"I saw this news report the other day, man, about this psychologist guy named Dr. Alan Slater over in England who did a study on new born babies to try to find out if humans learn what is beautiful or whether we're programmed with that information. What Dr. Slater did was take a bunch of babies whose average age was 2 1/2 days old and showed each of them two photos at a time. One photo was of an attractive female face. The other was of a less attractive female face. All of the babies spent far more time looking at the attractive faces than the unattractive ones and some babies spent 90% of their time looking at the attractive faces.

"Most people probably missed the deeper significance of the story and just nudged each other and said, 'See, beautiful people have it easier in life.' While that may be true, the real story is about genes and religion and much more.

"Let me be clear, right away, that I haven't seen this guy's original research paper, so I have many questions about his methodology. What I read was just things about showing babies human faces. The article didn't tell the race or the sex of the babies. And, while all the pictures shown to the babies were of females, the article didn't say if they were all of one race or not. If these factors weren't considered, then I think the research is suspect. There is no one size fits all human. We are all members of different groups based on our genes, and we need to take that into account. I'd like to know, for example, if female babies react differently than male babies. Would the results be the same if they used photos of good and bad looking males? What would the babies have done if they were shown a picture of a plain female and a handsome man or vice versa? What was the race of the babies and of the models? Even without answers to these and many other questions, especially regarding race, I think that this research provides more evidence to the fact that my religion is right about our sense of sight and our genes."

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Arman teaches that we're not blank pages when we're born, but that we come into the world with yottabytes of information in our genetic programs and that these programs have certain instinctual defaults. Today, some of the defaults are still good, while some need to be adjusted because of changes in the world. Given enough time, we're often self-modifying so that our defaults automatically change and adapt to meet changing conditions. However, if changes come fast, as they are now, we can be wiped out before we are able to change via the old, dumb, hit and miss evolutionary way. To speed things up, we need to will our own evolution and mutations. How do we do that and change our defaults? First, we have to know there's a problem and then we have to know which defaults to change and which not to change. To make the changes, we have to use our minds in the correct ways. That means we have to program our minds with the correct facts and beliefs--we have to internalize these things so they will work in our subconscious minds 24 hours a day.

The best way to do that--don't gag on this--is to have an unwavering correct religious belief system. But, not just any religious belief system. In order for it to have the power and the energy to cause the changes, it must be one that is so real to the believer that it causes behavior and choice changes and also causes his or her brain to secrete chemicals in certain ways to cause physical changes right down to the sub-cellular level. Such a religion must be revealed and it must be the religious equivalent of the long sought after unified field theory in physics. By that, I mean that it must really answer the questions of existence. No religions on the planet, that I've heard of, do this correctly. Some fail because they aren't revealed. Some fail because they don't take genes into account and proceed as though all humans are the same--just as may have been done in the baby study I just mentioned. Some fail for many other reasons. Arman's religion covers all bases so well that I can't help but believe that it truly is revealed even though I'm a skeptic by nature.

"Those evil people who are trying to kill us off by having us blend in with all other humans and who thus want us to destroy ourselves as "ourselves" are trying to reprogram us with new incorrect defaults. They've slipped Trojan Horses into our brains and have infected us with destructive viruses so that our hard drives are being corrupted and destroyed. They want us to think, for example, that black is beautiful, when our defaults say white is beautiful because our defaults are white. Black is beautiful, man, at least to other blacks, because that's what their defaults say, or should say.

"Don't get confused with this computer terminology, man, I'm just using it to make a point. I see how you're looking at me. I know we don't really have hard drives inside us. It's like a new parable or a metaphor or something. Should I be using old parables and metaphors to sound more religious than I sound? Should I be talking about donkeys and fish and burning bushes?"

"Jack, I thought we were talking about liking people better if they're good looking," I said, as I wondered where Jack was going with all this.

"We are, but there are usually deeper meanings to surface things. You have to understand some of this stuff for it all to make sense and come circling around. Arman teaches that we are sensory beings of flesh. The real 'us' isn't some inner spirit that is different from us and that has just inhabited our 'evil' flesh. Some false religions teach that and then say that we must struggle to overcome the flesh and its urgings. That's wrong. Our flesh is good. It is not evil. Any inner spirit or soul that exists, arises from and exists because of our flesh. It is like the perfume of a rose. Arman also says that we are not supposed to deny our senses, but that we are supposed to use and sharpen them and that humans have for too long tried to deny their senses in their attempts to find God or higher states of consciousness or to be holy or whatever, and that this is wrong. He also says that the universe is not an illusion as some believe, but is real. What we see is what we get, most of the time.

"Now I'm coming back to that beauty stuff. The king of the human senses is our sight. Unlike some other animals that take smell cues about mating, for example, we humans are primarily prodded on to reproduce by things that we see. Our sex drive and our survival is hardwired to our eyes. You know how you sometimes see kids' cartoons where a male dog, usually a mutt, is attracted to a visually cute (to humans) French poodle? Well, that's just an incorrect humanizing of dogs. The mating instinct of dogs isn't primarily visual, but is based on odors. Dogs don't have no nudie magazines, man. If they had magazines, they would be smellzines. And, they'd be saying "Hey, hey, hey did you smell that July centerfold? Their nose knows what is good and desirable for their survival and improvement as as species, while with us it's mainly our eyes that know.

"See, what's been happening is that those evil genocidists who want all humans to blend together as one new human type have been trying to condition us away from our natural instincts about what is beautiful and what isn't. They tell us to deny our eyes and not believe what has been programmed into our brains so we'll be more accepting of mating with people unlike us and who we don't instinctively see as beautiful. I'm tellin' you man that if research were done like with those babies, but with racial elements added in, we'd probably find that white babies favor white people and black babies favor black people and all other people favor their own kind. It's in the genes. It's all about survival. You know what would happen, though, if they tried to do the study with, say, a photo of a black woman and a photo of a white woman side by side being shown to white babies? They'd try to screw up the results by using a black woman with a lot of white blood so that her facial features would be more white than black, but her skin would still not be white. And, they'd use a white woman whose features are not the white ideal and who is thus not attractive according to the inner template of the babies. Then, if the babies looked at the black woman with the white features more than the white woman without the ideal white features, the genocidists would publish the results and say white babies prefer black women and thus we should all mate together. I'm telling you, man, that's how they do some of those phony race studies. They're often mostly just anti-white propaganda and attempts to seep self-genocidal thoughts into our subconscious. Most people who read about these things don't bother to look at how the research was done and just accept the screwy, false conclusions.

Our genes give us a natural visual template in our brains to tell us what is beautiful and what isn't. We're given an internal picture of the ideal type. We're born with it. As we get older, and for a variety of reasons, we may be artificially attracted to those who deviate from our natural ideal. This is often the result of conditioning or of a survival response. Survival means having offspring. Look, it's like our brains are saying, I'd really like to be with this or that really beautiful or handsome person, but I'm not that great looking myself so I don't have a chance. If I hope to mate at all, I'd better compromise. In other words, most of us are a little like drunken sailors in a bar near closing time who suddenly see beauty in a snaggle toothed floozy hanging off the end of the bar.

You want me to sum this up, man? Trust your eyes so long as you have not been conditioned away from the pure and genuine vision that you were born with. And, if you have been so conditioned, and the haters really try to do this, then strip away the conditioning and get back to what is real, authentic and genuine and see others as a baby sees them. If you are black, then black is beautiful. If you are white, white is beautiful. If you are brown, brown is beautiful. If you are red, then red is beautiful. If you are yellow, then yellow is beautiful. Beauty is in the genes of the beholder and the beheld. But, if an entire people of one genotype finds people of another genotype, instead of people of their own genotype, beautiful, then this indicates that God or nature is saying that the genotype that doesn't find its own genotype to be beautiful, is heading for a die off. This is so, because as already stated, we humans, of all types, are influenced to mate via our eyes. If our own kind aren't attractive to us, then we're not going to mate with them and produce more children like us.

#  #  #

THE OUTSIDER - (ISBN: 0-595-19424-9)
H. Millard’s underground classic story of alienation is
available at Amazon.com by clicking on the this link or by calling 1-877-823-9235:
"Millard is an important writer" New Nation News
"Millard is an original. His books aren't like your typical fiction.
If you don't know where to put his books, try the same shelf with Kerouac, Kafka, Sartre and Nietzsche"
- a reader.

Recommend this page to a friend

• References: (Note: links may expire and content not necessary endorsed by H. Millard
  or New Nation News but presented for further study for those interested in the topic by the NNN editor.)
• Everyone loves a pretty face - "There’s no doubt that attractive people tend to do better in life than less-attractive people - nobody ever said evolution was supposed to be fair." - Dr Alan Slater
• Newborns prefer beautiful faces