A Danish government official is proposing a tax on the English words that are used in advertisements. His goal is to reduce the use of English and encourage the Danish people to speak the Danish language.

There are people in France who are trying to eliminate the use of English, also, and there are undoubtedly people in China, Japan, Russia, and other countries who are trying to discourage English.

Some of my ancestors emigrated from Denmark in the late 1800s. Their ship took them to the East Coast of America, but they did not remain in one of the relatively advanced cities along the East Coast. Instead, they traveled west, towards the increasingly primitive and sparsely populated areas. The last portion of their trip was in covered wagons, and they settled in a vacant area of Iowa. They started their own tiny town, which they called Royal, Iowa. It is still a tiny town; only about 440 people.

They were not only willing to abandon the Danish language and the Danish culture, they had the courage to pass through the cities along the American East Coast and start a completely new life on a vacant piece of land. They had to build their own homes, roads, businesses, and farms, but they were not frightened.

My relatives from Switzerland and Italy also abandoned their native languages and culture and became Americans who spoke English, although they settled in New Jersey rather than start their own towns. Millions of other immigrants also abandoned their language and culture, and started a new life for themselves in America. Some of those immigrants were brave enough to travel west and start new towns.

Although many, perhaps most, of the immigrants to America prior to the 20th century could be described as the wretched refuse, alcoholics, and criminals of other nations, America attracted a lot of people who had the attitude of an explorer.

Could you move to another planet and start a new world?

I suspect that America has a larger percentage of people who can ignore their ancestors and explore their future than any other nation.

If there were desirable planets in other solar systems, and if it was technically feasible for us to travel to them, I suspect that more Americans would move to new planets than any other nationality.

There are a lot of Americans who have the emotional ability to leave the comfort of their home and explore the world they live in. They don't worry about creating new friends, joining a new culture, or starting a new city for themselves.

When I was in high school, there were several times when I was eating my lunch outside on a nice day, and I was wondering what I would do if an alien from another planet were to land right in front of me in a spaceship and offer to take me and some other humans to a planet to start a new life for ourselves. Would I get on that ship, or would I be too afraid of leaving the earth? My conclusion was that I would get on the spaceship without any hesitation. I would not even demand that I be able to go home and get some of my personal possessions. I was willing to walk away from everything.

Why do I have no fear of starting a new life or building new cities? I suppose it is because I am a descendant of people who did exactly that in the late 1800s.

If everybody on the planet had such a lack of fear of starting a new life, then nobody on the planet would be afraid of abandoning their culture, their language, their government system, or their school system. Everybody would be willing to get together to start a new world and a new life. Rather than be frightened, they would enjoy the journey and the exploration of their future.

There are people around the world who insist that their language is the best, and they must continue speaking it in order to enjoy their life, but what difference does it make what language we speak? All of our languages are crude, confusing, and in need of an overhaul. No nation has the best language. All languages are haphazard collections of noises, and they all have irrational rules.

Many languages, including the French language, also have some unpleasant sounds that are similar to spitting or throat clearing.

The people who boast that their language and culture is the best are just arrogant animals who cannot understand and/or face the obvious fact that every nation's culture is just haphazard collections of behavioral practices and beliefs. Everybody's culture could be described having idiotic practices.

To make the situation more absurd, our language and culture are changing haphazardly through time, so it is idiotic to boast about having the best language and culture.

Does Alex Ahrendtsen want to discourage the use of English words to help the Danish people or to hurt them?

The Danish government official who wants to tax the use of English words is trying to create the impression that he is proposing this law in order to improve life for the people in Denmark, but how will life improve in Denmark simply by reducing the use of English words? Will marriages in Denmark become better? Will crime decrease? Will there be less traffic congestion? What exactly is going to improve?

The Japanese, Europeans, and other people who emigrated to America abandoned their native language, but they did not suffer as a result of speaking English.

Imagine if everybody in the world had the same attitude as my Danish ancestors. In such a case, everybody would be willing to discard their language and culture, get together with the other people, build new cities, and start a new life. Wouldn't that be better than a world in which everybody is clinging to their particular language and culture, boasting about themselves, and insulting other nations for having inferior culture and language?

That Danish government official has no sensible justification for his proposal to discourage English words, and I suspect that the reason is because he is not making the proposal to improve Denmark. Judging by his slanted forehead, I would describe him as some type of Neanderthal, not a Danish man.

I suspect that he is working with the Jews, and that they are trying to hurt our societies. I think the Jews encourage "national pride" in order to encourage arrogance and isolation. They want us to speak different languages so that we have trouble communicating with one another. They encourage us to be proud of our culture so that we become arrogant jerks who boast about ourselves and insult other people.

In America, the Jews seem to be behind all of the white pride movements, the black pride movements, and the Hispanic pride movements. The Jews want the different races to fight with each other, not become friends.

The Jews are constantly trying to instigate fights between different groups of people. The Jews do not want us to cooperate with one another and work together to make the world a better place. They want us to behave like packs of wild dogs that fight with one another. They want us to be Americans, whites, Catholics, Hispanics, Russians, Germans, or Irish, not humans. They also encourage women to rebel against the “sexist” men.

That Danish government official is doing what government officials around the world do; namely, propose a law without any supporting evidence. He is implying that the law will improve life for Denmark, but he doesn't explain how life is going to improve.

Our governments systems are still so crude that government officials are allowed to create laws, agencies, and regulations without any justification. A more sensible government system would require a government official to explain the advantages and disadvantages of his proposals; the benefits and burdens.

The government officials should be required to explain the effect on society of the policy they propose. For example, the taxation of English words has the burden of requiring government officials to supervise the policy. How many government officials are they going to need to do that supervision? Where will the government get the people to do the work? Will they hire more people, which requires an increase in taxes? Or will they take employees away from some other agency, and if so, which agency? What will be the effect on the nation as a result of these changes? How will the Danish people benefit?

Our government systems do not require government officials to explain their policies, and there is no Quality Control Department to fire the government officials who cannot fulfill these duties. Will any nation find the courage to toss their government system in the trash and experiment with a more appropriate government system? Or will every nation continue to boast that they have the greatest government system ever created?

We do not improve governments, culture, language, or economic systems by boasting about them. We improve them when we critically analyze them and experiment with changes.

Trump implies that America was wonderful during the past, but has since deteriorated, and that he is going to fix the deterioration and restore our nation to its previous greatness. But what exactly about America has deteriorated? What exactly is Trump going to fix? He refuses to give details, so let's consider a few possibilities.

• Food and farms
When I was a child, the strawberries that were sold in supermarkets were terrible quality, but the strawberries have since been bred into a variety that is almost as tasty as those that we grow ourselves. Other food products have also improved. Therefore, I would say that farms have not deteriorated. Rather, farms have improved. Therefore, Trump will not make our food or farms great again.

• Cities
Our cities today are ugly and suffer from traffic congestion, homeless people, crime, and many other problems, but our cities had those problems when I was a child, so Trump will not restore our cities to their previous greatness.

• Air quality
When I was a child, the air quality of Los Angeles was horrible. There is still pollution in America, but I would say air quality has improved since I was a child. So Trump will not restore our air quality to its previous greatness.

So, what exactly does Trump think has deteriorated, and what exactly is he going to make great again?

By not giving any specifics, each voter can interpret his vague remark in any manner they please, just like people do with astrology predictions and religions.

For example, the people who are complaining about gay marriage could tell themselves that Trump will restore America's greatness by eliminating that practice. The unemployed people, who had a job in the past, can convince themselves that Trump will fix the economy so that they can have a job again.

I would say that one of the areas where America has deteriorated since I was a child is that the government has grown in size tremendously, and they have increased taxes tremendously as a result. Therefore, if Trump truly wants to improve America, he could offer to reduce the government and make it more efficient.

One of the areas where some business executives show a tremendous talent is increasing the efficiency of an organization by firing people and reorganizing the remaining people. If Trump has those qualities, then he would be capable of increasing the efficiency of government by firing a lot of government employees and reorganizing the government. But does he have that talent? Or is he just a landlord? And if he does have that talent, will he actually use it?

Is Trump willing to fire government officials, cut any of their salaries, or reorganize any part of the government? If so, exactly who would he fire? Which departments would he get rid of? Would he stop funding the PBS television shows, which the Jews use to promote propaganda about 9/11, carbon taxes, and other issues? Will he reduce or eliminate the Department of Education, which is doing nothing to improve our education or eliminate the Jewish lies in our history books? Will he stop giving financial and military assistance to Israel?

The voters who support Trump don't know the answers to any of these questions, and they don't care that they don't know, just as the people in Idiocracy knew nothing about President Not Sure, and they didn't care that they knew nothing.

During the past few centuries, the advances in technology have provided businesses with the opportunity to become more efficient and productive. Farmers took advantage of this by replacing their horses with tractors, and businesses replaced kerosene lamps with electric lights. When computers became available, businesses replaced paper documents with electronic databases.

Every year businesses find ways to produce items of a higher quality, and with fewer people, less energy, less wasted resources, and at a faster rate.

However, it is important to note that some business executives and union leaders resisted the technical advancements and tried to keep everything exactly as it was in the past. They wanted to follow their ancestors, not learn about new technology or experiment with it. They resisted changes to farm equipment, printing presses, and industrial machinery.

The businesses that resisted new technology were eventually driven to bankruptcy, or the executives were fired. The reason is because the free enterprise system puts businesses into competition with each other, and eventually those particular businesses were at a significant disadvantage to the businesses that were modernizing their operation.

Now consider how this concept applies to government. A government is an organization of people, just like a business. As technology improves, the government should use the new technology to make their organization more efficient and productive, just like businesses are doing. Every year our government should find ways to accomplish their jobs with fewer people, less resources, and at a faster rate. Our government should be finding ways to replace government employees with machinery, robots, and software, and government offices should become increasingly automated and efficient.

However, just as many business executives and union leaders resisted new technology, many people in our government are also resisting it. However, government officials are not under any competition, so there is no pressure for them to modernize their departments.

Because governments don't have competition, we need a Quality Control Department that has the function of watching over the government officials, and firing those who are incompetent, unnecessary, resisting new technology, or causing trouble for society. Unfortunately, we do not have a Quality Control Department.

Our government officials have the freedom to do as they please, and we also give them the secrecy to do whatever they want without any of us knowing what they do, or even knowing if they show up for work. As a result, government officials who want to avoid modernizing their department can do so without any repercussions.

Is Donald Trump going to do something about this problem? For example, the state government of California is still expecting us to send them paper tax forms via the Postal Service. If we want to send our tax forms through the Internet, we have to pay a fee. Why should we have to pay to do something that is more efficient? Our government and businesses should have the opposite policy; specifically, they should penalize the people who resist new technology. For example, the people who want a business to send them paper invoices rather than electronic invoices should have to pay more because they are wasting resources and labor.

Will Trump do anything to improve the efficiency of our government agencies? Will he help them to modernize? Will he fire the government officials who resist technology? His supporters do not know, and do not care.

Our government has millions of employees and an incredibly large budget. They have more people and money than any business. They have plenty of manpower and resources to make their organization efficient. They should also be capable of developing highly advanced software for keeping track of employees, collecting data, and analyzing databases.

When business executives visit a government office, they should be impressed and amazed with the software and efficiency of the operation. They should learn something from the government agencies. They should not be appalled and disgusted with the stupid, apathetic, and lazy government workers, and the inefficient manner in which they operate.

Although some of the government software would be useless to businesses, some of it would be the same as what the businesses use, but the government software should be much more advanced. Therefore, the government should offer their software to the businesses for free on the grounds that they would be wasting society's resources to force the businesses to develop the software by themselves, and because none of the businesses have the manpower or finances to develop such software.

Our government should be in a leadership role. They should be operating more efficiently than the businesses, and they should also be able to provide advice and guidance to businesses on how to become more efficient.

It is possible that America has a few government agencies that are actually providing guidance to businesses, such as the agencies that help farmers deal with irrigation, but most government agencies are operating in a more primitive manner than our businesses. Most agencies cannot provide anybody with guidance.

I would say NASA is an example of a government agency that is deteriorating. Years ago NASA was capable of building rockets that could launch satellites, but today they depend upon Russia and private companies to supply the space station and launch satellites. However, even though NASA cannot make a rocket to launch a satellite, they are planning to send people to Mars.

I do not think that NASA's project to put people on Mars is sensible. I suspect that they chose this project because they did not want to get involved with a project that businesses, the Russians, or the Europeans were involved with because they don't want to compete with anybody. I think they realize that if they had to compete, they would lose the competition, and that would cause people to become disgusted with them. So they picked a project that no business or nation would pick; namely, putting people on Mars. They don't have to worry about competitors. They can now spend the next few decades on this project without anybody complaining that nothing has been accomplished.

One reason I say that their Mars project is worthless is that they are funding a project they call HI-SEAS. In this project, a small group of people live at the top of a mountain in a simulated Mars colony. However, the simulation is not real because the people are provided with a lot of food and water from the earth. A true Mars colony has to recycle their water and waste products into food and fresh water.

A Mars colony requires a portable, self-sustainable ecosystem in which the waste products of human life are passed onto animals, plants, bacteria, or whatever, and then those creatures recycle that waste into oxygen, clean water, and fresh food.

If we had the technology to create a portable, self-sustainable ecosystem, then we could put one of them into the space station, and we would never have to supply the space station with food or water. That technology would also be useful for a colony on the moon.

Furthermore, with that technology, the space station could be made larger, and it could spin around to make artificial gravity so that life is more pleasant, and it could travel around the solar system without worrying about food or water.

However, we do not have that technology, and so NASA is not testing it in their HI-SEAS project. NASA is only testing the ability of people to live in a small metal container. However, submarine crews have already proven to us that people are capable of living in such conditions. We don't need NASA to waste our tax money on experiments to prove something that we already know.

Does Trump support funding NASA's Mars-related projects? What does Trump plan to do with NASA?

DARPA is involved with the development of some useful technology, but they also are involved with idiotic projects, such as "terraforming" Mars so that it is more suitable to human life.

When I was in junior high school, I would frequently daydream about sending some giant machines to Venus to break down the carbon dioxide and create a more hospitable atmosphere, and then I and other children would live on Venus in a city that didn't have any adults. Where would we get food? I don't know. The city was full of sandwich shops, but I have no idea where the food was coming from.

As with NASA, I ignored the problem of food production and focused on what I found to be entertaining, such as water slides. However, instead of the typical waterslide in which people enter the water at a low velocity, I imagined gigantic waterslides that sent us flying through the air. To reduce the impact, an air compressor would create a stream of tiny bubbles at the bottom of a deep pool.

The Mars projects of NASA and DARPA remind me of my daydreams of living on Venus. Those daydreams were entertaining, but by the time I was in high school I came to the conclusion that they were idiotic and unrealistic. Perhaps a few million years from now the human race will have the ability to modify the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, but I don't think it is sensible for people today to put labor and resources into such projects.

There are some talented people in our government, but there are obviously a lot who are out of touch with reality, mentally ill, or at the intellectual level of a 12-year-old child. Our government also has lots of supporters of Israel, blackmailed pedophiles, alcoholics, criminals, parasites, religious fanatics, feminists, and submissive representatives who do whatever they are told by whoever is offering the most money.

Is Donald Trump going to do anything to improve the quality of our government officials? If so, exactly what will he do? Is he going to fire some of the officials? If so, which of them does he want to fire, and who does he suggest we replace them with?

The supporters of Trump have no idea what Trump will do about the government. Perhaps we should give Donald Trump the nickname "Not Sure" so that if he becomes president, America will more closely resemble the nation as seen in Idiocracy.
Interestingly, in the movie, the president's wife was a former prostitute, and the women who marry weathly men aren't much different.

Another issue that I would say is worse today than when I was a child is telemarketing, email spam, and the organizations that travel through our neighborhoods to spread religion or beg for donations. Some businesses are pushing the government into allowing telemarketing for cell phones.

Our government has a "Do Not Call List", but I added my phone number to it more than once, and I continue to get calls almost every day, so obviously the telemarketers can ignore the list if they want to. None of the police departments will do anything to stop the telemarketers, and neither will the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service. Will Donald Trump do anything about this problem? Will he allow businesses to do telemarketing on cell phones? Do any of his supporters care that they don't know what he is going to do?

Our FBI and other government officials have no incentive to eliminate telemarketing because we don't have anything equivalent to a Quality Control Department to watch over our government and ensure that they are doing something useful in return for the resources they take from us. Our government employees are free to waste their time trying to instigate wars for Israel, or arranging sexual affairs on the Ashley Madison website.

There are no consequences to government officials who are detrimental, worthless, parasitic, or dishonest. Will Donald Trump hold any of these government officials accountable for their actions? Will he be willing to experiment with changes to our government to improve this idiotic situation?

Another area that I would say has deteriorated is education. I would say that colleges have degraded into profit-making organizations. I would describe our colleges as scams. They have lowered their standards in order to attract more students, and they have added more silly classes, recreational activities, and worthless professors in order to provide classes for the students who don't have the desire to learn, or who don't have the talent.

Most of the students are wasting some of the best years of their life on worthless courses. Furthermore, the students, their parents, and taxpayers waste a lot of money on the colleges.

Does Trump have any proposals on how to improve our school system so that it becomes more effective and less expensive? I don't see any evidence that he has ever thought about this issue. I can see a lot of evidence that he is concerned about his hair, but I don't see him showing any concern about our schools.

I would say that another area where America has deteriorated during my life is in regards to relationships between men and women. When I was in high school, the Jews began pushing feminism on television and in the schools, and they also pushed the philosophy of doing whatever you please without worrying about the consequences. We were told to do what feels good.

I don't think feminism, or their philosophy of doing as you please, has improved life for us, or improved our relationships. I think it is encouraging animal behavior and fights.

What does Trump think about feminism? Does he support feminism? Or does he want to eliminate it? What does he want to do about improving relationships between men and women? Does he believe that men and women are a unisex creature? Or does he believe that there are differences between us? If he believes that there are differences between us, what does he believe the differences are?

The voters don't know how any of the candidates feel about these issues, and the voters don't care. However, the people that we put into influential positions are going to affect our future, so we ought to know.

My opinion is that anybody who cannot see that men and women have different intellectual and physical qualities is uneducated, dumb, and/or emotionally unable to face reality. The people in the advertising businesses should be especially aware of our differences because they design advertisements differently for men and women.

For example, advertisements for women frequently mention that other women are purchasing the product, and the reason the advertisers do this is because women are more likely than men to follow other women. Children are also likely to follow one another, and so advertisements for children will also tell the children what other children are doing.

For example, America Online recently had the advertisement (below), in which we are told that Jennifer Aniston likes a particular pair of shoes. Women and children respond favorably to advertisements in which they are told what other people, especially famous people, are doing. They will mimic Jennifer Aniston, Queen Elizabeth, and Lady Gaga.

Imagine if products for men were advertised in the same manner (such as the ad below, which I created from a photo of Jennifer and her husband). If you are a man, would you purchase a particular brand of underwear or shirt simply because Jennifer Aniston's husband was wearing it? Would you purchase a particular type of shoe simply because Prince Charles was wearing them? Do you even care what type of clothing Prince Charles is wearing?

Although men have a tendency to follow each other, the advertisements that are most effective for men are those that imply that the product will increase a man's status; that the product will cause both men and women to admire and respect him. Men are more interested in being high in the social hierarchy than they are in mimicking somebody. Men prefer to be a leader, not a follower.

Advertisements for men frequently include sexual titillation, and many people seem to believe that a man's sexual craving is his strongest emotion, but a man's strongest emotional craving is to be at the top of the hierarchy. Men want to be important. The primary activity of male animals is fighting for dominance, not looking for sex.

I think there are three main reasons as to why so many people believe sex is our strongest emotion.
1) We have very strong sexual inhibitions, and that makes us very sensitive to sexual issues. For example, if you were sitting in an airport and the man next you was looking at a pornography magazine and fantasizing about sex, your emotions would be stimulated regardless of whether you are male or female, and you would likely consider him to be an embarrassment or a deviant. However, if he was looking at photos of expensive cars, mansions, yachts, and wristwatches and fantasizing about becoming wealthy and important, you would not notice or care.

2) Men are easily stimulated with photos of sexual images, and this can create the impression that sex is a primary activity of men, but it would be more accurate to say that men are easily stimulated with sexual images.

3) As I mentioned in other documents, when people are unhappy, such as from mental problems or chemical imbalances in their blood, they have a tendency to seek activities that bring them pleasure, or which mask their pain. Some unhappy people turn to alcohol or drugs, and some withdraw into religious or science fiction fantasies, and some men turn to sex because that is an easy way of bringing some momentary pleasure into a man's life. Those particular men may spend an abnormal amount of their time masturbating, going to prostitutes, looking at pornography, or trying to have sex with as many women, children, or other men as possible. They might even have sex with animals.

The unhappy men who use sex as a way of bringing pleasure into their miserable lives can create the impression that a man's primary desire is sex. However, a more accurate view of the human mind is that the men and women who spend abnormal amounts of time on sex, babies, material items, fame, pets, drugs, alcohol, dangerous stunts, or talking to Jesus, are suffering from some mental and/or physical problem. They should not be regarded as typical examples of the human race, or as normal or healthy. Their behavior should be regarded as deviant, and the result of their problems.

This brings us to the issue of whether Donald Trump is in good mental health. Why has he spent so much of his life stockpiling material items and struggling to be famous? And why does he spend so much time boasting about himself?

Trump wants to restore our greatness, and this implies that he has analyzed America, determined that it is deteriorated, and has plans to improve it. So, where are his brilliant ideas to improve America?

He cannot use the excuse that he has never had any opportunities to tell us about his brilliant proposals. In addition to getting lots of publicity by the media, he has enough money to bypass the media and publish his own books, websites, and videos.

I have not analyzed Trump's life, but my impression of him is that he is similar to other wealthy people; namely, focused on acquiring money and status. He doesn't seem to care about society. He shows more of a concern for his hair than he does about the nation.

Incidentally, his concern about his hair causes him to worry about being outdoors. On windy days, for example, he wears a cap to protect his hair, and I suppose the rain terrifies him. There are photos of Vladimir Putin riding horses, swimming, exercising, and doing other activities, but I wonder if Donald Trump is afraid to do activities outdoors when photographers are nearby. Is that your idea of a leader?

An amusing vice president for Donald Trump would be Howard Stern, who does not seem to like the shape of his head, and who seems to be using his hair to hide as much of his head as possible. In such a case we would have a president and vice president who are afraid to be seen on windy days.

During every election, some of the conservative candidates claim that they are going to "get tough" with some foreign nation. Trump has been making a lot of these remarks. For three examples:

• “China has gotten rich off us. China has rebuilt itself with the money it’s sucked out of the United States and the jobs it’s sucked out of the United States.”

• Trump told Anderson Cooper that the war in Syria and Iraq "is not our fight. That's other people's fight." But then he went on to say, "Nobody will be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump."

• Trump said that he would use the US military to "Bomb the hell" out of the Iraqi oil fields that support ISIS, and that he would use the military to "take away their wealth ... take back the oil." He also claimed that by taking oil from Iraq, "We're going to have so much money!"

If a mathematician made remarks about math that were obviously idiotic, he would be considered a disgrace to his profession. However, politicians can make remarks that are obviously stupid without any repercussions. For example, consider Trump's remark that "China has rebuilt itself with the money it’s sucked out of the United States and the jobs it’s sucked out of the United States.” How has China sucked money or jobs out of our nation?

Donald Trump wants us to hate China, but China has not harmed America. Rather, China and America have a business relationship that both nations entered into voluntarily and are maintaining voluntarily. We could describe this relationship as one that benefits both nations.

Is our relationship with China "fair" to both of us? Or is one of us gaining more than the other?  Looking at my personal life, I feel that I benefit more from the relationship than the people in China. I am getting low-cost products from the Chinese people, but all they get from me are a few of my dollars. That buys them... what? A few bowls of rice? I feel as if I get more from the relationship than they do.

Furthermore, the reason Americans are continuing to maintain a business relationship with China is because most Americans feel exactly the same as I do; namely, we feel as if we are benefiting from this relationship. We are not buying Chinese products in order to help China or to torment America. We are buying Chinese products because we believe that they are giving us something of value for our money.

Interestingly, the Chinese people believe they are benefiting from this relationship, also, because they are continuing it voluntarily. Perhaps from their point of view, they are benefiting more than us. Perhaps some of them consider the arrangement as a way for them to develop their nation, and in return all they have to do is provide us with some material items.

Some Americans complain that many Chinese products are low-quality, and but there are low-quality products in America, also. Some Americans also complain that there have been cases in which Chinese food products were contaminated, but that problem is not restricted to China, either. America has had problems with contaminated foods and drugs, but nobody suggested that we hate America because of it. In 1985, some people in Austria were caught putting diethylene glycol into wine, but nobody suggested that we hate Austria because of it.

Trump and many conservatives try to create the impression that China is some type of selfish criminal that is sucking money and jobs from us, but we are voluntarily giving them our money. They are not sucking anything from us. The voters should be appalled by such idiotic accusations. Instead, they vote for candidates who make these stupid accusations!

Although Trump and the other conservatives are frequently advocating that we get tough with Iran, Iraq, China, and other nations, it is important to note that none of them want us to get tough with Israel. They don't even suggest reducing the foreign aid that we give Israel.

Neither China nor Iran has done anything to harm the American people. Israel, by comparison, has already been caught committing atrocious crimes against many nations. For just two examples that not even the Jews bother to dispute:
• In 1946 the British military caught Jews pretending to be Arabs and blowing up a portion of the King David Hotel.
• In 1967 the American military caught Jews pretending to be Egyptians and attacking the USS Liberty.

It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that the reason all of our political candidates, regardless of their political party, are supporting Israel and encouraging the hatred of Iran and other nations is because they are either members of the Jewish crime network, or they are under their control. They are not free, independent men or women. They are puppets or criminals. None of them should qualify as government officials. Actually, their connections to crime networks ought to be investigated, and we ought to pass judgment on whether we want them in our nation.

Donald Trump claims to love Israel, but he is not Jewish, so why does he have such a strong attraction to Israel and such a strong hatred for China, Iran, and other nations?

Trump's daughter married a Jew and converted to Orthodox Judaism. There are a lot of Jews who do not want to be Orthodox Jews, so why does she have a stronger interest in it than many of the Jews?

The Trump family may not be Jewish, but it is possible that their mental characteristics are more similar to the Jews than the rest of us, and so they may feel more comfortable with Khazars, Mongols, Neanderthals, and Huns than they do with humans.

In addition to advocating that we "get tough" with foreign nations, the conservatives frequently boast that they are tough on crime. But if they were truly tough on crime, then the conservatives would be leading the investigation of who is responsible for the 9/11 attack, and who put explosives in the World Trade Center buildings. However, from my personal observations, the people most likely to interfere with discussions and investigations of 9/11 are the conservatives.

If conservatives were truly tough on crime, they would also be leading the investigations and arrest of pedophiles in our media, government, day care centers, churches, and police departments. However, when pedophile networks are exposed, we discover that many of the people involved are conservatives, and we discover that police departments and government officials have been protecting those pedophiles, and that many of them are also conservatives.

Is Donald Trump going to change this pattern of pretending not to see Israel's involvement with 9/11, and pretending not to see the pedophiles in government, churches, and daycare centers? Will Trump become the first conservative in history to practice what he preaches about getting tough on crime? As of today, I see no evidence that he is less of a hypocrite than the other government officials.

Some people claim that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in America. Trump is promising to identify, capture, and deport them. However, many illegal immigrants have already been caught and deported more than once. How is catching them again and deporting them again going to solve this problem?

The policy of catching and deporting illegal aliens might seem to be an intelligent policy, but it is the same idiotic behavior we see with animals. First, consider how animals deal with the issue.

When an animal wanders into another animal's territory, the other animals react by trying to chase it out of their territory. The trespassing animal might respond by trying to appear courageous, but if it is outnumbered, it will eventually run away. The issue will then be resolved, and all of the animals will return to whatever they were doing before the trespassing incident. However, the problem was not "solved" because the animal that created the trespassing incident will once again cross into that territory, and then the process will repeat itself.

If we were to observe a pack of dogs, wolves, or other territorial animals throughout their entire lives, we would find that the animals are regularly crossing into each other's territory. More importantly, we would notice that the animals react to the trespassing incidents exactly the same every time. Specifically, the animals bark and chase after one another, and whichever group is the smaller or weaker is chased away.

It is important to understand why animals trespass on each other's territory, and why they react to the trespassing in exactly the same manner every time.

Animals trespass on each other's territory because each animal is arrogant and selfish. Each animal believes that he owns the world. When two animals encounter one another, each of them considers the other to be trespassing. If the animals could speak English, we might hear one animal yell something to the effect of: "Hey, you! This is my land! Get out of here!" And the other animal would respond, "You get out! You are on my land!"

Animals react to trespassing in exactly the same manner every time because they follow their emotions, and their emotions respond to particular stimuli in exactly the same manner every time. Their emotions cause them to become angry at the trespasser, and to chase after the trespassers. Animals do not have the intelligence or the desire to think about the issue or discuss the issue.

When humans capture and deport illegal aliens, we are behaving like animals. However, instead of barking at the aliens and trying to chase them out of our territory, we arrest them, put them into a bus or airplane, and then send them back to their nation. As with animals, many of the illegal aliens sneak back into America, and the process is repeated, over and over, year after year.

The aliens repeatedly sneak into America for the same reason dogs repeatedly cross into each other's territory. Specifically, humans are arrogant, selfish creatures. Our emotions believe that we own this planet, and that we can live wherever we please. If we find ourselves attracted to a different area of the world, our emotions tell us to move to that area, and if the people on that land tell us to leave, our emotions tell us to fight with them because they are on our land.

As I write this, September 2015, a lot of people from Syria have been traveling illegally into Europe. Most people are referring to them as "refugees" rather than as trespassers or illegal aliens, but this concept applies to them just as it does to illegal aliens.

Note that the refugees have the same attitude that we see with animals. Specifically, they believe they have the right to live wherever they want. For example, some of them have traveled to Hungary, but they do not want to stop traveling and live in Hungary. They have seen the more advanced cities of Germany, Britain, and other Western European nations, and they want to live in those more advanced nations. They don't care that those more advanced nations are already overcrowded. They want the food that those nations have, and they want the homes, automobiles, jobs, and clothing.

The attitude of the refugees who have traveled to Hungary is to fight with the people who are trying to stop them from moving to Western Europe. Their attitude is that they own this planet, and they will live wherever they want to live.

Some of their children are protesting that they should be able to continue their traveling to Western Europe, but we could respond that we don't want them.

America and Europe are attracting a lot of people from other nations because those immigrants and refugees want the wealth, food, and more peaceful conditions of our nations. They don't want to live among their own people. Many of them will not even accept an Eastern European nation.

Although Europe and America are sending some of the refugees and illegal aliens back to their home nation, we don't send all of them back. As a result, over a long period of time the immigrants and refugees will accumulate, and eventually there will be more of them than there are of us, and our nations will resemble their nations. We can already see this happening in America. There are many parts of the Southwest of America where Spanish is the dominant language.

A nation is just an organization of people, so it might help you to understand the problems of a nation if you consider the same problems happening to a smaller group, such as a business, or a family.

Imagine a group of refugees is demanding that they be able to move into your home and live with you because they like your home more than they like their own home. They want the food in your refrigerator because it is better than what they had in theirs, and they like the way you treat people more than they like the way they were treated in their own nation. Imagine them demanding that you let them into your house and live with you.

We are not responsible for refugees who die in the process of trying to sneak into our nations. We don't owe them anything.

To make the imaginary scenario more accurate to what is happening right now in Europe, imagine that one of their children dies on your front lawn in the process of trying to get into your house. Imagine people around the world posting a photo of the dead child on the Internet and trying to make you feel guilty.

We are fools to feel responsible for refugees who die in the process of trying to force themselves on us. We didn't ask them to make that trip; we didn't invite them. If they die in the process of trying to illegally enter another nation, that is their problem, not ours. They are not our responsibility.

Furthermore, we do not have to accept the boats of refugees, even if they are low on food and water, and we do not have any obligation to save them from drowning when their boat is sinking.

There are lots of people who will respond that I am cruel, and that we should be kind to one another, or that we have a duty to help one another, but a more useful philosophy for this modern world is that every person has a responsibility to be a respectable member of the human race, and we should take care of only the people who are productive members, not the people who are destructive, parasitic, or irresponsible.

We should follow a philosophy that is similar to that of gardeners and farmers. A gardener takes care of the healthy plants, not the destructive plants. A farmer takes care of his healthy animals, not the psychotic, destructive, or violent animals.

We do not solve problems when we feel sorry for badly behaved people. Instead, we encourage more bad behavior. For example, when we save refugees from drowning, we are letting other people realize that they can also make trips in overcrowded or substandard boats without worrying about their boat sinking.

The people who want to help the refugees are not helping them or the human race by feeling sorry for refugees. To truly help the refugees, we need to deal with the problem that is causing refugees.

Animals are constantly having disputes over territory, but their only reaction is to fight with one another. Animals do not have the desire or ability to analyze why the disputes are occurring, and they have no ability or desire to experiment with methods to reduce the disputes. Only humans have the intellectual ability to analyze these issues and improve our situation.

Unfortunately, most of the people who want to help refugees are taking the easy path in life. Instead of researching the problem and proposing that we experiment with possible solutions, they are behaving just like they do when they encounter beggars in the street. They are essentially tossing bits of food to the refugees, and then they titillate themselves by praising themselves for being kind and loving.

They also titillate themselves by insulting those of us who do not want to help the refugees or homeless people. They tell themselves that they are superior to us; that they are wonderful people, and that people like me are cruel and selfish. In reality, they are simply masturbating; they are stimulating themselves. They are not solving any problems, and they are not improving life for the human race.

In order to truly stop the problem with illegal immigrants and refugees, we need to understand why these problems are occurring, and we need to experiment with changes to our societies to reduce the problem.

So, why is Europe currently having a problem with refugees from Syria? And why is America having a problem with illegal immigrants?

Those of you who read my documents certainly realize that the true cause of the problems in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries are the Jews. For the past century the Jews have been fighting with Arabs, Iranians, Turks, and other people in the area, and manipulating other nations into fighting, also. The Middle East has been a war zone for more than a century because of the Jews.

A lot of people in Syria want to leave their nation, but we cannot solve this problem by allowing them to come to our nations. If we accept their refugees, then more of them will come, and it will encourage people in the other nations to also come.

The only way to solve the problem of the Syrian refugees is to help Syria become a desirable nation so that the Syrian people are willing to live in their own nation. How do we do that? It should be obvious: we have to deal with Israel and Jews. Unfortunately, most of the Americans, Europeans, Russians, and other people refuse to see the evidence that Israel and the Jews are the source of many of the world's most serious problems.

Instead of dealing with the Jews, millions of people are foolishly making the problem worse by following the Jewish propaganda to advocate more hatred and bombings of Israel's neighbors. Trump wants us to bomb the oil fields in Iraq and take their oil. Many Americans want us to bomb Iran, or torment them with economic embargoes.

The people who are promoting Israeli propaganda are part of the reason that Syria and other nations are undesirable places to live, so we could say that those jerks are partly responsible for the refugees.

Unfortunately, animals do not want to look critically at their particular group. We have a strong resistance to considering the possibility that our friends, children, relatives, parents, coworkers, and neighbors are jerks who are causing problems for the world. We want to find problems in other tribes, not our tribe.

Dealing with the world's problems requires people who can control their emotions well enough to be able to notice when their friends, relatives, children, parents, and neighbors are causing trouble for the world. And we must be able to control ourselves so well that we can see the good qualities in people of other tribes.

We must also be able to stand up to our mentally incompetent friends and relatives and tell them that they are primitive savages who cannot cope with the problems of the modern world, and they should not be allowed to vote or influence government policies. They need to keep their mouth shut.

Until we stand up to our friends and relatives and put better people in control of our nation, the talking monkeys will continue to elect Israeli puppets to government office, and our nations will continue on the path that they are on right now, which is to become dominated by immigrants and refugees.

It is important to note that Hungary recently constructed a razor wire barrier along its 110 mile border, but that barrier has not stopped people from crossing the border illegally. Some are crossing in front of photographers.

Donald Trump and many other Americans are promoting the concept of building a wall along Mexico and/or Canada to stop the illegal aliens. If we were to point out to Trump and the other Americans that Hungary's razor wire is doing nothing to stop illegal immigrants, I suspect that they would respond by insulting the Hungarians for building a substandard barrier, and by boasting that Americans will build a much better barrier.

However, anybody who believes that a better barrier will solve the problem of illegal immigration is as foolish as a person who believes that we will prevent crime by making better security locks, security cameras, and other security devices. Unfortunately, no matter how advanced our security devices are, it will be possible for people to defeat them.

One of the qualities of our universe that only a minority of people seem to be able to adequately understand is that it is easier to destroy than it is to create. For three examples:
 • It is easier to break a security system than it is to create a security system.
 • It is easier to kill a person than it is to raise a child.
 • It is easier to burn a house than it is to build a house.

Most people believe that crime can be stopped with security devices and security cameras, but crime cannot be stopped with material items. Crime is not due to a lack of barbed wire or security cameras. Crime is the result of the human mind devising methods to steal, rape, murder, plagiarize, cheat, and deceive.

Security cameras and barbed wire fences are being put into a battle with human minds, and those inanimate objects cannot win such a battle. If a human mind is determined to commit a crime, it will find a way to beat those inanimate objects.

Our technology is nowhere near advanced enough to stop people from committing crimes. We cannot yet even make a robot that is smart enough to catch mice, or pick weeds in a garden.

Food processing businesses need people to inspect the food items because our technology is still too crude to distinguish between good and bad fruit and vegetables.

Since our computers are too stupid to distinguish between a good peach and a rotten peach, how can we expect our dumb machines to win a battle against the human mind?

There is only one way to reduce crime, and that is for the humans to stop committing crimes. How do we make that happen? We cannot. As far as we know, there is no method to stop human minds from committing crimes. Furthermore, there are no desirable policies for crime. No matter which policy we choose, it will be unpleasant and imperfect.

The point I am trying to make is that we cannot stop crime, refugees, illegal immigrants, corruption, rape, or other unpleasant or bad behavior with inanimate objects, such as walls along the border, or security cameras at airport terminals. We must make changes to society.

In my other documents, I suggest a city be able to control its immigration, but unlike the majority of people, I do not propose building a wall around the city to stop illegal immigration, and I do not believe that catching and deporting illegal aliens is a sensible solution.

I think a more sensible solution would be to change our attitudes in the following four areas:
1) Every society must stop interfering with other societies, as America, Europe, and other nations have been doing in the Middle East.

The human race may still be too much like a monkey for us to stop the nations from bombing each other, supplying weapons to one another, and meddling in each other's affairs, but the point I want to make is that this is one of the policies we must implement if we truly want to reduce the problem of refugees. As long as we are creating war zones and putting nations on economic embargoes, there will be people trying to escape from those areas.

If the world were to follow my suggestion of breaking itself into independent cities, then this policy would be much easier to implement because the cities would be virtually equal in size. There would be no large nations, such as Russia, America, and China, to impose their particular beliefs on their smaller neighbors. Moscow, Paris, Berlin, and Chicago would be independent societies, and they would not have militaries.

Because of their small size, the cities would be economically dependent upon one another much more than large nations are dependent upon one another, and so the people would be working with other cities much more often than nations work with each other. This would encourage cooperation between the cities rather than isolation and arrogance.

Of course, I should point out that unless all of the people on this planet are capable of speaking the same language, the cities will tend to segregate rather than cooperate. The people in a particular city will have a tendency to do business with the cities that they can communicate with.

To truly improve this world, we must stop promoting the concept that every group of people have their own language. It is acceptable for people to speak more than one language, but we should all have the same primary language. We also need to have the same clocks and measurement systems. Unless we are willing to make that "sacrifice", I don't think we will ever have a truly united, peaceful world. Is it really such a terrible sacrifice to make?

2) We must stop rewarding refugees and illegal immigrants with welfare, medical care, citizenship to their babies, jobs, and other benefits.

Many Americans, including the conservatives who complain about illegal immigrants, are rewarding and encouraging illegal immigration because they are hiring them as maids, nannies, and gardeners, and many businessmen are hiring them to work in their factories and farms.

The people who advocate saving the refugees and illegal aliens when their boat sinks, or when they are dying of thirst in a desert, are also encouraging this problem by letting people know that it is acceptable for them to take dangerous risks when crossing illegally into another nation because the people will rush to their rescue with helicopters and medical technology.

Part of the illegal immigration into America is due to American behavior; it is a self-inflicted problem. However, since we are arrogant animals, we do not want to look critically at the American people. Donald Trump and other Americans want to focus anger on the illegal aliens. They do not want to face the fact that there are many American businesses who are hiring illegal aliens, and there are many citizens who are giving them jobs as nannies and maids.

If we are not willing to do something about the Americans who reward illegal aliens with jobs, we are fools to expect the illegal aliens to stop struggling to get into this nation. As long as they know that jobs are available for them, they are going to find a way to get across the border.

It should be noted that these concepts are similar to the problem of people bringing drugs illegally into the nation. Most people foolishly believe that they can stop drug importation by putting fences along the borders and having custom agents inspect luggage, but this is doing nothing to stop people from sneaking drugs into the nation. As long as there are Americans who want drugs, there will be people in poor nations who are going to find a way to get those drugs to their customers.

Unfortunately, rather than control our arrogance and look critically at ourselves and our society, when we see an American is abusing drugs, we look for a way to blame his problems on some other group of people, or on some other nation. We do not want to take responsibility for ourselves or what our tribe is doing. We want to think of ourselves as perfect and flawless, and we want to criticize other people and blame them for our troubles. We are never going to deal with our problems as long as we continue to behave like arrogant, selfish monkeys who blame other monkeys for our problems.

3) We must be able to deal with the criminals within our own society, such as those who help the illegal aliens. As I have mentioned many times, an organization is only as good as its members. If a nation consists of people who have such low quality minds that they will give jobs to illegal aliens, help them hide from the police, or marry them simply to give them citizenship, then we cannot expect the nation to deal with this problem no matter what it does.

When we look at America, we find that there are many people helping the illegal immigrants. An example I mentioned years ago was that when Ariana Huffington was living in Santa Barbara, she hired an illegal alien as a nanny at the same time that her husband was running for a government office as a Republican, and the Republicans at the time were complaining about illegal aliens. However, she was not arrested, scolded, prohibited from influential positions, or evicted from America. Actually, she became even more influential. For example, she started the Huffington Post.

The concept applies to other problems. For example, we are never going to stop drug abuse as long as we blame the drug dealers and ignore the drug users. We are not going to us stop burglary as long as we focus on the burglars and not the people who purchase stolen products.

No nation is dealing adequately with their badly behaved members. Every nation punishes their criminal members by making them pay a fine or by putting them in jail for a while, but then they allow them to continue running businesses, getting into government offices, and committing more crimes. We must be willing to experiment with new crime policies or nothing is going to improve.

4) We should stop promoting the concept of servants and peasants. All throughout history we find people in poor nations offering to become slaves or servants of people in wealthy nations. Being a low-paid factory worker in a wealthy nation, or being a servant to a wealthy family, can provide a more pleasant life than living in a nation that is suffering from a shortage of food, a corrupt government, and overpopulation.

Every nation has the attitude that it is acceptable to use the uneducated and dumb people as servants, factory workers, and farm workers. This creates a society in which there are different classes of people that do not mix.

As I have described in other documents, I think a more practical society would be one in which there is no wealthy or peasant class, and everybody contributes to society.
Instead of using people from other nations as a cheap source of labor, we should develop machines and robots to do those jobs, as well as make changes to our society to reduce the amount of peasant work that needs to be done.

Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, businesses are in competition to make money, and more money can be made by providing consumers with cell phone games, pets, gambling, and sports than by making automated machinery and robots. Microsoft is putting more effort into making Xbox video games than they are in making better software for robots. Apple is more interested in making cell phones than they are making machinery that can pick strawberries, peaches, and avocados.

In order to truly reduce the problem of refugees, immigrants, servants, and peasants, we need to change our economic system so that we can put more resources in projects that reduce the need for unskilled labor and make farms and factories more efficient.

Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to divert resources from entertainment to robots as long as we continue following a free enterprise system and a democracy. We need to start experimenting with a new government system and a new economic system, but how can we conduct such experiments when the majority of people are allowed to vote and determine our future? The only way we could make such dramatic changes is if a small group of people decides to take control of the nation.

The people who are proposing embargoes on Iran or who propose bombing Iran are trying to frighten us into believing that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, and that as soon as they develop nuclear weapons, they are going to attack us with them.

Have you ever spent any time considering how incredibly stupid the Iranian people would have to be in order to believe that they are going to benefit by attacking America with nuclear bombs? What could they possibly gain by attacking us with nuclear bombs? How many times in history can we find Iran attacking other nations for no apparent reason?

The people who propose bombing Iran are trying to convince us that the Iranian people are a sub-human race of suicidal monsters who want to kill us simply because they are monsters. Do not dismiss their insane accusations as irrelevant. It is important to note that the people who are attempting to justify a bombing of Iran are behaving like the people throughout history who would instigate wars by working people into a frenzy with lies. For example, one of the reasons that people justified attacking Iraq in 1991 was that the Iraqi soldiers were tossing babies out of incubators at hospitals.

The majority of people have a strong resistance to thinking. They want to follow their emotions rather than research issues and discuss their options. This makes it easy to trick them into starting a war. All we have to do is stimulate their anger. Since people have a very strong craving to protect babies, the easiest way to incite anger is to tell them that the other group of people is killing babies.

When evidence came out that the news reports about the Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators was a lie, nobody was arrested for instigating a war with those lies. Our media and government can lie as much as they please without any repercussions.

Why didn't the military or the American people become angry with the media and government for lying to them about those incubator babies? Why didn't they become upset that they were tricked into a war?

The reason is because most people are too much like animals to care. Just like a dog that is beaten with a stick, most people just licked their wounds and returned to grazing in the fields with the other sheep. They want to titillate themselves with food, babies, sex, material items, drugs, and games. They are not interested in dealing with complex issues, such as being tricked into a war.

It is also important to note that during the 1991 war with Iraq, many Americans were advocating that we take control of the oil fields, and they justified taking their oil on the grounds that it was in "our national interest". That is a vague way of saying that we should take their oil because we want it. This is the same attitude that we see with the refugees who are in Hungary.

People who behave like this are behaving like an animal, not a modern human. They are trying to grab at whatever they want. We ought to be disgusted with this behavior, not ignore it, or allow these people to get into influential positions.

Donald Trump wants us to bomb the Iraqi oil fields and take their oil. If we let him get away with that bombing, what would he propose next? Would he advocate bombing China and taking their rare-earth ores? Or should we bomb Poland and take their sausages?

Why should we try to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? We do nothing to stop Israel, Pakistan, India, and other nations from producing nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, rockets, missiles, and other weapons. Why should we care if Iran has the same weapons as other nations?

Furthermore, America, Britain, Israel, and other nations are competing with each other to sell weapons around the world, and we also give weapons to some nations. Why is it acceptable to spread conventional weapons around the world but not let Iran have nuclear weapons?

Israel has fooled the American people into believing that every nation should have weapons except Iran. I would describe America's foreign policy as idiotic and manipulated by Jews.

Donald Trump is not offering us a better foreign policy. He is simply promoting the typical Jewish propaganda of praising Israel and fighting with Israel's neighbors.

Animals have only two reactions to problems; they either run away and hide, or they fight. Our method to stop illegal immigration and drug abuse is to fight with the illegal aliens and the drug dealers, but we are not solving these problems with fights. We are merely reacting to the problems like stupid animals.

Policemen in every nation are getting into fights with drug dealers and illegal aliens on a regular basis. Occasionally policemen are killed or permanently disabled in these fights, but, just like animals, no society shows any interest in experimenting with a different policy.

The fights between policemen and drug dealers are much more violent than the fights with illegal aliens, but every society justifies the fights on the grounds that the policemen are protecting us from drugs. However, it doesn't take much intelligence to realize that the policemen are not protecting me from drugs, and they are not protecting any of the other millions of people who are not interested in drugs. They are not even protecting the people who want drugs. Who are they protecting? The answer is nobody.

Those of us who are not interested in drugs are ignoring the drug dealers, and the people who want drugs are getting the drugs despite the fights between policemen and drug dealers. The police are not helping anybody. They are simply fighting with the drug dealers, and they fight over and over, year after year, without ever stopping to analyze the situation, just like dogs fighting endlessly over territory.

The police are risking their lives with drug dealers for nothing. If drugs were legal, virtually nothing would change. I would continue to ignore drugs, and the people who want drugs would continue to get drugs.

Most people behave just like animals. They exist from one day to the next without any desire to experiment with different policies and try to improve their life.

Whenever I criticize the conservatives, the conservatives react defensively and accuse me of being a liberal, so before I start this section, which is going to be critical of conservatives, I would like to remind you that I do not like the Democrats, either.

Actually, the reason I don't want to spend much time criticizing Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and some of the other Democrats is because I am so disgusted with them that I prefer to avoid looking into their lives. I consider them to be appalling.

By comparison, the conservatives seem to be normal, healthy humans, or, to be more precise, like the humans of 20,000 years ago. Although I don't believe conservatives should be in leadership positions, I think they are fascinating to observe because I think they can help us to understand our ancestors and the animals. I think conservatives can show how our prehistoric ancestors behaved, treated each other, and dealt with life's problems.

The reason I say that conservatives are more like prehistoric savages than modern humans is because of the way they react to problems. As I mentioned, animals have only two reactions to problems. They either run away and hide, or they fight. As a group, conservatives react to almost every problem either by ignoring it, or fighting with it. They rarely show an interest in researching the issue, discussing it, and experimenting with possible solutions. This section of my document will give you some examples of what I am referring to. To begin, consider how the Republicans who do not like Donald Trump are reacting to him.

There are some Republicans who suspect that Donald Trump is a liar and a fraud, and that he is trying to hurt the Republican Party and help the Democrats. However, it is important to note that they are reacting to Trump with fear.

On 3 September 2015, the Republican National Committee (RNC) asked each Republican candidate to sign a loyalty pledge to promise that he will not switch to another political party, and that he "will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is."

Why would the RNC care if Trump switches to a different political party? And why would they demand that he support the Republican candidate "regardless of who it is"? Since the RNC does not consider Trump to be a Republican, why are they trying to force him to remain in the Republican Party?

Would you put pressure on somebody to remain a member of your organization if you did not like or trust him? I would have expected the Republicans to complain that Trump is a liar and a fraud, and that he is not accepted as a member of the Republican Party. So, why is the RNC reacting to Trump by trying to force him to be a Republican?

The reason is because they are worried that if Trump is not nominated as the Republican candidate, he will switch to some other party, and many of the Republicans will vote for him rather than the Republican candidate, and that in turn will help the Democrat get elected. You may respond that this is a valid concern, but it is not. It is animal behavior. It is fear. Before I continue, let me explain something about business activity and athletics.

The competition in a free enterprise system is constantly changing in unpredictable ways. Different business executives react to the competition in different manners. At one extreme are the businesses that are operated by crime networks. From what little I know of crime networks, they are not very tolerant of competition. Crime networks are frequently caught killing, blackmailing, bribing, and sabotaging their competition. They are not friendly with their competitors.

At the other extreme would be the business executives who have no problem with competition. They observe what their competitors are doing, and they try to make their products better, or less expensive, or more reliable. They compete in a fair and honest manner, and the result is that their products improve over time. They are capable of forming friendships with their competitors. This type of businessman might be unusual, but I have seen this personality among some restaurant owners.

Most businessmen are between those two extremes. They are tolerant of competition when their business is doing fine, but when they are faced with difficult competition, they will be tempted to cheat, or to beg the government to impose tariffs, regulations, licenses, or fees in an attempt to suppress their competition. Some of them will form illegal alliances with their competitors in order to help each other suppress their other competitors.

We could describe the personality of the typical businessman as, "When the pressure gets tough, the typical businessman behaves more like an animal." This was most noticeable when the American steel and automobile industries were suffering from competition from Japan. Rather than look for ways to improve their businesses, they begged consumers to buy American products, and they begged the government to reduce the competition.

How would animals behave if they had enough intelligence to become business executives? I suspect that they would be even more abusive than the crime networks. The reason I say this is that male animals are completely intolerant of competition. Male animals react defensively to any other animal that competes with them, and some of them will even behave defensively and aggressively towards juvenile animals that do not display submissive facial expressions. Animals are more arrogant and demanding than the most psychotic gang leader or communist dictator.

Now consider how these concepts apply to athletics. At one extreme are the athletes who are intolerant of competition. They try to bribe their judges, sabotage their competition, or cheat in some other manner. They prefer to compete with people that they know they can beat. They do not want to help their competitors develop their talents.

At the other extreme are the athletes who enjoy competition. They use the competition as a way to inspire themselves and learn new techniques. They do not want to compete with people they can easily beat. They consider such competitions to be worthless and boring. They want to compete with athletes who have equal or better skills. They are willing to help other athletes develop their talents.

If animals were intelligent enough to play casual games of golf purely for fun, would they play in an honest manner? I suspect that animals would be more interested in winning, more intolerant of losing, and more abusive towards competitors than any human. Furthermore, I suspect that an animal would choose to compete with an animal that he believes he can easily beat rather than with an animal that might beat him.

It is also important to note that male animals have no desire to help other males develop their talents or succeed in their attempts to rise in the hierarchy or get females. Male animals regard one another as threats and competitors, not as friends. The males work together when they hunt, but they do that for their own benefit. Each male wants to be the leader of the group, and he will use violence and intimidation to get to that position. They do not help one another develop their talents because they are in competition with each other.

If the people who dominate the Republican Party had the personality of the best behaved athletes or businessmen, then they would not fear competition. Rather, they would welcome it. Instead of being afraid of Donald Trump,  Hillary Clinton, and the other candidates, they would look for a candidate who is better than the competition, and they would proudly present candidates to the nation.

Likewise, instead of being afraid of Donald Trump's proposals, they should react like an athlete who uses the competition to inspire him and become better. The Republicans should analyze the policies that Trump is proposing, and try to develop policies that are more intelligent and more desirable. Instead of being frightened of Trump, they should proudly present their proposals to the nation. They should use the competition to inspire them and learn something new.

However, the Republicans are not reacting to Trump by looking for a candidate who can beat Trump, and they are not analyzing Trump's proposals and trying to develop proposals that are more intelligent.

Oaths of loyalty should be joyous occasions.

Instead, they are reacting with fear. They are behaving like a primitive tribe that is frightened that one of their members might split the tribe into two pieces, and they believe they can stop it from happening by making him sign an oath of loyalty.

Our wedding ceremonies require the bride and groom to swear an oath of loyalty to one another, but they are doing those oaths with a joyous attitude, not an attitude of fear, and not for the purpose of forcing a person they dislike to remain with them.

Many organizations, such as the military and government, also require some of their members to swear an oath of loyalty, but those are ceremonial formalities to welcome new members to the organization. Those oaths of loyalty are not the result of frightened officials who are worried that they will lose their leadership position to a competitor. Those oaths of loyalty are conducted with a pleasant attitude, not an attitude of fear.

Republicans ought to be embarrassed that their leadership demanded that Trump sign an oath of loyalty. Furthermore, Trump is under no obligation to follow that silly oath of loyalty, and I doubt if any of his supporters would care if he disregards it. Actually, he might gain even more support by disregarding it because many people might interpret such actions as showing independence and doing what is best for America rather than being a typical, submissive candidate who does what he is told.

If the primary concern of the RNC was to help America become better, then they would be looking through the Republican membership to find a candidate who is more desirable than Donald Trump and the other candidates, and they would be looking for ways to improve their proposals. However, they don't want to do that. They want to promote the same candidates and polices that they promoted in the past.

They are behaving like the steel and automobile executives who were facing competition from Japan. Instead of improving their businesses, those business executives wanted to keep everything as it was, and so they begged the government for tariffs and handouts. Those executives were not interested in doing what was best for their business or what was best for society. They were concerned only with holding onto their positions of leadership. They were behaving just like stupid monkeys who were concerned that they were going to be pushed down on the hierarchy, and they were doing anything they could think of to eliminate their competitors.

When people in leadership positions behave in this manner, they are not providing leadership. They are not providing analyses of our problems, or guidance for our future. They are behaving like frightened animals who are concerned with eliminating their competitors so that they can remain high in the hierarchy.

The members of the Republican Party ought to be disgusted with their leadership for behaving in this crude and worthless manner, but the Republican members don't show any concern. They are not advocating that their leaders be replaced with people who will find a candidate who can beat Donald Trump.

Why don't the Republicans want to find a candidate who can beat Donald Trump? Why don't they want to develop policies that are better than what Trump is offering? The reason is because the conservatives have a mind that is very similar to that of animals or prehistoric savages.

The conservatives are extremely arrogant, and they believe they already have the best candidates and the best policies. It is not possible to improve upon perfection, so there is no way for them to improve their policies or candidates. Their policy on abortion is perfect; nothing needs to be changed about it. Their policy on religion is flawless, and so is their policy on immigration, Iraq, school systems, and drugs. They never make mistakes, so there is nothing for them to improve.

The Republicans are behaving like a prehistoric tribe that is under attack by Donald Trump. Prehistoric tribes were not interested in looking critically at themselves or trying to improve their policies or leadership. They believed they already had the best leadership, and that their language was the best, and that their culture was the best. When they were under attack, they either fought or ran away. They did not analyze themselves or look for ways to improve themselves.

Conservatives have mental characteristics that would have been sensible in prehistoric times, but which are detrimental in this modern world. For example, their desire to follow traditions was valuable in prehistoric times. This attitude was especially useful in regards to foods because a person who would follow traditions would eat the foods that his parents and other ancestors had been eating, and that caused him to avoid the foods that were poisonous or indigestible. By comparison, the people who wanted to experiment with foods would sometimes get sick or die.

Likewise, the people who wanted to follow tradition would be more productive when making tools and clothing because they would follow techniques that had been developed by their parents and ancestors. By comparison, the people who wanted to experiment with making tools and clothing would frequently make mistakes, thereby wasting time and materials.

Animals and humans evolved with a very strong craving to follow one another simply because this is a necessary trait during prehistoric times. However, this characteristic is causing trouble in the world today because it causes people to resist experimenting with solutions to modern problems.

The conservatives do not want to experiment with changes, so when we put them into leadership positions, nothing can possibly improve. Putting them into leadership positions is like packing a transmission so full of dirt that nothing can move.

Another emotional characteristic of conservatives that was valuable in prehistoric times but which causes trouble today is their craving to follow their leaders without questioning them. Their resistance to looking critically at their leaders made sense in prehistoric times because their leaders didn't do much of anything.

The leader of a prehistoric tribe would occasionally make a decision about which direction the tribe should wander to find food or water, but the members of the tribe would not have benefited by analyzing his decision and passing judgment on whether they should follow him or select a new leader. They would have been wasting their time, encouraging rebellious attitudes, and bringing changes in leadership that had no benefit. During prehistoric times, a tribe would operate more efficiently when the members gave blind obedience to their leader.

In this modern world, however, this characteristics causes conservatives to give blind obedience to leaders regardless of how horrible they might be. The conservatives are willing to give obedience to Kings and Queens, for example, even when everybody can see that the King is insane, or that the King is only seven years old.

In this modern world, we must have the ability to analyze people in leadership positions and pass judgment on whether they belong in that position. We are fools to continue promoting monarchies, nepotism, corruption, incompetence, and dishonesty in our leadership.

In this modern era, leaders must be considered as employees who are doing a job. Our leaders should not be worshiped or given special treatment. They should have to meet higher standards than other employees because they have greater influence over our lives and our future than people in other jobs.

I suspect that many conservatives would respond that my accusation that they behave like primitive savages is just a stupid insult rather than an accurate description. I don't think they can see their crude qualities. I think that from their point of view, they are critical of their leadership, and they are adventurous people who explore the unknown.

It might help you to understand this concept if you first consider how it applies to exercise. If we compare the people who exercise, we will find that there are no distinct types of people. There is only a continuous spectrum. At one extreme are the people who exercise with so little effort that their pulse does not increase by much, and they are capable of having conversations while they exercise. At the other extreme are people who exercise with such intensity that at the end of the exercise their heart is pounding, they are gasping for air, and they have trouble standing up. However, if we were to ask the people who exercise if they are putting effort into it, we would find that everybody believes that they are putting a lot of effort into exercising.

The same concept applies to our ability to look critically at our leadership, and our desire to explore the unknown. All humans have the same mental characteristics. We all have an ability to look critically at our leadership, and to explore the unknown. However, we have these qualities at different levels. If we could measure our qualities, we would find that most people are "ordinary".

In regards to food, there are people at one extreme, such as my mother, who consider themselves to be adventurous when they make a trivial modification to a food recipe, such as reducing the amount of sugar, or substituting one spice with another. At the other extreme are those of us who never follow recipes, but who don't consider ourselves to be adventurous; rather, we see ourselves as having fun with food and life.

In regards to how we live our lives, at one extreme are the people who are frightened about moving out of their parent's home, and who consider themselves to be courageous and adventurous when they do so. At the other extreme are people who do not consider themselves to be adventurous unless they are doing something as extreme as traveling in a covered wagon to uncharted, unexplored territory to start a new town and a new life.

Because humans are arrogant, we resist doing serious analysis of ourselves and serious comparisons of ourselves to other people. We prefer to boast about our wonderful qualities, and to find imperfections in other people.

Everybody considers themselves to be brave explorers of the unknown, and we all consider ourselves to be setting high standards for our leadership. It can be difficult for us to notice that what some people refer to as "exploring the unknown" is what other people describe as "remaining with the familiar", and what some people describe as "being critical of their leadership" is what others describe as "being submissive".

In order to improve your life, you must be able to look critically at yourself, notice how you compare to other people, and figure out what your talents and limitations are.

Another of the characteristics of conservatives that was acceptable in prehistoric times but which is detrimental today is their tendency to believe whatever they want to believe. They don't need evidence to support their theories.

This characteristic would help them remain cheerful, as I've mentioned in a previous document. For example, when they were hungry and looking for food, they would tell themselves and their children that they will soon find food, and it will be delicious, and that they will have more than they can eat. Their fantasies would make them feel good and keep them motivated.

In this modern world, however, this characteristic is detrimental. An example is the way people ignore the evidence that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that the Jews demolished the World Trade Center buildings with explosives. That evidence is incredibly obvious, but a significant percentage of the population has no trouble ignoring it.

If the conservatives were best adapted to this modern world, then they would be more aware than other groups of people that we have been lied to about 9/11, and that the Jews demolished the towers with explosives. The conservatives would dominate the effort to spread this information and improve our leadership, media, schools, businesses, and other organizations. The conservatives would dominate the movement to eliminate the Jewish propaganda in our schools and history books.

However, from my own personal observations, the conservatives put up the most resistance spreading information about 9/11. They have a greater tendency than other people to ignore reality and believe whatever they please.

We can also see this characteristic with religion. The conservatives seem to be more religious than any other group of people. They believe it is because they are the most intelligent and educated people, but I say it is because their mind is more like a monkey or a prehistoric savage than a modern human. Their mind has a greater tendency to believe its own fantasies. They have less of a concern about reality.

Recently the Mormon church provided a photograph of the magic rock that Joseph Smith used to translate a story that became the basis of the Mormon religion. How can anybody in our era believe something as stupid as a magic rock and the Mormon religion?

If the conservatives were truly well adapted to this modern world, then none of the Mormons would be conservatives. However, the opposite seems to be true; most Mormons seem to be conservatives.

From the point of view of the conservatives, religion is an intelligent philosophy, and those of us who are atheists - or the wrong religion - are misguided, uneducated, or stupid. From the point of view of the conservatives, it is the atheists who have idiotic opinions that are not based on reality.

For example, if we tell a conservative that evolution makes more sense than Adam and Eve, they will tell us to prove that evolution makes sense. The conservatives  boast that they are open-minded people who will listen to any opinion, and they ask us to prove to them that evolution makes sense. When we give them evidence, they listen to the evidence, and so they are correct when they say they listen to a difference of opinions. However, their mind dismisses the evidence as nonsense, and they tell us that we haven't proven anything.

We cannot have a sensible discussion with them because they have a strong tendency to disregard whatever they dislike, and believe whatever appeals to them. Their mind is less concerned than ours with reality.

One of the characteristics that Donald Trump shares with conservatives is his arrogance. All of us are arrogant, but if we could measure arrogance, I think we would find that conservatives are more arrogant than the rest of us.

Conservatives are frequently boasting about their wonderful qualities, and criticizing other people. They boast about their ability to listen to alternative opinions, their education, their talents, and how wonderful their leadership is. Conservatives will even boast about qualities that most of us would be embarrassed or ashamed of, such as being religious, or for following recipes rather than creating our own meals.

The conservatives will also boast about accomplishments that they didn't even do. For example, they give Ronald Reagan credit for the collapse of communist Russia.

Some of the remarks that conservatives make about Reagan and communism are so absurd that I find myself checking the source to see if it is satire or something serious. For example, read the first two paragraphs of this article. The title is:
The man who beat communism.

The first two paragraphs admit that President Reagan was essentially an elderly idiot who would fall asleep during the day, but the author gives Reagan credit for the collapse of Soviet Russia, and for saving the world. Is that article serious or satire?  I checked their "About us" page, and it seems to be serious.

Communism failed in Russia because communism is an unrealistic philosophy, and many of the Russian people did not want it, and were actively fighting it. There may have been some Americans who were helping those Russians, but Americans were only assisting the Russians with what they wanted to do. It was the Russians who ended communism, not Ronald Reagan. Only an abnormally arrogant American would boast that Reagan is responsible for what those Russian people did.

The extreme arrogance of the conservatives makes it difficult for them to look critically at themselves or favorably at other people. They are always finding faults in other people, and figuring out ways to blame other people for their problems. When their business is failing, it is because of the Japanese, liberals, Chinese, unions, or some other group. It is never their fault. When they fail as a government official, it is because of those liberals, Chinese, etc.

All humans are similar to one another, but I would say the conservatives have a greater similarity to communist leaders and gang members than the rest of us. Those three groups of people do not spend much of their time doing research, having discussions, or experimenting with ways to improve their life. They tend to spend every day doing what they have done in the past.

As with animals, they have a strong tendency to ignore problems, but when the problems become serious, they tend to react with anger and hatred, just like an animal.

For example, the conservative business executives have a tendency to ignore changes in technology, and they try to keep everything as it is. When technology has changed so much that their business is suffering, they tend to react with anger. They whine about the liberals, Japanese, Chinese, unions, or government officials.

The communist dictators behave exactly the same way. They waste their time on idiotic activities, and when their economy has deteriorated to the point at which the people are hungry, instead of doing something to improve their nation, they look for ways to blame their troubles on foreign nations.

Conservatives are acceptable as farmers, truck drivers, and supervisors of construction crews because those professions allow people to do the same thing over and over, year after year. However, we need a different personality for the top positions in a modern society. We need people who are truly interested in society, and who will put time and effort into analyzing our problems and experimenting with improvements.

Animals have no inhibitions about begging, and neither do humans, but there are differences between us. At one extreme are the people who beg constantly for various handouts, such as food, money, help with their homework, or help at their job. They also frequently want to borrow something from us, such as food, tools, or money. At the other extreme are the people who avoid asking for help even when they risk serious consequences as a result.

The conservatives boast that they are appalled with welfare recipients, and that they are hard-working people who would never take a handout, but they have no problem begging for handouts. The difference between conservatives and liberals, in regards to handouts, is that the conservatives ask for complex handouts, such as inheritances and tax benefits, and if they have a business, they beg for regulations, licenses, and fees that inhibit competitors. Some of them will donate money to a college in order to put pressure on the college to accept their stupid children.

How are the people who beg their God for favors showing better qualities than a homeless person who begs for money?

Some conservatives also beg their God for various favors, such as help in business, money, television sets, the death of somebody they don't like, or some other type of gift. Some of them will also beg their God to forgive them for the crimes that they have committed.

However, from the point of view of the conservatives, they are not begging for handouts. For example, when we oppose inheritances and trust funds, we are not opposing "handouts". Rather, we are imposing "death taxes" on innocent citizens who have worked hard for their money. When the conservatives beg the government for regulations or tariffs to restrict foreign and domestic competition, we are not giving those businessmen a "handout". Rather, we are "helping the economy".

If the conservatives truly opposed handouts and wanted people to earn their position in life, then they would be the group of people most opposed to inheritances, trust funds, tax benefits, nepotism, monarchies, monopolies, and other forms of handouts. However, from my own personal observations, the opposite is true.

Furthermore, if the conservatives were truly opposed to begging, then their religion would reflect that attitude. Their religion would promote the philosophy that God is disgusted with a person who prays for gifts. Their religion would teach that God admires a person if he earns what he wants in life, and in a fair and honest manner. Their religion would promote the attitude that people should pray only to give thanks to God, but never to ask for anything.

Conservatives promote monarchies, inheritances, and trust funds simply because this is how animals behave. An animal lives only to reproduce, and it sacrifices its life for its offspring.

An animal does not care about the offspring of other animals. Animals care only about their own offspring. Animals have no desire to make their offspring earn anything, or compete fairly. They want to give their offspring as much as possible so that they have the greatest chance of survival. Animals will steal food from one another, if they get the opportunity. They don't care if the offspring of some other animal dies of starvation as a result.

Conservatives behave exactly like animals. They have a tremendous craving to reproduce, take care of their children, and pamper their children. They want to help their children to become strong and healthy. They have no interest in other people's children, and they have no desire to make their children compete fairly in life.

It should be obvious that this attitude is sensible during prehistoric times. However, in this modern world, raising children is becoming increasingly easy. Although babies need a lot of attention, once children start school, raising children becomes a part-time activity. Furthermore, if we create a city in which we are intolerant of crime, raising children will become even easier because parents will no longer need to be bodyguards for their children. And if we also create a city in which the food and other material items are free, then raising children becomes even easier because parents won't have to worry about providing anything for their children.

Parents no longer need to sacrifice their lives for their children. Furthermore, and more important, children today need to learn skills and get complex jobs, and we hurt society when we tolerate monarchies, nepotism, trust funds, and other forms of handouts to children. Children today need to earn what they want, treat people fairly, and get a job that they can perform properly.

Groups of people in leadership positions are regularly getting together for discussions about how to design a new USB standard, whether some of the machines in their factory should be replaced with automated machines, or whether a bridge that is deteriorating should be renovated or replaced with a new bridge.

Ideally, all of the people in these discussions would be aware of the fact that they have a mind with animal qualities, and they would make an attempt to control their emotions and think about what is best for their particular organization.

Ideally, schools would teach children that humans are inherently selfish, arrogant, frightened of the unknown, and have a desire to follow one another like stupid sheep. Schools should also teach children that when we create an opinion, we are proud of it and will promote it rather than look critically at it, just like a mother with a newborn baby. Schools should give children practice in having discussions about issues that are emotionally stimulating so that they can learn how to keep their animal qualities under control and focus on the issue.

Unfortunately, most of the adults in the world today are either oblivious to their animal qualities, or they are religious people who believe they are a creation of God. When these people get together for discussions, they make no attempt to control their emotions. The end result is that their emotions can interfere with the discussions.

For example, some of them allow their selfishness to twist the discussion, such as government officials who are more concerned with appeasing their particular supporters, or businessmen who are more concerned with their income and status. Some of them allow their fear of the unknown to push the discussion towards remaining with whatever is familiar to them. Some of them let their craving to follow their ancestors twist the discussion into doing what their ancestors have done. Some of them will allow their craving to be the top monkey in the hierarchy to push them into promoting their opinion so that they can feel as if they are the smartest person in the world.

Having a discussion with a group of humans who are not exerting any control over their emotions is not truly having a "discussion". The reason is because the people will not be using their intellect to discuss the issue. Rather, they will be following their emotions and trying to push their particular opinions on one another. They will be behaving like wild animals fighting over territory. They will not look critically at their own opinions, or favorably at other people's opinions. They will not be analyzing evidence or doing research. They will simply be looking for ways to justify their particular opinions and criticize other people's opinions.

In another document I mentioned that I live in Goleta, and there was a time many years ago when the city officials decided to renovate downtown Goleta, which is incredibly ugly, and so they held discussions between the government officials and the businessmen on what exactly should be done to improve the area. However, after numerous discussions they eventually gave up and did nothing.

Why were those meetings useless? I don't know, but I remember many businessmen worrying that a particular change might hurt their business. It is possible that if we could analyze those meetings, we would discover that the businessmen were typical conservatives who were so frightened of the unknown that no matter what somebody proposed, some of them became frightened that they would be harmed by the changes.

When the USB port was developed, the group of people who set the standards agreed to an idiotic design that made it impossible for us to determine which orientation was correct when inserting the cable into the socket. How did such intelligent people make such a stupid decision?

There are thousands of examples in which people got together to make a decision, but either nothing was accomplished, or they created a decision that was later determined to be inefficient, wasteful, or inadequate.

We should not dismiss this problem as insignificant. Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to discuss anything, but discussions are becoming an increasingly important part of this modern world. We should understand why people are having so much trouble discussing issues and agreeing on sensible policies. We should understand why discussions are so often ruined by fights, grinding of teeth, and insults. We should be looking for ways to improve the situation, not disregarding it.

Furthermore, we should face the fact that some people are better at controlling their emotions during discussions. We should keep track of everybody's performance at meetings and hold them responsible for their behavior and decisions. This will enable us to pass judgment on who is making the best decisions, and through time this will give us an idea of who to invite to future meetings, and who to keep out.

If we were to start observing people at meetings, we would discover that some people are capable of having productive meetings only if the meeting avoids issues that stimulate our emotions. For example, we would discover that a lot of engineers are capable of having a serious and calm discussion about how to fix a bridge that is deteriorating, but if those engineers are allowed to participate in a discussion that stimulates emotions, such as abortion, immigration, or euthanasia, we would find that some of them are grinding their teeth, yelling, and unable to look seriously at their opinions or other people's opinions.

From my own observations of people, those who describe themselves as "conservatives" are troublesome at meetings in which we are planning our future or discussing issues that stimulate human emotions. Many conservatives have a lot of valuable knowledge that is useful for meetings, in which case they would be useful as consultants and as sources of data, but they should not be allowed to participate in the portion of the discussion at which decisions are made on what to do with our future. Their mental characteristics are simply too crude. They are too arrogant, too easily frightened of the unknown, have too strong of a craving to follow their ancestors, and have too strong of a tendency to disregard reality and twist everything to fit their religious fantasies.

Conservatives do not have the ability to contribute to a discussion about foreign affairs, school systems, holiday celebrations, clothing styles, abortion, euthanasia, or even sports. If they are allowed to participate in a discussion of foreign affairs, they will promote the animal-like policy of fighting with foreign nations. If allowed to participate in discussions about abortion, they will promote the animal-like policy of sacrificing their lives to save babies. If allowed to participate in discussions about school systems, they will promote teaching their particular religious fantasies. They cannot even participate in discussions about sports, food, or clothing styles because they will merely promote whatever their ancestors were doing.

Conservatives are detrimental in discussions about our future because they will not experiment with changes, look critically at themselves, or control their animal cravings.

I think that an analysis of the people who call themselves "conservatives" will help us gain a much better understanding of our prehistoric ancestors. I think they also give us an indication of what an animal mind is like.

For example, conservatives do not show much of an interest in reality, and I think this is an indication that animals have even less of an interest. If animals had as much intelligence as a human, I think we would discover that they are even more out of touch with reality than any conservative.

Millions of Christians believe that Jesus could walk on water, turn water into wine, and heal people with leprosy, and they believe that somewhere up in the air is a heaven where all of the dead people are living a wonderful life, and somewhere else there is a place where all of the evil people are being tortured forever by Devils. I suspect animals would come up with religions that are much wilder and more senseless than anything that humans have created.

With humans, only a minority believe they are capable of reading minds, or that they had a previous life, or that there are multiple infinite universes on different planes in different dimensions. However, if animals were intelligent, we might discover that all of them believe in crazy theories, such as clairvoyance, women's intuition, mind-reading, and reincarnation.

The human race has developed a lot of idiotic ideas about religion, voodoo, and palm reading, and rather than dismiss this as meaningless, we ought to wonder why. I think it is because the human mind is just an advanced monkey brain, and it is an indication that animals do not have any concern about reality. An animal brain is designed only to allow the creature to survive and reproduce.

The conservatives claim that religion is beneficial because it encourages good behavior, but if that were true, then the people who work and live in churches should be the best behaved people. However, the churches are where we find a lot of pedophiles, parasites, and homosexuals.

Furthermore, the Christian religion has a very destructive attitude; namely, that God will forgive us no matter what we do. This allows Christians to commit crimes over and over, and every time they commit a crime, all they have to do is ask for forgiveness. This is a disgusting philosophy that encourages the badly behaved and psychotic people to commit crimes.

Why does the Christian religion encourage people to believe that they will go to heaven when they die? Why does it encourage people to believe that God will forgive them for their sins? Why do the Christians believe that God will answer their prayers?

It is because the people who become Christians are the type of people who don't care about reality. They believe what they want to believe, and they want to believe that when they die, they will have a new and better life, and they want to believe that when they commit a crime, they will be forgiven. They believe whatever they want to believe. We could describe the Christians as "living in a fantasy world".

Most of the conservatives in America are Christians, so we could say that most of the conservatives are living in a fantasy world.

The mental qualities that we see in conservatives should not be dismissed as irrelevant. Their qualities were wonderful during prehistoric times, but they should not be allowed to influence modern society.

They cannot do a good job of voting, and when we allow them into leadership positions, nothing can possibly improve because they don't want to change anything. They are not explorers or thinkers. They are prehistoric savages who want to follow their ancestors and fight with neighboring tribes.

Trump and the other conservatives are making remarks that are as stupid and violent as those of the North Korean leaders. Rather than provide intelligent guidance, the conservatives, communist dictators, and gang leaders are constantly whining, hating, and advocating fights.

This modern world should not allow such people in leadership positions. We need leaders who analyze problems, conduct experiments, and explore our paths in life.