What is crime? You might respond that a crime is behaving in a manner that is forbidden by law. What is a law? You might respond that laws are instructions created by our government to control the behavior of the citizens. Why should we obey laws? You might respond that laws are designed to help society, and therefore, when citizens violate the laws they may help themselves but they hurt other people.

What if a law hurts society?

We have laws that forbid businesses from using or selling Stevia as a sugar substitute and from growing hemp for use in paper and clothing.
If you're unfamiliar with this, I have an introduction: Stevia_19Oct2005.htm

There is no evidence that society benefits from those laws. Rather, the evidence suggests that they were created to eliminate the competition to sugar, artificial sweeteners, cotton, and wood pulp. Therefore, they are not valid laws if laws are intended to help society. This in turn means that we are not violating the law if we disobey those fraudulent laws.

Furthermore, the government officials who create fraudulent laws could be arrested for being con artists because we have other laws that forbid deception and abuse of authority. The businessmen who advocate fraudulent laws could also be arrested.

The issue of Stevia and hemp fiber is a simple example of how the words we use can create a lot of confusion. We cannot stop "crime" until we can adequately explain what crime is.

Our "law schools" supposedly teach students about the law, but none of the teachers have any understanding of the purpose of a law, or whether the laws prohibiting Stevia and hemp fiber are valid or fraudulent. Instead, the law schools teach the students to memorize the laws. The end result is that lawyers are no more useful to us than a computer database of laws.

America and Europe have an enormous number of lawyers, but what good are they doing us? Are they helping us to understand or reduce crime? No. Are they helping us to understand the concept or purpose of laws? No. Are they helping to develop sensible laws? No.

Laws are intangible sequences of words that are used by the government to control our behavior. No government official should be allowed to put controls on our behavior unless they can provide evidence that the law will benefit society.

Furthermore, since laws are nothing but words, we must have a better understanding of language in order to create sensible laws and be able to distinguish between a valid law that is beneficial to society and a fraudulent law that selfishly helps one small group at the expense of society.

Lawyers and judges could be valuable members of society, but that requires they know more about the law than the rest of us, and that they use their knowledge to benefit society rather than a small number of criminals.
 

The Europeans have laws that allow the government to arrest people who disagree with the official story of the Holocaust. These laws are justified on the grounds that they are preventing "hatred" from "Holocaust Deniers". However, these laws are just a trick to fool the Europeans into arresting people who investigate the Holocaust:
Holocaust-Deniers.html

Today some Americans are trying to give America some "hate crime laws". Most - perhaps all - of the people who are advocating hate crime laws are involved with Zionism:
adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp

Even if the people promoting these hate crime laws were genuinely interested in stopping hatred, how can we allow our government to create such laws when nobody can adequately explain what a "law" is, what a "crime" is, or what "hate" is?
 

A British farmer was convicted of murder after killing one of the burglars who broke into his house:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717511.stm

There is a valid reason for discouraging citizens from passing judgment on who is a criminal and who needs to be killed, but if a trial determines that the accused murderer was actually the victim of a crime, and that he killed the criminal, how does society benefit by putting the victim in jail? If society doesn't benefit by punishing the victim, then what is the purpose of punishing him? If a law does not make our society better, what is the point of having it?

The family of the dead burglar might want revenge on the farmer who killed him, and they might want to profit from the death, but why should we allow our legal system to be used for revenge or profit?

The British and American courts never discuss what is best for society, or what the purpose of a law is. Instead, they discuss issues such as whether the victim used "reasonable force" in protecting himself. Most people believe that the victim of a crime is allowed to defend himself and protect his property, but he must adjust his defense according to the weapons and intentions of the criminal.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/719292.stm

Our courts expect the victim of a crime to analyze the situation to determine how many criminals there might be, what their weapons might be, and what their intentions might be. Then the victim is expected to figure out the "reasonable force" for that particular situation. Does this make sense to you? How many people, when they are a victim of a crime, have the time or desire to make such an analysis?

For example, if a burglar is of average size, is working alone, does not seem to have any weapons, and does not seem to have any intention of hurting or raping the occupants of the house, then the victims are not allowed to use something as dangerous as a gun. Instead, they must use a stick or rock of "reasonable" size. If two burglars are working together, and one of them has a knife, and the other shows an interest in raping one of the women in the house, and if it is too dark to properly see what other weapons they might have, then the victims are allowed to use... what? Who knows what the victims are allowed to do in that situation. We are still waiting for the British courts to finish the development of "Her Royal Majesty's Table of Reasonable Force for the English Peasants".

It is easy for a court to pass judgment on what a victim should have done, but how does this type of trial help society? How does this reduce crime, help us understand crime, or help us to create better laws?
 

The British and American court system is based on the assumption that everybody is very intelligent and responsible, so therefore we can select people at random to create a jury, provide them with some information about a crime, and a short time later they will produce an intelligent and unbiased decision about the crime. Supposedly, the lawyers, judges, and jurors will make intelligent decisions about crime without any understanding of why we have laws or trials. Supposedly, lawyers and judges only need to know the procedures for conducting a trial.

Our election system is also based on the assumption that all people are equally intelligent, honest, and responsible, and that every voter will make wise decisions about who to select for government offices.

Unfortunately, most people are ordinary, and some are unusually irresponsible, selfish, and dishonest. The lawyers and political candidates understand this concept, but not the majority of people. The end result is that the lawyers and political candidates try to stimulate the emotions of the voters and jurors rather than provide them with intelligent information. The voters and jurors are suckers who are being taken advantage of, but they don't seem capable of understanding this.
 

When robots become available, organized crime gangs and individual citizens will certainly use them to commit crimes. Governments will use them as policemen and soldiers.

If you have never seen some of the latest experimental robots, here are videos of a robot made by Honda:
asimo.honda.com/asimotv

What will happen when robots are used in crimes, and a citizen destroys a robot that is burglarizing his house? Will he be guilty of destroying the criminal's property? Will jurors discuss whether the victim used "reasonable force" in protecting his property from the robot? Will people be put in jail because they used "unreasonable force", thereby causing "unreasonable damage" to the robot? If somebody shoots a gun at a robot while the robot is trying to escape, will he be accused of "shooting the robot in the back; in cold machine oil"?
 

This issue of murder becomes more complicated when dealing with organized crime and corrupt policemen, judges, lawyers, and government officials. For example, in 2006, in the Sicilian capital of Palermo, more than a hundred business owners publicly complained about the organized crime gangs that were making them pay protection money:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1766073,00.html

What if the business owners did more than complain; specifically, what if some of them became so upset with the situation that they killed some of the criminals? Would they be guilty of murder for using more than "reasonable force" to protect themselves? Or would they be justified to kill the criminals on the grounds that the police were refusing to stop the gangs?

What if some of the business owners killed some of the policemen who were taking money from the organized crime gang? Should a citizen be guilty of murder for killing dishonest policemen, judges, lawyers, or government officials? Or should we consider him to be "protecting society from corruption"? What is "reasonable force" when dealing with corrupt policemen, judges, and government officials?

For a more complicated example, what would you think if a group of citizens were to kill hundreds of people, and during their trial they presented evidence that the only people they killed were the ones that showed involvement in 9/11? What if they justified the killings on the grounds that the police were refusing to do their job of arresting the criminals? Should they be guilty of murder? Or should they be rewarded for having the courage to stand up to these organized crime gangs?

How bad does government corruption have to be before you would allow citizens to kill corrupt officials?
 

When a person commits crimes for his own selfish benefit, such as stealing items from a retail store or raping a neighbor, he hurts only a small number of people. However, when a government official is part of an organized crime network, he can hurt his entire society, other nations, and future generations.

The 9/11 attack is an excellent example. This attack is directly affecting Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently the accusations are true the US military is using uranium in their weapons, which means that the war is polluting the entire planet with radioactive waste. This is causing birth defects right now, and it will continue to affect people who have not yet been born.
• Bollyn-Uranium-Iraq-Vets.html
• Bollyn-Uranium-cancer.html

Our laws prohibit citizens from taking it upon themselves to pass judgment on who is a criminal and who deserves to die. This is a valid and sensible law. However, this particular law helps society only when our officials are honest. When the officials are working with organized crime, the government can use this particular law to suppress the citizens who rebel against their crime network.

Children are taught to give blind obedience to laws, but it would make more sense to teach people that laws are intended to help society, and when we find evidence that laws are being created to help a criminal network, we have a responsibility to bring this issue to the attention of the public. We are fools to follow the fraudulent laws created by a criminal gang that is trying to abuse and manipulate us.

However, if the media is part of the criminal network, it is impossible for the citizens to bring these issues to the attention of the public. And if the police are also part of the crime gang, it is impossible for the citizens to tell the police to deal with the criminals. In such a case, what are the citizens supposed to do? If they do nothing, they allow the organized crime network to operate, and that can harm other nations and future generations.

How extreme does corruption in government have to be before citizens are encouraged to do something to stop the corruption? At what point does killing a government official switch from being "murder" to "protecting ourselves from corruption"?

There is overwhelming evidence that people in our media companies, ADL, and Zionist organizations are involved in the deception and cover-up of 9/11, the Holocaust hoax, the World Wars, the Apollo moon landing hoax, and other large crimes. Our police are doing nothing to stop this Zionist crime gang, and some of our federal agencies are actually protecting the criminals. If a citizen can present evidence that he is killing only the people who show involvement in 9/11 or its cover-up, why should he be guilty of murder?

Doing nothing about crime allows it to get worse. If citizens had killed some of the people responsible for 9/11 soon after the attack, they may have prevented the levees from mysteriously breaking in New Orleans, and they may have prevented the mysterious bus and train bombings in Madrid and London, and they may have prevented the war in the Middle East.

Go back further in time; if people had killed the Zionists when they first got started, or if they had killed the Rothschild family, would there have been any world wars? Would there have been slaughters in Russia? Would there have been a Communist movement?

Some people like to bring up the philosophical question, "If you could travel back in time and kill Hitler, would you?" Why not ask, "If you could travel back in time and kill the Zionists and the Rothschilds, would you?"

The majority of people cannot think very well. They are being fooled into tolerating corruption in government on the grounds that standing up to these corrupt officials would be "murder". In reality, allowing this corruption is allowing murder, wars, pollution, birth defects, and chaos.
 

Some people justify the Iraq war on the grounds that it is bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. However, none of the people who promote this war can explain what freedom or democracy is, or how the destruction of Iraq will provide them with these mysterious concepts. The evidence suggests that the Americans are suckers who are used as attack dogs by the Israelis to destroy Iraq.

If some American soldiers were to rebel and kill their top military officials or Israeli officials, would they be guilty of murder? Or would they be heroes for putting an end to this violence?
 

Before Israel was recognized as a nation, the Jews who were trying to create Israel were referred to as Jewish "terrorists" by news reporters. For example, here is a section of a 23 July 1946 British newspaper The Times that is discussing the bombing of the King David Hotel:

 
Today the Jewish terrorists are referred to as innocent and heroic Israeli citizens who defend themselves from murderous and suicidal Islamo-Fascist Arab terrorists. Why are we allowing Israelis to alter the meaning of our word "terrorism"?
 

A person is considered to be innocent if he didn't take part in a crime. However, the majority of people are assisting crimes inadvertently because of their selfishness and emotional disorders. For example, millions of Americans are interfering with our attempt to expose 9/11 as a Zionist "false flag" operation because they don't want to face the possibility that it was a crime.
A short video on what a "false flag" operation is here:
HowToHelp.html

When we try to discuss the 9/11 attack at work or in public, these "innocent" people put pressure on us to stop talking by ridiculing us and trying to change the subject. These "innocent" citizens may as well be paid members of the criminal network that did 9/11. They are not merely ignoring the crime and standing back while we expose it; rather, they are actually blocking our attempt to expose the crime.

What difference does it make if a person assists an organized crime network because he is a member of the network, or because of his emotional disorders and selfishness?

The military realizes that when a soldier deserts the other soldiers, he is leaving them at risk in order to save himself. The military reaction is to kill deserters.

The "innocent" citizens who block attempts to expose 9/11 are worse than soldiers who abandon the others. When a soldier runs away to save himself, he is simply selfish and frightened, but he is not stopping the other people from taking care of themselves. However, when a civilian blocks our attempt to expose 9/11, it is equivalent to a soldier who runs away and then tries to stop all conversations about what is happening to the other soldiers.

The innocent citizens are not wearing military uniforms, and they are not involved in a war with another nation, but for the past few centuries there have been continuous battles between organized crime networks and citizens. The citizens who merely ignore these crimes are deserters, and the ones who block our attempt to expose the crime are worse than deserters. They are not innocent. Rather, they are helping the crime networks thrive.

Furthermore, by interfering with our attempts to expose the crime, those of us who try to expose the crime are alone and vulnerable to retaliation by the crime network. An example is the arrest and trial of Christopher Bollyn:
Expose-Bollyn-trial.html

While the selfish and neurotic citizens watch television, gamble, and play games, other people are spending their time and money, and sometimes risking their lives, to stop the organized crime gangs. How does this make any sense? Why should society consider these dangerous citizens to be "innocent"?
 

Young children don't question anything. They are like sponges that soak up information from the people around them. Children pick up their language, hairstyles, clothing styles, eating habits, and religion from other people. They also pick up their attitudes about Nazis, the Holocaust, terrorism, and Israel from other people.

Thousands of years ago children picked up information only from the small number of people in their local area, but today children are picking up information from books, magazines, newspapers, television, and the Internet. By the time a child is a teenager he may have picked up information from thousands of different people around the world, and from different eras.

The mysterious substance that we refer to as "culture" is this collage of information that we picked up as a child in a haphazard manner. We alter this information somewhat as an adult, but most of our culture comes from our childhood.

Some of our culture today is modified by businesses, political groups and organized crime gangs. Businesses manipulate children into desiring certain toys, clothing styles, jewelry, and food products. Political groups and organized crime gangs try to influence children's attitudes towards life. Ideally, society would protect children from such manipulation, but manipulating children for profit and political purposes is an accepted part of our culture. There is no attempt to stop it, and nobody is embarrassed or ashamed for doing it.

We start thinking for ourselves as teenagers, and adults do a lot more thinking, but it rarely occurs to people that they should take a serious look at the collage of information that they picked up as a child. Very few people bother to question their clothing styles, their views on the Holocaust, their religion, or their language.

People today need a much better understanding of language than our ancestors 5000 years ago. A lot of fights, deception, crimes, and wars are occurring because most people don't understand the words they use.
 

Language is similar to music notes. A song can be broken up into pieces of sounds and represented by musical symbols. If another person understands what each symbol means, he can re-create the song with amazing accuracy. Music notes allow us to transfer music from one person to another, and we can save music for future generations.
 

Language is a tool to transfer thoughts from your mind to somebody else's mind, and it allows us to preserve our thoughts for future generations. The only requirement to using language is that we all agree on what the words represent.

When an author uses words that both you and he understand, then he will be able to transfer his thoughts into your mind with acceptable accuracy. A good example are fiction writers. As you read the words in a fiction book, your mind re-creates images that are very similar to those that were in the mind of the author.
 

Every music note has a specific meaning that all musicians agree to. However, if musicians were creating "slang" music notes, or if they were using notes in a non-standard manner, then whenever you encountered one of the mysterious notes, you would have to guess at what the musician meant.

It should be obvious that musicians would interfere with the purpose of music if they used music notes in manners that nobody else could understand.
 

A song can be broken up into pieces and accurately represented by music notes, allowing another person to decode the notes into virtually the same song. However, human thoughts are too complex to be represented with words with 100% accuracy. For example, if you want to let somebody know that you have a tree in your yard, you cannot simply say "I have a tree in my yard." The words "tree" and "yard" have specific meanings, but you are referring to only one tree on the entire planet, and only one yard.

People who do not know where you live will have to guess at what your yard and tree look like. One person might visualize a large, tall pine tree near a swimming pool in a large yard. Another person might visualize a Bonsai tree in a small yard of a house in Tokyo.

For you to accurately transfer an image in your mind to somebody else's mind would require so many words that it would be impractical. As a result, we provide only what we assume are the most important aspects of our thoughts, and we let the other person fill in the details.

Making a vague statement such as "I have a tree in my yard" is like handing a person a coloring book of trees and letting him use his mental crayons to fill in whichever of the scenes he prefers. Everybody ends up with a slightly different image.

It doesn't make any difference if somebody misinterprets your tree or your yard, but when you have conversations about freedom, democracy, terrorism, sexism, or murder, it becomes very significant.

For example, it is dangerous to allow a government to arrest people for being hateful, sexist, a terrorist, racist, evil, a Holocaust Denier, or anti-Semitic when nobody can explain what those words represent. It is as foolish as allowing children to play with guns.
 

We must always do some interpretation when we decode words, but nobody is harmed if we misinterpret the words in a fiction book. However, we should keep interpretation to a minimum when we read documents that are intended to be serious. If we don't understand a law, or if we don't understand a news report about terrorism, we should tell the author to explain the confusing sections. We should not foolishly assume that we can figure out what he meant.

Unfortunately, our schools are giving students the impression that only idiots have trouble understanding language. This causes people to be embarrassed to admit that they don't understand what people are talking about.

Children should be taught that language is not as precise as music notation, so we will never understand anybody with 100% accuracy. It is especially important to teach children that sometimes we will have trouble understanding a person because:

1) People can be deceived with vague remarks, so the person may be difficult to understand because he is trying to deceive us.

2) Lousy minds produce vague remarks, so we may have trouble understanding a person simply because he doesn't think very well.
 

Politicians and con artists deliberately make vague statements so that people interpret the remarks in whatever manner they want to interpret them. For example, when a politician promises to "give the government back to the people", what exactly is he promising to do if he gets elected?

Nobody can decode that remark into specific thoughts or government policies. Instead, most people foolishly interpret the remark. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to interpret confusing remarks in the manner that gives us the meaning we are hoping to find.

When a politician or con artist makes a vague remark, most people foolishly assume that he is offering to give them exactly what they are wishing for. It's equivalent to giving a child a coloring book and letting him fill it in as he pleases. The voters are suckers to interpret a candidate's remarks, or the remarks of a salesman. We should demand that the person provide more detail on what he is promising to do for us.

A lot of people claim to be a super genius, but they claim that they are not good at writing so it's difficult for them to express their brilliant opinions.

Imagine a carpenter claiming to be the most talented carpenter in the world. When people complain that his furniture, houses, and other works are lousy, he responds that he merely has trouble using tools. Your reaction would certainly be that he is a talented carpenter only in his imagination.

Likewise, everybody can claim to be a super genius:

“I'm a genius, but I cannot write well, so my brilliant opinions are trapped inside my mind. Therefore, I appear to be an ordinary person. I simply need some help in expressing myself.”

Is it possible for somebody to be a super genius but not be able to express his opinions clearly?
 

If somebody were to call you on the telephone right now and ask you to describe the room you're sitting in, you could provide so much detail that the other person would be able to create an accurate image in his mind.

Even if you are not a good fiction writer, you are capable of describing hundreds of details about the colors, sounds, and smells of objects around you. Converting your thoughts into words is very easy. You would do a very good job of transferring information from your mind into his.

By comparison, if somebody were to ask you about your opinions on crime, abortion, the feminist movement, or some other more complex issue, you would have a lot of difficulty.

The reason that it would be easy for you to describe the room you are sitting in is because you have a very good understanding of the area. Your eyes, ears, nose, and other sensory organs have provided information about your environment to your brain, and your brain has decoded them into images, sounds, and other sensations. Your mind has a very clear understanding of the objects around you, so it's easy for you to find words to describe them.

By comparison, you don't have a good understanding of freedom, happiness, crime, feminism, or other complex issues, so when your mind tries to convert those concepts into words, it is not sure what to do.
 

Anybody can claim to be a talented carpenter, musician, engineer, scientist, or chef. How do we find out who among us really is talented? We simply tell them to stop boasting and start performing. Tell the carpenter to build something; tell the musician to play or write some music; and tell the chef to make a meal.

The same concept applies to opinions about life. If you want to find out how brilliant your opinions are about religion, politics, crime, and abortion, then put your brilliant theories into a document.

However, most people would not be able to write more than a page or two. They would spend most of the time struggling to figure out what to say. They would make excuses, "Well, I have brilliant opinions, but I'm not very good at expressing them."
 

Some people believe that they need ghostwriters to help them express their brilliant opinions. An "editor" helps a person, but a ghostwriter listens to a person's confused thoughts, and then he develops those confused thoughts into more intelligent thoughts, and then he converts those improved thoughts into words.

If Mozart would be a ghostwriter for me, I could give Mozart a simple tune, and he could "help me" develop it into something truly spectacular. But would the result be "my" music?

If a talented engineer were to be a ghostwriter for me, I could give him a simple but confused thought about microprocessors, and he could "help me" develop it into a very useful integrated circuit. But would the resulting chip be mine?
 

People frequently get together to create music, technology, and scientific documents. Two or more people working together will usually produce something better than any of them working alone. Co-authors are valuable, but we are fools to think a ghostwriter should remain hidden in the background and treated as if he is simply "assisting" the other people to "express themselves". In most cases the ghostwriter is actually the primary author because he is taking some simple, crude ideas and developing them into something valuable.

Another valid reason for having a co-author is when expressing complicated ideas for children's school books, or for adults with not much experience in the subject, and/or not much intelligence. In this case the co-author is not developing the author's thoughts into something intelligent. Rather, he is in the role of a translator, but instead of translating documents from one language to another, he is translating them from one intellectual level to another.
 

It is very easy to read and write music notation; millions of people around the world can do it. However, only a few people can create songs that people want to listen to. Mozart's talent was not in using music notation. Rather, it was in creating music.

When Mozart wrote music symbols on paper, all he was doing was breaking down the music he had previously created and representing the pieces with music notes. The act of converting the song into music notation was the easy part that did not take much talent. The difficult part was creating the music in the first place.

“I'm a brilliant musician, but I have trouble expressing my tunes on paper.  I need help in expressing my amazing music.”

Language is more complicated than music notation, but it's very easy for adults to put words together into grammatically correct sentences that have a meaning. We have no trouble using language to describe what we had for dinner last night, for example.

However, you cannot put words together into a sequence that expresses an intelligent concept until you first create the intelligent concept. Once you create that concept, it is easy to convert it into words.

All of us have the ability to create music inside our minds, but if any of us were to convert those tunes into music notes, we would discover that the music sounds terrible. The reason is not because it's difficult to use music notation. The reason is because the tunes inside our mind are actually very crummy. There are only a few people who can create songs that somebody would want to listen to.

Likewise, everybody is capable of creating brilliant theories about religion, abortion, war, crime, and politics. However, if you were to try converting your brilliant theories into words, you would end up with a disorganized jumble of absurd, confusing, and contradictory sentences.

Your first reaction upon looking at that disorganized mess of words would be to assume that you simply have trouble expressing your brilliant opinions, but in reality the garbled mess that you end up with is exactly what was inside your mind. You expressed your opinions perfectly; your brilliant opinions are actually just a haphazard collage of other people's opinions that you picked up during your life. You may have modified those opinions somewhat, but they are essentially just a messy collection of bits and pieces of other people's opinions.

People are arrogant, especially men, so when we produce garbled thoughts, we look for an excuse that will allow us to maintain our aura of greatness.
 

The music that you write is an indication of the tunes inside your mind, and the words that you write are an indication of the thoughts inside your mind. When you produce lousy music or lousy documents, it is a proof that you don't have the talent you think you do.

Language is a tool, and just like carpentry tools, you have to practice with them. However, most of us get plenty of practice during our childhood. Therefore, if you have trouble converting one of your brilliant opinions into words, it is a sign that your brilliant opinion has not been properly developed. If you spend years researching and studying the issue and continue to have trouble expressing it, you should consider the possibility that your mind doesn't think as well as you assume.

We can see this problem with documents that must be translated. Human languages cannot be translated word by word. Rather, the translator must first convert the author's words into thoughts, and then he has to reconvert those thoughts into another language. If the document is confusing, it will be difficult to translate it.

The documents from certain people are very difficult to translate, such as those from Karl Marx. The reason is that the translator has to spend a lot of his time trying to figure out what Marx was trying to say.
 

Many supporters of Marx assume that he was so brilliant that ordinary people have trouble understanding his writings. It is true that each of us has a limit on what we can understand, so how can we figure out if a person we are having trouble understanding is simply too intelligent for us? Two things to look for are: 

1) An intelligent person will show signs of intelligence in his personal life

If a man claims to be one of the strongest men in the world, but at home he needs help from his wife to lift an ordinary bag of groceries, you would conclude that he is actually weaker than an ordinary man.

If Karl Marx - or anybody else - was truly among the most intelligent people, there would be signs of his intelligence in his personal life.

Although Marx lived in an era when there was not much documentation on people, his miserable life suggests that he while he may have been above-average in intelligence according to the tests conducted by schools, he was suffering from mental and/or physical disorders that prevented him from thinking properly.

2) Other intelligent people will recognize his talent

If Marx was truly a super genius, then at least some of the other super geniuses would have eventually noticed his brilliant ideas, and that would have caused discussions among the super geniuses. Instead, even after 150 years, Marx is attracting only the mentally defective members of society.
 

Children learn the meanings of words by associating a particular sound with a particular concept. For example, they see, touch, and drink a particular substance and frequently hear the word "water". Eventually they have a collection of memories of water and realize that the sound refers to that substance.

Our mind decodes words by looking at the memories associated with each word. You can visualize your memory as a lot of compartments, and every word as a set of memories associated with it. When you see the word "water" or "flower", your mind locates the memory compartments for those words and discovers hundreds of visual images, smells, and sensations.

A child might have only a couple memories of flowers, but an adult might have thousands. An adult has so many memories that the word "flower" is not very specific. Additional words are needed to narrow down which of the many types of flowers the word is referring to.

Most of the words that we refer to as nouns decode into visual images of objects. For example, "airplane", "mountain", and "kitten" decode into hundreds of visual images.

Many of the words that we refer to as verbs decode into the equivalent of video excerpts. For example, when you read the sentence, "the neighbor's dog is chasing a cat in the street", your mind might create a short video based on those words and play it in that mysterious part of our brain that can see images.

Words that represent intangible concepts, such as "freedom", are extremely confusing because they don't represent any specific visual images, smells, or sensations. Your understanding of these intangible concepts is dependent upon your ability to think. People with different intellectual abilities will develop extremely different ideas on what these words mean.
 

Every word has a "meaning", or a "definition". Schools teach us that definitions are short, perhaps a sentence or two.

Many of the words that we find in dictionaries also appear in encyclopedias, such as the words water and flower, but the encyclopedia provides a more detailed explanation of these words. Some scientific books about water and flowers provide hundreds of pages of information, and they provide lots of charts, photos, and diagrams.

What is the difference between the brief definition in a dictionary; the more at lengthy explanation in an encyclopedia; and the extremely detailed technical description in a science book? The only difference is a difference in detail. They are all the same concept.
 

Schools create the impression that there is a difference between the definition of a word, and the explanation of the concept that the word represents. However this is false. A word is a symbol, and the definition of a word is nothing more than a short summary of the concept that the word represents.

Definitions are short only for practical purposes. If definitions were more than a couple of sentences, a dictionary would be too large to be just one book. However, the definitions are so brief that they have little value to a child who is learning a language. Dictionaries are useful mainly to adults who already know most of the words.

Once you realize that a definition of the word is merely a brief summary of our knowledge of what the word represents, you will understand why almost everybody can define words such as freedom, liberty, and terrorist, but they cannot explain in detail what the words represent.

If you can define a word, then you can explain the concept that the word represents. All you do is add more detail to your definition. The more detail you can add to the definition of the word, the more thoroughly you understand what the word represents. However, your understanding of the concept may be so lousy that you can add only one more sentence, creating the impression that you are capable only of defining the word.
 

Almost everybody can provide a brief definition for the word "snow", and most of us can provide a detailed explanation of snow. Each of us assumes that we have a complete and thorough understanding of the word "snow", but because we learn our words from our environment, different people can acquire a much better understanding than other people. A personal example might help you understand this concept.

Although most of my childhood was spent in Southern California where it never snows, I was very familiar with ice cubes and the frost that develops in freezers. There was also a time when my parents took us up into the mountains during winter and we spent several days in the snow.

During high school a couple of boys who grew up in Wisconsin decided to drive up to the nearby mountains in the winter to see the snow. They told me that I needed more clothing to stay warm, and I needed better shoes, but I thought they were being overly concerned. When we finally got up in the mountains and I stepped out of the car into the snow, I was shocked at how cold it was.

Since they grew up in an area where snow was common during the winter, when they heard the word "snow", their mind would decode the word into thousands of visual images and sensations from their body.

By comparison, when my mind decoded the word snow, I ended up with lots of images from photographs, as well as memories of ice cubes. Perhaps my worst problem is that I have memories of being in the snow as a child, but they are only a few faded visual images of playing with icicles and sliding around on sleds. I don't have any memories of the snow feeling cold.

Even though I was capable of defining the word "snow" and even though I could explain a lot about snow, my understanding of the concept was not as extensive as the people who grew up in areas where snow was common in the winter.

By comparison, I am more familiar with words such as "sunburn". A Canadian who visited our city many years ago assumed he understood the word "sunburn", but his understanding of that concept was so lousy that he disregarded the warnings, and he ended up getting such a bad sunburn on his back and shoulders that he couldn't sleep for two days because of all the giant blisters that developed.

In a normal conversation it makes no difference if your understanding of "snow" or "sunburn" is simplistic or inaccurate, but many people have already died in the deserts because they didn't fully understand the concepts represented by such words as dehydration, thirst, heat, and sunburn. Other people have died or suffered because they didn't fully understand the concepts represented by such words as snow, ice, and frostbite.

Being able to write a one sentence definition for a word is enough to allow you to use the word in ordinary conversations, but it doesn't mean that you have a good understanding of the concept that the word represents.

This becomes especially important when discussing words such as freedom, democracy, crime, and murder. Do you really understand what any of those words represent? Being able to write a brief definition does not mean that you have a good understanding of what those words mean.

A definition is just a summary of our knowledge of a particular concept that a word represents, so if you truly understand the meaning of a word, you would be able do more than just write a one-sentence summary. You would be able to write a detailed explanation. Try it sometime with "freedom", "murder", or "crime".

By the way, the problem of sunburn is one of the reasons Jesus Christ could not have been a northern European. However, people who grew up in climates where there is not much sun, or who grew up spending most of their lives inside buildings or protected by hats and clothing, will not completely understand the concept of "sunburn". Some drawings about this are about half way down on these pages:
• DarylBradfordSmith-Hufschmid-10Dec2006.html
• Space-Aliens.htm

We don't know if we have a lousy understanding of a word

We learn the meaning of words by interpreting the way people use language. Because we all have different intellectual abilities, personalities, and environments, we end up with a slightly different set of memories for each word.

Unfortunately, there is nothing equivalent to a fuel gauge inside our mind to let us know if we have an extensive understanding of a word, or a lousy understanding. Instead, everybody assumes that he knows everything he needs to know.

Furthermore, many of our words represent intangible concepts, not specific visual images. For example, words such as freedom, terrorism, and racism represent complex concepts, so people with different intellectual abilities and personalities can end up with extremely different opinions on what these words represent.

Most of the complex problems that we suffer from today involve words that nobody can explain, such as terrorism, crime, and freedom. Our schools teach children to memorize the spelling of words, and how to use the words in grammatically correct sequences, but they don't explain what language is, or what words are. This is as absurd as teaching a lawyer to memorize laws but not explain what a law is, or that a law should have a useful purpose for society. The end result is that people who graduate with college diplomas in language or law believe that they are experts in these subjects, but they know nothing of value.
 

The verb "be" is described as "irregular" because it doesn't follow the pattern of other verbs. Instead of saying, "I be", or "We be", we are told to say "I am" and "We are". There are hundreds of these irregular verbs:
englishpage.com/irregularverbs/irregularverbs.html

What would you think if General Motors announced: 

“We have several new models of cars this year, three of which are irregular. One of the irregular models has only three wheels; another has the gear shift lever in the rear seat; and the third aint got a windshield so the driver has to put his head out of the side window in order to see the road.”

 Your reaction would certainly be:

“You idiots! Fix the irregular cars! Don't tell us to compensate for their problems!”

Language has been changing throughout history, but this never concerned anybody until written documents became common. People then put pressure on one another to follow the same rules for grammar and spelling. Today we have so many documents, videos, and audio files that there is even more pressure on people to avoid making changes to the language.

Unfortunately, every nation is trying to preserve a language that has been developing haphazardly for thousands of years and is in a chaotic condition. Some written languages are so complicated, such as Chinese, that a significant percentage of a child's life is wasted trying to learn it. If the Chinese had a simpler language, their children would have more time to learn something useful.

English is also unnecessarily complicated, and there are a lot of simple changes that we could make that would not interfere with our understanding of documents that have already been written. For example, children are told to put the letter "L" in the word "salmon", but don't pronounce it. How does that make any sense? Wouldn't it be better to tell children to pronounce the letter "L"?

Words such as February, Poinsettia, and restaurant should have some of the letters removed to match the way we pronounce them, or we should tell children to pronounce them properly.

The words "a" and "an" are also confusing to children. For example, the "experts" tell children that it is wrong to say "I saw a elephant at the zoo". We are told to say "I saw an elephant at the zoo".

Why do we have that rule? It is simply because humans tend to slur their words. It's easy to say "a elephant" if we speak each word slowly, but to speak those two words quickly requires a lot of rapid tongue movement. We tend to resist the effort, and through the centuries those difficult combinations of words were simplified for more rapid and easier speech.

Therefore, instead of reprimanding children who say "I saw a elephant at the zoo", we could tell children that the proper English is "a elephant" but that most people are too lazy and/or uncoordinated to speak proper English, so it is also acceptable for us to write "an elephant". Wouldn't that be better than telling children to mindlessly follow a rule that nobody can explain?

Some of the problems we have with our language are almost amusing. For example:

If you don't know how many confusing aspects there are to the English language, here are some examples: wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
 

Language has been developing haphazardly for thousands of years. Today it is annoying when words and grammar change because it makes it difficult to understand the documents, video, and audio that was recorded years earlier. However, what is the sense of trying to preserve our language exactly as it exists today? Life is short, so why make children waste time memorizing irregular verbs, nonsensical rules, silent letters, and other goofy aspects of our language? Why not simplify some of this?

The best way to make changes to our language would be for the experts of language to study the situation for a while, decide which changes we want to make, prepare everybody for the changes (such as by upgrading word processing software), and then making the changes at one time.

Unfortunately, we don't have people who can function in the role of "experts of language". The people who are graduating from college with diplomas in language don't know anything about language. Rather, they only memorized the goofy spelling and grammar. They are like lawyers, who memorize the laws but who don't understand what laws are.

Unfortunately, no nation is likely to make a change to its language because most citizens will resist. In fact, the American people are refusing to switch to the metric system, and that can be phased in over a generation or more.

However, all throughout history nations have developed and then collapsed, and this pattern will certainly continue. It is during the formation of a new nation that dramatic changes can be made, such as switching to the metric system, or making changes to language.

Many people believe that their college diploma makes them an expert in a particular field, and many people believe that graduating from college is an achievement to be proud of. However, if graduating from college was an incredible achievement, then only a few people would be capable of achieving it. When a significant percentage of the population is capable of doing something, it can't be much of an achievement.

Furthermore, if college made people "experts" in their field, that would mean that there are millions of experts in law, language, and other subjects, and with all those experts, shouldn't we have some progress in these areas by now?

The most sensible explanation to these dilemmas is that men are always competing with one another to be at the top of the hierarchy, and so they are tempted to use their college diploma to impress other people. Ironically, when somebody boasts about their college diploma, it is a sign that they are too dumb to realize that they are actually telling us:

“I'm such a loser that my most impressive achievement is graduating from school.”

A person who graduates from a music school is not necessarily capable of creating music any better than an ordinary person. A person who graduates from a school in carpentry is not necessarily going to be a useful carpenter.

Schools should stop putting emphasis on graduation. Instead, students should be told that a school only provides information, and there is nothing special about a human who can memorize information. Graduating from school is no more of an accomplishment than reading the documents at a website. A person's talent should be determined by whether he can do something useful with the information he learns.

A scientist may spend years or decades studying some specific aspect of rocks, hydrocarbons, or transistors before he has anything valuable to say about the issue. By comparison, the majority of people spend only a few moments contemplating abortion, crime, and the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, but after their brief and superficial analysis, they believe that they have devised the final solution to these complex problems.

Most people realize that it takes a lot of effort and intelligence to develop knowledge about the physical world, but the common attitude is that it's so easy to develop intelligent opinions about social issues that everybody's opinion is worth listening to.

Television news crews in America sometimes take this to such an extreme that they ask children for their opinions on the Iraq war or the presidential candidates, but this is as ridiculous as asking children for their opinions about the latest X-ray diffraction photographs.

If humans were as complicated as rocks or transistors, then it would take as much talent, time, and effort to come up with something intelligent to say about humans as it does about those other items. However, humans are much more complicated, so it should take even more talent, more time, and more effort. Therefore, there should be even fewer people who have something intelligent to say about human life.

Not surprisingly history proves this to be the case. There are thousands of people throughout history who were capable of developing knowledge about the physical world, but there is hardly anybody who has written something truly intelligent about human life.
 

When Mozart wrote a song, most of his time was spent creating the tune, not writing the music symbols on paper.

Likewise, when a scientist writes a scientific report about iron or benzene, most of his time was spent on the research and analysis of the subject matter, and only a small amount of time was spent converting the results of his analysis into a written document.

Musicians and scientists do most of their work inside their mind, and after the work is finished they put the results into a document. By comparison, a carpenter or car mechanic does only a small amount of his work in his mind; he does most of his work with his hands.

When we look at the work of a talented carpenter, we can easily understand that he spent a lot of time and effort to create it, and we can clearly see that he has a lot of talent. By comparison, when we look at the work of a scientist or music writer, all we see are sheets of paper. It's easy for someone to think,

“Hey, I know how to use a pencil. Therefore, I can write opinions about life, also. It's easy to write!”

Most people believe that it's easy to create intelligent opinions about abortion, war, taxes, election systems, and immigration. However, to create something useful about the human social world requires a tremendous amount of time, effort, talent, and intelligence.

A more realistic attitude is that information about humans is "social technology", and that the information about iron or aircraft is "physical technology".
 

Technology can be considered as lists of instructions on how to manipulate items to create something new. Technology is like a recipe on how to bake a cake. For example, our technology on how to create iron from iron ore is a set of instructions on how to build a furnace, how to identify rocks that have high levels of iron, and what type of fuel to burn. After this list of instructions has been developed, anybody with moderate intelligence is capable of following the instructions and creating iron.

Centuries ago the instructions on how to create iron were very simple, and the resulting iron was very crude. However, thousands of people around the world have been studying this technology and refining it. Today we have very detailed instructions on how to make iron.

The technology that allows us to create integrated circuits is also a set of instructions. This list shows us how to create silicon wafers and how to put transistors and other devices onto the wafer.
 

Only a small number of people can create music that people enjoy so much that they pass it from one generation to the next. However, as soon as some talented musician puts his music on paper, even people with mediocre talent will be able to read the notes and create the music.

Likewise, only a small percentage of the human population is capable of figuring out how to make integrated circuits, nuclear bombs, and robots. However, once those instructions are created, a lot of people are capable of following them, thereby giving them the ability to produce items that they don't have the ability to create on their own.

There is no harm in dispersing music throughout the world, but it is dangerous to give people weapons, chemicals, robots, and other technology that they don't know how to handle.
 

Our knowledge about iron is our observations on how iron reacts to carbon, silicon, oxygen, and other items at different temperatures, pressures, and magnetic fields. Knowledge about iron could be described as the "behavioral characteristics" of iron.

Every element reacts to other elements in a specific, predictable manner. Sodium will always react to chlorine in the same predictable manner, and iron will always react to carbon in the same predictable manner.

Our knowledge about iron, sodium, and other items allows us to create lists of instructions on how to manipulate those items. As long as we can control all aspects of the reactions, we can set up factories to force certain reactions to occur, thereby manipulating the items to create products.

Another way to describe knowledge is that knowledge is our observations of how items react with each other. We don't know that something exists until it reacts with something else. All we see are the reactions. When our eyes see an object, for example, we are observing the reaction of the item with light.

In order to create knowledge about something, we have to observe how it reacts to other things. It's fairly easy to develop knowledge about atoms, such as sodium, because it's easy to set up experiments that put sodium with chlorine, or sodium with water, and then we can observe the reaction. However, discovering knowledge about molecules and groups of molecules is more difficult because there are so many more possible reactions and factors to control.
 

If humans were as stupid and as identical to each other as computers, then we could put a human into an isolated room and expose him to food, money, and other situations, and then watch his reaction. We would eventually figure out how humans behave in different situations. By understanding how humans behave, we could design our economy, schools, and other aspects of society to reduce hatred, fighting, loneliness, and other problems.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to do experiments on humans because we are not identical to one another, and our reaction to a particular situation will change depending on an enormous number of variables that we cannot control during experiments.

One of the interesting results from experiments on people is that human behavior will change if the people realize that they are being observed. This does not happen with anything else in the universe. Sodium, for example, does not change its behavior when a scientist is watching it. Therefore, when scientists study sodium, they can simply observe the reactions, and those observations become "knowledge". Scientists don't have to ask themselves, "Hmmm, if that sodium atom didn't realize I was observing it, what would it have done with that chorine atom?"

Many people try to understand human behavior by asking people questions about themselves, but that doesn't work because most people have inaccurate or unrealistic views of themselves. For example, if you were to ask hundreds of people:

"If you discovered important evidence of a crime, would you tell the police or other people about it? Or would you keep it a secret so that the criminals could get away?"

Almost everybody would answer that question the same way. Specifically, they would boast about how they are responsible citizens who would immediately notify the police. However, the 9/11 attack is proof that most people are incredibly selfish and easily frightened. How many people with important evidence about the 9/11 attack called the police to tell them what they knew? How many people even told their own relatives or neighbors? How many of the police even care about exposing the 9/11 attack?

We assume that we know how we will behave in a certain situation, but when the situation actually occurs, we often behave differently.
 

The human mind is enclosed in a dark skull. We cannot "see" anything. Instead, molecules inside our eyes react to light, and that causes other reactions that send electrical signals to our brain. Our brain then interprets those signals. Your understanding of the world has a lot to do with how accurately your mind can interpret the sensations coming from your eyes, ears, and other senses

A personal example might help you to understand this. In the early 1960s, most Americans had black-and-white television sets. A few television shows were being broadcast in color, but most were black and white. I can remember watching some cartoons in color, and the NBC peacock logo was in color. When I was perhaps 8 to 10 years old, which was the early 1960s, I heard my father make a remark about our "black-and-white television", and I responded something like, "But, we have a color set, don't we?"

My father instisted that we have a black and white set. I assumed that since he never watched cartoons, he never noticed that the cartoons are in color. The color in the cartons was not very bright, but it was color.

Years later, when I learned more about science, I realized that we really did have a black-and-white television, and that there was no possible way that it could show color. So how did I see color in the cartoons?

My mind could not actually see the television screen. Each of my eyes was producing a constant stream of electrical signals. My brain was analyzing both streams of signals and trying to figure out how to re-create an image of my environment. In the process of creating an image, my mind was filling in the two areas we refer to as blind spots, and apparently my mind also decided to fill in the rectangular patch of black and white with a little bit of color. This would explain why the color was faint rather than bright.

Experiments have proven time after time that humans are terrible at interpreting the world. Our mind often adds non-existent details to what we observe, and we sometimes overlook extremely obvious and important aspects. We are also capable of forgetting information that we don't like, and remembering events that never occurred.

The human mind was obviously not designed to be accurate. Rather, it was designed for survival in an animal-like world. If filling in the details of a visual image helps an animal to survive, then it is an advantage, even though it is inaccurate. If forgetting unpleasant information helps an animal to survive, then this is also an advantage, even though it creates an inaccurate mind.
 

Our societies are held together by list of instructions. Corporations, tax systems, election systems, and school systems are similar to recipes on how to bake a cake, or the list of instructions that factories used to produce iron from iron ore. We could describe a corporation or a school system as "social technology".

If we had more knowledge on how the human mind reacts, we could do a better job of designing election systems, tax systems, and school systems. For example, in part one of this series of articles, I mentioned that our school system is tormenting the dumb students and encouraging arrogance in the smart students. By understanding how humans react in different situations, we can design school systems that are more suited to the human mind.

Our technology on how to turn iron ore into iron is a list of instructions on what to do with the iron. Our school system is virtually the same. The school buildings are analogous to the furnace, and the children are analogous to the iron ore. The books and teachers are analogous to the coal, air, and limestone. If we learn more about how children react to information, diplomas, rewards, and criticism, we will be able to design better schools.

The scientists who study the refining of iron are constantly improving the instructions, but there is nobody studying school systems. If they are some people studying schools, they don't have the necessary talent to achieve anything. This brings me back to the point that it is commonly assumed that everybody can create policies for abortion, the bombing of Iran, and school systems, but in reality, this requires more talent than figuring out how to turn iron ore into iron.

A scientist would not be able to create a list of instructions on how to refine iron or if he didn't first understand how iron reacts when put into a furnace with certain other materials. Likewise, nobody is going to design a better school system if they don't first have some understanding of how humans react. School systems must be designed according to human behavior.

A school system is social technology; it is a list of instructions on how to educate and prepare children for adulthood. Likewise, an election system is also social technology. An election system must also be based on human behavior or the system will be ineffective or easily corrupted. Unfortunately, our school systems, corporations, and other social systems appear to have been designed without any regard to human behavior.

Only a small number of people can create knowledge about the physical world, and only a small number of people can take that knowledge and use it to create lists of instructions that allow us to create iron, aircraft, and electronic circuits.

Likewise, only a small number of people can create knowledge about the human mind, and only a small number of people can take that social knowledge to create useful lists of instructions that we refer to as school systems, tax systems, election systems, and corporations.
 

We have a tremendous amount of information about sodium, iron, and water, but we have very little knowledge about the human mind. As a result, we have extremely advanced physical technology, but our social technology is amazingly crude.

If our ancestors from 4000 years ago could see the world today, they would be astounded by our physical technology. However, they would not be as impressed by legal system, governments, tax systems, or other social technology.

One of the reasons that it's so difficult to create social technology is that it requires more than just intelligence; specifically, it requires a certain personality. Most scientists are capable of studying sodium or iron in an unbiased, unemotional manner, but when they study humans, their emotions interfere with the analysis.

One of the specific problems we suffer from is that we prefer to think of humans as special creatures that don't follow the same rules as animals and plants. However, a human is no more special than a mosquito, or rock, or a cockroach. If a scientist cannot look at humans in the same unbiased manner that he looks at bacteria, how is he going to understand humans?

Many people believe that humans are better than animals, but that is like saying an apple is better than an orange, or a tree is better than a rose bush. A human is not "better" than anything else. Unfortunately, we have a natural tendency to think highly of ourselves, and this causes us to look for opportunities to praise ourselves. As a result, most people tend to overlook the rather obvious fact that humans are amazingly similar to monkeys.

Some people enjoy stimulating feelings of pity in themselves, and other people have abnormal cravings for revenge. These and other irrational emotions can also distort the results of our analyses of human behavior.
 

Communism, free enterprise, our election system, our legal system, and most other social technology has been based upon a religious view of humans. Specifically, the theory that humans are completely different from the selfish and irrational animals; that we are honest, responsible, wonderful creatures.

If we were as wonderful as we like to believe, then it wouldn't make any difference how we designed our school system, banking system, or government system. Communism would work just as well as free enterprise if everybody was truly honest, interested in contributing to society, and responsible.

The reason we're having so much trouble with our social systems is that humans are not as wonderful as we like to think. Humans are just intelligent monkeys. Our skeleton, diet, bodily functions, and behavior are virtually the same as the monkeys. We must design our societies to take into account what we really are, not what we wish we were.
 

Animals and humans assume that members of our own group are our friends, and that everybody outside our group is potentially dangerous. This makes sense when everybody within the group is closely related to one another and in good mental and physical health.

However, the large nations we have today are a mixture of people from around the world, and many of the members are in terrible physical and mental health. It is destructive for Americans to defend other Americans simply because they are Americans. Likewise, it makes no sense for a French citizen to defend another French citizen simply because he has a French citizenship.

The healthy, happy, respectable Americans have almost nothing in common with the mentally ill Americans. Instead, the respectable Americans have more in common with the respectable people in France, Spain, and Russia. We should judge people by their behavior, not by their nationality.

Some people, such as Sigmund Freud, believe that sex is the primary emotion in men. However, Freud may have been suffering from sexual disorders, and therefore his analyses of humans may have been distorted by his particular problems.

The strongest emotion in both men and women seems to be the desire to be accepted by other humans. We can go our entire lives without sex, but it would be painful to live among people who reject us. Being rejected by other people is miserable. As a result, people will do almost anything to be accepted. They will even hurt themselves and risk their lives.

Men want more than to be accepted; men want to be the leader. The strongest emotion in a man is to be important; to be respected. This animal-like craving for importance is causing endless physical and emotional fights among men. There are constant battles between men over who is more talented; who deserves an award; and who is disrespectful. Men who don't get as much respect as they believe they deserve often spend a lot of their time pouting, angry, or seeking revenge.

When we design social systems, we have to take into account the fact that men are exactly like the dumb animals that battle one another for dominance.

Thousands of years ago, when humans were nomadic, humans and animals were under the same evolutionary pressures. The competition for survival among humans favored the males who had the talent to find food, develop tools, and support their children. The competition favored the females who were attracted to the dominant males. People who cheated were extremely detrimental, so they were constantly removed during the struggle for life.

However, the development of agriculture allowed people to form cities, and cities allowed business activity and trading between different cities. These changes in human life made it possible for people to make a living from crime.

For example, some of the people who lived along the trade routes between Europe, the Middle East, and China would take items from people as they traveled through the area. Sometimes they would kill the travelers and take everything they had, but usually they would demand a small portion of their items, similar to how organized crime gangs demand payments from businesses today.
 

Not everybody who lived along the trade routes would be successful at convincing the travelers to give up a portion of their items. The travelers would resist giving up their items. In order to be good at collecting taxes from the travelers, a person had to be good at lying, intimidating, threatening, and frightening.

We can see this with organized crime gangs today; some members of a gang are more successful at convincing business owners to pay them protection money.

The people centuries ago who were successful at cheating the travelers would accumulate a lot of material wealth, and that would enable them to support a lot of children. Some of their children would also excel at cheating, and so they would also leave behind a lot of children.

If this type of cheating went on for many generations -- as history suggests it did -- these families would inadvertently breed themselves into freaks that look upon humans as creatures to exploit, and they would develop the type of personalities that excel at lying and intimidating. They would be able to lie so convincingly that the "normal" humans would not sense any signs of dishonesty in their voice or facial expressions. These people would make excellent actors, salemen, and con artists.
 

When people were nomadic, everybody was independent; there were no supervisors. Everybody had to take care of themselves.

The development of cities caused the development governments, businesses, and organized religion. These organizations allowed people with undesirable characteristics to become successful and important members of society. For example:

1) People could avoid work.

The people who got involved with religion and government were able to make a living and become important, influential members of society even if they had no useful skills, never did any useful work, or suffered from serious mental problems.

2) Business owners could abuse people

Business owners are under no obligation to share the profits of their business with their employees. Some business owners thousands of years ago may have divided the profits equally, but others would have been as we see today, specifically, paying their employees the minimum they could get away with so that they could keep almost all money for themselves.

According to the theory of free enterprise, the low-paid employees would have avoided the selfish business owners, but free enterprise is based on the false assumption that humans are intelligent and responsible. In reality, history has proven that most employees don't respond properly when paid ridiculously low wages. The 9/11 attack is an example of how people refuse to respond in the proper manner.

Businesses owners could also cheat their customers. According to the theory of free enterprise, the customers would eventually realize that they were being cheated and purchase items from a more honest businessman, but history shows that most people never notice and/or don't care. Consider how many people will purchase newspapers even after they realize that the news is deceptive. They are supposed to drive these dishonest media companies out of business, but they don't fully understand this concept, and/or they don't care.

All throughout history we find that the most successful businesses were the ones in which the employees and customers are treated as stupid animals. These selfish and abusive business owners became successful and influential members of society, and they successfully reproduced, thereby creating more people who regard humans as stupid animals to exploit.

3) Cities provide lots of opportunities to cheat

Government officials could cheat the citizens; religions could cheat their members; citizens could cheat the government and businesses; business owners could cheat their employees, customers, competitors, and government officials; and groups of nomadic families could wander from one city to the next to cheat people. The cities provided endless opportunities for people to cheat.

Not everybody cheated, of course, but cities offered virtually unlimited criminal opportunities. The people who took the opportunities - and who were successful - could become wealthy, and they could successfully reproduce.
 

Animals have a strong craving to help and protect their offspring. Once cities began to develop, humans became carried away with this animal-like emotion. Instead of merely helping their children to develop into adults, they provided their children with large amounts of material items, or they gave them political offices or businesses.

One of the primary problems with allowing children to inherit political offices, businesses, and large amounts of money is that most of the children will not have the ability to maintain the position they inherited. The end result is that the children will be tempted to cheat to hold onto their inheritance.

The children who are willing to cheat, and who are successful at it, will maintain their inheritance, and that will allow them to pass the wealth to their children, perpetuating this problem. Eventually this will breed families that excel in exploiting other people.
 

When a business cheats, his competition will be tempted to cheat simply to remain in business. If a business exaggerates its products to fool the consumers, his competition will be tempted to exaggerate, also. When some people exaggerate their talents and education on their resumes, other people are under pressure to exaggerate also so that they don't appear inferior.
 

Thousands of years ago the men had to take care of themselves and their families. It was not possible for men to be deserters. For example, when a wolf was sneaking up on one of his children, or when a neighboring group of men tried to chase his family off of "their" territory, he had to defend himself and his family. He couldn't hide in his house and watch television.

The development of large societies has changed this situation dramatically. It is optional today for people to take a risk, such as fighting organized crime, or helping to put out fires. The inadvertent result of this policy is that the people least likely to be victims of war and crime are the ones who hide from danger and who submissively obey criminals. The cowards, the selfish people, and the neurotic people are inadvertently favored today. If this practice continues, humans will evolve into a creature that is so cowardly and selfish that nobody will want to apply for jobs that are risky, and one criminal will be able to control an entire nation.

Humans are degrading into freaks

The competition for survival kept humans and animals in good mental and physical health, but for the past few thousand years people have been surviving from crime, lies, deception, and inheritances. Furthermore, men who have no desire to take care of themselves or their society are now thriving. The human race is degrading into freaks that exploit one another and hide from problems.

Obviously, there was a need for men to lose their temper and become violent; otherwise, the chromosomes that create these characteristics would have deteriorated long ago. We can understand the purpose for this violence by looking at animals. Violence serves two purposes in animals.

1) It causes animals to fight with their neighbors

The violence between animals rarely results in death. Dogs rarely kill other dogs, and cats rarely kill other cats. A fight to the death would hurt the winner by leaving him weak or injured, thereby allowing some other animal to kill him, and so on, until all of them are dead. Therefore, the fight stops as soon as one of them senses they are getting hurt.

Animals fight with their neighbors to chase them away. From the point of view of an animal, they are merely having a harmless fight. The death comes about indirectly because the animals that are chased away may die from lack of food.

2) It causes animals to attack or kill the defective members of their group, and some kill their "step children"

Two extreme examples are chickens, which attack the most defective member of their group, and lions, who will kill their equivalent of "step childen".

If you've never seen a male lion kill baby lions, here are two for you:
• youtube.com/watch?v=xZRw0IYdf3g
• youtube.com/watch?v=T8cnEXIwjWA

As humans developed intelligence, they decided that they did not like these animal-like qualities, so they began discouraging fights, and eventually passed laws to stop men from fighting with each other and from killing children. However, these particular characteristics help to keep animals in good genetic health, so since humans do not want to follow these crude animal-like emotions, we must find some other way dealing with the defective people.
 

Music notes are neither good nor bad. Rather, music notes represent sounds or time intervals. Likewise, words are just symbols that represent something, so a word cannot possibly be good or bad.

When your mind hears one of the words we refer to as "vulgar", or "swear words", your mind looks in its memory compartments to figure out what the word represents. However, the images associated with these particular words are unpleasant images of violence, anger, screaming, and mental illness.

The lack of understanding of language causes people to react to these words by assuming that the words are bad, but the words are harmless symbols. The unpleasant aspect of these words is due to the memories that are associated with them. Ironically, when people react to these words with anger or hysteria, such as by washing a child's mouth with soap, they are adding unpleasant images to the memories that are associated with these words.

At the other extreme, when children are raised in an environment in which these swear words are used as ordinary adjectives by adults or musicians, the children will initially assume that they are just ordinary words. This can cause trouble for these children when they grow up because other people will associate those children with the images of violence, crime, and insanity.
 

Most animals make noises to express emotional feelings. These noises are similar to words because they represent something, such as fear or excitement. To make these sounds into "words", the other members must recognize it and mimic it. The first words in the human language would have been these emotional noises. For example, when somebody put something into his mouth that had a horrible taste, he would spit it out and possibly make a noise similar to "yeeck". Making that sound puts our tongue and mouth into a similar motion as spitting out a disgusting substance.

If another person put something into his mouth that tasted terrible, and if he decided to mimic that other person's noise rather than create whatever noise would have been natural for him, he would have spoken a word; he would have made a sound according to what he associated with the sound.

The initial spoken language would have consisted of a few noises that represent emotional reactions. Through the centuries the people would add words to their vocabulary, and some of the words would be arbitrary sounds. However, the words that represented emotional feelings would be influenced by their natural tendency to make sounds for those particular emotions.

For example, have you noticed that the words "urine" and "excrement" are similar to the noise "yeech"? When you say the word "excrement", your tongue makes motions that are similar to what it would do if you were clearing your mouth out to spit. While this could be a coincidence, it makes more sense to assume that we have a tendency to pronounce words in a manner that is similar to the natural noise we would make to express our emotional feelings for the concept the word represents.

Nobody likes the sound of the words "urine" and "excrement", so why do we force ourselves to use them? Why not replace them with words that have a more neutral sound, such as "pee" and "poop"?

The word "fuck" is very easy to scream when you're in a state of hysterical anger. It has a very explosive beginning, and the "UH" sound allows a tremendous noise by allowing a large rush of air out of the mouth, and the word ends in another sharp noise.

The word itself is harmless, but it is associated with the most awful qualities of humans. The word is also associated with sex, and this may not be a coincidence. Rather, it may be due to the animal-like qualities of humans. Some male monkeys intimidate another male by momentarily grabbing him and putting him into a simulated mating position, implying that he is a female.

Earlier I asked, "It seems pretty darn f'ing stupid to use these words as adjectives when they have no meaning, so why do people have a tendency to do this?" 

People put meaningless adjectives into sentences when they are emotionally excited. For example, if you were to taste soup that was so hot that you burned your mouth, it would be difficult to calmly respond, "This soup is so hot that I just burned my mouth."

Our animal-like emotions want us to make noises when excited, and children tend to do exactly that by yelling or screaming. However, adults become so accustomed to using language that we tend to yell meaningless words rather than scream. This satisfies our urge to make a noise, but, unfortunately, the vulgar words decode into unpleasant images.

Some people think it is better to avoid the vulgar words, but it's the same animal-like behavior: "Oooouch! This darn soup is so gosh dang hot that I just burned my freaking mouth!"

These useless adjectives are the human equivalent of a dog barking, or a cat hissing.
 

Our symbol for love is not a word but a shape. The symbol is described as a "heart", but it looks nothing like the organ that pumps blood. 

A two-dimensional heart.
There are lots of ways to make a three-dimensional heart.
We are most attracted to the shape in which there are two rounded lobes near the center.

Animals respond to certain simplistic visual and auditory stimuli. Most male animals are attracted to the rear end of a female, and it may be because they are attracted to the basic shape of a rear end. Some baboons have a rear end that closely represents our favorite type of three-dimensional heart.

Even a female human, when bent over, will have this "heart" shape. Is it just a coincidence that humans represent love with a symbol that closely resembles a stylized butt?

Furthermore, we prefer to give the heart a pink or reddish color, just like a baboon's butt.

Have you read Desmond Morris's book, The Naked Ape? He points out that the narrow waist and rounded breasts in young women simulate a monkey's butt, and her protruding lips simulate a vagina. This would cause men to be attracted to the front side of a woman rather than her butt.

Before humans settled into cities, they lived in simple temporary structures or caves. They grew up in close contact with one another. There was no secrecy. They knew what everybody's body looked like; they knew what everybody smelled like; and they knew what everybody did during their leisure time. They knew who had trouble sleeping; who picked their nose the most; who masturbated the most; and who farted the most.

One of the significant differences between life today and life 6000 years ago is that today we build structures with walls and doors to isolate ourselves from one another. We refer to this as providing ourselves with privacy. What is privacy? Why do we want it?

To understand the issue of privacy, imagine if humans had no interest in it. In such a case, our houses, office buildings, schools, and other structures would have doors and walls only for structural use, decoration, or protection from noise or fumes.

There would be no desire to isolate the shower, bath tub, or toilet in a dark isolated room. The toilet could be placed next to a window to overlook the garden, for example. Public bathrooms could be like coffeehouses; ie, the toilets could be arranged in groups of four or six so that people could chat with one another as they sat on them. There would be no need for a separate urinals for the men. Instead, there could be one large decorative fountain that the men pee into. This fountain could have amusing items in it, such as windmills or small statues, for the men to aim at in order to entertain themselves.
 

Men and women sit together and chat when they eat food; why don't we want to sit together when we dispose of digested food?

An unpleasant aspect of life is that life cannot exist without death. All animals must constantly watch for predators. Some animals can eliminate waste products while standing in their normal position, but humans must squat in a position that is awkward for us. We are extremely vulnerable in this position because we cannot easily rise up to defend ourselves, and while we are in that position we cannot see very far around us, thereby making it difficult to see predators or other humans who might be sneaking up on us.

The men who survived thousands of years ago were the ones who were extremely cautious about finding an area where they could be alone while they pooped, and the entire time they would be silent and listening for intruders. If any animal or human were to sneak up on them, they would immediately react in a defensive manner.

The women who survived might have been the ones who preferred to poop with a friend, thereby explaining the tendency of women today to go to the bathroom with a friend.

The "inhibitions" we find in humans today about eliminating waste products is proof that life was very dangerous to our ancestors. In order for us to have these inhibitions, a lot of humans without those inhibitions must have died while pooping.
 

Humans may be the only animal that is disgusted by the smell of its poop. The fact that we have chromosomes that cause us to be disgusted by the smell is proof that these chromosomes were vital to the development of humans. The humans who were not offended by the smell obviously did not survive as well, and/or reproduce as successfully.

If our primitive ancestors were attracted to the smell of poop, they would be tempted to eat it, feed it to their babies, and use it as perfume. They would also be tempted to play with their anus.

If poop had a neutral smell that was neither good nor bad, nobody would be attracted to it, but they might eat it when they were hungry, and it wouldn't bother them if they got it on their hands or clothing; they wouldn't care if their babies were playing with it; and they wouldn't care if they were sleeping in it.

Animals don't care if they are living and eating around poop, garbage, or dead bodies. However, as humans developed intelligence, they developed an interest in their environment. The humans who were repelled by poop would have been more attractive as a spouse and a friend.

Another evolutionary advantage for men who were repelled by the smell of poop is that it would counteract the attraction that male animals have to the rear end of a female.

Whatever the reasons, it is obvious that the humans who were most successful in attracting a spouse and successfully raising children were the ones who were disgusted by poop. However, today these crude inhibitions are adding awkwardness to our lives. These inhibitions are also making it impossible for schools to provide information about our digestive system and kidneys.
 

We all have imperfections in our mind and body. Thousands of years ago there was nothing our ancestors could do to hide their imperfections, but today we hide a lot of them. We also have hair dyes, surgical procedures, braces for our teeth, and other technology to mask or counteract some of our defects. Some people go further and lie about their age, their family, and their history.

The privacy we provide ourselves with today is making it impossible for us to get to know one another to the same level of intimacy that our ancestors knew each other. As a result, a lot of people are forming friendships, business relationships, and marriages with people that they would not have gotten involved with if they had known each other more thoroughly. Privacy is allowing people to deceive one another, but nobody gains from this deception.

Humans reach adulthood by about the age of 18, and by then we should be close to making decisions on who our spouse will be. However, most people are wasting their youth and many of their adult years trying to meet and get to know other people. Everybody is suffering from the deception, lies, and privacy.

We could speed up the process of getting to know each other if we were allowed to ask one another some "personal" questions, but is considered "impolite" to do so. We are supposed to learn about other people as a side effect of talking about irrelevant issues. It would be more beneficial to us to teach children that it is impolite to lie, deceive, or withhold information about yourself to a potential spouse or friend.

The government could help us by maintaining a database that contains information about each of us, such as our school records, employment history, and credit history. And this database could contain whatever photos and videos our government has of us. Everybody would have free access to this database. However, most people would complain that this database "invades their privacy".

Throughout most of human history there was no secrecy; no privacy; no way for people to deceive one another or hide their unpleasant characteristics. The lack of privacy may seem terrible, but it is only seems terrible if you are ashamed of yourself and cannot accept what you really are.

However, if you are ashamed of yourself, you should seriously consider whether you benefit by deceiving people. You may fool somebody into becoming your friend or spouse, but when they find out what you really are, the relationship will become miserable. So what will you gain with your deception? If you and everybody else had been honest, you may have found somebody who was willing to accept you as you really are.

If we design society according to the people who are ashamed of themselves, we end up with a society similar to what we have today in which neurotic people try to deceive each other. We are not even certain who our government officials are, or who is in control of our police departments.

It isn't possible to design a society that pleases everybody. Society should be designed according to what we consider to be the healthy, happy humans. The people who are ashamed of themselves should be told to that they just have to deal with it. The rest of us should not have to live according to their mental disorders and paranoia.
 

For thousands of years parents have tried to discourage their children from masturbating. Some parents would tell their children that if they masturbate, they will go blind, become mentally ill, or get sick. People today dismiss those remarks as "old wives tales", but what is an "old wives tale", and why would our ancestors create them if they were false?

Most of the old wives tales are better described as the "theories" of primitive people who misinterpreted the complex issues in their lives.

Thousands of years ago the lack of privacy meant that people often knew when other people masturbated. People noticed that some people masturbate more than others. They would have also noticed that the people who do it the most were also having the most problems with life; some seemed crazy; some were getting sick frequently; and some were going blind. Due to their lack of understanding of life, the people developed the theory that masturbation was causing them to have problems. They then warned their children not to do it.

The issue of excessive masturbation is similar to the issue of excessive cravings for sex, food, money, fame, television, and drugs. Specifically, people who are not in good mental health, or who are suffering from physical pains, are always looking for an activity that will take away their pain, or bring them some momentary pleasure.

Thousands of years ago a person who was suffering from a mental or physical disorder would have discovered that masturbation brings momentary pleasure into his miserable life. A normal person masturbates only when his sexual urges become strong, which is perhaps once every few weeks. However, these unhappy people were not masturbating because of their sexual urges. Rather, they were masturbating in order to force some momentary pleasure into their lives.

The same thing would happen with sex. The teenage boys who were suffering from mental or physical problems would be much more interested in having sex. Their desire for sex was not because they actually wanted sex. Rather, they wanted the momentary pleasure that the sex would bring them.

We see the exact same behavior today, except that today the unhappy people have more options. Today they can eat excessive amounts of food, take a variety of drugs or alcohol, watch television, play video games, and pursue fame.

Our primitive ancestors would assume that their troubled children became troubled because they masturbated too often, or because they had sex too early. Parents today are making the same silly assumptions, but today they assume that their troubled children became troubled because they watched too much television, or played too many video games, or were pushed by a drug dealer into using drugs.

When a person is in good mental and physical health, he doesn't need to pursue happiness because he is happy. The people who are pursuing happiness are showing signs that something is wrong with them. Unhappy people are like a rat who is forever pressing a switch to titillate its brain. The unhappy people are forever looking for ways to bring themselves some pleasure, or mask their pain.
 

One of the reasons America was created was to allow people to "pursue happiness". How do we pursue happiness? Where is happiness?

The best way to understand happiness might be to consider a person thousands of year ago who was born with some physical problems, such as arthritis, allergies, heart palpitations, and digestive problems. Assume that this person survived to adulthood. He would be experiencing lots of pains, a runny nose, and other unpleasant sensations. He would notice that other people don't suffer from these problems. If he came to the conclusion that there was something that the other people did or ate that gave them good health, he might start pursuing good health. He might experiment by eating different items, or mimicking what he sees other people doing. However, no matter what he did, nothing would fix his problems. He might notice that fermented fruit helps him to mask some of the misery, and he might notice that sex or masturbation temporarily distracts him from his misery, but nothing ever fixes the problem.

A similar situation occurs with "happiness". If your brain is designed correctly, and if your body is controlling its blood chemistry correctly, you will be happy. Unfortunately, many people are born with mysterious disorders in their brain and/or body which creates what we refer to as unhappiness, anxiety, depression, anorexia, or paranoia. Because humans are arrogant, people who are born with problems will natually assume that they are the same as - or better than - everybody else. It will not occur to them that they are actually suffering from a serious mental and/or physical disorder.

The unhappy people will notice that they feel better at certain times, such as when they have sex, when they purchase items, when they eat, or when an audience applauds them. They may also notice that they feel better when they take certain types of drugs. Our natural arrogance will cause these people to assume that the reason they feel better when they do these particular activities is because those activities are a source of happiness.

In reality, an "abnormal" craving for food, sex, or other entertainment is a symptom that something is wrong with the person's mind and/or body.
 

There is no way to fully explain sounds to a person who was born deaf, or explain visual images to a person who was born blind. Language can transfer thoughts from one mind to another, but the words we use to describe "vision" will not decode properly in the mind of a person who was born blind.

This same problem occurs with people with "anorexia". What is anorexia? What are these people experiencing? How can they explain it to us? How can an obese person explain their craving for food? How can a person who has cravings for money, fame, drugs, or sex help us to understand what he feels? These people can describe their feelings, but their words won't decode into anything that we can make sense of. Only someone with a similar problem would be able to understand them.

How can somebody who enjoys life explain "happiness" to somebody who is searching for happiness? We can tell them that happiness is with you when you wake up in the morning, and that it is with you throughout the entire day, but what will those words mean to somebody who is suffering? How can somebody understand happiness if they never experience it? How can you describe a feeling to somebody who doesn't have the same feeling?

If a person's body has certain types of defects, his life will be miserable. That person might find some relief through money, sex, or drugs, but his problem will never be solved. In order for people to be truly happy, they must be in good physical and mental health. Happiness comes from the design of your body and mind. It has nothing to do with money, sex, or food. If you don't have happiness when you're born, then you're not going to be able to find it. And even if you are born with it, your health may be ruined from accidents, toxic chemicals, or radiation.

Americans promote the theory that people are poor because they have been abused by rich people. Supposedly, if we give handouts of money, scholarships, or food to the poor people, they will become just like ordinary people.

However, this theory doesn't explain why the poor neighborhoods are ugly, or why the people's homes are so disorganized. Many of the people in the poor neighborhoods don't have a job, so they have plenty of time to pick up the trash, maintain gardens, and organize the items in their home. The poor neighborhoods could be beautiful.

The poor people also have plenty of time to go to a library and learn about carpentry, plumbing, engineering, and math. However, only occasionally do we find somebody in the poor neighborhoods learning a useful skill or taking care of his home. The majority of them waste their time with television, games, toys, gossip, alcohol, drugs, gambling, and other idiotic and sometimes self-destructive activities.

The majority of people are ordinary, but a certain percentage of the population will always have more mental and physical defects than the rest of us, and a certain percentage will always be below average in mental and physical talents. There is nothing we can do to fix this problem. This is simply the way life operates.

Nature deals with this issue by causing every animal and plant to produce too many babies. The competition for food causes most of the offspring to die while young. A small percentage of the offspring become adults, but only some of the adults are truly successful with life; a large percentage of adults are always near death.

The same situation occurs with humans. Until birth control was developed, women produced 3 to 5 times more babies than could possibly survive. There was never enough food to keep everybody healthy, so only a small number of babies made it to adulthood. The babies in the best mental and physical health were most likely to survive to adulthood.

Of the adults, most of them were "ordinary", and a small percentage were just barely clinging to life. The competition for food meant that the less talented parents and their children were always close to starvation.
 

From about 1845 to 1849 a disease reduced the harvest of potatoes by a significant percentage in some areas of Ireland. Large numbers of Irish farmers came to America with sad stories about innocent Irish people who were starving to death.

If we could travel back in time to that era we would find that a lot of Irish people were having a nice life throughout this "famine". We would also find that potatoes were still available; the disease only reduced the harvest, and different areas of Ireland suffered different levels of reductions. Many Irish families were eating potatoes throughout the "famine", and in addition they were eating lamb, carrots, oats, berries, deer, fish, and a variety of other foods. We would discover that only some of the Irish were hungry.

A certain percentage of the population of every animal, plant, and human society is always on the verge of starvation. It has nothing to do with drought, insects, disease, or bad luck. It is simply because all living creatures reproduce in excessive quantities, and the end result is that there is always a competition for food, and most of the offspring must die, and a certain percentage will always be on the verge of death. There is no way to avoid this. Either people control their reproduction, or people will die. There are no other options.

The disease that reduced the harvest of potatoes in Ireland in 1845 would have killed a lot of the Irish that were on the verge of starvation. However, many of the hungry Irish decided to emigrate to America. Unfortunately, they didn't understand - or they refused to accept the possibility - that their hunger was because they were the losers in the competition for survival with the other Irish people. As a result, when they arrived in America, they brought with them a "feel sorry for me" attitude. They told sad stories to the American people about how they were abused by aristocrats and by nature. The Americans foolishly believed them, and the end result is that American history books promoted their twisted view of the events in Ireland.
 

Until the late 1800s, the Europeans who wanted to emigrate to America had to travel by wooden sailing ship. This was a risky method of travel, and many people died during the journey, especially when large numbers of hungry and sickly people were traveling, such as during the Irish potato "famine".

Americans boast that some of Europe's best citizens abandoned their advanced cities, homes, families, friends, farms, and businesses to join primitive farming communities in America because life in Europe was so horrible, but life in Europe was horrible only to a certain percentage of the population.

We cannot judge people by what they claim to be; instead, we must judge people by their performance. The only way to determine which Europeans emigrated to America is to look at their lives before and after they arrived in America.

If people such as Mozart, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and Planck had emigrated to America, then America would have become the center for art, architecture, music, math, science, and engineering.

However, instead of becoming the center for advanced activities, many of the immigrants died during the winter, and others just barely survived. They created a nation in which all of the social problems of Europe were worse. There was more slavery; more crime; more variations of organized religions, and the religions were more abusive; there more problems with child labor; and the advertisements created by businesses were more deceptive and designed for people of a lower intellectual level.

An ad from the 1890's

Americans have lots of excuses for their social problems, but a nation is a reflection of its people. The behavior of the immigrants up until the late 1800s is evidence that they were the Europeans who had trouble surviving the competition for life, or they were the outcasts because of their strange personalities or criminal behavior. They were the losers of society, and they gave America a very strong "feel sorry for me" attitude; a crybaby attitude. They promoted the theory that they were Underdogs.

During the second half of the 1800s the wooden sailing ship was replaced with ships with engines, and railroads were developing throughout Europe. This made travel much more practical. As a result, some of the more "normal" people began to leave Europe. This caused America to improve slightly, but it was not until World War II that America began to attract respectable people in a significant quantity.
 

Many of the immigrants had a defiant, bitter, resentful attitude, as we see in the inscription on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. That inscription essentially tells the Europeans:

“Go ahead, call us Wretched Refuse. We'll show you arrogant Europeans that we are wonderful people. We will give freedom and opportunities to everybody, and you will see that we become sucessful and happy. “We were failures in Europe only because you greedy, selfish people didn't give us opportunities. But in America, everybody will be free to pursue happiness, except our slaves, of course. “We will show you arrogant snobs that we are just as good as you! So kiss my American butt!”

The "Underdog attitude" in America is self-destructive. It's similar to the attitude we find with "spoiled brats" who run away from home.
 

The American policy towards drugs is a good example of our self-destructive attitude. The official policy of America is that a small number of drug dealers are making millions of Americans abuse drugs.

However, drug dealers can sell drugs only to people who want to buy them. Gambling casinos attract only the people who want to gamble. The dealers of sex slaves can sell them only to people who want to purchase them. Boys will be raped only by the men who want to rape boys.

The reason America has extreme problems with drugs, gambling, sex slaves, and rape is because a large percentage of Americans truly want to do these things.

Children are easily pushed into doing things that they don't want to do, but people who are pushed into doing things are like a slave; specifically, they are always looking for a way to escape. Eventually most will escape, which means the problem will be taken care of on its own, without the need for laws or police.
 

Many people will respond that America is a superpower, and that this is proof that Americans are intelligent, hard-working, and responsible. However, America's status as a superpower came during World War II when a lot of European scientists and engineers came to America - or were kidnapped after the war and brought to America. Most of the advanced technology that developed in that era, such as jet engines, rockets, nuclear bombs, and radar, came from Europeans, not Americans.

Today America is producing a lot of technology by itself. However, a lot of this technology is coming from foreigners, some of whom are brought into America on special visas known as "H1B". Some companies, such as Boeing, pay engineers in Moscow to do engineering for them, and others pay engineers in India or China.

Did you watch that video of the Japanese robot at the beginning of this article? How many Americans are capable of developing robots? Take a look at the students in the engineering and science classes at American universities. There are not many "Americans".

It is not an "insult" to describe America, Canada, and Australia as gathering places for Europe's misfits. This is simply based on the behavior of the people in these nations. We cannot make a nation better unless we understand its problems. Pretending that the Americans are the "greatest people in the world" is going to prevent us from understanding what our problems are.
 

There are hundreds of different human languages. This is certainly because people thousands of years ago were isolated from one another. However, within a city we can find different accents. How do we explain that?

Take a look at the people within your own city. Some people slur their words, some people stutter, and some people have trouble pronouncing certain sounds (such as "R").

Thousands of years ago the defective people would have been mixed randomly in the population, and their lousy pronunciation and grammar would not have affected the language of the community. However, during the past few centuries, people have been segregating according to income. The end result is that some neighborhoods are dominated by poor people.

If poor people were victims of rich people, then they would speak exactly the same as everybody else. However, if poor people are mentally and/or physically inferior, then they may speak differently simply because of their inferior mind, their inferior control over their vocal cords, their lower energy levels, and other problems.

Some wealthy people cannot speak properly or use grammar correctly, but there is a larger percentage of people with these problems in the poor neighborhoods. The children who grow up in a poor neighborhood will pick up the sloppy pronunciation and bad grammar, thereby creating the impression that it is merely a regional difference in pronunciation and use of language.

The "proper English" that is spoken in England requires a certain amount of energy and coordination to speak. The American version of English is easier to speak. When a person sings, the words have to flow smoothly, so it's not easy to do some of the tricks with words that we find in proper English. This is why British people seem to lose their British accent and sound like Americans when they sing.

The southern states of America have an even sloppier version of English. The southern states are also where slavery reached extreme levels, and organized religions became a dominant aspect of the peoples lives. The southern states have always been known as the stupidest section of America.

The colony of Georgia got started when England shipped some poor people who were in jail for not paying their debts. These people had trouble taking care of themselves in England, so it should not surprise you to discover that a lot of them died in Georgia due to their inability to take care of themselves. However, some of them survived, and they began raising families and spreading throughout the southern area of the nation. Naturally their children picked up their sloppy pronunciation. However, some of the children were capable of speaking correctly, so they improved upon it, making it less sloppy.
 

As America developed into a large nation, some families became very wealthy. Many people noticed that the behavior of America's wealthy people was crude compared to the behavior of Europe's wealthy people. Some people referred to the wealthy American families as the new money, and the wealthy European families as the old money. They implied that because the Americans were new to wealth, they had not yet learned how to behave in a proper manner.

However, there are some wealthy Europeans who behave in a crude manner, and there are some wealthy Americans who are respectable. This concept of new money and old money is just another excuse to explain the crude behavior of Americans. Most Americans behave in a crude manner simply because America attracted a lot of crude Europeans.
 

At the end of World War II, America was in the position of world leader. The Americans could have taken advantage of the situation by abandoning the original purpose for America; namely, a dumping ground for the "Wretched Refuse". The Americans could have transformed their nation into a center for art, science, architecture, and education.

Unfortunately, the Americans were tricked into wasting their resources on wars; assassinating other nation's leaders; harassing other nations for producing heroin; faking a moon landing; helping Israel kill Arabs; and murdering their own president. They also brought in lots of foreigners to use as a cheap source of labor since they were not allowed to purchase African slaves. The American people are destroying their nation.

Technology does not cause us problems; rather, technology provides opportunities for people to create problems for themselves. For example, the technology allows us to produce television, food, artificial flavors, drugs, gambling casinos, pornography, and toys, but whether that technology improves our lives or causes trouble for us depends upon how we use it. It is not the technology that hurts us; rather, it is the decisions we make on how to use technology. Technology allows us to destroy our lives and the lives of other people.
 

Our current solution to crime, obesity, gambling debts, and other modern problems is to either punish somebody, or apply technology to the problem. For example:

• We try to stop drug abuse by punishing people who sell and use drugs.

• We try to stop obesity with diets, artificial sweeteners, surgery, and pills.

• We try to protect our material items and homes from burglary and theft with cameras, locks, and other security devices.

However, none of our solutions are working, and some of these problems are increasing rather than merely remaining at the same level. How many more years of failure do we need before people accept the possibility that our current attitudes towards crime and other problems are inaccurate?
 

Unless you believe that criminals are possessed by an evil force, then criminals are humans, just like the rest of us. What could cause one human to become honest, and another to become a criminal?

Some people believe it is because of differences in our environments, but criminals appear randomly throughout the world and throughout history. How could environmental differences between us have such a random effect? The most likely explanation for random differences in human behavior are due to genetic differences. Specifically, there are subtle differences in the design of their minds and/or bodies that is resulting in their tendency to commit crimes.

For example, the people who are attracted to drugs and alcohol seem to be suffering from internal physical and/or mental pains. The drugs temporarily relieve or mask their pains. If they can be convinced to stop using alcohol or drugs, they tend to do something else excessively, such as eat, gamble, withdraw into fantasizes, have sex, shop, or seek fame.

Many people with "bad habits" can reduce them with mental health drugs, which is another sign that the problem is coming from within their own mind. Unfortunately, the mental-health drugs available today do not fix these problems, and they have side effects.
 

Imagine that our government decided to legalize every drug. Which drugs would you purchase? Cocaine? LSD?

Perhaps you are not interested in drugs. So, how about if our government decided that orphans are not worth protecting, and so they made it legal to rape the unwanted children? Would you take a trip to the orphanage to give it a try?

Maybe you are not interested in either drugs or raping orphans, so consider that our government decided to make suicide legal. Would you be one of the first people to kill yourself?

The current attitude around the world is that human behavior must be controlled by threats of punishment. It is also widely believed that security devices, such as locks, infrared detectors, security guards, and video cameras are necessary in order to reduce crime. But which threats or security devices are stopping you from committing crimes? You don't have to admit it to anybody, but think about it.
 

We need laws to regulate the flow of automobile and airplane traffic, but why do we need laws to stop us from raping each other, stealing each other's possessions, and taking drugs?

There were no laws, courts, policemen, or jails thousands of years ago. There were no locks, security guards, or video cameras. Why do we need them today? What has changed in human life?

One of the changes, especially during the past century, is technology. Today we have an incredible amount of material items, food, and entertainment devices. We all want more material items and money than we currently have. Why is it that some people can accept what they have; others are willing to cheat a little bit; and some people will cheat on a routine basis? Why is it that some men can accept the fact that a woman is not interested in him, and other men will rape her?

Criminal and psychotic behavior is happening randomly around the world and all throughout history, so it is not due to a difference in our environment. Rather, it is due to differences in our mind and/or body.
 

Religious people blame crime on evilness, but criminals are human beings. They are just like the rest of us, but with some subtle difference. Unfortunately, that subtle difference is that they are not in as good mental and/or physical health. They are suffering, and they see crime as a solution to their misery.

Further proof that criminals are defective is the ease at which they can be caught. It's much easier to destroy than it is to create; it's easier to defeat a security system than it is to create one. The reason the police can catch so many criminals is that it is not an equal match; most criminals are below average in mental and/or physical health.

If, however, criminals were more normal, they would be much more difficult to catch, and if they were better than average, they would be extremely difficult to catch.

The reason the Zionist movement is so successful with crime is that they are not a gang of ordinary criminals. Rather, it is a political movement, and it has attracted a lot of people in much better mental and physical health than the ordinary criminal gangs. Many Zionists are more intelligent than the ordinary policemen, so they don't have much trouble outsmarting and confusing the police.
 

Punishment cannot stop crime because crime is due to people with mental and/or physical problems, and these people will be appearing all the time at random.

Farmers have a similar problem with animals. Occasionally an animal will appear that is defective. The farmer will not be able to solve the problem by putting the animal into a jail.

The most popular method of dealing with defective humans who commit crimes is to put them in jail. This is doing nothing to prevent crime or convert criminals into honest people. While a criminal is in jail he will not be able to commit a crime, so jail can reduce crime by a tiny bit, but it is expensive to maintain jails, and it is cruel to the criminal.

A couple hundred years ago England sent criminals to America and Australia. Unfortunately, in that era there was no way to stop the criminals from reproducing, except by cutting off the testicles of male criminals. Not many people would have supported that policy, and as a result the criminals in America and Australia reproduced in large numbers. America, Canada, and Australia are now full of people with serious defects.

The concept of providing a separate area for the criminals to live in would be more practical if we separated the men from the women and gave each of them a very large area of their own. They could grow their own food and take care of themselves without bothering any of us. Within their community they might have crime, but that would be their problem to deal with.

What should a society do about the genetically defective members of society? There are only a few possible solutions:

• Try to compensate for the defects

We could try to understand if the badly behaved person is suffering from a hormone disorder or something else that can be corrected through medical technology.

However, even if we figure out how to correct the defect, that person should not be allowed to reproduce.

• Create "criminal nations"

We could set up two large areas, one for men and one for women, and put everybody in there that doesn't fit in with the rest of us. They would be allowed to live their lives in whatever manner they pleased.

• Kill the person

This would be the solution for people we regard as beyond hope and too dangerous to put into a nation of criminals.

The nations that don't deal with their defective members will eventually self-destruct. We have no other option.

No matter what we decide to do, the solution will be unpleasant, but our solution will be better than the brutal competition for life that the animals and our primitive ancestors had to deal with.

If our ancestors hundreds of years ago had dealt with these issues and began restricting reproduction, we of the 21st century would be in much better physical and mental health. Instead of having obesity, headaches, digestive problems, wars, 9/11, the Zionist movement, and organized crime, we would have a very pleasant life and a very beautiful world.