Recently I made a remark in the news section of my website that we ought to consider the possibility that President Donald Trump is showing signs of dementia. One of the sad but important aspects of the people who classify themselves as "conservatives" is that it is not easy to determine whether one of them is intelligent, stupid, senile, or mentally ill.

This is not an insult. Rather, it is important to understand why it is difficult to pass judgment on the mental characteristics of a "conservative". It is especially important for people who are going to vote for government officials, or hire people for other influential positions. This section of my document will go over this issue, possibly excessively, since so few people seem to understand the significance of it.

A lot of people describe themselves as "conservatives" simply because they assume that there are only two options; namely, we are either a conservative or we are a liberal. However, if we could measure our mental qualities, we would discover that everybody has some conservative attitudes, and everybody has some liberal attitudes.

For example, conservatives have a strong resistance to changes in their lives, but if we could truly measure that resistance, we would find that we create a bell curve, with the people who are terrified of changes at one extreme, and people who love to explore at the other extreme.

As you read my remarks about conservatives and liberals, don't think of yourself as being a member of either group. Rather, ask yourself such questions as: "Where on the bell curve would I be?"

Some of the people who refer to themselves as conservatives or liberals would be more accurately described as explorers, or pioneers, or adventurers.

As I mentioned in this previous file, when I offered some Japanese ice cream, Mochi, to a group of Americans, most of them were afraid to try it. Of those who found the courage to try it, some put it back on the table after taking a bite from it.

Their behavior could cause you to assume that they simply did not like ice cream, but most, if not all, regularly ate ice cream. The reason they would not eat the Mochi is because we have an emotion that causes us to be frightened of everything that is different from what we are accustomed to.

Most of those people would not taste the Mochi because it did not look like what they were accustomed to, and that difference in visual appearance triggered their emotion to be suspicious and fearful of things that are unfamiliar.

The people who had the courage to take a bite of the Mochi immediately noticed that it did not feel or taste like what they were accustomed to, and those unusual feelings triggered their emotion to avoid things that are different from what they are familiar with, so they put it back on the table, even though they had taken a bite out of it.

Most of the people in that group were conservatives, not liberals. The people with the stronger conservative attitudes have a stronger craving to mimic the people in the group they belong to, and less of an interest in exploring life. They are more fearful and suspicious of new ideas, new foods, new activities, and everything else that is different from what they are familiar with.

To understand the significance of this, consider that when we give a conservative American some Mochi ice cream, and ask him to taste it and tell us his opinion of it, he will not provide us with a useful opinion. The Mochi looks, tastes, and feels different from what he is accustomed to, and that will trigger his emotional fear of the unfamiliar, and that in turn will cause him to react by saying the ice cream tastes terrible. He will claim that he does not like the ice cream. His opinion, however, is not a sensible analysis of the ice cream. It is a crude, emotional reaction to something that is different from what he is accustomed to.

If you can understand this concept, you can understand why it is worthless to ask a conservative to provide us with an analysis of a new opinion, or an article from my website, or a new scientific theory. A conservative will not provide us with a sensible analysis of anything.

If we provide a conservative with a new theory, and ask him to provide us with his opinion about it, he will essentially take a bite of it, notice that it has a different taste and feel from what he is familiar with, spit it out, and tell us that it is an awful opinion. However, he is not giving us a true analysis. He is giving us an emotional feeling. He is behaving like a stupid animal who reacts to things rather than thinks about them.

The emotion that causes us to be suspicious and fearful of things that are different from what we are accustomed to is a vital emotion for prehistoric people and animals. If one of our prehistoric ancestors took a bite of a food that tasted or felt different from what he was accustomed to, it was wise for him to spit the food out.

The prehistoric humans who were the most successful in life were those who ate only the foods that their parents taught them to eat; made tools in the manner that they were taught to make tools; hunted animals in the manner that they were taught to hunt; and made furs and other items in the manner that they were taught to make them. They did not experiment with life. They followed established procedures which had proven to be successful.

For millions of years, the animals and prehistoric humans with too much independence were less successful in life. The competitive battle for life ensured that the majority of animals and humans have very strong cravings to mimic the successful people and be frightened and cautious of anything that is unfamiliar.

Unfortunately, in this modern world, the fear of stepping off the established path is causing a lot of trouble. We no longer need this emotion to protect us from harm. We can now analyze issues, discuss them, and make intelligent decisions.

The reason it is difficult to determine the mental qualities of a conservative is because they have a strong desire to mimic other people, and a resistance to thinking for themselves, and this results in all of them making virtually the same remarks. Exactly what those remarks are depends upon which society and era they grew up in.

	In America, as of 2017, almost all of the conservatives repeat a few phrases, such as: • Abortion is murder • Guns will protect us from crime • I love Jesus. In addition, conservatives frequently boast about the nation, business, and other organizations they belong to, and they insult other nations and organizations
	A child is capable of repeating those phrases, and so are adults who are senile, mentally ill, ignorant, and stupid. It is difficult to pass judgment on the mental qualities of a conservative because all of them are repeating the same phrases over and over, year after year, decade after decade.
	The conservatives don't need to bother with human political candidates. They could instead offer us some trained parrots.
	Or we could program some robots to repeat the phrases, and that would give us conservative government officials who never try to increase their salaries, goof off, or get involved with pedophilia or crime networks.
	We all have the emotional craving to mimic other people in our particular group, but that emotion has different strengths in different people. Where do you think you would be placed on the independence chart? Imagine a group of athletes behaving like the most extreme conservatives. Specifically, instead of the athletes trying to develop their talents and compete with one another in an athletic contest, they want to mimic one another.
	Imagine a group of athletes in a foot race, but instead of trying to beat one another, they were trying to keep exactly in step with one another. In such a case, nobody would win or lose. Every time they had a race, they would finish at exactly the same time. Their foot races would resemble a marching band, and we would not be able to determine which of them was the fastest runner.

Likewise, when a group of people are mimicking opinions, it is difficult to figure out if any of them has intelligence, is mentally ill, or is suffering from dementia.

Throughout the presidential election, all of the conservative candidates repeated the same phrases over and over. Their refusal to think for themselves made it impossible for us to determine what their mental qualities were, and what their true intentions for becoming president were.

Trump has been president for six months now, but he is continuing to repeat the same phrases over and over. He is making it impossible for us to determine whether his brain is functioning properly.

Before I continue, it might help you to understand the concepts I am going to discuss in this document if you spend some time contemplating the question:
"Where did we humans get our mental and physical traits?"

The answer is that we inherited our traits from the animals. All of our physical characteristics, such as the design of our liver, tendons, and digestive system, are just trivial modifications to what the animals have.

Since we inherited these physical characteristics from the animals, by understanding the liver, tendons, and digestive system of animals, we will get a better understanding of how the human body works. The opposite is also true; by understanding a human body, we can understand an animal body.

Furthermore, by understanding why certain physical characteristics evolved in the animals, we will understand why humans have those characteristics. An example I mentioned years ago is why male animals have nipples. If we look through our ancestry, we will find that if we go back far enough in time, none of our ancestors were male or female. Rather, they were unisex creatures that could reproduce by themselves. We are descendants of a unisex creature.

To be more precise, if we could watch the development of life, we would find that we are descendants of "defective" unisex creatures that were better at producing either male or female organs. This particular defect, however, turned out to be a tremendous advantage, and the result is that these defective unisex creatures ended up specializing in producing either the male or female organs, but not both.

Likewise, we inherited all of our mental traits from the animals. Our memory, emotions, intellectual abilities, 3D color vision, and our desire to sleep at night are characteristics that we inherited from the animals. Therefore, by understanding the mental qualities of animals, we will be able to understand the mental qualities of humans.

Furthermore, by understanding why certain emotional and intellectual traits evolved in the animals, we will understand why humans have those traits. For example, consider the cartoon to the right.

Women frequently complain that they are sexually harassed by men, but an analysis of their complaints will show that the women are hypocritical, or that they have double standards. Specifically, we will notice that a woman complains about harassment only when it comes from the majority of men, not the small group of men that she happens to be attracted to.

As the cartoon shows, if a woman is attracted to a man, that man can behave in a manner that would otherwise cause her to complain about sexual harassment.

We can understand this behavior by watching the female and male animals. In most species of advanced animals, the males aggressively pursue females, and the females enjoy being pursued. However, if a female is not attracted to a male that is pursuing her, she will be irritated by him, and she will treat him like a piece of trash. Or, in the case of some spiders, she will try to capture and eat him.

To rephrase this, the female animals want to be pursued aggressively, but only by the males that they are attracted to.

Humans behave just like the animals. Women are passive, and they want men to aggressively pursue them. They want us to get on our hands and knees and tell them that we love them, and they want us to entertain them and give them gifts. However, if a woman is not attracted to a man, she will be irritated if he pursues her.

To the men who do not understand that humans are animals, women can seem extremely confusing. Those men will notice that when they make certain remarks around women, some of the women enjoy the attention and respond with smiles and giggles, whereas other women accuse them of harassment, or of being disgusting or lewd. The men will be confused because they will not understand why the same behavior can result in such wildly different reactions.

Men are extremely arrogant. When we fail at something, our emotions want to blame our problems on somebody else, or some mysterious entity. As a result, when a man makes a remark to a woman, and she complains of harassment, as in that cartoon, the man's emotions will want to regard himself as perfect, and therefore, the problem he is having with that woman must be because the woman is crazy.

Women are more willing to look critically at themselves, but their lower level of intelligence results in worthless analyses of themselves and other people. Most women don't even seem to realize that they are passive creatures, and that they want men to pursue them. For example, if a man tells a woman that he's having trouble finding a wife, the typical response from women is something like, "Don't worry, eventually you'll find someone".

Their response is essentially: "Do nothing and eventually a wife will appear". The reason women promote that philosophy is because that is the attitude of a female animal. A woman's natural behavior is to groom herself so that she looks pretty, put herself on display in public, and wait for a man to pursue her. From the point of view of a woman, marriage happens automatically without her doing anything. Actually, women are resistant to men. Therefore, from their point of view, marriage happens even when they resist the men.

Women frequently complain about "sexual harassment", but what exactly is sexual harassment? As the cartoon shows, what a woman describes as "sexual harassment" is harassment only when it comes from certain men, or in certain situations.

Women want the police, or the management at work, to stop men from harassing them. The women make it appear as if harassment is a specific type of behavior that we can identify and prevent. In reality, women want to be pursued aggressively by men, so it makes no sense to tell men to stop doing something that all women have emotional cravings for.

In order to improve relationships between men and women, we need a better understanding of our animal characteristics, and we need to use that information to alter our culture to take into account our animal characteristics.

To complicate this issue, female animals frequently show no interest in a particular male animal, and she will run away from him. If we could talk to the female animal, we would find that she is irritated by him, and she would complain about sexual harassment. However, if the male continues his pursuit of her, she might find herself in love with him.

Many men have noticed this characteristic in human women. They refer to it as "No means yes". Specifically, men have noticed that when a woman rejects a man, he would be foolish to assume that she has no interest in him. He must repeatedly pursue her and be turned down many times before he can come to the conclusion that she truly has no interest in him.

This characteristic of women is causing a lot of problems between men and women today, but it would not have caused any trouble during prehistoric times. The primary reason is because prehistoric people lived in very small communities, and that meant that there were only a few single men and women, which in turn meant that the single women would have been pursued by only a few single men. Also, the men and women knew one another extremely well. A prehistoric woman did not have to tolerate thousands of strangers pursuing her for years.

Furthermore, the single boys and girls would have started their courtship during their teenage years. Prehistoric people could not fool around while looking for a spouse. They could not wait until they were in their 30s or 40s. They had to get married and start a family quickly. Most of them would die in their 40s or 50s.

During prehistoric times, most of the single boys and girls would have found a spouse by their late teenage years or early 20s, and then courtship was finished. Courtship would have been a brief but exciting time in the lives of both the boys and the girls. A prehistoric boy would not have suffered emotional trauma when one of the girls rejected him. Being rejected in that era only meant that the boys had to spend more time flirting with the girls and giving them more gifts and attention. The boys would have enjoyed the process, not been disgusted or annoyed by it.

Likewise, a prehistoric girl would have enjoyed pretending that she was not interested in a boy because that would force him to spend more time pursuing her and giving her gifts, and she would force him to prove to her that he really had a strong attraction to her. Both the prehistoric boys and girls would have enjoyed the process.

Today, however, we are living among thousands of people, so it is possible for a woman to be repeatedly pursued by lots of different men, which can be irritating. From the point of view of a woman, when she is pursued repeatedly by a man that she does not like, he is harassing her. However, from the point of view of the men, the women are so passive and silent that none of us can figure out which women are interested in us and which are only pretending not to be interested, and so we have no option except to pursue a lot of women, and be rejected over and over.

Furthermore, because humans are inherently frightened of being observed, we allow everybody to have a tremendous about of secrecy, and that makes it difficult for men to know which women are single and looking for a man. The secrecy also makes it difficult for both men and women to figure out who they might be interested in.

A man today has to waste a lot of his time and money pursuing a woman before he knows enough about her to make a decision about whether he is interested in her, and a woman has to waste a lot of her time with a man before she knows him well enough to make a decision about whether she is interested in him. Even after people have spent a lot of time together, they still don't know much about one another because of our extreme secrecy, and our tendency to create phony images of ourselves.

Relationships between men and women are terrible today, and if you can understand that humans are just a species of monkey, then you should be able to understand how these courtship procedures developed, and why they are not working for us today. Our courtship procedures come from the animals, and we need to modernize them. Our courtship procedures are extremely crude, and they are becoming increasingly absurd in this modern world. We are tormenting one another by following the courtship procedures of animals.

In other documents I gave suggestions on how to improve our relationships; namely, to prohibit courtship in public areas, and restrict it to specify courtship activities. This will eliminate the problem of men bothering women at school, on public trains, at parks, and at jobs. When a woman is in the mood to meet men, she can go to one of those courtship activities, and the men will know that women they meet at those activities are there specifically to meet men, and so they will not have to worry about being accused of harassment.

I think we will further improve relationships between men and women if the schools would provide children with an education about the animal characteristics of humans. Boys and girls should be taught that humans are a type of monkey. In our world today, by comparison, millions of children are taught that we are a creation of some god, or that we are the product of our environment, and these false philosophies are giving boys and girls an unrealistic view of life, humans, animals, and marriage.

Furthermore, most parents have too many emotional inhibitions to teach their children about life, relationships, marriage, sex, masturbation, and courtship. Teenagers have to learn about these issues on their own, which is resulting in a lot of confusion, ignorance, mistakes, and idiotic assumptions. I think the best solution to this problem is to provide ourselves with leaders who have enough self-control to allow the schools to provide a more sensible education on these issues.

Schools should not pander to the children, or their parents. The school should not ask parents whether it is acceptable to teach sex education. Rather, our leaders should announce to the public that the schools will teach sex education, and the parents who cannot accept this can get out of the city and live somewhere else. We should stop promoting the philosophy that the ordinary people know what is best for themselves, their children, and the human race.

The majority of people cannot make wise decisions about the future of the human race. We need to provide ourselves with leaders to make decisions about our future. We have to stop designing our school curriculum, products, social activities, and cities according to what the ordinary people want.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned many times, I think we will also improve the relationships between men and women by getting rid of the free enterprise system. The reason is because businesses are constantly using sexual titillation to sell their products, and this in turn is stimulating young boys and adult men excessively, and giving the boys a distorted view of women and sex.

We also need to change our school curriculum to get rid of the religion and overhaul the social sciences. If schools were providing children with a more realistic view of humans and life, then the boys and girls would realize that humans are a type of monkey, and that would cause the children to develop more sensible expectations for courtship, marriage, and weddings.

If schools would explain to the children that humans are just monkeys, the children would also get a better understanding of jobs, status, and material wealth. For example, the children would realize that their cravings for material wealth and status are cravings that they inherited from the animals, and those craving are intended to push the animals into putting a lot of effort into acquiring food, territory, mates, and leadership positions. That will help the children understand that their cravings should not to be interpreted as a sign that they need large amounts of material wealth or status in order to enjoy life. This knowledge can help them make better decisions about when to satisfy their cravings, and when to ignore them.

By comparison, children today are raised on unrealistic philosophies, such as the concept that wealthy people have a better life than the rest of us because material wealth improves our lives, and that famous people have a better life because the more famous we are, the happier we will be. These idiotic philosophies are encouraging boys and girls to chase after useless goals, and that can result in a lot of frustration, disappointment, wasted time, and anger.

Some children are being taught that there is a loving God who will forgive us whenever we do something horrible. A more realistic philosophy is for schools to teach children that they are responsible for their behavior, and if they cannot behave properly, they may be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted from the city, or euthanized.

A lot of my suggestions are likely to be regarded as an insult to the majority of people. For example, my remark that the majority of people don't know what is best for themselves, and that they need leadership, puts the majority of people into the role of children who need parental guidance.

However, it is only insulting to the people who want to interpret it as an insult. If I were to make the claim that the majority of people are unfit to be Olympic athletes, engineers, or scientists, very few people would complain that I am insulting the majority of people. They would instead respond, "Yes, of course. Most people are ordinary."

We need to apply this philosophy to social issues, also. The majority of people are inadequate as voters, and their opinions on marriage, abortion, school curriculum, city design, social activities, weddings, and other cultural issues are just as stupid as their opinions on scientific issues.

In order to improve the world, we have to stop promoting the philosophy that the majority of people have intelligent opinions about political candidates, abortion, and evolution. Most people have nothing of value to contribute. Most people don't even want to think for themselves. Most of them want to mimic other people. There is no point in bringing them into a discussion about the future of the human race because they cannot contribute anything. Having a discussion with them is as idiotic as having a discussion with some parrots.

We also need to stop feeling sorry for the people who disrupt society, and stop letting them believe that they can pray to God for forgiveness. If we were to design society so that courtship is restricted to designated courtship activities, then the men who cannot follow the rules and who pester women outside of those activities should be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or evicted from the city. This will stop the problems of sexual harassment. If instead we continue to feel sorry for the people who cannot behave properly, we simply allow them to continue annoying us.

There is the potential of men and women irritating each other at the courtship activities, but I suggest that there be supervisors at those activities. Therefore, the supervisors will be able to keep the behavior under control.

I suppose some people will respond that it would be insulting to live in a society in which courtship is prohibited outside of certain, designated activities, and that there be supervisors at those activities, but we have to face the reality that we are animals. Men and women are doing a terrible job of forming relationships today. Men and women are tormenting one another regularly during courtship, and they are frequently getting divorced, fighting with each other, crying, pouting, and trying to get revenge on one another after they get divorced.

We need to push ourselves into experimenting with changes to our culture to improve this pathetic situation. We ought to be embarrassed of our miserable relationships, not continuing on the path that we are on right now. We need to get off of our pedestal and face the fact that we are monkeys, and we need better leadership.

Conservatives are savages, not modern humans

As I have mentioned in previous documents, I think conservatives are genetically more similar to our prehistoric ancestors than some of us. If we could go back in time 100,000 years, we would find that the prehistoric people were displaying extremely strong conservative attitudes, and the reason was because those attitudes were the best suited for that era. The competitive battle for life favored the people with those attitudes. Therefore, an understanding of animals will give us a better understanding of the emotional qualities and behavior of the people who describe themselves as conservatives.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming that "liberals" are superior to conservatives. Actually, I believe that most liberals have significant mental disorders due to inferior genetics. I don't think we can get an understanding of liberals by looking at prehistoric savages or wild animals because wild animals and prehistoric people have higher quality genes.

In order to understand the genetically inferior and defective humans, we have to look at the defective animals; namely, our pet dogs and cats. Some of the people who are breeding cats and dogs do not have an understanding of genetics, and as a result, they are creating defective animals.

By observing those particular pet breeders, we will get a better understanding of how quickly genetic defects can accumulate in a gene pool, and how difficult it is to eliminate genetic defects after they have been spread throughout the gene pool.

We will also notice that every genetic characteristic can become defective, and every possible combination of genetic characteristics can become defective, resulting in an incredible variety of genetic defects, which in turn makes it extremely difficult for medical personnel to understand and deal with the problems.

We can then apply that information to the human race to get a better understanding of why there are so many sickly and neurotic people; how rapidly the human race is degrading genetically; why there is such an incredible variety of physical and mental disorders; and how difficult it is going to be for us to improve our genetic health now that we have allowed genetic defects to spread throughout our gene pool.

Studying those defective pets will also show us that the longer we wait to improve the genetic health of the human race, the more bizarre, sickly, neurotic, anti-social, stupid, and miserable each generation of humans will be.

If animals had political views, all of them would be extreme conservatives. By observing animals, we can get a better understanding of why the "conservative values" developed, and why they are so important for animals and prehistoric humans. An example is that animals can help us understand why conservatives promote the attitude that punishing criminals will improve their behavior and stop crime.

This is the conservative policy for crime.

When an animal irritates another animal, the irritated animal will react with anger. The level of anger depends upon how strongly the other animal has stimulated his emotions. For example, if an animal is only slightly irritating, the other animal may react by glaring at him. If the animal is a bit more irritating, the other animal might show his teeth and snarl. If the animal is extremely irritating, the other animal might kick or bite him.

Humans inherited that behavioral characteristic from the animals, and it developed into our policy for crime. This policy is often described as:
"The punishment should fit the crime".

A better description would be:
The more strongly somebody stimulates our anger, the more severely we want to hurt him.

When a person irritates us only slightly, we want to hurt him only slightly, such as glaring at him, insulting him, or reprimanding him. The more strongly a person stimulates our anger, the more severely we want to hurt the person.

This policy "makes sense" to us only because we are following our emotional cravings. It "feels good" to us when we hurt a person who has annoyed us, and the more severely he annoys us, the more pleasure we receive by hurting him. However, even though this policy pleases our emotions, it is becoming increasingly inappropriate for this modern world. Today we have to suppress our emotions and do what makes intellectual sense, even if it is emotionally unpleasant.

Our policy for bad behavior is a stupid, animal reaction, not a policy that was created by humans who used their intelligence to discuss the issue of bad behavior, and came to the conclusion that this is a sensible policy.

By following this crude policy, we punish people severely when they irritate us severely, whereas we may not punish a person at all if he is only slightly irritating. This policy is resulting in absurd behavior in this modern world. For example, a waitress who does not perform properly can irritate us so much that we glare at her, make insulting remarks to her, or refuse to leave her a tip. We might even demand that she be fired.

By comparison, our emotions are not stimulated much, if at all, when we hear about a credit card company taking a percentage of our transaction rather than a sensible fee, or when we hear about an investor, businessman, or government official who committed some type of complex financial crime.

Thousands of journalists are regularly lying to us about news events, and they are suppressing information and people, and there are thousands of other people regularly posting propaganda on the Internet, such as that the earth is flat, or that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with miniature hydrogen bombs. However, those people don't trigger our emotions of anger, so most people have no desire to punish or stop them. Those criminals are committing a crime that irritates us only if we think about the effect they have on our world. People who don't want to think, or who cannot think very well, are not going to be annoyed by those type of crimes.

The worst aspect of people who react to criminal behavior by following their emotions is that if a criminal is involved with a crime that is so horrible that it frightens us, then instead of triggering our anger, it will trigger our self-preservation emotion, and that will cause us to run away and hide, like a frightened rabbit. Therefore, we will do nothing about that particular criminal.

For example, when we show a typical person the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, some of them become so frightened at the thought of a crime network that commits such horrible crimes that they want to run away and hide. Likewise, when the typical person is told that there is a pedophile network in the media and government, they want to run away and hide, not search for and destroy the network.

When a person promotes the policy that we should punish criminals according to the crime they committed, they are behaving exactly like stupid animals. This crude, animal policy has resulted in some people spending years in jail simply for smoking marijuana, while people committing serious financial crimes are made to pay a small fine or put in jail for a few months, and people involved with pedophile networks, false flag operations, propaganda, and other serious crimes are ignored.

The people who punish people according to how angry they become are behaving like animals, and they are allowing crime networks to ruin our world.

Our policy for crime did not come from our intelligence. It did not come from research programs, analyses of human behavior, or discussions on how to reduce crime. Rather, our policy for crime came from our emotional cravings to intimidate and hurt the people who irritate us.

We inherited our emotional characteristics from monkeys, so we could say that our policy for crime was inherited from the monkeys. Monkeys inherited it from whatever animal they evolved from, and so on.

Our policy for crime is acceptable for animals and prehistoric people, but it is becoming increasingly inappropriate and destructive for modern human societies. Unfortunately, modernizing our policy for crime requires finding people for leadership positions who have the courage to explore the unknown and experiment with new culture. Do you have that ability? Or, are you like a typical conservative who is terrified of experimentation?

As I pointed out in a previous document, every society is promoting a buyer beware attitude rather than an attitude of identifying and removing the troublesome people. This policy comes from animals, not from humans who have put time and effort into thinking about the issue and have agreed that this policy is the most sensible for us.

Animals do not have the intelligence to realize that it's best to do something to prevent crimes and other problems. An animal spends its time doing what it wants, and when a problem occurs, it reacts, but as soon as the problem is gone, it goes back to appeasing its emotional cravings. Animals never do anything to prevent the problem from occurring again.

The more similar a person is to an animal in regards to dealing with problems, the less interested he will be in preventing problems. His attitude will be to do whatever he pleases, and worry about a problem only when one occurs. Furthermore, he will deal with a problem only if it affects him or his family, not when it affects somebody else. This attitude developed into our buyer beware philosophy.

If animals could speak to us, then sheep would advise us that when we see a wolf, we should run away. They would not advise us to get together in a team to attack the wolf, and then search for the rest of his pack, and attack them, also.

This is the same attitude we find among people. For example, when children are raped or kidnapped by pedophile networks, parents advise their children to be suspicious of strangers, or they teach their children how to shoot guns or fight with adult men, or they purchase security devices for their children or home. This policy seems sensible to us because it is our natural behavior, but it is intellectually idiotic to do nothing to prevent criminals from attacking us in the future. It would make more sense for the police to search for and destroy the pedophile networks.

In a police department in Britain, somebody was stealing milk from the office refrigerator, and some of the policemen responded by putting locks on their containers of milk to discourage the thief (the photo to the right).

An animal does nothing when another animal steals its food, so we could say those policemen are behaving better than an animal by trying to discourage future crimes, but it would be better if they would do something to prevent future crimes. That requires identifying the person stealing the milk, and restricting him to certain neighborhoods or evicting him from the city. They cannot prevent crime with security devices.

Crime is not the result of a lack of security. It is the result of human minds that refuse to behave properly.

Employees are routinely stealing food from the office refrigerators around the world, and many people are reacting to the thefts by putting angry or sarcastic notes on their food. If you are unfamiliar with this problem, here is one site that shows photos of some of the notes that people have created.

None of the notes that people leave on their food are preventing these types of crimes. The only way to prevent people in an office from behaving in this matter is to remove the people who behave in this manner.

However, we don't want to evict the badly behaved people. They are our friends and neighbors, and sometimes our children or parents. They are very similar to us, and have a lot of good qualities. They are not a different species.

We want to treat the badly behaved people just like animals treat badly behaved members. Specifically, by barking at them and kicking them. In order to restrict people to certain neighborhoods, or to evict people from the city, we would need enough self-control to follow a policy that makes the intellectual sense but which is emotionally unpleasant.

Many journalists and websites refer to the locked milk containers as "hilarious" and "amusing", and there are lots of websites that describe the notes that people are leaving in the office refrigerator as "funny". However, there is nothing amusing about people who steal food, put locks on their food, or put angry notes on their food. It is disgusting that there are so many humans that behave so similar to an animal that they will steal food from their coworkers.

Animals do not have any concern for personal property. They will grab food regardless of who it belongs to. They have no guilt for stealing food.

I think we would create a much more pleasant society, and a much better future, if we stop putting locks and notes on our food and switched to identifying and removing the destructive people so that we can trust one another.

It is especially ridiculous to allow police departments to have members who are stealing from other people in the department. How can we trust policemen when their behavior is so similar to an animal that they steal food from one another?

How much like an animal does a policeman have to be before you would agree with me that he needs to be removed from the department, or evicted from the city? What if a policeman became sexually aroused and tried to have sex with your leg, as dogs sometimes do?

The relationship between men and women is similar to that of the intelligent male and female animals. Specifically, the males must pursue the females, and the females look for a male who shows a tremendous devotion to her. The females are not looking for a friend. A female animal is in the role of a Queen, and she is looking for a male slave to protect her from harm, provide her with food, praise her, and entertain her.

All female animals regard males as slaves, but the women who are at the extreme edge of the bell curve have so little interest in men that they will marry a man that they don't like simply because of his financial or social status. Some women, such as Lynn Turner, have so little interest in men and so much interest in themselves that they will slowly poison their husband in order to collect his life insurance, house, and other possessions.

A female animal has the attitude of a Queen, and this in turn causes women to have an attraction to the feminist concept that men are not treating women properly. The men should respond by providing the women with intelligent guidance, but a male animal does not want to provide guidance to a female. Rather, a male animal wants to get on his hands and knees and behave like a slave. He wants to spend his life giving her food, gifts, praise, and entertainment. He wants to protect and pamper her.

A man's relationship to a woman is similar to a woman's relationship to a child. Women do not provide guidance to their children. Rather, they play with children; they treat children as toys. Women like to touch children, grab at children, and kiss children.

Also, note that women are not annoyed by the stupidity or ignorance of children. Women are not disgusted when children have trouble getting dressed, combing their hair, or putting on their shoes. Rather, women giggle when children do and say stupid things, and they love to help the children with even simplistic tasks, such as tying their shoes.

Likewise, men are not annoyed by women who are stupid, ignorant, crude, or neurotic, such as when women scream when they see a mouse, or when they need help with some simplistic task, such as switching a circuit breaker off, or when they talk about astrology. Men don't complain that the women are stupid or ignorant. Rather, we love the opportunity to help even the stupidest women. We have strong emotional cravings to protect and care for women. Our crude emotions cause us to imagine that we are heroes when we pamper a woman.

Most men seem to realize that men are more intelligent than women, as a group, but there are very few men willing to admit this in public, or admit it to women. Men will admit this only when they are around other men that they feel comfortable with. Why are men afraid to express their disagreement with feminism?

The conservative men frequently boast about their bravery, courage, independence, and intelligence, but they cannot publicly criticize feminism because:

1) They are afraid of being reprimanded by women. Male animals have strong cravings to impress and pamper women, but they do not have cravings to provide leadership. The more similar a man is to an animal, the more difficult it will be for him to publicly express his disapproval of feminism. He will not be able to provide leadership to his wife, daughter, or other women.

2) They are afraid to wander away from their leaders. The conservative men have a strong craving to mimic their leaders. If our leaders were disagreeing with feminism, then the conservative men would do so, also, but our leaders are either supporting feminism or afraid to criticize it. Therefore, most conservative men either support feminism, or they remain silent about it.

Animals do not think about what they are doing, and they don't have any self control. They do whatever titillates them. For example, when a dog sees food, it will try to grab at it, and when the sexual emotions of a male dog reach a certain level, the dog will try to satisfy his cravings.

The more similar a human is to an animal, the less self-control he will have, the more he will avoid thinking, and the more he will follow his emotional cravings. He will be less able to express his opinions about feminism in public, and less able to provide leadership to his wife, daughter, and other women.

He will also have a greater tendency to grab at food when he is hungry, and grab at women when he is sexually aroused. He will have a greater tendency to pout or become angry when something upsets him.

This concept also applies to women. The more like an animal that a woman is, the more strongly she will want to satisfy her emotional cravings to be pampered by men, play with babies, eat excessive amounts of food, and complain that men are not giving her enough attention and gifts.

There are some television programs, such as this one, about women who enjoy becoming obese because they love having their boyfriend or husband feed and pamper them. They say that it makes them feel like a queen. And the men love to feed, clean, and pamper the obese woman.

The women who are deliberately becoming obese because they enjoy the pampering are unusual women, but their craving to be pampered by men is typical of women. All women want to be pampered queens, but most of them want to be pampered with excessive amounts of material wealth and attention rather than excessive amounts of food.

What is the difference between a woman who becomes obese because she enjoys being pampered by her husband, and a "normal" woman who wants her husband to pamper her with excessive amounts of material wealth or praise? It's the same Queen/slave relationship.

And what is the difference between a man who is titillated by feeding and caring for an obese woman, and a "normal" man who enjoys giving excessive amounts of money and gifts to his wife? Both men are behaving like a slave, and neither of them is providing his wife with intelligent guidance.

The crude relationship between men and women was acceptable in prehistoric times, but it is becoming increasingly absurd.

The conservatives claim to be brave, courageous, intelligent, educated, and capable of providing leadership, but they are actually more like animals, or prehistoric savages, than the rest of us, and as a result, they have more difficulty discussing feminism in public. The inability of the conservatives to deal with feminism is allowing the feminists and the liberals to dominate the issue of male-female relationships.

I would classify the feminists and liberals as having emotional and/or intellectual disorders, and many of them appear to be involved with the Jewish crime network. Therefore, I would say that by doing nothing about feminism, the conservatives are allowing human relationships to be dominated by mentally inferior people and criminals.

This concept applies to other issues. For example, by doing nothing about the pedophile networks, we allow those networks to get into our government, media, and other organizations. By doing nothing about teenage gangs, we allow them to vandalize our city. By doing nothing about unwanted children, we have millions of them living in the streets, suffering in orphanages, and joining crime gangs.

The conservative men frequently boast that they are the leaders of society and business, so why don't they provide guidance to the women? Why do they allow a small group of feminists to dominate society?

It is because conservatives are more like animals than the rest of us. In order to provide guidance to women, a man needs enough self-control to overpower his craving to get on his hands and knees and become a slave to a woman. Also, in order to provide guidance to a woman, a man has to put time and effort into thinking about life, and find the courage to walk away from the established path.

However, conservatives don't want to think for themselves or exert self-control. They want to follow their emotional cravings. Therefore, the conservatives are more likely than the rest of us to pamper women. The conservative men will have more trouble with the concept that women are just females of a particular species of animal. They are more likely to treat women as goddesses.

Conservatives cannot provide leadership to women. The only time a conservative will get off his hands and knees and stand up to a woman is when he becomes angry. He will then blurt out angry or sarcastic remarks, or he will hit the woman, but that is not providing leadership. That is having a temper tantrum.

An example of how the conservatives are allowing a small group of feminists to dominate our culture occurred in August 2017, when an anonymous person at Google wrote a document in which he expressed his opinion that the genetic differences between men and women are the reason that men dominate certain jobs, and that it is unrealistic for Google to expect 50% of the employees in those jobs to be women.

Some of the Google managers were so upset by the document that they identified and fired the employee, James Damore. The firing of that employee brings up a lot of interesting issues. For example:

• Businesses must ensure that their members are working as a team.

The management must keep morale at a high level, so it is sensible to remove, restrict, or suppress the employees who are disruptive. The CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, complained: "The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender."

When an employee becomes upset by another employee's opinion about life, the management has to pass judgment on whether the opinion is truly harmful, or whether the traumatized employee has a problem dealing with different opinions. Was James Damore being disruptive? Was he insulting anybody? Was he encouraging bad behavior? I don't think so. I would say that he merely provided an opinion of Google policies, and he did so in a respectable manner.

Furthermore, I would say that there is nothing unique about his memo. He is expressing an opinion that millions of people around the world occasionally promote in private conversations.

I don't think it makes sense for a society to allow somebody to claim that he is suffering after reading an ordinary opinion that millions of people express on a regular basis. I would classify somebody who whines about the memo as suffering from some type of emotional or intellectual disorder. I would also say that the people who whine about the memo are ruining the morale of the company because they are encouraging whining rather than encouraging tolerance of different opinions and intelligent discussions.

This issue is similar to the issue of "bullying". When a person whines about being bullied, we are foolish to assume that they are being tormented by bullies. We should investigate the problem and pass judgment on whether the person is truly suffering from abuse, or whether they have some emotional disorder that is causing them to overreact to an incident that they should be able to cope with.

The CEO of Google complained that he had to terminate his vacation because the memo had created such emotional trauma at Google that he did not believe the Google management and employees could deal with the issue on their own. This brings up the issue of who should be fired. Should it be the man who expressed a common opinion? Or should it be the people who have so little ability to cope with a difference of opinion that they became traumatized?

Or did he terminate his vacation only to increase the drama of the incident and make it seem much more serious than it actually was?

• Businesses must ensure that employees are doing their job.

Imagine that you are supervising a crew that is building a bridge, and one of the employees stops what he is doing so that he can write a memo to complain about some company policy. He would disrupt the work that the team is doing, and the management would be justified in complaining that he does not have the sense to do the job that he was hired to do, and to write the memo during his lunch or leisure time.

If James Damore had disrupted the team he was working with in order to write that memo, then the management could complain that he was a disruption, but he wrote some of it during an airplane flight, and other parts during his leisure time.

• We allow accusations without supporting evidence.

The Google management, and many people in the media, attacked his memo for being "anti-diversity". The CEO of Google accused him of promoting “harmful gender stereotypes”. The CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, complained:
“But while people may have a right to express their beliefs in public, that does not mean companies cannot take action when women are subjected to comments that perpetuate negative stereotypes about them based on their gender”.

The people who are attacking James Damore create an important issue for us to discuss. Specifically, why do we allow people to accuse Damore of terrible behavior when none of them have any supporting evidence for their accusations?

For example, the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, accused Damore of "advancing harmful gender stereotypes", but what evidence does he have that Damore is promoting something that is "harmful"? We could say the CEO is slandering Damore. And the CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, implied that Damore is "perpetuating negative stereotypes". Where is her evidence for that accusation?

They also accused Damore of being "anti-diversity", but what does that mean? And where is the evidence that he is anti-diversity? Allowing accusations of "anti-diversity" without any supporting evidence is as ridiculous as allowing people to accuse somebody of being a "do-do head", an "anti-Semite", or an "asshole". Our legal system should prohibit such insults.

I think it makes more sense to say that Damore was simply expressing an opinion about his company's policies, and that his opinion is backed up by a lot of scientific evidence that shows that men and women have physical and mental differences that are due to genetics. I would say that Damore is justified in filing slander complaints against all of the people who are accusing him of being disruptive, anti-diversity, and harmful.

Furthermore, Damore could complain that the Google executives are disruptive and harmful because they are forcing policies on the employees that are scientifically inaccurate, and those policies are also unnatural to both humans and animals.

I would go even further and say that Damore is justified in filing a complaint against the people who were whining that they were victims of his memo. Those people accused Damore of hurting them, but how did he hurt them?

I would say that a society should not allow people to make unsupported accusations against one another. It is equivalent to allowing a woman to claim that a man has raped her simply because she does not like the man's opinion.

How would you feel if people were accusing you of hurting them when all you did was express a common opinion? Furthermore, imagine if a large percentage of the population was regularly making these type of accusations against other people. Imagine if employees in every business were regularly whining that some other employee has hurt their feelings with his opinion.

Allowing people to make unsupported accusations is not going to improve our society. Rather, it's going to make our social environment much worse.

We should not tolerate accusations that do not have intelligent supporting evidence. People who make accusations against one another without supporting evidence should be considered guilty of slander, or of making false accusations.

We don't want women to make false accusations of rape, and we should not allow people to make false accusations that they have been hurt emotionally. The people who make false accusations should be regarded as criminals, or as mentally ill freaks. We should not feel sorry for them. Giving them pity will encourage more of their disgusting behavior, not improve society.

• Is this just another trick to intimidate us?

My website mentions numerous historical events that I believe we were lied to about, and that the reason we have been lied to is because a group of criminals is trying to manipulate our opinions. For example, my most recent document speculated that a group of criminal Jews set up the false kidnapping of Marina Joyce in order to discredit my accusations that the Bollyn family has been kidnapped.

Many years ago I wrote this article that lists some suspicious events, such as the people claiming that Toyota automobiles would sometimes accelerate uncontrollably, and the mysterious destruction of an oil platform.

Once you realize that crime networks are regularly staging events for damage control, profit, and to manipulate us, you ought to wonder if the Damore memo incident is just another trick. Two possibilities are:

1) James Damore may have truly been irritated by the company's policies, and he wrote the memo in an attempt to help the company. However, eventually some Jews decided to use his memo as a way of intimidating other people into becoming afraid to disagree with Google policies, authority, and/or feminism.

2) Damore is secretly working with the Jewish crime network, and he was told to write that memo so that he could be fired, thereby causing the other employees to become frightened that if they do not behave like submissive sheep, they will be fired, also.

All of the journalists, and thousands of websites, are routinely lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, and lots of other issues, and they also suppress certain information and people in order to manipulate our opinions. We would be foolish to assume those criminals are going to give us an honest summary of the Damore memo incident.

I do not have the time or desire to read the thousands of news reports and editorials about the Damore memo, or watch all of the video interviews with him, but the reports and videos that I have looked at give me the impression that the journalists are trying to manipulate our opinion by focusing on the "anti-diversity" aspect of the issue rather than providing us with a description of what happened. They seem to be trying to encourage us to become angry at Damore.

This article and this video interview provide some information on why and when the memo was created, and when it began causing trouble. Damore says he wrote it about a month before he was fired, but the Google management and employees did not show any interest or concern about it for many weeks.

Note: even though some websites are providing us with more information about the Damore memo incident, don't be fooled into believing that you can trust those sites. All of those sites are either promoting propaganda about the 9/11 attack or other crimes, or they ignore those crimes and promote some other propaganda, such as some type of religious nonsense, or the theory that Earth is flat.

The Jewish crime network is gigantic. It has thousands of people who appear to be working full-time to spread a smorgasbord of propaganda. They are trying to make their propaganda dominate the Internet, the alternative media, and the conventional media. The best attitude is to be suspicious of everybody.

Damore said that the reason he wrote the memo is because he was occasionally sent to meetings that he described as "unrecorded and super secret", and he was concerned that the reason the meetings were so secretive was because Google's attempt to increase diversity was being taken to such an extreme that the company could be accused of illegal hiring practices. He wrote the memo in an attempt to help the company, not insult anybody or cause trouble.

Damore said the Google management ignored his memo until it got publicity. Who gave it publicity? It was an internal memo to only a few Google employees. How did the journalists get a copy? And why did the Google management suddenly switch from ignoring the memo to firing Damore?

Motherboard claims that at least eight Google employees sent tweets about the document on Friday, which I assume they mean 4 August 2017 (Incidentally, when are the schools going to teach journalists that it is stupid to identify a news event with "Friday" rather than a date? Some journalists obviously do not have the sense to figure this out on their own, so they need to be told by a teacher, and probably need to be forced to practice it for a few months, also.)

Who are those eight employees who posted messages on Twitter, and why did they decide to publicize the memo on the same day? Their actions imply that they had gotten together and made a decision to do it, or that somebody told them to do it. Where are those original Twitter messages for us to look at? Why doesn't any journalist interview any of those people so that we can get their viewpoint?

One possible way of explaining the Damore incident is that the Google management initially ignored his memo because they regarded it as an employee's harmless opinion of a company policy, and they had no desire to punish employees simply for stating a common opinion. However, eventually some member of the Jewish crime network decided to use his memo as a way of intimidating people into becoming afraid to question feminism and authority.

So the criminal Jews arranged for some of the Google employees to send tweets about the memo, and they gave a copy of the memo to one of their criminal journalists and told him to publish it. Then they told the Google management to fire Damore.

They also told their network of criminal journalists to write news articles about the firing of Damore, and to focus attention on the "anti-diversity" aspect of the memo. The Jews told the journalists to ignore or minimize other aspects of the incident, such as Google's secretive meetings, their potentially illegal hiring practices, the reason Damore wrote the memo, and other details.

However, we should not ignore those other aspects of the memo. We ought to wonder, why is Google having secret meetings? Is Damore correct that they are doing something that could be considered illegal?

Google might respond that they are doing something that is illegal in order to increase the diversity of their workforce. They may claim that they are wonderful, loving people who are violating our laws in order to help women and minorities get jobs. They may claim that some of the laws are stupid, and they are violating those stupid laws for the good of the people.

If Google is deliberately violating laws for our benefit, that brings up an even more interesting issue: Should businesses be allowed to disregard the laws that they think are stupid? If so, can other organizations, such as the FBI, schools, sports teams, orchestras, charities, churches, and families, also disregard the laws that they regard as stupid? If so, why not also allow individual citizens to have the freedom to disregard the laws that we think are stupid?

If the Google management has the attitude that they can violate the employment laws that they don't like, then we should wonder if they are also disregarding other laws that they don't like.

Those of you who read my documents are certainly aware that many journalists, business executives, military leaders, government officials, school officials, and other influential people are lying to us on a regular basis, and suppressing information and people, in order to deceive us about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, the pedophile networks, and numerous other crimes, which is evidence that they do indeed have the attitude that it is acceptable for them to ignore our laws and participate in murders, arsons, pedophilia, and other crimes, or participate in the cover-up of those crimes.

People in influential positions are abusing us so often that I would be more surprised to discover that the Google management is honest than to discover that they are members of a crime network.

The firing of James Damore reminds me of the trick that the Jews are regularly using to discourage us from investigating the Holocaust. Specifically, to discourage discussions of the Holocaust, the criminal Jews within our police departments and legal system occasionally arrest one of their blackmailed puppets, such as Ernst Zundel and Fredrick Toben, in order to frighten us into believing that we will also be arrested if we express doubts about the Holocaust stories.

The Jewish crime network is struggling to get control of our nations and manipulate our opinions, so we ought to consider the possibility that the firing of James Damore is just another of their tricks to frighten us into remaining submissive, silent sheep.

Even if the firing of Damore turns out to be the result of a few emotionally disturbed Google executives, you are not justified in becoming frightened to disagree with feminism, or to be frightened of authority, or to be frightened to ask why Google is having secretive meetings. Don't be afraid to use your freedom of speech.

We should not have the freedom to insult people or make false accusations, and when we are a member of an organization, we must follow the rules of that organization, but no organization has the right to suppress our freedom of speech during our lunch or other leisure time.

Furthermore, if employees suspect that their managers are involved with illegal activities, I would say that they have a responsibility to discuss this issue in public so that the issue can be investigated and resolved. I do not think it is beneficial to tell anybody to be silent about potential crimes.

• Where is the diversity in our media, government, and business management?

A lot of the entertainers seem to be bipolar, and it seems that there are a lot of pedophiles, homosexuals, and Jews in the media, banking industries, and certain other businesses. Why not complain about the lack of diversity among people in leadership positions and Hollywood?

The most extreme example of businesses that discriminate are those in the diamond district of New York City in which only Orthodox Jews are provided with job opportunities. Why not complain about the Jews who discriminate against us?

• Where is the diversity in science?

The people who promote diversity and who whine about fascism and oppression are not allowing alternative opinions about feminism, carbon taxes, global warming, the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, the Holocaust, and lots of other issues.

The hypocrisy among the people who promote diversity and who complain about fascism is evidence that those people don't really believe in diversity or freedom of speech. Rather, they want to instigate fights between men and women, different races, different political groups, and different nations; they want to suppress our curiosity about historical events and scientific issues; and they want to intimidate us into becoming their obedient servants who are frightened of questioning authority.

Some Jews may respond to my remarks about the Damore memo incident by claiming that I am seeing a Jewish conspiracy in it because I am suffering from some type of paranoia or emotional problem. However, the Jews have been watching my house and trying to manipulate me and my relatives since 2002. I am not paranoid. Rather, I have become aware of how enormous their network is, and I have learned about many of their techniques to manipulate us.

Another of their attempts to manipulate me just failed on 2 August 2017. I was contacted by Vivian Thomson, who also goes by the name Vivian Vivaldi-Pasqua, in June 2017. He has been contacting me occasionally during the past few years to tell me that he likes my idea about creating new cities, but in June 2017 he told me that he wanted to create some music videos for YouTube in which some excerpts of my audio recordings would play over some of the music.

The purpose of the videos was to bring attention to the Bollyn kidnapping and to give my website some publicity. He asked for my permission to use my audio recordings. I could not imagine how playing excerpts of my audio files on top of music would attract anybody's attention, but I told him to go ahead if he wants to try it.

He arranged for some amateur magicians to create a few music videos, and a couple weeks later, in July, they began making and posting them on YouTube. Since the musicians liked "techno music", that is the style of music they created.

I then discovered that the group had already created a music video called "Party Hitler", and when I saw that song, it occurred to me that this was another attempt by the Jews to ruin my image. Were the Jews hoping that I would start promoting Hitler, also?

However, I had a difficult time believing that a group of Jews would authorize such an idiotic plan, so I assumed that these people really were fed up with the corruption and the Jewish crime network, and wanted to help me expose the Bollyn kidnapping and spread my website.

In the description of their videos, they put a link to my website, and not much else. As far as I know, they were the first people to publicly help me expose the Bollyn kidnapping, and to post links to my website. I was getting ready to post an article on my website to point out that these amateur musicians have the courage to help me expose this crime network, so why don't some of you join us? If we can get a lot of people to join us, we would eventually become an information army that puts pressure on the sheeple to bring the issue of corruption and crime networks out in the open.

However, before I had a chance to finish the article about them, they began sending email messages to one another in which they began discussing all sorts of possibilities, such as Christopher Bollyn was faking his kidnapping, and that Christopher was pretending to be Mario Nardone (Nardone wrote this article after visiting the Bollyn family).

Although some of their speculations were valid, some of them were so stupid that it became obvious to me that this group was not truly interested in helping me. They wanted to become my friend only so that they could confuse me as to whether the Bollyn family really had been kidnapped. When their attempt failed, they deleted all of the music videos that they had created, and have stopped trying to be my friend.

I put the audio to the song I like the best on clyp.it, which is one of the simplest sites for sharing audio files. What do you think of their musical talent? Do they have a chance at becoming professional musicians?

Click here If they delete the song, you can download a copy by clicking your RIGHT mouse button on this link and selecting the option to "Save target as." It is 5 megabytes.

Lyrics:

We Destroy Humanity Nine Eleven's Just the Start We Will Drink Your Children's Blood And Tear Your Christian World Apart WE ARE JEWISH KILLERS! Hufschmid is Our Enemy We lock Bollyn in Ropes and Chains Now Chris Speaks Our Lies For Us To Poison All the Masses' Brains WE ARE JEWISH KILLERS! Your Future Life is Nuclear We Will Push the Button First Our Khazar Minds Can Not be Cleaned Let the Goyim All be Cursed WE ARE JEWISH KILLERS!

One member of the group, a woman in Sweden named Jen Karlsson, was the most obvious fraud of the group. She claimed that her father is a Swedish policeman, so perhaps Officer Karlsson is one of the criminal policemen. Mario Nardone discovered that a retired Swedish policeman, Curt Gemheden, was watching over the Bollyn family, so it makes me wonder, how many of the police in Sweden are members of the Jewish crime network?

I won't mention the names of the two Scottish men, or the black American man who is living in Berlin, unless they start bothering me. It is possible that some of the members of that group are not actually members of the crime network but were fooled like I was.

The reason I mention this incident with the music band is to point out to you that ever since I got involved with 9/11, in January 2002, I have been contacted continuously by wonderful, loving, friendly people who want to become my friend or wife. In almost every case, they turned out to be either a Jew, or working for the Jews, and they were trying to manipulate me in some manner, or convince me to do something illegal, or travel to visit them.

By about 2006 I was regularly warning people to be suspicious of everybody, but many people had a difficult time believing that a lot of the wonderful, friendly people that they knew were part of a crime network. In 2007 I warned Christopher Bollyn not to trust Dr. Linda Shelton, but he disregarded my warning.

The Jewish crime network is not playing games. If you are not suspicious of people, you might end up like the Bollyn family, also. The WikiLeaks emails are providing more evidence that the crime network is involved with the kidnapping, rape, sale, and murder of children around the world. You should assume that they are going to try a lot of different tricks to prevent their network from being exposed and arrested.

Although nobody has the courage to publicly promote me or my website, there are lots of people talking about my website in private, and the Jews are becoming worried that my website is encouraging people to question feminism, the social sciences, the media, carbon taxes, the Holocaust, the creation of Israel, the journalists, and lots of other issues.

In 2002 and 2003, as I mentioned in my timeline, the Jews were laughing at me, and they were selling my book and video, and they were interviewing me on their radio stations several times a month. They would also occasionally ask me to speak at one of their meetings. However, starting in 2003 some of the more intelligent Jews began to realize that the Internet was exposing them. Slowly the Jews began to realize that giving me publicity was hurting them, and by 2007, if I recall correctly, only Christopher Bollyn and Daryl Smith were helping to promote my website. After the Bollyn family disappeared, Daryl Smith turned on me, and I have been alone in this battle ever since.

The Jews have become so frightened that they have ordered their members to never mention my name or website. However, they cannot stop you from talking about my website, or the concepts I mention on my website. Also, they cannot stop you from questioning feminism, the Holocaust, or carbon taxes. Therefore, it is possible that the Jews decided to use the Damore memo incident as a way of intimidating you into remaining a docile sheep who is afraid to discuss these issues, and who is easily dominated.

In case you still have doubts about how desperate the Jews are to confuse and manipulate us, I will mention one more recent event that seems to be another of their attempts to confuse us.

I previously mentioned that both Katy Perry and Bob Dylan announced on television that they had made a "deal with the devil" in order to become famous entertainers, but what exactly did they do?

In August 2017, this news article announced that Justin Bieber told a group of people at a Bible study class that he was at a party with executives from the entertainment business, and they offered to make him a superstar, but he would have to go through an initiation ceremony in order to join that special club. The ceremony required him to sexually abuse and then murder a young boy. Bieber told the church group that he could not do it, and so the boy was raped and killed by other people.

That article is dated 3 August 2017. At 2:56 PM that same day, the Gossip Cop website posted this document in which they claimed to have talked to "a source close to Bieber" who said that the article is false.

Gossip Cop also wrote that they "reached out to the editor of that site and the writer of the piece to ask if they stand by their story. Not surprisingly, we have not heard back." However, they posted their article within ... what? minutes? hours? -- of the other article, so it is ridiculous for them to say "not surprisingly, we have not heard back".

My interpretation of these two articles is that the Jews are creating them in order to manipulate our opinions. I would not be surprised if the article about Justin Bieber is actually quite accurate. In order to become a famous entertainer, government official, business executive, school official, or military leader, the crime network that is dominating our nations may require a person to participate in some type of illegal initiation ceremony, such as raping and killing a child.

The WikiLeaks emails have added more evidence that people in leadership positions really are involved with the rape and murder of children, and so that puts more pressure on the crime network to discredit that evidence.

One method to discredit evidence is to publish articles that describe almost exactly what the crime network is doing, and then have somebody else claim that he has proven those theories are false. The reason this trick works is that if somebody uncovers evidence that Bob Dylan engaged in a rape and murder initiation ceremony, the Jews can respond, "Oh, not another of those fake news reports! Somebody already tried this with Justin Bieber. You can't fool us a second time!"

I suspect that the reason both of those articles were posted on the same day was because Gossip Cop was not truly responding to the article at Your News Wire. Rather, they and the people at Your News Wire are members of the same Jewish crime network, and this was a planned operation.

This would also explain why Justin Bieber doesn't sue any of the people who make idiotic accusations against him. If those articles are intended to manipulate us, then the Jews will not want Justin Bieber to demand that the articles be deleted.

In case I have not explained this very well, imagine if somebody had posted a news article in which you are quoted as saying that you turned down a job promotion because you would have had to rape and murder a child, but instead of calling the police, you just watched the boy get raped and murdered by other people. If you were wealthy and famous, wouldn't you tell your lawyer to demand the news article be deleted? You might even file a complaint against the website for posting it.

There are a lot of journalists and government officials who complain about "fake news", but you should note that they complain only about certain fake news, and in some cases they only complain about fake news rather than take action to stop the people who create the fake news.

Our best policy is to be suspicious of the people who complain about "fake news" but show no concern about stopping the fake news about Justin Bieber, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or other issues. They want to eliminate only a few fake news articles; mainly those that accuse the Comet Pizza business of being a front for a pedophile network.

It seems as if I am the only person willing to publicly admit that I think men and women are genetically different, and that we have different intellectual abilities and emotional desires. If there are other people publicly supporting this opinion, the media has done a good job of suppressing them because I am not aware of their existence.

Do the Americans, Europeans, or Japanese have freedom of speech? Yes, legally we do have that freedom, but most people are afraid to use it. Providing people with that freedom makes them feel important and free, but in reality they are just a group of frightened animals that are manipulated and oppressed.

If thousands of people would join me in public discussions of feminism, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and the pedophile networks, we would rapidly uncover more information about these issues, and we would encourage other people to join us. This would increase the speed at which the crime network is exposed and destroyed.

Note that you do not have to agree with my opinions in order to discuss these issues, or in order to pass links to my website. Don't behave like a sheeple who ignores everything that conflicts with his established opinions, and who listens only to what he wants to hear. Push yourself into discussing differences of opinion. You don't learn anything by discussing your own opinions. Rather, you learn something by listening to people who have a different view of an issue.

If the crime network continues to intimidate people into hiding like frightened rabbits, those of us who are fighting the crime network will continue to be a small minority, which means that the fight will continue to be slow, and the criminal networks will continue to dominate our future for a long time.

Another example of how doing nothing is allowing criminals and neurotic people to manipulate us occurred on 11 and 12 August 2017. Jason Kessler convinced a large group of people, probably "conservatives", to participate in protests to express their disapproval of a proposal to remove a statue of General Robert Lee. During the evening of 11 August they were carrying torches.

Did any of the people in that protest bother to spend any time analyzing who Jason Kessler is, what his motives are, or who he associates with? I don't think so. Did any of them discuss the issue of whether that type of protest will serve a useful purpose? I doubt it.

I suspect that the Jewish crime network was responsible for demanding the statue be removed, and that they did so in order to instigate racial fights. I also suspect Jason Kessler is working with the Jewish crime network, and the Jews wanted the protesters to carry torches during an evening protest in order to make them resemble the KKK members.

I also suspect that the Jews organized a group of liberals to have protests in the same locations and at the same times in an attempt to stir up fights, which they succeeded in doing.

In other words, I think the demand to remove the statue and the protest to keep the statue is just another of the many attempts by Jews to instigate racial fights. The conservatives and liberals who follow along are fools who are allowing criminals and neurotic people to manipulate our society.

The people who join the protests are behaving like stupid sheep who follow other people without asking why. They are not behaving like intelligent humans who can think and provide leadership to the world.

The Jews have fooled a lot of black people into believing that they are suffering because some buildings have Confederate flags, and because there is a statue of General Lee. They have fooled those black people into believing that the flags and statue are preventing black people from enjoying life.

However, flags and statues are inanimate objects, and they have no more effect over our lives than the rocks and clouds. If a black person wants to spend his life pouting about a Confederate flag or a statue of Robert Lee, that is his choice. Destroying the flag or statue is not going to improve the life of any black person.

Every city should have discussions about what type of artwork, decorations, statues, colors, and architecture they want for their city, but none of the people involved with the protests are helping their city make wise decisions about these issues. Rather, they are allowing criminals and mentally disturbed people to trick them into participating in obnoxious protests and fights.

Should a statue of Robert Lee be removed? Is that statute inappropriate or offensive? That question is similar to: Should the Egyptian people get rid of the ancient pyramids and statues? Do those statues represent slavery, oppression, and other unpleasant concepts that prevent the Egyptian people from enjoying life? Should we destroy all of the ancient Egyptian artifacts?

Some businesses create replicas of ancient art, including gods that have the heads of animals, as in the photo to the right. Should we prohibit businesses from producing them? Do we want businesses to promote such idiotic religions?

What would you think if a small group of Egyptians began whining that the ancient Egyptian statues and pyramids represent a false religion, slavery, and abusive governments, and so they destroyed all of the ancient Egyptian artifacts?

What would you think if a small group of Italians began destroying all of the ancient Roman Coliseums, statues, and other artifacts because they claimed that those ancient artifacts represent oppression, war, abuse, a false religion, and slavery?

Many black Americans have been fooled by the Jews into believing that the Confederate flag is oppressing them, but I don't think the Caucasian Americans who have those flags are trying to oppress black people. I think they want those flags because they are "conservatives", and they want to follow their ancestors.

I think that the conservative Americans who want a Confederate flag are behaving like the people in Britain who are trying to maintain Gaelic, Welsh, and other old languages, and like the American people who are trying to maintain the Imperial measurement system, and like the Asians who are trying to maintain their prehistoric written language.

There are conservatives all over the world who are insisting that we follow their dead ancestors, even when it makes no sense to do so. Conservatives resist changes; they resist modernizing; they resist thinking for themselves. Conservatives behave like sheep, or like prehistoric savages, not like modern humans.

For a black American to whine that he is oppressed and insulted when somebody has a Confederate flag is as stupid as an English person whining that he is insulted and oppressed when an Irish person speaks Gaelic. For a black person to whine about a statue of Robert Lee is as stupid as the English people whining that the Irish have statues of some of their dead ancestors.

We are not going to improve life by whining or protesting. We need people who can discuss issues in an intelligent manner, and experiment with solutions to our problems. All of the people who whine and protest need to be suppressed. They need to be told that they don't have the intellectual or emotional ability to cope with modern life, and they should keep their mouth shut.

The people who instigate fights are especially destructive to society, and our police and military should be searching for and removing them.

Every city needs to make decisions about its decorations and architecture. We need to decide which historical artifact belongs in a museum, which should be sent to a recycling center, and which belongs in a public location. We also need to make decisions about which historical artifacts businesses should be allowed to replicate.

However, we need these decisions to be made by people who can have intelligent discussions about these issues. This requires that we pass judgment on who among us can contribute something of value to such discussions, and who is neurotic, stupid, or trying to instigate fights.

I would say that the statue of Robert Lee is one of the least offensive pieces of art that we have in the world. That statue is just a man on a horse. It has nothing to do with black people, except to the foolish black people who want to work themselves into a frenzy over it.

Take a look at the artwork in Australia that is referred to as Shits On Stix. It was originally a brown color so that it looked even more like poop, but has since been painted a dark gray. I think most people would agree with me that it is disgusting. That is the type of art we should complain about. You can also see it with Google street view here.

I think a small group of mentally ill people and criminals are dominating us, and the reason they dominate us is because the majority of people are behaving like stupid animals. For example, most people are easily frightened into remaining silent about feminism, the Holocaust, and the 9/11 attack, and they are terrified at the thought of experimenting with changes to their lives and culture.

If only one other person comes forward to publicly discuss these issues, he will be treated like me; specifically, he will be attacked and shunned. He may also be fired from his job. But if thousands of you would find the courage to talk about these issues in public, these type of discussions would eventually become an acceptable activity.

You might find it interesting to consider that the unions could easily improve the world by announcing they will now support free speech. They could offer to support the employees who disagree with feminism, or who want to discuss historical issues, such as the Holocaust and the 9/11 attack. They could also offer to support James Damore and other employees who wonder whether their company is violating laws.

Furthermore, the unions could threaten to shut down the production of food, electricity, and other important products and services unless the military and police conduct an honest investigation of the 9/11 attack, the pedophile networks, and the Holocaust.

Likewise, the unions for school teachers could threaten to shut down the schools unless the lies about the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, and the Holocaust are removed from the school books and news articles.

Unfortunately, most of the unions seem to be dominated by people who describe themselves as "liberals", and those people never do anything of value. Instead, they spend most of their leisure time feeling sorry for themselves and other "Underdogs"; whining about how they are suffering from abuse by bullies, corporations, or rich people; and promoting irrational opinions about life.

The point of this section is that the unions could be a significant, beneficial force, but instead all they do is take money from employees, and help to push inflation higher.

The conservatives frequently boast about their leadership abilities, education, courage, and intelligence, but they cannot provide leadership. The reason is because they are following their emotions like a stupid animal. They are not exerting self-control, thinking about issues, and making wise decisions. They are easily manipulated by small groups of criminals, and conservative men are easily manipulated by women, especially pretty women.

If a large number of the conservative men in influential positions would exert enough self-control to discuss feminism and other issues, then the other conservatives would be under pressure to follow along like sheep and talk about those issues, also, but the men in leadership positions are not setting a good example for us.

In order for us to improve male-female relationships, we need more men to get off their hands and knees, stop pandering to the women, and start providing guidance to the women. We need men who can publicly discuss feminism without fear, without clenching their teeth, and without anger and sarcasm.

If we could measure a man's ability to treat women as "humans" rather than as Queens, we would end up with a bell curve. Where do you belong on that chart? Are you capable of exerting enough self-control to provide guidance to your daughter, wife, or other women?

If you don't have the courage to disagree with feminism in public, there is a simple method for you to inspire discussions of feminism without risking accusations of being sexist. Specifically, you can mention to other people that you discovered an interesting article about feminism, and you were wondering what other people thought about it. You could provide them with a link to one of my articles.

This creates the impression that you are a person with curiosity, and you enjoy listening to other people's opinions. It is easy to deflect accusations of sexism when you are simply asking other people what they think about somebody else's article. This allows you to get discussions about feminism started without having to worry about women accusing you of being sexist.

During prehistoric times, the men did not have to provide leadership to the women. A prehistoric man could spend every day struggling to bring food and gifts to his wife and children. A man could never bring home excessive amounts of items, so he never had to worry about encouraging his children or wife to become spoiled brats.

Also, prehistoric families did not have to deal with complex issues, such as money, abortion, religion, vacations, or pets, so the men did not have to provide their wife with guidance for these issues. The simplicity of prehistoric life allowed the men and women to do whatever their emotions wanted them to do. The men and women would have gotten along extremely well.

However, our modern world is so complex that the majority of men and women need guidance. Since women are less intelligent than men, they need more guidance than the men do. Unfortunately, most men are still pandering to the women, as if we are prehistoric savages. This is allowing women to exert a lot of influence over families and society. This would be wonderful if the women actually had the ability to provide us with leadership, but they are less intelligent and more emotional than men.

By following their stupid emotions to pander to women, men are allowing a less intelligent creature to exert excessive influence over families and society. This is as idiotic as parents allowing their children to dominate the family.

It is also ridiculous for men to continue looking for a wife like a prehistoric savage; namely, by giving gifts to the women, trying to make them laugh, and trying to impress them. In this modern world, both men and women need to make better decisions about who to marry, especially if we are going to raise children. People who are going to have children need to be concerned about the quality of the other person's genetic information.

We have the intelligence necessary to develop better courtship procedures, but experimenting with new procedures requires leaders who have the ability to exert some self-control and push society into experimenting with our culture. We are not going to find those type of leaders among the people who call themselves "conservatives". We need to find people who are much more adventurous, and who can lead people towards a different path.

Women are attracted to feminism because their natural attitude is that they are Queens, and that men are their slaves. They are attracted to the concept that men should put more effort into pampering and worshiping the women.

However, in this modern world, encouraging feminism is encouraging women to imagine that they are being abused by men, when in reality, most women are pampered, and excessively. Feminism is not helping men or women. Rather, it is encouraging fights, divorces, and loneliness.

For a personal example, my sister had a girlfriend who was divorced and lonely. She told my sister that she should get a divorce, also, and then the two of them would have lots of fun together. Eventually my sister was convinced that she should indeed get a divorce. Not surprisingly, not long after she got divorced, her friend fell in love with another man, and my sister was left alone.

My sister's friend encouraged her to get a divorce simply because of selfishness, not because she was trying to help my sister. Now my sister complains about being a lonely, divorced woman who is getting too old to easily find another husband. My sister could repeat the pattern and try to convince one of her other friends to get a divorce, but my sister does not have such an abusive personality.

The feminists promote the theory that women are honest, wonderful creatures, and that men are selfish, oppressive, and abusive. In reality, men and women are just monkeys, and neither of us is better than the other. We are simply different. Women abuse other women on a regular basis. Actually, it is possible that women irritate one another more often than men irritate women.

The point of this is that it is very easy to convince a woman that she is being abused by her husband. Women have a strong craving to be pampered queens, and they want men to be slaves, and so it is easy to convince a woman that she is being mistreated, unloved, and unappreciated by her husband.

Women are attracted to feminism because they love the concept that men need to put more effort into pampering and appreciating women. It doesn't take much effort to fool a woman into thinking that her husband doesn't love her enough, or spend enough time with her, and that she should abandon him and wait for a man who appreciates her.

The feminist movement does not encourage women to research male-female relationships, discuss these issues, or experiment with marriages, courtship procedures, and other culture. Rather, it encourages women to believe that they are intelligent, and that men are abusive. It encourages women to be arrogant and to whine.

Women naturally regard men as slaves, and so it is ridiculous to encourage women to believe that they are being abused by their slaves. This is making a crude relationship even more absurd. It would be more sensible to teach women that in this modern world, this queen/slave relationship is inappropriate. Women today should not expect their husbands to be slaves. They should stop imagining that they are being abused simply because their husband has his own friends and activities.

We need to design society so that women have friends and activities. In our cities today, the women are isolated from their friends, and many of them are living in neighborhoods in which they don't know or like their neighbors. Many women are becoming lonely and bored, and that makes it easy for them to become angry that their husband has abandoned them and should spend more time with them.

By designing cities as I've suggested, we will be able to live in close proximity with our friends, and the government would support lots of free social and recreational activities. The government would also remove criminals, thereby allowing us to feel safe in the city, even at night. This type of city would also provide a safe environment for the children.

The edited photo below is another of my attempts to inspire you to consider the type of neighborhoods that we could experiment with. Imagine living in a city in which there are clusters of tall apartment buildings that are surrounded by parks, bicycle paths, lakes, and recreational areas. Imagine that the city owns all of the buildings and apartments, and all of the apartments are virtually identical, and you can move to any vacant apartment you please, any time you please.

Those type of cities would be extremely quiet and clean because the transportation system would be underground. The primary city noise would be human voices and chirping birds. Living in that type of city would allow everybody to be within walking distance of their friends, and a variety of gardens, parks, bicycle paths, restaurants, social clubs, and recreational areas.

The mothers with young babies would not get bored or lonely during the daytime because they would be living in close proximity to other mothers with babies, and they would have free access to daycare centers, restaurants, and recreational areas. Furthermore, without free enterprise, it becomes practical to provide part-time jobs for women with young children.

I think that type of city would significantly reduce the number of women who are whining about being lonely and unappreciated. It would make it very easy for both men and women to find something to do in the evening rather than sit at home with a dog or a television.

I think that redesigning cities and our culture will significantly improve life for both men and women, but we are never going to start the process of improving our lives until we find enough people with the courage to experiment with new cities and new culture. Can you find that courage in yourself?

Unfortunately, the people with strong conservative attitudes do not have the courage to step away from the crowd. A lot of liberals have the ability to wander away from the crowd, but they are too neurotic to do something useful.

Therefore, we need to find the small number of men who have enough self-control to push themselves into taking a leadership role. Those men need to start discussing important issues in public, such as feminism, experimenting with new cities, the lies about the 9/11 attack, and the pedophile networks. Try to become one of those men, and try to inspire other men to find the courage to discuss important issues rather than Hollywood movies, sports, and Harry Potter.

Try to inspire other men into suppressing their fear of being reprimanded by women. If a lot of men come forward to publicly discuss feminism, new cities, etc., then the less courageous men will feel safe in joining us, and then we will be able to have a significant effect on our future.

The conservatives have a very strong opposition to abortion, and animals can help us understand why the conservatives have this attitude. Their opposition to abortion did not come from an analysis or discussion. Rather, it is the result of people who are following their emotional cravings to protect children.

This female monkey in Thailand risked her life to fight with a dog that was trying to eat her baby. It is this emotional craving to protect babies that resulted in the conservative attitude that abortion is murder.

All animals, especially the females, are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to protect their babies.

Human parents have strong cravings to protect their children because we inherited that craving from the monkeys. However, animals don't care about the quality of anybody's life, and as a result, the conservatives who follow their emotions without thinking about what they are doing will want to protect children, but they won't show any concern about the quality of life of the children.

The emotional craving to protect children resulted in laws that prohibit abortion and euthanasia. However, the people who created those laws don't have any concern for what happens to the unwanted children. They don't care if those unwanted children end up having miserable, lonely lives in orphanages, or whether those children are used as sex or labor slaves, or whether the children end up living in the streets and surviving through begging and crime.

An animal does not analyze the quality of their children's lives. An animal assumes it is doing a proper job of raising children when it provides food and protection for the children. Likewise, the conservatives who follow their emotional cravings and resist thinking will assume that they are wonderful parents simply because their children have food and protection. Those parents don't look at the complexity of life and notice or show any concern that the schools and journalists are lying to their children about the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and the 9/11 attack.

They also don't care that their children are confused or misguided about marriage and sexual issues as a result of all of the confusing, conflicting, and idiotic opinions that are promoted by feminists, homosexuals, pedophiles, or neurotic people. They don't show any concern that businesses are manipulating their children's desires for toys, foods, and clothing, or that businesses are sexually titillating their sons on a daily basis. They don't care that schools are giving their children diplomas even though they don't have any useful skills.

An animal raises children by following its crude emotional cravings to give food to children, and to protect them from danger. Animals do not have the emotional desire or intellectual ability to analyze the more complex issues of life, such as whether their children are having a pleasant life.

The conservative humans have tremendous intelligence compared to an animal, but they don't want to use it. They want to titillate their emotional cravings, not think about complex issues or exert self-control.

Animals and humans receive emotional pleasure when we provide food to children, and when we protect children from danger. The reason people, especially women, love to give food to animals at a zoo is because we have a strong emotional craving to feed children, not because we spent time thinking about the issue and came to the conclusion that it makes intellectual sense for us to give that particular food to that particular animal.

We do not receive any emotional pleasure when we think about complex issues, such as whether a retarded child should be euthanized, or that schools and journalists are lying to the children about historical events. Therefore, the people who want to spend their lives pleasing themselves are going to avoid thinking about those issues.

Animals want to titillate their emotions, not think. Animals raise children only because they have strong emotional cravings to feed and protect children, not because they are interested in creating a new generation of animals. Animals have no concern for what happens to their children when the children grow up. Animals also do not care whether their children are genetically defective, mentally ill, parasitic, or dishonest.

Therefore, the more similar a human is to an animal, the more strongly he will be interested in feeding and protecting children, and the less he will be concerned about the quality of the children's lives, and whether the children become productive members of society or criminals, parasites, or lonely, antisocial freaks. To summarize this concept:

• He will want to play with children, not prepare children to become the next generation of adults.

• He will pressure the schools into giving his children good grades, praise, and a diploma rather than pressure the schools into providing their children with useful skills, constructive criticism, and honest information about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other issues.

• He will want to pamper his children with trust funds, material items, inheritances, and praise. He will not want to put pressure on his children to learn a useful skill and earn whatever they want.

• He will want his children to have special treatment when they commit crimes.

You may have heard some teachers complaining that they are under pressure to give good grades. Where is that pressure coming from? Why aren't the schools under any pressure to remove the lies about 9/11 and the Holocaust? Why is the only pressure they feel to give good grades? Why isn't there any pressure on the schools to teach children useful skills and prepare them for society?

The reason schools are under pressure to give good grades is because most people behave like stupid animals. They regard children as toys to play with, not as the next generation of adults. They want to play with children, not prepare them for life. They want to pamper children with praise and food, not make them learn something useful and earn what they want.

The conservatives boast about how they are too proud to take welfare or handouts, but they are more likely than other people to push society into allowing inheritances, trust funds, special privileges, tariffs, quotas, and other handouts for their children and their businesses. Some of them will donate money to a college in order to bribe the school officials into allowing their children into the college. How is that different from a "handout"?

If you are a parent, are you raising your children like a modern human, or is it more similar to an animal? Have you shown an interest in teaching your children to earn what they want? Or do you pamper them excessively, like an animal parent?

Are you treating your children as devices to titillate yourself with? Or are you preparing them to become productive and impressive adults?

Do you put pressure on the schools to give good grades? Or do you put pressure on the schools to teach something of value?

Would you be willing to support a society in which none of the children were given trust funds, inheritances, or special privileges? Or do you behave like an animal and demand that your children get special treatment?

If one of your children were to commit a crime, would you tell him that he is responsible for his bad behavior? Or are you like an animal parent who will defend your child no matter how awful his behavior is?

Do you care enough about your children to actually do something to improve the future for them? For example, are you willing to support experiments with school systems, crime policies, voting systems, and government systems? Or are you too frightened, confused, apathetic, or selfish to want to participate in improving the future for the human race?

Animals have no ability to contemplate or commit suicide, or to assist other animals in suicide. They also lack the intellectual ability to pass judgment on which of their members have hopeless lives and should be put out of their misery.

Animals have such an incredibly strong desire to survive and reproduce that they will struggle to survive regardless of how much they are suffering. Animals are just biological machines designed to reproduce, and they don't care if they enjoy life. They have no concern about the quality of their life, or the quality of anyone else's life.

Likewise, the conservatives don't care whether they or other people enjoy life. They will struggle to survive, and struggle to help other people survive, no matter how miserable any of them are. They don't care if a person's brain has died, and his body is kept alive by machines. Actually, they regard those people as profit opportunities, and they compete with one another to sell the machines and service to keep the brain-dead people alive.

Journalists often provide us with news reports of an animal that has suffered incredibly, and the journalists praise the animal for never showing signs of giving up hope or committing suicide. The journalists make it appear as if the animal has some special qualities that we should admire. In this news report, for example, a dog that was burned with hot water and thrown out of a window was praised for being "tough", but animals are no more tough than a refrigerator, cell phone, or oven.

Animals don't care how severely they have been tortured, or how miserable their life is. Animals are just machines that are designed only to struggle for survival and reproduction. They are similar to a science-fiction terminator robot that continues trying to achieve its goal even as it is slowly being destroyed.

Conservatives will keep people alive even if they have been destroyed to the point at which they resemble a terminator robot.

Our policy of keeping brain-dead and miserable people alive is not the result of people who thought about the issue, discussed the issue with one another, and agreed that this policy is the most sensible. Rather, it is the result of people who want to follow their crude, animal cravings to survive. It is the result of people who avoid thinking and want to titillate their emotional cravings with no regard to the consequences.

In order for a person to be able to understand and support euthanasia and assisted suicide, he must be capable of exerting enough control over his emotions to allow him to think about the issue. People who want to titillate themselves rather than think are not going to be able to understand or support such intellectually complex policies.

The policies that conservatives follow for abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide are the result of humans who want to satisfy their crude, animal emotions, not the result of humans who are using their intelligence to analyze issues and experiment with our options.

Everybody is arrogant, but if we could measure arrogance, I think we would discover that the people who call themselves "conservatives" are more arrogant than the rest of us. I say this because of my casual observations of people throughout my life. It seems to me that conservatives are the most likely to look for ways to blame their problems on somebody else, and to waste a lot of their time boasting about themselves, and insulting other people.

For example, when the communist Russian government collapsed, millions of conservatives in America took credit for the collapse, or they gave the credit to Ronald Reagan. There is no evidence that American conservatives caused the Russian government to collapse, but the conservatives are so arrogant that they will take credit for achievements that other people have made. They are always looking for reasons to boast about themselves, and to insult other people.

Our arrogance is another of our characteristics that makes sense when you consider what life is like to animals and prehistoric humans. Animals must be arrogant. Animals do not have the intellectual ability to analyze problems. They must assume that everything they learned from their parents is correct. It makes no sense for an animal to have doubts about itself or its group because they do not have the intelligence necessary to deal with a self-analysis or constructive criticism.

The best attitude for an animal is to be proud of itself, and to assume that its family, and its group, is perfect, and that other animals are potential dangers. They must have confidence in themselves and they must regard other animals as potential dangers.

The conservatives, as a group, seem to have a higher level of arrogance than the rest of us. They seem to spend more time than the rest of us boasting about themselves, their family, their college education, their material wealth, their nation, their college fraternity, their business, and whatever other organizations they belong to.

Many of the T-shirts that are produced for conservatives display angry, insulting, or arrogant remarks, such as those below.

These T-shirts express arrogance, not intelligence.

The conservatives are so arrogant and have such a strong resistance to looking critically at themselves that they don't notice how hypocritical they are. An example I mentioned earlier is that conservatives boast about how they are too proud to take welfare or handouts, but if they practiced what they preached, then it would be the conservatives who demand an end to inheritances, trust funds, special privileges, tariffs, and other handouts for themselves, their children, and their businesses.

They would also complain about credit card companies and PayPal that take a percentage of our financial transactions rather than a sensible fee. They would also complain about musicians and other people getting royalties, and demand that everybody work and contribute to society.

There are a lot of conservatives who did not earn what they have, and some of them are involved with crime networks and are cheating to get what they want. However, when they cheat, they describe themselves as being "clever businessmen".

It was necessary for our primitive ancestors to be arrogant, but in this modern world, our level of arrogance is much too high. In addition to causing lots of fights and arguments, it causes us to waste some of our short life on praise for ourselves and our group, and on insults of other people.

Arrogance interferes with progress because neither praise nor insults can improve our life, our government, our social activities, or anything else. In order to improve something, we must be able to critically analyze it, and that requires exerting some self-control over our arrogance.

The people with high levels of arrogance will have a more difficult time improving the nation, culture, and technology. They might be successful at making money in the free enterprise system, and they might be successful as athletes, musicians, artists, and doctors, but they will not be useful as leaders for the modern world.

By comparison, a person with lower levels of arrogance will waste less of his life on praise and insults, which gives him more time for other activities, such as enjoying life, discussing issues, or thinking intelligent thoughts. He will be more productive in his life, and he will be more pleasant to be around. He will be a flower in the human garden rather than an arrogant monkey.

Where do you think you belong on a chart of arrogance? And how effective are you at controlling your arrogance?

The conservatives want to follow one another, and they put up a tremendous resistance to changes and experiments. They want to believe that they are on the correct path, and that people on a different path are making a mistake.

We can understand this attitude by observing wild animals. Baby animals will mimic their parents in regards to what to eat, where to sleep, how to eat, and what type of animal to run away from. Because of genetic diversity, some of the young animals are more independent than others, and some do not do as good a job of mimicking the adults. Observations of those young animals will show us that the more independent animals have a greater tendency to die young. For example, the animals that don't do a good job of mimicking which foods to eat will often eat foods that result in malnutrition or poisoning.

In the photo to the right, a group of wildebeest are crossing a river. Notice that they are following a serpentine path. Why don't they take a shortcut to the land? It is because they have such a strong craving to follow one another that they continue to follow one another even after they have been pushed into a serpentine path by the flowing water. Their craving to follow one another is stronger than their craving to think for themselves and change the course that they are on.

For millions of years, the competitive battle for life has continuously removed the animals that are "excessively" independent. This has resulted in animals that have developed a tremendous craving to follow one another, even when it makes no sense to do so.

Most of the wildebeest would be frightened to take a shortcut to the land. For all they know, there is a deep hole in that area, and there are alligators in the hole. Life is dangerous to a wild animal, and life does not give an animal a second chance or a third chance. Animals don't have ambulances and doctors waiting nearby to rush to their rescue when they hurt themselves when they take a risk. When a wild animal makes a mistake, it can result in death. The safest policy for an animal is to mimic an animal that is successful, and without questioning why that other animal is doing what he does.

Humans inherited that craving to follow the successful people. We are terrified at the thought of wandering off on our own.

Humans mimic one another because of our crude, emotional cravings, not because we put time and effort into analyzing the issue and came to the conclusion that it makes intellectual sense to mimic somebody.

In order to wander away from the crowd, a person has to be different in some manner. For example, he has to have less of a craving to mimic other people, or a greater craving to explore the world, or a greater desire to think, or a greater level of self-control.

How much like an animal are you in regards to thinking new thoughts and experimenting with new ideas? Do you have the courage to experiment with a new city design, new social systems, and new culture? Or does that terrify you?

During the past century or two, scientists began to realize that some of the chemicals we were producing are dangerous to our health. However, every time a scientist pointed out that a particular chemical was dangerous, the conservatives reacted with anger. For example, when the scientists warned the world that tetraethyl lead was dangerous, the conservatives reacted with anger.

The conservatives have shown no interest in pollution or health issues, but it's not because they don't have the ability to understand these issues. It is because they want to follow their ancestors, and their ancestors had no concern about these issues. If our ancestors had been concerned about health issues, then the conservatives would have picked up that concern. In such a case, anybody who tried to tell them to stop being concerned would cause them to become angry.

Conservatives react with anger to anybody who tries to change the path they are on. They don't want to think about where they are going. They want to follow whatever religion, language, and measurement system they grew up with, and they want to follow whatever attitudes they picked up about tetraethyl lead, and they want to follow whatever beliefs they picked up about clothing styles and food.

In July 2017, this article appeared in which some scientists speculated that a chemical is reducing the intelligence of fetuses in pregnant women. Conservatives do not react to those type of articles by responding, "Thank you for providing this information, and having a concern to keep us and our children in good health!" Rather, they respond with anger.

My mother is the type of person who will follow authority, like a conservative. When I told her she should try Stevia, she resisted because the authorities recommend other artificial sweeteners. A few years ago I decided to take a bottle of Stevia to her house and push her into trying it, but she got too much of it, which makes it easy to notice that it has an aftertaste, and she immediately reacted that it was awful, and that she doesn't ever want to try it again. It felt as if I was trying to make a little girl eat some lima beans, or whatever food she is refusing to eat.

A few months ago my mother noticed that I was frequently buying mushrooms, and she asked how I prepared them. I told her about my method, which I made this video about, but after observing her fear of Stevia, this time I wanted to create the impression that I was following a common recipe that millions of people around the world have been using for thousands of years, and was approved of by the authorities.

I made some mushrooms for her when I was visiting her, and she loved them so much that she started cooking them that way for herself. I still have not told her that it was my concept to cook them in that manner.

All of us have this characteristic of being frightened by something new, but we have it to different degrees. When we taste a new food, or when somebody tells us about a new opinion, new recreational activity, or new holiday celebration, our crude, animal emotions will react with fear in order to make us be cautious. We need to exert some self-control and give everything a fair chance.

When we try new foods, we may have to push ourselves into eating them more one time, and over a period of weeks. The reason is because if the food is significantly different from what we are familiar with, our emotions need to become so accustomed to the new food that they can relax and let us truly determine whether we like the new food. The stronger your fear of something new is, the more difficult it will be for you to try something new.

The same is true of new social activities and sports events. We have to try them several times before we can truly determine whether we like them because during the first few attempts at trying them, our emotions will be telling us to stop and run away.

An animal brain seems to have evolved to categorize everything into one of two categories: 1) friend and 2) enemy. Since we inherited our brain from a monkey, we also tend to put everything into one of two categories. We have a difficult time realizing that everything in life is a spectrum, or a bell curve, rather than a simple case of good or bad, right or wrong. This is why conservative frequently insult us as being "liberals" when we disagree with them. They regard people as being either conservatives or liberals. They have a difficult time realizing that people don't fit into two, distinct categories.

An interesting example of how we have a tendency to divide everything into two groups is the issue of fruit that ripens after picking. Our natural tendency is to classify every fruit into one of two categories; namely, fruit that ripens after picking, and fruit that does not ripen after picking.

In reality, if we were to analyze the way fruit ripens after picking, we would end up with a chart that resembles the one to the right. Every fruit ripens after picking, but some ripen for a longer period of time. Avocados and bananas, for example, continue to ripen for weeks, whereas other fruits ripen for only a few hours.

When we purchase food from a market, many of those fruits were harvested several days earlier, and by the time we get them to our home, they have gone past the time at which they ripen. This creates the illusion that those particular fruits do not ripen after picking.

Conservatives boast about being intelligent and educated, but if that were true, they would be the people who are the most likely to see the complexity of issues such as this. Instead of telling us that some fruits ripen after picking and some do not, they would create a chart that shows us how long each fruit continues to ripen after picking.

The same concept applies to the death of animals. Animals do not die within one nanosecond. Death takes time, and different parts of an animal's body die at different rates. With some primitive animals, such as chickens, we can chop the head off the creature, and if we seal the blood vessels at the neck, the body will continue living for hours or days. By comparison, when the head is chopped off of a human, the heart will stop beating within a very short period of time, and during the following 10 to 30 minutes, the muscles and other organs will run low on oxygen, and they start to die.

The tendency of conservatives to divide everything into one of two groups makes it difficult for them to be effective leaders in this modern world. To a conservative, for example, every drug, such as marijuana, alcohol, insulin, and aspirin fits one of two categories, good or bad, or legal or illegal. They can't see the complexities of life. They can't see that we actually have an incredible number of options to experiment with.

To the conservatives, we have only two options for our future: we either follow the correct path, or we follow an incorrect path. They cannot see that we can go anywhere we please, and that we can safely experiment with all aspects of our culture. The conservatives don't want to think about their options, experiment with changes, explore life, or learn something new. They don't want options. They want to mimic other people.

When I was a child, I would sometimes ask my father a question, but rather than give me an answer, he would sometimes respond by saying, "That is like asking, how long is a piece of string?" Although his life was full of failures, and he picked up a "feel sorry for me" attitude, he could see the complexity of life, and that might be why I can see it. What about you? Do you tend to divide everything into two groups? How easy is it for you to see the complexity of life?

Animals have no interest in learning, thinking, or discussing issues. Farm animals and pets spend their lives eating, lounging, and reproducing because that is what animals prefer to do, not because the humans are forcing that lifestyle on them. Animals don't want to explore the world, earn the food they eat, learn any skills, or discuss complex issues. They want to lounge, and they enjoy having somebody bring them food and protect them from the weather.

When an animal encounters a problem, his preferred method of dealing with it is to run away and hide from it. When they cannot run away, they try to intimidate it by pounding their chest, showing their teeth, and making noises. They try to appear frightening and dangerous so that they can avoid violence and confrontations. They don't want to fight. They want to lounge, eat, and reproduce.

Humans inherited those behavioral characteristics from the monkeys. However, during the past million or so years, humans developed a greater interest in exploring the world, and getting together with other people to do things as a group.

The more similar a person is to his monkey ancestors, the more he will enjoy spending his life like a farm animal; specifically, having somebody bring him food while he spends the day lounging.

We also react to problems like animals. We will either run away and hide from the problem, or we will react with anger and want to glare at, yell at, or kick whatever is causing the problem.

Our reactions are sometimes completely irrational. For example, if we become upset while working with some material item, we might become angry at the item, and that can trigger our animal cravings to hit, yell at, and kick the item. When we yell at or kick a material item, we are behaving exactly like an animal that is biting and kicking another animal, but it makes no sense for us to do this with material items.

Our emotions were not designed for this technically complex world. Our emotions evolved for a world in which our confrontations were with animals and people, and those type of confrontations can be resolved with yelling, biting, and kicking. Our emotions do not realize that yelling and kicking cannot resolve a problem with a computer, automobile, or washing machine.

In this modern world, we need to exert self-control and think about what we are doing. Many of our emotions are inappropriate today.

Our emotions do not push us into researching our problems, discussing our problems, or experimenting with solutions. Our emotions encourage us to hide from problems, or yell at and kick the problem. Our emotions are encouraging inappropriate behavior. The people who follow their emotions will be failures at dealing with their personal problems, and with the problems of society.

Our craving to yell and throw objects when we are upset is the reason we enjoy running out into the streets to yell slogans and throw rocks. We refer to these protests as "freedom of speech", but we should refer to it as crude, animal behavior. It is equivalent to a monkey who is biting and scratching another monkey.

Modern society has a lot of irritating aspects, such as overcrowding, crime networks, incompetent government officials, and pollution. Our emotions want to resolve these problems by either hiding from the problems, or fighting with the problems. Unfortunately, it is useless to fight with intangible concepts, such as overcrowding and corruption, and hiding from a problem was effective during prehistoric times, but not with the problems we face today.

The only sensible way to deal with modern problems is for us to research the problems, discuss possible solutions, and compromise on experiments to conduct with our culture. Unfortunately, a person who wants to follow his emotions will not be interested or able to do that.

The conservatives boast about how they are the leaders of society, but they are doing nothing to solve our problems. They are ineffective because their preferred reaction to problems is either to hide from it, or yell at it. They don't have the desire or ability to get together to discuss problems, compromise on policies, and experiment with changes to culture.

During prehistoric times, the men with strong conservative attitudes would have been wonderful as leaders, but today they are ineffective because modern society needs leaders who can think, compromise, experiment, and explore. We no longer benefit from monkey-like leaders who react to problems by yelling and kicking.

The liberals are ineffective as leaders, also, because they have a tendency to react to problems by pouting, having tantrums, or crying. Furthermore, most of them seem to have intellectual and emotional defects that prevent them from producing intelligent thoughts.

The majority of people do not have the emotional or intellectual qualities necessary to provide guidance for the modern world.

Animals are not violent. When they get into fights with one another, they rarely try to kill one another. Rather, they try to intimidate one another.

We inherited that nonviolent characteristic from our animal ancestors. We look for ways to avoid violence, such as designing a mouse trap that will capture mice without harming them so that we can release them somewhere else.

If there was a shortage of mice in the world, those traps would make sense, but the population of mice, rats, pigeons, and certain other creatures is excessive today because our cities are providing them with a lot of food and protection, and that has allowed their population to grow far beyond what was possible during prehistoric times.

We are fools to waste our engineering talent and resources on "humane mice traps". If we had leaders who could exert some self-control, and who could think properly, they would prohibit such mice traps and instead authorize the development of robots that can patrol in and around our buildings, train tunnels, and cities to find, identify, and kill pigeons, mice, rats, and other creatures.

The conservatives in America promote the purchasing of guns, and the end result is that there are millions of Americans with guns, which might make the human race seem to be quite violent. However, only a few of those people are willing to use their guns to kill people.

Most conservatives who own guns have no desire to get together with the police or military and help them to kill or capture the crime networks that are infiltrating and getting control of our government, media, and schools. They will not even get together with their friends to make a citizen's arrest of Larry Silverstein.

The conservative gun owners have lots of excuses as to why they will not use their guns to help stop the crime networks and corruption, but the true reason is because they are behaving like animals. They are frightened by crime, and they want guns because they are afraid, not because they want to get together and do something to get rid of the crime networks.

A lot of conservative men will get into fistfights, and they boast that fistfights prove that they are brave and courageous, but getting into a fistfight, especially over some idiotic issue, does not show that a person has bravery or courage.

We could say that when humans yell at each other, they are doing the equivalent of dogs that bark at each other, and when humans get into a fistfight, they are doing the equivalent of dogs that are biting each other. We should describe yelling and fistfights as typical animal behavior, rather than praise it as a sign of bravery.

If conservatives were truly as brave and intolerant of crime as they claim to be, they would be helping to spread information about the crime networks, and they would want to get together with other people, including the police and military, to do something to stop the corruption.

There are some people in the police and military who are willing to use guns to help stop the crime networks, but those people are a small minority. There are tens of millions of American citizens with guns who could be helping in this fight, but who refuse to do something as simple as spreading information about the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings, or the pedophile networks, or the lies about the Holocaust.

Furthermore, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who have access to the Internet, and they could be regularly posting links to articles on their websites and Facebook pages that provide people with evidence that the 9/11 attack was a fraud, that there is a pedophile network within our government and media, and that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust and the world wars. Millions of men could also be using the Internet to publicly disagree with feminism.

However, only a few of the billions of people in this world are publicly spreading information about these issues. Most people are more interested in talking about video games, sports, and Hollywood.

There are thousands of people using the Internet to talk about 9/11 and other issues, but almost all of those people are spreading propaganda, not information.

When people get together for dinner, social affairs, or recreational events, they talk about lots of different political and social issues, but if somebody talks about the Apollo moon landing hoax, the Holohoax, or my website, other people will try to intimidate them into becoming silent.

The conservatives frequently boast about their courage, but none of them are brave enough to discuss these issues in public. Where are the people with bravery or courage? All I see around me are frightened animals.

There are individual men in the military and police with the courage to fight the crime networks, but are there enough of those men to fight such a gigantic network on their own?

If the military were to announce that they need assistance in fighting the crime network, how many of the conservatives with guns would volunteer to help? And how many would look for excuses to do nothing?

The conservatives use the Second Amendment as justification for their guns, but how many are willing to become a member of a militia and use those guns to help the military defend their nation? I suspect that most conservatives would find some excuse to avoid helping the military.

I think most of the conservatives want a gun for the same reason a young child wants a teddy bear to sleep with at night. I think most conservatives only boast about their courage, but in reality, they would run away if the military asked them for help. I think they would look for excuses to remain in their house with their TV and ice cream while somebody else deals with the problems of the world. The Second Amendment was not intended to provide guns to those type of people.

The second amendment was intended to provide guns to people who are going to get together and use the guns to defend the nation. It was not intended for people who want to play with guns, or shoot at road signs, or hide in their house like a frightened rabbit.

I was a child during the 1960s, and it was common for adults, especially women, to push children into eating lots of food. This attitude has been passed down from generation to generation for millions of years because food is scarce to animals. Animals struggle to find enough food for themselves and their children, and when they find food, they want their children to eat as much as possible. Animals may have to survive without food for several days or weeks, so when they find food, they should eat it, even if they are not very hungry. Animals and prehistoric people are taking a risk if they turn away an opportunity to eat.

Animals evolved a strong craving to feed their children, but they never developed any craving to pass judgment on when they have provided enough food. The end result is that animals want to feed their children, but not restrict their food.

Our technology today enables us to produce an excessive amount of food all throughout the year, and every year, and so it no longer makes sense for adults to push children into eating food. Our crude, animal attitude towards food is encouraging children to become sickly and obese.

Adults today need to make wise decisions about when they and their children have eaten enough food. We have to do the opposite of what animals do. Rather than eat whenever we get the opportunity, we need to exert some self-control over our craving for food, push ourselves into thinking about food, and using our intelligence to restrict our consumption of food.

We will suffer emotional pain if we do not eat as much food as our emotions want to eat, so only the people with certain mental qualities will be successful at restricting their food consumption. Most of the population does not seem to have the qualities necessary to do this, and so they will become overweight, sickly, or anorexic.

To make our situation worse, our free enterprise system has no concern for how businesses make money, and the end result is that lots of businesses are competing with each other to sell food products, and many of those products, such as candy bars and soda, are foods that we don't need, and can result in nutritionally unbalanced diets.

We need to analyze our attitudes towards food and experiment with improvements. We need to be concerned about the type of foods we produce, and we especially have to be concerned about the quantities of foods that we are allowing children to have access to.

Ideally, our leaders would regularly analyze food related issues and continuously look for ways to improve our food products, farms, restaurants, and other food related culture in order to provide us with better health, better tasting food, and more pleasurable restaurants.

Unfortunately, most people are still behaving as if they are prehistoric savages, such as eating whenever they please, and showing no concern for the quantities or health aspects of the food. There are still people today pushing food on children, and most people show no concern that businesses are competing to manipulate our food desires and offer us food products that are nutritionally unbalanced.

Many of our food recipes are also outdated and should be revised. I mentioned an example of this years ago when I pointed out that when we are making bread, we no longer have to follow the medieval custom of kneading the dough, then letting the dough rise, and then kneading it a second time, and then letting it rise again, and then putting it into a pan and letting it rise a third time.

I make my own bread by grinding wheat, kamut, buckwheat, and other grains. During the past few years, I have become so impatient that I now make the bread in 30 to 45 minutes. For those of you who have trouble believing this is possible, I put some information and photos here. If restaurants were to follow this technique, and if we were living in a city in which we got our food from free restaurants, we would be able to eat truly fresh bread whenever we pleased.

Some of our food products are only a few decades or centuries old, but even though they seem "modern", many of our recipes are outdated. For another example, gelatin is a relatively recent food product in human life, so you are likely to assume that our attitudes towards gelatin products are up-to-date, but they are actually crude and need updating.

It appears that the first people to make gelatin were in Britain during the 1400s. In that era, there were no thermometers, which prevented people from creating recipes that specified temperatures. Also, the stoves in that era were burning wood or coal, which made it difficult for people to control the temperature compared to modern stoves. Furthermore, the people did not have high quality kitchen utensils. They would boil water in a crude metal pot, and then transfer the hot water to some other container for making a gelatin product. A lot of people in that era did not have clocks or timers, either.

The crude kitchens of centuries ago resulted in people creating gelatin recipes that could be summarized like this:
1) Heat some water until it is boiling.
2) Pour the boiling water into a container, add gelatin, and stir until the gelatin dissolves.
3) Add other items, such as fruit, vegetables, or meat.
4) Let the mixture cool until the gelatin solidifies.

Eventually scientists analyzed gelatin. They discovered that we don't have to boil water in order to dissolve gelatin. All we have to do is heat the water to about our body temperature.

Once you realize that gelatin dissolves in warm water, you will realize that the recipes that tell us to boil the water are outdated. Gelatin will dissolve faster in boiling water, but unless you're in a hurry, you can use warm water.

By making gelatin products with warm water rather than boiled water, it is easy to make gelatin products with foods that we don't want to expose to high temperatures, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and even avocado. The low temperature also makes it more practical for mothers to allow their young children to make gelatin products.

I will give an example of how I make gelatin products at low temperature.

When my fruit trees produce more fruit than I can eat, I freeze some of the apricots, plums, and white peaches. However, from my experiences with freezing fruit, fresh fruit does not freeze very well, especially not my white peaches. The fruit seems to have a longer life and a better flavor if I first remove the seeds and heat the fruit to somewhere near 50°C for white peaches and apricots, and 60°C for the variety of plums I have, which I assume are the Santa Rosa plums. However, I have not conducted experiments to figure out exactly what temperature is best for different fruits.

I assume that the heat breaks down some enzyme that causes the fruit to degrade. The heat also has the side effect of making the fruit slightly sweeter.

When I want to eat some of the frozen fruit, I sometimes take a chunk from the freezer, let it defrost in a bowl, add some powdered gelatin and water, and then put the bowl into a pan of warm water and let it reach about 110°F or 40°C. That temperature is so low that it does not cook the fruit any further. It is also so low that you can make the gelatin in plastic containers.

Then I put it in the refrigerator and let the gelatin set, which takes only an hour or two because the temperature was so low.

This produces a fruit gelatin, but unlike the commercial fruit flavored gelatins, which is artificially flavored and colored water, this type of fruit gelatin is a true food that has nutritional value. And since the fruit was ripe when I picked it, I don't have to add sugar, although I usually add a bit of Stevia, especially with the plums because I don't bother to remove the tart skins. I actually like the sweet-and-sour mixture of the sweet plums with the tart skin.

The photo below shows some strawberries that I cut into pieces, heated to about 40° to 50° C, and then added some water and gelatin. Unlike commercial strawberry gelatin products, it is real fruit. If you don't add much gelatin, it will be soft enough to be used as jam.

Stevia has too strong of a flavor for mild tasting fruits, such as bananas and strawberries, so you will probably want to add some sugar to the strawberries that you purchased from a market since commercial fruit never seems to be completely ripe.

Unlike commercial gelatin products and jams, you can decide for yourself how much sugar you want in it. However, it will not have as long of a shelf life compared to the sterilized and preserved commercial foods, so I make only as much as I want to eat during one meal.

A lot of parents complain that the jellies, jams, and gelatin products that are served in our schools are nutritionally worthless, but schools could be providing children with jams and gelatin products that are nutritionally balanced foods. Children enjoy gelatin products, so why not provide them with gelatin products that are useful as foods?

We don't have to continue on the path we are on right now in which businesses are profiting from food products that are nutritionally unbalanced. However, changing the course we are on requires that we provide ourselves with leaders who have the courage to step off the established path and experiment with our options.

Do you have enough self-control to suppress your fear of the unknown to the point at which you would be willing to allow society to experiment with food recipes? Or are you so frightened of experimentation that you are terrified to taste Mochi?

Pizza, tomato sauce, ketchup, and other foods should also be updated. During the 1980s, the Reagan administration proposed that schools regard tomato ketchup as a "vegetable", but some people claim that 25% of the typical commercial tomato ketchup is sugar.

Tomato sauce could be regarded as a vegetable, and pizza could be a nutritionally balanced food, but businesses in a free enterprise system are competing to titillate us, rather than competing to provide us with healthy foods. As a result, they give us foods that stimulate our senses, rather than foods that are intellectually sensible.

One of these days we might find a business offering us some deep-fried sugar cubes. They will be artificially flavored with chemicals of unknown safety, of course.

Incidentally, the concept of deep-fried sugar cubes might seem absurd, but it's not much different from a conventional donut. The difference is that the sugar on a donut is mostly on the outside surface, whereas a deep-fried sugar cube puts the sugar on the inside.

Likewise, there are some businesses selling deep-fried butter, which might seem bizarre, but some croissants and butter cookies have enormous amounts of butter mixed in the dough.

Getting back to the issue of pizza, if we get rid of our free enterprise system, and if we can provide ourselves with appropriate leaders, we could develop a variety of pizzas that are nutritionally valuable. For example, when I make a pizza, I grind some wheat, kamut, and sometimes other grains, thereby creating a pizza crust of freshly ground, whole grains, rather than processed, white flour. I also usually let the dough rise a bit so the pizza crust is like bread rather than pasta.

For the topping, I mix a can of diced tomatoes with some tomato paste, pizza spices, and a small amount of olive oil. It creates a pizza sauce that is primarily diced tomatoes. I put a thick layer of that sauce on the pizza. I don't bother with cheese, although I sometimes sprinkle Parmesan cheese on top.

I think the reason people are putting so much cheese on their pizzas is because their pizzas do not have much oil. Our mouth evolved to eat foods with certain flavors, consistencies, and components, and cheese adds oil to the pizza, which makes it "feel" better to us.

Since my pizza is made from freshly ground, whole grains, the base of the pizza has a more appropriate mixture of oil, protein, and carbohydrates. And instead of putting a thin layer of sugary tomato sauce on top, I put a thick layer of diced tomatoes in a tomato sauce, and I do not put any sugar in the sauce. The tomato paste adds enough sweetness for me. If schools were serving that type of pizza, the children would be getting a lot of nutrition.

That type of pizza does not need the oil of cheese, but the main reason I don't add cheese is because I don't like the slimy, gooey quality of cheese. Parmesan cheese is acceptable because it's more like a powder, and it is used in small quantities.

I mentioned that we don't need to boil water to dissolve gelatin. In addition to making it easier for us to make gelatin products, using warm water instead of hot water might have one other advantage; specifically, we might discover that it is healthier to avoid boiling the water.

In July 2008 I mentioned that when we boil water, tiny silver specks develop, and my assumption is that the minerals were coagulating. Recently I discovered something related to this issue that might be of significance.

As the winter of 2016 began, I noticed that the hot water in my house seemed cooler than usual, and as the months passed, the water became increasingly cool. We were having an unusually cool winter, so I assumed it was because global warming was failing. Eventually the pilot light extinguished itself, and the control unit would no longer function.

I purchased a new water heater, but before I removed the existing water heater, I connected a hose to its drainage valve in order to drain it, opened the valve, and I was surprised to discover that not even one drop of water came out. I removed the hose and shoved a screwdriver into the drainage hole, and discovered that it was packed with a translucent slush.

The screwdriver got the slush flowing onto my garage floor, so I quickly connected the hose to it and let it drain onto the driveway. I assumed it was some type of gel, but it dried into a white powder, like minerals.

I found the receipt for the water heater, and discovered that I purchased it in 1993, which means that it had an incredible lifetime of nearly 24 years. My experiences with this water heater bring up several interesting issues:

1) We can extend the life of a water heater.

My water heater should have had a life of only 8 to 12 years, but I got 24 years because I had put a flap on the top to retain heat, and that resulted in the pilot light providing most of the heat that I needed, which in turn meant that the water heater rarely turned on the burner, which apparently is the primary cause of degradation in a water heater. Therefore, simply designing water heaters to do a better job of retaining heat would extend their life significantly.

Incidentally, I updated my drawing of the water heater so that it is more accurate. Click the small illustration to the right to get a better view of it. Specifically, I included the connection to the vent on the roof. When the wind is blowing, air is sucked up the tube, which pulls air up through the water heater, causing the water to cool down. In order to stop that suction effect, a large number of holes have to be put into the tube in front of the vent. Or, the vent has to be redesigned to prevent that type of suction.

2) Occasional draining might improve performance.

Minerals had been coagulating and settling along the bottom of the water heater. After 24 years, the slush of minerals was so thick that it was reducing the water capacity of the tank, and it was interfering with the heating of the water. This would explain why the water was becoming increasingly cool. Therefore, it might be useful for us to drain the minerals from a water heater every 5 or 10 years.

3) How would water softeners affect the situation?

Do the minerals develop if we have a water softener? Or does a different type of mineral develop with a water softener? I had a water softener for many years, but when the unit broke, I did not bother to replace it. The water softeners make showers more pleasant, but I don't like soft water for washing dishes or my hands because it feels as if the soap never comes off.

4) At what temperature do the minerals start to coalesce?

In my document from 2008, I pointed out that clumps of minerals form when we boil water, but my water heater does not boil the water. At what temperature do they start to coagulate?

5) Does this have any effect on our health?

When we heat water to make soup, coffee, tea, or gelatin products, are we causing the minerals to coagulate? And if so, does this have any effect on our health?

Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, the businesses that produce water heaters, and the plumbers who replace and repair water heaters, do not have any financial incentive to conduct research programs on the health effects of the hot water, or to extend the lifetime of water heaters, so they are not going to study these issues, or care about them. Our universities are capable of studying these issues, but they are currently dominated by people who are more interested in promoting carbon taxes, feminism, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust.

The sludge of minerals in my water heater is another reason you should find the courage to push yourself into experimenting with a better economic system, and better leadership.

There are billions of people on the earth, but I don't expect the liberals to be of any value in helping us to make the world a better place. However, there are billions of conservatives who could be doing something useful.

Imagine what would happen if even a small percentage of the conservatives would find the courage to publicly discuss the issues that I talk about on my website. In such a case:

• Millions of people would occasionally encounter a website or Facebook page in which a conservative was posting a link to evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, and that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust.

• During lunch at work, millions of people around the world would occasionally hear some of their conservative coworkers talk about the WikiLeaks emails, and demanding an investigation into what John Podesta meant by flying tortillas in from Mexico.

• At social events and dinners, millions of people would occasionally hear some conservatives discussing the issue of creating some new cities, and allowing the cities to experiment with new economic and government systems.

• Millions of people would occasionally encounter conservatives who complain that schools are lying to children about historical events, and students around the world would occasionally hear a conservative student ask the teacher about these issues.

The point I'm trying to make is that if even only 1% of the conservatives had the courage to help me to expose and stop the corruption, they would have a significant effect on the world. They would rapidly spread information to hundreds of millions of people. This in turn would make it much easier for us to improve the world.

That small minority would make life difficult for the crime networks, and they would put schools under pressure to remove the lies from the history books, and they would put pressure on NASA to be honest. They would also dampen the feminist movement.

One of the things that surprised and shocked me when I first began exposing the 9/11 attack is the incredible apathy and selfishness of the human race. Most people reacted just like stupid sheep, and most of them are still acting like animals, almost 20 years later. Most people want to run away and hide from the information. They are allowing a very small group of criminals and mentally disturbed people to abuse us. It is incredible. It is shocking. It is disappointing.

When Janet Jackson exposed her nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show, the information and photos were passed around the Internet within days, and millions - or billions - of people were informed of it, including people who had no interest in American football. Imagine if people would spread information about the Holocaust that quickly, or about the pedophile networks.

Conservatives often rant and rave about schools, but not about the lies in the history books. Rather, they complain that the schools don't teach religion or allow prayer. They also rant and rave about the government, but not about the corruption in government, or the pedophile network in the government, or that the government is involved with a fraudulent war in the Middle East. Rather, they complain the government is allowing abortion. They focus on issues of no importance, or which are idiotic.

Likewise, the liberals focus on issues of no importance. For example, some of them whine when the government kills some of the wild animals that are reproducing excessively, and some whine about people who eat meat, and millions of them whine whenever a policeman loses his temper with a criminal. They don't care what John Podesta meant by flying in tortillas from Mexico. They don't care that Jews are instigating wars and lying about the Holocaust.

The world has a lot of problems, but not because of the devil, ignorance, or poverty. Our world is suffering because humans are just a species of monkey. We have not yet evolved into a truly intelligent species. Our primary interest in life is eating and reproduction, not working together to make a wonderful world for ourselves. We still have a strong resistance to thinking, learning, working, criticism, compromising, and cooperating. We are still extremely selfish and territorial.

In order to improve the world, we have to identify the people with higher quality minds, and put them in control. Our governments are currently dominated by some of the worst people imaginable; specifically, pedophiles, crime networks, and lunatics. Our economic system is dominated by people with neurotic cravings for material wealth. The entertainment business is dominated by people with neurotic cravings for fame and status, and the pedophile network seems to be infiltrating the entertainment business, also. We need to raise standards for people in influential positions.

The world has a lot of problems, but we cannot expect people with strong conservative attitudes to help us deal with them. Conservatives cannot provide us with leadership or guidance because they want to follow their ancestors. They are terrified of experimentation.

If our ancestors had been godlike creatures who had the answers to life, then it would be wise for us to follow our ancestors, but our ancestors were ignorant and stupid animals. A human who wants to follow animals cannot provide a modern human society with leadership.

Furthermore, we cannot improve anything unless we can look critically at it, but conservatives have difficulty looking critically at themselves and their organizations. They become defensive and angry when criticized. They treat criticism as an attack on themselves and their group.

The conservatives behave like monkeys and savages, not humans. The conservative attitudes were necessary for prehistoric people, but in our modern world, those attitudes are crude, outdated, and animal-like. Those attitudes are causing trouble for us. For some examples:

• The conservatives are causing the human race to degrade genetically and become overcrowded because they cannot deal with the complex issues of genetics, abortion, retardation, or birth control.

• Their craving to mimic and their fear of change is causing them to continue promoting idiotic religious beliefs that were developed by ignorant people thousands of years ago.

• They are allowing crime networks to operate freely around the world because they don't want to do anything to expose or stop them.

• Their fear of experimentation causes them to oppose suggestions to modernize our school curriculum, economy, government, and other culture.

Our cities are ugly, and they are providing us with a miserable social environment. There is loneliness everywhere, and men and women are having an increasingly difficult time forming pleasant, stable relationships. There is pollution and overcrowding everywhere, and they are getting worse.

We don't have to live in these miserable conditions, but improving our situation requires people who can experiment with new culture and new social systems. It requires people who can look critically at our culture, discuss these issues, and compromise on policies.

Unfortunately, we are not going to solve any of our problems if we put conservatives in control of our world, or if we ask the conservatives to join us in discussions of what to do. The conservatives are worthless in discussions because they react to criticism and differences of opinion with anger, suspicion, and fear, rather than with curiosity and questions.

They don't want to experiment with new ideas. Rather, they complain that the new ideas are ruining the world, and that we can improve the situation by mimicking our ancestors. In America, for example, the conservatives promote the attitude of "returning to the Constitution", whereas in Japan they promote following the Japanese people from centuries earlier, and in China they promote following the ancient Chinese people.

Furthermore, it is difficult for conservatives to compromise on issues because they are so arrogant that each of them is certain that the culture that he picked up during his life is correct, and that everybody else is incorrect. Each of them is convinced that his particular religion is correct, and that every other religion is false, and that his particular beliefs on marijuana are correct, and everybody else is wrong.

Since each of them is convinced that his opinions are correct, and since it makes no sense to compromise with a person who is incorrect, they don't want to compromise. They demand that we follow them.

Conservatives are so arrogant that they sometimes take credit for other people's accomplishments. For example, they frequently boast about how they are the leaders of society, and that they are responsible for causing the human race to advance from a group of nomadic savages to the advanced nations of today.

In reality, the conservatives do not get credit for creating modern human society. That credit goes to the small minority of the population who had the courage to wander off the established path and experiment with something new.

All of the improvements in human life that have occurred during the past few thousand years have come from the work of a small minority of people. Many of those people might have referred to themselves as conservatives, but they were explorers. They were people who were willing to wander away from the crowd and try something different. They were people who were willing to take risks and explore the unknown.

Likewise, the Jewish crime network is being destroyed right now, and there are people struggling to expose and destroy the pedophile networks that are infiltrating our government and media, but the people who are doing that work are not "conservatives".

Although some of those people might refer to themselves as "conservatives" because they have more in common with the conservatives than the liberals, there is something different about the people who are fighting the networks. They are in a minority. They are not typical people. They are at the edge of the bell curve. They are explorers, adventurers, and risk-takers. They are people with enough courage to fight the crime networks, and they are people who will actually use their guns rather than just pound their chest. They are willing to get off the established path and do something about our problems.

Furthermore, those of us who are exposing and/or fighting the corruption are willing to work for society and for the future generations rather than to satisfy our own selfish cravings. We are willing to investigate and face problems rather than ridicule people for being "conspiracy theorists" or "anti-American". We take action when we have problems, rather than make excuses to lounge at home.

We need a different word to describe the people who are working to make the world better. They are not conservatives or liberals. The word "pioneer" would be more appropriate.

We should define the word "conservative" to refer to a person who behaves like an animal. Specifically, a person who resists experimentation, changes, risks, criticism, and thinking. A conservative wants to follow established procedures like a sheep, not think for himself or experiment with changes. He wants to spend his life raising children, fighting for status, boasting about himself, and gathering material items.

Those of us who are struggling to eliminate the crime networks and improve the world are not doing this work for our own benefit. We are working for the human race. We are adventurers and explorers who are willing to take risks for people we don't know and who have not yet been born.

Animals don't work in teams to improve life for the future generations. Only a minority of humans have the intellectual and emotional ability and desire to work for such intangible and complex goals. The typical conservative behaves like a selfish, primitive savage; specifically, his life consists of gathering material items for his family, raising children, competing for status, and boasting about himself.

When this crime network is finally defeated, many conservatives will likely boast that conservatives are responsible for destroying it, but they are not helping us. They are interfering with our work by ridiculing us as "conspiracy theorists", and by refusing to help us spread information about the crime networks and corruption.

The conservatives around the world are also causing trouble for us by continuously electing criminals and incompetent nitwits to government office. The conservative voters do not look for political candidates with leadership abilities. Rather, they look for candidates who praise the voters, blame the nation's troubles on other people, and tell the voters exactly what they want to hear.

The conservatives in many nations are also supporting political monarchies, and all conservatives, even in America, support economic monarchies in which wealthy parents pass businesses and enormous amounts of wealth to their children. By supporting political and economic monarchies, they interfere with our leadership and our future.

If the conservatives were as wonderful as they claim to be, they would be the group of parents most opposed to giving children inheritances, trust funds, and other handouts. They would be the parents who were putting the most pressure on their children to learn a useful skill. They would be the people most opposed to both political and economic monarchies, and demanding that everybody earn what they want.

They would also be the most willing to turn their own children in to the police for committing crimes. They would also be the most concerned about the quality of our food and water, and the quality of life in our cities. They would also be the most intolerant of schools that are lying to children about the Apollo moon landing and the Holocaust. They would also be the people most willing to support a true investigation of the 9/11 attack, and the attack on the USS Liberty.

Furthermore, if the conservatives were as intelligent, educated, and open-minded as they boast about, then they would be the easiest group of people to have a discussion with about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, and pedophile networks. Instead, we find that the conservatives are the most likely to make angry and sarcastic insults about "conspiracy theories".

Finally, if conservatives were truly as superior as they claim to be, they would have the easiest time controlling their consumption of food, alcohol, and prescription drugs, and they would do the best job of controlling their craving for material wealth and sex. This in turn would result in conservatives having fewer problems with anorexia, obesity, alcoholism, and drug problems; fewer problems with getting into debt from gambling or spending more money than they have; and fewer problems with pornography, rape, and giggling when they see a naked body. They would also spend less time boasting than other people, and they would lose their temper less often.

Although the liberals are not as frightened of experimentation or criticism, they are doing nothing to help our nation improve itself. I think that as a group, the liberals are worse than the conservatives, and that it would be more difficult to form a pleasant, stable society with a group of liberals than a group of conservatives.

For a brief summary of what I see as the differences between the typical liberal and the typical conservative, conservatives are like primitive savages, but liberals are like retarded people. Consider the metric system to understand this. The United States is resisting the metric system, and I would say that the conservatives tend to resist it because they are frightened of changes. Conservatives don't want to think, learn anything new, or change any of their habits. They are like stupid animals that want to follow a predictable path, even if it is causing them trouble. They would rather suffer with what they are familiar with rather than experiment with a better path. They don't want to think about where they are going, and they don't want to experiment with their options in the future. They resist changes even when they can see that the change would improve their lives.

By comparison, many liberals can see the advantage of the metric system, but most of them resist the metric system, also. However, they do not resist it because they are afraid to make a change in their life. Rather, they simply don't want to learn, think, or work. A significant percentage of the liberals would be best described as "genetic trash".

I think that if we could measure the quality of people's brains, we would find that the liberals have a brain that is noticeably lower quality, and that their defects are causing them a lot of internal pain. They are not happy people. Their suffering results in them wanting to avoid work and responsibility. They want to find relief from their misery, such as becoming famous, or having lots of sex, or they try to mask or overpower the misery with drugs. Furthermore, their intellectual disorders cause them to develop idiotic goals and theories, such as their belief that men and women are unisex creatures, and that Al Gore can improve the earth's climate with carbon taxes, and that people who eat meat are cruel to animals.

The culture that we follow today came from prehistoric savages, and they got their culture from monkeys, who in turn got it from their ancestors. Modern humans are essentially following the culture of some stupid animals. To make the situation worse, we have allowed businesses, religions, and crime networks to manipulate our culture to fit their desires. Our culture is crude, and we should analyze all of it, and experiment with changes to make it more sensible.

Ideally, we would have leaders who would regularly look for ways to improve our policies towards crime, courtship, work environments, schools, holiday celebrations, recreational activities, our method of selecting leaders, and other culture. With those type of leaders, our culture would improve continuously, just as our phones, farming equipment, computers, and other material items are continuously improving.

Unfortunately, most people are analogous to a ball and chain around our legs. The conservatives react with anger or fear when we suggest experimenting with changes to our culture, and most liberals are too lazy or mentally disturbed to be useful participants in experiments with culture.

The scientists and engineers regard themselves as being exceptionally intelligent, but those with strong conservative attitudes are interfering with progress because of their tendency to promote established theories.

For example, scientists have been promoting the concept of "dark matter" for so long that it has become an established theory. However, there is no supporting evidence for it. In this article, for example, we find the remark:

"Dark matter has never been directly detected. Dark energy is even more mysterious..."

In this article we find that dark matter makes up 25% of the universe, and dark energy makes up 75% of the universe, even though nobody has any evidence that either of that stuff actually exists. Ideally the scientists would be willing to discuss the option that there is no such thing as dark matter or dark energy.

The scientists have created the ridiculous situation in which they are promoting theories that do not have any evidence, while at the same time criticizing religious people for believing in theories that have no supporting evidence. What is the difference between a religious fanatic who tells us to have faith in the theory that God exists, and a scientist who tells us to have faith that dark matter and dark energy exists?

This article claims that most of the water on the earth came from meteorites from the asteroid belt. However, for all we know, the water in the asteroid belt came from the Earth, not the other way around. The earth may be producing an endless stream of hydroxyl ions, water molecules, and other molecules that drift throughout the solar system, some of which collects on asteroids and planets.

The top surface of the earth has a lot of coal, oil, and natural gas, but where did all of the carbon come from? If it came from plants that broke down atmospheric carbon dioxide, that means a lot of carbon dioxide was broken down. What happened to all the oxygen from that reaction? A lot of that oxygen may have ended up as water, and some of that water may have collected on the asteroids, Mars, and the moon.

After discovering that tardigrades can survive unbelievably abusive environments, one scientist said that tardigrades provide justification for looking for life on Mars and other areas of the solar system. There is no evidence that there is life anywhere in the universe other than the earth, but NASA, Hollywood, businesses, and many scientists are continuously promoting the theory that life is everywhere, and that traveling in outer space and visiting Mars is going to be lots of fun.

When scientists first discovered that the universe consists of lots of stars, it made sense to look for signals from other civilizations, but we have searched for decades, and found nothing. I don't think it makes sense to continue this search, at least not until telescopes and other technology become more advanced.

Furthermore, we have discovered that space is a dangerous, miserable environment, and so I don't think it makes sense to continue putting our resources into sending people to Mars or the moon. I think it would be better to send robots into space.

I recommend that we put our resources into making our lives here on the earth more pleasant, orderly, and peaceful. However, most people, including most scientists, seem to be frightened to discuss this issue in public and disagree with the "authorities" who want to send people into outer space, and who want to look for life on Mars.

Some astronomical photographs show the path of starlight is bending around galaxies, and some scientists jump to the conclusion that dark matter has changed the path of the light. However, the scientists are interpreting the photographs in an attempt to make the photos support the dark matter theories, rather than doing what they should do, which is considering all sorts of possibilities.

If we put a magnet under a piece of paper and sprinkle iron filings on top, the iron filings will form patterns. The pattern does not prove that dark matter or dark energy exists, however. Rather, it merely shows us that the magnet is affecting the space around the magnet.

How does a magnet affect empty space? Nobody knows. We say that a magnet has a "field", but what is a "field"? For all we know, the materials that are magnetic are materials in which a lot of the electrons are free to align themselves in the same direction. If space is a substance, and if electrons are a form of space, as I suggested here, then when the electrons align together, their effect on space may accumulate, creating what we sense as a magnetic field.

The established theories also tell us that electrons are spinning, but there is no evidence that electrons are spinning, and there is no theory to explain where they get the energy to spin continuously, how fast they spin, whether they all spin at the same rate, and why they don't slow down and stop spinning. It would make more sense to say electrons have a "polarity".

Furthermore, how fast does magnetism travel? When we turn on an electromagnet, how fast does the magnetism travel through space? This also brings up the issue of how fast gravity travels.

I suspect that magnetism and gravity are some type of distortion of space, and therefore, they travel at the speed of light, and that this in turn has some effect on the orbits of planets, stars, and galaxies. For example, the earth is about eight light-minutes away from the sun. I suspect that the earth feels the gravity of the sun where the sun was eight minutes earlier, not where the sun is right now. This must have some effect on the orbits of the planets and stars, but I don't have the math abilities to figure that out.

For all we know, the photo that shows the warping of starlight is not showing evidence of dark matter. Rather, it is showing us evidence that the galaxies are warping space, similar to how a magnet alters the space around it.

Even more interesting, when light travels through glass, it slows down, and when it gets to the other side of the glass, it speeds back up. This brings up the issue of whether magnetism or gravity also slow down when they pass through an object, and then speed back up at the other end. If gravity changes speed as it goes through matter, that would make the orbits of the planets even more complex.

Some scientists are worried about carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere, but why not worry about nitrogen increasing? For all we know, there was almost no nitrogen in the atmosphere when life first got established on the earth, and that would explain why none of the plants developed the ability to use atmospheric nitrogen directly. (Some plants developed a symbiotic relationship with bacteria that can convert atmospheric nitrogen, but the plants don't have the ability to do it.)

Also, forest fires would have been incredible if oxygen was the dominant gas in the atmosphere 500 million years ago. And what will the atmosphere be like 500 million years from now if the nitrogen level is increasing?

The point of this section is that if scientists were less conservative and more adventurous, then rather than be afraid to question established theories, they would enjoy discussing all sorts of possible theories. This in turn would encourage other people to look at life from different viewpoints, and to explore this incredible, beautiful, and confusing universe.

The social scientists are more willing to disagree with established theories and explore the unknown than the physical scientists, but as I mentioned already, a lot of liberals have brains that don't function properly. Their thinking abilities are so warped that they are useless as scientists. They develop theories that are so irrational that only a person with compatible mental disorders would be interested in them.

Prehistoric people did not have to care about the mental qualities of the man who became the leader of their tribe, but in this modern world, we have to start analyzing the emotional and intellectual qualities of the men who are dominating us. Neither the men who appeal to the conservatives, nor the men or women who appeal to liberals, have the qualities we need for leadership.

Our modern societies need leaders who can handle constructive criticism, differences of opinion, and unpleasant aspects of reality. We need leaders who can do research, and who can truly participate in discussions rather than simply tell us what is right or wrong. We need leaders who can see life from other people's perspectives. We need leaders who show that they have an above-average level of self-control, and an above average interest in helping society. We need leaders who can explore our options and who have the courage to create new cities and a new life for the human race.

If I am the only person willing to publicly discuss these issues, how is anything going to improve? I need some help! If thousands of people would find the courage to discuss these issues in public, we will become an Information Army. We will make exposing crimes and discussing our future options an accepted activity.

So find the courage to join The Information Army, and let's change the course of human life!

Now that President Trump and other wealthy landlords are in top government positions, some people might be inspired to become landlords, also. This section of the document will explain why landlords are one of the reasons our free enterprise system is becoming increasingly absurd, and that we will have a more pleasant social life with a more advanced economic system.

First consider that we could say that animals and humans go through three phases of life:

1) Childhood. During this phase we are taken care of by our parents.
2) Adulthood. This is when we are independent, in our best mental and physical health, and are raising families.
3) Old age and death.

We regard childhood as a relaxing, pleasant time, but to animals and prehistoric people, childhood is a cruel phase of life because most of the children do not survive it. The death rate is especially incredible for the primitive animals that produce thousands of babies.

If an animal or a prehistoric human survives childhood, he will become an adult, but very few of the adult animals experience the third phase of life: old age. There are very few elderly animals. There would not have been many elderly, prehistoric savages, either.

Before I continue, it is important for you to realize why there are so few elderly animals. Judging by the narration of the nature documentaries and the remarks of ordinary people, I get the impression that most people do not understand this concept.

The lack of elderly animals is similar to the issue of why we never see birds laying on the ground and showing signs of exhaustion. One of the characteristics of life that most people do not seem to understand is that predators are not capturing creatures at random. Predators have a tendency to capture the weakest, stupidest, most sickly, and most elderly. Spiders rarely catch healthy adult insects, and lions rarely catch the healthiest adult zebras and wildebeest.

PBS produced a documentary called "The Gathering Swarms", and the narrator makes a lot of inaccurate remarks. For example, in one section of the documentary a falcon fails to catch a parakeet, and the narrator makes it appear as if the falcon is incompetent, and that the parakeets are so talented and intelligent that they can confuse, outsmart, and outmaneuver the falcons.

In reality, predators and their prey evolve together, and the end result is that when we study animals, we will discover a particular pattern no matter which set of predators and prey we study. Specifically, we will discover that the predators usually fail to capture their prey, and when the predators are successful, they tend to capture the elderly, sickly, stupid, and young animals, not the adults with the highest quality genetics.

The predators are inadvertently performing a vital, quality control service in nature. Specifically, the predators regularly cleanse the other species of its genetically inferior members. They are not capturing animals at random. They are performing a type of "genetic garbage collection".

Recently a group of scientists were studying how gazelles avoid being captured by lions in an attempt to apply that information to the flying of drones, and the article starts off with the question,

"Since a gazelle can run faster than a lion, how do lions ever catch gazelles?"

Since those scientists were studying the gazelles only to improve drones, they never bothered to answer their question, but the answer is:

Lions tend to capture the genetically inferior gazelles.

It might help you understand the answer to that question if you alter the question. Specifically, why are gazelles capable of avoiding capture by lions? Or, why can gazelles outrun and outmaneuver a lion? The answer to those questions is that the gazelles that were unable to outrun or outmaneuver a lion were captured. Therefore, they did not produce baby gazelles for the next generation. The gazelles with the superior athletic ability avoided capture, and so they produced the next generation of gazelles, which meant that the next generation could run slightly faster than the previous generation.

This can lead to the question, why don't the gazelles evolve to be so fast and maneuverable that the lions never catch them, resulting in the lions slowly starving to death? Why is it that all of the predators continue to survive and raise families? Why aren't any the lions, falcons, or other predators dying of starvation?

The reason the predators are always capable of feeding themselves and raising families is because evolution will give a creature only what is necessary for its survival, and a genetic quality that is not absolutely necessary will deteriorate.

Evolution cannot give a predator the ability to capture prey with a 100% success rate, and evolution cannot give an animal the ability to avoid capture with a 100% success rate.

If scientists were to artificially create a species of antelope that was so fast that no animal could capture it, and if it were released into a wild game preserve in Africa, that species of antelope would never get caught by any predator. Therefore, it's population would grow forever. This would cause two problems:

1) There is a limited supply of food. Therefore, as their population increased, they would eventually run low on food. Once that happened, their bodies would not have enough food to function properly, and that would cause them to become weak and sickly, and that would allow the predators to start capturing them.

2) If there was lots of land for them to spread out into, then before they had a chance to suffer from hunger or malnutrition, they would encounter the problem of genetic degradation. Without predators capturing their genetically inferior members, the genetic defects would start to accumulate in their gene pool. Each generation would be more defective than the one before it, and eventually they would reach such a point of deterioration that the predators would be able to capture them.

The same concept applies if scientists were to genetically engineer a lion, falcon, or other predator, and give it the ability to capture animals with a 100% success rate. Those predators would reproduce continuously, and eventually they would become so hungry and malnourished that they could not capture their prey. Also, they would start accumulating genetic defects that would eventually result in them becoming so defective that they fail at capturing their prey.

Predators are inadvertently helping their victims to remain in good genetic health, and to evolve into even more talented creatures. The reason parakeets are so maneuverable is not because some loving God gave them the talent to avoid being captured by falcons. It is because falcons and other birds have been continuously capturing the less maneuverable, less talented parakeets. The predators have been inadvertently causing the parakeets to evolve into increasingly talented birds.

In my previous document, I pointed out that the beauty and the amazing qualities of the hummingbirds, butterflies, flowers, trees, and other creatures is due to the cruelty of life, not the wonderful qualities of a loving God. This is also true of the maneuverability of parakeets, and the ability of antelope to outmaneuver a cheetah. Parakeets are talented because millions of parakeets with less talent have been eaten by predators. Antelope can outmaneuver cheetahs because millions of antelope who were less talented were captured by cheetahs.

Another way to describe this concept is, "No Pain, No Gain". Evolution depends upon the suffering of the genetically inferior creatures. The inferior creatures must either die, or they must be prevented from reproducing.

The nature documentaries that make idiotic remarks about evolution should be updated as we learn more about life. Unfortunately, in our free enterprise system, these documentaries are copyrighted by businesses, and none of us are allowed to fix their mistakes.

In a previous document, I suggested that we eliminate copyrights. This will allow us to edit the nature documentaries to make the narration more intelligent. We would also be able to edit the school books to eliminate the lies about the world wars, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing. We would be able to edit songs to make the lyrics more sensible, or to change the tune. Also, the narrators of some documentaries have annoying voices, and some cannot pronounce words properly, so we would be able switch to a more pleasant narrator.

The people who create something should get credit for their creation, but they should not be allowed to copyright it or own it. A free enterprise system and a democracy encourages people to focus on themselves. When a person creates something, such as music, or a documentary, the free enterprise system encourages him to believe that he owns it, and that it is his creation. However, nobody in this world is truly creating anything by themselves. Everybody is building upon the work of previous people.

A musician who creates a song, for example, is not creating that song by himself. Other people have provided him with information about music, instruments, and language, for example. If Mozart had been born 50,000 years ago, he would not have been able to create much music simply because he would not have learned much about the issue. Or, if Mozart was alive today, he would be able to produce an even wider variety of music because he would have been exposed to much more information and varieties of music.

The musicians today who are creating music are capable of creating some amazing music because they have learned a lot about music from a lot of other people. They are building upon the work of other people. They may boast that they are the sole creators of their music, but they are simply taking the music information that they picked up from other people and adding to it.

Democracies and free enterprise systems encourage selfishness, greed, and arrogance. These systems encourage each person to focus on himself and think about what he personally wants, rather than encourage us to consider what is best for society. It encourages us to make demands for what we want, and to complain that businesses, government officials, and people are not giving us what we want. These systems encourage us to believe that we should be able to own and have dictatorial control over music, documents, software, land, shorelines, creeks, and new inventions.

I think we would create a much more productive and pleasant society if we switched to an economic system that encourages us to regard ourselves as team members who share the benefits of their work. We should not be allowed to have dictatorial control over music, songs, software, or engineering blueprints. This will allow us to improve upon the documentaries, software, and products. And I don't think we should let people own land, rivers, creeks, or any other part of the earth, moon, or solar system.

Getting back to the issue of the three phases of life, I think that during prehistoric times, most of the children were going through the transition from childhood to adulthood during the ages of 14 to 18. During those years the boys would learn how to make tools and hunt animals with the adult men, and the girls would learn from the adult women, and they would also start flirting with the boys and looking for a husband.

I suspect that most prehistoric teenagers were regarded as adults by the time they were 16 to 18 years old. And I also suspect that many of them were starting families at that time. The prehistoric teenage boys did not have to spend years of their life in school, or struggling to accumulate enough money to purchase a house. An 18-year-old was capable of joining the adults.

Today, however, the situation has changed dramatically. This is partly due to the confusion, ignorance, and false information that children are exposed to, but it is also due to an issue I want to discuss in this document. Specifically, our free enterprise system and our democracy is causing our childhood phase to extend decades longer than it should because of the difficulty of acquiring a home and other basic necessities.

The primary reason it is so difficult for 18-year-old boys to become independent and start a family today is because the basic necessities for life have changed tremendously. A boy in 50,000 BC needed only a few simple items in order to start a family, such as a sharp piece of flint that he could use as a knife, and a sharp wooden spear to hunt pigs. Since the people were nomadic, the boys did not need houses, furniture, or kitchen equipment.

Today, however, an 18-year-old boy needs to have some type of home to live in, either a house or an apartment, and he needs clothing, furniture, kitchen utensils, and a phone. Computers are also becoming necessary, and in many cities, an automobile is almost mandatory.

The difficulty of acquiring the basic necessities for modern life is causing many teenagers to delay marriage and/or families until they have acquired enough money to gather the basic necessities, which might not occur until they are in their late 20s, or 30s. The end result is that many teenagers are spending a decade or more struggling to prepare for adulthood, rather than starting their adult life at age 18.

Many people today delay having children until they are in their 30s or 40s, and it is not until they are 50 or 60 years old that they have acquired enough of the basic necessities to reduce their emphasis on money.

As technology becomes more advanced, this situation gets worse. Eventually robots are going to become part of our basic necessities, and that will require the children to spend even more of their life struggling to acquire money.

Because we grew up in this environment, we assume that it is normal for adults to spend years struggling to acquire enough money to afford the basic necessities of life and to start a family, but our prehistoric culture is so inappropriate for this modern world that it is causing childhood to extend a decade or longer. We need to modernize our culture to fix this problem.

Normally, when an animal reaches adulthood, it is ready to start a family. Adult animals do not have to spend years struggling to acquire the basic necessities for life. Adult animals do not have to delay having babies, and they do not have to spend years living with, and being supported by, their parents.

I don't think our social environment is healthy, natural, or satisfying. When we become teenagers, we want to start our own life. We want to become independent.

I think we would create a much more pleasant environment for ourselves if we had the type of economic and government system I've suggested in which all of the basic necessities are free. In that type of society, the teenagers would be sent to TeenTown when they become perhaps 14 years old. TeenTown would provide them with tremendous opportunities to meet other teenagers so that they can find friends, a spouse, and become accustomed to people. They would also be given some useful skills, and learn to become independent of their parents.

TeenTown would teach them to take care of themselves, work in a team, and be responsible. When the teenagers were 18 years old, they would leave TeenTown and either get a job or go on to college. In either case, they would be provided with access to the free homes in the city, just like all of the other adults, and they would have access to the same free furniture, clothing, food, social clubs, recreational activities, and music concerts. They would become adults in an instant. They would not have to waste years of their young adult life struggling to accumulate the basic necessities. They would have no need to delay marriage or families.

None of the teenagers would have to depend upon their parents for a home or any type of financial support, and none of them would need wedding presents to provide them with basic necessities, either. A wedding would become just a casual, fun, social affair, not a gift-gathering activity.

When a couple wanted to have children, they would not have to first gather lots of money to cover the expenses of raising a child, and they would not have to arrange for bridal showers to get gifts of clothing for the baby. The city would provide parents with food, baby clothing, cribs, and medical care. Parents would not have to purchase anything. When the babies and children outgrow clothing, toys, and cribs, the parents would give them back to the city, and they would be reused and/or recycled.

In that type of environment, parents would not take care of teenagers, and teenagers would not have to waste any of their time accumulating money for a home. The teenagers would be able to concentrate on learning a skill, finding friends, and finding a spouse. When the teenagers became 18 years old, they would start their adult life. Some might continue with their education, but they would be adults, not children. They would be able to live in the same homes as other adults, and they would be able to get married and raise families without any concern for money.

In my previous documents, I pointed out that unions are causing inflation when they demand higher wages because instead of demanding that the economic pie be divided up in more equally slices, they believe that they can get a bigger slice simply by demanding it. The unions are inadvertently hurting themselves, their family members, and everybody else by causing inflation. This concept also applies to the people who are trying to make money as landlords, including president Trump.

Some of the people involved with developing houses, buildings, and land are doing a lot of work, such as building a home on vacant land, and then selling it at a reasonable price. However, in a free enterprise system, there is no concern for how we make money, or how much money we make. Every landlord is allowed to set extremely high prices for his properties.

Competition is supposed to keep prices at levels that consumers consider to be reasonable, and this was possible thousands of years ago because there was lots of vacant land available and the human population was very low, but it is impractical for fair competition to exist in real estate today. The reason is because all parts of the earth have since been claimed by some person or government, and our cities are so crowded that we cannot put homes and buildings wherever we please.

I mentioned in a previous document that my relatives from Denmark traveled by stagecoach to Iowa. They did not document their travels, so I don't know the details of what they did, but after they settled down in Iowa, my great-grandfather was one of about a dozen men who decided to continue westward and start a new town on a vacant piece of land. They created the tiny town of Royal, Iowa. It was possible in the 1800s and even into early 1900s for a group of people to create a new town in vacant areas of the United States. In that era, competition was possible in real estate, at least in certain areas of the world.

Today, however, there is no vacant land in any nation. Every piece of land is owned by some person or government. There is no fair competition in real estate any longer.

If all of the landlords and land developers were generous, they would voluntarily keep prices at reasonable levels, but humans are monkeys, and we don't want to keep prices at reasonable levels. We want excessive amounts of material wealth and status.

Most of the people who get involved with real estate are not becoming landlords in order to provide us with homes, or to provide businesses with facilities. Rather, they become landlords in order to make money, and to make it for themselves. They are not becoming landlords to help society.

Since most landlords are trying to make money rather than help society, they are not interested in competing with one another. They are interested in making as much money as possible, and so they want their competitors to raise prices. They are excited when they see prices rise.

Landlords are behaving in the opposite manner as what the free enterprise predicts and depends upon. The free enterprise system depends upon businesses that compete fairly with one another, but landlords do not want to compete. Rather, they want their competitors to raise prices so that they can justify raising prices, also.

When the prices of housing rises, the landlords make more profit, and they believe that they are benefiting from the increased profits but, in reality, they are hurting everybody, including themselves and their children. The reason is because as they push prices of real estate higher, all businesses have to increase prices in order to cover the higher prices. The price of food, clothing, computers, furniture, and everything else increases.

Furthermore, the California government, and many other governments, charge property taxes according to the value of our real estate. Therefore, when real estate prices go up, everybody has to pay more in taxes, including the landlords and their children.

The government could respond to the higher real estate prices by reducing the property tax rate, thereby keeping property taxes at the same level, but they have no desire to turn away an opportunity to make more taxes. And the voters are so apathetic and incompetent that they don't demand that the government officials reduce the property tax rate.

The economic experts and economic professors could be publishing articles to explain this issue to the public, and they could also demand the government reduce property tax rates, but they don't seem to understand this issue, either.

As property values rise, teenagers have a more difficult time moving out of their parent's home. When they go to college, the rents are so high that they have to share bedrooms. Even the children of the wealthy landlords and government officials suffer from the higher prices.

Some of the landlords are putting some money and work into improving their property, which might make it appear as if they are doing something of value in return for their profit, but most of them are expecting a lot more profit than they put into improving the property. They are trying to get a lot of profit in return for a small amount of work.

The people who are trying to make a lot of money from real estate are parasites. They are trying to get something for nothing, or they are trying to get a lot for just a little bit of work, which is the same thing as getting something for nothing.

The people who try to make an enormous amount of profit from real estate, investments, or anything else, are hurting our social environment and economy. They cause inflation, and they hurt morale by causing a lot of the younger adults, who are struggling to afford a home, to become angry at the wealthy landlords.

Landlords and investors are trying to get a larger slice of the pie than they are helping to create. The only way somebody can get more than he gives is to take something away from somebody else. Some of those other people are likely to react by trying to take money from somebody else also, and so on. This creates an endless cycle of people raising prices and demanding higher incomes. This causes inflation, which hurts all of us, and irritates everybody.

Why is inflation worse in some nations? Because an organization is a reflection of its members. The more greedy, selfish, ignorant, dishonest, paranoid, and neurotic a group of people are, the more problems they are going to have with divorce, crime, inflation, train derailments, water pipes bursting, sewage lines breaking, railroad bridges collapsing, homelessness, unwanted children, shoddy home construction, pollution, litter, and noise. By comparison, a society of higher-quality people will be noticeably cleaner, more orderly, quieter, and have less crime and graffiti.

A free enterprise system does not provide any type of leadership. There is no authority to watch over the economy and ensure that people are behaving properly and contributing something of value. Instead, it is a chaotic system in which each of us is on his own to figure out how to make money.

Because there is no leadership in free enterprise, the nations with higher quality people will have a more pleasant economy than the nations that have lots of psychotic, selfish, dishonest, and stupid people.

However, even the best behaved people are going to suffer from free enterprise because the system puts us into competition to make money with no regard for how we make it. It is a chaotic system that we cannot control, which makes it impossible for us to plan for the future and give ourselves what we want.

A lot of people have discovered that they can make a lot of money from real estate and other types of investments. Some of those people boast about their profits, and some write books about it, and some give talks to inspire us to join them in becoming an investor. They make it seem as if it is possible for everybody to become a landlord or investor. They make it appear as if investments are like a magic pot of gold, and that each of us can pull pieces of gold from that pot forever because it will never run out, and we never have to do anything in return.

Theoretically, our government officials could help us by providing guidance on the issue of investments and real estate, and by preventing people from making excessive amounts of profit. However, in a democracy, the government officials pander to the voters, and the voters are too selfish and incompetent to elect those type of leaders.

Our government officials don't make any attempt to dampen the greed of landlords, or encourage children to contribute something of value to society rather than look for ways to get something from nothing.

Actually, a lot of our government officials seem to have grabbed a lot of money without giving much in return, and some of them seem to be involved with crime networks. They are not the type of people who are going to inspire children to learn a useful skill and contribute something of value to society.

Furthermore, I don't think many of our government officials or economic professors even understand the concept that it is impossible for everybody to make a living through investments, or that landlords are driving housing prices up.

It is impossible for everybody in a society to become a parasite. A certain number of people are needed to grow food, repair railroads, provide us with electricity, and work in the factories. It is impossible for everybody to become a landlord and make a living simply by collecting rent payments, or to become an investor and live on dividends, or to become an entertainer and collect royalties from movies or music.

The free enterprise system encourages destructive behavior and attitudes. It encourages us to believe that it is possible to make a living without doing any work. Most landlords and investors should be described as a type of burglar or thief because they are trying to get more in return than they give.

A society would be much more stable and pleasant if everybody was required to work, and nobody was allowed to be parasitic. All of the real estate should be owned by the city, and all of the investing should be done by the city. Everybody should be required to have a job, and every job should be analyzed to ensure that the people are contributing something that is truly of value to society.

In a free enterprise system, the wealthy people have more influence over society than the rest of us because a free economic system operates on money. This is allowing wealthy landlords and investors to have more influence over society than technicians, assembly-line workers, engineers, and scientists. However, in my opinion, the wealthy landlords do not show leadership qualities. Rather, most of them show neurotic cravings for wealth and status, and they show destructive, parasitic attitudes. They should not be in positions of influence.

The free enterprise system is a simplistic system that can regulate itself without any leadership, so it is ideal for ignorant, stupid, and crude people. The economic system I propose requires humans to supervise it, and that requires that we be able to provide ourselves with much higher quality leadership than what we are currently providing ourselves. However, the rewards would be worth the effort.

The economic system I propose is similar to that used internally by businesses and militaries. This type of economic system would bring a dramatic change to everybody's attitudes towards life, work, the economy, and the city.

The people in the city would have the attitude of an employee. They would regard the other people in the city as their team members. We would not compete with one another for money, and nobody would be looking for investment opportunities. We would be like employees who are working together to make life better for the entire team. We would be competing with one another to bring improvements to our transportation systems, buildings, parks, recreational activities, and music concerts.

Unlike a business in the free enterprise system, in which people have widely different incomes, I would recommend we experiment with an economic system in which everybody is virtually equal in material wealth. There would be no peasants or wealthy people. All of the apartments in the city would be virtually identical, and everybody would have access to the same furniture, clothing, computers, phones, and other items. There would be no special treatment to anybody, not even the government officials. The city would not produce shoddy products for poor people, or status products for wealthy people.

In that type of economic system nobody will be in the role of a medieval peasant who is serving a King. For example, nobody would have to clean the mansions of billionaires, and nobody would have to work in a factory that produces yachts or jets for billionaires, and nobody would have to work as a carpenter who builds mansions for billionaires. Everybody will work on projects that benefit the entire city.

In a free enterprise system, everybody is struggling to make money, and so nobody complains about the parasitic wealthy people, or even the dishonest wealthy people. Rather than complain that some of the wealthy people are spoiled brats, crime network members, or parasites, people in a free enterprise system are excited at the opportunity to provide those wealthy people with yachts, mansions, goldplated cell phones, and gardening services.

Without wealthy people to pamper, and without government officials getting special treatment, nobody will feel as if he is a peasant who is serving a King or Queen. Each of us will feel as if we are members of a team, and that all of us are working for the benefit of the team. We will regard the leaders of our city's government agencies and businesses as our team members and friends, rather than as Kings and Queens, or as spoiled, wealthy brats.

In a free enterprise system, most people have no concern for how products are manufactured, repaired, recycled, or disposed of. Most people also don't show any concern for whether products have any value. There is also no concern for who cleans up the litter, who picks the fruit from the trees, and who cleans the windows of office buildings.

That attitude would change if you were living in a city in which everybody has to share in the chores. The reason is because everybody will want the chores to be reduced to a minimum. In that type of social environment, the voters would have to share in the chores, and so would all of the leaders of the government agencies and businesses. In addition, the doctors, dentists, engineers, and scientists would also have to share in the chores. Nobody would get any special treatment.

That type of social environment would cause people who are currently unconcerned or oblivious to the issue of peasants and chores to realize that there are a lot of chores involved with a modern city. It will result in government officials, doctors, voters, and scientists looking for ways to reduce the number of chores, and to make the chores less annoying.

When the voters have to participate in the chores just like everybody else, the voters will become more interested in judging government officials according to such criteria as how effective they are at reducing chores, and how effective they are at making the chores more desirable.

When everybody must share in the chores of maintaining the city, a significant percentage of the population is going to become interested in discussing such issues as:

• Do we really need to manufacture, repair, and recycle all these different types of cell phones, cosmetics, and laundry detergents?
• Do we really need to produce all of these toys for children?
• Does this particular item have enough benefit to outweigh the burden of producing it, repairing it, and recycling it? And if this product has value, can we design it differently in order to make it easier to produce, repair, or recycle?

Since we will also have to share in the chores of gardening, cleaning the city, and maintaining the city, a lot of people will become interested in discussing such issues as,

• How can we design the city parks so that it is easier for CNC lawn mowers to cut the grass?
• How can we design buildings so that a machine can wash the windows?
• Why don't we divert some resources from making children's toys to developing robots to pick fruit from trees?

In a free enterprise system, businesses will not invest in a lot of projects that would be useful for us, such as developing machines that clean the exterior windows of buildings, because there is more profit to be made in developing products for pet dogs, sex robots, and games for cell phones. A democratic government will not put any money into those types of projects, either, because democracies pander to the voters, and the voters don't want such projects.

However, when everybody is participating in the chores of maintaining the city, including scientists, engineers, and government officials, a lot of apathetic people who don't care about these issues will suddenly discover that they care, and they will do something about it. There will be pressure on the government to reassign priorities to reduce the emphasis on silly entertainment and put more effort into reducing chores. As the decades pass, the city will become increasingly easier to clean and maintain.

With the economic system I propose, the city will have a noticeably smaller variety of material items, but the items will be more useful. The city will not produce hundreds of varieties of bicycles, kayaks, computers, and cell phones, but the items will be high quality, more functional, and easy to produce, repair, and recycle.

The employees of a business do not have a lot of variety in regards to their computers, forklifts, oscilloscopes, and other tools. Instead of offering the employees a tremendous variety of products to choose from, the management tries to select products that will be the most useful and practical.

In the city I propose, the government officials would have the same attitude. Instead of providing thousands of trivial variations of products, they would authorize the production of a small number of truly useful and practical items. This would reduce the number of undesirable factory jobs, recycling jobs, and maintenance jobs.

After centuries of these type of improvements, the people would create a city that doesn't have a lot of miserable chores, and the people would not waste any of their life producing or maintaining hundreds of different varieties of laundry detergent, toys, or phones.

In a free enterprise system, the people who rise to the top are those who are successful in selling products, but in the economic system I propose, the people who rise to the top will be those who find ways to make the products better, or who can make them easier to produce, repair, or recycle. The people who rise to the top will be those who bring real improvements to human life, not people who excel at sales. They will provide us with products that truly benefit us rather than simply titillate us.

The same concept applies to social activities. In a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, everybody is free to create social activities. For example, there are hundreds of businesses providing us with a variety of food eating contests, beauty contests, sports contests, music concerts, and holiday tours.

There are also hundreds of churches, nonprofit organizations, and political groups arranging for social affairs, weddings, demonstrations, protests, and parties. There are also lots of businesses arranging for lonely people to find a friend or a spouse. There are also businesses, nonprofit groups, political groups, and religions pushing for holiday celebrations, such as Mother-In-Law's Day, and some homosexuals are pushing for the month of June to be regarded as "Pride Month".

In a free enterprise system, businesses don't care whether they are providing us with a valuable social activity. For example, some businesses arrange for music concerts without providing for an adequate number of bathrooms, and they don't care if the people at the concert leave behind an enormous amount of litter. They also don't care if the volume of the music is so high that the people near the speakers suffer a loss in their hearing ability.

Businesses will also arrange for sports events without any concern for whether the athletes are causing themselves brain damage from concussions, or knee injuries, or shoulder injuries.

In the city I propose, the government will be in control of social activities, not the religions, businesses, homosexuals, or charities. Everybody will be free to make suggestions and discuss social activities, holidays, clothing styles, and other cultural issues, but the government will exert control over culture, just as business executives exert control over the culture of their business.

In that type of city, the government will analyze everybody's suggestions for social activities, recreational activities, social clubs, holidays, clothing styles, and other cultural issues, and they will pass judgment on which of them are worth experimenting with. When they conduct an experiment, they will observe the results, and they will pass judgment on whether it needs to be canceled or modified.

People who devise beneficial activities will get credit for it, and the people who create activities that turn out to be failures will have the failure listed in their database. Everybody in an influential position will be held accountable for their actions.

For example, consider the issue of courtship. In a free enterprise system, businesses can make money by arranging for single people to meet one another, but the businesses are not held accountable for whether they are successful at helping people find a stable relationship. Just as our schools can continuously operate even if none of the students are learning anything of value, businesses can continuously operate courtship activities even if they are failing to help people find a stable relationship.

By comparison, in the city I propose, the people who are operating courtship activities will be held accountable for what they do, and they will not be allowed to operate in secrecy. The managers of the courtship activities who do the worst job will be continuously replaced, resulting in courtship activities that become increasingly efficient and beneficial through the decades.

The same concept applies to the people who arrange for music concerts, recreational activities, city festivals, holiday celebrations, weddings, and other social events. Specifically, the people who operate these activities will be working for society, not for a private business, religion, charity, or homosexual political group. They will not be able to operate in secrecy, either. Everything they do will be exposed to the public, and each person will be held accountable for his actions. This will allow everybody to complain about their performance.

The government will be required to continuously replace the worst performing people. This will result in social activities that become increasingly beneficial and efficient.

Through the decades, this will result in a different type of person rising to the top of society. It will be the people who excel at providing us with products, holiday celebrations, recreational activities, school curriculum, work environments, and courtship activities that we actually benefit from.

Instead of becoming dominated by crime networks, pedophiles, and incompetent nitwits who appeal to the ordinary citizen, we will have leaders who are truly talented, and who can provide us with valuable suggestions and guidance.

Without free enterprise, there will be a noticeably greater concern that our jobs and activities are safe. In a free enterprise system, sports groups have no concern for whether athletes suffer medical problems because they are not held responsible for taking care of the medical problems, and businesses have no concern for whether their employees or customers suffer from unsafe working conditions or pollution.

In August 2017, some of the Tesla factory workers were complaining that some of the factory jobs are causing serious injuries. Are their complaints valid? Or are those particular people genetically defective and unable to do an ordinary job? I have no idea, but in a free enterprise system, we cannot expect business executives to give us an unbiased analysis of their working conditions, and our democratic government is worthless at providing us with analyses and guidance. Most journalists are also such liars that we cannot depend on them to provide us with useful news reports about the issue.

However, in the city I propose, none of the people are working for shareholders or investors, and none of the people are under obligation to meet deadlines that have no significance to human life. Instead, everybody will want everybody else to be healthy and contributing to society. We are not going to want people becoming seriously injured, especially not permanently injured. We will not want to create a city of cripples.

What do I mean by "deadlines of no significance to human life"? When producing a new model of automobile, it makes no difference to any of us if that automobile is produced on schedule or 20 years late. Our life will go on regardless. However, there are some deadlines that must be met because they are significant to us. For example, if a ship is starting to sink in a storm, the captain is justified in pushing people to the point at which they may injure themselves, in an attempt to keep the ship from sinking.

In a free enterprise system, employees are just expendable tools, but in a city in which there is no free enterprise, the economy will be designed for humans, not for investors or business executives. The jobs will be designed to make human life pleasant. If a meaningless deadline is not met, the business executives and government officials can deal with it in a sensible manner, such as putting more people on the task, or simplifying the task, or changing the goal of the project.

In a free enterprise system, businesses can profit from cripples by selling them wheelchairs, medical supplies, and medical care, but in a city in which there is no way to profit from misery, none of us are going to want to see our neighbors become crippled. Furthermore, we don't want people to become seriously injured because while they are injured, somebody else will have to do their job and chores. They become a burden on us. We are going to want everybody to be healthy, happy, and contributing to society.

The same concept applies to people who hurt themselves during leisure activities. In a free enterprise system, businesses can profit from people who injure themselves while doing idiotic stunts, or dangerous sports. However, when we switch to an economy in which everybody has to share the chores and contribute something of value, everybody will become more aware of the burden caused by people who hurt themselves.

In a society in which there are no peasants to work in the factories and hospitals, there is going to be pressure on businesses, sports groups, social clubs, and government officials to reduce injuries so that we don't have to waste so much of our time taking care of unnecessary injuries.

Do you want to spend any of your life taking care of athletes who hurt themselves? How about taking care of employees who suffer because their employer did not want to provide adequate working conditions? How about taking care of children who are suffering from a serious injury that was caused by falling down while trying to ride a skateboard down a flight of stairs? How about taking care of somebody who suffered a medical problem because one of his coworkers played a practical joke that resulted in an injury?

In a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, nobody is held accountable for any of the injuries or medical problems, but in the city I suggest, everybody is held accountable for what they do. People who hurt themselves will be regarded as jerks who put a burden on society, and a business executive who causes employees to become seriously injured will be regarded as an incompetent manager. We are going to want our team members to be healthy, and we will want jobs and recreational activities to be safe. The people who play practical jokes are not going to seem so amusing when we have to share in taking care of the mess, injuries, and destruction that they cause.

There will always be accidents at work and during our leisure activities, but there are ways to reduce the number of injuries that we are having today. However, there is no incentive in a free enterprise system to reduce injuries. Actually, hospitals, doctors, and many businesses profit when people are hurt. Furthermore, people can make money on YouTube videos of practical jokes, and this provides people with an incentive to do them and film them. The free enterprise system is encouraging people to profit from injuries and misery.

The human body has certain abilities and limitations. In a free enterprise system, nobody cares what those limitations are, but when you have to share in the chores of society and occasionally spend your time treating injuries or producing medical products, you are going to want injuries reduced to a minimum. You are likely to develop an interest in improving our jobs and social activities to reduce injuries.

For example, many athletes enjoy weightlifting, but I don't think it is natural for humans to lift heavy weights above our head. Our shoulders are capable of moving into that position, and because of genetic diversity, some people have less trouble with that particular movement, but I think the lifting of heavy objects over our heads should be described as an unnatural movement for humans, and it should be discouraged.

It is natural for us to lift objects off the ground and carry them in our arms, such as when we carry packages or children, but it is not natural for us to put heavy objects directly above our head. I suspect that this causes unnecessary shoulder, neck, and back injuries.

In this article about Holly Mangold, for example, who is in the photo to the right, the author mentions that she tore a tendon. Articles about athletes mention broken bones, torn tendons, and other injuries as if they are meaningless, but they are insignificant only if you don't have to be involved with taking care of the injuries, and only if you don't have to take over the chores that they are unable to do while they recover.

Gymnasts and CrossFit athletes frequently walk on their hands, which many people are capable of doing, but I don't think that is natural for humans, either. I think that once we start removing the secrecy from society and analyze injuries and medical problems, we will discover that some athletic activities, and certain types of jobs, are causing more injuries than others.

In a free enterprise system, the care of injured people happens quietly and mysteriously without anybody noticing. Insurance companies, hospitals, businesses, and doctors take care of the injured people without complaining, creating the impression that injuries are taken care of by magic. But in a society in which nobody is profiting from injuries, nobody is going to be interested in taking care of injuries. Injuries will be regarded as a burden.

When the leaders of society become responsible for injuries, and when you and I have to share in the burden of taking care of injured people, there will be a much greater interest in reducing injuries. A lot of people will want to prohibit or discourage the activities that are likely to result in injuries. The people who do risky stunts are not going to be admired for their courage or bravery. They will be criticized for risking injuries and becoming a burden on society.

When you have to share in the chores of taking care of injured people, you are going to be annoyed if you discover that an injury that you often have to deal with is the result of athletes who lift extremely heavy weights over their shoulders. You are likely to develop the attitude that those athletes should either stop those risky activities, or they should be solely responsible for their medical problems.

In case you think I am exaggerating about people injuring themselves by lifting weights, just do a search on YouTube of weightlifting accidents and you will find thousands of videos in which people make fun of this type of injury. And keep in mind that only a small number of the injuries are recorded on video and posted on YouTube. And there are thousands of other videos that show people hurting themselves during idiotic stunts and practical jokes.

In our free enterprise system, people regard the injuries as funny, and people laugh at them, but if you were living in a city in which you have to share in the chores, you would not be likely to regard those type of injuries as amusing. You would be more likely to become disgusted with the people who injure themselves in such manners.

You might even develop the attitude that when a person breaks his teeth or nose while trying to ride a skateboard down a stairway, he can suffer the consequences because you're not interested in stopping what you are doing to help him with his medical problem. You might develop the attitude that people who choose to do risky activities have to be responsible for their injuries because the city does not have any obligation to rush to their rescue and help them.

In a free enterprise system, hospitals, doctors, and many other people can benefit from injuries, so they never complain about athletes who push themselves to the point of breaking their tendons or bones, and they don't complain about children riding skateboards down stairways. They regard these people as profit opportunities.

But in a city in which we are sharing the work, those type of injuries are going to be regarded as a disgusting burden on the rest of us. Furthermore, while those people are recuperating from serious injuries, they will not be able to work at their job, which means somebody else will have to do their work. Therefore, in addition to being a burden on us because of their self-inflicted injuries, they become a burden on their coworkers while they are recuperating.

In a free enterprise system, we don't care who is injured or sickly. We also don't care who is contributing something of value, and who is living off trust funds, inheritances, investments, or divorce settlements. We also don't care if people are getting themselves sick from excessive food consumption, candy consumption, or alcohol use. We don't care if they have to take a lot of time off from work. We don't care if they need large amounts of medical care.

By comparison, in the economy I suggest, we will become more aware of who is contributing to society, and who is a burden on us. A lot of people in that type of city will develop the attitude that they want other people in the city to remain healthy and capable of contributing to society. They are not going to appreciate the careless, stupid, and foolish people who injure themselves with idiotic eating habits, drugs, risky stunts, and idiotic athletic events.

The free enterprise system makes it difficult for us to notice that some people are a burden on us. Insurance companies make it appear as if medical problems are dealt with automatically by a group of loving people, and with no effect on the rest of us. However, in a society without a free enterprise system, and without secrecy, we will become much more aware of who is a burden on us.

In our societies today, automobiles are practically worshiped. However, I think the attraction to automobiles is distorted by our free enterprise system because most of us don't have to deal with producing them, maintaining them, building roads, repairing bridges, or dealing with the medical injuries of automobile accidents. To most people, an automobile is a status symbol, or a toy to play with. Some people don't even clean their automobile. They hire peasants to do that.

However, when you are living in a city in which you must share in the chores, you are going to become much more aware of the incredible burden that automobiles place on us. They require a phenomenal amount of labor and resources to build, maintain, repair, and recycle.

In a free enterprise system, economists tell us that the automobile is providing tens of thousands of people with jobs. That is a ridiculous way to look at the issue. It is only in a free enterprise system that a product is praised for requiring large amounts of labor.

If you were living in the type of city I suggest, you would quickly realize that there is no benefit to products that require large amounts of labor or resources. Actually, you will want the opposite. You will want products to be designed so that they require the least amount of labor to produce, maintain, and repair.

You will want engineers to reduce the labor needed for products, and increase the number of robots that can participate in the production and recycling. You will want the government to eliminate as many unnecessary products, features, and luxuries as possible. You will want the leaders of society to analyze products according to their benefit and their burden, not according to how many jobs they provide.

My opinion is that we are wasting a tremendous amount of technical talent and resources on automobiles, games for cell phones, and attempts to put men on Mars. I suggest that we switch our priorities so that we can shift our resources into activities that will bring true improvements to our lives.

We are putting a lot of money into improving automobiles, but even if self-driving automobiles become practical, our cities are going to continue suffering from overcrowding, noise, litter, graffiti, crime, and traffic congestion. We are not going to improve our lives simply by improving automobiles. And self-driving automobiles will do nothing to improve our social lives or reduce the price of housing.

I think the only way to bring significant improvements to our lives is to redesign cities so that we can eliminate automobiles. I also think we need to experiment with new government systems and economic systems. We also need to modernize our school system, holiday celebrations, food recipes, and other culture.

We need to stop living and behaving like animals and start considering the options we have. We need to change the path that we are on.

To end this document, I will give you one final image that I edited to help inspire you to think about how much nicer your life might be in a different type of city. Spend some time trying to imagine living in a city in which there are no billionaires, landlords, investors, or peasants in the city, and no criminals, refugees, or illegal immigrants.

Imagine a city without automobiles. Imagine the surface is full of parks, walkways, bicycle paths, canals, swimming areas, restaurants, recreational centers, social clubs, and music areas. Imagine a city in which everybody can look out of their window and see beautiful scenery.