Hufschmid's main page
Dumb Down index
Philosophy page

 
How can we 
improve our school system? 

7 May 2007

 
Part 2 of Have we been "dumbed down"?

With more controversial remarks than ever!


 
 School developed in response to written language
 
Written language began to develop about 6000 years ago in Mesopotamia, and perhaps China and Egypt also. 
 

It started as simple pictures of a sheep, person, and river. These pictures could be used to keep track of how many sheep a farmer had, or create simple map.

Through the centuries the people added arbitrary symbols for concepts that didn't have a picture. For example, a picture of a man and woman would not specify if they were brother and sister, husband and wife, or strangers. By creating arbitrary symbols to represent concepts, they could clarify the other symbols. The Egyptians eventually created more than 2000 symbols.


 
As time went on, they simplified the pictures and made them smaller. This allowed them to draw the symbols faster, and they could fit more of them onto a clay tablet or papyrus sheet.
Eventually there were so many symbols, and they were so arbitrary, that nobody could figure out their meaning simply by looking at them. It became necessary to teach people how to read and write.
The first schools were very simple; they merely taught reading, writing, and arithmetic to a few children. Most people had no desire to learn the written language. There were no books, magazines, or newspapers. The first "documents" were the equivalent of business transactions and maps. The written language was considered a business tool, so only a few people were interested in learning it.

The people of ancient Iraq left behind thousands of cuneiform tablets, but almost all of those tablets are the equivalent of business receipts. They used written language for centuries before it occurred to somebody that they could use it to record events for the future generations, to spread news items, to record their opinions, to teach skills, and to write personal messages to one another. If just one person in ancient Iraq had realized the potential for written language, we would have descriptions of life in that era.

What is the purpose of school?
You might respond: "to educate students." The complexity of this issue only becomes apparent when you try to improve our school system.
When schools first started to develop in the Middle East, there were no career decisions for children to make. The children acquired the few skills they needed by helping their parents. School developed only for a tiny percentage of the population, and only to teach arithmetic and the written language.

Today everybody must be able to use a written language and arithmetic. In addition, most people need to learn a skill so that they can get a job.

The elementary schools are teaching written language and arithmetic, but the public schools are not preparing children for life in our era. Perhaps the most obvious example is when we get on an airplane and are told how to use a seatbelt.

Children need to learn a lot of information in order to function in our society today. Who should teach children how to use seat belts, checking accounts, and the postal service? Who should teach children about purchasing houses? What should the schools teach, and what should parents teach?

Most children spend a lot of time wondering what to do as an adult. Should they be a fireman? An astronaut? A welder, scientist, dentist, taxi driver, dancer, philosopher, Hollywood actor, teacher, or accountant?

It's not possible for children to have a good understanding of the job opportunities, and they won't have any idea of what they're capable of doing, or what they enjoy, until they try different activities. Should our public school system help children make decisions about their career? Should schools offer at least a minimal job training?

If our public schools are not going to prepare children for society, why are we forcing children to spend their entire youth in school? Why not make public school optional, and allow children to select a school that will offer a practical education?
 

Should schools criticize stupid children?
  
I attended public schools in California. I was in elementary school in the 1960s. During the first years of elementary school, the teachers would give us very simple activities, such as writing the alphabet, performing basic arithmetic, and drawing pictures.

Children are submissive, so we were happy to do as the teacher asked. We would proudly show the teacher our work, and the teacher would smile and tell us how wonderful we were. The school work was fun and easy, and we had fun on the playground. However, some children were not having such pleasant experiences.

Some children would write the letters of the alphabet and do arithmetic just like the rest of us, but instead of smiling at their work, the teacher would scold them for doing a terrible job.
There were also a few children who did not have much fun on the playground. Instead, the other kids would ignore or torment them.

When I was in sixth grade one of the boys who had been doing lousy in school behaved in a rebellious manner with the teacher. I can still remember feeling sad for him, and sad that the teacher has to deal with such a problem.

It occurred to me that the years of criticism was having a profound effect on him. He was now suffering from low self-esteem. He no longer had any interest in doing schoolwork because he knew that no matter how hard he tried, his work would be criticized.

During sixth grade I noticed that the dumb children were separating from the rest of us and losing interest in school. Some were becoming angry and rebellious.
 
Schools torment both students and teachers
The current philosophy behind our school systems is that children should be criticized if they perform "below average", but half the population is below average! They can't change it, so what good does it do to torment them?

Who benefits by criticizing stupid people for being stupid? Would you criticize children who were below the average height for their age group?

Many of the rebellious teenagers join gangs, and later organized crime. Gangs are sanctuaries where the dumb people can escape from the criticism and feel good about themselves. If our school system didn't torment the stupid children, would gangs be so popular?
 
Stupid people are not our problem
We have a tendency to blame our problems on stupid people, but not many of the problems we suffer from are really due to "stupidity".

The people who planned and organized the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landing hoax, were not stupid. The people committing crimes in the financial market are not stupid, either. The people who are lying to us on television, in magazines, and in newspapers are not stupid. Not many political leaders in the world are stupid.

I expected the college graduates to be the most receptive to my book about 9/11 because I assumed that people who earned college degrees were interested in learning and thinking. However, I discovered that the majority of people were trying to avoid 9/11, regardless of whether they were intelligent or stupid.

Take a look at the people who refuse to deal with the 9/11 attack or the Apollo moon landing hoax, or the people in Europe who don't care that there are laws against investigating the Holocaust. How many of them are stupid? It seems that most of them are ordinary, and some of them are intelligent.

The biggest problems the world suffers from is not the result of stupid people. It would be more accurate to say that our problems are due to people with crummy minds. Exactly why their minds don't work very well is a complex and mysterious issue, but the point I'm trying to make is that many of these crummy people are intelligent, and most are ordinary.
 

Judge people by their value to society, not their schoolwork
If we were to judge people according to their behavior, we would discover that a lot of intelligent people are psychotic, dishonest, selfish, self-destructive, and abusive, and a lot of stupid people are honest and respectable.

Our school system is causing people to judge one another according to their ability to memorize information, and whether they have a college diploma.

It would be more useful for us to judge a person according to his value to society. Does the person help make the world a better place, or does he interfere with our attempts to discuss problems and spread information? Does he contribute something of value, or is he detrimental?
 

Are all people "equal"?
I was in sixth grade when I started to wonder why the adults were torturing the stupid children. Why not teach them something that they can do for a living? Why destroy their morale? And why are we tormenting the teachers who have to put up with this situation?

When I got older I discovered that most people are extremely sensitive to the issue that some people are stupid. Americans are raised on the philosophy that all people are "equal", but what does it mean to be "equal"?

Americans interpret "equal" to mean that people are "identical". We could say that all people are identical in regards to traffic laws because each person follows the same laws in the same manner. Nobody has any special privileges.

However, we are not identical in physical or mental qualities. Some people have more physical coordination, some are stronger, some have better memories, and some are better at math. Why are so many people resisting this fact? Why won't people accept what they are?
 

Should schools praise the talented children?
Those of us who are above average height did nothing to become tall. Likewise, those of us who are above average intelligence were simply born this way.

There were times in elementary school that I got an A+ on some task the teacher told us to do (I usually got B's). I remember feeling a bit embarrassed because I didn't put much effort into it. I wondered what the other children had done. I felt embarrassed for the other children, not proud of myself.

If I had put a lot of time and effort into doing something, then I might enjoy being praised for it, but if I casually do something that comes naturally, the praise is meaningless, or embarrassing. It's like getting an A+ because your heart is beating correctly.

How is praising an intelligent child for being intelligent any more sensible than criticizing a stupid child for being stupid?

What would happen if teachers praised the students who were taller than average for their age group? I suspect that some of the tall children would eventually get tired of the praise, but a few of them would become conceited and think that they were better than the short children. Some of the short children might react by becoming bitter, jealous, and resentful.

Our school system may be the primary reason that there are so many conceited adults who think they're better than other people simply because they received good grades, college degrees, or awards in sports, music, spelling, science, or engineering.
 

Are schools stimulating feelings of jealousy?
The stupid people seem to become demoralized by school, but what happens to the people who are "above average"? They are in the same predicament as athletes who never win a contest, but always come close.

Humans are arrogant by nature, so it's difficult to say how much of a person's arrogance is due to the effect of school, and how much is natural, but we should consider the possibility that school is causing some of the above-average people to become jealous.

The golfing industry sells a lot of equipment to people who make the ridiculous assumption that they do poorly in golf because their equipment is not good enough. These people routinely discard equipment in good working condition simply to buy some "better" equipment.

Since some people have trouble facing the possibility that their sports abilities are merely "above average", isn't it possible that some people also have trouble facing the possibility that their intellectual abilities are only "above average"?

Some people spend a lot of time trying to convince one another that they have the best policies for abortion, religion, the bombing of Iraq, and the 9/11 attack. Isn't it possible that some of this arrogant behavior is due to a school system that stimulated feelings of jealousy for more than a decade during their youth?

It is obvious that some people are jealous and resentful of "smart" people; the question I wonder about is how much of this jealousy is due to our school system.

The jealousy can be seen in people's remarks. Although they don't use these exact words, many people have an attitude like this:

“You think you're better than other people, but you're not. All of us are equal, but some of us are slower and need more time. Actually, we're better than you smart snobs because we don't think we're better than other people.”
If these people could accept the fact that they are "above average", they could do something more productive with their time and reduce the stress they cause themselves and others.
 
Not smart enough for science? Become a social scientist!
I never went to college (I lost my interest in school during high school), but I have met a lot of people who have been to college. I noticed that the college students who were not smart enough to be scientists would frequently get into social science.

Some of them ended up in ordinary jobs after they got out of college, but some of them acquired tremendous influence over our lives because they become leaders and "experts" in our school system, government, "think tanks", media, and economy.


 

Social science is more difficult than physical science

Physical science is the study of rocks, electricity, animals, and chemicals. It's very difficult to understand the physical world. Only a small percentage of the population are actually capable of producing knowledge about the physical world. A lot of people are capable of conducting experiments, but very few can actually add knowledge to our database.

Social science is the study of human minds. However, the human mind is the most complicated object on our planet. If a person is not capable of understanding chemistry, electricity, genetics, nutrition, hormones, or animals, how could he possibly understand something even more complex?

Our school system treats the study of the human mind as if it is much simpler than studying chemistry or engineering. This is as absurd and detrimental as giving an airline pilot's license to people who are failing in their lessons to drive an automobile.

Social science should be restricted to the students who have demonstrated an ability to perform exceptionally well in the physical sciences.

Our schools give silly tasks to students
Our schools do not provide job training. Rather, they provide students with simple tasks, such as memorizing historical information, or writing a report about a fiction book. Students certainly gain something by performing these tasks, but it seems to be mostly a waste of time. I think they could learn the same lessons in a much faster manner if we were to design our schools differently.

When I was in school it seemed to me that the people who were designing our school system had a different personality than me. Specifically, they seemed to be the type of people who like playing games and reading fiction.

When I was in elementary school I enjoyed reading fiction books, such as those by Dr. Seuss and Jules Verne. In seventh grade I read The Hobbit and enjoyed that, so I decided to read the three books in the Lord of the Rings series. I started the first book near the end of seventh grade (or eighth grade, I can't remember).

The book started out interesting, but I noticed that with each new chapter I was having an increasingly difficult time paying attention. My mind would wander, and I sometimes had to read a page a second time.

Then there was one particular day that I was reading the book and I once again noticed that I wasn't paying attention to it, and I thought to myself, "Why am I wasting my time reading this stupid book?" I put the book down, turned it back into the school library, and never again bothered to read a fiction book. I had lost my interest in reading fiction, and lost my interest in playing games.

 
The same thing happened with the television show Star Trek. When I first started watching it, I thought it was exciting and intelligent. If I remember correctly, in September they started a new series of shows. I remember the evening that that new series was starting. I sat in the chair in front of the television in anticipation of the exciting new season. But as I watched it, I was thinking to myself "This is so stupid! How did I enjoy this?"
I was losing my interest in television shows. I continued to watch television, but I noticed that I wasn't paying any attention to the dialogue. I was only watching the pretty girls on the Partridge Family (the photo is Susan Dey who played in the show), the Brady Bunch, and a few others.

A few of the comedy shows were amusing, but by the time I was out of high school I was so disgusted with television that I decided I will never buy a television set for myself.

The people who design schools obviously do not have my personality. The people who design schools seem to enjoy reading fiction, playing games, and doing "magic squares". All of that was fun in elementary school, but then I grew up.

By the time I was in high school I wanted to learn something practical and do something of value, not memorize useless bits of information or play games.

 
Why not make school a smorgasbord of job training introductions?
In the 10th grade we learned geometry. I became disgusted with it after a couple months because it seemed to have almost no practical value. Besides, it didn't require as much intelligence as the algebra of ninth grade, so it would have made more sense to teach it before algebra. Why were we wasting our time learning something so useless?

In the 11th grade we learned trigonometry, which seemed to require even less intelligence. And then we learned something called "dot products" and "cross products", which required absolutely no intelligence and seemed to be completely devoid of practical value.

I was expecting math classes to become more difficult and useful as time went on, but they were becoming increasingly easy and worthless. A person could do cross products even if half his brain was missing.

Years later I discovered that this is the math that computers use, and that's why it is so simplistic. Computers cannot think, so they cannot do algebra. I also discovered that all of the computer-controlled sewing machines, milling machines, laser cutters, laser printers, and other machinery, are using this simplistic math.

 
A computer-controlled embroidery machine can select different colored threads and sew intricate designs into clothing using high school-level geometry.
I think schools would be more useful if they offered a lot of short introductions to various jobs. This would allow the students to get an idea of what they need to learn for different jobs, and that would help them make decisions on what they enjoy doing, and what they were good at.

For example, instead of spending a year teaching geometry and giving useless exercises to students, such as drawing the graph of 3x - 2y, the school could offer a short course called Introduction to Computer-Controlled Machinery. The students would learn how to do something useful, such as how to use geometry to move a computerized sewing needle to do the embroidery that many children have on their clothing.

They would do something simple, such as making a rectangle. This would allow the students to determine whether they enjoyed doing this type of math. If they do, they could go on to more advanced courses and learn the more advanced math necessary to create a sailboat.

This type of course would teach the same geometry that students are learning right now, but the difference is that students who took this type of course would understand the purpose of the math, and they would acquire a basic understanding of how the computer controlled machines operate.

A school would not be able to provide in-depth training to many jobs, but they could offer short introductory courses. This would help students make decisions on what they want to do, and it helps them understand technology.

Schools need quality control inspectors
Every industry has quality control inspectors to make sure that they are producing quality products. Schools can be thought of as industries that process children. Schools are one of the biggest industries in the world, but does any school have a quality control inspector?

We should analyze the children that come out of our schools in order to make decisions on how to improve the school. If we had quality control inspectors for our school system, they would notice that:

• Most children are graduating from high school with no skills, and so they must get additional education, or they must get training by an employer.

• Many -- or most -- of the college graduates are not getting a job in the area they were preparing for.

• An incredible amount of money is being spent on our schools.

Why don't our school officials care whether the students benefit from their school? The lack of concern among school officials about whether their school has any value can make you wonder how many of them are part of a conspiracy to ruin society by requiring students waste their entire youth in a worthless school system.
Students don't need awards; they need an education
The people who promote the practice of giving rewards to intelligent students and criticism to stupid students seem to be the people who do good in school. They enjoy the praise, and they enjoy feeling special. However, what we enjoy is not necessarily what is best for us.

Some people have proposed praising every student equally, but how is that any more sensible than dispensing candy to children during lunch? Praising children and giving them candy will make them happy, but why should our school system do that?

This brings me back to the issue of the purpose of a school system. I think the goal of a school should be to help children become happy, productive adults.

Children should be taught to understand themselves
We should accept the fact that people are different. Instead of praising the talented students and tormenting the dumb students, we should help children to understand and accept themselves, and enjoy the talents that other people have.

If you're not good at music, then enjoy the music from people who are more talented. If you're not good at computers, than be glad that somebody can do what you cannot. If you're not good at dentistry, be glad that someone with more talent is willing to do the work. Enjoy other people rather than think of yourself as better than them, and rather than be jealous of them.

When I was a teenager I saw a picture in a magazine of stone walls that had been made in Ireland hundreds of years ago. The thought that went through my mind was that if every man was as weak as I was, there wouldn't be any stone walls, and not many rocks above 30 pounds would have been moved from their position.

I could have chosen to be jealous of people who are stronger than me, but I have always been thankful that other people have abilities that I don't have.

Analyze yourself.

What are your talents?

Your weaknesses?

Your flaws?

During a child's preteen years, the teachers should help the children to analyze themselves. Children should be taught to experiment with life; to try different activities and figure out what they enjoy, what they're good at, what their limitations are, and whether they excel in anything.

Children should be taught that none of us have perfect bodies or minds, and we should identify and accept our flaws.

Children should also be taught to contribute to society. This requires that they figure out what they are capable of contributing. Are they any good at carpentry? If so, do they also enjoy carpentry enough to do it for a job? Do they have the physical and mental abilities to be a good dentist? If so, do they also have the desire to do such a job?

The concept that we are different seems so simple and obvious, but there is a lot of evidence that a lot of people don't understand it.

Should we drink some of our pee?
An extreme example is a woman I heard on a radio show many years ago. Throughout her life she was suffering from a health problem. She tried different methods to feel better, and eventually decided to try "urine therapy". This is the drinking of some of your own pee each morning. As strange as it may seem, this helped her to feel much better.

She had a rare defect with her kidneys that allowed some important chemical to get out of her blood, causing a deficiency. Unfortunately, this woman didn't completely understand that "normal" people don't need to drink their pee, so she was on the radio advising everybody to try it.

It was amusing to listen to her, but it would not have been amusing if a hundreds of people with her attitude and ignorance had gotten into our government and were using tax dollars to encourage us to drink pee.

Should we drink cow's milk?
For another example, consider dairy products. Some people have no problem eating dairy products, but an incredibly large percentage of the human population has problems with dairy products. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that milk was intended only for infants.

Cheese and yogurt cause fewer problems, but it is shocking that our government advises us to eat a product 2 to 3 times a day when so many people have problem with it.

If we had better leadership, dairy products would carry a warning label:

WARNING for Mothers! Cow milk was intended for baby cows. It doesn't contain vitamin C, and its other nutrients are in the wrong proportion for humans.

If you feed cow milk to your baby, you must also provide vitamin and mineral supplements or else your baby will die. The US government strongly urges mothers to feed their babies only human milk.

Warning for adults: a significant percentage of the adult population has side effects from milk, such as excessive production of mucus, diarrhea, digestive problems, and allergic reactions.

The US government does not advise adults to drink milk.

How is a woman who tells us to drink some of our pee each morning any less ridiculous than a government that advises us to drink cow milk 2 to 3 times a day?

Cow semen is probably safer for us to eat than milk, in which case it would make more sense for the government to recommend that we drink cow semen 2 to 3 times a day.

Some people suggest we drink soy milk, but other people worry that some molecules in soybeans are too similar to female hormones. Are we ever going to get a government with the decency to do some serious research into these issues?

Should we be vegetarians?
Another example of how people don't understand that they different from others is vegetarianism.

Proper digestion of protein requires pepsin and acid in the stomach to break down the protein molecules, but carbohydrates are supposedly broken down in the intestines, so acid is not needed.

If a person doesn't produce enough acid or pepsin, he will have trouble digesting protein, but he may have no problem digesting vegetables. If he makes the mistake of assuming that he is the standard by which all humans should be judged, he will come to the conclusion that humans should be vegetarians.

As we get older, our stomach produces less acid, so meat and other high protein items becomes more difficult to digest. This can cause older people to assume that we should be vegetarians.

Raw fruits and vegetables are the easiest foods to digest because they contain enzymes to help break them down, so old people and people with flawed digestive systems could easily come to the conclusion the proper diet for humans is 100% raw fruits and vegetables.

Because protein and carbohydrates put different demands on our digestive system, it is possible that we would have fewer digestive problems if we waited an hour or so after eating meat before eating raw vegetables.

Children should be taught that we all have the exact same characteristics, but there are subtle differences between us, and we all have flaws. There is no such thing as a perfect human, a perfect animal, or a perfect plant. We have flaws in our skin, face, teeth, digestive system, liver, and mind. A diet that you feel best with is not necessarily going to make somebody else feel good.

Is the "circus seal" philosophy appropriate for humans?
The philosophy behind most school systems is that humans are intelligent circus seals. Supposedly, by offering rewards to children who perform well in school, and by criticizing the children who do poorly, the children will be inspired to do well. Supposedly, children will not learn much on their own; they need rewards and punishments.

This philosophy is also the foundation of the free enterprise system. It has been taken to an extreme in America with tipping. Supposedly, restaurant waiters will do a proper job only when the customer offers to give them money at the end of the meal.

If this philosophy of offering rewards after a successful performance is so useful, why not apply it to everybody? Why not provide government workers with extremely low salaries that make it nearly impossible for them to survive, and then tell them that if we approve of the job they do, we will give them a tip?

Why not make school teachers work for tips instead of giving them tenure or high salaries? Why do we treat waiters as circus animals but not teachers? Why not use the same reasoning for tipping teachers that we use on waiters, such as: 

"If teachers worked for tips, they would be honest about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing. But when they have a guaranteed salary, they have no incentive to be honest or useful."

 

Are rewards and punishments the best method to control human behavior?

We offer rewards when we want to encourage people to do something, and we threaten people with punishments when we want to prevent them from doing something. It is certainly true that rewards and punishments have an effect on human behavior, but we should wonder if we can do better than this. We should be discussing such issues as:
 
•  Are rewards and punishments the best way to educate children? Or is this more appropriate for training circus animals to ride a bicycle? Or is it appropriate only for very young children, who are more similar to animals?
• There were no laws or jails thousands of years ago, and today we have jails in every city. However, instead of less crime, we seem to have a lot more of it. So how effective is our philosophy of preventing crime through punishments?
Can rewards and punishments be effective when our government is corrupt?
Let's assume that we analyze alternative methods of educating children and dealing with crime, and we determine that rewards and punishments are indeed the best method for controlling humans. This brings us to a very important topic; specifically, how effective will rewards and punishments be when the people in positions of authority are dishonest? Consider a few of some of the absurd and hypocritical policies that come from our leaders:
 
•  The news reporters are covering up the attack on September 11 and justifing the war in Iraq, but they give tremendous publicity to the killing of Terri Schiavo, and describe it as a cruel and senseless murder.
• Our authorities allow businesses to manipulate children with advertisements into desiring products, but they will send armed police to chase after women who nurse babies in public.
• Our authorities protect businesses that use trees for paper and cotton for clothing, but they will arrest people who use hemp for paper or clothing. Hemp seeds are also a food, just like other seeds.
• Our authorities protect the businesses that produce sugar, aspartame, and sucralose, but they make it illegal to use Stevia as a sweetening agent, as I explained here:
Stevia_19Oct2005.htm
How can a system of rewards and punishments be effective when there are tens of thousands of people in our government, universities, and businesses who are willing to cheat and lie?

They are not dispensing rewards and punishments in order to reduce crime; rather, they are eliminating their competitors in business and protecting certain organized crime networks.

Our philosophy of punishing criminals might work if the authorities were actually interested in reducing crime, but when we have a government that is committing crimes, this system of punishments is going to cause a lot of people to react with anger towards the government, courts, and police. Other people react to the corruption by becoming sad or demoralized.

Therefore, rather than encourage people to behave nicely, our corrupt government is increasing the undesirable behavior.

A lot of people think the solution to crime is to provide more money to police departments, or to pass more laws, or to create more government agencies to watch over us. However, as long as we allow a crime network to be in control of our nation, we are not likely to reduce crime.
 

When should we try to control children?
Even if we discover an effective way to control children, we have to decide when it is acceptable to manipulate children and when we should let them have the freedom to be whatever they want to be.

Should parents try to force their children to become doctors, athletes, Hollywood stars, or beauty pageant queens? Should parents try to force their children to avoid tobacco or alcohol?

The parents who push their children into the entertainment business are a good example. Some of the children end up wealthy and famous. According to the American philosophy, these children are much happier than the rest of us because of their wealth and fame. Therefore, according to the American philosophy, these parents were good parents, and they made good decisions on raising their children.

However, none of these weathy and famous entertainers seem to be any happier than other people. The famous entertainers watch television, take drugs, fight with other people, gamble, and get divorced, just like other people. The only difference between famous entertainers and ordinary people is that the entertainers do their fighting, crying, pouting, and drinking in a large mansion rather than an ordinary house.

If Michael Jackson, Shirley Temple, Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, or Britney Spears had been allowed to have a normal childhood, they would be ordinary people that none of us know, but would they have been any less happy?
 

Who benefits by forcing a child into a career?
Many parents try to control their children because they worry that their children will end up like ordinary people. But most people are ordinary! Why should a parent be ashamed that his child is ordinary? Why should the child be ashamed?

When we push children into careers that they don't want to do, we can hurt ourselves because they may be lousy at it.

 
Would you feel comfortable with a dentist who would rather be home lounging in front of a television but became a dentist because his mother forced him into it?
It would be better if people were taking jobs that they actually enjoyed and were capable of doing.
Rewards and punishments didn't work for me
My life is evidence that this theory of rewards and punishments is very simplistic and should be updated. If I am typical, then it's no wonder this method is not working.

When I was in the second or third grade the teacher gave each of us students a booklet full of tests. Every week or so the teacher would tell us to do a particular test in the booklet, and then she let us correct our test. After doing this a couple times it occurred to me that since I was correcting my own test, I could change a few of my incorrect answers and do even better.

I was already getting most of the answers correct, and I didn't want to make it look ridiculous by answering all of them correctly, so I would change only one or two of my incorrect answers.

After doing this a few times the teacher looked at my test booklet and praised me for doing a good job. She then said that she will give me a more difficult test booklet when this booklet is finished many months from now.

As soon as she said that, I realized that I was getting myself into a big mess. I was cheating only a little bit, so it would have been easy for me to continue, but I didn't enjoy cheating or lying, and the thought of spending the rest of my life cheating in order to maintain this farce was frightening.

I immediately stopped cheating, and I don't remember ever cheating again.

Actually, I went one step further. I started wondering why we should struggle in school. If we don't have what it takes to learn something easily, why waste our time? Why not find something that comes more naturally to us?

For example, there are people who want desperately to be an Olympic athlete. They spend hours a day working hard and spending a lot of money on equipment and training. But most of them never come close to qualifying for the Olympics. They don't have the talent, but they struggle anyway.
 

If you fail at your goal, should you try again?
The inability of Americans to accept the fact that most people are ordinary seems to be one of the reasons we promote the attitude that each of us can do whatever we want if we just try hard enough, and if we have enough time to study and practice. Supposedly, any of us can become musicians, doctors, engineers, athletes, or businessmen. When we fail to achieve our goals, there is an expression in America:
If at first you don't succeed, try again.
We are attracted to that philosophy because it allows us to think that we are as talented as everybody else. We don't want to face the possibility that other people are more talented than we are, and that we will never be able to do what they do.

A more realistic philosophy would be:

When you fail to achieve your goal, you should analyze why you failed. Is it because of the method you used to achieve the goal? If so, you can try again in a different manner. Or is it because you simply don't have what it takes to achieve the goal? If so, you need to modify the goal, or set a completely different goal.
What is the point of doing something when you fail over and over and over? Why not find an activity that you will be successful at?
Cheating and working hard have the same effect
Many people treat school as if it is a hurdle that they must overcome, and that as soon as they graduate high school or get their college degree, they can relax and enjoy life. As a result of this attitude, they put a lot of effort into getting good grades in school.

We also find this attitude with people when they get a job. Many jobs have a probation period, and many people see the probation period as a hurdle, and as soon as they get over it, they assume they can relax and goof off.

When I was in elementary school I realized that cheating on tests can create a problem for me because it puts me into a situation that I have to maintain forever. It also occurred to me that putting a lot of effort into getting good grades in school would have the same effect as cheating, even though I would get a lot of praise for it. I came to the conclusion that I should work only as hard as I planned to work for my entire life.

When a person struggles to learn a skill, he might make it through school, but what is he going to do when he finally gets a job? Unless he maintains that extreme level of effort, he will do poorly in his job.

I decided as a child that I will be whatever I am, and I will accept whatever grades the teacher gives me. If I'm good at math, that will be great, but if I'm not good at math, that's fine also. I didn't like the idea of getting into a position that I couldn't handle.
 

Males are arrogant
Why don't we teach children to understand what they are and accept themselves? It seems to be human nature.

Animals that live in groups are similar to humans in that the males and females form hierarchies. In the photo below, two male sheep are trying to determine which of them deserves to be at the top of the hierarchy.

Instead of slamming our heads together, male humans compete for dominance with displays of material wealth, job titles, college diplomas, and awards.
New York's Fire Chief Thomas van Essen, Rudy Giuliani, and Police Chief Bernard Kerick in England, proudly displaying awards they received from Queen Liz for their role in the 9/11 attack.

 
Nobody wants to think of himself as ordinary, or even slightly above average. Instead, everybody -- especially men -- want to think of themselves as the standard by which all other people should be judged.

Trying to get a male human to face the fact that he is "ordinary" is difficult because it is natural for men to be arrogant and fight with each other for dominance. This is one reason why we've got to get intelligent, respectable leaders in government; specifically, better leaders will help dampen the arrogance of the ordinary men. Arrogance is a natural part of being male.

 
For a personal example, there were times when I was a child that my dad would read a book to me, and I noticed that his arms were many times the size of mine. I assumed that I would have a typical sized male body when I became an adult

As I was getting near the end of my teenage years I started to wonder, "When is my rib cage going to get larger? There's not much time remaining!"

I ended up 6 feet tall, but my skeleton is about the same size as when I was 15 years old. I can still wear the same clothes I wore in high school.

This photo shows me when I was 7 or 8 years old. I'm taller today, but I am still that thin.

The interesting aspect of this is that I never feel weak. When I am alone I feel incredibly strong. I only become aware of how weak I am when I am around a normal sized man who does something that I could never do. But as soon as he leaves and I am alone again, I revert back to my normal condition of feeling that I am the strongest man in the world. It is truly amazing.

Every man, when he is alone, feels that he is the strongest, most intelligent, and most talented man. This is simply the normal state of mind for humans and animals.

When we encounter somebody who is better than us at a particular activity, we will momentarily feel inferior, but as soon as that person is gone, we revert to our normal condition of thinking of ourselves as the most intelligent, talented, and strongest man in the world. Even stupid people feel this way.


“I'm special!
Gather around me and I will
tell you who should be president, 
and which nation deserves a bombing.”
We have to make an effort to control our arrogance. Schools should teach children to understand what they are, and not let their arrogance get out of control.
Technology could make teaching less boring
If we accept the fact that most people are ordinary and a lot of people are stupid, we could use our technology to improve the job of a teacher.

For thousands of years the method of teaching children has been for a teacher to stand in front of a group of students and explain something to them. After a brief lecture, the teacher will answer their questions. The teachers give the same lecture over and over to every class of students. This can become extremely boring.

Today we have the technology to create short videos of these lectures. By providing every student with a computer, each student can play the lectures by themselves at their own pace. The teacher would be needed only to answer questions and help the students understand what they're watching.

However, this type of technology requires that we change our attitudes towards school and education. The current attitude, at least in America, is that schools are active, not passive, and that schools make a student smart or dumb.

When a student does poorly in school, many parents blame the school. We have to change this attitude so that schools are considered passive.

We should consider schools to be similar to apple trees. If we want apples, it is up to us to plant some trees, take care of the trees, pick the apples, and eat them.

Likewise, if we want an education, it is up to us to develop a school system, take care of the school system, and make an effort to learn and practice skills.

Schools should teach us to maintain health, not just fix problems

The goal of an airplane mechanic is to prevent problems with the aircraft. They don't wait for something to fail, and then fix it.

Our schools have the opposite attitude in regards to human health. There is very little emphasis on preventing health problems. The primary emphasis is on dealing with problems after they occur.

Schools would be more useful if they taught students -- especially medical students -- to be like airline mechanics. We should be taught to look for symptoms of upcoming problems, and deal with the problems before they become serious.

This may make more sense to you if I give a personal example.

When I was in the second grade, there were perhaps 20 children in the class. I was the third or fourth fastest runner. This meant that I was well above average in running. I assumed that I would be above average for the rest of my life.

In my seventh grade physical education class we would run about 1.1 kilometers every week. The teacher would record the time it took us to run the distance.

I ran faster than average, but it seemed like there was a larger percentage of people faster than me compared to second grade.

During eighth grade I was noticeably slower; I seemed to be about average. I thought it was rather peculiar that I would get slower. I didn't notice other people slowing down, so why was it happening to me?

Ninth grade was the first year of high school, and we had to run about 2.5 kilometers. At the beginning of ninth grade I was slightly below average. By the end of ninth grade I couldn't even finish; I had to walk the last half of it. Fortunately, that was the last year they made us run.

The teachers were recording the time we ran, but they were only recording it in order to help them figure out how to give us a grade for physical education.

This is equivalent to an airline mechanic who records the oil consumption of his engine, but never considers it strange that the oil consumption of one of his engines is rising every week.

If airline mechanics were like school teachers, airplanes would fall out of the sky on a regular basis.

Conversely, if school teachers were like airline mechanics, they would monitor the behavior of the students, and they would have noticed that me, and perhaps some other children, were showing symptoms that something was going wrong with our bodies.

If the teacher were to graph the difference in seconds it took us to run each week, he would have noticed that the graph for most people goes up and down slightly through the weeks, but it remains nearly horizontal. This type of graph would make it immediately obvious that something was wrong with me.

I still have no idea what was going wrong, but many decades later I had a blood test and discovered I was extremely low on a particular hormone, DHEA. Perhaps I started to go low on this hormone in seventh grade.

The level of this hormone drops with age, but in a "healthy" person it never drops low enough for them to be concerned. For some reason, it started going low on me very early.

Physical education teachers should also teach students about the potential dangers of certain activities. Most people have heard that boxers can suffer brain damage, but what about other physical activities?

 
Do contortionists suffer joint problems later in life?

Or, does this activity keep their joints in good shape?

We put a lot of research into making weapons... how about some research into keeping us healthy?


 

Imagine if airline mechanics ignored smoke

Imagine that an airplane is being tested, and black smoke is pouring out of one engine, but none of the mechanics care. Imagine that you tell the mechanics about the smoke, but they respond by giggling like children.
“Smoke in the... the.. ex... ex.. haust!”
This is exactly what is happening with the human body. The material that comes out of our intestines and bladder is our exhaust, but try to talk about this issue. The majority of adults giggle like children.

Most people don't even realize that pee is a concentrated portion of our blood. This is why when the blood cells are removed, the resulting liquid is similar to pee. Most people treat pee as if it is some sort of evil substance.

Stinky farts, sugar in pee, and strange poop are equivalent to smoke coming out of an exhaust pipe; ie, it is a sign that something is wrong with our diet, kidneys, or digestive system.

An animal that eats a proper diet and is in good health will produce very clean poop. Amazing as it may seem, a human that eats a proper diet and has a digestive system that is working properly will also produce relatively clean packages of poop.

If we could discuss and investigate these issues, we might have a better understanding of how to keep ourselves in good health. Unfortunately, virtually all of the talk about poop and pee is for titillation purposes. For example, the movie Borat had such jokes.

We know how to kill, but not maintain health
It's interesting to consider the amount of science, engineering, and money that we put into the development of a weapons. We have develped lots of ways to kill, hurt, and torture, but there are some basic health questions we can't answer. Some of them are:
• Is red meat bad for us?
A lot of people complain about red meat, but nobody can explain what substance is in the red meat that makes it unhealthy.

For all we know, the trouble with red meat is that it is deliberately aged for up to several weeks in order to make it softer, and to alter the flavor. By comparison, the white meats and seafood are never aged.

Most carnivores eat animals immediately. They eat stale meat only when they have no other choice. Only a few animals, such as vultures, maggots, and crabs, can survive on rotten meat.

If humans were designed for fresh meat, then that painting from 1663 shows what we should be doing. Specifically, the animals should be alive until we are ready to eat them.

The killing and cleaning of animals is an unpleasant job, so we could develop computer controlled machines to make it easier, but there is not yet any interest in developing such equipment.

• Is it healthy to turn nuts into paste?
If you chop peanuts into small pieces, you end up with chopped peanuts. The flavor doesn't change. If you chop almonds, you end up with chopped almonds.

However, if you grind peanuts to the point where they turn into a paste, it has a particular flavor that we know as peanut butter.

This doesn't seem strange until you grind almonds, or other nuts. Every nut, when ground into a paste, has a similar flavor as peanut butter. What causes this?

My guess is that the cells are rupturing, and the chemicals are mixing with one another. This may be creating new chemicals, and/or some of the chemicals may be oxidizing.

Is it healthy to eat these pastes? How about eating these pastes days or weeks after they have been created?


• Is it healthy to turn grains into dust?

For centuries people have been grinding grains to make bread, tortillas, and other products. However, the flour was coarse, and the products were eaten soon after they were created.

Today we grind grains down to a fine powder, which requires the oils and other nutrients to be removed. Factories use the white powder to make food products which are eaten days or weeks later.

For all we know, we will improve our health, and have better tasting food, if grains are given a coarse grinding and used immediately.

There are already small electric grinders on the market that allow restaurants, schools, and even individual citizens to grind grains into a coarse flour, but there are not many people who want fresh, coarse ground bread.
(I have a video of the bread I make at this page.)

• When does a seed become a vegetable?
Seeds, such as lentils and almonds, can be eaten as seeds, or they can be soaked in water and allowed to sprout, and then we can eat the sprouts.

How many hours after one of these seeds is put into water does it change from becoming a seed to a vegetable? From a nutritional point of view, does it matter if we eat them raw or sprouted?

Children should be taught about aging
Imagine your next door neighbor calls you over to visit his beautiful rose garden. However, instead of seeing flowers, you see very old plants that are starting to die. Imagine that he boasts to you:

“My rose garden is beautiful.

The roses are in their golden years!”

This is exactly what is going on with humans. The philosophy in America is that our golden years are from age 65 onward.

The American attitude is that "work" is bad, and "play" is good. According to this theory, our retirement will be the best years of our lives because retired people can spend every day playing, just like children.

People over 65 have their own money, and they can spend it any way they please. Therefore, according to the American philosophy, retired people are happier than children because they can play all day, and they have their own source of money.
Does life begin again at age 50?
There are an enormous number of people who say that it wasn't until there were over 50 that they started to enjoy life. Some of them say the change was so dramatic that it's like having a second life.

Unfortunately, it is an illusion that life begins again at 50, or that our golden years start at age 65. To understand this illusion, consider this extreme example:

In 1991 the Americans began a wild bombing of Iraq. Imagine that you were to follow the life of one of the orphan children who was in one of the bombed cities. If he was 4 years old in 1991, he will be 20 years old in 2007, and all of his memories about life will be of water shortages, food shortages, bombings, and misery.

If after another 10 years the Americans and Israelis are finally forced out of the Middle East, the Arabs will start to clean up the mess and start to get their lives back together.

If another five years passes before life returns to normal, the child in this example will be 35 years old. Imagine him saying to you:

 
“Grow old is so much fun! When I was young my life was awful... constant bombings, hunger, and thirst. Now that I'm 35, I enjoy life. There are no more bombings! I can't wait until I'm 80 years old.”
Most people today are growing up with abuse, deception, and manipulation. For a few examples:
• Adults try to manipulate children into desiring certain products.

• Thousands of different religions are claiming to be the correct religion.

• We are taught unrealistic philosophies, such as work is bad and play is good, and that the more wealth and fame we have, the more happy we will be.

Children are essentially being raised in an insane asylum. They pick up all sorts of absurd attitudes and philosophies. It can take decades for us to sort through the crazy ideas and figure out what makes the most sense.

Many people don't figure out how to enjoy life until they are over 50, and then some of them make the mistake of assuming that life doesn't become enjoyable until we are older than 50.
 

Humans were designed to live 45 years 
Throughout most of human history, average lifespan was between 40 and 50 years. We are told that this is because of bad nutrition and primitive technology. However, the evidence is overwhelming that the human body was designed for about 45 years.

By the time we are about 50 years old, our bodies are noticeably deteriorating. For a few examples:

• Our eyes lose the ability to focus on objects close to us.
• Women's bodies don't produce hormones in the proper manner.
• Our scent glands start to fail, which causes our body odor to change.
• Our skin becomes more delicate.
• Our muscles become less capable of work.
• Our joints start to deteriorate.

Why do people retire?
Most people retire when there are about 65 years old, but many people with physically difficult jobs retire earlier, such as athletes, policemen, and soldiers. Why do people retire? And why do some people retire at an early age?

Once you realize that the human body was designed for about 45 years, retirement will make sense.

Nobody wants to retire. Rather, a person starts thinking of retirement when his body and mind have reached the point of deterioration where it becomes difficult or painful to continue working. Some people are in bad physical or mental shape even when they are teenagers, so they will like the idea of retirement even before they get a job. However, if somebody is in good physical or mental health, he will want to do something with his life, not retire.

If we could accept the fact that people deteriorate with age, we could design our society so that people in good health take the more physically demanding jobs, and the old or weak people take the physically easier jobs. For example, when hiring teachers, we could give first preference to old people.
 

Do we live longer? Or die more slowly?
Many people believe that modern technology allows us to live longer. A more accurate description of what technology is doing is that technology extends our death. The human lifecycle is still exactly the same as it was in 6000 BC:
• Infancy, for a year.
• Toddler, a few years of learning to walk and talk.
• Children, many years of playing with other children.
• Teenager, a few years of preparing to support ourselves and find a mate.
• Adult, from 18 to 45 when we raise children.
• Old age, from age 45 onward.
The time periods within this lifecycle have not changed! However, technology is allowing us to extend our old age by several decades. This creates the illusion that we are living longer, but we are merely prolonging our death.

You better enjoy your life during the first 50 years because all you have after 50 is your slow deterioration and death. You can tell yourself you're getting better after 50, but that won't make it true. After 50 we are not really "living". Rather, we are "adjusting our life to compensate for our deteriorating body".

The deterioration becomes extreme by age 65, which is why most people want to retire by that age. People over 65 are not "living"; rather, they are merely "existing from one day to the next".
 

Why are we spending our best years in school?
Our current philosophy towards life is that children should spend their entire youth in school, and then they should go to college. By the time some people are finished with college, they are in their 20s or 30s. The extreme cost of college then requires that they spend additional years trying to pay back the expenses.

This doesn't seem strange if you assume people live an average of 72 years, but once you realize that we were designed to live only about 45 years, you realize that these people wasted the prime years of their life in school.

I think it would be better if we sped up the process of educating children. School should be less frivolous and more practical. The children who want to learn something complicated, such as engineering or dentistry, should also be provided with practical job training, not frivolous courses that require they spend their life in school. 

Is it better to get married later in life?
Throughout most of human history, girls got married in their teenage years or early 20s, and they starting having babies immediately.

During the past few decades people have been getting married later in life, and birth-control techniques are allowing couples to delay having children. There are also a lot more divorces, and technology is allowing abortions to become popular.

Many people consider these changes to be an improvement in human live. Supposedly, our ancestors would have loved to get married later, get divorced more often, and have abortions.

However, I think these are symptoms of trouble. I think that children are being raised in a terrible environment that creates confusion, awkwardness, and fighting.

There are lots of other symptoms that people today are unhappy and lonely, such as people whose best friends are television sets and dogs; people who shop or eat simply to bring some momentary pleasure into their dreary lives; women who are so desperate to be touched they pay for massages; and men who pay for sex.

I think that if children were raised in a better environment they would have an easier time socializing, and they would not waste their youth trying to figure out what they want from life. They would get married earlier, have children earlier, and have fewer divorces. If people were happier, they should also spend less of their life trying to titillate themselves with money, fame, and sex.
 

Why are there so many abortions?
There are lot of arguments over whether abortions should be legal, but I never hear people discuss this issue of why so many women want abortions.

A fetus is attached to the inside of a woman's body, so aborting a fetus is a difficult procedure. The woman's body does not want to let go of it. Why do millions of women want to go through such an unpleasant procedure?

Many of the people who oppose abortion seem to think that women have abortions for fun, but nobody would want something ripped out of their body for fun.

The people who support abortions have the attitude that abortions are a "right", but that is like saying we have a right to pull our ears off. Who wants such a "right"?
 

Are Zionists using abortion to stir up fights?
None of the people who argue about abortions ever discuss anything intelligent, such as, "Why are there so many abortions today? Why is divorce increasing? Are relationships improving, or getting worse?"

Now that I realize that the Zionist movement is running horrendous scams and deceiving us with their media companies, I suspect that the Zionists are taking advantage of the abortion issue to keep people fighting.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, a Republican candidate, Alan Keyes, was given publicity by the Zionist media, but his only concern seemed to be outlawing abortions. How can such a simpleminded person qualify as a presidential candidate?

At that time I thought it was just another sign of how stupid the Republicans are, but now that I am aware of Zionism I wonder if the Zionists promoted him as a candidate in order to stir up fights. Putting somebody like him into a political contest is like tossing a piece of meat to wild dogs. Millions of arrogant voters react to Alan Keyes by arguing about abortion. While they argue, they don't notice that all candidates are Zionist puppets.

The Zionist media could be discussing abortion in a serious manner, but they never do. It's very likely that this is a deliberate decision on their part in order to encourage people to behave like arrogant jerks who fight with one another.


Why do pro-life people care about fetuses, but not children?

The people who oppose abortions claim that they love life and consider abortion to be murder; they refer to themselves as "pro-life". However, once the baby is born, they have no concern for what happens to it.

For example, if the baby is a boy, and if he is abandoned in the Boystown orphanage, he and other boys could be raped by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts and other politicians at parties in Washington, DC, but the pro-life people won't care.

If the pro-life people were truly the loving people that they claim to be, they would care what happens to a baby after it is born. They would care about the quality of life. Their lack of concern shows that they really don't care about fetuses.

The opposition to abortion seems to be due to our craving to feel special.

Opposing abortion is a quick and easy way to stimulate ourselves.

We could describe this as mental masturbation.

Some anti-abortion people suspect that they would have been aborted if abortion had been acceptable and easy. These people are not interested in devising a sensible policy for abortion, either. Rather, they are feeling sorry for themselves. This is just a different type of mental masturbation.

When a group of pro-life people sit in a circle and boast about how they believe abortion is murder, they create what is known as a circle jerk.
 

Stale eggs and sperm
It has been noticed for years that the older a woman is, the more likely she is to give birth to a retarded child. This could be due to the age of the mother's body, and it could be due to the age of the egg.

A girl is born with a certain number of eggs in her ovaries. The microscopic eggs remain in her ovaries for at least a decade before they are mature enough to be fertilized. During that decade they are exposed to radiation, chemicals, and heat (such as from fevers and saunas). If she delays having children until she older than 30, her eggs will have been exposed to more than 30 years of abuse.

A woman 30 years old may produce a child that is intelligent and well behaved, and that would make it appear as if it doesn't matter what age the woman is when she has children, but for all we know that child would have been in even better mental and physical condition if the egg had been used 10 years earlier.

Men produce fresh sperm all the time, but the cells that produce the sperm are subjected to damage. Furthermore, modern technology, such as saunas, allows men to heat their testicles to high temperatures. For all we know, men will produce better quality children if they have their children sooner in life, and if they avoid saunas until after they've had children.

Shouldn't we look into the issue of stale eggs and sperm before we advise couples to delay having children?

We may be creating a generation of low quality children by encouraging people to have babies late in life.
 
 

If the human body was designed to live only about 45 years, the women who are waiting until they are 35 to have children are waiting until their getting near their old age.

Is feminism a sign that humans are advancing?
Throughout most of human history, men and women had different roles in life, and boys and girls were treated differently. Women spent most of their time with women and children, and men spent most of their time with men.

The feminist movement became intense in America when I was a child during the 1960's and 1970's. For example, a lot of money was spent on advertisements for television to change the "old-fashioned" attitudes towards rape and venereal disease. We were told that even "good girls" get venereal disease and are raped.

Prior to the feminist movement, it was assumed that the women who got venereal disease or who were raped were the less desirable women. We can understand those "old-fashioned" ideas if we separate all the women into two groups; those with venereal diseases, and those without. Or separate them into those who have been raped, and those who haven't. Then compare the two groups.

You can do this with men, also. Separate the men into those who have raped somebody, and those who haven't. Or those with gambling problems, and those without.

You will discover what people have known for thousands of years: problems are not occurring randomly. Rather, a certain percentage of the population experiences a lot more problems.

Tornadoes, earthquakes, and droughts affect people randomly, but gambling, rape, and alcoholism is not occurring randomly. The unavoidable conclusion is that each of us is at least partly responsible for these types of problems.

It is certainly true that occasionally a woman is raped because she happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but most women are raped by people they associate with.

The people who suffer the most problems in life are the people with the lousiest minds. Some of these people are intelligent -- according to our school system -- but they make terrible decisions on who to trust, what to do with their money, and how to treat other people.

People tend to associate with people who are similar to themselves. The people with lousy minds tend to associate with other people with lousy minds. Not surprisingly, these people often have neurotic and abusive relationships.
 

Where is the evidence that women have been suffering? 
The feminists complain that women have been suffering for thousands of years, but where is the evidence that women have been abused by men? Their complaints don't even make sense. For example:
• Feminists complain that women have not been able to vote or own property or businesses until recently, but until about 200 years ago, almost every man was a farmer, and they were only a few businesses. Money was not even common until a few centuries ago, and neither was voting.

• Feminists complain that women had to do household chores and raise children rather than have jobs outside the house, but how many women centuries ago were interested in the physical labor that men were doing? Besides, there weren't many "jobs". Most men were farmers.
 

Why do women complain about being left at home?
The only interesting complaint from the feminists is that men expect their wives to sit at home all day, like a dog waiting for its master. This is interesting when you realize that men have been behaving like this for thousands of years, but women never complained about it before, so why are they complaining now?

All throughout history men have been getting up in the morning and abandoning their wife and children as they go off into the fields, or do whatever work they did.

However, the women centuries ago did not consider this abusive. People lived in close contact with one another, and once the men left home, the women and children spent the day together. The women would socialize as they did whatever chores the women did.

This lifestyle was still happening to a certain extent during the early 1960s. The men in the neighborhood would take off to their jobs every morning, and all that remained in the neighborhood were women and children. Only a few of the women had jobs.

The women would do household chores, and they would sometimes get together for meals, or to socialize. They would sometimes do things with their children, or with the schools. They would also arrange for social events for the adults. I don't know what the young girls were doing, but the boys were outdoors with one another most of the day.

I remember that time of my life as being very pleasant and relaxed for both the mothers and the children. I don't remember any of the women or children showing signs of suffering. So why would women complain about it now?

I don't think women complain about that type of life. Rather, I think women are complaining because most of them no longer have that type of life.

The situation for women and children has changed dramatically, especially during the past few decades. Four significant changes are:

1) Large houses isolate people

The desire to live in large houses on large plots of land is isolating people from one another. Unlike our ancestors, who only had to take a few steps out of their house to meet their neighbors, we have long distances to travel.

This is especially true of the wealthy families who have such large plots of land that parents have to drive their children to visit other children.
 

2) Racial problems make neighborhoods less friendly
When a society becomes wealthy, poor people in neighboring nations offer to work at low cost. Most people cannot turn down such an offer. As a result, in some parts of America, Belgium, and and other nations, half the population of a city are foreigners who are being used as cheap labor. This creates racial tension in the schools and neighborhoods.


3) Our neighborhoods are not homogenous

Throughout most of human history, the people within a town had very similar beliefs as everybody else in that town. Today migration is extremely common. The result is that within one town there might be hundreds of different religions and philosophies towards life, and a dozen different races and languages. This variety makes it difficult for people to find friends and get along with one another.

It is important to realize that most of the attitudes that interfere with the formation of friendships are arbitrary beliefs that were picked up during the course of our lives. For example, I've heard Catholics make snide remarks about Protestants, but if those Catholics had been born into a Protestant family, they'd be making snide remarks about Catholics.

Humans are arrogant, so we assume that everybody with different beliefs is inferior. Since most of these beliefs are arbitrary, many people have suggested that we could reduce this problem if all children were raised on the same philosophy and language. But what would that philosophy be? And how can any nation deal with this issue when the government is corrupt, and the voters are incompetent?


4) The fear of crime

When I was young, the boys would spend most of their time outside the house. There was no fear of children being kidnapped, so we would do whatever we pleased and go anywhere we wanted.

Crime and corruption have increased dramatically during the past few decades. Rather than deal with this situation in a sensible manner, most people react like a frightened rabbit. Specifically, they hide themselves and their children in the house, and many people get security devices and guns. Many parents today drive their children to school, even though the school is just a short distance away.

This fear of crime is putting a burden on the parents, especially the mothers who stay home with their children.

Why don't feminists help us deal with our problems?
Feminists complain that women are bored and lonely sitting at home, but this situation is not the result of a conspiracy by men to abuse women. Rather, our societies are degrading for a variety of reasons, such as our irrational use of technology, the rise of organized crime, corrupt governments, and the desire to live in large houses on large plots of land.

However, we can improve our situation if we want to. For example, our cities are haphazard jumbles of businesses, industries, garbage dumps, houses, and roads. We don't yet have any serious city planning. Certainly we can design cities that will provide us with enough space to live comfortably but without creating isolation and loneliness.

Technology has changed life for both men and women. We need to discuss how to handle our technology. Instead, all we get from feminists is anger, pouting, and whining. This is evidence that the feminist movement is dominated by women who are having a temper tantrum; they are not a group of happy, intelligent women who are trying to help understand our problems and make the world a better place.
 

Is feminism a symptom of unhappy women?
My assumption years ago was that many women were frustrated with modern life, but they didn't understand what was wrong, so their reaction was to have a temper tantrum. This behavior is very common with children. When something is bothering children, they cry or have a tantrum. The purpose is to notify adults that something is wrong.

I assumed that the feminist movement was a temper tantrum of adult women, and that the men should investigate to find out what is bothering the women, and then they should correct it. Unfortunately, most men are also confused and frustrated with modern life, so they can't help the women. As a result, the feminist temper tantrum goes on and on, decade after decade.

When a large percentage of women or children become frustrated, angry, depressed, or rebellious, and when it goes on year after year, it is a sign that the men are doing a terrible job of managing society.
 

Are Zionists taking advantage of frustrated women?
Some people think the Zionists decided to take advantage of the frustration of women in order to break down society. According to this conspiracy theory, some Zionist Jews decided to encourage fights by promoting the nonsense that women have been abused by men all throughout history, and that women should start demanding their rights so that they can finally enjoy life.

This seems like a crazy conspiracy theory, but many of the feminists who were promoting this nonsense were at least partly Jewish, such as Betty Friedan, Naomi Wolf, and Gloria Steinem. Furthermore, a lot of Jews are promoting crop circles, remote viewing, and other nonsense. The Zionist movement has a history of promoting nonsense and instigating fights.

This conspiracy theory would explain why the Zionists, who dominate the media, won't allow any intelligent discussion about feminism. As with the abortion issue, the Zionists only allow fights and tantrums.

Who would believe that men and women have identical physical abilities?
Some ideas promoted by the feminists are so stupid that it really does appear as if there is a conspiracy to instigate fights. For example, during the 1960s we were told that men and women were virtually the same in physical qualities.

I got into an argument with a girl in my high school who was convinced by the feminists that men did better in sports only because they got more training, and that if women had equal training, there would be no reason to separate us in sports contests.

Men -- and some women -- were resisting the idea that we were identical in physical qualities, so in 1973 a tennis game was arranged between Billie Jean King, the woman's champion, and a retired male champion, Bobby Riggs. This was supposed to prove that male and female athletes were identical.

It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that women are more flexible, and men are stronger. There may be other differences, also.

When feminists claim that men and women are identical in physical qualities, they make women look stupid, and they annoy the men.
 

Were Zionists pushing the theory that men and women were identical physically? If so, were they doing this in order to create fights between men and women, or were they actually so stupid that they believed it?


 

Men and women are different

I never believed the propaganda that men and women have identical physical qualities, but when I was a child I believed the propaganda that men and women were identical in mental qualities.

During high school it occurred to me that there are some differences between our minds. For example, it seemed to me that the girls did not have much of an interest in sex compared to the boys. I thought I had made an important discovery. However, I later discovered that people have known this for thousands of years.

The feminists are giving boys and girls unrealistic views about life. I think this is one of the reasons that children today are having so much trouble socializing and forming stable relationships.

The feminists fool girls into thinking that they can find a husband who is their "equal" and their "best friend". They fool the girls into looking for a man who will talk to them like a girlfriend; a man who likes to shop, dance, and play with babies; a man who will be with them when they give birth; and a man who enjoys their gossip about other people. The feminists ridicule the "old-fashioned" marriages as being similar to that of a man and his dog.

Unfortunately, girls who follow the feminist philosophy will spend their entire lives searching for a man who doesn't exist. The philosophy that a man and a woman can be "best friends" is nonsense. The best friend a woman can have is another woman. Men and women are not very compatible.

Women will be much happier if they spend most of their time with women and children, and men will be happier if they spend most of their time with other men. The only way men and women can spend a lot of their time together is if one of them is very submissive.
 

Why is divorce increasing?
Feminists claim that divorce is increasing because it's easier for women to support themselves today. Centuries ago, when everybody was a farmer, it was difficult for a woman to raise a family by herself. According to the feminists, the women were tolerating the abuse by their husbands only because they needed a man to provide financial support. However, there is no evidence to support this theory!

I think one reason that divorce is increasing is because feminists are giving people an unrealistic view of what to expect in a relationship. People's expectations are clashing with reality, resulting in fights.

For example, feminists consider men to be selfish for not wanting to eat dinner with young children or babies, but why should men have dinner with babies? Women are attracted to babies, not men.

Did you notice that in the painting from 1663 there are no babies, and only a couple small children? I remember many situations like that when I was a child. Specifically, the adults would get together for dinner, and the children would leave them alone.

A larger, high-resolution image is here
 
Men and women are not identical; we are not unisex creatures. The only relationships between men and women that are truly stable are the "old-fashioned relationships". Until we accept and understand our differences, and design our society to take these differences into account, we will continue to experience frustration, fights, and loneliness.
What are the differences between men and women?
If  we would accept the fact that men and women are different, then we could investigate and discuss what the differences are. For example, Is the best diet for a woman the same as for a man?

Many people have noticed that women like vegetables more than men. Is this because of "culture"? Or is it because women have a natural tendency to eat more vegetables?


 

Women are letting their sexual inhibitions get out of control

Thousands of years ago children grew up around nudity and sex. There were no bathrooms for people to hide in; there were no hospitals for women to give birth in secrecy; there were no bathing suits; and there were no special clothing for women to hide themselves when they nursed their babies.

Technology has allowed people to hide their bodies, but it has been taken to such an extreme that many boys grow up without knowing what a girl's body looks like, and without ever seeing a woman nurse a baby.

There is a tremendous fascination in America for women's breasts, and I suspect that it is mainly because we have taken the hiding of women's bodies to such an extreme that boys have no idea what a woman's breast is.

To make the situation worse, there is constant sexual titillation on television, in magazines, and in advertisements. Boys and adult men are sexually titillated every day of their lives.

Women add to the problem in lots of ways, such as by shaving under their arms. The hair under our arms serves a useful purpose; specifically, it prevents the skin from rubbing against itself. Women would be more comfortable if they left their hair alone, and it would reduce the sexual titillation of men by a bit.

There is no evidence that children of previous centuries suffered psychological damage from the nudity of their era, but despite the lack of evidence, most people today assume that they are protecting children by hiding naked bodies, sex, and childbirth.

I think we are doing the exact opposite. I think that if boys were to see naked women, it would help them to realize what women are; namely, female humans. If boys were to see women nurse babies, it would help them to understand what a breast is; namely, a piece of flesh to feed babies. And if boys were to watch a woman give birth, they would realize what a vagina is; namely, an opening for a baby.

The hiding of women's bodies does not protect boys from anything; rather, it causes them to be curious about what's under the clothing. It also causes boys to get carried away fantasizing that a woman's body is some sort of sexual toy.

Women have strong inhibitions about their body and sex, but this did not cause a problem centuries ago. Today, however, technology is allowing women to take their inhibitions to such an extreme that it is causing trouble for us. To make the situation more bizarre, we consider "toilet humor", such as the movie Borat, as family entertainment.
 

What are the differences between male and female minds?
During the first few years of life, boys and girls are very similar to one another in physical qualities. However, boys are born with larger brains, more than 10% larger on average, and this size difference remains throughout our lives. The feminists dismiss this as irrelevant, but what evidence is there that 10% percent of our brain is irrelevant?

It has been obvious for thousands of years that there are differences between the minds of men and women. For example, women are better at learning languages; they can pronounce words more clearly; and they sing much better. They also have much better coordination of their fingers, which is why their handwriting is nicer.

The average man is taller than the average woman, but the tallest woman is taller than most men.
If the same pattern is true of intelligence, that means the most intelligent woman is more intelligent than the majority of men.

However, almost every man has noticed that it's not quite that simple. Even a stupid man can outperform an intelligent woman in certain tasks, such as automobile repair and plumbing.

There is not much of a difference between the height of men and women, but there is a significant difference between our mental abilities. Women are far below men in regards to mechanical abilities, math, engineering, and what we call "thinking".


 
In some mental tasks, the stupid men can outperform the intelligent women.
The only women who come close to a man in regards to thinking abilities are the masculine women; ie, the women who have little interest in taking care of their children or being with other women. The intelligent women are oddballs among women. They are like the men who become hairdressers or dancers. Many of these intelligent women even have masculine bodies and faces.
Should boys and girls be separated in school?
Boys and girls seem to mix well together during their preteen years, but because of our differences in personalities and intelligence, I think it would be better if we separate them as teenagers. They can be in the same school, but in separate classes.
Why are women ashamed that they are dumb?
There is no sign that the women centuries ago cared that men thought of themselves as more intelligent; there was no feminist movement. Today women are extremely sensitive to the issue. What has changed?

Men don't care if somebody claims that women are better at handwriting. Actually, I noticed this while I was in elementary school. However, I wasn't envious of the girls, and I didn't hate them for it. Rather, I was impressed by their abilities.

I feel the same way about men who are more talented than me. When I encounter a man with more talent in music, juggling, math, athletic ability, or engineering, I don't hate him. I don't try to prove to him that I'm just as talented as he is. Rather, I am impressed.

Why do women become angry when men say they're more intelligent than women? Why are they so defensive? Why do they want to prove to us that they are just as intelligent as we are? Why can't they accept what they are? Why can't they enjoy being a woman and enjoy what men offer?

Perhaps it is because our school system is giving children the impression that intelligent people are better than stupid people.
 

Why can't we discuss this issue in public?
There are never any serious discussions in public about the differences between a man and woman's mind. Who is stopping us from discussing this issue?

Your first thought might be that the women are stopping us from talking about this, but men dominate the media, the schools, the government, and almost everything else. Therefore, men must be stopping the discussion. So, why are men stopping themselves from discussing this issue?

Take a look at what happened to Harvard University president, Lawrence Summers, when he responded to complaints that there were not many women in engineering or science. He responded that women are not as good in engineering and science, and don't have much interest in those fields. One article about it is here.

The news reporters could have simply reported his remarks and let the public discuss the issue among themsevles, or they could have started a discussion about whether there are differences between men and women, and if so, what they might be.

However, the news reporters decided to condemn his "sexist" remarks, and they located feminists and other experts to condemn his sexist remarks.

Virtually every media company is dominated by men, and we can be certain that all of those men consider women to be less intelligent than men. Therefore, we can be certain that a decision was made by those men to take advantage of those remarks in order to stir up fights between men and women.

Why would media companies want to start fights? Because they are dominated by Zionist Jews. The Zionists have a history starting fights between different races, religions, and nations. It is part of their centuries-old fantasy of getting control of the stupid Goyim.
 

What good does it do to let women vote?
More than a hundred years ago some women started to complain that they wanted to vote. The men should have asked themselves, "Why do the women want to help us manage society? Are we doing such a lousy job that the women believe that they can help us?"

Unfortunately, men reacted by giving women the right to vote. This has not done anything to improve governments or society. In fact, it is possible that the governments have become even more corrupt as a result.

From my own personal observations, most women don't pay any attention to the voting process, and women cannot think very well, anyway. They make decisions about who to vote for based on who their friends are voting for, and based on how often the candidates smile. Letting women vote is like letting children vote.

Of course, most men don't pay any attention to the voting process, either, and most men don't think very well. Our voting system is another problem that we need to deal with. Our voting system is easily cheated, and most voters are so incompetent that they don't see anything strange about an election between Al Gore and George Bush. People like Gore and Bush should not even qualify as candidates.
 

Normal women are dominated by feminists
The "normal" women are childlike and submissive. They are easily manipulated and intimidated. The feminists seem to be abnormally masculine, so we should expect them to dominate the normal women.

If men were doing their job properly, they would protect the normal women from these masculine feminists. Unfortunately, the men are too confused with modern life to take care of themselves.
 

Women do not respect incompetent men
Women and children are submissive, and they will look to men for guidance. If the men are doing a good job of managing their family and society, the women will be happy to let them continue. However, if the men are incompetent, corrupt, selfish, or neurotic, the women and the children will rebel.

Men cannot demand women to obey them. Men must behave in a respectable manner; men must earn respect. If they do, the women and children will follow voluntarily.

Do you have any respect for the men in control of society? If not, how do you expect women or children to look to men for guidance? How do you expect women to consider men more intelligent when we are doing such a terrible job of managing the world?

We need some respectable men to come forward and help fix this world. If we can do this, the women and children will gladly follow.