These are supposedly two of the Elite at the Davos meeting in 2015. Why are we letting these weirdos determine our future, and in secrecy?

Tim Cook, Larry Page, Karl Rove, Senator Tom Cotton, and some other members of The Elite, had a meeting in March 2016, and one of their primary topics was how to prevent Trump from becoming president.

A couple weeks later some lesser-known members of The Elite - Bill Wichterman, Bob Fischer, and Erick Erickson - arranged for another secretive meeting, and this one was dedicated entirely to stopping Trump. Another group is also trying to figure out how to stop Trump. More of these groups will undoubtedly form during the upcoming months.

This crime network of Jews, psychos, and homosexuals are becoming increasingly worried that they are going to lose control of America if the voters elect Trump rather than one of the candidates that they selected for us. What are The Elite going to do about Trump?

One of their tactics is to encourage protests. For example, after Trump arranged for a rally in Chicago on 11 March 2016, the Jews arranged for 11,000 protesters. Considering how many wars and murders the Jews have been involved with, I doubt that the Jews were arranging for a peaceful protest. I would bet that the Jews were hoping to instigate enough violence to let them get away with killing Trump during the confusion.

Perhaps Trump canceled his rally in Chicago because he suspected this, also. This would explain the bizarre aspects of the incident, such as the Trump campaign claiming to have canceled the rally after consulting with the police, but the police insisted they were never consulted, and that they had guaranteed that Trump would be safe. Perhaps the Trump campaign suspected that the Chicago police were trying to lure him to a rally with 11,000 protesters so that the Jews could murder him.

This would also explain why some Jews - instead of boasting that they stopped the rally - were furious that he canceled it. For example, can you sense the frustration, anger, and disappointment in Grant Stern's first paragraph when he says that canceling the protest was Trump's "biggest lie yet"? He wrote:


An email message that the MoveOn group sent out to their members also showed their frustration. The message began with:

Dear MoveOn member,

Last night, without consulting local police, Donald Trump abruptly cancelled a rally in Chicago in the face of massive and overwhelmingly peaceful student-led protests.

Yes, he canceled the rally without consulting the local police. He was not supposed to do that. He was supposed to trust the police. The Jews had arranged for 4000 protesters to be inside the Pavilion, and thousands more protesters on the outside. The Jews also arranged for the police to reassure the Trump campaign that it was safe for him to speak at the rally.

Obviously, the Jews were not trying to prevent the Trump rally; rather, they were filling the rally with people who were angry with Trump. The Jews were undoubtedly arranging for another of their assassination attempts. Incidentally, if they had been successful, it would have occurred on their favorite day, the 11th day of the month.

When a protest fails to provide an opportunity to assassinate Trump, the Jews use the protest to make Trump look bad by blaming him for the violence. For example, although the MoveOn group boasted that they were partly responsible for arranging the protest at the Chicago rally, one of MoveOn's executive Jews said that Trump is responsible for the protests because he incites violence:


Ohio Gov. Kasich also blamed Trump for the violence at the rallies, with such remarks as, "Donald Trump has created a toxic environment". Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and lots of other members of The Elite also blamed Trump for inciting violence and hatred.

The next day that same MoveOn executive Jew posted another message to make it even more clear that Trump is to blame:


More amazing yet, in the email message that MoveOn sent to their members, they put themselves into the role of victims who are defending themselves against Donald Trump. You should read the full email message to get an idea of how the Jews manipulate people, and how to watch out for their deception. A few remarks in that email message:

By blaming Trump for whatever violence occurs at one of his rallies, the Jews hope to give Trump a bad image. Also, the Jews are hoping to find legal justification to have him arrested for inciting violence or spreading hatred. For examples, after a man punched a protester at one of the Trump rallies, a sheriff made vague remarks about how they are looking at the incident to see if they should file charges against anybody, including Trump. Journalists were excited, and they responded with news reports that Trump might be charged for starting a riot.

However, the sheriff quickly came to the conclusion that Trump could not be charged. The journalists reacted with disappointment, anger, and frustration, and it was especially obvious in the "alternative media", where journalists are less likely to control their emotions compared to the "mainstream" media (eg. ABC, NBC, and Fox). For example, zerohedge posted a brief article with the title: "Sheriff Refuses To Charge Trump With Inciting "Riot-Like" Conditions At Rally". Two of his remarks were:


He boldfaced the remark about Trump not facing charges, and he is hoping for a "sympathetic" sheriff, which means a sheriff who is so much under their control that he will do something that is illegal. His remark about the "sympathetic" sheriff can make you wonder about that rally in Chicago. If the Jews had not been able to assassinate Trump during that rally, would the Chicago police have been willing to arrest Trump for inciting violence? Is the Chicago sheriff one of those "sympathetic" sheriffs?

The Jews regularly stage false flag operations, such as the 9/11 attack, in order to instigate wars and create fear and hatred of Muslims and anti-Semites, but the Jews are never criticized for inciting violence or hatred. Instead, after Trump responded to one of their false flag operations by claiming that we should temporarily ban Muslims from entering America, the Jews pretended that they were appalled that anybody would show fear, anger, or hatred towards Muslims. They advocate arresting Trump for "hate crimes".

The Jews are using the same technique with Trump that they have been using for centuries; namely, inciting violence, blaming the victims for causing it, and making themselves appear to be the victims.

The protest in Chicago was supposedly because minorities were upset that Trump is a racist, so we ought to wonder how many of the Caucasians at the protest were secretly working with the Jews to manipulate the idiot protesters into becoming violent.

Protests are an idiotic way of dealing with a nation's problems, and it is especially foolish to allow protests in a nation where people are allowed to be anonymous and secretive. The protesters are trying to influence our future, and we should demand the right to know who they are, and who they work with.

Incidentally, if you wonder about the mental qualities of the people who were protesting at the Chicago rally, here is a video that interviews a few nonviolent protesters.

A Jewish professor posted an article with the title: It's Time for the Republican Party to Expel Donald Trump and Formally Exclude Him From Its Nominating Process. He advocates 5 different techniques for the Republicans, the media, and the American voters to use to stop Donald Trump. His fourth technique is protests:


Imagine if everybody in our nation was following the philosophy of that professor. Imagine if everybody was trying to expel and disqualify the candidates that we did not like, and if everybody was staging protests over the candidates that we did not like. This is not an intelligent method of selecting government officials. This is the type of behavior we expect from bratty children or crime networks.

In March 2016, the secretive group Anonymous advocated a denial of service attack on Trump's computers, which is illegal. However, the Jews did not condemn Anonymous or demand that the FBI identify and arrest those people. What would the journalists and FBI have said if Trump had advocated denial of service attacks?

During a press conference in which Marco Rubio complained that Donald Trump was inciting violence, he ended with an interesting remark:

I hope the US media begins to examine the role they've played in all of this. Because I can tell you that for months I've been giving speeches on public policy, and nobody paid a lot of attention. And the minute that I mentioned anything personal about Donald Trump, every network cut in live to my speeches, hoping I would say more of it.

Rubio has noticed that whenever he criticizes Trump, he gets significantly more publicity. The reason is simply because the primary concern of the journalists is to attack Trump, not report the news. However, Rubio said that the media focuses on attacking Trump because it helps their ratings. In reality, the Jews are attacking Trump because they are frightened of losing control of America. Rubio certainly knows that, but he will not criticize the Jews.

During March 2016, Michelle Fields, a journalist for Breitbart, filed a police report that Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had assaulted her at a press conference. She had a bruise on her arm from where he had grabbed her, and an eyewitness to the attack, a journalist for the Washington Post, said that Fields "was forcibly grabbed on her arm by Lewandowski, moving her out of the way and nearly bringing her down to the ground".

When a Breitbart reporter expressed doubts that Michelle Fields had been attacked, he was "suspended indefinitely", but a few days after the attack took place, somebody posted a video of the press conference that showed that she was lying. The following day she and another Breitbart reporter, Ben Shapiro, resigned from their jobs, although neither of them admitted to lying about the incident.

• Secrecy is hurting honest people


• Jews will not tolerate opposition


• People lie even when exposed


• We should not tolerate false accusations

Trump has received significantly more votes than any other candidate, but the way our election system is designed, the Republicans will have a convention at which 2,472 delegates will vote to determine which candidate becomes the official Republican nominee for president. If none of the candidates gets the majority of votes, then the delegates will discuss the issue and vote again.

However, some Republicans are suggesting that if Trump is not selected during the first vote, then instead of discussing the issue and voting again, they should select somebody else to be the nominee. John Boehner suggested that they select Paul Ryan, even though Ryan is not running for president and there is no evidence that the voters want him as president.

The editorial board of the Washington Post wrote an article that said:

Some of their remarks are so outrageous that I had to check to make sure I wasn't looking at a satirical website. For example, they wrote:


How is Trump manipulating the democratic process? It is the Jews who are trying to manipulate it. Everything that Trump is accused of in that article is what the Jews are doing. The Jews use this trick so often that we should create a rule for children to follow:
The Republicans are providing yet another reason as to why we need to develop a better election system. What is the sense of spending enormous amounts of time and money on elections, and having millions of people vote, if a small group of criminals have the ability to disregard the voters and select somebody who is not running for president? The American citizens - including those who do not want Trump as president - should be disgusted that some of their "leaders" are considering such an option.

Our election system is a farce. It fools the voters into believing that they have control over their government, but it is regularly manipulated by criminals.

Even though the Jews have tremendous influence over who becomes a candidate, they have not been able to stop Trump because he has enough money to fund his own campaign, and their attacks on him have been failing because the other candidates are much more undesirable. So now the Jews are considering the possibility of ignoring the voters at the Republican convention and selecting Paul Ryan or somebody else.

Trump responded to that possibility by suggesting that the American people would not tolerate such abuse. "I think you'd have riots", he said. However, the majority of Republicans would not riot even if the Republican convention selected me or Michelle Obama to be their presidential candidate. The Republicans who would not tolerate the abuse would be too small of a percentage to do anything about it.

Ever since the 9/11 attack occurred, I have seen remarks on the Internet that start with something like: "If the American people knew the truth about 9/11, ..." Different people would complete the sentence in different ways, such as:

The people who make these remarks are noticing that they are intolerant of people who abuse them, and they assume other people will also become angry, but this is not true. Most people behave just like animals. When a pet dog is beaten or raped by its owner, it just whimpers a bit, and then goes back to its owner to be abused again.

Most people react to abuse just like a pet dog. They whimper a bit, and then they allow themselves be abused again.

Millions of Americans already know that they have been lied to about 9/11, but they ignore the issue and make excuses for doing nothing about it. They will not even demand that the military get out of the Middle East and stop fighting with imaginary terrorists. Most people want to focus on feeding themselves, reproducing, fighting for status, and having sex. They do not want to get together with other people, discuss the problems they face as a society, and deal with those problems.

There are some Germans who know that they have been lied to about the world wars and the Holocaust, but not enough Germans care enough to bring this information out into the public or do something about it. There are also lots of people around the world who know that the Apollo moon landings are a hoax, but nobody in any nation is making this information public or putting the truth in their history books.

Why would a person in a foreign nation, who realizes that men have never been to the moon, allow his school system to teach his children that men have been on the moon? It is for the same reason that people in foreign nations are teaching their children lies about the Holocaust, even when they know that their children are being lied to. The reason is simply because most people truly do not care about the truth, or about society. All they think about is their own emotional cravings for food, sex, status, etc. They live and behave just like stupid animals.

Don't expect the sheeple to make wise decisions about our future.

Donald Trump assumes that the Republicans will riot if he is cheated out of the nomination, but how many Republicans would even face the possibility that they have been cheated?

If the Republican convention selects Paul Ryan, Michelle Obama, or me as the candidate, they could justify it by saying, "We selected Ryan / Obama / Hufschmid because he/she was the only person we could all agree on." The majority of Republicans would simply follow along like sheep. They would not consider the possibility that they are being lied to.

How many Republicans have the ability to seriously look at the evidence that they were lied to about the 9/11 attack, or that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, or that NASA is lying about the moon landing? If a person cannot look at the evidence that he has been lied to and cheated time after time by Jews, government officials, journalists, and businessmen, what are the chances that he will look at evidence that he has been lied to by the people at the Republican convention?

Furthermore, although there are a few Republicans who have the ability to look at the evidence that they have been lied to, not many of them are willing to do something about these problems, not even something as simple as spreading information about the issues. There are still people, especially children, who have not yet been shown the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, or that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust. When are these people going to spread this information to their own children and neighbors? When are they going to discuss these issues with the people that they work with?

If a person shows no concern about being lied to about 9/11 or the Holocaust, don't expect him to show a concern about being lied to at the Republican convention. There is an expression about this concept; a leopard doesn't change its spots. The majority of people want to spend their time talking about sports or Hollywood, and we cannot expect them to change their personality.

It is important to note that if the Republicans were cheated at the convention, such as if Paul Ryan is selected as the candidate, the Republican voters could deal with the issue without any violence. All they would have to do is respond, "OK, let Paul Ryan be the official Republican candidate. We will vote for Donald Trump even if he is not listed on the ballot."

The voters have the freedom to vote for anybody they please. They do not have to submissively accept the candidates that the Jews have chosen for them. There is a blank location on the ballot specifically for the voters to write the name of whoever what they to elect. However, most people are so sheep-like that they would never vote for somebody who is not an "official" candidate.

The only way the Republican voters would be willing to write Trump's name on the ballot is if they could be convinced that "everybody" was definitely going to do it, in which case, the voters would follow along like sheep. However, since the Jews have control of the media, they would create news reports that claim that "nobody" is going to write Trump's name on the ballot. Most voters would be frightened to do something that "nobody" is doing, so they would follow the crowd and select one of the official candidates.

Furthermore, the voters can make Trump the president without an election. The government of America is just a group of representatives, and they do whatever the people want them to do. If the majority of people who are active in society were to tell their representatives that they are tired of the existing government and they want Trump to be president now rather than wait for the election, then their representatives are supposed to give them what they want. The people are under no obligation to wait for the election.

Many people might respond that I am being ridiculous with that suggestion, but something like that already happened once in America. America's first government was a failure, and so the small group of people who were actively involved with America decided to get together to discuss what to do, and they decided to toss the Articles of Confederation in the trash and write the Constitution.

The same situation could happen right now. A group of people in this country could get together, create a new government, and toss the Constitution in the trash. The majority of people today will behave just like the majority of people did 200 years ago. They will do absolutely nothing.

So, why doesn't a group of Americans get together to throw this Constitution in the trash and create a new government? Why did it happen 200 years ago?

It happened 200 years ago because most of the people who created America were the leaders of American society, such as government officials and business leaders. Since they were the American government, it was easy for them to change the government.

Today the situation is dramatically different. Virtually all of our government officials, sheriffs, district attorneys, journalists, judges, and other people in influential positions are working for the Jewish crime network. They are trying to get more control of America, and create more laws that will allow them to arrest or suppress their opponents. They have no desire to improve this nation because that would require removing them from positions of importance. They are going to fight all attempts to bring improvements to this nation.

The only way America is going to improve today is if a group of people outside of the government does something. If the majority of people want to make a change to the government, then it will happen without any problem, but the majority are never going to do anything, and they would never be able to agree on what to do even if they wanted to do something.

The only way America will improve is if a small group of people decide to change the government. That is tricky because those people could be arrested for treason. They will need a lot of people in the military to support this operation. Ironically, this is exactly what our military is supposed to do. Their duty is to protect America from enemies, both foreign and domestic, so if they will understand that our enemies are hiding in our nation's government, media, think tanks, and other organizations, then they will realize that their duty is to help us get rid of this crime network. They will realize that we are not traitors, and that we need their assistance. Unfortunately, some of those criminals are in the military, also, so the military needs to clean out their own organization before they can do anything to help the world.

Some costumes of The Elite at a Rothschild party in 1972. The movie Eyes Wide Shut may have been an expose of those parties.

If the Elite fail to stop Trump from becoming the Republican candidate, perhaps they will take advantage of our anonymous voting system and cheat during the elections, such as by altering the software in the voting machines.

Or will they kill Trump's children or relatives in an attempt to intimidate Trump into withdrawing from the contest? There have already been two such threats, and it might escalate to actual murder attempts.

Ideally, we would not care what The Elite want to do, and we would not be passive observers who hope that Trump will save us. We should become active participants in determining our future. We should discuss our options and blaze our own path in life.

If you do not actively get involved with the battle for control of the world, then you are allowing The Elite to fight with Trump for control. Why should we allow two, secretive groups of people to fight for control of us?

I would bet than Trump would be an improvement to what we have right now, so if we cannot fix America by the time the election occurs, we should elect Trump rather than one of the other candidates, but he might not be much of an improvement. He associates with a lot of Jews who want to be absurdly wealthy, and they may be more interested in exploiting us than helping us. Switching from The Elite to Trump's group might be like switching from being a sex slave to becoming a labor slave. We might continue to be dominated by a group of Jews who believe that they are the superior race, and that we are their peasants and slaves.

Here is a website that exposes the people who are influencing other people and organizations, and here is their page for Donald Trump. It appears to be the work of yet another secretive Jew who is doing some type of damage control, but most of his information is probably accurate.

Encourage the people you know to stop wasting their life behaving like frightened, passive, or apathetic sheep. Inspire them to exert some self-control and push themselves into getting involved with the future of the human race. We can improve our nation without the assistance of the sheeple. All we need to do is put together a team that is capable of defeating The Elite. We can then take control of the nation and decide for ourselves what our future will be.

During March 2016, a lot of journalists provided us with news reports that some anonymous government officials in other nations were criticizing Donald Trump. For example, this article has the title: The Chinese Government Is Now Using Donald Trump As Proof That Democracy Doesn’t Work. And this article has the title: Big-mouthed clown? China reacts to Donald Trump's rise. These articles imply that we should not vote for Donald Trump because the leaders of foreign nations do not approve of him.

If somebody in a foreign nation were to provide us with an intelligent analysis of our presidential candidates, we would benefit by reading his analysis and discussing it. However, the secretive, anonymous leaders who criticize Trump are not providing us with anything intelligent. They are simply repeating the same idiotic insults and remarks that we are getting from our own Jewish journalists. For a blatant example, in this article a mysterious foreign leader is quoted as saying: “He has even been called another Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler by some western media.” That is not an intelligent analysis of Trump by a foreign government leader. That is summary of some of the insults that Jewish journalists are publishing.

For another example, one of the anonymous foreign leaders pointed out that there has been some violence at some of Trump's rallies. He had nothing intelligent to say about the violence, however. He was just mimicking the Jews here in America.

I suspect that those foreign leaders are being told by the Jews to criticize Trump, and they are probably told what to say. They are not foreign "leaders"; they are foreign "puppets". Probably blackmailed pedophiles.

I would advise the Chinese people to start wondering who in their government and media is under the control of Jews. They should also reevaluate their relationship with Jews. For example, they allowed Jews to set up gambling operations in China, but how does China benefit from that relationship? The Jews make money from it, but what do the Chinese people get? Gambling debts? Prostitution? Drug dealing? If the Chinese gambling areas are anything like Las Vegas, then the Chinese have been taken advantage of. They are not benefiting from it.

Perhaps the most undesirable aspect of gambling is that it attracts criminals and mentally ill people, and that allows the Jews to have access to citizens who they can blackmail and bribe, which in turn provides the Jews with influence over the nation.

Instead of teaching children that they are patriotic when they give blind obedience to their government officials, news reporters, church officials, and other influential people, the schools should show children that all throughout history there have been people in leadership positions who manipulated opinions, instigated hatred, and suppressed people and ideas that they didn't like. Children should be taught about the techniques that people have used to manipulate one another, and they should be taught to watch out for that type of abuse.

By giving the students lots of assignments to analyze historical events and identify the propaganda, the teachers will be able to pass judgment on which of the students are more difficult to fool with propaganda. Those are the type of people we want in leadership positions, not the nitwits who are fooled by the MoveOn organization into believing that MoveOn is a victim of Trump.

The articles that journalists are publishing about Trump are so extremely deceptive, hypocritical, insulting, and manipulative that teenagers, and some preteen children, should be able to see the propaganda. Schools should be using those articles right now to give students practice with identifying propaganda, and to get them accustomed to passing judgment on when journalists have gone too far and should be fired.

"Though to be fair..."

For example, a teacher could give students this news article, which has the title: Donald Trump broke debate rules, and ask them to pass judgment on whether the article is acceptable, deceptive, hypocritical, insulting, or manipulative. It is a short article that points out that Trump didn't follow all of the rules during the presidential debates, but the last sentence of the article is:


The journalist does not explain what he means by "no one's squeaky clean here", but his phrase, "though to be fair", is an indication that he realizes that his article is unfair, and that he added that last sentence in an attempt to counteract his unfairness.

A journalist cannot undo an unfair article simply by adding a disclaimer at the end which says, "Though to be fair, everybody else behaves the same way." That is as idiotic as a Christian who believes that every time he commits a crime, he can undo the mess simply by saying to himself, "Dear God, please forgive my latest sins." Imagine a journalist writing a biased article about Donald Trump, and the last sentence of the article is, "Dear G-d, please forgive me for distorting the news about Donald Trump. Amen."

A lot of us use an expression similar to "Though to be fair...", but we need to pass judgment on when somebody is adding that phrase in order to truly be fair, and when he is adding it simply to fool us into believing that he is fair.

Children ought to be given assignments in which they pass judgment on whether a journalist is doing an acceptable job, or whether he should be fired. By getting children accustomed to analyzing news reports and passing judgment on whether journalists are doing their job properly, they would become adults who are less likely to be tolerant of abusive journalists, and less likely to be manipulated by propaganda.

Trump appeals to Caucasian Americans more than black Americans, but there are a lot of black Americans who support him. Aaron Timms wrote an article that expressed his frustration that some black athletes and celebrities were endorsing Donald Trump. One of Aaron's remarks was, "Why would a black athlete support Donald Trump?"

Aaron should have written his question like this: "We have published hundreds of reports that Donald Trump is a white supremacist, a KKK supporter, and a racist. Black people should not be endorsing him. What are we doing wrong? Why are we failing to manipulate the blacks?"

Some journalists are also frustrated that a lot of women are supporting Trump. One article has the title, “Why aren’t GOP women turning their backs on Donald Trump?” Another journalist listed 18 of the most outrageous remarks Trump has made about women, but some of those remarks are true, not outrageous, such as his remark that women are attracted to him because of his wealth and status.

Trump annoys some voters with his crude insults and dishonest remarks (such as, "I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?"), but even with his self-destructive behavior, Trump remains more popular than the other candidates. Instead of insulting Trump and the people who vote for him, the Republicans and the other candidates ought to be embarrassed and ashamed that they are being beaten so easily by somebody who makes remarks that hurt his chances of getting elected.

Trump easily beats the Republican candidates because they are analogous to retarded athletes.

It might help you to understand how disgusting the Jews are behaving if you imagine the same situation happening in an athletic contest. Imagine that the Jews have selected a group of athletes to participate in a foot race, and Donald Trump decides to become a contestant.

Imagine that Trump beats the other athletes by a significant amount, and the Jews react by insulting him and by referring to the people who admire him as brain-dead zombies. Imagine the Jews hold secret meetings to figure out how to stop Trump from beating their athletes in future contests.

To make this athletic scenario even more realistic, imagine that Trump foolishly does things that hurt his chances of winning the contest, such as stopping occasionally in the middle of the foot race to comb his hair, but he beats the other athletes despite wasting time with his hair.

As with animals, our natural reaction to competition is anger.

The reaction that the Elite have towards Donald Trump is an example of what I have complained about in other documents; namely, an animal's natural reaction to competition is to bite, kick, and scratch. Animals do not want to compete in a fair manner, or look critically at themselves. Animals react to competition with anger. Animals want to get rid of their competitors, and their method is intimidation and violence.

Since humans are nothing more than intelligent monkeys, our natural reaction to competitors is an intelligent version of biting and scratching. We do not want to compete fairly, or encourage people to compete with us, or inspire our competitors to do a good job. Instead, we want to win the competition, even if we do not deserve it. If we follow our crude emotions, we will look for opportunities to hurt, sabotage, suppress, bribe, blackmail, or murder our competitors.

The Elite do not want to look critically at themselves and try to figure out how they can beat Donald Trump in a fair manner. They achieved control of America through murder, deception, blackmail, and other animal-like techniques, not by earning their position by impressing us with their talents. They behave like animals; they do the human equivalent of kicking, scratching, and biting.

As I complained in other documents, we should restrict leadership to people who compete fairly. We should not tolerate leaders who sabotage, murder, suppress, blackmail, intimidate, or fight with their competitors. Our leaders should inspire competitors, not fight with them. They should earn a leadership position by impressing us with their abilities.

Voters should be disgusted with people who do the equivalent of biting and kicking. Voters should look for candidates who can provide us with guidance, and who encourage competition. Competition is valuable, and we should fill our leadership positions with people who can control themselves well enough to enjoy the competition, learn from their competitors, and inspire their competitors.

None of the truly talented athletes are afraid of competition, or make any attempt to hurt or sabotage their competitors. It is the losers and mentally ill athletes who resort to murder and sabotage.

In March 2016, Gawker Media received copies of voice messages that were on one of Donald Trump's phones. Supposedly the secretive group, Anonymous, obtained the messages. It was not one of Trump's primary phones, so the messages were meaningless, and some of them were several years old, but the reason I bring this issue to your attention is because Gawker Media is among the groups that were whining just a few weeks earlier about the FBI's demand that they be able to access data on the iPhone of an alleged terrorist.

The people at Gawker insist that each of us should have privacy with our phone data, but they do not apply this philosophy to Donald Trump. When they received Trump's voice messages, they did not call the police and demand that the people at Anonymous be arrested for invading a person's privacy. They did not even ignore the messages. Instead, they publicized the messages.

The journalists implied that the messages prove that Trump is friendly with liberals, but I would say the messages reveal nothing of importance about Trump. Rather, by publishing those messages, the journalists revealed their fear of Trump, their hypocrisy, and their attempts to manipulate our opinions.

A few days later Anonymous exposed Trump's social security number and some other information of no importance. Once again it shows their hypocrisy, and their fear and hatred of him. That page include a transcript of the message from Anonymous, which you might find interesting. Their first sentence is:

Don't be a passive observer and allow this secretive group of freaks to battle for control of our lives. Get involved!

Hulk Hogan, a professional wrestler, was friends with a couple named Bubba and Heather. Heather would occasionally have sex with other men, and Bubba would make video recordings with a hidden camera in the bedroom. There is supposedly one video in which Heather and Bubba are joking about making a lot of money from the video of Hogan. Heather and Bubba could be described as con artists or criminals.

Gawker media posted a segment of the sex video of Hogan, and Hogan filed a lawsuit that they violated his privacy by posting it. In March 2016 the jury agreed with Hogan. Although this trial is over - as of March 2016 - it is interesting to look at some of the arguments that the Gawker lawyers were using.

One of the reasons that a Gawker lawyer gave to justify the posting of the video is that Hulk Hogan had discussed his sex life several times in public, and therefore he had made his private sex life into a public matter. That is analogous to secretly recording a person's phone conversations, posting the recordings on the Internet, and justifying it by saying that he had several times talked about his friends and relatives in public, and therefore, he had made his private life a public matter.

Even more amazing, a Gawker lawyer tried to use the Nazis to bring pity to the founder of Gawker, Nick Denton, a homosexual who has a Jewish mother. The lawyer said that Denton's mother "survived the Nazis", but everybody who was alive at the end of World War II could be described as "surviving the Nazis". The lawyer also said that Denton grew up with "parents who've seen first-hand what happens when speech is suppressed."

The lawyer was doing what Jews frequently do; namely, try to make themselves look like victims and bring pity to themselves. The lawyer insisted that Denton merely wants "the public to have the simple, unvarnished truth, about public figures." Apparently, we are supposed to be grateful that we have heroes such as Nick Denton, who are providing us with the truth.

Denton and his husband at their wedding. Would Denton support a person who posted a sex video of him and his husband that was recorded illegally by hidden cameras?

If Gawker were to practice what they preach, then they would support the secret filming of every public figure, including Abe Foxman, Tim Cook, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, the Bronfman family, and the people who work at Gawker.

The New York Times lists a few recent lawsuits about privacy issues, and points out that the courts have said that we can publish private information about public people under certain circumstances, even if it is obtained illegally. Two of the remarks in that article are:


If the Jews and homosexuals were to practice what they preach, then we could publish sex videos, bathroom videos, and phone conversations - including those that are taken illegally - of the Supreme Court justices, lawyers, Bernie Sanders, Howard Stern, George Soros, and Rahm Emanuel because there is as much of a public interest in those people as in a professional wrestler.

I frequently advocate that we get rid of secrecy and that we help people get over their paranoia of sex and nudity. I am not discussing the issue of Hogan's sex video because I am concerned that Hogan was embarrassed. Rather, I am trying to point out that the Jews and homosexuals who dominate our nation are hypocrites, liars, and con artists.

The Jews have no interest in practicing what they preach or treating us fairly. When the Jews want to keep something about themselves a secret, they claim that they are heroes who are protecting our privacy, but when they want to expose information about one of us, they justify it by claiming that they are heroes who are serving the public interest and providing us with the truth because - as victims of Nazis - they have seen what happens when free speech is suppressed.

How would the Jews treat Trump if he were to post videos that were obtained from hidden video cameras in the bedrooms of Bill Kristol or Tim Cook? Would Gawker and the other Jews praise him for providing us with the simple, unvarnished truth? I don't think so.

In an attempt to hurt Donald Trump's image, the Jews recently gave worldwide publicity to David Duke when he posted an article on his website in which he said that he prefers Trump over the other candidates. A Jewish journalist then confronted Trump about this issue by asking him,


Trump had no idea how to respond to that question, so to avoid answering it, he faked ignorance:


Because he did not condemn Duke, the Jews published lots of reports to make it appear as if Trump is a supporter of Duke and the KKK. For a few examples:
A few days after Trump made that idiotic remark about not knowing who David Duke was, he decided to admit that he did indeed know, and that years ago he had already criticized the KKK. He said,

One of the lessons to learn from Trump is that he often blurts out an idiotic remark instead of spending some time thinking about what to say. When Trump was asked about David Duke, he should have responded with a remark similar to, "I don't know, but I will look into it and give you my response in a future interview." He should not have lied about not knowing who David Duke was. Unfortunately, no society yet encourages people to answer a question with "I don't know, but I will look into it."

If people were to respond in that manner to questions that they did not have an answer to, then many discussions, debates, television talk shows, and interviews would terminate early because a lot of the people would respond with "I don't know, but I will look into it."

This brings up a very important issue. Specifically, debates, discussions, and interviews will be of much greater value if the people involved can be prepared for it by knowing which issues they are going to discuss, which questions they must answer, and which issues they must analyze. By providing that information ahead of time, they will be able to do some research on the issues and prepare for the discussion.

If a person wants to interview Trump purely for entertainment purposes, then there is no need for Trump to be prepared for the interview. A friendly, entertaining interview is better if it is spontaneous. However, journalists are not interviewing any of the presidential candidates for entertainment purposes. They are essentially putting the candidates through a "job interview." In order for those interviews to be productive, Trump should be told what the questions are going to be. The more complex the questions are, the more time Trump should have for preparation.

The importance of preparation can be seen when people are asked the question, Which weighs more, a pound of steel or a pound of feathers? If a person has never heard that question before, and if he assumes that the person asking the question is serious, he is likely to interpret it as a question about density rather than weight. A person is not necessarily stupid if he answers "steel" to that idiotic question. It may be more accurate to describe him as a victim of deception. Or, he could be described as interpreting questions rather than asking for clarification.

By comparison, if we provide a person with a sheet of paper that has that question printed on it, and if the person is not under pressure to answer the question quickly, most people will realize that it is a deceptive question.

It is unfair to ask people questions verbally if they have never heard the question before, especially if the question is lengthy or complicated. The reason is because the human mind does not wait for people to stop speaking. We begin decoding their words as soon as we hear them. We decode the words into images. By the time the person has finished answering the question, we have forgotten some of the words in his sentence. We instead remember the image that we created as we interpreted his words.

Many of the words in our language are vague, and we do not use language with much precision, anyway. All of us must regularly cope with people who select the wrong word; who create sentences that are grammatically incorrect; and who omit a lot of important details. We must guess at what people are trying to say, and this causes us to often misinterpret one another's verbal remarks.

By comparison, when people are forced to write their questions on paper, both the person asking the question and the person answering the question will benefit. The person who writes the question benefits because he gets to look closely at his question, and he will often realize that his question needs editing. We produce better questions when we are forced to write them on paper.

The person answering the question benefits because he no longer has to depend upon his imperfect memory to keep track of the words in the question. He will be able to analyze the words over and over, and spend time thinking about what the author was trying to say.

It is not natural for our mind to respond to a problem with "I don't know, but I will look into it." The natural reaction of animals and humans is to make rapid decisions. Even if animals had the ability to think, they often don't have the time to think about their problems. When they are faced with danger, they have to make a decision immediately.

The human brain is just an intelligent monkey brain. We have a tendency to ignore problems until they affect us, and once affected by a problem, our natural tendency is to react immediately based on whatever information we have. It is not natural for us to respond to a problem by first learning more about it and then thinking about it.

Everybody realizes that engineers have to put a lot of work into developing refrigerators, cell phones, and computers, but everybody has the attitude that they can create brilliant opinions about presidential candidates, crime, abortion, the ISIS, Vladimir Putin, and terrorism simply by skimming through a few news reports and spending a few moments thinking about the issue. People do not put any significant effort into researching social issues, or having serious discussions about them, or looking critically at any of their brilliant opinions.

If you want to produce an intelligent thought about an issue, you must put a lot of time and effort into studying the issue, looking critically at your brilliant opinions, and then looking for ways to improve your opinion, and then starting the cycle over.

Furthermore, even if you do put a lot of effort into developing your opinions, there is no guarantee that your opinions will be of any value. If you don't have the talent to produce intelligent thoughts, it does not matter how much time and effort you put into the task.

What is the difference between the job of a voter who is selecting government officials, and the job of a biologist who is analyzing a new frog that has been discovered in the Amazon basin? There is not much of a difference. Both of them could be described as "scientists", but they are studying different issues and for different purposes. Both of them should be putting a lot of effort into studying their subjects, discussing the findings with other people, and looking critically at their brilliant theories.

A society should promote the philosophy that it is better to say "I don't know but I will think about it" to a question that you don't have the answer to, rather than blurt out some stupid or dishonest answer. If Trump had been able to say that to the Jew, then he could have spent some time thinking about the issue and discussing it with other people, and he would have responded with something more intelligent than a lie. For some examples of what Trump might have responded with:


Since David Duke is a blackmailed puppet of the Jews, it is possible that the Jews told him to praise Trump so that they could then confront Trump over the issue. In other words, the entire situation may have been staged in an attempt to manipulate the voters into disliking Trump.

If David Duke had Alzheimer's, I suppose the Jews would say to Trump,


If we had higher standards for journalists, they would be fired or arrested for these attempts to hurt a person's image, manipulate us, and deceive us.

On 7 March 2016 the Washington Post published an article with the title, "How Donald Trump is ruining Paul Ryan’s speakership". In that article they referenced the David Duke incident. You won't make sense of the sentence, but notice that remark about the Ku Klux Klan:

It might help you to understand how manipulative and deceptive the journalists are if you imagine they continue to do this for the next few years. Imagine a news article a few years from now which says,


David Duke has not been in the Ku Klux Klan for 40 years, but the Jews continue to remind us that he spent some time as a member of that organization. Now we are going to be reminded over and over that Trump balked at denouncing the KKK. These are not "news reports" about world events; rather, they are propaganda intended to manipulate our opinions. The people who cannot understand this concept should be disqualified from voting on the grounds that they are as helpless as children. The voters should be disgusted with these journalists, not spending money on their newspapers and magazines, or looking to journalists for advice or information.

An even more obvious attempt to ruin Trump's image started in November 2015 when Ashley Feinberg of Gawker Media was given the project of posting quotes from Mussolini but crediting them to Donald Trump in the hope that some of those quotes would appeal to Trump, and that he would pass them on through his twitter account. Eventually one of those quotes did attract Trump's attention:

Trump posted that quote on his twitter account. The news reporters then announced that Trump was impressed by a remark made by Benito Mussolini, and the people at Gawker Media proudly posted an article with the title: "How We Fooled Donald Trump Into Retweeting Benito Mussolini"

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Jimmy Savile made thousands of remarks during their lives. If there was a database that had video of everybody's life, and if we could ask the computer to give us a transcript and translation of everything Mussolini said, each of us would discover that we agree with some of Mussolini's opinions, and we would also discover that we share some of his desires in food, home furnishings, clothing, or art.

Any voter who believes that a person is evil simply because he has something in common with Mussolini, Jimmy Saville, or Hitler should be disqualified from voting, and journalists who make those type of remarks should be fired.

Furthermore, note the hypocrisy among the people who complain about Trump. For example, Bill Kristol attended the meeting in March 2016, which I mentioned at the beginning of this document, with the other special, elite people, and he used at least two remarks from Karl Marx in his description of the secret meeting. For example, in an email message he wrote, "A specter was haunting the World Forum--the specter of Donald Trump" which is the first sentence in the Communist manifesto, modified for Trump.

Why don't journalists condemn Bill Kristol for using remarks from the Communist manifesto? The reason, of course, is that Kristol is one of the Elite Jews. To make the situation even more hypocritical, Kristol is one of the Republicans who complains about Marxism and communism.

In July 2015, Trump was answering questions for the Family Leadership Summit, and Trump said that John McCain is not a war hero. The Jewish host responded that McCain was indeed a war hero, and Trump reacted with his usual fighting spirt and blurted out,


The Jews responded by making it appear as if Trump was insulting everybody who has been a prisoner of war. Although only Trump really knows what he was thinking, it seems to me that he was saying that John McCain should not be considered a hero simply because he had been captured. When other journalists questioned him about the issue, Trump's response suggests to me that his criticism was only towards McCain, and the reason was because he felt that McCain was getting unfair praise. Some of Trump's remarks were:


I don't know what John McCain did when he was in the military, or why so many people regard him as a hero, but after learning that his father stopped Admiral Morrison from defending the USS Liberty, I suspect that John McCain is getting special treatment because his father helped Israel with their murder of American military personnel.

John McCain has also been helping Israel by supporting their proposal to bomb Iran. The McCain family might be better described as traitors to America, rather than as heroes. Or was John McCain's father forced to help Israel, just as he forced Admiral Morrison? Are the McCain family members victims of the Jews? Or are they voluntarily working with the Jews?

I have been appalled by the accusations that journalists have been making about Trump, but I was amused when I first heard them complaining that he is unfair to journalists. For example, Fox News accused Trump of having an "extreme, sick obsession" with Megyn Kelly, and another journalist complained that Trump has a "vendetta" against some journalists.

In a previous document I explained some of my thoughts on the subject of humor, and I mentioned that we often consider something to be amusing when it gives us a conclusion that is different from what we expect.

During the past few months I have seen thousands of idiotic accusations about Trump, and my mind assumed that the journalists were aware of the likely possibility that Trump is going to become irritated with them. When I first saw some complaints by journalists that Trump is criticizing journalists, I suppose the reason my mind considered their complaints to be amusing is because it was the opposite of what I was expecting. Of course, after seeing a few journalists complain about this issue, it is no longer amusing.

Just as we should not expect Michelle Fields to admit that she was lying about being assaulted, we should not expect the journalists to admit that Trump is justified in reacting to them with disgust. Instead, we should expect the journalists to pretend that they are innocent victims of an evil, hateful, racist, fascist who has extreme, sick obsessions and senseless vendettas.

The behavior of the journalists is truly shocking. No matter how awful they behave, nothing they do is their fault. Everything is somebody else's fault.

In 2004, Trump was contacted by a man, Michael Sexton, who proposed a business that would provide educational courses about marketing, finance, and other business issues. Trump agreed, and Sexton's operation became known as Trump University. However, Sexton did not deal with government regulations properly, and some students complained that the educational courses were not of much value to them. Lawsuits were filed against Trump University, and it was shut down after about 7 years of operation. Two aspects of Trump University that I wanted to discuss are:

1) People should be accountable for their behavior

The journalists are putting all of the blame for Trump University on Donald Trump, but if I understand the situation correctly, Trump only agreed to the project, and Michael Sexton designed and managed the university. In such a case, Sexton should be held responsible for the problems with the University. Trump should only be blamed for approving and funding Sexton's proposal, and of giving him the freedom to do whatever he pleased. Trump could also be blamed for becoming defensive when students accused the school of being a fraud. He should have looked into those issues more seriously rather than reacting defensively.

To complicate this issue, if we could remove the secrecy that is protecting Michael Sexton, we might discover that he never had any intention of creating a useful school. Rather, his proposal to create a school may have been similar to the HongBo College in China; namely, a deliberate scam to make money. In such a case, Sexton could be described as a con artist who abused and deceived Donald Trump in addition to the teachers of the school and the students.

The reason I think this is an important issue to be aware of is because this particular problem occurs regularly with managers, famous people, and wealthy people. Specifically, influential people are regularly contacted by people who have brilliant proposals. The influential people have to make decisions on which proposal to turn away and which to authorize.

Government officials are regularly pushed by people into accepting their brilliant proposals to send people to Mars, repair old bridges, build a new dam, drop bombs on Syria, and impose tariffs on some Chinese product. The officials have to review these proposals and make decisions about which ones to implement. If a government official authorizes a project that turns out to be a failure or worthless, he is responsible for choosing that particular project, but the people who designed the proposal should be responsible for designing a useless project, and the people who failed to deliver on whatever they promised should be responsible for their particular failures. Each person should take responsibility for his particular role in the project.

If a person cannot fulfill his promises, or if he gets involved with illegal activities, he should be held responsible for his actions, not the person who approved his project.

I mentioned an example of this concept in a previous document when I pointed out that the military is being blamed for the problems with the F35 airplane. The military is responsible for choosing that particular project rather than one of the competing projects, but they should not be held responsible for the inability of Lockheed to fulfill their promises. And if it turns out that Lockheed deliberately deceived the military, then Lockheed should be held responsible for that deception, not the military.

One lesson to learn from the F35 and Trump University is that when a person approves a proposal, he should not give the people the freedom to do whatever they please. Instead, he should occasionally check their work to ensure that they are doing what they promised to do.

This concept also applies to Lockheed. Since they have to work with other businesses in order to complete the F35 project, they should be responsible only for what they do, not what the subcontractors do. Each of the subcontractors should be responsible for their behavior. The Lockheed management is responsible for choosing certain subcontractors rather than others, but they should not be held responsible for the behavior of the subcontractors.

If a subcontractor fails to do his job properly, Lockheed is responsible for finding a way to solve the problem, but the subcontractor should be blamed for the problem, and their failure should be recorded in a public database so that everybody in the future can see that they have failed. They should be responsibile for their problems, not Lockheed.

The opposite is also true; ie, when a subcontractor does something successful, they should get the credit for it, not Lockheed.

Each of us should be responsibile for our behavior. The military should not have to take responsibility for what people in Lockheed are doing, and Donald Trump should not be responsible for what Michael Sexton did.

This issue is complicated because there are no clear dividing lines between when one person's responsibility ends and another person's responsibility starts, but don't let that complexity overwhelm you. We have the intellectual ability to pass judgment on who should get credit for something successful, and who should get blamed for problems. Our judgments will never be perfect, but it is better to make judgments than to do what we do now, which is to allow people to shift the blame for their problems onto other people, and to allow managers to take credit for achievements of other people.

If Trump University had been a success, most people would probably give Trump the credit for its success, but the credit would have belonged to Michael Sexton. Trump would have only been able to take credit for authorizing the project. If one of the subcontractors to the F35 program had done an impressive job, Lockheed management would probably try to take credit for it, but the subcontractor should get credit for it.

Unfortunately, we do not yet teach people to be responsible for their behavior, and we do not collect data on people's performances. Actually, we allow people to hide their past and lie about themselves. We allow people to create biased resumes of themselves in which they exaggerate their wonderful qualities, take credit for what other people have done, and hide their unpleasant history.

We cannot figure out what anybody has done during their life, and we allow people to change their names. There is no database that is keeping track of everybody's life and recording their failures and successes. Try to find information on Michael Sexton, for example.

We should not depend upon a person to provide us with a biased resume of himself. We should have access to accurate information about people. We provide people with so much secrecy that some men who travel a lot for their job have gotten married to different women in different cities without any of the women knowing about the others.

If Trump had not been famous, his university would have failed without many of us knowing of Michael Sexton. This would have allowed Sexton to propose a school to somebody who did not know that he had already failed with such a project.

Because animals are arrogant and selfish, we do not want to be held responsible for our problems and failures, and we are envious of people who are successful. We have a natural tendency to push our competitors aside and take credit for what they have done, and we have a natural tendency to blame our failures on other people or some mysterious force.

Because all of us are selfish, envious, arrogant monkeys, we put pressure on society to allow us to shift the blame from ourselves to other people. Voters, for example, do not want to be held responsible for the crummy government that they create, and when people commit crimes, they and their family members put pressure on society to allow them to blame their crimes on other people, mental illness, society, bullies, poverty, and affluenza.

It is not natural for us to take responsibility for our problems. We must design society to counteract our animal qualities and put pressure on us to be responsible for our actions. We cannot let people do as they please; we have to think about what is best for us. Parents want to make excuses for their badly behaved children, but that is not what is best for us. We should not allow people to shift the blame for their problems onto somebody else.

Our natural tendency is to deceive people about ourselves. We exaggerate our wonderful qualities, hide our unpleasant qualities, and blame our failures on other people. From the point of view of an organism, this is the best policy, but from the point of view of society, it is detrimental. We must become less selfish and more of a team.

Individuals benefit from secrecy and deception, but society is harmed by this. Our society would improve if we eliminated secrecy and kept track of everybody's life. This would enable us to pass judgment on who among us is doing the best job of supervising factories, repairing airplanes, and managing farms, and it will show us who is contributing to society and who is causing trouble. It will allow us to make better decisions about who to put into particular jobs; whose proposals we should experiment with; who we should tell to keep their mouth shut; who we should restrict to certain neighborhoods; and who we should evict from our city.

2) Free enterprise cannot provide sensible education

Trump University was charging the students a high fee, and some of the students complained that they did not benefit much from the courses. This may be a valid complaint, but it is a complaint that applies to all schools, regardless of whether they are operated by businesses, churches, or governments.

Most of the students who have graduated from American colleges did not learn any useful skills, but they paid a lot of money, and at some colleges, taxpayers contributed to the worthless education. To make this problem worse, many college students have no interest in learning useful skills, anyway. Many are in college only to get a diploma, find a spouse, or delay their adulthood. Therefore, even if the management of the colleges wanted to provide the students with useful skills, many of the students would resist their efforts.

Some of the people who were attracted to Trump University may have been hoping that it would be an easy way to become wealthy. They may have been like those students in China who went to the Hongbo College, even though they realized that the college was a fraud. Students like that are likely to complain that a school was worthless no matter which school they attended simply because they were not interested in learning. They want a diploma; they want an easy way to make money.

There are also lots of businesses offering various types of educational programs, such as self-help programs, athletic programs, music programs, weight-loss programs, and art programs. All of them are businesses that are competing with one another, so all of them could be described as profit-making ventures rather than as educational opportunities.

Tony Robbins has a business called the Mastery University. Are the students who go to that university learning any more than the students who went to Trump University?

Whether a school course is worthless or valuable is a personal opinion. Do a search on the Internet for the phrase "ridiculous college courses", and you will find hundreds of people describing the courses that they consider to be ridiculous.

The journalists and other people who are complaining about Trump University are simply looking for ways to hurt Trump. If they were to be fair, they would point out that virtually all of our educational organizations are doing an unsatisfactory job, and all of them are charging a lot of money. The unfair attacks on Trump University are because Jews are frightened of Trump, and they are looking for anything they can find to hurt his image.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are under competitive pressure to make profit, not to educate us. What is the difference between Trump University and Harvard University? Both of them are business ventures that put profit ahead of education. We should face the fact that the free enterprise system is not an effective system for providing education.

Schools should not be in competition for profit. Rather, they should be in competition to prepare children for society. Schools should be judged according to what their students do after they graduate, not according to whether the parents or students "like" the school.

Time magazine published an article with the title:
6 Facts That Could Haunt Donald Trump From Trump University

Their six facts are listed in bold below, with my comments under them.

Fact 1. Trump is misleading voters about the program’s approval ratings.


Fact 2. Trump promised students he handpicked his teachers. He did not.


Fact 3: Teachers were instructed to pretend they knew Trump even when they didn’t.


Fact 4: Teachers were told to use “buzzwords” that made the program appear “elitist.”


Fact 5: A $34,995 mentorship program was worth “nothing,” one participant said.

Fact 6: Another participant went into debt to take a $25,000 course at Trump University. Today he can’t afford his own home.

Time magazine's list of 6 facts about Trump University is so deceptive that the journalists and editors should be fired, or arrested. They are not making any attempt to be fair.

Furthermore, the behavior of the journalists who criticize Trump University is worse than what they are accusing Trump University of doing. Specifically, they accuse Trump University of charging a lot of money but not giving the students much for their value; in other words, offering a product of low value at a high price. By comparison, the journalists are manipulating and deceiving people. The journalists are behaving worse than Trump University.

Today we do not merely tolerate secrecy and anonymity on the Internet, we believe that it is protecting all of us from... what? How are you being protected, and what are you being protected from?

The Internet is just a communication system, similar to the human voice. You would not want to participate in a meeting in which people were wearing masks, so why participate in conversations on the Internet when people are behaving in the same manner?

Getting back to Einstein, he is the only person the Jews can hold up as evidence that Jews are intelligent. If he is exposed as a fraud, the Jews have nobody to boast about. Although there have been a lot of Jews with excellent math and music abilities, has there ever been a Jew who has impressed us with his intelligence?

Incidentally, regarding the math abilities of the human mind, I wonder if people would do better at math if we were using base 8. If our mind has some type of arithmetic unit, it would operate in base 2, and so we might perform math faster and more accurately if we were using base 8 rather than base 10. Perhaps somebody who knows base 8 as well as base 10 could do some tests with himself.

Also, mathematicians have found lots of interesting patterns and tricks with numbers, but they are only looking at base 10. What sort of patterns and tricks would they discover with base 8? Would the prime numbers be any different? What sort of interesting tricks would they discover for multiplication and division?

One aspect of Einstein that amazes me is that his theory that light bends as it passes a strong gravitational field was published in 1801 by a German man, Johann Georg von Soldner. How could Einstein get credit for a theory that had been published 100 years earlier? One physicist, Philipp Lenard, accused Einstein of plagiarizing Soldner, but the other physicists ignored the issue.

I suppose the reason the physicists were silent about Einstein's plagiarism is because the people 100 years ago were behaving exactly like people do today. Specifically, the Jews harass, threaten, murder, and torment those of us who expose their crimes, and they also try to get their critics arrested or committed to mental hospitals. The majority of people behave like apathetic, selfish sheep who ignore what the Jews are doing rather than provide us with support.

Today the Internet is helping us stand up to the Jews, but 100 years ago it must have been extremely difficult. I can understand why a physicist 100 years ago would have given up trying to expose Einstein. He would be alone among a horde of apathetic sheeple, and he would be harassed constantly by a pack of vicious, envious, hateful, murderous Jews. He could not possibly fight the Jews by himself. He would have no option except to give up.

Another amazing aspect of Einstein is that the Nobel Prize committee has a timeline that shows the history of the theory of relativity, and they have a remark that supports the theory that Einstein was a plagiarist, but they don't provide details. For example, their paragraph about what happened in the year 1915 is:


Why didn't Hilbert claim priority? Was he also pressured by Jews into remaining silent? Why doesn't the Nobel prize committee care about this issue?

Incidentally, many people describe Einstein as a "plagiarist", but I'm not sure if that is a good description. Plagiarism is copying some material from another person and mixing it in with your own, but did Einstein have any original material of his own? If not, then he wasn't mixing other people's work into his own work; rather, he was taking other people's work and claiming that it was his own. We need a new word to describe what Einstein did. We could refer to it as "einsteining". In other words, when somebody takes credit for somebody else's work, he is not "plagiarizing" the other person; rather, he is "einsteining" the person. We could criticize people who do this as "He is another Einstein".

If the Internet did not exist, our primary source of information about the world would be the television, newspapers, and magazines. If it were not for the Internet, we would be in serious trouble. Most of us would still believe that Arabs living in caves had attacked us on 9/11, and that Einstein was the most intelligent human. Most of us would also still believe that Jews are the most honest, peaceful, and loving race of humans, and that it is our duty to protect them from anti-Semites and Nazis.

The Internet shows us how important it is for us to discard our current government and economic systems and create one that is going to prevent people from getting control of the school curriculum, elections, and media.

Instead of boasting about our Constitution, we should face the fact that we got into this mess because our government system is too crude to deal with the problems of the modern world. We need to develop a better government and economic system, but we should not design it according to what we are personally attracted to. We have to exert enough self-control to suppress our selfish cravings and think about what would create a stable, pleasant society for all of us as a group.

Two of the important services that the Internet is providing us are:

The Internet is changing the world because it allows us to analyze events, such as 9/11, the Holocaust, and the Zionist movement, and it allows us to discuss our ideas with one another. The lesson to learn from this is that history is valuable, but only if we analyze it and learn from it. It is worthless to memorize it.

If we had to depend upon Jews for information about Einstein, we would believe that he was the most intelligent human ever, but when we have access to historical information through the Internet, we can easily discover that some of his brilliant theories were created 100 years before.

The illustrations in Luttrell Psalter (entire book here), created about around 1330, show both men and women wore crude dresses that were kept closed with a string around the waist.

Schools teach children to memorize historical facts and figures, but history is of use to us only if we learn from it. For example, as I discussed in a previous document, by analyzing clothing during the past few thousand years, we can see why men today are wearing pants and women wear dresses. Without an understanding of the history of clothing styles, people will come to ridiculous conclusions about why women wear dresses, such as by blaming men for being "sexist".

Schools teach engineers and scientists to first analyze the history of their particular field before trying to solve problems. Schools teach them to learn from the mistakes of other people rather than make the same mistakes. However, we are not applying that concept to social issues.

An example is our drug policies. Very few people have the attitude of a scientist who wants to first analyze the drug policies of previous generations and try to learn from their mistakes. Instead, most people create drug policies without any analysis of history. They ignore the previous generations.

Every generation in every nation develops the same drug policy because everybody is ignoring everybody else and creating drug policies according to their emotional feelings. Since all humans have the same emotions, different people in different nations and different eras create the exact same drug policy.

Animals bite, kick, scratch, and hit one another in order to control one another's behavior. When most people create a drug policy, they merely follow their monkey-like cravings to hit and bite people who behave incorrectly. This causes people to develop the policy that we can solve the problem of drugs simply by hurting the drug dealers and drug users with jail and beatings.

If our schools were giving teenagers hundreds of assignments to analyze historical events and identify mistakes that we can learn from, then at least some of those teenagers would become adults who had become so accustomed to analyzing history that before they created some brilliant policy on drugs, abortion, or crime, they would first want to look at history to see if there is something they can learn from the previous generations.

Most people do not have the intellectual ability to provide an impressive analysis of history, but everybody has enough intelligence to learn something from history. For example, everybody who has a job is capable of learning how to do his job better by learning from the mistakes of people who have done the job before him. A person does not need to be a genius in order to learn from history. Nobody can use the excuse that they are too stupid.

You might respond that people are already learning from history, so I am suggesting that schools do something we already do. However, there is a subtle difference in what we are doing now and what I am suggesting. Right now the schools are putting emphasis on memorizing historical information rather than analyzing it in order to learn from it. It doesn't make any sense to teach children to memorize history, anyway, because there is too much of it. It would be more sensible to give children practice in finding information and analyzing it.

Another advantage to giving teenagers assignments to analyze history is that it allows the teachers to pass judgment on which of the students is better able to do it. By restricting leadership positions to people who have shown a better ability to learn from other people's mistakes, we will provide ourselves with leaders who can bring improvements to society, as opposed to what we have right now, which is a group of monkeys who mimic their ancestors and repeat the mistakes of previous generations.

Everybody is selfish, biased, and arrogant, but journalists and other people in influential positions should meet higher standards than those we set for the ordinary person. Journalists should show an above-average ability to control themselves and provide us with reasonably intelligent news reports. Unfortunately, our media has been taken over by a group of criminal Jews, and they have no desire to inform us of world events. Rather, they are struggling to manipulate our opinions and control the future of the world. They are trying to make us dislike certain people and admire certain other people, and they suppress the people and ideas that they don't want us to know about.

For example, when most Americans did not show any interest in supporting Apple in their fight with the FBI, Gawker Media responded with an article with the title:
Why You Should Care About Apple’s Fight With the FBI

It is also interesting to note that Gawker published an article with the title:

The 227-Year-Old Statute Being Used to Order Apple to Endanger Your Privacy, Explained

That article says the All Writs law, which the FBI is using to justify getting access to the phone data, is 227 years old, and that it made sense when it was first written, but "you can see how it is ripe for misuse today."

In the video that I made of the Jew who was trying to smuggle diseased eucalyptus leaves into Australia, you can hear the Jew respond, "it's not my law!" when he was told that it was against the law to bring such items into Australia. After he made that remark, he asked the customs agent when the law was created, and the agent responded that it was created in 1901. The Jew then made sarcastic remarks about the "old" law. I did not include his remark in the video because the audio is not too good and his remark is so stupid, but I made this audio excerpt of that section in case you want to hear it:
Australian-Jew-quarantine-law.mp3 206 K bytes
The video I made of the Jew is in the form of a Windows wmv video:
Jew-smuggles-diseases.wmv 20 mbytes
A transcript of that video is here.

The reason I bring this issue to your attention is that the Australian Jew and Gawker Media are doing something that we all have a tendency to do; namely, whatever we can think of to justify our opinions, even if it is hypocritical or stupid. For example, when a person does not approve of a law, he may complain that it is an "old" law that is outdated and ripe for misuse, but if he approves of an old law, he is likely to boast that it has "stood the test of time" and proven itself to be useful, and that we would be foolish to fix something that is working perfectly.

Ideally, we would pass judgment on who among us is doing a better job of providing sensible supporting evidence for their opinions, and we would restrict journalism and other influential positions to the people who are better than average. We cannot expect perfection from anybody, but our journalists are producing reports that are so stupid that we ought to fire them.

At the end of February 2016, a journalist traveled to the headquarters of Hillary Clinton's campaign in South Carolina to find out what they were doing. She was told that some of the people were making phone calls to voters in order to promote Hillary Clinton, and that one of the people was a 10-year-old girl. The reporter was surprised that such a young girl would volunteer to call voters, and she decided to interview her. At the end of the interview she asked the girl what she thought about Donald Trump, and the girl provided a lot of insulting remarks about him.

Some journalists ignored everything in the interview except the girl's insults about Trump. A journalist at MIC created this article with the title:
Watch This 10-Year-Old Girl's Epic Takedown of Donald Trump

A journalist at the Huffington Post created this article with the title:
Adorable 10-Year-Old Hillary Clinton Volunteer Rips Donald Trump

A journalist at the Independent wrote this news article with the title:
10-year-old girl comes up with three important reasons Donald Trump should never be President

I would say these articles are examples of the expression "scraping the bottom of the barrel" in an attempt to tarnish Trump's image. Any adult who cares what a 10-year-old girl thinks about a presidential candidate should be disqualified from voting, and journalists who create such articles should be fired for not having the sense to know the difference between news and entertainment.

That 10-year-old girl was given publicity for her idiotic insults about Trump's hair, and I suppose part of the reason she and so many people like to insult his hair is because they don't understand the value of hair, so let me explain it.

Trump's hair does not seem to be natural. My guess is that he had some type of hair transplant, and that he also uses hairspray to hide the transplant area. If his hair is natural, then there is something abnormal with his hair or the shape of his head.

The natural tendency of animals, especially when they are young, is to torment the people who are different or defective. Trump's unusual hair is stimulating our bullying characteristic.

If Trump were honest and admitted that he had a hair transplant, it would reduce the number of jokes. Unfortunately, in the world today, most people are afraid to be honest about themselves. Probably everybody is hiding something about themselves or deceiving us about some aspect of their life. It is not natural for us to be honest. We are in competition with one another for status and mates, and we want to impress people, not be honest with them. We have a natural tendency to create a phony image of ourselves.

We should exert some control over our emotions and put pressure on ourselves and other people to be honest, but we follow our emotions instead.

Businesses exploit our cravings rather than provide us with guidance. They provide us with a variety of cosmetics and surgeries to make us look better, and they hide our medical records. We are also allowed to hide our job history and school records. By encouraging people to lie about themselves, we make our situation worse because it puts pressure on everybody to lie simply to become equal to the other liars.

Although we do not want to be honest about ourselves, I think we would create a better social environment if we eliminated secrecy, put everybody's information in a public database so that we could see the truth about other people, and put pressure on everybody to accept what they are and stop trying to deceive us.

What difference does it make if people discover that Trump has had a hair transplant? How would that information ruin his life? What harm would there be if we could look in a database and discover which women were dying their hair? How would anybody suffer if we could see who among us has diabetes, insomnia, or tooth decay?

If we put information about everybody on the Internet, we would discover that everybody has something wrong with them. Why should we encourage people to hide their unpleasant qualities and pretend that they are perfect? Who benefits from this farce?

We are encouraging paranoia and secrecy, and we are making it difficult to find friends and a compatible spouse. The secrecy also makes it difficult for us to figure out who to hire for a job, including government positions. We don't know much of anything about our political candidates.

Rather than react with paranoia and fear that somebody will discover the truth about you, try to find a more intelligent way of dealing with the issue. For example, in regards to men who are bald, instead of pretending that they have hair, they should admit that they are bald, and admit that they would rather have hair than be bald. What is wrong with admitting that we prefer hair to baldness?

Hair is not merely a decoration; hair serves some very useful purposes. I would say that its most useful purpose is that it is like whiskers on a cat. When you are about to hit your head on an object, your hairs contact the object first, and usually you react so quickly that you do not hurt your head.

When I first began going bald, I hit my head all the time on objects. It took years to become accustomed to being careful of where my head is, and even today I hit my head all the time on objects. It helps to wear a hat or cap, especially when doing something like gardening, where I might scrape my head against branches or thorns.

Another value of hair is protection against the sun and cold weather. And yet another problem with being bald is that the headsets that have a thin strip along the top are extremely uncomfortable because it presses into our skin. I solve that problem by putting some foam rubber on that section of my headset.

In regards to the advantages of baldness, I have not yet been able to find any. If there was a simple way of putting hair back on my head, I would do it. Baldness is annoying.

If baldness is so awful, why do so many men shave their head? I think most of the men who are shaving their head are doing so because they are going bald, and they think they look younger or better if they shave their head. Also, some men have a lifestyle that doesn't cause them to hit their head very often, so being bald is more tolerable to them. Some men have tougher skin, also.

The men who are getting hair transplants are trying to keep it a secret, but secrecy and deception is not a sensible policy. It would be better to educate people about the value of hair, and to tell the men and women with hair transplants, wigs, or toupees to admit the truth rather than try to deceive us.

Ideally, reproduction would be restricted to men who have hair. Hair transplants and other techniques are not a solution to baldness. At the moment the human race has more important things to worry about, such as restricting reproduction to people whose brains are functioning properly, but eventually future generations should eliminate baldness.

Why was that 10-year-old girl allowed to join a group of adults who are calling people on the telephone to promote Hillary Clinton? Most of us are already irritated by the adults who do telemarketing; why should we allow children to do political telemarketing? Imagine if people went even further and had children making phone calls to tell us what to think about carbon taxes, religion, gay marriage, and foreign affairs.

Businesses and political groups use children in their advertisements and campaigns because women are titillated by children, and they use pretty women to titillate the men. Ideally, consumers would be disgusted with this manipulation, not enjoy it. Advertisements that use children to titillate women should be criticized as being a form of "female pornography".

Our legal system describes something as "pornography" if it doesn't have "redeeming social value", but that definition is so vague that we could say a lot of things are pornography. We could say most television shows don't have any redeeming value, and neither does gambling or lotteries. And what redeeming social value does diamond jewelry have? Is there any redeeming social value in chewing gum?

I think the human race created the concept of pornography because we have an emotional conflict in our mind in regards to sexual issues. We have both an attraction to sexual issues and inhibitions about them. You can visualize this as a graph in which an activity is placed towards the right if it stimulates our inhibitions, and to the top if it stimulates pleasure.

A mother with her baby stimulates pleasure but not our inhibitions, so that activity would be placed along the upper left edge of the graph in the green area, and everybody would consider it to be acceptable in public.

When a man and woman embrace and kiss each other, our inhibitions will be stimulated to a slight extent, so that activity would be placed slightly farther to the right in the graph.

An image of sexual activities stimulate our sexual inhibitions and our pleasurable emotions, so it would be placed in the upper right, in the blue area. If it is an unnatural sex act, it would be lower down towards the red area.

What this graph is intended to show is that we are labeling something as "pornography" if it titillates both our sexual inhibitions and our pleasure at the same time, and the more intense the stimulation, the more pornographic we consider it to be. We are not using our intelligence to define pornography; rather, we are following our emotions. We are judging an activity according to how uncomfortable it makes us feel.

If something stimulates our inhibitions but not our pleasurable emotions, then we are likely to regard it as disgusting rather than as pornographic. For example, when dogs eat their vomit, our inhibitions are stimulated, but not our pleasurable emotions, and so we consider it to be disgusting. These activities would be placed near the lower right corner of the graph in the red area.

Most people assume that if something stimulates their inhibitions, it is dangerous to children, but sexual material is not dangerous to anybody. Children are not harmed when their inhibitions or sexual feelings are stimulated. If children were to grow up in a world in which they regularly saw nudity and sex acts, they would become adults who don't have any fascination with sex or nudity. In such a case, their inhibitions would simply cause them to wear clothing and keep their sex activities in private. We do not want to watch the activities at the lower right corner of the graph. It does not hurt us to see them; rather, we just don't want to. They are analogous to bad tasting foods.

You will not die if you taste something unpleasant, and you will not suffer. Rather, you will avoid that food in the future. Our prehistoric ancestors could observe childbirth, sex, masturbation, and people pooping. Their reaction was to avoid those activities and do them in private. If we had the same access to those activities, we would do exactly the same. We would not hurt ourselves.

Courtship and sex is intended to determine which male and female animals will reproduce. It is not intended to be a recreational activity. Nature does not even care whether the male or female animals enjoy the act of sex. All that matters is that the animals reproduce.

When men use videos of sex to stimulate their sexual emotions, they are doing something that is unnatural. There is nothing wrong with it, except that - as with food - it is possible for a person to do it to such an extreme that they hurt themselves or society. For example, some people have had to go to the hospital after they hurt themselves while masturbating with unnatural objects. Those people are a burden on our health care system, and their medical problems can interfere with their job.

When a man uses a video of unnatural sex acts to stimulate himself, he might develop unnatural sexual fantasies, and that might cause him to push his wife into doing something that irritates her, or which is dangerous. A man might also stimulate himself so much that he wants excessive amounts of sex, thereby irritating his wife, or causing him to seek other women or prostitutes for sex, which in turn can cause marital problems, spread diseases, and create unwanted pregnancies.

These concepts apply to areas besides sexual issues. For example, we are attracted to material items, so the people who stimulate themselves with brochures and fantasies of material wealth may stimulate themselves to such an extent that they start craving items that they have no use for, or they may crave excessive quantities of items. Their extreme cravings can cause them to waste their time and money, and irritate their family members.

Everybody occasionally motivates himself in some manner. For example, in a previous document I mentioned that Mark Cuban said that he would motivate himself into making money by driving around the wealthy neighborhoods and fantasize about living in the giant mansions. Some fat people motivate themselves into losing weight, and some sickly people motivate themselves into getting exercise, and many people motivate themselves into cleaning their house or doing yard work.

What is the difference between motivating ourselves and masturbating? Both activities are a form of self-stimulation. The difference between them is that we do them for different purposes. When we masturbate, we do so purely for pleasure, whereas when we motivate ourselves, we are stimulating ourselves in order to push ourselves into doing some type of work, or dealing with some problem.

A lot of people are embarrassed to admit that they masturbate, but nobody seems to be embarrassed to admit that they motivate themselves. The common attitude is that motivation is beneficial, and that people who motivate themselves are admirable. Unfortunately, life is not that simple. We could say that a lot of people are motivating themselves for idiotic purposes, or in idiotic manners.

To complicate the issue of motivation, we have to consider whether a person is motivating himself to do something that he has the ability to do. For example, there are thousands of people who are motivating themselves to become a professional athlete but who do not have the ability to become a professional athlete. A person cannot know if he has the ability until he tries, but after a certain number of years, it becomes obvious as to whether a person has the potential. However, many people continue motivating themselves despite the evidence that they will never achieve their goal. We could say those people are fools who are wasting their life by motivating themselves for a goal that they cannot achieve.

In this modern world, each of us needs to make intelligent decisions about what we are motivating ourselves for, and our society needs to consider what we want to encourage the children to motivate themselves for. It might be easier for you to understand this concept if you imagine if 100% of the teenage boys were stimulating themselves every day with magazines and videos of famous musicians in order to motivate themselves into practicing music. Imagine every teenage boy in America spending his leisure time practicing music. Obviously this would be detrimental to the nation because only a few of them would become successful musicians, and most of them would become adults who have no useful skills. Furthermore, some of them might become bitter, envious, or angry that they failed to become a famous musician, thereby hurting the morale of the nation.

Motivation is not necessarily beneficial. It depends on why you are doing it, and what effect you have on society. During prehistoric times, people could motivate themselves over whatever they wanted because they had only a small number of sensible goals, such as finding food, taking care of their family, and creating tools. In this modern world, however, we have a tremendous number of possible goals, and many people are motivating themselves for goals that will not truly improve their lives, such as winning an Academy Award or becoming a billionaire.

Our culture has a significant effect on the goals of the people and what they motivate themselves to do. We should design our culture so that children are encouraged to do something useful. Consider the issue of sports to understand this. Most nations offer extreme wealth and fame to thousands of different athletes, and the result is that a large number of their children are spending hours every day practicing athletic events.

There are thousands of people in America who are practicing to do tricks on their skateboards, BMX bikes, and surfboards. Others are practicing baseball, weightlifting, or throwing a javelin. Although there are some people who play sports for pleasure or exercise, there are a significant number who are motivating themselves to an extreme in order to win awards or become a professional athlete. Many of them suffer serious injuries in the process, and sometimes brain damage. Their medical problems are a burden on society.

As the other extreme would be a society that regards sports as recreational activities for our leisure time, and did not support any professional athletes. They would not give a prize to the winner of a sports event. Instead, since we become hot and thirsty from sports, they might give all of the contestants a carved watermelon to share.

In that type of society, children would have no incentive to practice sports because there would be no reward for winning a contest. The children would play sports purely for fun and exercise, and they would find some other activity for their career.

This concept also applies to material wealth. In a free enterprise system, we are offered phenomenal rewards for becoming successful in business, and this causes a significant number of people to motivate themselves into making money through investments, developing popular products, or becoming a famous actor. However, most of them fail to become wealthy, and in the process they can cause a lot of frustration and problems for themselves and their family, and some of them create a lot of idiotic, dangerous, and worthless products and services.

The people who are successful in the free enterprise system are not necessarily any more beneficial than the people who fail. I would say that the people who become billionaires are a nuisance because they expect us to be peasants who pamper them with absurd amounts of material items. I think this is a waste of resources, and it creates an unpleasant social environment. I cannot see any sensible justification for treating some members as Kings and Queens. Can you?

Imagine a society that went to such an extreme that everybody had virtually the same level of material wealth. In that society, nobody could become wealthy, so nobody would waste any of his life stimulating himself with fantasies of goldplated items in order to motivate himself into becoming a billionaire. Nobody in that society would waste his time analyzing investments, either. The people in that society would find something else to do with their lives.

The culture of a society has a significant effect on what people do with their lives. Humans have strong cravings for status, material wealth, babies, sex, and food. When we offer those items as rewards, we encourage people to pursue whatever goals offer those rewards. Ideally, we would offer rewards only for activities that are going to be beneficial.

Furthermore, we must consider the effect that the rewards are going to have on the social environment. For example, when we offer people phenomenal amounts of material wealth and status, we create a social environment that consists of a small number of wealthy and pampered Kings and Queens who are served by a large number of peasants. I think this creates an undesirable environment regardless of whether the people become wealthy by winning sports contests, lotteries, inheritances, acting, or developing a popular candy. I think we will create a more pleasant social environment when the people are more equal to one another.

I suggest experimenting with a society in which we do not offer large amounts of material wealth or status to anybody for any reason. I think awards should be insignificant, such as providing a carved watermelon to everybody who participates in a sports event. Another way of dealing with awards is, as I suggested in this previous document, to give a person a "reusable" trophy; that is, he keeps the trophy only until the next winner is selected, and then he gives it to the new winner.

The rewards we offer people also affect other aspects of life, such as drug use and crime. For example, by offering phenomenal amounts of wealth and fame to people who are successful in athletics and bodybuilding, we inadvertently encourage a lot of people to use steroids, insulin, growth hormones, and other drugs in order to improve their athletic abilities.

Most people believe that we can stop athletes from abusing drugs by putting them through regular drug tests and by making the drugs illegal, but a better way is to stop offering phenomenal rewards to athletes.

Athletes have been inadvertently encouraging the use of steroids and other drugs for decades, and during the past 5 or so years many Hollywood celebrities have begun using human growth hormone and other drugs to improve the appearance of their body. Some of the celebrities have referred to human growth hormone as a "fountain of youth".

You don't need to know anything about biology to realize that human growth hormone is not a fountain of youth. All you have to do is look at the people who have naturally high levels of growth hormone and notice that they do not live longer than everybody else. Instead, their body grows excessively, often in an unpleasant manner, and they die earlier than normal. The higher their level of that hormone, the more deformed they become and the sooner they die. For example, Robert Wadlow grew to a height of 8 feet 11.1 inches (2.72 meters), and he died at age 22. He was still growing at the time he died, so it makes you wonder how tall he would have become after another 22 years.

If a person takes a small amount of growth hormone, it may not have any effect because his body should compensate by reducing its own production, but when people take large amounts for a long time, it causes everything in their body to grow. You can figure out if a bodybuilder is taking large amounts by looking at his belly. Human growth hormone will make his belly protrude, but not in the same manner as a person who is fat because he is not producing fat. Rather, his intestines and everything else grows larger.

Some bodybuilders have veins that look like extremely meandering rivers. Perhaps this is due to growth hormones causing the veins to grow, but since the veins have no place to expand into, they start twisting and folding. How could that help us to live longer?

A person might benefit from a hormone if he has an abnormally low level of the hormone, but people who have adequate levels of a hormone, or excessive levels, will not benefit by taking more of it.

Since our bodies tend to produce less hormones as we get older, many older people benefit from hormone supplements, but that doesn't prove that hormones are a fountain of youth. Rather, the hormone supplements are simply compensating for - to a certain extent - the deterioration of old age. Unfortunately, supplements cannot counteract the process of aging, so eventually everybody is going to deteriorate regardless of his diet, sleeping habits, exercise programs, and supplements.

I would guess that the people who live the longest are those who have bodies that are doing the best job of maintaining proper levels of hormones, salts, and other chemicals.

Bodybuilders are willing to take excessive amounts of hormones simply because it allows them to develop unnaturally large muscles, and they are willing to accept the protruding belly and the possibility that they will die younger than normal.

Some bodybuilders have posted videos on the Internet in which they honestly describe the unpleasant side effects of growth hormone, but Hollywood celebrities are more likely to describe growth hormone as a fountain of youth. The Hollywood celebrities have a warped view of life, and I suppose it is because Hollywood is attracting unhappy and mentally ill people who are hoping that wealth and fame will cure them of their misery.

Some celebrities may be miserable because they have a naturally low level of some hormone, and so they might feel better if they take supplements of that hormone, but if they feel better with a certain hormone supplement, we cannot assume that we will also feel better by taking that hormone. Rather, it shows that the celebrity's body has a problem with that hormone.

In this modern world, we have a lot of different ways to titillate ourselves, such as with videos, drugs, audio recordings, and electrical stimulation. Future generations might have the additional option of implanting electrodes into their brain. Each of us also has thousands of possible goals to choose from, and a society has unlimited options for its economy, school system, legal system, social affairs, recreational activities, and holidays.

We should make wise decisions about how to spend our lives, how to design our cities, and how to design our society, but how do we figure out what would be the best for us?

Although we like to think that we are super geniuses who know virtually everything about life, none of us can figure out what type of social environment we will be happiest with, or what type of goals we should pursue in life. We need to experiment with life, and the best way to do this would be to let different cities experiment with their culture, and then learn from one another.

For an example of how complicated these issues can be, consider weddings. Weddings are very significant to women because female animals have a natural resistance to sex and male animals. When a female finally chooses a mate, it is a very important event in her life. To a woman, a marriage is a significant transition, almost like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. By comparison, to a man, a marriage is more similar to purchasing a home.

Businesses and churches take advantage of a woman's interest in weddings by offering lots of products and services for weddings. The brochures and catalogs of wedding materials are the female equivalent of Playboy magazines. The brochures titillate the women, and there are so many brochures that it is possible for teenage girls to waste hundreds of hours jerking themselves off with the catalogs of wedding dresses and wedding decorations, and by titillating themselves with fantasies of being the center of attention at their wedding.

What is the difference between:
1) a teenage girl who stimulates herself with catalogs of wedding dresses.
2) a teenage boy who stimulates himself with sexual photos.
3) a poor person who stimulates himself with advertisements for mansions.
4) an athlete who stimulates himself with fantasies of winning the Olympics.

All four of those people are stimulating themselves. The only difference between them is that they are stimulating different emotions, and for different purposes. However, all four of those people could go to such an extreme with the self-stimulation that they waste so much of their leisure time that it interferes with their relationships, education, and job opportunities.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have catalogs of wedding dresses or brochures for honeymoons. To our distant ancestors, a wedding was just a fun, casual, social affair. Today a wedding is an expensive and complex operation, and women may waste thousands of hours of their life titillating themselves with wedding fantasies.

When a man watches a video of abnormal sex acts, he might develop cravings to try some of the odd sex acts, which can irritate his wife, and sometimes cause medical problems. The same concept applies to women who look through wedding brochures. They might develop cravings for certain types of wedding services or honeymoons that result in financial problems, stress, or arguments.

Our culture is currently drifting about aimlessly, and it has a tendency to drift in the direction that stimulates our emotions to the greatest extreme. Our culture does not become more intelligent through the years. Rather, it offers us more emotional stimulation. Weddings have evolved through the centuries to become increasingly stimulating, not increasingly sensible.

The free enterprise system adds to the problem of our culture becoming increasingly idiotic because the businesses are competing to attract our attention, and the easiest way to attract our attention is by stimulating us with something pleasurable. Every year the businesses provide us with more types of candies, for example, and more types of artificial flavors, sodas, and alcoholic beverages. The businesses are experimenting with ways to titillate us to a greater extreme; they are not experimenting with ways to make our lives better.

Every year businesses offer more products and services for weddings, receptions, and honeymoons. The free enterprise system is not making weddings more pleasant each year; rather, they are adding more complexity and expenses.

After a wedding is over, I have heard many people make a remark about how they would arrange for a more simple wedding if they had to do it again. Many people come to the conclusion that they got carried away with their wedding options, and that they didn't really enjoy it because it was too complex, time-consuming, and expensive.

People often regret their wedding decisions, but not many people learn from the mistakes of other people. Every generation tends to make the same mistakes as the previous generation.

Our primitive ancestors did not have to think about what to do, and they did not have to learn from the mistakes of previous generations. They could do whatever they pleased. It was impossible for them to waste their time or money on extreme wedding decorations and services simply because they didn't have the technology to do much of anything for the wedding, and they didn't have money or businesses.

Today we have the ability to take a lot of activities to absurd extremes. We need to think more often about what to do with our lives. We need to start experimenting with culture to figure out what provides us with the most pleasant life. We have to stop assuming that happiness comes from titillating ourselves.

A wedding is a significant event to a woman, so she wants the wedding to be a special day in her life. Women also have strong cravings to be pampered princesses. As a result of these emotions, women tend to design weddings so that the bride is the center of attention. A modern wedding is essentially a worshiping of the bride. The people who attend the wedding are in the role of peasants who give gifts and praise to their queen.

Weddings during prehistoric times were probably casual, fun affairs, but I think our modern weddings have evolved into absurdly complex and boring affairs. I think we should experiment with different types of weddings.

These five siblings decided to get married on the same day and share the wedding ceremony.

For an example of what we might experiment with, a city could arrange "Wedding Festivals" for each neighborhood. Instead of each couple arranging for their own private wedding, the city would arrange for a festival in which several couples within a neighborhood get married at the same time. This would make a wedding a community affair.

Since the city would arrange the wedding festivals, none of the people getting married would have to be bothered making wedding arrangements. They would simply attend the festival. Since people have a tendency to get married on the same days, wedding festivals would make it much easier on everybody because we would not have conflicts in regards to the facilities for weddings, or on which wedding to attend.

Furthermore, in a city in which material items and homes are free, there would be no giftgiving at weddings or other affairs. Everybody would be provided with a free home and free furnishings, so weddings would be purely for fun rather than partly to help the married couple acquire some of the material items they need to start their life together.

In our cities today, people are too incompatible to share a wedding ceremony. People dislike one another, speak different languages, follow incompatible religions, eat different foods, and are fearful of one another. However, imagine living in the type of city that I've described in which immigration is controlled, organized religions are prohibited, and people are free to move to any vacant home in any neighborhood of the city. In such a city, the people in each neighborhood could become so homogenous and friendly that they enjoy having neighborhood wedding festivals.

Women have such a strong craving to be the center of attention that they would probably put up resistance to wedding festivals, but until we experiment with different types of social environments, we cannot be sure of what will provide us with the most pleasant life overall.

Another important concept to keep in mind when you are considering possible changes to society is that the fantasies and goals that you have right now, and the activities that you enjoy right now, are not likely to be what the future generations want, and you may not want them, either, if you were to live in a different social environment.

If we were to create some new cities, and if we provided them with a more sensible social environment, then the children in those cities will grow up in a significantly different environment. They are likely to develop slightly different attitudes and goals compared to what you developed during your childhood.

Children in America are growing up in an environment in which they are surrounded by people they don't like, and they are constantly manipulated by businesses and journalists. They are also growing up in a sexually disturbed, prudish society that promotes toilet humor and sexual titillation but does not provide any serious information about human bodies or sex. By the time children are finished with their teenage years, many of them are lonely, confused, and frustrated. They spend a lot of their early adult years looking for friends and a spouse. Many of them are frightened of marriage. Many of them are also worried about finding jobs and paying their college debts.

Imagine what a child's life might be like if he were to grow up in the type of city that I've described in other documents. Imagine a child growing up in a neighborhood in which the people are friendly and homogenous. Everybody in the neighborhood speaks the same language, and there is so little crime that the children are not taught to be afraid of strangers. The children spend their leisure time playing with children, even during the evenings.

Imagine that the schools teach the children about human bodies, and the children see nudity at public beaches. When they become teenagers, they are sent to Teentown, and by that time they have seen enough nudity and sex that they are no longer giggling at it, or fascinated by it. The teenage boys do not waste their time wondering what is underneath a girl's clothing.


Teentown puts the teenagers into close contact with one another, similar to a group of people on a camping trip, and similar to a group of sailors on a ship. This will allow the teenagers to get to know one another much more intimately than they do today, and that will help them to develop long-lasting friendships.

The city provides everybody with free food, homes, education, and material items, so none of the teenagers would worry about unemployment or homelessness. The city is responsible for helping people find jobs, so the city officials ensure that the schools are providing the teenagers with useful skills. The teenagers do not have to figure out by themselves what to study and how to find a job. The schools help them determine their desires and abilities, and gives them predictions of what jobs will be available when they get out of school.

The adults also arrange courtship activities for the teenagers, and eventually they may figure out how to design such effective activities that most teenagers find a spouse while at Teentown. A few centuries from now, there might not be many people over the age of 20 who are still looking for a spouse.

Teenagers in that type of city are likely to accumulate a lot of pleasant memories. They would not suffer from nearly as much frustration, loneliness, or confusion as teenagers are suffering from today. Many of them will form friendships that are much more stable and satisfying than those of today. They might have so much fun doing things together that they enjoy having weddings together.

If you still have trouble believing that a couple would want to be part of a community wedding festival, consider how often people like doing things with their friends right now, such as having dinner together, or going to a music concert together, or engaging in some recreational activity together. Sometimes we enjoy doing something by ourselves, but there are a lot of activities that we prefer to do with other people.

Furthermore, some people enjoy doing things with the people they work with, even if they are not close friends. Many people in a business or military unit enjoy getting together for dinner, Christmas parties, recreational activities, or other events. We do not have to be close friends with a person in order to enjoy talking with him; competing with him in a recreational event; or listening to him play music at a wedding.

If we were living in a more homogenous city, then employees would be even more compatible than employees are today, and so they would be even more willing to have meals together and engage in recreational activities together. And if the people also did as I suggested in other documents, which is to allow businesses to discriminate against employees so that they can produce more compatible teams, then the employees of a business might be so compatible that they like one of the suggestions I made in another document, which is to make the lunch about 3 hours long so that they have plenty of time for recreational activities, and to allow them to enjoy the daytime.

When you also consider that the businesses in this type of city would be competing to bring improvements to society rather than looking for ways to exploit consumers in order to make a few investors and executives extremely wealthy, the employees are likely to have greater job satisfaction than employees do today. Combine that with a more compatible group of employees, and you end up with people who are likely to look forward to going to work because it would allow them to get together with their friends and do something that is of value for the human race.

You might have a difficult time imagining why anybody would want to get married in a group, or spend 3 hours every day at lunch with the people that they work with, but future generations who are living in a more pleasant social environment might prefer a lot of activities that we would never want to do today. The sailors on a Navy submarine eat their lunch together, and they have recreational activities together. Are they suffering as a result of doing things as a community?

Also, keep in mind that I suggest the city eliminate the peasant class, and that requires the people to share the unskilled labor tasks. A community wedding would be much more efficient, and the people in the future might prefer the efficiency because it allows them to spend more time enjoying the festivals and less time arranging them and cleaning up the mess.

Another issue to consider about the future cities is that there would be no overcrowding. The swimming pools would not be overcrowded, rectangular pits, as we see in the photo below. Instead, each city would be designed to handle its particular population level, and so there would never be overcrowding at any of the parks, restaurants, cafes, museums, or music concerts.


There would be enough restaurants, parks, swimming areas, bicycle paths, and other facilities to avoid overcrowding. Therefore, instead of people becoming disgusted with the crowds and fantasizing about getting away from the strangers, the people would be much more likely to enjoy one another, even if they did not know each other.

When you consider what you would like a new city to be, don't design it according to what you are fantasizing about right now. Many people today fantasize about large plots of land so that they can isolate themselves from other people. We want to get away from the noises, arguments, smoke, fumes, barking dogs, and bratty children of our neighbors.

Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that you know what you want from life. What you want from life will change according to the social environment you are living in; according to what you know about life; and according to which activities you have experienced. Your best policy is to control your arrogance and be willing to experiment with life.

As of today, you might not have any desire to get involved with the government, social affairs, or farms, and you may have no desire to participate in the maintenance of museum displays, or give a tour of the business you work at, or take a group of children through a hike in the forest. However, you might change your mind on some of those issues if you were living in a different type of city with a different economic and government system.

Today when you are finished with your work, you may want to get home, shut the door behind you, and ignore the other people in your city, but in a different social environment, you might prefer to spend almost every evening in the city at recreational activities, museums, restaurants, or social affairs. Instead of getting away from people, you might prefer to do things with them. You might discover that you enjoy occasionally participating with the people who design the city's festivals, or who are trying to figure out how to make the city's creeks and canals cope with rainwater, or on how to clean the water in the swimming pools without chlorine.

Take a look at the military. It puts people in close contact on submarines, ships, and barracks. Those people work, sleep, eat, and play together, but they were not selected according to their compatibility. The military is simply taking whoever volunteers and putting them into a team.

The military is proof that a group of strangers can live and work in harmony. In the city I'm suggesting, the situation would be even better because immigration would be controlled, and the people would be free to move to any of the homes they please. Through the years, this would result in each neighborhood consisting of people who are compatible with one another, and this would make it even easier for them to coexist than the people on a submarine. It would be equivalent to the military allowing the sailors on each ship to choose who they want on their ship. Through the years, this would cause each ship's crew to become an even more compatible group than they are right now.

Another reason that a city might prefer to have wedding festivals is because they might prefer to do what I've suggested in a previous document, which is to reduce the emphasis on weddings and put more emphasis on anniversaries. The city could also arrange for Anniversary Festivals for the neighborhoods in addition to wedding festivals. This would be a way for the neighborhood to celebrate the married couples.

In our world today, we encourage each person to focus on himself. We encourage people to get big houses, acquire lots of material items, and arrange for their own wedding and other parties. We encourage people to look for ways to satisfy themselves, and to regard other people as potential servants and peasants.

We might discover that we prefer community wedding festivals over private weddings for several reasons besides the greater efficiency. For example, consider the difference in attitude. At a private wedding, the participants tend to be in the role of peasants who are worshiping their queen, whereas a community wedding could easily be designed so that the people of a neighborhood are celebrating the couples getting married. The brides and grooms could be in the role of guests of honor of the festival.

Another advantage to a wedding festival is that there would be a lot more people involved, which could be useful for the single people. The bride might prefer to be the center of attention at her own wedding, but from the point of view of society, a wedding festival might be more fun and more beneficial.

The city officials would arrange for the wedding to celebrate the couples who are getting married. Since the city would provide material items for free, everybody at the wedding festival would be able to borrow whatever fancy clothing, jewelry, and party decorations they pleased.



This type of wedding would be fun for everybody because it would be a celebration of marriages rather than the worshiping of a bride. It would give people an opportunity to get together with their neighbors, participate in activities, get some exercise, and enjoy life.

If we can find enough people willing to experiment with new cities and new culture, we will start the process of learning what provides us with the most pleasant life. If we continue to do nothing, however, we will learn nothing about ourselves, and we will do nothing to improve our lives.

Most people think of "masturbation" as being sexual, but we could describe masturbation as any form of self-stimulation purely for the purpose of pleasure. For example, when people read a Superman comic book and titillate themselves with fantasies of being Superman, we could say they are masturbating because they are stimulating pleasurable emotions.

Most people also associate men with masturbation, but if we consider masturbation to be any form of self-stimulation, then women might be doing it just as often as men, but women are more likely to masturbate with different stimuli, such as babies.

The reason we don't criticize women for titillating themselves with children is because that behavior does not stimulate our inhibitions. Rather, we consider it to be normal, female behavior. Actually, it is a necessary part of raising children. Children learn language and social customs as a result of their mothers talking to them and playing with them.

Prehistoric women could do whatever they wanted to do with their children because they could not get carried away. In this modern world, however, women need to make intelligent decisions about what to do with their children. They should not do whatever brings them the most pleasure. I mentioned an extreme example in a previous document; namely, that some women have been caught making their children sick in order to keep their children in a helpless, dependent condition.

Is masturbation bad? Is it wrong for women to watch videos of giggling babies? Instead of considering masturbation to be good or bad, treat it the same as the concept of motivation. Specifically, whether masturbation is good or bad depends on how it affects your life, and how it affects society.

For example, imagine if women were spending as much time and money on videos of giggling babies as there are men spending time and money on sex videos. In such a case, most people would probably agree that the women are getting carried away with the self-stimulation and should find something more productive to do with their time and money. Also imagine if as many women wanted a baby robot as there are men who want a sex robot. In such a case, most people would agree that the businesses that make baby robots are wasting our technical talent and resources, and should find something more useful to do.

The same concept applies to weddings. Today it is possible for teenage girls to spend thousands of hours titillating themselves with wedding brochures and wedding fantasies. A young girl will not hurt herself by fantasizing about weddings once in a while, but it is possible for girls to waste so much time on these fantasies that they interfere with their life, education, and relationships.

The same is true of boys. During prehistoric times, there were no sex videos, but today it is possible for boys to waste so much time titillating themselves with sexual materials that it interferes with their life. They might also decide to get a job in a business that produces sex videos or sex robots instead of getting a job where they can do something productive for society.

Should we create sex videos? Do they actually make life better for us? If so, what type of videos are beneficial, and which ones encourage bad behavior, idiotic sexual activities, or arguments between couples? Should we prevent teenage boys having access to sexually titillating material? Does it interfere with their lives? Or does it help them to become better adults and better husbands?

I suspect that we would enjoy cosmetics, jewelry, and fancy clothing much more when it is available only for special occasions.

The same issues apply to the materials that titillate girls. Should we provide girls with unlimited access to wedding materials, jewelry, or cosmetics? Should we provide them with beauty pageants, cosmetics, and jewelry? Or should we restrict wedding materials to women who are engaged, and should we restrict jewelry and cosmetics to special occasions?

Another advantage to putting restrictions on what we can do is that it can make some activities more fun. For example, if cosmetics, jewelry, and fancy clothing were restricted to certain social occasions, then most of the time the women would be "natural" and wear "ordinary" clothing. Then, on the social occasions, such as wedding festivals, anniversary festivals, music concerts, and other types of parties and social occasions, the women would have access to cosmetics, jewelry, and fancy clothing.

This would make those occasions a lot more fun for both the men and the women. The reason is because of the same reason that food will taste better when you are hungry.

This policy would also be more efficient for society because the women would not be consuming so much cosmetics or fancy clothing. In a society without a peasant class, this would be a significant benefit.

If we could create some new cities and let each city experiment with their culture, then each city could experiment with different policies for these issues. This would allow us to learn from one another and get a better idea of what will provide us with the most pleasant life.

In regards to cosmetics, we could prohibit cosmetics for individual use. Instead of factories producing small containers of cosmetics for home use, they would provide cosmetics only for the designated "cosmetics stores" in certain neighborhood and city "shopping malls". Those cosmetic stores would resemble the "cosmetic counters" in cities today, except that the cosmetics would be free, and the women would not be able to take the cosmetics home.

During special occasions, these special shopping malls would open up, and women would be able to use whatever cosmetics they pleased. This would provide them with a greater variety of cosmetics. The people who work at the cosmetics stores would be similar to retail clerks, except that they would not be selling anything. They would only be there to assist the women and maintain the cosmetics.

Furthermore, by not letting them take the cosmetics home, it would reduce the clutter in their bathrooms, and reduce the chemicals that are poured down the sink. This would also reduce the labor and resources that are put into packaging, garbage disposal, and recycling.

The same concept could be applied to jewelry. These special shopping malls would also have some jewelry stores that open up for special occasions to provide the women with a tremendous variety of jewelry. The women would borrow whatever jewelry they wanted, and give it back when they are finished.

This concept could apply to fancy clothing, also. Instead of the women having gigantic closets with thousands of outfits that they wear only once or twice, the women would keep ordinary clothing at their home, and during special occasions the fancy clothing stores would open up and the women would borrow whatever clothing they pleased.

I should once again remind you that this system would only work if the women were more responsible than what we see in the world today. If we were to provide this system to a group of irresponsible, sloppy, or neurotic women, they would make a mess of the cosmetics area; they would not put jewelry or clothing back where they took it from; and they would abuse the clothing.

Have you noticed how many people make a mess of the displays of clothing at retail stores? Sales clerks must spend tremendous amounts of time cleaning up after the customers. In order to create a truly better city for ourselves, we have to restrict immigration to humans. The monkeys have to remain where they are.

Many women might respond that they cannot live without having lots of cosmetics in their bathroom, and that they must also have large closets with lots of clothing and jewelry. Many women have fantasies of having a house that is so large that they have walk-in closets. However, I think these fantasies are the result of people who cannot control their emotional cravings. We don't need gigantic houses or gigantic closets.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have cosmetics, and they did not have many articles of clothing, either. By restricting cosmetics, jewelry, and fancy clothing to special occasions, and by not letting the women keep them at their home, the homes do not need to be so large; we reduce the clutter at people's homes; and we reduce the amount of unskilled labor that we need to maintain society. I think we will also make the special occasions more interesting and fun.

In our cities today, this system would be impractical because homes and buildings are scattered across enormous amounts of land, which would require the women to waste a lot of time and resources traveling to the shopping malls in order to get access to the cosmetics and clothing, and then travel to the social affairs, and then travel back to the shopping malls to return the jewelry and clothing.

However, in the type of city I've suggested, in which people are living in neighborhoods that consist of clusters of tall buildings, these shopping malls would be placed near the base of the buildings in each of the neighborhoods, and there would be some of them in the city, also. The women would be able to stop at the shopping malls after getting out of the elevator, and then go on to their social affairs, and when they arrive back home, before they go up the elevator, they could return some of the jewelry and clothing. If they were too tired, or if the shopping mall was closed, they would return the items on another day. With the shopping malls only an elevator ride away, it would be easy for the women to return their items. It would be so simple that robots could be programmed to deliver and return clothing and jewelry.

Furthermore, as I mentioned with material items, the women would not have to return an item to the same store they picked it up from. Therefore, they could pick up some article of clothing or jewelry at a shopping mall in the city, and return it to their neighborhood shopping mall. The employees of the shopping mall would distribute items among the stores to prevent a store from having too much or too little. With an underground train system connecting each of the neighborhoods together, distributing items would be very simple, and could be done by robots.

Our ancestors didn't have any concerns about their behavior. They could do whatever they pleased with no regard to the consequences. In this modern world, however, we can waste our lives if we don't think intelligently about what we are doing. Food is an especially good example. If we were to create some new cities, we should experiment with food policies. Should children have access to cookies, chewing gum, soda, and candy? Should adults have unlimited access to all types of food 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Or would we be happier and healthier if we followed some rules for food, and if so, what would those rules be?

We currently promote the philosophy that adults need to be able to do whatever they please in order to enjoy life, but we might discover that we actually enjoy life more overall when some of our temptations are removed. For example, those of us who can control our consumption of food don't need to live in a city in which our access to food is limited, but if we were to live in such a city, we might find that we prefer it. The reason I think that this is possible is because when we are living in a city in which our homes are full of food, and we have access to markets and restaurants that are open 24 hours a day, we sometimes find ourselves resisting the temptation to eat.

If we were living in a city in which there were no kitchens or refrigerators in the homes, and the restaurants and markets were open at only certain times of the day, then if we wanted to eat when the food was unavailable, we would have no way of doing so, and so we would not have to fight with our emotions to resist the temptation. We might discover that eliminating the temptation is actually more pleasurable than controlling our cravings. In a city in which there are lots of free social and recreational activities, a person who started thinking of food might discover that it is better for him to distract himself by getting out of his house and doing something.

This concept might be especially useful with children. For example, the children in the wealthier nations are frequently demanding candy or food from their parents, and their parents have to constantly argue with them. In a city in which food is available at only certain times, the adults can dismiss their children's demands with, "The city is not providing food right now. You have to wait until the restaurants are open." The children will quickly learn that it makes no sense to argue with their parents over the issue.

Furthermore, since the city would be in control of the food, they could restrict children's access to candy and foods. Therefore, when the children ask their parents for candy, the parents can respond,"The city only provides children with candy on the weekends, and only after you are involved with recreational activities, so if you want some candy, you have to wait for the weekend and get involved with those recreational activities." Raising children in that type of city might be much more pleasant.

The same concept applies to material wealth. When we live in a society in which there is a wide difference of material wealth among the people, we frequently compare what we have to what other people have, and we frequently want something that we cannot afford. This situation can also cause people to pout or become envious or angry.

However, if we were living in a city that I've described in which everybody has virtually the same home and level of material wealth, and we can use any of the material items for free when we want them, we would not be comparing what we have to what other people have, and we would not be craving more things. We would not be going through the same type of emotional turmoil, or spending so much time trying to control our cravings for material items. We might find that life is more pleasant when we get rid of temptations.

The children in the city would have free access to all of the toys, recreational areas, sports equipment, swimming pools, bicycles, and other material items. The children would not be comparing what they have to what other children have, and they would not be asking their parents for anything. Being a parent in that city might be much more relaxing and pleasant compared to what it is today.

In a previous document, I pointed out that most people who demand more freedom don't know what they are asking for. What is freedom? We could say that parents have more freedom when they don't have to deal with children who are asking for food, candy, material wealth, or other things.

We could also say that married couples are more free when they live in a city in which the homes, activities, and material wealth are free because they won't argue over money. Married couples will continue to argue over how to furnish their home, and which neighborhood to live in, and how to spend their time together, but by getting rid of the arguments over material wealth, they will be free of some of the most common arguments among married couples today.

Society is becoming more complex every year, and these issues will become more significant in the future. There will be more cosmetics and jewelry in the future, and more options for weddings, and a greater variety of pet dogs to choose from. There will be more types of foods, artificial flavors, sodas, and candies. Eventually there will be all sorts of robot toys for children to ask their parents for, and there will be arguments between married couples about purchasing robots, especially sex robots.

Furthermore, as we learn more about human health, the issue of food will become more complex. For example, we may discover that eating certain foods in one meal is detrimental, whereas certain other foods are beneficial when eaten together, or we might discover that we should not drink much water for an hour or two after eating certain types of meals. I don't know what people in the future will discover about food, but the more we learn about food, and the greater the variety of foods that people have to choose from, the more complicated it will be for the people to make wise decisions about food.

The people in the future will need a greater education about food than we do, and they will have to spend more time thinking about meals than we do. They will also need greater control over their emotions in order to make wise decisions about food. This is one of the reasons I suggested in other documents that the city provide food for free at restaurants. This will allow the chefs, city managers, and scientists to make decisions about meals rather than each of us.

Although this policy would be awful if we provided ourselves with the same type of government officials and scientists that we have today, and if we had a free enterprise system that was pushing the scientists and government officials into promoting certain types of food products, if we get rid of the free enterprise system and provide ourselves with respectable leaders, then we can let our leaders provide the meals. They would provide the city with a wide variety of restaurants, and they would design all of the meals to be healthy.

I don't know what type of social affairs, recreational activities, clothing styles, school systems, or wedding ceremonies people will eventually decide they prefer the most, but I would bet that once we start experimenting with our culture, everything is going to change. I doubt if any of today's culture will be regarded as being so perfect that it doesn't need improvements. I suspect that future generations will look at our culture as being crude, irrational, and monkey-like. Rather than be impressed by our culture, they will be grateful that they were not born in our era.