In the previous document of this series, I mentioned that it appears as if a network of criminal Jews are using a document written by James Damore to intimidate us into submission, and making us afraid to use our freedom of speech to discuss such issues as genetics and feminism. Those attacks on Damore occurred in August 2017, and they continued for a week or so.

Damore apparently likes the game Dungeons & Dragons, and this resulted in him being attracted to some of the job titles that the KKK uses.

On 20 September 2017 Damore posted a question about it on Twitter, and gave people four choices (the image to the right).

After posting that question, many journalists resumed their incredibly biased, angry, and hateful attack on Damore. They accused him of promoting and supporting the KKK.

However, Damore's question is analogous to somebody asking:

I don't support the North Korean government, but can we admit that some of their job titles are cool, e.g. "Ministry of People's Security"?

Some journalists are making such obvious attempts to ruin Damore's image that I don't understand how people can respect the journalists. For example, in this document he is described as a "disgraced Google employee"; that he "sparks outrage"; and that his question is "grotesque".

I don't have any interest in the game Dungeons & Dragons, and as I mentioned years ago here, I lost my interest in fiction books during Junior High School. To me, the job titles of the KKK remind me of young children, which causes me to regard those job titles as "childish". I think the North Korean government has better job titles. However, I can understand what James Damore is saying. It is possible that when I was a child I would have been attracted to the job titles of the KKK.

Each of us is attracted to slightly different aspects of life. For example, I enjoy learning about how people lived during the Middle Ages, and I think we can learn a lot about our culture by getting a better understanding of the Middle Ages, as I've explained in other documents, such as this, but I don't care for the medieval fantasies that include magic, such as Harry Potter and Legend of the Seeker. I have never seen the television show Game of Thrones, but it is described as having magic, also.

However, even though I regard magic as being as annoying as religion and astrology, I consider some of the clothing styles in those fantasies to be interesting and attractive, such as those below from Once Upon a Time, which has so much magic and time travel that I would describe it as "intellectually painful".

Note 1: In case you wonder why would I watch television shows I don't care for, a few years before I discovered (in July 2011) that I was low on thyroid hormone, I was becoming so physically exhausted that after dinner, I would want to lounge in front of the television for a couple hours. During 2011, I had degraded to such an extent that I had to stop working by 5 PM, and then I would lounge in front of a television from about 5 PM until I was ready to go to sleep. I do not have a cable or satellite connection, so the only two channels that I receive are my local television station and PBS, so I had to watch television programs that I did not care much for, such as Once Upon a Time, TMZ, and the Harry Potter movies that they showed on some weekends. Fortunately, I feel better now, and I have unplugged the television. I continue to get tired a couple hours before I go to sleep, but I watch YouTube videos instead, even though they are not much better. Note 2: Although thyroid medication has dramatically improved my life, those of you who don't have any serious health problems may mistakenly believe that medication is capable of solving our health problems. It would be more accurate to say that the medications are simply helping us, and they help each of us to a different degree. The difference between helping us and solving our problems is subtle, but very important. Since we do not have any measuring gauges on our body to let us know when we are low on chemicals, trying to control our levels of thyroid hormones, insulin, potassium, sodium, or other chemicals is like trying to fly an airplane or operate a nuclear power plant that does not have any gauges to show the levels of oil, temperature, voltage, or pressure. I don't know how much thyroid hormone to take each day, or when to take it. Is it better to take a large dose in the morning, or should I split it into two or three doses? How much more do I need during winter, when my body must produce more heat? Energy is needed to digest meals, which brings up the issue of whether certain foods require larger amounts of energy to digest and, therefore, more thyroid hormone. The human body is incredibly complex, and even when medical technology becomes more advanced, it will be impossible for us to control our body's functions as well as a person who has a healthy body that regulates itself. We should not promote the attitude that medical technology is capable of fixing our health problems. The only way to keep people in good health is to restrict reproduction. If we were to implement such a policy, then each generation would have fewer problems with low energy levels, diabetes, irregular heartbeats, insomnia, digestive problems, headaches, mental illness, bad breath, and allergies.

What is the difference between James Damore being attracted to the job titles of an organization he does not agree with, and me being impressed by the clothing in television shows that I do not care for? I don't see any difference.

Actually, I would go even further and say that in order to be a productive member of modern society, a person should be able to notice some good qualities in the people they disagree with, dislike, fear, or despise, and they should be able to notice some unpleasant characteristics in themselves, their friends, their organizations, and their family members.

Although the KKK appears to be another fraudulent group that is secretly dominated by Jews, the people who cannot see that the KKK members are humans like the rest of us should be regarded as intellectually and emotionally inferior to those of us who can understand this concept.

The people who cannot understand that all humans are built from the same genetic blueprint, thereby giving all of us the same characteristics, which in turn causes all of us to behave very similar to one another, should be described as being more like animals than a modern human. Everybody today should be able to realize that there is no such thing as "evil" people.

Perhaps one reason that some people believe that other people are evil is because there is a minority of people who have seriously defective brains as a result of genetic "mistakes", concussions, strokes, drug abuse, and toxic chemicals. Those people have such strange behavior that they appear to be a different species.

The journalists are promoting the attitude that we should only condemn the KKK, Hitler, and other people, and never point out anything nice about those people. I recommend the exact opposite attitude.

Actually, I suggest that our school curriculum be modernized to provide older students with practice in analyzing people – including themselves and their family members – so that they become accustomed to this concept, and so that we can determine who among us is having trouble understanding this concept.

In order for a person today to be a truly productive member of society, especially a leader of society, he should be capable of understanding that a KKK member, Hitler, Stalin, and other people are humans, and that they have exactly the same physical and mental characteristics that everybody else has.

There are mental differences between men and women, between children and adults, between adults and elderly people, between healthy people and people with concussions, and between the different races, but the differences are where we are on the bell charts, not that we are different species with different characteristics.

John Wayne Gacy received awards and praise from other people before it was discovered that he had murdered at least 33 boys. Imagine if James Damore had said,

"I don't support Gacy's murders, but can we admit that he made some impressive contributions to his community?"

Or how about:

"I don't support Hitler, but can we admit that some of his policies were sensible?"

People who cannot understand that Stalin, Hitler, and other people were humans should be regarded as intellectually and/or emotionally inferior to those of us who can understand this concept. Don't be intimidated by people who demand that we constantly criticize and hate people such as Hitler and Stalin, and that we never point out any of their admirable qualities.

During the suspicious riot in Charlottesville in August 2017, Trump was criticized for pointing out that the liberal protesters were behaving badly. The journalists were trying to force Trump to criticize only the conservative protesters, and to ignore the disgusting, violent behavior of the liberal protesters.

However, anybody who cannot see that the liberal protesters were behaving worse than the conservative protesters should be described as emotionally or intellectually inferior to those of us who have a more unbiased and realistic view of the situation. I think Trump set a good example by standing up to those journalists rather than appeasing to their demands to condemn only the conservative protesters.

I think all of the journalists who attacked Damore have the intelligence necessary to understand that he was not promoting the KKK. I think the journalists were deliberately trying to ruin his image in order to manipulate and deceive the public into disliking him, and that they did this to discourage discussions.

I would say that the journalists should be regarded as using the media as a weapon to attack Damore and manipulate the public, and that they should be arrested for this type of crime. We should not tolerate journalists who use the media to hurt people; to manipulate or deceive us; or to suppress ideas or people that they disagree with.

The attacks on Damore are another example of why we need to find more people with higher quality brains to get involved in the battle for the future of the human race. The people who are doing nothing are allowing dishonest journalists, government officials, and other people to have a tremendous influence over our future.

Ideally, our military and police would behave like an immune system that is continuously looking for and arresting the people who abuse us, even if those abusive people are famous Hollywood celebrities, government officials, or wealthy people.

We are living in a nation that boasts about providing all citizens with freedom of speech, but if we use our freedom to discuss certain issues, some of the journalists and other people who disagree with us will attack us and try to suppress our opinions, rather than allow us to have discussions about the issue.

A lot of people are so afraid of being attacked that they will not use their freedom of speech. What is the sense of proving a person with a freedom if he is frightened to use it?

It is interesting to note that many of the people who refer to themselves as liberals, and who boast about treating people equally and defending freedom of speech, seem to be the people who are most likely to demand that the government, Google, and Facebook be able to suppress and censor us. However, they make themselves appear to be heroes by claiming that they only want to stop the hate speech of the Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, sexist, racists, and bigots.

They appear to be noble people who are protecting us, but in reality they accuse anybody they dislike of being a racist, a bigot, or other, equally meaningless adjective, and they justify censoring that person's freedom of speech on the grounds that they are protecting the people from his "hate speech". If those particular people could get total control of the government, they would create a society that resembles the one in the movie 1984 in which the people who disagree with the government are censored and arrested.

My casual observations of people suggest to me that the people who spend the most time whining about Nazis, fascists, and oppression are the most likely to create a government that suppresses freedom of speech, thereby creating the type of government that they complain about.

Nobody likes to hear conflicting opinions, but if we could observe everybody closely, we would notice that some people spend more of their time trying to suppress a difference of opinion. I think we would also notice that the people who spend the most time whining about "hate speech" are suffering from some of the more serious intellectual and emotional disorders.

To rephrase that, the people who spend the most time whining about "hate speech" have some of the lowest quality minds. For example, some of them may have abnormally low self-control, and others may have a difficult time looking critically at themselves and seeing good aspects in other people.

Many of the people who complain about "hate speech" are incapable of having serious discussions because their emotional disorders cause them to believe that their opinions are correct, and that other people are hateful, biased, racist, homophobic, or inferior in some manner. They react to our opinions with anger and hatred, not with peaceful discussions or questions.

Instead of calmly discussing an issue with us, they become angry and lecture us on what is correct, and they try to stop us from expressing our opinions by accusing us of spreading hate speech, sexism, fascism, or anti-diversity. When they speak to us, they boast that they are "explaining" their brilliant opinions to us, but when we speak to them, they accuse us of "spreading hatred, sexism, and anti-diversity". That is not a discussion. That is an attempt to control the conversation through insults and intimidation.

An important aspect of life is that the future is determined mainly by the people who do something to set it. The people who are passive don't have nearly as much influence over the future as the people who are actively involved in setting policies. This characteristic of life allows the whiny, angry people to have more influence over our future than they should have. They become influential by intimidating other people into remaining silent about certain ideas, or appeasing them with the policies that they are demanding.

I could give you hundreds of examples of how a small number of whiny, angry people have caused a business, school, or other organization to change its policies. A recent example is that some schools and government agencies during 2017 have removed statues of Confederate soldiers because a few people have been whining about the statues.

I am not suggesting that the statues are valuable; rather, I am pointing out that they are being removed simply because a very small number of people were whining about the statues, not because a group of people discussed the issue and concluded that it would be best for society to remove the statues.

For two, more extreme, examples:

• Lawrence Torcello, an assistant professor of philosophy, has proposed that the government be able to arrest anybody who denies the particular global warming theory that he supports.
• There are Jewish groups that are struggling to get the authority to arrest Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Nazis, misogynists, bigots, etc.

Lawrence Torcello and those Jews are trying to get the authority to arrest people simply for disagreeing with them. We are fools to do nothing as those people try to influence our laws and our future.

Ideally, the leaders of society would make decisions by researching issues, discussing our options, and selecting an option that benefits society. They would not do something simply because a few people are whining.

Our leaders should not pander to anybody. They should make decisions that are based on what is best for society. This requires that we provide ourselves with leaders who can ignore whiny people.

Are you going to get involved in setting the course of the human race? Or are you going to be a passive sheep that lets lunatics, crime networks, Jews, and idiots determine your future?

Each of us wants freedom of speech for ourselves, but each of us wants the government to censor other people. The difference between us is that:

1) We want to suppress different opinions. For example, many conservatives want to suppress the people who promote abortion, the legalization of drugs, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and evolution, whereas many liberals want to suppress the people who believe that our DNA is causing men and women and different races to have differences in their intellectual and emotional qualities.

2) We have different levels of self-control. Each of us has a different ability to tolerate criticism and differences of opinion.

The reason we have this double standard is because we evolved from monkeys. We are arrogant creatures who regard other people as inferior to us. We also have strong cravings for praise, and we react to criticism with anger.

In order for us to improve the world, everybody needs to exert enough self-control to tolerate a difference of opinion. We need censorship, but it cannot be used to suppress differences of opinion. Censorship should be used only to suppress remarks that are truly detrimental, such as slander and insults.

Unfortunately, people whose brains are not functioning very well will regard anything that they don't like as being insulting, hate speech, shaming, sexist, etc. This creates a tremendous dilemma. We need censorship, but who is going to determine what it is?

If the people with the highest quality minds remain silent, they will allow the mentally inferior people to make the decision of how to censor information. This will allow religious fanatics to classify evolution as nonsense, and to classify conflicting religions as false doctrines. The people who believe in astrology would be allowed to censor everybody who criticized astrology. The people promoting global warming and carbon taxes would be able to classify anybody who disagrees with them as being a "climate denier".

Every nation has set standards for people who want to fly airplanes, practice dentistry, and drive an automobile, but no nation has standards for the leaders of government agencies, businesses, charities, religions, think tanks, or other organizations. This is allowing people to get into influential positions who don't think very well. This in turn is resulting in many influential people who accuse a person who disagrees with them of spreading hatred, sexism, anti-Semitism, bigotry, or racism.

The people who accuse us of spreading hatred, sexism, or bigotry are slandering us with worthless insults. They are not expressing an intelligent concept. Their minds are so warped that they believe that describing us with those adjectives justifies having us censored or arrested, but the people who make those accusations should be censored and arrested.

Our freedom of speech should be interpreted as the freedom to discuss opinions, and the freedom to disagree with other people, including the government officials. It should not include the freedom to make idiotic accusations, such as calling a person a Nazi, sexist, anti-Semite, or anti-diversity bigot.

Businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations have standards for their members to meet, and those who cannot meet the standards are evicted, or they are put under restrictions to prevent them from causing trouble.

A city should implement the same policy. Everybody in the city, including government officials and journalists, should have to meet certain standards in order to live in the city, and the people who cannot meet the standards should be put under restrictions, or evicted from the city. We should also pass judgment on who among us is contributing to society, and who is destructive, and we should remove the people who are destructive.

Every job should also have standards for people to meet. The journalists and government officials, for example, should have higher standards than people who are working on an assembly line. We should not tolerate journalists who accuse a person of being anti-diversity, sexist, anti-Semitic, or hateful. Those words are not intelligent descriptions of people; rather, they are insults, baseless accusations, or slander.

The attacks on James Damore is just one example of how we are allowing journalists to abuse and manipulate us. When is somebody going to join me in standing up to these disgusting journalists?

We need to prohibit slander and insults, but a lot of people are trying to suppress opinions that they do not like. Those people are destructive to modern society because instead of encouraging research and discussions, they intimidate and frighten people into submission. They behave like a monkey that is kicking and biting a competitor, as opposed to a modern human who has calm discussions.

Every organization, regardless of whether it is a business, sports club, orchestra, city, or nation, needs a security force that behaves like an immune system. The security personnel should be constantly watching for people who cause trouble, and they should put the troublemakers under restrictions or evict them from the organization. We are fools to allow crude people to intimidate and manipulate us.

The people who try to manipulate us with idiotic accusations should be regarded as savages who are slandering us. Don't let them intimidate you.

The people who suppress slander are useful members of society because they help to maintain a pleasant social environment, but the people who are trying to suppress opinions that they do not agree with are suppressing progress, and they should be regarded as selfish, arrogant savages who are intolerant of differences of opinion.

It is especially absurd to let these people refer to us as a bigot, because that word is supposed to refer to people who are intolerant of differences of opinion, but it is the people who call us bigots who are intolerant of other opinions, not the people that they are accusing of being a bigot.

What is the difference between me referring to somebody as a savage or an animal, and a Jew referring to me as an anti-Semite or Holocaust denier? The difference is that I have many documents with details to explain my remarks.

For example, I have documents that show the Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, and that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust, and that the Jews are committing other crimes. By comparison, the Jews who accuse me of being an anti-Semite have nothing but insults.

The people who accuse us of being anti-diversity, sexist, racist, Nazi, misogynist, Holocaust denier, global warming denier, bigot or anti-Semite should be required to provide a sensible explanation of their accusation, and if they cannot, our security force should arrest them for committing the crime of slander.

Without a sensible explanation for those accusations, allowing people to make those accusations is as idiotic as allowing people to accuse us of being an asshole.

The Jews have intimidated so many millions of Germans, Europeans, Americans, and Japanese with accusations of "Holocaust denial" that it feels as if I'm the only person willing to publicly disagree with the Jewish version of the Holocaust. Every Internet site that I have seen that disagrees with the Holocaust seems to be under the control of Jews.

Update: 19 October 2017 On 17 October 2017, Kevin Wilshaw, a British neo-Nazi and white supremacist, admitted to being both homosexual and having a Jewish mother. The next day, a Wikipedia editor deleted their page about him. What was on that page? The Wikipedia keeps a history of changes made to each page, but the history for that particular page has been deleted, also! The Google cache shows that hours before it was deleted, it had been edited to this one sentence: Kevin Wilshaw is a half-Jewish homosexual neo-Nazi white supremacist who was a well known organizer in the National Front before leaving the far right in 2017. I suspect that Wikipedia had created an entry for him in their encyclopedia in order to give him credibility as a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist. After he admitted to being a homosexual Jew in Nazi clothing, they edited his article to that one sentence above. Hours later one of the Wikipedia Jews realized that they were exposing their wolf in sheep's clothing trick, so they decided to delete the entry in order to reduce the chances that the public realizes that the Nazi movement is full of Jews and homosexuals (and probably pedophiles, also). If the public understood the wolf in sheep's clothing trick, some people would start noticing that there are Jewish wolves in other groups, also, such as the KKK, the communist groups, the Democratic party, the Republican Party, and the political parties of Europe. Some people would also also start noticing that there are Jewish wolves pretending to be Muslims, atheists, Christians, and Mormons. Now that Kevin Wilshaw has admitted to being a Jewish wolf in Nazi clothing, the other Jews want to suppress information about him. Click here for a screen image of the Google search page as of 19 Oct 2017, and here for the cached page.

When is somebody in Germany going to join with me and publicly point out that allowing Jews to arrest people for "Holocaust denial" is a senseless as allowing Jews to arrest whoever they classify as an "asshole"?

Ideally, the leaders of our police departments, military, courts, and government would have enough of an education and enough intelligence to realize that the Jews who accuse us of Holocaust denial are the people who are committing crimes, not those of us that the Jews accuse of Holocaust denial. And ideally the police and military would have the emotional ability to arrest the Jews for false accusations and slander rather than allow the Jews to intimidate and manipulate the nation.

We cannot expect women or children to stand up to crime networks, but one of the duties of a male animal is to protect his family from predators. Men all around the world should be interested in trying to stop the abuse from the crime networks, not hiding from those networks like frightened children.

It was about 2 years ago when I complained that the Jews were dumping refugees into our nations, but there is still no sign that the men in America or Europe care enough to stop this abuse. In Germany, for example, the German voters continue to elect Merkel, even though Germany is already overcrowded. It makes no sense for them to accept more people, especially not uneducated, unskilled refugees who want to follow their own culture rather than adapt to German culture.

On 2 October 2017, there was another suspicious event; namely, that Stephen Paddock killed and wounded hundreds of people with guns. How many men are going to find the courage to point out to other men that the official accounts of the shooting don't make sense?

And how many men are going to point out that a lot of people are trying to direct blame to the wrong group of people? Most of the "investigators" and "truth seekers" are blaming that attack on the mysterious and elusive Muslim group they call ISIS, but in this article John Whitehead writes that the shootings are the result of our "military-entertainment complex culture of violence".

If Whitehead had provided an intelligent explanation of what that expression means, then his document could be described as an "analysis" of American culture. However, I would describe his article as a deceptive accusation intended to stimulate anger and hatred of the US military.

Actually, I would go even further and say that the US military should stop tolerating the accusations that have no supporting evidence. The military should arrest the authors of those type of articles for slandering the US military.

The military's purpose is to defend the nation from enemies, and a person should be described as an enemy if he is making public accusations that are intended to create hatred and anger rather than provide us with constructive criticism.

John Whitehead has other documents that should also be classified as slander. For example, a few months earlier he wrote this article that claims America is a "police state", and he makes such accusations as:

• Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough.
• Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough.

His documents are not analyses of America. Rather, they are attempts to manipulate and deceive people into becoming angry and fearful of the American government, military, and police.

Imagine a business allowing its employees to produce a newsletter with the type of accusations that our police, military, and government are allowing. For example, imagine a newsletter at IBM that claims that IBM is a "police state", or that IBM has a "culture of violence". Most business executives would accuse those employees of slandering the company with false, unsupported accusations. The leaders of our military, police, and government, by comparison, never do anything to defend themselves against idiotic accusations.

There is no difference between accusing America of being a "police state" and accusing America of being a "shitty nation". There is no difference between accusing our military of being a "military-entertainment complex culture of violence", and accusing the military of being "a gang of murderous shit-heads".

Constructive criticism is valuable, but the journalists are not providing us with constructive criticism when they claim that America is a "police state", or when they refer to somebody as anti-diversity, a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, a bigot, a racist, a global warming denier, or a sexist. Rather, the journalists are trying to instigate hatred, anger, and fights. Those journalists should be arrested, not tolerated or ignored.

Imagine if a business allowed its Jewish employees to behave like the Jews who complain about Holocaust denial. Specifically, imagine some Jewish employees promoting a lie about how they were bullied by other employees 6 million times, and whenever an employee points out that there is no evidence to support their claim, the Jews refer to him as a "Bully Denier" and demand that he be fired.

Business executives don't allow employees to behave in such atrocious manners, and we should design a government that operates on similar principles. Our government leaders and police should protect us from crime networks, but the criminals have acquired so much influence over our government, military, police, media, schools, and courts, that instead of being protected, we are abused repeatedly.

The only way to get out of this disastrous situation is for a lot of men to find the courage to expose and stop the crime networks, but where are the men with enough courage to do something as simple as spread information about these issues?

Future generations are undoubtedly going to look at our era as a sad time in human history during which the majority of men were intimidated and abused decade after decade by a small number of crude, aggressive criminals.

The majority of men like to boast about their courage and bravery, but most men do not have much courage or bravery. There are still people in America who have not yet seen much evidence that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack because most men don't have the courage to spread information about it.

People throughout history have been regularly demanding freedom of speech, but how many people understand what "freedom of speech" is? When a Jew accuses somebody of being a Holocaust denier, that Jew is not using his freedom of speech. Rather, he is insulting, intimidating, slandering, and manipulating the person, and he should be arrested for it.

Likewise, when a journalist refers to the people who support Donald Trump as Nazis, Fascists, or bigots, he is not using "freedom of speech". That journalist should be fired or arrested for slander.

When a group of people run out into the streets to chant slogans, throw rocks, and start fires, they are not using their "freedom of speech". They are vandalizing the city and behaving in an obnoxious, destructive manner, and they should be arrested for it.

Ideally, every organization would have a security force that is capable of differentiating between freedom of speech and slander. They should also be able to differentiate between a peaceful discussion and a tantrum. Our security force should be restricting or evicting the troublesome people, not allowing them to manipulate history books, news reports, governments, and culture.

In this modern world, people who cannot handle differences of opinion in a peaceful manner should be regarded as unfit for modern society. They should be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted from our cities, on the grounds that they behave too much like an animal to fit in with the rest of us.

If we were living in a society in which the police and military would restrict and evict the destructive and crude people, then James Damore would not have had to phrase his question in a manner that tries to avoid confrontations. For example, he would not have felt a need to begin his remark with the disclaimer, "The KKK is horrible and I don’t support them in any way".

Furthermore, he would have felt comfortable telling us what he thinks, as opposed to using the phrase, "but can we admit". He would have been able to ask his question in a more simplistic manner, such as:

"I think the internal title names of the KKK are cool, e.g. “Grand Wizard”. What do you think?"

In case you never noticed, when we are embarrassed about something, or when we are afraid of being attacked, we tend to use the word "we" rather than the word "I" in order to create the impression that we are just one member of a large group of people, which makes us feel more comfortable and safe from attack.

For example, if you ask a person if he picks his nose or masturbates, a lot of people will be too embarrassed to say, "Yes, I do". We are more likely to pretend that we are speaking for a group of people, such as, "I think everybody does", or "Don't most people do that?", or "I think we all do."

If our police and military were restricting or evicting the crude, aggressive people who intimidate and frighten us, then everybody would feel comfortable expressing their opinions. There would be no such thing as a "controversial" issue. We would be able to calmly discuss any issue we pleased because we would not be afraid of other people becoming enraged, throwing objects, insulting us, whining, yelling, or having tantrums.

The issues that are "controversial" are those that cause some people to become angry or violent. If we remove those people, there will be no controversial issues. With a higher quality group of people, we will be able to discuss anything we please in a calm, intelligent manner.

By not having standards for people in leadership positions, we have ended up with leaders who lack the ability and/or desire to differentiate between slander and free speech, which allows the journalists, school teachers, Jewish groups, and political groups to slander us with meaningless insults, such as Nazi, racist, and sexist. Two of the newest meaningless insults are anti-diversity and alt-right.

I suggest that schools prepare students for this modern world by giving them practice in dealing with these issues. The older students should have to practice differentiating between such intangible concepts as slander, free speech, temper tantrums, violent protests, riots, bullying, constructive criticism, opinions, and insults. For example, students could be given a task like the one in the box below:

Exercise #1: Analyze a protest by students. This video shows some high school students in San Francisco who protested the election of Donald Trump in November 2016.

Imagine that you are a top government official, and that the school teachers, parents, police, and other government officials are asking you for your analysis of the situation, and your advice on what to do about it. Give: a) an analysis of the protest. b) advice to the students. c) advice to the schools, parents, and police. Here are six comments from the public to stimulate your mind: 1) They are using their freedom of speech to express their disapproval of the election of Trump. 2) They are encouraging people to get together, participate in a discussion of the issue, and take an active role in society and our future. 3) They are disrupting society with a worthless protest. 4) They are having a temper tantrum, like a child. 5) They are trying to intimidate and manipulate the people who disagree with their choice for president. 6) They are too young and uneducated to get involved with determining the leaders of society, so they should quietly observe the situation rather than complain about what the adults are doing.

There is no right or wrong answers to these issues, but the older teenagers should get some practice thinking about and passing judgment on these issues because these are issues that every adult in the modern world needs to deal with occasionally.

Furthermore, by putting students through these exercises, we can pass judgment on which of them have the desire and ability to analyze the problems of modern society, and which of them can provide us with sensible advice. The people who do not have much interest in analyzing such issues, and the people who provide idiotic advice, should be prohibited from influential positions.

If a jewelry salesman were to tell you that a piece of jewelry was solid gold, and you later discovered it was gold plated steel, and if you also discovered that the salesman knew that he was lying when he said that, you would be able to complain to the courts that you have been deceived. The courts would regard the salesman as a "criminal".

What is the difference between a salesman who deliberately deceives you about a product, and a journalist who deliberately deceives you about the KKK, James Damore, the Holocaust, or the 9/11 attack?

When a person accuses somebody of sexism, anti-diversity, promoting the KKK, or promoting hate speech, they should be required to provide supporting evidence for their accusations, and if they cannot, they should be regarded as incompetent. If they appear to be making the accusations merely to hurt somebody, they should be regarded as criminals.

We do not allow businesses to deceive us about their products, but nobody shows any concern about being deceived by journalists, government officials, school teachers, charities, think tanks, religions, or feminists. We should change this idiotic situation by raising standards for people in influential positions. We should fire the people who seem to be incompetent, and arrest the people who seem to be deliberately trying to deceive and manipulate us.

The journalists ignored Damore throughout September, but they considered his tweet about the KKK titles to be so important that the world needs to be informed of it. Why would they consider that remark to be newsworthy? How would any journalist even know he made the remark? Are they watching his tweets? Or were some journalists told by some organization to give bad publicity to that tweet? Of all the millions of tweets, documents, and messages that have been posted on the Internet, why would they pick that one?

In previous documents I suggested that whenever somebody gets publicity, we should wonder why the journalists selected that particular person. David Duke, for example, often gets publicity as a Nazi, KKK member, and an anti-Semite, which I regard as evidence that Duke is a blackmailed puppet that the Jews are using for propaganda purposes.

We ought to wonder if the reason James Damore is getting lots of publicity for a meaningless remark is because he is also one of their puppets, or one of their members. Or, perhaps the journalists are simply taking advantage of his remark as a way of refreshing everybody's memory of how they will be attacked for discussing certain issues.

In other words, this may be another trick to fool us into becoming too frightened to use our freedom of speech. If so, the journalists should be arrested for trying to deceive and manipulate us.

If Damore is secretly working with the journalists, then he should be considered a criminal, also. He may be another Pied Piper who is trying to lure people to his website firedfortruth.com so that he can promote certain philosophies, books, people, and ideas, and keep you away from my website and other sites the Jewish crime network is trying to suppress.

It is possible that he made that remark about the KKK simply to get into the news once again and attract more people. Will he do something controversial next month, also?

As I suggest for government officials, business leaders, and other influential people, we should also regularly replace the most incompetent journalists so that somebody else can try the job, and we should arrest the dishonest journalists rather than ignore them. By doing nothing about the dishonest journalists, we are allowing a group of abusive, deceptive, criminals to manipulate our view of the world.

If we had a more respectable group of journalists, they would be interviewing people of more importance than David Duke and Lady Gaga. This would expose the public to people who are more inspiring, and who have more intelligent opinions, higher moral standards, and more impressive skills and talents.

A man who regularly reads my documents sent me an email message to tell me that he recently noticed that many websites have been promoting Jordan Peterson, who he had not heard of before. He wondered why Peterson was getting a lot of favorable publicity all of a sudden.

Jordan Peterson wants to educate us with the correct view of humanities.

He did some research and discovered that Peterson is a clinical psychologist and professor in the psychology department of the University of Toronto.

Peterson has two YouTube channels. (This is primary channel, and this has some excerpts.) Peterson also created this page at patreon.com, where he asks for donations to support his plans "to bring accredited online humanities education to as many people as possible around the world." On 12 October 2017, he was receiving $64,000 a month, which means he is getting more money in donations each month than I make in a year.

Update 29 November 2017: Jordan Peterson has changed his page at patreon.com to hide the amount of money he is receiving every month.

Update 16 January 2018: I had saved some screen images of Peterson's donation pages, but I couldn't find them when I updated this file in November, and I assumed I had deleted them. I just now discovered them in a different folder, so I am posting them today. A screen image from 12 October 2017 is here. I also have this image from September 2017 that I cropped a bit more.

Update 14 November 2019: Someone sent me a link to this New York Times article from May 2018 in which Peterson said that he was getting $80,000 a month in donations.

I found the screen images of Peterson's donation page

I was not aware of Jordan Peterson until James Damore had been fired. Peterson was the first person Damore wanted to be interviewed by. I had assumed that Peterson was just another Internet radio host of no importance, but now that I have been told that he is a professor who is getting a lot of donations every month, I suppose the reason he has been getting lots of favorable publicity recently is because he has been using some of his money to promote himself and his plans to create an online school system.

Peterson is another of the millions of people who are trying to influence our opinions and future. He believes that his particular opinions on social science are so superior to other people's opinions that we should give him money so that he can educate "as many people as possible around the world".

Peterson is taking an active role in influencing our view on social science, and so are the people who are donating money to him or who are helping him to spread his information.

Are you willing to take an active role in our future, also? If not, you are going to allow people like Peterson to influence school curriculum, government officials, children, and organizations.

Can you push yourself into becoming a pioneer who gets involved with the discussions of what the future of the human race will be? Or do you want to be one of the millions of passive, apathetic sheeple who allow other people to determine your fate?

After James Damore got fired from Google, the first person he wanted to give an interview to was Jordan Peterson. Near the end of that interview, Peterson asked Damore why he agreed to the interview, and Damore replied "I'm a huge fan!"

Since Damore is above average in intelligence, and since he is a "huge fan" of Peterson, we could conclude that Peterson must be an intelligent person, also. This inspired me to listen to some of Peterson's videos and skim through some of his articles. However, rather than be impressed by Peterson, I came to the conclusion that he is promoting religious nonsense, as well as the typical philosophy of social scientists that human behavior is mainly the result of environmental issues.

As with other social scientists, I consider Peterson's opinions to be almost as vague and confusing as the computer-generated nonsense produced by the SCIgen software program. His lectures are full of words that sound impressive, but after the lecture is over, all I have is some confusion, not a better understanding of life. This makes me wonder how Damore could be a "huge fan" of Peterson.

Is Damore truly impressed by what Peterson says? If so, that is an indication that Damore has a mind that thinks in a similar manner as Peterson and other social scientists, as opposed to a mind like mine that is attracted to genetics and "real" science.

During this interview, Damore said that the second person he wanted to do an interview with was Stefan Molyneux, who is one of thousands of people who are producing an enormous number of videos about various news events and social issues. However, I don't think he has anything of value to say, and he seems to be protecting the Jewish crime network, like almost everybody else who is creating hundreds of videos about "the truth". Why would James Damore want to be interviewed by Stefan Molyneux?

If you had been fired from your job for expressing your opinion that men and women have biological differences, would you choose Peterson as the first person to give an interview to, and Molyneux as the second? Were you even aware that those two men existed?

James Damore said that when he was going to college, he was majoring in "Systems biology", which is described as "the computational and mathematical modeling of complex biological systems." I don't know what that means, but it seems as if a person must be exceptional in math in order to do it.

As I have pointed out in other documents, I have been shocked time after time to discover that people who excel in mathematics often have low intelligence, or extremely distorted minds. The ability to do math and the ability to think intelligent thoughts are obviously separate, independent sections of our brain. Therefore, it is possible for a person to have excellent math abilities while being insane, psychotic, depressed, retarded, dishonest, neurotic, or stupid.

Perhaps James Damore is one of those people with excellent math abilities, but a warped intellectual unit. His inability to think properly would explain why he is a "huge fan" of Peterson.

One of the many possible ways of explaining the firing of James Damore is that he has a warped intellectual unit, and that the Google management decided to use him as a patsy in an attempt to intimidate people into silence and submission.

For example, it is possible that some Jews at Google gave Damore the idea to write the memo, but they did not tell him that they were hoping to create such a high level of arguments and complaints that they could justify firing him. After he was fired, his "friends" may have told him something like, "Oh my goodness, my dear friend, James! We had no idea this was going to happen. We feel so badly for you. If there's anything we can do to help, please let us know." But behind his back, they were laughing at him.

I don't know what James Damore is doing, but my advice is to be suspicious of him, and all of the people and books that he is promoting.

Centuries ago, the only way to spread information and discuss issues was for people to get together with auditory range of one another, and then use their voice to speak to one another. Today our technology has improved upon that situation significantly. People in different cities can now discuss issues by using telephones or video conferencing. We no longer have to spend so much of our time and resources traveling to meetings.

	Businesses and doctors have been using video conference technology for years. In 2007, for example, some doctors produced this video to explain how they are using video conferencing between different nations.
	Some schools have also been using video conferencing for years.
	By comparison, our government officials and political candidates are frequently traveling to give speeches, pose for photos, and have meetings, as if we are still living in the 1700s. These officials are wasting our resources.
	If we can find enough people to design some new cities, then instead of providing the city with a primitive phone system, we could design it so that high-quality video conferencing is easily accessible throughout the city to all businesses, schools, doctors, social clubs, and government offices.

Our government is not taking advantage of our modern technology to reduce unnecessary traveling. Instead of applying technology to reduce the need for meetings, they use technology to make their speeches more impressive. Specifically, they use teleprompters to make it appear as if they are giving a speech rather than reading a speech.

In other words, our government officials use modern technology to impress and deceive us rather than to make the government more efficient. Some different ways to describe this are:
• We have government officials who look for ways to feel more important, as opposed to look for ways to improve society and the government.
• They are focused on satisfying their cravings for attention and status, rather than on making life better for us.
• They are attracted to the government because of the status, not because they want to study our problems and experiment with solutions.

In September 2017, hundreds of government officials from around the world traveled to the United Nations to listen to people read speeches on teleprompters. All of those people could have stayed home, and each person who gave a speech could have recorded it in his own nation, and then posted the audio or video on the Internet.

No nation had to waste its resources on a trip to the United Nations simply to listen to somebody read from a teleprompter.

Furthermore, nobody even had to bother making an audio version of the speech. Since the speeches start out in the form of a document, each government official could have posted the document on the website of the United Nations.

Actually, it makes more sense to post a document of the speech because a document allows us to easily analyze what the person is saying, and to use search functions to find particular words or phrases. It is much more difficult to search through an audio or video of a speech.

It is especially ridiculous to send people to a meeting to listen to a worthless speech, which is typical of the speeches given by government officials.

Many businesses have modernized to the point at which they will not authorize employees to travel somewhere if all they have to do is give a speech or listen to a speech. They will instead tell the person to send an email message, make a phone call, or have a video conference. By comparison, our government officials don't care about wasting their time or our tax money. They are not interested in learning about new technology, or figuring out how to apply the new technology to make the government more efficient.

Actually, I think that government officials prefer to have meetings in which they can stand in front of a group of people and give a speech, as opposed to doing a video conference or posting a document on the Internet. I think they want the attention and applause.

The people who rise to the top government positions in a democracy are those who can appeal to lots of voters, and those people seem to be suffering from abnormally intense cravings for status or attention, or from some type of mental disorder that is making it difficult for them to be an "ordinary" person.

The competitive battle between political candidates to attract voters is causing the mentally inferior candidates to dominate. This battle is giving us government officials who have intense cravings to be the center of attention, rather than government officials who want to create intelligent documents and post them on the Internet. We are getting officials who enjoy standing in front of crowds of people, giving simplistic speeches, and listening to applause. They are not interested in efficiency, or learning about new technology. They want to feel important.

When a scientist has accomplished something of value, he will write a document to explain it, and then he will either publish it in a paper magazine or post it on the Internet. He may include video, audio, or charts to supplement the document, but he does not expect other scientists to travel somewhere merely to listen to him read his report from a teleprompter.

A significant difference between the way we treat scientists and government officials is that scientists are expected to write documents that are worth the trouble to read. They are expected to provide new ideas, new research, or new analyses.

Government officials, by comparison, are not under any pressure to produce intelligent documents. The voters are instead putting pressure on government officials to give them certain policies, blame the nation's problems on somebody else, and praise the voters. Most voters are satisfied with a emotionally exciting and intellectually simplistic speech that is full of arm gestures, interesting tones of voice, flag-waving, music, and praise of the audience.

We should treat government officials and other people in the top leadership positions the same way we treat scientists, engineers, computer programmers, doctors, and other skilled workers. Specifically, our top leaders should be restricted to people who can produce documents that we can learn from and benefit from.

If a government official cannot write a document that provides us with some intelligent advice, analysis, or suggestions, what use will he be? He should not qualify as a government official.

The government officials who praise us and provide us with vague promises will titillate our emotions and make us feel good, but they don't improve our society, economy, schools, social activities, or lives. We can program robots to give us praise and promises.

Furthermore, if a government official is going to the meeting merely to read a speech from a teleprompter, we can program a robot to do that, also.

We could have saved tax money by letting a robot read the worthless speech that Vice President Pence gave about the suspicious shooting in Las Vegas.

We could also save money by having the SCIgen software program write the speeches. The speech that Vice President Pence gave was just some vague remarks, such as the three in the image above, and praise of the American people, such as:

"And we find hope in the everyday Americans, whose heroic actions in the face of unspeakable evil, inspired the nation."

Were you inspired by the heroic actions of the people of Las Vegas? The SCIgen software could probably have come up with remarks and praise that are indistinguishable from those that Vice President Pence probably paid somebody a lot of money for.

Our business executives want to replace their employees with robots, but have you realized that we could replace a lot of government officials with robots? This is not because robots are capable of supervising society. It is because most of our government officials are so useless that a stupid machine can waste its time and our tax money just as well as our officials.

If a government official was truly talented, it would be more beneficial for us if he spent his time on useful tasks rather than traveling to speeches or meetings that could be avoided by using a telephone, email, or video conference.

My suggestion is for us to create some new cities, and experiment with a government that is restricted to the most talented people in the city. The top government officials should be explorers and leaders. This would result in government offices that are more advanced than the offices of businesses, schools, and sports organizations. When we visit a government office, we would be impressed by the efficiency and technology, and by the skills and talent of the government employees. We would be proud of our government, and we would learn about life from our government.

With higher quality government officials, our government would be continuously looking for ways of using new technology to improve our city, jobs, social activities, recreational activities, parks, farms, and holiday celebrations. The government officials would help the businesses, social clubs, recreational groups, and other organizations apply new technology to their particular activities.

With that type of government, meetings and speeches would be discouraged, and we would be encouraged to have video conferences, post documents on the Internet, send email messages, and make phone calls.

Meetings should be held only when there is a valid reason for them, such as when a group of people needs to observe or handle machinery, products, assembly lines, or three-dimensional products that don't display well on two-dimensional video monitors.

There is no reason for people to be in the same room as one another if all they are going to do is listen to a speech or discuss an intangible concept. They can do that type of task faster and more efficiently with a phone, video conference, or email.

We could further improve efficiency by developing software that can search and identify sections of video and audio files. For example, in a previous document I suggested that our schools switch to an electronic education. With our technology today, there is no reason for teachers to stand in front of a class and give the same lectures over and over, year after year. It is more sensible for them to create videos of their lectures and let each student watch the lectures at their leisure. And by not allowing copyrights, the videos could be edited to improve and update them through the years.

Of course, in order for educational videos to be truly useful, we need to develop software to make it easier for students to scan through the videos, locate certain sections, and jump from one video to another.

It would also be helpful if a student can easily control the playback speed of the videos, and if the software automatically adjusts the pitch of the audio to keep the audio as understandable as possible. The reason it is useful to slow down an educational video is because our mind needs time to think about what the narrator is saying, or what the graphs and charts are showing. We can solve that problem by replaying the video over and over, but with certain videos, it is more productive and less frustrating to slow down the video. Why not replace the "Scroll Lock" key on the keyboard with a speed control knob?

Another feature that would be useful for educational videos is if the playback software would automatically translate the audio into words, similar to subtitles, but on a different monitor so that the text doesn't cover up any of the video. This would be useful when the issue is so complex that the student needs more time to think about what is being said. He may even want to pause the video so that he can look more closely at the words and think about what the narrator is saying.

I also recommend eliminating copyrights so that schools can continuously improve the educational videos. Students would be encouraged to identify the sections they are having the most trouble with, and their complaints and suggestions would go into a database which would help the people who create the videos figure out which areas need better narration, or more clarification.

Whenever there is a hurricane or other disaster, many voters react like frightened children who want their government officials to take the role of a mommy, hold their hand, and make them feel safe. They want their government officials to stop whatever they are doing and travel to the disaster area to give speeches, and to give the frightened people some hugs, praise, and encouragement.

If a government official does not quickly travel to a disaster area and comfort the people with praise and promises, many journalists and citizens complain that he has no compassion for the people, but it is absurd to expect a government official to waste his time and our money traveling around to merely comfort the people who cannot cope with life. Those people should turn to their family members or friends for comfort.

In a democracy, the voters have the attitude that government officials are servants who should pander to us, but it would make more sense for government officials to be leaders, and it is idiotic for our leaders to waste their time trying to comfort a few frightened people.

Businesses, orchestras, militaries, scientific research labs, and other organizations occasionally suffer from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other problems, but we don't expect the leaders of those organizations to stop what they are doing simply to give a few silly speeches to some frightened people. When a disaster occurs, the leaders of most organizations put their time and effort into recovering from the disaster, not trying to comfort a few frightened people.

Political candidates do not need to travel, either

The system we use to elect government officials developed many centuries ago when the primary form of communication was the human voice, thereby requiring political candidates to travel around the nation to give speeches.

The candidates had to repeat the same speech over and over to each group of voters, which caused the English expression stump speech to develop, and which is depicted in the painting to the right.

With modern technology, however, there is no reason for political candidates to travel, or to repeat the same speech over and over. A person today could apply for a government job just like people apply for management positions at businesses, orchestras, and other organizations.

Actually, applying for a job could become even easier and more efficient if people can control their paranoia of being observed well enough to allow the government to maintain a public database with information about everybody's life. With that type of database, nobody would have to waste their time creating resumes, or listing their education or previous work experience on job application forms, because all of that information would be in the public database. The database would also have medical information, dental information, and all sorts of other "personal" information, including photos of the person at different ages.

The job application form could be very simple, and all organizations could use the identical application form. The image to the right gives an example of one possibility.

Nobody would have to travel to a business or organization to fill out a job application. A person would fill in a generic form and email it to whichever organization he wanted a job with.

Most people would apply for a job simply by specifying their name, a link to their entry in the database, and the jobs they were interested in. They would leave the "optional comments" blank. That section would be useful mainly to people who have so much information in their database that they want to bring attention to certain achievements so that the personnel department doesn't overlook them.

In the economy I suggest, nobody would be concerned with a salary, health care, or retirement benefits because nobody would get a paycheck, and everything in the city would be free. People would select jobs according to what they were interested in and capable of doing.

A person who wants to become a government official would apply for a job with the same, simplistic application form. However, political candidates would be expected to provide an additional document that would explain why we should select them. For example, a candidate might point out that he has already been successful at modifying and improving some of our social and recreational activities, and that he now wants to apply his experience to other aspects of society that require the authority of a government official.

Another candidate might point out that he has been successful at developing an improved computer network for the city, and now he wants to become a government official so that he can create and supervise a project to network all of the city's mobile robots with a wireless communication system, which would effectively make the robots resemble an ant colony in which each robot is independent, but they are capable of sharing video and other information. Those robots would be able to replace one another when one needs maintenance, and assist one another when one of them needs help with a task.

The political candidates would not travel anywhere, and they would not give speeches to anybody. Furthermore, I don't think it is useful to put political candidates, or any job candidates, into debates, especially not when the debate is supervised by criminal journalists who know nothing about science, genetics, or culture, and who try to manipulate the debate for their crime network.

I think the best way for voters to judge political candidates is to review their previous achievements and failures, and to analyze the document that they include with their job application that describes what they plan to do as a government official.

The voters would often have questions about what the candidates have done or are proposing, but most of those questions could be resolved through email messages, all of which would be added to their database entry so that everybody would be able to see what those messages were. The voters would have interviews with the candidates only if they were having trouble making a decision about who to select.

I think that when a society keeps a detailed database of everybody's life, the voters would rarely need to bother with interviews of the political candidates. I suspect that the voters will be able to make excellent choices simply by looking through the history of the candidates, and by analyzing their proposals of what they plan to do.

It should be noted that this system will be useless if the voters behave like they do today. For example, political candidates are frequently making remarks that are inaccurate or vague, as well as making insulting remarks about one another. However, the typical voter doesn't care. There are no consequences for political candidates who deceive the voters, or who make meaningless, vague, or idiotic remarks or promises.

In order to improve this situation, the voters who show no concern about inaccuracies, deception, and insults need to be fired. Voting should be restricted to people who will hold the political candidates accountable for what they do and say. The candidates who make idiotic, deceptive, or false statements should have those remarks listed in their database, and they should be disqualified from top positions.

Another aspect of the employment process that we need to improve upon is that we must stop allowing people to file lawsuits when they are criticized by a former employer. In the United States, the fear of a lawsuit is causing many employers to lie about a former employee in order to make that employee appear to be better behaved and more talented than he actually was. This is resulting in so many people who lie about a former employee that we cannot trust a reference.

If we allow the government to maintain a database about us, that database is going to contain a lot of people's opinions about our education, behavior, attitude, and work history. We cannot allow people to file lawsuits over remarks that they don't like.

It is acceptable to allow people to show evidence that a remark in the database is inaccurate and needs to be corrected, but we should not allow a database to be altered simply because a person doesn't like a remark. If a critical remark can be shown to be based on evidence, then it is acceptable, even if the person does not like it, and even if it is just one person's opinion.

Everybody needs to face the fact that all humans are biased, and there is nothing wrong with somebody expressing his opinion about your job performance, attitude, emotional qualities, or talents. People who give a job review should be under pressure to be accurate, not to deliberately make the person look good. We don't want to allow insults or slander, but a person's analysis of somebody else can be valuable, even though everybody will produce a biased and incomplete analysis.

Our emotions regard criticism as an attack on us, and that causes us to become either angry at the person who criticized us, or to run away and hide from the critical remarks. However, we need to suppress this animal reaction and treat criticism as a valuable tool. Instead of merely tolerating criticism, it would be better to teach children that one of their duties as a team member in a modern society is to provide constructive criticism to their team members in order to help them improve themselves, and one of their responsibilities is to calmly listen to constructive criticism and try to learn from it.

If we were living in a city in which everybody had enough self-control to listen to and provide constructive criticism, all of us would benefit because we would all occasionally get some useful criticism that helps us to improve the way we do our job, plan and play recreational events, use a new feature of a phone, play a musical instrument, or socialize with other people.

Criticism is worthless only when we have heard the remarks many times, and we are unable to improve ourselves. An obvious example are the fat people. There is no point in providing them with constructive criticism about how they need to reduce their consumption of food. If they do not have the necessary self-control, there is no point in repeating the advice over and over, no matter how useful the advice may be.

We benefit tremendously by listening to one another's analysis of people, events, technology, and ideas. It does not matter that each of us is biased, or that we see only a small portion of an issue. Other people's analyses are valuable because each person's analysis provides us with a slightly different view of the world.

On our own, we will see only a small portion of the world, but by listening to a variety of people, we will get a more complete understanding. We should not allow a person to suppress an analysis simply because he does not like the analysis. We should suppress a person's analysis only when we regard it as insults, slander, anger, pouting, or nonsense.

There are so many people who react to opinions that they do not like with anger, pouting, tantrums, and defensive behavior that they are interfering with our social lives, jobs, and activities by causing us to be afraid to give our honest opinions on many issues. The attacks of James Damore are undoubtedly increasing people's fear of expressing their opinions.

I would describe the people who react to differences of opinion with anger and pouting as "crude" people because they are behaving like an animal rather than a human. They are behaving like a monkey that is biting and kicking another monkey in an attempt to intimidate and dominate that monkey.

I thought I had mentioned an example of how our fear of being honest is interfering with our society in one of my earlier documents, but I could not find it, so here it is:

My mother started a small, retail clothing store for women when we were children. Originally she was the only employee, but eventually she hired a couple of women to work part-time. Occasionally she would arrange for a simplistic "party", such as at Christmas, or to celebrate an anniversary of the establishment of the store, and she provided the customers with free coffee and tea. Since it was a small retail store, she knew a lot of the customers. It was a considerably friendlier environment than a Sears, Walmart, or Macy's store.

During these parties, the employee who drinks coffee would make the coffee, but she was busy, so my mother decided to make it. My mother prefers tea, and had not made coffee in many years, but she assumed that she remembered how to do it.

When my mother came home that day, she was upset, and she told us the story of how she made coffee for the women, and that she was serving it to them for several hours before one of her part-time employees decided to have a cup of coffee and immediately complained that it was ridiculously strong. My mother then realized that she had put too much coffee into the machine.

She told us that she was wondering why the women were taking so long to drink the coffee, and why some women were taking only a few sips and leaving the rest of it. She said she was embarrassed that she had been serving the coffee for hours, and that she was upset that none of the women felt comfortable enough to tell her that the coffee was too strong.

The women who were served the coffee were afraid to complain about the coffee, afraid to ask for some water to dilute it, and afraid to ask if there was another pot of coffee that was less intense. The reason they were so afraid is because they were worried my mother, or somebody else in the store, would cry, pout, become angry, or react with an insulting, sarcastic remark.

That particular situation is happening on a regular basis at our jobs and social events. If you were to review video of your life, you would certainly find many times when you were afraid to say something to somebody, or ask a question, because you were worried that the person might react by crying, pouting, or having a tantrum.

Many people, when we point out that they have made a mistake, or if we ask them a question about why they are doing something in a particular manner, will react by whining that they are being criticized, bullied, insulted, or shamed. It takes a certain amount of self-control to appreciate other people's opinions of us, and to tell them, "Thank you for pointing that out to me."

The situation is aggravated by the people who cannot state their opinions in a pleasant manner. For example, when people do not like a particular food, coffee, or piece art, some people react with an arrogant, insulting, or sarcastic remark, such as, "This coffee is disgusting! Who is the jerk who made this?"

In order to provide constructive criticism, people need to realize that their opinions are only opinions, not facts. For example, no cup of coffee is "disgusting". However, there are some styles of coffee that you will not like, and other styles that somebody else will not like.

The people who don't have the ability to understand these issues will be socially awkward misfits who irritate other people. They are likely to have trouble forming stable friendships and marriages. That in turn can cause them to become angry at the people who do not like them, but it is their own fault that other people do not like them. Their personalities are crude, and their behavior is obnoxious, arrogant, and unpleasant.

Our fear that people will react to our opinions with anger or whining is causing us to be afraid to point out to other people that their zipper is open, or that there is mucus in their nose, or that they are irritating people by starting every sentence with, "I mean". Other people are frequently inserting the expression "kind of" or "sort of" in their sentences, even though it has no meaning, such as: "Now I'm going to kind of cut this piece of chicken into sort of smaller pieces."

Imagine living in a city in which people can express their opinions in a polite manner, and everybody has so much self-control that they remain calm when you express your opinions, or ask them a question. If you were living in a city with people like that, you would feel more comfortable.

Furthermore, you would notice that as the years pass by, people tend to improve their behavior and their verbal expressions as a result of getting constructive criticism. For example, you would notice that the number of people who start their sentences with "I mean" are decreasing every year as people point out to one another that they are doing that.

Unfortunately, in our cities today, a significant percentage of the people we live among are frequently reacting to remarks that they don't like by whining that they are being bullied, shamed, unappreciated, insulted, or abused. Living among these people is like taking a walk in a field that has landmines. Since we do not know which of the people we live among will "blow up", or over which remark, we become cautious about expressing our opinions around other people.

These crude people are interfering with our relationships and our lives. For example, because we are afraid to tell people that they are starting sentences with "I mean", instead of reducing this problem every year, more people are doing it every year.

We should stop pandering to the people who are angry, miserable, impolite, abusive, and whiny. We should stop letting them intimidate and manipulate us. We should restrict leadership to people who can tell the whiny, miserable, angry people that they are behaving like animals, and that we are tired of their bad attitude.

The people who whine, hate, accuse, pout, insult, and slander should be suppressed, but they are exerting a lot of influence over society because journalists, schools teachers, and other influential people are frequently giving them publicity, and encouraging us to feel sorry for them and pander to them.

For example, during 2017 a lot of influential people have been advocating the removal of Confederate statues and flags because they claim some people are offended by them. Years ago a lot of influential people were telling us to refer to the Chinese people as "Asians" rather than "Orientals", and to refer to Mexicans as "Hispanics", because some of the Chinese and Mexicans felt insulted by those words.

Why are we allowing the whiny, miserable people to exert influence over us? Why don't we tell them to shut up? It is because we are monkeys, and we have a natural craving to take care of whiny, angry, miserable creatures. Is important to understand this craving so that you can control it.

Animals evolved a powerful craving to rush over and help the creatures that are whining. Human adults often exploit this characteristic by acting childlike and whining.

Baby animals cannot take care of themselves. Therefore, when baby animals are hungry, cold, hot, or under attack by insects, they whine or have tantrums.

The adult animals evolved a strong desire to appease whiny, angry, and miserable creatures because this stimulates them into taking care of their children.

The animals that were the most successful in raising children were those who responded to the whining and anger of their children by rushing over to see what was wrong, giving them food, or chasing away insects or predators.

Humans inherited that craving to rush over and appease whiny, angry creatures. It makes us feel good to appease them.

When an animal begs us for food, we regard to the animal as amusing or adorable, and we enjoy feeding the animal. However, if an adult man were to beg for food in the same manner, we would be disgusted with him. Why is it adorable when an animal begs for food? It is because the dog triggers our emotions to feed and care for babies.

When we hear a child crying or having a tantrum, we are stimulated into helping the child. When an adult man hears a woman crying or having a tantrum, he is stimulated into rushing over and becoming a hero to help her with whatever problem she is having.

Our emotions assume that when somebody is whining or angry, they are suffering from a problem that we should help to resolve. Our emotions were not designed for a society in which we are surrounded by defective people who whine about nonsensical issues. Our emotions assume that every child who whines is doing so for a sensible reason, such as he needs food, or he is being bit by insects. It does not occur to our emotions that a person might be whining simply because he is defective.

When we follow our emotional craving to appease whiny people, we give the whiny people a much greater influence in society than they should have. We give them special treatment, but it would make more sense to tell them to deal with their problems quietly.

In this modern world, we must learn to suppress our craving to help whiny, angry people, including our own children. We must pass judgment on whether a person truly needs our help, or whether they need to be told to shut up. We are not necessarily hurting a person when we tell him to stop whining, and we are not necessarily helping a person when we pander to him. In many cases, we will help a person much more by telling him to stop whining and learn to deal with his problems.

Most of the adults who are whining about being bullied, unappreciated, or abused are actually selfish, neurotic, defective people. When we appease them, we make our social environment worse.

The First Amendment gives us the right to peacefully assemble. Would you describe this as a peaceful assembly?

For example, when we allow angry, miserable people to have protests in the streets, we encourage other angry people to have temper tantrums in public streets. The protests do not improve life for those people, or for society.

The Constitution gives us the right to peacefully assemble, but I would not describe those protests as "peaceful" or as "assemblies".

I would describe those protests as childish, obnoxious, worthless, destructive temper tantrums. They are often violent, also, and they often disrupt other people's lives.

We need to suppress our craving to appease the whiny, angry people. We need to put pressure on everybody to behave in a respectable manner, or be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or be evicted from the city.

I think that we will create a more pleasant social environment when we stop following the philosophy that the squeaky wheel deserves the grease. In a modern human society, the people who are analogous to squeaky wheels should be regarded as defective.

When we pander to the whiny, angry people, we create a miserable social environment because we encourage more whining and anger, and we cause people to live in fear of being honest with one another.

In order for us to provide ourselves with better government officials, we need to develop a system that makes it easier for voters to analyze political candidates and government officials. Since it is much easier to analyze a person by looking at his documents than it is to listen to his speeches, my recommendation is to let political candidates apply for government positions by writing a document about what they plan to do, and prohibit them from traveling around the nation to give speeches.

We should also maintain a database that has details of everybody's life so that voters can easily review the achievements and failures of every political candidate.

Finally, we need to eliminate the secrecy that we are providing people in leadership positions so that we can hold them accountable for what they do.

When we have documents, rather than video, we can search for keywords, and it is easier for us to notice hypocrisy, contradictions, idiotic remarks, unsupported accusations, insults, and vague remarks.

An example is the speech that Donald Trump gave to the United Nations on 19 September 2017. If you were to watch the video of his speech, you might be impressed by it, but if you were to read the transcript, there is a greater chance that you will come to the conclusion that he didn't say anything of any value. For example, his first paragraph is typical, worthless, generic political nonsense:

The second paragraph gives praise to world leaders and the American people, so it is worthless, also:

He starts the third paragraph by boasting that the stock market is at an all-time high. However, the stock market will almost always keep up with inflation, and since inflation is at an all-time high, the stock market should also be at an all-time high:

The stock market has been rising for years, and no president should take credit for that because it is partly due to inflation. Furthermore, the free enterprise system operates without leadership, so it is debatable as to whether any president has really done something significant to help the economy.

When the economy is operating nicely, the government officials will take credit for it, but when it is not so wonderful, they will blame the previous administration, or a foreign nation.

I think that if we could measure the effect each person is having on the economy, we would discover that the government, as a group, has a smaller effect than the public.

The free enterprise system operates on its own as people compete for money, and so I think the biggest effect on the economy are the people. The engineers, entrepreneurs, farmers, truck drivers, factory workers, and other people have a significant effect on the economy because they are developing new technology, producing food and material items, and starting new businesses. Furthermore, the people do this regardless of who has been elected president.

In a free enterprise system, the government officials do not have a significant role in the economy. The government is primarily a burden on the economy by imposing taxes.

It is possible for a government to help a free enterprise system, such as by arresting dishonest businessmen in order to keep the competition fair, but as I have pointed out in my other documents, our government officials are so ignorant about economic issues that they don't even understand that increasing the minimum wage will put people out of work rather than help them pay their bills.

Even the people with diplomas from Harvard in economics are so ignorant about economic issues that none of them should take credit for something beneficial about the economy. All of the courses in social science should be overhauled.

Getting back to Trump's speech, he then boasted that unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years as a result of his administration, but unemployment levels are at whatever level we want to measure them to be. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the number of Americans who are not working has been continuously rising, and is at almost 95 million people as of August 2017. However, other government agencies do not count those 95 million people as "unemployed" because they are not looking for a job.

What this means is that if those 95 million people decided to look for a job, the unemployment rate would jump up to an incredible level. Or if a lot of the people who are looking for a job decided to stop looking, the unemployment rate would drop dramatically. Our government officials are interpreting statistics in the manner that they find most pleasing.

Furthermore, even if more people are working because of Trump, that does not mean that nation has improved. We must look at what the jobs are, and we should pass judgment on whether those jobs are beneficial to society. A government can easily reduce unemployment simply by increasing taxes and then hiring more people in the government to do nothing.

We can also reduce unemployment by allowing the schools to expand by adding more worthless courses, such as by offering diplomas in "toxic masculinity" or "male privilege".

We can also reduce unemployment by creating more religions, charities, think tanks, gambling casinos, television stations, newspapers, magazines, sports stadiums, Hollywood movies, products for pets, sex robots, pornography, candy, toys, and advertising.

We should not focus on unemployment statistics. It is more important to focus on what type of jobs the people are doing. We should pass judgment on how many people are doing useful work and contributing something of value, and how many people are wasting our resources and their lives on worthless jobs.

In order for a government official to truly boast about reducing unemployment, he needs to provide us with evidence that he has put people to work at jobs that are beneficial to society.

Getting back to Trump's speech, he then boasted that companies are moving their operations back to the United States, thereby creating more jobs, but I doubt if anybody has actually done an analysis of the nation to determine whether that statement is true.

For all we know, more jobs moved overseas during the Trump administration. Trump is making a boastful claim without any supporting evidence. Furthermore, which jobs came back to America as a result of Trump? Were they unskilled labor jobs which will put a few people to work for a few years until robots replace them? If so, then the jobs that came back to America are worthless.

Trump next boasted that the USA will spend almost $700 billion on military and defense, and he started his fourth paragraph by boasting that our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been:

However, giving money to the military does not necessarily improve the military, or our nation. What is the military going to do with that money? Are they going to continue fighting with fictional, Muslim terrorists in the Middle East who never attacked us on 9/11?

There are accusations that the military and CIA are helping to bring heroin from Afghanistan into the USA, such as this article which claims that "the American military is actively guarding the very poppy fields in Afghanistan that fuel the global drug trade".

There are also accusations that the military and CIA are involved with pedophilia, such as this article.

Are those accusations accurate? If so, we should give money to some investigators to identify and remove the lunatics and criminals from the military and CIA.

If those accusations are false, then the people making them should be investigated to determine if they are making an honest mistake, and if we determine that those authors are deliberately lying, they should be arrested for slandering the US military and the CIA.

Getting back to Trump's speech, Trump does not provide any details on what the military is doing with their money, or how the money is going to improve the military. He is simply making some generic, vague remarks that people can interpret in whatever manner they please. I would say that his third and fourth paragraphs are worthless.

The rest of his speech doesn't say anything of value, either. Actually, his remarks are so vague and generic that my guess is that whoever wrote that speech has a list of vague remarks, and whenever he needs to write a political speech, he simply picks a few dozen remarks, and then modifies them a bit to fit the particular audience and the current news events.

Trump's speech to the United Nations was so generic that if Obama had given the speech several years ago, I don't think anybody would have thought to themselves that Obama was reading the wrong speech.

When you watch a video of Trump reading that document to the United Nations, you might be impressed, and you may not notice that he hasn't said anything of value. By comparison, if you are given a document of the speech, and if you are asked to provide an analysis of it, you are more likely to notice that it is just another worthless political speech.

By requiring political candidates to run for office by writing a document rather than by giving speeches, we solve two problems:

1) It becomes easier for voters to analyze and compare the candidates.

2) It becomes much easier for people to apply for a government job because they won't have to waste any of their time or resources on traveling or speeches. All a person would have to do is write a brief description of what they plan to do if they were hired, and what some of their achievements have been in the past. They would post the document on the website for government candidates, and then they would continue with their life.

By comparison, a person who wants to get into the government today has to either have a phenomenal amount of money and time, or he must raise a phenomenal amount of money by begging for donations. Then he must travel around the nation to talk to voters, give speeches, and titillate them. The process is so difficult, degrading, unpleasant, expensive, and time-consuming that it discourages most people from participating.

The only people who are willing to suffer through the process of getting elected are the people with psychotic cravings for status and feelings of importance, as well as people who are being blackmailed and forced to run for office. We are never going to get good quality government officials with a disgusting employment procedure.

The concept of eliminating speeches and meetings with phones and teleconferencing also applies to the leaders of businesses, recreational groups, social clubs, scientific research labs, orchestras, and other organizations. With the technology we have today, our leaders don't have to waste their time or our resources traveling around for meetings.

The reason a lot of business leaders want meetings is because a lot of them achieve their goals through intimidation, and it's difficult to intimidate a person through documents and video conferences. It is much easier to intimidate people when you are in the same room with them, especially if there are other people in the room who are also trying to intimidate the person.

I think the best application for speeches and lectures is for social events. In a previous document, I suggested that we stop giving Nobel prizes and other awards to a very small number of people, and start recognizing the work of virtually everybody in society. Instead of having one celebration a year to give a Nobel prize to a tiny percentage of the population, a city could arrange for hundreds of ceremonies every year for a wide variety of people in the city.

On one evening, for example, a farmer might be chosen to give a lecture about how he is involved with a hydroponic farm for vegetables, and on another evening, a person at a bicycle factory might give a lecture to explain how bicycles are being manufactured at his particular factory.

These type of social events would give people a chance to meet some of the people in their city, and learn about the type of jobs that are necessary to keep a modern society functioning. These events would also help the teenagers develop a better understanding of the jobs that are available.

Some of the events could begin with a dinner, and while the people are relaxing after dinner, they would listen to a lecture, possibly with images or videos. If the lecture was short, it could be followed with a tour of a factory or farm, or it could be followed with dancing, singing, or other entertainment.

Our societies are currently creating events like this for broadcast on television, or on the Internet, such as the "talk shows" and the TED lectures, but the shows that are being produced right now are under the control of Jews, so they contain a lot of propaganda, and they suppress information and people that the Jews don't like. In a city that isn't under the control of crime networks, there would be a wider variety of lectures that are more honest and informative.

However, in order to be interested in going to one of those events, the city government must support a wide variety of these events so that everybody can find some events that they enjoy, and the city must be designed so that it is easy for us to travel to and from the events.

In case you are having trouble understanding what I am proposing, take a look at the edited photo below, and imagine that you are living in a city in which each neighborhood consists of tall buildings with apartments, daycare centers, medical facilities, schools for young children, restaurants, social clubs, music theaters, and recreational facilities. Surrounding the buildings are foot paths, bicycle paths, gardens, cafes, and swimming areas.

Imagine that the business sections of the city also consist of clusters of tall buildings, but they have offices and factories rather than apartments, and they have larger and more extensive medical facilities, theaters, museums, recreational facilities, and social clubs.

The city government would support a wide variety of social activities. During the weekdays there would be activities only during the evenings because - as I mentioned in previous documents - there would be no wealthy class in the city, and so there would be no social events during the weekdays to entertain the bored, wealthy people. But during the weekends there would be events during the daytime, also.

So, imagine that you are living in one of the apartments in the photo above, and that it is a Saturday morning, and you don't have any chores to do that day. You wake up in an apartment that doesn't have a kitchen. If you want breakfast, you have to take a short walk and elevator ride to one of the restaurants in your neighborhood. You could walk to a restaurant by yourself and eat alone, or you could contact a friend and walk with him to the restaurant. Or, you might decide to do something before you eat, such as take a walk or bicycle ride around your neighborhood, or go swimming in one of the pools.

Eventually you will look on your phone to see what sort of social and recreational events are being offered that day and evening. The daytime events will be the most physically active, and the events during the evening will be more relaxing, such as dinners, music, singing, games, contests, and lectures.

The city government would encourage people to get involved with creating events, so there would be a wide variety of events to choose from. There would be some of the same events that are available today from museums, artists, musicians, and scientists, but there would be much more in a city without a free enterprise system because the businesses would not be afraid to let people have tours of their business. There would be no copyrights, patents, or secrecy between the businesses. The businesses would be proud to show what they do, so tours and lectures could be arranged of whatever businesses people were interested in learning about.

If you have trouble imagining what type of lectures a business might offer, here are some examples to stimulate your imagination:

• A farmer might give a lecture about how he raises chickens, and he would not be afraid to be honest about what he feeds the chickens. If he is giving the chickens growth hormones or antibiotics, he will be willing to disclose that information, and answer questions about it. The farmers in this economic system are simply doing a job, and they are following the guidance of scientists and government officials, so they are not going to be afraid to be honest about what they do.

If he is asked a question that he doesn't know the answer to, such as whether the hormones are getting into the meat and affecting humans, somebody might ask the government to arrange for a lecture in which scientists discuss this issue.

Therefore, in addition to informing the public on how their food is produced, these lectures and tours could help people determine whether they need to alter their food production methods, or their manufacturing processes, or their recycling routines.

• A person who works at an electric motor factory might offer a tour of the factory to show how the motors are built, and then give a lecture on how and where the motors are being used in the city.

• A business that installs video cameras in the city to help catch rats, and help scientists figure out what type of animals are coming out at night in the city, and what those animals do each night, would be able to explain the technology without fear of their competitors learning about their technical secrets.

As I have mentioned in previous files, the people involved with creating social and recreational events would be held accountable for what they do. The people who create events that are successful will be encouraged to create more of them, and the more successful they are, the easier it will be for them to get authorization for another event, but the people who create events that do not appeal to many people, or which encourage bad behavior, will have an increasingly difficult time getting authorization to set up an event. Through the years, this will result in social and recreational events that become increasingly beneficial and appreciated.

Furthermore, if we eliminate copyrights and royalties, everybody will be free to improve upon other people's creations. When a person develops a lecture, music concert, factory tour, or recreational activity that turns out to be popular and beneficial, other people will be able to learn from it, modify it, and experiment with it, without asking for permission or paying royalties. Through the years, this will allow people to develop increasingly more enjoyable and beneficial lectures, social affairs, parties, recreational activities, and holiday celebrations.

If you were living in that type of city, there would be so many social and recreational events occurring every Saturday that you would certainly find something that attracts your attention. If the event is in your neighborhood, you would be able to walk to it, but if it is in another neighborhood, or if it was in the business section of the city, you would have to take a train or ride a bicycle.

You will not want to go to a social or recreational event unless it is easy and pleasant to get to and from it. In our cities today, traveling is so annoying that many of us want to avoid traveling. However, I think traveling will be much more pleasant if we create cities as I've suggested. Some of the reasons are:

1) The apartment and office buildings would be built as clusters that are surrounded by parks. There would be no automobiles or parking lots on the surface of the city. People would travel between the clusters of buildings by underground train, or by walking or riding bicycles.

Below is an unedited photo of the Gapstow Bridge in New York City. (Take a look at the variety of photos of that bridge here.) I think most of the city is ugly, and the automobiles create noise, pollution, and dust, but there are certain locations within Central Park where the city appears to be a paradise. From those locations, the automobiles and asphalt roads are hidden, and we don't notice that the city is laid out in a dreary grid. We also don't notice that the tops of most of the buildings are ugly, or that most of the buildings are also ugly. However, use the photo below to stimulate your imagination. Try to visualize a city that is beautiful from all locations.

By designing a city with beautiful buildings, and surrounding them with attractive gardens, walkways, and ponds, we would enjoy taking a walk or bicycle ride to and from the social events.

The city could also have some elevated walkways and bicycle paths over the trees, creeks, ponds, and gardens. This would give us the opportunity to see the birds in the trees, or walk over ponds.

The edited photo below is unrealistic, but it might help you to realize that we already have the technology to create a city in which clusters of buildings are surrounded by beautiful parks, walkways, ponds, bicycle paths, gardens, and canals. All we need to do is find people who have enough of a pioneer spirit to be willing to get together with other people to design and build a new city.

2) The trains would be more pleasant than those that we have today because the trains would be free. There would be no turnstiles or tickets. Furthermore, the population level of the city would be restricted, so the trains would rarely, if ever, be so crowded that people have to force themselves to fit.

3) The city would be designed specifically for trains, so the trains would travel only from one cluster to the next at high speed, as opposed to cities today in which trains must connect people who are scattered throughout the city in a haphazard manner, which results in tracks that often make sharp turns, thereby reducing speeds and making screeching noises, and which results in trains that must stop at stations where only a few passengers get on or off.

We could design a city with canals to provide us with such recreational activities as swimming, rowing, snorkeling, scuba diving, and sailing. In addition, the water could be used for heating and cooling the buildings and greenhouses, and melting snow on foot paths and bicycle paths. The canals would also be useful for draining water during heavy rain storms, and raising certain types of fish for food. The canals could also be decorative, such as making them with rock walls, underwater lights, and small islands for frogs, birds, and children.

4) Because the city owns all of the bicycles, boats, kayaks, and other material items, you would be able to travel in a manner that is impossible in a free enterprise system, such as riding a bicycle to a social event, and then leaving the bicycle at that location and riding a train home.

Or, you could walk part of the way, then ride a rowboat along a canal, and then get on a train to finish the trip.

By putting the bicycle storage areas, boats, cameras, recreational equipment, and other items at the train stations, it will be easy for people to pick up and leave items as they travel. It also makes it easy to distribute the items to other stations when a lot of the items begin to accumulate at a station.

5) The police and city government will control immigration and evict or restrict badly behaved people, which means that the trains will be free of graffiti, trash, crime, slobs, men who fondle women, and pedophiles. When you get on a train, you will be among people that you respect and trust.

6) All of the social and recreational events will be free, and so will all of the food, so nobody will need to carry money with them, or worry about wallets or prices.

Use the photos above to stimulate your imagination. Spend some of your leisure time imagining that you are living in a friendly, homogeneous, crime-free city in which the government is encouraging lots of social and recreational events. Don't you think that you would be tempted to get out of your house during the evenings and weekends to go to some of those events?

Because of genetic diversity and genetic disorders, some people are not going to enjoy the city or the social environment that I am describing, but I suspect that a significant percentage of the population would prefer living in that type of city compared to what they have right now.

I suspect that if we create such a city, many people will be surprised to discover that they enjoy traveling to and from the events. I think that some people will deliberately start the trip earlier than they need to so that they can take the longer, "scenic route" to the event rather than the shortest path. Some people will want extra time for the trip so that they can do part of the trip on a rowboat along a canal. Others will want some extra time so that they can stop at a park and let their children see the ducks or fish.

Incidentally, the people who decide to walk, row a boat, or ride a bicycle to or from the events, will get some exercise in the process, which most of us need since office jobs are slowly replacing physically active jobs. Therefore, we might discover that living in this type of city is keeping us in better health, and helping us to sleep better at night, by providing us with so many different social and recreational activities that virtually everybody is getting exercise every evening and weekend.

I also suspect that many people will be surprised to discover that they occasionally want to help arrange some of the events rather than always be a passive spectator, and some people will want to go even further and want to try creating some new events.

I don't know exactly what people are going to discover once they begin experimenting with their cities and their culture, but I would bet that they will create a life for themselves that is significantly more pleasant than what we have right now.

Because humans are a species of monkey, we have a craving to admire, pamper, and mimic whoever happens to be in a leadership position. Unfortunately, modern human nations are becoming dominated by people who I think we should regard as neurotic and undesirable. They are not appropriate role models.

Our nations are dominated by wealthy people who have intense cravings for material items, mansions, status, and pampering. They create the impression that the key to enjoying life is to be pampered like a medieval King. However, I think that if we could experience thousands of different lifestyles, most people would discover that the most satisfying life is one in which we must participate in it rather than be a pampered King.

For example, I think we will discover that our meals are more satisfying when we are living in a city without servants, and we must get together with our friends to do something together to create the meal, even if it is something trivial, such as helping them husk ears of corn, or set the table, or clear the table when the meal is finished.

The people who dominate society today are promoting the attitude that those of us who have to do "nigger work" are suffering in life, and that in order to fully enjoy life, we need to be pampered by servants and treated like a baby. However, I think those people should be regarded as defective humans.

I think the reason humans have developed the attitude that "nigger work" is bad is because we have an emotion that causes us to want to relax and avoid work. As I mentioned in a previous document, I think this emotion developed in animals as a way of pushing them into becoming more efficient.

An animal that has a strong dislike of work will do the minimum necessary, which means that the animal will try to accomplish tasks as quickly as possible, whereas an animal that enjoys working would enjoy spending an enormous amount of time on a task. The end result is that the animals that do not like to work accomplish tasks more quickly and efficiently, and they will dominate the planet.

Humans inherited that dislike for work from the monkeys. We look for the quickest and most efficient way to accomplish our tasks. Unfortunately, we are misinterpreting this emotion when we assume that it means that work is bad, and that lounging, naps, and being pampered is fun.

If we were to live in a city in which there are no servants, we would have to occasionally get together with our friends and neighbors to help with some of the chores in the city. Our emotional craving to avoid work will want us to grumble about doing chores, but I think we will be surprised to discover that most of us actually enjoy life more as a result of sharing in those chores. For one reason, when we work with friends and relatives, we accumulate memories to reminisce about when we get older.

Chores are annoying only when we are living in a city in which our leaders are promoting the attitude that chores are "nigger work", in which case the people who do chores are treated like peasants. If, instead, we were living in a city in which everybody, including the leaders of the city, were sharing in the chores, and without whining about it, the chores would not seem to be "chores". They would appear to be activities, or tasks, or jobs, that everybody participates in to maintain their city, similar to getting dressed in the morning by yourself, or combing your hair.

To rephrase this, a "chore" is miserable only when you are in an environment that is promoting such an attitude. A lot of what you like and dislike in life is determined by what other people like and dislike.

Furthermore, when we do chores for the city, we will get more satisfaction from the city. For example, if we get together with our neighbors on a Saturday morning to fix a footpath in our neighborhood, every time we walk over that footpath, or see other people walk over it, it will provide us with pleasant memories. By comparison, when we tell a peasant to fix the footpath, we don't get any satisfaction from the work that the peasant does.

We have an emotion that is attracted to the concept of lounging around all day long while servants pamper us, but that life doesn't provide us with much satisfaction, and it doesn't give us much to reminisce about when we are older.

Children do not enjoy working, but as we grow up, we develop a desire to become responsible for ourselves and enjoy working. The adults who don't enjoy working are not healthy or normal. Something is wrong with them. Perhaps some of them did not fully develop and remained with a childlike attitude, but I suspect that most of them are suffering from some type of physical or mental disorder that is preventing them from enjoying work.

The mentally healthy humans get more satisfaction from life when we work, as long as the work is for the benefit of the group. We can even see evidence for this during recreational events, such as tailgate parties, in which people enjoy the work of preparing and providing food for one another.

In the photo below, for example, the men who are preparing food are not suffering as a result of doing "nigger work". They are enjoying the work. They do not want to hire servants to feed them. They want to participate in the activity. They don't even want servants around them. They want to be surrounded by friends.

By comparison, the people who get into top leadership positions set up parties by paying lots of peasants to set up the party, prepare and serve food, and clean up the mess.

Our natural tendency is to worship whoever gets into a leadership position, but in this modern world, people can become leaders for all sorts of disgusting reasons. Modern humans need to exert self-control, suppress our animal cravings, and pass judgment on whether the people in leadership positions are truly worthy of that position, or whether they should be replaced.

We need to pass judgment on who among us is in good mental health, and who is a miserable, psychotic, defective, or unhappy individual. We should not mimic or admire somebody simply because he has achieved wealth or status. I think that most of the people in leadership positions today have bad attitudes and serious mental disorders.

Our emotions fool us into thinking that we are going to enjoy life more when we can do what we want to do, hire peasants to pamper us, and avoid what we dislike. When wealthy people retire, or when young people become wealthy, they can do as they please, so if that theory was correct, all of the retired and wealthy people would be in ecstasy.

Likewise, the women who are supported by their husbands, and who do not have any children, can do anything they please during the day, so all of those women should be in ecstasy, also. However, my casual observations of women who have nothing to do during the day, and of the retired people and wealthy children, show me that they are not in ecstasy. They show signs of extreme boredom.

If lounging with a pretty woman was truly enjoyable, Simon Cowell would quit working and spend every day like this.

In the photo to the right, Simon Cowell is lounging on his yacht. If lounging was as much fun as people believe it is, then he would retire and spend every day lounging. He has enough money to do that but, like all of the other wealthy people, he gets bored after lounging for a while. He would rather work every day.

Cowell has put a lot of his time and effort into becoming wealthy enough to lounge on a yacht, but he has achieved a goal that does not bring real satisfaction.

Furthermore, if he got involved with a crime network in order to become wealthy, then he is also living in fear of being exposed and arrested. Does the benefit of money overpower the fear and stress of being a criminal? Are any criminals truly happy with their life? They may assume so because they have not had any other life, but I don't think crime will provide people with a truly satisfying life.

Most of the people who have enough money to do as they please are getting bored, but they don't realize it because they always find something to do each day. This creates the impression that they are never bored. However, the reason they find something to do is because they are bored, and their mind was searching for something to do.

We have an emotional conflict going on within our mind. We have some emotions that want us to do something, but we have other emotions that want us to avoid work. In order to deal with this conflict, we need to understand why these emotions evolved in animals, and we need to exert enough self-control to learn to enjoy work rather than whine about it.

We have to understand that our mind has checks and balances. We have desires for food, for example, but at the same time we have emotions that tell us to stop eating when we have had enough. If we do not understand these checks and balances, we might follow the craving to eat, and disregard the craving to stop eating. Likewise, we have cravings to avoid work, but we also have cravings to do something. We are foolish to follow only the cravings to relax and ignore the desire to work.

We get satisfaction from working, but we have to design the job so that we can enjoy it. We don't get much enjoyment by being a slave, or by working on tasks that are useless or dishonest. We evolved to do work that is beneficial for us and our group. We are not going to get much job satisfaction by selling deceptive insurance policies, or by working in a factory that produces gold plated cell phones for a few wealthy children.

If we can provide ourselves with government officials who understand the animal qualities of our mind, then they would ensure that everybody has a job that is beneficial to society. They would set up a social environment in which everybody works and contributes, and nobody feels like he is a peasant who is serving royalty. Everybody will feel as if he is a team member who is contributing to his team.

We also need our leaders to understand that the human body is a modified monkey body, and it has physical limitations. When we design jobs, we must take those limitations into account so that we don't cause some people to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, blood clots in their legs, or liver damage from chemicals.

There are accusations that the Tesla factory has some jobs that are causing medical problems. I don't know if that is true, but our leaders should be aware of these concepts and they should be regularly checking to ensure that all jobs are physically practical.

By maintaining a database about everybody's life, scientists, doctors, and government officials will be able to monitor everybody's health, which will help them figure out if certain jobs are causing certain types of medical problems. It would also help us determine which recreational activities are causing medical problems.

Because of genetic diversity and genetic disorders, there will be some people at the extreme edges of the bell curves who do not receive much satisfaction from working. They will prefer to spend their life playing games or taking naps.

There will also be people who want to work but have trouble doing a modern job because they have difficulty following orders or time schedules, or they have mental disorders that make it difficult for them to concentrate on their job.

From the point of view of the people who are misfits, work truly is awful, and the key to happiness is to do whatever they please and be pampered by servants. They want other people to feed them, clean up their mess, and pamper them. They are attracted to Marxism, communism, copyrights, royalties, anarchy, inheritances, and trust funds.

Some of them are willing to work a few hours a year to make a Hollywood movie, or to record a song, but we should not regard a few hours of work each year as "contributing to society". Those people should be regarded as "parasites".

We should not design society for the defective people, and we should not let them become role models. We should consider what is best for the human race and the future generations.

We should design a city for people who enjoy getting together with other people in their city and working as a team to help the entire group. We should design an economic system so that the competition between people and businesses is to improve society, not to fight with one another over money, or try to bankrupt one another.

In the city I suggest, none of the jobs have salaries, and nobody will be able to retire early or become wealthy. It will also be impossible for children to inherit wealth, businesses, or jobs. Everybody will have to work and contribute to the city, and they will work as long as they are healthy. The only people who will be allowed to stop working are the elderly and the people who become victims of disease or accidents.

When a nation does nothing to determine its future, they allow their culture to be manipulated by individuals and organizations. The process by which their culture is manipulated is very similar to the manner in which a free enterprise system operates, so let's briefly review an important concept of the free enterprise system.

Nobody has any control of the free enterprise system, so nobody can determine which products will sell and which research projects will get funding. Instead, businesses must experiment with a variety of products and advertising techniques.

It should be noted that the products that are successful are not necessarily those that are useful, safe, or the best option for us. There are many idiotic reasons why one product will be more profitable than another. For some examples:

• Some products have more effective advertising campaigns.
• Some products are offered at a lower price, and that can occur for a variety of reasons, such as some business executives are less greedy, or because the executives are deliberately sacrificing profit in order to undercut their competitors.
• Some products are put on the market before the others, which causes consumers to become familiar with them, which in turn helps them to sell because humans have an emotional craving to do whatever they become accustomed to rather than experiment with something new.
• Some products have more emotional appeal. For example, sex robots are getting lots of funding because it is a project that strongly titillates men's emotions. Likewise, there is a lot of funding for pet related products, television programs, and sports.

I think Microsoft has dominated the personal computer market because the executives of Apple were so greedy that millions of consumers chose Microsoft in order to save money, not because Microsoft offered a superior operating system. In other words, an inferior company with inferior software has dominated the computer market for decades simply because their competition was so greedy.

In a free enterprise system, we have no control over the economy, so we have no control over which products dominate the market, which scientific research projects get funded, or which features our products are provided with. There is also no authority to coordinate manufacturing to make products compatible, or to make them easy to repair or recycle.

There is also no authority to determine whether the charities are truly giving us something of value for the money that they collect. This has resulted in thousands of charities that are constantly begging us for money, and none of us know what they do with the money, and we have no influence over what they do.

The free enterprise system is an inefficient, chaotic system which encourages people to fight with one another over money, and to focus on who has a higher income. It also makes it impossible for us to determine which material items will be produced, and which research projects will be funded.

No nation has yet shown an interest in determining the future of its economic system, holiday celebrations, language, city planning, recreational activities, schools, or other culture. By doing nothing to determine what our culture becomes, we allow individual citizens, businesses, charities, churches, government officials, and crime networks to fight with one another to influence our future.

A few years ago I explained in this document how the battle between businesses to titillate consumers has resulted in bicycles developing in an irrational manner. Bicycles are used for both transportation and recreation, but they are not being designed according to what will provide us with the most sensible transportation or recreation.

I think we would make bicycling a more desirable recreational activity, and a more practical transportation device, if we would take control of our economic system and culture and design products according to what is best for society rather than what will most strongly titillate the consumer.

For example, the concept of putting an electric motor on a bicycle is ridiculed by many people, but if a person is using a bicycle for transportation, and if he is living in a city with a lot of wind, or if he has a long distance to travel, the electric motor would be useful because he would be able to switch to the motor when he becomes tired from the wind.

Or, if a family or group of friends want to go on a bicycle ride for recreation, the physically weaker people would benefit from an electric motor because it would allow them to keep up with their friends.

A free enterprise system is not likely to give us the most sensible products. Rather, it is likely to give us products that are emotionally titillating. In order to create better products, we must take control of our economic system and design products according to what will make our lives better, not according to what will titillate consumers.

The same concept applies to culture. If we do not take control of our culture, it is going to drift around aimlessly, and it will be influenced by people who are trying to titillate themselves, as well as people who are pushing their particular desires.

The culture of the USA is becoming idiotic because a small network of criminals has been dominating our history books, schools, media, and government for decades. They have been pushing feminism on us, for example, and they are currently pushing diversity on us. They are filling our history books with lies about the world wars, the 9/11 attack, and the Apollo moon landing. They are also suppressing science and promoting religion, and they are suppressing thousands or millions of people.

As I mentioned earlier in this document, Jordan Peterson is an example of how doing nothing to control our culture is allowing it to drift towards absurd directions. Peterson is trying to influence our view on social science by creating an online school. He is one of the many people who are struggling to push our culture into promoting religion and suppressing genetics. From his point of view, of course, he is pushing culture towards a better path, but from my point of view, he is pushing the human race farther along a path of nonsense, failures, disappointments, and frustration.

Will Peterson and other social scientists be successful in dominating our culture and suppressing genetics? Perhaps, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that the people and organizations who are successful in changing our culture are not necessarily providing us with the most sensible or beneficial options. Rather, as with the free enterprise system, there are a lot of different reasons as to why some particular change occurs to our culture.

If you do not get involved in helping set the course of the human race, you will allow Peterson and other people to fight with one another for control of our future. You would be foolish to assume that the winner of the battle is going to be the people who offer us the most sensible option. The winner may be simply the group with the largest number of supporters, or who are the best at intimidation, murder, blackmail, and deception.

This concept also applies to our language. By doing nothing to control how our language changes through time, it changes in irrational manners. For example, a lot of the younger generation of people are starting sentences with "I mean", and "So". This change to language is not happening because it "makes sense". Rather, children are exposed to millions of individual citizens, businesses, advertisers, crime networks, and retards who are using language in different manners.

Some people are accidentally using language in an incorrect manner, and some advertisers and journalists deliberately use language in nonstandard manners in order to attract our attention. In the USA, there are also lots of foreigners who mispronounce English words, or use words in the wrong manner. Children often mimic the irrational expressions of journalists and advertisements, and they sometimes mimic the mistakes of dyslexic people, idiots, and foreigners.

Without an authority for our culture, there is nobody to stop the irrational changes to our language, social activities, holiday celebrations, courtship activities, sports, or any other aspect of our culture. We become victims of the behavior of millions of people, businesses, charities, crime networks, idiots, lunatics, and retards.

I think the sport of bodybuilding is an interesting example of how doing nothing to control our culture is allowing it to evolve in idiotic manners.

The Wikipedia claims that the sport was established by Eugen Sandow in the late 1800s. He put himself through a lot of exercise programs, and some men were so impressed with his body that they decided to put themselves through exercise programs, also.

Charles Atlas would not qualify as a bodybuilding contestant today because his body is too normal.

Because men love to compete with one another, it did not take long before some of the men decided to compete to see who had the best looking body.

In the scanned image to the right, Charles Atlas shows what a bodybuilder looked like around 1950. He brought a lot of attention to bodybuilding by advertising an exercise program for "97 pound weaklings".

During the first half of the 1900s, a bodybuilder could be described as a man who was getting regular exercise and keeping himself healthy. We could say that the bodybuilders were inspiring men to keep in good health. We could say that bodybuilding was a beneficial sport.

However, since no society has any leadership for its economic system or culture, the men involved with bodybuilding had no guidance to ensure that they were following a sensible path in life. Businesses, lunatics, and idiots were able to influence the sport of bodybuilding.

Our free enterprise system added to the problem by causing lots of people to look for ways to profit from bodybuilding, such as by arranging for more contests, creating nutritional supplements for bodybuilders, and eventually offering various drugs and hormones for the bodybuilders. Rather than provide sensible guidance to the bodybuilders, the businesses competed with one another to exploit the bodybuilders.

Since people have a resistance to thinking about what they are doing, and since men have a tendency to become obsessed with winning competitions, through the years the men became more obsessed with winning the contest by developing larger muscles than their competitors.

By never putting any intelligent thought into how the sport is changing through the years, it slowly evolved into an increasingly extreme battle for large muscles. By the 1970s, the men began using hormones, steroids, and other drugs and techniques to provide themselves with muscles that were larger than what could be achieved naturally. By the 1980s, they were using growth hormone, also.

Bodybuilders today resemble dead bodies that have become bloated from the gases of decomposition.

The end result is that the only way to win a bodybuilding competition today is for a person to take life-threatening levels of steroids, growth hormones, insulin, and other drugs, and to eat more food than they want.

Both male and female bodybuilders must develop muscles that are so abnormally large that they no longer have a human appearance. The drugs are also causing their stomachs to protrude.

The bodybuilders today are so massive that they cannot fit into normal clothing, furniture, airline seats, automobiles, office chairs, or restaurant tables. Their arms cannot lay against their sides, either.

Instead of inspiring men to get some exercise and keep in good health, the bodybuilders of today are causing people to make insulting remarks about their appearance. The sport has degraded rather than evolved into something better.

Furthermore, many of them suffer from medical problems from the drugs, thereby adding a burden to our healthcare system. Also, some of the drugs are expensive, so they are wasting a lot of their money and society's resources. They also force themselves to eat food, which wastes even more resources and adds a burden to our sewage disposal systems.

Bodybuilders are a small percentage of the human population, so none of you who are reading my documents are likely to be involved with that sport. Therefore, you may wonder why I spend time discussing them, and why you should care about what they do. The reason is that all humans have the same genetic characteristics. We are not different species. We are very similar to one another. Therefore, when you see a characteristic in one human, you can be sure it is in others, including yourself. The difference between us is that our characteristics are at different parts of the bell curves.

It is easier for us to study and understand an undesirable human characteristic if we analyze somebody we regard as being different from ourselves. When we analyze ourselves, our bias makes it difficult for us to see our undesirable qualities, but when we look at somebody we regard as different from us, we can easily see their undesirable characteristics.

Therefore, if you have nothing in common with a bodybuilder, it will be easy for you to look critically at them, and if you can understand the concept that you and I are designed from the same genetic blueprint as the bodybuilders, you can then apply what you learn about them to yourself, your friends, and other people.

Whenever you see an odd or undesirable characteristic in somebody, remind yourself that you were designed from the same genetic blueprint and, therefore, that same characteristic is in you, also. Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that other people have undesirable characteristics that you do not have, or that you have wonderful characteristics that other people do not have. We all have the same physical, intellectual, and emotional characteristics. The difference between us is where our characteristics lie on the bell curves. You are not a special species of human that has wonderful characteristics, and other people are not a different, inferior species that is evil, or missing the advanced qualities that you have.

If you can understand and accept the concept that all humans are built from the same genetic blueprint, then you should be able to notice that the idiotic changes that are occurring to bodybuilding are happening to all of our other cultural activities, also, and for the same reasons.

Our scientific research projects, language, courtship activities, wedding ceremonies, recreational activities, and social activities are drifting about aimlessly because we have no authority to guide the changes. This "cultural anarchy" is allowing all aspects of our culture to be manipulated by businesses, churches, idiots, lunatics, and crime networks.

It is also interesting to note, and important to understand, that each of us has an influence on our culture even if we are not trying to influence it because each of us is having a subtle effect on other people, especially children.

It is very difficult for us to figure out what effect we have on other people or culture, but you should not assume that you have zero effect. Whenever you encounter other people - especially children - you will have some effect on them, even if it is trivial. You may influence their mood, their opinions, or their goals in life. Some people will be impressed by you, and others will be disgusted by you, and others will be neutral. You are likely to have an effect on hundreds of people during your life, and that in turn can have a small effect on culture. For example, dozens of children may have picked up some of your verbal expressions, attitudes, fantasies, or opinions.

We all have a some effect on culture, but unfortunately, most people have a detrimental effect because they follow their emotions rather than think about what would make the most sense to do. For example, the conservatives promote following our ancestors rather than experimenting with improvements to society, and most people promote religious nonsense rather than science, or they encourage emotional reactions to problems, such as running away and hiding from the evidence that we have a corrupt government and media that is full of pedophiles who are lying to us about 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust. Most people also encourage crude, animal behavior, such as excessive eating, excessive playing with dogs, excessive sex, and excessive drinking.

The bodybuilders are a visual example of how our culture is drifting towards idiotic directions as a result of people who won't think about where they are going. The bloated bodybuilders should be used as an example of how all of us need to exert self-control, think about what we are doing, and have discussions on what we want our future to be.

The bodybuilders also show us that we need to control our cravings to win competitions. We need to look critically at our competitions, and we should design them so that they inspire us to do something productive, as opposed to encouraging us to get involved with idiotic, wasteful, dangerous, or unhealthy competitions.

Bodybuilders are obsessed with who has the largest muscles, whereas other people are obsessed with who has the largest house. There are scientists who are obsessed with who has the most awards, or who has published the most reports. There are other men who are obsessed with who has the most sex, and who has sex in most unusual places, such as in airline bathrooms, underwater, and on the tops of mountains. There are other men becoming obsessed with proposing marriage in unusual locations, such as on a football field, while on television, during a parade, or, in the case of this math teacher, in front of a class of fifth grade children.

When men do not think about what they are doing, which is typical, we can easily end up putting tremendous amounts of time, effort, money, and resources into idiotic activities, and to the point of absurdity.

The sport of competitive food eating is another example of how people are getting carried away with their craving to win competitions, and how businesses are looking for ways to exploit people for profit. There are people around the world training for these events by forcing themselves to eat and drink enormous amounts of foods and liquids.

Eventually some business may develop a drug to help them enlarge their stomach. This would cause them to look bloated, like the bodybuilders. At what point are they going to ask themselves, "Where are we going with this sport? What is the benefit?" I would not be surprised if some business sets up a contest to see if any person can eat a piece of meat faster than a dog.

All of us are frequently looking for ways to accomplish our goals with less effort, resources, and time. However, due to the subtle variations in our genetic characteristics and education, we make different decisions on which shortcuts are acceptable.

For example, the photo below shows Romario Alves. He wanted the large muscles of a bodybuilder, but he did not want to go through the trouble of exercising for years, so he injected oil into his muscles to make them larger.

He believed that he had discovered a shortcut to achieving his goal of large muscles, but in reality, he achieved a slightly different goal. His goal was to create large, attractive muscles, but he instead acquired muscles that most people would describe as ugly and distorted. He also hurt his health.

Romario Alves is not unique, or much different from you or me. He has the same desires and characteristics that other men have. He is not cheating anybody, violating any laws, or hurting any of us. He is simply trying to achieve his goal with less effort.

You may assume that you have nothing in common with the men who inject oil into their muscles, but we all behave like those men, and on a regular basis. All of us are constantly looking for legal and honest ways of accomplishing our goals with less effort. The difference between us is that some of us make better decisions about which shortcuts are acceptable. For example, some people will take shortcuts that put their life or health at risk, and others will take shortcuts that cause them to achieve a slightly different goal than what they were originally hoping for.

For example, there are short men who want to become taller, and they believe that they can achieve their goal by wearing shoes with thick soles. In reality, they are behaving like a man who injects oil into his muscles. The thick shoes cause them to resemble a tall man, but they are not impressing anybody with their height. As with the men who inject oil into their muscles, most people pity them, insult them, or laugh at them.

For another example, all men have cravings to be important. We want a lot of material wealth and status so that we can impress women and other men. However, becoming important and wealthy requires a lot of work and effort. The result is that millions of men around the world are looking for shortcuts to status and wealth.

One of the techniques that millions of men use is to borrow money from credit cards companies, banks, friends, or relatives so that they can purchase items that they cannot afford, thereby creating the illusion that they are wealthier and more important than they actually are. Some people will also purchase items that look expensive, such as gold plated jewelry, in order to make themselves look wealthy.

If we were to analyze all of the men who inject their muscles with oil, we would create a bell curve in which the men at one extreme are exerting self-control and injecting only small amounts of oil, and at the other extreme are the men who have injected so much that they ended up in hospitals.

The same concept applies to the struggle of men to be important. If we were to analyze all men, we would create a bell curve in which the men at one extreme have enough self-control that they don't let their cravings for status cause themselves financial trouble, and at the other extreme are the men who make such terrible decisions and have so little self-control that they put themselves into tremendous debt.

What is the difference between combing hair over a bald spot, and injecting oil into your muscles?

What is the difference between a man who injects oil into his muscles in order to resemble a bodybuilder, and a man who spends more money than he has in order to resemble a wealthy person? Or how about a man who lets his hair grow long and then combs it over his bald spot in order to resemble a man with hair on his head?

There is no dividing line between any of those men, or between those men and the people who we could describe as creating a phony image of themselves in order to deceive us about what they really are.

For another example, what is the difference between a man who deliberately gets sunburned during a vacation so that he can make himself look like a wealthy person who can easily afford to travel, and a man who injects oil into his muscles so that he can make himself look like an athlete? Both men are looking for quick and easy shortcuts to their goal of higher status.

For another example, consider the men who frequently look for opportunities to tell us about the famous people they are friends with, when in reality they only briefly encountered or came near to a famous person, and are not truly friends with them. They are taking a shortcut to achieving their goal of status and importance.

Since all men are built from the same genetic blueprint, we all have similar desires and behavior. The men who inject oil into their muscles are not a different species. They are behaving in a manner that is very similar to how you and I behave.

We all have set goals for ourselves, and we are all looking for shortcuts to achieve our goals. The difference between us is that we have slightly different goals, and we make slightly different decisions on how to achieve our goals. Some men are choosing to take shortcuts that result in a achieving a goal that is not exactly what they were originally seeking.

Furthermore, many of the shortcuts that men are taking are hurting themselves by giving themselves a bad image, hurting their health, interfering with their relationships, causing themselves to suffer from tremendous debt, or causing themselves a lot of stress.

When you look at a photo of a bloated bodybuilder, or of a man who injected oil into his muscles, don't assume that you are looking at a different species. Consider yourself to be looking into a mirror and observing the male, human mind. You should consider the possibility that you are looking at a slightly different variation of yourself.

If it were possible for us to adjust a man's intellectual and emotional characteristics by turning some knobs on his forehead, we could cause a man to switch from spending money faster than he makes it to injecting oil into his muscles, and we could cause a man who is injecting oil into his muscles to switch to purchasing a house that he cannot afford.

If we could adjust your intellectual and emotional qualities with some knobs, we could cause you to inject oil into your muscles, or purchase gold plated items in order to make yourself look wealthy. You are not much different from other men, even though you may think you are special.

A lot of people criticize the bodybuilders for getting carried away with their competitive struggle, but it's interesting to note that the bodybuilders are not trying to hurt anybody. By comparison, there are millions of men who are willing to get involved with destructive crimes in order to achieve their goal.

Ever since the Internet has become practical, so much information has been released about the people in influential positions that I have the impression that almost all of them are involved with crimes of some sort. The people who dominate our government, media, businesses, think tanks, and religion seem to have achieved their leadership positions through plagiarism, murder, sabotage, blackmail, and other crimes.

As I pointed out in other documents, most people criticize obese people but they admire billionaires, whereas I do not see much of a difference between those two groups of people. I don't idolize the billionaires. Rather, I wonder if they are suffering from some serious emotional problems, such as low self-esteem or psychotic cravings for material items, or perhaps they inherited more crude, monkey-like characteristics and fewer of the modern, human characteristics.

If we could measure the quality of a person's mind, I would not be surprised to discover that the billionaires have a mind that is of a lower overall quality than the minds of the obese people.

The obese people are suffering from low self-control, or an excessive hunger emotion, but they are not trying to hurt you or me. Likewise, the bodybuilders are not hurting you or me. All of the billionaires, by comparison, seem to be involved with immoral and illegal activities. I suspect that it is impossible for a person to become a billionaire without cheating in some manner. If my suspicions are correct, then the billionaires are more detrimental than the obese people and the bodybuilders.

The bodybuilders and obese people are a burden on our healthcare system, and they waste a lot of food and resources, but if we could eliminate secrecy and see the truth about what each of us is doing with his life, and if we could measure each person's effect on society, we might discover that the billionaires are causing much more trouble for us than the obese people. For example, George Soros is accused of funding violent riots, which is causing more trouble for us than an obese man.

If I am correct that the billionaires are causing more trouble for us than the obese people and bodybuilders, then it would make more sense for us to suppress, arrest, euthanize, or evict the billionaires than to complain about the obese people or the bodybuilders. In other words, we should ignore the obese people for now and deal with the more serious problems, such as the billionaires, crime networks, corrupt government officials, and pedophile networks.

Many of the people who become professional bodybuilders are so obsessed with winning their competitive battles that they will risk their health with steroids, growth hormones, and other drugs. A significant percentage of bodybuilders have died before reaching the age of 50, apparently because of their abuse of drugs.

Don't assume that bodybuilders are the only men who go to absurd extremes to win their competitive battles. All of us want to win our battles, but we make slightly different decisions about which battle to get involved with, and how far to go in winning that battle.

Bodybuilders are not unique for hurting themselves in the process of trying to win a competitive battle. A lot of men are putting absurd amounts of time, effort, and resources into becoming wealthy or famous, and in the process, they cause themselves a lot of stress or financial debt, hurt their health, or cause their wife and children to feel abandoned or neglected.

Men are also tormenting themselves when they compare their pile of material items to that of other men. We could describe that behavior as being just as idiotic and harmful as a bodybuilder who torments himself by frequently looking in a mirror and comparing the size of his body to that of his competitors.

You may ridicule bodybuilders who spend time looking in the mirror and comparing their muscles, but what is the difference between those bodybuilders and the men who compare their automobiles, houses, or salaries?

Most people would probably say the bodybuilders are wasting their life by worrying about who has the largest muscles, but I would say that most people are wasting their life when they worry about who has more money, or a larger house, or a more expensive automobile.

Most of us in the advanced nations have plenty of money to enjoy life. There is no sensible reason for us to worry that somebody has more money than we do. Furthermore, when we fight with one another for money – especially when we cheat one another for money – we are hurting ourselves and our society.

What is the difference between a bodybuilder who becomes so obsessed with beating his competitors that he ends up dead at age 40 from excessive drug use, and a person who becomes so obsessed with money, fame, or other goals that he becomes an old man who has no interest in reminiscing about his life, and who wishes he could live it a second time so that he could do it differently?

You may assume that you have nothing in common with the dead bodybuilders, but you share a lot in common with those dead bodybuilders. You should use their deaths to stimulate an analysis of your life and your goals.

If we do not exert self-control, we will behave just like the animals. We will get involved with senseless competitive battles, and often to absurd extremes, and we might even go so far as to get involved with crimes.

All of us need to practice exerting self-control so that we can look critically at ourselves, and use those analyses to control our cravings and goals. We need to push ourselves so that we get involved with competitive battles that have some benefit to us, and we need to keep the battles fair and friendly so that they inspire us and improve our lives, rather than encourage envy, hatred, sabotage, revenge, and pouting.

We need to exert enough self-control to regard our competitors as our friends and team members, and to allow us to discuss with them what we want our future to be, rather than focusing on ourselves and trying to suppress or sabotage our competition.

In a previous document I mentioned that the protruding belly of modern bodybuilders was due to the use of growth hormone, but recently a bodybuilder pointed out that his protruding belly became a bit smaller when he stopped abusing insulin. Growth hormone creates a permanently protruding stomach, whereas insulin may create a belly that can be reduced somewhat in size, at least if the person stops abusing it soon enough. There are other people claiming that the protruding stomachs are also due to the way bodybuilders are eating.

What is the truth about the protruding stomachs? Nobody knows. One of the reasons is that it is difficult to study humans because everybody is paranoid about being observed. There is a resistance to allowing the government to keep a database with "personal" information about people.

Furthermore, we all have a tendency to create a phony image of ourselves, and so we want to deceive people about what we really are, what we do, and what we really think. We are not very honest with other people. We want to impress people, not tell them the truth about us.

In every society today, people are allowed to keep a lot of secrets about themselves, and they are allowed to decide what will happen to their body when they die. This is interfering with the understanding of human health.

For example, Rich Piana (at the right), a bodybuilder, died suddenly in August 2017 at age 46. Why did he die? If we were living in a society in which the government was maintaining a database that had details on everybody's life, such as the drugs that Piana was taking, the foods he was eating, etc., then scientists would be able to analyze his body and his life and possibly get an understanding of what caused his death.

Was his death due to the drugs he was taking? In this video he points out that he took growth hormone for 10 years, and that he stopped because he didn't like the way it was making his stomach grow larger. He also expressed his concern that the growth hormone may have had a detrimental effect on his heart and other organs.

Or did he die simply because he had a genetic disorder with his heart, and his death had nothing to do with his bodybuilding activities? Or was his death due to some recreational drug? Or was he murdered by his girlfriend or ex-wife who wanted to get access to his money? Did the ink from his tattoos have any effect on his health?

Rich Piana should not be able to determine what happens to his dead body. He became such a big influence over so many thousands of people that he started a business of selling supplements, and he produced a lot of videos to describe his experiences with steroids and other drugs. I would say that the people who have been purchasing his products or using similar drugs have a right to know why he died so that they can decide if they want to continue on the path that they are on right now.

Some people want each of us to have the right to decide what happens to our dead body, but I would say that each of us should be regarded as a team member, and that our dead body belongs to the team. Each of us owes our life to the team we are in. The team is providing us with food, electricity, houses, and other items. I would say that when a person dies, his team has the right to analyze his body and determine the cause of death.

The reason a team would want to know why one of their members died at a young age is to determine whether he died from a crime, or if he died naturally. When a team member dies "naturally" at a young age, they should understand why so that they can decide whether they are providing their team with appropriate nutrition, clean water, and a healthy lifestyle. By understanding why their team members are dying at a young age, they will be able to make better decisions about how to keep themselves in better health.

When a person who is 100 years old dies, the team may not be interested in conducting an autopsy, but when an apparently healthy, active man dies at age 46, the team ought to be interested in understanding why he died. The team ought to have a desire to prevent such early deaths.

In an interview many years ago, Roddy Piper, a professional wrestler, complained that wrestlers were dying at a younger age than most people, and that nobody cared. He was fired after giving that interview, apparently because the people making money from wrestling did not want that information to be publicized.

Roddy died at age 61. Was it because of the drugs he had used? Or was it murder?

Piper said that he expected to die before he was 65 years old because of his drug use, but by making that remark, he made it easy for somebody to murder him because when he died, the reaction of the journalists was essentially: "Roddy Piper predicted his untimely death!"

Piper was the star of the movie, They Live, so he may have known about the Jewish crime network. When he was interviewed on the Alex Jones show, the son of Oliver Stone, Sean Stone, was with him in the room. Why was Sean Stone in the same room? If Alex Jones had asked to interview you, and Shawn Stone wanted to be in the room with you during the interview, wouldn't you think that was strange?

Alex Jones, (left), is interviewing Roddy Piper, (right). Why is Sean Stone sitting next to Roddy Piper during the interview?

I suspect that Roddy Piper knew a lot about the Jewish crime network, and the Jews were afraid he might say too much on the Alex Jones show, and so Shawn Stone was there to influence the interview. I would not be surprised if the Jews decided to take advantage of Piper's drug use and murdered him.

If an organization consisted of people who respect one another, they would want to know why one of their team members dies young. They would want to prevent the deaths of their members, and themselves, and their children, and that requires understanding why people are dying unexpectedly.

We are currently living among people we don't like, or are afraid of. This causes us to try to avoid and ignore other people. For example, when we pass by an automobile accident, we are not sad to see the dead bodies. Instead, we regard the accidents as a form of entertainment. Many people will slow down so that they can get a better look. When we encounter people fighting in the streets, people will often pull out their cell phones and take videos and photos.

The lack of concern we show for the deaths, misery, fighting, pouting, divorce, and suffering of other people should be regarded as evidence that we have created a terrible social environment for ourselves.

We ought to contemplate whether we want to remain on the path that we are currently on. I suggest we push ourselves into changing our course in an attempt to create a society in which we respect and trust the people so much that we enjoy them, and we want everybody to be healthy and happy.

In this report about the brain damage caused by concussions in football players and other athletes, we find that most of the brains that have been analyzed were donated to medical research, but that the doctors have had only a small number of brains to study because most people are not donating their brains to science. The shortage of brains to study is severely limiting our ability to understand how injuries, diets, pollution, and other issues affect our brain.

I would describe an organization as being irresponsible and animal-like when they show no concern about unusual and early deaths of its members.

When a person dies, his dead body should be regarded as the property of society, and it should be used for whatever purpose we believe will be most beneficial to the human race. In the case of a person who dies unexpectedly at a young age, his body could be analyzed to determine the cause of death in an attempt to help us understand human health.

In cases where there is no question about how a person died, such as when a person dies from a tornado, there is no need to study the cause of death, so his body could be used as a supply of organs, or for medical students to learn from.

Actually, I would go even further with this concept and say that our medical information also belongs to the team, even while we are alive. Specifically, society should have access to everybody's medical and dental information so that doctors and scientists can analyze the information to get a better understanding of what is causing allergies, diseases, accidents, digestive problems, and other health issues.

I would go even further and say that our social lives belong to society, also. In other words, society should have access to information about our marriages, friendships, relationships, recreational activities, and jobs, and they should be allowed to do the equivalent of an autopsy on our social lives.

When a person fails in his marriage, he should not be able to keep his failed marriage a secret. A society should have the right to analyze failed marriages in order to help their team members understand and develop more pleasant marriages.

Having access to our marital information will be especially important when a society starts experimenting with courtship activities. The people organizing and supervising those events need access to information about how successful the relationships are so that they can improve the courtship activities.

Likewise, when a person fails in his job, a society should be interested in understanding why he failed. They should be able to do the equivalent of an autopsy on his job performance. Did he fail in his job because the schools did not adequately prepare him for it? Or was he given a proper education, but the teachers or personnel department didn't notice that he was lacking the ability and/or desire to do the job properly? Or, does everybody who does that particular job eventually get fired or quit, in which case there may be something about the job that needs to change so that it becomes more practical and pleasant?

An analysis of why people are failures at their jobs can help the school system, teachers, and personnel departments do a better job of preparing students for jobs, and helping students figure out which jobs they are most likely to be successful at. This in turn will reduce the time and effort that teachers are wasting on students who are not going to benefit from a particular educational course, and it will reduce the time that students waste studying subjects that they are not likely to be successful at.

If you are having trouble understanding the value of these types of analyses, imagine a society a few million years in the future that is so advanced that their computers can read a person's DNA and figure out exactly what his physical and mental talents and limitations are. Each child could be given a detailed description of his mental and physical characteristics. The computer could provide him with an analysis to show him how he compares to other people in every job, social activity, and recreational activity.

An analysis of his DNA would also allow a computer to tell him how much food he should have in each meal in order to digest it properly, and what he is allergic to, how much sleep he needs each night, and which foods he should avoid.

Those children would not have to waste any of their youth on experiments with different jobs or activities. They would be able to use the analysis of their DNA to choose a job and leisure activities, thereby avoiding the frustration and wasted time of experimentation.

Those children would also be told how they are going to deteriorate with age, and that would allow the children to plan when to change jobs to deal with the changes caused by aging, and how their diet needs to change as they grow old. It would also show them how they need to change their recreational and social activities to compensate for aging.

It may even be possible to read DNA so accurately that computers can give accurate predictions on which men and women will make the most stable marriage, and which people will become the most compatible friends, and which group of people will make the most compatible engineering team, construction crew, and scientific research laboratory.

As we learn more about the human mind and body, we will be able to do an increasingly better job of designing our cities, work environment, and social activities to fit our particular characteristics. This is going to improve our lives, not ruin our lives. We must control our paranoia of being observed and stop being afraid that somebody is going to learn about our "personal" information. We are not going to be harmed when other people have access to our personal information. That information is valuable knowledge about the human mind and body. It will help us to create a better life for ourselves.

Knowledge is not dangerous. The paranoid and secretive people are behaving like stupid animals. They are interfering with progress, and they are interfering with their own life and happiness. All of us are going to benefit as we gain a better understanding of humans.

The only people who benefit from secrecy and deception are the criminals, lunatics, and freaks. The rest of us will benefit tremendously by eliminating secrecy and studying ourselves and one another.

If people can suppress their paranoia of being observed, then we would be able to learn from one another's mistakes, thereby improving our school system, job environments, marriages, friendships, and business relationships. We can learn from failures, but we cannot learn from one another when we allow people to be secretive.

We cannot learn anything from a person who lies about himself. For example, when a person who is using illegal drugs goes to a medical doctor for treatment of a health problem, and if he is afraid to admit that he is using illegal drugs, or if he lies about the quantity and frequency of use, then the doctor might mistakenly give inaccurate advice and treatments.

By making some drugs illegal, and others by prescription only, we are causing a lot of people to use the drugs secretly. This will result in scientists and doctors coming to idiotic conclusions about why some of us are experiencing certain health problems.

We cannot stop drug abuse simply by making drugs illegal, or by punishing people who use the drugs. Rather, we cause people to use drugs secretly, which interferes with our understanding of the effect those drugs have on people. Furthermore, we allow crime networks to thrive, and that in turn allows corruption in the police, government, media, and other organizations.

In 1985, some Italian researchers published this article that showed that marijuana increased the production of melatonin. (The text of that report is also available here in the Internet archive, along with some other documents.)

Marijuana may increase or decrease the production of other chemicals, also, but the production of melatonin may explain why at least some people enjoy marijuana. Specifically, since melatonin can cause a person to relax, marijuana may help people with certain types of physical and mental problems by allowing them to relax, or dampening their sensations of anxiety or pain.

However, if the only benefit a person is getting from marijuana is an increase in melatonin production, then he does not have to waste his money on marijuana or smoking devices. All he needs to do is take a melatonin pill. This is assuming that taking a pill is as safe and as useful as stimulating our own production of melatonin.

A more thorough analysis of the people who enjoy marijuana might show us that there is an even better method of helping those people than encouraging them to switch to melatonin, which makes us drowsy.

We might also discover that marijuana is altering some of the other chemicals or hormones in our body, and that some people are benefiting from those changes, not the increase in melatonin production.

The point I want to make is that if we eliminate secrecy and study more people in more detail, we will get a better understanding of why certain people are attracted to caffeine, marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, and that in turn can help us understand human health, and how to best deal with our problems.

Did Rich Piana use any illegal drugs? If all drugs were legal, and if computers were keeping track of all of the food we eat, drugs that we use, and beverages that we drink, scientists and doctors would be able to do a much better job of figuring out why he died, and why other people are having health problems.

My recommendation is to legalize all drugs, including prescription drugs. The only sensible way to stop drug abuse is to restrict reproduction to the people who do not have any desire to abuse drugs.

The same concept applies to other behavioral problems. For example, the only way to stop people from vandalism, burglary, spraying the city with graffiti, fondling women on crowded trains, and raping children is to restrict reproduction to the people who have better emotional and intellectual characteristics. We cannot fix behavioral problems with punishments or therapy.

We should face the evidence that a significant percentage of the human population is suffering from a wide variety of confusing and complex internal pains, intellectual defects, and emotional disorders. Most of these problems are genetic, and some are due to disease, accidents, or drug abuse. Since there is no way we can fix a person's genetic problems, and we cannot undo the damage caused by disease, accidents, or drug abuse, there is no way we can fix these unhappy people so that they behave in a rational manner and enjoy their life.

The manner in which our mind functions is determined by our DNA. The environment provides us with information, which affects our opinions, skills, and goals, but the environment cannot improve our genetic design. Rather, the environment can only hurt our mind and body, such as through concussions, tumors, blood clots, radiation, and disease.

The amount of self-control you have, for example, is determined by your genetic design, not the environment. You can practice exerting self-control, and that will help you to become better at it, but we all have a genetic limit on how much self-control we have.

Likewise, your fear of the unknown and your ability to explore your options is also due to your DNA. The level of anger, envy, and hatred that you show during your life is also due to the mental and physical characteristics that you inherited.

We must face the evidence that a significant percentage of the population is so seriously defective that they are going to waste their entire lives in a state of misery, anger, envy, or suicidal thoughts. We are not going to help those people with punishments, rewards, or counseling.

One way of reducing certain types of drug abuse is to alter our culture to reduce the incentive for drugs. For example, athletes have a tremendous incentive to abuse drugs in our free enterprise system because everybody is under pressure to find a way to make a living.

There are thousands of citizens looking for a way to make a living, and thousands of businesses looking for profit opportunities. This is resulting in lots of businesses arranging for athletic events. The businesses make money from the events, the food supplements they sell, the drugs they offer, and the equipment that they sell to the athletes. The athletes make money if they can win the competitions.

However, it should be noted that the businesses and athletes are getting involved with these activities simply to make money. They are not thinking about what is best for themselves or society. They are behaving like circus animals who are doing tricks for money.

By not thinking about what is best for themselves, many of the athletes put absurd amounts of their time into practicing the events, and taking life-threatening amounts of drugs to enhance their performance.

By switching to a society in which everybody is provided with their basic necessities for free, and in which there are no awards of significance to anybody for any reason, there will be no incentive to win a sports event. All of the sports and other contests will be for fun, not for phenomenal prizes or status.

The government will encourage people to experiment with social, recreational and other events, but the government will terminate events that are troublesome, such as events that encourage drug use, fighting, pouting, or cheating. The government would also be able to shut down the bodybuilding contests that encourage absurd muscle development, and allow only those that encourage sensible levels of exercise. The government will support only the events that encourage beneficial behavior. It is conceivable that a city will not even want to support any professional athletes.

By making changes like that to the social environment, we can reduce the desire of people to use drugs to improve their athletic abilities.

Some people might respond that a society would be stifling and oppressive if we allowed the government to have so much control over our culture that they can shut down a bodybuilding contest or social event that they don't like. However, whether we enjoy or dislike that environment depends entirely on who we select for the government.

Parents do not allow their children to do anything they please; parents will terminate activities that they regard as detrimental, destructive, obnoxious, or disgusting. There is nothing wrong with a government that treat us like children, and has the authority to terminate activities that they regard as detrimental, destructive, obnoxious, or wasteful.

Whether a society suffers from a government that has total control of the economy and culture depend on the voters. If the voters can select competent, intelligent, responsible government officials, and if they regularly review and replace the worst performing officials, then everybody in society will benefit from the guidance of that government. However, if we allow the ordinary people to vote, we will have a government of pedophiles, crime network members, alcoholics, religious fanatics, and senile people.

As I complained in previous documents, democracies and free enterprise systems encourage selfish, arrogant behavior. These systems cause our leaders to pander to us rather than provide us with guidance. They encourage us to make demands about what we want, rather than think about what is best for the community or the human race. They encourage us to focus on ourselves rather than regard ourselves as team members.

The reason so many organizations are offering us bodybuilding contests, Nobel prizes, and thousands of other contests and awards is because we want to be the center of attention, stand on a podium, and feel special. We have cravings to be the dominant monkey in the hierarchy.

The businesses, holiday celebrations, recreational activities, and other culture of a nation with a free enterprise system and a democracy will evolve to appeal to our selfish, animal desires. An example that I mentioned in a previous document is that our wedding ceremonies have evolved into an expensive and extreme worshiping of a bride. The weddings of today are resembling the extravagant coronations of a medieval Queen. I would say that our weddings are becoming as absurd as the bodybuilding contests.

Is a man who injects oil into his muscles behaving any worse than a woman who arranges for an expensive, lavish wedding that sets her up to be treated like a queen, and allows her to be the center of attention throughout the wedding? I would say that in both cases, the people are getting carried away with their desires to feel important and become the center of attention. They are focusing too much on satisfying their crude, animal cravings, and not putting much thought into what they are doing, and how they benefit from it. And they are not thinking at all about other people. They are concerned only with satisfying themselves.

None of us want to be "ordinary people" because we have powerful cravings to be at the top of the social hierarchy, but I suspect that we would enjoy life more when everybody is treated as "ordinary people". This requires making everybody virtually equal in regards to material wealth and homes, and it requires eliminating awards for sports, science, and other competitive events. It also requires that we stop referring to some people as "celebrities" and "stars".

It also requires modifying weddings to make them into a relaxing, pleasant social event for the community. And it requires designing contests so that the winners do not get any special treatment or pampering, thereby reducing the incentive to win, and reduce the tendency of the losers to pout, hate, and be envious.

We have a powerful craving to be the center of attention, stand on a podium, be worshiped, and be pampered. However, we should not design our social and recreational activities to appease this craving. This craving evolved in animals to push them into competing for dominance. This craving is too strong for modern humans. We need to exert some self-control over our craving to stand on a pedestal and be worshiped.

There is not much of a difference in the lives of the monkey at the top of the hierarchy, and the monkeys at the bottom. A group of monkeys treat one another in a more equal manner than the way modern humans are treating one another. Monkeys did not evolve to be slaves or servants, or to be pampered royalty, or to be given trust funds or inheritances.

Humans evolved for that same environment in which we are nearly equal to one another. There should not be much of a difference between the leaders and the people at the bottom of the hierarchy. All of us should contribute to society, and nobody should be a pampered King, peasant, or slave. We should be team members, and friends.

In our societies today, the people with more money, or with certain college diplomas, or who have been given awards, or who have certain types of job titles, have a tendency to regard themselves as superior to other people. This creates an unpleasant social environment.

I recommend experimenting with a society that gives us that prehistoric environment in which everybody in a city is virtually equal in regards to material wealth and status, and in which everybody is expected to contribute to society. Nobody should get any special pampering or privileges. I think that type of environment will make it easier for people to regard other people in the city as friends and team members.

I think this in turn will result in us forming more pleasant friendships with other people, and reduce the time and effort that we waste on competitive struggles for material wealth, awards, pampering, and status. I think we will have a more satisfying life in that type of environment.

Most people probably interpret the word "misfit" as an insult, but I am using it to describe people who are having trouble fitting into their particular group. A misfit is not necessarily detrimental to the group. As I use the word, a misfit is simply a person at the edge of a bell curve, and who has some trouble fitting into the group because of his unusual qualities.

A person will be a misfit if he has unusual intellectual or emotional qualities compared to the other people in his group, even if his qualities are superior to those of the other people. By comparison, the people who have qualities that are "typical" to those of other people in their group will have an easy time finding people who are compatible with them, so they will easily mingle with the other people.

For example, I would describe myself as a misfit. One of the reasons that I am a misfit is that my low thyroid level caused me to have very low energy levels from about the beginning of my teenage years until I was about 55 years old in 2011, when I finally discovered that I was low on thyroid hormone.

People with low energy levels are likely to become misfits because we don't have the energy to join other people in their social and recreational activities. We are more likely to spend our leisure time sitting, lounging, or taking naps. Also, our low energy levels can make us seem less cheerful, and more dull, dreary, and boring. My low energy levels also caused me to not want the burden of taking care of a wife or children.

There were also times during the day when it felt as if my mouth was coated with a thin film of something, and sometimes it seemed like my breath had an unpleasant, chemical-like odor. I had the impression that my body chemistry was sometimes getting so far out of balance that it was causing bad breath. Now that I am taking thyroid hormones, my breath and mouth seem more normal.

The history of the human race shows that all of the technical and social progress that we have had during the past few thousand years has been the result of a very small percentage of the population. All of those people could be described as "misfits". The explorers of the Earth, such as Magellan and Columbus, were misfits, not "ordinary" people, and the same is true of the people who explored the universe, such as Kepler, Tyco, and Newton. All of the technology we have also came from misfits, such as Archimedes, Tesla, Ford, and Watt.

The ordinary people do not bring progress to the human race. It is the misfits who are involved with exploring the world, developing new technology, fighting the pedophile networks, exposing the corrupt governments, and changing the course of the human race. The ordinary people, by comparison, inhibit and resist progress, especially the conservatives.

The people who are fighting the Jewish crime network are not ordinary people, either. At the moment, those people are remaining quiet and secretive, but eventually the network will be destroyed, and we will be able to see who has been involved with this battle. I suspect that we will discover that none of them are "ordinary".

Although many of us will have characteristics that are ordinary or below-average, such as our math abilities, memories, or ability to remember faces, the people who are fighting this crime network must have some characteristics that make them superior overall to the ordinary people. For example, they obviously have the ability to face reality rather than hide from it, and they care enough about society to be willing to protect it. They are also capable of working for a complex goal that benefits the team rather than working only for their own benefit. When this battle is finally over with, I think it will be interesting to look at who got involved, and what they were doing.

Humans evolved from monkeys because every once in a while one of the monkeys produced a child that was superior to the other monkeys in some intellectual or emotional characteristic. However, that superior characteristic may have resulted in that child being a misfit rather than being recognized as a better person.

Even today we can see this process happening among us. The people who are more intelligent, more willing to explore their options, better behaved, more responsible, more honest, have more self-control, or are superior in some other characteristic, will be misfits, and the majority of people may not recognize their superior qualities. Instead, the majority of people may regard them as weird, stupid, evil, or misguided.

From the point of view of those superior people, the ordinary people will seem to be stupid, badly behaved, easily frightened, selfish, arrogant, dishonest, or crude. The superior people will have a difficult time fitting in with the majority.

This concept also applies to families. Specifically, a child with superior intellectual or emotional characteristics can become a misfit in his family because he may have trouble fitting into a family in which the other members seem to him to be obnoxious, irresponsible, dishonest, immoral, stupid, superstitious, or lacking self-control. For example, he may find himself annoyed that he has to go to church with his family, and his family may be annoyed when he complains about religion. The family may not recognize his superior qualities. They may regard him as a brat, an idiot, or a badly behaved jerk.

Every organization, regardless of whether it is a city, nation, business, or sports group, should deal with their misfits. The leadership should pass judgment on why a person is a misfit, and if a misfit is hurting the organization, he should be put under restrictions or evicted from the group.

However, we have to keep in mind that some misfits are actually superior to the majority of people, and that they are beneficial to society. Those misfits are likely to need protection from the ordinary people who don't understand them, and who try to force them to be like everybody else.

Galileo explained how to use a telescope, but the leaders of society tend to be too technically incompetent, dishonest, or mentally ill to appreciate and protect the citizens who have the courage to explore the universe.

Galileo is an example of a misfit who was under pressure to follow the majority of people. Ideally, the leaders of society would recognized misfits who are beneficial, and they would put pressure on the majority of people to accept and appreciate the differences of other people.

Unfortunately, no society has had leaders that understand these issues. Our leaders do not remove the destructive misfits, and they do not protect the beneficial misfits. Actually, our leaders often do the exact opposite; namely, harass the beneficial misfits, and encourage pity for the destructive misfits.

Every nation is refusing to acknowledge that each person is genetically unique, and that our genetic differences give us different personalities, intellectual abilities, physical abilities, and emotional qualities. Many people do not like the concept that some people are genetically superior to others, and their reaction is to ignore that concept, regardless of the evidence to support it.

Every nation is dominated by people who are refusing to acknowledge that human behavior is due to genetics, and to prefer religion over science. Every nation is trying to pretend that all people are equal to one another, and that we can randomly mix people together in neighborhoods, recreational events, jobs, and restaurants.

By promoting the attitude that we are all equal, and that we can be mixed at random, we live in neighborhoods where we do not like, trust, or respect our neighbors, and we work with people we do not like or trust.

In order to create a better life for ourselves, we must acknowledge that each person is genetically unique, and that we should be able to discriminate against our neighbors, friends, and coworkers so that we can live, work, and play among people who are compatible with us.

We need to stand up to the people who are whining about discrimination and promoting diversity. There is nothing wrong with allowing neighborhoods, businesses, and other organizations to discriminate against their members. We need to find people who have the emotional ability to stand up to the accusations that we are anti-diversity, fascist, or racist for wanting to associate with people we are compatible with.

In other documents I pointed out that people don't know what "freedom" is, even though lots of people are constantly demanding more freedom. The issue of "diversity" is another example of how people don't understand the concept of freedom.

We could say that people are free when they have the ability to choose who their neighbors are, who they work with, and who they play recreational games with. We could say that people are being oppressed, treated like prisoners, and denied their freedom when they are forced to follow the diversity philosophy and live, work, and play with people they are not compatible with. We could say that a person is being denied his freedom if he is forced to allow people into his organization that he does not want, such as forcing men to accept women in their organization, or forcing women to accept men in their organization, or forcing some races to accept other races.

I would say that we are providing people with freedom when we let each person choose who he wants to live and work with. I would say that when we force people to mix at random, we oppress and torment everybody, and we create a lot of awkwardness, stress, anger, pouting, and resentment.

The only people who are going to suffer from the freedom to discriminate are the people who have such undesirable qualities that nobody wants to be their neighbor, friend, or coworker. Only a small percentage of the population is going to be in that category, and they are likely to be the people that we regard as criminals, mentally ill, or retarded.

It would be ridiculous for us to feel sorry for the destructive, unwanted people and alter society to appease them. We should face the evidence that some people are undesirable due to their inferior genetic characteristics, and they are going to have a miserable life no matter what we do. It is ridiculous to allow them to torment us. They need to be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or evicted from the city.

Since each of us has different genetic characteristics, each of us would prefer a slightly different culture. If you were given your own planet, and if you could design the culture to be whatever you want, the people who have genetic characteristics that are compatible with yours would love the culture that you have chosen, but other people would be misfits to various degrees.

I have made a lot of suggestions on how to design cities, schools, and social affairs, but they are just my assumptions on what I think I would like, and what I think is practical. Even if my assumptions turn out to be correct, that does not mean that you will enjoy the city that I would enjoy. It is possible that only a tiny percentage of the population is compatible with me, and that most people would be misfits in the city that I prefer.

My suggestions on what we should do with cities is based on my life, and what I've noticed about myself. For example, when I was a child, I was fascinated by the mansion in the Beverly hillbillies television show, and I wanted a big house with a staircase like theirs. However, when I finally could afford a house, it was a small, ordinary home (small only by American standards, about 1400 square feet, or 300 square meters), and I quickly realized that I don't want a house any larger than this. Actually, this house is larger than I need for just myself. I came to the conclusion that big houses are just a burden, and I don't want one.

Because we are monkeys, we have cravings to control all of the land that we see, and we want giant mansions to impress other people with, but I don't think we benefit from owning land or having giant homes. I think we will enjoy our lives and our city much more when the land belongs to the city, and our homes are giving us only what we need, such as a bedroom, bathroom, and a room to relax in. Families will need a larger home than single people, but I don't think we should produce large homes for anybody.

I think we will enjoy life more when we put our resources into community property, as I've described in other documents, such as scattering video rooms around the city with large, high resolution monitors and comfortable chairs, and by providing every neighborhood with beautiful and decorative swimming pools, recreational areas, and social clubs.

By putting our resources into community property, we can provide the city with a wide variety of architecture and decorations, such as the two photos below that show social areas of a Chinese hotel.

Instead of inviting people into your home, meet them at one of the social areas in your neighborhood or the business section of the city.

The next time you get together, you could pick a different social area with a different style of furniture and architecture. At some social areas, there would be music, and others would have dancing, and others would have karaoke. I think this will be more pleasant than what we do today, which is to meet people at the same places over and over, and everybody has to be concerned about prices, carrying money or credit cards, and giving tips to servants.

I think we will also improve life by getting rid of kitchens in people's homes. By providing everybody with free access to restaurants, we simplify our lives, make the production and distribution of food more efficient, reduce the waste of food, reduce the size of the apartments, and provide ourselves with access to a wider variety of meals. Although the lack of servants would require that we set and clear the table ourselves, if we design a beautiful city with a variety of attractive restaurants, I think we will enjoy those restaurants more than having to purchase food and make meals every day.

In a city that consists of clusters of tall buildings that are surrounded by gardens, parks, and ponds, the restaurants can provide us with peaceful, pleasant dining areas.

Instead of listening to automobile traffic and looking at ugly asphalt roads and neon signs, we will have a view of trees, flowers, creeks, ponds, attractive buildings, and people who are walking, riding bicycles, and playing recreational activities.

Incidentally, my attitude on food also changed as I grew older. For example, when I was young I saw wealthy people boasting about how they can eat whatever they want without looking at the price. I picked up their idiotic attitude that lobster, caviar, truffles, and other expensive foods are "delicacies", and I hoped that when I grew up I would have enough money to afford those wonderful foods.

When I finally began making enough money to purchase whatever foods I wanted, I was surprised to discover that I did not like many of the expensive foods, and that I was preferring to purchase some of the lowest priced foods.

For example, my favorite meat is to grind a package of pork shoulder into burgers, and cook them at a low temperature in a glass bowl to retain all of the juice. Those chunks of pork shoulder are among the least expensive meats. I also like chicken, which is not very expensive.

I think pork tastes better than beef, and I think pork also has a better consistency. I can eat pork every day without getting tired of it. Actually, I think I have been eating one of my pork burgers every day for at least the past year. On some days I have one of them for lunch and another for dinner. I could eat even more pork, but I worry about eating too much of one food.

I like scallops, salmon, and fish with mild flavors, but to me, seafood is useful only for variety, not as a regular meal. Actually, I would not care if I never had seafood again for the rest of my life.

Filet mignon is considered a delicacy, but it doesn't have nearly as much flavor as a piece of low-priced beef that has been ground into a burger and cooked at a low temperature in a glass bowl to retain the juices.

I do not think it is a coincidence that my favorite meat is pork, and that I don't have much of an interest in seafood. If we look around the world, as throughout history, we find that pork is an extremely popular meat. Muslims and Jews are not supposed to eat pork, but that is because of religious reasons, not because they do not like the flavor or texture.

I think the reason pork is such a popular food for humans is because pigs have been living among humans for a long time, and people have been eating pigs for so many thousands of generations that we have evolved to enjoy their flavor and texture. Our jaws and teeth can chew pork without tenderizing it, aging it, or beating it with a hammer.

In a previous file, I pointed out that the reason cheetahs and gazelles can run so fast is because they evolved to fit one another. Likewise, animals evolve to eat the foods that happen to be in their diet. Cows enjoy the flavor and texture of grass, and their teeth and stomach evolved to chew and process grass. The birds that eat spiders evolved a desire for spiders, and an ability to eat and digest them.

If bison or cows had been the primary food of humans for millions of years, we would have developed stronger jaws and sharper teeth to cut through their tougher meat. Likewise, if abalone had been a common food for humans for millions of years, we would have developed even stronger jaws and sharper teeth in order to cut through that type of meat.

Some of the Native Americans regularly hunted bison, so it is possible that those particular tribes evolved stronger jaws than other humans. Likewise, some prehistoric tribes of humans may have subsisted on animals with tough meat, and they may have also developed stronger jaws and/or sharper teeth.

The Alaskan Eskimos should have evolved a greater desire for eating seals, polar bears, and fat compared to the rest of us, and a better ability to digest and survive on that type of diet. The tribes that evolved in the tropics should have a better ability to handle the sweet fruits of the tropics.

Through thousands of generations, an animal will adapt to the foods that it eats. The reason is that the children that don't like the taste or consistency of the food, or who cannot properly chew or digest the food, or who have allergies to foods, are not going to be as successful in the competitive battle for life as the children who enjoy the foods and who can properly chew and digest the food.

In modern society, however, children are no longer adapting to the foods we eat. The parents who have children with food allergies, bizarre tastes in food, defective jaws, or defective digestive systems can now provide their children with a special diet, thereby allowing them to survive and reproduce. After thousands of generations, this is going to result in people with an unbelievable variety in regards to their desires for food, allergies to food, and abilities to chew and digest food. It will become difficult for restaurants to provide meals because everybody will want something different, and everybody will be allergic to a different type of food.

Getting back to the issue I want to discuss in this section, the wealthy people also boast about going to restaurants, hotels, and resorts where they are pampered by lots of servants. Although I don't remember fantasizing about being pampered by servants, when I had to go to Germany for a couple weeks for a job I was doing, it was in a very small town, and when we wanted to eat at one of the restaurants, we just walked into the restaurant and sat down. The town was so small that customers were expected to find a table by themselves, and eventually a waitress would notice them, bring them a menu, and then give them their food and leave them alone. I found that environment to be much more pleasant than having a waitress treat me like a baby.

What I noticed from my life is that I don't want to spend my time gathering material items, and I don't want a gigantic house, and I don't want to spend my time showing off my possessions to people who have less money than I have.

When I look back at what I have enjoyed most in life, it is not material items, expensive foods, being pampered by servants, or any of the other things that the wealthy people today are boasting about. When I look at my life, the most pleasant memories are of doing things with people, exploring the creeks and forests, learning about and thinking about life, and doing work that is beneficial to other people.

Some of the software that I wrote for MS-DOS in the early 1990s is still being used by some machinists, and although it is annoying that those people won't upgrade and provide me with some financial support, it makes me feel good to know that there are some people who appreciate the work I did so much that they want to continue using it.

My recommendations for a new city are based on what I personally have found to be most enjoyable with life. What I have noticed is that the most pleasant aspects of my life have been doing things with people, including sharing the chores that need to be done. As a result, the city that I propose puts a lot of emphasis on the team rather than the individual.

The society I propose encourages people to work together for the group. Everybody is expected to focus on the team, rather than on themselves. The businesses, for example, will design products from the point of view of what would be best for society, as opposed to pandering to the consumers, which encourages the consumers to be selfish, arrogant jerks who focus on their emotional cravings, and it puts the businesses into the role of peasants who are serving a king.

Likewise, the social activities of the city would be designed from the point of view of what would be best for society, rather than what the individual citizens want. The government will terminate activities that it regards as undesirable for the team, even if a lot of citizens enjoy them.

There are two important issues to keep in mind when we discuss what to do with our future:
1) None of us knows what is best for us.

I have ideas on what we should try, but we can be certain that once we start experimenting, all of us will discover that we don't know nearly as much as we thought we did. We will discover that some of the changes we make to our culture are making our life more annoying, or that they are unrealistic. For example, if we experiment with community weddings, we may end up coming to the conclusion that they are no better than the weddings we have right now.

However, we should not be afraid of failures. When one of our brilliant ideas turns out to be a failure, all we do is experiment with something else. We should regard life as an adventure, and learn from our failures. We will succeed at improving our lives if we are willing and able to look critically at our brilliant opinions, and replace them when they turn out to be failures.

2) We cannot please everybody

As soon as we create a new city and begin experimenting with our culture, we will find that some people like the changes, but other people do not. We cannot please everybody. Because of genetic differences between us, it is impossible to create a social environment that everybody is satisfied with.

Therefore, we have to be capable of compromising or else we will get involved with arguments that never end. We will end up like the Congress of the United States, which is ineffective because they cannot agree on what to do.

It sounds easy to compromise, but it is not easy. It requires people with advanced intellectual and emotional characteristics. Animals cannot compromise at all, and humans vary in their ability to compromise.

A person who is abnormally submissive will give into other people's demands quite frequently, but that is not compromising. That is being submissive. At the other extreme, the aggressive people will often get what they want, but they are not compromising, either.

In order for a group of people to compromise, we need to be able to consider life from other people's perspectives. Each of us has to be able to look at how often we get what we want, and how often other people get what they want. Compromising requires that we exert self-control over our own desires and allow other people to occasionally get what they want.

Animals don't have that level of self-control, or the ability to understand this concept, and humans who are abnormally selfish, arrogant, or stupid will not be able to compromise, either.

The changes to society that I propose put a lot of emphasis on the team, rather than on the individual. The military and most other organizations put a lot of emphasis on the team, also. Actually, the society I propose could be described as a variation of a military or a business.

I encourage community activities, rather than individual activities. I have no problems following orders, time schedules, or laws, as long as I respect the management and their laws. However, the people who do not have such a strong interest in becoming a team member will prefer an environment in which people have more freedom to focus on themselves.

Because of genetic diversity, at one extreme are the people who prefer to work with other people, have dinner with other people, and spend their leisure time with other people. They can enjoy being an employee, or a soldier, who follows orders and time schedules.

At the other extreme are the people who complain that employees and soldiers are slaves. They want to be their own boss. They don't like being a team member, following orders, and worrying about what is best for the team. They want to focus on their personal desires rather than frequently consider what is best for the team.

There is no right or wrong way to design a society, and there is no right or wrong personality. Dogs are more sociable than cats, for example, but it makes no sense to say that cats are better than dogs, or vice versa. If cats were to create a city for themselves, they would want a social environment in which each cat can be his own boss and focus on his own desires, whereas dogs would want more teamwork in their jobs and leisure activities.

	Cats are so independent that they might not want traffic laws, or any social activities.		Dogs do not like to be alone, so they would create a city with lots of social activities.

We cannot design a city that pleases everybody. The earth is so large that we can create thousands of different cities, and each of them could have a slightly different social environment, but there will always be people at the edge of the bell curves who cannot find a city that offers the environment that they are truly satisfied with.

To make the situation worse, since we are not restricting reproduction, the diversity in personalities is increasing during every generation, thereby resulting in each generations becoming more incompatible than the previous generation.

A person is a misfit when he is genetically incompatible with other people.We have a lot of genetic characteristics, so there are a lot of reasons as to why somebody would be a misfit. Also, some misfits are beneficial and some are destructive. It might be useful to divide misfits into categories, such as these four:

1) Physical misfits

These are people who have physical characteristics that make it difficult for them to fit into society, such as they are blind, crippled, have food allergies, are low on thyroid hormone, or have some other physical disorder that makes it difficult for them to join other people in activities and jobs.

Many of these misfits are living in our neighborhoods, but we don't realize it because a lot of them spend their time alone, inside their home, making them nearly invisible. However, they are misfits, and they are suffering, and we should not ignore them.

The only way of reducing this type of misfit is to abort or euthanize the babies who have serious physical disorders. The people who claim that euthanasia is "murder" should be told to shut up. I would say that it is much more cruel to torture a person with decades of loneliness, physical pain, or other suffering.

Some people might respond that if we had the technology to analyze a baby's DNA and determine whether he had any serious genetic disorders, such as he could not properly create or regulate thyroid hormone, and if we were to euthanize such babies, then we would kill people such as myself. My response is, so what?

If I had been euthanized as a baby, I would not have known about it or cared about it. Furthermore, and even more important, I had to spend my teenage years and almost all of my adult life suffering from low energy levels. I had to watch the other men run, perform physical work, get married, raise children, and do lots of other things that I could only daydream about.

We are not being nice when we bring into this world a person who is suffering from a defect that is so serious that he ends up sitting at the edge of society and watching other people enjoy life. This is torturing those people.

A lot of people may then respond that I turned out to be an acceptable member of society, and they will point out that some other people who are suffering from physical or mental disorders also turned out to be productive members of society. However, I think that I and those other people are the exceptions.

Furthermore, as much as I suffered, my suffering seems trivial compared to the people with mental problems. I have set up a life for myself that is very pleasant, quiet, and relaxing, but all around me I see people who are frequently pouting, hating, envious, lying, cheating, fighting, whining, abusing drugs, and thinking suicidal thoughts. Their lives seem miserable.

At various points in my life I wondered what would have happened to me if I had been an idiot, or if I had not been interested in thinking. I don't know how I would have made a living in such a case. I suspect that I would have ended up as a drug addict who died at a young age, or a criminal who was eventually caught and put in jail. Or perhaps I would have ended up on welfare.

I suspect that an analysis of drug addicts, criminals, and parasites would show us that they are all suffering from genetic problems, and they don't have the intellectual or emotional ability to understand or overcome their particular problems.

By comparison, I had the intelligence and self control to compensate for my problems. For example, I did not waste any of my time or money on gambling, alcohol, or unnecessary material items. I am capable of surviving on a very low income. This is not because I want a low income; I am not a Buddhist monk who wants to live in poverty. Rather, I am capable of enjoying life with a low income. I could actually use more money since taxes and prices increase every year.

The world is full of people who are miserable, but the people who oppose euthanasia are not helping any of them. They are actually increasing the number of miserable people by encouraging the defective people to have babies, and encouraging parents of defective babies to let their defective babies live. These people praise themselves for being wonderful people, but in reality they are just increasing the number of people who suffer every year.

Most of the people who are suffering are probably suffering from mental problems rather than physical problems. For example, the "art" to the right was created by Ed Honaker, one of many artists who are suffering from such serious mental problems that his life and artwork are dominated by thoughts of suicide, death, and torture. He is suffering, and he suffers year after year, decade after decade. He is suffering more than most of us have suffered.

We are not nice when we give life to people who are so defective that their entire life is miserable, especially if we also push them aside and make them suffer loneliness in addition to their internal pains.

2) Employment misfits

Unemployment is increasing every year for two primary reasons:

1) Technology is eliminating simplistic jobs. Machines and robots are improving, and becoming more numerous, thereby putting people of low intelligence out of work, even if those people have wonderful qualities.

2) Each generation is more genetically defective than the previous generation. Every generation has a higher percentage of people who have trouble working in teams, following orders and time schedules, being able to concentrate on a job for many hours each day, and wanting to work.

In a free enterprise system, the unemployed people have no way to make a living. Some become a parasite on their parents, friends, relatives, spouse, or government, and some react by becoming an alcoholic, drug addict, or criminal, thereby causing even more trouble for themselves and society.

3) Cultural misfits

If each of us could live life a thousand different times, each one in a different social environment, we would discover that each of us has a preference for a slightly different environment.

For example, all men are competitive, so we all want to win at volleyball, baseball, and other recreational activities, but if we could measure our craving to win, we would find that at one extreme are the men who have such an intense craving that they will practice the activity in order to improve their performance. Some men will go even further and take drugs to improve their athletic performance. Donald Trump has been accused of wanting to win casual golf games so badly that he will cheat.

At the other extreme are the men who don't care enough about winning a recreational event to be willing to practice it, or risk getting injured, or put much effort into winning.

I have a strong desire to win the battle for control of our future, and I am willing to suffer a lot to achieve that goal, but I regard recreational events as being for socializing and exercise, not for winning. When I look back at my life, I notice that the times I most enjoyed playing volleyball, baseball, football, and other sports was when I was with people who did not care much about winning, either. None of us were even bothering to keep score.

There is no right or wrong way to play a recreational activity. However, when we follow the "melting pot" philosophy, which could also be described as a "diversity philosophy", in which everybody is forced to mix together, we create a social environment that annoys everybody.

Putting people like me into a recreational game in which some of the other people want to win is going to cause stress, frustration, and anger to of all of us. It upsets people like me because I don't want to practice the event in order to develop my skills, and I don't want to put much effort into winning, and I have no desire to keep score. The people who want to win will become upset with people like me because they will regard us as a burden on their team, and of having a bad attitude that ruins the environment of the game.

By comparison, I regard the battle for control of the world to be a very important battle, and I think that we should put a lot of effort into winning it, and I think the people who show no concern for winning are behaving like monkeys, or retards. They annoy me with their apathy, and I annoy them.

Because of the genetic differences in our emotional and intellectual characteristics, each of us would prefer a slightly different social environment. Some people are going to enjoy an environment in which there are awards and ceremonies for the winners of recreational events, and at the other extreme are people like me who don't care enough about winning to be bothered keeping score.

If I were to design recreational activities, there would be no winners or losers, and no award ceremonies. The recreational events would be designed for socializing, entertainment, and exercise. If the event is outdoors, it would be also to enjoy the trees, grass, flowers, clouds, creeks, ponds, sunshine, stars, or moon.

The significance of this concept is that once we start creating new cities and experimenting with our culture, we are going to discover that no matter how many cities there are, and that no matter how much variety there is, there will be people who are not satisfied with any of the cities.

If they deal with this issue quietly, nobody will care, but if they whine or complain, or if they become rebellious and angry, they become destructive, and they should either be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or evicted from the city. We should stop feeling sorry for people who react to problems with anger, pouting, tantrums, vandalism, and crimes. We must face the fact that because of genetic diversity, there are always going to be misfits.

4) Social misfits

Our ability to form relationships with other people depends upon both our emotional and intellectual qualities. People with unusual or defective mental qualities will have trouble mingling with us during leisure activities, working with us in a team, and forming stable friendships and marriages.

The environment can affect our opinions, manners, and goals, which in turn can have an effect on our relationships, but even if there were no environmental differences between us, we would find that some people have trouble forming relationships because their particular personality causes them to be a social misfit.

What is a personality? I would say that it is the combination of our intellectual and emotional characteristics, both of which are genetic, not environmental. First consider how our emotional characteristics affect us.

How do our emotions affect our personality?

Our emotions determine our selfishness, willpower, aggressiveness, shyness, friendliness, arrogance, irritability, violence, fear of the unknown, curiosity, sexual cravings, and other feelings.

We all have the same emotions, but there are subtle differences in their strengths, how long they persist, and how they are triggered. To complicate the issue, since nobody is genetically perfect, we all have slightly different "emotional defects".

How does our intellectual ability affect our personality?

The section of our brain that thinks has an effect on our personality because our behavior is partly due to our thinking. People who are stupid, for example, are likely to make remarks or do things that we regard as stupid.

Furthermore, we all have intellectual defects, and the people with the most serious defects will make remarks and do things that we regard as crazy, bizarre, inappropriate, nonsensical, or irrational.

In order to be able to form a stable and pleasant relationship with other people, regardless of whether it is a friendship, marriage, or business relationship, we need a certain amount of compatibility in our emotional and intellectual characteristics.

For an extreme example, the difference in personalities between a dog and a human is so extreme that we cannot understand one other. Humans can form relationships with dogs only if we can force ourselves to be tolerant of their lack of self-control, stupidity, barking, and other behavior that makes no sense to us, or which irritates us. We cannot treat dogs as "friends". Rather, we treat them as retards, toys, or babies.

For a less extreme example, a scientist who believes in genetics and evolution is not likely to be able to form a close friendship with an official of the Catholic Church. If they are neighbors, they might be friendly with one another, but they would not be able to form a truly satisfying friendship because they will want to behave in different manners, discuss different issues, and spend their leisure time on different activities.

People who are "typical" in their emotional and intellectual qualities will have an easy time finding somebody that they are compatible with simply because there will be so many people similar to themselves.

The people with the most unusual emotional and intellectual characteristics will have a difficult time socializing. They will be "social misfits", but they are not necessarily undesirable people. Some of them will be misfits because they have some superior emotional or intellectual characteristics.

The people who will have the most trouble forming pleasant relationships will be those whose brains are the most defective. For example, people with serious intellectual defects will produce thoughts that are so distorted that their opinions will resemble the nonsense created by the SCIgen computer software, whereas people with the most serious emotional defects will have bizarre cravings and reactions, such as raping a baby, or being unable to sit still at a dinner table.

There will always be unusual people, so we should design society to deal with the misfits rather than continue to ignore them.

In my documents I have repeatedly suggested that the government encourage a variety of social and recreational activities to encourage people to get out of their house, meet people, and do something. One of the reasons I emphasize getting out of your house and meeting people is because the unusual people must meet a lot of people in order to find truly satisfying friendships and marriages.

Humans and animals have a resistance to meeting strangers because we evolved for a very dangerous world. We need to be pushed into meeting people.

When we go to social events today, we have a tendency to talk only to the people we already know. To make the situation worse, most people are so paranoid that somebody is going to learn about their "personal information", and so many people are also trying to create phony images of themselves in order to impress other people, that when they do talk to somebody they don't know, they don't learn much about one another. Each person is likely to hide their personal information, create a phony image of themselves, and talk about something idiotic, such as Hollywood gossip or sports.

I think we would improve our social lives if we provided ourselves with more appropriate government leaders who behave like parents. Specifically, government officials who encourage and arrange for social events, courtship activities, and recreational events that push people into meeting one another.

If we also allow the government to maintain a database with information about everybody's "personal" life, it would put an end to the paranoia that other people will learn the truth about us. It would also dampen a person's desire to create a phony image of himself because it would make it impossible for women to lie about their age, and for men to lie about their height, previous marriages, and failures in life.

I think that type of social environment would create a society in which people are more honest about themselves, and that in turn will make it easier for people to find compatible friends and a spouse.

Unfortunately, no matter what we do to help people form relationships, there will always be people at the edge of the bell curve who are so defective that they cannot form friendships or marriages. We should not ignore those misfits. They will have very lonely, miserable lives, and they may react with anger, vandalism, crimes, or revenge.

Elliot Rodger is an example of a misfit who reacted to his loneliness by becoming angry at people. I'll discuss him later in this document.

Every society has been trying to fix the misfits with rewards and punishments, and doctors and psychologists use drugs, shock therapy, and counseling. However, none of these are solutions because the reason some people are misfits is due to their genetics, and we do not have the technology to fix genetic problems.

Some people might respond that I mentioned that thyroid hormones are helping me tremendously, but there is a difference between "helping me" and "solving my problem". The thyroid hormones have improved my life significantly, but they have not fixed my problem. I continue to be physically inferior to people with a higher quality body.

It is absurd to believe that we can fix the badly behaved misfits with rewards, punishments, drugs, or counseling. Some drugs may help certain misfits to relax around other people, or control their temper, but we cannot fix their problems. We are tormenting them when we try to make them become normal, and we are allowing them torment us when we allow them to live with us.

The only sensible policy is to restrict the badly behaved misfits to their own neighborhoods where they will not be bothered by us, and we will not be bothered by them. The misfits who cannot handle those restrictions need to be evicted from the city, or euthanized.

The only true way to reduce misfits is to restrict reproduction and euthanize the defective babies. However, this will only reduce the quantity of misfits, not eliminate them. Because of genetic variations, there will always be misfits. Every society has to face this fact and deal with it rather than continue to pretend that it is not occurring. Every living creature produces genetic variety, and some of the offspring are detrimental and destructive. Hiding from this issue is making the situation worse, not better.

Because of the genetic differences between us, different people have slightly different preferences for music, art, clothing styles, foods, and home decorations. If we follow the communist philosophy of making everybody enjoy the same clothing style, artwork, etc., we torment almost everybody.

There is no benefit to forcing everybody to like the same things, and there is no harm in allowing people to have different preferences for artwork or music.

This concept is perhaps most obvious with music festivals. The people who like classical music tend to sit quietly as they listen to the music, whereas some people like to go to music festivals where they can sing along with the musicians, and others like music festivals where they can dance, and others like music concerts where it is acceptable for the audience to scream and clap.

What would you think if the government forced everybody who arranges a music concert to promote "diversity" by mixing all types of music into each concert? Imagine a government requiring that every music concert be a random mixture of classical, jazz, rock 'n' roll, hip-hop, karaoke, and trance music. Certainly you can understand that nobody is going to benefit from that type of music festival. Rather, it would annoy everybody.

Nobody is so stupid that they would complain that a classical music concert is "discriminating" against people who like jazz or country music, or that a country music festival is "anti-diversity" because it doesn't have any trance music, or that a jazz festival is "shaming" the people who like other types of music. Nobody is stupid enough to accuse somebody of being "anti-hip-hop", or "anti-classical music", or "anti-country music" simply because they have no interest in playing that type of music at their social events.

However, there are lots of people who are demanding that businesses, sports groups, schools, cities, neighborhoods, apartment buildings, and nations to be a random mixture of men and women, different races, couples with children and couples without, young people and elderly people, pet owners and people who don't want pets, and all other types of people, with no regard to their compatibility.

We must stop allowing the whiny, aggressive people to insult us for wanting to be with people who are similar to ourselves. We must stop allowing them to push their idiotic "diversity" philosophy on us. We must stand up to their demands that people be randomly mixed together in neighborhoods, cities, and businesses.

Democracies and free enterprise systems provide the majority of people with a tremendous influence over society because those systems cause the government and businesses to pander to the majority of people. This would be acceptable if the majority of people had sensible desires and opinions, but the majority of people have a lot of idiotic and self-destructive behavior and opinions. For example, most people are more attracted to religion than to genetics, which results in every society being dominated by people who push religion and other nonsensical concepts, such as that men and women are unisex creature.

The human mind is not a piece of clay, or the creation of a loving God. It is a biological computer designed by DNA and based on a monkey's brain. Men and women are genetically different from one another, and the different races have genetic differences between them. Even within each race, each person is genetically unique.

We are not racist, anti-diversity, sexist, or anti-Semites for having a preference for people who are compatible with our personalities. There is nothing wrong with living among, working with, and becoming friends with people who are similar to ourselves.

I think we should go even further and start facing the evidence that we deteriorate with age. For example, I suggest that a city design some apartments for the elderly, such as by making the doorways and bathrooms more suitable for canes, wheelchairs, and walkers, and by putting those apartments closer to the sources of food and medical care. This will make life easier for the elderly, and they will not irritate the rest of society by blocking hallways, elevators, trains, and foot paths.

I also suggest that we experiment with apartment buildings that are restricted to families, and others that are restricted to people without families.

By allowing everybody to freely move from one home to another, we make it easy for everybody to live near their friends, and they can easily switch to a different building when they decide to have a family, or when they get old, or when they want a change in scenery.

I suspect that we will all have a more pleasant life when we are free to discriminate against who we live and work with, and who we spend our leisure time with.

In the movie, the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her friends are following a yellow brick road because they assume it will lead them to a wonderful wizard who will make their life better. When they finally achieve their goal, they discovered that it was a mistake.

I think it might be useful if you visualize all people as following a path in life, just like Dorothy and her friends, and that everybody assumes that they are heading in the direction that will take them to a better life.

However, I don't think many people are heading in a sensible direction. I think most people are behaving just like Dorothy; specifically, struggling to achieve a goal that is actually unrealistic. In the movie, Dorothy and her friends were excited to meet the wizard even though he turned out to be a fraud, but in reality, people are likely to become disappointed, frustrated, sad, or angry when they achieve their unrealistic goal.

For example, visualize the bodybuilders wandering down their particular path. They start off looking like ordinary men, and walking in a normal manner. But as they walk down the path, the drugs they use cause their bodies to become absurdly large, and soon they are waddling like ducks, and stopping every few hours to rest.

They are also stopping every few hours to force themselves to eat and find a bathroom. They believe that they are heading towards happiness, but are they really following a sensible path in life?

Furthermore, they are occasionally dying between the ages of 20 and 50. They are leaving a trail of dead bodies.

In this interview in 2017, Eddie Hall, who is capable of deadlifting 500 kilograms, said that now that he has achieved his goal of winning the World's Strongest Man contest, one of his new goals is to lose a lot of weight so that he can do such ordinary things as take a walk with his child.

Eddie Hall is lifting 500 kilograms.

In case you never noticed, the men who participate in the World Strongest Man contest have such massive bodies that it is difficult for them to walk, ride a bicycle, run, climb stairs, and swim. When they walk, they waddle like ducks, and they become exhausted after a short distance.

You are on a different path than the bodybuilders, weightlifters, and other athletes, and you probably assume that you are on a sensible path that is leading you to the mystical city of Nirvana, but even though the people who are on the same path as you may not be leaving a trail of young, dead bodies, and you may not be waddling like ducks, how can you be sure that you are heading in a sensible direction?

Have you seriously analyzed what you are doing with your life? Have you truly considered all of your options?

I don't think many people are on a sensible path in life. There are several reasons for this. One is that most people follow whatever path they grew up with, and they are afraid to experiment with something new. Another reason is that most people resist thinking and critical analyses of themselves.

Most people would rather follow whatever path brings them the most emotional titillation, even if it is intellectually absurd, risks their health or life, or causes them a lot of frustration, stress, divorce, debt, and physical pain.

For example, millions of people have a goal of acquiring lots of money, awards, status, or fame, but that path is no more sensible than looking for the Wizard of Oz. Once in a while a person actually achieves his goal of becoming wealthy or famous, but does his life improve as a result? I don't think so. I think he ends up just like Dorothy and her friends; specifically, with nothing. However, just like in the movie, they make the best of it by telling themselves over and over that they have achieved something, and that they are special, and that they are enjoying their life.

The diploma did not make the scarecrow educated or intelligent. Rather, it caused him to fool himself into believing that it made him educated and intelligent. Likewise, money will not improve our lives once we have the basic necessities. Rather, it causes people to fool themselves into believing that they are special and happy.

What is a difference between a scarecrow who has been given a college diploma by the Wizard of Oz and then tells himself that he is intelligent and educated, and a human who has enough money to join an expensive country club, and then tells himself that he is a special person for being able to afford the monthly fees?

Neither the scarecrow nor the wealthy person has anything of real value. Rather, they are merely making themselves feel better by telling themselves over and over that they are special people. However, that does not provide us with real satisfaction; it does not provide us with memories that we want to reminisce about when we get older, or talk about with children. That is just a form of masturbation.

To a person with low self-control, money is extremely important. The reason is that no matter how much money they have, they never have enough of it. They are like obese people who never have enough food. Their inability to control their cravings causes them to assume that getting more money will make them more happy.

However, we should not let those people influence our lives or our society. They should be regarded as genetically inferior people. They have low self-control, or defective emotional cravings, or defective intellectual abilities. Something is inferior about their mind, and they should not be admired or used as role models.

We don't become intelligent or educated simply by having somebody give us a diploma. Likewise, our lives will not improve simply by acquiring more food, sex, money, fame, or children. It is the genetically inferior people with insatiable cravings, and/or low self-control, who believe that they need phenomenal amounts of food, money, etc.

The biggest effect over our happiness are people, not money, yachts, sex, or awards. It is what we do with people that matters, not how many items or awards we can collect. If you were alone on a planet, it would not matter how much material items you had. You would have a lonely, miserable, boring life. Material items cannot replace human relationships and activities.

The only way we are going to improve our lives is if we can exert enough self-control to face the evidence that we don't know nearly as much about life as we think we do, and that we need to get off the path that we are on right now, and we need to start experimenting with our options.

We should not follow the current leaders of society who promote the philosophy that the key to happiness is to become extremely wealthy, win lots of awards, and become famous. They are leading us along a path that would appeal to an animal, but it is not going to be beneficial for a modern, healthy human.

The bodybuilders are a visual example of how our goals and cultural activities are becoming increasingly absurd as a result of people who want to wander along a path that is emotionally appealing, but intellectually idiotic. Everybody should put some effort into contemplating how they are going to benefit if they were to achieve their particular goals.

All around the world we find sports, holiday celebrations, weddings, school curriculums, and business activities heading towards absurd, wasteful, and idiotic directions. Our school system, for example, is going through changes, but nobody is seriously discussing what those changes are, and whether they are beneficial to us. There is no authority in any society to ensure that the changes to the school system are truly bringing improvements to our lives. Instead, thousands of individual citizens, religions, charities, crime networks, government officials, and businesses are competing with one another for control of our education.

Some of them are pushing schools into teaching creationism, and others are promoting global warming and carbon taxes. Jordan Peterson is trying to influence our education of "humanities". Donald Trump also got involved with our education by funding the Trump University.

If we do not exert self-control when we design schools, the schools will evolve to fit our emotional cravings. For example, we will want teachers to give us praise rather than constructive criticism, and we will want schools to give us diplomas rather than put us through emotionally uncomfortable training programs that force us to do research, think, exert self-control, and work in a team.

Since we do not have a respectable authority to provide guidance to our culture, we allow religions, crime networks, businesses, retards, charities, and idiots to influence our school system, courtship activities, weddings, sports, social affairs, music concerts, and holiday celebrations. This is as idiotic as letting all of those people and groups influence the design of our telephones, computers, railroads, and airplanes.

The wealthy members of society believe that they are better people than everybody else, but many, perhaps most, wealthy people are a bad influence on culture. And they are a bad influence for the same reason the ordinary people are a bad influence. Specifically, because they are following their crude emotions rather than thinking about what is most sensible.

Once a person is making enough money to afford a home, food, and other necessities for his particular era and society, if he acquires money beyond that level, it allows him to purchase luxuries that he doesn't actually need.

The extremely wealthy people have so much extra money that they don't know what to do with it, and they struggle to find projects to invest in, and in the process, they waste their time, influence culture in a bad manner, and waste society's labor and resources. For example, the house below has a swimming pool with a glass bottom, and the pool is suspended above an outdoor patio.

That swimming pool is just one of thousands of expensive projects that the wealthy people assume are making their life better, but in reality, they are encouraging crude, monkey behavior. They are behaving like an ape that is pounding its chest and trying to appear important.

Human life does not improve simply by acquiring a swimming pool that is suspended above a patio, or by having an infinity swimming pool, or by putting a gold plated diving board on a swimming pool. It also does not improve simply by collecting a lot of expensive automobiles, or by purchasing an expensive Picasso painting.

However, because humans have the ability to stimulate themselves, the wealthy people can titillate themselves day after day, year after year, by repeatedly telling themselves and one another that they are special people because they have expensive swimming pools, automobiles, and homes. By titillating themselves, they receive some pleasure, and they make the mistake of assuming that the pleasure is coming from the material items. In reality, all they are doing is engaging in a form of non-sexual masturbation.

If all you want to do with your life is masturbate, you don't need an expensive swimming pool, and you do not have to be wealthy. For example, an "ordinary" person could titillate himself by repeatedly reminding himself that he does not behave like the wealthy people who titillate themselves over their expensive but worthless material items.

Actually, we could go even further and experiment with electrodes in our brain in order to stimulate our pleasure centers with electricity. By developing that technology, people of any income level can spend their entire day and evening pressing the button to make themselves feel good, just like the rat in the photo to the right.

How is a wealthy person who is stimulating himself because he has an infinity swimming pool behaving in a more sensible manner than a rat that is pushing a button to stimulate a section of his brain?

I would say the only significant difference is that the human is stimulating himself with a feedback loop, whereas the rat is stimulating itself with an external electrical current.

I do not think that the rat in that photo is truly enjoying his life. Rather, he is just stimulating an emotion. Likewise, I don't think the wealthy people who spend their time jerking themselves off about their wealth are actually enjoying their life, either. I think that all they are doing is masturbating.

There are some religious people who spend a lot of their time stimulating themselves over and over with fantasies of how God loves them, or fantasies that they are having conversations with God. There are other people who stimulate themselves with Star Trek fantasies, and there are some people spending hours a day stimulating themselves with LSD, heroin, or other drugs. What is the difference between those people and the wealthy people who titillate themselves for hours about how they are special people who are admired and respected?

Many wealthy people are a bad influence on culture because they encourage mental masturbation rather than getting together with other people and doing something that will bring real satisfaction to our lives. The wealthy people also encourage other wealthy people to get involved with senseless competitive battles for expensive jewelry, yachts, and mansions.

Instead of pampering a few wealthy people with absurd luxuries, we should put our labor and resources into projects that all of us will benefit from, such as creating beautiful apartment buildings, offices, and factories, and surrounding them with beautiful parks, swimming pools, bicycle paths, and foot paths.

Furthermore, their expensive projects are causing a lot of carpenters, machinists, plumbers, architects, engineers, and other people to waste their labor on projects that don't improve life for the wealthy people, or for society. And in addition, the projects waste society's resources.

Instead of building mansions, private jets, yachts, and other items for a few wealthy people, the carpenters, engineers, architects, plumbers, and other people could be creating high quality apartment buildings, beautiful swimming pools, interesting foot paths, and beautiful parks for all of us to enjoy.

To summarize these last sections, since no nation has a government that is providing guidance to their culture, the schools, holiday celebrations, foods, goals, and other culture of every nation is being influenced by all kinds of individuals and organizations.

In some cases, people are influencing culture inadvertently, such as when the wealthy people show off their luxuries.

In other cases, individual citizens and organizations are deliberately trying to influence our culture. For example, Google, Facebook, Israel, and journalists are trying to suppress certain ideas and people, and to promote other ideas and people, thereby manipulating our view of life and history.

If you do not get involved with the issue of where the human race is going, you will become a victim of the people and organizations who are taking an active role in fighting for control of our future. Do you want to be a victim? Or do you want to be one of the people who participate in determining our future?

A man in Europe sent me a link to this interesting hospital that was built about 100 years ago. It is now a museum. It might help you imagine what it would feel like to live in the type of city I propose if you use the Google Street View by clicking here to "stand" in the plaza and look around.

It provides a view of a large plaza, but without any automobiles, graffiti, homeless people, metal gratings over windows, chain-link fences, parking lots, dogs, or electric power lines.

Imagine that the buildings are taller, and that they are apartments. Now imagine that surrounding this cluster of buildings are trees, grassy areas for recreation, swimming pools, bicycle paths, ponds, gardens, and creeks. And imagine that beyond that are other neighborhoods, but with slightly different architecture, colors, gardens, and plazas.

That type of city would be peaceful and quiet. If that type of city existed right now, would you consider visiting it to determine whether you would be interested in moving to it? If so, why not help me find people who want to experiment with a new city?

The free enterprise system puts people into a competitive battle for money, and the people who are the most successful in this battle will not be "ordinary" or "typical". There will be something unusual about them, but their unusual qualities are not necessarily beneficial or admirable.

A thousand years ago the people who were successful in free enterprise probably were more intelligent and responsible than the majority of people, but during the past century or so, the fighting between businesses has become so extreme that it seems as if the people who are the most successful in this battle are those who are better described as neurotic, dishonest, abusive, selfish, and psychotic.

If the free enterprise system was providing us with high quality leaders, then we would regularly notice that wealthy people, business executives, and entrepreneurs are providing us with the most intelligent analyses of news events, and the most useful advice and guidance. We would also notice that those people are better able to deal with life's problems, which would result in their lives being more pleasant, and their relationships more stable, and that they would spend less time pouting, hating, fighting, and cheating.

Instead, we find that they have nothing intelligent to say about any issue, and their behavior is appalling. For example, they expect us to earn whatever we want, and they condemn handouts of all sorts, but they demand that their children and spouse be able to inherit unlimited amounts of money, land, and businesses. They want to create an economic monarchy in which they are pampered Kings and Queens, and we are their peasants.

They also display symptoms of seriously defective minds, such as craving houses and yachts that are so large that they never step into, or even look into, most of the rooms. A lot of them are also willing to join crime networks, lie to us, cheat us, and deceive us.

Furthermore, some of them are so anti-social that they show no concern for the social environment of the city. They don't care that there are homeless, retarded, and unwanted people living in the streets and orphanages. They don't care about crime, vandalism, overcrowding, pollution, or the ugliness of the cities. They are not interested in creating an attractive city, or improving the social or recreational activities. All they want from life is to feel important; to be the top monkey in the hierarchy.

They seem to spend their leisure time fantasizing about status and wealth, not about improving our cities, recreational activities, social activities, or school system. They behave like a retarded ape that has such an intense craving for status that he spends most of his life fighting with other apes and pounding his chest.

We are not going to provide our economic system with better business leaders simply by passing some more laws, or by electing a different President. We must change the economic system.

The free enterprise system puts us into a battle for money, and that gives us business leaders who excel at making money. We should change the competition so businesses are competing to improve society. This will give us business leaders who excel in finding improvements to society.

Unfortunately, that type of economic system requires government officials who have the ability to analyze businesses and pass judgment on which of the business executives are most beneficial to society, and which of them should be replaced.

If we let the majority of people vote for government officials, we are not going to be able to implement that type of economic system.

As I have mentioned many times, an organization is a reflection of the characteristics of its members. In order for a city to be successful with the type of economic system I propose, we must restrict the city to a higher quality group of people.

Businesses are using this type of economic system without any trouble, and one reason they are successful is because they are discriminating against their members. They do not have a policy of accepting the wretched refuse and the huddled masses. They do not tolerate unwanted refugees or illegal aliens, either.

Another reason businesses are successful with this economic system is because they do not allow the majority of employees to vote for leaders or policies.

Another reason that businesses are successful with this economic system is because most business executives are more demanding of other executives than the voters are of government officials. Compared to the ordinary voter, the successful business executives are considerably less tolerant of incompetent managers, dishonest managers, nepotism, and crime networks.

For example, the voters don't care that Donald Trump allows his daughter and her husband toparticipate in meetings and influence policies, but most business executives would not tolerate an executive who brings his daughter and son-in-law into meetings.

When we design a new city, we should follow the practices that have proven to be successful with businesses and militaries. For example, the majority of people should not be allowed to vote or influence the government. They should be allowed to have opinions and make suggestions, but the decisions on how to operate the city should be restricted to people who have demonstrated an above-average ability to think, be critical of themselves, contribute to society, and follow the laws.

Creating the type of city and economic system that I am suggesting would be equivalent to creating a very large corporation. It will require a lot of work, and we can be certain that we will make mistakes as we struggle to get it operating properly, but people have been creating businesses and other organizations for centuries.

In the free enterprise system, business executives are promoted according to their ability to make profit, and they are rewarded with large salaries. This is giving us business executives who excel at making money, and who have cravings for large amounts of money.

In the city I propose, business executives will be promoted according to their ability to find improvements to society, but they will not be rewarded for their achievements. Their achievements will be listed in their database, but they will not get any special treatment or pampering. Everybody in the city will live in the same type of home, and have access to the same material items.

As a result of this system, the people who rise to the top of the economy will be those who excel at finding ways to improve life for all of us. Furthermore, and even more important, they will be doing this work because they want to improve society, not because they are trying to become billionaires. I think this will give us a noticeably better group of business leaders compared to what we are getting right now in our free enterprise system.

The type of people who dominate our world today seem to have such absurd cravings for wealth and status that they will oppose the environment I suggest in which people are treated equally. They are likely to promote the theory that we need large differences of wealth in order to inspire us.

The human mind evolved for a prehistoric life in which there was almost no difference in material wealth or pampering between the leaders and the rest of the tribe. I don't believe we were designed to be servants or slaves, or to be peasants of a King. Also, we were not designed to be pampered; we were designed to work.

I think we will create a more pleasant social environment when we treat other people as our equals and friends, and we do not encourage any pampering, status symbols, or showing off. I think status symbols encourage crude, animal behavior, and they waste society's resources.

The difficulty with eliminating status products is that some material items and foods are in short supply, and as a result, they cannot be provided equally to everybody. This will put those particular items into the category of "special" items.

For example, veal, lobster, abalone, and certain other food items are much more difficult to acquire or produce than other foods, and as a result, they are more expensive. Since we have a craving for status, a person who has one of the unusual foods can show off and imagine that he is special, and if other people do not put intelligent thought into the issue, they are likely to be fooled into believing that the person is indeed special for having that unusual food. This in turn will cause them to want the special foods. This creates a senseless competition between people to acquire some of the unusual foods.

This idiotic attitude has resulted in expensive foods, such as caviar, lobster, and abalone, being referred to as "delicacies", and it is causing a lot of people to crave those items, and to boast about eating them. In reality, the price of a food product has no correlation to its value to human happiness. The expensive foods are simply those that are in short supply, or which are difficult to produce.

The same problem occurs with material items and activities that we cannot provide in unlimited quantities. For example, it is much more difficult for a city to provide a person with a skydiving service than it is to provide him with a game of volleyball. This results in those expensive activities being regarded as "luxuries", and the wealthy people who can afford them will often boast about themselves and show off, thereby causing other people to become envious, and to waste their time fantasizing about acquiring enough money to enjoy those luxury activities, also.

A society is encouraging crude behavior when it produces or encourages status products. Status products encourage people to show off, and this encourages other people to become envious or to waste their time fantasizing about having access to those "luxuries".

What should a society do about the foods, material items, and services that are in short supply? How do we distribute the scarce items and services among the people in a fair and equal manner? How do we prevent those unusual items from being treated as status symbols?

One the many possibilities is to offer them as rewards. For example, to encourage people to get out of their house, get some exercise, meet some people, and do something with their life, the unusual foods, activities, and services could be offered at social affairs, recreational events, music concerts, and lectures.

For example, at a city festival, some people could be chosen at random to do skydiving, or have a meal with lobster, caviar, or some other unusual food. The purpose of offering these type of rewards would be to inspire people to get out of their house, meet some people, and do something with their community.

By picking names at random, the scarce items will not develop into status items. They will instead be regarded as items that are in such scarce supply that we must find some way to distribute them, and picking names at random is one method.

Some of the scarce items could also be used as rewards for the chores that nobody wants to do.

The point I want to bring to your attention is that we have a tremendous number of options for designing a city, dividing up the material wealth and food, designing social affairs, and designing recreational activities. However, as long as we continue to do nothing about our options, we are denying ourselves the adventure of discovering how to improve our life. We are wasting our life by living in fear of change.

Earlier in this document I pointed out that the wealthy and retired people who have nothing to do get bored. This section will explain more details about this issue, and why I think our societies are currently on an increasingly absurd path in life.

In America, and apparently in Europe and other nations also, a lot of people are spending a lot of their leisure time and money renovating their home, refurnishing their home, painting their home, expanding their home, and doing similar things with their automobile, boat, bicycle, motorcycle, and other possessions. The younger generation is also spending a lot of time with their phones, Facebook, and Twitter accounts. To rephrase this, the people spend a lot of their leisure time with items rather than with people.

I don't think the reason people are spending so much time with their items is because the items are truly providing us with happiness and pleasure. I think it is because people are lonely, bored, and misguided. Most people don't have satisfying friendships, and they don't have any satisfying activities to participate in with their friends, so they focus excessively on their house, automobile, or other possessions.

The people who don't have satisfying relationships are also likely to spend a lot of time on Facebook or Twitter, where it is much easier to have contact with other people, even though it does not provide a truly satisfying relationship.

The social animals, such as monkeys and humans, evolved to live in groups. We were designed to wake up in the morning among our friends, and do things with them during the day, and then to spend the evenings with them relaxing and socializing. We were not intended to live alone in a big house, or spend our leisure time with material items.

I think the reason so many people are putting a lot of their leisure time into renovating their house, playing with their dogs, and fantasizing about gathering more material items is because they are bored and lonely. These activities entertain them and occupy their time, and that fools them into believing that their life is full of exciting activities. I think the reason they don't understand that they are bored and miserable is because they have never experienced any other type of life.

A person who is blind does not complain that he cannot see because he doesn't know what he is missing. Likewise, a person who has always been lonely and bored, and who has spent his entire life entertaining himself with Facebook, home renovations, and television is not likely to realize that it is possible to design a society that is much more satisfying.

Furthermore, the free enterprise system promotes the attitude that happiness comes from gathering material items. This encourages people to spend their time with items rather than people.

I think that if we could experience life in thousands of different social environments, we would discover that what we have right now is one of the most miserable. I think that people would be surprised to discover that many of the environments that frighten them right now are actually more pleasant.

For example, I suggest an environment that doesn't have peasants, which would require all of us to share in the chores of the city. I suspect that a lot of people would be frightened of the thought of participating in chores, but I think that the people who could be described as "normal, healthy humans" would discover that it is not nearly as bad as they assumed, and that they often enjoy it.

Earlier in this document I mentioned that the people at the tailgate parties who are preparing food and cleaning up after themselves are enjoying the work. They are accumulating memories of doing things with other people, and they will be able to reminisce about it when they get older.

Our free enterprise system promotes the attitude that happiness comes from wealth, pampering by servants, and avoiding work. However, I think that you will discover that meals are more enjoyable when you and your friends are participating in some of the aspects of making the meals.

The attitude that you will enjoy a meal more when you are at a restaurant that has several waiters for every table is nonsense. You don't need any waiter. Actually, I think we will enjoy meals more when you go into a restaurant that doesn't have any waiters, and we and our friends must spend some time setting the table for ourselves, and then cleaning the mess up with one another. That activity will give us something to do as a group.

Occasionally throughout my life I have heard a person pointing out that a pet dog or cat is snoozing during the day, and they make a remark about how if reincarnation is possible, they would like to come back as a pet dog. They make such remarks as, "That is the life!", or, "I wish I could live like that."

My mother's dog on my lap. Click for larger version.

An example is the dog to the right, on my lap. When I took care of him for my mother, he wanted to spend hours every day snoozing on my lap. Fortunately, he was so small that I could let him sleep on my lap while I was working on the computer.

Animals can spend hours a day taking naps, but I think it would cause humans to have a miserable, boring life.

Our emotional cravings cause us to believe that work is bad, and that being pampered like a baby is fun. Our emotions fool us into believing that happiness will result when we can spend every day relaxing while other people work to provide us with food and clean up our messes. Our emotions fool us into believing that the more material items and land we own, and the larger our house is, the more happy we will be.

However, if we were to start experimenting with life, I think we would discover the opposite is true. Humans evolved for an environment in which there were almost no material items, and nobody owned any land. I think we will actually enjoy life much more when nobody owns any of the land or buildings, and we cannot own the material items.

In that type of environment, we will not become attached to items because we will not own them. Instead, we will become more attracted to people and activities.

The computers, furniture, bicycles, houses, musical instruments, CNC equipment, and everything else will be regarded the same way we regard creeks, clouds, and mountains. Specifically, those items will belong to everybody.

We will not spend any of our time painting or remodeling our home because we won't own the home, so we will not have the authority to modify or expand it. Actually, the citizens will not even have access to paints or certain other materials. All of the maintenance materials will belong to the city.

The only items that you will possess are those that nobody wants to share with you, such as your clothing and personal hygiene items. We could share the expensive clothing, however, just as we rent tuxedos and other expensive outfits.

Everybody will be allowed to have free access to the phones, bicycles, rowboats, scuba equipment, computers, and other items. Everybody will have free access to the social clubs that allow us to use cameras, microscopes, CNC equipment, pottery equipment, musical instruments, and artistic supplies. You won't take any of those items home with you because you won't own any of them. You would take one of those items home only if you actually wanted to use it at home, or if you were picking it up for use the next day. You would eventually give it back to the city.

You would be able to borrow formal clothing from a clothing store for free whenever you please, and you would give it back to the city when you were done with it. This system would make it easier for society to provide both children and adults with access to costumes and clothing for parties and other social events.

For example, in a free enterprise system, it would be expensive and awkward to have a social event like that shown in the painting below of a party in Russia during the 1800s. Each person would have to purchase expensive, delicate clothing, but they might use it only once during their lifetime, as women do with wedding dresses. An organization is wasting its resources when it produces expensive clothing, or other items, that is used only a few times.

Furthermore, when we have to purchase everything we want, rather than borrow what we want, we have to store the items somewhere, and if we store them in our home, then everybody needs a larger home. This wastes society's resources, and it makes the city bulkier.

Finally, each person who wants to attend the event would have to travel to his home to put that clothing on, and then travel to and from the event while wearing that clothing, which would be awkward and difficult, especially during bad weather.

By comparison, the city I propose would provide clothing, costumes, and jewelry for free, and the stores with those items could be located in the same buildings as the social events. This would allow you to travel to the event in your ordinary clothing.

After you arrive, you would first go to the clothing store, and then perhaps to a jewelry store. This would provide you with free access to a variety of formal clothing, costumes, jewelry, and whatever else you needed for that particular event, such as musical instruments.

None of the clothing or other items would have price tags. You would simply pick out the clothing and other items that you want to borrow, put the clothing on, leave your other clothing in a closet, and then take an elevator ride to the social event.

When you are finished with the event, you switch back into your normal clothing and go home. With this system, nobody has to purchase items, store them in their home, or travel around the city in that delicate or expensive clothing.

This system would make it much more efficient for society to offer expensive clothing, jewelry, and costumes of various types for parties, weddings, and other social events. This also reduces the amount of space that people need in their homes. Nobody would need a walk-in closet, for example.

This system would be especially useful for children. Parents would not have to waste their time purchasing costumes, or saving old clothing for their children. They would not have to store costumes in their home, either, or travel through the city with children wearing costumes. And it would provide children with a much wider variety of costumes.

However, keep in mind that this system will function properly only if the city restricts immigration to people who have the ability to share items. It will not work well with sloppy, irresponsible, filthy, or abusive people.

In order to share material wealth, the city must operate like a business or military unit; specifically, the city must set standards for behavior, and the people who cannot meet the standards must be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or evicted from the city.

If a city is restricted to responsible people, then the city can operate much more efficiently by eliminating money and allowing the people to share the material wealth. This will also make life for the people more relaxing and pleasant.

Sharing the wealth also makes it easier to fix and renovate apartments. When everybody has free access to apartments, and all of the apartments are virtually identical, whenever an apartment, or an entire building, needs maintenance, the city can tell everybody on a particular floor, or everybody in the entire building, to move to a vacant building while it is being renovated. This allows more efficient repairs and renovations compared to trying to do these jobs while people are living in the buildings.

The people in an apartment that is being renovated would have the option of moving temporarily, or they could move permanently. In either case, they would not have to spend days packing their furniture and shipping it to the other apartment. All of the furniture, artwork, mirrors, and other items inside the apartment belong to the city.

Therefore, when a person wants to move to a different apartment, he has the option of leaving the furniture in the apartment and picking up some new items for his new apartment. When somebody moves into the apartment he vacated, he can replace whatever furniture and artwork he doesn't care for.

I would also apply this concept to businesses. Specifically, employees would have access to supply stores where they can choose their own desks, chairs, and artwork for their offices and cubicles. In the economy I suggest, the business executives do not own the buildings, land, assembly lines, or machinery. The business executives are just employees of the city who are supervising the business. The executives would set policies for the employees, and they could stop an employee from bringing in items that they regard as disruptive to the business, but I would let the employees choose their own furniture so that everybody can have office furniture that they find emotionally pleasing, and which fits their particular body size and the tasks that they are doing.

Another advantage to allowing employees to have free access to office items is that they will be able to experiment with those items. Many people are afraid of experimentation, of course, but the employees who are not afraid will be able to try different types of office chairs, desks, cabinets, and other items, and this will help them figure out which chairs, desks, and other items are the most comfortable and/or productive for their particular body and their particular tasks.

This in turn will help the government determine which items to produce more of, and which carpenters, engineers, and artists are producing office items and artwork that employees enjoy, and which make them more comfortable and productive.

By comparison, in a free enterprise system, it is impractical for the employees to experiment with office furniture and chairs. This can result in employees who have to sit in chairs that do not fit them very well, or who have desks that are inappropriate for the type of work that they are doing.

The same concepts apply to industrial machinery. Since the government would own all of the industrial machinery, the businesses would have free access to CNC equipment, lasers, measuring tools, bulldozers, and other equipment.

This would allow the technicians, machinists, scientists, and mechanics to experiment with different tools and machinery in order to figure out what is most productive for their particular tasks. This in turn would show the government officials which of the businesses are designing the most useful industrial equipment.

By comparison, in a free enterprise system, businesses have to choose industrial equipment based on advertisements, salesmen, recommendations from their friends, and wild guesses.

Kim Noble claims to be suffering from multiple personalities. This painting was made by her personality that she calls Ria Pratt.

How would a city with this type of economy produce paintings, stained-glass windows, statues, and other types of artwork for apartments, offices, city parks, restaurants, and social clubs? Should a city have statues of Confederate soldiers? Should we put the painting to the right, by Kim Noble, in a public area? Should we even allow artists to produce paintings like the one to the right?

In a free enterprise system, a person becomes an "artist" if he is capable of selling his artwork, and in a democracy, the government does not make any attempt to influence or control his artwork. As a result, in the USA, there is almost no supervision or guidance for what is "art".

In the city I suggest, the city officials have dictatorial control over the culture of the city, so they would be responsible for ensuring that the art, food, bicycles, cameras, and other material items are beneficial to society. They will be expected to destroy, discontinue, and restrict the products, foods, and artwork that they regard as undesirable, even if the citizens want them.

For a simple example, children have a strong craving for candy, but the city officials would not be submissive representatives who pander to the people. They would be leaders, and so they would be expected to make wise decisions about the production of candy. They might choose to restrict the distribution of candy to recreational events on the weekends in order to prevent children from having access to large amounts of it, and to restrict candy to the children who are getting some exercise.

In the city I propose, anybody who wants to produce artwork would go to one of the social clubs that provided art supplies and equipment. They would produce artwork during their leisure time, and if the government approved of their artwork, it would be put into one of the art stores. If the government disapproved of their artwork, it would be destroyed or recycled.

Artists frequently slander us with accusations of being Nazis or Fascists when we advocate the censoring of artwork, but everybody wants censorship. However, we have different ideas on what should be censored. For example, a lot of the people who whine about censorship want to censor information about genetics, and they want to censor people such as me.

Government officials are already passing judgment on which artwork should be put into public parks, schools, courthouses, plazas, and streets. I'm not suggesting something new when I say the government should censor art. Rather, I am suggesting that we raise standards for government officials; that we remove the secrecy in our government so that we can hold the officials accountable for what they do; and we allow them to go even further and censor the art in the art stores.

I suggest eliminating secrecy so that whenever a government official authorizes or denies a particular piece of art, he will be identified as the person making the decision, and he will have to provide a brief explanation for why. This will allow us to pass judgment on whether we like the decisions that each official is making.

For an example of how this system would work, there is a statue in Chicago of Marilyn Monroe that was designed to allow people to look under her dress. In the city I propose, the officials who approve of that statue would have to explain why they approve of it, and the officials who disapprove of that statue would have to explain why they think it is inappropriate. By keeping a database of their decisions, we can pass judgment on which of those officials we want to replace.

There are lots of artists producing paintings and sculptures of people committing suicide, cutting their body with knives, torturing people, or engaging in some bizarre sex act, sometimes with children or animals.

If I was one of the government officials in control of art, I would advocate destroying those pieces of art, and my reasoning would be that I think art should stimulate pleasant feelings or productive behavior, not hatred, envy, sadness, disgust, pouting, or thoughts of suicide, self-mutilation, pedophilia, or sex. I would suggest that art make our life better, not stimulate miserable emotions.

Furthermore, I would point out that a city should promote the art that is desired by the people we regard as healthy, honest, and respectable, not what the artists want. Some of the artists who are suffering from serious mental disorders have a preference for art that stimulates miserable feelings, or which expresses their anxiety, suicidal thoughts, or anger. If the city officials select artwork according to what the mentally ill people want, then they will provide us with artwork that appeals only to mentally ill people, and which stimulates miserable feelings.

As I have mentioned in other documents, I suggest we design a city for the people that we regard as being in good mental health, and we should tell the rest of the population to deal with it quietly.

Getting back to the issue of how the government officials would deal with the issue of artwork, they would put the approved artwork into the stores, and all of the adults in the city would be free to browse through the art stores and take any of the artwork that attracted their attention. They would be able to put the artwork in their apartments, offices, and factories. When a person got tired of a particular piece of artwork, he would give it back to the city and pick up some other artwork.

The city officials would keep track of which artwork was borrowed, and when it was returned. This would show the city which artist was producing art that people were enjoying. The artists who produced artwork that was popular would be encouraged to create more of it, and if their work was popular enough, the government would give them the option of becoming an artist as a part-time or full-time job, rather than during their leisure time.

At the other extreme, the artists who created artwork that nobody was interested in would be told to stop wasting society's resources, and start experimenting with other activities in an attempt to find something that they can do that society appreciates.

None of the artists would own their artwork. Every person in the city would be regarded as a team member, and the work that people do belongs to the city, not to any individual person. The artists would not be allowed to copyright their artwork, or charge royalties from people who used it.

Other artists would be able to make variations, or identical copies, of artwork without anybody complaining of copyright infringement or plagiarism. This will allow artists to improve upon the work of other artists, and it would allow them to create duplicates of art that is popular.

In a free enterprise system, if an artist produces a piece of art that a lot of people want for their home, he can deliberately produce a small number of items so that he can charge a lot of money for them. But in the city I propose, other artists would be able to duplicate anybody's artwork, or make variations of it. The artist who created the original artwork would get credit for creating something popular, but he would not have any control over his artwork. This would allow other artists to create subtle variations, eventually leading to improvements in the artwork.

We would follow that same procedure for determining who produces software, computers, furniture, clothing, robots, bicycles, and food. This system for developing products would be especially productive in regards to computer software. Actually, I think it is such an incredible improvement over the free enterprise system that I will spend some time explaining why it is so beneficial in case you do not know much about the issue of software development. I will use robots as an example.

Robots are so complex that no individual human has the ability to create an entire robot by himself. We need teams of people to work on this task, and they need to work on it for decades just to get a robot that can take a few steps without falling down.

In order for robots to perform truly useful tasks for us, such as producing and delivering meals for elderly and sick people, removing weeds from farms, and killing rats and mosquitoes, engineers and computer programmers are going to have to put millions of hours into improving their hardware and software.

In our free enterprise system, there are thousands of businesses developing different aspects of robots, and we can already see that robots are following the same path of development as automobiles, refrigerators, computers, and other products. Specifically, many computer programmers are wasting their time creating the software functions that have already been created by other companies, but who will not share their creations.

Also, the companies are producing their robots with no regard to what other companies are producing, which is going to result in components and software functions that are incompatible with the robots of other companies.

By comparison, the economic system I propose would not allow any business or person to own any of their engineering blueprints or computer software. The people who develop robotic software, for example, would not own any of it, or be allowed to keep the source code a secret.

In the economic system I propose, after a business or individual created a software function for a robot, they would release it to the public, with the source code. Other people would then be able to experiment with it, and if they liked it, they could use it, modify it, improve upon it, or add to it. Programmers would not have to waste their time duplicating software functions that are already working properly.

The businesses and individual programmers who produce software that nobody wants to use would be forced to find another job, or forced to develop software that is less difficult, and the businesses and programmers that produce functions that people either incorporate into their robots, or use as a base to create better functions, would get credit for their work and be encouraged to continue producing software.

With this type of system, we don't need gigantic companies to develop robots. Small teams of engineers would be able to work on specific components, and small teams of computer programmers would be able to develop specific software functions.

Other small teams could experiment with combining components and software functions in order to develop robots for different purposes, and to determine which of the components and functions are working the best.

It must be emphasized that this type of economic system requires that we be able to provide ourselves with significantly better leadership than what we are doing right now. Some of the government officials will have to supervise the development of computer software, and others will have to supervise the development of industrial machinery, and others will be responsible for phone networks, electricity, or trains. The voters are going to have to be much more responsible, serious, and intelligent than they are today.

When we let the ordinary people vote, we end up with a group of voters who don't care whether political candidates have an understanding of modern technology. Most voters don't even care whether the candidates know how to use a computer. Actually, most voters prefer candidates who promote religion rather than science and technology. This is resulting in a government of technically incompetent nitwits.

Many businesses also suffer from technically incompetent management, but for different reasons. One reason is that some people are being promoted because they are friends or relatives of another manager, and some incompetent people are promoted because of intimidation, sabotage of their competition, plagiarism, or other diabolical tricks.

One of the problems that results when incompetent people are allowed to supervise computer software is that they don't know how to judge the work of a computer programmer, and so they give idiotic job performance reviews, such as judging the programmers according to how many lines of code they write. This is as idiotic as judging a carpenter according to how many nails he uses. If carpenters were judged in that manner, they would deliberately use more nails than they need. Likewise, when computer programmers are judged according to the number of lines of code they write, they are likely to write unnecessary code and duplicate existing functions, thereby creating bulky and sluggish software, in addition to wasting their time and talent.

If we can provide ourselves with better leadership in government and business, and if we can provide ourselves with a law enforcement agency that restricts or evicts people who misbehave, then we could create the society I propose in which we judge computer programmers according to their overall effect on society.

By judging computer programmers according to what they have accomplished for society, rather than by how many lines of code they write, or how many hours they work, the computer programmers would be able to focus on creating software that impresses us by what it does, or by improving upon somebody else's software. Without copyrights, any programmer or business would be able to take any existing software and improve upon it without asking for permission or paying royalties. This would result in software that becomes increasingly more useful, efficient, easy to understand, and easy to improve.

Likewise, the hardware engineers would also be judged according to the effect they are having on society, not by how many blueprints they create, or how many patents they have filed for, or how many hours they work each day. Specifically, the engineers would be judged according to what they have actually accomplished, such as improving some existing hardware, or developing some new hardware. Without copyrights or patents, the engineers would be free to improve upon other people's work without having to ask for permission or pay royalties.

With this type of economic system, it becomes easier for us to determine who has the talent to do a particular job. For example, consider the programmers who are creating software for CNC machines. The machinists who operate those machines notice that some of the machines have more software problems than others, and that some controllers are easier to use. However, because of the secrecy between the businesses, nobody knows which computer programmer is responsible for the best functions, and which of them is responsible for the faulty or confusing functions.

By eliminating copyrights, putting all of the source code into the public domain, and by requiring that the programmers identify the source code that they have developed or contributed to, we will start noticing who is writing the best software, and who is creating the functions that are so useful that other programmers are incorporating them into their own software. It will help us to figure out which programmers are the most productive, and which of them need more training, and which of them need to find another job.

As I mentioned many times, and which is probably frightening a lot of people, the city that I propose would require people to share in the chores. However, the city would not have nearly as many chores as our cities do today, and in addition, with appropriate government and business leaders, our leaders would be continuously finding ways to simplify our lives and reduce the chores.

In this section, I will give an example of why this type of city will produce a significantly lower level of trash and pollution compared to cities today, which will significantly reduce the undesirable chores of cleaning up trash.

In our free enterprise system, there are thousands of retail stores and manufacturing businesses that are involved with "home improvement". They produce paints, stains, glues, tires, wallpapers, cleaning solvents, flooring materials, and other hardware for people who are doing maintenance or remodeling of their home, yard, swimming pool, automobile, bicycle, or boat.

In the city I propose, the city government owns all of the buildings, land, swimming pools, bicycles, boats, and other items, so none of the people would be allowed to do any maintenance on their homes, bicycles, swimming pools or other items. They would not even be allowed to repaint the walls of their apartments. Everybody would be free to choose furniture and artwork for their apartment, but they would not be able to alter the apartment's structure. Therefore, there would be no need to provide the public with thousands of products that businesses are supplying to them today.

In addition to eliminating the land and buildings that are needed to produce, package, distribute, and sell those items to individual citizens, we also eliminate the problem of cleaning up the mess that the citizens make.

The businesses would produce maintenance products only for the government. As a result, they will not have to produce a wide variety of products for people with different levels of income, and for widely different emotional tastes.

The packaging of items will also be more efficient. Instead of producing lots of small, disposable packages for consumers, the businesses will be able to put paint, solvents, bolts, and screws into reusable containers.

In the city I propose, the government maintains a stable population level, and it also ensures that there is an excess number of apartments, offices, and factory floor space so that people and businesses can easily move around without waiting for vacancies.

By having an excess number of apartments, and by not allowing anybody to own any of the apartments, when an apartment building needs maintenance, everybody in the building, or everybody on a particular floor, can be told to move to another apartment. Then robots and other advanced equipment can be brought in to help with the maintenance. This is a much more efficient way of renovating, remodeling, and repairing apartments compared to letting individual citizens decide for themselves how and when to do it.

Since the citizens would not be able to alter the structure of the apartment buildings, the three-dimensional details of the buildings can be entered into a computer database, thereby allowing robots to know exactly where all of the walls, doors, and windows are, making it much easier for robots to wander through the buildings to clean walls, remove old flooring materials, remove ceiling materials, scrape off old paint, and repaint the walls.

Architects and engineers might even find a way to make some of the walls, bathrooms, or an entire apartment, in a modular form so that the wall, bathroom, or apartment can be removed and replaced, and the old unit can be sent back to the factory for renovation or recycling.

By not allowing any of the citizens to modify the bathroom sinks, toilets, showers, or lighting fixtures, robots could also be used to clean the bathrooms, in addition to other rooms of the house. The robots would know exactly where every bathroom sink and toilet is, and the 3d shape of the items, including the internal parts that they cannot see. This would allow robots to wander through the apartments and clean them while we are working during the day.

It is even conceivable that the buildings be designed with passageways that small robots can use so that the robots don't have to use the same pathways, elevators, and doors that people use.

With this type of city, none of the citizens would be able to dump paint, cleaning solvents, or other chemicals in the drains of their apartments, or put such chemicals into their trash cans. The city would produce less trash, and it would be cleaner trash. The city would not need any toxic waste facilities for the citizens.

The businesses that produce paints, solvents, and other chemicals would be doing so for the city government. Since the government would be able to provide more accurate estimates on how many supplies are needed, and when they are needed, the businesses would not have to produce enormous amounts of supplies that they hold in warehouses.

If the voters are truly talented, it is conceivable that the government officials can do such a good job of planning for and estimating materials for construction, maintenance, and renovation that the businesses would produce supplies only when they are needed, and in the quantities that the government asked for, thereby eliminating a lot of warehouse space, and spoilage from excessive production.

These concepts also apply to the maintenance of bicycles, cameras, foot paths, computers, and other material items. The government would own all of the material items, and would maintain the items, not the citizens or businesses. This would make the maintenance of material items more efficient.

For example, when you want to ride a bicycle, all you do is take a bicycle at one of the storage locations in the city, ride it, and then leave it at any of the other bicycle storage locations. The city maintains the bicycles, not the citizens, so the citizens never have to deal with changing tires, bearings, or sprockets.

When a business needs a CNC laser cutting machine, the management requests it from the government. The business will be expected to take care of the equipment, of course, but the city will be responsible for repairing it, fixing software problems, and upgrading it.

If this type of city seems bizarre or unrealistic, remember that what I am proposing is happening right now in military units and businesses all around the world.

For example, an employee of IBM does not own his office or cubicle, so he cannot renovate his office as he pleases, or repaint the walls when he pleases. He is allowed some freedom to decorate his area, but he does not have any authority to change the structure of the building.

Likewise, when an employee of IBM needs to use a CNC machine, forklift, printer, telephone, or bathroom, he simply uses it. He is not responsible for maintaining it or upgrading it.

The building that IBM employees work in, and all of their equipment, belongs to the organization, not to any individual person. The city I propose would follow the same economic system. All of the buildings, telephones, computers, bicycles, forklifts, and other items would belong to the city, not to any individual person. Everybody would be free to use the items, and everybody would be required to use the items in an appropriate manner, but nobody would be responsible for maintaining, repairing, or upgrading the items.

In a free enterprise system, the development of robots and other complex devices requires such enormous amounts of funding that large businesses have a tremendous advantage over small businesses. By comparison, the economic system I propose makes it easy for individuals and small teams to work on complex products. I mentioned some of the reasons in other documents. To summarize two of them:

1) Entrepreneurs do not need to worry about profit potential

It will be easy for small businesses to get established because they will not need to find investors who can provide enormous amounts of money for them to purchase equipment, office buildings, factories, and other supplies. The city government will own all of the office buildings, factories, supplies, resources, computers, and other items.

The city government will maintain an excess of office areas, factory space, and industrial supplies and equipment specifically to make it easy to let new businesses get established. When a group of people show some potential, the government simply gives them what they need, and if they fail, the government takes back the equipment and supplies. The loss to society for a failure is not as significant in this type of economic system.

When a business fails in a free enterprise system, the investors can lose a lot of money, and the end result is that the investors are very hesitant to give money to projects that don't have a large profit potential. However, when the government owns everything, if a business fails, nobody is going to suffer. The businesses that fail will waste some resources and supplies, of course, but the government will be able to reuse the office space, factory space, and equipment. Failure will not be so devastating, and so the government will not put up a tremendous resistance to supporting a new business. Rather, they will encourage people to start businesses.

In a free enterprise system, people who want to start a business have to make a proposal to investors and show them how much profit they are going to make. In the economic system I propose, the team that wants to start a business would instead give the government a document to explain what project they want to work on, and what the benefit would be to society. They don't have to worry about profit potential. They will only be concerned with trying to improve society.

The government would respond by looking in the database that has details on everybody's life, and they would pass judgment on whether those people are likely to succeed based on their previous achievements and failures.

The government's attitude would be to give everybody lots of chances to test their abilities. The people who are successful in their tasks will have an increasingly easy time getting authorization for a project, and they will be able to get authorization for larger, more complex projects. The people who fail will have an increasingly difficult time getting authorization, especially for large projects.

In our world today, we provide people with so much secrecy, and we tolerate so much deception and false images, that it is very difficult for us to judge an entrepreneur by his past performance because we cannot know the truth about their past performance. This is resulting in a lot of dishonest entrepreneurs who are getting funding for their projects by deceiving people, or becoming friends with somebody who is wealthy, or through blackmail, bribery, or crime networks.
Some people are also getting established in business through divorce settlements, inheritances, and by marrying somebody wealthy.

By eliminating secrecy and keeping track of what everybody does, the government will be able to judge people according to their past performance. This is a better method of determining who gets support.

Furthermore, the schools in the city I propose will be held responsible for the education of the students, and so the school officials are not going to give out diplomas as easily as they do today. The school officials will be responsible for students who cannot do the jobs that they have been trained for, and so the school officials are going to be under pressure to truly provide students with useful skills. The students who are not interested in learning, or who do not have the ability to do a particular job, will be told to try some other course, or drop out of school.

When the school officials are held accountable for their education, a diploma will have much more meaning than it does today. In America today, a college diploma is almost meaningless. Furthermore, it is very easy for people to lie about whether they have a diploma because there is no single database for people to look in to find the truth about a person.

2) Entrepreneurs will be part of the same team, rather than enemies

In a free enterprise system, businesses and employees are in a battle for survival. Many business owners are in fear of bankruptcy, and many employees are in fear of losing their job. Failure in a free enterprise system is devastating. It can cause a person to lose his house and become hungry.

The brutal aspect of free enterprise results in businesses that keep secrets from one another, and they file patents and copyrights so that their competitors cannot use their technology. Teachers want tenure, and employees want unions, and business executives want tariffs and special tax incentives for their business. The free enterprise system encourages fear, fighting, hatred, envy, pouting, and cheating.

For an example of how free enterprise stifles small businesses, imagine if a small team of engineers were to develop a superior air filter for internal combustion engines. The large businesses that are producing engines for automobiles, tractors, and other vehicles are unlikely to be interested in purchasing those air filters from the small business, or paying them for their technology because businesses have no desire to help other businesses. The large businesses are most likely to tell their engineers to work around the patents and make their own variation, thereby driving the small business to bankruptcy.

By comparison, the economic system I propose for a city is the same that is used internally by businesses and militaries. The businesses will be considerably friendlier because failure in this system is meaningless. If a business fails, the government just helps the people start another business, and if they fail repeatedly, the government will help them find jobs instead. If an employee loses his job, the government will help him find another job. People will not live in fear of failure or unemployment. Their basic necessities and homes will be provided for free. Nobody will have to worry about being homeless or hungry.

If you are having trouble understanding how businesses could be so cooperative and friendly, consider how the departments within General Motors are cooperative with each other, even though they are also sometimes in competition with one another. For example, if a department within General Motors were to develop an improved air filter, the other departments would incorporate that air filter in their engines without paying any royalties or asking for permission.

The other departments would not waste their labor or resources on trying to figure out how to make their own variation of the air filter. Actually, if any department tried to work around the patent, the executives would regard them as mentally disturbed for trying to work around technology that they have free access to.

Likewise, if one department of General Motors sabotaged or cheated another department, the executives would be furious that they are hurting their own team.

I suggest a city use the same economic system as a business. In such a city, each business would be analogous to a department within a large company. Small businesses would be able to survive in this economic system for the same reason that a small department can survive in a large corporation. Specifically, all of the businesses would be under the control of the government. They would be essentially departments that belong to the city.

The businesses would be in competition, but the losers would not suffer. They would try again on another project. If they continuously failed, they would be given an easier project, or the business would be dissolved and the people would get jobs in some other business.

The people in this economic system would not be in fear of failure. They would not be trying to sabotage and destroy one another. There will be no such expression as job security. In other words, people will not deliberately do a job at a slow pace, or deliberately make mistakes, in order to prolong their work. Nobody will be in fear of losing their job.

In a free enterprise system, the government is supposed to stay out of the economy, but in the economic system I propose, the government officials would have the same attitude as corporate executives, military leaders, and parents. Specifically, they would want to help their team members be more productive, and so the attitude of the city officials will be to help everybody to develop their skills and achieve their maximum potential. The government would want each person to contribute as much as possible.

Getting established in a small business will be easy because none of the other businesses will be keeping secrets. All of the blueprints, engineering diagrams, and computer software will be in the public domain. This allows a new business to have access to all of the technology, which means the business can take any aspect of any product and try to improve upon it, or add to it, without paying any royalty fees, or purchasing any of the technology.

By providing every citizen and business with free access to products and software, we will have an easier time figuring out which items are the most useful, and which engineers and computer programmers are doing the best job. I mentioned this concept in some previous files, and in this section I'll explain how the concept works with software.

Is the C++ language truly an improvement over the C language? Is Python more productive than the C language? Is Microsoft's Visual Studio better than other IDEs? Is AutoCAD the best software for architecture or engineering?

In a free enterprise system, it is difficult for us to figure out which software or products are the best for a particular application because we cannot afford to purchase all of the available items, and businesses do not have the time to experiment with all of the possible options even if they could afford to purchase them all.

Furthermore, there is no incentive for employees in a free enterprise system to care about efficiency. Many employees live in fear of losing their job, so they are more concerned about getting a paycheck than being efficient, or contributing something of value to society.

Actually, the free enterprise system creates such a fear of unemployment that some employees and businesses deliberately work at a slow pace, or sabotage their work, in order to prolong their work. They refer to this diabolical behavior as "job security". The businesses that repair automobiles have been accused of this disgusting behavior for decades.

In the economic system I propose, the employees are going to be much more concerned about efficiency because it will be very easy for the government officials to compare people who are doing similar jobs.

For example, the mechanics who repair vehicles will be judged according to how well their vehicles remain repaired, rather than by who is bringing in the most profit. Therefore, the mechanics will be under pressure to do the best job possible.

The businesses will be analogous to departments within a corporation. The businesses will not be secretive, and nothing the employees do will be secretive. Everything the employees do will be recorded in a database. It will be easy for the government officials to analyze the factories, computer programmers, carpenters, architects, plumbers, managers, assembly lines, and warehouses.

Computer programmers will be much more interested in producing useful software as quickly as possible, and creating software that can be easily improved upon. They will also be concerned about which language they choose to write functions.

As I described in previous documents, humans need competition, and so government will set up competitions between the businesses. However, the competitions will be judged by the government, not by consumers. For example, if the government wants a particular database function developed, it might ask for two or more businesses to develop the function.

If one business chooses to use the Forth programming language to create the function, and some other business chooses a more appropriate language, then the group that chose the Forth language will have almost nothing when the other group is finished with the function. The government will come to the conclusion that the business that selected the Forth language is incompetent, and that failure will be listed in the database. After a certain number of failures, the government will regard them as hopeless losers and force them to try some other job.

Through the years, this type of competition will show us which computer programmers are making the best decisions about languages, and which of them are writing functions that are the easiest to maintain and modify, and which of them are creating the most useful functions.

Likewise, the people who are maintaining bicycles, trains, and elevators will be under pressure to select tools that are appropriate, and do their work efficiently. The farmers will be compared with one another to see who is doing their job more efficiently, and who is producing the best tasting food.

The free enterprise system causes people to be concerned about profit, but in this system, people are under pressure to think about what is best for society. For example, a farmer might use more resources and labor to produce avocados than another farmer, which would be detrimental in a free enterprise system, but when the government officials are judging the farmers according to their effect on society, and if the government regards his avocados as having a better flavor, or less damage and waste, he may be considered the superior farmer for making life more pleasant for the people compared to the farmer who is more efficient but who produces lower quality avocados.

Likewise, the technicians and mechanics who repair bicycles, trains, and other items will not be under pressure to do the lowest-cost job, and they will have no incentive to sabotage an item in order to create more work for themselves. They will be in the same position as the mechanics within a business who maintain equipment for the business. The mechanics will be under pressure to figure out which tools are the most efficient, and to do a good job.

The mechanics, technicians, engineers, and everybody else will have free access to all of the tools, software, and supplies, and that will allow everybody to experiment with those items to figure out which of items and software are the most productive for their particular tasks. Through the years, this will allow the government to figure out who is producing the most useful products and software, and it will show us which of the mechanics, engineers, and other people are the best at choosing appropriate tools and software.

The technicians and engineers who are too lazy or apathetic to experiment with tools and software will risk appearing incompetent compared to the people who are experimenting with tools and finding those that are more productive. Through the years this will give us engineers and technicians who figure out how to do their jobs more efficiently.

The individual citizens will have free access to computers, phones, software, bicycles, recreational equipment, and other items, and this will allow all of us to try different items, which in turn will allow the government to figure out which items are the most popular. The popular items are not necessarily the best, but by observing which products and software people use the most often, the government can pass judgment on which of the engineers and computer programmers are producing the most useful products, and which of them need to be given another job.

In this type of economic system, it would be possible for individual computer programmers, and small teams of programmers, to make a living simply by improving other people's software. Since nobody can copyright or patent software or inventions, all of the technology would be freely available for everybody to use and modify. Therefore, an individual computer programmer could take a particular function that some other business has created, and which is in use in robots, CNC machines, telephones, or other products, and then alter the function to make it more useful, remove some bugs, add a feature that the users want, or modify the function so that it can be used in some other project, or simply make the function easier to understand and maintain. That particular computer programmer would be analogous to the editor of a book publishing company who improves upon the work of an author rather than creating his own book.

In this type of economic system, people will be judged according to what they accomplish, and whether their accomplishments are beneficial to society. Therefore, if a computer programmer is capable of making some existing software better, or making it easier to apply to other products, or simply making it easier to maintain, he will be performing a useful service to society, and the government will encourage him to continue doing that type of work.

The same concepts apply to the hardware engineers. The engineers will not have to become members of gigantic corporations. They will be able to work as individuals, or in small teams. All of the technology will be freely available to the public, and that will allow an engineer to improve upon the existing technology without worrying about patents, copyrights, or accusations of plagiarism.

As with computer programmers, this economic system will cause the hardware engineers to have a much greater interest in being efficient. For example, some engineers are currently using 3D modeling software to develop a two dimensional component, and when they pass that 3D model on to a machinist, the machinist has to waste time trying to figure out how to convert it into a 2D drawing for use in machining. Those engineers will be less efficient than the engineers who understand more about machining and who provide the machinists with more appropriate drawings.

By judging the engineers according to what they have accomplished for society, the engineers will be under pressure to be efficient, and to do something that the government officials regard as beneficial for society.

The economic system I propose gives everybody virtually the same level of material wealth, and that will prevent people from wasting their life on comparisons of who has the largest pile of material items, the largest house, or the highest salary. Instead, people will compare themselves to one another according to their contributions to society.

In a free enterprise system, the people who acquire large amounts of money are regarded as "successful", and the people who don't make much money are regarded as failures, but in the economic system I propose, we will regard the people who contribute the most improvements to life as being the most successful, and the people who contribute the least will be regarded as the failures. This will encourage people to do something of value for society, rather than just gather a large pile of material items.

In a free enterprise system, there is no concern for whether a person or business is doing any useful work for society. This is allowing charities, think tanks, religions, telemarketers, and businesses to make a profit from useless or deceptive products and services. How can people in those businesses receive job satisfaction?

By comparison, in the economic system I propose, the government will supervise the business activity and pass judgment on who among us is not contributing much of value. The government will have the authority to discontinue products that it determines to have little or no value for us, and to force people to try another job when they are unable to contribute something in the job they are currently doing.

A person who is involved with a job that he cannot do properly will be regarded as an incompetent nitwit who doesn't have a good understanding of his talents or limitations, and who is wasting his time and society's resources. People will be under pressure to learn about themselves, develop their skills, and find a job that allows them to contribute something useful.

People will develop a different attitude towards life in this type of economic system, and I think it will be a more beneficial attitude. I think it will encourage people to regard other people as friends and team members, and to inspire one another to look for ways to improve life for everybody. There will be competition, and that means that some people will be failures, but the people who fail in their jobs will not become homeless or unemployed. The government will simply help them find another job. I think this will create a much more pleasant competition, and that more people will be able to enjoy the competition rather than be annoyed or frightened by it.

Businesses keep track of what their employees are doing, and the employees are held accountable for their actions. For example, if a manager at IBM requests an expensive piece of equipment, and then either rarely uses it, or abuses it, he will be regarded as incompetent, and he will have trouble getting promotions, and might even be fired or given a job that is less demanding.

By comparison, voters show no concern about government officials who waste tax money, or who create idiotic laws. Government officials will not even get in trouble if they don't do anything useful. For example, an official can spend most of his time raising money for his next election without any voter complaining that he should be working on something useful rather than on campaigning.

When a government official does something that upsets the voters, all he has to do is say he is sorry. He will not be fired.

In order for the government system that I propose to be effective, we must hold the government officials and business executives accountable for their actions.

The city that I propose requires high quality leadership, and that requires high quality voters. However, no nation today will hold voters responsible for what they do. When the voters elect an incompetent official, the voters complain about the official, or the other voters, not themselves.

Donald Trump has been president for about nine months, as of September 2017, and so far he has been a disappointment to many of the people who voted for him. However, those voters are not complaining about themselves, and they are not making any attempt to understand how to do a better job of selecting officials in the next election. Instead, they whine about Trump.

During every election we see the same pattern. Specifically, the voters select a candidate who turns out to be dishonest, corrupt, or incompetent, and then the voters complain about him, and then during the next election they repeat the process. The voters never learn from their mistakes because they will not look critically at themselves, and they will not make any attempt to change how they select a candidate. They behave like an obese person who complains about his weight, but never loses any because they either cannot, or will not, change their eating habits.

I think the best solution is to hold voters accountable for what they do. The voters who select candidates who are incompetent, or who give good job performance reviews to candidates who turn out to be inferior, should be fired. Voting should be regarded as a responsibility, and a lot of work. It should not be regarded as a "right" for every citizen.

The free enterprise system is based on the philosophy that we can make people work by offering them money. It is true that both humans and animals can be enticed into performing work when we offer them rewards, such as food or money. However, people who join an organization only for the money will not be as useful as people who care about the team, and they will not be as pleasant to work with because they will not be true team members. They will be analogous to circus animals.

In America, many of the immigrants are becoming citizens for the material wealth, not because they want to be a part of our team. They are not interested in learning English, adapting to our culture, or becoming a member of American society. All they are thinking about is getting access to our food, houses, automobiles, clothing, and televisions. They are not interested in becoming our friends or team members. They are just circus animals who are performing tricks for money.

The foreign policy of the USA is also based on the philosophy that we can manipulate people with money. Specifically, our nation promotes the philosophy that by giving money to foreign nations, we can purchase their friendship. It is certainly true that when we offer money to a foreign nation, their government officials will smile at us, tell us what we want to hear, and may even spend some time doing what we want them to do, but they will not necessarily become our friends.

Ideally, every business, city, nation, orchestra, and other organization would restrict membership to people who are truly interested in joining their team. Ideally, we would not accept members simply because they want access to some money, food, or other reward.

In a free enterprise system, people have to struggle to find a job, and the end result is that many people select jobs that they are not interested in, or they work with people that they do not enjoy. This has a detrimental effect on the work environment. It also results in members of a business or military who don't care about what happens to the organization.

In this video, for example, the military is practicing how to drop vehicles from an airplane. A parachute is supposed to open to allow the vehicle to land gently, but a few of the parachutes failed to open, causing those particular vehicles to crash into the ground. Some of the military personnel who are observing the exercise are laughing about the failures. They are enjoying the destruction, as if it was some type of entertainment. Did they join the military because they want to help protect America? Or did they join the military only to get a paycheck? How many people in the US military are truly interested in protecting the nation?

This concept also applies to the people who start businesses and other organizations. Specifically, some of the people who start businesses have no desire to become a member of the team that they are creating. Instead, they have fantasies of becoming a wealthy and pampered king, and they regard their employees as being similar to a pack of animals to exploit. That type of entrepreneur will not create a pleasant environment for the employees. Rather, the employees will feel as if they are medieval peasants who are serving a King.

Furthermore, that type of entrepreneur will not necessarily be of any value to society because he will be focused on becoming wealthy, not on doing something of value for society.

Our school system also promotes this philosophy. Students are repeatedly told that the more education they get, the more money they will make. This might be enticing thousands of people to get college diplomas, which might seem to be a sensible way of encouraging education, but if people are going to school only to get a diploma, then they are not going to care about their education. Rather, they will be taking the courses simply to get a diploma, and then, like a circus seal, expect a reward.

The ideal situation is to design school courses for students who actually have an interest in learning about themselves, learning a useful skill, and doing something useful with the knowledge that they learn. It is idiotic to design schools to make money, or to provide worthless courses for young women who are looking for a husband, or to allow adults to extend their childhood, or to create worthless courses in social science for the students who cannot handle real science.

The schools should restrict the science classes to students who are truly interested in doing scientific research, and who have the talent to be successful as scientists. Likewise, the courses in machining, farming, and other fields should be restricted to students who are truly interested in learning those skills and doing something productive with their talent. The people who go to school simply to get a diploma are wasting their time and our resources.

Our free enterprise system and our democracy are promoting unrealistic philosophies that create a miserable social environment for us. Our economic system is dominated by businessmen who want to be billionaires, not by people who want to be team members who work with us to improve society for the benefit of all of us. Our schools are full of students who want diplomas, not students who want skills or an education, and who want to use their education to improve life for everybody. Our government and military are full of people who want a paycheck, not people who want to defend the nation, deal with the nation's problems, or even expose and stop the crime networks that are involved with pedophilia, the 9/11 attack, or the world wars.

We must stop promoting the attitude that we can control human behavior with punishments and rewards. This philosophy is creating a miserable social environment, and a lot of stress, hatred, pouting, envy, and whining. We must face the evidence that human behavior is genetic, not environmental.

We cannot fix our miserable social environment simply by passing some more laws, or by "returning to the Constitution," or by allowing the voters to select another group of corrupt, incompetent government officials. We need to be willing to experiment with a new attitude towards life, a new government system, a new school system, a new economic system, and other new social technology.

As of October 2017, Donald Trump has been president for ten months. If Trump had been hired for an "ordinary" job in a business or factory, he would have been given a job performance review by now.

If the people who vote would do their job properly, then millions of voters would review and discuss Trump's performance, and they would pass judgment on whether he is performing his job adequately, and if not, they would select somebody to replace him.

Although millions of voters are regularly complaining about Trump, they are not bothering to do an analysis of Trump or his job performance. Rather, they are just whining, complaining, hating, and insulting. Some people behave even worse; they are getting into fistfights, throwing rocks, or participating in obnoxious protests in the streets.

Most voters are so ignorant that they don't realize that they have the freedom to replace an incompetent president whenever they please, and they do not have to let the Vice President replace the president. They can choose anybody as a replacement. The voters are not as helpless as they claim to be.

We have a government of submissive servants who do whatever they are told. However, most voters do not take an active role in telling their government what to do, and this allows crime networks, billionaires, businesses, religions, charities, and other people to fight for control of the government.

To be fair to the voters, we cannot provide sensible job performance reviews to government officials until we remove the secrecy that we are providing them. Waitresses, assembly-line workers, and most other employees are closely monitored, which makes it easy for supervisors to give them performance reviews. Some companies go so far as to install software on their computers to record keystrokes, thereby allowing supervisors to determine whether the employees are wasting time at pornographic websites or doing useful work.

By comparison, we allow business executives, government officials, school officials, Hollywood celebrities, journalists, and other people in influential positions to have such incredible levels of secrecy that we cannot figure out what they are doing, who they work with, or whether they are doing their jobs properly.

Actually, we are providing so much secrecy to our government officials that we cannot figure out if Donald Trump is going senile. We don't have access to any of his medical records, either.

Some of our leaders, such as those in the military and law enforcement, need a certain amount of secrecy in order to prevent criminals and foreign nations from knowing what they are doing, but the majority of government officials do not need secrecy. There is no reason anybody in the Department of Education needs secrecy, for example. We should be able to observe what the leaders of that department are doing each day.

Until we are willing to change our attitudes and begin treating people in influential positions as employees, as opposed to treating them as Kings and Queens who deserve special treatment, nothing is going to improve.

The Trump administration gave this list of their accomplishments after 100 days. I agree that he has done a few useful things, such as refusing to support the global warming and carbon tax policy. However, after ten months, I would expect much more.

His administration boasts that they have reduced some government expenses, and encouraged some businesses to remain in the United States, but I would not describe those as "achievements" because every government official does that. Every government official is willing to cut funding to the programs that they don't approve of, and every government official encourages businesses to remain in their particular area in order to create jobs and impress the voters.

Furthermore, some of what the Trump administration takes credit for is what I would describe as the same stupid policies that I would expect from the liberals. For example, they boast about HR 321, which tells NASA to encourage women and girls to study science, but that is not helping the nation. That is encouraging the idiotic philosophy that men and women are unisex creatures, and that the reason women are not doing well in engineering and science is because they are being suppressed by sexism, and that the solution to this problem is to feel sorry for women, give them special pampering, and put pressure on men to give more jobs to women.

From my casual observations of how almost nothing has improved in the United States during the past 10 months, it seems to me that Trump has spent most of his time playing golf, traveling, and posting silly comments on Twitter.

The only time he impresses me is when he stands up to the dishonest journalists who are trying to manipulate him. However, he could do much more than that. For example, he could complain that the war in the Middle East is a fraud based on a false flag event, and that he wants it stopped immediately. He could also demand investigations into the crimes that the journalists are ignoring, such as the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and the shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017.

Furthermore, I would say that Trump has done a terrible job of selecting people for his team because instead of selecting people who work together to do something beneficial for the nation, he has selected people who seem to spend a lot of time fighting with and firing one another, and some of them appear to be supporters of Obama rather than Trump.

Imagine if a business had executives that were spending as much time fighting with each other and firing one another as the members of the Trump administration have been doing.

I would also say that Trump has shown that he has no interest in fulfilling his vague promises. For example, he promised to "drain the swamp", and although he didn't provide any details on what that phrase meant, a lot of his supporters assumed he was going to investigate the corruption and pedophile network in our government, and arrest the criminal government officials. However, he never talks about an investigation of the pedophile network, or the corruption in the government.

When is he going to "drain the swamp"? Some of Trump's supporters are claiming that he has been working on the problem ever since he got elected, but that it is taking him longer than expected because there are more criminals in the government than Trump had anticipated. These people are telling us to give Trump more time, but how much longer should we wait before we see some results?

Business executives have to regularly deal with this dilemma of how long to wait for a person to accomplish a task. For example, when a business hires somebody for their management team, they must eventually review the progress of the person, and they must make a decision about whether the person can do his job properly. Business executives do not make excuses for managers who accomplish nothing, such as by saying, "He has only been a manager for ten months. Give him a few more years! He is working on the problem right now!"

Trump has been president for ten months, and I would say ten months is plenty of time to show us some evidence that he has leadership abilities. Take a look at what other people accomplish within ten months. Scientists, engineers, technicians, carpenters, farmers, plumbers, and other people can accomplish a lot of impressive work in ten months.

Ten months is plenty of time for Trump to provide us with some intelligent analyses and suggestions, but all he has given us during those ten months is a few vague remarks on Twitter.

On 23 February 2017, Trump said one of the priorities of his administration is dealing with "human trafficking", but our government already had programs to stop human trafficking. In response to people who complain that Trump is doing nothing to arrest the pedophile networks, stop the Mideast war, reduce taxes, or anything else, hundreds of Trump supporters have posted documents or videos on the Internet that claim that Trump has arrested thousands of pedophiles.

For example, on 25 February 2017, only two days after Trump made that announcement, a journalist named Liz Crokin claimed that 1500 pedophiles were arrested during Trump's first month.

Is it possible for a president, during one month, to have 1500 pedophiles investigated and arrested? I don't think so. Such a rapid investigation implies that the police already knew about the pedophiles, and were investigating them before Trump was elected.

On 3 April 2017, Trump had been president for less than three months, and Daniel Newton claimed that 3000 pedophiles have been arrested. Does Trump deserve credit for the arrest of any of those 3000 pedophiles? If so, what has he done to cause those arrests?

In October 2017, Liz Crokin posted another document that claimed that Trump has just arrested two dozen "elite" pedophiles. She also implies that Trump deserves credit for exposing Harvey Weinstein.

If Trump is truly responsible for the arrest and exposure of these pedophiles and sexual predators, why doesn't he boast about it? He seems to look for opportunities to boast about himself. He boasts repeatedly about improving the economy and getting rid of unnecessary government regulations, so why does he remain silent about the arrests of thousands of pedophiles?

It is possible that Trump did not do anything to help with the arrests of those pedophiles. Perhaps all Trump should get credit for is not interfering with the investigations.

The reports about Jimmy Saville and other pedophiles show us that the police investigations have routinely been blocked or terminated by other government officials, so it is possible that the reason those arrests occurred after Trump was elected is simply because Trump did not try to stop them. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, the FBI and other government agencies may have been able to terminate those investigations.

It is possible that Trump does not even realize that thousands of pedophiles have been arrested. The reason I suspect this is because he does not seem to browse the Internet for information. Instead, he seems to behave like a medieval King who depends upon his staff members and daughter to provide him with information, and they may not be providing him with information about those arrests.

It is possible that Trump has done nothing to assist with the arrest of pedophiles. It is possible that he only deserves credit for not preventing the police from doing their job. However, I would not describe that as an achievement of the Trump administration, and it is not justification to let him remain in a position of importance.

There are millions of people who would have allowed the police to do their job, and there are lots of people who would have gone even further, such as demanding that the police conduct an investigation of the Comet Pizza parlor, the Hollywood directors, the FBI, the Washington DC Police Department, the Hollywood Police Department, and Voodoo Doughnut.

If Trump is not interfering with the arrest of pedophiles, then he is a better official than those who interfere with investigations, but we should not be satisfied with a leader who allows the police to do their job properly. We need a leader who takes an active role in improving the nation. We don't need a leader who wastes his time playing golf and posting silly tweets.

To make the situation more ridiculous, in September 2017, both Trump and North Korea's leader were making idiotic insults about one another. We need leaders who have something intelligent to say, not leaders who behave like that. Imagine scientists, carpenters, plumbers, and waitresses sending out idiotic and insulting tweets about one another rather than doing their job.

Furthermore, voters should wonder why the pedophiles who have been arrested so far have been unknown to the public. Aside from Anthony Weiner, the police have not arrested any of our government officials, military leaders, sheriffs, judges, lawyers, journalists, or Hollywood executives.

For all we know, the police are arresting only the pedophiles of no importance in order to create the impression that they are trying to stop pedophilia, when in reality they are continuing to protect all of the pedophiles at the top positions of society.

We also ought to wonder why, in October 2017, the New York Times accused Harvey Weinstein of being a "sexual predator". Why are they releasing this information now when many people claim to have known of it for decades?

If the New York Times is truly is concerned about sexual abuse, then why don't they provide us with information about Corey Feldman's claims that children are being sexually abused in Hollywood?

The New York Police Department secretly recorded Weinstein as he was trying to manipulate and intimidate a woman into some type of sex act, and then they released the audio to the public. Why did they decide to expose Weinstein but nobody else? If they are truly interested in stopping abuse and crime, why don't they release what they know about the 9/11 attack? Why are they protecting the crime network that is responsible for that attack?

Scotland Yard is also investigating Harvey Weinstein. If they care so much about sexual abuse, then why don't they investigate the pedophile network that Jimmy Saville was involved with? Why don't they also investigate the mysterious death of Princess Diana?

Katy Perry

And when are the journalists, actresses, and other people who are complaining about Weinstein going to expose the hidden meanings in Katy Perry's song, California Gurls? Who in the Hollywood did Katy Perry and other entertainers have to participate in orgies with in order to become famous celebrities? And what type of orgies were they?

Lady Gaga gave a bizarre musical performance in which she sang a song about "swine", with people on the stage looking like and crawling around like pigs. (Here are the lyrics.) Why don't the journalists provide information on who and what she was complaining about?

Update 18 July 2018: Somebody sent me a link to this video of her "swine" performance. The video begins with her giving an explanation of why she wrote the song, although she doesn't provide details about who she is referring to when she says "you're just a pig inside a human body". After I watched that video, I realized that I had recorded a higher quality version of her explanation a year ago. Her audience frequently yells as she talks, so I cut out some of their obnoxious noises, and I posted that edited MP3 audio file here: Lady-Gaga-swine-edited.mp3    830 Kbytes

It is possible that the people exposing Weinstein are simply deceiving us once again. Perhaps the journalists and New York City police are exposing Weinstein to create the impression that they will not tolerate sexual abuse. If they fool people into believing that, then they will be able to continue protecting all of the people who are worse than Weinstein.

Or are they releasing this information about Weinstein to satisfy the Trump administration's demands to reduce sexual abuse?

I don't know what is going on, but the journalists, police, FBI, and other agencies are not cleaning the government, media, schools, or businesses of criminals or pedophiles. They are not being completely honest with us.

Voters should take an active role in reviewing the job performance of government officials, and they should regularly replace the government officials who are the least beneficial. The voters should be providing us with leaders who are spending their time analyzing our problems, experimenting with improvements, and providing us with guidance, not leaders who spend their time golfing, traveling, posting silly tweets, and sitting in front of a fireplace for photographs with corrupt officials, such as Angela Merkel.

A lot of events have occurred since Trump was elected, but how many of those events can Trump truly take credit for? For example, in addition to the arrest of pedophiles, there have been thousands of arrests of burglars, murderers, and car thieves, but does Trump get credit for those arrests, also? Furthermore, there has been lots of technical progress, and you may have accomplished something in 2017, also. I posted several articles since Trump has been elected, but does he get credit for any of my articles?

Most voters don't care whether they understand what a candidate is promising them, and they don't care whether a candidate fulfills his promises. As a result, political candidates regularly make vague promises, and none of the voters demand that the candidates explain what the promises are, or show evidence that they are capable of achieving those promises. Instead, the voters respond to the vague promises like a child who is given a coloring book to play with. Specifically, the voters fill in the details in the manner that pleases them.

When Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp, millions of voters essentially picked up some crayons and began filling in the missing details with whatever they pleased. To some of the voters, draining the swamp meant arresting Hillary Clinton, and to others, it meant investigating the pedophile network.

In September 2017, Steve Bannon appeared on the 60 Minutes television show, and when he was asked what was meant by "draining the swamp," he did not say that it was to arrest Hillary Clinton, or investigate the 9/11 attack, or investigate the pedophile network, or investigate the comet pizza parlor. Rather, he said that the "swamp" refers to the manner in which our government operates, and that "draining the swamp" merely refers to improving the manner in which the government operates. He also said that it will require 20 to 30 years to make such improvements.

It should be obvious that Steve Bannon is making excuses for why nothing is going to improve with the government. The incompetent voters have once again replaced an incompetent, corrupt government with another incompetent, corrupt government.

The behavior of the voters reminds me of the way women look for husbands. Women are passive during courtship. They make themselves look pretty, put themselves on display in public, and patiently wait for a man to pursue them and titillate them.

The passive personality of women can be seen in the images that single women choose for their Facebook pages. For example, single women are much more likely than single men to display a variation of the image to the right. That image shows the typical female attitude of sitting around in public and waiting for a man to pursue her.

We can gain some insight to a woman's attitude by observing our close animal relatives. Since we are a variation of those animals, we are likely to have the exact same characteristics, although those characteristics will have been modified to some extent. It is unlikely that during the evolution of humans that we would have lost a characteristic that has been part of our animal ancestry for millions of years, or that we developed some completely new and unique characteristics that no other animal has.

Two characteristics that are important to notice in the female animals that are closely related to humans are:

1) The female animals spend their time taking care of their children. They expect the males to bring them food and provide them with protection.

2) When the females are single and looking for a mate, they passively wait for the males to pursue and titillate them. Only a small minority of females are aggressive enough, or desperate enough, to pursue a male.

Because women are so passive, they do not make effective leaders or voters. A woman is likely to wait for things to happen, rather than go out into the world and make things happen. For example, women are not likely to search for potential political candidates. A woman is more likely to wait for people to become candidates.

After a woman elects a candidate, she is less likely than a man to want to give him a job performance review, and less likely to take action against the incompetent or corrupt officials. She is more likely to be passive about his job performance, and to wait for somebody else to deal with incompetence and corruption.

Because of the genetic differences between people, some women are more aggressive than others, and some men are more passive and submissive. The men who have an abnormally passive personality are also unlikely to make effective leaders or voters. As with women, they will have a tendency to passively wait for other people to do things for them.

Most voters, regardless of which political party they belong to, are as passive and submissive as women. Specifically, they wait and wait and wait for their elected officials to do something useful. After four years of failures, most voters reelect the same official, and then wait four more years for something useful to happen.

Most voters have been behaving like this in the previous elections, and we can be certain that they will continue behaving this way in the future elections. A leopard cannot change its spots. We have to face the evidence that the majority of people do not have the intellectual and/or emotional qualities to be effective voters.

Incidentally, the feminists are encouraging women to find a man that is their equal, and if other women follow that advice, they will show a preference for the men who are abnormally feminine. This in turn will result in each generation of men becoming more passive, submissive, and feminine.

In September 2017, Roger Stone appeared on the Alex Jones show to claim that Donald Trump is being drugged and manipulated by people in his administration. Alex Jones wondered if Trump was being given small doses of poison, and for the purpose of incapacitating and manipulating him, and possibly to eventually kill him.

The speculations that Trump is being drugged have been ridiculed by a lot of people, including many liberals who want Trump to be removed, but it is one of the possible ways of explaining why Trump has been reversing some of his opinions on policies, and why he sends out silly tweets rather than provide us with intelligent analyses and suggestions.

It would also explain the accusations that some of the people in the Trump administration are censoring information that Trump is allowed to see, such as this article which accuses John Kelly of censoring information.

This brings up the issue of whether the people who are trying to control the information that Trump has access to are doing this to protect him from propaganda, or because they are working for a crime network and are trying to manipulate him.

Furthermore, why would anybody feel a need to protect Trump from information? Doesn't Trump have the ability to think for himself?

If Trump is truly an intelligent, independent man, then he can look at whatever information he pleases, and he will be able to provide his administration with intelligent analyses of that information. He would be able to censor information for people who are less intelligent, or who have less of an ability to think for themselves and a greater tendency to follow the crowd like a dumb sheep.

If, however, Trump is the person who needs censorship, that is an indication that his mind does not function very well.

Do you need somebody to censor information for you? If not, why would Trump need it? The fact that Trump's administration believes that Trump needs to be censored from information is an indication that they do not believe that his mind is functioning well enough to make wise decisions. This would be more evidence that Trump truly is becoming senile.

Does Trump have any idea of what people are saying about him on the Internet, such as wondering if his administration is censoring information, and wondering if he is being drugged or poisoned? How would you feel if you were the president of the USA, and people on the Internet were making these remarks about you?

Another way to explain why his administration would censor his information is that he may not be able to do his own research because he may not know how to use a computer or search the Internet.

This brings up the issue of how it is possible for somebody to reach such a high level of influence in society without knowing how to use a computer. Does he live like a medieval King who sits on a throne and tells other people to do everything for him? Doesn't he ever want to do any research on his own? Doesn't he want to write a memo or a document? Doesn't he sometimes need to make or look at a spreadsheet or graphic image?

Or, does he have some disorder that makes it difficult for him to learn how to use a computer? Perhaps he has a problem similar to ADHD, which makes it difficult for him to sit still, learn, listen to people, have a normal conversation, and function properly.

Trump has shown an ability to type brief remarks into Twitter, but as far as I know, he has never posted any documents on the Internet, or talked about what he has seen on the Internet, so it is possible that all he is capable of doing is using a phone and posting remarks on Twitter.

It is absurd for the voters of a modern nation to elect a man to be their president if he is so technically incompetent that he cannot use a computer, email, or the Internet, but the voters never show any concern for the mental abilities, skills, or past performance of candidates. The voters select candidates according to how the candidates titillate their emotions, so it is entirely possible that Trump is incapable of using a computer, and that he is dependent upon other people to provide him with information about the world.

If people in the Trump administration are censoring his information, then Trump is not the president of the United States. Rather, he is in the same role as King Tut, who became the king of Egypt when he was 9 or 10 years old, and who was entirely dependent upon his father's advisers to tell him how to run the kingdom.

This brings up the issue of who the people in the Trump administration are working for, and what their goal is. As of September 2017, it appears as if those people are working for a network of Jews since they are continuing to promote Israel, protect all of the crimes that Jews are involved with, provide foreign aid to Israel, and hire Jews in the Trump administration.

Among animals and prehistoric humans, the leader of the group is a young, healthy, aggressive male who takes an active role in protecting the group. For example, when a group of animals or prehistoric people are in danger, the leader will rush to the defense of the group. The leader of a pack of animals or prehistoric humans does not hide in a cave during times of danger. Furthermore, the leaders do not need advisors to tell him what to do, or need to have information censored.

Our leaders should be providing us with guidance; we should not feel a need to censor information for them, or protect them from criticism, or provide them with emotional comfort during difficult times. They should be providing leadership and advice to us; we should not be providing advice to them.

The reason we have so many leaders who need protection from problems and criticism is because we don't have any standards for people in leadership positions. Religious leaders and government officials, for example, can be senile, stupid, uneducated, and neurotic without anybody caring. We also allow people to get into top leadership positions of businesses, charities, and other organizations through blackmail, nepotism, bribery, and divorce settlements.

We must raise standards for people in leadership positions. We must demand that they be able to provide guidance to their members. We should not feel any need to protect them from criticism, problems, or information. They should be protecting us.

If Trump needs information to be censored, and if he needs protection from critical remarks, then we should fire him. Furthermore, if Trump cannot use a computer, browse the Internet, or write a document for himself, he should be fired. We should stop behaving like submissive monkeys around our leaders and start demanding that they provide us with leadership, or be replaced.

From my casual observations of the Trump administration, my conclusion is that there is something seriously wrong with Donald Trump, but I am not sure what. Two possibilities are:

a) Trump truly is a liberal, as he claimed in the 1990s. If this possibility is true, then he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he should be regarded as a criminal, a liar, and a con artist who has deceived the voters.

b) Trump's brain has deteriorated to such an extent that other people are capable of manipulating him. If this possibility is true, then he should be regarded as unsuitable for a leadership position.

About two years ago, in September 2015, I posted my first analysis of Donald Trump, and at that time I suspected that he was truly a friend of the Clintons, and that he was a liberal, and that he was lying about being a conservative.

He was threatening to have the Clintons arrested at that time, but after getting elected he abruptly switched to ignoring the Clintons, which could be a sign that he really is their friend. Furthermore, and even worse, his inability to say something intelligent during the past 10 months makes me suspect that he is going senile.

On 7 October 2017, President Trump was interviewed by Mike Huckabee. Since he feels comfortable with Huckabee, it was a friendly, relaxed interview. However, Trump did not say anything that I would describe as intelligent. Even worse, he would frequently terminate a sentence before it was completed and then start another sentence.

Compare that interview to an interview he did a few decades earlier, such as this one when he was 33 years old. He was completing his sentences years ago.

Unfortunately, most conservatives are not willing to consider the possibility that Trump is a liar, or that he is going senile. Most conservatives seem to be choosing another option. Specifically, they are claiming that the reason Trump has not accomplished anything in nine months is because almost all of the other government officials have been fighting with him rather than working with him to improve the nation.

When a government official does nothing of value after getting elected, the people who voted for him are likely to blame his failures on the government officials who are opposing him. The voters put up a tremendous resistance to the possibility that the reason our government officials are so ineffective is because the voters are consistently choosing incompetent and dishonest candidates.

In September 2017, David Zubrick interviewed a journalist named Liz Crokin who offered a different excuse for Trump's failure to investigate and arrest the pedophiles at the top levels of the government. She said that about one third of the government are pedophiles, and that if this information were released to the public, most people would not be able to cope with it.

She implies that the majority of people are such mentally incompetent nitwits that tens of millions of them would become so emotionally distraught that they would not be able to feed themselves, go to work, or take care of their children. Therefore, to prevent emotional trauma in the public, and to keep the nation functioning, Trump is investigating the pedophile network very quietly, secretly, and cautiously.

When I first began exposing the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, a lot of Jews responded by promoting the theory that the public would not be able to handle such information, and so we should expose the less controversial aspects of the 9/11 attack, such as that some of the men who were accused of being hijackers were alive.

The theory that we should not expose a crime because the public will not be able to handle the truth is just a trick that criminals use to fool us into remaining silent about their crimes.

If I had been elected President, I would not want to fight the crime network secretly or cautiously. I would take advantage of the opportunity to bring all of this information out in the open, and for the purpose of getting as much support as possible from the public, military, police, and other nations.

I would have a news conference and announce that I believe that Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, and that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, and that Jews are lying about the world wars, the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, and lots of other historical events. I would ask everybody in the world to help investigate these issues, and help to make the world a better place. I would look for support, not conduct a secretive investigation at a cautious pace.

In my news conference to the world, I would admit that I don't know much about pedophile networks, but that the email messages released by WikiLeaks have made me suspicious of Comet Pizza, Voodoo Doughnut, and other businesses that display pedophile symbols. I would ask the world to assist in an investigation of this issue, and I would ask the public to provide whatever information they know so that we can make a wise determination about whether these businesses are involved with a pedophile network, or if we are misinterpreting their logos.

I would also ask for an investigation of the government officials who have made lots of strange remarks about pizza and hot dogs. And I would ask for investigation of all of the journalists, comedians, and other influential people who ridiculed the pedophile accusations as an idiotic conspiracy theory.

Liz Crokin claims that a third of our government are pedophiles, but I would not be surprised if it is actually much more than that. The reason I wonder about this is because during the past few years there have been so many cases of pedophilia, and so many government officials, journalists, and police chiefs who are refusing to investigate the pedophile networks, that it makes me wonder if nearly all of the government officials and journalists are involved with a pedophile network.

Furthermore, all throughout my life I have been hearing complaints about pedophilia at churches, Boy Scouts troops, daycare centers, and gymnastics training centers. A few years ago a reader of my website, who worked at a children's hospital, pointed out to me that police cars were arriving regularly during the evenings and late at night, causing us to wonder if some of the police and staff at the children's hospitals are involved with a pedophile network. In September 2017, this article was posted to claim that at least 11 mayors have been accused of sex-related crimes from 2016 to September 2017.

There have been so many accusations that people in influential positions are involved with pedophilia that I would not be surprised to discover that nearly 100% of the Congress, governors, mayors, sheriffs, district attorneys, television celebrities, Hollywood celebrities, and top military commanders are involved with pedophilia or helping to cover it up.

That would be one way to explain why our government, military, law enforcement, and other influential leaders never do anything to expose or stop the pedophile networks.

What would happen if Trump held a news conference and explained to the world that he does not believe the official story of 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, or the Holocaust? What would happen if he told the public that he is receiving threats from the dishonest government officials that he had better not investigate any of these crimes? What would happen if he asked the public to support and help the honest policemen who want to investigate these crimes?

Is Liz Crokin correct that the public would have a nervous breakdown, and then our economy would collapse, and then we would all become hungry and homeless? I don't think so.

Rather, I think that lots of criminals would become angry, frustrated, and frightened, and the sheeple would be forced to face reality, and many of the sheeple would choose to help expose and stop the crime networks.

I cannot think of any sensible reason for Trump to investigate the pedophile network secretly or cautiously. I also do not see any sensible reason for Trump to continue promoting the lies about the 9/11 attack, the Holohoax, the Apollo moon landing, and other events.

If I had been elected president of the United States, I would expose these crimes, and I would ask for help in making the world a better place. I think we will accomplish more by exposing the truth and encouraging people to participate.

By remaining silent, Trump is allowing the crime networks to continue their abusive operations and diabolical plans. As I write this, in October 2017, the Jews are struggling to trick the government into allowing them to shut down "hate" sites and "hate" speech.

The Jews already have control of our media and school books, but they do not have control of the Internet, and so they are now struggling to get the authority to shut down and suppress anybody that they claim is spreading hatred, Nazi propaganda, anti-Semitism, sexism, racism, or anti-diversity.

There are also some people advocating that we arrest or suppress the people who are denying global warming. By remaining silent, Trump is allowing the criminals to continue working on their attempts to manipulate and dominate us.

Steve Bannon has control of Breitbart News, so he has the authority to use that news outlet to expose the lies of 9/11, Anne Frank's diary, the attack on the USS Liberty, the Apollo moon landing, and the pedophile networks. However, he is promoting almost the same propaganda as ABC, Fox News, and CNN. It appears that Breitbart News is just a different network of Jewish criminals, not an honest group of American citizens.

Humans, especially the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives", have a very strong craving to follow their leader. Therefore, if Trump were to bring all of these issues out into the public and ask for help, many people would follow along and help Trump expose and stop the crime networks. However, as long as Trump and other authorities remain silent, the public will continue ignoring these problems.

Most people cannot think well enough or exert enough self-control to cope with modern life and modern crime networks. The public needs guidance and advice. Therefore, if Trump would expose the corruption to the public, he could become a leader who causes the "crazy conspiracy theories" to transform into "official problems of the United States". He would encourage some of the apathetic sheep to get involved and help improve the nation.

If you have watched the movie They Live, or if you have watched episodes of the television show, The Invaders, you may recall a scene in which the aliens are explaining to a human that it is hopeless for the humans to fight them, and if they join the organization, they will be rewarded, and they will help to make the world a better place for both humans and aliens. I suspect that the Jewish crime network has been using that technique for centuries as a way of tricking people into joining their organization.

Specifically, whenever the Jews noticed that a person was opposing their crime network, they tormented him to the point at which he comes to the conclusion that it is hopeless to fight such a large network. The Jews would then offer him the opportunity to become a member of a network of wonderful, elite government officials, scientists, doctors, Hollywood celebrities, and teachers who are trying to improve the world.

The Jews would claim that the reason their organization must use illegal and diabolical techniques is because they are a small group of people, and the majority of people are crude, stupid, irrational animals who do not respond to intelligent reasoning. Of course, the Jews would never tell the person the truth that he would actually become just another of their pawns, and that he is being deceived about the true goals of the organization.

Once a person makes the mistake of joining the network, he would undoubtedly be pressured into committing a crime that he can be blackmailed over, if he has not already committed such a crime. Once the person has committed the initiation crime, such as pedophilia, he will try to stop other people from exposing and destroying the network. In this manner, the Jews can enlarge their crime network.

However, that type of network is not very stable. An organization that is held together by fear and blackmail can easily and rapidly disintegrate. All we have to do is release the blackmailed puppets from their fear. The way to do that is to offer them the opportunity to turn on their network in return for special treatment, and to offer them protection from the crime network. However, the blackmailed puppets are not going to take that deal unless they believe that the government can be trusted, and that the government can and will protect them from retaliation.

Would any blackmailed puppet trust the Trump administration? Perhaps, but I would not trust the Trump administration. In addition to wondering if Trump is going senile, I also wonder if he is lying to us about being a Republican.

Somebody posted an accusation on the Internet that Trump said in 1998 that if he were to run for president, he would run as a Republican because "They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific." Lots of people have responded that Trump never made any such remark.

During the presidential campaign, he was threatening to arrest Hillary Clinton, but after he became president, he switched to saying that she has suffered enough. That reversal could be used as evidence that he is following his plan in 1998 to lie to the Republicans.

It is certainly possible that Trump is faking senility, and that he is only pretending to like Hillary Clinton, while he is secretly arranging for investigations and arrests, but it would be foolish to assume our wild fantasies about what he might be doing. We should judge people by what they actually do and say, not by what we hope they are doing.

If we could provide ourselves with a more respectable President, then the President could encourage the blackmailed puppets to rebel in return for special treatment and protection, and we would certainly find that some of the blackmail victims would love to take the opportunity to help destroy the crime network. It cannot be much fun to be a blackmailed puppet. Certainly some of them would enjoy destroying the network and freeing themselves from the blackmail.

You might wonder why I would believe that somebody could be dumb enough to join a crime network without realizing that he is joining a crime network. In 2017, it would be difficult to trick a person into joining a crime network, but if you are old enough to remember what life was like before the Internet, then you should be able to realize that it would be fairly easy to trick people into becoming a member of a crime network, especially teenagers and young adults.

Before the Internet existed, almost all of our information was coming from newspapers, magazines, books, and television, all of which was dominated by Jews. In that era, most of us believed that the Nazis had killed and burned 6 million Jews and 3 million other people, and that six teams of Apollo astronauts had landed on the moon, and that Anne Frank wrote a diary before dieing in a Nazi death camp.

Most of us believed all of the propaganda that the Jews were providing to us. It was difficult for people in that era to learn the truth. For example, I believed that Israel was created by the United Nations because that is what the Jews told us.

As I wrote about here, I spent a lot of time in the library looking at microfilm copies of the New York Times in an attempt to understand the Mideast wars, and I inadvertently discovered that Israel was not created by the United Nations, and that the Jews were lying to us.

If I had been living in a city that did not provide easy access to microfilmed newspapers, or if I had been a typical person who has no interest in understanding the world or doing my own research, I would not have discovered that I was lied to. By comparison, most people don't want to think for themselves or do their own research, so it is easy to deceive and manipulate them.

I can understand how the Jews would be able to trick people decades ago into joining their crime network. The Jews would create the impression that the people were joining an elite group of world leaders, scientists, doctors, policemen, military leaders, lawyers, school teachers, and business executives. It would have been easy for the Jews to hide the fact that the crime network was actually dominated by religious fanatics, pedophiles, murderers, plagiarists, and lunatics.

I also suspect that some of the people who were tricked into joining the Jewish crime network did not realize that they were part of a crime network until after they were exposed to the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. I suspect that when those people realized that the towers had been blown up, they started wondering to themselves,

"I thought I had joined a group of intelligent, responsible people who were helping the world. What kind of organization did I join? Who am I working with? Who is in control of this organization, and what is their true goal?"

Some of the people who joined the organization may have looked for ways to get out of it, but if they had gone through some illegal initiation ceremony, they might have been too afraid to oppose the network. I think Trump should bring all of this information out into the open, and give the people the opportunity to turn on the network, expose everything they know, and in return they will be regarded as "victims" of the crime network rather than as "criminals". If they refuse to turn on the network, they should be classified as "criminals".

Some people are noticeably more successful at their jobs, relationships, home maintenance, hobbies, and chores around their home. Some people are more successful at arranging dinners, parties, and recreational events with their friends or family. Some people are more successful at controlling their food consumption, temper, and pouting,

At the other extreme are people who make lots of mistakes, have lots of accidents, are less efficient at doing chores around their home, have more chaotic dinners and recreational events, have more trouble with relationships, get into more arguments, and have a more stressful personal life.

We have a tendency to classify people into two groups; namely, smart and stupid. This causes us to refer to people who are having problems as being "stupid", but life is not that simple. There are lots of stupid people who are doing an excellent job of taking care of themselves, doing their jobs properly, forming successful and pleasant relationships with other people, controlling their consumption of food and alcohol, and setting up a pleasant life for themselves and their family.

At the other extreme are people who are far above average intelligence, but who have chaotic, miserable, stressful lives.

I think our emotional characteristics play a larger role in our success than our intelligence. For example, it is not stupidity that causes people to embezzle, rape, shoplift, eat excessive amounts of food, or grab at women on crowded trains. The people who have the most trouble in life seem to be those who are more likely to follow their emotional cravings rather than think, look critically at themselves, exert self-control, and experiment with their options.

For example, consider the issue of obesity. It is unlikely that there were obese people 50,000 years ago. Today there are obese people everywhere. Why are some people obese?

The only sensible way to explain obesity is that the obese people are eating more food than they need, but why are they doing this? It is not due to a lack of intelligence or education. It is because they are following their emotional craving to eat when they should be ignoring it.

If we could analyze our DNA, we would find that each of us has a brain with a different level of self-control, and we each experience a slightly different craving for food when we become hungry. The most obvious example of how we have different cravings for food are the people with Prader-Willi syndrome, who experience hunger even when their stomach is about to burst open from an excessive amount of food.

Our bodies also differ in their ability to digest food, convert food to fat, and sense when it has had enough food.

If a person has a digestive system that is better-than-average, or if he has a better-than-average ability to convert food into fat, he must eat less than everybody else. However, if he has the same appetite and level of self-control as other people, he may eat as much as they do, which would result in him becoming overweight.

Likewise, a person with an excessively powerful hunger emotion must exert more self control than a person who has a weaker craving for food.

Evolution gives a creature only what it actually needs for its survival, and prehistoric people did not need a high quality control mechanism for food. It is possible for animals and prehistoric humans to have absurd or defective cravings for food without it causing obesity or other problems.

For example, if a prehistoric child had Prader-Willi syndrome, would his parents or anybody else in the tribe have noticed that there was something wrong with him? Not necessarily. A nomadic, prehistoric child would never be able to become obese. His craving for food might cause him to spend more time whining for food, but the other people might regard him as a crybaby, not as somebody suffering from a medical syndrome.

Some of the emotional, physical, and mental characteristics that were tolerable or desirable during prehistoric times are no longer acceptable. People today need higher-quality emotions, such as more self-control, an ability to learn from constructive criticism, and an ability to work with other people for the benefit of the group. We also need to become less sheep-like so that we can become more willing to explore the world, think for ourselves, be more tolerant of different opinions, and discuss with one another where we we want to go in our future.

We currently regard people as being "successful" if they make more money than the ordinary person, but I think that is an idiotic way to determine whether a person is a success or a failure. I would say that a person is a success when he has figured out how to set up a pleasant life for himself and his family. I would say most people are failures, even though some of them are wealthy and famous, because their lives are full of stress, fighting, pouting, envy, hatred, and chaos.

I think the primary reason some people are more successful in life is because they have better quality emotions, not because they are more intelligent or more educated. The people with more advanced emotional qualities will be better able to look critically at themselves and learn from their mistakes, for example. Or they may have a greater interest in thinking, and so they make better decisions about what to do compared to people who resist thinking. Or, they have lower levels of arrogance, hatred, envy, and pouting, which results in them wasting less time on those worthless activities. Or they have less fear of the unknown, and so they are more willing to explore their options in life rather than mimic other people. Or they are more willing to look favorably at other people and listen seriously to other people's opinions, thereby allowing them to learn from other people.

A person with incredible intelligence won't benefit from it if he has emotional characteristics that cause him to be so terrified of exploring his options that he wants to follow his ancestors rather than think about what he would like to do with his life. An example are the people in America who are above average intelligence but frightened at the thought of trying Mochi. How are they going to deal with life's problems when they are terrified to try a different style of ice cream?

Another reason that intelligent people will not benefit much from their intelligence is if they are so arrogant that they resist critical analyses of their opinions, and resist looking favorably at other people's opinions. These people are certain to brag that they are critical of themselves, but when compared to the rest of us, they are not very critical at all. They are so arrogant, and so resistant to criticism, that they cannot notice their arrogance.

In order to be a success in this modern world, a person has to be able to think, and that requires a person to have a certain desire to think, and it also requires a certain ability to look critically at yourself and favorably at other people's opinions. For example, consider the issue of why lizards do push-ups.

The people who have studied lizards claim that the lizards do this as a display to other lizards of their strength or territory, such as this article and this article, but in order to be successful at thinking, we must keep in mind that our brilliant theories could be wrong, or partially wrong.

A person who promotes a theory is analogous to a train traveling along a track. We should always be willing to stop the train, get off the track, and explore the area. In other words, we should push ourselves into listening to other opinions and constructive criticism, and consider that there is a more accurate theory.

For example, perhaps some species of lizards do push-ups because their 3D vision is so poorly developed that by moving their head in that manner, they can get a better idea of which objects are near them. It is also conceivable that some lizards began the motion as a way of compensating for poor 3D vision, and that it evolved into a signal to other lizards.

For another example, some people believe that fracking for oil is creating earthquakes, but even if it does encourage earthquakes, is that bad? For all we know, future generations will come to the conclusion that it is best to occasionally pump water into the earthquake faults in order to encourage lots of small earthquakes and reduce the chance of a large, devastating earthquake.

This concept also applies to global warming and carbon taxes, but the scientists who are promoting global warming are refusing to consider the possibility that they are even partially incorrect. The scientists should be tolerant of other theories, such as:

• The earth is not getting warmer. Rather, it is going through its normal up and down cycles.

• The earth is indeed getting warmer, but not because of carbon dioxide. Rather, it is due to other factors, such as the spreading of human cities.

• The earth is indeed getting warmer as a result of human activity, but we should not worry about it because we do not yet know whether we prefer a slightly warmer planet.

The scientists who study lizards and fracking have no problem discussing alternative theories, but the scientists who promote global warming are intolerant of the possibility that they may be incorrect. They are demanding that we regard their theory as a proven fact, and that anybody who disagrees with them is a "global warming denier".

Imagine if Professor Torcello advocated that the police arrest the "lizard push-up deniers". Would a school tolerate such a professor? I don't think so. I think most people would regard him as going senile, or suffering from a brain tumor, or suffering from some serious mental disorder.

A scientist needs more than intelligence in order to be productive. He needs certain emotional qualities, also.

In order for one of us to achieve our maximum intellectual potential, we need a certain amount of self-control, so that we can suppress our arrogance, envy, hatred, pouting, fear of the unknown, and other worthless, inappropriate, or destructive emotional cravings.

There are interviews of hundreds of different people who have been successful in some area, such as athletics, farming, creating bonsai trees, scientific research, carpentry, or engineering. Among the interviews that I personally have listened to, I have noticed that the people who are successful don't spend much time whining, pouting, getting into arguments, being envious of other people, or hating other people. The people who are successful spend more time on something productive.

At the other extreme are people like Elliot Rodger who waste a lot of their time stimulating their emotions of envy, hatred, and anger. For example, he would often sit alone at a cafe, or in his car in a parking lot, and then watch people interact with their friends, engage in recreational activities, kiss each other, and have a pleasant time. He would remind himself over and over about how lonely and bored he was, and how he wanted to join those people and have the same type of life. He would stimulate himself for hours, making himself bitter, envious, and angry.

Elliot Rodger wasted a lot of his leisure time on a worthless, destructive activity. This is one of the reasons that he was a failure. Specifically, instead of doing something beneficial to improve his life, he wasted his time stimulating his hatred and envy. He never looked critically at himself. Rather, he would repeatedly praise himself and blame his problems on other people.

He would waste a lot of his time daydreaming about hurting other people rather than looking for ways to improve his life. He would fantasize about destroying society, not finding a way to contribute to it. He wanted to watch other people suffer, not watch them enjoy life.

Just as you may have assumed that you have nothing in common with bodybuilders, you may have assumed you have nothing in common with Elliot Rodger, but the awful characteristics that we see in Elliot Rodger are in all of us. The difference between us is where our particular characteristics are on the bell curves.

All of us have a tendency to pout or become angry, bitter, and envious when we don't get what we want. Elliot Rodger was not a different species. Rather, some of his characteristics were simply near the extreme edge of some of the bell curves.

If you have not seen any of his videos, here is one where he is sitting in his car and complaining about how other people are ruining his life. That is an excellent example of how he wastes his time making himself miserable rather than doing something of value. Here is the audio from that video if that makes it easier for you:

Elliot-Rodger-Life-is-so-unfair-in-car.mp3 2 mbytes

I suggest you watch some of his videos and notice how he frequently boasts about himself, and that he spends a lot of time accusing other people of ruining his life. If you are a man, can you see that you have the same emotional feelings as Elliot Rodger? Can you see your tendency to blame other people for your problems? Can you see that you have a tendency to pout or become angry when you don't get what you want?

Below is the audio of another of his videos in which he is at a golf course that is about a mile from where I live. Although he often enjoys the scenery, notice how his time is dominated by anger, hatred, praise of himself, and pouting.

Elliot-Rodger-Life-is-so-unfair-golf-course.mp3 3 mbytes

Notice also that he wants revenge, but he wants revenge against people who don't know him, never met him, and have never done anything to hurt him. Why would he want revenge on people who have not hurt him?

Humans are monkeys, and our natural reaction to problems is either to run away and hide, or to fight. Elliot Rodger stimulated himself into a state of anger. He convinced himself that the boys are tormenting him by refusing to be his friend, and that the girls are tormenting him by ignoring him. He has convinced himself that he is being attacked, and his emotions are reacting by wanting to defend himself and fight back. He wants to attack the people that he has convinced himself are hurting him.

Elliot Rodger is an example of why it is dangerous to allow people into an organization when they do not fit in. The misfits will suffer, and they might react to the suffering with anger, pouting, hatred, vandalism, and other detrimental activities. We are fools to allow people into an organization if they cannot become team members.

Don't make excuses to avoid his videos and noticing the similarities between you and him. I started this document by pointing out that you should be able to see good qualities in the KKK members, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. If you cannot take a serious look at other people, you are never going to get a good understanding of yourself, or the human race.

Elliott Rodger was not much different from you or me. However, there are so few people who seem to understand these concepts that I will go over it one more time in a different manner. Here are three important concepts to think about:

1) We have strong cravings for praise and attention.

In Rodger's videos, he often makes remarks about how wonderful he is. His behavior is typical of people. If we could read people's minds, we would find that all of us occasionally praise ourselves for being talented, intelligent, educated, coordinated, strong, or artistic.

All of us have such a strong craving for praise that we will often praise ourselves rather than wait for somebody to give us praise. This is especially true when a person is unhappy. When we are unhappy, we want pity and praise. We do not want constructive criticism, or an analysis of our failures.

2) We are naturally very arrogant, so we resist looking critically at ourselves and prefer to blame our problems on other people or intangible concepts.

Elliot Rodger was lonely, but he was not interested in looking critically at himself and considering the possibility that his loneliness was because his particular mental and physical characteristics caused him to be a misfit. We have a strong desire to blame our problems on other people or intangible concepts. For some examples:

• My father would blame many of the world's problems, and his own problems, on vague entities, such as "the military-industrial complex," or "the super rich".
• Many of the people who have trouble getting or holding jobs, or being successful as an entrepreneur, will blame other people for their failures, or they will blame concepts, such as discrimination, society, sexism, racism, homophobia, or corporations.
• Many of the people who have problems with their marriage will blame their spouse rather than consider the possibility that they also had a role in their marital problems.

3) Our natural reaction to problems is to either become angry, or to run away and hide, rather than investigate, research, discuss, and experiment.

Rodger assumed that other people were ruining his life, but he did not want to hide from those people. Rather, he wanted to fight with them, and hurt them. He wanted to defend himself from the people who were abusing him. That is actually an admirable quality. If he had had a higher quality mind, he might have been willing to help us expose and arrest the pedophile networks, dishonest journalists, and corrupt government officials. Unfortunately, he regarded ordinary people, rather than the crime networks and corrupt government officials, as his enemies.

I suffered during my teenage years and adult life, and although I would occasionally feel a desire to become upset or pout, I had enough self-control, intelligence, or whatever it was, to realize that my problems were due to some defect in my body, and that anger, pouting, and other reactions would make my life worse, not better.

To summarize this, the difference between Elliot Rodger, me, and you is just a subtle difference in our genetic characteristics. If our brains had the equivalent of variable capacitors and resistors that allow us to adjust our intellectual and emotional qualities, we could adjust the settings in your mind to make you behave more like Elliot Rodger, or we could adjust your settings to make you less arrogant and more willing to learn from constructive criticism.

My remarks about how Elliott Rodger would blame other people for his loneliness might cause some people to respond that we could help people avoid anger and pouting by providing them with an education about how their mind works, and giving them some advice on how to cope with life's problems. In other words, some people might respond that the social scientists are correct that we can solve these problems with education and counseling.

Unfortunately, the social sciences are incorrect. Education and counseling are of use only to people who are willing and able to learn. Information cannot fix a person's genetic problems, or give him a quality he does not have.

It might be easier to understand this concept if you first consider how it applies to animals. We can put a hundred dogs through various types of educational and training programs, and although we will be able to teach every dog a few tricks, and we can influence the behavior of every dog, each dog has a genetic limit on what it is capable of learning, and how much it can change its behavior.

Likewise, we could put a hundred humans through various educational programs, counseling, and training programs, and although we will be able to teach all of them something, the genetic blueprint of their brains puts a limit on how much the information can affect them. For some examples:

• The people who have a brain that was designed with a low desire to learn about the world are not going to respond as well to educational programs compared to people who have a stronger interest in learning.
• The people whose brains have a stronger fear of the unknown are going to put up a greater resistance to thinking new thoughts and experimenting with changes in their life compared to people who have a stronger interest in exploring the world.
• The people whose brains were designed with a higher level of curiosity will be more interested in analyzing and exploring compared to the people who have lower levels of curiosity.

If educational programs and counseling could fix our problems, then there would be no alcoholism, crime, obesity, or other problems because every adult has already been through lots of educational programs in school, and everybody is regularly getting counseling and advice. For example, obese people are regularly getting advice from family members, friends, and doctors about how they need to reduce their intake of food and get more exercise. However, that information does nothing to help most of them.

Only a small number of obese people have benefited from educational and training programs, and the reason those people benefited is because they have a slightly better set of emotional and intellectual characteristics compared to the people who fail to control their obesity.

Likewise, parents, friends, and coworkers frequently give sensible advice to people who have problems with alcohol, drugs, debt, gambling, and relationships, but that information does nothing to improve most people's behavior because the people who are suffering from those problems do not have the genetic ability to understand and/or react to the information.

If educational programs could fix our problems, there would be no religious fanatics because everybody has been educated about science. However, if a person's brain does not have a certain level of intelligence, he will not be able to understand science, and so he will regard religion as being more sensible. Or if his emotional characteristics cause him to dislike the unpleasant issues that science brings up, such as euthanasia, or if his emotions have a stronger attraction to the more pleasant religious fantasies, then he will choose to believe his pleasant fantasies and disregard the scientific theories.

We cannot transform a monkey into a human by putting him through educational programs or counseling. Likewise, education cannot transform a genetically inferior or defective human into a higher quality human, or increase a person's level of self-control, or reduce his levels of anger, envy, hatred, or violence, or reduce his craving for material items, food, sex, or status.

Education and training programs have a significant effect on us, but each of us has different genetic limits on how those programs affect us. Our brains are biological computers with limitations, flaws, and subtle differences in characteristics.

We are tormenting the defective and inferior people by promoting the attitude that we can fix their problems with lectures, educational programs, counseling, training programs, punishments, and rewards. For example, we are tormenting the criminals by promoting the attitude that we can fix their problems with punishments, and we are tormenting the idiots by telling them that they can find a job if they go to school and learn a skill.

We must face the evidence that a significant percentage of the population today do not have the intellectual and/or emotional characteristics to cope with the modern world. They are essentially prehistoric savages.

And even more unpleasant reality that we must face is that a minority of the population will always be so genetically defective and inferior to the others that they will have problems fitting into society and coping with life. They need to be classified as retarded, or defective. They will never be able to fit into society.

All around the world we find nations, businesses, charities, and other organizations tormenting the misfits. For example, we bring immigrants into our nation to use as cheap labor, but we push them aside and treat them like animals. We also dump the unwanted children into orphanages, and many unwanted people end up living in the streets. We ignore the people who cannot find jobs, and jails release criminals without any concern for how they are going to find a home or a job.

We are creating a miserable environment for ourselves and the misfits. We are causing a lot of suffering, and that in turn is resulting in a lot of anger, vandalism, crime, suicide, and pouting.

We must change our attitude towards misfits. We should not ignore them, and we should not torment them with punishments, counseling, or rewards. We need to either put restrictions on them to prevent them from causing trouble for us, or we need to evict them from the city.

The people who want to ignore the issue of misfits should be regarded as intellectually and/or emotionally unfit to influence our world and our future. They need to be told to shut up so that people with better quality minds can deal with this problem.

The differences between us are subtle, which makes it difficult for us to deal with misfits. The misfits are not a different species. They are some of our friends, family members, coworkers, and relatives. Their behavior and characteristics are very similar to yours and mine. It is difficult for us to deal with the misfits because there is not much of a difference between them and us.

The police, teachers, and other people who had contact with Elliot Rodger realized that he had mental problems, and that he was a misfit, but nobody did anything about it. There is no society that allows police to restrict misfits to their own neighborhoods, or evict them to a City of Misfits.

Every society is ignoring the misfits, thereby allowing them to mingle with us. However, they don't mingle with us. They often sit in a car, or sit in a cafe, and watch us, and hate us, or pout. We are not helping ourselves or them by ignoring this issue.

Dealing with the misfits requires being able to push yourself into passing judgment on who among us is so detrimental that he should be suppressed or evicted. This is an emotionally difficult decision to make, especially when we must do it to one of our friends or family members. However, we don't have a choice. The societies that refuse to deal with this issue will eventually degrade into retards, crime networks, and freaks.

All humans are built from the same genetic blueprint, but the subtle differences between us determine whether we waste our life on hatred and envy, or whether we do something productive with our life. The differences between us determine whether we help the Jews lie about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and Anne Frank's diary, or whether we help to expose the lies.

We must analyze people and pass judgment on whether their characteristics are acceptable or unacceptable. We have to determine whether a person is contributing to the world or hurting it.

The people who are destructive have to be removed or suppressed. We also need to improve the genetic quality of the human race, and that requires passing judgment on who should be prohibited from reproduction.

As I mentioned, to be successful in life, you must be able to look critically at your brilliant opinions and learn from your mistakes, and you should also be able to look favorably at other people and learn from them. Therefore, when we select leaders, we should analyze the candidates and pass judgment on which of them is showing evidence that they have been learning about life and improving themselves through the years.

We can see one of the reasons most people are failures in life when we look at how they react to floods, hurricanes, fires that destroy their neighborhoods, the 9/11 attack, the mysterious shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017, and other disasters. Specifically, during every disaster the people spend a lot of time praising themselves for helping one another deal with the disaster, and they boast about how they are strong, courageous people who are going to survive the disaster.

When the disaster is over, a lot of people like to create memorials, get tattoos, and get together to cry and light candles. In Las Vegas, there are now 58 crosses near the sign that says "Welcome to Las Vegas".

A lot of people in Las Vegas boast that they are "strong", but they are simply stimulating themselves with praise in order to titillate themselves, just as Elliot Rodger would do. If they truly were emotionally strong, they would be able to investigate that bizarre shooting and consider the possibility that it was another false flag operation that failed. They would also be able to discuss and investigate the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the Comet Pizza parlor.

As I pointed out in other files, praise is worthless. Robots are capable of giving us praise. Actually, in this document I made a joke about how I am offering a CD that allows you to listen to hours of compliments.

The majority of people will waste hours praising themselves and one another for helping each other deal with a flood, the 9/11 attack, a fire, or a tornado. However, people who are better adapted to this modern world will not waste their time praising themselves or one another. They will instead analyze their problems and try to learn from them and try to improve their life. They will look critically at themselves and their society and try to reduce future problems.

The photo below shows some expensive condominiums that were flooded. I suppose a lot of people in that area reacted by wasting a lot of time praising one another for helping each other deal with that flood.

The people who are more successful in life waste less of their time on worthless activities, such as praise, and put more time into useful activities, such as solving their problems, trying to learn from their mistakes, and looking for ways to prevent or reduce future problems. As a result, those people occasionally find ways to improve their life.

By comparison, the people who waste their time praising themselves never improve anything; all they do is titillate themselves. Elliot Rodger is an example.

People with higher quality minds would have reacted to the flood in the photo above by analyzing the situation and trying to learn from it, rather than waste their time on praise. By analyzing the problem, they might notice that the houses are flooded, but parts of the golf course are above the water. This could cause them to come to the conclusion that it would make more sense to put the houses on the higher elevations, and put the golf courses and drainage ditches at the lower elevations.

The majority of people don't spend any time trying to learn from their mistakes, or trying to learn from other people. Instead, they spend a lot of time titillating themselves with praise, food, material items, sex, children, and dogs.

When voters select political candidates, they should be looking for candidates who show evidence that they have the ability to learn from their mistakes, and learn from other people. If we put people like that into leadership positions, then our societies will improve through time because we will have leaders who are always looking for ways to learn from problems and improve life. The cities will have less problems with flooding every year as a result, and the social activities will improve every year, and the transportation systems will improve, and the courtship activities will improve.

By comparison, nothing will improve if we put into leadership positions people who spend their time titillating themselves and other people with praise.

To be fair to the businesses that build homes in ridiculous locations, we could say that part of the problem is due to the free enterprise system, our pathetic school system, and our democracy. In a free enterprise system, businesses are struggling to make money, and so they are more focused on finding some land to build on rather than figuring out how to make a better city. Schools do not have courses on city planning, so most people are ignorant about the issue. Democracies do not provide guidance to society either.

The free enterprise system doesn't even have provisions for businesses to get together with schools, governments, sports groups, orchestras, and other people to plan our cities.

Furthermore, many of the business executives don't have much of an understanding of flooding, geology, earthquakes, or other issues that affect the location and design of structures, trains, and canals, so they don't make good decisions about where to put buildings or homes. The end result is that businesses are putting homes in undesirable locations, such as in floodplains, and next to highways, railroads, airports, factory smokestacks, and high-voltage power lines.

The businesses that build homes, retail stores, factories, and other structures need supervision and guidance, but it is not possible to supervise a free enterprise system, especially not with a democracy in which the voters are continuously electing incompetent, senile, and corrupt government officials.

That flooded neighborhood in the photo above is typical of the problems we suffer from. Specifically, almost every problem that we suffer from is due to our own stupid behavior, not the weather, or the devil. Furthermore, these problems occur over and over because people refuse to look critically at their behavior and experiment with improvements.

California frequently has a lot of mysterious fires. In October 2017, some of the fires were destroying entire neighborhoods, as in the photo below. However, most people will not learn anything from these fires, or make any attempt to reduce this problem from occurring in the future. They show no concern about stopping arson, and show no interest in making homes that are less flammable.

We could live in a city in which the apartment buildings, offices, and factories are extremely resistant to fire, but that requires a higher initial investment. That is not likely to happen in a free enterprise system because most people have a tendency to think only of the present moment, or up to a few years into the future. Most people will not make plans for 50 or 100 years into the future.

If we get rid of the free enterprise system, and if we can provide ourselves with better leaders, then we could design a city to handle extreme weather conditions, and we can design it so that it is much easier to clean and repair the water lines, sewer lines, and electric power lines. We could design it to be extremely fire resistant, as well as resistant to termites, rats, and mildew.

Designing that type of city will require more time from the architects and engineers, and it will require more labor and resources to build, but the benefits will be tremendous.

The majority of people are failures because they never learn from their mistakes. They don't want to analyze anything, look critically at themselves, do research, or listen to alternative opinions. They become angry when somebody criticizes them or disagrees with them. They won't tolerate criticism. They want praise and compliments. Most people are also so terrified of experimenting with changes that it is almost impossible to improve something.

It is our own fault that our cities are ugly, disorganized, noisy, dirty, filthy, overcrowded, and full of crime, vandalism, rats, homeless people, orphans, corrupt government officials, dishonest journalists, and illegal aliens.

We could be living in cities in which each neighborhood has a different style of architecture, colors, and decorations, and we could also provide the city with a variety of different styles and designs of parks, gardens, canals, ponds, fields for picnics and recreation, and swimming areas. We could design a city that is so interesting and beautiful that we enjoy taking walks, bicycle rides, or boat rides around the city to look at the buildings, parks, gardens, and ponds. The image below is unrealistic, but it might stimulate your imagination.

The only thing stopping us from making beautiful cities is our own mind. It is our fear of the unknown; our inability to control our arrogance enough to look critically at ourselves and favorably at other people; our inability to control our selfishness enough to allow us to compromise with other people; and our tendency to ignore the criminals, corrupt government officials, misfits, retards, unwanted children, and teenage gangs.

If we can find enough people who can exert enough self-control to force themselves to work together for the benefit of society instead of themselves, and if they can overcome their fear of the unknown enough to experiment with our options, and if they would stop feeling sorry for criminals, underdogs, and the disadvantaged, we could create a wonderful life for ourselves.

Most people are essentially primitive savages who want to spend their lives feeding themselves, raising babies, competing for status, and having sex. They are not interested in dealing with the complex issues of the modern world, such as city design, flooding, economic issues, international relationships, and genetics. They are so frightened of experimenting with their options that they would rather continue on the path they are on right now rather than try to make their life better.

The problem people have with criticism applies to everything in their life, not just floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. For example, during every election the voters select incompetent and corrupt candidates because they never learn from their mistakes. They will not analyze their voting habits or their voting system, and they will not tolerate criticism about how they vote.

Instead, just as they allow our cities to be flooded over and over because they refuse to learn from their mistakes and experiment with improvements, they continuously elect incompetent and corrupt officials because they refuse to analyze what they are doing wrong, and they refuse to experiment with something new.

Humans have such a strong level of arrogance, and such a strong resistance to criticism, that every time a city is flooded by a storm or hurricane, most people refuse to blame themselves for doing a terrible job of designing their city. Instead, they claim that the storm was unusual. They blame the weather, not themselves.

Likewise, every time they elect an incompetent government official, they refuse to take responsibility. They blame somebody else, or they blame the government official.

The people who praise themselves for helping each other during a flood are wasting their time, just like Elliot Rodger did. They are doing what I refer to as mental masturbation. They are stimulating themselves with compliments.

Masturbation can be fun once in a while, but the majority of people spent too much time doing it. Modern humans need to spend more time thinking, learning, discussing issues, listening to other opinions, and experimenting with improvements.

Here are a few remarks from Elliot Rodger while sitting in his car. Notice how he praises himself, insults other people, and blames other people for his problems. Then try to notice that he is behaving exactly like other people, but he is a bit more extreme.

• I'm such a magnificent guy. I'm beautiful, you can't deny that. • I'm civilized, intelligent, sophisticated... • And every single day, I have to be insulted by the sight of all these lesser men walking around with beautiful girls. • Why you girls give those guys a chance but not me? I deserve it more! It's not fair! • Why do those horrible men get to experience love and affection of such beautiful, heavenly girls, while I've had to rot in loneliness all my life. It's not fair! It's such an injustice! • You should be attracted to guys like me. Beautiful, magnificent guys. • Do you know how much misery you've caused me? I'm such a nice guy. Why won't you give me a chance?

One of the issues to notice with Elliot Rodger is that he has convinced himself that if he had a girlfriend, his life will become meaningful and satisfying. For example, he complains that he doesn't have a woman sitting in the passenger seat to enjoy the sunset with. He has convinced himself that if he had a girlfriend, in addition to being able to have sex, he would be able to enjoy her companionship. He imagines that she would enjoy sitting in the car with him and watching the sunset, and she would enjoy taking a walk with him along his favorite paths. He may also have fantasies of how he would enjoy sleeping in the same bed with her.

In reality, if he had had a girlfriend, he would have discovered that she doesn't want to sit in a car and enjoy the sunset, or take a walk and enjoy the trees, clouds, bushes, creeks, or lizards. He probably picked up the feminist propaganda that men and women are unisex creatures, but in reality men and women do not have a lot in common.

Men enjoy exploring the outdoors, and looking at the clouds and trees. Women would rather be indoors with other women and children, gossip about people, and nibble on snacks. Furthermore, he is likely to be disappointed with sex, and he might come to the conclusion that he would rather sleep in a separate bed.

If he had attracted a girlfriend, and if he were disappointed with the sex, or with her lack of interest in taking walks with him, he would likely come to the conclusion that she is inappropriate for him, and he would look for another girlfriend. When that other woman turned out to be similar in behavior, he would get rid of her, and look for another one. He might have wasted his entire life going from one woman to the next, in a futile search for his fantasy woman.

The reason I think it is important to notice that Elliot Rodger had convinced himself that a girlfriend would make his life worthwhile is because there seem to be millions of people who have a similar fantasy, although not necessarily about women. Usually the fantasy is about money or fame.

A lot of unhappy people have convinced themselves that their miserable life will become exciting if they become wealthy and famous. They have titillated themselves with fantasies of living in mansions and having expensive cars.

These people might try to become famous or wealthy by moving to Hollywood and struggling to become a celebrity, or by starting a business, or through investments.

A woman might also try to become famous or wealthy by looking for a famous or wealthy man to marry. She might spend her life chasing after Hollywood celebrities, or wealthy businessmen, or wealthy athletes.

Regardless of how a person tries to become wealthy, if he does acquire a lot of money, he will continue to be the same miserable person, but since we resist looking critically at ourselves, he is not likely to understand what is wrong. He is instead more likely to come to the false conclusion that he doesn't yet have enough money or fame, so he will continue struggling to become wealthier or more famous. His entire life may be wasted on an attempt to find happiness through money or fame.

Elliot Rodger spent a lot of his time watching other people and comparing his life to theirs. His parents were wealthy, so he did not need money, and as a result, he was not bothered by seeing people with wealth. However, he was very lonely, so he wanted friends, and he wanted sex. Whenever he saw somebody who had what he wanted, he would stimulate his anger and envy.

His behavior is typical of animals and humans, not unusual. All of us regularly compare what we have to what other people have. We compare our clothing, houses, job titles, automobiles, bicycles, and spouses. Also, all of us become upset when we see somebody who has something that we want. The difference between us is that we react slightly differently when we notice somebody has something we want. For example, Rodger reacted with abnormally high levels of hatred, envy, and anger, but some people react by motivating themselves to work harder, and other people react by pouting, and some people turn to crime, manipulation, or begging to get what they want.

Many of the successful athletes have mentioned during interviews that when they are beaten by other athletes, instead of becoming angry at the other athlete, and instead of pouting, crying, or becoming envious, they use the failure to motivate them to become better.

Mark Cuban said that when he was young, he would frequently drive around the wealthy neighborhoods and fantasize about becoming wealthy. However, unlike Rodger, who would stimulate hatred and envy, Cuban did not stimulate his hatred or envy of wealthy people. Rather, he stimulated himself into finding a way to become wealthy.

After Cuban started his own business and began making money, he discovered his secretary had stolen almost everything he made. I suppose Rodger, in that same situation, would have reacted with anger, and he would have wanted to get revenge on that secretary. Cuban was angry, of course, but he quickly came to the conclusion that anger and revenge are a waste of time, and that it is best that he forget about the theft and get back to work.

Rodger's behavior was not much different from that of other people. He was just one of millions of unhappy, lonely people who were convinced that their problems are coming from outside of them, such as being tormented by other people, or because they don't have much money.

Rodger had wealthy parents, so he didn't come to the conclusion that poverty was causing him problems. He instead came to the conclusion that the boys and girls in school were tormenting him. Most people, however, don't have as much money as he did, so many people come to the conclusion that they are suffering because they don't have enough money to enjoy life.

All of us experience numerous problems throughout our lives, but some of us do a better job of analyzing and dealing with the problems. Elliot Rodger is an extreme example of why so many people are failures in life. To list a few of the reasons Rodger and millions of other people are failures in life:

• They waste a lot of time praising themselves rather than doing something productive.
• They blame other people or intangible concepts for their problems rather than blame themselves.
• They react to criticism by whining about being abused, insulted, bullied, or unappreciated.
• They don't analyze the path that they are on, or the goals that they have set for themselves, which can cause them to chase after unrealistic fantasies, such as a spouse who is so compatible that they can spend all their leisure time together, or that wealth and fame will bring them ecstasy.

If Elliot Rodger had picked up a second X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome, all of his other genetic characteristics would have remained the same, but he would have been a woman. What kind of woman would he have been with those particular mental characteristics? I think he would have become an angry feminist.

She would have been a woman with a neurotic personality that resulted in most men and women wanting to avoid her. She would have been lonely, but she would have been unusually arrogant. She would have boasted about herself, she would have complained that her problems were the result of women being abusive to her, and men ignoring her and tormenting her. She would have complained that it was unfair that lesser women had wonderful boyfriends. She might have made the type of remarks that feminists sometimes make, such as "Men want stupid, submissive sex toys, not intelligent, talented women like me."

Women are not better than men; they are merely different. For example:

• Men have cravings for sex, so Elliot Rodger had fantasies that if he could have sex, he would be happy. Women, by comparison, have cravings for babies, and to be pampered like a queen, so they are more likely to fantasize about those things.

• Men use sex robots and pornography in order to stimulate themselves, whereas women stimulate themselves with romantic novels and dogs.

I mentioned that if Elliot Rodger had had a girlfriend, he might have been disappointed because I think he had developed unrealistic expectations of women. This same concept applies to neurotic women who are miserable and expect a man to make their life worthwhile. If a woman expects a man to behave like the men in the romantic novels, she will be disappointed. She will complain that her boyfriend or husband does not love her enough, and she will look for another man.

How can a woman determine whether she is being loved enough? If she judges a man according to romantic novels, Hollywood movies, or her own fantasies, she will compare men to an unrealistic fantasy. In such a case, she will never find a man who will satisfy her. If she reacts to problems with hatred and anger, like Elliot Rodger, she might become angry at men for not treating her in the manner that she deserves.

The same concept applies to the mentally defective women who have convinced themselves that babies will make their life exciting and worthwhile. Some of those women are going to be disappointed when they discover that a baby is actually a big responsibility and a lot of work, which can cause them to lose interest in their child, thereby resulting in the child's grandparents or other relatives raising the child, or the government taking the child.

To summarize this section, I think the type of women who become angry feminists have similar mental problems as the men who become angry at women, such as Elliot Rodger. I suggest you consider the possibility that many of the feminists are just female versions of Elliot Rodger.

The men who created the United States based it on a false philosophy; specifically, that governments are inherently dangerous; that governments are analogous to a wild animal that needs to be kept in a cage. However, governments are not inherently abusive.

The men who created the United States were extremely ignorant by our standards. They had no understanding of genetics, for example.

A "government" is just a "management structure"; a "hierarchy of supervisors". The government of a nation is virtually the same as a management system of a business, sports club, or orchestra. All organizations could be described as having "governments". We could even say that a family has a government; specifically, the parents are the government officials, and the children are the citizens.

Governments are disgusting because the voters are essentially a group of intelligent monkeys who continuously elect disgusting candidates.

The reason governments are so corrupt and ineffective is because they are the only management structure in which we allow the ordinary people to select the leaders. If we were to allow the ordinary people to vote for the managers of IBM, the IBM management would be dominated by pedophiles, crime networks, religious fanatics, idiots, and lunatics.

The governments in the world today are terrible and corrupt because the ordinary people are incapable of selecting leaders for a modern society.

In order to improve the world, we must face the evidence that the majority of people are essentially a group of primitive savages who are overwhelmed with the problems of the modern world. They cannot make wise decisions about voting, economic issues, abortion, euthanasia, or crime. A significant percentage of the population cannot even make sensible decisions about how much food to eat.

In order to improve the world, we must be willing to either restrict who becomes a voter, or restrict who is allowed to become a political candidate. No matter what we do, it's going to annoy a lot of people. We have to make a decision about whether we are going to appease those people, or whether we focus on trying to improve the world.

People on Internet message boards and videos occasionally make remarks that if the mysterious "Elite", or "Deep State", or Clinton supporters were to impeach or assassinate President Trump, there would be a civil war in the USA. These people assume that the Trump supporters would not tolerate the assassination or impeachment of Trump.

However, history shows us that the majority of people never participate in determining their future, and there is no exception to this. The majority of people behave just like a group of animals. They can be abused over and over without ever making an attempt to stop the abuse.

If a group of people were to assassinate President Trump, some of the Trump supporters would cry, and some would make angry remarks, but after a while they would continue with their lives, which would consist of chasing after money, watching television, and playing with their dogs.

Thousands of people were murdered when the World Trade Center buildings were demolished with explosives, and thousands of people suffered serious health problems from breathing the demolition debris, and more than 100 Pentagon employees were murdered when the Pentagon was hit by some mysterious craft during the 9/11 attack, but none of the military people or American citizens did anything about that. Actually, most people resist looking at the evidence. They don't want to know the truth. They don't care about society. They care only about entertaining themselves.

President Kennedy was assassinated, but none of his supporters did anything except cry or complain for a while. At the time, most people believed the official story that Oswald had killed Kennedy, but as I wrote years ago in chapters 11 and 12 of my book on 9/11, I suspect the same group of Jews that were involved with the 9/11 attack were involved with arranging for his assassination.

However, if somebody found convincing evidence that Israel was the primary group behind the assassination, we can be certain that most people would refuse to look at it, and refuse to do anything about it, just as they refuse to look at the evidence that Jews blew up the World Trade Center towers with explosives, and they refuse to do anything to stop the Jewish crime network.

Robert Kennedy was assassinated, also, but none of his supporters did anything, either. Robin Williams died mysteriously, and so did Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Jim Morrison, and many other people, but none of their supporters did anything other than cry or complain for a while.

Perhaps the best example of how useless the ordinary people are is that they will condemn pedophilia, but do nothing to expose or stop it. For example, in December 2016, this report claimed that during the past 20 years at least 368 gymnasts have complained about some type of sexual abuse from coaches and other adults working in gymnastics. A few months later, in March 2017, three gymnasts went to the Congress and testified about the sexual abuse they suffered from Dr. Larry Nassar.

All throughout my life I've been hearing reports about pedophilia at daycare centers, churches, schools, hospitals, and Boy Scout troops, but the public does nothing about it. It would not matter if 10,000 children testified in front of the Congress about sexual abuse. The majority of people are going to ignore these crimes simply because they don't want to deal with the complex problems of modern society. Most people want to spend their life titillating their emotions, not dealing with complex problems.

As of October 2017, there are millions of Americans who are angry at the NFL football players for kneeling during the national anthem, and many people are retaliating by not watching the games or by not purchasing the products of the companies that support the games. However, those people will not do anything to retaliate against the corrupt government officials, pedophile networks, or criminal journalists.

We must face the evidence that the majority of people, including most of our own relatives and neighbors, are essentially a group of talking monkeys who don't have the emotional or intellectual qualities necessary to become truly productive members of modern society. They are not going to do anything to help society. They want to please themselves. They are not going to help us expose or stop the pedophile network, the corruption in government, or the corruption in business.

In 1967, the Israeli military attacked the USS Liberty. In addition to killing people with torpedoes and bullets, the Israelis also attacked them with napalm, but most people do not care enough to even spread information about the attack. A lot of people in the military do not even care.

The Jews are lying about the Holocaust and the world wars, but most Germans don't show any concern about it. The Jews are lying about Anne Frank's diary, but the people in Holland are still treating her apartment as a shrine to worship. NASA is lying about the Apollo moon landing, and there is evidence that NASA officials were involved with the murder of some astronauts and other people, but most people do not care enough to even demand that schools stop teaching children that people have been to the moon.

Most of our relatives, neighbors and coworkers are honest, friendly people, but they are essentially talking monkeys. Furthermore, it is their genetic qualities that make them this way, so there is no possible way for us to fix them and make them more human. They are going to continue behaving like monkeys no matter what we do and say to them. And they are going to continue boasting about their wonderful qualities, accusing us of insulting them, and making excuses for why they can't help society.

All people are similar to one another, but we have to face the evidence that we are not equal. The majority of people cannot cope with the modern world. They need our guidance, advice, and supervision. We are fools to expect the majority of people to get involved with improving the world, or to have something intelligent to say about our future. We must treat them like children, or like pet animals.

Some of our relatives, neighbors, and coworkers have more money than you and I, and some are more intelligent or talented in certain areas, but don't let that fool you into thinking that they are better quality humans than you. Judge a person by how he behaves, not by his material wealth, job title, or education. A person who behaves like a monkey should be regarded as a monkey, not a human.

Those of us who want to improve the world must do it without the public's assistance. We must find one another, determine how many there are of us, find out what our talents are, and then make a decision about what we would like to do.

The accusations that Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator are just one more example of why we cannot expect the majority of people to help us improve the world. As with Jimmy Saville, and so many other men who are abusive, dishonest, corrupt, incompetent, or involved with pedophilia, sexual abuse, or rape, many people have known about, participated in, and/or covered up, their terrible behavior for years, or decades.

A few individuals occasionally complained about the abuse, but they did not get support from the public. The public ignored them, which allowed dishonest policemen, journalists, and government officials to intimidate and suppress them. Some of them died in strange accidents or committed suicide, so we ought to consider that some of them have been murdered.

Why doesn't the public want to stop rape, pedophilia, corruption, or other problems? Weinstein shows one of the reasons. Many of the women that he abused were given roles in Hollywood movies, or money, or some other favor, which they took in return for being silent about his behavior.

According to this dictionary, the expression "casting couch" was first used in the early 1940s. It defines the expression as:

A couch in the office of a casting director, supposedly used with actors or actresses willing to trade sexual favors for roles.

There are more people with the talent to be entertainers than there are jobs available for them, and the rewards for being selected as an entertainer are phenomenal amounts of money and status. All of us want money and fame, but that craving is at different levels of intensity in different people, and we have different levels of self-control.

At one extreme are the minority of people who have such significant mental disorders that they will commit crimes, such as murder, in order to be chosen as a celebrity. A larger number of people are willing to offer sex in return for becoming a celebrity. The expression "casting couch" developed to describe that situation.

That particular dictionary claims that the "casting couch" expression is "facetious", but I don't believe it is a coincidence that it developed only for Hollywood and other acting professions. There is no comparable expression for scientists, carpenters, mechanics, or farmers. I have never heard rumors that if we want to become a dental assistant, we must provide sexual favors to a dentist.

Some of the women who have traveled to Hollywood to become celebrities must have been aware of the possibility that they will have to provide sex in return for getting a job in Hollywood.

The women who were truly naive would eventually learn about this issue, and then they would have to make a decision about what to do. Should they provide sex in return for assistance in becoming an entertainer? Or should they complain about the situation to the police or journalists? Or should they abandon their plans to be an entertainer, leave Hollywood, and find a job among people who are more respectable?

The women who are complaining about Weinstein are creating the impression that they are innocent angels, but the women who quietly allowed the sexual abuse are not truly innocent. Rather, we could describe the relationship between Weinstein and those women as either:

• Bribery. Weinstein offered bribes to the women to remain silent about his disgusting behavior, and many of the women chose to accept the bribe.

or as:

• Prostitution. The women chose to become prostitutes, but instead of offering sex for small amounts of money, they provided sex to a man who helped them become a wealthy and famous actress, singer, or entertainer.

Don't be fooled into thinking the "casting couch" expression is just a joke.

I have no doubt that some women in Hollywood were forced into providing sex, and the men responsible could be accused of rape, and those particular women could be described as victims.

I can also understand why children and naive women would quietly allow the men to have sex; specifically, because of fear and shock. Those women and children could also be described as victims of rapists and sexually abusive men.

However, I suspect that a serious analysis of the "victims" of Weinstein and other sexually abusive men in Hollywood would show us that some of the women (and men) are not truly victims of sexual abuse. Rather, they were reluctant but willing participants in the sex because they had such intense cravings for fame and wealth that they were willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal.

Those women could be described as "victims", but they are not victims of sexually abusive men. Rather, they are victims of their own, low-quality mind which gave them a psychotic craving for wealth and fame.

To add complexity to this issue, the adult women who claim to be victims of sexually abusive men have a dilemma. Specifically, it is acceptable for them to complain that they were forced into sex, but they can make that claim only once. It is difficult for a woman to get away with claiming that she was abused over and over. The reason is that it brings up the issue of why she did not avoid that man, or get out of Hollywood and find some other job.

It is also difficult for a woman to claim to be an innocent victim of sexual abuse when she repeatedly ignores the abuse of other women and children. Those women are obviously choosing money and fame over stopping the sexual abuse. The women who remain in Hollywood and allow themselves to be abused over and over are not truly victims of abusive men because they are allowing the abuse. They should be described as accepting bribes, or as prostitutes.

To be fair to the victims of sexual abuse in Hollywood, many of them were young adults, and naive about the mental disorders of people in Hollywood, and that makes it easy for aggressive men to push them into doing things they don't want to do, including drugs and crimes. When those naive people discovered what was going on in Hollywood, instead of leaving Hollywood, they may have been shocked into thinking, "Well, I guess this is the real world, so I have to put up with it."

The victims of Weinstein are not being completely honest with us. They are trying to create the impression that they are flawless women; innocent angels; princesses who have been abused by monsters. They don't want to admit that they ignored and/or allowed the abuse because they wanted money and fame.

Why are they so deceptive? Why can't they be honest and admit that they played a role in the abuse, and that they allowed it to continue for decades?

The reason is that they are humans, and humans are nothing but a species of monkey. We are very arrogant creatures who resist looking critically at ourselves, and who don't want to admit that we have imperfections, unpleasant characteristics, flaws, and limitations. We are especially resistant to admitting to having mental problems.

Each of us wants to stand on a tall pedestal and be admired and worshiped. We want to blame all of our problems on somebody else. We want to spend our time boasting about ourselves, criticizing other people, receiving awards, and listening to praise.

Our leaders are not encouraging us to be honest, and they do not encourage us to use self-control. Our leaders encourage us to be arrogant, and to blame other people for our problems. For example, the conservative government officials are always blaming problems on the liberals, and the liberals are always blaming problems on the conservatives. They encourage arrogance and hatred, and they encourage us to regard ourselves as victims, and to blame other people for our problems.

As I mentioned in previous documents, the free enterprise system and the democracy makes the situation worse by causing businesses and government officials to pander to us, which encourages us to think about what we want rather than consider what is best for society. These systems encourage us to be arrogant, selfish brats who make demands.

The voters repeatedly elect incompetent and corrupt candidates to government office, and then the voters complain about the government, but none of the government officials will stand up to the voters and tell them, "You voted for us. If you don't like us, blame yourself. We are tired of listening to your insults and whining. You are responsible for the government. Vote for somebody else if you don't like us. You have more than 100 million adults to choose from, so don't whine that you don't have any choices."

If we were living in a society with better leadership, the people would be under pressure to be honest, take responsibility for their behavior, and exert some self-control.

The women and men in Hollywood should be told to look critically at themselves and be more honest about what they discover. They should ask themselves such questions as, "Why do I have such intense cravings for money and fame that I will ignore sexual abuse and pedophilia? Why can't I leave Hollywood? Why can't I be satisfied with a normal life? What is wrong with me?"

In previous documents I pointed out that rapes are not random. Rather, the women with the lower quality minds are more likely to be raped. The women who complain about Weinstein are inadvertently supporting this accusation. For example, a French actress, Léa Seydoux, described her experiences with Weinstein in this article. One interesting remark she made about Weinstein is:

Her remark that Weinstein tests women could be described as typical behavior for an abusive person. For example, before a criminal burglarizes a home, he has a tendency to observe the home for a while, or test its security, in order to figure out whether it is worth burglarizing, or whether he should try another home.

The same is true of men who are trying to use women as sex toys. They do not pick women at random. They have a tendency to observe and test the women to see which of them will put up a fight. There were certainly a lot of women that Weinstein wanted to use for sexual pleasure, but he did nothing about it because he was concerned that they would be too uncooperative. Which women will be the most cooperative? My guess is that there are two types of women; one is a woman who, like a female animal, gets excited when she meets a dominant male, and the other is a woman who has such neurotic cravings for wealth and fame that she will do whatever is necessary to achieve her goals.

Another interesting remark Léa Seydoux made about Weinstein is:

She complained that nobody did anything about Weinstein, but she did nothing about him, either. Furthermore, she complained about some other directors, also, and she did nothing about them, either.

She claims that the reason nobody stopped Weinstein is "because he has a huge amount of power". I described this issue of "power" ten years ago in here and more recently here. To summarize it, Weinstein has power only to the people who have such neurotic cravings for money and fame that they will do whatever he asks in order to achieve their goal of becoming a famous Hollywood celebrity.

The actresses that allowed Weinstein to abuse them or other women were not under the control of Weinstein's magic powers. Rather, they wanted wealth and fame more than they wanted to get away from abusive men.

Those women had such mental disorders that they were willing to work among men that they regarded as disgusting and dangerous, and they did not care about protecting other women, or about protecting the children from the pedophiles in Hollywood. They were focused on satisfying their abnormal cravings, and they did not care who was hurt in the process.

One other remark Léa Seydoux made about Weinstein is:

Although men are more arrogant and demanding than women, there are a lot of women who have made that “Do you know who I am?" remark. Arrogance is not limited to men. Actually, one of the reasons women have trouble noticing that they are playing a role in the sexual abuse and pedophilia is because they are too arrogant to look critically at themselves.

To be fair to the women who have been abused by men, as I mentioned in a previous document, women and children have a natural tendency to expect adult men to provide them with protection, gifts, and guidance. When a woman or a child is frightened, or when they are having problems, their natural tendency is to run to an adult man for help or comfort.

Their reaction was acceptable during prehistoric times but, in the world today, mental disorders are common, and every generation is more genetically defective than the one before it. It is no longer sensible for women or children to trust adult men.

In this modern world, women and children need to be taught that the human race is degrading into freaks, and that all of us must be cautious about who we trust, associate with, marry, admire, and mimic.

Millions of adult men today are such genetic freaks that they will not support an investigation of Jimmy Saville, the Comet Pizza parlor, or the accusations that government officials are flying children into Washington DC to use as sex toys. Children cannot expect those men to provide them with protection from the pedophiles in Hollywood.

Those men don't even care that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, or that Jews blew up the World Trade Center buildings with explosives, or that NASA is lying about the moon landing.

Tens of millions of men are such apathetic, selfish monkeys that they don't care about the crime or corruption that is going on around them. All they think about is money, sex, food, and their status. None of those millions of men are going to provide women or children with guidance. Instead, they will ignore the children who complain about pedophiles, and they will ignore the women complaining about Weinstein, and they will ignore the people who are complaining that Jews blew up the World Trade Center buildings.

In our world today, children need to be taught that they are living among genetic freaks. Young girls should be taught to pay attention to a man's intellectual and emotional qualities, and to associate with men who are the most likely to be honest, responsible, and considerate. Girls should be told to suppress their craving to offer themselves to a man simply because he is wealthy or famous. Girls should also be told that they should not expect men to give them high-paying jobs or expensive gifts, and if they are offered such a gift, they should expect the man to want something in return, such as sex.

Unfortunately, feminists do not give good advice to women. Rather, they encourage women to be arrogant creatures who blame all of their problems on sexism and men. They encourage women to be angry and hateful, and to pout.

Why does Emma Watson and other women allow Harvey Weinstein to abuse them?

The women blame the men in Hollywood for the sexual abuse, but I think that if we were to remove secrecy and maintain a database of everybody's life, we would come to the conclusion that the people in Hollywood are not a random sample of the population. Rather, Hollywood is attracting a lot of people with significant mental disorders.

To rephrase this: the reason there is so much sexual abuse in Hollywood, and a lot of alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling problems, and marital problems, is because a lot of the men and women in Hollywood are suffering from significant mental disorders.

That type of database would help us determine which businesses, organizations, and government agencies have the most sexual abuse, which have more problems with alcoholism, which have more people who are suffering from bipolar disorder, and which have more obese people.

For example, it might show us that the Catholic Church has a higher level of pedophilia and homosexuality than other churches, or that the Navy has more homosexuals and alcoholics than the Air Force, or that the people who buy lottery tickets or who gamble tend to have inferior math abilities.

Corey Feldman said that the most serious problem in Hollywood is pedophilia. Why don't the parents of children in Hollywood show any interest in investigating that accusation, or doing something to stop the pedophilia? I suspect the reason is that a lot of parents have such psychotic cravings for material wealth that they will push their children into becoming Hollywood celebrities, and ignore the abuse of their children.

Is she kissing Weinstein? Or sucking his ear lobe? Regardless, Oprah complains that she was raped and abused as a child, so why doesn't she want to expose and stop the pedophile networks? Or has she tried to, but was threatened to be silent?

When journalists were making a fuss about Donald Trump's remark about grabbing women by the "pussy", many people, including Michelle Obama, made a public statement about how they were shocked by his remark because they had never heard a man make such a crude remark.

Some people are now claiming that they are shocked to discover that a Hollywood director has been pressuring women into sex acts. They are claiming that they never heard of such terrible behavior in Hollywood. I suppose they also never heard the accusation from Corey Feldman that pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood.

If we ask a government official how he would explain the collapse of Building 7, a lot of them will claim that they don't know what Building 7 is. If we ask a history teacher or government official if they have seen the evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, or that NASA is lying about the Apollo moon landing, they will claim that they never saw such evidence, and don't know what we are talking about.

We are regularly allowing people in influential positions to get away with abusive behavior, and to get away with doing nothing about other people's abusive behavior, on the grounds that they are ignorant about what is going on around them.

As I have mentioned in other documents, we have to stop allowing our leaders to use ignorance to justify their disgusting behavior. If they are truly as ignorant as they claim, they should be disqualified from leadership positions on the grounds that they do not have enough of an interest in the world to bother paying attention to what is going on around them.

If an ordinary person were stopped by a policeman for violating a traffic law, and if the person claimed to be ignorant of the law, the policeman would tell him that ignorance is no excuse. The policeman will tell him that it is his duty to know the traffic laws.

We need to apply a similar philosophy to people in influential positions. Our leaders cannot know everything, but we have to pass judgment on when they are truly ignorant of something, and when that ignorance is justified, and when they are faking ignorance to deceive us into tolerating their disgusting behavior.

If we determine that a journalist, government official, or other person has faked ignorance, we ought to then pass judgment on whether he should be arrested for deception.

How can we stop sexual abuse when there are so many women who are suffering from such intense cravings for wealth and fame that they will ignore or allow the abuse?

How can we stop theft and burglaries when there are so many people willing to purchase stolen items?

How can we reduce corruption, pedophilia, wars, or crime networks when there are thousands of people who are willing to ignore, cover up, and/or participate in pedophile networks, the demolition of the World Trade Center buildings, or the lies about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and Anne Frank's diary?

And how can we improve the world when the public is so apathetic that they will not support the people who expose crimes?

A nation can only be as good as its people. In order for a nation to reduce rape, corruption, and pedophilia, we need to set higher standards for the voters, police, government officials, and everybody else in an influential position. We need to restrict or evict the people who commit crimes, or help to cover them up.

People who are easily bribed are dangerous, also. Crime networks can use them to transport illegal items, hire them to murder people, pay them to be silent about a crime, and pay them to provide information about security systems in order to help them circumvent the security.

All humans are attracted to material wealth and fame, but the people who are willing to commit crimes or be abused in order to become rich and famous seem to be suffering from significant mental disorders.

Unfortunately, no society is doing anything of value to help the people with mental disorders. No society is even willing to promote the attitude that all of us are just jumbles of genetic characteristics, and that each of us should analyze ourselves and try to figure out what our particular defects, limitations, and characteristics are. Instead, everybody is trying to impress other people with false images.

By not encouraging people to accept the evidence that everybody is genetically imperfect and has limitations, we inadvertently encourage people to be arrogant jerks. This in turn is allowing a lot of unhappy, mentally disturbed people to come to false conclusions about why they are suffering.

Some of the unhappy people, such as Elliot Rodger, come to the conclusion that they are being abused, bullied, or unappreciated by other people, whereas some other unhappy people come to the conclusion that their suffering will end if they can become wealthy and famous businessmen or Hollywood celebrities. Some come to the conclusion that drugs will solve their problems, and Benjamin Sifrit came to the conclusion that he will find happiness if he commits bizarre crimes.

Emma Watson is an example of a Hollywood celebrity whose facial expressions give me the impression that something is wrong. She often has what I would describe as a dreary, blank expression.

I suspect that if we could remove secrecy and observe people, we would find that a lot of the people who are wealthy and famous are suffering from significantly worse mental problems than the more "typical" people.

I think the reason they had such intense cravings for wealth and fame is because their mental problems were so serious that they did not enjoy their childhood, and they came to the idiotic conclusion that they were suffering because of a lack of money, or because people did not love them enough, and that if they could become wealthy and famous, they would find happiness.

Update, October  2019: This article claims that Emma Watson is suffering from ADHD, and has been on medication ever since she was a young girl, so it is not just my imagination. And this article has a list of Hollywood celebrities and other famous people admitting to having mental problems.

A lot of the wealthy businessmen and Hollywood celebrities have admitted that their mother or father were alcoholics, or criminals, or mentally ill. The social scientists claim that the miserable family environment caused the children to develop cravings of wealth and fame, but a more sensible explanation is that the children inherited some of the mental disorders of their ancestors. Furthermore, some of them would have developed new disorders as a result of genetic defects.

For example, Lady Gaga suffers from fibromyalgia, and she also claims that she suffering from a post traumatic syndrome as a result of being raped at age 19.

Fibromyalgia can affect a person's mood, jobs, leisure activities, and goals because it can cause a person to suffer a tremendous amount of pain for long periods of time. However, if being raped causes post traumatic syndrome, then every woman who has been raped would be suffering from it, also. And what about the boys or adult men who have been raped? All of them should suffer from PTSD also, shouldn't they?

I think that Lady Gaga's inability to deal with that rape is more evidence that she is suffering from some type of mental problem that is making it difficult for her to cope with life's problems.

When we encounter a person who claims to be suffering trauma many years after a rape, miscarriage, death of a child, divorce, death of a parent, or other unpleasant incident, we would be fools to believe that the environment is truly having such a long-term effect on their attitude and behavior. The most likely explanation for their inability to deal with the problem is because there is something wrong with their ability to cope with life.

Many people blame their obesity, alcohol problems, bizarre behavior, temper tantrums, or selfishness on an unpleasant incident in their life, but there are lots of people who suffered from similar problems without reacting like a lunatic.

We also should wonder who raped Lady Gaga, and why. As I have pointed out in other documents, rapes are not random. They occur more often to certain women. If we had a database with details of everybody's life, we would discover that the women who are most likely to be raped have certain mental characteristics and disorders that cause them to associate with men who are more likely to become a rapist.

I never would have raped Lady Gaga, but she would not be interested in spending her leisure time with me, and I would not be interested in spending my leisure time with her.

We have a strong tendency to associate with people who are compatible with us. The people who are honest, respectable, and responsible are likely to be repelled by the people who are dishonest and irresponsible. Conversely, the neurotic, angry, unhappy, and envious people are likely to associate with people who have similar problems. There are exceptions, of course, but most of us want friends who are similar to us.

The end result is that the people with significant mental problems tend to get involved with other people with significant mental problems, and this can result in abusive and bizarre relationships.

The women who complain about Weinstein create the impression that women are innocent and well behaved, and that men are crude and abusive. In reality, both men and women are selfish monkeys. It doesn't make sense to say that one of us is better than the other. We are simply different.

The men who push women into sex acts in return for helping them with their career are being encouraged to do it over and over by the women who take those offers. Furthermore, when other men see women take those offers, it encourages them to make such offers, also, thereby increasing the problem.

We have an expression in English, "It takes two to tango". An example of that concept is that we would reduce burglaries if nobody was willing to purchase stolen property.

The same concept applies to men who offer favors in return for sex. If every woman had such high moral standards that they refused the offers, and if they complained about the men who made the offers, they would dramatically reduce the number of offers. However, when there are tremendous numbers of women willing to provide sex in return for money or some other reward, they encourage men to make such offers.

The men in Hollywood who push women and children into sex acts could be described as "disgusting", but we could also say that the women who allow those men to get away with that abuse so that the women can become wealthy and famous, are just as disgusting, but disgusting in a different manner.

Furthermore, some women are willing to marry men that they realize are involved with rape, pedophilia, crime networks, and corruption. Why don't we describe those women as disgusting? By marrying those men, they are telling other men,

"Don't worry about your bad reputation. As long as you provide women with money and fame, we don't care how disgusting your behavior is."

We don't criticize women for marrying wealthy men who have horrible behavior because it is "normal" female behavior to select a man who is high in the social hierarchy with no regard for how he achieved his status, or how he behaves, looks, or treats other people.

This is one of the many reasons I suggest designing society so that everybody, including the women, have virtually the same level of material wealth. In that society, the women will not need men to provide them with a home, food, clothing, or child support, and it will not even be possible for women to choose a husband according to his wealth since all men will be equal.

I think this will have a beneficial effect on relationships because it will increase the chances that a woman looks for a husband that she is compatible with, and whom she admires for something besides money, such as his behavior and his contributions to society.

Many of the people who are complaining about Weinstein in October 2017 mentioned that they have known about his awful behavior for years or decades. So why were they silent during those years? And why were journalists and other people a few years ago willing to accuse Bill Cosby of being sexually abusive to women?

During the 2016 presidential election, journalists made a big fuss about Donald Trump's remark about grabbing a woman by her pussy. Compared to Weinstein, Trump is a well behaved man. So why were the journalists making it appear as if Trump was the worst behaved man in the world?

Furthermore, there are accusations of behavior that is even worse than what Weinstein is accused of. For example, Corey Feldman says that pedophilia is the number one problem in Hollywood, not the crude behavior that Weinstein is accused of. So why are the people who are complaining about Weinstein remaining silent about the accusations of pedophilia? When will the people in Hollywood, and the police departments, make the children in Hollywood feel safe enough to expose the pedophiles?

You should also note that the two children in Hampstead, England are making accusations that are even worse than what Corey Feldman is saying. How do you explain the journalists and women attacking Weinstein while ignoring crimes that are much, much worse? Are those women truly ignorant of those other crimes?

I think the attack on Cosby was just a trick that was intended to intimidate Cosby and other people in Hollywood into being submissive. And I think that journalists, government officials, and other people who attacked Trump for his crude sexual remark did so only in an attempt to manipulate the election and help Hillary Clinton get elected, not because they were truly upset by his remark.

The unfair manner in which the journalists attack certain people for bad behavior, while protecting people who behave even worse, should be used as evidence that the journalists are using the media to intimidate, manipulate, and deceive people. I would say that the police would be justified in arresting those journalists for being con artists, criminals, deceivers, slanderers, and liars.

We could go even further and say that Michelle Obama, the Hollywood celebrities, and other people who joined in on the attack of Donald Trump were doing so in an attempt to deceive and manipulate people into electing Hillary Clinton.

How can we improve this world when we allow journalists, government officials, and other people, to get away with this abuse? Where are the people who are willing to push themselves into changing this disgusting situation, such as by raising standards for people in the media, government, schools, and businesses?

The attack on Weinstein may be just another trick. Harvey Weinstein accused his brother, Bob, of exposing his sexual abuse, and for the purpose of having him removed from The Weinstein Company so that Bob can get control of it.

Perhaps Harvey is correct that Bob did this to get control of The Weinstein Company, but Bob may have had other reasons also. For example, it could also be to fool the public into believing that Hollywood is truly interested in cleansing itself of sexual abuse. Perhaps the Internet has caused so many people around the world to become angry at the sexual abuse in Hollywood that the Jews are hoping that by sacrificing Harvey Weinstein, they will pacify the public, thereby protecting the more disgusting people who are involved with pedophilia, murder, rapes, and other crimes that are worse than what Harvey Weinstein did.

Or perhaps the Jews are hoping that by exposing Weinstein, they will divert attention away from the incredibly suspicious shooting in Las Vegas on 2 October 2017.

Or perhaps the Jews are worried that the "pizzagate" issue or the Hampstead children will inspire somebody to expose the pedophilia in Hollywood, and that by attacking Weinstein, they will intimidate everybody in Hollywood into remaining silent about the pedophiles and murders.

Although there are lots of men who are violent and abusive with women, men actually have a very strong craving to pamper and appease women. Our craving to please women is so strong that we have a difficult time criticizing them for bad behavior.

For example, a lot of men will complain that Harvey Weinstein should be fired from his job for his terrible behavior, or arrested, but they avoid criticizing the women who took Weinstein's offers. It is especially difficult for men to criticize women who have nice personalities and a pretty face.

If a man did sexual favors for some other man, and in return he was appointed "Goodwill Ambassador For UN Men" and chosen to speak at the United Nations, most men in the world would complain that he should be fired from his position because he achieved it through prostitution.

Or, if a man became a doctor, business executive, or college graduate because he did some sexual favor for some other man, I think almost everybody would complain that he does not deserve his position. People would describe him as a male prostitute, not as an innocent victim of a sexual predator.

Who chose Emma Watson to give a speech at the United Nations? And why?

In September 2014, Emma Watson was appointed Goodwill Ambassador For UN Women, and she gave a speech to the United Nations to promote feminism. There are billions of women in the world, so why was she chosen? And who chose her? We are providing people in leadership positions with too much secrecy.

Let's assume that we have proof that Watson was given that appointment because she had done sexual favors for Weinstein or some other man. How many men and women would complain that she should be fired because she achieved her position through prostitution? And how many people would instead claim that she is an innocent victim of a sexual predator?

Weinstein is only one of many men who are irritating women by pushing them into sex acts. Another man who has been accused of sexual abuse is an Amazon executive, Roy Price, although complaints about him seem trivial compared to the complaints about Weinstein, Roman Polanski, and other men in Hollywood.

A woman, Kim Masters, who decided to write an article to expose Roy Price, encountered resistance to publishing it from a female lawyer, Lisa Bloom, who is the daughter of another female lawyer, Gloria Allred.

Kim Masters wrote this article to explain the resistance that she received from Lisa Bloom and a male lawyer that Bloom was working with, Charles Harder. Here are three excerpts of her accusations, which may not make much sense as excerpts, but it doesn't matter:

• one of Bloom’s tactics was to try to kill the story by telling multiple outlets that I had approached Price and Amazon for money to support my radio show. There was no truth to this, as I had never asked either for funding.

• Harder and Bloom convinced every publication that considered my story that they weren’t just threatening legal action but would indeed sue.

• Bloom claimed that I had turned on Price after he rebuffed my demand to have Amazon underwrite The Business, the public-radio show that I host on KCRW. I can’t guess who concocted that allegation,

You may not understand those accusations by reading the excerpts, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that she is accusing a lawyer of lying in an attempt to protect Roy Price from accusations of sexual abuse, and she is accusing a lawyer of threatening lawsuits simply to intimidate people into suppressing information. If Lisa Bloom is indeed lying and intimidating, why is she allowed to be a lawyer? Why don't we arrest lawyers for such behavior?

Rather than accuse Lisa Bloom of lying, most journalists ignored or minimized the accusations by Kim Masters. For example, at the New York Daily News, this article has only one sentence to describe the accusations of Kim Masters; namely, that Masters "did allege that Bloom tried to squash a story". Most of the article explains that Lisa Bloom is sorry that she initially decided to defend Weinstein.

The journalists want us to feel sorry for Lisa Bloom, not accuse her of a crime. The journalists at Breitbart are better, but not by much. Breitbart is the media company that Steve Bannon claims is helping President Trump, but in this article by John Nolte, Lisa Bloom is described as using "shady tactics" and "highly unethical tactics".

When you or I lie, manipulate, deceive, or intimidate people, we are considered as "criminals", but when lawyers do it, most journalists ignore it, and the Breitbart journalists minimize it by saying the lawyers are merely using "shady" or "unethical" tactics.

In this earlier article about Lisa Bloom, John Nolte wrote that the New York Times has "seen emails that show feminist attorney Lisa Bloom attempting to collude with The Weinstein Company (TWC) to discredit some or all of the women".

Is it legal to collude to discredit victims of a crime? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is: it depends on which lawyer or judge we ask because they interpret the laws in any manner they please. For example, if you or I were to demolish a building with explosives, we would be considered guilty of a crime, but when Jews do it, the insurance companies give them billions of dollars.

We are never going to get the corruption out of our nation if we continue to tolerate abuse by lawyers, journalists, government officials, and other people in influential positions. By doing nothing about dishonest lawyers and judges, we allow them to use our legal system to manipulate and cheat us. For example, they can file, or threaten to file, lawsuits against individuals or businesses in order to cause financial problems for them, or to intimidate them.

If the people who are complaining about Weinstein's behavior are truly concerned with stopping abuse, then they should also demand an investigation of Lisa Bloom to determine whether she is lying, intimidating, and deceiving people in order to cover up the sexually abusive behavior of Roy Price or Harvey Weinstein, and if so, Lisa Bloom should be arrested for being a criminal. We should stop being tolerant of abuse by people in leadership positions.

The Internet is having a dramatic effect on the world because it is allowing ordinary people to spread information to everybody on the planet. The Internet is also making it increasingly difficult for people to claim ignorance about an issue.

For example, there are so many people using the Internet to spread information about Harvey Weinstein that it will soon be difficult for a person to claim that he has never heard of Weinstein, or that they never heard of the expression "casting couch".

Before the Internet existed, information was spread by word-of-mouth or on paper. For example, the scanned image below shows a small flyer that was dropped from airplanes in 1938 over Hollywood in an attempt to inform people that Hollywood is under the control of the Jews, and that they are regularly raping women and encouraging gambling, drugs, and communism.

Those flyers did not have much effect on the world because only a small number of people saw them, and of those people, most would have reacted with apathy. Only a few people would have understood the message, and of those people, only a few would have responded by spreading the information to more people and avoiding Hollywood and Jews.

Not long after those flyers were dropped on Hollywood, World War II started, and the Jews used the Nazis as a way of suppressing criticism of Jews, and providing themselves with incredible levels of money, pity, and control over the governments of the world.

The difficulty of spreading information in 1938 allowed almost everybody to claim ignorance about the sexual abuse and other crimes that were occurring in the Hollywood. Today, however, at the rate information is spreading about the sexual abuse in Hollywood, everybody should soon be aware of Weinstein, as well as the accusations of pedophilia, rape, and murder.

The women who ignored Weinstein and other abusive men in Hollywood claim to be innocent victims, but if we could remove secrecy and closely observe all of the people who wanted to become an entertainer, we would discover that some of those people, after encountering those disgusting men, decided to get out of Hollywood, find another job, and associate with higher-quality people.

Children can use the excuse that they were too frightened to expose a pedophile, but the adult women made a conscious decision to ignore the abuse and remain in Hollywood, and they made that decision because they have some type of mental disorder that is causing them to have extreme cravings for wealth and fame. They did not remain in Hollywood because Weinstein had "power".

We all experience disappointments and failures during our life, and our natural reaction to problems is the same as that of a stupid animal; namely, either ignore the problems, or become angry. Elliot Rodger chose to become angry, but a lot of the women in Hollywood chose to ignore Weinstein.

Children, prisoners, and kidnap victims are forced to behave in certain manners, but every adult should be told that he can do anything he pleases with his life, and that he should take responsibility for his decisions rather than blame other people for having "power" over him, or claiming that somebody "made me angry". All of us have lots of choices in our life. For some examples:

• You can choose to regard other people as humans similar to yourself, and try to learn from them, including people you don't like, such as Hitler, the KKK members, and Joseph Stalin. Or you can choose to regard the people you don't like as monsters, and insist that nobody ever point out any of their good qualities, and you can condemn people like James Damore for saying something nice about the KKK job titles.

• You can choose to look critically at yourself and try to improve your life. Or you can waste your time praising yourself and blaming other people for your troubles, as Elliot Rodger did.

• You can react to criticism and competitors with hatred or envy, and you can spend your life trying to get revenge on them, or sabotage them. Or, you can choose to find ways to learn about and work around your limitations, and you can choose to enjoy other people's talents and achievements.

Ideally, we would restrict leadership positions to people who promote the beneficial attitude that everybody is responsible for their behavior, as opposed to what Hollywood and journalists are doing right now, which is encouraging people to be arrogant jerks who accuse one another of being evil, and who will not look critically at themselves.

The women in Hollywood whine about Weinstein, and the feminists whine about sexism, but we are not going to improve our world by whining and hating. We need to exert some self-control, study men and women, and try to understand the differences between us. Then we can use that knowledge to alter our social environment, work environment, recreational activities, and jobs to be more appropriate for us, and to reduce conflicts between us.

Men actually have a very powerful desire to pamper and please women. Weinstein, and other men, do not want to rape women. We want women to admire us, and be willing participants in sex. Men will rape women only when they are angry and frustrated.

A sex robot that moans.

It might help women to understand this characteristic of men if they notice the rise in popularity of a new sex robot; specifically, a robot that moans. Understanding why that robot is becoming so popular so quickly can help women understand men, and it can help women understand themselves.

Most male animals are physically stronger than the females. As a result, when a male animal wants sex, it is possible for him to grab a female and rape her. The male animals that don't have hands to hold a female, such as ducks, could attack a female so that she becomes injured and falls to the ground, and then he could rape her. Male animals do occasionally rape females, but it could be happening on a much larger scale. What is stopping the male animals from routinely raping the females?

You might respond that the male animals are worried about their social status, or about criticism, but that doesn't make sense. Animals are too stupid to have such concerns. Animals do not think about their behavior. They react according to their emotional cravings. Therefore, there must be some emotion that is preventing rape. The males must have evolved an emotional desire for the females to be willing participants.

In the case of humans, when men give gifts to women, the women react in a certain manner, such as smiling and speaking in a certain tone of voice. This provides the men with feedback that they are pleasing the women. Men are titillated when women smile at them and give them compliments. We do not want to see women display angry facial expressions at us.

When women are enjoying sex, they make noises, and those noises are the feedback mechanism to let men know that the women are enjoying themselves. Men evolved a craving to hear those noises. We do not want to have sex with a silent woman, or a woman that is making other types of noises, such as yelling at us to get away from her.

The sex robot that moans is more popular than the silent robots because men have an emotion that is titillated by that moaning noise. It is equivalent to a robot that smiles at us. This robot fools the men into believing that "she" is enjoying the sex.

Men and women are built from the same genetic blueprint. There are only subtle differences between us. An analysis of women's behavior will show that they have the exact same characteristic, but it is modified for raising children.

Women have a very strong craving to pamper, protect, and please their children. Women do not want to abuse children. Women will become abusive to children only when they are angry, just as men will rape women only when they are angry.

Women want to please children, but how can their dumb emotions realize that they are pleasing a baby or a child? In humans, the feedback mechanism is the smiling, giggling, and certain other facial expressions of the child. Women have emotions that are titillated by those giggling noises and facial expressions. Those noises and facial expressions provide the women with feedback to let them know that they are doing a good job as a mother.

There are a variety of baby dolls for women to titillate themselves with, but the dolls that are the most attractive to women are those that can smile and giggle.

Men are also titillated by the odors of a woman, so if chemists can figure out how to give robots that same scent, those robots will replace all of the robots that smell like plastic. Incidentally, I wonder if a woman'a body reduces or stops the production of those pleasant odors when they are being raped, or if their body switches to producing a less desirable oder.

What is the difference between a sex robot that moans for a man, and a baby doll that giggles for a woman? What is the difference between a woman who enjoys the scent of a baby, and a man who enjoys the scent of a woman?

Of course, now that the human race is degrading genetically, during every generation there are more men with a greater tendency to rape women, and there will be more women and babies who do not produce pleasant facial expressions, moaning noises, giggling, or odors.

The feminists focus attention on the defective men who are violent, angry, and miserable, but that is as ridiculous as a zoologist making claims about a species based on a couple of retarded animals.

Women are reinforcing the theory that women are less intelligent than men when they complain that men are sexist creatures. Men have such a strong craving to pamper, appease, and protect women that only a few men are capable of publicly admitting that there are genetic differences in the intellectual and emotional characteristics of men and women, and that the feminists are ruining our social environment by spreading nonsensical accusations, anger, hatred, and pouting. Actually, we could accuse the feminists of slandering men.

Most men are so incapable of standing up to women that they allow the feminists to ruin our social environment and relationships. The men are also allowing the feminists to interfere with our understanding of men and women.

When are some men going to exert enough self-control to join me in publicly standing up to the feminist nonsense? James Damore is not helping me; rather, he seems to be part of the network of nitwits that is trying to lure people over to the anti-genetic, social scientists and away from people like me.

This website has several pages of amusing and sarcastic remarks from women who complain that when their husband gets an ordinary cold, he acts as if he is going to die, whereas women boast that they quietly handle diseases and pains that are much worse. For example:

[Husband] and I both have the flu. Only difference is I'm cleaning the kitchen and he's dying.

There may be some truth to this accusation, but if women are better at dealing with disease and pain, it's not because they are "better" than men. It is because we are "different". And the reason we have this difference is because we evolved for different roles in life.

Male animals are in competition to be the leader of the group. The males that win the competition will be among the strongest, healthiest, and most energetic. As I described in Part 5 of this series, human men are the descendants of the male animals that have been winning the battle for dominance. We are not descendants of the losers.

Prehistoric men were in competition with other men to be the leaders of the group. The men also had to do a lot of physical labor in order to find food and carry heavy animals back home for their family. The men who were the most dominant and successful were those who were the strongest, healthiest, and most energetic. The men who were sickly, weak, and lethargic were not as successful in feeding their families, or in attracting women.

However, the competitive battle between female humans was different. They competed with other women to attract the attention of men, and their technique was to make themselves look pretty, and to flirt with the men.

Since prehistoric people were nomadic, both men and women needed the ability to walk long distances, so there is not much of a difference between the ability of men and women to walk or run. However, women did not need to do much physical labor with their arms, especially not with their arms above their head, and as a result, women have significantly less strength in their arms and shoulders.

Our different roles in life also have affected how we evolved to deal with disease and pain. A man with a defective immune system was at a very significant disadvantage because every time he got sick, his ability to compete with other men would be reduced, and his ability to find and bring back food for his family would be reduced. The result was that the men who dominated the tribes, and who were the most successful in attracting women and raising families, were the men who rarely got sick.

By comparison, a woman with a defective immune system would not have suffered as much because the women didn't have to do such physically and mentally demanding tasks. If a woman was capable of ignoring the pain and suffering from the disease, she could continue doing her chores, such as looking for vegetables and taking care of her children.

The end result of the differences in the roles of men and women is that the men never had to evolve the ability to work through sickness because the dominant men were rarely, if ever, sick. By comparison, the women with defective immune systems did not suffer much if they were capable of working while sick, or while suffering from allergies, headaches, or menstrual pain. The end result is that women developed the ability to tolerate sickness and pain better than men.

A prehistoric woman would have also been capable of successfully attracting a man and raising a family even if she was stupid, or suffering from mental disorders.

If we were to eliminate secrecy and keep a detailed database on everybody's life, we might discover that women are indeed noticeably better than men at dealing with disease and pain. We might also discover that women are more likely to get certain types of diseases, allergies, or other problems, and men are more likely to have other problems.

Regardless of what we discover about ourselves, it does not make sense to say that one sex is "better" than the other. It would make more sense to say that we have different characteristics because we evolved for slightly different roles in life.

Men evolved to be leaders. Men are supposed to be healthy, and we are supposed to provide guidance to our families and group. Men did not evolve to cope with diseases, headaches, digestive problems, joint problems, or tooth decay. We are not supposed to need pampering, medical care, pity, or handouts. We were not designed to cry when we have problems, either.

Unfortunately, during the past few thousand years, humans have been allowing defective people to successfully reproduce. Men are degrading into sickly creatures with defective immune systems. Today many men have a wide variety of allergies, digestive problems, and mental disorders.

If we were restricting reproduction, each generation would be healthier than the previous generation. We would slowly eliminate diseases, headaches, digestive problems, insomnia, sneezing, snoring, and nose picking. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite. Therefore, every generation will have a larger percentage of sickly people, which means there will be more women in the future complaining that their husbands act like babies when they get sick.

At the rate information about Weinstein is spreading around the world, anybody who claims ignorance about the sexual abuse in Hollywood should be regarded as having too little interest in the world to be an effective voter.

Likewise, we should stop making excuses for people who are ignorant about the information that Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives. People who don't know this by 2017 should be disqualified from voting on the grounds that they don't have enough interest in the world to bother learning about such incredible crimes.

We should not allow ignorant and apathetic people to determine our future. People who want to vote should take an active role in learning about what is going on in the world, and they should show an interest in improving the world.

Furthermore, some of the people who appear to be ignorant or apathetic are actually criminals who are faking ignorance or apathy in order to suppress or cover up the crimes.

We should also tell the Germans that it is time for them to get off their hands and knees, and start investigating the world wars, the Holocaust, and Anne Frank's diary. If you know any Germans, encourage them to stop allowing themselves to be abused, and start impressing the world with their intelligence and talent.

An example of how hopeless the ordinary people are can be seen at the Las Vegas shooting in October 2017. Here is a video that was made by a taxi driver. During the first half of the video, she is parked at the hotel where the shootings are occurring, and eventually she is advised by her company to get out of the area. As she drives away, she passes by panicky people who are running from the concert. Some of those panicky people get into her taxi and immediately begin giving her orders. Their attitude is that they are Kings and Queens, and she is a peasant whose duty is to please them.

This attitude is encouraged in a free enterprise system. Businesses treat us as if we are Kings and Queens, and they are our servants. Businesses pander to us, which encourages us to be arrogant, demanding, and selfish.

One of her passengers told her to take him to the New York New York Hotel, but she said that she could not drive back to that area. He then offered her $100, but she again told him that she cannot go back to that area. Even though he was offering her $100, at the end of the taxi ride, when she asked if anybody had money to pay the taxi fare, the people's attitude was essentially,

"Are you serious? We just suffered a frightening situation. We don't owe you anything. You owe us a free taxi ride."

She felt so intimidated that she replied, "No, I'm not serious." I would also not be surprised if those people were much wealthier than the taxi driver, and that, after getting out of the taxi, they expected a free meal from the restaurants.

Their refusal to pay the small amount of money she asked for makes me wonder if the person who offered her $100 to go to the New York New York hotel would have given her the money, or if he would have walked away, and if she had asked for the money, he would have responded:

"Are you serious? I'm the person suffering here, not you. You should be giving me pity and free services! Do you have any idea what I just went through? I don't think so!"

In a free enterprise system, businesses have a dilemma during disasters. Specifically, each business must make a decision on when a disaster is so serious that they should provide their items and services for free. For an extreme example, if a tornado were to destroy a neighborhood, leaving people with serious medical injuries lying in the rubble, I can understand why those people would expect a taxi to give them a free ride to a hospital.

However, if you watch that video of the taxi ride, most of the city of Las Vegas was operating as it always did, so I can understand why the taxi drivers were expecting passengers to pay for the rides.

Incidentally, are you aware of the evidence that the Jews arranged for photographers and witnesses to be at key locations in New York City and at the Pentagon prior to the attack on 9/11 so that those phony witnesses would be the first people to provide information about what happened? If so, then you should realize that it is possible that some of the photographers and witnesses of the shooting in Las Vegas were also placed there so that they would be among the first people to provide information about what happened.

Therefore, it is possible that the taxi driver and/or her passengers were working with the crime network that arranged for the attack, and that their panicky behavior was just an act to fool us into thinking that it was a "real" attack rather than another false flag operation.

However, it is also possible that the people in that taxi were just ordinary people, in which case their panicky, selfish, arrogant behavior is another example of how hopeless the ordinary people are.

As I mentioned earlier in this document, whenever there is a hurricane or other disaster, the people waste a lot of time praising themselves and one another for helping to deal with the disaster. In reality, most people react to problems like an animal, rather than calmly think about and discuss the problems like a human. They become worried about their life, and so survival dominates their decisions. They become selfish, arrogant, irrational, and panicky.

The people who remain calm during disasters, make wise decisions, and are helpful, are in a minority. The majority of people behave like animals. The passengers in that taxi are an example. They behaved as if other people exist only to serve them. They expect other people to do things for them, but they did not want to do anything for other people.

Animals expect us to do things for them, but they never do anything for us. We ought to pass judgment on who among us is demanding more than they give. Those people are behaving like animals, not advanced humans.

Unfortunately, this is a complicated issue. It is not easy to determine when somebody is doing something because he truly wants to help other people, and when he is doing something merely to deceive himself or us. For example, if Roman Polanski were to drug and rape a 13-year-old girl, and then do her a favor, such as help her become an actress, or give her parents a lot of money, is his generosity providing evidence that he truly cares about her?

If Weinstein were to push a woman into a sex act, and then help her become an actress, does his generosity provide us with evidence that he truly wants to help other people? If Weinstein goes to a treatment center for sexually abusive men, does that prove to us that he is a wonderful man who wants to improve his terrible behavior?

A related issue is when a person commits a crime, and then goes to a Catholic church to confess and ask for forgiveness, does his confession undo his bad behavior and show us that he wants to be honest?

A lot of people donate money to churches, charities, and schools, and a lot of people will do favors for other people, but how many of those people are doing those things only because they feel guilty about something, as opposed to doing them because they truly want to be a member of their community and work together for the benefit of all?

Many of the people who voluntarily donate money to charities, as opposed to being pushed into it by aggressive salesmen, seem to be donating the money only to make themselves feel good, not to help the world. This would explain why they have no interest in learning what the charity does with the money. They don't want to get involved with the charity; all they want to do is give some money, and then titillate themselves with praise about how they are generous and loving people. They are donating money so that they can jerk themselves off, not to help other people.

The nature documentaries on television that are produced by "liberals" frequently criticize humans for causing global warming, getting into wars, polluting the environment, and killing animals. They frequently praise the animals for behaving better than humans.

In reality, the opposite is true. It is not the "humans" who are ruining the world, it is the humans who behave like animals. For example, the people who grab at what they want, such as grabbing at our material items, food, children, and women, are behaving more like an animal than a human. When Harvey Weinstein, for example, grabs at women, he is behaving like a dog that is trying to have sex with our leg, or a dog that is trying to grab food from our dinner table.

Likewise, the people who beg for donations, inheritances, free taxi rides, trust funds, welfare benefits, and tariffs for their business are also behaving more like an animal. Animals have no inhibitions or embarrassment about begging for food, or begging us to scratch them, or begging us to throw a stick for them to chase.

The people who cannot control their consumption of food and become obese, like the monkey in the photo, or anorexic, or malnourished, are behaving more like animals than humans. The animals that do not become obese when provided with large amounts of food are not superior to humans. They simply have a hunger mechanism that evolved to deal with large amounts of food.

Humans are the only creature with the intelligence and self-control necessary to make wise decisions about foods. We should stop tolerating the slanderous accusation that humans are terrible creatures who are destroying our planet, and that animals are superior to us. The people who make those accusations should be described as slandering the humans, and as derogatory, insulting, or hateful.

Animals are not better than humans. Humans are superior, but because of genetic variations, genetic defects, and environmental damage, there are a lot of people whose behavior is as crude as, or worse than, that of the animals. Some of the mentally ill people, such as Joseph Fritzl, will commit crimes that no animal would do.

The mentally defective humans can create the impression that human behavior is worse than animal behavior. However, if a zoo were to allow a group of monkeys to degrade into retards, the behavior of those monkeys would become increasingly bizarre and destructive, also.

Every society is degrading into retards, and to make the situation worse, we are allowing the whiny, miserable, mentally disturbed, and angry people to exert a tremendous influence over society because most people are intimidated by them.

A modern society needs a security force that is capable of passing judgment on who among us is behaving properly, and the security personnel need the emotional ability to restrict or evict the crude and abusive people rather than be intimidated, deceived, or manipulated by them.

Update January 2021: Since nobody was interested after more than 3 years, I deleted this section.