The people who are complaining about the death of George Floyd are trying to create the impression that they are loving, peaceful people who abhor violence and abuse by the police and government. In reality, they are unbelievably hypocritical, selfish, arrogant, and disgusting.

If we could remove the secrecy in our society and keep track of who among us is truly advocating violence, hatred, censorship, and suppression of free speech, we would discover that it is coming mainly from the liberals, socialists, Marxists, and communists. Two of many examples that I mentioned in other documents (such as this) are:

   • Global Warming
   • Feminism

A lot of people boast that they are too nonviolent and loving to support the execution of criminals. They boast that it is more humane and kind to let the dangerous criminals live the rest of their life in a jail or mental hospital. However, these issues are personal opinions, not right or wrong issues.

My personal opinion is that executing a criminal is putting a miserable person out of his misery, whereas forcing a person to spend his life in a cage, or a mental hospital, is torturing him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the remainder of his life.

Furthermore, from the point of view of society, executing a criminal is the most sensible option for many reasons, such as:

Our emotions cause us to want to hurt the people, animals, and objects that hurt us, but there is no benefit to it. Torturing a criminal is as wasteful as torturing mosquitoes, fleas, and rats.

What would you think if a person was capturing the rats that enter his home, and then keeping them in jails for the rest of their lives? What would be the benefit? He might get some emotional titillation by thinking about how the rats are suffering in the cages, but he would be wasting his time and resources. He would have a better life if he executed the rats in a quick and efficient manner, and put his time and resources into more pleasant and productive activities.

When we torture a criminal, we are appeasing an emotion that we inherited from our animal ancestors. We do not benefit from torturing creatures. Rather, we are pandering to our primitive animal ancestors that died millions of years ago. It would be more sensible for us to ignore those crude emotional cravings, and do what is the most intellectually sensible.

A lot of liberals are introverts, and introverts tend to be quiet during conversations, which creates the impression that they are polite and tolerant of different opinions. However, introverted and extroverted behavior are symptoms of emotional problems.

There are a lot of women who regard introverted adults as being cute and adorable because those adults resemble young children. We must expect young children to be quiet, easily frightened, and shy, but they should outgrow this. Adults who continue to behave like children are not adorable. The introverts and extroverts are social misfits, and they should be considered as mentally ill.

We should do a better job of recognizing intellectual and emotional disorders. We should stop ignoring problems, and stop making excuses for people with undesirable behavior.

What would happen if we were to put all of the introverts into their own nation? What would their nation be like? Would they have crime? Would their government or media be more honest than ours?

Nobody can be certain of what a nation of introverts would be like, but I suspect that it would have all of the problems that other nations have, but worse. The reason is because the introverts have a lot of trouble coping with people and social problems, so they would have more trouble than normal people with working together as a team and providing themselves with quality leadership. That would make it more difficult for them to form stable and efficient businesses, social clubs, factories, government agencies, and recreational activities. They would probably have a lot of trouble dealing with crime, also, because introverts are not likely to make effective police officers.

When you regard introverts as people with mental disorders, then you should realize that if we were to analyze the introverts, we would find that they resemble a random sample of the population. Specifically, some introverts would be stupid and some would be intelligent, and some would be tall and others would be short. There would also be introverts who are pedophiles, homosexuals, alcoholic, obese, and anorexic.

Another way to understand this concept is to consider the people who have crooked teeth. If we were to put all of the people with crooked teeth into their own nation, would their nation be different from the other nations? Aside from needing a lot more dentists, their nation would likely have the same problems with crime, pedophilia, corruption, inefficiency, divorce, alcoholism, obesity, and drug abuse.

To complicate this issue, the introverts and the people with crooked teeth are not truly a random sample of the population. The reason is because people with those problems are slightly more common among the poor people because poor people tend to be more defective than normal people, so the poor people are more likely to produce children who have more defects. Therefore, a nation of introverts or people with crooked teeth is likely to be a nation of people who are slightly lower in "genetic quality" than the people of other nations.

However, ignore that complexity to understand the concept I'm trying to explain, which is that we should not make the mistake of assuming introverts are polite or well behaved. We should instead regard introverts as "ordinary people with a particular mental disorder". Likewise, we should regard people with crooked teeth as "ordinary people with a particular dental disorder".

We have strong emotional cravings to take care of children, and that emotion can be triggered by crippled people, introverts, and other people who are somewhat defenseless or helpless, but we need to exert some self-control and pass judgment on whether somebody truly needs our help. Some of the crippled people, homeless people, introverts, alcoholics, and unwanted children are mentally disturbed, dangerous, untrustworthy, and irresponsible.

We should not feel sorry for somebody just because he has a problem. All living creatures are defective. We should not let people intimidate us into believing that their particular defects are so significant that they deserve pity or special privileges.

My complaints about introverts may seem to be of no importance, but if we put more effort into understanding human behavior and our genetic disorders, the future generations will be able to do a better job of identifying a person's disorders. That would allow them to help each person cope with his particular defects. If a person was unable to deal with his problems, they would realize that they should remove him from society before he causes trouble, rather than give him pity.

In the world today, by comparison, no nation makes any attempt to help people identify their physical or mental disorders, so no nation is helping people to deal with their problems. No nation is even encouraging people to admit that each of us is imperfect. No nation will evict destructive people, either.

Instead, most people ignore genetic disorders, and the result is that the people with physical and mental disorders often suffer miserable or lonely lives. When the misfits behave in destructive manners, we feel sorry for them or punish them. This is not intelligent behavior; this is animal behavior. This behavior feels natural to us because humans are animals, but we must stop doing what feels good and start doing what makes the most intellectual sense.

It would be more sensible to study human behavior and try to figure out how to ensure that the future generations are in better mental and physical health, and living in a more pleasant, crime free environment.

A more frightening characteristic of the people who call themselves liberals and socialists is that many of them show evidence of having defective intellectual abilities. In other words, they are not "stupid" people; they are "defective" people.

To understand the difference between stupidity and a defective intellectual ability, consider the difference between a monkey and a human. It does not make sense to say a monkey is analogous to a mentally ill human. It makes more sense to say a monkey is analogous to a stupid human, or a human child.

Every liberal is much more intelligent than a monkey, but a lot of liberals display defective intellectual characteristics. The end result is that they frequently produce thoughts that are vague, confusing, twisted, or nonsensical. Many of their thoughts are indistinguishable from the nonsense that is created by the SCIgen software.

By comparison, a lot of conservatives are stupid, and some are uneducated also, but their brains are functioning in a much better manner. The stupid conservatives produce stupid thoughts, but we will be able to understand their reasoning.

For example, the conservatives who want abortions to be illegal are producing thoughts that "make sense." They can recognize that a human fetus is alive, and that an abortion kills the fetus. Since they do not want to kill people who have never caused any harm, they do not want to support the killing of a fetus.

Their reasoning is valid, and it shows that their brain is functioning properly. They simply lack the intelligence to understand the complexity of the abortion issue.

To a child and a stupid adult, the issue of abortion is a simple yes/no question of whether or not we should kill a fetus. In reality abortion is a complex issue that requires making decisions about what we should do about genetic disorders, unwanted children, and pedophile networks that exploit and abuse the defective and unwanted children.

The conservatives have higher quality intellectual abilities than the liberals. As a result, the conservatives, even those that are stupid, can perform a lot of useful work, and they can be friendly, honest, dependable, responsible, and useful team members. They can produce food, repair automobiles, build houses, provide a pleasant environment for their children, and supervise assembly lines, and perform scientific research.

If we were to remove the secrecy that we provide everybody and observe how each of us treats our family members and coworkers, I suspect that we would notice that the liberals tend to have the more psychotic behavior in their homes and their jobs, and that the conservatives tend to treat people in a more pleasant, sensible manner.

All people are arrogant, and all men have intense cravings to be at the top of the social hierarchy. We like to think of ourselves as extremely intelligent, educated, and wise. However, I think that if we could measure our arrogance, we would find that liberals, as a group, are more likely to think of themselves as superheroes than other people.

For example, in 2019, Seth Vargo became so upset that President Trump and the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) wanted to deport illegal aliens that he decided to stop allowing ICE from using the software he created. His explanation is that ICE is:

Vargo has essentially climbed onto a tall pedestal, and is insulting and slandering ICE, Trump, and other people as "evil". I do not think Vargo is demonstrating "stupidity". Rather, I think he is demonstrating a "defective intellectual ability" and abnormally extreme arrogance.

He and a lot of other liberals regard themselves as superheroes who are moral, ethical, nonviolent, and loving, and they accuse people who have different opinions of being evil, unethical, immoral, violent, hateful, Nazis, fascists, sexists, racists, anti-Semites, climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, and other nonsensical insults.

A lot of government policies could be criticized as idiotic, wasteful, or ineffective. However, if Seth Vargo was capable of thinking properly, he would react to a useless government policy by providing us with an impressive analysis to expose the flaws of the policy, and he might have some impressive suggestions on how we could improve the policy.

He would not behave like an arrogant superhero who insults the government as "evil", and who boasts about his morality and ethics.

If every person who had a disagreement with a government policy were to behave like Seth Vargo, then most of us would be accusing some government agency of being evil, and we would be refusing to cooperate with that agency. Some carpenters would refuse to do work for the IRS; some plumbers would refuse to do work for the military; some technicians would refuse to provide electricity to their city government; and retail stores, farmers, gasoline stations, and other businesses would refuse to sell their products to various government agencies.

Unfortunately, we will not improve our nation when people behave like arrogant superheroes who insult other people as "evil", and who try to hurt the team members that they have disagreements with.

We will improve our nation when we work as a team to analyze our problems, discuss issues, consider alternative opinions, and experiment with changes.

Although I am saddened and disgusted with Vargo's arrogant, self-righteous behavior, some people were impressed. For example, Coraline Ehmke was inspired to propose that we add the following paragraph to the license agreement for open source software:


Imagine if the businesses that produce guns, knives, razor blades, ammonia, and other dangerous items were putting notices on their products that their products are not to be used to harm the underprivileged individuals. Do you think that would improve the lives of the underprivileged people?

ZDNet has more information about these issues here and here, but I don't think those documents clarify anything. Rather, I think those documents provide more evidence that all of these people are intellectually defective.

Coraline Ehmke is one of millions of liberals, socialists, communists, and Marxists who believe that they are superheroes who are saving the underprivileged, the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, the underdogs, the impoverished, the deprived, and the less fortunate people from the evil aristocrats, white supremacists, Nazis, climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, sexists, racists, bigots, anti-Semites, and ass-holes.

However, those superheroes don't have any sensible explanation of who belongs in the "underprivileged" category. Seth Vargo and Coraline Ehmke, for example, consider illegal aliens to be "underprivileged". However, I would say that illegal aliens are "criminals".

Furthermore, the illegal aliens also regard themselves as criminals. That is why they are secretive and deceptive about their citizenship status, and it is why they are frightened of the police and ICE. They don't regards themselves as "underprivileged". They are fully aware that they are criminals who are violating our laws, but they don't care.

This creates the ridiculous situation in which liberals such as Vargo and Ehmke believe that they are superheroes for protecting people who regard themselves as "criminals".

As I will point out in the following paragraphs, there are only a few groups of people who can truly claim to be among the underprivileged, abused, neglected, hated, and tormented.

I pointed out in other documents that animals and humans are very concerned about the visual appearance of their spouse and the members in their group. Every animal and human has an emotion that causes us to be attracted to certain visual characteristics, and to regard other characteristics as "ugly".

The reason this emotion developed is because when a creature has significant visual differences from other creatures of the same species, it has a greater chance of having internal differences, also. Since most genetic differences are harmful rather than beneficial, animals and humans will produce higher-quality children and more successful teams if they avoid the creatures that are ugly.

To rephrase this concept, an ugly person is not necessarily dangerous or defective, but if we could measure defects, we would find that ugly people have more defects than good-looking people, and their defects are more serious.

However, exactly which visual features each of us regards as "ugly" depends upon our genetic qualities. Since each of us is a haphazard jumble of genetic characteristics, each of us is attracted to slightly different visual features, and we are repelled by slightly different features.

For animals and prehistoric humans, nature decided which animals had appropriate "standards of beauty". The animals and prehistoric humans that were the most successful in reproducing and forming teams were those who were repelled by the visual features that were most likely to be indications of undesirable internal qualities, such as non-symmetrical faces and bodies.

Today, however, evolution no longer works for us, and this is resulting in people with an increasingly wider variety of opinions about who is good looking and who is ugly. The people who make inappropriate decisions will have less pleasant and less stable marriages, and their children will be more defective, but that will not matter in a modern society because we have so many assistance programs, such as alimony, child support, Medicare, welfare, and foster homes. After dozens of generations, there will be extremely noticeable differences between people in regards to what they regard as attractive and ugly.

It should be noted that this emotion also affects our attraction to animals, plants, clothing, art, and other items. For example, when we purchase a product, we avoid those that have visual defects in the packaging. This reason is exactly the same as why we prefer a visually attractive spouse. Specifically, when something is defective on the outside, an emotion is triggered to cause us to be afraid that it may be defective on the inside.

Most consumers are afraid to purchase a can of food if the can is dented. A university posted this document to provide consumers with some advice about when to be fearful of a dented can.

Our fear of ugliness is resulting in farmers that are concerned with the visual appearance of fruits and vegetables more than their taste, contamination by toxic pesticides, and health qualities. Ideally, our leaders would provide consumers with guidance rather than let them be frightened by their emotions.

The reason I mention this issue of ugliness is because Coraline Ehmke is a transgender, which means she suffers from a very serious genetic mistake. She is analogous to an extremely dented can of soup.

You may not regard her as ugly on the outside, but the concept that I just mentioned about ugliness applies to her. Specifically, she is showing evidence of a serious genetic disorder, so we should wonder if her genetic disorders are limited to the sexual areas of her brain. Or is her brain suffering from some other serious defects, also? Is that why she was impressed by Seth Vargo?

There have been so many people throughout history who have come to the conclusion that artists are more mentally unstable than the ordinary people that Wikipedia has this entry about this issue. What would we find if we analyzed the mental characteristics of comedians, truck drivers, business executives, government officials, and other groups of people? Would we discover that government officials are also more neurotic than ordinary people?

If we could remove the secrecy that we provide everybody, and analyze everybody's mind, relationships, behavior, and goals, we might discover that the transgender people, ugly people, and homosexuals are more likely to have mental problems, such as shyness, intellectual disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar problems, and hallucinations. We might also discover that their relationships tend to be more unstable, abusive, and unpleasant. They might also have more trouble following the rules of society.

The people with genetic disorders want us to feel sorry for them, but pity will not help them, or prevent future genetic disorders. A better reaction is to remove secrecy, study these issues, and experiment with restricting reproduction in order to reduce the number of defective, miserable, dishonest, violent, and neurotic people.

The people who complain about "white privilege" and "white supremacy" have a valid complaint because it is true that Caucasians are biased in favor of other Caucasians. However, this concept applies to every group of people. For example, black Americans are biased in favor of other black Americans, and within Africa, different groups of Africans are biased in favor of their particular group. Chinese people are biased in favor of Chinese people, and within China, the different groups of Chinese are biased in favor of their particular group. Religious people are biased in favor of people of the same religion.

If we could measure bias we might also discover that women are biased in favor of women, and that children are biased in favor of children, and that midgets are biased in favor of other midgets.

We also have a tendency to behave in this way with our professions. Specifically, people of a certain profession are likely to look more favorably at other people in that same profession, as if they are members of the same tribe.

It is also interesting to note that this concept even applies to more intangible associations between us. For example, when there is a path in the city in which there are bicycle riders, joggers, and walkers using the same path, a bicycle rider will sometimes acknowledge another bicycle rider by waving, nodding their head, or saying hello, and the joggers will sometimes do the same with other joggers. However, the bicycle riders are not likely to say hello to the joggers, or vice versa.

When one of the bicycle riders decides to go jogging, he is likely to ignore the bicycle riders that he does not know and switch to acknowledging the other joggers.

The reason we do this is because we are social animals. We want to be a member of a group. We do not want to be alone. We look for opportunities to be a member of a group.

Our tendency to form groups is not "bad". Rather, the trouble comes from our tendency to assume that our group is superior, and that other groups are potential enemies.

Our crude cravings to form arrogant, paranoid groups cause us to be selfish, arrogant, and biased. It is idiotic for black people to whine about the bias of white people because every race of African, and every race of Chinese, and every race of Indian, etc., is just as biased and arrogant as the Caucasian races.

If we had the technology to truly measure bias or arrogance, we would find that there are some subtle differences between the different races of people, but until that technology is developed, and until we see some evidence that one race is more biased than another, we should assume that all races are equally biased, and we should tell the people who whine about white supremacy or white privilege to shut up.

To complicate the issue of bias and discrimination, there are certain groups of people who are truly abused, discriminated against, mistreated, and tormented. However, it is not "black people". Rather, it is the people who are ugly, obese, stupid, mentally ill, retarded, or have weird personalities.

Earlier I mentioned that Seth Vargo and Coraline Ehmke want to protect people from discrimination and abuse, but the only people who can truly claim to be victims of abuse and discrimination, and on a regular basis, are the particular groups I listed in the previous paragraph.

Tony Timpa is an example. People of every race, nationality, and religion insult, ignore, and treat mentally ill people as trash. The end result is that many of those people have a difficult time getting a job, or finding a friend or spouse. Some of those people end up homeless, and some commit suicide when they can no longer handle the rejection and abuse.

In every nation, all throughout history, we find that the ugly, stupid, mentally ill and other people are being tormented all throughout their lives. They are the only people who can truly complain about being discriminated against, abused, and tormented. The black people, by comparison, are not suffering from discrimination, so they should be told to shut up and stop whining.

Why do humans torment the defective humans? Because we inherited this behavior from animals. Animals, especially when they are young, have a strong craving to torment the defective members. The purpose is to assist natural selection by killing the genetically defective members, or by making it difficult for them to reproduce. An example is the chicken in the photo to the right who has had a lot of feathers plucked out.

We must expect chickens to pluck at each other's feathers because chickens cannot think very well. However, humans should start exerting some self-control over our animal cravings and stop tormenting the defective people. We should regard ourselves as cruel when we give life to a defective baby, and then push it aside to suffer constant and unbelievable levels of loneliness, rejection, unemployment, and abuse. We should describe this behavior as "torturing the unwanted people, and throughout their entire lives".

I would say that it is especially cruel to do nothing as the unwanted children are used by pedophiles.

Furthermore, allowing the pedophiles to abuse the unwanted children is also allowing them to blackmail people, which in turn allows the pedophile network to get control of the FBI, military, Congress, police departments, businesses, sports groups, journalists, and schools.

If women were as intelligent as they claim, wouldn't at least a few of them have some intelligent remarks about the death of George Floyd? And wouldn't a few women have some intelligent remarks about the dishonest journalists, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack? And if women were truly better behaved than men, wouldn't the protests and riots be dominated by men? Why did so many women join the protests? Why were so many women involved with looting and arson?

The high percentage of women at the protests is more evidence that women are less intelligent, more easily manipulated, and more likely to follow peer pressure. Women and children need leadership more than men do. Unfortunately, there is no leadership in a democracy or a free enterprise system, and the feminists are discouraging fathers, husbands, and brothers from providing leadership to their daughters, wives, and sisters.

Of course, some of the women at those protests might not be "normal" women. Some of them may be transgenders. If we would remove the secrecy that we provide people and study who is at those protests, we would have a much better understanding of why certain people decide to participate.

If we could remove the secrecy that we provide everybody and analyze the mental characteristics of the people who join the protests for George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Rodney King, and other criminals, what would we discover?

The protesters are not likely to be a random sample of the population. There is something different about them, but what is it? Are they people that you or I would admire? I don't think so. I suspect they would be what most of us describe as below-average in mental health and behavior. They are people that we try to avoid. They are the misfits and troublemakers, not the respectable people. I also suspect that we would discover that some of the protesters are Jews and their cohorts who are participating only to instigate fights.

It is idiotic for us to allow secretive people to have public tantrums and destroy public property, and let them get away with referring to their abuse as "freedom of speech", or their "right to express their anger", or their "right to protest injustice".

After some protesters claimed a block of Seattle to be their "autonomous zone", Mayor Jenny Durkan defended their behavior as being "more like a block party atmosphere". Is she another example of a woman who cannot think properly? Or is she working with the crime network that is trying to instigate racial fights?

If we would eliminate secrecy, we would be able to get a better idea of who is trying to determine our future, and what their true goals are.

When we pander to the people who whine or hate, we encourage some of the most mentally disturbed, arrogant, violent, and hateful people to continue their whining, hatred, violence, and abuse. The people who pander to whiny, hateful, violent people are analogous to an idiot who foolishly believes that he is helping to put out a fire by appeasing it with gasoline.

We all have some relatives, friends, coworkers, and neighbors who are liberals, and some of them are "nice", and some of them are honest, but that does not justify allowing the violent and psychotic liberals to get away with abuse. It also does not justify allowing any of them to influence our future by voting. Being "nice" should not qualify a person to vote.

Everybody, except for some mentally ill people, will kill a person who is trying to kill them. We justify those killings as "self-defense".

A large percentage of the population will also kill a person who has hurt them badly. For example, many women and children would like to kill the men who have raped them. We justify those killings as "serving justice".

No "normal" person is truly nonviolent. The reason is because we all inherited the same set of emotions from our animal ancestors. We all inherited an emotion that — when triggered — causes us to become violent.

The most obvious proof that we all have this violent tendency is when we hurt ourselves or become frustrated, and we react by yelling, throwing objects, kicking objects, or destroying something. Even children display this behavior because the emotion is in our brain from birth, and it exists within us throughout our lives.

There are subtle differences in what will trigger our violence and hate, and subtle differences in the intensity of our emotions, but we all have the same emotions. All of us will lose our temper when angry or frightened, and all of us will hurt or kill whoever is threatening our life, or the lives of our children.

All of us have this violent tendency, but there are subtle differences in our emotional characteristics, self-control, and intellectual abilities. As a result of the subtle differences between us, some men will react with violence almost every time they hurt themselves or become frustrated, such as breaking golf clubs when they become frustrated with the game of golf, or yelling at their children for doing something that irritates them. Other men, in the exact same situation, might remain calm because they have a lower level of violence, more self-control, or a better ability to think.

To complicate this issue, this emotion is more easily triggered when we are suffering from some type of internal mental or physical pain. For example, when a person is suffering from a temporary pain, such as a headache or tooth ache, events that he would normally deal with calmly may trigger his anger and cause him to yell, throw objects, or become violent.

The people who are in a perpetual state of misery as a result of physical or mental disorders are likely to always react with anger much more easily, which means that they will frequently be angry.

Finally, to add more complexity to this issue, our intellectual abilities have an effect over our violent tendencies. For example, when a person with a defective intellectual ability tries to figure out why he is failing at his goals, or suffering from something, he might come to the conclusion that it is due to aristocrats, his parents, the corporations, or President Trump. By convincing himself that those people are ruling his life, his anger emotion can be triggered, causing him to want to react with violence towards those people. This can cause him to join protests in which he burns buildings, throws rocks at the police, and yells about the abuse of "The Corporations".

If a black man with a defective intellectual ability thinks about his misery, he might come to the conclusion that he is suffering as a result of racism and discrimination by white people. He may then want to be violent towards white people.

A woman with a defective thinking ability might come to the conclusion that she is suffering as a result of sexist men who have "installed glass ceilings" around the world. Since women are less violent than men, she may not want to engage in violence towards men, but she may encourage such violence.

We could summarize this concept by saying that everybody has violent tendencies, and that we all want to hurt and kill the people that we regard as threats to our lives. The difference between us is that we come to different conclusions about who is a threat to us. For some more examples of this:

• A lot of people have been convinced that drug dealers are causing their children to abuse drugs, and this triggers their anger and causes them to want to hurt or kill the drug dealers.

• During the 1950s and 1960s, some people wanted to kill the musicians who created rock 'n' roll music in order to protect the children from "The Devil's Music".

• Some vegetarians have become so angry towards people who eat meat that they stage protests at restaurants and in public streets, and if some of them were dictators of the world, they would punish or kill some of the people who eat meat.

• Some people have become so convinced that the earth's climate is being ruined by carbon dioxide that they become angry at the people who ridicule that theory. They regard those people as a threat to the planet, so they hate those people and want them silenced, punished, or killed.

• The people who have an unpleasant encounter with the police might come to the conclusion that it is because the police are abusing them simply because of their race, nationality, or religion, and that can cause them to become angry at the police, which in turn can cause the next confrontation to be even more unpleasant. To rephrase this, by convincing themselves that the police are abusing them, they make encounters with the police even worse by causing their behavior to become more irritating and suspicious to the police.

This concept also applies to women. Specifically, when a woman us to the conclusion that her problems are due to men, she will develop an attitude that "normal" men find unpleasant, thereby causing the normal men to avoid her. She will attract the lower quality men, which will result in unpleasant relationships, which in turn will convince her that she is correct that men are terrible creatures, thereby giving her an even worse attitude, which in turn makes her even more undesirable to men.

This concept also applies to single men. When a man becomes frustrated with finding a wife, and if he develops a "sour grapes attitude" or becomes an angry member of the MGTOW movement, he will make himself more undesirable to "normal" women. The only women who are likely to marry those type of men are those who are desperate for financial support, babies, a US citizenship, or something else that the man has. However, that type of abusive relationship will reinforce the man's attitude that women are abusive, selfish creatures.

If we could read everybody's mind, we would find that everybody has a list of people that they would like to kill. We might find that a particular liberal has a list which includes policemen, corporate executives, and military leaders. We might find that a particular black person has a list that is full of white people. We might find that a woman has a list that is full of men who support the belief that men and women are genetically different. We might find that a particular Jew wants to kill millions of non-Jews, and a particular Muslim wants to kill millions of Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists.

I have not tried to figure out which group of people spends the most time boasting about being nonviolent, but I suspect Jews do it the most, followed by liberals. Rather than ignore the people who boast about being nonviolent, and rather than tolerate their accusations that Nazis, fascists, the police, and the military are the violent groups, we should stand up to those people and point out that all people are violent, and that the only difference between us is who we want to censor and kill, and why we want them censored or killed.

Ideally, before we put a person into an influential position, we would find out who he wants to suppress or kill, and why. This would allow us to make better decisions about who we want influencing our future.

Do you want to be under the control of people who want to kill those of us who believe that men and women have genetic differences? How about being under the control of the Jews who want to kill "anti-Semites" and "Holocaust deniers"? Or how about the black people who want to kill the "racists" who have "white privilege"?

My suggestion is that we restrict the leadership positions to people who can restrict their killings to the people who are truly destructive to society, such as the murderers, pedophiles, and arsonists. We should not tolerate people who want to kill people simply for having disagreements of opinion, or simply because a person is competing against him for a leadership position, spouse, or sports contest.

Instead of judging a man by his college diploma, income, or automobile, judge him by who he wants to kill or censor.

Who is on the "kill list" of Abe Foxman? Who is on the "kill list" of Mike Bloomberg, Queen Elizabeth, Jared Kushner, and Angela Merkel?