On 1 May 2018, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel stood in front of a large screen and gave a presentation to convince us that Iran's leaders are "brazenly lying" about their nuclear program. Most journalists gave him favorable publicity.

Their attempt to portray themselves as honest people who are exposing liars in order to protect the world caused the word "audacity" to appear in my mind. Perhaps "hypocrisy" or "disgusting" would be a more accurate description of their behavior, but those adjectives didn't occur to me until I started writing this document.

Even if Netanyahu is correct that Iran is lying, I would say that Netanyahu and those journalists are worse than liars. The reason is because they are trying to stimulate hatred of Iran, and for the purpose of tricking America into attacking Iran.

In 2016, he failed to fool the world into hating Iran.

In 2016, Netanyahu gave a presentation at the United Nations in an attempt to frighten the world into hating Iran, but nobody stood up to him, and so he's continuing to do this. Are we going to let him do this again next year?

The Jews have already fooled the world into two world wars, and fooled the Americans into a Korean and Vietnam war, and fooled the Americans into several Mideast wars. When are we going to stand up to the Jews who are trying to trick us into attacking Iran? How many more years are we going to ignore and allow the Israelis and their cohorts to push us into bombing Iran?

Have you ever considered how you would feel if Israel was instigating hatred of the USA, and was trying to trick other nations into attacking us? And imagine if Israel also had the equivalent of John McCain, who sings songs with such lyrics as:
"Bomb, bomb, bomb,
bomb bomb Americans!"

President Trump ought to respond to Netanyahu with a similar presentation, but to truly expose some of the lies that we are being told today. Hopefully the images below will stimulate you into discussing such issues as:

• Why doesn't the Trump administration give such presentations? Why doesn't he expose these lies? How much longer are we going to wait for Trump to drain the swamp? Is our government so thoroughly infiltrated with criminals that there are not enough honest officials to arrest the crime network? If so, why don't they ask for help?

• The sheeple follow the authorities rather than think for themselves, so if Trump were to give the presentations shown below, most sheeple would stop ridiculing us as "stupid conspiracy theorists", and millions of them around the world would help us destroy the crime network. So why is Trump silent about these crimes? Why doesn't he expose them to the public?

• Is Trump just a member of a rival Jewish crime network? Or are Trump, Giuliani, and other officials being blackmailed? If so, then why not offer them immunity in return for helping to destroy the crime network?

• Why are all other nations' governments continuing to protect the lies about 9/11, the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, etc.? Is every nation's government so dishonest that all officials are afraid of exposing the truth because they worry that one of the criminals will retaliate by exposing their crimes?

 • We are being lied to and abused by journalists, professors, scientists, policemen, NASA, the FBI, and some businesses, such as YouTube and Google. How many more centuries are we going to allow this abuse? Is the human race as pathetic and sheeplike as it appears to be? Are there not enough people with advanced human qualities to correct this idiotic situation?

Here are two television interviews of David Hogg:

• In this interview, he claims to have been at the school during the shootings.
• In this interview, he claims to have been at his home.

He is obviously lying about being at the school but he has not been arrested for being a false witness to a crime, or even criticized for lying. Rather, many journalists ignore his lies and give him favorable and free publicity, and they promote him as a leader for high school students.

His audacity is so extreme that he wears a pin on his coat that says "We Call BS" while he is lying to crowds of people and television audiences.
 

As I have described in other documents, the reason the Jews want laws against "Holocaust denial" is because the Jews are lying about the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, the world wars, and the creation of Israel. The only way they can prevent the exposure of their lies is to suppress investigations of history. One of their techniques is to accuse everybody who disagrees with their propaganda as being an "anti-Semite" or a "Holocaust denier".

In 2008, as I wrote here, the Rosenblats were exposed as liars after they published a book in which they claimed to have been survivors of the Nazi death camps. However, as with David Hogg, they were not arrested or evicted for lying about being a victim of a crime.

Tania Head was exposed as a liar for claiming to be in the South Tower, and there is overwhelming evidence that Jews are the primary group responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that they demolished Building 7 and the towers with explosives. However, none of the people who are lying about the attack have been arrested or evicted.
 

According to James Damore, after he wrote his memo, he passed it to some other employees, but there was no significant reaction from any of them. If his analysis is correct, then, as I mentioned here, the brown supremacist, Sundar-Pichai, lied when he announced that the memo was "clearly impacting" the employees.

Furthermore, he accused James Damore of "advancing harmful gender stereotypes", but he still has not provided an analysis to support and explain his accusation. Who was harmed? And how could somebody be harmed simply because Damore expressed his support for an opinion that is popular around the world, and has been popular for centuries?

People who make accusations without supporting evidence should be described as slandering a person, or as con artists, liars, or criminals.

Furthermore, if the accusations are correct that some of the people at Google are discriminating against and blacklisting Damore and other Caucasian, conservative men, those people should be arrested for their crimes. We ought to describe those Google employees with the same type of insults that they are using on us, such as: racists, brown supremacists, anti-Caucasian, and far-left extremist radicals.
 

NASA officials are lying to us about the Apollo moon landings. There is also evidence that they were involved with murdering astronauts and other people in order to protect this crime.
 

After President Kennedy was assassinated, the US government kept a lot of documents about the assassination a secret. In 1992, a law was passed that required the US government to release all of those documents, but when the 25 year period had ended, Trump allowed the government to continue holding some in secrecy. The government claims that releasing all of the documents would hurt national security, but how could information about that assassination hurt our nation?

Our government officials are allowed to violate any law they please by claiming that they are "protecting national security", and they do not have to provide any evidence to back up that claim.

Fortunately, we do not need the secret documents in order to figure out that our government is lying to us about the assassination. As I explained in chapters 11 and 12 of my book here, the Warren Report makes it obvious that the government is lying about the assassination. However, the Warren Report does not make it obvious as to who was the primary group of people involved with the planning, funding, or supervision of the assassination.
 

In April 2018, the Malaysian government created a law that prohibits people from creating or spreading "fake news". (They supposedly picked up the phrase "fake news" from Donald Trump.) The Malaysian government defines "fake news" as "news, information, data and reports which is or are wholly or partly false". The government considers a person guilty of violating this law if he "knowingly creates, offers, publishes, prints, distributes, circulates or disseminates any fake news or publication containing fake news."

Here are two important issues to consider:

The Malaysian government has already arrested one man for spreading fake news, and they are investigating the leader of the opposition to the government to determine whether he could be arrested for creating fake news. There are 31 million people in Malaysia, but the government has so far chosen to investigate only two men. Why did they pick those two particular men?

It may be a coincidence that both of those men were criticizing Malaysian officials, but the Malaysian people ought to consider the possibility that their government is going to use this law to silence their critics.

Unless the Malaysian government starts arresting people who promote the lies about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, the creation of Israel, the world wars, the attack on the USS Liberty, and numerous other events, then we can conclude that they created the law against fake news for their own personal benefit.

The Malaysian government might occasionally arrest a person for promoting Bigfoot in order to create the impression that they are truly interested in protecting the nation from false information, but if they continue to allow their school books, newspapers, and Internet sites to promote lies about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues, then we can conclude that the law is a farce.

Since 2009, there has been scientific evidence that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by an impersonator, so if the Malaysian government is truly interested in protecting the people from fake news, then if Paul McCartney were to enter their nation, they should require that he submit to a DNA test so that they can determine how closely related he is to Paul McCartney's relatives.

Some Malaysian government officials might respond that they are not going to arrest people who lie about Paul McCartney, the Holocaust, or the Apollo moon landing because those issues do not concern them. That is not a valid excuse, however. If the only fake news that concerns them is criticism of the Malaysian government, then they are selectively enforcing the laws against their critics. They are not protecting the Malaysian citizens from false information or deception.

A "law" is an intangible concept that specifies what a person can and cannot do. Another way to phrase that is that a law restricts our freedom. You can visualize a law as being analogous to a fence, wall, cage, or some other type of barrier, such as a moat around a castle. All of those barriers are intended to restrict our movements.

The process of creating and using laws is similar to the process of creating and using a fence, moat, wall, or some other type of barrier. Specifically, it requires a certain amount of intelligence, education, work, and experimentation to create them, and to use them properly. Animals cannot create or use laws because they don't have the necessary intelligence, education, or self-control.

Even though most humans are capable of creating laws, that does not guarantee that they can create useful laws, and it does not guarantee that they can follow their laws properly. To understand this concept, consider the process of building a fence, moat, or other type of physical barrier.

If a person is extremely stupid, or if he is too arrogant to look critically at his work, or if he is afraid to conduct experiments, he is not likely to produce a useful barrier. For an extreme example, an idiot might decide to save money by building a fence for his home out of corrugated cardboard rather than wood or steel, thereby creating a fence that cannot survive a strong wind or rainstorm, and which is quickly destroyed by insects and animals.

To continue that extreme example, imagine that the idiot is such an extreme "conservative" that he will not look critically at himself or his work, and he is afraid to experiment with a different type of fence, so after a rainstorm destroys his fence, he builds another cardboard fence.

Imagine this going on year after year. Now imagine that the idiot has a son, and his son inherits the house, and his son is also a conservative who wants to preserve traditions. In such a case, every time the cardboard fence is destroyed by rain, the son builds another cardboard fence, and he praises himself for following traditions rather than experimenting with "radical, new concepts".

If you were to encounter a person who rebuilt a cardboard fence every few weeks, and who praised himself for following traditions, you would regard him as a moron. However, this is how government officials are behaving in regards to laws.

For example, the government officials in every nation have created laws to prohibit the use of heroin, LSD, and other drugs, and to restrict access to alcohol, marijuana, insulin, painkillers, steroids, and certain other drugs. However, those laws are as worthless as a cardboard fence. Those laws are not protecting me from those drugs because I don't want any of them, and they are not stopping the people who do want those drugs from getting access to them, or from abusing them.

The laws that regulate drugs are not stopping drug use or drug abuse. Rather, they are instigating fights between the police and the drug users, and especially between the police and the drug dealers. They are also allowing crime networks to thrive. Those laws are as worthless as a cardboard fence.

Actually, I would say our drug laws are beyond worthless. I would say they are destructive to society because they are causing a lot of resentment, anger, fighting, murders, and hatred, and they allow crime networks to become wealthy.

Do the benefits of our drug laws compensate for the problems they cause? What are the benefits? I can't think of any; can you?

When we discover that a law is not functioning as we expect, or when we discover that a law has no benefit, we should look critically at it and experiment with changes. Unfortunately, the world is dominated by arrogant people who will not look critically at themselves, their laws, or their society, and most of them are also terrified of experimenting with "radical changes." The end result is that every nation mindlessly enforces the same idiotic laws century after century.

A modern human society needs laws, but only some of us are capable of creating laws that are sensible and beneficial. The majority of people cannot create useful laws. Some reasons are:

• People who are stupid, ignorant, or mentally disturbed will not create useful laws.
• Religious fanatics and other people who refuse to acknowledge that humans are monkeys will not create useful laws because they will create laws that apply to a nonexistent, fantasy creature.
• People who cannot look critically at their laws, or are too lazy or apathetic to review their laws, might be able to create a useful law, but they will not be able to improve upon it.
• The people who are so terrified of the unknown that they are afraid to experiment with changes in their laws will be failures at creating laws, and unable to improve their laws.

Our laws that restrict drugs are failures because the people who created the laws are ignorant about laws; refuse to believe that humans are a species of monkey and that our behavior is due to our genetic characteristics; are too arrogant to accept the evidence that their laws are failures and insist that their laws are having a beneficial effect; and are so frightened of the unknown that they will not experiment with changes to their laws.

Most people cannot create useful laws because they have the wrong attitude towards human behavior, life, and laws. The primary problem with most people is that they believe that human behavior is determined by the environment, and that we can control the human population with environmental influences, such as laws, punishments, and rewards.

In reality, a law is analogous to a fence around a cattle ranch. A fence cannot control a group of animals. A fence is simply a suggestion to the animals that they should stay inside the fenced area. Each individual animal decides for itself whether it will do what the fence is suggesting. If an animal does not want to do what the fence suggests, then it will look for a way to get through the fence.

Likewise, laws are just suggestions to humans on what we should and should not do. Each individual human decides for himself whether he will do what the law suggests.

Furthermore, each person will interpret the law in the manner that he wants to interpret it. This is especially obvious with the Second Amendment, as I described in detail in this document. People interpret that amendment in whatever manner they please.

Laws cannot control us. A person who does not want to follow a law will find a way to get around it. (I have more details on this issue in other documents, such as this.)

“I will do whatever I want!”

To make the situation with laws even more complex and difficult for us to deal with, animals, especially male animals, have powerful cravings to be the dominant member of society. When somebody tells us what we can or cannot do, our emotional craving for dominance is triggered, and we become angry at the person, and we want to show him that we are above him in the social hierarchy. We want to give orders; not receive orders.

The people who do not have good control over their emotions may deliberately do something they know they should not do simply because they were told not to do it. They behave in this irrational manner simply to satisfy their emotional craving to be the dominant monkey in the hierarchy. They will boast that nobody tells them what to do, but they are hurting themselves in an attempt to titillate their emotions.

There are some videos on the Internet in which obese people have been interviewed, and a few of them have made a remark that one of the reasons they have trouble losing weight is that when somebody tells them to eat less food, they become angry and deliberately eat more food just to show them that nobody tells them what to do. Those particular people are aware that they react to criticism with defiance, but they don't have the self-control necessary to prevent themselves from such idiotic behavior.

I would not be surprised if some of the people who are using illegal drugs are doing so simply because we have laws that prohibit those drugs. Those people might enjoy using the drug simply so that they can titillate their craving to be the dominant monkey, not because they enjoy the effect of the drug.

We have a tendency to feel sorry for people who behave in rebellious ways, and we want to help them calm down and behave in a sensible manner, but we should face the fact that they are genetically inferior to the rest of us. They have trouble listening to advice, following laws, and forming stable relationships. They have so little self-control, or such extreme cravings to be the dominant monkey, that they cannot properly fit into a modern human society.

It is important to note that during prehistoric times, both men and women with that rebellious attitude were well adapted to life because their attitude would cause them to frequently challenge the man or woman at the top of the hierarchy. Today, however, we don't want people fighting for leadership. Today that rebellious attitude causes people to be self-destructive jerks. This is another of the emotional cravings that was useful to our ancestors, but which we need to breed out of us.

Every organization should define and prohibit deception, lies, and slander, but whether an organization is capable of creating effective laws and using them properly depends upon the genetic qualities and education of the officials who create the laws, and the people who have to follow those laws.

For an extreme example, an organization will not benefit from laws if its members are such arrogant, rebellious jerks that they deliberately violate laws so that they can boast that nobody tells them what to do.

Laws are not inherently good or bad. A law is like a fence, or you could think of a law as being a type of tool, like a knife. A knife can be a beneficial tool, or it can be used to murder a kidnapped child.

The Malaysian government officials might use their law that prohibits "fake news" to protect the citizens from deception, but they might also use that law to suppress their critics.

A law against fake news is not inherently good or bad. Whether that law is used to protect society from deception, or whether the government officials use it to eliminate their critics, depends upon the government officials and the citizens. If the citizens are stupid, apathetic, or neurotic, they will allow themselves to be abused, thereby encouraging the government to use laws in selfish ways.

If, at the other extreme, a nation is dominated by truly responsible, considerate, honest people who watch over their government officials and replace those who are incompetent and dishonest, then they will create a government that uses laws to protect the people from lies, slander, manipulation, deception, and abuse.

What type of nation is Malaysia? Have the voters of Malaysia created a truly respectable government that will use the law against fake news to protect the citizens? Or is their government just as dishonest and incompetent as the US government? Are any Malaysian government officials being accused of participating in pedophile networks, or of torturing kidnapped children to death and drinking their blood, as some of the American government officials are accused of? Are the citizens of Malaysia as apathetic to corruption and crime as the Americans and Europeans?

The U.S. Constitution is a failure in regards to protecting the nation from crime, but it has been very successful in preventing the government from inhibiting free speech. Unfortunately, the writers of the Constitution lived in an era in which almost everybody was a self-employed farmer, and there were very few businesses, charities, or other organizations. A lot of children in that era did not even go to school.

As a result of the simplicity of society in 1780, the Constitution has no provisions to protect citizens from abuse by businesses, schools, or other organizations. This has allowed businesses, religions, the media, schools, charities, think tanks, and other organizations to manipulate us, censor us, suppress us, lie to us, and attack us. For example:

• Businesses try to manipulate our holiday celebrations, sports events, clothing styles, meals, social activities, and other culture, in order to sell more of their particular products.
• The organized religions try to manipulate our culture in order to promote their particular beliefs.
• Israel has created a variety of organizations that try to influence our police departments, schools, government officials, and social affairs.

To make the situation worse, we are allowing crime networks to get control of some of our charities, businesses, media companies, and other organizations, and then we have to suffer abuse from wealthy and influential criminals.

In April 2018, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would spend “billions and billions of dollars” to combat fake news, misinformation and hate speech. However, the Constitution does not give Mark Zuckerberg, or any other citizen, the authority to define fake news, misinformation, or hate speech, and it does not give Zuckerberg, or any other citizen, the authority to suppress what they regard as fake news.

Zuckerberg and other private citizens and organizations claim that they are suppressing fake news to protect the world from bad information, but where is the evidence that they are honest angels who are devoting their lives to protecting us? We are fools to let them have the authority to control our information. We should assume that they are doing this for their benefit, not for the benefit of the nation, or the human race.

Zuckerberg also said that he was "going to have tens of thousands of people doing content review". He is creating what is essentially his own personal police force to watch over the information that we are exposed to, and determine which of that information is acceptable for us to see. It is conceivable that he will create a police force that is larger than the group the Malaysian government has to watch for "fake news".

I suspect that Zuckerberg is creating the type of news room that is in the movie 1984 (the image below) in which all of the news is being edited to manipulate people, not to protect them from deception. I think the book 1984 is about the Zionist Jews and their attempt to manipulate us by controlling our information, instigating endless wars, and sending their critics to "rehabilitation" programs.

I suspect that all of the private citizens and organizations that are involved with suppressing "fake news" are doing so for their own benefit, not to protect you and me from deception. They are trying to suppress certain people and information, and promote certain other people and information.

The Jewish groups, for example, would accuse me and my website of being "fake news", "anti-Semitic", hateful, sexist, and promoting "Holocaust Denial" except that they are afraid to give me attention, so they ignore me. They will give lots of publicity to David Duke and other people under their control, but not to people like me. And they may have done such a good job of suppressing some other people that I am not even aware of who those people are.

The Constitution does not give any citizen the authority to set up a personal police force to determine which information and people are acceptable for us to know about. However, unless the apathetic, selfish American sheeple tell their submissive government representatives to stop Zuckerberg, he is going to continue, and that will inspire other businesses, religions, and organizations to also get involved with determining which information is acceptable to us. Is that the type of nation you want to live in?
 

Zuckerberg had curly hair a few years ago.

Do you want Mark Zuckerberg and other people to determine which information is acceptable for you to see? Although it is frustrating to watch the ADL, Zuckerberg, and other people censor our news, at least Zuckerberg provides us with some humor occasionally. For example, did he try to straighten his hair in response to the jokes that he looks like King Philip of Spain? If so, he now has to deal with jokes that he looks like a robot from Star Trek.

At Congress, April 2018

In addition to "protecting us" from "fake news", Zuckerberg, the ADL, feminist groups, and many other organizations, are also trying to suppress information and people by accusing some of us of being anti-Semitic, hateful, racist, or sexist. Allowing citizens and organizations to pass judgment on which information or people are "sexist" or "anti-Semitic" is as stupid as allowing citizens to pass judgment on which of us is committing other types of crime, such as murder or burglary. We should not allow citizens to have such authority.

The determination of who is committing a crime should be restricted to the government, and we should require the government to make these decisions openly so that we can see who is making the judgment, and why. We should not allow a government to arrest people in secrecy, or conduct secret trials.

Furthermore, if the government is going to arrest somebody or censor them because of "sexism" or "anti-Semitism", then they need to clearly define what that crime is. I would say that many of the people who are accusing us of being sexist, racists, or anti-Semitic are guilty of "promoting hate speech" because they don't have any sensible evidence to back up their accusations. Their lack of intelligent reasoning for describing somebody as an anti-Semite or a Holocaust denier is evidence that they are merely insulting the person in an attempt to instigate anger or hatred towards him.

Ideally, our leaders would have discussions about how to deal with this modern problem of people who post deceptive or false information on the Internet, and who make unsupported accusations against one another, such as "racist" or "anti-Semite", but our leaders are too incompetent, dishonest, and ignorant to deal with this issue.

The government will do what the voters ask for, but the voters are too apathetic, ignorant, and incompetent to tell their government officials how to deal with this issue. As a result, nobody is doing anything about this issue. This is allowing individual citizens and organizations to do whatever they please.

The Jewish groups, for example, are pushing governments into suppressing "Holocaust denial", and other groups of people are pushing the governments into arresting or suppressing the "racists" and "sexists". Lots of groups are also demanding that people who promote "hate speech" be arrested.

It is idiotic to allow individual citizens and organizations to make these idiotic accusations, and to suppress information and people. We need leaders who can deal with these issues in an intelligent manner. And we must be able to hold our leaders accountable for what they do, and be able to replace those who are doing the worst job.

How is it possible that Facebook is capable of spending "billions and billions of dollars" on the suppression of fake news? Even if Zuckerberg said that as an exaggeration, Facebook is making a tremendous amount of profit, which should cause everybody to discuss such issues as, What is Facebook doing for society to generate such an enormous income?

If you don't consider it strange that Facebook can provide Zuckerberg with incredible wealth, and that Facebook can afford to fund an expensive censorship project that doesn't generate any revenue in return, consider how many scientists and engineers are struggling to find small amounts of money to do research or development of truly useful projects.

Our society is giving tremendous amounts of money to Zuckerberg, Hollywood celebrities, investors, and other people, while many scientists and engineers, who have useful skills, and who are willing to work hard on some truly useful projects, have to struggle to acquire small amounts of money.

People like me, who are trying to expose the Jewish crime network, and the corruption in our government, are in an even worse situation than the scientists because people not only resist purchasing what I offer, some of them will not even look at it if I give it to them for free. I have offered my book and video to some people for free, and they are available on my website for free, and all of my website is free, and I have not signed up for advertising or payments for my videos on YouTube, but many people refuse to look at my material, even though it is free. I would have to pay them to look at my material, and probably quite a bit of money.

The point I want to make is that the people and organizations that provide entertainment can make enormous amounts of profit, whereas people with useful skills and who do useful work have to struggle for money. The reason this situation exists is because a democracy and a free enterprise system pander to the majority of people, and most people want emotional titillation from their businesses and government. They do not want intellectual material, or the funding of long-term, complex projects, such as planned cities.

By pandering to the ordinary people, businesses and governments waste a tremendous amount of technical talent and resources on Facebook, advertisements, pets, gambling casinos, Hollywood movies, and status products for wealthy people.

Mark Zuckerberg is a very wealthy man, and he has lots of people working to build him mansions and pamper him with expensive food and material items. He is in a similar situation as the medieval Kings, who were pampered by thousands of peasants. Zuckerberg recently purchased 700 acres of land in Hawaii for $200 million. Who knows how many millions he will spend on the rock wall and mansion that he puts on the land.

In my opinion, Zuckerberg has done nothing of value for society. I don't believe that Facebook is improving our lives, businesses, or relationships. I think Facebook is popular because there are an enormous number of people who are having trouble forming relationships, and who don't have many leisure activities, so they spend a lot of their time with Facebook. I think Facebook is similar to pet dogs and inflatable women; namely, it is a substitute for true friends and activities.

Do you believe Zuckerberg should be allowed to become a billionaire and received phenomenal levels of material items and pampering? If not, are you willing to experiment with a more sensible economic and government system? If so, let's get started!

When I went to Bing.com/news on the morning of 19 May 2018, and clicked the "World" news button, the marriage of Prince Harry was the dominant news issue that particular morning. A portion of the screen image is below.

Also, I drew a red circle around "The Royals" to show you that the people at Bing.com apparently believe the British Royal family are so important that they need their own news category, and that the link to it should be prominent on the screen, so it was placed between the links to "Top Stories" and "NBA Playoffs".

There are billions of people in the world, but the American journalists consider the British Royal family to be among the few who are newsworthy. Rather than accept whatever the journalists give us as "news", like babies, we ought to be discussing such issues as:

• One reason for the creation of the USA was to advance beyond the monarchy, so why should Americans be regularly exposed to news reports that glorify a concept that we regard as crude, inappropriate, and disgusting?

• During the Middle Ages, some members of a monarchy would supposedly choose a spouse according to the political benefits. Do any British Royal family members do the same?

From my limited and casual observations of the British royal family, I have the impression that Prince Charles wanted to marry Camilla, but he was told to find a woman who would have a wider appeal to the public in order to maintain the popularity of the monarchy, so years later he selected Diana, even though neither of them seemed to like one another.

Was Prince Harry also pressured to select a wife who would bring support to the monarchy? She is an American, with both African and Jewish ancestors, so perhaps the British Royal family assumed that she would bring support from Americans, Jews, and Africans.

If the British Royal family members are selecting spouses in order to trick us into supporting the monarchy, that would be another reason to regard the journalists, as well as the members of the Royal family, as disgusting and unacceptable.

• Why do the American journalists promote the British Royal family, but not the royal family of Spain or Holland? Why not Kim Jong-un's family, or Vladimir Putin's family? Is it because the British Royal family speaks the same language as us? Or is it because the journalists have some type of relationship with the British Royal family, such as being members of the same pedophilia network as Jimmy Savile?

We should treat people in media as employees of society who are supposed to inform us of world events. We should routinely give them job performance reviews, and they should be held accountable for what they do.

My suggestion is to have a Quality Control Department that judges people according to their effect on society. That Department would accept and investigate complaints from both government officials and citizens, and if they determined that somebody was detrimental to society, they would have the authority to have him fired from his job, or put on restrictions, or evicted.

If a particular journalist is supposed to provide "news reports", as opposed to providing "entertainment", then we should pass judgment on whether he has truly been providing us with useful information about the world, or whether he has been providing us with entertainment, deception, idiotic material, propaganda, or material that encourages bad behavior.

The image below is a collage of six of the news articles at dailymail.co.uk. I would say that none of those articles should classify as "news". I would describe those articles as "pornography for men" because they are intended to titillate a man's sexual emotions. They should be posted in the "pornography" section, not the "news" or "entertainment" sections. Journalists who refer to that as "news" should be fired on the grounds that they are too stupid to differentiate between news and pornography.

Incidentally, I would say that the reason men are titillated by such idiotic "news" articles is because - as I have described in other documents - our social environment is so inappropriate that boys are growing up to be men who giggle or become hysterical when they see a naked human body.

I don't think teenage boys and grown men should have such a strong fascination with those type of articles. I suggest we experiment with our social environment in an attempt to create adult men who don't have such a childish reaction to nudity, sex, childbirth, breast-feeding, digestive issues, and waste products.

The free enterprise system expects the citizens to pass judgment on which media businesses are providing appropriate news, and to drive the inappropriate companies to bankruptcy by refusing to provide them with financial support. However, it should be obvious that the system doesn't work.

Expecting citizens to pass judgment on the media is like expecting children to pass judgment on which foods they will eat. If children could choose their meals, they would eat lots of candy, ice cream, and cookies. Most children, perhaps all, lack the self-control, intelligence, and education that is necessary to make wise decisions about food.

Likewise, when each of us are allowed to choose our news articles, the majority of people will ignore or complain about the articles that they don't like, and support the journalists who provide them with articles that make them feel good.

The religious people, for example, will ignore, ridicule, or condemn the news articles from scientists that show how humans evolved from monkeys, and most people are horrified by the type of documents that I have created in which I show that they have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the world wars.

By allowing people to pick out their news articles, most people deliberately ignore a lot of important information, and they waste their time titillating themselves with articles that are often idiotic, unrealistic, or destructive. They end up ignorant about world events and history, and often follow idiotic beliefs. They also provide lots of financial support to the deceptive, stupid, and neurotic journalists, and they make it difficult for scientists and people like me to sell our material.

A lot of people boast that they are "informed" because they read newspapers and watch television news, but they are actually ignorant fools who waste their time and memory cells on worthless information, such as Hollywood gossip, the British Royal family, sports scores, and comic strips, and they pick up bits of propaganda from Zionist organizations, religions, crime networks, charities, and think tanks.

Furthermore, a lot of the material that people waste their time on is causing destructive attitudes and unrealistic goals in life. For example, a lot of young girls titillate themselves for hours with magazines and websites that have information about expensive weddings, engagement rings, wedding gowns, and wedding cakes.

The girls are fooled into believing that a wedding is the most important event in a girl's life, and that it should be expensive, and that the bride should be the center of attention for hours.

In reality, a wedding is just a few minutes in just one day of a woman's life. It is much more important for a young girl to focus on finding a man that she is compatible with; finding other girls that she can form pleasant friendships with; and getting involved with jobs, social activities, and leisure activities that will provide her with a pleasant life and good health.

The free enterprise system is causing girls to put excessive emphasis on weddings. As I've suggested in other documents, I think it would be better to put more emphasis on celebrating anniversaries. We should celebrate and reward the people who can form stable relationships.

The free enterprise system is also causing a lot of teenage boys and adult men to waste a lot of their time on various types of pornography, which can give them unrealistic attitudes and goals about women and sex, such as encouraging them to want a lot of sex with a lot of different women, and in unusual locations, such as the bathroom of an airplane.

Free enterprise also causes people to waste a lot of their time on magazines and websites that make wealthy people appear to be having a wonderful life. The journalists titillate us with photos of mansions, yachts, and private jets. This type of emotional stimulation can encourage the unrealistic attitude and goal of becoming wealthy, gathering a giant pile of material items, and having lots of servants to pamper us.

I would summarize this by saying that when we allow people to choose their news articles, instead of picking out the news articles that they learn something from, and which help them to create a better life for themselves, most people choose the articles that titillate their emotions. This in turn stimulates a lot of unrealistic attitudes and goals, which hurts them.

The news reports that we have today provide plenty of proof that we cannot expect citizens to make wise decisions about what is and is not "news". We must develop a new economic and government system so that we can judge journalists and media companies according to their effect on society.

In previous documents, I pointed out that militaries and businesses design their training programs according to what will most efficiently and quickly provide a person with useful skills. They do not ask the students what they would like the training courses to consist of.

I also pointed out that our schools should follow the same philosophy. Schools should design courses according to what will most efficiently and quickly provide students with useful skills, rather than pander to students and their parents. The school's management should not ask the parents if it is acceptable to teach children about evolution, sex, digestion, religion, or any other issue.

We need school and government officials who can stand up to parents who whine that they don't like the school curriculum. Everybody should be free to criticize government policies, and be free to recommend improvements, but they should be required to do so by submitting an intelligent analysis to the Quality Control Department rather than whine, or have a protest in the streets.

When the government makes decisions about what to do, it should do so according to what is best for society, not according to what pleases the citizens. We need a government that can tell the people, "We don't care what you like or dislike. Our purpose is not to pander to your desires. It is to create a pleasant society."

Students are not supposed to "like" their education, and citizens are not supposed to "like" the news. Rather, education and news should help us become better people by informing us of useful information.

Therefore, when the Quality Control Department passes judgment on whether a particular news article is truly "news", they should not care whether the citizens like or dislike the article. Instead they should be concerned with the effect that the article has on people's attitudes and behavior. Is the article helping people understand something? Is it helping them behave in a better manner? Or is it encouraging bad attitudes? Or is it merely stimulating sexual or other emotions?

People today can choose the information that they want to learn about, and most people are choosing to ignore the information that humans are monkeys, and that we were lied to about 9/11 and the Holocaust.

If we were to switch to a society in which we had a Quality Control Department that ensured all of the news is sensible, some people would avoid the news articles because they would not want to look at the news that they regard as unpleasant or unacceptable. Those people should not be forced into looking at the news. Rather, we should describe them as emotionally unfit to be voters and government officials.

We have to face the fact that some adults have trouble with reality. There is no sense in trying to make them deal with reality. It is better to classify them as large children, and keep them out of influential positions.

On 20 May 2018, I once again went to Bing.com/news, and this time I saw this news article in the "Top Stories" section. That journalist, and a lot of citizens, posted articles and messages that the wedding of Prince Harry attracted a larger crowd than Trump's inauguration, and they implied that this is evidence that Trump is a terrible person. The people who do not like Trump are constantly looking for a way to make him look bad, but rather than hurt Trump, their idiotic insults are making themselves look like bitter, angry, hateful people.

We have a strong craving to follow the crowd, so our emotions assume that the people who are the most popular are better people than those who attract a small crowd, but we should not judge somebody by how many people are attracted to him. It is better to judge a person by the quality of the people who admire him.

The Pope, the Dalai Lama, and the Hollywood entertainers have a lot more admirers than you and me, but that doesn't mean that they are better people than us. Take a look at who admires those people. Also, note that the Hollywood celebrities often struggle to avoid their admirers when they are out in public because so many of their admirers are neurotic or obnoxious.

Harry's wedding attracted more people than Trump's inauguration, but that is an unfair comparison because weddings are likely to attract more people simply because they are visually more entertaining, and weddings trigger pleasant emotions. Inaugurations, by comparison, are not as visually or emotionally exciting.

Furthermore, watch some interviews of people at Harry's wedding, and compare them to the people at Trump's inauguration. Which group of people would you rather have as friends?

The same concept applies to people who dislike you. Specifically, don't be concerned with how many people dislike you. Instead, determine who dislikes you. If criminals and weirdos dislike you, then you should be proud of yourself since that is an indication that they don't regard you as one of them. You should be concerned only when you are disliked by people you respect.

Getting back to this news article, it lists some insulting tweets about President Trump, but Trump should not feel insulted. Take a look at the people making those insults. Would you want any of them as your admirers or friends? Trump should be proud that those people dislike him. For example:
• Binyamin Appelbaum
• Brian Krassenstein
• Sherri Schafer