My document about George Floyd pointed out that no society has standards for journalists, and this has allowed criminals to become journalists, and to abuse us to an incredible extent. This document points out that the same concept applies to people in leadership positions.

We can raise standards for journalists without affecting the public, but this document will show that it is impossible to raise standards for leaders while supporting a democracy because the two concepts conflict with each other. Therefore, if we want high standards for leaders we must find the courage to experiment with a new type of government.

Anybody who tries to set the future of somebody else's life according to his particular desires, as opposed to letting the person choose his future, is taking a leadership position in that person's life. A leader is somebody who tries to control somebody else's behavior.

It does not matter how the person tries to control the other person, or whether he is successful in controlling that person. Anybody who attempts to determine the future of other people should be regarded as a leader, even if he is ignored by other people.

The people within an organization, regardless of whether it is a business, orchestra, or nation, can be described as having one of two different roles:

Most of the members of an organization are "followers" because they follow orders from a small number of "leaders". They work with the other members, but they do not tell the other members what to do.

To visualize the difference, the "followers" are the passengers and crew of an airplane who have no influence over the airplane, whereas the "leaders" are the pilot and copilots in the cockpit who are determining where the airplane is going, and how it is getting there.

Another way to understand the difference is that the followers are in a passive role, and the leaders are actively involved with determining the future of the group.

A person is a leader regardless of whether he has been chosen to be a leader, or whether he self-appoints himself to a leadership position.

For example, if a passenger of an airplane were to force his way into the cockpit and change the course of the airplane, he would be switching roles. He would be changing from a passive follower to an active leader. He would be self-appointing himself to a leadership position for the airplane.

This concept also applies to a city bus. Specifically, if one of the passengers were to grab at the steering wheel, or if he were to tell the bus driver where to go or what to do, he would be switching roles from a passive follower to an active leader.

Amazingly, there was a woman in China (photo to the right) who actually grabbed the steering wheel of a city bus and tried to change its course so that she could get off the bus when she wanted to get off, rather than get off at one of the scheduled locations.

I define a leader as anybody who tries to determine our future, but it does not matter what his technique is.

For example, if a group of crew members and passengers were to go up to the cockpit and stage a protest in which they scream demands to the pilot about how to fly the airplane, they would be changing their role from passive followers to active leaders because they would be trying to determine the future of the airplane. They would be appointing themselves to the position of leaders.

They would be trying to control the airplane through intimidation, rather than by grabbing at the controls, but it does not matter whether a person or group tries to influence our future through intimidation, blackmail, threats, bribery, deception, or protests in the public streets. Anybody who tries to determine our future, as opposed to letting us determine our future, is putting himself into a leadership position.

The people who want to become a leader for a person or organization, but who cannot impress us with their leadership abilities, may choose to use deception to get into a leadership position.

For example, the people who arranged for the September 11 attack tricked millions of Americans and Europeans into attacking the imaginary terrorists who live in caves in Afghanistan. Those Americans and Europeans assumed that they were choosing to attack those terrorists, but in reality a small group of criminals had used deception to manipulate their desires.

That small group of criminals got into a leadership role for the world, and they succeeded in changing the course of the world's future, but they were leaders who are secretive and hidden, and they got into their leadership position through deception. They also used murder, blackmail, bribery, threats, intimidation, and censorship in the media.

The lesson that we should learn from the false flag operations is that we must be critical of our own thoughts. Each of us believes that we know what we want from life, but in some cases what we want is what somebody has tricked us into wanting. We must learn to control our arrogance and look critically at our thoughts.

To complicate this issue, sometimes we want something only because we have a strong desire to mimic other people, and sometimes our fear of the unknown causes us to want something simply because we are familiar with it.

The point I want to emphasize is that if a person is too arrogant to look critically at his own thoughts, his future will be significantly affected by deception, peer pressure, and other factors. He will assume that he is in control of his life, but he will be easily manipulated by criminals, his emotional fears, his friends, and other people.

There is a widespread attitude, especially among liberals, socialists, and Marxists, that the majority of people are under the control of a small group of elite aristocrats, corporate executives, government officials, and/or the mysterious "military-industrial complex".

In reality, almost everybody on the planet, including most of the children, are in a leadership role for the economy, governments, schools, and culture. Every nation is under the control of the majority of its citizens, but it appears as if every nation is under the control of a small group of criminals, Zionists, and pedophiles simply because the majority of people are incompetent leaders.

I have discussed this issue to some extent in other documents, and in this document I want to go into more details to help you to realize that the only way to improve the world is to raise standards for leadership.

The concept of raising standards for leaders might sound wonderful, but the majority of people are likely to become very upset when they discover that they are in a leadership position right now, and so they are going to be affected by higher standards.

If it were true that the world was under the control of a small group of aristocrats, then raising standards for leaders would affect only those aristocrats. But the truth is that the world is under the control of the majority of people. Therefore, raising standards for leaders is going to affect everybody. Specifically, it will result in most people being disqualified as leaders.

The following sections will explain how most people are in leadership positions.

Every voter is trying to influence the future of his nation. Every voter can be visualized as grabbing at the steering wheel of the nation and trying to determine where it goes. Every voter should be regarded as a leader of his nation.

An individual voter does not have much of an influence over the nation. However, the amount of influence a person has does not determine whether he is a leader. A leader is anybody who is grabbing at the steering wheel; anybody who is trying to determine somebody else's future.

More than 100 million Americans vote during the elections. This is analogous to 100 million passengers of a city bus grabbing the steering wheel at the same time and trying to determine where the bus goes.

If 100 million passengers were to grab the steering wheel of a bus, none of them individually would have any noticeable effect on where the bus goes, but all of them would be trying to determine the future of the bus, so all of them should be regarded as a "driver" of the bus, or a "leader" of the bus. When a person grabs the steering wheel of a bus, he is switching his role from passive passenger to active bus driver.

Likewise, when 100 million people vote for President, none of them individually will have any significant influence over who becomes President, but all of them should be regarded as having their hands on the steering wheel of the nation. By choosing to vote, they switched their category from a passive citizen to an active leader of the nation.

In a free enterprise system, the spending of money is voting for products and businesses. Therefore, everybody who spends money is in a leadership position of the economy. This is true regardless of whether a person is spending money on products, or donating money to charities or religions, or investing in a mutual fund.

Unlike voters, who are supposed to vote only once, we allow people to have different amounts of money, and this gives the people with the most money the most influence over the economy. However, the amount of influence a person has does not determine whether he is a leader. Rather, that determination is made according to whether a person has his hands on the steering wheel.

Every time a person spends money he is putting his hands on the steering wheel of the nation's economy. The wealthy people can be visualized as having stronger arms, but the strength of a person's arms does not determine whether he is in a leadership role.

We are not allowed to give our vote to somebody else to use, but we are allowed to give money to other people, and this allows us to put other people into leadership positions. For example, when a father gives his child an allowance, and if he allows his child to spend the money in any manner he pleases, the father is essentially arranging for his child to put his hands on the steering wheel of the nation's economy. The father is allowing his child to become one of the millions of leaders of the nation's economy.

These concepts also apply to schools. Some parents choose which school their children attend, and some parents and students also get involved with pressuring the schools to change their curriculum or their grading methods.

Every person who gets involved with determining which school a child attends, or how the schools operate, or what type of activities the school provides to the students, or what their curriculum is, is putting himself into a leadership position for the nation's education. Those people are leaders of education.

These concepts apply to all other aspects of our lives. Everybody who tries to determine our holiday celebrations, sports activities, music concerts, hairstyles, or other culture, is appointing themselves to leaders of culture. They are not passive citizens who follow our culture. Rather, they are actively involved with determining our future.

For example, the greeting card companies are trying to alter our holiday celebrations so that we purchase more greeting cards. Many other businesses are trying to alter Christmas so that they can sell more of their particular products. Many religious people are trying to manipulate our holidays to promote their particular religion.

There are also a lot of citizens and businesses trying to create sports or recreational activities. Some people are even creating dangerous activities, such as the cinnamon challenge.

All of these people can be visualized as having their hands on the steering wheel of our culture. They are trying to determine our future, so they are in a leadership position. Specifically, they are leaders of our culture.

On the morning of 16 August 2020, I clicked on the Bing news website, and one of the prominently displayed news items was the announcement from Business Insider that 16 August is "National Rum Day". (The image below is a portion of the Bing News page.)

I decided to look at the "National Day Calendar", and I discovered that 16 August is also the National Tell a Joke Day, the National Roller Coaster Day, and The National Airborne Day.

All of the citizens, government agencies, religions, and businesses that are involved with creating or manipulating our holiday celebrations are self-appointing themselves to leadership of our culture.

No nation gives the citizens the right to be a dentist, pilot, or doctor. Instead, people who want one of those particular jobs have to meet certain standards. However, nobody has to qualify to become a leader of a nation or culture. For example:

• Voters
• The economy
• Schools

• Our culture

Dentists, carpenters, doctors, pilots, and many other people are held accountable for their actions. When they show signs of incompetence, they are fired. By comparison:

• Voters

• Cultural leaders

• Leaders of the economy

• Leaders of weather policies

One purpose of this document is to show you that we would provide ourselves with a more pleasant and orderly world if we set standards for everybody who wants to become one of our leaders, regardless of whether they want to influence the economy, school curriculum, recreational activities, weather policies, sports, social activities, holiday celebrations, museums, planetariums, swimming pools, public artwork, or other culture.

It is acceptable to provide people with a lot of freedom to do what they want with their own life, but nobody should have the right to determine the future of other people.

Likewise, it is important that we allow everybody to have freedom of speech so that we can discuss our opinions, but we must differentiate between when a person has crossed the line from having a passive discussion of his opinions, to behaving like a leader who is trying to make other people follow his orders.

Everybody should have the right to calmly discuss their opinions, but nobody should have the right to determine somebody else's future. We should restrict leadership positions to people who have demonstrated exceptional abilities to provide us with intelligent analyses and guidance.

Why don't we have standards for leaders? As I described in previous documents, such as this, the answer depends upon our perspective of life, such as whether we believe that humans were created by a supreme being, or whether humans are a species of animal.

My answer is that no human society has standards for leaders because we inherited our culture and emotional characteristics from animals. Our culture has become more advanced than whatever it originally was a million years ago, but it has not improved by much. For example, animals do not have any standards for their leaders, and humans still do not have standards, either.

Animals are too stupid to set standards for their leaders, so they never developed a desire to set standards. Instead, the social animals developed a desire to fight with one another for leadership. The males evolved an especially strong desire to compete for status.

Why did animals evolve an emotional desire to fight with one another for status? Because that behavior guarantees that the group will always have good leadership. The fights will always give them leaders that are in excellent mental and physical health, and are among the strongest, most courageous, and most talented. The fights will ensure that their leaders are never sickly, too young or too old, cowardly, introverted, or mentally ill. Furthermore, since the males compete almost daily, that means that the leaders must continuously earn their position.

Another reason that animals do not need standards is because they don't have the ability to get into the top positions of their hierarchy by cheating, nepotism, divorce settlements, bribery, or monarchies.

Why do the social animals, such as wolves, follow a leader rather than be independent, like cats? Why do they follow a male rather than a female? Why do they follow the male that is the best at fighting rather than the male that is the "nicest", or the male that is the best looking?

The social animals developed a craving to follow the male that is the best at fighting because the animals that preferred to follow the good-looking males, females, or children were not as successful in the competition for life.

Likewise, the animals that had less of an interest in following a leader and more of a desire to be independent were also less successful. The reason is because the animals that had a strong desire to follow a leader had a lot of advantages over the more independent animals. The main advantage was that they were always a member of a team, which helped them survive better against predators and neighbors compared to the independent animals who are often alone.

The end result of animals battling one another for survival is that the animals that had a strong desire to follow the male that was the best at fighting were the most successful animals, and they ended up dominating all others.

Some religious fanatics might point out that cats are independent, and therefore, my theory that the battle for life causes animals to follow a male leader is another example of evolutionary nonsense.

Why didn't the cats develop a craving to follow leaders and work in teams? Why are the cats independent rather than social? As I mentioned in a previous document, evolution gives a creature only what is vital. Cats are such efficient predators that they don't need to work in teams.

Wolves, dogs, humans, and other social animals must be more intelligent than the cats, and must be able to work in teams, because our bodies are not as effective at fighting. If we had to fight cats independently, we would lose every time.

If cats had the intelligence, aggressiveness, and courage of a wolf, and the ability to work in teams like wolves, they would destroy their food supply. Cats must be "handicapped" in order to give their victims a chance for survival, and their handicaps are that they work independently, are less intelligent, and are more timid.

Human men inherited the emotional craving to fight with one another for leadership, and both men and women inherited the craving to follow whichever man is the best fighter, and without asking how he won the fight or whether he has appropriate leadership abilities. Women are not interested in fighting for leadership, and we have no desire to follow women.

The sport of boxing is the best example of these characteristics. None of the athletes in that sport benefit from it. Rather, they suffer brain damage and other medical problems. From an intellectual point of view, it should be prohibited, but people want to do it because we have a strong craving to fight for status.

It is important to note that men are not titillated by images of women in a boxing ring. The reason is because men are designed to protect and pamper women, not fight with them, or watch them fight one another.

Some women complain that men are sexist for putting up resistance to female boxers, but it is not "sexism" that causes this. It is because we inherited a male animal's desire to feed and protect a female.

When a man sees a woman who is suffering, it stimulates unpleasant emotional feelings, just as women are upset when they see babies suffering.

By comparison, when we see women enjoying themselves, such as when they giggle, pleasant emotions are titillated, just as women are titillated by babies that giggle. Men are so strongly stimulated by women who are enjoying themselves that we are titillated simply by watching them masturbate. While women might describe that as disgusting or "lewd", women are titillated by watching babies enjoying their toys, other babies, and food.

What is the difference between a man who enjoys watching women enjoy themselves, and a woman who enjoys watching babies enjoy themselves?

It is also important to note that when men see other men getting into fights, we do not experience that same unpleasant emotional feeling that we feel when we see women fighting. Instead, we are more likely to find our competitive emotions triggered, which can cause us to take a side in the fight, or want to get involved in the fight.

If we acknowledge the evidence that humans are animals, our behavioral characteristics will make sense. More important, having a realistic view of humans will allow us to do a better job of designing our culture to suppress our crude aspects and encourage our beneficial aspects. This in turn will provide us with a much more pleasant social environment.

Men inherited the desire to settle disputes and determine status through physical fights. It is important to note that our emotions are titillated by the winner. Our emotions cause us to admire the winner simply because he is the best fighter. Our emotions don't care what type of personality he has, or how he treats people in his personal life.

These emotional characteristics were sensible for prehistoric humans because by constantly fighting with each other for leadership positions, and by following whoever was the winner of the latest fight, the group of people were always following the man who was the strongest, healthiest, most courageous, and in the best mental shape. Today, however, we need to select leaders in a more advanced manner.

Businesses select their leaders, and other employees, in a more sensible manner. Specifically, instead of expecting the job candidates to fight with one another, they analyze the work history of each candidate and pass judgment on which of them has the talent and experience that they want.

By comparison, most of the people who vote have no desire to analyze the work history of the candidates, or pass judgment on which of them has shown the talent that they want in the leader. Rather, most voters behave like passive monkeys.

Specifically, the voters do nothing to select candidates or analyze them. Instead, the people who want to be leaders of the nation must have the initiative to become a candidate and fight with the other candidates for the support of the voters.

Since the candidates must get the support of voters, the candidates put a lot of effort into praising the voters and promising them whatever they are asking for. The competition to titillate the voters has evolved to such an absurd extent that the candidates are now under pressure to kiss the babies of voters, as Obama did in the photo to the right.

Occasionally the candidates have a debate, but it is more of a fight than a debate. However, unlike dogs and monkeys, which fight by biting and kicking, the human candidates fight mainly with insults. However, just like dogs and monkeys, the candidates often glare at each other, make sarcastic noises, and make unpleasant or angry facial expressions.

It is important to note that most people consider the debates to have a winner. The reason is because they regard the debate as a fight, not a discussion. The voters do not watch the debate to learn more about the candidates. Rather, they are more interested in watching their favorite candidate win the fight.

The process that humans are using to select government leaders is not much more advanced than what the animals are doing. Imagine if IBM were to select their top executives in that same manner. Imagine that IBM gives all of their employees the right to vote for the top executives. Imagine that those employees are as passive as the voters. In such a case, the employees have no interest in analyzing the work history or leadership abilities of the job candidates.

Instead, the candidates for corporate executive have to wander around the IBM offices and try to get the support of the employees by promising them whatever they ask for, praising them, insulting the other candidates, and kissing the babies in the daycare facilities of IBM.

Would you consider that system to be a sensible method for a business to find leadership?

My suggestion is that we experiment with the successful techniques that businesses have developed, which is for voters to take an active role in the process of selecting government officials. Voters should analyze the history of job candidates, and pass judgment on their leadership abilities. Candidates should not have to fight with each other, or wander around the nation to titillate voters with praise, promises, and baby kissing.

We must restrict voting to people who will behave like the personnel department of a business, rather than like monkeys who passively watch other monkeys fight for leadership.

Voting should not be a right. We need to set standards for everybody in a leadership position, and that includes voters. Voting should be restricted to people who have enough self-control to push themselves into putting time and effort into analyzing the work history and behavior of political candidates, and passing judgment on their leadership abilities.

The voters who don't want to put the time and effort into analyzing candidates, or who lack the intellectual abilities to make sensible analyses, should be disqualified from voting.

Furthermore, we should require our leaders to continuously earn their position. The voters should give them routine job performance reviews and pass judgment on which of them is the worst. We should routinely replace the worst performing leader so that there is always a turnover, and the government never becomes stagnant with incompetent or corrupt officials.

Imagine if the IBM personnel department were to offer the public the opportunity to become a volunteer in their personnel department and get involved with selecting job candidates for IBM.

Each of us would be able to analyze the job candidates and vote for the candidate we want for the different positions available in IBM. However, IBM would not pay any of us for this work, or provide us with offices or any type of benefits. Instead, we would have to do the work in our leisure time for free, and at our own expense, and from our own home.

Would you be interested in spending some of your leisure time as a volunteer in the personnel department of some business? Would you consider the analysis of job candidates to be an entertaining way to spend your leisure time?

Not many people, if any, would want to volunteer to help businesses choose their employees. Analyzing job candidates is not on anybody's list of desirable leisure activities. Rather, everybody would consider selecting job candidates to be "work".

We should have the same attitude towards selecting government officials. The voters should be regarded as being analogous to a personnel department. Voting should be regarded as a "job", not as an entertaining leisure activity that everybody over the age of 18 has a right to do.

I have no desire to be a voter. I don't think that analyzing political candidates is entertaining, or easy. I regard it as hard work. I would consider becoming a voter if there were not enough other people doing it, which is why I got involved with exposing the lies about the 9/11 attack. However, if a group of voters were doing a job that I approved of, I would not have any desire to become a voter. I would be happy to let them make the decisions.

I think that if people could control their arrogance and look seriously at themselves, they would realize that they don't want to be voters, either. This is especially true of women. Women are passive creatures who have no interest in choosing which man becomes the leader of their group. Women do not even have an interest in analyzing potential husbands. Women wait for a husband to come to them and titillate them.

People enjoy voting because voting is treated as entertainment. There are no requirements that they analyze candidates, go to meetings, explain their opinions, or justify their decisions. A person in the IBM personnel department would be fired if he was as lazy and irresponsible as the voters.

I suggested in other documents that voters be required to produce documents about who they want to vote for and why so that they can be held accountable for their decisions rather than vote anonymously. Their analyses of the candidates would be saved in their database entry, and the database would be freely accessible to the public.

By keeping all of the documents that the voters produce, we would be able to pass judgment on which of them has provided the best analyses and decisions. The voters who have chosen the most candidates who were eventually regarded as the worst leaders would be considered as the most incompetent voters, and they would be replaced.

Requiring the voters to produce documents also allows us to determine if they are producing documents with errors, or which are difficult to understand, in which case they would be told to rewrite their document, and if they continued making errors or producing confusing documents, they would be fired as a voter.

By switching to this type of system, voting becomes a serious chore, similar to writing a school report that other students will be able to see and pass judgment on. Many people would choose not to bother applying to be a voter in this system, and of the people who choose to vote, many of them would quickly be fired because they would produce documents that are considered unacceptably stupid, sloppy, or inaccurate.

With this system of voting, we would be able to fire the voters who do the worst job, and that would eventually provide us with voters who create impressive analyses of the candidates, and who make wise decisions about which of the candidates are the most talented, and which of the government officials should be replaced.

The only problem with this system is that it requires some of us to pass judgment on which voters need to be fired. This is the type of dilemma that people have wondered about for thousands of years. One expression for this dilemma is "Who watches the watchers?" I will mention this dilemma later in this document.

I also suggest that we allow the voters to have the authority to get access to information about candidates, and take time off from their regular jobs for their duties as a voter. This issue will also be discussed later in this document.

Some people are promoting that we switch from a democracy or a Republic to a meritocracy. The simplistic explanation of a meritocracy in the dictionaries is something like:

A meritocracy will theoretically provide us with the best possible government because it will provide us with officials who are the most talented leaders, but how do we achieve it? How do we ensure that we are truly putting the most talented people into the government rather than allowing pedophiles, criminals, or lunatics to get into the government?

Marxism, and all other types of socialist systems, are also theoretically wonderful systems, but they are all impossible to achieve because humans have emotions that conflict with those philosophies.

The governments in the world today are dominated by people who are dishonest, incompetent, abusive, and neurotic. How do we replace those disgusting officials with the most talented of leaders?

We cannot simply make an announcement that the USA, Britain, or Germany is now a meritocracy. That announcement will not cause the incompetent government officials to quit their job and find some other job, and it will not cause the criminal government officials to turn themselves in to the police.

Furthermore, it will not cause any of the individual citizens who are scattered around the nation to suddenly realize that they are among the most talented leaders, and that they should quit their job and become one of our government officials.

In order for us to create a meritocracy, we must figure out how to get the voters to select better government officials. However, if we can figure that out, then we could improve the existing governments simply by replacing the officials we have right now.

In other documents I pointed out that the structure of government is not as important as the people that we put in the leadership positions. Switching to a meritocracy, or any other type of government, will not necessarily give us a better government.

In order to improve our government, we need to fill the top leadership positions with people who have better leadership abilities. We need to select officials who are more intelligent, honest, responsible, and considerate, and who have the courage to explore our options and experiment with improvements.

Unless we can figure out how to provide ourselves with better government officials, there is not much benefit in switching the type of government we use. A government of criminals, pedophiles, senile elderly people, blackmailed puppets, mentally ill weirdos, and Israeli Zionists is going to be miserable no matter what type of government system we use.

Therefore, before we consider switching governments, we should try to understand why our current officials are so disgusting. The next section will discuss four of the reasons. We can then use that knowledge to develop an improved government.

The leaders of prehistoric tribes would have been respectable, talented, courageous, and healthy men, but when humans settled into cities, the leadership began to degrade. Here are four reasons as to why undesirable people are getting into influential positions of modern societies:

1) We can cheat.

2) The public is involved with determining our leaders.

3) There are no standards for leaders.

4) Women can become leaders today

The image that a person has of God is an indication of what his particular emotions want a leader to be.

Although a person's image of God is influenced by the drawings and religious documents that he saw as he grew up, those images developed as a result of our emotional cravings.

In other words, we tend to visualize God as according to what our emotions are most attracted to.

Thousands of years ago people believed in several gods, but most people have switched to only one God.

Through the centuries our view of God has changed because it has been evolving to fit what our emotions prefer. Therefore, our imaginary God can help us to understand what we evolved for.

Our modern God is an older, human man, who is strong, courageous, intelligent, and can be completely trusted. No normal person visualizes God as a woman or child, or as a sickly, weak man who whines, pouts, is easily frightened, or suicidal.

Is also important to note that we refer to God as our "father", which is an indication that he is in a similar role to us as a father, and he is what we expect our father to be.

Nobody refers to his God as his son, cousin, friend, wife, or "weird uncle".

Our view of God shows that we were designed to follow one man, not a group of men, and not a child or a woman, and not an intangible concept. Furthermore, that man is strong, intelligent, courageous, honest, dependable, reliable, and completely trustworthy.

The fact that everybody completely trusts their imaginary God shows us that we evolved for an environment in which we can trust and follow our father and our leader.

We were not designed to be suspicious of our leaders. This characteristic makes it easy for dishonest and selfish men in leadership positions to abuse their followers.

Young animals are so trusting that they will even trust other species, as in the photo to the right. This makes it especially easy for adult men to abuse children.

Women are not as easily abused as children, but they are less independent than adult men, so they are easier to abuse than adult men.

Because we have this characteristic of trusting our leaders, we should restrict voters to people who are going to provide us with leaders that we can trust.

By requiring voters to produce a document in which they provide their analysis of the candidates, we would be able to see which voters are interested in analyzing the accusations of cheating in school, pedophilia, incompetence, and mental illness.

Voters who show no interest in investigating the accusations that many government officials are involved with pedophiles, such as Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile, should be disqualified from voting.

Voters should show an interest in providing us with leaders that we can trust. The voters should not ignore accusations that our leaders are involved with pedophilia, human trafficking, or murder rituals.

Why did Jeffrey Epstein have a dental chair in the bathroom? A voter who doesn't care about the answer to that question should be disqualified on the grounds that he is too similar to an apathetic monkey.

Many people have pointed out that some Hollywood movies and TV shows appear to have plots that are based on what the Jews have done or plan to do, such as The Invaders, and pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen series (on YouTube here).

In the movie Marathon Man is this scene in which a man is tortured in a dental chair. Does that movie show us what the Jews are actually doing to those of us they don't like?

The Old Testament portrays God as a vengeful creature who frequently loses his temper and slaughters people at random, but ignore those claims and consider what a person imagines his God to behave like.

Specifically, how many people believe that their God will punish them simply for thinking about some issue, asking a question about something, or investigating some historical event? For example, does anybody imagine that his God will:

To rephrase that issue, is there anybody who imagines his God behaving like the Google executives, communist dictators, the ADL, or the BLM?

If a person's God were to materialize in his home, sit in a chair, and say "Hello", would anybody be afraid to talk to him or ask him questions? For example, would anybody be afraid to ask their God the following questions:

I don't think anybody would be afraid to ask such questions. Actually, I think most people would be excited to have the opportunity to ask questions.

Likewise, if some aliens from another solar system were to appear, who would be afraid to ask them questions about the earth, the universe, or technology? I don't think anybody would be afraid of the aliens because I think everybody would realize that any creature that has the ability to travel such enormous distances would be more intelligent than us, and better behaved.

However, if some Google executives, communist dictators, ADL officials, or leaders of the BLM were to knock on your front door and ask if they could come in and talk to you, would you be excited to talk with them, or feel comfortable talking with them?

Our imaginary gods remain calm when we ask them questions, but humans tend to react to questions, differences of opinions, criticism, and competition with anger and violence.

The reason we become angry when criticized is because we inherited this characteristic from our animal ancestors. Animals do not have the intelligence to form a hierarchy in an intelligent manner. Their only method is to fight with each other.

Likewise, their only method of resolving disputes is to fight with each other.

In other documents I pointed out that humans have a temper, especially men, and that we have it because it was a vital emotion.

Our temper is not the result of "bad behavior", or because our parents did not raise us properly. Our brain was designed with a temper because we inherited that characteristic from our animal ancestors, and the animals evolved a temper because that is their only method of forming a hierarchy and solving their problems.

In our modern societies, however, we should exert some self-control and force ourselves to regard criticism and competition as valuable techniques to help us learn about ourselves, inspire one another, and do better at whatever we are doing.

We should be especially concerned with how our leaders are reacting to competition and problems. They should do more than tolerate competition. They should welcome competition, inspire their competitors to become better, and help their competitors improve their skills. They should behave like a drill sergeant in the military who helps people become better, rather than suppress other people.

Unfortunately, every human society is allowing the people in leadership positions to attack their competitors. We allow our government officials, business executives, journalists, and other leaders to fire us, censor us, insult us, yell at us, and intimidate us with accusations of nonsensical crimes, such as Holocaust denial, sexism, racism, and climate change denial.

Our leaders have no obligation to react to criticism or competition in a sensible manner. They can harass, censor, and torment their critics without any concern that they will be fired from their job or be evicted from society.

The members of organized religions do not see any reason to set standards for their leaders, either. When a religious leader misbehaves, a religious person might react by praying to God that he behaves better, or suggesting that he be punished, or hoping that he is sent to another church.

When we realize that humans are monkeys, we will have a better understanding of why we are selecting government officials in the manner that we do.

The social animals passively allow the male animals to fight with each other for leadership, and they accept as their leader whichever male wins the battle. Likewise, humans passively allows people to fight one another for leadership positions of government, businesses, religions, sports groups, and journalism, and we accept whoever wins the fight, regardless of his abilities and behavior.

We should stop selecting leaders like animals and develop a more intelligent method. The voters should take a more active role by analyzing the candidates, and passing judgment on their leadership abilities.

Furthermore, we must apply this concept to all leaders, not just government officials. We need to be concerned with who is getting into the leadership positions of our media, sports, businesses, schools, and other organizations and cultural activities.

If you agree with the theory I mentioned earlier (that humans are very trusting, especially women and children), then you should realize that it is extremely important that we provide our society with leaders that we can trust. People who do not care about having honest leaders should not be allowed to get involved with selecting the leaders of government agencies, businesses, social activities, or anything else.

While this concept might seem obvious, it is the opposite of what is natural for us. To understand this, consider:

I discussed the "buyer beware" attitude in other documents, so I will only summarize it here: when faced with a complex problem, we run away from it and try not to become a victim. We do not try to prevent the problem from occurring in the future.

Humans inherited that characteristic. Therefore, when we are abused or cheated, we run away from the problem rather than get together and try to prevent the problem from occurring in the future.

The buyer beware attitude is natural to us, but we should restrict voters, government leaders, business leaders, and other leaders, to the people who understand this characteristic, and who have enough self-control to push themselves into experimenting with methods to reduce the problem rather than ignore the problem or prepare for the problem.

For example, the leaders of society should experiment with ways of reducing the pedophilia at schools, Boy Scout troops, hospitals, daycare centers, and other organizations rather than tell children to be aware of pedophiles.

Likewise, voters should take an active role in ensuring that our leaders are honest and dependable, rather than tell us to be aware of the possibility that we will be cheated.

If we were to set higher standards for leaders, including the voters, we could theoretically create a society in which we could trust the government officials, business leaders, school officials, and other people in leadership positions. We would be able to look to them for advice and guidance. None of us, including the children, would be afraid of our leaders.

Furthermore, nobody would be afraid to ask questions or discuss issues. Nobody would worry about being fired, arrested, punished, or insulted for being a sexist, conspiracy theorist, or Holocaust denier.

If we could go even further and create a society in which we could trust everybody, then none of the children would be afraid of any adult, and none of the women would be afraid of being raped, exploited, or cheated by any man. That would give us the same relaxing, pleasant social environment that our prehistoric ancestors enjoyed.

However, creating that type of society is going to require a significantly different attitude. It requires terminating the buyer beware attitude, and it requires that we stop giving pity to the badly behaved people.

All animals are in competition for their life, for a spouse, and to raise children. The consequence of losing a battle for life is death, and the consequence for losing a battle for a spouse, or the battle to raise children, is that the animal doesn't pass on its genetics. Therefore, the animals that have survived the battles are those that do not accept losing.

An animal does not give up, no matter how many times it loses. The animals will continuously compete for leadership, a mate, and food. When they face a predator, they will compete for their life no matter how hopeless the situation appears. A small mouse will fight a large cat until it is dead. The mouse will never give up.

Humans inherited that extremely competitive attitude from our animal ancestors. We do not want to lose a competitive battle. When we lose, we want to try again. This attitude caused people to promote the expressions:

In our modern era, however, we are not fighting for our life, a mate, or to raise children. Most of us are never in a battle for survival. There are only a few people today, such as policemen, firefighters, and military personnel, who truly find themselves in life-threatening situations. Most of us are involved with competitions of no importance, so it doesn't matter if we lose.

When a modern human repeatedly fails at some task, he should consider abandoning it and finding some other goal. It is senseless for us to follow the animal attitude of trying over and over, and never quitting. In our modern era, there are lots of situations in which we should give up, change our course, and switch goals. There is nothing wrong with "giving up" in this modern world.

Actually, it is detrimental to continue trying over and over. An example that I discussed in another document is that we have been failing over and over to stop drug abuse by punishing the people who buy and sell drugs. We are fools to continue believing that we should "try, try again", and that "winners never quit". We should admit failure, abandon that policy, and experiment with a different policy.

Another reason that it is acceptable for modern humans to be quitters rather than winners is because our technology is providing us with thousands of competitive recreational and social events, and there is no benefit to winning any of them. For example, when we are playing a game with our friends, it makes no difference who wins. We are foolish to put a lot of emphasis on winning, and we are especially foolish if we react to losing by becoming angry, envious, violent, or sad.

We are not primitive savages who are struggling for life. Many of our activities are simply for entertainment or exercise, so there is no advantage to being a winner, and no disadvantage to being a quitter.

We should stop promoting the crude, animal attitude that winners never quit and encourage people to use their intelligence to think about whether there is any sense in trying to win a particular event, or any disadvantage to quitting it. We should reduce the emphasis on winning and put more emphasis on enjoying the competition, the people, and life.

Likewise, we are no longer primitive savages who are fighting for food, a place to sleep, or a spouse. We would create a more pleasant social environment for everybody if we stopped fighting each other for these items.

Men have a powerful emotional craving to compete with one another, and to win our competitions. If we don't exert some self-control and think about what we are doing, we can become obsessed with winning, and possibly get so carried away that we cheat, or put so much time and resources into winning that we ruin our relationships with our friends or spouse.

I think that yacht racing is an example of how people, mainly men, can become obsessed with winning. The people involved with financing or participating in that sport put a tremendous amount of time, labor, and resources into the activity, but the winner gains nothing, and the losers do not suffer.

Some of our recreational and leisure activities provide us with some useful exercise, or opportunities to socialize or meet people, but what do the people involved with yacht racing gain from it? It is one of the most expensive sports, and one of the least useful. It is essentially an automobile race in the ocean with cars that float.

I would describe the people who get involved with yacht racing as examples of people who have become carried away with winning a competition. They want to win the competition simply to feel important.

We should understand and control our emotional cravings, not assume that we must titillate the cravings. We need to realize that our emotions were intended for animals, and that many of our emotions are inappropriate or excessive for our modern era. We should use some self-control to make wise decisions about what to believe, what to do, and how to treat other people.

When we lose an event, we need to keep our emotions under control so that we don't become angry, envious, bitter, vengeful, violent, or sad. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not have the intellectual abilities, emotional characteristics, and/or education necessary to handle being a loser in a quiet, peaceful, beneficial manner. Many people react to losing a competitive event by making accusations that they were cheated or discriminated against, or by pouting, or by cheating in the next event, or by sabotaging their competitors.

Some people may think that the previous few paragraphs do not apply to them because they are not involved with yacht racing or other competitions, but most people, especially men, regularly get into competitions. Specifically, competitions to be the most intelligent and educated super-genius.

We are monkeys, and we are constantly competing for status. There are millions of men around the world regularly telling other people about their brilliant opinions. Each of us is firmly convinced that we are a super-genius who has the best opinions about religion, crime, President Trump, terrorism, abortion, and raising children.

Most of us are so arrogant that we do not have "discussions". Rather, we give "lectures".

As with monkeys, we yell at, insult, and glare at one another. Sometimes several of the geniuses get into fistfights.

If we fail to convince somebody that our opinions are superior to theirs, we might react to the loss by accusing them of being too stupid to understand us, or by pouting, or by accusing them of discriminating against us.

Animals do not like to lose. When we lose a competition to be a super genius, we become angry and upset. It takes a lot of self-control for us to look critically at our opinions and consider the possibility that we are not as brilliant as we think we are. It requires self-control to acknowledge that we have lost the competition, and to accept the loss quietly and peacefully. People who do not have enough self-control need to be forced to face the evidence that they are losers.

In this document I brought up the concept of the "4th-place losers". These are the people who consistently do much better than average in a competition, but they are not talented enough to be recognized as "a winner". They are always among the people who are pushed aside and ignored.

It is difficult for these people to accept losing because they are always "almost" the winner. This stimulates their emotions into believing that they could be among the winners in the next competition, or that they deserve to be one of the winners.

If the 4th-place losers refuse to accept their position as a loser, they can cause a lot of trouble. For example, in a business the people who would be classified as the 4th-place losers would be the employees and managers who are better than most, but not good enough to get the promotion. They might be promoted once in a while, but they will usually watch somebody else get the promotion. This can cause them to experience a lot of disappointment and frustration.

Since they are better than most of the employees, if they cannot accept the fact that they lost in the competition for a promotion, they might come to the conclusion that they were cheated, or that they were discriminated against, or that the management is too stupid to recognize their incredible talents.

Their inability to accept their loss can result in them crying, pouting, or becoming envious of the people who are successful. Or they might try to sabotage their competition so that they have a better chance of getting a promotion, or they might become so angry that they vandalize the business, or steal things from it. Or they might decide that they should cheat in order to "get what they deserve".

Their inappropriate reaction to the loss is detrimental to the morale and operation of the business.

Athletes are under pressure to maintain a good attitude when they lose a competition, and we should to apply the same concept to all other types of competitions, such as competitions for promotions, jobs, and a spouse. For example, when a woman or minority does not get the job they want, we should tell them to accept the loss, rather than encourage them to believe that they deserve the job but were abused, discriminated against, or cheated.

All humans are very arrogant, but the arrogance of a person who is "ordinary" or "below-average" is dampened to a certain extent because he frequently fails at what he is trying to do, and he often encounters people who are more talented than he is. His failures, and his encounters with talented people, routinely remind him that he is not as special as he likes to believe.

At the other extreme are the people who are better-than-average in school, make an above-average income, are very successful in their business activities, are successful in their investments, or are successful at their job. They frequently encounter people who are inferior to them, and only occasionally encounter somebody who they regard as more talented. Therefore, instead of having their arrogance routinely dampened, their arrogance is routinely stimulated. This can result in them becoming even more arrogant than they would otherwise be.

These people can cause trouble for society if they cannot keep their arrogance under control. For example, they might believe that they are too special to have an "ordinary" job, and insist on getting a job that they "deserve".

These people are the 4th-place losers who are very talented, but not talented enough to be scientists or world leaders. However, if they refuse to accept the fact that they are losers in the competition for the top intellectual positions, then they will believe they are too special to become carpenters, technicians, plumbers, or farmers. They will insist that they should be scientists, or leaders of society. Therefore, instead of doing something beneficial with their life, the 4th-place losers waste their time, and society's resources, on endless attempts to be recognized as a super-genius.

Unfortunately, the only way they can become scientists is to create fraudulent scientific fields, which is what they have done to the social sciences. Or, they can become "non-working scientists", such as those that appear on television as "experts" on climate change. They don't do research. They just pretend to be super educated, super geniuses.

Likewise, the only way they can fulfill their fantasy of being a world leader is to create think tanks, charities, political groups, and other worthless organizations that allow them to appoint themselves as a leader of the organization, or as an "expert". Those worthless organizations can also make them feel important by giving awards to one another.

Every year they create thousands of paper books, videos, and Internet documents which provide us with their brilliant analyses and advice. Their opinions are more intelligent than those of the average people, but if we could put opinions into a competition for "value", their opinions would always be 4th-place or worse.

I think it is these people who are dominating the Rockefeller foundation, the Hoover Institution, Clinton foundation, and other groups that cause trouble for the human race in their misguided attempts to "help the world".

All of these groups have wonderful intentions. For example, The Rockefeller foundation boasts that its mission is to "promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world", and the Hoover institution boasts that is "seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind."

The 4th-place losers in those organizations are convinced that they are heroes who are going to improve the world as a result of their superior intelligence and education. They believe that they are experts on human behavior, unemployment, crime, religion, evolution, and every other issue.

They fail repeatedly to convince us that they are super-geniuses. They should react to these failures by considering the possibility that they are the losers in the competition to be "The Most Intelligent People". They should look critically at their brilliant opinions and notice that some of them are almost indistinguishable from those produced by the SCIgen software.

However, their arrogance is so extreme that they came to the conclusion that the reason we do not recognize their phenomenal intelligence is because we are too stupid, ignorant, or stubborn. They concluded that the only way to help such inferior people is through deception, false flag operations, murder, bribery, blackmail, threats, and censorship.

Therefore, instead of improving the world by impressing us with some truly intelligent knowledge, analyses, and suggestions, their method is to secretly conduct false flag operations, instigate wars and racial fights, trick the public into believing such nonsense as the Apollo moon landing and the Holocaust, and manipulating the economy with carbon taxes and the coronavirus.

They have been operating their think tanks and charities for decades, and they have been involved with false flag operations, murder, deception, and propaganda for decades, but they have not improved anything yet. However, they will not accept the possibility that they are failures in the intellectual competition. They will not give up their goal to be world leaders.

These people need to be forced into accepting the fact that they are losers. They need to be pressured to get a job that they can do properly, and to keep their mouth shut. Those who cannot control their arrogance and become productive citizens should be regarded as too similar to a monkey, and they should be evicted.

Although the concept of "arrogance" is vague, and we don't understand the human mind very well, I think it is helpful to regard our minds as having an emotion that we call "arrogance", and that it is pushing us into believing that we are the best human, and that other people are inferior to us. This emotion makes it difficult for us to give serious consideration to other people's opinions, and it makes it especially difficult for us to look critically at our own opinions.

Our arrogance is causing people, especially men, to constantly get into arguments. We tend to lecture one another, rather than discuss issues. Our arrogance causes us to regard other people as inferior to us rather than as potential friends and team members.

Our culture has been evolving to encourage arrogance. For example, people are constantly creating new types of contests to allow more people to become winners, thereby allowing more people to feel special. If you are unaware of some of the unusual contests, here is one video that shows some of them.

Our culture has been evolving during the past few centuries to make it easier for us to get awards. However, winning a meaningless contest will only provide some momentary titillation. It will not improve our lives, or our society.

Actually, I suspect that the awards are detrimental because they encourage arrogance among the winners, and pouting, tantrums, hatred, cheating, and sabotage among the losers. This is why I suggested in other documents that we reduce the emphasis on winning contests. Instead of letting our emotions influence our culture, we should use our intellect to design leisure activities that are more beneficial and less wasteful and dangerous.

Perhaps one of the most difficult concepts for the 4th-place losers to accept is that some of them are mentally ill. The reason this is difficult to accept is because we assume that the people higher up in the hierarchy are "better quality" people than the people below them.

This assumption is false. All of us are just haphazard jumbles of genetic characteristics. Our genetic characteristics are independent of one another. Therefore, it is possible for a person to have some excellent physical or mental characteristics while being ordinary or defective in some other characteristics.

The most obvious examples of this are the "savants" who are exceptional in some particular mental or physical ability while being severely defective in other characteristics.

There are lots of people who qualify as above-average in intelligence, but who have mental problems that are so serious that they should be classified as "mentally ill".

If we could determine the mental health of every person, we would create a Bell graph in which we discover that most people have an average mental health, and there is a minority that has a below-average mental health.

If we were to analyze the people who have below-average mental health, we would probably discover that most of them are of ordinary intelligence, but we would also find that some are unusually intelligent. In other words, there are stupid lunatics, ordinary lunatics, and intelligent lunatics.

Another concept that we do not want to believe is that some people are successful because they are suffering from a mental disorder. Our emotions assume that the people at the top of the hierarchy are better than the rest of us, but many of the people who are getting to the top positions in business, athletics, Hollywood, journalism, and governments seem to be suffering from serious mental disorders. Some of them should be considered as "successful lunatics", and they should not qualify as our leaders.

For example, I think that some, (probably all), of the billionaires are suffering from a serious mental disorder, and that they became a billionaire because of that mental problem, not because they have some special, money-making talent.

We should not admire somebody simply because he is wealthy, famous, or successful. We should pass judgment on how they got into that position, and whether they deserve to be one of our leaders.

Animals have to earn their leadership position, and continuously. However, since humans gave up the nomadic lifestyle and began living in large cities, people have been able to get into leadership positions without earning it. This problem is most extreme and obvious with the monarchies.

Although the USA, Germany, and some other nations do not have political monarchies, we allow economic monarchies, which are virtually the same thing.

The children who inherit a lot of money, businesses, or land are the modern version of a medieval prince or princess. These modern monarchs are more incompetent as leaders than the 4th-place losers because the children of wealthy people will not necessarily have any useful leadership abilities. As with the medieval monarchs, some of the modern monarchs will have ordinary intelligence, some will be below-average in intelligence, and some will have serious mental problems. (There have been so many mentally disturbed Kings and Queens that Wikipedia maintains this list of them.)

By comparison, the 4th-place losers have above-average talent. However, as with the 4th-place losers, the monarchs will assume that they are special people because of their exceptional wealth and status.

The monarchs can start or purchase businesses, even if they don't know how to manage the business, or understand what the business is doing. They can influence government officials with their money, even if they are mentally ill or stupid. They will get special treatment and pampering by businesses, salesmen, waiters, and airlines simply because of their money.

People will essentially get on their hands and knees and pander to them in order to get some of their money. They will also be able to influence college officials into accepting them as students. The male monarchs will be able to attract thousands of young women, even if they are mentally ill, ugly, abusive, anti-social, alcoholic, violent, or disgusting.

Their status will stimulate their arrogance and encourage them to believe that they are special people. This will give us leaders who have extreme arrogance but no talent.

This situation can also happen when wealthy people get a divorce. The ex-spouse can acquire a phenomenal amount of status and money, which can stimulate their arrogance.

All nations are failures at stopping crime, especially crime networks that get involved with government and businesses. The end result is that there are thousands of extremely wealthy criminals in every nation. When those criminals give a lot of money to their children, they create a "criminal monarchy". One of the most wealthy of these families is the Rothschilds.

The children of criminals inherit a mixture of genetic qualities from their parents and grandparents, and so on, so they are more likely to be criminals than the children who are coming from honest people. Therefore, the criminal monarchies are likely to become breeding centers for criminals.

As with "regular" monarchs, the criminal monarchs are very likely to consider themselves to be special people because of their wealth and status.

For example, Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who has been convicted of crimes. I suspect that she thought of herself as a special person who is better than the rest of us, simply because of the wealth and status she inherited from her father.

Since children are not identical copies of their parents, the criminal monarchies occasionally produce children who do not want to be criminals. John and Robert Kennedy appear to be examples of this. The two of them wanted to destroy the crime networks rather than support them.

Incidentally, their murders, and the fact that the government is continuing to cover up their murders, is evidence that the criminals have so thoroughly infiltrated and dominated the government, media, law enforcement agencies, schools, and other organizations that not even the president can depend upon getting protection from the criminals.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow political monarchies, but economic monarchies are permitted. Here is one list of some of the billionaires we are pampering, but the list is ignoring certain families, such as the Bronfman and Soros families.

The children of the economic monarchies are pampered by society simply because they were born into a particular family. They do not have to earn their position of importance.

Many Americans regard the monarchies of the Middle Ages as a disgusting government system, but are Americans really in a better social environment than those medieval peasants?

We have a lot more technology today, but we could say that the majority of Americans are still in the role of ignorant peasants who pamper a wealthy family with absurd amounts of material wealth, except that we no longer serve one wealthy family. Instead, we are serving thousands of them.

Many of the wealthy monarchs in the USA are children, grandchildren, ex-wives, or widows of somebody who made a lot of money. One example is Jacqueline Mars, whose grandfather started the Mars candy bar company. How is that type of monarchy an improvement over the royal family of England? What is the difference between the American people pampering that woman, and the British people pampering Queen Elizabeth?

The American people do not have a king or queen, but we are still in the role of medieval peasants who pamper wealthy monarchs, and their ex-spouses. We are providing thousands of these economic monarchs with giant mansions, enormous yachts, private jets, and excessive amounts of material wealth.

It would be less expensive for us to support the British Royal family than to support thousands of economic monarchies. Furthermore, there would be more land available to us peasants if we only had to provide one family with enormous amounts of land rather than thousands of families.

Unfortunately, there are so few Americans who care about this issue that nobody bothers to count the number of economic monarchies in the USA. Are there only a few thousand? Or are there hundreds of thousands?

Furthermore, nobody cares whether there are more of these monarchies every year, or fewer of them.

Some Americans are complaining about Mark Zuckerberg's plans for an absurdly large mansion and yard in Hawaii, but they don't care about eliminating the economic monarchies.

What is the difference between:

The difference is that the medieval peasants had to pamper only one family, whereas people in every nation today are pampering thousands of economic monarchies.

It is especially absurd of us to allow criminals to create economic monarchies. Unfortunately, not many people care whether they are doing a job that is useful to society, or pampering the wealthy children of criminals.

If we could go back in time and ask the medieval peasants whether they enjoy their life, and whether they enjoy pampering their king and queen, most of them would probably say that they love their life, and they enjoy working for the king and queen.

If we were to ask people today if they enjoy designing, building, and maintaining the yachts, private jets, and mansions for the economic monarchs, and if they enjoy being their maids, gardeners, carpenters, plumbers, and electricians, they would say they enjoy their lives, and enjoy getting some money from the wealthy people.

Some of the Americans who studied to become engineers ended up using their talent to design yachts or private jets for a small number of wealthy people, wealthy criminals, and their wealthy children. Those engineers are undoubtedly proud of themselves, even though they are in the same role as a medieval peasant who spent his time and talent designing an ornate throne for his King, and a gold tiara for his Queen.

People today compete with one another to provide products and services to the wealthy people. Only a few of us advocate the elimination of the wealthy class, and an end to the economic monarchies.

Technology has improved tremendously during the past one thousand years, but there has not been much social progress. Most people today are essentially medieval peasants with a higher level of technology and material wealth.

The people in the Middle Ages could have put their labor and resources into providing themselves with a beautiful city, and they could have provided their city with nice recreational and social facilities. Instead they put a lot of their labor and resources into a large castle for a wealthy family, and into wars that the wealthy people started.

Likewise, the engineers, technicians, carpenters, and other people today could be putting their talent into providing everybody with technically advanced, easy to maintain, and beautiful cities with spectacular swimming areas, factories, apartments, parks, schools, research laboratories, recreational facilities, and social activities. However, every nation is still putting a lot of their resources into mansions, yachts, and private jets for wealthy people, and we are still putting a lot of our effort into weapons and wars for the wealthy chickenhawks.

The demolition of the World Trade Center towers and the subsequent war in the Middle East is just one example of how our nations have become so dominated by undesirable people that they can get away with crimes on a very large scale. For some other examples of our incompetent, dishonest, disgusting, and abusive leadership:
 
  • Defund the police.

   • Pedophiles may bedominating our society

   • Refusing to reduce taxes during economic problems

   • Smog inspections.

• Donations to Haiti.

The leaders of our government agencies, charities, religions, schools, and businesses have lots of excuses for their selfish and incompetent behavior, and the law enforcement agencies have lots of excuses for why they ignore the accusations of pedophilia and human trafficking among government officials, Hollywood celebrities, BBC officials, and Jeffrey Epstein, but I think the reason for these problems is because criminals, lunatics, and mentally ill people are getting into the top leadership positions of our organizations and government agencies.

It is possible that not even one government official, Hollywood celebrity, or billionaire has earned his position in a fair and honest manner. All of them may have gotten into those positions by cheating.

When athletes compete with each other, they have to follow rules of behavior, but criminals do not have to follow rules or laws. When they fight with each other for control of a neighborhood, nation, business, or sports group, they can do whatever they please. The end result is that the "nice" criminals may not win. Rather, the crime network that is the most likely to win is the one that is much larger than all of the others, or the most ruthless, diabolical, deceptive, and intelligent.

There are so many accusations that our leaders are involved with pedophilia, murder rituals, and illegal initiation rituals that we could say that every nation has deteriorated into a Kakistocracy.

We have become dominated by a crime network that is so large and so appalling that most of us did not initially believe the accusations because they seemed too bizarre to be realistic. For three examples:

• Cannibalism

• Murder rituals

• Pedophile networks

The "typical" crime network, such as those controlled by Al Capone or Carlo Gambino, are well behaved, respectable organizations compared to the crime network that is dominating our governments, media, and Hollywood.

The social animals have such a strong craving to trust and follow their leaders, and to remain with the group, that they do not care if they are abused.

An example are the chickens who remain in a flock and follow their leaders even when their leader and the other chickens have pecked out a lot of their feathers.

The social animals cannot survive on their own, so they must be a member of a group. Therefore, they will remain with their group regardless of how much abuse they suffer from the other members.

Animals also tolerate abuse by nature, such as snowstorms, fleas, ticks, predators, diseases, cold weather, floods, and broken legs. Animals are tolerant of this type of abuse simply because they have no option. They do not have the intelligence necessary to be able to deal with such problems.

The monkeys are the most intelligent animals, so they make some attempt to solve some of their problems. For example, they try to remove fleas, ticks, and other parasites rather than merely scratch themselves.

Humans have the intelligence necessary to analyze problems and experiment with methods of reducing the problem but, unfortunately, we inherited the attitude to tolerate and ignore problems. We describe this attitude with such expressions as:

Humans react to problems just like monkeys. For example, we remove ticks and fleas from our body, as the monkeys do, and most people ignore or tolerate abuse by nature, such as floods, snowstorms, and diseases, as the monkeys do.

Humans also tolerate abuse by our leaders, just like the monkeys do. Humans also tolerate abusive governments, dishonest journalists, businesses that ignore the do-not-call list, Hollywood directors who demand sex in return for jobs, and credit card companies that take percentages of our transactions rather than sensible fees.

The reason our cities flood on a regular basis is because most people react to storms by making lemonade. Some people are willing to lay sandbags around their city, but they don't want to do anything to prevent the problem from occurring in the future.

The natural reaction of animals and humans is to ignore problems, not analyze them. Furthermore, our fear of the unknown causes us to be afraid to experiment with improvements.

We cannot yet protect our cities from volcanoes and extreme earthquakes, but we have the technology to create cities that are much better able to handle the routine storms, including the extremely high winds that knocked down trees, power lines, and buildings in the Midwest in August 2020 (photos below).

Unfortunately, every nation reacts to storms by making lemonade. If we had better leadership, our leaders would analyze the storms, and they would notice that storms have been occurring on a regular basis all throughout history. They would come to the conclusion that storms are likely to occur all throughout the future and, therefore, our most sensible option would be to design cities to handle the most extreme storms.

Creating better cities does not require more intelligence. Rather, it requires leaders who have a desire to analyze problems and the courage to experiment with our options.

In other documents I suggested that we design cities with underground transportation and utilities, and provide the cities with water drainage for the most extreme of storms. Although that type of city would be damaged by earthquakes and volcanoes, it would survive the rain, wind, and snow storms.

We also have the technology and resources to provide our city with large, covered areas for protection against insects and weather, as in the image below, which is part of a construction project in London. If we design a city as I've suggested, in which the neighborhoods are clusters of tall buildings, every neighborhood could have one or more of these covered areas for "outdoor" restaurants, music concerts, swimming, and other leisure activities.

The USA is putting a lot of resources into supporting Israel, fighting with imaginary terrorists, and pampering wealthy people with absurd products and services, such as this (failed or delayed?) project by SpaceX to send billionaires to the moon.

We could shift our technical talent and resources to providing ourselves with high quality cities. What is stopping us from doing that? It is the people in leadership positions. And why do we have such terrible leaders? As this document is trying to explain, it is for many reasons, such as a lack of standards for leaders, including the voters.

In the television program Hogan's Heroes, Sgt. Schultz was so submissive that when he knew something that other people did not want him to know, he would reassure them that he knows nothing.

Schultz would censor himself in order to please other people. He is analogous to the Google employees who censor their opinions about the firing of James Damore, and other issues, in order to appease their management.

However, the reason I wanted to mention Sgt. Schultz is to point out that there is another type of self-censorship that seems to be much more common. Specifically, the self-censorship of information that we don't like.

I've described this in some other documents, but I will mention it again because I recently noticed some people doing this with the information that is coming out about Jeffrey Epstein.

The public is being exposed to some unpleasant information about Jeffery Epstein during 2020. Some people are reacting with anger, but other people, possibly the majority, react by running away. They want to ignore the problem, and they try to avoid learning more about it.

For example, in August 2020 I heard a woman mention that she watched a program about Jeffrey Epstein on Netflix. Another woman responded that she read a book about Epstein. I was excited at the thought that these ordinary women, who had been ridiculing the "crazy conspiracy theories" for years, were finally becoming aware of the corruption. However, rather than discuss what they learned about Epstein, they both essentially said that the information was disgusting.

Neither of them had any desire to discuss what they have learned, or learn any more details. Both of them wanted to ignore Epstein, and discuss something more pleasant.

Those two women are typical of women that I have met during my life. Specifically, they do not want to deal with the problems of society, or discuss unpleasant issues, such as pedophile networks, corruption, or riots. They want to talk about children, weddings, food, and other, more pleasant issues.

Men should be dealing with Jeffrey Epstein and the other pedophiles, and all of the other problems of society, but most men are so overwhelmed with the modern world that they are hiding from problems along with the women and children.

Every society is suffering from the same problems over and over, such as burglaries, flooding, disruptions with the electrical power supply, businesses that cheat their customers, charities that collect a lot of money but don't do much in return, and expensive but worthless college courses.

Why don't we try to reduce our problems? Why don't we make an attempt to improve our lives? It is because animals react to problems in only two ways; namely, (1) anger and (2) running away.

Anger is their last resort. Their first preference is to hide from or ignore the problems, and/or tolerate the abuse. Animals never get together with other animals to analyze the problem and experiment with methods to reduce the problem.

Humans inherited that characteristic of ignoring and tolerating problems, rather than getting together to experiment with solutions.

The typical person will tolerate abuse by nature, crime networks, government officials, their spouse, and their friends almost as much as a dog. For three examples:

Johnny Lange claims to be a former member of the Genovese Crime Family, and that he was involved with child sex trafficking with Jeffrey Epstein, Hollywood celebrities, government officials, and the Vatican. In this video, he expresses his surprise to discover that people were exposing his crimes on the Internet, but he was even more surprised to discover that the public did not care.

He and other criminals were afraid that if the public learned about their crimes, the public would become angry and demand that the police investigate and destroy the crime networks. Therefore, the criminals were hiding as much information about their crimes as possible.

The Internet has allowed a lot of their secretive information to become available to the public, but most of the public refuses to look at the information. Of the people who learn about the crimes, most of them ignore it rather than demand that the police investigate the pedophilia, ritual murders, and trafficking of children by government officials and Hollywood celebrities.

What would happen if Johnny Lange posted documents and videos on the Internet that completely exposed all of the details and people involved with the child sex trafficking that his crime network was involved with? How many of our relatives, neighbors, and coworkers would look at it? How many would demand that the police arrest the criminals?

Most people don't care about the information that has already been released about the crimes of Johnny Lange, Jimmy Savile, or Jeffrey Epstein. Furthermore, most people are not asking for more information about those crimes, or searching the Internet for more information, or even discussing what they have already learned.

Therefore, we should not expect the public to suddenly develop a concern about these crimes simply because somebody releases all of the information about the crimes.

There is also no concern for the bizarre "comedy" skits that seem to be Hollywood celebrities making jokes about their pedophilia, human trafficking, and murder rituals, such as this (the image to the right is from 1:53) and this. Is that your idea of comedy?

There are rumors that a video called Frazzledrip shows a brutal torture of a child. If that video really exists, and if it were shown on television, how many people would care?

Vicki Polin was on the Oprah television show in 1988 and told the world that her relatives have been involved with pedophilia for generations, and that they would sometimes have babies for use in murder rituals, but it had no effect on any nation. Most people reacted to the information like a stupid animal. Specifically, they ignored it.

Also in the 1980s, Paul Bonacci testified in court that congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts was flying him and other orphans from Nebraska to Washington DC for use as sex slaves at parties, but that information also had no effect on the public. Most people ignored it.

During the past few years, some other people, such as Katy Groves, David Shurter, and Jenny Guskin have claimed that they have been victims of a pedophile network all throughout their childhoods, and some of them have identified government officials and Hollywood celebrities as pedophiles, but information is not being passed around among the public. Most people are trying to ignore it.

If the Frazzledrip video was played on the Oprah television show, how many people would react by demanding an investigation? The majority of people did not care about the murder rituals of Vicki Polin's family, so why would they care about the Frazzledrip video?

We must stop expecting the public to behave differently than what they have been behaving like all throughout history. They have consistently behaved like stupid animals for thousands of years. We are fools to expect them to behave any differently.

Most people follow the crowd, so the only way the public will acknowledge the problem of pedophile networks, murder rituals, and human trafficking is if the people in leadership positions acknowledge it.

According to this survey, less than half of the American people believe that the 2020 elections will be honest. However, none of them are interested in doing anything about it. They will follow one another to the voting booth even when they suspect that the election is fraudulent.

The New York Post published this article in which an anonymous person describes the different cheating methods that he and others have been using for decades to help the Democrats win elections.

As of 1 September 2020, the information is coming from an anonymous source, so it is possible that the journalists plan to use it for damage control. For example, they might "investigate" the accusations and then "discover" that the anonymous source was a radical, white supremacist Trump supporter who is trying to make it appear as if the Democrats cheat during the elections, but the investigative reporters have discovered the truth that there is no significant cheating.

The journalists might proudly announce that they have discovered that President Trump and his supporters are lying when they accuse the Democrats of cheating during the elections. As a backup plan, some journalists may blame the cheating on the Russians or the Chinese.

What percentage of the population is going to care enough about these accusations to demand a real investigation into voter fraud? What percentage of the people in the military and police departments care whether they are being cheated when they vote?

I have pointed out in other documents that almost all of the "9/11 truth seekers" are Wolves in Sheep's Clothing or Pied Pipers. How many people understand the trick of "controlling the opposition"? How many people are educating their friends and coworkers about these tricks?

The majority of people in every nation have shown no interest in learning the truth about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, or the accusations by Jonny Lange, Jenny Guskin, or David Shurter.

The public ignored previous accusations of voter fraud, such as this article from October 2016. Therefore, we should not expect the public to care about the accusations in August 2020, or care whether the elections are honest. This is another example of why we need a government of leaders rather than submissive representatives.

Gangs can spray graffiti in a city without worrying about the consequences because most people react by painting over the graffiti, and by putting razor wire around road signs (photo to the right).

The razor wire does not stop or solve the problem of graffiti. Rather, it is as stupid as parents putting a chastity belt on their children in order to discourage Jerry Sandusky and Jimmy Savile from raping them.

At the other extreme are the people who have pity for the people who create graffiti and have made graffiti legal for some areas of the city, or who promote graffiti as "street art" or as "freedom of expression". This is as idiotic as people making pedophilia legal in certain areas of the city, or promoting pedophilia as "sexual art" or as "freedom of sexual expression".

Imagine if the IBM management was so submissive that they put razor wire around the areas that their employees were frequently spraying with graffiti, and they authorized certain hallways to become available for the employees to use for graffiti.

When a sheep notices that a wolf is attacking one of the other sheep, it runs away from the wolf, and then continues grazing. The sheep do not get together to chase away the wolf, and they do not try to prevent wolves from attacking them in the future.

A wolf needs secrecy only to sneak up to a sheep, and then he can capture and eat a sheep in front of the other sheep without any concern that the other sheep will attack him. The other sheep will run away, thereby allowing the victim to be eaten alive.

If a sheep is injured by a wolf, but gets away from the wolf, he will rejoin the crowd of sheep, lick his wounds, and continue grazing with the other sheep. The wounded sheep, and all of the others, ignore the injuries.

Crime networks need secrecy to plan and commit their crimes, but after they have finished their crime, they don't have to worry about the public attacking them. Most people will run away and hide from a crime network. The criminals only have to worry about the police attacking them, so if a crime network has control of the police, then they will be free to do as they please.

The criminals who demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives were frightened that somebody would expose their crime to the public, so they put a lot of time and effort into covering up their crime, such as by producing thousands of websites, videos, and documents to confuse the public, and trying to stop people like me from exposing the crime.

However, the evidence of their crime has been available on the Internet for almost 20 years as of September 2020. Today there are millions of people scattered around the world who believe that explosives brought the towers down, but Larry Silverstein, and other people who were involved with the crime, do not have to fear any of those millions of people attacking him.

Likewise, during November 2016 some people began exposing evidence that some pizza parlors, donut shops, Hollywood celebrities, government officials, policemen, and doctors are involved with a pedophile network, but most people ignored the "pizzagate" accusations rather than spread it around and demand that the police investigate. By 2019, not many people on the Internet were talking about pizzagate.

During 2020, Michael Sebastian, the editor-in-chief of Esquire, noticed that there was an increase in the number of people on the Internet who were discussing "pizzagate", and he became so concerned that he wrote this article to ridicule the "bizarre" and "thoroughly debunked" conspiracy theory, but does he really have to be afraid of the information spreading to the public?

He worries that the public will believe the "very false theory", and that they will become angry and do something about it, but all throughout history the public has ignored the problems around them and followed the crowd. Therefore, if our leaders continue to ignore the pizzagate information, the public will continue to ignore it.

Most of my relatives and neighbors are listening to the authorities, not people like me, or the people on the Internet who are talking about pizzagate. As with a group of animals, most people will follow their leaders without passing judgment on whether their leaders are providing appropriate leadership.

The social animals have a very powerful craving to follow their leader, and to regard their group as the superior group. It requires a lot of self-control for us to look critically at our leaders and our group.

During the Middle Ages, the peasants would follow the Kings and Queens simply because the Kings and Queens were in leadership positions. Today the people are following pedophiles, lunatics, blackmailed puppets, and other criminals simply because those criminals are in leadership positions.

We cannot expect the majority of people to care who their leaders are, or care whether their leaders are abusing them. Most people are going to follow their leaders regardless of how disgusting their leaders are. Most people don't even care whether their leaders are senile, or have had strokes, or are suffering from dementia.

Polls show that between 6% and 30% of the US population believes that NASA faked the Apollo moon landing, which is so many millions of people that they could have a significant effect over the nation, but most of those millions want to graze with the other sheep, not expose and stop the lies.

Unless our leaders acknowledge that NASA has lied, and unless our leaders demand that the school books be corrected, the public will ignore the lies. The public will also continue to pay high tuitions to colleges that they realize are lying to their children about the moon landing, the 9/11 attack, the death of George Floyd, and the world wars.

Incidentally, the television program Hogan's Heroes was full of Jews who were playing the role of Nazis. The Jew who played Sgt. Schultz made the remark, "Who can play Nazis better than us Jews?"

An interesting aspect of this issue is that the television program seems to be similar to what we find happening all over the world, and in our history. Specifically, we find Jews pretending to be Nazis, Americans, British, Muslims, atheists, Catholics, and Russians. For example, Bryan Rigg wrote a book in which he claims that there may have been as many as 150,000 people in the Nazi military who were at least part Jewish, some of whom were in high leadership positions of the military. (Bryan Rigg discusses his book here, and that he discovered he is partly Jewish.)

Earlier in this document I mentioned the concept of a "conflict of interest". A person who doesn't think that Jews and Germans have a conflict of interest in an investigation of the Nazis, the Holocaust, and related issues should be disqualified from voting and other leadership positions on the grounds that he does not have an adequate understanding of bias. He will be easily manipulated.

Bryan Rigg is partly Jewish, and so we should regard him as having a conflict of interest.

I heard stories when I was a child that the Nazis were killing everybody who was even a small fraction Jewish. Some people said that the Nazis would kill anybody who was 1/8th Jewish, and other people said they would kill anybody who was 1/16th Jewish.

Now that a lot of us realize that thousands of Nazis were half Jewish, a quarter Jewish, and so on, not many people are promoting those stories. This information also forced the Jews to devise some excuses for why the Nazis and the Jews were working together. One excuse is that the Jews were so frightened of the Nazis that they allowed themselves to be drafted and participate in Nazi activities simply to protect themselves and their family. Another excuse is that some of the Jews were ignorant that they were Jewish.

Those are the same type of excuses Jews have been using all throughout history to explain their crimes, and to explain why they pretend to be Catholics, Russians, Muslims, and Americans.

However, the Jews have a conflict of interest in explaining their disgusting behavior. We should decide for ourselves why the Jews are committing crimes rather than submissively accept their explanation.

For example, the Jews blame their bombing of the USS Liberty on honest mistakes. I would respond that anybody who believes that type attack was a mistake is showing signs of serious mental disorders, and they should not be allowed in any leadership position. Actually, schools could use that attack as a way of helping us determine which students are showing signs of having the skills we need for police investigators and judges.

The excuse that Jews use of doing things because of fear of Nazis, anti-Semites, or persecution doesn't make any sense either. For example, Vicki Polin said that her Jewish relatives were involved with pedophilia and having babies for use in murder rituals. Those Jews cannot claim that they do such things in order to avoid persecution by anti-Semites.

Likewise, there are Jews within our government, media, schools, and businesses who lie to us about historical events. The Jewish journalists cannot use the excuse that they lie to us because they are are afraid of anti-Semites, or to avoid persecution.

Another excuse that some Jews use is that they are being forced to do certain things by "powerful" agencies, groups, or nations. For example, I have seen Jews claiming on the Internet message boards that the Jews and Israel are innocent victims of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, George Bush, Dick Cheney, the Vatican, the CIA, the US military, and the British Royal family. Some of the Jews have claimed that Israel was forced to participate in the 9/11 attack by those evil groups.

"We are the most lovable, honest, generous, and non-violent people. We are the superior race, and we are abused by anti-Semites. However, if you investigate anything we say, you will be arrested for being a Truth Denier."

The Jews are always claiming to be innocent victims. However, if the Jews truly were innocent, then they would have no resistance to our investigations of the crimes because the investigations would simply prove their innocence, and expose how they have suffered.

For example, the Jews should be glad when we investigate the Holocaust because our investigations would provide us with more details on how the Nazis got away with such an enormous project, which in turn would help us prevent such programs in the future.

For example, how did the Nazis dispose of millions of kilograms of ashes from the human bodies? If they buried the ashes, where are the burial pits? And how did they burn so many bodies when there was a shortage of fuel?

If the Jews were truly as innocent and honest as they claim to be, then they would also be helping us to expose the lies about the 9/11 attack, Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile network, the lies about the Apollo moon landing, and lots of other crimes.

One of the many standards we should set for voters is that they show an understanding of the concept that innocent people have no reason to fear investigations of any crime. A person who cannot understand this concept should be considered too emotionally and/or intellectually defective for a leadership position.

There are people all around the world who want their government to become more honest and competent, or who want their cities to become more organized, less noisy, and more attractive, or who want their economic system to be more pleasant and efficient, or who want their colleges to be more useful and less expensive.

Most people also want their nation to be a democracy. Most people don't realize that these desires create a very serious conflict. Specifically, we cannot continue to have a democracy while at the same time improving our cities, governments, economic systems, schools, or anything else about our culture.

It does not matter whether you want to refer to a nation as a democracy, a Republic, dictatorship, or some other word. Every nation on the earth is a democracy because every nation is giving people the right to vote. Every nation is also giving everybody, including children, the right to spend money, create sports, and even create weather policies, thereby giving everybody influence over the economy, holidays, sports, wedding celebrations, and every other cultural activity.

Our free enterprise system is an "economic democracy" because everybody is allowed to influence it. Our school system is an "educational democracy" for the same reason. Likewise, everybody is allowed to influence all of our other culture.

We could describe our city planning system as a "democracy" because every nation is giving every person the right to put their homes and businesses almost anywhere they please, and nobody has to meet standards or be held accountable for what they do. There are very few restrictions on where we can put homes, farms, and businesses.

This is the reason why cities are so disorganized, such as the house in the middle of a road in China (below, left). This is also the reason why there are so many homes along eroding cliffs, in floodplains, and absurdly close to lakes and oceans (below, right).

When every adult, and even children, are allowed to influence our culture and our future, and when nobody has to meet any standards, and when nobody is held accountable for anything they do, we have a democracy.

Every nation, and everybody's future, is being determined by the majority of people in their nation, including the majority of their children.

Some people insist that North Korea is a "dictatorship", but the North Korean people have the right to vote. North Korea appears to be a dictatorship because the majority of voters are willing to vote for whoever is on the ballot, even if they do not like the choices that they have.

All throughout my life I have heard Americans criticize the voters in the communist nations for being willing to vote for candidates that their government has chosen for them, but the American and European voters are behaving in the same manner. For example, during the 2016 elections, a lot of voters did not want either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but they chose one of them rather than demand better candidates.

The difference between America and North Korea is that the North Korean government provides the voters with only a few candidates to choose from, whereas the Jews and pedophiles that dominate the USA are providing the American voters with a larger group of candidates to choose from, thereby fooling the Americans into believing that they can choose anybody they please. However, the voters in both the USA and North Korea are foolishly voting for candidates that have been selected for them by a small group of people.

The reason the voters in all nations are behaving like this is because humans are animals. We inherited a strong desire to follow our leaders. We do not want to question why they are our leaders, or whether they are providing us with proper leadership. We also have a strong desire to look favorably at our group, and look critically only at other groups.

Our animal characteristics make it easy for crime networks and selfish people to manipulate us.

The only way we are going to improve our cities, schools, governments, and other aspects of our lives is to get rid of democracies. We must stop allowing the majority of people to have a leadership role in our economy, government, city design, sports activities, and other culture. We need people to earn their leadership position. And all leaders must be held accountable for what they do.

A democracy is based on false assumptions. The majority of people have always followed their leaders, and they will continue to follow their leaders in the future. We cannot expect the majority of people to provide leadership. The majority of people need leadership; they cannot provide leadership.

It is especially foolish to expect women and children to take a leadership role in eliminating crime, corruption, and other problems. We must acknowledge the evidence that women are not leaders or fighters.

When you realize that the human race is just a horde of intelligent animals, and that many people are mentally disturbed, you should realize that those of us who want to fix the world do not need the approval or support of the public. The public will follow whoever is in the leadership positions.

Therefore, if a small group of us can defeat the crime network that is currently in control of the world, then we will become the leaders, and it doesn't matter what the public thinks of us. The public will follow their leaders regardless of whether their leaders are abusive pedophiles and Zionist Jews, or you and me.

Actually, since we can provide better leadership, the public will prefer to follow us, even if they are upset by some of our policies.

If we can defeat the crime network, then we become the leaders, but "we" are a lot of people with different opinions. How do we determine who among us should be put into a leadership position, and who should be a follower? How do we ensure that we are putting higher quality people into leadership positions?

The men who have had their arrogance dampened, as mentioned earlier, will not be troublesome, but the men who are above-average are regularly giving lectures to one another about the appropriate policies for unemployment, abortion, drugs, divorce, and other issues.

Those particular men want to be recognized as a world leader.

How do we figure out which of the millions of super-geniuses truly has excellent leadership abilities and opinions?

Furthermore, how do we convince the men that we do not want in a leadership position that they must be a follower rather than a leader? How do we convince them to stop giving lectures and insulting other people, and become more cooperative and less arrogant?

We must meet standards in order to give medical advice, but there are no standards for becoming an expert in culture, so everybody is free to self-appoint themselves as an expert on whatever cultural issue they please.

Everybody is allowed to essentially grab at the steering wheel of the human race and fight with all of the other self-appointed experts to determine our future.

A doctor is held accountable for his advice, but nobody is held accountable for the advice they give on cultural issues. We allow everybody, including children, to give advice about marriage, raising children, marijuana, money, education, President Trump, abortion, climate change, and almost every other social issue, and without any consequences. Nobody is held accountable for what they do. For example, we can promote sports activities that cause brain damage or kidney damage without any consequences.

We don't even bother to require the self-appointed experts to behave in a sensible manner. For example, we allow the experts to try to influence our future by staging protests in the streets.

We should regard a person as a leader if he tries to influence our lives, and we should demand that every leader meet certain standards, justify their decisions, and be held accountable for their decisions. The following two sections give examples of how the lack of standards are allowing:

Some people provide the public with advice about life, such as Dear Abby, and Ask Ann Landers. Other people tell the public what is true and what is false, such as Snopes and FactCheck.

The people involved with those activities are not passive citizens. They are trying to influence our future, so they have self-appointed themselves to a leadership position. They have their hands on the steering wheel of the human race. However, none of them have to meet any standards, and none of them are held accountable for anything they say. This allows them to deceive us, and even lie to us.

For example, the people who claim to tell us the truth are lying to us about many historical events, such as the 9/11 attack, the pedophile networks, and the Apollo moon landing. They are criminals who are fooling people into trusting them. They are Pied Pipers who are leading people to destruction.

Likewise, the people who write the Dear Abby-type of material are also censoring and suppressing certain information and people, so they should be classified as criminals who are trying to manipulate the public, and exploit the public for money.

Furthermore, the media companies that publish the Dear Abby-type of material will not allow other women to have a fair opportunity to produce such material. The media companies are discriminating against who becomes a journalist, and who can have their material published.

Our free enterprise system is supposed to provide all of us with an equal opportunity to get jobs and start businesses, but we are allowing criminals to get into leadership positions, and we do nothing to stop them from restricting our opportunities for jobs and businesses.

Why are FactCheck and other groups allowed to lie to us? Why are we allowing the media companies to discriminate against us when we apply for a job as a journalist? Why don't our law enforcement agencies stop this abuse?

The reason is because our leaders are incompetent, dishonest, mentally ill, and/or members of crime networks. There are no standards for people in leadership positions, and none of our leaders are held accountable for anything they do.

Furthermore, we provide our leaders with so much secrecy that there is no way to verify some of the shocking accusations about them. One of the bizarre accusations that has become so popular during 2020 that some "fact checking" journalists have decided to criticize it is that some of our leaders are involved with torturing children and then killing them in order to extract "Walnut Sauce" (adrenochrome).

Is that accusation accurate? Or is it a "centuries-old anti-Semitic myth", as Brian Friedberg insists? Or is it "an Imaginary Drug", as Tarpley Hitt insists? Or is it "a drug that doesn’t exist" that only "right-wing Trump supporters believe", as Brad Reed insists?

Red Bull and Nike are two of many businesses that are involved with determining sports activities, but like all businesses, their primary purpose for getting involved with sports is to advertise their products and increase their profit.

Those businesses have their hands on the steering wheel of our culture, but not to make our lives better. Rather, to steer our culture in the direction that brings them more profit.

None of them are held accountable for anything they do, either. Their activities can be destructive to the planet, or dangerous to people, or wasteful of resources, but nothing they do will disqualify them from influencing our culture.

Likewise, the greeting card companies try to modify our holiday celebrations so that we spend more money on greeting cards, and the people who profit from diamonds have been modifying our culture for so many decades that young girls are now convinced that they must have a diamond in their wedding ring or else they are unloved and unappreciated.

The businesses that offer travel trips and vacations are not analyzing the various travel options to determine which of them will provide the public with the most benefits. Rather, they analyze the options to determine which of them will be the easiest to sell, and which will be the most profitable. They want to influence our holiday activities in order to increase their profit, not to improve our lives.

The religions also get involved with modifying our culture, but not to improve our lives. Rather, to promote their particular religion and criticize other religions.

In order to improve this situation, we must set higher standards for the leaders of our businesses. We must also change our economic system so that the competition is to improve human life, rather than to make profit.

I am proposing a society in which all of the decisions about our culture are made by a government agency. Many people would respond that such a society would be similar to, but more oppressive, than a communist government.

However, whether my suggestion creates an oppressive society, or a more pleasant society, depends upon how we design the government, and, even more important, who we put into the positions of leadership.

When the USA was created, the 13 colonies were dominated by people who did not like government officials or the police. As a result of their bad attitudes, they promoted the theory that government was analogous to a wild animal that needed to be kept in a cage.

In reality, a government is just a group of people in a leadership position. A government is nothing more than an organization of people.

Almost every organization, including families, have leadership. Therefore, almost every organization could be described as having a "government". The executives at the top of the IBM hierarchy, for example, could be described as the "IBM government". Instead of referring to those people as "corporate executives", they could be described as "IBM government officials". We could describe "parents" as being the "government" of a family.

There is nothing inherently dangerous or oppressive about a "government". Whether a government is disgusting or impressive depends mainly on:

In other words, whether a government is good or bad depends mainly upon the people who are in control of the government; namely, the voters.

Every government is disgusting because the voters are continuously making terrible decisions about who to elect, and they rarely replace inappropriate officials. Also, the voters refuse to accept responsibility for their government. Every voter insists that he is doing an excellent job, and that the government is terrible because of other voters, or because of "Russian collusion".

We can improve our governments by setting high standards for everybody in a leadership position, and that includes the voters. We must set standards for voters to such a high level that the majority of people cannot qualify.

The stupid people have had their arrogance dampened so much that they are not likely to put up much resistance to being told that they do not qualify as a voter. However, the people that I would describe as the 4th-place losers are likely to put up a lot of resistance because they believe that they are worthy of being world leaders.

This is why I put a lot of emphasis in this document about putting pressure on them to get off their pedestals and acknowledge the evidence that they are losers in the competition to be world leaders.

In the world today, all citizens, including children, and all businesses, religions, nonprofit groups, schools, and other organizations, are free to create sports contests, music concerts, holiday celebrations, and whatever other cultural activities they please.

I suggest that we experiment with a society in which we prohibit all of the individual citizens and organizations from creating or modifying culture. Everybody would be free to make proposals about culture to the government, but a government agency would have the authority to deny or allow the proposal.

By putting all cultural activities under the control of a government agency, we have an easier time observing and passing judgment on what is happening to our culture. It will make it easier for us to decide what we want our culture to be. We will be able to create culture that is truly beneficial to the human race.

Allowing the government to control culture will give us the opportunity to eliminate the problem of people and organizations manipulating our culture to promote a particular product, religion, or political belief, but whether the government does a better job of managing our culture depends upon the intellectual and emotional qualities of the voters. The voters must:

Allowing the government to control culture would be a disaster if we continue to give every adult the right to vote because those voters will continue to give us the corrupt governments that they have been giving us all throughout history.

The voters will not suddenly improve their performance simply because we give the government the authority to determine our culture. Rather, the voters will remain as incompetent and apathetic as they are right now.

We can improve the performance of voters by providing educational courses to help voters understand their job, but even if everybody is provided with a better education, the majority of people will always make "ordinary" decisions, and half of the population will always make below-average decisions.

Furthermore, some people are not capable of understanding certain issues. For example, no matter how much time and effort we put into teaching some people about evolution, they will continue to believe that Adam and Eve makes more sense.

The only way to get above-average decisions from the voters is to raise standards for voters so that voting is restricted to the people who have demonstrated an above-average ability to analyze candidates and officials.

My suggestion that we allow the government to control culture is not as radical as it may seem. The reason is that every government is already involved with determining our culture. For example, our governments are involved with influencing public artwork, the design of our cities, our policies for immigration and refugees, our school curriculum, the meals that schools provide the students, and our policies for abortion, divorce, alimony, and euthanasia.

I am not suggesting anything radical when I advocate that the government be allowed to control culture. Rather, my proposal can be regarded as "centralizing the decisions". Instead of having thousands of government agencies, millions of citizens, and thousands of businesses, religions, charities, and other organizations competing with one another to influence our culture, we should let only one government agency make the decisions.

In order for this concept to be practical, we must also eliminate secrecy among the government officials so that we can easily see who is making decisions, and why they are making those decisions.

This will allow us to pass judgment on whether an official is truly doing something that improves our lives, and if not, we can replace him.

By comparison, in our nations today, we provide people with so much secrecy that we don't always know who created some of our culture, and even if we could find out, the voters have no authority to do anything to anybody who is altering our culture.

For example, the voters have no authority to replace the leaders of the sports groups that are deceiving people about concussions and other sports injuries, and they have no authority to replace the people who are manipulating children into desiring certain candy bars or shoes.

The voters also have no authority to undo a cultural practice they decide is idiotic or destructive. For example, the voters:

Likewise, the voters cannot replace the ADL management if we become fed up with their accusations of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and hate speech. And voters do not have the authority to tell the schools to remove the lies in the history books about the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, or the 9/11 attack.

To summarize this, by putting a government agency in control of our culture, and by restricting voters to the minority of people who can select better leaders, we will be able to determine what our culture is, rather than be in the role of passive sheep who allow millions of people, criminals, pedophiles, and organizations to fight over what our culture becomes. This in turn gives us the potential of continuously improving our culture.

For an example of how this system would be an advantage to what we have now, consider the issue of sports events. We have no idea who at Red Bull, Nike, and other businesses are making decisions about which sports to promote, or why they chose those particular sports, and we cannot replace any of those people if we don't like their decisions.

By comparison, when one government agency is responsible for all culture, we will be able to see which officials are involved with sports decisions, and they will be required to provide explanations for why they are supporting certain sports and denying certain other sports.

This system will allow us to pass judgment on which of our government officials are truly improving our sports, and which of them are incompetent or causing trouble.

The officials who are judged to be improving our sports will have that listed as a "success" in their entries of the city's database of everybody's life. The officials who are considered to be creating useless or detrimental sports activities will have that listed as a "failure" in the database.

This system will also allow the public to post their suggestions on sports events, thereby giving all citizens the opportunity to impress society with their suggestions for sports. Anybody who comes up with a suggestion that turns out to be beneficial will have that listed as a success in his database entry.

By keeping track of the failures and accomplishments of every government official and citizen, we will be able to replace the officials who are the least useful, and promote the people who are providing us with the most benefit.

This concept would apply to all of our other cultural activities, also, such as music concerts, holiday celebrations, clothing styles, and social activities.

Television programs have an effect on us because they provide us with information. They are analogous to restaurants, but they are giving us information rather than food. However, we don't have much control over the content of the television programs, and there is no Quality Control agency to pass judgment on whether a particular program is beneficial, or analogous to a poisoned meal.

In this previous document I mentioned that a young girl in my neighborhood was imitating some of the idiotic behavior she saw on a Beavis and Butthead cartoon. I would describe that cartoon as being analogous to a restaurant that provides meals that contain hallucinogens. In other words, it is altering the children's behavior, but in a bizarre and undesirable manner.

There have been so many television programs about tattoos that Wikipedia has this "partial" list of them. Who decided to create so many television programs about tattoos? What was their reasoning? What effect do those programs have on the public?

If we were to analyze the effect those television programs had on society, we might discover that they increased the number of people who want a tattoo, and they have caused some of the people who already had tattoos to want more of them.

In our current societies, we do not know the reasoning behind any of the television programs, and there is no quality control department to analyze the effect a television program has on people's attitudes, lives, or relationships.

With the system I propose, a government agency will have total control over which television programs are produced, and we will know which official is advocating which program, and why he advocates it.

The government officials would also be required to analyze the effect their policies have on society. They would have to ensure that their policies were truly bringing improvements to our lives, rather than encouraging bad attitudes, idiotic behavior, fights, concussions, or loneliness.

We will be able to discuss if whether we want television programs that are promoting tattoos, and if so, what type of tattoos. Do we want them promoting the coloring of eyeballs, also? How about body piercings or tongue splitting?

We will also be able to restrict some television programs to adults only so that we don't have to deal with children picking up idiotic or dangerous behavior.

If you wonder how we could prevent children from watching certain television shows, consider that my suggestion for cities is to provide every apartment complex with lots of "video rooms" that hold between four and perhaps 30 people, but have much higher resolution and larger television monitors and audio systems than what people have in their homes today. With face recognition software and other technology, the computers would know if any children are in a room, and if so, the computer would be able to restrict the access to television programs.

While some people might complain that such a system is "oppressive", I would describe it as making it easy for adults to provide children with a more sensible environment, and sparing the adults from having to deal with children who pick up idiotic behavior.

Do we want to support food eating contests? If so, what type of foods should the contestants eat? Should they eat the most food in five minutes, or should it be 15 minutes?

Or should they try to eat without using their hands? If so, should they eat at a table, or from dog bowls on the ground? (Photo to the right shows a Cocoa Puffs cereal eating contest.)

Do we want to support automobile races? If so, what type of automobiles? Should the races be for an hour? Or should it be for five hours? Should the automobiles be powered by gasoline engines, electric motors, or by the driver?

Should women be required to dance on their toes? Or should we prohibit that in order to reduce the difficulty of ballet, the time required to train for ballet, the resources required for ballet shoes, and the medical problems of deformed feet and black nails? (some photos.)

By prohibiting the dancing on toes, we would reduce the expense and difficulty of ballet performances, and we would allow more women to get involved with ballet, and it would allow younger and older women to get involved.

People, especially men, are extremely competitive, and this makes it very easy for businesses to stimulate people into joining or watching idiotic, dangerous, or wasteful competitions. Since people do not enjoy exerting self-control, it is very common for people to get carried away with their attempts to impress other people and win the competitions.

Some athletes, for example, risk their health with drugs, and by pushing themselves to extremes. The athletes who do stunts on bicycles, motorcycles, and skateboards are regularly injuring themselves.

The ballet dancers torture themselves by dancing on their toes, and skiers risk paralysis and death with some of their stunts and high speeds.

The injuries are a burden to our healthcare system, and some athletes become so damaged that they require constant medical care and/or financial support.

Which of our recreational activities are causing the most broken bones, concussions, spine injuries, and broken teeth? We don't know because businesses and victims are allowed to keep injury information a secret. However, this page lists the numbers of head injuries from different sports, according to what doctors saw in emergency rooms during 2009.

By putting a government agency in control of, and responsible for, all cultural activities, and by requiring that the government operate without any secrecy, nobody will be able to hide any of the information about any cultural activity.

We will be able to see which activities are the most dangerous, and which require the most resources or labor. We will be able to analyze the effect the activities are having on society, and pass judgment on which activities we want to support, terminate, or modify. We will be able to experiment with ways to make the activities more pleasant and beneficial.

Furthermore, the government officials would be held accountable for their policies. For example, if a government official were to authorize a particular recreational activity, the voters and quality control department, and everybody else, would be able to pass judgment on whether the activity is truly beneficial. If not, then the official who created it will have that listed in his database as a failure.

An activity will not be judged according to whether people "like" it. Rather, it will be judged according to its effect on society. For example, is it giving people good attitudes? Or is it encouraging fights, hatred, envy, and pouting? Is it giving people useful exercise? Or is it causing broken bones, torn ligaments, and concussions?

In a democracy, a government policy is considered to be a "success" if the voters approve of it, but in order to provide ourselves with a truly better society, we must ignore what our emotions want and pass judgment on how our policies are affecting our lives, and the future generations.

These analyses would show us which activities are encouraging good attitudes, friendships, and useful exercise, and which activities are encouraging fights, divorce, injuries, pouting, or envy. We would also discover which activities people are most likely to regret getting involved with when they become older.

Our airplanes, robots, and computers slowly improve through the years because we experiment with them, and the same will happen with our social and recreational activities, as soon as we find the courage to start experimenting with our culture.

Through the decades our activities will become increasingly pleasant and beneficial, and for the same reason that our computers, cell phones, refrigerators, and other material items have been improving.

The people centuries from now might have a completely different set of social and recreational activities. They may regard our activities as crude and wasteful. They may be thankful that they were not born in our era.

Although our material items are improving every year, the free enterprise system causes engineers to put a lot of emphasis on appeasing the public, rather than designed products that are the best for the human race.

The engineers are wasting a lot of their time, and a lot of our resources. They would achieve progress at a much faster pace with the economic system I propose because they would be designing products to appease a government agency.

If the voters can provide us with proper government officials, the government agency would judge products according to what is most beneficial to the human race, not according to what consumers are emotionally attracted to. Therefore, engineers will not have to waste their time creating thousands of different and trivial variations of new and improved products in an attempt to figure out what the public wants. The engineers will not have to rush to be the first on the market with a product, either.

Furthermore, copyrights and patents make it difficult for engineers to build upon the achievements of one another. The engineers often waste some of their time doing what somebody else has already accomplished, but which has been patented. By getting rid of free enterprise, the engineers will not have to be concerned about copyrights or patents since they will all be considered to be working for the same team; namely, the human race. The end result is that the engineers will be able to build upon the work of one another at a much more rapid pace.

In a free enterprise system, the businesses, scientists, and other people involved with developing new foods have to be concerned with producing something that consumers will purchase. As a result, they are restricting their experiments and products.

For example, the people that are making "veggie burgers" cannot design their food product according to what tastes good and is healthy. Rather, they have to design it to imitate a product that consumers are accustomed to because most consumers have such a strong fear of the unknown that they dislike anything that is different.

Therefore, there are lots of companies trying to make imitation meat burgers, imitation crab, imitation bacon, imitation cheese, imitation coffee, and flavorings that are imitations of existing fruits or spices. This is a waste of time, and it is idiotic. We should design new food products according to what is healthy, tastes good, and is sensible for us to manufacture. The children will become accustomed to it. We should not be concerned about the fear that the majority of people have to try something new.

By getting rid of the free enterprise system, foods will start to evolve, and centuries from now people will likely have some food products that are radically different from what we have, but which taste good, are healthy, digest better, and are easier to manufacture.

The image to the right is a small portion of a large painting made in 1560 by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. It shows the variety of children's activities in his culture.

Children today would describe most of those activities as boring or simplistic.

The children's activities of 1560 seem especially primitive compared to what is available to the children at the Neobio Family Park in Hangzhou, China. It provides children with very large facilities that are full of toys, electric vehicles, food courts, and swimming areas. The photo below shows a couple of the electric vehicles in this very large playground.

The photo below shows one of the food courts of this large playground.

Compare that facility in China to the painting by Pieter Bruegel, and then consider that the people centuries in the future may look at our activities in the same manner. Children of the future will have robots, drones, and other products that are so much more advanced that we cannot imagine what they might be like.

Even more important, if the people of the future become less tolerant of crime, the future children may never be concerned about pedophilia, and in that case, the future generations will look at our era as one of fear and horror, in addition to having primitive activities.

The future generations will not be envious of us. Rather, they will regard us as crude, ignorant savages who were abusing, cheating, and lying to one another, and living in filthy, ugly, overcrowded cities, and raising children in miserable conditions.

Millions of people are regularly complaining that the government is incompetent or dishonest, but whining does not improve it. We need to acknowledge the evidence that the reason the government is incompetent is because the voters are incompetent.

A government is the creation of the voters. Every government is disgusting because the voters continuously make terrible decisions about who to elect. I frequently emphasize this concept because the voters are refusing to acknowledge it. I need your help in pressuring the voters to face this fact.

The only way we are going to improve our government is to stop whining about the government and find the courage to start experimenting with our culture and our attitudes towards voting.

The technique that businesses and militaries use to improve a team of people is to fire the incompetent members.

We must stop promoting the attitude that every adult should have the right to vote. The only way we are going to provide ourselves with talented voters is if we are able to fire and replace the voters who make inappropriate decisions.

We must hold the voters responsible for the government they create. They cannot be allowed to blame an incompetent or dishonest government on some other political party, or on a foreign nation.

By requiring the voters to produce a document to explain who they vote for and why, we will be able to identify the voters who make the worst decisions, and then we can replace them.

Furthermore, all of the government officials and voters must be independent citizens rather than political party members. Political parties must be forbidden.

The problem with my proposal is that we need another group of people to select and watch over the voters. This concept has the potential of creating an endless loop in which one group is watching another group, which in turn is watched by another group, and so on. This is that dilemma I mentioned earlier of "Who watches the watchers?"

My suggestion is that the government have an independent Quality Control Department that selects and watches over the voters, and that the public be encouraged to provide constructive criticism and suggestions. I will discuss the Quality Control Department in another document, however.

Every nation today regards voting as a task that is so simple that every adult is capable of becoming an excellent voter without any education, and without putting any effort into analyzing candidates or issues. We do not even care whether a voter can read and write. Choosing a candidate is considered to be so easy that people can make wise choices during their leisure time, and without having any discussions, meetings, or research.

I suggest that we change our attitude and regard the voters as being analogous to the personnel department of a business. Specifically, we should regard voting as a difficult job. A person should have to qualify to be a voter, and he should be held accountable for his decisions. The voters should be routinely analyzed, and the worst performing voters should be replaced so that there is a continuous turnover.

I also suggest that we stop expecting voters to make decisions during their leisure time. The voters should be treated similar to how the US courts treat the people selected for jury duty. Specifically, the voters should be able to take time off from their regular job to do their analyses of government officials and candidates, and to interview people.

In the USA, the voters do not have the authority to interview anybody. Instead, they passively wait for secretive people to arrange for rallies, meetings, and debates. Also, the voters passively watch the debates and rallies rather than get actively involved with determining the issues and questions that the candidates discuss.

Furthermore, the voters do not have the authority to get access to information about candidates, such as their work history or educational history. Although most voters don't have any desire to learn about the candidates, there are millions of American voters who want President Trump to release his tax information, but the voters don't have the authority to make him release it.

I would describe the US election system as putting the voters into the position of babies who are fed by secretive people. I suggest we change that so that the voters are in control of the job candidates and the hiring process. The voters should have the authority to:

If any of the government officials turn out to be incompetent, dishonest, senile, or worthless, the voters who selected them will be held responsible. The voters will not be able to operate in secrecy, and this will allow everybody to pass judgment on them.

The Quality Control department will have the authority to replace voters. They will judge the voters according to what they do, their analyses, and their decisions. For example, the voters who take a lot of time off from their regular job for their voting duties but don't produce impressive analyses or decisions will be considered to be wasting time or goofing off. The voters who arrange for interviews that don't seem to be productive will be considered as wasting their time and the time of other people.

I also suggest that we change the role of the political candidates. They should be treated in the same manner that we treat the people applying for a job at a business. For example, when people apply for a job at a business, they apply as individual citizens, not as "party members."

Furthermore, businesses do not allow the job applicants to advertise themselves in any manner, such as setting up telemarketing operations to call the people in the personnel department, or putting up billboards in front of the business to advertise themselves.

I suggest we apply the same concepts to people applying for government jobs. Specifically, they should not be allowed to advertise themselves in any manner, or be part of any type of political organization. They should be "citizens applying for a job". Likewise, the voters would also be citizens, not party members. Political parties should be prohibited.

When I was in junior high school, I was impressed with the intelligence of the government officials, but sometime during high school I began regarding them as too dumb for the top positions of leadership.

I was too young to vote, but if I could have voted, I would have refused to do so because I would have demanded a new set of candidates.

My high school was one of the locations for voting, so I saw a lot of adults vote. Why were they voting when the candidates were so stupid? I assumed it was because they were the stupid adults. I assumed that most of the intelligent adults were refusing to vote because they had the same attitude that I had. I wondered how the nation could get effective leadership when the stupid people were dominating the elections.

Years later I noticed some analyses of voters, and I was surprised that they showed that the people with college educations and above-average incomes were the most likely to vote, and that the stupid and uneducated people were the least likely to vote. I had assumed the opposite was happening.

Even more interesting, the Census Bureau statistics shows that since 1980, the people with the least education have been doing less voting in every election. In other words, during every election since 1980, the voters - as a group - have become more educated and intelligent. (See figure 4 on page 6 of this PDF file.) I would expect that to have caused the government to become better during every election since 1980. Do you think the government officials have been improving continuously since 1980?

For entertainment, you might like to wonder what would happen if the truly dumb people were voting, and the intelligent people were not voting. How much worse would our government be? For example, would Jerry Springer have been successful in his attempt to become president? Or would Lady Gaga have been elected?

I had assumed that the intelligent and educated people would be the most receptive to my book about 9/11, and that they would have the easiest time understanding the evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished with explosives.

To my surprise, the ordinary and stupid men were the most receptive to this information and the easiest to discuss the issue with, although some of them were too stupid to understand the significance of such a crime.

My experiences with talking to people about the 9/11 attack brought me to the conclusion that the people who are above-average in intelligence, education, or income tend to be so arrogant that they had trouble considering the possibility that they had been deceived into believing nonsense, or that somebody below them in the hierarchy (namely, me) could know more about world events than they know.

Some of them even boasted to me that they read more than one newspaper, or watched more than one television news program, in order to get a variety of opinions. They believed that they had a much more thorough understanding of the world than most people.

We have a tendency to blame "stupid people" for everything, but the past few decades provide a lot of evidence that stupid and uneducated people are not the primary problem with the world. The stupid people are like cows and sheep. Specifically, they eat lots of food, create lots of waste, have lots of stupid opinions, behave in stupid manners, and support a lot of idiotic organizations, such as religions, gambling casinos, and astrology predictions.

However, they do not have much influence over our lives because they are not in leadership positions of our governments, businesses, sports groups, charities, schools, or other organizations. Also, a lot of them do not vote, and they don't have much money, so they don't exert much influence over the economy.

The people who have the most influence over our lives and nations are the leaders of governments, businesses, charities, schools, sports groups, and other organizations, and the wealthy people.

The people in leadership positions are above-average in intelligence and education. We cannot blame their incompetence or criminal behavior on stupidity or ignorance.

It is also important to note that the stupid people are not preventing the intelligent and educated people from doing something intelligent. For example:

We can accuse the stupid people of being easily manipulated, abused, and cheated, and some stupid people are involved with burglaries, shoplifting, rapes, and other crimes, but the stupid people are not the cause of the serious troubles in this world. The truly serious problems are coming from people who are above-average in intelligence and education.

For example, we can accuse the stupid people of being easily fooled by the 9/11 attack into supporting a fraudulent war for Israel, but it was not the stupid people who conducted that attack, and it is not the stupid people who are censoring and suppressing people like me, who are trying to expose the lies about that attack.

Why are so many intelligent, educated people doing a terrible job of voting? Why are so many of them ignoring the evidence that we have been lied to about the world wars, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack? Why are so many having problems controlling their consumption of food, their spending of money, their use of alcohol, or their craving for sex? Why do so many of them get involved with crime? Why are so many of them having trouble forming stable friendships and marriages?

What is stopping the intelligent, educated people from eliminating the crime networks, and removing the lies from our school books, and from stopping the trafficking of children? What is stopping them from producing intelligent analyses, and working together to make the world a better place?

The answer to these questions is: their mind.

Human behavior is the result of our genetic characteristics interacting with our environment. Although there are some significant differences in the environment of different nations, and sometimes within a nation, most of us have an environment that is very similar to the environment of millions of other people.

Furthermore, every year the Internet, telephones, television, airplanes, and other technology is reducing the environmental differences between us. The Internet, for example, is allowing us to have access to the same information.

Every year the environmental differences between us diminish, so every year it is less sensible for the anti-genetic people to blame differences in human behavior on environmental differences.

The wide differences we see in human behavior cannot be explained as being due to differences in our social environment. Siblings, for example, are growing up in the same environment, but they can behave in different manners, treat people differently, and pursue different goals.

Every human has the same genetic physical and mental properties, but the differences in our genetic characteristics are greater than, and more significant than, our environmental differences. The primary reason that we behave differently from one another is because of our genetic differences.

A group of people can grow up exactly in the same environment, but their lives will have significant differences. Some will become crime network members, and some will become policemen. Some will believe in Adam and Eve, and others will believe in evolution. Some will become alcoholics, and some will control their use of drugs. Some will react with violence in a particular situation, whereas others remain calm.

One reason that some of the 4th-place losers are destructive to society is that when they notice a flaw or limitation in a scientific theory, they assume that they have just discredited the theory.

An example are the people who notice that the theory of evolution doesn't adequately explain some aspect of life, and they conclude that the entire theory is false. Then they boast that their particular theory of "intelligent design" or a supreme being can explain life better than evolution.

For example, David Gelernter wrote this review of a book written by Stephen Meyer that points out that Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't adequately explain some aspects of life. Gelernter admits that "Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances", but he complains that Darwin could not explain how species got started in the first place.

David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer (image below) point out that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot adequately explain all aspects of life, but finding mistakes or limitations in Darwin's theory doesn't "demolish Darwin", as David Gelernter claims.

Darwin's theory was not the answer to life. It was simply the best theory at that time. Scientists have since learned a lot more about evolution, but there is still a lot to learn.

Those three men are examples of the 4th-place losers who have enough intelligence to notice flaws and imperfections in other people's theories, but they don't have enough intelligence to improve upon those theories. Instead, they create alternative theories that are even more flawed, such as "intelligent design".

They are analogous to a man who has the intelligence to notice that a water pipe is leaking in his house, but he does not have the intelligence or education necessary to figure out how to fix it, but he is so arrogant that he believes he knows how to fix it, and he ends up making the situation worse. (This problem is so common that some women have asked if there is a way to stop their husbands from this arrogant behavior, such as this and this!)

Every scientific theory is just a "theory", and all of them can be improved upon. The scientists do not have the answers to the universe. Finding a mistake or a flaw with somebody's theory does not necessarily discredit it. For example, we cannot fully explain freckles, but that doesn't "demolish Darwin".

We assume that when a woman with dark skin reproduces with a man with lighter skin, the child will be a mixture of the two skin colors, similar to how we mix paint together to create a new color. Unfortunately, the universe does not follow our "common sense".

The child will end up with skin cells that have both genetic traits within it, and in some situations, all of the cells may read the genetic information from both the father and the mother in the same proportion, creating a child with a skin color that is a single shade that is some mixture of the father and the mother.

However, the cells within our body are stupid chemicals, so we cannot expect them to make wise decisions. For all we know, some skin cells read the pigment information from the mother more than the father, while other skin cells read the pigment information from the father more than from the mother. In such a case, the end result would be patches of skin cells of different shades, which we would refer to as freckles.

There is a lot about life that we don't know. When a surgeon cuts away a portion of a person's liver, the cells next to the void area realize that their neighbors are missing, and they re-create them, similar to how a lizard can regrow its tail. How do liver cells realize that their neighbors are missing and that they should regrow them? And why does this happen to our liver but not to all of our other parts? Why don't we regrow eyeballs, teeth, or fingers?

Scientists are not giving us answers to life. All they are doing is exploring the unknown. The more exploring they do, the more detail they add to their theories, and the more mistakes they correct in the existing theories. However, some of the 4th-place losers do not seem to grasp this concept. They think that finding a mistake or flaw with a theory will justify their particular theory.

Since the dumb people have had a lot of failures and disappointments, they are likely to acknowledge the possibility that they would benefit from advice about how to live their life and what to think, but the people who have had a lot of successes are likely to have had their arrogance stimulated to such an extent that they regard themselves as world leaders who should give advice rather than receive it.

In the beginning of this document I mentioned that some of our desires are the result of our craving to mimic other people or our fear of the unknown. In this section of the document I want to go into more detail on the concept that none of us has a good understanding of ourselves, or the decisions we make, and that all of us would benefit from "appropriate" leadership, especially when we are young.

None of us is learning anything of value about ourselves or about life from the people in leadership positions of the world today, but if we could provide ourselves with better leaders, all of us would benefit, including the super geniuses.

Even the people in the top leadership positions would benefit, and it is for the same reason that a group of engineers benefit when they have discussions about the product they are developing, or when a group of scientists provide critical analyses of one another's work.

Specifically, everybody benefits when we are under pressure to look critically at ourselves and our opinions, and under pressure to look favorably at other people's opinions. No matter how smart and educated we are, we can always learn something from somebody else because other people have different points of view, different biases, and different experiences.

Even the people in the top leadership positions will benefit by being pressured to look critically at themselves, participate in discussions, and look favorably at their critics and competition.

Instead of promoting the attitude that the smart people don't need leadership, we should promote the attitude that the smart people are the ones who have the easiest time recognizing the value of critical analyses, discussions, and different points of view.

Instead of trying to suppress and censor the people who criticize us, and instead of becoming angry or depressed when somebody has a more intelligent opinion than us, we should regard other people as valuable sources of information to learn from and improve ourselves with. We should try to benefit from other people rather than fight with them, hate them, sabotage them, and censor them.

Some of the people who have become famous government officials, Hollywood celebrities, authors, billionaires, mathematicians, athletes, artists, musicians, and social scientists have admitted to having mental problems. (This is one of many sites with lists of famous people who are suffering from depression, ADHD, schizophrenic, OCD, and other problems.)

Most influential people have not admitted to having mental problems, but that doesn't mean they are in good mental health. Some of them may be too ignorant about themselves to realize they have a mental disorder, and others may be too embarrassed to tell us about their problems.

One reason that we resist admitting to having mental problems is because every society is promoting the attitude that the majority of people are perfect creations of a supreme being, and that only a small minority are mentally ill.

As a result of this attitude, anybody who admits to having a mental problem is essentially walking away from the majority of perfect people and joining the small group of retards that are at the edge of society. He will be considered an inferior person as a result. This will lower his status in the social hierarchy, and since we have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, we have a very strong resistance to voluntarily moving down in the hierarchy.

In reality, there is no dividing line between the people in good mental health and the mentally ill.

We should teach children that all living creatures are just haphazard jumbles of genetic traits, and that none of us are perfect. Students should be taught that the people who cannot see any of their flaws, limitations, and defects are ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, and/or too arrogant to look critically at themselves.

All of us are defective, so nobody should be afraid or ashamed to admit to having problems. Instead, we should promote the exact opposite attitude. Specifically, the people with the highest quality minds and the best education will be able to do the best job of analyzing themselves and providing us with the most intelligent and detailed description of their defects and limitations.

At the other extreme, the people with the lowest quality minds will have trouble noticing and/or acknowledging their defects. They will provide simplistic, idiotic, or unrealistic analyses of their mental and physical qualities.

Our natural tendency is to create a phony but impressive image of ourselves because we are in constant competition for status. Also, when we are single, we are in competition for a spouse, and our natural tendency is to impress potential spouses. However, this type of deception is not beneficial in a modern society. We would create more pleasant and stable marriages if we were honest about ourselves so that we can find a spouse who is attracted to the person we truly are, rather than attracted to a phony image.

This concept also applies to businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations. The leaders of every organization should put pressure on their members to be honest about themselves rather than try to impress and deceive other people with phony images.

Employees who are honest about their talents, limitations, and defects can help their supervisors figure out what tasks they are best suited for, and what working conditions are best for them. By helping a person find a job that he is well suited to, he will be more productive and efficient, and he will have more job satisfaction. This is beneficial for the person, the organization, and society.

By comparison, when employees deceive the organization about their talents and limitations, they can get into jobs that they cannot do properly, or which they do not like very much, and that will hurt the organization, and hurt society.

Furthermore, the person hurts himself because he will not get as much job satisfaction from a job that he cannot do properly. He might also experience a lot of stress, frustration, and disappointments. He would have a more pleasant life if he had a job that he could do properly, and which he could be proud of.

Lies, deception, and other types of cheating are detrimental, but we have a tendency to cheat because we are selfish animals who are foolishly doing what our emotions want rather than thinking about what is the best for ourselves and society.

Animals and humans tend to react to problems by running away and hiding from them. The attitude that ignorance is bliss is acceptable for children and women, at least if they are living in a society in which the men are providing appropriate leadership, but it is very difficult to find a situation in which it is beneficial for an adult man to hide from reality. By comparison, there is lots of evidence that the more knowledge a man has about life, the better he will do at managing his life, and the better he will be at providing other people with guidance.

All of us have physical and mental problems and limitations. We will do a much better job of managing our lives, and providing guidance to other people, if we had a more thorough understanding of our particular problems, and the problems of our children, spouse, and friends. Two simple examples of how we benefit by understanding our physical problems are:

We do not yet understand the human mind very well, but it is beneficial for us to learn as much as possible about our mental characteristics and problems. If a person believes that he has a perfect mind, he will have a tendency to do whatever he pleases under the assumption that his mind is making excellent decisions.

If, however, a person can acknowledge that his mind has a problem, then he can take steps to prevent that problem from making his life worse. For example, if a person discovers that he is suffering from the mental problem that is described as "bipolar", then his awareness of that problem can help him make better decisions about what to do with his life.

Of course, as of August 2020, we don't know much about the bipolar problem, but if we were to maintain a database with details of everybody's life, scientists would eventually discover that people with the bipolar problem have certain tendencies, perhaps a tendency to abuse alcohol.

When a person discovers that he has the bipolar problem, he may realize that some other people with this problem have a tendency to abuse alcohol, and this may cause him to wonder if his craving for alcohol is due to his mental problem, rather than because intoxication is "fun". That awareness can help him to exert some self-control over his craving to become intoxicated, and he may be able to keep his alcohol consumption to a reasonable level. That will give him a better life, and he will be less of an irritation to other people.

Some businesses are now providing us with simplistic DNA analyses. Imagine if scientists had enough knowledge about the human mind to provide each of us with a detailed report about our particular emotional and intellectual characteristics, limitations, and problems.

Imagine a report that shows each of us where we are on the bell charts for pattern recognition, math abilities, memory, sexual desires, cravings for food, arrogance, selfishness, violence, and cravings for status.

That type of report would help us figure out what type of jobs to consider, and it would help the people with abnormal emotional cravings to make better decisions on what to do with their life, and how to treat people. For some examples:

   • Food
   • Status
   • Sex

Since we have a strong desire to be nice to people, we have a tendency to ignore a person's mental problems, but there have been so many artists who have displayed serious mental problems that it has been impossible for people to ignore the fact that artists are much more likely to be mentally ill than other people.

Why are so many artists suffering from mental disorders? Some people believe that certain mental disorders are causing people to become creative, but I don't think we should look at mental problems in that manner.

I don't think mental problems are giving people "creativity". I think the reason some people become artists is because their mental problems are making it difficult for them to form stable friendships, work in a team, and function properly in society.

As a result, those particular mental disorders cause a person to spend a lot of his time alone. They need a job and leisure activities that they can do by themselves. Until the past few decades, there were not many jobs for people with antisocial behavior, other than drawing pictures, writing music, acting, and other types of entertainment.

Today our technology provides us with a lot more job opportunities to do by ourselves, such as designing websites, translating documents, creating YouTube videos, computer programming, and various types of telephone related jobs.

The "savants" are people with mental problems that display some truly phenomenal mental abilities. Examples are Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet. Those savants show that there may be certain types of genetic defects that allow a person to access mental functions that all of us have, but don't have the ability to access and/or control.

Some people might use those savants as a way of making mental illness appear acceptable, or even desirable, but we should not consider any mental disorder as being desirable.

No person with a healthy mind would want to switch places with a savant. And if those savants had the opportunity to experience life with a healthy mind, they would not want to return to being a savant.

Some of the people with serious mental and physical disorders boast about how they love their life and would not want to be "normal". However, these people are lying to themselves in an attempt to prevent themselves from becoming sad, envious, or angry. These people are doing what is typical for animals and humans who have a problem, which is to "make lemonade".

Ideally, humans would be honest about themselves rather than tricking themselves into believing lies, but not many people have the ability to deal with reality.

An example that is easier to understand is baldness. I have been bald since I was in my twenties, and as I have mentioned in other documents, baldness is awful for many reasons.

However, I do not lie to myself and claim that I love being bald. I can admit that I would rather have hair on my head. I deal with this problem quietly, rather than lie about it, or hate or be envious of the men who have hair.

Likewise, I can be honest that I have some mysterious problem with my energy production and thyroid hormones. I don't lie to myself and pretend that I love being this way.

My low level of energy resulted in me spending a lot of my leisure time sitting around at home alone in a chair rather than doing something, which in turn resulted in me spending a lot of time thinking about life, which may be the reason I ended up producing all of these documents, and why my documents tend to be so large. (For those of you who wish that I would reduce the size of my documents, I actually remove a lot of material as I put it in the html format.)

However, even though we could say I benefited from this problem, I would not describe it as a desirable problem. I would say it ruins a person's life. It did not ruin my life, but I will not discuss the details because that would add thousands of more words to this document. Instead, I will summarize it by saying that I think that the only reason I ended up with a pleasant life is because I have the mental abilities to cope with the problem.

Specifically, I had the ability to look critically at myself and compare myself to other people, and that allowed me to notice and acknowledge that there was a serious problem with me. It ruined most of my teenage years, but by my late teenage years I had begun figuring out how to cope with it.

I truly believe that if I had been more arrogant, or less intelligent, that I would have ended up with a very unpleasant and short life, such as dead from suicide or drugs, or homeless, or trying to make a living through crime.

Most people have a higher quality body than I do, but when I compare my life to other people's lives, I think it is better in our modern era to have a low-quality body and a high quality mind than the reverse. Up until perhaps the last century, a person with my energy problems would not have survived for long, but today our mental characteristics are more important.

The point I want to bring to your attention by mentioning the mental problems of artists is that mental disorders have the potential of altering our attitudes, behavior, opinions, goals, and activities. This can be difficult to understand, so I will first explain how a physical problem can affect our mind's decisions.

The previous paragraphs mentioned how my low energy production resulted in me spending a lot of time sitting around alone at home, but in case you have trouble understanding how energy production affects our behavior, I'll give an example that should be easy to understand.

Imagine that you have one of your feet amputated because of flesh eating bacteria, frostbite, an autoimmune problem, or an automobile accident. The people who have had amputations all seem to agree that they occasionally experience phantom pains, and the artificial legs occasionally cause pain or discomfort.

The people who have had their foot amputated all agree that artificial legs occasionally cause pain and discomfort. They all become less productive at their job no matter what their job is because they are occasionally interrupted by the pain or the limitations of the artificial leg.

The end result of their amputation is that many of them had to get a different job, and many also had to change their recreational and social activities. Therefore, if you had to have one of your feet amputated, you may also have to get a different job, or change some of your activities. You might also change the meals that you make for yourself.

Now consider how the pain and frustration of the amputation can affect your mind.

The amputation will cause you to spend more of your time suffering from pain and being frustrated with the limitations of the artificial leg. This means that you will spend less time on something productive and pleasant. To rephrase that, a larger portion of your life will be spent in misery.

That increase in misery can affect your attitude, desires, and goals because we have a tendency to react to misery by looking for a way to relieve the misery. Therefore, you might spend more of your time fantasizing about something pleasant, such as daydreaming about living on Mars, or by titillating yourself with food, pet dogs, sex, masturbation, shopping, or trying to become the center of attention. You might also be tempted to mask the pain with alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs.

Spending a lot of your time in misery can also cause you to become more irritable, which can cause you to become more angry or sarcastic, or want to pout, which can make you less desirable as a friend, spouse, and father. This in turn can alter your relationships, and even change who wants to be your friend and spouse.

None of us have a good understanding of our mental or physical disorders, but if there was a supreme being in this universe, he would be able to give each of us a detailed description of our particular physical and mental disorders. If he then gave each of us the opportunity to experience another life, but without those particular defects, we would be able to experience life with a "perfect" mind and body. We would have the same intelligence that we have right now, but we would not have any of the physical or mental disorders that we are suffering from.

I would bet that everybody would discover that in that second life, we would have different attitudes, activities, and goals, and some people would have dramatically different lives. For example, some of the people who are struggling to become extremely wealthy and famous might discover that when they have a healthy mind and body, they don't have such cravings. Those people would realize that their intense cravings were the result of suffering from an internal mental disorder that was causing them to be miserable, and they had responded to the misery by fantasizing that wealth and fame would bring them happiness.

I also suspect that many of the people who are criminals would discover that they don't want to be criminals when they have a healthy mind and body. I think that many criminals would discover that they became criminals simply because they were suffering from such significant mental and/or physical disorders that it was difficult for them to function in a job, take care of themselves properly, deal with routine problems, and/or form stable relationships.

Furthermore, consider that this supreme being offered us to have a third life in which we had a reduced craving to mimic other people, and a reduced fear of the unknown. In that case, we would have a perfect mind and body, and more of an interest in thinking for ourselves.

With that third life, the majority of people would change dramatically because instead of mimicking one another, they would think more often, and that would result in them changing a lot of their decisions about what to do with their life.

You may believe that you are such a super-genius that you know everything there is to know about yourself, but if you had the opportunity to live life with a perfect body and a perfect mind, or with reduced fear of the unknown, or with a reduced craving to mimic other people, you might discover that you change a lot of your attitudes and goals, and even some of your friends.

How many of the thoughts and goals that you have are really what you want? And how many are the result of some mental or physical disorder? How many are the result of some emotional craving that you don't have the self-control to suppress?

When we produce thoughts, we assume that we are producing the thoughts that we want to produce, and that we are in control of our thinking process. In reality, we don't know how our thoughts are manipulated by our emotional cravings, or how our thoughts are being manipulated by the pains from a physical or mental problem. We know we have thoughts, but we don't know exactly why we create those thoughts.

In regards to artists, many of them live a life that most of us regard as sad and lonely. The artists assume that they are living the life they want to live, but are they really living as they want to live? Or are they living a life that is being influenced by some serious mental or physical disorders?

For example, do the artists with drug problems really want to abuse those drugs? Or is that decision the result of some genetic disorder that is influencing their decisions?

Likewise, when you find yourself angry with somebody, is it because that person is truly annoying? Or is it because of some pain or frustration in your life? When you find yourself wanting to shop, have sex, or eat food, is it because you really want to do that? Or is it because you are suffering from some type of misery and are looking for a way to titillate yourself?

Many artists are working alone, and many are struggling to make a living. Some sell their artwork to tourists, such as at Venice Beach (photo to the right), and some depend upon handouts from their relatives.

Some of the artists who have been interviewed have insisted that they prefer to work on the streets because they don't want a job. They complain that the businesses tell them what to do, which stifles their creativity. They insist that they be able to create the art that they enjoy creating.

Is their inability to work with other people truly because they need "artistic freedom"? Or is it because they have such serious mental disorders that they have trouble forming relationships with other people, following orders, and working in a team?

If the artists would look critically at themselves and acknowledge that they have mental and physical problems, they might be able to make better decisions about how to live their life, and how to treat other people. Furthermore, some of their artwork might become much more pleasant, and less sad and psychotic.

As I mentioned, I did not have much physical energy, and as a result, I did not want to have the "ordinary" life of going to college, getting married, and raising a family. I also wasted a lot of my life in what I would describe as a "semi-sleep state" in which I was withdrawn from reality and involved with an unrealistic and idiotic fantasy.

A few years ago I finally discovered that taking both T4 and T3 thyroid hormones gave me a significant amount of energy, and I almost completely stopped going into those semi-sleep states. The hormones do not make me "normal" or "perfect", but they brought such an incredible improvement that if I had felt like this as a teenager, I would have had an extremely different life.

The point I want to make is that our lives, our thoughts, our goals, the way we treat people, and our desires are influenced in ways we don't understand by our particular physical and mental characteristics and problems.

Our ignorance and our arrogance causes us to believe that we know everything there is to know about ourselves, and that we are experts on life, but none of us truly understands life, or even our own behavior.

Optical illusions show us that we cannot be certain that we know what our eyes are seeing, and the yanny/laurel audio excerpt shows that we cannot be certain of what our ears are hearing.

Each of us constantly experiences a variety of emotional feelings and desires, but none of us truly understands how our feelings are influencing our decisions, behavior, or goals.

Our arrogance is so strong that we have a difficult time noticing and admitting that we are arrogant. Our arrogance is pushing us away from critical analyses of ourselves and towards praising ourselves.

Each of us is genetically imperfect, but we do not understand what our defects are, or how they are influencing our thoughts.

We like to believe that we are experts on ourselves, and that we know what we want from life, but we don't understand ourselves well enough to be able to differentiate from what we truly want, and what we want because we picked up some desires from other people, or from television, or as a result of some emotional craving or pain.

A personal example that I mentioned in another document is that when I was a child, I was fascinated by the two, mirror image, spiral staircases in the mansion of the television show the Beverly Hillbillies. I developed a desire for that type of staircase, but was it really something that I wanted?

I would say that I did not truly want that staircase. Rather, my emotions had been triggered by a television program. Fortunately I didn't become so obsessed with the fantasy that I actually tried to get such a house. I eventually came to the conclusion that a small house would be much more practical.

At every moment we have certain desires, and we assume that our desires are truly what we want. However, many of our desires are the result of our emotions influencing our thoughts, and those emotions might be triggered by television shows, other people (including lunatics and children), and even by our dreams.

If we were to use our intellect to analyze our desires, we might come to the conclusion that we should do something else. This will result in a conflict between an emotional desire and an intellectual desire. Which desire do we follow in such a case? Do we do what our emotions want? Or do we do what makes intellectual sense to us? Which decision will give us the better life?

For example, when your craving for food is triggered by your stomach, or by watching a television show about food, or by watching an advertisement for food, or by smelling the food that somebody else is eating, you may come to the conclusion that you want to eat some food, also. However, if you were to use your intellect to think about the situation, you might conclude that you have already eaten enough, and that you should refrain from eating more. Which decision will give you the best life:

Food is an example of when we benefit by "tormenting" ourselves by denying our emotional desires for food.

Most people seem to follow the Marquis de Sade philosophy of assuming that they will have the most pleasant life by titillating their emotional cravings, but we would have a better life, better relationships, and create a much more pleasant social environment for ourselves, if everybody was willing to occasionally "torture themselves" by denying themselves what they want and doing what is more intellectually sensible.

When one of our emotions is triggered, we assume that we will benefit by satisfying the desire, but we should analyze the desire and pass judgment on whether it is sensible. An analysis might show that the desire is absurd, detrimental, or dangerous.

For example, when a man boasts about his income, his goldplated cell phone, his mansion, or how much beer he can drink, his boasting can stimulate the emotions in other men to compete for status. This can cause other men to get involved with those stupid or destructive activities.

Before we compete with somebody, we should analyze the competition to make sure that it is sensible, and that we are not doing it simply because an emotion has been triggered.

We also have an emotional craving to mimic other people, and this can cause us to desire the things we see other people doing. Before we mimic somebody, we should analyze their behavior to determine whether it is truly sensible for us.

We also have an emotion that causes us to be frightened of everything that is unknown or different, and this can cause us to want to do something we are familiar with rather than try something new. When we feel that fear of the unknown, we should analyze the fear to determine whether we are becoming frightened of something that is harmless, or whether there truly is something dangerous about the activity.

Unless we learn to control this emotion, we will be too afraid of the unknown to experiment with improvements to our lives, our society, our cities, our transportation systems, and other aspects of our culture.

To summarize this concept, we should not assume that we know what we want from life. Instead, we should analyze our desires and pass judgment on whether our desires are sensible, or whether they are the result of our emotions. We must realize that we do not have to satisfy our emotional cravings in order to enjoy life. In many cases, we will get more enjoyment by denying a craving.

We should also realize that our mind is imperfect, and that we may have some subtle mental disorders (or physical problems) that are influencing our decisions.

We will create a much more pleasant world for ourselves and other people if everybody would put some effort into thinking about what they want, rather than mindlessly doing what they want. We should ensure that our decisions are intelligent, and that we are treating people in a manner that is beneficial.

Earlier I mentioned that having your foot amputated can have a significant effect on your desires, attitudes, jobs, and activities. If you understand that concept, then you should realize the reverse is also true. Specifically, your desires, attitudes, jobs, and activities are an indication of your mental and physical characteristics. Therefore, by analyzing a person's behavior, we can get some indication of his mental and physical characteristics.

Of course, we do not yet have enough of an understanding of human behavior to do a truly useful analysis, but even a crude analysis can be useful.

The people who believe that human behavior is the result of the environment will blame strange behavior on a strange environment. However, those of us who believe that humans are animals, and that most of us have very similar environments, believe that strange behavior is usually due to genetic differences.

For example, the children who cannot behave properly in a school classroom should not be regarded as "ordinary" children who are "having trouble sitting still". Rather, they should be investigated to determine whether they are suffering from a mental or physical disorder.

Some of the children with unusual behavior are entertaining, and that can cause us to assume that they are in good mental health. They might be referred to as the class clowns, or as comedians, or as extroverts, or as unusually happy, or as extremely sociable. However, their behavior is unusual because they have mental or physical problems, not because they are "happy" or "funny".

Every child who behaves differently from the others should be investigated. I gave a personal example of this concept years ago when I pointed out that I became slower at running during my teenage years. The physical education teacher was recording our running times, and he may have noticed that I was getting slower, and possibly that some other students were also getting slower, but nobody seems to realize that teenagers who get slower at running may be suffering from physical disorder, so none of us were told to go to a doctor.

If the adults would investigate the unusual children, then they might be able to identify some of the physical and mental disorders at an early age. They may not be able to solve the problems, but they may be able to help the children deal with problems.

Likewise, if we investigated the unusual adults, we might help them understand their problems. Unfortunately, our desire to be nice to people is causing us to minimize strange behavior, or ignore it, or make excuses for it, especially among children. We have such a strong craving to pamper and care for children that we have a tendency to ignore what should be regarded as obvious signs of serious mental problems.

Likewise, men have a strong craving for women, and so men have a tendency to minimize or ignore the bizarre behavior of women.

The attitude in the world today is that it is rude to point out to people that they may have a mental or physical defect. We assume that we are "hurting a person's feelings" by telling him that he may be mentally disturbed. We assume that we should not hurt a person's feelings with reality, but if a person cannot handle reality, that is his problem. We should not feel guilty by making a person look at reality.

It is detrimental to hit a person with a rock because that can cause serious damage to his body. It is also detrimental to allow people to insult and torment one another. However, we do not damage a person simply by denying him something that he desires, or when we trigger one of his emotionally unpleasant sensations, or when we essentially hold a mirror in front of his face and tell him to look at what he sees.

Men have a strong craving to get to the top of the hierarchy. Unlike animals, which compete by biting, kicking, and howling at one another, our method today is to convince other people that our opinions are most intelligent.

We try to impress other people with our brilliant opinions about abortion, religion, crime, and President Trump. We try to convince them that they should admire us, follow our suggestions, and consider us to be worthy of being a world leader. We could describe this competition as an "intellectual competition".

A competition can be beneficial if we design it properly, and if the competitors behave appropriately. For example, an athletic event can be beneficial if we design it so that it provides us with some useful exercise, or if it allows us to meet people and form friendships, or if it allows us to enjoy the trees, flowers, sunshine, or stars.

However, if the athletic event is not designed properly, then instead of getting useful exercise, it will result in broken bones, torn ligaments, or concussions. And instead of helping people to form friendships, it might encourage fights between the contestants. And if an athletic event is held in a miserable location, such as a dusty basement of an abandoned factory in Detroit, then it won't allow the people to enjoy the trees, flowers, sunshine, or stars.

The same is true of intellectual competitions. They can be beneficial if they are designed properly, and if the people compete in a sensible manner. For example, an intellectual competition can inspire people to put some effort into developing their opinions.

However, an intellectual competition would be worthless or destructive if the people involved get into a fight with each other, insult one another, or murder one another.

Unfortunately, most people do not have the self-control necessary to have a useful intellectual competition. The reason is because most people are too arrogant to look critically at their own opinions or recognize the intelligent aspects of somebody else's opinions. Instead, they give lectures to one another and insult one another.

Most people also frequently make sarcastic noises, glare at, and make facial expressions at one another. They try to intimidate and manipulate one another, not learn from one another or inspire one another. Sometimes they become so angry that they get into fistfights, or they throw food or other objects at one another. Their behavior is similar to a group of monkeys that are fighting for dominance, rather than a group of modern humans who are having a productive discussion.

These concepts also apply to men who are doing intellectual work, such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers. They frequently get involved with "intellectual competitions" in which they try to be the best in their field. They try to impress one another with their accomplishments.

For example, scientists try to impress one another with their analyses, and engineers try to impress one another with their toaster ovens, industrial robots, and drones.

Fortunately, most scientists and engineers have the self-control necessary to compete in a productive manner. They don't get into fist fights over who has the best analysis of a scientific issue, or who has the best industrial robot. Instead, they learn from one another, and they look critically at their own work. That type of intellectual competition is beneficial because it inspires everybody to do a better job, and to build upon the work of one another.

When a group of athletes compete in a sports event, we could say that all of the losers suffer from "hurt feelings". Occasionally one of the losers reacts by crying, or having a tantrum, or becoming angry. Some of the losers of a golf event react by breaking their clubs in half, or throwing their clubs.

However, we do not feel sorry for any of the angry or sad losers. We are more likely to evict the badly behaved athletes from the events. Almost everybody regards an athlete who cannot handle losing as a brat, or as childish.

The 4th-place losers experience a lot of frustration because they are always "almost" the winner, but they are ignored, just as if they had come in last place. It is important to note that we do not care if the "4th-place losers" have "hurt feelings".

We should apply the same philosophy to the people who are competing to be super geniuses and world leaders.

Some of the people who are competing to be world leaders are very intelligent and educated. They regularly produce opinions that are above-average, but they never produce opinions that are intelligent enough to cause us to regard them as a world leader. They are the 4th-place losers of the intellectual competitions. As with athletes, they can become very frustrated because they can see that they are very talented people, but they are ignored just as if they were idiots.

Some of them might react to their endless losses by having tantrums, crying, pouting, or becoming angry at us for not recognizing their talent. We should resist the urge to feel sorry for them. We are not being cruel to them when we make them face the reality that they do not have the qualities to be at the top of the hierarchy.

The unfortunate aspect of athletic and intellectual competitions is that only a few people can be among the top winners. That means that most people will be losers.

There are thousands of different competitions in the world, so that increases our chances of winning one of them, but modern humans must be capable of accepting the fact that only a few of the billions of people are capable of winning the athletic and intellectual competitions. Most people will never win any of the competitions.

Furthermore, the few people who are capable of winning a competition will be able to win only one, or a few, competitions, not all of them. Even the person who can win the most competitions will be a loser in most of them.

Everybody today must be able to accept being a loser because we will be losers more often than winners.

Feeling sorry for the losers will make the situation worse by encouraging them to pout, hate, make excuses, and make accusations.

We do not feel sorry for people who fail in athletic competitions, but every society feels sorry for people who fail in an intellectual competition. For example, when a woman applies for a job, she could be described as "entering an intellectual competition for a particular job." If she fails to get the job, many people will feel sorry for her and blame her loss on sexism, glass ceilings, or misogyny.

However, she should quietly accept her failure and try to do better the next time. She should look critically at herself, and favorably at the person who got the job, and try to see if she can learn something from the competition.

It is true that people are biased, and so there are likely to be some situations in which a woman does not get a job simply because the particular company she is working for is biased against women. And there are situations in which an African-American, or other minority, does not get a particular job simply because of his race.

However, we cannot stop bias by feeling sorry for people. Pity will encourage them to pout, hate, have tantrums, or whine about sexism, glass ceilings, racism, anti-Semitism, white privilege, or homophobia.

Likewise, we cause trouble when we feel sorry for the people who failed to convince us that they have the most brilliant opinions about religion, crime, abortion, and other issues. Giving them pity encourages them to believe that they deserve to be a world leader.

The dominant animals react with anger to competitors, and humans also tend to react with anger to criticism. This crude, animal behavior is so common that we do not make much of an attempt to stop it. However, we don't tolerate it with athletes. Nobody panders to, or pities, the athletes who demand that we recognize them as the world's greatest athletes.

Imagine if a group of athletes were so convinced that they were the world's greatest athletes that they were occasionally staging protests in public streets to demand that we give them the gold medals and fame that they deserve.

Imagine them also throwing rocks, starting fires, and harassing the police. Nobody would feel sorry for those people. Imagine them chanting, "Athletes' Lives Matter". What is the difference between these two groups of protesters:

When we pity or tolerate the people who try to determine our future through intimidation, violence, insults, or riots, we encourage them to do more of it, and we encourage other people to also use those techniques.

We should insist that a person who wants to influence the future earn that position by impressing us with his ability to have peaceful and productive discussions, and produce intelligent analyses and suggestions.

We benefit by encouraging discussions and constructive criticism, but we should pass judgment on when a person has crossed the line from expressing his opinion to trying to determine our future with intimidation, threats, or violence. We should not tolerate people who try to control us.

An example are the people who participate in violent protests in the public streets. The U.S. Constitution allows these protests, and this is causing them to occur on a regular basis in many cities.

My recommendation is to modify the Constitution to restrict freedom of speech to peaceful discussions and prohibit all types of protests. Protests should be considered as an adult's version of a child's temper tantrum. We have to expect children to have temper tantrums, but we should raise standards for adults so that protests can be classified as a criminal activity.

The adults who cannot remain calm and peaceful when they fail to convince us that their opinions are superior to ours should be regarded as behaving like an animal, and if they become threatening or violent, they should be regarded as a criminal.

A couple months ago I provided evidence that journalists were trying to instigate racial fights and hatred of the police by giving us extremely deceptive news reports about the death of George Floyd and the subsequent protests. None of the journalists were arrested or fired, however, thereby allowing them to continue the abuse.

At the end of August 2020 we essentially had a repeat of the Floyd incident. Specifically, the journalists tried to instigate racial fights and hatred of the police by giving us almost exactly the same type of deceptive news reports about the shooting of Jacob Blake and the subsequent protests.

For example, the journalists ignored the accusation that somebody secretly dropped off a pallet of broken concrete for the protesters to throw through windows and at the police, and they ignored the criminal history of Jacob Blake.

My complaints about how the journalists deceived us about the Floyd incident apply to the Blake incident, so I won't bother with an analysis of the Blake incident. Instead, I will mention two differences with the Blake incident, the first of which I find amusing.

For some reason I found it somewhat amusing that the journalists emphasized that Jacob Blake was "shot in the back".

The journalists are trying to fool us into believing that the police shot him for no reason, but it caused me to want to blurt out, almost with laughter, "What do you expect? He turned his back to policemen who had their guns pointed at him!"

Why do I find that remark amusing? I assume it is because it is similar to the jokes that have a completely unexpected ending, such as:
I am one of those unusual people that need only three to four hours of sleep each day, but about nine hours each night.

I regard the remark about being “shot in the back” as being as stupid as a journalist saying, "The police shot him on a sunny day!"

It is also similar to the accusation that police shot somebody "in cold blood". These are attempts to stimulate emotions and manipulate opinions. Those remarks should not be tolerated as "news reports".

The second issue I wanted to discuss is more serious. At one of the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was arrested for killing two men, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and wounding a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz.

In my original document and update for George Floyd, I pointed out that the journalists ignored information that gave Floyd a bad image, such as his criminal history and the video that shows him fighting with the police, and the journalists did the same with the Blake incident.

Likewise, when reporting the killings by Rittenhouse, they also ignored the information that was favorable to Rittenhouse and detrimental to the protesters. For example, they ignored the criminal history of the three men Rittenhouse is accused of shooting. That information came from individual citizens (such as this).

An example of how deceptive the journalists were in their description of the killings, Rittenhouse could have been described as killing Anthony Huber in self-defense after Huber attacked him with his skateboard, but instead the New York Post claimed that Huber was "trying to disarm" Rittenhouse, as if Rittenhouse was the aggressor.

If Rittenhouse had shot those three men in 1970, we would not have any cell phone videos to show us what happened. Instead, we would only have the testimony from "witnesses".

It sounds wonderful to have the testimony of witnesses, but we let journalists choose the witnesses. We also let the journalists edit what the witnesses say. Furthermore, none of the journalists have to worry about being held accountable for their choices of witnesses, or their editing of the testimony.

The lack of standards for journalists allows them to choose witnesses who claim that Rittenhouse was "attacking innocent protesters with an assault rifle".

An example of their extremely deceptive witness reports is this one by Gina Barton, who is described as an "investigative reporter". Her article claims that it comes from eight witnesses, but all of the witnesses are protesters.

The people who get their information about the world from newspapers or television are getting extremely deceptive information. If a person doesn't have the initiative to use the Internet to find some different opinions, he will never realize that he is being lied to by the journalists.

The incident with Rittenhouse is another example of why honest people suffer when we allow secrecy. If it were not for the cell phone videos, the journalists would have been much more successful in convincing the public that Rittenhouse was a radical, right-wing Trump supporter who was shooting at people at random.

Furthermore, the journalists would be able to claim that Rittenhouse was a member of an anti-Semitic, white supremacist militia, and that he killed Rosenbaum simply because the name "Rosenbaum" seemed Jewish.

That type of deception would increase the anger towards Rittenhouse, and it would also provide the Jews with worldwide pity regardless of whether Rosenbaum was a Jew, and regardless of whether Rittenhouse was the man who shot Rosenbaum.

It is also important to note that if it were not for the video of Blake being shot, and of Floyd fighting with the police, there would be nothing to counteract the deception from the journalists that the police are racist thugs. Therefore, the journalists would have been more successful in instigating hatred of the police and race riots.

A common method journalists use to manipulate us is to ignore the evidence that they don't like.

We need to change our legal system so that ignoring information or people is considered as illegal as "lying" or "deceiving".

An example is that the man that Rittenhouse wounded in the arm, Gaige Grosskreutz, is clearly seen to have a gun, and he his holding onto it even after being wounded.

Here is one video that shows the gun and the confrontation.

The journalists could have described Rittenhouse as:
"An innocent young man who was trying to protect the city from vandalism and looting, but was attacked by a group of armed and dangerous protesters. Rittenhouse defended himself by killing two of the attackers, and wounding a third."

The journalists ignored the gun Grosskreutz was pointing at Rittenhouse, however. Instead, journalists described Rittenhouse with such expressions as a "gunman shooting at protesters", which implies that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, and that he was shooting at unarmed protesters.
 
If Grosskreutz had killed Rittenhouse, I suspect that the journalists would have praised Grosskreutz as "a hero who risked his life to defend the peaceful protesters against a radical, far-right, Trump supporter who had already murdered one protester with an assault weapon."

In other documents I pointed out that animals are inherently lazy. In our modern era, this characteristic is detrimental. People today need the initiative to do things on their own, rather than wait for some external stimuli to trigger their emotion.

The September 11 attack is an example of this problem. The majority of people want to sit in front of a television and be fed information about the attack. They do not have the initiative to learn about it on their own.

Furthermore, since we have a craving to follow our leaders, most people refuse to accept information about 9/11 from people like me and you. Most people want to get information from their leaders. They behave like a baby who wants his mommy to feed him.

Most people are behaving the same way in regards to the Rittenhouse shootings. Specifically, they do not have any initiative to use the Internet to do research about it. They want their authorities to feed them information.

It is acceptable for people to behave like this, but not if they are in a leadership position, such as a voter, or a leader of the media. Unfortunately, all of us are given the right to vote, and all of us are also allowed to be "leaders of the media" because we are allowed to determine which journalists survive the competitive battle for consumers, and which journalists have to find some other job.

The people who have such a low interest in researching an issue and thinking for themselves that they still believe the official story about 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues, should be disqualified from all leadership positions, including voting. The reason is because they are easily manipulated by the people they allow to feed information to them.

Their attitude is not much better than that of Stanley Thorton, in the photo below, and the other "adult babies".

If we could measure a person's initiative to learn and think, we would create a bell graph. We assume that the majority of people are acceptable, but I would say that the majority of people have a level of initiative that was acceptable only during prehistoric times, but it is too low for our modern era.

Our laziness is also becoming increasingly troublesome for schools. During prehistoric times, children picked up all of the information they needed simply by observing other people, but children today have to learn so much information that they must spend many years in school, and because we resist learning, teachers must continuously put pressure on the students to learn. Even with the pressure, most students do the bare minimum necessary. It is becoming increasingly important that children develop a greater desire to learn.

Furthermore, people today should have a desire and ability to consider alternative opinions. The people who want to follow one another like sheep and never explore their options or look critically at themselves should also be disqualified as voters and other leaders.

Grosskreutz, (in the photo farther above), is severely wounded in his arm, but he is still holding onto his gun, which implies that he is planning to use it, which I would say justifies Rittenhouse shooting him again, and killing him. However, Rittenhouse let him live.

My opinion is that when a criminal with a gun, knife, skateboard, rock, or other weapon attacks a person, he should be considered "an armed and dangerous criminal". If the victim wounds the criminal, and if the criminal continues to hold onto his weapon, the victim should continue to regard the criminal as "armed and dangerous".

Rittenhouse was arrested for murder, but judging by what little information I have as of 29 August 2020, I would say that Rittenhouse killed those men in self-defense. I would arrest the men who were attacking Rittenhouse. Although two of them are dead, the man who was wounded should be arrested for attacking a teenage boy, and attacking him with a gun. I would also arrest all of the protesters who were chasing after Rittenhouse, but were not fast enough to catch him.

There are so many Americans who have a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude that they will pity the loser of a fight, even if he is the person who instigated it. Some people want to have everybody in a fight share the blame equally.

My suggestion is to stop feeling sorry for criminals, "underdogs", the "downtrodden", and the "disadvantaged". We should raise standards for adults and demand that they behave in a respectable manner, and those who refuse should be evicted or executed.

If the USA had been following this policy during the past few decades, all three of the men that Rittenhouse shot would likely have been evicted long ago because of their involvement with crimes. Furthermore, a lot of the other protesters may have been evicted, also.

The journalists ignore the fact that many, perhaps most, of the people protesting for "Black Lives Matter" are white, not black. Why don't any of the "investigative journalists" investigate who those white people are, and what their motives are?

How many of the protesters have been convicted of serious crimes? How many of them are Jews? How many are pedophiles who are getting involved with attempts to "defund the police" because they are terrified that the public is becoming aware of the pedophilia that is going on in Hollywood, the government, the media companies, and other organizations?

Imagine the opposite situation. Imagine black people having violent protests for "White Lives Matter". And imagine that they are looting and setting fire to businesses that are owned by white people. And imagine that some of them have been convicted for sex offenses, burglary, or other crimes. Would you wonder why those black criminals were involved with violent protests to "help" white people?

People who join protests should not be considered to be using their freedom of speech. Rather, they are trying to control us through violence, intimidation, and fear. Protests should be regarded as a criminal activity, and we should investigate the protesters.

I also suggest that we change our attitude towards when a crime has occurred. In the USA, the "feel sorry for me" attitude is so strong that criminals who fail in their attempts to commit crimes can get better treatment, if they are arrested at all. We treat attempts at crime to be different than the completion of a crime.

I suggest that we don't care about the success rate of a criminal. For example, during the protests there were people throwing rocks through windows, and then stealing items from the retail stores. Those people are considered guilty of vandalism and theft.

However, if one of the protesters was so physically weak, stupid, physically handicapped, or uncoordinated that he could not break the windows, and if he eventually gives up and goes home, would he be considered guilty of a crime?

I suggest that a person who fails at looting to be considered just as guilty of vandalism and theft as if he had succeeded.

For another example, consider a man who tries to rape a child but fails for some reason, such as intervention by the child's father, or because the child finds a way to escape, or because of impotence. I suggest we consider that man to be just as guilty of raping a child as a man who succeeds at raping a child.

We should not give special treatment to the people who are too physically weak, lazy, stupid, uneducated, impotent, or uncoordinated to complete their crime successfully.

In the US court system, the purpose of a trial is not to understand crimes or find a way to reduce crimes. It is simply to determine whether a person is guilty of committing a crime. There is almost no concern about the person's history, his intentions, his motives, his value to society, or anything else.

I suggest that we consider a person to be a criminal if he attempts a crime, not according to how successful he was with his crime.

In the case of Rittenhouse, unless he did something that justifies the protesters chasing after him, then all of the protesters who chased him with the intention to hurt him should be considered equally guilty of the crime of attacking an innocent person. The protesters who were slower at running, or who were farther away when they started running, should be considered just as guilty as those who caught up with him and kicked him and hit him with a skateboard.

It would be difficult to determine which of the protesters had the intention of hurting Rittenhouse, and which of them were only interested in recording the incident with their cameras, but that difficulty should not stop our law enforcement agencies from making those judgments.

That type of change to our legal system might frighten a lot of people since we all occasionally have thoughts that could be described as "criminal". However, as I pointed out in other documents, don't let yourself become frightened by your animal qualities.

Since humans are animals, we have a tendency to react with anger when we are upset, and that emotion can cause us to have fantasies of attacking people or objects. However, most of us have the self-control to keep those violent thoughts in our mind and limit our response to something less destructive, such as yelling, clenching our teeth, swearing, or walking away from the problem and giving ourself some time to calm down.

Also, because we are animals, we have cravings to grab at things that attract our attention, and that emotion can cause us to have fantasies of stealing items, or grabbing at food, or grabbing at women. However, most of us have the self-control to keep our cravings under control.

We all have animal cravings, but the cravings are stronger in some people, and we have different levels of self-control. The people who do not have the ability to treat people with respect should be considered as being too similar to an animal to live with us. We should raise standards so that we can restrict or evict the people who behave like animals, and we should not give anybody special treatment just because he is a failure in his attempt to commit a crime.

We would have a significantly more pleasant and relaxing social environment if we could live among people we can trust, and who have a lot more self-control than the people we are living with today. The high standards would be especially nice for children because they would not have to be taught to be fearful of strangers.

Everybody should have the freedom to discuss their opinions, but nobody should have the right to intimidate, frighten, or deceive other people.

A person who wants to be a leader should be required to earn that position in a peaceful manner by impressing us with his intelligent analyses and suggestions.

Many people accuse the human race of being more violent and selfish than animals, but as I pointed out in other documents, humans and animals are inherently nonviolent, and humans are actually much better behaved than animals.

Our abhorrence of violence is so extreme, and we have such a strong desire to be nice to other creatures, including animals, that millions of people around the world regularly release their unwanted pets into the city or forest because they do not want to euthanize the animals. They want to be nice to the animals, but this is an example of when their kindness will actually cause suffering. (Now that security cameras are common, we can watch people abandon their pet dogs.)

Another example of how strongly we want to avoid violence is that businesses are producing a variety of traps for us to safely capture mice and other animals so that we can release them in some other area. If there was a shortage of those animals, then those traps would be beneficial, but the population of mice, rats, cockroaches, pigeons, and certain other creatures is abnormally high because our cities are providing them with a lot more food and homes than they would have had during prehistoric times.

The people who are capturing rodents alive and releasing them somewhere else are another example of people who assume they are being kind but are increasing the competition among the animals in that area, which will increase the number of brutal and cruel deaths.

Most people don't have the intellectual ability and/or education to understand that all animals are always reproducing in such excessive quantities that most of them will die at a young age from starvation, disease, or by being eaten alive by predators.

There are some people who can understand that concept, but they do not have enough self-control to override their desire to be nice, and/or override their abhorrence of violence, so they cannot euthanize the unwanted animals.

Our culture evolves to fit the desires of the majority of people. One of our powerful desires is to take care of children. We also have a strong desire to see people smile and enjoy themselves, and we have a desire to help people who are suffering or in trouble. Unfortunately, we are not making any distinction between when we are truly being helpful, and when we are instead giving pity to people and encouraging them to develop bad attitudes and bad behavior.

An example is how men tend to give pity to women who fail as supervisors, engineers, or scientists, and who blame their failures on sexism, discrimination, and glass ceilings.

The women enjoy the pity, so we assume that we are being nice to them by giving them pity, but the pity encourages them to continue whining, pouting, hating, and accusing.

“I was fired because the sexist men don’t want to work with a woman.” “Yes, dear. You deserve to be an engineer. I am ashamed that men have abused women for 6000 years.”

The men would actually be helping the women much more if they were "cruel" to the women by pointing out that men and women have slightly different intellectual, emotional, and physical characteristics and limitations, and that men are going to be better at certain jobs and activities, and women will be better at certain other jobs and activities.

Men would be more helpful to women by putting pressure on them to stop whining about sexism, and to analyze themselves to determine their particular talents and limitations, and use that knowledge to find a job and activities that fit their particular characteristics. Of course, it would help women even more if men would provide them with guidance rather than pander to them.

We want to see people smile and giggle, but we are not helpful or kind when we pander to people and tell them what they want to hear.

An example of how kindness can be detrimental that is more significant to topic of this document is that we assume we are being nice to the people with mental disorders by ignoring or minimizing their mental problems. I will go into more detail about this issue later in the document because I consider it to be very important.

The attitude that we are being nice by ignoring mental problems is especially popular in the USA because the 13 colonies were originally dominated by English citizens who had trouble fitting into society, following the laws, and/or making a living. Those people did not want to consider the possibility that they were intellectually and/or emotionally defective, so they developed the attitude that they were wonderful people who were abused and discriminated against by selfish, corrupt, and arrogant aristocrats.

Their attitude resulted in the USA promoting a very strong "feel sorry for me" attitude. The American culture encourages us to give pity to the underdogs, the downtrodden, the disadvantaged, the criminals, and other types of "wretched refuse" and "huddled masses".

If I am correct that the 13 colonies were essentially a human garbage dump of English trash, then how did they create a nation that turned out to be successful? The USA has a lot of problems, but it has survived longer than some other nations. How did a group of losers achieve such success?

First of all, the USA did not have a lot of success. The first government was such a failure that it was discarded after only a few years.

The second government, the U.S. Constitution, was more successful. This brings me to my second point which is that the Constitution was not created by the wretched refuse and the huddled masses of England. It was created by their children and grandchildren.

Almost all of the men who were involved with creating and signing the Declaration of Independence, and then the U.S. Constitution, were born and raised in the colonies, not England. They were not the immigrants to the colonies. They were the children and grandchildren of the immigrants.

The immigrants from England did not have the intellectual or emotional ability to create a nation. They were the "white trash" of England. They created an inferior version of England. For just a few examples, the architecture in the 13 colonies was more simplistic and lower in quality; religion was more extreme and bizarre; and there was more burning of witches, gambling, slavery, and alcoholism.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the 13 colonies were on land that had an enormous amount of food and other resources because the native Americans were too primitive to wipe out the resources. Therefore, compared to England, it was much easier for the people in the 13 colonies to find food, wood, coal, fish, and other resources.

Everybody is biased in favor of their nation and their ancestors, but there is a lot of evidence that the Pilgrims were losers, and that the Thanksgiving holiday was an example of their incompetence, not something to be proud of (such as this and this).

The Pilgrims were such losers that about half of them died not long after arriving in North America. The English people who were evicted to Georgia were even more mentally inferior, so it is not surprising that a significant percentage of them died within a few years, even though food and other resources were more plentiful in Georgia than in Massachusetts, and the weather was nicer.

We do not benefit by lying to ourselves about our history. We need to critically review human history and try to learn from it. We should acknowledge the evidence that the 13 colonies were a human garbage dump. We should notice that the USA was not created by the immigrants from England. It was created by their children and grandchildren who had higher quality minds.

You and I are in a similar situation as the men who created the USA. Specifically, we have the option of feeling sorry for ourselves because some of our parents or grandparents are wretched refuse, or we can try to create a better life for ourselves.

During prehistoric times, the competitive battle for life ensured that all of the adult men were capable of supporting themselves. None of the adult men needed welfare, and none of them had to depend on crime to feed themselves. The prehistoric men were also brave enough to protect themselves from wolves and neighboring tribes. There were no cowardly men in that era.

It was sensible for prehistoric people to feel sorry for one another and help one another because the people needed help only temporarily, such as when they were healing from a broken bone.

During the past few thousand years, however, the situation has changed significantly. Today there are millions of men who are incapable of functioning properly in our modern societies. They don't need help temporarily. They need help all throughout their lives.

There are millions of people today who have trouble holding jobs, and others have trouble controlling their cravings for alcohol, food, gambling, sex, or drugs. There are also millions of people who have trouble resisting criminal behavior or temper tantrums.

Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for those people and try to make them feel better by giving them pity, welfare, second chances, and third chances, but the problem is that those people need assistance forever. They are not suffering from a temporary problem. They are suffering because they have a defective body and/or brain.

It is beneficial for us to help people who are having trouble, but no society is truly helping anybody. In some cases, we are inadvertently making their situation worse, and hurting society as well. An example that I have discussed many times is that we assume that we are helping the criminals by punishing them with fines or jail, but in reality we are just tormenting them, and when they get out of jail, they will be even more unemployable than before.

Our desire to be nice to people causes us to want to make the defective people feel better about themselves. We do this by minimizing the significance of their problems. However, this encourages them to live in a fantasy world rather than accept reality.

For example, our societies are telling the alcoholics that they are suffering from a "disease" or an "addiction", rather than suffering from a "genetic disorder" or a "defective brain". By describing alcoholism as a disease or addiction, we create the impression that an alcoholic is an ordinary person who, due to bad luck, picked up the disease or addiction of alcoholism. This implies that his problem can be cured, thereby restoring him to a normal person.

Likewise, there are some people who try to make the mentally retarded people feel better by avoiding the use of the word "retard", and some people believe they are helping midgets feel better by referring to them as "short people". There are also some people who believe they will make women feel better by using such pronouns as "zir" and ze".

The people who are proposing changes to our language believe that they are helping the retards, women, and midgets, but they're not helping anybody. All they are doing is causing trouble for our language. They are titillating themselves with fantasizes in which they are heroes who are helping the Underdogs, but they are not improving life for anybody.

A more sensible policy would be to tell everybody to accept reality. For two examples:

It might seem cruel to tell an alcoholic that he has a genetic defect, but that information will allow him to make better decisions about how to deal with his problem. For example, if he forces himself to stop drinking, he will realize that his genetic defect will continue to exist and torment him. Therefore, he should watch his behavior to ensure that he's not getting involved with some other stupid activity, such as drug abuse, excessive eating, gambling, or excessive sex. His knowledge about his genetic disorder will allow him to make better decisions of how to manage his life, and everybody will benefit as a result.

Likewise, some people are trying to make the obese people feel better by telling them that obesity is a disease or an addiction. This makes the obese people feel better because it gives them hope that they can be cured of the disease or addiction, and then they will become a normal person. This is encouraging them to live in a fantasy world, and to develop unrealistic goals and expectations.

Many obese people try various diets, weight loss pills, and exercise programs, but all of their attempts to lose weight result in frustration, disappointment, wasted money, and wasted time.

It might seem cruel to tell the obese people to face reality and acknowledge that they are suffering from a genetic disorder of their brain and/or body, and that there is no cure for such genetic disorders, but if they can accept that, then they can deal with their problem in a better manner. They will realize that the only way they will lose weight is by something drastic, such as having somebody restrict their consumption of food, or having gastric bypass surgery.

We try to make the mentally ill people feel better by making mental illness seem as trivial as bad eyesight, rather than what it truly is, which is a serious and potentially dangerous defect.

For example, we don't want to put restrictions on the mentally ill people, such as prohibiting them from certain jobs, neighborhoods, or activities. We allow mentally ill people to vote, have children, influence the economy, and influence culture. We want them to feel as if they are normal people, and that they fit in with the rest of us.

To further help the mentally ill people feel good about themselves, we allow them to keep their mental disorders a secret from the public, including from their potential spouse. Unfortunately, allowing them to be secretive is not showing kindness to them. Rather, it is allowing them to deceive other people, which can allow them to get into jobs, activities, marriages, and friendships that they don't fit into. This in turn can cause the mentally ill people, and everybody else, to suffer from a lot of problems, frustration, disappointments, and anger.

We would create a more pleasant social environment if everybody had to be honest about themselves and their history. Nobody should be allowed to be secretive or deceptive about their characteristics. Instead, we should give everybody the right to know the details and the truth about the people we live with so that everybody can make better decisions about who to choose as a spouse, friend, coworker, and neighbor. It will also help us make better decisions about who to hire for a job, and who promote into influential positions.

Another example of how our attempts to be kind are hurting us is that we try to ignore the deterioration from old age. We want to make the elderly people feel better about themselves, so we pretend that they are just ordinary people who are developing some wrinkles and gray hair. We don't want to force the elderly people to acknowledge the evidence that their brains are shriveling up, and that their minds have deteriorated to such a point that they cannot function properly in many jobs, such as voters, leaders, engineers, and scientists.

We are allowing elderly people to vote even when they have had so many strokes and such deterioration that they need assistance in marking their ballot. However, an adult who cannot mark a ballot has deteriorated to such an extent that he is equivalent to a three-year-old child. Allowing such elderly people to vote is as stupid as allowing three-year-old children to vote.

Likewise, we are hurting society when we allow elderly people to retain top leadership positions. Allowing people like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ruth Ginsburg, and other elderly people to be our leaders is as foolish as allowing three-year-old children to be our leaders.

The mental deterioration that we suffer from as we age is another reason why we should have a database that contain details of everybody's life. That database would have two uses:
   1) It would allow us to judge a person's degradation.

   2) It would help us to understand the degradation.

We like the thought of living for centuries, but what would happen to our body if we were to do so? Would our nose and ears continue to grow in size? Would our nose eventually become as large as our head? And what would happen to our heart? Does that grow continuously, also? Would everybody's bones slowly become weak and brittle, eventually getting to the point at which our backbone crumbles and causes paralysis?

If we had a database with details on everyone's life, we would get a better understanding of how our bodies are changing as they grow old, and what sort of medical problems develop as we grow old. Do older people tend to have more trouble sleeping at night? Or do they tend to have an easier time sleeping? Do the rods or cones in our eyes become less sensitive with age?

The people who dominate the world today do not support the concept of a database that has information about all of us. They want to gather information about you and me, but they don't want us to have access to information about them. They want secrecy.

It would be better to restrict leadership positions to people who are not ashamed of themselves. We would benefit in many ways by allowing scientists to collect detailed data about all of us.

Everybody's brain is a haphazard jumble of genetic characteristics, so nobody can be considered to have a perfect brain. It is more sensible to describe everybody as having a defective brain with a lot of limitations and flaws.

We believe that we are being nice when we ignore a person's mental problems, but everybody would benefit by understanding as much as possible about his mind. All of us would benefit tremendously if we had a thorough understanding of our mind's abilities, limitations, and defects.

We don't yet know how to truly analyze a human mind, but ignoring this issue is not helping us. It would be better to analyze one another's mind and pass judgment on our mental abilities. It is especially important for us to pass judgment on who has the mental characteristics we want for the influential positions.

To rephrase this, we should analyze everybody's mind and pass judgment on who among us seems to have the mental talents we want for voters and other people in leadership positions, and who should be disqualified such positions because they are showing signs of unacceptable mental characteristics, deterioration from old age, or brain injuries.

We should stop believing that we are being "nice" when we ignore a person's mental problems or limitations. We are not hurting a person when we tell them that their mind is too defective for them to be a voter, or too stupid to be a scientist.

We are not hurting a person when we tell them he does not have the ability to be a world-class athlete, and we are not hurting a person when we tell him that he does not have the talent for the particular job that he wants. Conversely, we are not being nice to a person when we appease him by letting him do the sports or jobs that he cannot do properly.

As I mentioned earlier in this document, if we could measure mental health, we would create a bell graph in which the majority of people are "typical".

If we were to analyze the people in the "extremely defective" section of that bell graph, we would discover that they differ in their level of arrogance. We would find that most of them are of average arrogance, but a minority of them is extremely arrogant.

The mentally defective people who have extreme arrogance are likely to put up the most resistance to the evidence that they are mentally ill. Some of them might be so arrogant that they believe that they deserve to be a world leader. They may believe that they are such super geniuses that they know what is best about religion, abortion, crime, and raising children.

When we are "nice" to the mentally ill people by ignoring or minimizing their problems, we make them feel good, but we encourage their arrogance, which will cause them to become even more irritating and troublesome. This will hurt them and the rest of us. Also, we will reduce the chances that they acknowledge their mental problems and try to deal with them.

It is more beneficial for us to dampen everybody's arrogance, especially the arrogance of the people who are mentally ill. A mentally ill person will become upset if we point out to him that he is too defective to be a voter, government official, business leader, or other influential person, and that he should experiment with diets and mental health drugs to reduce his problems, but if a person cannot handle reality, or a difference of opinion, that is his problem, not ours.

We will provide ourselves with better leadership if we restrict our leaders to the people who show above-average mental qualities. Furthermore, we should replace a leader if we see him showing signs of mental illness, deterioration from old age, or brain injuries.

It is acceptable for a person in a leadership position to have tooth decay, a mole on his face, and flat feet, but if his mind is not functioning properly, he should be disqualified from an influential position.

In order to provide ourselves with better leadership, we must pressure people into being realistic. For example, the majority of people need to be pressured into acknowledging the evidence that they are "ordinary people", and that they have nothing intelligent to say about any issue. And a minority of the population needs pressure to acknowledge the evidence that their mental disorders are so serious that they should be classified as "mentally ill".

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get people to accept the evidence that most people have nothing of value to say, and that they should keep their mouth shut. How do we create a better society when most men want to believe that they are super educated, super geniuses? I'll discuss this later in the document.

Engineers do not improve computers, telephones, refrigerators, or other products by boasting about the good qualities, minimizing or ignoring the problems of their products, and praising one another for being talented and intelligent. Instead, they improve their products by giving them critical analyses, and experimenting with possible improvements.

We need that same attitude with culture. We are not going to improve our government, economic system, recreational activities, or anything else by boasting about ourselves, minimizing or ignoring our problems, or criticizing other cultures.

If the leaders of every nation were behaving in the manner that we expect from engineers, then they would be giving critical analyses to their nation's culture on a routine basis, and frequently experimenting with possible improvements. They would inspire one another with their analyses, discoveries, and experiments. Our lives would slowly improve as a result of their efforts.

Why is it that businesses can routinely bring impressive improvements to their products, but nations have extreme trouble bringing even trivial improvements to their government, school system, cities, recreational activities, and other culture? I have discussed this issue in other documents so I will not go into details. Rather, I want to remind you that businesses are successful at developing technology because:

1) Businesses do not use a democracy.

2) Engineers and scientists must meet standards.

History shows us that democracies always slowly deteriorate because the public is not capable of managing a modern nation. Eventually the nation has a Civil War, or it is conquered by some other nation, or it becomes dominated by some other group of people, or it breaks apart into smaller nations.

The Articles of Confederation was such an obvious failure that it was replaced after a few years. The Constitution was an improvement, but about 80 years later the nation experienced a violent civil war.

Most Americans do not regard the Civil War as proof that the U.S. Constitution was a failure, but the civil war was not a trivial disagreement among people. To understand this concept, imagine the same situation occurring with a smaller organization, such as IBM.

Imagine if the employees of IBM were to disagree on some issue, and the management could not resolve the problem. Imagine the people in IBM dividing into two groups, and then getting into a vicious fight with one another that goes on for four years. Imagine that they kill and wound one another to the same extreme as during the Civil War, and they destroy one another's offices and equipment.
 
Would you consider that type of fight to be trivial? Or would you describe it as the result of a complete failure of the IBM management?

I pointed out in other documents that if you have trouble understanding the problems of a nation, consider how those same problems apply to a smaller organization.

For example, what would you think if the students in a high school got into a dispute with one another, and the faculty were unable to deal with the dispute, and so the students and faculty spent four years killing and maiming one another?

It is not possible for a family to have a civil war since they do not have a high enough population to kill one another, but imagine a husband, wife, and children getting into such a vicious dispute that they spent several years beating, maiming, raping, and torturing one another, and destroying one another's possessions. Would you admire the father or mother?

What is the difference between these groups of people:

I would describe the Civil War as proof that the U.S. Constitution was a failure at uniting the people and dealing with the problems of a modern society. Furthermore, I would say that what is happening in the USA today is proof that the Constitution is still a failure.

Specifically, a group of pedophiles, Zionist Jews, and people from foreign nations are infiltrating and conquering this nation. The US Constitution has created a legal system, government system, and economic system that is so ineffective, and so easily corrupted, that it cannot do anything to stop the criminals, even though they are a small minority of the population.

Furthermore, our school system is such a failure that it is teaching lies about many historical events. In addition, our school system is extremely expensive. And don't forget that teachers like Jerry Sandusky were able to rape children for years because our school system is so corrupt and full of pedophiles that the children cannot trust the teachers. This is an appalling school system, not a system to be proud of.

Google, YouTube, and other businesses are also censoring and suppressing information and people, which should be regarded as proof that the U.S. Constitution is a failure at protecting our freedom of speech.

Imagine if IBM had the type of leadership that the USA is suffering from. For example, imagine if IBM managers supported the concept of "diversity". Imagine IBM managers allowing Zionist Jews, pedophiles, and uneducated people to become employees, and allowing those people to speak their own languages, follow their own dress codes, and make accusations of "white supremacy" and "white privilege".

Imagine the IBM management also allowed unskilled people to sneak into the business and become "illegal employees" for the managers who wanted to hire them as low cost servants. And imagine that occasionally that IBM management provides amnesty for the illegal employees.

Imagine the management doing nothing as some criminal employees try to get control of the business by arranging for riots in the hallways, false flag operations, and accusations of racism and discrimination.

To make this analogy more realistic, imagine that IBM has a few employees who are analogous to Katy Groves and Jenny Guskin; namely, employees who post videos on the Internet in which they accuse the management of being involved with the buying and selling of children for sex slaves and murder rituals, and that crime networks are forcing some of the managers to rape children. And imagine that the security personnel of IBM are so corrupt that they ignore the accusations rather than investigate them.

You would be appalled if a business had the level of corruption that we see in the governments of the USA, Britain, and other nations, so why are you not appalled with our governments?

The people who support President Trump believe that they can "Make America Great Again" simply by electing some different government officials, passing a few new laws, arresting a few people, and removing a few laws. However, we must face the evidence that democracies are failures, and they always will be.

We need to learn from our mistakes. For example, a mistake that I would describe as extremely obvious is that the U.S. Constitution prevents the government officials from censoring its critics, but authors of the Constitution never considered the possibility that the businesses, such as ABC, NBC, YouTube, and Google, would be able to censor and suppress people and information, and that they would be able to put lies and propaganda into school books.

This flaw is not unique to the USA; rather, it is in every nation. This flaw has allowed a small group of Jews and pedophiles to fool billions of people into believing that 19 Arabs who live in caves attacked the USA on September 11, and that Nazis gassed and burned 6 million Jews. They are also suppressing the significance of Jeffrey Epstein and other pedophiles.

Instead of boasting that we have freedom of speech, we should face the fact that we have extreme censorship and deception. We should learn from this problem. We should realize that we need to develop an economic system that will prevent businesses from censoring and suppressing their critics and competitors.

The concept that we can "Make America Great Again" simply by making a few changes to our nation is as stupid as an engineer who believes that we can "Make the Model T Great Again" simply by making a few changes to the blueprints.

Engineers realize that they must make significant changes to the Model T in order to create an automobile that can compete with modern automobiles. We need to apply that same concept to our nation's problems.

Specifically, we need to experiment with significant changes to our government systems, school systems, economic systems, recreational activities, and other culture, in order to create a nation that can cope with the problems of our modern era.

Unfortunately, we cannot experiment with cultural improvements in a laboratory. We must experiment with our lives. This will frighten most people, which is one reason that I suggest we create some new cities that are economically and physically isolated from other cities, and we allow those cities to experiment with their culture.

There may not be anybody in the world demanding that we recognize their tremendous athletic abilities. There are no people yelling at us or insulting us for not recognizing their athletic talents. Most people have the ability to look seriously at themselves and realize that they are not world-class athletes.

However, this is not true with intellectual abilities. A tremendous percentage of the male population believes that they should be world leaders. They are frequently yelling at and insulting us for not recognizing their tremendous intellectual talent.

Some of the men who are giving us lectures on abortion, religion, raising children, and other issues are the 4th-place losers, who are above-average in intelligence and education, so their opinions are somewhat intelligent. However, in this section I want to point out that some of the men who are giving lectures belong in the "mentally ill" category. Some of them are so mentally ill that they don't realize they are mentally ill, and others realize they are mentally ill but don't regard it as a problem.

A lot of people believe that they are being nice to the mentally disturbed men by praising them and ignoring their mental problems, but that is encouraging their arrogance. We need to be "cruel" and force the mentally ill people to (1) acknowledge their problems and (2) stop giving us lectures. I will give two examples to explain this, the first will be more extreme to make it easier to see.

Frankie MacDonald has posted about 2400 videos as of August 2020. The "award-winning author" Sarah Sawler helped him write this book about his brilliant opinions. It has the title:

If the Internet had a section set aside for children, and another section for the mentally ill, then MacDonald could post his videos in the section for the mentally ill, and most of us would never notice them.

Furthermore, if children and the mentally ill had to publish their books in electronic form on those sections of the Internet, then we would never notice their books, and we would not waste paper and other resources on the printing of their books.

Unfortunately, every society is promoting the attitude that everybody is a super genius, and that all of our opinions about life are equally intelligent.

We don't regard everybody's scientific analyses as equal, and therefore, we don't allow everybody to publish their documents in encyclopedias or scientific journals, but everybody is considered to be equally intelligent in regards to social issues.

People are frequently posting nice comments on MacDonald's videos. Although some of those people are probably as mentally defective as MacDonald, some of those people are posting nice comments because they believe that they are wonderful people for "being kind" to MacDonald.

However, after getting praise from people around the world for many years, MacDonald has become convinced that he is so talented and intelligent that he should go on a world tour to give lectures, perform comedy skits, and dance. Here is video of him singing a song. That might be an indication of what the audience will see on his world tour.

Here is a video in which he boasts "I am doing great so far!", and he insists that nobody is going to stop him from achieving his goal of a world tour. He gives more details in this video.

The people who have been praising him, promoting his book (Walmart is one business that is selling his book), and giving him awards, have been encouraging his arrogance, rather than helping him to face reality, and now he believes that he is a world leader.

How would he react if he discovered that almost nobody is interested in buying tickets to his world tour? Or that most of the people who encouraged his world tour were doing so only because they felt sorry for him? Or that some people were advocating a world tour simply so that they could laugh at him for wanting to do it?

Theodore Streleski went to college to get a PhD in mathematics. He did not have the talent, but the school authorities wanted to be nice to him, and they wanted to profit from him, so they continued taking his money and letting him believe that he would soon graduate with a PhD. After 19 years of struggling to get a PhD, he ended up losing his temper and killing his mathematics professor.

Some similar cases are described in this news article, such as a professor who killed four of his colleagues when he became frustrated about not getting tenure.

Will Frankie McDonald lose his temper eventually, also? If MacDonald becomes suicidal or violent, the people who have been praising him should be considered as partly responsible. Those "nice" people believe that they have been helping MacDonald feel good about himself, but it is more accurate to describe those people as deceiving a mentally ill person and setting him up for extreme disappointment and frustration.

Those people are not "nice". Rather, they deceived a mentally ill man into believing that he is a world leader.

The people who praise MacDonald are titillating themselves by imagining that they are wonderful people who help the "underdogs" and the "disadvantaged" feel better about themselves, but those people should be described as "deceiving the mentally ill people". That deception should be considered as abusive, disgusting, and unacceptable.

In other documents I pointed out that some behavior is tolerable only when it happens on a small scale. The manipulation of Frankie McDonald is another example of this concept.

Imagine what the world would be like if the "nice people" were convincing all of the mentally ill people in every nation that they are so intelligent that they should go on a world tour to give us lectures, and they are so talented that they should also entertain us with their comedy routines and singing.

Imagine millions of mentally ill people writing books, posting videos, and looking for people to arrange a world tour for them. Imagine them having businesses produce action figures for them, also. That would not improve life for any of us. It would just waste resources, and it would hurt the mentally ill people when they discover nobody really cares about their books or videos.

It is important to let everybody have the freedom to discuss their opinions and be critical of other people's opinions, but no society is dumb enough to give people the freedom to say anything they please. No society truly provides "freedom of speech". Rather, we provide "freedom of speech with restrictions".

For example, we have laws against slander, and it is also illegal for a person to give medical advice if he is not a doctor. Furthermore, our freedom of speech does not give us the freedom to deceive or frighten one another. For example, a person is not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a theater.

However, in regards to social issues, we have a lot of freedom of speech. For example:


Our primitive ancestors didn't have any restrictions on their freedom of speech, where they could eat food, where they could play music, or where they could give birth to babies. During the past few thousand years, we have been putting restrictions on our freedom because our societies are becoming increasingly complicated and crowded.

In other documents I suggested that we increase the restrictions, such as prohibiting courtship activities in public areas and restricting courtship to the activities specifically designed for single people. I would also increase the restrictions on where food can be served and eaten. I also recommend that we experiment with restricting some swimming pools and recreational activities to only men, others to only women, others to children, and others to adults only.

Frankie McDonald is an example of why we should increase restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, we should prohibit people from deceiving mentally ill people into believing that they are normal, or that they are worthy of giving lectures or dancing on a world tour.

We do not allow people to trick the mentally ill people into providing sexual services, and we should not allow people to deceive the mentally ill - or anybody else - into believing that they should go on a world tour. We should not allow people to justify that deception by claiming that they are "being nice" to the people, or helping them to feel better about themselves.

We should require people to promote reality, not encourage arrogance, idiotic behavior, or unrealistic fantasies. The people who cannot handle reality should be referred to as "inferior people" who are "misfits" in this modern world.

Although most children are in better mental health than Frankie McDonald, half of the children will always be below-average. Unfortunately, just as people want to be nice to McDonald, they want to be nice to the children who are below-average. For example, parents will tell their ugly children that they are good looking, and they will tell their stupid children that they are talented and intelligent.

These parents believe that they are being nice to their children by giving them praise, but in reality they are encouraging their children to develop an unrealistic view of themselves. The praise can encourage the child to be arrogant, and since the praise is deceptive and inaccurate, it can set them up for extreme disappointment.

Frankie McDonald may have such a serious mental disorder that he never figures out that people are only pretending that he is worthy of going on a world tour. However, most of the children who are being lied to by their parents will eventually figure out that they have been lied to.

For example, the parents who tell their ugly daughters that they are beautiful will make their daughters feel good about themselves, but the praise can cause the girls to fantasize about being pursued by lots of boys when they get older, and finding a wonderful man to marry.

When those girls become teenagers, they will discover that they are ugly, and that both boys and girls ignore and insult them. They will also discover that they have a more difficult time getting a job compared to the nice looking women, and they will be discriminated against when they look for apartments, and they will get last priority when they need assistance at a retail store.

Deceiving ugly girls into believing they are pretty will make them feel good when they are very young, but when the ugly girls discover the truth about themselves, they are likely to experience a lot of disappointment, frustration, or anger.

If they had been told as a young girl that they were ugly, they would not have wasted years of their childhood on fantasies about being popular among the boys and girls. They would have instead planned for a life of rejection, insults, and loneliness.

Which is the most sensible policy:

The defective people are going to suffer no matter what we do, but I think they will suffer less when we tell them the truth at a young age rather than deceive them with lies, which encourages their arrogance, and which eventually results in them becoming angry, disappointed, frustrated, or suicidal.

Jordan Peterson is a psychology professor and a clinical psychologist. He admits to having mental disorders, but he doesn't believe that his mental problems interfere with his ability to think, so he doesn't believe that his mental problems disqualify him from being a professor, or a psychologist, or from providing us with analysis of life. Instead, he regards himself as the world's expert on life.

As with Frankie MacDonald, he has written a book, and has posted hundreds of videos to provide us with his brilliant analyses and suggestions.

However, unlike MacDonald, he has actually been on a world tour already, during which he gave lectures in 160 cities.

James Damore admires Jordan Peterson, but I consider Peterson's opinions to be almost as confusing and worthless as those from the SCIgen software.

Peterson is above-average in intelligence, but he is not among the most intelligent humans. I don't think his lectures are helping the human race, or that he is teaching his students anything of value. I regard him as one of the 4th-place losers, and I think he should be told to get off of his pedestal, stop believing that he is an expert on life, and find a job that allows him to contribute something that is truly of value.

Providing silly college courses for the 4th-place losers will make them feel good about themselves, but it is detrimental to everybody because it encourages their arrogance, and it allows them to become professors, which allows them to provide more students with worthless educations.

Are Peterson's opinions confusing because of his emotional disorders? Or is it because he is has defective intellectual circuitry? Or is it a combination of the two?

Does having the bipolar problem interfere with a person's ability to produce intelligent thoughts? What about being schizophrenic?

Do some emotional disorders improve a person's ability to think? For example, do certain types of ADHD help some people produce opinions are even more intelligent than they would otherwise be? Or does it help them to concentrate on a task, which in turn can help them do better at producing intelligent thoughts?

We do not yet have the ability to determine why a person's opinions are confusing or irrational, or how our emotions are influencing our thoughts, but the people who produce confusing opinions, and who also have emotional disorders, ought to consider the possibility that their thoughts are distorted by their emotional problems.

Until we have a better understanding of the human mind, it would be best to prohibit people who produce confusing thoughts, or who show serious emotional disorders, from getting into influential positions, such as voters, professors, government officials, and business executives.

What is the difference between:

The difference is that we demand dentists to meet high standards, but we don't care whether social scientists have a functional brain.

We do not consider ourselves to be cruel or oppressive when we set high standards for dentists, pilots, and doctors, and we do not consider ourselves cruel when we tell a person that he lacks the talent for one of those professions.

However, no society is applying this concept to government officials, social scientists, voters, charity officials, or any of the other people involved with determining the future of our lives and culture.

Likewise, we do not consider ourselves to be cruel when we tell a person that he has deteriorated too much from old age to be an athlete, dentist, pilot, or doctor, but we don't have any such restrictions on prayers, government officials, or other leaders. What is the difference between:

We do not want to tell a person that he is an intellectual loser, or that his mind has deteriorated significantly from old-age, or that he is mentally ill. We want to see people smile, not cry, pout, or have tantrums. However, by ignoring this issue, and especially by praising the people who produce confused thoughts, we encourage their arrogance, and we hurt our society, and we allow incompetent people to influence our future.

Frankie McDonald and Jordan Peterson are just two of many people who have serious mental problems, but who have been convinced that they are so superior to other people that they should go on world tours to provide us with lectures about life. What is the difference between:

The difference is that Peterson gives only lectures about life, whereas MacDonald plans to also perform comedy skits and dance. Therefore, we might get more value for our money from MacDonald.

Peterson and McDonald are examples of how men have a strong craving to be at the top of the hierarchy and give lectures to other people. All male humans and social animals have those cravings. The lesson we should learn from Peterson and McDonald is that we should dampen our arrogance rather than encourage it. We don't need more men, especially those with mental problems, giving lectures and struggling to be a world leader. We need more team members and fewer super-geniuses.

What is the difference between:

The difference is that Peterson and McDonald have such serious mental problems that they are completely convinced that they are so special that they should go on world tours to give lectures about life. However, you, your friends, your coworkers, and other people you know, are very likely to have a higher quality mind. Therefore, even though you think of yourselves as super geniuses, you can think well enough to realize that you should refrain from arranging a world tour, and restrict your lectures to people you know.

Another example of how we minimize mental problems is that there is no concern for whether mentally ill couples reproduce and create mentally ill children. Jordan Peterson, his father, and his grandfather had depression. He described it as: "it’s just rife in my family". Should Jordan Peterson be allowed to reproduce?

Before I continue, I wanted to mention that I had to look in the dictionary to see if "rife" was a word, or if it was a typo. (It is a word.) Like so many super-geniuses who have nothing of value to say, Peterson uses a lot of unusual words.

As I pointed out in other documents, people who cannot express their thoughts using "ordinary" language should be considered as either trying to deceive us into believing that they are geniuses, or they have a problem expressing their opinions and/or thinking.

We should demand that everybody in a leadership position express their opinions clearly. If we allow a person in a leadership position to get away with creating confusing documents, we take the risk that:

We must expect everybody to occasionally make confusing remarks, or pick the wrong word, especially when people are speaking rather than writing a document. However, we should pass judgment on who is more confusing, and who is confusing more often. We should consider the people who are the most confusing to be suffering from some type of intellectual disorder, or that they are trying to manipulate us with confusion.

In the case of Peterson, I think all of his documents and videos are confusing. For example, in this transcript, one of his remarks is:

There’s a multitude of reasons people are suffering with depression but one common reason is associated with the story of Peter Pan.

We cannot expect to understand one sentence that has been extracted from a long document, but I challenge you to read the transcript and see if you can figure out what Peter Pan has to do with depression.

People who produce confusing documents should be told to edit them to be more understandable, or discard them. Instead of being impressed by unusual vocabulary and confusing documents, we should be impressed by the people who are the easiest to understand and learn from. The truly intelligent people will be able to figure out how to explain their opinions.

Getting back to the issue of whether people with mental disorders should reproduce, Peterson has a daughter, Mikhaila, and she has a list of the mental and physical problems that she suffers from:

She claims to have discovered:

Her diet might make her feel better, but how would she know it has resulted in a "complete remission" when she has no idea what it feels like to be "normal" or "mentally healthy"?

I feel significantly better by taking thyroid hormones, but I have the intelligence to see that it doesn't truly make me "normal". It is simply a dramatic improvement. I am still suffering from whatever my problems are, and those problems may affect how long I live, or how healthy I am in my old age.

The Peterson family could be described as a breeding center for depressed humans. Other families could be described as breeding centers for alcoholics, criminals, schizophrenics, and idiots.

No society cares whether people are producing healthy children, or defective children. We inherited an intense craving to reproduce, but animals have no concern for the quality of anybody's life. Our craving to reproduce is so intense that most people cannot remain calm when discussing restrictions on reproduction (except, of course, when everybody in the discussion agrees with one another).

Consider how people discuss refrigerators, cameras, cell phones, and drones. Specifically, note that most people are capable of having very calm conversations about the differences between different models of drones, how to use the camera on a cell phone, and how to change the tire on a bicycle. People rarely yell at one another, insult one another, or get into fistfights over discussions of material items.

Compare those calm and beneficial discussions about material items to the angry, insulting, and sometimes violent discussions those same people have about cultural issues, such as whether mentally ill people should reproduce, or whether Trump should be reelected as President.

Why are people capable of having calm discussions about material items but not about social issues? Two reasons are:

1) Almost nobody believes that he is a super-genius with material items.

2) Social issues stimulate our emotions.

Most people can accept the evidence that they are not world-class athletes, and they can accept the evidence that they are not experts on material items. They allow a small minority of people to be the athletes, engineers, and scientists.

How do we get the public to realize that they have nothing of value to say about voting, abortion, religion, or other social issues? How do we convince them to stop giving lectures and fighting over these issues? How do we get them to quietly and calmly allow other people to provide them with advice and guidance?

One reason most people are willing to keep quiet about material items is because the engineers are truly talented, and they are routinely impressing us. We are impressed by their drones, computers, refrigerators, industrial robots, airplanes, and other material items. Most people can easily see that there are other people with much more engineering talent.

However, the situation is the opposite with social issues. The government officials, journalists, think tanks, and social scientists are not impressing us with their knowledge of social issues or their suggestions for improvements. Instead, we have government officials that most people regard as idiots, criminals, and senile elderly people.

This lack of intelligent leadership results in all of us feeling as if we are as knowledgeable, or more knowledgeable, about social issues than the people in leadership positions. This encourages our arrogance.

One method of improving the situation is to provide ourselves with government officials who are truly capable of impressing us with their analyses and policies. This will help people realize that there really are some people who know more than they do about social issues.

However, even if we were to create a government of truly intelligent and talented people, there are going to be millions of people who regard them as idiots. I've explained this problem in other documents, such as when I pointed out that the people who built the model of Noah's Ark do not regard the people who believe in evolution as being more intelligent or educated. Rather, they regard those people as stupid and uneducated.

It will not be easy to convince the public to keep their mouth shut about social issues. Some of the methods I suggest will be discussed in the remaining sections of this document.

When I watch athletes, my emotions often cause me to fantasize of competing with them, and beating them. However, I am aware that I am not even equivalent to an ordinary man in athletic abilities, so I realize that my fantasies are extremely unrealistic.

The point I want to bring to your attention is that there is no way for me to turn off any of my emotions. I have no more control over my emotions than I have over my heartbeat. My emotions are triggered once in a while regardless of whether I want them to be triggered. Therefore, I have to accept the fact that I will occasionally fantasize about being the world's greatest athlete.

Those fantasies titillate my emotions, but they are a waste of my time, so I sometimes tell myself to stop doing it, and I force myself to think of something else. However, it is important to note that I cannot prevent those emotional feelings from being triggered.

Why does my mind want to compete with athletes? And why does my mind want to imagine that I am the world's greatest athlete? It is because we are the descendants of the dominant animals. We have emotional cravings to compete with one another, and we are also extremely arrogant. Our emotions make us feel that we are superior to other people.

I realize that I am below-average in athletic abilities, so I would never enter an athletic contest, but that doesn't stop my emotions from pushing me into believing that I can win almost every contest.

I also realize that my math abilities, coordination, artistic abilities, music abilities, and memory are average or above-average, but nothing special. I would never enter a math contest, for example, or a spelling contest, or a coordination contest.

By comparison, Frankie MacDonald and Jordan Peterson do not seem to be aware of their arrogance, or that their minds are producing confusing and idiotic opinions.

Rather, they are convinced that they are at the very top of the hierarchy, and that they should set the future course of the human race.

Peterson has this page where he sells products that provide his "12 rules", which is his version of the "10 commandments", except that he provides them in the form of posters, coffee mugs, and other modern items rather than stone tablets.

I can see my arrogance, but most men seem as oblivious to their arrogance as Peterson and McDonald. Not many men claim to be one the world's greatest athletes, but most men are convinced that they are experts on social issues. This is why there are so many men constantly giving us lectures about religion, crime, global warming, abortion, raising children, and President Trump.

In reality, most people have nothing of value to say about any of those issues. They torment themselves and other people with their arrogant lectures, insults, and arguments. They are also wasting some of their short life.

Prehistoric humans had no need to control their arrogance because their lives were so simple. Modern humans, however, need a better understanding of human emotions, need a better ability to look critically at themselves, and have a lot more self-control.

When I see a woman who is attractive to me, my sexual feelings will be titillated, which will result in me fantasizing about touching, flirting, or having sex with her. I have no control over those feelings. I cannot turn them off. The only thing I can do is tell myself to stop it and think of something else.

If a man admits to a woman that he fantasizes about touching her, or having sex with her, the woman is very likely to become upset, and complain about sexual harassment, but men cannot control this emotion. Women should learn to deal with it.

Women should be able to understand a man's sexual feelings if they look critically at their own emotions. Specifically, when a woman sees a baby, her emotions will be titillated, and she will want to touch, kiss, play with, and talk to the baby. No woman is capable of turning off that emotion. However, women do not get in trouble for grabbing at babies because the babies don't whine about harassment, or being molested.

We would create a more pleasant and relaxing social environment, and men and women would form better relationships, if we would study the mental characteristics of men and women, and learn how to deal with our differences, rather than whine about our differences, or try to force us to become unisex creatures.

For example, men should be able to admit that they are sometimes titillated by other men's wives, and everybody should be able to accept it as a "normal emotional reaction for a man". It is idiotic to condemn a man simply because his sexual emotion was titillated. We should be appalled only by the men who lack the self-control to behave properly, such as a man who grabs at or rapes a woman.

For another example of why we need to understand the differences between men and women, rather than insult one another, consider the men who complain that their wives talk too much and repeat the same conversations over and over, and the wives who complain that their husbands don't listen to them. Why are so many married couples complaining about those issues? I think it is because most people refuse to acknowledge the evidence that men and women are genetically different.

I suspect that one reason that women evolved the desire to talk throughout the day, and to repeat conversations, is because the prehistoric women who had the tendency to talk a lot were inadvertently the best at teaching language to their children.

There were no schools in prehistoric times, so the only way children learned to speak was by listening to other people. The mothers who talked a lot, and who liked to repeat their conversations over and over, may have produced children who were much better at speaking, and at a much earlier age, giving those children an advantage over the children with quiet mothers.

Regardless of why women talk so much, if we can accept the fact that men and women are different, we can design our culture to deal with our differences. For example, I think we would create more pleasant and stable marriages if our culture was designed to encourage the women to get out of their house, form friendships with other women rather than men, and spend more time with women and children rather than at home alone with a dog or television. Our cities should provide women with lots of activities that are restricted to women.

We should stop trying to make men and women become unisex creatures. We should stop promoting the feminist propaganda that a woman should find a husband who will be her best friend, and who will talk with her throughout the day, and who wants to be with her when she gives birth.

When I am hungry and see some food, a certain emotion is triggered, and that causes me to want to eat the food. As with my sexual emotion, I have no ability to turn my hunger emotion on or off, or determine what will trigger it, or when it will be triggered. Instead, I have to use my intellect to make decisions about what to eat, when to eat, and how to eat it. And then I have to exert self-control to ignore my emotional cravings and push myself into following my intellectual decisions.

It would be idiotic to condemn a hungry person for being titillated by food. We should complain only about the people who lack the self-control and/or intelligence to behave properly around food, such as when a person grabs at food, or grabs at somebody else's food.

If we are willing to acknowledge the evidence that we are monkeys, and that we have emotional cravings, then we can design our culture to fit what we truly are rather than what we want to pretend to be. Specifically, by putting the government in control of culture, we will be able to decide which of our emotions we want stimulated, and when, and to what extent.

For example, in a free enterprise system, businesses are regularly stimulating our sexual emotions in their advertisements and television programs, and other businesses titillate us with photos of foods, mansions, goldplated gadgets, and vacation resorts.

By putting the government in control of our culture, we will be able to make more intelligent decisions about which of our emotions we want businesses, sports groups, schools, and other organizations to titillate. For example, do we want female newscasters to wear lipgloss or other cosmetics? Or should we regard that as excessive stimulation?

There are so many super-geniuses giving lectures that many people try to avoid discussing politics, religion, and a lot of other issues. What is the sense of having freedom of speech if you are so afraid to use it that you voluntarily censor yourself?

I would say that a group of people who torment one another to such an extent that they are afraid to discuss social issues are a group of people who are behaving like stupid animals, or retards, or arrogant jerks.

To make that situation worse, most journalists are so terrified of Trump that a few of them published articles to encourage arguments with the Trump supporters (such as this).

Imagine if IBM were to hire a group of engineers to develop a new computer, and imagine that some of the engineers are convinced that they are the world's experts on computers. When the engineers get together to plan the new computer, the arrogant engineers lecture and yell at one another. Imagine that the arguments are so extreme and common that the other engineers react by remaining quiet, or by keeping their conversations to something else, such as the price of beer or Lady Gaga's latest song. Nobody would be impressed by those lecturing and yelling engineers. Rather, we would regard them as arrogant jerks.

We are tormenting ourselves and each other by encouraging people to believe that they are super-geniuses. We would create a more pleasant social environment if we encouraged people to be more realistic about their mental qualities, and exert more self-control over their arrogance.

We should design our culture according to our animal characteristics. We should design our culture to suppress our undesirable qualities and encourage our good qualities. For example, instead of promoting the attitude that everybody is equally qualified to be a world leader, our culture should demand that we acknowledge the evidence that most people are "ordinary". Our culture should put pressure on the public to control their arrogance, stop giving lectures, and become a team member who works with other people.

We are arrogant creatures, and men have intense cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, so our culture needs to be designed to put pressure on the public to acknowledge the evidence that they are not qualified to be a world leader.

Every society's culture is evolving to give the majority of people what they want, and a man's most intense craving is to be at the top of the hierarchy. As a result, every society is promoting the attitude that everybody is such a highly educated super-genius that we all deserve to vote, and to set policies for abortion, crime, sports, and unemployment.

Unfortunately, when we allow our culture to evolve to what we want it to be, we encourage arrogance, lectures, insults, and arguments. It would be more sensible to design culture according to what is best for us. Our culture should encourage self control, critical analyses of ourselves, and discussions of other people's opinions.

We are not being nice to people when we encourage them to believe that they are super geniuses, and we are not hurting their feelings when we point out to them that they are mentally ill, or ordinary, or below-average.

We would create a more pleasant and productive social environment if we encouraged people to face the evidence that most people are ordinary, half the population is below average, and a large percentage of the population has such serious mental disorders that they should be described as mentally ill, or mentally retarded, or mentally defective. We are not being nice when we ignore these issues.

Ideally, we would restrict leadership positions to the people who have the highest quality minds. Furthermore, our leaders should use their brains to impress us with intelligent analyses and advice, not to pander to us.

Most people should be told to stop behaving like Frankie MacDonald and Jordan Peterson. They should be told to stop giving us lectures and treating us as idiots, and start treating us as friends and team members.

I mentioned this issue in other documents, so I will only summarize it here.

Our craving to be at the top of the hierarchy causes us to look for ways to make ourselves appear worthy of the top position, and a common technique is to boast about having a college diploma.

Getting a diploma is certainly an achievement, but nothing to boast about. The reason is because almost half of the population is capable of getting a college diploma.

If only 40 people in the world had been able to get a college diploma, then anybody who could get one could truly boast about it, but at the rate people are graduating from college, it is predicted that there will be 300 million people in the world with a college diploma by 2030. Anybody who boasts about having the talent to join such a gigantic group is providing us with evidence that he doesn't have the intelligence to understand how meaningless a diploma is.

Jordan Peterson has a PhD in the social sciences, and that allowed him to become a college professor, but I regard his opinions, and those of other social scientists, as being almost as nonsensical as those from the SCIgen software.

There are a lot of people, especially wealthy people, putting pressure on colleges to provide students with college diplomas, and the colleges are happy to pander to these people because colleges are profit-making ventures.

Providing the intellectual losers with a college diploma will make them feel good, and it makes their parents proud, but it is detrimental to society for several reasons:

Giving an intellectually impaired student a diploma in some useless social science course can encourage his arrogance. For example, the students who get diplomas in psychology can be fooled into believing that they are experts on human behavior. Likewise, the students who take courses on women's studies can be fooled into believing they are experts on men and women.

The diplomas encourage the students to believe that they are qualified to be world leaders, and to give us lectures.

If the social scientists truly had exceptional intellectual talent, then we would benefit by listening to their brilliant opinions, but they are not real scientists.

Rather, they failed in the competition to become scientists. They are the losers in the intellectual competition. Therefore, when they give us lectures, they are just spewing stupid and confused opinions. They are wasting their time, wasting our time, and irritating themselves and us.

A college education requires a lot of resources and labor, so the students who do not have the talent to be real scientists or engineers should be told to get a job. We should not create worthless college courses for them.

Arranging for students to spend 4 years on a worthless college education is as idiotic as having those students spend 4 years moving a pile of rocks back and forth between two different locations.

As I pointed out in other files, the best years of our life are when we are young, so we should not waste those years. It is especially ridiculous to let young people get into tremendous debt over an education that has no value.

We should design our social environment to allow young people to accumulate lots of wonderful memories, learn some useful skills, and form some pleasant relationships. When we get old, we should love to reminisce about our youth, not look back at it as a tragic mistake in which we wasted our time and money.

By designing the social sciences for the students who cannot handle real science, we ruin the social sciences. Social science could be as valuable as chemistry, biology, zoology, and other sciences. History classes, for example, could help us understand our culture, and allow us to learn from our mistakes, and allow us to build upon the successes of previous people.

Likewise, the concept of "woman studies" would actually be useful if it was truly analyzing women, but not when it is promoting stupid, feminist propaganda, or religious nonsense.

If a college course on "women's studies" was designed properly, it would an analysis of the differences between men and women. That type of college course would provide us with social scientists who would experiment with our work environments, social activities, and recreational activities to make them more appropriate for women, pregnant women, and mothers with young children. Those social scientists would also experiment with better courtship procedures, marriages, weddings, and divorces.

By raising the standards for social scientists and the professors of social science, we could make it into a useful scientific field.

College courses should be designed to provide useful skills, not to give diplomas to the wealthy children and 4th-place losers who want to feel special. However, making these changes requires significant changes to our economic and school system, and especially to our attitudes about social science.

Our schools are profit-making ventures, and they need to change to become educational institutions. The school should prepare children for society, not exploiting them for money, or pander to parents and students. Schools should have the type of attitude we find in a military boot camp.

In order for the social sciences to be useful, we must set high standards for the social sciences, and that requires "hurting the feelings" of the people who do not have the mental qualities necessary to be a social scientist. We must realize that there is nothing wrong with hurting their feelings.

If a student cannot peacefully handle the evidence that he is a loser in the competition to be a scientist, that is his problem. Every student should be able to accept his failures, and those that cannot qualify as scientists should peacefully find some other job. This is not a cruel policy. Everybody will benefit when we force one another to find a job that they can do properly.

When people lose a competition, we should put pressure on them to accept the loss quietly, and try to learn from their mistakes. We should especially be intolerant of behavior that is destructive, such as when the losers become violent, vengeful, sarcastic, or angry.

If Frankie MacDonald or Jordan Peterson were so convinced that they were the world's greatest athletes that they announced plans to go on a "world athletic tour" in which they travel around the world and win marathons, CrossFit events, rock climbing contests, bicycle races, soccer games, and other athletic events, nobody would help them arrange the tour, donate money to fund the tour, or help them be accepted as a contestant.

If MacDonald or Peterson were to stage protests in the streets and throw rocks at the police in an attempt to get people to support their world athletic tour, nobody would describe their protests as "their right to express their opinions", or that they were "using their freedom of speech".

Instead, everybody would tell them that they don't have the abilities to be a world-class athlete, and to stop pretending that they do.

No society promotes the attitude that everybody is equal in athletic abilities. No society gives its people the right to be a world-class athlete.

The qualifications for getting into a sports event are arbitrary, and the judges are humans who are imperfect and have biases, so it is easy for the people who have been denied entry into a sports event to show evidence that the qualifications are unfair, biased, or stupid, or that the judges are biased and imperfect. However, very few people complain about the qualifications or the judges because they realize that it is impossible to create "perfect" qualifications, or to find judges who are unbiased, and that it is better to have imperfect qualifications and biased judges than to give everybody the right to be a contestant.

What is the difference between:

The difference is that no society promotes or tolerates the attitude that everybody is a world-class athlete, or that everybody is equal in their dentistry abilities, but every society is promoting the attitude that everybody is equal in their intellectual abilities. Every society is encouraging people to believe that every adult is the best voter, business executive, charity official, religious leader, government official, and parent.

We would create a more productive and relaxing social environment if we changed our attitudes and put pressure on people to stop behaving like arrogant monkeys and accept whatever they truly are. We need more friends and team members, and fewer super-geniuses.

A leader is anybody who is trying to grab the steering wheel of somebody else's mind. Nobody should have the right to do such a thing.

By promoting this attitude, each person will get into the habit of doing what he wants to do with his life, and allowing other people to do with they want. It will dampen the attitude that is widespread in the world today in which people try to control one another. However, we don't refer to what we do as "controlling one another". We boast that we are "helping" one another, or "curing" the criminals, or "rehabilitating" the misguided, or "educating" the ignorant people.

Furthermore, I would apply this concept to the raising of children. Every society is currently treating children as possessions of parents. We allow parents to force their children to join a certain religion, play a certain musical instrument, practice a certain sport, or become cheerleaders. Parents are allowed to treat their children as toys, or as pet animals. Society intervenes only when parents do something very extreme, such as when Joseph Fritzl treated his children as sex slaves. Fritzl's actions are an anomaly, but all parents have the same attitude that they should be allowed to do whatever they want with their children.

I suggest we change our attitude and treat children as the next generation of humans, and that all children belong to the human race, not to parents.

We do not allow schools, businesses, or other groups of people to force a child to become a cheerleader, or play a certain musical instrument, or practice a certain sport, so why should parents be allowed to do that?

We should pass judgment on when parents have crossed the line from providing their children with exposure to different activities and opinions, and when the parents are treating their children as slaves by forcing them to follow a certain path in life.

A person who votes is influencing the future of his society. He is not merely "expressing his opinions", or "using his freedom of speech".

Furthermore, since all modern societies are interacting with one another, a voter in one nation can indirectly influence the lives of people in other nations. For example, the American voters created such a corrupt government that they were fooled into believing that some Arabs attacked them on September 11, and then they were tricked into supporting a war in the Middle East that is still occurring as of August 2020. The people who have died, been maimed, and suffered from that war could be described as victims of the incompetent, American voters.

Imagine if a group of Jews were to stage a false flag operation at the Boeing headquarters in Seattle, Washington in which they tricked the employees of Boeing into believing that they were attacked by some terrorists from Airbus who live in caves in France. Imagine the employees of Boeing traveling to France to search for and kill those Airbus terrorists. And then imagine that the fighting goes on for 20 years.

If a business were to behave like any nation, we would be appalled. We would be disgusted. We would be horrified.

Imagine a business with Jimmy Savile in one of the top positions of the company, and all of the executives and security personnel are protecting him from accusations of being a pedophile.

A person who votes is influencing the entire world. Voting should not be regarded as "right". Voting should be restricted to people who show exceptional self-control, intelligence, knowledge of false flag operations and deception techniques, and an ability to analyze issues and make wise decisions.

Everybody should be concerned about the competence of the voters in their own nation, and in other nations. Everybody should want voters in every nation to meet high standards so that every nation has respectable, honest, competent governments.

I would also say that nobody should have the right to go on a world tour to give lectures about life. That is as absurd as giving everybody the right to go on world tours to give medical or dental advice.

The people who give lectures about life have crossed the line from "expressing their opinions" to "trying to influence other people's lives and the future of the human race".

Some people might respond that the audience is voluntarily choosing to go to certain lectures, and they should have the freedom to listen to the lectures they want to listen to. However, it is foolish to let people do something simply because they want to do it. Parents do not let their children do things simply because the children enjoy doing them. Parents provide some guidance to their children. A government should do the same for citizens.

I mentioned in other documents that some of the hungry children in Thailand are choosing to become prostitutes, and some boys castrate themselves in order to make more money as a prostitute. Those children are offering themselves as prostitutes voluntarily, but that doesn't make the activity desirable.

Our leaders should provide intelligent guidance to the citizens, not pander to them. Two reasons are:

1) Technology provides us with a lot of activities that are destructive, wasteful, or idiotic.


2) A lot of the activities that we "want" are not really what we want.

Do you really know what you want from life? This is a complex issue. You are aware of your current emotional desires, but you do not know what would provide you with the most pleasant life, or how your desires would change if you had been raised in a different environment.

We tend to make decisions according to our emotions. For example, when we give people the freedom to give lectures, and we give people the freedom to choose which lectures they listen to, most people will choose to listen to the lectures that titillate them emotionally. They are like children who watch the cartoons, but nothing intelligent or useful.

This is also the reason that the "educational" programs, such as those produced by NOVA or Discovery, are so simplistic, and why the narrator so often tries to be dramatic. Specifically, when we choose to watch a documentary, we prefer those that are emotionally entertaining.

The same situation occurs with books and Internet documents. Specifically, when we give people the freedom to read whatever they please, most people will choose the documents that they "enjoy" rather than documents that are beneficial.

One of the unfortunate aspects of having monkeys as ancestors is that we did not inherit much of a desire to learn something new, or look critically at ourselves, or hear different viewpoints. We would benefit from leaders who put pressure on us to at least occasionally think about what we are doing, and try to pick some activities that are safe and beneficial.

Some people might respond that I am making life seem unnecessarily complicated, but human life becomes more complicated every year as a result of advances in technology. Every year we have more options, which requires more decisions to be made. Prehistoric people did not have to make decisions about whether they should compete in a beer drinking contest, join an organized religion, go to a gambling casino, or spend their evening watching television.

As our technology improves, we have more options with how to spend our lives, which means that we must make more decisions about what to do. The options become more complicated, also. In order for us to truly enjoy our modern era, we need more intelligence, more of an education, and more self-control.

The future generations will have even more options and decisions to make. The robots and drones of the future will make crime much more complex, and it will provide individual citizens and businesses with lots of complex options, so the people will have to make a lot of decisions about how to deal with that technology. As genetics becomes more advanced, the people will have to make more decisions related to the genetic engineering of food crops, animals, and humans.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to ignore the problems of their society and focus on pleasing themselves because their society didn't have any problems. They didn't have to worry about illegal immigration, crime networks, school curriculum, unemployment, housing prices, inflation, telemarketing, or any of the other problems that our modern societies are experiencing.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to be frightened of changes and to follow their ancestors because each generation lived exactly the same as the generation before it. There was no reason for them to experiment with changes to their culture. It was actually preferable that they followed the successful, established procedures that their ancestors had developed.

Today, however, people who are frightened of changes are analogous to chains around our legs. They are interfering with our ability to deal with our modern problems. Their fear of the unknown causes them to insist that we follow our ancestors, but that prevents us from experimenting with methods of reducing crime, unemployment, divorce, overcrowding, and corrupt governments. They are interfering with our attempts to improve life.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't need restrictions on their freedom of speech. There were very few issues for them to discuss, and all of the people in a tribe picked up the same information and beliefs. The people would have developed a few differences in their opinions about what the stars were, and the best way to catch a pig, but when they got together for dinner or other activities, there would not have been any fights over politics, religion, immigration, unemployment, credit card debt, or how much money they should spend on children's toys, candy bars, jewelry, alcohol, marijuana, and housing.

Furthermore, parents, and the leaders of the tribe, did not have to be concerned about what to do with the mentally ill people, Siamese twins, homeless people, unemployed people, or orphans because all of the defective people tended to die at a very young age. Virtually everybody in the tribe was in good mental and physical health, and capable of taking care of himself.

Men and women did not have any laws to follow, so they could get into and out of relationships without any concern for alimony, child support, or laws about divorce. However, there would not have been many arguments between the men and women because their lives were extremely simple. There was no feminism, no pornography, and not much of a disagreement among the people about the role of men and women, or how men and women should treat one another, or how the men and women should spend their lives.

Every man spent his life working to support his wife and children, and every woman spent her life taking care of her children and remaining in close contact with other women. The women did not whine about sexism, or about the loneliness of living in a large house on a large plot of land. The boys grew up around nudity, sex, and childbirth, so they did not have any fascination about women's bodies or sex, and there were no businesses, news reporters, or television programs to sexually titillate the men all day, every day.

None of the historic women were picking up feminist attitudes, so none of the women were whining about "glass ceilings" that were forcing them to stay home with the women and children, and none of the women were demanding that their husbands be with them when they give birth, and that their husband be their best friend.

The complexity of modern life requires men and women to have a much greater interest in analyzing their options, thinking about what to do, and making wise decisions about their goals and how to treat other people.

Prehistoric men and women did not have to put any effort into making a marriage work, but today men and women have to spend time analyzing the compatibility of a potential spouse, and after they get married, they must be able to work with their spouse to discuss issues and compromise on how to live, spend money, raise their children, and spend their leisure time. A marriage today is considerably more complicated than it was 10,000 years ago.

The people who cannot handle the complexity of modern life are misfits. They are prehistoric savages. They are monkeys in human clothing. They do not have the mental abilities necessary to be useful as a voter, or as a leader of a government, business, or other organization. They are as helpless as children. They need guidance and leadership.

The children in a prehistoric tribe did not need any leadership. They picked up all of the information they needed simply from the casual observations and mimicking of the people around them. Every child picked up the same culture, and they became teenagers with similar beliefs about what to do with their lives, how to treat one another, how to make clothing, and how to spend their evenings.

However, in a modern society, especially a nation such as the USA, which is a mixture of different races and cultures, and which has a lot of people with mental disorders, children are picking up a lot of conflicting and idiotic beliefs about marriage, money, sex, drugs, food, climate change, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and religion.

The confusing, conflicting, idiotic, and contradictory information that the children accumulate can result in them wasting a lot of their life as they pursue an idiotic goal, and then decide to change their goal.

An example of this problem are the young girls who pick up feminist attitudes and come to the conclusion that they should live like a man, so they pursue a job and life that men have. However, some of those women, when they are in their thirties, regret their decision and want to quit their job and raise a family.

However, they have already wasted their youth pursuing the life of a man, so if they do not already have a husband, they may have trouble finding one at their age, and if they are married, they will have much more trouble than a younger woman with getting pregnant, giving birth, and dealing with the chores of raising babies.

Those women, and society, will have wasted a lot of time and resources on an education that the women abandon when they decide to switch goals and become a mother.

The same problem occurs with men. For example, a teenage boy might become convinced that he needs a particular job, or that he should marry a particular woman, or that he must purchase a mansion, or that he must become a famous celebrity, or he must have a swimming pool in his backyard. Then, after spending years pursuing his goal, he might come to the conclusion that it was a foolish goal, but he has already wasted some of the best years of his life, and possibly a lot of his resources. He might also be significantly in debt as a result of pursuing an education that he later decides was worthless.

If he is married, changing his goals might result in him wanting a divorce, or his wife wanting a divorce, which can cause more trouble for one or both of them, and their children.

There is no way for us to prevent people from setting goals for themselves that they later decide are a mistake, but we would reduce the number of people making decisions that they regret if we were to raise children on a more sensible set of beliefs, and if all children were raised on the same set.

This would provide every child with a compatible set of sensible beliefs. It would create a homogeneous society in which everybody has a realistic view of life.

Compare that to the USA, in which children are raised on a variety of different, incompatible, and stupid beliefs, and who become confused adults who frequently change their opinions about what to do, how to behave, and what to believe.

In order to create a society in which the children are raised on the same set of sensible beliefs, we must deal with two issues:

1) The adults must agree on what set of beliefs to teach the children.

2) We must put restrictions on what parents can teach their children.

The concept of restricting what parents can teach their children might seem bizarre, but every society already has some restrictions on what parents and other adults can do with children. For example, some states in the USA prohibit giving tattoos to children. Some states in the USA prohibit parents from leaving their children home alone if the children are below a certain age.

Every society already has some restrictions on how parents can treat their children. I am not proposing anything bizarre. All I am suggesting is that we provide ourselves with more intelligent leaders so that we can provide ourselves with more sensible restrictions than what the governments are providing us today.

Our governments today are dominated by cheaters, pedophiles, religious fanatics, mentally ill lunatics, and criminals. They are not providing us with leadership or intelligent analyses of life.

Every school system has the freedom to pass judgment on what information is appropriate for their students. Some religious schools, for example, consider evolution to be inappropriate, and other schools consider religion to be inappropriate. Most schools also refuse to promote astrology, clairvoyance, ghosts, and women's intuition.

The problem with allowing schools to make decisions on curriculum is that different schools make slightly different decisions. The public schools tend to make similar decisions as one another because they have leadership, but the private schools can be significantly different, especially those that are involved with religion.

We are currently allowing parents, schools, businesses, churches, and other organizations to choose which information is appropriate for children. This is resulting in children picking up a wide variety of different, conflicting, and sometimes idiotic beliefs, including children who are neighbors but going to different schools or churches. This does not create a homogeneous and unified group of people. This creates conflicts, confusion, commence, fights, and problems with friendships and marriages.

The religious fanatics seem to be causing the most trouble for us because they encourage arrogance and insults. All throughout history we find Christians, Jews, and Muslims arrogantly boasting about themselves and insulting the other religions.

The USA was created by people who had a strong interest in religion, and so one of the goals of the U.S. Constitution was to give parents the freedom to teach their children whatever religion they pleased, and to allow adults to create any new religion they desired. The end result is that the American children are being raised on thousands of incompatible religions.

The USA and Europe should be used as proof that diversity is not practical. Diversity creates fights, loneliness, hatred, and other problems. For example, there is no evidence that the people in Europe or the USA are benefiting by having some citizens celebrate Christmas, others celebrate Hanukkah, and others celebrate Ramadan. However, there is lots of evidence that these different holidays cause the people to separate from one another rather than unify, and that it causes a lot of loneliness and awkwardness.

It is acceptable for different societies to have different culture, but within a society, we would provide children with a much more pleasant life if we raised all children on the same culture.

Parents, businesses, schools, and other organizations should not be allowed to teach children a different culture. The children should have the same education, recreational activities, clothing styles, leisure activities, and holidays. This would allow the children to grow up without the awkwardness, confusion, and fights that result when children are raised on different beliefs.

In order to raise children on the same culture, the government would have to have the authority to prohibit schools, sports groups, and other organizations, as well as parents, from teaching their children some other set of beliefs.

The concept of allowing a government to control the education of children, or prevent parents from teaching their children a particular religion, might seem bizarre, but it's already happening to a certain extent. For example, some nations refuse to regard Scientology as a religion, and the official policy of Belgium is that there are only six religions: Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, the Orthodox Church, Judaism and Islam.

Some nations, such as Israel, Cuba, and most Middle Eastern Muslim nations, refuse to allow Mormon missionaries to promote the Mormon religion. In 2012, Switzerland prohibited Mormon missionaries from the USA. In 2015, Russia banned the importation of a Jehovah's Witness document.

Those are just a few examples of how some governments have already passed judgment on which religions are too idiotic to be tolerated. Can anybody find evidence that the people in those nations are suffering as a result of having their religious freedom "oppressed"?

There is more evidence that the people benefit from such restrictions. For example, in the nations that prohibit missionaries, the people don't have to be bothered by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses wandering around their neighborhoods and knocking on their doors to promote their religions.

I am not suggesting anything radical or unproven when I suggest the government determine the education of children, and put restrictions on what parents and organizations can teach children. Rather, I am merely suggesting that we switch from letting parents, churches, businesses, schools, and other organizations determine what to teach children, and which activities to provide children, to allowing only a government agency make those decisions.

Furthermore, I suggest that the officials in that agency be held accountable for what they do. We should not allow them to have secrecy. We should know which official is making which decisions, and what their reasoning is. This will allow us to pass judgment on whether they are truly providing us with intelligent analyses and guidance.

By having one government agency make all of the decisions, we have control over what the children learn and do. If we can provide ourselves with proper government leaders, this concept will provide the children with a much more sensible education and activities, and all of the children will have the same education, which will make them much more compatible. They will become adults who fit into society much better, and don't waste the best years of their life trying to figure out what to do and what to believe.

The concept of allowing a government to control what parents can do with their children, and what the schools can teach, is likely to cause some people to describe the government as oppressive, but it's merely shifting the restrictions and censorship from organizations and individuals to a government agency.

We already live in a society that is oppressive, and full of restrictions and censorship. However, we are currently allowing organizations and individuals to make decisions about what to censor and suppress, and they are allowed to do this in secrecy, which is even worse.

The American people do not truly have freedom of speech. We have oppression, but it is not coming from the government. It is coming from organizations and individual citizens, including journalists. We also suffer from school teachers and school books that lie to us about news and historical events.

This problem is not unique to the USA. Every nation is experiencing oppression and restrictions on freedom. However, no nation's government is taking control of the situation. Rather, every nation is allowing crime networks, businesses, journalists, school teachers, and other organizations to get involved with censorship, suppression, and restrictions.

I suggest we switch from allowing parents and organizations to make the decisions about censorship, education, social activities, sports, and other issues, to allowing only a government agency to do it.

My proposal is not "radical". It merely switches which people are allowed to make decisions about censorship, education, restrictions, and other issues.

Businesses, journalists, school teachers, and other people should not have the right to determine our future. They should not have the right to suppress, harass, or censor any of us. They should not have the right to determine the education of children, or the children's recreational or leisure activities.

We should allow only a group of government officials to control our culture and influence our future. And we must require that the officials operate in the open rather than in secrecy. This will allow us to control our future because we will see who is determining our future, and why they are making the decisions that they make, and that will give us control over whether we agree that they are making wise decisions.

By comparison, we have no control over the censorship, suppression, or harassment that Google or YouTube are inflicting upon us, and we have no control over the censorship or the lies that are in our school books. We also have no ability to stop the journalists from lying to us about news events.

My proposal is simply to shift the decisions about what to censor away from the secretive and selfish businesses, journalists, and other organizations, to a particular government agency that is required to operate in the open, and in which all of the officials can be held accountable for their decisions.

The only way the world is going to improve is that we can convince the majority of people to stop believing that they are world leaders, and if we can replace the current officials of our governments, businesses, schools, media companies, and other organizations, with people who are truly capable of providing guidance to the public.

We need to find a way to dampen the arrogance of the majority of people and convince them to stop giving lectures to one another.

I think that the best method to convince the majority of people to keep their mouth shut is to expose all of the corruption that is going on, and help them understand that they are part of the reason that this corruption has been occurring.

We should expose the testimony, photos, and videos of the trafficking of children by famous Hollywood celebrities, government officials, journalists, and other people in influential positions.

We should also force the public to acknowledge that the World Trade Center towers were blown up with explosives; that Jews are lying about the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, and the Holocaust; and that the Apollo moon landing was a deception.

The purpose of exposing this corruption is to make the public realize that they are partly responsible for it. Most people are not as innocent as they believe. Rather, they are analogous to the people in the churches, Penn State University, BBC, and daycare centers who ignored or ridiculed the children who complained about being raped.

I suspect that there are thousands of people in influential positions who want to keep the corruption a secret because they are embarrassed or ashamed of what they have done with the criminals.

For example, Jenny Guskin claims that President Trump is one of many men who have been forced by a crime network into raping children in order to provide the crime network with material that they can use to blackmail the men.

There are also accusations that many people have been fooled into believing that they will live long and healthy lives by getting injections of the blood of children. I can understand why somebody who was fooled into doing that would be embarrassed to have it exposed to the public, especially if they knew that the blood was coming from children who were kidnapped.

And if the accusations of people using adrenochrome from tortured children are true, not many people would want that information going out to the public.

As amazing as it seems, keeping the crimes and corruption a secret from the public does not help President Trump or any of the other people who are ashamed of what they have done. There are already millions of people around the world who have heard of the accusations, and every day more people learn about them, but that exposure has not hurt President Trump, or any of the other victims of the crime network.

Exposing blackmail information will embarrass the people who are being blackmailed, but it is actually beneficial to the victim because it exposes the crime network. Also, it makes it impossible for the crime networks to continue to blackmail their victims because once the information is released to the public, it loses its blackmail value.

Furthermore, releasing the blackmail information to the public helps other people learn the tricks that the crime network uses to control people, which can help those people avoid being caught in blackmail traps. That in turn hurts the crime network by reducing the number of people that they can get control of.

If President Trump and the other victims remain frightened that the public will learn about the blackmail, then they will continue to be victims of the criminals. Blackmail requires victims who are submissive and frightened. If, instead, the victims find enough courage to release the information to the public, they would expose the crime network, and they would also free themselves from the blackmail.

It would be risky for just one victim to release information about the crime network because the crime network could easily retaliate by killing him, thereby frightening all of the other victims. However, if a lot of the victims would expose the crime network at about the same time, there would be too many victims for the crime network to deal with, and those victims would be able to provide so much detail about the crime network that the police would have enough evidence to destroy the network.

Therefore, instead of continuing to fear that the public will learn about the blackmail, I suggest that President Trump and the others consider getting together and agreeing to release all of it at once.

There are some people claiming that we should keep the information a secret, or release it very slowly over many years or decades, because the public will not be able to handle it if it all came out at the same time, but that is just an excuse to continue keeping the information a secret.

If some people truly are unable to handle such information, that is their problem, not ours. Those people should be classified as mentally defective people who cannot cope with the problems of a modern society.

The majority of people, especially those that consider themselves to be liberals or socialists, consider the corporate executives to be greedy, abusive, and dishonest, so not many people would be surprised to discover that Donald Trump and other business executives have been involved with crime. Instead, tens of millions of liberals would probably use that information to insult their conservative coworkers and relatives with remarks such as, "See! I told you the corporate executives were disgusting!"

Therefore, instead of emphasizing the crimes of business executives, we should put most of the emphasis on the crimes of the people that the public admires and idolizes; namely, the Hollywood celebrities, charity officials, religious leaders, athletes, government officials, and journalists.

Our goal should be to make the public realize that they are doing a terrible job of choosing people to admire, elect to government, and mimic. The public needs to realize that most of them behave like children who like whoever offers them candy.

For example, they idolize the Hollywood celebrities who entertain them with songs, movies, and reality shows, and they admire the political candidates who titillate them with praise and promises, and they trust the journalists and talk show hosts who provide them with the opinions that they want to hear.

The public needs to realize that since most people have average or below-average intelligence, the criminals who are above-average in intelligence can easily deceive the majority of people.

The majority of people are helpless in a battle with the intelligent criminals. The public needs leadership and guidance, but most people are too incompetent to pick appropriate leaders. They have a tendency to pick the criminals who make them feel good, rather than people who can provide guidance.

I suggest we force the public to realize that most of the people that they admire are liars, pedophiles, crime network members, mentally ill lunatics, and blackmailed puppets.

The public also needs to realize that many of the people that they criticize or ignore have been trying to help them, and can provide them with useful information and advice.

The majority of people will insist that they are not responsible for any of the corruption, so it is important for us to emphasize that their apathy, stupid decisions about voting, ridiculing of conspiracy theories, fear of the unknown, and arrogance has allowed the crime networks to routinely get away with unbelievable levels of abuse. The public is not truly "innocent". For example, an adult who ridicules or ignores a child who complains about pedophilia is not innocent. He is an "inadvertent accessory" to pedophilia.

Exposing the corruption would also be beneficial for people in the future because it will help them to understand the problems of our era, and why they need to maintain high standards for voters, government officials, journalists, business executives, and other people in influential positions.

Many people enjoy pouting, and so they like to predict that the human race will destroy itself. However, our history shows that even though societies occasionally experience severe problems, we are slowly improving.

We are not going to destroy ourselves. Instead, we will continue on a slow path of improvement.

The people thousands of years in the future are going to have a more peaceful, orderly world.

The children who grow up in that nice environment could easily be unaware of why the adults are so concerned about maintaining high standards for voters, government officials, journalists, and other people.

By learning about the corruption, pedophilia, false flag operations, wars, and blackmail of our era, they will be able to understand why their societies developed the culture that they have.

As I mentioned near the beginning of this document, the male animals compete for leadership, but they do not care which male wins the competition. They do not pass judgment on whether the male that gets to the top of the hierarchy deserves that position. They do not give him job performance reviews, either, or question any of his decisions about where to go or what to do.

Furthermore, they do not care how the male animal gets to the top. For example, they don't care whether he gets there by kicking, biting, scratching, or glaring. There are no rules for them to follow.

Humans inherited those same characteristics. Our natural tendency is to not be concerned for how a man gets to the top of the hierarchy.

Women have even less concern for how men become important. Women are titillated by a man who is high in the hierarchy even if he achieved his position through inheritances or crime.

Furthermore, women can become so titillated by a man's status and wealth that they ignore the complaints of other women that he raped, abused, or beat them.

It is natural for humans and animals to have no concern for who becomes their leader, or how he becomes their leader, but this apathy is unacceptable in modern human societies. Voters need to have more of a concern with who our leaders are, and how they treat us.

If we could measure everybody's concern about their leaders, we would create a Bell graph. The majority of people have an "average" concern. Since we assume that the majority of people are normal, we assume that an "average" level of concern is the appropriate amount of concern.

However, as the environment of an animal or plant changes, the majority of those creatures become increasingly less adapted to the new environment. To rephrase that concept, as the environment changes, the majority become misfits.

The majority of people 10,000 years ago were well adapted to prehistoric life, but the majority of people today are misfits.

The criminals and lunatics who are dominating the world today are often putting children into leadership positions as a way of manipulating us.

An example is that they use children to promote their particular political beliefs during protests, as in the photo to the right.

People who tolerate this behavior are tolerating attempts to manipulate us, and they are tolerating child abuse.

What is the difference between:

What is the difference between these journalists:

In both cases, people are using children to titillate emotions. The difference is that in one case they are using the children to manipulate opinions, and in the other case they are using children for sexual pleasure. However, both uses of the children should be considered unacceptable.

The people who use children to manipulate us should be arrested, and the people who believe that children truly are worthy of a leadership position should be disqualified from voting and other influential positions. For example, all of the government officials who invite Greta Thunberg to speak at their meetings should be fired or arrested.

Thunberg has been invited to testify at two committees of the US Congress, and to speak at the United Nations. Time magazine put her photo on the cover of the 27 May 2019 issue and promoted her as a "Next Generation Leader", and later claimed that she was one of top 100 most influential people of 2019. She was also invited to speak at the World Economic Forum, and Angela Merkel was willing to meet with her.

Actually, it's not quite accurate to describe her as "speaking" at some events. It would be more accurate to say that she was reprimanding us, or insulting us.

Any adult who believes a child is an expert on world affairs, especially something as complex as the Earth's climate, should be disqualified from voting and other influential positions.

This same concept should apply to journalists. A journalist who promotes the opinions of children as intelligent analyses, such as this journalist who published Greta Thunberg's opinions on climate change, should be investigated to determine whether they are merely incompetent and should be fired, or whether they are trying to manipulate our opinions by using children to titillate our emotions, in which case they should be arrested for deception and child abuse.

How young does a child have to be, and how insulting do their remarks have to be, before the majority of people complain that the people who are putting the children into leadership positions should be fired from their job, or arrested for child abuse and/or manipulation of the public?

What if a three-year-old child was invited to the World Economic Forum to reprimand us about racism? Would that be absurd enough to convince the majority of people that we have a serious problem with the people in leadership positions?

One reason that it is so easy for criminals to cheat us is because they exploit a characteristic I described earlier in this document. Specifically, humans and other social animals are inherently trusting because we evolved for a social environment in which we could trust each other, especially our leaders.

I mentioned that we should stop blaming "stupid" people for our problems. This also applies to being cheated by criminals. We have a tendency to accuse a person of being "stupid" when he is cheated, but in some cases it's not stupidity that causes a person to be cheated. Rather, it is because he grew up in a very honest family and is very trusting of other people.

Another emotional characteristic that criminals can exploit in order to cheat us is to take advantage of our desire to follow the crowd rather than think for ourselves. The criminals try to convince us that "everybody is doing it", or that "it is going viral", or that "it is the latest trend".

Although we cannot expect anybody to always avoid being cheated, we need to pass judgment on who among us is so easily deceived that they should be disqualified from leadership positions, including voting.

The criminals who have the easiest time cheating us are those that are above-average in intelligence. They will be able to outsmart most people.

Although I believe that criminals, as a group, are lower in intelligence than the rest of us, there is a minority of criminals who are above-average in intelligence.

The intelligent criminals do not have to burglarize houses in order to acquire money or material wealth. They can make money in a lot of other, more intelligent manners. For some examples, they can:


There are so many salesmen, criminals, political candidates, religious fanatics, charities, and other people trying to deceive us into giving them our money, or trying to manipulate our opinions or desires, that I suspect that everybody is occasionally deceived and manipulated by the intelligent criminals.

We need protection from criminals, not encouragement to believe that we are super-educated, super-geniuses who know what is best for ourselves and the world.

In July 2020, people began posting remarks on the Internet that the Wayfair company may be involved with human trafficking.

I do not have any evidence that the Wayfair company is involved with human trafficking, and neither does anybody else. However, there are some aspects of the company's behavior, product names, and prices that I and other people consider to be so suspicious that it justifies investigating whether the company is involved with human trafficking or laundering money.
(If you are unfamiliar with this issue, here is one of the videos in which a woman explains her concern about the Wayfair company.)

The main reason that people are suspicious of the Wayfair company is because some of their products are hundreds of times the price of similar products. For example, there are some cabinets that are $10,000 to $15,000.

When I first saw people complaining about the prices, I assumed it was an innocent mistake in which somebody put the decimal point in the wrong location.

I have put decimal points in the wrong location, and recently two different customers of my software complained to me that my software was not working properly, and it turned out that they had put a decimal point in the wrong location when they were entering some numbers.

I assumed the Wayfair company would correct the pricing mistakes. However, to my surprise, the company insisted that the high prices were accurate, and then they removed the products from their website.

If the products were justifiably expensive, then why did they remove them? The company claims that they removed them so that they could replace the descriptions with a better description, but if they are valid products, why not leave them for sale and simply update the description? Why remove them?

There is no answer book to life to inform us of how a journalist should have reacted to the suspicions about the Wayfair company. Our expectations of what the journalists should have done depend upon our mental qualities and education.

This is not a trivial issue. The question of how the journalists should have reacted is very similar to the issue of how a government official should react to a problem with the nation, or how a supervisor at a factory should react to a problem at the factory, or how a father should react to a problem that affects his family.

This issue is also similar to the issue of which political candidate a voter should elect to the government. In other words, it is an analysis of somebody's behavior, and a judgment about whether they reacted appropriately.

Some people are better as supervisors of a factory because they create more useful analyses of problems, and they make better judgments about how to react to the problems.

Likewise, some men are better as fathers or husbands because they make better analyses of the problems they encounter, and they make better judgments about how they should react to those problems.

Most people are terrible as voters because they do a terrible job of analyzing political candidates and government officials, and they make idiotic judgments on which candidate and official is displaying the best leadership abilities.

A free enterprise system expects the public to analyze the products and services that are for sale, and to pass judgment on which of them are worthy of their money. The decisions that the public makes determine which businesses exist, which products and services they provide, what the prices are, which features the products have, and all other aspects of the economy.

The same concept applies to journalism. Specifically, the public is supposed to analyze the journalists and pass judgment on which of them is providing appropriate services. However, the majority of people make terrible decisions about what is appropriate journalism. The main reason is because we are so arrogant that we have a preference for the newspapers, magazines, and television news reports that tell us what we want to hear.

We do not want differences of opinion, and we especially abhor criticism. As a result, most people are not looking for journalists that they can learn from. Instead, they are selecting journalists that are emotionally pleasing.

My opinion is that the journalists should have reacted by contacting the Wayfair company and asking them for an explanation of why some of their items have such high prices.

The Wayfair catalog shows that the cabinets are made by "WFX Utility", but that name is a trademark of the Wayfair company. I think the journalists should have contacted the company, asked them which business manufactured those cabinets, and asked for details on why they are so expensive.

For example, if the journalists had discovered that the cabinets were expensive because they were designed to hold radioactive materials for use in hospitals, then they could have written an article that explained that the high price was due to the lead shielding and high strength of the cabinets.

The journalists showed no interest in finding out why the cabinets were so expensive. Instead, they attacked the theories that the company was involved with human trafficking. For example, this BBC article, written by Marianna Spring, who is described as a "Specialist Disinformation Reporter", criticizes the theories, but doesn't provide any information about why the items are so expensive.

Furthermore, it was not just one or two journalists who attacked the theories. It was a lot of them. Also, not one journalist bothered to investigate the issue. Why would they so quickly attack rather than investigate?

I would describe the behavior of the journalists as so suspicious that we should investigate all of those journalists, also.

At the beginning of this document I pointed out that everybody with money is a leader of the economy. This concept applies to journalism, also. Each of us is in the position of "leader of journalism" because each of us is free to make decisions about which television news programs, magazines, and electronic news reports to provide financial support to.

Our free enterprise system expects the public to analyze journalists and pass judgment on which of them are doing a good job. Unfortunately, most people make terrible decisions about journalism. The issue about the Wayfair company is an example. The public should be suspicious of the journalists who attack the "crazy conspiracy theories" about the Wayfair company.

Likewise, the public should be suspicious of the journalists who gave extremely distorted views of George Floyd's death, and similar incidents.

Unfortunately, most people are only of average intelligence, and they are easily outsmarted by the journalists.

We should raise standards for journalism, and that requires raising standards for the people who pass judgment on which journalists need to be fired or arrested. This in turn means that we cannot let the public determine who our journalists are. We need a smaller group of people with more intelligence, and a better understanding of deception, to make those decisions. We cannot expect the public to make wise decisions about which journalist is doing an appropriate job.

A person who cannot see that the journalists are trying to manipulate, deceive, confuse, and intimidate us should be considered as unfit to be a leader of journalism. Likewise, a person who cannot see that journalists are often arranging for fraudulent interviews, and suppressing and censoring certain information and people, should also be considered unfit as a leader of journalism.

Most people should be told to get their hands off the steering wheel of journalism and let people with better leadership abilities make decisions about journalism for them.

Years ago I suspected that some of the high-priced modern art was a method for criminals to pass money to one another, especially internationally. For example, when somebody in France sells a Picasso painting for $10 million through an auction to an American, it allows the American and French criminals to pass an enormous amount of money between continents without arousing the suspicions of banks or the police. Since the art is actually worthless, they are not passing anything of value that could be lost, stolen, or damaged.

The Wayfair company is now making me wonder if I was only partly correct. I now wonder if some of that high-priced art, and other items, is a way of allowing criminals to pass children to one another, in addition to laundering money. How many people would be suspicious if a wealthy person were to receive a wooden crate from Wayfair, or from an art auction?

Is it possible for a criminal to sell a worthless Picasso painting for $15,000, and put it into a large wooden crate with a child that is tied up and gagged? As long as the delivery was rapid, the child would remain alive and unharmed.

Several years ago some people were passing the photo to the right around as evidence of organ harvesting, and today some people are passing it around as evidence of human trafficking, but the authorities claim it is just an "ordinary" rape and murder.

It is possible that pedophiles are responsible for promoting that photo as evidence of human trafficking in order to do damage control. Specifically, the "Turd in the Punch Bowl" trick.

However, don't let the inaccurate information on the Internet fool you into ignoring the accusations of human trafficking.

The US government produces a human trafficking report every year. Our government, and many organizations and journalists, claim that human trafficking is a very large business. For example, the DeliverFund organization claims:


The NOVA-HTI group claims it is $32 billion:

Regardless of whether it is $975 million or $32 billion, how are they transferring so much money without arousing the suspicions of the banks or the police? Are they paying for these people in cash, credit cards, or PayPal? Do they use gold or silver? A few people wonder if they are using GoFundMe.

Who is buying the children? Who is selling them? Who is kidnapping the children that are trafficked? The DoSomething.org group claims:

Jenny Guskin claims that she was adopted by a Jewish couple specifically for use as a prostitute for them to make money. Is the trafficking network so successful because many of the officials in the Child Protective Services and other government agencies are involved with a pedophile network?

If so, then perhaps when a person purchases a $15,000 item from Wayfair, instead of getting a delivery from Wayfair, an official at Child Protective Services delivers a child for him to "adopt".

I suspect that the journalists attacked the "crazy conspiracy theories" about the high-priced items at Wayfair because they were afraid that the discussions about it would stimulate investigations of it.

Furthermore, I think the reason the human trafficking network is so successful is for the same reason that Jimmy Savile, Jeffrey Epstein, and congressman Barney Frank were so successful. Specifically, many people in the police departments, government agencies, and media companies, are involved with the network.

Years ago, when I began exposing the truth about the 9/11 attack, I discovered that almost everybody who claimed to be doing the same was actually working with the crime network that was responsible for it. This "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" trick is one of their most popular methods of controlling the public and identifying the people who are trying to expose and stop them.

Therefore, I advise you to suspect that the organizations that claim to be opposed to human trafficking and pedophilia are actually "Pedophiles in Sheep's Clothing".

“So I told the fool, 'The cure for pedophilia is a bullet in the head!', and now he trusts me and donates money to our group!”

When we are suspicious of people or organizations, they may react by trying to make us feel guilty for being suspicious of them, but do not feel guilty, or give them pity or special treatment. As I wrote years ago here, honest people don't have to fear suspicion or investigations. Therefore, resist their attempts to intimidate and manipulate you.

Also, do not judge an organization by the few individuals that you see. Often the criminals will find some honest but naive suckers to put in a visible position of the organization. This creates the illusion that the organization consists of honest people. We have to judge an organization by what it actually does, and we must be especially concerned about the members who are trying to remain secretive.

If you need more information about this trick, I wrote this to show how Jews are often hiding behind Nazis and anti-Semites.

Matthew Brown is referred to as a "Fact Check Reporter at USA Today". He wrote this factual article to inform us of the fact that the Wayfair company is not involved with child sex trafficking. He criticizes the accusations that Wayfair, Ellen DeGeneres, Ghislaine Maxwell, and other businesses and individuals are involved with human trafficking.

He also includes the criticism of an "anti-trafficking expert", Sandy Skelaney, who insults the accusations about Wayfair as "so convoluted".

As I wrote years ago, the truth does not need protection. If the accusations about human trafficking are as convoluted as the journalists are claiming, the best way to determine this is to remove the secrecy and conduct an investigation of Wayfair, Ellen DeGeneres, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the other people and businesses that are suspected of having some involvement with human trafficking.

If the journalists and experts are correct that the accusations are convoluted, then an investigation will prove that to us, and that in turn will tarnish the image of the people who made the accusation.

To rephrase that, a person who is falsely accused of a crime should demand a thorough investigation because that is the best way for him to prove his innocence, and it will also cause us to wonder if the accuser merely made a mistake, or if he deliberately made a false accusation for some diabolical purpose, in which case the accuser should be arrested.

One of our intellectual characteristics is the ability to notice patterns. One of the patterns that the majority of people don't seem to notice, or perhaps they don't understand the significance of, is that our leaders criticize certain conspiracy theories, while ignoring or promoting other conspiracy theories.

For example, journalists, government officials, college professors, and other people in leadership positions in all nations regularly ridicule the theory that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and the theories that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. Our leaders also suppress discussions of those conspiracies.

Furthermore, there are some theories that our leaders do not merely criticize or suppress; rather, they want us fired or arrested for discussing them. For example, Jews want to arrest us for Holocaust denial, and some people want to arrest us for climate change denial, and Google fired James Damore for promoting the theory that men and women have genetic differences.

By comparison, our leaders do not ridicule or want to arrest the people who promote crop circles, Bigfoot, or extraterrestrial life. When I was a child, they were promoting the Bermuda triangle. They also promote the theory that the US Air Force is hiding information about UFOs.

Why is it that our leaders allow or promote the stupid theories, while ridiculing the theory that the Wayfair company is involved with human trafficking, and that some pizza parlors in Washington DC were involved with a pedophile network?

I think the pattern is obvious, but it appears as if the majority of people cannot see it. An expression for this pattern, which comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, is: "The lady doth protest too much."

It is possible that some of our leaders will react to my article by trying to become more clever, such as being more critical of the Bigfoot theory, and less insulting of the theory that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. However, don't let them fool you. The solution to whether an issue is true or false is to "put the issue into an acid bath". In other words, remove the secrecy and investigate.

As I mentioned in my document about George Floyd, journalists are analogous to chefs, but they are providing information for our mind rather than food for our body.

Don't be a submissive, trusting baby who eats whatever facts the journalists are giving to you. Instead, be suspicious of the journalists. For example, Tim Swarens wrote this article with the title:


According to Swarens, we should blame "ordinary men" for the trafficking of children, not the government officials, journalists, business executives, Hollywood celebrities, or the officials of churches, think tanks, or universities.

The "anti-trafficking expert" I mentioned earlier, Sandy Skelaney, also implies that ordinary men are responsible for human trafficking. In this "Q&A with a human trafficking expert" she blames such men as those who go to sports events, the truck drivers, and the military. She avoids the possibility that the wealthy and influential leaders of society are involved with human trafficking.

The article that Tim Swarens wrote claims that:

As I have pointed out in other documents, the amount of time a person spends on a task is irrelevant. An idiot might need 20 years to solve a particular math or engineering problem that somebody else can solve in 30 seconds.

When a person boasts about an achievement, we should pass judgment on whether it really is an achievement, or whether the person is trying to intimidate us, or deceive us, into regarding him as superior to us.

Spending a year on a task is not an achievement. It is simply a description of a historical event.

The article is trying to impress us into believing that Tim Swarens is an expert on sex trafficking because he spent a year investigating the issue, but his investigation appears to be a deliberate deception. Specifically, he seems to have focused his investigation on the "ordinary men" in an attempt to fool us into assuming that the wealthy, famous, and influential people are not involved with such an activity.

Tim Swarens describes the sex trafficking issue as "staggering" and "lucrative", but his year-long investigation did not provide him with any information on how the "ordinary men" get away with the buying and selling of children, and for decades.

Where do the ordinary men get the children that they sell? Do they drive around the neighborhoods and kidnap children who are walking along the streets? How do they sell the children? Are they keeping them in cages in their ordinary houses, and then selling the children to other ordinary men in their ordinary neighborhoods?

How do the ordinary men purchase the children? Do they use cash? If so, how can an ordinary man spend an un-ordinary amount of cash without arousing suspicions?

A more sensible explanation is that Tim Swarens investigated the low cost prostitutes that ordinary men go to, and he deliberately ignored the wealthy people who purchase and sell children, and who have lots of ways of laundering money, and a lot of control over the media, police, FBI, and courts.

Most people have such a resistance to thinking, and/or are so dumb, that they don't notice the contradictions in what the journalists are telling us. For example, this article is about "the enormity of the global sex trade", and the first sentence is:

The article also claims that:

That is just one example of a news article that claims that human trafficking is a large, worldwide business. However, the journalists provide other articles that are contradictory. Specifically, they try to minimize the issue by claiming that the trafficking is nothing more than some ordinary men who are purchasing sex from prostitutes.

These articles provide the reader with a dilemma. On one hand, we are told that sex trafficking is a "massive, worldwide problem" with millions of victims every year, and that it is "staggering" and "lucrative", but on the other hand we are told that it is the result of some ordinary men paying $50 or so for sex.

The people who cannot see that something is wrong with these reports should be disqualified from voting, and other influential positions. They are too easily deceived to influence the future of our lives.

One of the idiotic arguments that journalists are using to defend Wayfair is that Amazon and some other businesses also have absurd prices for certain items. For example, Amazon has some $10,000 pillows and a $13,000 stool for babies. (Click the photo to the right.)

The journalists want us to believe that since there are several companies with some extremely high-priced items, the Wayfair company is just one of many businesses that sell high-priced items and, therefore, the high prices are justifiable and honest. Does that argument make sense to you?

I would describe that argument as being so stupid that it should be regarded as evidence that the journalists are so desperate to stop people from investigating the human trafficking issue that they are willing to take the risk of using idiotic arguments.

It is possible that if we were to investigate one of the companies that are selling those high priced items, we would discover that they are just one business in a worldwide network of businesses, government officials, journalists, Hollywood celebrities, church officials, think tank officials, charity officials, and other people who are involved with human trafficking.

We might discover that it is not the ordinary men who are responsible for the human trafficking. We might discover that it is mainly the wealthy men who are in influential positions, and who are pampered, admired, and respected.

A concept that is similar to "the truth does not need protection" is:

For a simple example, if two men are claiming to be the fastest at running 100 meters, the man who is truly the fastest would not benefit by suppressing his competitor. Rather, he would benefit by giving his competitor a truly fair opportunity to run 100 meters. Everybody in the world would then be able to compare which of them ran the fastest.

By comparison, if a man claims to be the fastest runner, but refuses to let his competitors have a fair opportunity to run, that would be evidence that the only way he can convince us that he is the fastest is to suppress his competitors.

Another way to express this concept is that when a truly talented athlete provides his competitors with a fair opportunity to show their athletic abilities, he allows his competitors to expose their inferiority.

Another way to express this is that the only people who fear competition are those who realize or suspect that they will lose the competition.

This concept is easy to understand when we apply it to athletes, but most people do not seem to understand how it applies to intellectual disputes. For example, if scientists are correct that humans are increasing the temperature of the earth by producing carbon dioxide, then they do not benefit by suppressing their competitors. If their theory is truly the most sensible, then they would benefit by allowing their competitors to have a fair opportunity to express their alternative opinions. Everybody would then be able to realize that the alternative opinions are inferior.

Now consider how this concept applies to the Wayfair company, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, or the Apollo moon landing. If the Jews who are promoting the Holocaust are truly providing us with the most accurate description of a historical event, then they don't need to arrest their critics or be afraid of their critics. Rather, they would benefit by allowing their critics to have the freedom to investigate history and express their findings. If the Jews are giving us an accurate view of history, they would allow their critics to expose themselves as ignorant idiots.

Likewise, the Wayfair company, and other companies that are selling some absurdly high-priced items, don't need to be afraid of their critics. Instead, they should allow their critics a fair opportunity to investigate the items. If those companies are honest, their critics will expose themselves as idiots who were jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

This is another concept that we should require voters, and other people in top leadership positions, to understand.

A related issue is that people who are truly talented do not need to create fraudulent competitions in order to prove their talent. For a simple example with athletes, if a man claims to be the fastest runner, and if he arranges for a race between himself and a 90-year-old man, he would be arranging a fraudulent competition because he chose a competitor that he knows he can beat.

A truly talented athlete does not need to choose his competition, or bribe, blackmail, or intimidate his competitors into losing.

If the public could understand this concept, they would notice that many of the discussions on television are fraudulent. For example, when the journalists arrange for a discussion about the 9/11 attack or the Apollo moon landing, they invite only people that they know will say something stupid about it.

The people who cannot see that the journalists are arranging for fraudulent competitions should be disqualified from influential positions, including voting. The reason is because those people are too easily deceived.

Another reason criminals can be successful at manipulating us is because we have a natural tendency to avoid confrontations. As I pointed out, humans are often criticized as being a violent species, but both humans and animals are inherently nonviolent. We try to avoid violence and confrontations. Unfortunately, our attempts to avoid confrontations often make the situation worse by encouraging bad behavior, and sometimes criminal behavior.

This problem occurs regularly with parents. Specifically, when a child has a tantrum and demands something, many parents eventually get tired of the confrontation, but instead of forcing the child to accept the situation, the parents become submissive and give the child whatever he wants.

Although this terminates the confrontation, it can make the situation worse by encouraging the child to believe that he can get whatever he wants simply by putting up a fight.

Criminals and salesmen often exploit this characteristic by being aggressive and demanding, which can result in their victim eventually becoming tired of the confrontation and becoming submissive.

This behavior is related to the concept of "peer pressure". For example, a selfish, aggressive child might push other children into doing something that they don't want to do. Initially the other children resist, but eventually they might get tired of the confrontation and give into his demands.

This problem also occurs in a marriage. If one spouse is unusually selfish and demanding, then his partner might frequently become submissive in order to avoid, or terminate, the confrontation.

To summarize this concept, our desire to avoid confrontations can result in the "nice" people giving up, becoming submissive, and doing whatever the aggressive, selfish, neurotic, or abusive people want them to do.

Incidentally, since it appears as if the nice people are doing this voluntarily, if they do something embarrassing or illegal, and if it is being recorded on video, then that nice person can be blackmailed over it.

Our societies do not show much concern for why people do what they do. For example, when a criminal pushes somebody into doing something illegal, the person who gets pushed into it might be considered just as guilty. The only time we are likely to make an exception to that rule is when somebody pushes a very young child, or a mentally disturbed person, into committing a crime.

We would create a better social environment, and reduce crime and abuse, if we were more concerned with why people do what they do. Specifically, we need to identify the people who are encouraging bad behavior, and either put them on restrictions, such as restricting them to certain neighborhoods, or evict them. They need to be regarded as dirt in the transmission.

Some people might respond that an honest person would never let himself be pushed into doing something illegal, but this issue is much more complex than it appears. This is not an issue of yes or no, right or wrong. It is a spectrum.

At one extreme is a person who is very low in the hierarchy, and is obviously a badly behaved criminal. For example, a stupid, sloppy man who lives in a trailer park and has a history of burglaries, rapes, and shoplifting would have a difficult time pushing an honest person into committing a crime with him.

At the other extreme is a person who is in a management position of the government, corporation, military, or school. That person is in a position of authority, and that will make it much easier for him to push people into doing things that they don't want to do. The reason is because we have strong cravings to follow our leaders, and without asking why.

This concept is similar to the issue of how we treat people who get into a fight. Many people want to treat each person in a fight equally, and say they are equally to blame, but that is a nonsensical policy. It is better to understand why the fight occurred. We should deal with the people who instigate fights, not the people who defend themselves, or who are tricked into a fight, or who confront the aggressive, selfish bullies.

When we make everybody involved with a fight share the blame equally, we cause people to become afraid to defend themselves. A more sensible policy is to evict the people who instigate fights, and who push other people into doing things they don't want to do.

That policy would be analogous to cleaning the dirt out of a transmission. It would leave behind a society in which we could relax around one another and trust one another.

An example of how selfish, aggressive people can push us into doing things we don't want to do is happening right now as of 2020. Specifically, some people are pushing the US, Britain, Germany, and other nations into accepting refugees and migrants.

The people pushing for the immigration appear to be mainly Zionist Jews and mentally ill "liberals", but most people are so nice that they don't want to get into confrontations with those people, and they are especially afraid of getting into confrontations with the refugees and migrants. The end result is that most of the public becomes submissive and allows the refugees and migrants to become citzens.

There are a few citizens willing to fight these "bullies" rather than become submissive to them, but there are not enough of those citizens to have an effect.

For example, the Ben & Jerry's ice cream company is pushing people in Britain into accepting refugees. On some of their ice cream cartons they have a cow that is holding a sign that says "Refugees Welcome", and on their website they promote the policy of allowing more refugees into Britain.

There are so many citizens confronting Ben & Jerry's that they attracted the attention of this journalist, but there are not enough of them to drive Ben & Jerry's to bankruptcy, or stop the migrants.

The British public needs help in dealing with the aggressive Zionists and liberals who are manipulating their society. Unfortunately, the UK does not have appropriate leadership or an effective security department.

Another example of how most people will become submissive to aggressive people is how the public gives in to the demands that we should not discuss certain issues in public, such as the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the differences between men and women.

For example, one of the justifications that the Google executives gave for firing James Damore was that he was disrupting the business by expressing his opinions about an issue of no concern to his job. The Google executives promoted the concept that employees should be working, not using the business to promote their personal opinions.

However, the Google executives are hypocrites because they allow their employees to discuss political and social opinions if the employee promotes an opinion that the Google executives agree with. For example, the Google employees were allowed to pass a document around about "How To Punch a Nazi".
 
Also, Google does not complain that Ben & Jerry's is promoting their personal opinions on the ice cream cartons.

Most of the Google employees are too nice to stand up to this hypocrisy and intimidation, so they become submissive and avoid discussing the issues that the Google executives disapprove of. They also submissively allow the executives of Google, Ben & Jerry's, Twitter, and other companies, to promote their personal opinions. They voluntarily censor themselves, and they allow themselves to be abused, because they want to be "nice" and avoid confrontations.

This situation is also occurring when the public gets together for social events, recreational events, and holiday celebrations. For example, if somebody at a Christmas dinner or a wedding brings up the issue that Building 7 was demolished with explosives, somebody may reprimand him for using the event to promote his personal conspiracy theories, and insist that it is not appropriate for him to have those conversations at that type of event.

However, those same people will frequently promote their personal opinions. An example of their hypocrisy is that they will often make insulting remarks about President Trump, or promote the acceptance of more refugees, or complain about the police brutality towards minorities.

The people who behave in that aggressive and hypocritical manner boast about being fair, and that they don't want social events ruined with irrelevant political arguments, but in reality, they are selfishly suppressing the opinions they don't like, and promoting their own opinions.

Unfortunately, most people are too nice to stand up to this hypocrisy and abuse, and so they give in and voluntarily censor themselves, and allow the selfish and aggressive people to promote their particular opinions.

When most people are told to stop discussing 9/11 or pizzagate, or when they are accused of white supremacy, sexism, climate change denial, Holocaust denial, or racism, they apologize and censor themselves rather than defend themselves.

Most people are too nice to get into confrontations with aggressive, selfish, whiny people, and so they voluntarily choose to get on their hands and knees and pander to them. This makes the situation worse by allowing those aggressive people to continue the abuse, and become even more abusive.

We cannot expect the public to deal with this problem. We need to create a security force that consists of men who have the emotional ability to confront and dominate the aggressive people.

We need a security force that regards the accusations of climate change denial, Holocaust denial, sexism, and white privilege as nonsensical, slanderous accusations. We need a security force to put those people on restrictions or evict them.

We need a security force that will not pity the badly behaved people. We need a security force that sets high standards for people, and demands that everybody behave properly and treat one another with respect. We need a security force that cleans the dirt out of the transmission.

The same concept should apply to children, although we must be more lenient with them. Specifically, the children who push other children into doing destructive things should be told that their behavior is unacceptable.

If they cannot improve their behavior, we should separate them from the other children rather than become submissive and allow them to be a bad influence on the other children.

Some of the children that push other children into doing stupid things are suffering from genetic disorders, such as ADHD, rather than because they are inherently cruel or abusive, but that doesn't make their behavior acceptable.

Unfortunately, most people, especially women, put up a tremendous resistance to facing the possibility that some children are so defective that they should be separated from the other children. Most people want to "be nice", so they become submissive to the defective children and give them what they want, and ignore their undesirable behavior.

Creating a security force that is capable of dealing with the aggressive and selfish children requires a significant change in our attitudes towards government, security, and voting.

The most significant change is that we must stop promoting the attitude that women and men are a unisex creature. Women should not be allowed to influence the security policies of a society. It is acceptable to let women get involved with the city artwork, social affairs, holiday celebrations, music concerts, children's activities, and many other aspects of life, but they should not be allowed to get involved with issues related to law enforcement. It is especially destructive to let women influence our policies for badly behaved children.

A woman's mind was designed for raising children, not for leadership, and not for dealing with crime networks or badly behaved people. Women have powerful desires to protect and care for people, especially children. Women will protect even the extremely abusive children.

When we allow women to influence our law enforcement policies, we end up with an enormous number of women pushing for the pity of badly behaved people, especially badly behaved children.

It is important to note that many people, including women, complain about children who are "bullies" at school, but when some adult tries to deal with a bully, a lot of people, especially women, will pity the bully.

In order to create schools in which the children are free of manipulation by aggressive and defective children, and in order to reduce crime and abuse among adults, we must change our attitudes towards law enforcement. We should restrict the security force to men, and we must restrict those men to those who are capable of confronting criminals rather than pandering to them.

The majority of people cannot provide a nation with useful leadership or sensible policies simply because they always make average decisions. Most people do not have the intelligence and/or emotional qualities necessary to be useful as voters or leaders.

We are fools to expect the public to provide us with intelligent analyses or policies for economic issues, school curriculum, political candidates, city planning, religion, sports, leisure activities, raising children, drug abuse, crime, or any other issue.

I have mentioned many examples of the stupid theories that the majority of people are supporting, such as the theory that people in foreign nations are making the American people abuse marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. Actually, that theory is not merely "stupid"; it is destructive because it encourages hatred and violence between nations. The US military, for example, has already killed people in foreign nations in an attempt to stop them from making the American people use drugs.

When we allow the majority of people to determine our drug policy, we end up with a policy that causes us to hate and fight with drug dealers and foreign nations, rather than a policy that helps us to understand and reduce the drug abuse.

The only way we can provide ourselves with intelligent policies is to restrict leadership and voting to people who are above-average in intelligence, and who have the courage and desire to use their intelligence and experiment with our options rather than follow the crowd.

Another example of why the public needs leadership is the products and services that are intended to extend our lives and health. Some of the more unusual are described in this article, such as coffee enemas, cryotherapy, and injections of modified DNA.

A couple years ago I mentioned that some people are promoting transfusions of the blood from children as a way of living a longer life. Do those businesses have evidence for their claims?

Even the people who are above-average in intelligence and education will not be able to make a wise decision about this issue because nobody yet knows what effect a blood transfusion has on our health. In this document I brought up the possibility that it might actually be dangerous.

The businesses that are selling the transfusions are another example of why we need better leadership. We should not expect the public to make wise decisions about which businesses should exist, and which should go bankrupt. We should select a more intelligent group of people to make these decisions.

The products to improve our life are another example of why we should eliminate secrecy and keep a database of everybody's life. If we were keeping track of what everybody was doing, we would eventually start to notice whether the people who smoke marijuana, get coffee enemas, or use steroids are suffering from any particular health problems, or whether they are benefiting in some manner.

Unfortunately, so many people are hiding or lying about their use of marijuana, steroids, blood transfusions, and other things that doctors and scientists do not have much information about these products, and some of the information they have is inaccurate because of the people who lied about what they do. The end result is that we don't know much more about these issues than our ancestors.

We would benefit by restricting leadership to people who are not ashamed of what they do, and who promote the philosophy that we should observe one another and learn from one another.

Another way of helping the public realize that they are intellectually unsuited to influencing the future of the world is to point out how their reaction to problems is like that an animal rather than that of a modern human. I will give three personal examples of my reaction to conspiracy theories:

   1) The JFK murder
   2) The 9/11 attack
   3) The Apollo moon landings

The point I want to make with these three examples is that even though I initially did not believe what people told me, I did not hate them, and, more important, I was willing to look at the information they had that was critical of my opinions.

In the case of my father, all he had were the opinions about the assassination that he had formed decades ago, so he did not have any information to give to me, so he did not convince me of anything. By comparison, the Internet was full of information about the 9/11 attack and the Apollo moon landing that proves the official story in each case is false.

When I was a teenager it occurred to me that I have a better-than-average ability to look critically at myself, and to consider that other people have better opinions. It seems to me that most people are too arrogant and/or become too upset by criticism to tolerate differences of opinion.

Our natural reaction to a difference of opinion is to regard it as stupid or dangerous. That attitude makes sense for animals because it causes them to avoid everything that is out of the ordinary. However, the appropriate reaction for a modern human is to investigate the differences of opinion, even if they seem stupid. Two important reasons for this are:

   1) To understand our culture.
   2) To help the person improve his opinions.

When somebody has a stupid opinion, we might benefit by explaining to him why his opinion is stupid. The reason is because explaining a concept to somebody requires that we have enough of an understanding of it that we can figure out how to express our thoughts with words. I discussed this concept here.

Some teachers are aware of this concept, and they use it as a technique to help students understand an issue. Specifically, they make the students take turns explaining an issue to the class. We cannot explain an issue that we know nothing about. The more we learn about it, the better we can explain it.

Therefore, by pushing ourselves into explaining to somebody why his opinion is idiotic will allow us to determine whether we truly understand the issue as well as we think we do.

The people in leadership positions should have a desire to investigate accusations of crime. For example, when David Shurter claims that he was raped by a Supreme Court justice, or when somebody accuses NASA of faking the moon landing, our leaders should want to investigate.

We should not tolerate leaders who dismiss an accusation as an "idiotic conspiracy theory". There is no benefit to ignoring accusations of crimes.

If the accusation is a mistake, then our leaders should investigate the issue and explain how the mistake occurred in order to help people make fewer mistakes in the future. If a person is making a false accusation, then he is committing a crime, and our leaders should deal with him.

The majority of people react to accusations of crime with insults or apathy, and that behavior should be regarded as disqualifying them from voting and other leadership positions.

People who ignore accusations of crime cannot be effective voters or leaders because they will do nothing to investigate or stop crime networks or corruption.

We need to make the majority of people realize that they react like animals rather than modern humans, and that their behavior is unacceptable for people in influential positions, such as top government officials, voters, journalists, school teachers, police detectives, and scientists.

Most of us, especially men, are regularly trying to convince other people that we have the most brilliant opinions, but the other people almost always respond by insisting that they have the most brilliant opinions. This causes us to suffer from a "failure" in a competitive event. Specifically, a failure to convince somebody that our opinions are superior.

Different people react differently to this type of failure.

Some people react by becoming angry and yelling at the person, or accusing him of being too stupid to understand his brilliant opinions.

Some people accuse the other people of discriminating against them because they are of a different race, sex, or religion, or because they are not a member of their elite club, such as the Mensa club, or the college graduates.

For example, Stephen Meyer, who I mentioned earlier for demolishing Darwin, has accused other scientists of "fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent."

The proper reaction to failing to convince somebody that your opinion is superior is to:

The people who react to such failures with yelling, fistfights, or accusations are displaying the behavior of an animal that has lost its temper and is biting and kicking the other animals.

When we fail to convince somebody that our opinions are superior to theirs, our natural tendency is to become angry, and to accuse them of being stupid, stubborn, uneducated, or biased. However, if a person truly is too stupid or uneducated to understand our brilliant opinions, then we should not waste our time trying to explain our opinions to him. Who is really the source of trouble for society:

Consider an extreme example to understand this concept. Imagine an adult trying to convince a child that the child's opinions on religion, abortion, or crime are inferior, but the child responds by claiming the adult has the stupid opinions. Also, imagine that the child refuses to promote the adult's opinions to other children.

Imagine the adult reacting by becoming so angry at the child that he yells at the child, and whines that the child is suppressing him.

As I described in other documents, (such as this), a person who is truly intelligent will adjust his explanations to fit the education and intellectual abilities of the person he is talking to.

He will not waste his time discussing an issue with people who truly cannot understand what he is saying. He will not become angry that they are stupid, either, and he will have no desire to hurt their feelings by insulting them. He will accept the fact that they are stupid.

Animals do not take an active role in selecting their leaders. Rather, they passively allow the male animals to fight with each other. This method works for animals because every male has a strong craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, so every male regularly competes with one another. This creates endless competition, which ensures that the animal that gets to the top is continuously earning his position.

However, this method does not work in a modern human society because most men get involved with businesses, rather than compete for the top government positions.

Only a small minority of the male population is trying to become a top government official. Which small minority is it? If it were the minority with the best leadership abilities, then this would be a wonderful situation, but human history shows that many of the men fighting for those top government positions are neurotic, dishonest, incompetent, or members of crime networks.

There are some people proposing that we switch to a meritocracy. The theory of a meritocracy is wonderful, but how do we ensure that we are putting talented people into the top government positions?

If the voters continue to passively wait for a candidate in shining armor to appear in their life and titillate them, we will continue to have the same incompetent and dishonest government officials that we have right now. To rephrase this, we cannot expect anything to improve if we refuse to experiment with improvements.

Women passively wait for men to chase after them and titillate them, and children passively wait for adults to bring them food, clothing, and everything else they want, but this attitude of waiting for people to do things for us is unacceptable for voters and other people in leadership positions.

A woman's attitude towards men is that a man who is worthy of becoming her husband will be willing to put a lot of time and effort into searching for her, and then pampering her with gifts, entertainment, and food. He will also display signs of submission, such as getting on his knees and begging her for marriage.

Women do not analyze men, or pass judgment on their honesty, responsibility, value to society, talents, skills, or self-control. Instead, they look for submission, entertainment, gifts, and intense devotion.

Women have a tendency to select government officials in the same manner that they select a husband. For example, instead of actively looking through the population for potential government officials, they wait for people to become candidates. They also expect the candidates to display signs of submission and devotion, and they expect candidates to provide them with gifts and entertainment.

These emotional cravings cause women to be attracted to candidates who behave in a submissive manner, and who promise gifts, such as elimination of student debt and a reduction in crime. Since it is very easy for criminals to behave in a submissive manner and make promises, women are easily tricked into voting for incompetent and dishonest candidates.

Men are just as incompetent as voters as women, but for different reasons. This is another example of a concept I've mentioned before. Specifically, it makes no sense to say that men are better than women, or vice versa. It makes more sense to say that we are different. Each sex evolved for a different role in life, so we have slightly different advantages and disadvantages, and slightly different irritating qualities.

Men do not sit around and wait for people to bring things to them. Men have the initiative to do things on their own. However, men are just as passive as women when it comes to selecting leaders. Both men and women passively wait and watch as people fight for leadership.

Both sexes also have a strong desire to follow whoever is the leader, rather than look critically at him. This results in both men and women admiring the people at the top of the hierarchy even when there is evidence that they are incompetent or abusive, and even if there is evidence that they are senile, or involved with pedophilia, or involved with crime networks.

Women have an even stronger craving to admire the males at the top of the hierarchy without any concern for how they got into that position, or how they behave. For example, women are regularly chasing after Hollywood celebrities, wealthy men, and famous men with no regard for whether those men earned their money in an honest, respectable manner, and with no regard for how they treat other people.

Harvey Weinstein, for example, had no trouble attracting women even though he had a reputation for being abusive and disgusting. However, if Weinstein had been low on the social hierarchy, such as an ordinary factory worker, very few of those women, if any, would have wanted to marry him.

Another example of this crude, animal characteristic is that millions of people in Britain admire Queen Elizabeth and the other Royal family members simply because they are high in the social hierarchy. If Britain did not have a monarchy, Queen Elizabeth would likely be living in an ordinary neighborhood, and nobody would recognize her or her children as "special".

The people in the British Royal family are admired simply because they are in a high position of the hierarchy. Humans and animals admire anybody above them in the hierarchy without asking why they are above them, or whether they deserve that position, or whether they are capable of providing leadership.

Our passive attitude towards leadership, and our mindless admiration of whoever wins the competitive battle for leadership, makes it very easy for dishonest and incompetent candidates to get into leadership positions.

Our characteristic of admiring whoever is at the top of the social hierarchy is causing people to disregard the accusations about pedophilia among BBC officials, government officials, Hollywood celebrities, church officials, and other leaders of society.

This characteristic of admiring the people at the top of the hierarchy is acceptable only when we can ensure that the people at the top truly deserve to be in those positions. Unfortunately, ever since humans began settling into cities, our leadership has been degrading because of the four reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this document.

The people who cannot exert enough self-control to pass judgment on whether political candidates deserve to be leaders, and who do not have enough self-control to provide job performance reviews to people in leadership positions, should be prohibited from voting. For example, anybody who admires the British Royal family should be disqualified on the grounds that they are behaving like a stupid monkey that admires anybody in a leadership position.

The people who manage the sports organizations do not passively wait for athletes to come to them and fight each other for the position of "athlete". Rather, they hire recruiters to look for athletes. Likewise, many businesses send recruiters to colleges in order to find employees.

Voters should follow the same concept. We will provide ourselves with better leadership when the voters become actively involved with looking for candidates.

During prehistoric times, the people benefited by having men fight each other because that gave them a leader in excellent physical and mental health, and who was the best at protecting them from wolves and neighboring tribes.

Today, however, we need to switch to an intellectual battle. We need to identify the men who are the best at analyzing our problems, experimenting with our options, and providing us with intelligent guidance.

The voters should take an active role in looking for a leader by analyzing people's leadership abilities. The voters should look at managers, scientists, engineers, and other people who have shown exceptional leadership abilities.

Did you notice how significantly the children's activities and toys have changed from those in Pieter Bruegel's painting to the facilities in China? The people in the 1500s would never have imagined the electricity, computers, electric vehicles, or anything else that those facilities in China are providing to children.

What will the children several thousand years in the future be doing in their leisure time? What will the adults in the future be doing in their leisure time? What will the cities of the future look like?

Will the people centuries from now have the same problems with crime, pedophilia, pollution, traffic congestion, and worthless college courses? Will the difference between the wealthiest and poorest people continue to increase? Will the future generations continue to make accusations of white privilege, racism, Holocaust denial, climate change denial, and sexism?

I don't know what the future will be, of course, but I know that we have the technology today to create cities that are as beautiful, relaxing, efficient, and quiet as those facilities for children in China. We can create a city that is so beautiful that we enjoy looking at it from the windows of our buildings, and by taking a walk or bicycle ride around it.

We also have the ability to restrict immigration to those cities so that the people trust one another, and the children do not fear any adult. We have the ability to create a city in which we enjoy the people so much that we want to get out of our home and spend more of our leisure time with other people.

We live for only a brief moment. If you are too frightened to experiment with your life, you will never experience any improvements.

I suggest you consider pushing yourself into taking the opportunity to start the development of some advanced cities and culture.