms, but how many farm animals in our world today are truly suffering? The vegans assume that the farm animals are suffering, but how do we know if the animals really are miserable?

As I pointed out in a previous document, humans want to live in a very similar manner as our farm animals. Specifically, most people fantasize about becoming so wealthy that they can stop "working", and hire servants to pamper them like a baby while they spend their day pleasing themselves, such as by lounging in front of a television, playing video games, eating excessively, insulting other people, or trying to become the center of attention.

Humans have fantasies of lounging all day and "doing what we want to do"  because we inherited the desires of our animal ancestors.

Animals do not want to work, experience bad weather, think, go to school, share resources, or deal with problems.

Animals don't even want to consider other members of their species as "friends". Rather, they consider other members as competitors for status, food, sex, nesting materials, and sleeping areas. The result is that they are frequently fighting with each other and stealing from one another.

Animals have no desire to earn what they want. For example, they prefer that humans give them food rather than they earn the food. If animals had the ability to create a socialist or Marxist society, they would do so.

Since we are still quite ignorant about animal and human behavior, it is certain that our farms are not yet providing animals with ideal living conditions, but our homes, cities, social activities, governments, and schools are not ideal for us, either.

If we could measure "suffering", I believe that we would discover that modern humans are suffering more than modern farm animals because I think that the living conditions that we provide for ourselves are much more inappropriate for us than the conditions our farms are providing to the animals. For example, I suspect that many cities in Asia are providing people with living conditions that are more unnatural and miserable than what farmers in the USA are providing for their chickens and pigs.

Some animals want to be close to one another.
We assume that farm animals are suffering when they live in crowded conditions, but many animals want to be in crowded conditions.

Many birds, for example, will sit within one wing's distance of one another, and some birds build hundreds of nests within a wing span of one another. They live in densities that are similar to that of a chicken farm.

Sheep, fish, and many other animals remain so close together that they often touch one another as they eat and travel. As with birds, they prefer a density that is similar to that of farm animals.

Some animals enjoy "overcrowded" living conditions.
Some animals sleep next to each other, or on top of one another.

We are more concerned with how the managers of farms and zoos are treating their animals than we are about how our government officials, journalists, and business executives are treating us.

For example, the managers of farms and zoos are frequently experimenting to improve the living conditions of the animals, but we do not provide ourselves with government officials who experiment with improvements to our cities, schools, social activities, marriages, or job environments.

Farmers have not yet figured out the ideal living conditions for animals, but they are not tormenting the animals. They are pampering the animals by protecting them from hunger, thirst, ticks, fleas, diseases, and predators.

When farm animals are killed for food, they die quickly and painlessly, rather than suffer a slow and miserable death, such as being eaten alive. Imagine the reaction from the vegans if humans were butchering and eating animals while they were alive.

Most wild animals, especially insects, suffer a cruel and painful death. For example, there are wasps that lay eggs on creatures, and the larva eat them alive. And there are several types of funguses that turn creatures into zombies. Incidentally, why would a loving, supreme being create such horrific funguses?

The vegans occasionally find a farm employee who is abusive to some animals, but that abuse is an exception. It is idiotic for a farmer to abuse his animals, just as it is idiotic for a farmer to abuse his machinery. However, if we had continuous surveillance of every farm employee, we would occasionally find an employee become frustrated and abuse a piece of equipment.

My conclusion is that a planet that is under the control of vegans would have no advantage over the planet we have right now in regards to the suffering of animals because the animals that are suffering on the planet today are suffering because of nature, not humans. However, the vegans would increase the suffering of humans by killing the people who want to eat meat.

None of the heroes would improve the world

The world has a lot of problems, but none of the heroes are proposing killings that will reduce crime, corruption, loneliness, the ugliness of our cities, traffic congestion, divorce, overcrowding, telemarketing scams, or the number of college students who graduate with extreme debt and a worthless education.

The reason that the heroes would fail to improve the world is because they are proposing killings according to their emotional feelings. For example, the people who want to kill those of us who support abortions are reacting to their emotional craving to protect children. They are not using their intellect to consider what effect their killings would have on the human race, or whether the children that they save from an abortion will have a pleasant life.

Years ago I mentioned that Aaron Bradley complained that when he was in college, the girls did not "put out". If he were the dictator of the world, he might demand that college girls "put out", but that policy would be based on his cravings for sex, not on an intellectual analysis of what would be best for the human race.

What is the difference between:
a) A man who wants women to "put out".
b) A man who wants to kill the people who perform abortions.
Neither of them is providing us with an intelligent analysis of our problems, or a sensible solution.

It is even more important to realize that neither of them is considering what would be best for society. Instead, both of them are creating policies to satisfy their particular emotional cravings, and neither of them has any regard to the consequences to other people, or to the future generations.

Whose imaginary experiment is most accurate?

When scientists conduct an experiment in a laboratory, the experiment proceeds in a certain manner, and there is only one final result at the end of the experiment, although different people will interpret that result in different ways. Their experiments are so precise that other scientists will conduct it to verify that they get the same results.

By comparison, when we conduct an imaginary experiment, each of us imagines the experiment proceeding differently, which causes each of us to find a different result at the end of the experiment. Each person ends up with a different conclusion on what the imaginary experiment shows us. It is impossible to verify an imaginary experiment.

For example, when I conduct an imaginary experiment to determine the effect of killing people who perform abortions, my mind sees the population of unwanted and defective children increasing every year, with the result that the human race suffers genetic degradation at an even faster pace.

However, when Stew Peters conducts that same imaginary experiment, his mind sees women giving birth to wonderful babies. He also sees the adults raising those children properly, and he sees the children growing up to become wonderful adults who love life and one another. I suspect that he also imagines that his particular god is proud of him for killing the "Baby Killers".

How do we determine whose imaginary experiment is the most accurate? There is no way we can make that determination because the human race has too wide of a variation in intellectual abilities, emotional characteristics, self-control, mental disorders, and education.

It is conceivable that the future generations will eventually do such a good job of controlling reproduction that almost everybody is in excellent mental health, very intelligent, and has a strong interest in thinking, research, and critical analyses, in which case they might never fight with each other. They might be able to resolve all of their differences through research and discussions. Until then, we have to resolve our differences using the "natural" method; specifically, fight with one another.

Our crude culture encourages superheroes

Pandering to the public is detrimental

Pandering to the public would be wonderful if everybody was as educated, intelligent, peaceful, honest, and generous as they claim to be, but each of us is just an intelligent animal. That means that our leaders are pandering to animals, many of whom have serious mental disorders.

We have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy and feel special, and our leaders are pandering to that craving in a variety of manners. However, pandering to that crude craving is encouraging people to be arrogant, and to believe that they can become an important hero through some simplistic technique, such as killing people who are evil, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or Holocaust Deniers.

Democracies encourage superheroes

Political candidates and government officials exploit our craving to be important by frequently stimulating voters with idiotic praise, such as "The American people are the greatest people in the world!", and "America is the greatest nation in the world!"

“You are the greatest children in the world! You deserve some candy.”
Those remarks are not "intelligent". Rather, they are analogous to a pedophile who praises children and offers them some candy.

Political candidates and government officials also titillate us by blaming our nation's problems on foreign nations so that we don't have to take any responsibility for our troubles. However, this encourages anger and hatred of other nations. This should be considered extremely unacceptable.

Voters should be disgusted with the manipulative and deceptive remarks, but instead they cheer, applaud, and wave their flags.

Our government officials should help us to dampen our arrogance and other inappropriate emotions, but instead they give us excessive praise and insult other nations. This has caused a lot of Americans to boast that we are the "policemen of the world".

Those arrogant Americans frequently propose putting some nation on an economic embargo or bombing the nation. Some Americans also blame foreign nations for our drug problems, and they want our military to spray poisons on their fields of poppies or coca plants.

Free enterprise encourages superheroes

Business leaders exploit our craving to feel important by treating us as Kings and Queens. They titillate us with such remarks as, "the customer is king", and "the customer is always right".

They also titillate us with a variety of movies, comic books, and fiction books that allow us to fantasize about being important heroes, such as Star Wars, Superman, Batman, the Terminator, and Die Hard. Those fantasies are all variations of the same concept. Specifically, an individual person, (usually a man), is a superhero, and he makes the world a better place by killing the evil people.

Those superheroes do not work in teams, have any useful skills, do any type of thinking or research, and never look critically at themselves.

Most of the superheroes are men, but not because of "sexism" or "discrimination". Rather, men have a stronger craving to be heroes than women. Businesses are giving men and women what they want, not what we need.

Becoming a hero requires talent and work

Almost all of the progress that the human race has enjoyed during the past few thousand years has come from individuals, but it did not come from individuals who merely had a temper tantrum and killed a few people that they disliked. It came about from hard work, and sometimes a lot of suffering. For example, the explorers of the Middle Ages frequently suffered, and sometimes died, as they explored the oceans, forests, and deserts.

Likewise, the people in the world today who are fighting the international pedophile network will likely be regarded as heroes by future generations, but they are not killing people that they personally dislike or disagree with. Rather, they are working in teams, thinking about what they are doing, and trying to do what is best for society. They are doing a lot of work, and they are risking their lives.

Our emotions are titillated by the concept that we can become an important person simply by killing a few "evil" people, but we should raise children on a more realistic culture, and put pressure on them to face the complexity of the modern world.

I suggest that the Kastron culture refer to the Superman comic books, Star Wars movies, and similar fantasies as being "hero pornography", and we should consider that type of pornography to be detrimental.

We should be even more intolerant of leaders who blame problems on some other group of people.

Children should be taught that if they want to become so important that future generations regard them as heroes, they have to put a lot of time and effort into working, thinking, researching, discussing, looking critically at themselves, and considering other people's opinions.

We have intense cravings to be important and get to the top of the hierarchy, and we can get into a top position through blackmail, inheritances, bribery, and other types of cheating, but achieving high status in a respectable manner requires effort and talent.

The comic books and Hollywood movies are fooling people into believing that we can become a hero simply by killing a few "evil" people. In reality, there are no "evil" people. There are only "humans" with different opinions, behavior, and mental characteristics.

The public should not have the freedom to kill or hurt

Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to hurt and kill one another, and to hurt and kill animals. They did not have to worry about police or laws. They only had to worry about the reaction of other people. For example, if other people became angry at their violent behavior, then they risked being beaten, killed, or exiled.

In our modern societies, however, it is no longer sensible to give people the freedom to hurt or kill whoever they please. Although every society has already put restrictions on our freedom to kill people, we are still providing people with the freedom to influence government policies about killing and hurting. For example, we allow the public to influence decisions about war, economic embargoes, executing criminals, aborting unwanted babies, and euthanizing people who are suffering from terminal diseases or old age.

The majority of people do not have enough intelligence, self control, or education to make wise decisions about which people and animals should be killed or exiled. We should not allow the public to influence decisions about war, abortion, euthanasia, or the treatment of criminals.

Who should decide which animals to kill?

The only people who should be allowed to pass judgment about killing animals are the people who have an understanding of evolution, and how all animals reproduce excessively. They should be people who make opinions based on intellectual analyses, rather than their emotional cravings and fears. They should be people who realize that they should only kill animals in order to control their populations and genetic health, rather than kill the animals that they personally dislike or are afraid of. They must also have the emotional ability to kill animals that people are attracted to, such as horses and deer.

Who should decide which people to kill?

The only people who should be allowed to get involved with decisions of which people to evict or execute are those who have an understanding of genetics and evolution, and who realize that it is destructive to evict or kill people simply for disagreements, or for meaningless insults, such as sexism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and racism.

They must be people who have so much self-control that they can make decisions that are best for the future generations, rather than for their own emotional pleasure.

Are you one of those people?
Can you help us locate some of them?
If so, let’s get going and start a new world!