We can classify the people in a nation in lots of different ways, but to explain the concepts in this particular article, I will consider a society as consisting of only three classes of people; namely, the peasant class, the working class, and the wealthy class.

I use the phrase "peasant class" to refer to the group of people who are not truly accepted as members of society. They are the people that we use for unskilled labor, but we don't want them in our lives. We push them aside. Up until recently, some of them were slaves and orphans, but most of them are foreigners or the idiots, retards, and criminals of our own nation.

We don't want the peasants living in our neighborhoods; we don't want them going to the same school that our children go to; we don't want our children to marry them; and we don't want to socialize with them. We want to use the peasants as a source of inexpensive labor, and when they are finished working, we want them to go to their section of the city.

I think we create an unpleasant society when we have unwanted people living among us, regardless of whether they are unwanted children that we discard in orphanages, or people that we use as maids, laborers, and nannies. Many of the peasants realize that they are being treated like animals, and this creates resentment, and it sometimes results in strikes, riots, and vandalism. The peasants are also likely to support idiotic philosophies, such as communism.

To make the situation worse, no society is capable of admitting that there are unwanted people living among us, and that we are treating these people like animals. Instead, we pretend that the peasants are just ordinary citizens. For example, we allow them to vote and serve on juries, thereby creating the illusion that we consider them to be our friends and equals. This causes even more trouble for society because they cannot handle those responsibilities. We also let them reproduce as often as they please, even if they don't take care of their children, and even if they abandon their children in the streets or orphanages, and even if the mother is addicted to drugs while she is pregnant.

We don't benefit from a "wealthy class"

I use the expression "wealthy class" to refer to the people who are provided with extreme amounts of material wealth and pampering. I have no objection to allowing some people to have some special privileges in return for their unusual contributions to society, but I don't see any way to justify providing some people with extreme levels of material wealth or pampering, especially when they haven't done anything to earn the special pampering. Treating people as Kings and Queens also causes them and their children to be social outcasts, and it wastes our labor and resources. Society does not benefit from it.

It is easy to eliminate the wealthy class because they are a small percentage of the population, and many of them are so worthless that we don't have to replace them. All of the monarchies of Europe, for example, can be eliminated without finding replacements for them.

The wealthy businessmen in Hollywood, real estate, television, and sports are doing some work, but all of them can be removed without finding replacements. Most of them don't actually do "work"; rather, they just give orders to other people. Furthermore, many of their businesses are unnecessary. For example, do we really need Steven Spielberg or his businesses that produces silly movies? If we were to remove him from society, nobody would notice that he or his businesses were missing; nobody would complain that the quality of their life has diminished. We could also eliminate all of the wealthy people in the investment and banking businesses, and the wealthy people in real estate, children's entertainment, gambling, pornography, and religion.

Are you willing to do "peasant work"?

I prefer a society in which there is only a "working class", not a peasant class, or a wealthy class. However, it is not easy to remove the peasant class because they are doing a lot of critical jobs. We do not yet have the technology to replace them with machines so we must make some dramatic changes to society to reduce the number of peasants that we need. However, no matter how many changes we make, there will be some peasant work that must be done. Therefore, without a peasant class, we - you and I - must share the peasant work that we cannot eliminate.

What sort of sacrifices are you willing to make in order to reduce the amount of peasant work that we have to do? And are you willing to share some the peasant work that we cannot eliminate? Or would you prefer keeping this group of people until we have the technology to replace them with machines?

Don't react with fear! Look for solutions

We can eliminate a lot of peasant work simply by changing society to make it more efficient and sensible. For some simple examples, we don't need people to put labels on apples, bananas, and other fruit, and we don't need any telemarketing or door-to-door sales. By eliminate those jobs, we also eliminate a lot of work that was supporting those operations. For example, the labels require plastics, oil, and electricity.

However, no matter how efficient we make society, we are going to need people to mine coal and iron ore, work on assembly lines, recycle products, clean public bathrooms, maintain sewers, and kill and butcher chickens. Without a peasant class, that work must be divided up among the people.

Animals react to unfamiliar situations with fear, and so your first reaction to the thought of sharing in the mining of coal or the killing of chickens will probably be fear, also. However, try to control yourself. Look for solutions to problems, not excuses to run away. As I will describe in this article and in Part 3, we can significantly reduce the peasant work by making changes to society.

Only a small percentage of the population are involved in the production of food, electricity, and material items, and they are producing much more than we actually need. As I will show in this series of articles, there are a lot of ways to reduce the peasant work, so don't react with fear at the thought of sharing the peasant work. Instead, react by thinking about how to reduce the need for peasants.

Centuries ago everybody did whatever work needed to be done. All of the men would make tools, hunt, prepare animals for meals, make fires, and cook meat. All of the women worked, also. They took care of their babies, made clothing, and helped to find food for themselves and their children. Furthermore, the teenagers used to contribute, also.

Today, especially in the wealthier nations, many people consider themselves to be too educated, talented, or special to do certain types of work, such as cleaning up after themselves. However, we do not lower the quality of our life when we do peasant work. People have been doing that type of work for thousands of years. Some of it can actually be quite interesting when you only have to do it briefly once in a while.

I have done a variety of peasant jobs during my life, but I never suffered as a result. Actually, I would say that it gave me a better understanding of our society. Peasant work can be considered torturous and miserable, or it can be considered an interesting experience. You can interpret life anyway you please. It is your decision.

How good is your understanding of people?

My remark that doing peasant work gave me a better understanding of society might not make sense to you so I thought I'd better say a bit about it before I move on.

We have a tendency to associate only with people who are similar to ourselves. We see a lot of people with our eyes, and we say "hello" to lots of people, but we don't get to know them very well. This can give us the unrealistic impression that the world is dominated by people similar to ourselves. Children who have been pampered during their life by wealthy parents seem to be especially deprived of experiencing the real world. Some of them, such as Prince Charles of England, are given an "education", such as how to use a hammer and a shovel, but they don't truly experience the world in the same manner as the rest of us.

Since I did not go to college, I initially did unskilled labor, and that put me into close contact with the poor and working class people. I thought I knew those people since I was in school with them and they were all around the city, but I discovered that my understanding of them was as superficial as Prince Charles' understanding of carpentry. It made me realize that even though we went to school together, we never had close contact with one another. Children in school separate into small groups of friends who are very similar to one another. Each group assumes that they know the children in the other groups, but they don't always have a good understanding of one another because of their tendency to avoid each other.

When you are making a living as an unskilled laborer, you have the amazing opportunity to get to closely know a lot of other unskilled laborers. You will be in close contact with them during your job, and you will have lunch breaks with them, and you will make the same amount of money that they make, and you will live in their neighborhoods. This gives you the opportunity to compare how you spend money to how they spend money; how you eat to how they eat; how you treat people to how they treat people; and how you deal with life's routine problems to how they deal with them.

For example, I remember one of my neighbors driving to the store to pick something up, and after he got back he realized he needed something else, so he drove to the store a second time. He didn't actually need to pick up either item that particular day, so he could have waited another day or two and then did all his shopping at once. That would have saved some gasoline and wear on his automobile and tires.

You may respond that we all make unnecessary trips, and we all make dumb decisions, but when you live around these people, you will realize that they are making dumb decisions more often, and their decisions are usually much more stupid.

For another example that I still consider amusing, one man during our lunch break mentioned that he had a few hundred extra dollars from his previous paycheck, and he was wondering if he should save it or spend it. Most of these people were between the ages of 20 and 30, and they had a tendency to spend money as quickly as they made it, so they normally didn't have much savings. So, when this man asked what he should do with his extra money, one of the other men blurted out a remark similar to, "Buy a stereo!"

It was also interesting to observe the way they treated one another. Most of these people were very friendly, nice, and sociable, but some of their relationships were rather "crude". Some of these men would settle their disputes with what they referred to as "one-on-one". I woke up one night because of some noise, looked out my window, and saw two men having a fight while each of them had a friend nearby in the role of a referee. When you live around these people, you can understand why they settle disputes this way. As with animals, if you want one of them just leave you alone, you've got to threaten him with physical violence. You cannot use intelligent reasoning.

Displays of submission can be useful with these people, also, just as with animals. For example, there was one time I was talking to one of my neighbors, and two men were nearby, and one of them had such an ugly face that I couldn't help but look at him. He had a big nose and a slated forehead, and it made me think of a rat. He had a resemblance to Ariel Helwani (in the photo), except that his skin was ugly, perhaps from drugs, bad nutrition, or smoking, and he had long, sloppy, curly brown hair, like radio host Howard Stern. How could I resist looking?

I tried to be discreet by only glancing at him once in a while, but he was apparently extremely sensitive to people looking at his face. He made some angry remark, such as, "You better stop staring at me!", and he started to come towards me with a threatening posture. It would have resulted in a fight if I had reacted with defiance, but I appeased him by politely telling him that I wasn't staring, and eventually my neighbor and his friend also helped to calm him down. With three of us trying to calm him down, he eventually backed off. I had the feeling that he must have been ridiculed in school.

This incident may not seem to be important to you, but it is affecting all of us. I will mention this issue in more detail at the end of this file, but to summarize it now, allowing Neanderthal creatures to live with us is creating trouble for all of us. Their children are tortured in school for their ugly appearance, or their whiny voice, or their bland personalities, and they react by fighting, becoming bitter or envious, hating us, or crying about being bullied. We need to create a more homogenous society.

Getting back to life in the working-class neighborhoods, I was also amazed to discover that they had different methods of dealing with hiccups, and all of their methods were rather stupid, such as one of them pinching the other person's finger and hurting him. It's possible that different people need different methods to stop hiccups, but my mother taught us a method that has worked for me without failure. I put a bit of water in a glass, and then 1) sit down and try to relax my body while waiting for a hiccup, 2) after the hiccup, I hold my breath for 10 seconds, 3) take one mouthful of water and swallow it while still holding my breath, and finally 4) quickly exhale and then take another breath that I hold about ten more seconds. I rarely have to do the technique twice.

As I watched their futile and idiotic attempts to get rid of hiccups, it made me wonder, why are different families in the same nation teaching their children different techniques about hiccups? Where did the technique that my mother taught me originally come from? How many other differences are there between our families? What would I have been taught if I had grown up in your family?

When I was a teenager, I assumed that I had a good understanding of the human race because I grew up around lots of different people. However, when you get a job as an unskilled laborer, and when you live in their neighborhoods, then you cannot avoid them and associate with people similar to yourself. When you work and live among them, then they become your neighbors, your coworkers, and the people you eat lunch with. This forces you to get to know people that you normally only say "Hello" to.

It also seemed to me that there were more types of "accidents" in these neighborhoods. They seemed to be more likely to accidentally cut themselves with their kitchen knives, and their children seemed more likely to accidentally break their teeth or bones while playing. It also seemed that they had more accidents with pregnancies.

This is a very important issue. The widespread belief in the world today is that accidents are random events that we have no control over, but if we were to keep a database of all of the accidents in the world, we would notice that some people are having more accidents. This is evidence that at least some of these accidents are not random events. Rather, some of them are due to the behavior of the people.

Getting to know different people can help you to realize that the subtle differences between us are what causes us to end up with different lives. People with problems like to complain that they are helpless victims of corporations or poverty, but we are in control of our lives. Each of us decides how we will spend our money, whether we will settle disputes with a one-on-one fight, and how we will treat people of the opposite sex. We also decide when we are going to eat, and how much, and what type of food. The problems we experience are due to our own decisions, not the devil, the aristocrats, bureaucracies, poverty, corporations, or the "military-industrial establishment".

All humans are very similar. The difference between one person and another is small, but it is very significant. It is those tiny differences between us that allows one person to be happy and another to be miserable; one person to be successful in his job, and another to be a failure; one person to be honest and another to be a criminal; and one person to control his drinking, and another to become an alcoholic.

If you were to spend time living in the poor or working-class neighborhoods, it might help you to understand that we cannot eliminate poverty by "spreading the wealth". Those people already have jobs and make money, and they have luxurious material items that the kings of the Middle Ages didn't even fantasize about, such as electricity, automobiles, and refrigerators. We cannot improve the lives of poor people simply by giving them money. They are not suffering from a shortage of money. They are suffering from a mind that was designed for a primitive life. They cannot cope with life today.

However, don't assume that only the poor people are having trouble coping with life. It seems that most of the extremely wealthy people are also having trouble. I think that is the reason they waste their lives struggling for money.

How many of the products on the market do you actually need?

In our free enterprise system, businesses are under pressure to increase sales, not reduce sales, and they have no concern for whether their products have any value. The end result is that lots of businesses are providing us with products and services that we could eliminate without anybody complaining that we have ruined the quality of their life. For example, we could reduce the number of variations of laundry detergent without anybody complaining. This will not bring a dramatic improvement to society, but it's just one of many products that we can provide ourselves in a more efficient manner. We could also make laundry detergent without perfumes. That does not save us a noticeable amount of labor or resources, either, but every little bit adds up.

We could also eliminate entire business categories... if the people are willing to make such sacrifices. For example, if the people in a city are willing to forego gambling operations, then they eliminate all of the work required to support that business. Gambling operations, and every other business, require resources, such as paper, electricity, aluminum, plastic, and wood. The more businesses we eliminate, the less labor we need for mining coal, refining aluminum, and producing paper.

When we take control of our economic system, then we can determine which products and services are available. As you read this series of articles, think seriously about what type of sacrifices you are willing to make to eliminate the peasant class and reduce the work that we have to share. Or do you not consider eliminating this class of people to be a worthwhile goal? Do you have any better ideas?

You have only one life, and time is running out for you. What do you want to do with your remaining years? And will we be able to make compromises? Or will we behave like those characters in the Dr. Seuss book who argue forever and never accomplish anything? Will we have to have a "one-on-one" to settle our differences?

As I did with the first article in this series, I will explain my opinions in more detail, often describing the same concept in different ways, which might make it seem that I am repeating myself.

I like the concept of single-family homes with private yards, but there are incredible disadvantages to this style of city. I discussed some of these disadvantages in previous files, so I will only refresh your memory with some of them:

Transportation
A city with single-family homes, no matter how well organized it is, requires an extensive network of roads and vehicles to connect all of the homes and businesses to one another. If the transportation system consists of vehicles that are driven by humans rather than computers, then the people also need to maintain an extensive network of traffic signals. If the roads and parking areas are above ground, then a lot of valuable land is wasted on roads, parking lots, and refueling stations.

The vehicles also increase the noise and dust in the city, and at night they increase the light pollution. There are occasional traffic accidents, and this causes an additional waste of resources, and it creates medical problems that also consume labor and resources. Vehicles that are driven by humans also create the problem that children cannot use the system.

These type of cities also require everybody spend more of their life traveling from one destination to another. If you enjoy driving automobiles, and if you enjoy refueling them, then you will consider this to be a benefit, but I consider every hour spent driving or refueling to be an hour that has been wasted. Traveling on a train can be a waste of time, also, but it is possible to do something more enjoyable or useful, such as socializing, reading, and in some cases, enjoying the scenery or taking a rest. In the cities we live in today, we don't want to socialize with the people on the train, but I think that would change if we lived in a more homogenous, more friendly society.

Utilities
Single-family homes require a much more extensive network of utility lines.

Resources for homes
Single-family homes require more glass, metal, wood, heating, air-conditioning, and other resources per person compared to people who live in large buildings.

Food
All of the single-family homes need kitchens and dining rooms, and the city has to put a lot of time and resources into packaging and distributing food for markets, and removing the trash created by all of the food packages.

Land
A city of single-family homes requires a lot of land, and that reduces the land available for parks, canals, recreational areas, and forests.

A City of Castles makes transportation much simpler

Advantages and disadvantages depend upon your emotions. I personally think that the City of Castles concept provides a much nicer city overall than a city with single-family homes. One reason is that I personally do not enjoy driving automobiles, refueling them, or maintaining them. I prefer the City of Castles concept because it allows me to travel by foot, bicycle, train, and moving walkways. Furthermore, by putting schools and recreational areas for young children within each castle, then the young children can get to their activities by walking and taking elevators.

The city would need a transportation system to connect the castles to one another, and connect them to the businesses, farms, parks, recreational centers, airports, and other areas, but we do not need human controlled vehicles. We already have the technology to provide such a city with completely automated trains. This allows children and old people to travel around the city by themselves. It would also reduce traffic accidents, and eliminate all of the traffic signals that humans require.

By putting the entire train system underground, the city would be quieter, cleaner, and more attractive because the area between the buildings would be available for grass, bicycle paths, creeks, gardens, patios, picnic areas, and walkways.

A City of Castles requires much less maintenance

A city of single-family homes requires a lot of maintenance. There is an enormous number of roads, vehicles, and utility lines to maintain. There are also lots of rain gutters to maintain; glass windows to clean; and a large roof surface area.

By comparison, a City of Castles has significantly fewer roads and utility lines. The castle would also have much less roof surface area per person. The castles might have just as many glass windows per person to clean, but it would be practical to design the castles with automated window washers. All we have to do is design the castle with some type of railing around the outside for the machine to travel along. It is technically possible to go one step further and design the windows so that this machine can open them from the outside, thereby allowing it to clean the inside of the windows as well. If these castles are in areas where tornadoes are likely, they could be provided with metal shutters that automatically cover the windows when the wind starts blowing.

Without a peasant class to do all of the maintenance, that means each of us has to share in the work. I personally do not like single-family homes enough to be willing to tolerate the burden they put on us. How about you?

The castles don't have to be dreary prisons

One reason that some people might be hesitant about the City of Castles concept is because they have an unpleasant view of life in an apartment building. The dreary apartments built by the communist governments give a bad image to the concept of "government housing", and the apartments built by private businesses in America are also ugly, rectangular buildings, often with air-conditioners protruding from the walls, and satellite dishes on the roof or balconies.

The hallways inside apartment buildings are usually dark and dreary, and many of the doors to the apartments have more than one type of security lock or chain. Many apartment buildings in New York City have security guards at the entrance of the building. These type of apartments are not pleasant homes for people to live in. Rather, they are like prison cells or cages for stupid, frightened animals to hide in.

If we create a society that doesn't tolerate criminals and corrupt government officials, then we don't have to live in fear of one another. We could design the castles to be beautiful. Even the hallways and doors could be beautiful. The photo below is an example of a door that has a carving, and there are two colored panels along the side

We can make doors that are beautiful, soundproof, and fireproof. The colored panels could be insulated for heat and sound, and we could put LED lights inside that turn on at night to make the hallways more decorative. The hallway may not need any additional lights. The light coming from the colored panels might be enough to illuminate the hallway and show us where each door is. Furthermore, those colored panels don't have to be permanent. If we make them in a few standard sizes, then people could easily swap them out once in a while for the sake of variety.

Or how about LED panels that we can control with a computer? That would allow us to display whatever images, artwork, text messages, or photographs that we please. Of course, to be serious, LED panels are still too expensive to decorate homes, but they might be desirable for some of the buildings in the city.

If LED panels become as inexpensive as decorative ceramic tiles, then we could use them like tiles. We might not want to walk on them since that would scratch them, but they could be used to decorate the walls of buildings and bathrooms. The flexible panels could be bent around curved shapes, such as columns on buildings. These panels would allow a building to change its decorations and colors. It would be especially useful to decorate the city at night.

I don't expect to see LED panels decorating our cities during our lifetime. The reason I mention these possibilities is to emphasize that we are not helpless! Don't react to problems with fear. We have incredible opportunities, but you have to look for them. Don't be a frightened animal. Spent some time fantasizing about our options, and find the courage to experiment with our culture and our future.

Americans put a significant amount of labor and resources every year into sports, pets, jewelry, cosmetics, gambling, and television. There are estimates that the movie Avatar cost over $400 million to produce and advertise. Certainly we have the intelligence to figure out how to play sports and make movies for less labor and resources. That would provide us with more resources for our city, farms, and transportation systems. Furthermore, by switching to a society that doesn't allow a wealthy class, then we eliminate the problem of investors, landlords, businessmen, bankers, and other people from becoming billionaires from our labor. We have the labor and resources to make a nice city for ourselves. We just have to find enough people with the desire to do it.

Switch to electronic money

Businesses and governments don't need physical money in this modern world, and neither do the citizens. By switching to electronic money, we eliminate the work involved with producing tangible money, and all of the work related to tangible money, such as building and maintaining bank vaults, cash registers, and coin processing equipment. We also eliminate the problem of people counterfeiting money, stealing wallets, and robbing banks.

Furthermore, we would not need banks that we walk into to deposit or withdraw cash. With electronic money, all of the bank employees would be just people sitting in an office. None of us would have to visit a bank. All banking and financial transactions would occur with a computer.

As I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, we would simplify our life by creating a society in which all of the basic necessities are provided for free. This would eliminate a lot of monotonous, unpleasant work related to financial transactions. The citizens would use money only for luxuries and scarce items, such as abalone and vacations to the Galapagos Islands.

I am willing to live in a home without a kitchen or dining room, and get all of my cooked meals at restaurants. I suppose most people consider restaurants to be an expensive method of providing meals, but that is because of our particular free enterprise system and tax laws which gives financial benefit to food markets and penalizes restaurants.

As I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, if we get rid of our free enterprise system and create a society that is similar to that of a cruise ship or an aircraft carrier, then we can get our meals at restaurants. This will save us an enormous amount of labor because we would not have to produce large homes with kitchens or dining rooms, and we would not have to produce or maintain kitchen appliances or utensils, and we would not have to maintain food markets, and none of us would have to waste our time preparing meals.

Shipping containers for food
Getting all of our meals from restaurants would also save us a lot of labor and resources involved with the production, recycling, and disposal of containers for food because instead of packaging food in small containers for consumers, the food can be delivered to restaurants in larger, higher quality, reusable containers.

Imagine a variety of high-quality carts that can be loaded with food at a farm and transported to a restaurant.

Instead of packaging the food in disposable glass, plastic, or metal containers, we could make some high-quality carts that could be loaded with food at the farms and ranches, pushed onto a train, transported to the cities, then pushed off the train, and pushed to the restaurants. Some carts would be cushioned to protect delicate fruits, others would have insulation for keeping meat cold, and some would transport live fish. These carts would reduce the labor and resources that are used in packaging. The food could be harvested and delivered in just one, reusable container. The concept would be similar to the "shipping containers" that businesses use to transport items around the world.

We need fewer kitchen supplies
Allowing restaurants to provide our meals would also reduce the labor and resources that are currently going into the production of aluminum foil, wax paper, plastic bags, and plastic wrap because restaurants use less of that material per unit of food compared to people who cook their meals at home.

Meals can be smaller in size
Restaurants will be more efficient when they don't have to worry about profit. Instead of designing menus according to their profitability, they would be able to provide smaller portions. In a free enterprise system, we must select from meals that are of a specific size. We have options, but not very many. For example, we cannot request half of a meal, or one quarter of a meal. People who are small, or who are not very hungry, often waste a lot of their food, or they carry it home with them, which requires some type of packaging.

When a restaurant doesn't have to be concerned about profit, then they don't have to design meals to be profitable. They can offer smaller portions, and the people who are hungry can have two or three of the smaller portions. When the restaurants don't care about profit, they don't care if somebody eats two, three, or even four portions. Quite the contrary; the chefs ought to prefer this method because their meals would not be wasted.

We could let the farmers and chefs plan the menu
As I briefly mentioned in this file about food, another way to increase efficiency is to allow farmers and restaurants to plan meals for us. They would plan to produce a certain amount of wheat, corn, broccoli, chickens, pigs, and other food items, and it would be enough to feed the city, but not enough to waste any of it. From the point of view of people living in the city, there would be plenty of food to eat all the time, but if there was a problem with the production of some food item, perhaps because of bad weather, then there would be a temporary shortage of that particular food item. If the people are willing to accept these potential food shortages rather than whine about it, then the restaurants would alter their menu to avoid the use of that item. This policy would allow the farmers to produce only the food that is actually necessary.

You might respond that if there was a shortage of some food item, the city could get that food from another city, but that would require the city purchase or trade something for that food item. Unless there was such a significant shortage of food and the people were hungry, it would be better for the people to accept the fact that there was a temporary shortage of a particular food item. The chefs at the restaurants would adjust their meals according to the food that was available.

Develop products on a cycle rather than continuously

One way to reduce the production of material items is to reduce the number of variations of products that we produce. Digital cameras are a good example. It seems that every month there are several new models. Producing thousands of trivial variations of a product is wasting labor, talent, and resources. It would be more efficient if engineers would follow a production cycle. The cycle would have a different length for different products. For digital cameras, it might be every two years. In such a case, all of the businesses that are competing in the development of digital cameras would spend two years on research and development, and then announce their models. Then they would spend the next two years analyzing the previous models and doing research and development for the next cycle.

When products are developed on a cycle, then we would use a particular model for at least as long as the cycle, and then we could replace it with a new model. This would ensure that society gets some use out of the products that we create, and it would also allow engineers to observe the performance of their products before they create a new product. This would also simplify maintenance because the mechanics and technicians wouldn't need so many variations of spare parts, and they wouldn't have to know how to repair thousands of slightly different products.

Developing products on a cycle also allows us to easily make dramatic changes in products or standards. For example, memory cards for cameras have changed in shape, size, and format many times. It would be better for society if we developed electronic equipment on a cycle because it would allow us to switch to another standard in one day. Our government could announce that in the upcoming cycle, the cameras, computers, and other equipment will switch to a new style of memory card, or a new format for USB connections. Developing products on a cycle would allow a city to make changes that would be impossible in a free enterprise system, such as the complete replacement of the entire telephone system.

Review prototypes, not production models

In a free enterprise system, the consumers determine which products will be successful. This requires that the businesses develop and manufacture the product, and place it on the market to compete with other products. This is causing a tremendous waste because a lot of products turn out to be unprofitable and are discontinued. The factories, people, and resources that went into those abandoned products are wasted. An example is the VHS and beta videotapes that were competing many years ago.

A better solution would be for the prototypes to be put into competition. Using the digital cameras as an example, if we were developing the cameras on a two-year cycle, then every two years all of the companies would bring their prototypes to a product review event for digital cameras. It would be similar to the "trade shows" that we have today, except that instead of trying to sell items, they would be showing their prototypes.

Furthermore, they would be demonstrating their prototypes to government officials who are responsible for determining which prototypes will go into production. The government officials would be a much more demanding group of people than the ordinary consumers, and so the businesses would be under pressure to provide intelligent analyses of their products rather than silly advertising slogans, such as, "New! Improved! Now with Lemon Freshness!"

At the tradeshows of today, the companies are in control of the show, and their customers are submissive. Their customers do not learn much about the products because they are subjected to the same deceptive information that they find on television.

To further improve this situation, the government would be in the dominant role, and the companies would be in a submissive role. The businesses would be required to answer any questions they were asked. The businesses would not be allowed to keep secrets, use women as sexual props, offer gifts, or refuse to demonstrate or explain the features of their product.

The government would select some products for production, and then they would observe how people reacted to the product, how much maintenance it required, and how easy it was to recycle. The government officials, not the consumers, would make the final decisions about products. The consumers would influence the decisions indirectly according to how they used or didn't like the products. This is a complicated issue, so I will describe it in more detail in a subsequent article in this series.

Develop products for high-quality people, not savages or lunatics

Some companies are offering flights to the top of the atmosphere, and in March 2012, Elon Musk boasted that his company will be able to offer trips to Mars, possibly as soon as 2022. How does society benefit by developing these type of services?

Some people are truly adventurous, and they consider a trip to the moon, the Galapagos Islands, or Mars as an opportunity to explore the universe. When we send such a person to the moon, then he will explore the moon and provide us with some valuable information.

By comparison, when we send a wealthy person to the moon who is suffering from low self-esteem or who is simply more like an animal and wants to feel special, then we get nothing in return other than worthless tourist photos. These type of people will consider a trip to the moon as an opportunity to boast and intimidate us, and as an opportunity to fantasize that they are the top monkey in the hierarchy. They want to go to the moon so that they can feel special, not because they want to explore the moon. Providing such people with trips to the moon is a waste of society's labor and resources.

This concept also applies to providing wealthy people with yachts, mansions, and cell phones that are covered in gold and diamonds (in the photo). The wealthy people want those products only to intimidate us and feel special. We get nothing of value in return. We are wasting our labor and resources when we provide people with those type of products and services, and we are also encouraging other crude people to fantasize about acquiring those types of products. We should design society for the people we regard as high-quality humans, and we should tell the mentally ill, crude, and psychotic people to deal with their problems or they will be removed from society.

The free enterprise system doesn't allow us to have any control over businesses, but when we let the government have control of the economic system, then we can decide if we want to put our labor and resources into gambling casinos, flights to the upper atmosphere, and even food products, such as marshmallows and candy canes.

Do you want to join the "100-Mile High Club"?

People who are suffering from low self-esteem or certain types of mental disorders will frequently do something that nobody else does simply so that they can feel special. One of those activities is having sex in an airplane while it is in flight. The people who do this refer to themselves as members of the "Mile High Club". I have even seen message boards on the Internet in which people boast about the strange places they've had sex. These men are proud of themselves, but take a serious look at the minds of their women. Would you want to marry any of their women?

When I was a young teenager, I would have been excited at the thought of having sex in the bathroom; actually, sex anywhere. However, as I grew up I started noticing that the women I consider desirable don't behave like that. I suspect that the women most of us would want as a wife would put up significant resistance to having sex in an airline bathroom.

Therefore, the men who boast about being in the Mile High Club ought to be more honest by saying, "My wife is such a loser that I can have sex with her in the bathroom of an airplane!"

If we develop the technology to provide wealthy people with flights to the upper atmosphere, they will boast about it, thereby causing other people to want to do it. Eventually some man will have sex during their brief moment of weightlessness, and then he will boast that he is the first member of the 100-Mile High Club, or the Zero-G Club. Young teenage boys will be excited at the thought of joining that special club, and some adult men will actually do it.

As I mentioned in one of my other files, humans sometimes behave just like fish. Specifically, some man will do something idiotic, but rather than ignore him, some of the other men start following him or competing with him.

We have to think more often. We have to ask ourselves such questions as, "Where are we going?" and "Who benefits from this?" We should not put labor, engineering talent, and resources into a product or service simply because somebody wants it. We have to take a look at the mental health of the people who want it and pass judgment on whether we are providing a product that is beneficial, or whether we are wasting our resources on lunatics.

Design products for recycling and maintenance

In the free enterprise system, products are designed to appeal to consumers, and so the engineers spend a lot of their time trying to figure out how give the item an appealing visual image. They try to hide the assembly bolts and nuts, for example. The engineers are also very conscious about the profit of the item, and so they use lots of different metals and plastics in an attempt to make each component at the lowest possible cost. Furthermore, many of the items that are produced are intended to be used once and then tossed in the trash, and so they are not designed to be repaired or recycled.

By switching our economic system so that government officials are making decisions about which prototype to put into production, the engineers would be under pressure to make products that are intellectually sensible rather than emotionally appealing. The engineers would design products to be easy to manufacture, maintain, and recycle. They would not be under pressure to hide all of the assembly bolts, and they would not be under pressure to use lots of different metals and plastics in one product. For some products it would be better to reduce the number of materials in order to make it easier to recycle, even though the initial cost would be higher.

By designing products that are easier to manufacture, maintain, and recycle, we reduce the amount of people we need for factories, mining ore, producing plastics, repairing broken items, and recycling.

Share items that we use only occasionally

Another technique to reduce our production of material items is to make a smaller variety of higher-quality items that can be shared. For example, how many people actually need to own a digital camera, rowboat, bicycle, or scuba diving equipment? Most people use these type of items only occasionally. I mentioned this concept of sharing items in other files, but now I will mention one additional aspect of it, and point out how this concept applies especially well for a "City Of Castles".

The automated conveyor systems are useful for small or lightweight items, such as cameras, toys, and bicycles.

When people are living in large, densely populated castles, it becomes practical to put an automated warehouse in the basement to store a variety of the commonly used material items, such as bicycles, cameras, and sports equipment. We already have the technology to create automated warehouses. All we have to do is modify them so that the public can use them. We need to provide people with the ability to request and reserve items with a computer or phone, and we need to provide some type of "terminal" where the products are delivered to the people, and where the people can give the items back to the system. We also need to ensure that every item can be identified by a computer, such as with barcodes or RFID chips.

The warehouse would be completely automated. If you wanted to use a bicycle, you would use a computer or phone to connect to the city's computer and reserve a particular size and type of bicycle for a certain time and day. When voice recognition software becomes practical, you could make these arrangements by talking to the computer using a phone. When the time came to deliver your bicycle, the automated warehouse would pull it out of storage, and drop it off at the terminal in the castle. You would pick it up on your way out. When you were finished using it, you would put it back in the terminal, and it would be put back into storage.

The automated pallet system would be useful for large or heavy items, such as furniture, plumbing supplies, and cleaning supplies.

This system would be especially nice for children because parents wouldn't have to worry about storing children's bicycles. It also eliminates the need for parking lots for bicycles. Since children outgrow bicycles quickly, it also eliminates the problem of parents buying bicycles every few years.

If you planned to go for a bike ride with a friend who lived in another castle, then you could reserve a bicycle at his castle instead. Since you would not own any of the bicycles, the city would not care which bicycle you used. The city would also handle the maintenance of the products, and if some products were in such high demand that there were frequent shortages of them, then the city would produce more of them.

When bicycles and other material items are kept in a storage center in the basement of the castle, the homes don't need to be provided with storage areas for such items. This allows the homes to be smaller. This increases the density of the people in the castles, but without reducing their living space. It moves the storage of items from above ground to below ground.

Don't underestimate the value of increasing the density of people. The greater the density, the less work we have to do. The more people that we can fit into a building, the fewer buildings we need. The higher densities also increase the quantity of children in each castle, which means each child will have more children his own age within a short elevator ride. The higher densities also allow more land around the buildings for parks, grass, canals, and gardens.

Some people would reserve a particular item for their use only

Most people use a bicycle, camera, and other items only occasionally, but some people use certain items every day, such as people who ride a bicycle to work. It would be more practical to let them reserve a particular bicycle for their use. Instead of requesting a bicycle each day, they would set aside a particular bicycle for a year or longer, and they would specify when they want the bicycle delivered to them each morning.

Each morning the automated storage system would remove their bicycle and put it on the terminal for them to pick up. At the end of each day they would give it back to the terminal to be put back in storage. By allowing them to reserve their bicycle, they would not have to worry about somebody else using it.

Since they do not own the bicycle, they would not have to be concerned about the maintenance or replacement of it. Also, when they got tired of it or wanted to try a different model or size, they would release the bicycle and reserve a different one.

Sharing items provides more useful feedback on products

When we have to purchase everything we want, we tend to purchase only one particular model, and so we don't know exactly how it compares to other models. By comparison, when we are allowed to share items, we have the opportunity to try lots of different models and products. This gives us a better idea of which items we like the most and which features we find most useful and understandable. The city officials who are in charge of product development, and the engineers who design products, will get much better feedback with this system. This in turn speeds up the process of developing products.

We could have an automated, underground transportation system

The cities of today are haphazard jumbles of homes and businesses that require an incredible network of roads and fueling stations to connect everybody together. In a City of Castles, the people are clustered together, and so are the businesses, farms, and factories. This makes it easy to connect the castles to one another, and the castles to the farms, factories, and business areas. It would be practical to provide this type of city with an underground transportation system that is fully automated, and it could be used for the delivery of material items, also. We wouldn't need a network of roads and trucks.

This would make it practical for you to pickup and drop a bicycle off at any of the terminals in the city. If one particular castle ended up with too many bicycles of a particular size, then somebody at the castle could put the excess onto the transportation system and send them to a castle that had too few.

This type of transportation system could be used for all types of material items. It could be used by plumbers, electricians, and technicians to deliver supplies and pick up broken items. Farmers could use it to deliver food to restaurants. When robots become more advanced, then the robots could provide a pickup and delivery service.

Sharing products requires higher quality people

It should be obvious that this concept of sharing items is unrealistic in the world as it is today because there are too many people who would abuse the system. Some people would abuse the system because they are angry and enjoy vandalism and theft, and some people are simply too stupid, emotionally disturbed, or irresponsible to use this type of system properly.

We currently feel sorry for people who don't have the mental ability to properly use computers, automobiles, and seat belts, but we should face the fact that as technology becomes more advanced, the human race must become more responsible and more intelligent. The airlines should stop telling us how to use a seatbelt and an oxygen mask. We should redesign our schools so that children are prepared for society, and we should remove the people who cannot fit in properly.

Schools should also teach children to get into the habit of learning about a product, including an airplane, before they use it. Of course, this requires that businesses provide honest information about their products rather than deceptive advertising propaganda. We don't need businesses to put idiotic remarks in the User's Manuals, such as "Congratulations on selecting this exciting product!", or "We thank you for choosing our product!"

When businesses put a lot of unnecessary material in their manuals, they create the situation that is similar to the story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Specifically, when we read manuals that are full of worthless remarks, praise, and advertising propaganda, we lose our interest in reading the manuals. Manuals should be written to explain a product as quickly and efficiently as possible.

It would also help if the Internet had a better structure so that we could find serious information quickly rather than searching through thousands of pages of propaganda and personal websites. As of today, there is no sensible method of categorizing the documents, photos, or videos on the Internet. We do not even try to stop people from deliberately mislabeling information so that their websites appear in unrelated searches.

The adults who want to ride on an airplane without first learning how to use a seat belt or an oxygen mask should be considered as unfit for modern society. We should stop feeling sorry for people who are too stupid or irresponsible to properly use our products and services. We need to set standards for citizens. For example, we need warning labels for dangerous chemicals and high voltages, but we don't need to put warnings on plastic bags to inform the idiots that the bag is not a toy for children to play with.

In order to create a better society, we have to raise standards for the citizens. We need people to be more responsible, and they must have an interest in society. They have to learn how to operate seatbelts, computers, and phones. They have to think about what's best for society. We must stop feeling sorry for the crude, selfish animals who think only of themselves, and who expect other people to take care of them and clean up their messes.

When we share items, we can give them back if we don't like them

In the free enterprise system, a mother has to purchase whatever she wants for her baby, such as a carriage, crib, bottles, and toys. If she doesn't like the baby carriage that she purchased, she either has to suffer with it, or she has to find the money to purchase another one. If she purchases another, then she has to give away or sell her original carriage. As the baby grows, she must constantly buy new clothing. Some of the clothing that the baby outgrows is still in good use, so she either has to give it away, save it for her next baby, or try to sell it.

When we share the items, then a woman can take baby carriages, scooters, bicycles, dolls, toys, clothing, and other items from the warehouse that society provides for mothers. She is under no obligation to keep anything. If she doesn't like a baby carriage, she can give it back and try another. When her baby outgrows some clothing, or gets tired of a toy, she gives the items back to society and picks up some others.

By sharing items, we don't have to be bothered with analyzing products and trying to make a decision about which one to purchase. We simply pick up something, try it, and if we don't like it, or if we get tired of it, we return it and try one of the others. We don't have to be bothered giving away or selling used items.

The government officials who are in control of the production of material items would observe our use of the items to determine which items are most beneficial to us; which items are so complicated that we don't use them properly or understand their functions; and which items require the least maintenance. This would allow the officials to make better decisions on which products to discontinue and which to develop further.

In a free enterprise system, the successful products are those that attract consumers, but when government officials are in control of the production of items, they don't care about which items were most appealing to consumers. Instead, the government officials watch the long-term effect of a product to determine it's maintenance requirements and whether people are truly benefiting from it or simply attracted to it.

We could apply this policy to computers, cell phones, and most other material items. Why should any of us be bothered to analyze all of these products and try to make decisions about which to purchase? Life would be more pleasant for us if the government made decisions about which prototypes to put into production, and then we simply selected some of them. If we didn't like a particular item, we would return it and get another.

Let the government analyze prototypes and decide which models of cell phones, computers, baby carriages, scooters, and other products to put into production. By providing us with free access to material items, and by observing our use of the products, the government can make better decisions about which products are most beneficial to society, and which features are actually being used. Parents need children's items for only short periods of time, so by providing them with free access to children's items that they share with other parents, we reduce our production of these products, and we reduce the clutter at their homes.

With this system, businessmen and engineers would not be concerned about making products that appeal to consumers. Rather, they would be under pressure to create products that we actually prefer to use, and that the government officials consider beneficial and easy to maintain. Businesses would not be judged on their ability to titillate consumers or make a profit. Rather, they would be judged on the long-term success of their products and the value that it has to society.

Animals do not have the ability to set rules for behavior. Every animal has the freedom to do whatever they please. They can eat any food they please, and as much of it as they want, and whenever they feel like eating. They can get into fights with any animal at any time, and they can go to sleep anywhere they please at any time of the day or night. Male animals can chase after any female they please, and at any time they are in the mood to do so.

We restrict the disposal of waste

By the time the first cities were developing, about 4000 years ago, people had a few restrictions on their behavior. For example, the city of Mohenjo-Daro had a simple sewage system, which implies that the people had put restrictions on the disposal of human waste.

If dogs had enough intelligence to create a city for themselves, would they be interested in providing themselves with bathrooms or sewers? Not necessarily. The interest in bathrooms is an emotional issue, not an intellectual issue. Therefore, intelligent dogs wouldn't necessarily impose restrictions on their disposal of waste products. In fact, the dogs might enjoy rolling around in their poop. They might also enjoy spraying their buildings and trees with pee in order to mark their territory.

Our distant ancestors did not have any restrictions on where they disposed of waste products. However, at some point in time, some people began to encourage the others to dispose of waste in certain areas. Through the centuries these suggestions became more detailed, and eventually they became laws rather than suggestions. During the past few decades, some cities have started creating laws to put pressure on dog owners to clean up after their dog.

A few thousand years ago people discovered that there waste products were valuable as fertilizer and chemicals. Today a lot of cities are processing their sewage in order to keep the environment clean and salvage some of the chemicals. However, even in our era there are areas of the world where people are dumping waste products in the streets, rivers, parks, and vacant lots, just as we would expect from intelligent animals.

One reason I mention this issue of waste products is to show you how human culture has been changing. It was originally very similar to that of a monkey, but as our ancestors became more educated and technically advanced, some of them developed an interest in controlling the disposal of waste in order to keep their cities clean and attractive. Furthermore, we can see that these laws are still being created today, which implies that we are not finished with this process of creating restrictions on the disposal of waste products and trash. Therefore, we can assume that future generations are going to have even more restrictions, and that they will be even more detailed. What type of restrictions will future generations create? Perhaps they will have more control over animals, such as prohibiting dogs from certain areas, and employing robots to kill pigeons and other birds.

It is important to notice that each of us has a different interest in these issues, and it has nothing to do with "intelligence". These are emotional issues, not intellectual issues. Some people are not bothered by dog poop, for example. Some people are not even bothered by dogs that lick their face, and some people enjoy opening their mouth and letting their dog lick their tongue. Some people go even further and engage in sex acts with their animals.

There is no right or wrong to these issues. If a person wants to have sex with his dog, that is his decision. You could consider such a person to be disgusting, or you could consider him as lucky to have the ability to enjoy sex with another species. We cannot argue over right or wrong; rather, we have to make decisions on what we want our society to be, and what we want the human race to evolve into. Do we want humans to be emotionally attracted to animals? Do we want humans to also be sexually attracted to animals? Do we want animals living in our cities with us? Do you want pigeons in our cities? Are you willing to share in the work of cleaning up after animals?

We restrict the eating of food

Animals will eat food whenever they are in the mood, regardless of where they are, or what the consequences will be. If animals were to create a society, they would allow the eating of food everywhere.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't put restrictions on the eating of food. Their food consumption was limited by the availability of food. They would eat food whenever they found it, and whenever they were in the mood. They would also eat in whatever manner they pleased, and they would eat as much food as they wanted to eat. They didn't follow any rules of etiquette.

Today there are a lot of organizations that have restrictions on eating and drinking. For example, many museums, businesses, and retail stores prohibit us from bringing food or drinks inside. Most parents also have restrictions on where their children can eat and drink within the house. These restrictions are intended to prevent the mess caused by eating and drinking.

Theaters and sports stadiums currently sell food and drinks to their customers, but not because they think the food is improving life for the people. Rather, they want more money. If we switch to a society that doesn't care about profit, then there is no financial incentive for any theater, social club, sports event, or other event to provide food or drinks. Therefore, I would recommend that we increase the restrictions on food and drinks to only the restaurants and picnic areas. In such a case, we wouldn't have to clean up food anywhere except in those designated areas. This would reduce the amount of cleaning that we have to share, and it would eliminate the need to deliver food and drinks to theaters and other locations. Is this a sacrifice you are willing to make?

We restrict sexual activity

Animals do not put any restrictions on their sexual activities, and as a result, they will have sex with whatever they please, wherever they please, and at any time of the day or night. During the past few thousand years, humans have been putting restrictions on sexual activity, such as prohibiting sexual acts in public, and prohibiting sex acts with children. Of course, just as some people cannot follow the rules for trash disposal and the eating of food, many people have trouble following the rules for sex acts. There are some people who rape children, for example, and others have sex in public areas, such as airline bathrooms.

In society today, we have restrictions on sex acts, and we restrict pornography to adults. However, there is no society yet that prohibits the sexual titillation of children by businesses, television programs, or movies. Also, there is no restriction on the sexual titillation of adults. I think that we should increase the restrictions to completely prohibit the sexual titillation of children, and put more restrictions on the titillation of adults.

Men might consider such restrictions to be unnecessary or even cruel, but I think life will be more comfortable and relaxing for all of us when we can go to work, parks, social clubs, and festivals without being sexually titillated by advertisements or saleswomen who dress and behave like prostitutes.

What you want in life is not necessarily what is best for you. Men are attracted to sexually titillating material, for example, but I think that being titillated all day every day is annoying. When was about 14 years old, I enjoyed the titillation, but did it help me to find a wife or have a better life? No! Furthermore, after a few decades it became irritating. Am I unusual? Or do other men get tired of it, also?

When contemplating an issue, remember to ask the question, "Who benefits?" Who benefits by sexually titillating men and teenage boys all day, every day? How has it improved your life? How is it helping your children? Do people today have better sex, or more stable marriages, or happier lives than our ancestors who didn't have access to pornography, television, movies, and other sources of sexual material? Did our ancestors suffer as a result of their lack of sexual material? I don't think so. I think humans evolved for a less sexual environment. I think this constant titillation is causing trouble.

The ideal way to determine the effect of sexual titillation would be to set up two societies that are identical in all respects, except that in one society we allow constant sexual titillation in advertisements, movies, and television shows, and in the other we restrict sexual activity to the bedroom. We would then be able to pass judgment on which society was providing a better life for its people.

If we were to create different, semi-independent cities, as I've described in other files, then each city would be free to experiment with their culture, and we would get a much better understanding of which society has the most beneficial culture. Unfortunately, at the moment all we can do is make guesses. My guess is that sexual titillation is detrimental. I think it interferes with human relationships, and it is causing men to be more frustrated than they would otherwise be. The men assume they enjoy it, but children believe that they enjoy eating candy all day, every day. We cannot follow our emotions like a dumb animal in this modern world. We have to think more often.

What do we do with people who cannot follow the rules?

We have restrictions right now on disposal of trash, but there are lots of people who simply don't care, and they are dumping trash along the streets and in vacant areas. A lot of people with pet dogs are refusing to clean up after the dog because they don't want to pick up dog poop. They want the dog to be their friend or sexual partner, but they don't want to clean up its poop. There are also lots of people ignoring the rules about where they can eat and drink.

What do we do with people who don't want to follow the rules? The only sensible solution is to restrict reproduction to the people who are better suited to this modern world. This will eventually result in a higher quality group of people who don't need threats of jail to prevent them from dumping garbage in the city streets, and who are willing to eat only in the designated eating areas.

We should also consider evicting the people who cannot to follow the rules. We should not assume that we can fix their problems with punishments or Bible lessons. Consider the men who grab at women at crowded trains. Those men are not grabbing at the women because of ignorance or because of a lack of punishment. Rather, they are having trouble controlling their emotional cravings. They are more like an animal than a modern human. Punishing them will not help them develop better mental qualities. As of today, there is nothing we can do to help those people.

The same is true for the people who cannot follow the rules for eating, or who cannot follow the rules for the disposal of trash, or who cannot resist raping children. We cannot fix the people who don't have the mental ability to fit properly in this modern era. There are a few medical problems that we can fix by changing a person's diet or providing them with insulin, but we cannot improve a primitive mind. All we can do is evict them.

Imagine living in a society in which we evicted the people who could not follow the rules for the eating of food. This would create a society in which we don't have to post signs about where and when it is appropriate to eat. The people would eat at the restaurants and picnic areas, and they wouldn't need other people to watch over them. And imagine that we also evicted the people who couldn't follow the other rules. Imagine living in a society in which the people are behaving in a respectable manner because they want to, not because we are threatening them with jail.

Don't be fooled into thinking that we are "cruel" by evicting the people who don't fit in. Life is cruel no matter what we do. If we let the misfits live with us, then we suffer. Why should we suffer? It's not our fault that they don't fit in. This is simply a characteristic of life.

We should put restrictions on courtship

Human societies have been adding restrictions to the consumption of food, sexual activities, and the disposal of waste, but we have not yet put any restrictions on courtship. In one of my earlier files I made a remark that we should prohibit men from pursuing women in the social activities that are not designed for courtship, and now I will explain this concept in more detail.

If we did not provide ourselves with bathrooms or trash cans, then we could not expect people to dispose of their waste in a sensible manner. Likewise, if we did not provide restaurants, picnic areas, kitchens, and other areas for the preparation and eating of food, it would be impossible for us to control when and where people were eating. By comparison, when we provide facilities for the disposal of waste and for the eating of food, then we can tell people to use those facilities for those particular activities. Why not apply this concept to courtship?

No society has any special activities for courtship, and as a result, no society can restrict courtship to those activities. Men and women are pursuing each other at all hours of the day and night, and in every location and activity. This courtship is occurring while people are working at their job, while shopping for food, while swimming at a lake, and while waiting at an airport to get on an airplane. Why not provide a variety of activities specifically for courtship? That would allow us to tell people to look for a partner only at those specific functions and not during other activities.

Create special activities for courtship

I think the mixing of courtship with everything else is causing trouble, and it's also wasteful. It would be more efficient for society, and more pleasant for all of us, if we created special activities for courtship, and if we forbid people from mixing courtship into other activities.

Providing special activities for courtship makes it much easier for us to meet more people, and we will get to know them more thoroughly. Finding somebody compatible requires that you have the opportunity to spend some time with them and interact with them. By providing activities specifically for this purpose, such as the "Singles Pageants" that I mentioned here, we will be able to more rapidly meet and get to know a lot of people.

If we create special activities for courtship, then we could demand that single people look for a spouse only at those courtship activities. This would allow both men and women to go to work, museums, restaurants, and swimming areas without being concerned that single people will pester them. Of course, some people will not want to follow the rules, but if we evict the people who cannot follow the rules, then we would create a society that is much more comfortable for both men and women. We would be able to go to a restaurant, lounge, social club, or public park without any concern about being pestered by people looking for a spouse, and when we were in the mood to look for a spouse, we would go to the activities that were specifically designed to help us meet one another.

It might help you understand this issue if you consider the problem of men who grab at women on crowded trains. If we could read the thoughts that pass through our mind, we would find that idiotic and crude thoughts are passing through all of our minds all the time, but most of us can control or ignore the inappropriate thoughts. The men who grab at women are not the men who think of such thoughts; rather, they are the men who cannot control themselves.

The men who are incapable of controlling themselves should be evicted from society. We should not try to fix their mental problems. This would create a society in which women can safely walk onto a train that is full of men without any fear of being touched. Likewise, by setting rules for courtship and removing the people who cannot follow the rules, we create a society that is much more comfortable for both men and women.

Although evicting people is one way of improving society, we should also look for ways to reduce the likelihood of the problem occurring. For example, in regards to the problem of men touching women on crowded trains, we could reduce the problem by letting women have different or shorter working hours so that most of them can ride the trains when the men are already at work.

Why don't the feminists try to stop the use of women as sexual props?

Unfortunately, instead of trying to reduce the problem of men being titillated by women, all societies today are aggravating the situation by allowing businesses to sexually titillate both young boys and adult men in their advertisements, television programs, and movies. To add to this problem, the women who have jobs that put them into contact with customers, government officials, or other people are under pressure from their employers to dress in attractive or sexually titillating manners.

Men enjoy the sexually attractive women at trade shows, meetings, and press conferences, and we enjoy the sexually titillating advertisements, but that doesn't justify this behavior. Just because we like something doesn't mean we should do it. Children are titillated by sugar, but that doesn't justify letting them eat candy all day, every day. We can't follow our emotions like a stupid animal in this modern world. We would create a more pleasant society for both men and women if we restricted sexual activity to our homes. When we go out in public, we shouldn't be exposed to sexual material.

Another way to look at this issue is that the attraction men have to sexual material is similar to the attraction a rat with an electrode in its brain has to an electric switch. The rat assumes that he loves the stimulation, but I don't think it improves the life of a rat. Likewise, men are attracted to sexual material, but I think we would have a more pleasant life if we were not titillated all day.

Furthermore, I suspect that men and women would have a more comfortable life if we spent most of our time with our own sex, and if we got together in our leisure time. Even riding a train to and from work would be more comfortable for men if we were not bothered by children or titillated by women. I think that when men and women are together a lot, or when men and children are together a lot, we get on each other's nerves. I think we would have more pleasant lives if men spent most of their time with men, and if women spent most of their time with women and children.

When single men and women want to find a spouse, they should go to the social affairs that are specifically designed for such activities. When men and women want to get together to socialize at dinner, festivals, or holidays, then we should be able to do so without worrying about being pestered by single people.

Provide courtship activities for teenagers, also

I think we should apply these concepts to teenagers, also. The boys and girls, when they're in school, should be learning something of value, not flirting with one another. I think it would be better if the teenage boys and girls were in separate classrooms so that they didn't waste their time flirting with each other. The boys should be learning something of value in the classroom, not being titillated by the girls. We should have special activities for the teenagers to help the boys and girls meet and get to know one another. We should also encourage them to get to know a lot of other people before they make decisions about who they want to marry.

Our primitive ancestors didn't have to do anything to help teenagers meet one another because they grew up together in incredible intimacy, but today we need help. By providing special activities for teenagers to meet one another, they will get to know dozens or hundreds of different people. Compare that to the situation today in which teenagers have to meet one another wherever they have the opportunity, such as at school or at shopping centers. Most teenagers "meet" a lot of people, but they don't get to "know" very many of them.

Another advantage to providing courtship activities for teenagers is that it gives the more "normal" boys a better chance to meet girls. In the world today, the boys who have the advantage are those who spend a lot of time chatting with the girls and giving them lots of attention and gifts. The more "normal" boys are busy doing something useful with their life, not spending hours every day at shopping malls or having hours of silly conversations with girls.

Why are coffee shops so popular in America?

Coffee shops are popular businesses in America, but I don't think it's because Americans have a fascination with high-priced coffee. Shopping malls are popular with some teenagers, but I don't think it's because they have a fascination with shopping malls. I think the coffee shops, shopping malls, bookstores, and other businesses are being used by lonely people as places to meet friends and find a spouse.

I think most people have trouble admitting that they want a spouse. We sometimes see this problem with Hollywood celebrities; after they get divorced they sometimes announce that they have no desire to get married. They cannot admit what should be obvious to everybody; namely, that nobody wants to be alone. Men are better able to deal with loneliness than women, but how many men truly want to spend their lives alone? We prefer to spend our lives alone only when we don't know somebody that we want to live with.

There is a significant difference between wanting to be alone because you don't have a desire for a spouse, and choosing to be alone because you don't like any of your choices. For example, I am not married, but it's not because I like being single. Now that I realize that I have been low on thyroid hormones, I can see that one of the reasons I never got to know many women was because of my lack of energy, especially during the evening. However, a lot of people would say I am too finicky. This brings up an interesting issue because it also applies to voting.

Voters must be finicky, but not too finicky
Most people have the attitude that they will take the "lesser of the evils". They do this when they vote, and they do this when selecting spouses, also. I can understand why animals and people do this. If you are too finicky, you get nothing. However, people can hurt themselves when they are not finicky enough.

Voting is a serious responsibility. It should not be treated as a "right" that everybody should have. Selecting leaders for society requires a lot of thought and effort. If voters are too finicky, then it will take them too long to find a candidate that they will accept, but if they are not finicky enough, they create an incompetent or corrupt government, and that will have a detrimental effect on the entire world and the future generations. Voting should not be treated as entertainment.

Voters should be finicky, and we should design our election system to enable us to pass judgment on whether the candidates should even qualify, and if not, replace them. We should not have to pick the "lesser of the evils".

We need to be finicky with selecting a spouse, also
The same concepts apply to finding a spouse. When you get married, you are altering the future of somebody else's life, and if you have children, you are affecting the future generations. People who want to reproduce should take the issue of finding a spouse very seriously. If we are too finicky, we will not get married, but if we are not finicky enough, we may reproduce with a person who has undesirable genetic characteristics.

During prehistoric times, nature used to keep this problem under control. If the people in a primitive tribe were too finicky when selecting a spouse, they would go extinct. At the other extreme, if the people of a tribe had too little concern about the quality of their spouse, then more of their children would be low-quality, and more of their relationships would be unstable. The unstable relationships would result in mothers alone with their children, which would have been difficult in prehistoric times. Furthermore, in prehistoric times, there were no restrictions on murder, and so stepfathers could kill their stepchildren, thereby reducing the number of children from people who cannot form stable relationships.

Today, however, we prevent nature from doing its job. For example, we provide assistance to the people with unstable marriages, such as alimony, child support, and laws that prevent a stepfather from killing his stepchildren. If we continue on this path, the human race will degrade into freaks who have no concern about the quality of their political candidates or spouses. They will become creatures who will vote for anybody, even a retard, and who will marry anybody, including a retard.

We should encourage people to be very finicky when finding a spouse, but that requires that we provide lots of social activities to help people meet and get to know hundreds of people. We are behaving like stupid animals or primitive savages when we expect men and women to spontaneously find each other.

We should be concerned about the quality of our children
These concepts also apply to the issue of raising children. If a couple has no concern about the quality of their children, then they will raise anything, even a child without a brain. Unfortunately, in all societies today, parents cannot be finicky about their children because we have laws to prevent the killing of defective children.

I wonder if the concern about being burdened with a defective child is causing some people to remain childless, and others to have only one or two children. If this law were removed so that parents could kill their children, would the higher-quality people be willing to have more children?

Having a law against killing your own children is like having a law to prohibit you from cutting off your own hand. Who among us needs a law to stop us from cutting off our hand? The only time you would consider cutting off your hand is if something terrible happened to it, such as severe frostbite, or if it got caught in a piece of machinery and was hopelessly destroyed. In such a case you would want it amputated. A law that forbid you from cutting off your hand would prevent you from amputating your damaged hand. Who would benefit from that?

Likewise, nobody needs a law to stop them from killing their own children, and nobody benefits from it, either. No parent would ever kill a nice child. Instead, allowing parents to kill their children would allow parents to eliminate a lot of defective children. This in turn would benefit everybody in the world, including the future generations.

If the higher-quality people are having less children because of the concern of having a defective child, then the people who have less concern about the quality of their children will have more children. This in turn would cause the human race to evolve into freaks who have increasingly less concern about the quality of their children.

Actually, we can already find a lot of parents with serious genetic defects having children that they know are defective. They don't care about the quality of their children, or whether their children have happy lives. They simply want to reproduce. Children are just toys to these parents.

We must create a pleasant environment for raising children

Americans are raising a lot of defective children, and this is giving a bad image to families. All women have a strong attraction to babies, but some women refuse to have children because they don't want to deal with the problems. Their craving for babies is overpowered by the bad image they have of raising children. This is actually a very significant and important issue. It is related to the issue of "morale", which I will discuss a bit more at the end of this article.

I had a good view of children and marriage when I was at child, but during my adult years I started developing a bad image of both as a result of observing marriages and families. Only a few marriages seemed pleasant and stable, and watching parents trying to control their children gave me a bad impression of raising children.

I visited Europe when I was about 30 years old, and I saw some families that made me realize that raising children can actually be pleasant. Some European children are just as horrible as American children, but a lot of them are much better behaved, and I saw married couples who seemed to have nice relationships, also. It made me realize that the reason I had such a bad image of families was because so many American children are badly behaved.

Some of the bad behavior is due to mental disorders of the children, and some of it is because the children are being raised in a terrible environment. For example, I have seen children with irrational demands for certain cereals, candy bars, and namebrand clothing, and they picked this up from advertisements and other children. I have also seen children imitating disgusting characters that they saw on Beavis & Butthead or some other television show or movie. America is not providing a good environment for raising children. America is allowing businesses, religious fanatics, and other people to manipulate children.

Why do I criticize America so often?
Some people complain that my criticism of America is due to a bad attitude, but I grew up in America, so I know it better than the other nations. If I grew up in India, I would be complaining about India. America has a lot of good features, and a lot of nice people, but I'm not writing these articles to make the American people feel good about themselves. I want to make America better, and that requires identifying its problems. You don't help a person or a nation by giving them compliments.

Incidentally, it's not just me who thinks that American children are badly behaved. I have heard other people mention that their visit to Europe or Asia made them realize that raising children can be fun. I have also heard American teachers make remarks that the Asian students, as a group, are better behaved than the American students, as a group.

Many American parents have a "loser's attitude"
Another reason American children are so badly behaved is because millions of American parents have a "loser's attitude" towards life. I suppose a lot of Canadians and Australians have the same attitude. These three nations are full of losers from Europe. A large percentage of our population are people who do not want to work, learn, or be responsible. They want to play. They do not tolerate criticism very well, no matter how constructive it is. They have trouble controlling their cravings for food, alcohol, sex, or gambling.

These parents assume, probably correctly, that their children are the same as they are and want the same type of life. Therefore, they do not want to force their children to work, learn, or be responsible, and they do not want to criticize their children. I have even met parents who resist toilet training their children. They justify this by saying that they want their children to learn at their own pace. These parents seemed to have trouble in school, and as a result, they have a bad attitude towards teaching, learning, criticism, and thinking.

By comparison, people who enjoy learning, being responsible, working, and learning a skill do not consider themselves to be cruel when they expect their children to learn, be responsible, and work. And people with the emotional strength to handle constructive criticism do not consider themselves cruel when they provide their children with constructive criticism. Actually, they consider themselves to be helping their children.

I think the manner in which parents raise their children is an indication of the mind and attitude of the parents. For example, many Americans give their children almost anything they want. I think this is because most Americans believe that the key to happiness is avoiding work and being pampered. They fantasize about becoming rich, retiring, and doing whenever they find entertaining while teams of servants pamper them.

I think this is one of the reasons that gambling and religion are so popular. Americans pray to God on a routine basis for material items, money, sex, and the death of people that they don't like. They are selfish, spoiled brats who are looking for gods, gambling, investments, inheritances, or other people to give them whatever they want. They don't want to earn what they want. They want handouts. And when they behave in a destructive manner, they ask for forgiveness from God, and they beg society to give them a second chance, and a third chance, and a fourth chance.

Why are large jackpots so appealing?
In March 2012, the jackpot for the Mega Millions lottery was $656 million. That enormous amount of money caused people to spend 1.5 billion dollars on tickets. Why do large jackpots cause more people to gamble, and with larger amounts of money?

I would expect more people to gamble when the odds were better. However, the people who gamble don't seem to care about the odds. Furthermore, they don't seem to suspect that the gambling operations are dishonest. With all of the corruption in the media, the government, the Nobel prizes, Academy Awards, and the history books, how can anybody believe that these gambling operations are one of the few honest operations in the world?

There is probably something significant in the fact that when the jackpot becomes larger, more people gamble, and they gamble with larger amounts of money. My guess is that the large jackpots are causing people to have visions of enormous amounts of material items, gigantic mansions, yachts, pampering by thousands of servants, and lots of diamond jewelry. These extreme images might be overstimulating the people. By comparison, when the jackpot is small, people have visions of paying their rent check for one month, or purchasing groceries for a few weeks. Those images are not very exciting. Perhaps the lesson to learn is that if you want to manipulate people, give them a fantasy that stimulates them to such an extreme that they have trouble controlling themselves.

Judge a society by its behavior
Many Americans boast that we are "the greatest people in the world", but only some Americans are actually wonderful people. An enormous percentage of the American population are - as the Statue of Liberty says - the "wretched refuse".

We have to judge people by what they actually do during their lives, not by what they claim to be. Many Americans cannot form stable friendships, marriages, or business partnerships. An enormous percentage is also very religious, and many have alcohol and drug problems. These are not the characteristics of the greatest people in the world. These are characteristics of people with mental disorders. Not surprisingly, when these people have babies, their children tend to have mental disorders. Their psychotic children are difficult for the parents to raise, and they are a nuisance to their neighbors, school teachers, school bus drivers, policemen, and retail store clerks. To make the situation worse, businesses and religious fanatics are manipulating those psychotic children!

Have you ever visited a high school or college? If so, do American children inspire you to be a teacher? I thought the situation was bad when I was in high school, but I think it's worse today. Furthermore, I think the awful behavior of American children is causing a lot of Americans to either remain childless, or have only one or two children.

There is no concern in any society yet about "morale". Nobody cares whether married couples are inspiring other people to get married, or whether they are giving marriage a bad image. Nobody cares whether children are inspiring us to raise children, or if they are giving children such a bad image that we want to remain childless. As of today, human societies are not much more advanced than packs of animals. Most people merely exist from one day to the next with no concern about what other people are doing, or what effect other people have on society. People like Josef Fritzl and Philip Garrido can live in our neighborhoods for decades without anybody noticing or caring.

This modern world needs people who can face reality and understand our animal qualities. We should not pretend that we enjoy being alone, for example, or that we don't need any help in finding friends or a spouse. We should not pretend that we enjoy sitting in a coffee shop and drinking expensive coffee from a Styrofoam cup. Women should not pretend that they do not want babies.

We should understand our mental characteristics and design society to be more appropriate to what we really are. We should not have to look for a spouse or a friend at a coffee shop, or at a shopping mall, or while riding a train to our job. Instead, we should design a city with lots of different social activities to help us meet one another to find both friends and a spouse. We should design our city with lots of free lounges, patio areas, recreational areas, restaurants, and snack bars so that we have lots of areas for socializing. Furthermore, we should separate our activities. We should socialize in the areas that are designed for socializing, and we should look for a spouse at the activities that are designed to help men and women meet one another. We should not look for a spouse while riding a train or while working at our job.

Why are young girls having boyfriends?

Until recently, fathers and brothers would watch over their daughters and sisters and provide some guidance to them in regards to boys, but today parents pamper their children; let them do almost anything they please; and keep them ignorant about sex, relationships, and marriage. Boys and girls need to be prepared for life, not entertained and pampered.

Many young girls are having what they refer to as "boyfriends", but what type of relationships are these? These girls are not getting married to these boys, so what are they doing with these boys? What do they want boyfriends for?

I get the impression that young girls want boyfriends only because they enjoy the attention that the boys give them, and many of the boys also provide them with gifts and various types of entertainment. These girls could be described as exploiting the boys because the girls are getting a lot from the boys, but what do they give the boys in return? The boys get nothing but the fantasy that eventually they will be able to have sex. I would describe these relationships as crude, disgusting, and abusive because the girls are using the boys for entertainment and gifts, and the boys are only looking for sex. They are not "human relationships". Rather, they are the type of selfish, crude attractions that we see with animals.

If I had managed to get a girlfriend when I was a young teenager, it would have been for sex, not for marriage or a family. I would have formed the same crude relationship that other boys my age were forming. This brings up a point that I've mentioned before. Children are not miniature adults. They are more like animals. The relationships that children form are crude and selfish. We are foolish to let young girls form relationships with boys. They do not have the mind of an adult woman. They are more like animals, and their relationships are disgusting. Listen to the conversations of young girls if you think I'm exaggerating about their crude mental qualities. Young girls should meet boys and get to know them, but they should not be forming relationships with them.

From my own casual observations, most of the relationships that develop among young teenagers turn out to be failures, and some of them are very unpleasant. Young girls make terrible decisions about boys, and young boys are only fascinated with sex; they're not seriously interested in marriage.

Our society is not doing a good job of preparing boys and girls for marriage, families, jobs, or society. Actually, we are allowing children to be contaminated with propaganda from religious fanatics, feminists, sociologists, and other anti-scientific nitwits. Children are also being kept ignorant about sex and the animal qualities of the human mind. Furthermore, no society cares that businesses are titillating the boys with sexually stimulating television shows, movies, and advertisements, and they are titillating the girls with cosmetic products and books of romantic fantasies. Also, no society is doing much of anything to stop the pedophiles.

I think that children are being raised in a terrible environment, and this in turn is making it more difficult for them to make good decisions about relationships, jobs, marriage, and life itself. I was full of feminist nonsense when I was a teenager, for example, and I don't think the situation has improved for teenagers today, and it might even be worse.

We would create a more pleasant society if businesses were prohibited from exploiting children; pedophiles were removed from society rather than elected to Congress; schools were providing children with serious information about sex, relationships, pregnancy, venereal disease, divorce, abortions, and the animal qualities of our mind; and if the city provided special activities for young boys and girls to meet one another.

What are fathers to do with their daughters?

When girls become teenagers, they start developing a desire to look pretty and put themselves on display. They are behaving like a flower that is opening up and waiting for a bee to pollinate them.

When girls are kept ignorant about sex, relationships, and the animal qualities of the human mind, then they will not understand what they are doing. They will assume that they spend hours every morning trying to look pretty simply because they enjoy looking pretty, and they will assume that they like to go out in public simply because it is fun to do so.

Teenage girls need to be taught that they are at the age at which their emotions want them to start looking for a man, and they need to take this activity seriously, not treat it as fun or entertainment. They need to understand that the reason they want to look pretty is that they are like a flower that is competing for the bees.

Most people in the world today cannot handle reality. They live in a fantasy world, usually full of religious nonsense. In this modern world, humans need to be able to enjoy reality and understand the animal qualities within us. Teenage girls need to understand their emotions, not follow their emotions like a stupid animal.

The boys and girls in prehistoric times knew one another better than brothers and sisters do today because there were absolutely no secrets in that era. Since they intimately new one another to a much greater extent than people know each other today, they didn't have to "meet" one another. They only had to flirt with one another and pick somebody that they enjoyed. They didn't have to make any intellectual decisions. Furthermore, everybody in a prehistoric tribe was compatible with everybody else. The tribe didn't consist of a mixture of religions, races, and illegal aliens. They didn't have to worry about gypsies, homeless people, pedophiles, or crime networks. It was safe for a girl in that era to follow her emotions.

The situation today is significantly different. Millions of us do not even know much about our own neighbors. The secrecy and privacy that we have today is preventing us from knowing the people we live with, and so we must get to know people before we can make decisions on who we want as a friend or spouse. But how can we get to know people? We need to create activities specifically for this purpose. After we get to know a lot of people, then we can make decisions on who we want to form a friendship or marriage with.

Society should provide a lot of activities for boys and girls to meet and get to know one another, and they should be told to first get to know lots of people of the opposite sex before thinking about forming a marriage.

Another difference about life with our prehistoric ancestors is that fathers and brothers would help their daughters and sisters find a spouse. If a father thought that his daughter was being taken advantage of by a man, he would try to stop the relationship. Today the situation has reversed itself. The men are becoming submissive to the women. The feminists are trying to stop fathers from interfering with their daughter's selection of boyfriends and husbands. Women are being told to liberate themselves from the abusive men; to follow their emotions rather than their father's advice.

A lot of men and women have wanted to meet me, have sex with me, and marry me during the past 10 years, but they have turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing, such as Peggy Borger and Daryl Smith. Furthermore, a Jewish boy is pursuing my niece, as I mentioned here, but I doubt that he is really interested in her. I suspect that his family is hoping that they will somehow get some information to allow their criminal friends to manipulate, kill, blackmail, or kidnap me.

The reason I bring this issue up is that the manner in which Jews have been pursuing me and my niece make me wonder, how many other people are being pursued by Jewish criminals? And how many people are being pursued by non-Jewish criminals? How many people care that our society is full of criminals, psychos, and freaks who are pursuing us for friendship and marriage? Is anybody looking after your daughter, sister, or niece? How many fathers are trying to protect their children from bad relationships? How many parents are willing to do something to help their children? And how many parents are rasing children simply for entertainment?

How many adults are bitter and angry?

I suspect that one of the reasons that some adults do not want to help teenagers meet one another and form stable relationships is because they are bitter that their own childhood was miserable, awkward, frustrating and lonely. They had a miserable childhood, and they want everybody else to have a miserable childhood, also.

Animals are selfish creatures who do not get any pleasure out of helping strangers or future generations. The humans who react to problems with bitterness or anger are behaving like animals. They are not suitable for this modern world. We all experience problems with life, and if each of us were to react with anger or bitterness, we would have a miserable world.

I could be angry and envious at all of the men who have healthier bodies, and I could be bitter that other men are getting women. However, I quietly accept my problems. Life is like a smorgasbord. There are lots of pleasures, so if you miss out on some of them, just deal with it and enjoy the others.

A portion of Khloe Kardashian's shoes. Imagine providing every woman with hundreds of shoes.

Women have a strong craving to look pretty and put themselves on display for the men. This craving was sensible thousands of years ago because it caused them to keep themselves neat and clean, and create attractive clothing. Today, however, the women are getting carried away by purchasing enormous amounts of clothing and shoes. Many women are wearing items only one time. Some of them discard clothing as soon as they find a trivial stain or tear.

A woman's behavior with clothing is similar to a man's behavior with sex. Specifically, the men today are titillating themselves to excess with sexual material, and the women are titillating themselves to excess with clothing and shoes. Our emotions are inappropriate for this modern world. We need to think more often and control our emotions.

It is wasteful to produce clothing that is worn only once or twice. In our current society, the women often donate their unwanted clothing to a thrift store, but in a society that doesn't have a peasant class, there is no need for a thrift store because there will be no group of peasant women who will want the discarded clothing.

Create separate clothing styles for work and socializing

Certain styles of clothing developed for a particular purpose. For example, firemen have special clothing that was designed to protect them from heat and smoke. Policemen, firemen, pilots, military employees, waitresses, sales clerks, nurses, doctors, and certain other people are expected to wear certain uniforms as a way of identifying their job.

However, the style of clothing that I will refer to as "office attire" was not intended to serve any particular purpose. It developed haphazardly and inadvertently, and I think we should redesign it to be more practical and comfortable. I've already complained about the suit and tie in other files, but I'll go over this issue in more detail in this file.

As I have pointed out in other files, the suit and tie is comfortable only for men who are standing, such as when they give lectures or demonstrations. It is designed to be an intimidating uniform, not a practical, comfortable, or attractive style of clothing. It is uncomfortable for men who have to sit at a desk, and the tie is dangerous for men who have to work around chemicals or moving equipment, and it is a nuisance for men who have to work around food.

Women's office attire is more comfortable, but many of them wear sexually titillating clothing, and most of them also wear high heeled shoes. I think this is idiotic for two main reasons. First, I don't think women should be dressing in sexually attractive manners while we are working. I think we would create a more pleasant society if women restricted their sexual behavior to their home and to the social activities that were specifically designed for courtship.

Second, high-heeled shoes interfere with their ability to walk, which causes them to inhibit the flow of traffic in crowded hallways, trains, and stairways. Furthermore, the shoes are dangerous during fires, earthquakes, tornadoes, and other disasters, and if they take their shoes off, they may have even more trouble getting through a burning or broken building.

As I previously mentioned, I think we should provide ourselves with courtship activities, and when we do so, we can forbid people from dressing in provocative manners during their jobs. We would be able to tell both men the women that when they are doing their job, they are supposed to be working, not titillating one another, and not competing with one another as if they are in a beauty contest.

We should develop office attire that is more practical and less sexual, and we could insist that people wear this clothing even if it has trivial stains or blemishes. We could tell the women to wear comfortable shoes rather than high-heeled shoes, and to refrain from comparing their clothing to that of the other women. We can tell the women that they can compete with one another at the social events, not at their job.

I would go even further and tell women that when they are working, they are not allowed to wear cosmetics or jewelry. We can demand that when people want to to socialize, dress in a sexually attractive manner, or look for a spouse, they do so at the activities that have been specifically designed for such activities. We could demand that when people are doing their job, they must work, not make sexual advances or dress like prostitutes.

Some men might worry that if women wore practical clothing and shoes to work, and no make up or jewelry, that the office will become bland and dreary, and that the office will resemble the miserable conditions in the movie "1984". However, I think that when women are told to wear "plain" clothing and no makeup or jewelry, they simply become like women have been all throughout history.

Take a look at the paintings made of people centuries ago. The painting below is from 1607. The women did not have high heeled shoes, makeup, tattoos, piercings, hair dyes, or sexually titillating clothing. Do you think the men suffered as a result? Did the women suffer? I don't think so!

Remember to ask yourself, who benefits when women are dressed in sexually stimulating outfits at their job? If you are a man, does your job performance increase when the women around you are dressing in sexually provocative manners? If they were to wear a more "plain" style, would your job performance decrease?

I think men would be less distracted, and therefore more productive, if the women were dressing in a more plain style, and I think the women would waste less of their time fixing their lipstick, makeup, and jewelry, and they would spend less time comparing one another's outfit and jewelry. I think we would be more productive, more comfortable, and happier overall if we separated work from socializing. I think that office attire for women should be plain and practical, not sexual, and the office attire for men should be practical and comfortable, also.

Am I bitter because I don't have a wife?

There are so many people who love pornography and sexual material on television that I suppose a lot of people would respond that the reason I complain so much about sexual titillation is because I am lonely and sexually frustrated because I don't have a wife. Yes, all single men are lonely and sexually frustrated, but that is not the reason I complain about the sexual titillation. Rather, as I grew up, I noticed that my desires changed. When I was a young child, for example, none of us young children cared how food was presented to us, or whether people were eating with their mouth closed, or whether people were chewing on some food, then spitting it out onto their hand, and then eating it again. We also enjoyed playing with our food once in a while.

Children also don't care about eating mucus. For example, one of the young girls in my neighborhood was walking past my house one day when she had a cold, and she stopped momentarily to cough or sneeze, and she blew blew an enormous amount of mucus out of both nostrils, and then she used her fingers to push it into her mouth and eat it. As a young child, that would not have bothered me, but as an adult, I find it disgusting.

There is nothing wrong with eating mucus. All of us eat it every day. It is constantly flowing from our lungs and nose. Unless you are sick with certain diseases, your mucus is not dangerous. Therefore, other people don't have to be afraid of your mucus, and you don't have to be afraid of theirs. However, humans evolved into a creature that does not want to watch people blowing mucus out of their nose, or eating it, and we do not want any contact with other people's mucus.

Incidentally, I wonder if girls are more likely to eat their mucus than boys. Some female animals, such as cats, will eat the waste products of their babies. When I was very young, I can remember blowing mucus out of my nose, but I have no memories of eating it.

There is no right or wrong with these issues. If we want, we could breed humans into a creature that enjoys eating mucus in front of one another. We simply have to make decisions about what we want the human race to become.

Children are similar to animals, but as we go to our teenage years, we start developing what we refer to as "manners" or "etiquette". Those are the years at which we start developing our more advanced, human qualities. If we design our society to fit the desires of children, we will be designing a society for animals or savages. We have to decide what we want from life, and what we want the human race to evolve into.

The issue of cannibalism might be an easier issue to understand. There is nothing wrong with eating humans. Lots of animals, insects, and bacteria enjoy eating humans, and we could enjoy it, also. Furthermore, when a group of people are lost somewhere and starving to death, it makes more sense to let the more valuable people survive by eating the others rather than having all of them die.

We could breed humans into a creature that enjoys eating humans. In such a case, when our parents die, we could barbecue them at their funeral and serve them to guests. Actually, there is evidence that some primitive people did indeed eat part of their dead relatives. There is nothing wrong with cannibalism, but for reasons that should be obvious, animals never developed such desires.

As monkeys evolved into humans, their increasingly intelligent minds required that they develop inhibitions against eating anything that comes from their body. Our intelligence allows us to ignore our emotions and do whatever makes sense to us, such as eating our children, friend, or our own poop when we are hungry. Keep in mind that animals and primitive people would not have known what mucus, pee, or poop was. From their point of view, it was a potential food. As a result, the humans that survived the competitive struggle for life were those that developed strong inhibitions against eating human bodies and waste products. Our ancestors, however, did not understand why they had inhibitions against eating humans. They simply thought that it was "disgusting". Even today most people don't seem to understand that the reason we are disgusted at the thought of eating humans and waste products is because our ancestors who did not have such inhibitions had a lower chance for survival.

So, to conclude, my complaints about sexual titillation have nothing to do with my loneliness. It is simply what I became as an adult. I think that the people who have been rising to leadership positions during the past few centuries have been the people with more primitive qualities, and the people who didn't mature as thoroughly as the rest of us, thereby causing them to behave more like children. What they consider to be "entertainment" or "normal" is what I would describe as "toilet humor", or as "obnoxious", or as "childish". This seems to be especially true of the people who dominate the entertainment business, gambling operations, prostitution businesses, and drug businesses. Those particular businesses seem to attract the especially crude and obnoxious people.

Does life get better after age 50?

As I pointed out in this file here, one of the reasons some people are fooled into thinking that life becomes better after age 50 is because most of us are very confused and frustrated as a child, and as we get older we start to get a better understanding of what we enjoy in life. Now I will point out one other reason why some men are fooled into thinking that their life improves at age 50. Specifically, we start to lose our interest in sex.

Having a constant sexual craving is annoying, especially if you are single, or if you don't have a pleasant relationship with your wife. It is especially annoying to be titillated every day by businesses, television shows, advertisements, and young women who dress in sexually provocative manners.

The people who believe that constant sexual titillation will give them a better life are as foolish as the people who believe that eating more food will bring them more happiness, or that by having more money and shopping more often will bring them more happiness. Human happiness does not come from stimulating yourself with sex, food, or shopping.

What you desire is not always what you need

Our emotional cravings evolved for a primitive life, not this modern era in which we can overstimulate ourselves with food, jewelry, sex, babies, drugs, and material items. We must think about what we want rather than chase after our desires like a dumb animal. Put some serious thought into how many of the products and services you desire are actually what you need to have a happy life.

Are women willing to share expensive outfits?

To further reduce waste with clothing, we could provide a lot of high-quality, fancy outfits for social affairs that the women can borrow. Instead of purchasing these expensive outfits, the women would borrow an outfit, wear it to a social affair, and then give it back to society. At another social affair, they could borrow another outfit. This would provide women with clothing they would never be able to afford, and with a wider variety of it. However, this requires women who are willing to share clothing. How many women are willing to do this?

If women are willing to share the expensive clothing, then we could provide them with a wide selection of much higher quality clothing. It would be practical to use very expensive materials that are more durable, more stain resistant, and more resistant to fading. It would also be practical to provide clothing with decorative sequins and embroidery. We could also provide lots of costumes for holidays or parties, such as medieval clothing.

Expensive materials and patterns	Costumes for parties and festivals	Intricate decorations and embroidery

To understand the value of sharing expensive outfits, consider that if there are 100,000 women in the city, and if they each want 20 expensive outfits, we must produce 2 million expensive outfits, and we must provide enough closet space in the homes for all of the clothing.

If, instead, the women are willing to share the expensive outfits, then we could produce a much smaller number of higher quality outfits, perhaps a few hundred thousand outfits, and that would allow the women to have an incredible selection of much nicer outfits. Furthermore, since the women give the outfits back to the city after they have finished wearing them, the closets in the homes could be smaller. This would reduce the size and cost of the homes, and it would increase the density of the people without reducing the living space.

I don't think it would be practical for women to share expensive clothing in the world today because our societies are full of people who are irresponsible, dishonest, sloppy, selfish, vengeful, envious, psychotic, and stupid. However, if we created a more homogenous society of higher quality people who liked one another, the women would certainly be willing to share the expensive clothing. Actually, I think they would prefer it.

Most people believe that their life will improve if they own more items, but the more items you own, the more of a burden you put on yourself. All items, even clothing, require maintenance. Clothing, for example, gets covered with dust and spider webs when it sits in a closet. I think it is better to own only the items you use on a regular basis. The fewer material items you own, the more freedom you have to do other things with your life. Conversely, the people who have lots of clothing, cars, swimming pools, yachts, and other items have to spend more of their life maintaining them all. I wonder if the people who are attracted to the concept of owning everything are simply more like animals than the rest of us.

Men could share expensive outfits, also

Men already rent tuxedos for certain social affairs, such as weddings, but there are not many outfits for men to rent because most men wear virtually identical suits and ties for all social and business occasions, and for all weather conditions. However, if we were to create a better society with better leadership, clothing for men would certainly evolve, and eventually there would be lots of outfits for men. The men would then be able to borrow outfits for the social affairs rather than own or rent them.

Since women enjoy shopping more than men, we could design some of the social affairs so that the women select the outfits for the men. This would be useful for both single people and married couples. For those particular affairs, the men would be given outfits by either their wives or by one of the single women. Women enjoy competing with each other in selecting outfits for themselves, and this would give them the opportunity to compete in their ability to select clothing for men. We could even use this as a form of entertainment at some of the social affairs, such as having each woman introduce her man and the clothing she picked for him, as if it was a fashion show. There could be events in which the women select formal outfits for the men, and there could be other events in which the women select amusing or historical costumes for the men.

For single people, and especially for teenagers, a social affair in which the women select clothing for men would provide yet another opportunity for men and women to get to know each other because the women would have to first learn the man's size and shape, and that would force the two of them to interact to a certain extent prior to the event.

Enjoy the transition period, don't be afraid of it

Animals and humans have a resistance to change, so switching from the philosophy of owning clothing to sharing the expensive outfits would require that we put some effort into making the change. There will be a transition period as we make the change. Likewise, men have become so accustomed to wearing virtually identical suits and ties that we will resist changing to a more practical style for work, and a more decorative style for social affairs.

Whether you enjoy the transition period or suffer from it depends upon your attitude. You are in control of your life. You determine whether you enjoy your life, or whether you waste your life feeling sorry for yourself, being envious of other people, or hating the people that you assume are interfering with your happiness. If you choose to consider the transition period as an adventure into the future, then you will enjoy it. If you don't enjoy your life, it is your fault. Don't blame poverty, other races, other nations, or the devil. You have lots of choices in life. If you make idiotic choices, that's your problem.

Why did wealthy men centuries ago wear decorative clothing?

The paintings that were made centuries ago were not intended to be historical documentation of life in their era, but many of those paintings are probably very similar to what a photograph would have shown us. For example, the drawing below shows ordinary people in Holland at a wedding in 1568.

The paintings that were made centuries ago of the "ordinary" people show them behaving in exactly the same manner that they behave today. Technology has changed significantly, but human behavior is virtually identical. However, the paintings of the men who were influential in society show that there has been a significant change in clothing of the men in leadership positions. Those men may have worn "ordinary" clothing while they were working, but for social affairs, they wore very decorative clothing.

As I have pointed out in other files, a man during prehistoric times became successful only as a result of his talent, but today a man can become successful because of crime, nepotism, monarchies, marriage, gambling, blackmail, and bribery. During the past thousand years or so, the lower quality men have been slowly gaining control of society.

What proof do I have for that accusation? I don't actually have "proof", but I think the changes in clothing styles of men in leadership positions over the past few centuries is more evidence that lower quality men have been rising to the top of society. The clothing styles for leaders at social affairs have become increasingly less decorative and more uniform. I think this is evidence that a more crude type of man is getting control of society.

The portraits that were painted centuries ago show that the clothing of the wealthy men at social affairs had much more variety than the clothing of today, and it was much more decorative. For example, the two close-ups below show the clothing of the man at the extreme left in the painting De Magere Compagnie.

Notice that he has a frilly collar that matches the frills at the bottom of his legs. His decorative clothing may not seem impressive to you until you realize that those people had to make that clothing with very crude technology. That clothing did not come from a modern factory in China. Try making your own clothing sometime, and with 16th-century technology, to understand how much time and effort they put into that clothing.

These close-ups are from De Magere Compagnie, a painting in 1637. Info on artist is here.

The clothing for wealthy men in 1637 is incredibly complex and decorative when you consider how crude their technology was. Furthermore, notice that each man in the painting has slightly different clothing. The men were not mimicking one another.

The paintings made centuries ago in India, China, and Japan also show the men wearing a wide variety of decorative clothing. Those old paintings ought to make you wonder, if those men had been given access to modern sewing machines, dyes, buttons, zippers, fabrics, and computer controlled embroidery machines, how much more decorative would their clothing have been?

A century earlier, during the 1500s, the clothing was a bit more primitive, but even in that era the successful men were wearing amazingly decorative clothing for social affairs. Incidentally, you might find it amusing to look through some of the paintings of the 1500s because there were a few decades when the men were wearing decorative codpieces, which would be considered lewd today. The two images below are examples.

Wealthy men's clothing during the 1500s Painted by Pinturicchio about 1502 to 1508 Painted by Francesco Terzio, 1557

The image below is a close-up of the man's "pants" in the image above. As I pointed out in this file here, feminists often whine that the sexist men have been forcing women to wear dresses rather than pants, but the drawings of clothing from centuries ago show that nobody was wearing "pants". Our ancestors didn't have zippers, and it was very difficult for them to create button holes. They didn't have stainless steel sewing needles, either, or stainless steel scissors.

During the 1500s, men wore "pairs of pants", which were two, independent pieces of clothing, one for each leg. The men wore another piece of fabric around their waist, which was similar to a modern woman's skirt. The man's crotch was exposed with this type of clothing, so a codpiece was used to cover his genitals. For several decades during the 1500s the wealthy men wore decorative codpieces, as you can see in the drawing of Francesco Terzio (above).

The paintings made during the 1500s show that the men's pants were just flaps of fabric that were held together with pieces of strings or crude fasteners. However, the wealthy men didn't wear bland clothing; rather, they decorated their clothing with tassels, colors, and patterns. Creating those decorations in that technically primitive era was time-consuming and difficult. They didn't have to put all that time and effort into decorating their clothing. They chose to do it.

Sloppy clothing is not due to poverty

The clothing of the "ordinary" men during the 1500s was the same style as the wealthy men, but it was of a lower quality and less decorative. For example, the image to the right is a close-up of an "ordinary" man in this drawing of a wedding that was painted by Pieter Bruegel in 1567.

The paintings made centuries ago of "ordinary" people show that their clothing didn't fit very well, and some of it was drab, and you might interpret this as evidence that the people were suffering from extreme poverty, but you can see the same situation in America today, such as at this website. There are some people who simply don't have much of an interest in their clothing, or whether their house or office is neat.

Don't interpret sloppy clothing, houses, offices, or automobiles as a sign of poverty. Each of us is free to do whatever we please with our lives. Each of us makes a decision about which path we follow. At one extreme are the people who are so excessively clean and orderly that they are described as having an "obsessive-compulsive disorder", and at the other extreme are people who are so filthy that businesses are making money from them by making television shows about them, such as Hoarders.

As I've mentioned in other documents, the sloppy, filthy conditions of slums is not due to "poverty". It is due to the low-quality of the brains of the people who live in those areas; it is due to the idiotic decisions that they make. A lot of the people in those neighborhoods are stupid or mentally ill, and as a result, they waste a lot of their time and money on gambling, drugs, alcohol, pets, jewelry, and religion. Feeling sorry for them is not going to help them, and giving them nice clothing is not going to help them, either. They don't want nice clothing! They want toys, sex, drugs, alcohol, candy, and babies.

Each of us has a lot of choices in life. Don't feel sorry for somebody who chooses a path of crime, drugs, gambling, pedophilia, religion, or other worthless or destructive activities. The only way to help people is to provide them with information, and if they choose to ignore it, or if they cannot understand it, that is their problem, not yours.

Why do male leaders today mimic each other?
 

Although churches and monarchies have been putting incompetent men into leadership positions for thousands of years, most of our ancestors who became wealthy and influential were achieving their success as a result of their talent, creativity, intelligence, and ability to cooperate with other people. By comparison, the men who are leaders today, especially in politics and business, don't show any signs of independence, intelligence, creativity, or talent. They mimic one another to such an extent that an alien from another planet would initially assume that they have only one style of clothing. It is impossible that every influential man in the world actually has a genetic preference to this one particular style of suit and tie. The only sensible explanation is that they have chosen to mimic one another, just like stupid animals. I say that this is is evidence that our leaders have less creativity and independence than the leaders of previous centuries. Incidentally, have you noticed that some of the teenagers and young adults, both men and women, are deliberately wearing unattractive clothing, such as the "Grunge Look"? I think this is evidence that our leaders are not providing leadership, and the human race is degrading into retards.

 
The men in leadership positions today are afraid to wander through life on their own. They are afraid to think their own thoughts, or wear their own clothing. These men do not have the personality characteristics of a "leader". They are criminals, savages, puppets of crime networks, monarchs, or sycophants.

We all benefit when people are slightly different from one another. Each of us have slightly different physical and mental characteristics, and we want everybody to find their talents, and contribute whatever they can. We do not benefit when we suppress independence or creativity. We want everybody to be honest, but we do not want to force everybody to be identical to everybody else. We do not want people mimicking one another like stupid animals. Our leaders should be like parents who encourage us to think our own thoughts and develop our skills and talents. They should not force us to be identical copies of themselves.

Leaders in Asia are mimicking one another, also

I don't know much about the clothing styles that Asian men were wearing centuries ago, but it seems to me that the wealthy Asian men were also wearing unique and decorative styles for social affairs, just like the wealthy European men.

These two photos show clothing that was supposedly worn by wealthy men in India of previous generations.

The point I want to make is that the people in India, Japan, China, and Europe had developed unique and very decorative clothing styles for both men and women, but virtually all men in leadership positions today are mimicking one another, which might be acceptable if they were wearing a comfortable, practical, attractive style, but they all wear the same bland style of dark-colored suit and tie that is impractical to work in. Why is there no variety? Why do they wear only dark clothing? Why are all of the world's leaders mimicking each other? I suggest you consider the possibility that their bizarre clothing style is evidence that these men are not leaders.

We have the technology to make clothing that is much more practical, durable, comfortable, colorful, and decorative than what our medieval ancestors were capable of creating, but instead the men in leadership positions today wear clothing that is absurd. You might find it interesting to search the Internet for images using the phrase "business suit". You will find page after page of black, gray, and dark brown suits with no variety, colors, or decorations.

I think that one of the significant changes to human societies during the past few centuries, and especially during the past few decades, is that the lower quality men have been rising to leadership positions. This is even true of scientists. For example, have you seen the evidence that Einstein plagiarized his theories? This would explain why he was wearing the "grunge style" of clothing in so many of his photos.

There are scientists today who claim that humans are increasing the temperature of the earth as a result of our production of carbon dioxide, and that the solution to this problem is to impose carbon taxes. I have no doubt that the Earth's temperature fluctuates, and that humans have some effect on the weather, but the scientists who claim that the government is capable of controlling the weather with carbon taxes are certainly aware that they are lying to us. They are not "scientists". They are "educated criminals".

Children should be provided with functional clothing

We can reduce the production of children's clothing by providing them with functional clothing rather than trying to make girls look like miniature prostitutes, or providing boys and girls with the latest fashions. Children don't need to wear clothing that is perfect, either. They can be told to wear clothing even if it has stains and tears. Furthermore, when children outgrow clothing that is still in good condition, it should be given back to society so that somebody else can give it to their children.

Parents today would be embarrassed to provide their children with used clothing, and the children would be ridiculed at school. However, I think we should change that attitude. I do not consider the production of children's clothing to be a high priority. I think we should make some high quality, durable clothing for children, and when they outgrow some clothing item, it should be given back to society and some other child should wear it. I don't see how anybody benefits when a society puts a lot of labor and resources into children's clothing.

When only a few children are wearing used clothing, they will be ridiculed, but if all children are following this practice, then they all become equal. This is another advantage to having only one class of people in society.

Sharing items provides tremendous benefits

To summarize this section, a society that is capable of sharing material items will significantly reduce the amount of labor and resources that they need. It will also provide them with access to higher quality clothing, bicycles, boats, sports equipment, and hobby equipment than they could otherwise afford. Furthermore, if we share items, and if we also get meals from restaurants, our homes become primarily living space for humans rather than storage space for material items.

Which path do you want to follow? Do you want to continue on the path of trying to own everything that you want? Or do you want to switch to sharing items?

Our ancestors did more than make decorative clothing. They also decorated all of their material items, such as drinking glasses, tools, knives, chairs, and swords. Their decorations are crude by comparison to what we can produce today, but the point I want to make is that some of them put a lot of time and effort into their decorations. For example, the image below is the top of a page from the Canterbury tales from the 1400's. It would be easy for us to create that type of book, but the people 800 years ago didn't have colored pencils, ballpoint pens, or large supplies of high-quality ink or paper at low prices.

Note: If you are not familiar with the incredible variety of "illuminated manuscripts", take a look at some of these images.

Some people assume that our ancestors spent a lot of their time decorating items because they had nothing better to do with their leisure time, but they all had something better to do. All of them had to spend a lot of their time just trying to survive. They had to spend time repairing their home, making clothing, and providing themselves with food. It is also important to keep in mind that they didn't have the fancy kerosene or electric lights that we have today. Therefore, decorating items in the evening would have been difficult. Candles were also difficult to make. Our ancestors 500 years ago didn't take a short walk to their local retail store and pick up a package of candle wax.

I suspect that only a minority of the population put significant effort into decorating their items. Most people were satisfied to have simplistic clothing, furniture, and other items. However, a certain percentage of the population was producing decorative items, and when you consider how crude their technology was, it should be obvious that they put a lot of time and effort into their work. For example, producing a glass goblet was a difficult chore a thousand years ago, and to create a decorative glass goblet, as in the photo below, required a tremendous amount of work. Likewise, the Romans didn't have to bother decorating any of their clothing, pottery, or buildings, but they chose to do so.

A glass goblet produced in the 1200s in Egypt or Syria. A Roman oil lamp made from clay.

Technology has changed significantly during the past thousand years, but human behavior is virtually the same. Therefore, we can understand the behavior of people 1000 years ago by looking at the people today. However, you have to look at everybody, not your small group of friends because they are not likely to be typical of the human race. You have to look at the enormous number of people that you ignore, avoid, or are oblivious to.

For example, notice how differently people eat dinner. At one extreme are the people who want to sit at a table that has been decorated, and they want their food presented in a nice manner, and they want to eat with forks and spoons, and they want quiet conversations. At the other extreme are people who don't care how anybody dresses for dinner, or how the food is presented. Some people enjoy eating with their fingers, and some people find it amusing when people put their face into food like an animal. In fact, eating like an animal at high speed has evolved into the sport of competitive eating. If this sport continues to increase in popularity, it may become one of the Olympic games.

Most people today don't care whether their city, clothing, factories, rivers, or transportation systems are clean or attractive, and likewise, most of our ancestors didn't seem to care about these issues, either. Only a small minority of the population is concerned about these issues. Throughout most of human history, people would throw garbage wherever they pleased; spit on the sidewalk; allow horses and dogs to poop and pee in the city; and allow businesses to dump trash in the rivers. A small minority of the population is putting pressure on the majority to be more neat, orderly, and responsible.

The decorations that were created centuries ago were the result of a minority of the population. That minority didn't decorate items because they were bored. Rather, they had a different mind and, as a result, they chose a different path in life. They had no reason to waste any of their time or resources on decorations. It would have been much easier for them to produce purely functional items.

The people centuries ago who decorated items did so because their mind made the decision to spend some of their time on this activity. They chose to do this because they enjoyed the decorations, and they enjoyed making the decorations. They could have chosen to waste their leisure time in the same way that many people waste it; namely, gambling, getting drunk, playing silly games, or fighting with each other.

For example, some sailors would carve pictures or designs in bones or teeth (as in the photo to the right). We describe this as "scrimshaw". Some people assume that the sailors created the scrimshaw because they were bored, but nobody reacts to boredom by carving designs in teeth or bones. The human mind has to make a decision to pick up an object in one hand, and a tool in the other hand, and then coordinate those hands in order to carve a design. It's a decision that a mind has to make, and it is a lot of work. The person has to choose to do this work. A human mind doesn't engage in this type of work simply because of boredom. There are people getting bored every day on boats, trains, airplanes, and in their home, but they are not reacting to the boredom by decorating items.

Do you know who our business leaders are?

Have you noticed that most of the men in leadership positions are virtually unknown? They are almost invisible to society. Do you know who is in control of the Intel Corporation, or IBM, or Monsanto? Most of us have no idea who our business leaders are because they never say or do anything that attracts our attention. They are invisible because they don't do or say anything that is worth recording in history books or teaching to children. We can find more intelligent opinions from "ordinary" people.

We know the names of some business leaders, but not because of their intelligent analyses of life. Rather, they made the news for other reasons, such as their gigantic mansions, incredible salaries, arrests, bizarre divorce settlements, or strange behavior.

The men who dominate our economy never provide us with guidance. They have no original thoughts. There are "ordinary" people with more creativity, independence, and originality. This explains why none of the male leaders of the world today are capable of standing up to criminals, or even teenage gangs, or even the feminists!

It is bad enough that our society is dominated by men with no independence, but to make the situation worse, they suppress independence in the rest of us. They want to suppress and eliminate competitors, not consider what we have to say, or encourage us to develop our ideas, or help us to become more productive. They don't want to work with us or talk with us. They want to dominate us. This is a characteristic of an animal, not a human.

It is April 2012, and America is in the process of electing a new president this year. If businessmen were truly worthy of leadership positions, then we would be able to put them on television and ask them questions about the election and the candidates, and they would provide us with opinions that are more intelligent than what we would hear from our friends and neighbors. However, can you name even one businessman who has said something that you would describe as "intelligent"? Do you know any businessmen that you would want to see interviewed on television?

If there are any intelligent businessmen, they are not getting publicity. The businessmen who get publicity in television and magazines either have nothing intelligent to say, or they lie to us. Don't dismiss their idiotic and dishonest comments as irrelevant. Their behavior and opinions are an indication of their minds.

The same concept applies to women. If women were as intelligent as men, or more intelligent, then we would see some evidence of this. Judge women by their behavior and achievements, not by what they claim to be. Where are the intelligent women? Can you name any of them? The women have excuses for their failures, such as they are too busy taking care of children and their husband, but a lot of men find time to do intelligent work. Why can't women find the time?

Is it difficult to raise a child?

This issue is not trivial, and it is not meant to be an insult to women. This is an increasingly important issue for the human race. Animals don't have any trouble raising their babies, so why would humans have trouble? Humans are more intelligent, and so wouldn't it be easier for us to raise our children? I think there are two primary reasons that raising human children is difficult:

1) Humans are degrading genetically.
I think the main reason it is difficult to raise children today is because humans are degrading genetically. Raising children with mental disorders is difficult for the same reason that raising a defective animal would be difficult. If you have not had much contact with people with mental disorders, take a look at some of the videos on the Internet, such as by searching for OCD, or search for schizophrenia, which is worse.

As you watch some of the videos about mental disorders, you ought to wonder how many of the people in your neighborhood, and how many of your relatives and friends, have some type of mental disorder. I'd like to once again emphasize the fact that our primitive ancestors did not keep secrets from one another. Everybody in a tribe knew everything about everybody else. They even knew how people slept during the night. Today the situation has reversed itself. Most people put pressure on society to allow them to hide their medical disorders, job performance, and arrest records. Most people also want to mask or hide their medical problems with surgery, cosmetics, and drugs.

We have to make a distinction between a person who is trying to fix a problem, and a person who is trying to deceive us. For example, it is understandable for a person with broken, crooked, or defective teeth to want to fix them, and it is understandable for people with diabetes to want to fix that problem with insulin, but we should not encourage or tolerate people who lie about their problems. A lot of people want to deceive us about their arrest records, medical problems, previous marriages, and job performance because they are embarrassed or ashamed of themselves, but who benefits by allowing them to deceive us?

Most people promote the philosophy that they have a right to hide whatever aspects of themselves that they are embarrassed or ashamed of, but we should switch to the philosophy that we have a right to know the truth about the people we bring into our lives as a friend, spouse, coworker, or neighbor. We should tell people to accept their problems rather than deceive us.

2) Our environment is terrible.
As I mentioned earlier in this file, we are raising children in an unpleasant environment. Children are being raised in a society in which the people don't like one another, don't know one another, cannot trust one another, and are frequently trying to abuse one another. Businesses, religions, feminists, and other people are also trying to manipulate children for a variety of reasons.

Who benefits from feminism?

If the feminist movement was helping women, then we should find evidence of women benefiting from it during the past century, but where is this evidence? I don't see any evidence that women are becoming increasingly happy as the feminist movement spreads around the world. Actually, I see the opposite. I see more women becoming best friends with dogs and television sets, and more women living alone, and more divorce. I also see more people delaying marriage or never getting married.

We have to judge people, organizations, philosophies, and everything else according to its effect, not according to its promises. I would say that the effect feminism has had on human life is to cause relationships between men and women to deteriorate. The feminist movement encourages fights, competition, anger, accusations, and pouting.

However, I don't blame the feminist movement on "women". Rather, I think that the feminist movement is a deliberate attempt to cause trouble. I don't think it was ever intended to help women. More evidence to support my accusation is occurring right now in April 2012. In 1933, a group of men started the Augusta National Golf Club, and it was for men only. Starting in the 1980s they began the custom of offering a membership to the CEO of IBM. In the following three decades, there have been four CEOs of IBM, all of whom became members of the golf club. This year the CEO is a woman, Virginia Rometty, so the news agencies are providing us with reports, such as this, that this golf club is now in a serious dilemma. They either have to change their rules and allow women to become members, or they have to break their habit of offering a membership to the CEO of IBM.

Most people in the world would not know about this golf club if the Jews had not decided to make this issue a news event. So, why did the Jews select this event for so much publicity? On 11 April 2012 I searched Google News for the words "Augusta National IBM", and it resulted in thousands of news articles. I think the Jews are doing this to instigate fights between men and women. They are trying to convince the women that they are being abused by men.

A few days later almost all of the news reporters had forgotten about this issue. I think this is evidence that they failed to instigate fights between men and women, and so they gave up and are now trying to manipulate us with some other event.

Remember to ask yourself the question, "Who benefits?", when dealing with issues. Who benefits when we insist that all golf clubs, bicycle riding clubs, chess clubs, cooking clubs, hunting clubs, and other organizations be a mixture of men and women? Who suffers if men have their own clubs, and if women have their own clubs? And what about children; should we allow children to have their own golf clubs, science clubs, and chess clubs, or do we have to force children to accept adults as members?

Women have their own organizations, and so do young girls. The Girl Scouts are discriminating against boys, for example, but should the boys whine about this discrimination and demand that the girls allow boys to be members? Mitt Romney boasted that he would allow women into the Augusta golf club; would he allow boys into the Girl Scouts?

On 10 April 2012, this article made such outlandish claims as the golf club's refusal to allow female members helps to legitimize discrimination, and that the club is "notorious for its refusal to allow female members". Are the Girl Scouts also notorious for their refusal to allow male members? Are the Girl Scouts also legitimizing discrimination? Why are women allowed to discriminate against men, but men are not allowed to discriminate against women?

The golf club is abusing men, not women!

Why did the Augusta golf club decide to offer a membership to the CEO of IBM? Furthermore, why is the membership considered "honorary"? That implies that they are not really members. I think the club did this purely as a publicity stunt. I think they were trying to make their golf club appear to be a "special" club that attracts the "important" people of society. By offering the CEO of IBM an honorary membership, the club can boast that the most important men in society are members. We could describe this as using the CEO of IBM as a piece of bait on a hook in order to lure other men to the golf club.

Instead of complaining that this golf club is discriminating against women, I think it would make more sense to complain that they are exploiting a man's craving to feel important by putting an important man into the organization and then implying that every man who joins is also important. We could describe this as a disgusting and abusive marketing trick to manipulate men. We could complain that this is typical behavior for successful businessmen. We could describe this treating people as profit opportunities, and looking for ways to trick, manipulate, and exploit people.

If the Augusta Golf Club modifies their rules to allow female members, and if they offer an honorary membership to Virginia Rometty, then we could say that instead of helping women, they are expanding their exploitation to include women. Instead of demanding that women be members, the women should respond by telling the golf club that if they have to give out honorary memberships to CEOs in order to attract members, then they don't want to be a member. The women should complain that they want a club that is honest, not a club that creates a phony image of itself.

Furthermore, we see the same abusive behavior with universities who give people "honorary" diplomas. We could complain that universities are trying to manipulate us, also. I think we should stop this manipulation, not encourage more of it by demanding that the golf clubs do it with women, also.

The politicians and other people who have been condemning the Augusta Golf Club are not providing us with any leadership, or an intelligent analysis of the issue. Rather, they are just trying to appease the women. The men in leadership positions do not have the ability to stand up to feminists. They are not leaders! The women in leadership positions are not leaders, either. If they were, they would provide us with intelligent analyses of these issues rather than remain silent or whine about discrimination.

This brings me to a point I've made many times. Specifically, most of the human population, both male and female, are incapable of dealing with the problems of the modern world. They have nothing intelligent to say about the problems we face. The majority of people are like helpless children who inadvertently allow themselves to be manipulated and abused by businesses, crime networks, corrupt government officials, feminists, news reporters, television producers, and religious fanatics.

A leader does not hide from us

I think that the men who became leaders tens of thousands of years ago were similar to the leaders of apes and orangutans. Specifically, they would have been men, not women, and they would have been capable of facing problems and providing guidance to the other men. For example, if a wolf or neighboring tribe was threatening their group, or if bad weather was forcing them to find a new place to sleep for the night, their leader would be in front, leading the way. The leader would not be hiding with the women and children and telling the other men to deal with the problem. Furthermore, he would not have asked his wife or the other men to help him figure out what to do and say in his role as leader.

By comparison, the type of men who are elected to government office cannot even write their own speeches. The men who get to the top in businesses are not much better than the government officials. Many businessmen are capable of writing their own speeches, but they don't have the ability to face critics or deal with problems. They prefer to hide in their office and send other people to deal with the problems.

The leaders of today cannot face the unknown. For example, when the leaders of business or government are forced to face their opponents, they want some control over who is at the discussion, what will be discussed, and how the discussion is conducted. They do not have the courage to walk into a room and deal with whoever happens to be there and discuss whatever issues happen to be brought up. Some men will even argue over the seating arrangements, which is supposedly where the idea of a round table came from.

It is understandable for a person in a leadership position to investigate whether a discussion is worth his time, but their fear of discussions is not a fear of wasting their time. They simply are afraid of facing opponents. Joseph Stalin, for example, had no ability to face his opponents, and he never did talk to any of his critics. He would eliminate competitors, not invite them for an intelligent discussion.

The leaders of Boeing, Intel, and other businesses will never come out of their office and discuss anything with any of us. They are not too busy to talk to us. Rather, they simply don't have the courage to face the unknown, and they don't have the intelligence to know what to say. Some business leaders have been forced to go to Congress to explain their behavior, but nobody can remember anything they said because they never say anything worth remembering. Their only accomplishments in life are graduating from school, making a lot of money, and purchasing a big house. They don't provide the Congress - or the world - with any intelligent opinions. Instead, they sit in front of the Congress with an expression of terror on their face, and they say only what is the bare minimum necessary. They behave like criminals who are being interrogated, not leaders who provide us with guidance.

If our business leaders were true leaders, then we would want to see them on television, and we would be interested in listening to their brilliant opinions. But who among us wants to listen to any of them?

Where are the websites of the top business leaders?

You should also wonder why Virginia Rometty does not express her brilliant opinions on the issue of whether the Augusta golf club should allow women to be members. Why doesn't she provide us with an intelligent analysis of this issue? Is she a "leader"? Or was she promoted to CEO merely to appease women, or as a favor to somebody, or because she was blackmailing somebody?

Have you noticed that top business executives rarely have websites, and if they do, they don't have much to say about anything? The executives have lots of excuses for remaining silent, such as they are too busy, or they do not want to cause trouble for their stockholders or competitors, but if they were truly intelligent people with leadership qualities, then their websites would not cause any trouble. Rather, their websites would impress us and be a source of inspiration.

The reason our top business executives are so silent is because they have nothing intelligent to say. Actually, if many of them were to express their opinions, we would be disgusted rather than impressed. Their primary activity is looking for opportunities to exploit us, and struggling to become a wealthy and pampered King or Queen. They are forever looking for ways to eliminate their competitors and use people for their selfish benefit. If they were to express their opinions about life, we would be appalled at their disgusting and abusive attitudes. They must keep their mouth shut; they are not leaders. Many of these men might be excellent as supervisors, but they are not leaders for this modern world.

Animals don't care about society

A dog doesn't care whether it lives in a beautiful city or a garbage dump. A dog doesn't care whether it is eating healthy food or radioactive waste. A dog's only concern is marking some land as his territory, reproducing, and chasing competitors out of his territory.

The men who dominate society today want a large piece of land with a large house and a lot of material items. As with dogs, they don't care how ugly their city is, or how much crime there is, or whether they have to drive their children to school because they are afraid that children might be kidnapped or molested. They don't care if their air, water, or food is full of chemicals that nobody knows the safety of. As with dogs, all they want from life is to get control of some territory, feed themselves, reproduce, and fight with other males for status. This modern world needs higher-quality men who have a concern for society.

As I wrote in my article about hobbies, if we were to live in a city in which we enjoyed, trusted, and respected the people among us, and if our government supported social activities and helped to coordinate our hobbies, then a lot of the people who are currently wasting their time on hobbies that nobody appreciates might find that they prefer to get together with other people and assist with useful projects for their city. For example, some of the people whose hobby is growing bonsai trees, orchids, cactus, or Tillandsia might prefer to occasionally assist with the creation and maintenance of displays of such plants in the gardens at city parks, the exercise centers, and the restaurants.

Many of the people with exceptional artistic talent are so anti-social or psychotic that they will not work with other people or tolerate suggestions on what to do, but if we lived in a city in which we enjoyed the people, there would certainly be some people with artistic talent who would enjoy contributing some of their time to impressive projects for the city. The drawing of a kitten (below) is a portion of a drawing made by a teenage girl in Holland. She and possibly thousands of other artists might be able to rival Michelangelo in creating murals that astound people for centuries, but most artists are wasting their talent on projects of no importance, and many of them concentrate on depressing or psychotic images. The teenage girl who drew that kitten, for example, seems to concentrate on Lady Gaga and sad people. It seems as if artists are created when something goes wrong with the human mind.

Create arts and crafts for museums, schools, lounge areas, etc., not for yourself. Help maintain beautiful displays of Tillandsia, orchids, bonsai, and other plants for your city, not for yourself. Use your artistic talent to make beautiful murals, sculptures, and decorations for your city.

An enormous percentage of the population has a hobby, such as creating candles, decorative fingernails, dolls with intricate clothing, and miniature displays of Star Trek characters, but who notices or cares? Our walkways, bridges, and plazas don't have to be dreary, gray concrete. If the people involved with arts and crafts hobbies would occasionally get together and contribute to a useful project, such as decorating a plaza with tiles, rocks, and carving, we could make our city beautiful.

Why waste your talent and efforts on projects that nobody appreciates? The people who like to make dolls, for example, could create them for museums or schools in order to show the lives and clothing of people of different eras and cultures. The people who enjoy growing plants could create beautiful displays for the city's lounges, parks, botanical gardens, exercise centers, and restaurants.

People who collect items could make museum displays

The people who enjoy collecting items could be coordinated so that they create displays for museums and schools. They could create collections that are useful for historical documentation, and for educational purposes. Furthermore, they could do more than simply collect the items; they could also do some research into the item and provide information and video documentaries about their collections. Instead of collecting vacuum tubes, medieval medical instruments, and other items for their own personal collections that are hidden inside their house and which nobody appreciates, they could combine their talents to create much more useful displays for society.

These displays would be both educational and entertaining. For example, the photo to the right shows an ancient Egyptian bronze mirror (it is now very tarnished). Instead of hundreds of people collecting a few mirrors for their own personal collection, they would combine all of their collections and create a very useful display that shows the history of mirrors. Furthermore, instead of simply putting the mirrors in a display case, they could also do some research and provide us with a variety of different videos with different levels of technical information, historical information, and descriptions. Do you know when glass mirrors first became available? Do you know which area of the world they appeared in first, and how they spread around the world? Do you know how the first glass mirrors were manufactured?

Combine your collections of antiques to those of other people, add video documentation, and create valuable educational and historical displays for all of society to benefit from and enjoy. Create displays of the history of the lightbulb. Explain the history of the telephone. Show the development of mirrors.

Our collections are wasted

The antique telephone in the photo above is in my house. My grandmother picked it up somewhere many decades ago, and she eventually gave it to my mother. Years later my mother decided to get a dog, and the dog chewed on the cord and broke it in half. My mother gave it to me to prevent it from getting more damage. This brings up another problem with our personal collections. Specifically, many items suffer damage from fire, flood, dogs, children, and earthquakes. Items get damaged in museums, also, but they have a much better survival rate at museums.

Looking at old items is interesting, but it is more useful, especially for schools, to have access to videos to explain what you are looking at. That telephone, for example, has a handle on the side that had to be turned to make a phone call, and an video would provide you with access to whatever level of information you wanted about that handle, such as a brief overview of its purpose, or more detailed technical description about what actually was happening when the handle was turned, and what the electrical signal was doing.

Museum displays can be "interactive"

With modern computers, the videos provided for the museum displays can be "interactive". We could either press buttons, touch the screen, or use voice commands to switch between the videos. We no longer have to watch a video from beginning to end. As with the Internet, we can now very easily browse and jump around through digital videos.

For example, if you were looking at a display of antique telephones, you would have a wide selection of videos to choose from to get more details about the different aspects of the telephones. If you were curious about the telephone cord, you could play a video that gives you an overview of what it is, or you could watch a video with more technical details.

It is not easy to see in the photo above, but the electrical cord on that telephone is not the same as the electrical cords on the modern phones. There is no rubber in that cord. As the photos below show, the outer sheath is some type of braided fiber, and within it are five smaller cords, each of which is also enclosed in a braided sheath. Our ancestors must have put a lot of manual labor into making those cords and connecting them to the five-pronged connectors, compared to the telephone cords of today. Incidentally, that telephone could be described as "modular" because handset plugs into the base with that five-pronged connector.

The electrical cord from the telephone above. Compare it to a modern telephone cord. This is a close-up of the broken end of the telephone cord. At the bottom is the outer sheath, which is braided of some type of fibers, most of which are black, but there are light brown fibers mixed in, perhaps for the decorative effect. I don't know what the fiber is, perhaps cotton, linen, or hemp. Inside the sheath are five smaller cords, each of which also has a braided sheath, and each of which has a different color of thread for identification. For example, there is a red thread in the cord at the left, and a yellow thread in the middle cord. I opened up the cord on the right so that you can see the bundle of 18 copper wires inside of it. This is a close-up of the bundle of 18 wires. The bundle is wrapped with brown fibers that appear to be some type of plastic because they seem to melt when I put them near heat. Each of the 18 wires is a strand of fibers with a thin copper foil that spirals around it. I partially unrolled one of the copper spirals to make it easier to see. Everything looks wet and greasy in the photo, but is actually covered with a solid, tar-like substance. It melts with heat, so it may have been applied as a hot liquid.

Take a look at the incredible variety of collections that people are creating in their leisure time, and imagine that these people were getting together and putting their efforts into creating educational displays for museums and schools, or helping to improve an existing display, or adding or editing video information to a display. By cooperating with each other on useful projects, the city would build up a phenomenal variety of museum displays that would be both educational and entertaining, and for thousands of years. Your descendants will be able to take their children to museums and proudly tell them,

"See that name on the display? That is your grandfather from the 21st-century. He helped create that display 3700 years ago, and they did such a nice job that we are still using it!"

Museum displays should evolve

Animals cannot make museum displays, and stupid people cannot make displays that are of any value, and a group of selfish, arrogant jerks would fight with each other too much to accomplish anything of value. Our free enterprise system is providing us with museum displays, but the problem of funding the museums is causing a lot of displays to be designed for entertainment rather than to be educational, especially the museum displays that are designed for children. The free enterprise system will not provide us with truly educational displays, or displays that appeal to a small audience.

However, if we create a society in which our government is involved in creating museum displays and organizing leisure activities, and if some people are willing to contribute to the displays rather than making collections for themselves, then we would slowly accumulate a tremendous variety of displays about virtually everything in the universe, both natural and man-made.

Ordinary objects, such as matches, can become the subject of fascinating displays when people with talent and creativity to contribute some work or some constructive criticism. A display of matches could provide us with a history of how matches developed, and there could be a variety of videos for us to select from to provide us with different levels of technical details on how they are manufactured, and how they function. Do you know how many different type of matches there are? Do you know why the match below has an intense blue color? Do you know why, after they burn, they leave a porous skeleton of... what material? These photos show the same match before and after lighting it.

As I pointed out in this file, we are very sensitive to the packaging of a product. Whether a museum display is boring or interesting depends on how the information is presented to you. Everything in this universe is interesting. However, if one or two people have to make a museum display by themselves, it can only be as good as those one or two people can make it. Imagine if airplanes were designed by only two people. Airplanes are improving each year because thousands of people contribute, and people continue to contribute year after year.

We should apply the same concept to our school curriculum, museum displays, social activities, governments agencies, and everything else. We should encourage people to look for ways to improve upon the work that has already been done. We should encourage people to get involved with the creation of museum displays, and to provide constructive criticism on the displays that are already created. If lots of people contribute a little bit to the displays, then over time they will evolve and become increasingly entertaining and educational.

When a society consists of people who cooperate, they will create a much more advanced society compared to a group of people who try to eliminate or dominate their competitors, as we see with Joseph Stalin, and most of the men in leadership positions today.

Why not find a hobby that is useful?

Our free enterprise system puts pressure on us to make money, and this causes us to get into the habit of expecting to get paid for all of our work, and expecting other people to charge for their work. If we were living in the type of city that I'm suggesting, we would be under pressure to look for ways to contribute to society. I think that would cause us to change our attitudes towards life. We would get into the habit of looking for ways to bring improvements to society, and I think that one of the results of such a change in attitude is that we would start to look for - and prefer! - leisure activities that have some value to society.

A lot of the worthless activities that people do today could have a value if we were to cooperate and have some intelligent supervision. I previously mentioned that people who like collecting items could get together to create museum displays. For another example, the people who enjoy learning languages are wasting their talent right now, but if they were to get together and have some intelligent supervision, I think they would be able to help us understand and improve our languages. Instead of merely memorizing languages, they could get together once in a while to analyze languages and make suggestions on how to improve language, or how to improve the teaching of language to children.

For example, I mentioned in another file that there are some letters in the English language that children cannot pronounce, such as the letter "R". Are there also letters in other languages that children have trouble pronouncing? Are certain languages better at expressing certain concepts? If so, what makes those languages better? Can we improve the English language? I also wonder if the reason some languages developed with a different order for verbs and nouns is because the personalities of the people are different, or maybe their way of thinking is different.

As of today, the people who learn languages are doing nothing with their talent. They may as well memorize random numbers. Why bother putting a lot of time and effort into an activity that has no value? Why not get together with other people and find a way to do something useful with your talent?

The people who learn languages may not be able to contribute much to the development or understanding of language, but even if they contribute just a little, they will be doing more good for society than what they are doing right now, which is contributing nothing at all.

Most people want to do something in their leisure time, but most people are wasting their talent on hobbies of no importance. Consider how nice our cities would be if our government provided us with facilities, encouragement, and assistance to coordinate us so that we can contribute to beneficial projects that everybody in the city would appreciate. Since these activities would be hobbies, you would do them only when you were in the mood. There would be no commitment. However, even if most people contributed only a few hours each year to one of these coordinated hobbies, the city would benefit tremendously, and so would the future generations.

The only way people would enjoy coordinating their hobbies with other people and doing work for the city would be if they enjoyed the people they lived with. We will not be interested in helping our city when we fear or despise the people, or if we cannot speak the same language as they do. So, how do we create a city in which the people enjoy one another?

When passengers on a cruise ship are caught raping, murdering, stealing, or starting fires, they are removed from the ship. The captain does not react to a murder by advising passengers to install security cameras in their cabin, purchase a gun, and spend every evening locked in their cabin. If a man is caught raping a child, the captain does not consider the incident as a profit opportunity and offer expensive classes to teach the children how they can defend themselves from adult men.
 

In order to create a society in which we enjoy spending our leisure time outside of our home with other people, we must create a society in which we trust and enjoy the people in the city. Since most of our leisure time is in the evening, this requires that we feel safe walking around our city at night, and we must feel safe to let children wander around at night, also.

If we could create such a city, it would look very different from today's cities, especially at night. It would not need bright security lights at night, for example. The nighttime lights would be for decorative purposes. Bicycle paths and walkways could have strips of lights for both decoration and to show us where they are, and buildings could use lights for decoration, and they could use pigments that glow under ultraviolet light. The city could be beautiful at night.

How do we create a city in which we can trust the people we live with? How do we ensure that we can trust the police, the news reporters, and the doctors? How can we ensure that it is safe for children to wander around the city at night?

Most people believe that humans are a wonderful creation of a God, and that bad behavior can be treated through punishments or Bible lessons. I think that the only way to create a better society is to control immigration and remove the misfits. This requires that the people in the city be capable of looking critically at their own children and other relatives and be willing to evict those who are undesirable.

Why are traffic accidents treated as entertainment?

Traffic accidents kill thousands of Americans every year, and thousands more are permanently injured. We also waste enormous amounts of resources on the broken automobiles and the medical treatment. I think that one reason we don't care about this incredible slaughter is because we don't like the people we are living with. Most Americans are living among criminals, idiots, homeless people, pedophiles, parasites, and people who speak a foreign language. Morale is terrible in America. When we see a traffic accident, we don't feel sadness. Most people consider traffic accident to the entertainment, especially during automobile races. They pretend that they don't like them, but they love them.

How many people understand the concept of morale?

This brings up the issue of "morale". I have the feeling that a large percentage of the population, possibly the majority, do not have the intellectual ability to fully understand the concept that an organization must maintain its morale. All organizations, regardless of whether they are sports teams, orchestras, businesses, or nations, must set standards for the behavior of their members, and they must control membership. When they allow their organization to consist of people who are destructive, selfish, or parasitic, or if they create an organization in which the members dislike, despise, or fear one another, their morale will be terrible. The people will become withdrawn from the organization and self-centered.

When the members of an organization consider the death and mutilation of other members as entertainment, something is wrong with that organization. It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine an extreme example in which you are living in a city in which you alone have control over immigration. Imagine that you have created a city by selecting people that you want to live with. There are no peasants, homeless people, crime networks, gypsies, or illegal aliens. Even though you do not intimately know everybody in the city, you consider all of them as respectable people and potential friends. Since you picked all of the people, the government consists of people that you respect, and so do the businesses, schools, and other organizations. You like everybody in the city.

Now imagine encountering a deadly traffic accident. Your mind would realize that it is somebody that you invited to live in your city. You may not "know" the person, but you would realize that he is a respectable, wonderful person. That traffic accident would be sad, not entertaining. If you were in control of automobile racing, and if you selected some of your friends as race drivers, then if there was a deadly accident, you would feel awful, not entertained.

Most people don't seem to care about the morale of their nation, and they don't want to deal with people who are destructive to society. Most people want to merely exist from one day to the next, just like an animal. They don't have much of a concern about their city, or what their neighbors are doing. They think only of themselves. They are not members of an organization; rather, they are just individual, independent savages who are looking for food, sex, entertainment, and babies.

If we create a city and restrict immigration to people who are compatible with one another and who have an interest in being true members of society, then morale would be much higher, and I think that would cause a much greater interest in reducing traffic accidents. Most Americans today do not care enough about traffic accidents to discuss possible methods of reducing them. Most Americans are more concerned with stopping the imaginary suicidal Muslim terrorists.

We cannot mix trolls with humans

Why does European culture have so many stories about trolls, dwarves, elves, pixies, and leprechauns? Most of these creatures, especially the trolls and dwarves, tend to be short, stocky, and ugly. Their head protrudes forward on a short, massive neck, and they have big noses, big ears, and a big mouth. Is it just a coincidence that these trolls are caricatures of the people on my Neanderthal pages? I doubt it!

I suspect that centuries ago there were bands of Neanderthal-like creatures roaming Europe and Asia, and preying on the humans. Today those creatures are shaving a lot of their facial and body hair, having cosmetic surgery, and wearing clean clothing, but they are still preying on us.

Try to visualize what the people on my Neanderthal pages would look like if they had been born 1000 years ago. Imagine how hairy, filthy, and frightening they would be without razors, cosmetic surgery, showers, or nice clothing.

The Body Worlds exhibition has displays of dead bodies of humans and animals that have been preserved and cut in various manners to show their internal structure. The photo below shows the head of a man sliced in half. It should be obvious that he has a physical resemblance to the Neanderthals of 100,000 years ago.

If everybody's life was in a database, we could analyze the people who look like Neanderthals and medieval trolls to see if they behave like primitive savages, also. Some of the people with Neanderthal qualities are honest, responsible, and neat, but they all seem to have rather "bland" or "crude" personalities. I think that we must force them to live in their own society with their own people. We do not mix very well.

If the people who resemble Neanderthals would accept what they are and live in harmony with us, there wouldn't be any problem between us. Unfortunately, a lot of them are violent, parasitic, destructive, don't like themselves, and/or are intensely envious of us. They want Snow White as a wife, not one of their own females, and many of them will use diabolical tactics to get what they want, just like dogs that are constantly begging for food or grabbing at food from our dinner table.

I also wonder what happens when trolls interbreed with humans. What kind of mind will a child have when his parents have two different styles of brain? There are a lot of mental disorders in the world today, but how many of them are due to "natural" defects and variations, and how many are due to the interbreeding of different races of people? This is another example of how a database with information about everybody would be useful.

All societies today practice the philosophy that we should feel sorry for the misfits and allow them to live with us, but this is as idiotic as tolerating dirt in a transmission. The misfits suffer from low self-esteem and loneliness, and many of them resort to crime, parasitic behavior, blackmail, vandalism, or other destructive activities in order to achieve what they want, or simply because they are envious and frustrated. They are like broken gears in a machine.

Some people have so much trouble functioning in our society that they end up homeless and eating out of garbage cans. Those people can be visualized as gears that are not connected to the transmission shaft; gears that are loose at the bottom of the transmission case.

Incidentally, the media occasionally provides us with a story of a homeless person who finds a job and starts taking care of himself, and they imply that all homeless people are simply ordinary people who just happen to encounter some bad luck. It is true that ordinary people sometimes become homeless temporarily because of a tornado or other disaster, but people who become homeless as a result of their own behavior are not "ordinary". There is something wrong with them.

For example, Ted Williams, the man who was given phenomenal publicity by the media as the man with the "golden voice", continued to have alcohol problems even after he got a job. The people who dominate our media are routinely lying to us about 9/11, the Holocaust, and other events, and they also routinely push us into feeling sorry for retards, homeless people, criminals, and misfits.

Take a critical look at American television programs and movies. An enormous number of them have a "beauty and beast" type of plot. Most of the shows seem to be written by men, so they have a man's point of view. The main character is a man who is some type of retard, social misfit, criminal, or alcoholic. He is rejected by society, and he spends his time feeling sorry for himself. He falls in love with a beautiful, well behaved, intelligent, honest, and talented Snow White, not a short, ugly, pudgy, whiny voiced, female troll. These television shows are giving us an insight into the suffering that these creatures are experiencing. They don't like themselves. They want what we have.

A surgeon created a musical video called "Jewcan Sam" to advertise his cosmetic surgery business. Some Jews are complaining about it, but the video is simply describing a common problem in the world; specifically, nobody, not even the Jews, like their big noses. Allowing ugly races to live with us causes emotional trauma for the ugly people. Nobody benefits from this.

Furthermore, we are not curing the Jews of their problems when we give them surgery. They are still the same people, and their children will continue to inherit the same ugly features. Allowing them to interbreed with us is contaminating our DNA.

Parents must stop being possessive of their children

Our emotions cause us to be extremely possessive of our children, and we regard our children as superior to everybody else's children, but in this modern world, we have to control our emotions and be less biased. We have to face the fact that all children are just chaotic jumbles of genetic traits and, therefore, it's possible for two wonderful people to produce children who are violent, psychotic, parasitic, or stupid.

Our intense attraction to children is simply nature's method of causing us to take care of our children. In this modern world, we must control that emotion and do what nature used to do; namely, determine which of our children live, which die, and which reproduce.

A good example is Savita Sangli, the girl in the photo who looks like a Neanderthal. She has two other sisters with this problem, but one of her sisters, in the upper right corner, looks normal. How could modern humans produce children that look like primitive savages? It is simply because our DNA is just a collection of information that goes back possibly billions of years, and children are just a chaotic jumble of that information. Our eyes can easily determine that Savita Sangli has some very primitive physical characteristics, but we cannot see her brain. Does she have a modern, human mind? Or does she have the mind of a primitive savage? Is she going to fit into society? Savita Sangli is more evidence that the religious people are idiots to think that there is a loving God in control of us. If there is a God, then he is a cruel creature who ought to be assassinated.

When people with primitive physical and mental characteristics reproduce, are their children more likely to be primitive? If so, and if these primitive people were to reproduce with one another, then after many generations they might evolve into a race of humans that is very similar to our distant ancestors.

What should we do with Savita Sangli and other primitive creatures? Should we put them in a zoo and let them breed into an even more primitive species? Should we use them as circus attractions?

How closely related are you and I?

How closely related is Savita Sangli to her own sister? At the moment we can only measure what is on DNA, not which genes are actually expressed. If we could measure what is actually expressed, we might find that Savita Sangli is more closely related to Henry Kissinger and other people with Neanderthal features than she is to her own sister.

As I pointed out in another file, one of the issues that confused me as a teenager is that the Japanese and Chinese men look like another species, but some of their women are beautiful, and I like their personalities, also. Why would I, with Caucasian ancestors, be attracted to women from another race of humans?

However, I don't consider all of the Chinese and Japanese women to be attractive. Some of them have ugly, crude faces, and dreary, bland personalities. Today I suspect that the Chinese and Japanese that I do not like are those with the more primitive, Neanderthal qualities. Also, I don't think it is a coincidence that nobody, not even the people who refer to themselves as "Jews", consider Jews to be physically attractive. The Jews who are considered the most attractive are those that look the most like Europeans. Furthermore, nobody, not even the Jews, seem to like their whiny voices or their bland personalities.

If we completely understood DNA, we might discover that the Japanese who have a Cro-Magnon appearance and personality are more closely related to the Europeans who have a Cro-Magnon appearance than they are to the Japanese who have a Neanderthal appearance. To put that in different words, some Japanese people may be more closely related to me and other Europeans than they are to some of the other Japanese people.

There are some families in which the siblings are very similar to one another, and there are other families in which the siblings look very different and have noticeably different personalities and mental abilities. If we could measure genetic similarities, we might find that the siblings in some families are so different from one another that they are more closely related to people outside of their family. To rephrase that, if we could measure genetic similarities, we might find that many of us are more closely related to people in other families that we assume are strangers.

Understanding DNA might also show us some interesting patterns. For example, we would probably discover that the group of people who can easily digest milk are more closely related to one another than they are to the group that cannot digest milk. We might also discover that the people who enjoy reading my website are more closely related to one another than they are to the people who dislike my website. If you like my articles, then you have more in common with me than some of my own relatives. Have you ever considered the possibility that you are closely related to me?

I have ancestors from different European nations, but where did the genes that created my mind actually come from? If we could trace our DNA, we might find that your brain and my brain were designed according to some of the same genes that developed thousands of years ago, and even though our families diverged a long time ago, we might find that you and I have more "brain genes" in common than I have with my own close relatives. Physically we may be very different, but mentally we may be closely related.

Either take care of a child, or don't give it life

Who benefits by letting defective people live among us? The people who oppose abortions praise themselves for being wonderful humans who love life, but many of the unwanted children end up having a miserable, lonely life. If you give life to a child, and if that child is never happy, then you have tortured that person, and you could be considered partly responsible for his suffering. And if that child commits crimes, then we could say you are partly responsible since you knew that the child was defective and you raised it anyway.

If a person were to have a pet dog but not properly take care of it, they would be criticized for being irresponsible and cruel. If a person had a dog that he knew was abnormally violent, and if that person allowed the dog to wander around the city and bite people, then we would say he is responsible for allowing that dog to attack us.

If a person never took care of his automobile, he would be considered irresponsible. If a person drove an automobile that he knew was unsafe, and if he killed people as a result of his brakes failing, we would say he is responsible for driving a car that he knew was dangerous.

So, why not apply this concept to parents and children? Why not tell parents that they are irresponsible and cruel for raising children who are too defective to have a happy life? And why not consider parents responsible for the crimes and abusive behavior of their children when they are fully aware that their children are seriously defective and miserable?

Everybody is defective, but only some of our defects are correctable by diet or medical technology. If we cannot properly take care of a child and provide it with a nice life, we should not bring it into this world. We shouldn't judge ourselves by the quantity of people we give birth to. We should judge ourselves on the quality of life that we provide for people. We are not wonderful people when we create babies who end up in orphanages, streets, or crime networks. A person who has no concern about the quality of life for his children is a stupid, irresponsible animal.

Children should not be treated as toys for parents to play with. Children are the next generation of humans, and if they are destructive, they can cause suffering for people all around the world. As I pointed out in this file, we must be concerned about the quality of everybody's children. A good example are the crude people in Central Russia who gave birth to creatures who emigrated to Europe, Japan, China, India, and America specifically to commit horrendous crimes, such as the world wars and the 9/11 attack. We must be concerned about the quality of everybody's children, even those that are being born in foreign nations.
 

Life requires death
 

When I was younger I occasionally helped a bird that fell out of its nest by putting it somewhere where the cats would not get it, but I have since come to the conclusion that such assistance is futile. An animal that cannot survive the competitive struggle for life is going to die anyway. There is no benefit in helping defective animals. We should let them die, or put them out of their misery. Besides, animals eat one another, so saving the life of one animal is denying food to another animal. Death provides life. This concept also applies to humans. When a parent keeps a defective child alive, they deny another child the opportunity to live. They should kill the retard and give life to another baby. The people who oppose the killing of defective babies try to make us feel guilty, but point out to them that by raising defective babies, they are denying life to other children.