C O N T E N T S

Our government ignores problems Our craving to be nice is causing tremendous troubles The human mind is a hoarder of information Genetics is the most important aspect of an organization Some of us must take an active role in setting our future Teams, not individuals, will determine the future People who crave leadership are not necessarily useful as leaders Some people are genetically superior The social sciences need to be tossed in the trash

I was interrupted a lot as I was putting this document together. I ended up rambling on so much that I decided to break it into three documents and discard a lot of it. I'll post the other two documents later. The documents seem a bit messy, but I have to get back to work. Hopefully you'll find something of interest in these documents.

Here is a video that shows trucks routinely crashing into bridges that are 11 feet 8 inches above the road, which is slightly too low for many trucks. Two images from the video are below.

Ideally, the people who design roads would follow standards so that "typical" vehicles can pass under the bridges. Furthermore, if somebody makes a mistake and designs a bridge that is too low to the ground, the government should respond by looking for a way to solve the problem rather than allow the problem to continue year after year, decade after decade.

It would be difficult to increase the height of those particular bridges because they are designed for railroads, but it would be easy to dig up the road and make it deeper. So why doesn't our government make those roads deeper? Why is our government ignoring the problem?

Some people might respond that it would require a lot of tax money and resources to make the roads deeper, but we are wasting a lot of labor and resources by allowing trucks to crash into the bridges.

Furthermore, we give billions of dollars every year to Israel and other nations, so how can anybody claim that we don't have enough money to fix our roads?

Imagine if IBM executives were to behave like government officials. Visualize an IBM warehouse in which employees are driving trucks in and out of the building on a regular basis, but some of the doorways are too low to the ground for the larger trucks. Imagine that every day at least one truck crashes into a doorway. Imagine that the employees react by rushing over to clean up the mess and repair the damage, but the executives ignore the problem, thereby allowing it to continue year after year.

No business executive is so stupid that he would ignore trucks that are crashing into a doorway on a regular basis. That type of behavior is what I would expect in the movie Idiocracy. Actually, there is a scene in Idiocracy in which a vehicle destroys the entrance to a stadium because the stupid people didn't realize that they made the vehicle larger than the doorway. In case you haven't noticed, the authors of comedy routines are just exaggerating the idiotic behavior that they notice going on around them.

Why doesn't our government do something to reduce the problem of trucks crashing into bridges? We could say that there are several reasons, such as:

• Our nation doesn't have leadership. We have a government of submissive representatives who pander to the voters. If the voters told the government officials to fix the roads, then the government would fix the roads, but most voters do not take an active role in telling their government officials what to do, and the voters who ask for something are usually interested only in the issues of abortion, guns, and religion.
• Our government officials don't have the authority to do much of anything because our government was created by men who were frightened of authority. Therefore, even if a government official wanted to do something useful for the nation, he doesn't have the authority to do much by himself.
• The voters continuously elect people who are useless as leaders, and continuously ignore the evidence that our government officials are involved with crime networks.

If a business allowed the employees to vote for the top executives, and if those executives were required to be submissive representatives who pander to their particular supporters, and if none of the executives had much authority to do anything, then the business would be just as corrupt and ineffective as our government. The people who supervise businesses, militaries, and other organizations can understand this concept, but they will not apply this concept to governments.

Our government is so ineffective that the officials will not even make simple changes to improve their operations. For example, many business owners in California have to file a "fictitious business name statement" with the government. This requires the business owner to fill out a form and pay a fee to the government, and to also pay a paper newspaper to publish a brief advertisement that lets everybody know that the particular business owner is operating a business with a particular name. The newspaper has to publish this advertisement for four consecutive weeks. Furthermore, every five years the business owner is supposed to repeat this process.

The government created this law when paper newspapers were the only way of distributing information, but in this modern world, this law is wasting our time and money. Once a person gets a business license, the government should put that information in a database at their website. That would provide more people with easier access to the information than printing it in a local newspaper.

In the 21st century, there is no sensible reason for us to repeatedly waste time and money filling out the same forms, paying fees, and publishing the same information in paper newspapers. So why doesn't the government switch to keeping this information in a database? Businesses and militaries are switching from paper to electronic information, so why doesn't our government modernize its operations?

The reason our government is so inefficient is because our government officials do not care about efficiency, and the voters do not demand that they make the government more efficient. Furthermore, even if the voters told the government to modernize itself, most of the officials are so incompetent and/or corrupt that they would not know what to do.

Voters frequently whine about taxes and government inefficiency, but whining doesn't improve the situation. We have to be willing to experiment with changes to our government system, and we need to put more talented, more honest, and more responsible people into government offices. The people who are frightened of experimenting are analogous to a ball and chain around our leg.

The voters, as a group, are responsible for our incompetent, inefficient, and expensive government. Each voter insists that he is doing a wonderful job, but virtually all of the voters are doing a terrible job of selecting government officials. Some reasons are:

• Most voters follow the idiotic philosophy of voting for "the lesser of the evils" rather than demanding candidates be qualified.
• Most voters want submissive representatives rather than leaders.
• Most voters ignore or ridicule the accusations that our government is corrupt rather than demand that the police or military investigate and deal with the corruption. For example, it has been 16 years since the 9/11 attack, but most voters are still ignoring the evidence that the attack was a false flag operation to trick us into starting a war. Most voters are also continuing to ignore the accusations by an orphan, Paul Bonacci, that Senator Barney Frank and other government officials were flying orphans into Washington DC for use as sex toys at parties.

Imagine if the IBM personnel department hired Barney Frank as an executive for a two-year contract, and then an orphan testified in court that Frank is flying orphans to IBM office parties for use as sex toys. Imagine that the courts award the orphan $1 million as compensation for the sexual abuse, but the personnel department of IBM ignores Frank's involvement with pedophilia and continuously renews Frank's contract.

Furthermore, imagine that the people in the personnel department complain that the job candidates that they hired are incompetent and corrupt, but they refuse to take responsibility for it. Each person in the personnel department insists that he is making wise decisions, and he blames other people for hiring incompetent and corrupt candidates. Would you respect the people in that personnel department?

The voters should be described as incompetent for continuously reelecting a man who has been identified in a court case as flying boys into Washington DC to use as sex toys.

The voters should also be described as incompetent for refusing to acknowledge the evidence that Jews blew up the World Trade Center towers, and for continuing to support the fraudulent Mideast war, which is still going on as of 2017.

Unfortunately, the voters will not take any responsibility for their government. Each of them insists that they are making wise decisions about voting, and that our crummy government is the result of the opposing political party, the special interests, or the military-industrial establishment. Lately, some voters are blaming Valimir Putin and some mysterious Russian hackers for manipulating our elections and controlling Trump like a puppet.

Nothing is going to improve if we continue following the path that we are on right now. We must be willing to push ourselves into experimenting with changes to the way we select government officials, and the way our government operates.

Do you have the self-control necessary to be willing to experiment with a better government system? If so, do you also have the ability to discuss our options with other people and compromise on a policy to experiment with? Or would you end up arguing incessantly because you don't like any of the options?

We regard humans as being extremely different from groups of animals, but human behavior is very similar to animal behavior. For some examples:

• Groups of animals fight with each other. Every group of animals regards other groups as inferior and as potential enemies, so instead of cooperating with one another, they fight with one another over land, food, and water.

Likewise, every human nation regards other nations as inferior and as potential enemies, and we also fight with one another over land and resources.

• The "cities" of animals are chaotic. When animals settle down for the night, they create their version of a city, but it has no order to it. The leader of a group of animals does not exert much control over the others. Each animal is independent, and they don't show much concern for how their actions affect other animals. Each animal sleeps where it pleases, walks along whichever path it pleases, and disposes of food waste and body waste wherever it pleases.

Likewise, our governments provide us with a lot of freedom, and many people don't show much concern for how their actions affect other people. Our cities are almost as chaotic as those of animals. We scatter buildings, homes, trash dumps, airports, and roads almost at random. Many people toss litter, unwanted furniture, and unwanted pets wherever they please.

• Courtship procedures are idiotic. Male and female animals frequently irritate one another in their attempt to find a mate. The males sometimes irritate the females with overly aggressive behavior and rape, and the females frustrate a lot of males by making them go through silly courtship displays and then ignoring them.

Humans look for a spouse in the same stupid manner as the animals, and we cause each other the same type of frustrations.

There are some aspects of human societies that are worse than what we see with animals. For some examples:

• Humans abandon unwanted children in orphanages, and nobody cares what happens to them. Some of the orphans end up becoming sex toys for government officials, or labor slaves for businesses, but nobody cares.

There is no species of animal that I am aware of that abandons its children, and then does nothing as some of those children are used by other animals as sex or labor slaves.

• Human nations bring people in from foreign nations to serve as cheap labor. Most of them are poor, uneducated, and stupid people who are used as a low-cost source of labor, but we also import people with technical skills. However, most of the foreigners are treated as unwanted animals rather than as friends. The result is a society that is analogous to a mixture of oil and water. Those foreigners often continue speaking their own language and following their own culture, creating an unfriendly, unpleasant social environment for everybody.

There is no species of animal that I am aware of that brings other animals into its group in order to serve as low cost labor. All animals have a more friendly social environment.

• Humans use technology in an attempt to keep every baby alive, but nobody cares about the quality of their life, or whether they will fit into our society. This results in us keeping retarded children alive that nobody wants as a friend, spouse, or coworker. The defective children are tormented by other children, and as adults they have trouble finding jobs and friends. The defective children suffer a lonely, miserable life, and they are a burden on their parents and society.

Animals do not have this problem because nature kills the defective creatures.

• Humans provide handouts to people who cannot make a living. The helpless people can get assistance from government welfare programs, charities and churches, and individual citizens who give them small amounts of money.

Some of them live in the streets and eat from garbage cans, and some of the homeless families in India deliberately cripple one of their children in order to make it easier for the child to get donations by begging. Some teenage boys in Thailand castrate themselves in order to become better as prostitutes.

There is no species of animal that I am aware of that cripples its own children in order to make them more successful as beggars, or who castrate themselves in order to be more successful as a prostitute.

• A significant percentage of humans will not follow laws, and we react to crime by punishing criminals with jail, beatings, or fines. Since this does nothing to stop crime, most people live in fear of crime and have purchased locks, knives, guns, security cameras, and other security devices to protect themselves, their homes, and their businesses from the criminals.

There are no animal societies that have such a problem with bad behavior that they lock themselves into their home at night or carry weapons to protect themselves from members of their own society. Animals are afraid of other groups of animals, but not their own members.

• The pizzagate issue provides more evidence that there is an international network of pedophiles, and that many of the members are government officials, policemen, and other influential members of society, and that they are kidnapping, raping, and murdering children. There is even some evidence that some of them believe that eating or getting transfusions of the children's blood, or eating some of their flesh, will help them remain young.

Actually, the pizzagate issue is showing that the network is much larger than any of us imagined, and that the pedophiles are helping their members get into positions of importance in the police departments, courts, government offices, media, and schools.

As of January 2017, nobody in leadership positions is showing any interest in investigating the evidence that some pizza parlors in Washington DC are connected to an international pedophile network, and most of the citizens are ignoring it, also. Actually, many of the people in leadership positions are struggling to convince us that the pizzagate issue is "fake news".

Millions of conservatives become hysterical when someone promotes abortion or euthanasia, so why don't they care about stopping pedophile networks? The reason they care so much about abortion and euthanasia is because an animal has powerful emotional cravings to protect babies, and animals are also inherently nonviolent. We don't like killing people or animals. However, pedophile networks are an intangible concept that does not directly affect our emotions.

A person needs a certain amount of intelligence to understand the concept of a pedophile network, and to realize that crime networks are destructive to a nation, especially when they infiltrate the government, media, police departments, schools, militaries, and businesses, and then prevent honest people from getting into positions of authority.

Some conservatives have enough intelligence to understand these concepts, but they want to follow their ancestors, not think for themselves.

Furthermore, crime networks keep themselves hidden so well that a person won't realize that they exist unless he has been educated about certain issues. For example, if a person is unaware that criminals often use secret code words and symbols, he will dismiss the "evidence" of pizzagate as "nonsense" or as a "coincidence".

The email messages that WikiLeaks released have a lot of references to hot dogs and pizza. Do our government officials really spend that much of their time chatting with one another about hot dogs and pizza?

To make the situation more suspicious, some of the logos of the businesses, such as Besta Pizza and Voodoo Doughnut (in the photos below), use symbols that the FBI claims are used by pedophiles to identify themselves to one another.

Furthermore, a lot of government officials and billionaires are involved with businesses that display pedophile symbols. For example, Bill Clinton and the billionaire Frank Giustra created the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which is involved with the Elpida Factory, which is involved with helping children and refugees. The Elpida logo is the blue triangle, in the photo below with Frank Giustra.

The pedophile symbols also appear in products for children, such as the game The Adventures of Pan. In the image to the right, for example, a pedophile symbol is on the tree, and on three of the lanterns. Even the shape of the tree is suspicious; it resembles a butt.

Once a person has been informed about the symbols that pedophiles use to identify themselves to one another, he should consider the businesses and government officials that use those logos to be suspicious.

Furthermore, he should wonder why some government officials and journalists are putting so much effort into convincing us to dismiss the pedophile issue as "Fake News." We should be suspicious of everybody who is putting up a resistance to investigating this issue.

Investigations are not dangerous. Unless the investigation is conducted by criminals, an investigation is analogous to putting some rocks into an acid bath. Investigations can tell us who is honest and who is not, so the only people who need to be afraid of investigations are those who are dishonest.

The people who refuse to show a concern about the possibility that there is a pedophile network operating in our government, military, police departments, media, and businesses are analogous to crew members on a submarine who are so mentally disturbed that they don't care when they see water dripping through the walls of the submarine. How can anybody disregard news articles like this, in which a woman, Anneke Lucas, claims to have been sold into a Belgian pedophile network?

Most of the characters in The Adventures of Pan are young, but one of them is old, and in the description of the character, (in the image to the right), he is described as "protecting an ancient, dark secret". Also, note that his necklace has one of those pedophile symbols.

What is his ancient, dark secret? It could be just as those two children in Hampstead, England claimed, and which Vicki Polin also claimed, and which Chaucer wrote about centuries ago; namely, that there are some families involved with ritual kidnappings, killings, and pedophilia.

The people who are too stupid to understand that crime networks use code words and symbols, or who refuse to look at the evidence that crime networks are infiltrating our government, media, and schools, are dangerous as voters because they would be willing to vote for Hillary Clinton without demanding an investigation of why there are pedophile symbols in the organizations that the Clinton Foundation works with. The end result is, of course, a government that is dominated by a pedophile network.

Our method of selecting government officials is a farce. We allow anybody to vote, even if they have no concern that there are crime networks operating in the government. My father is in a nursing home, and he and other people who have had strokes are allowed to vote. No business executive would ask senile and brain damaged elderly people in a nursing home to help them select their top executives, or help them set policies for the business.

The people who believe that our voting system is a sensible method of providing ourselves with government officials should be described as ignorant, stupid, and/or mentally ill.

Animals are stupid, selfish, and crude, but they have a friendly social environment. By comparison, humans have created a social environment that belongs in a Hollywood horror movie. The miserable aspects of human societies have caused many people to criticize humans as being worse than animals, but that is an incorrect conclusion.

The reason human societies are so full of crime, pedophile networks, incompetent government officials, divorce, loneliness, suicide, orphans, homelessness, and mental illness is because we are much nicer than animals. Our kindness is causing a lot of trouble. We want to help everybody and be nice to everybody, even mentally ill freaks who cause trouble for us.

When we follow our craving to be nice without thinking about the consequences, we often end up hurting ourselves and other people. For some examples:

Perhaps the simplest example of how our craving to be nice is causing trouble is that we will feed people who are so obese that they cannot get out of their bed. The British government spends a lot of tax money feeding and caring for the obese people, while at the same time complaining that they are a financial burden on the taxpayers.

We pamper the obese people because we want to be nice to them. When they complain that they are hungry, their whining triggers our emotions to help them. Their whining is analogous to a baby bird that opens its mouth and makes noises. Just like a stupid, mother bird, we follow our emotional cravings to feed the obese people, roll them over so they don't get bedsores, clean their bodies, and do whatever else they ask.

If we were to use our intellect and analyze the situation, we would come to the conclusion that we would actually be nicer to the obese people if we refused to bring them food, thereby forcing them to lose weight.

However, withholding food would be emotionally traumatic for us. That policy would make intellectual sense, but it would be emotionally unpleasant for us. Therefore, in order to follow such a policy, we would have to exert enough self-control to suppress our craving to do what we want to do and force ourselves to do what makes the most intellectual sense. We would need enough self-control to do something that we don't want to do.

Another simple example of how our craving to be nice is causing trouble is that millions of people are abandoning unwanted pets every year in our cities because they believe that they are being nice to the animals. In reality, most of those animals end up suffering.

The people who abandon their pets are tormenting their pets, not being nice to them. They would be nicer if they had euthanized their pets. However, we have strong inhibitions about killing animals and people. This is another example of why modern humans must suppress their emotional cravings and do what makes the most sense, even if it is emotionally painful.

In the previous document of this series I pointed out that businesses and governments follow different philosophies. Imagine if some employees of IBM were abandoning pets inside the IBM office building. The management of IBM would not react by creating an animal control department that wanders through the offices to pick up the wild animals and euthanize them. Instead, the management would demand that the employees remove their unwanted pets from the building, and if they refused, they would probably be fired.

Why doesn't any government demand that the people stop abandoning pets? It is because the governments pander to the people, and the people want the government to be nice to everybody. We do not want government officials to criticize us for inappropriate behavior, as a military drill sergeant would do. Instead, we demand that our government officials give us praise, make us feel good, and tell us what we want to hear.

Most voters will not tolerate a government official who criticizes us for being stupid, cruel, or irrational. As a result, instead of electing government officials who provide us with leadership and reprimand us for abandoning pets, our government officials quietly waste tax money on animal control departments that wander through the cities, pick up the unwanted pets, and euthanize them. Our insistence that the government be nice to everybody is allowing millions of people to behave in disgusting and cruel manners that waste society's resources and cause their unwanted pets to suffer.

In order to reduce the problem of people abandoning unwanted pets, we need government officials who have the ability to implement policies that are emotionally unpleasant for us but which make intellectual sense. We need government officials who can provide us with leadership, not pander to us.

When a student is below-average in his school courses, the schools do not react by removing him from that course and trying to find something that he is capable of doing adequately. Instead, the schools criticize him by telling him that he has only earned a D or an F for his work. He will be insulted by the teachers, parents, and other students.

Adults force the dumb children to spend many years in school even though their performance is below average. Instead of learning something useful, those dumb students often develop an angry, rebellious, or sad attitude.

Our schools are tormenting the dumb children, and this is causing trouble for everybody by causing a large percentage of the population to develop unproductive attitudes, but schools don't torment dumb children because humans are cruel. Rather, we do it because most people believe that criticizing the stupid children will make them better students.

Every society promotes the philosophy that punishing people will help them become better people. We believe that punishments will cure criminals; make the dumb students more intelligent; make sloppy children clean their bedrooms; and stop business executives from abusing us.

Why did humans develop the philosophy that punishments are capable of improving people? It is because we are following our emotional cravings, just like an animal. An animal reacts to problems by either becoming angry, or by running away and hiding. In the case of badly behaved animals, animals usually react with anger rather than by hiding. They react by biting, slapping, and glaring.

It is acceptable for monkeys to react to bad behavior by slapping and kicking because that is all they are capable of doing, but humans need to push themselves into controlling their emotional cravings, think about the problem, and do what makes the most intellectual sense.

When children do badly in school, or when they misbehave at home, the children trigger our emotions of anger, and if we do what our emotions want, we will react like a stupid animal and do the equivalent of kicking and slapping the dumb children. Since punishing the children will titillate our angry emotions, we will feel good when we punish the children. Since we assume that whatever makes us feel good is appropriate, we will not be embarrassed or ashamed to punish the dumb children.

This issue is very complex. There is some truth to the theory that punishing people will help them, but there are two complexities to this problem:
1) Vicious punishments can be counterproductive.

For example, if a student did poorly on a math test, he might benefit by being told that his performance was below-average, but if we were to beat him with a wet bamboo pole, we might cause the student to develop a unproductive attitude, and we can ruin the attitude of the children who have to watch the beating.

2) There is a limit on how much each person can improve.

Every child is capable of improving his physical and mental performances, but there is a limit on how much each person can improve. Teachers and parents must recognize that they cannot continue to punish children with bad grades forever. We have to watch the performance of the students, and when we notice that they are not improving any longer, there is no point in continuing to criticize them.

We have a strong desire to help other people become better, but we also have a strong desire to do what feels good to us. The result is that when a child misbehaves, we want to help him become a better student, but we want to help him in a manner that provides us with emotional pleasure rather than help him in a manner that makes the most intellectual sense. The end result is that we help the dumb student by doing what feels good to us, which is to essentially bite and kick the student.

The punishing of dumb students is another example of how we must exert enough self-control to push ourselves into controlling our stupid emotional cravings and force ourselves to use our intellect to analyze the problem, discuss our options, compromise on policies, and experiment with more sensible solutions.

Some ways to rephrase that concept:
• We must follow policies that make intellectual sense even if they are emotionally unpleasant.
• We have to stop doing what feels good and start doing what makes sense.
• What we want is not necessarily what we need.

Another example of how people hurt themselves and one another by trying to be nice are the parents and school teachers who believe that they are helping their children by pampering them with praise, gifts, cleaning services, and household chores. The adults believe that they are being nice to the children, but they are denying them a proper childhood. Animals and humans were designed to deal with problems in life, not be pampered.

When parents pamper their children, they encourage their children to become spoiled brats. If the parents also protect a child from physical exertion, they interfere with the development of the child's muscles and bones.

The students who do good in school are pampered with praise, and this can cause them to become arrogant jerks who are anti-social rather than an inspiration. Their arrogance can also interfere with their ability to look critically at themselves, thereby interfering with their ability to improve their opinions and performance, and making them less productive in the long run.

In a previous file I mentioned that the military has to put their recruits through intensive training programs in order to compensate for the parents who are producing spoiled brats. The military must teach the recruits how to make their bed, how to clean up their messes, how to work in teams, and how to control their selfishness and consider how their actions affect other people. The military also has to put them through exercise programs because most of them are physically weak.

Businesses and military leaders are not afraid to make their members learn how to take care of themselves and get into good physical shape, and they are not afraid to tell a member of their team that he is sloppy, selfish, irresponsible, or inconsiderate, and that if he doesn't improve his behavior, he's going to be removed from the team. The leaders of businesses and militaries consider the success of their organization to be more important than the feelings of the individual members.

By comparison, the governments are more concerned with making the individual voters feel good about themselves, even if that causes the nation to deteriorate. The governments will not criticize any of us, no matter how awful we behave. The reason governments follow this idiotic philosophy is because voters will elect only the candidates who praise us. Voters will not tolerate any type of criticism, no matter how constructive it is.

Most voters would have a temper tantrum if a government official criticized them as a bad parent who is creating spoiled brats, or for being selfish, irresponsible, sloppy, or inconsiderate. Most voters would also have a tantrum if a government official criticized them for hiding from the pizzagate evidence, or from the evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust.

We allow senile people, illiterate people, and idiots to vote. We don't want to tell anybody that he is unfit to be a voter. We want everybody to feel good about themselves. We want everybody to believe that they are capable of making wise decisions about government officials and policies.

Businesses, militaries, and other organizations have to make decisions on a regular basis, but they do not allow every member of their organization to vote on what to do. The management regards the majority of members as unfit to make management decisions. All of the members are allowed to express their opinions, but they are not allowed to participate in the decisions of what to do with the company.

Comedians could create some amusing — or sad — skits in which the IBM management solves problems in the same manner as the United States government. Imagine that whenever the IBM management has to make an important decision, they not only allow all of their members to vote on the decision, they also allow all of their retired members to vote, including those who have been put into nursing homes. Try to visualize a business asking their retired and brain-damaged members in nursing homes to help them make decisions on what to do.

None of our business or military leaders are stupid enough to operate with such an idiotic system, but those same leaders will support the United States government, which operates with that system. Our military and business leaders need to stop waving the American flag and start facing the evidence that our government system is so crude that it has allowed our nation to become dominated by a crime network.

We should not be pounding our chest and boasting about ourselves, like a stupid, arrogant ape. Rather, we should be disgusted with the corruption, pedophilia, refugees, illegal immigrants, chaotic cities, and other problems, and we should be doing something to improve our nation.

The citizens who refuse to look at the evidence that there is a pedophile network in our government, or that the Jews are lying about the 9/11 attack and the Holocaust, or who refuse to do something about such problems, should be used as evidence that most people should be classified as unfit to be voters.

The only way we are going to provide ourselves with a sensible government and sensible policies is if we design a government that is based on the principles that have been successful for businesses and militaries. That means facing the evidence that the majority of people should not be allowed to vote on government candidates or policies, especially not the people who have deteriorated to such an extent that they have retired.

It will be emotionally traumatic for us to implement a policy in which people have to qualify to be voters because we want to be nice to people, not tell a person that he is unfit to be a voter, especially if he is our friend, coworker, or relative. The issue of voting is another example of how we must exert enough self-control to implement policies that are emotionally painful.

Some species of animals live together in a group, but they are not as nice to one another as people are to one another. Animals are nice to their own children, but they are competitive and cruel to one another, and they don't care about other species.

Why do humans show such kindness to one another? And why do humans also show kindness to others species? It is because the humans that were the most successful in life were those that could form teams, and this required the people to become less competitive and selfish and more interested in forming friendships with other people.

It is important to understand that when we are nice to somebody, we are doing it to please ourselves, not the other person. This issue is similar to those I described in previous documents, such as why we give food to animals, or gifts to one another.

When visitors to a zoo give bubblegum or lollipops to the animals, they are doing it to titillate themselves. They are not doing it to help the animal.

Humans have strong cravings to give food and gifts to children and one another, and we can titillate those emotions by giving gifts to animals. If we do not think about what we are doing, we may give the animal something that is harmful to it.

When a vegetarian refuses to eat meat, he is creating an image in his mind in which he is protecting the animals from harm. That image titillates his craving to help other creatures. In reality, he is not helping the animals. He is simply masturbating.

Likewise, when a mother kisses her baby, she does it for herself, not for the baby. When humans kiss puppies, they are also doing it to titillate themselves, not to help the puppy. If we were to do what the puppy wants, we would lick the puppy, not kiss the puppy. However, we don't want to do what the puppy wants us to do. We want to do what we enjoy doing.

Dogs want to lick our face, and many people interpret that as a sign that dogs are loving creatures that want to show us affection. In reality, dogs want to lick our face simply to titillate themselves. They are just masturbating. It is the same type of behavior as when a male dog tries to have sexual intercourse with your leg.

Humans evolved with a strong craving to help other people, but in this modern world, we cannot do something simply because it makes us feel good. We have to exert enough self-control over our emotional cravings to think about what we are doing and make intelligent decisions.

Businesses and militaries will not allow their members to cause trouble for the other members. For example, an employee is not allowed to make so much noise that he disrupts people in other offices, and he is not allowed to have items overflowing into somebody else's cubicle. Business and military leaders do not regard themselves as cruel when they demand that their members be considerate of one another.

By comparison, governments do nothing to stop neighbors from irritating one another. The problem is so serious that there are television programs with titles such as "Neighbors From Hell" in which we can entertain ourselves, or annoy ourselves, with stories of how neighbors are abusing one another, and how the police cannot do anything to stop it.

Although there are conflicts between members of businesses and militaries, they are nowhere near as serious or as common as the conflicts among the public. The fights between the ordinary citizens are so common and serious that governments provides citizens with restraining orders. Imagine if businesses dealt with troublesome employees by telling the victims to ask for a restraining order.

Our government officials will not behave like military or business leaders and demand that people treat one another with respect. Our government officials want to be nice to everybody, but in the process they allow fights, and they ruin the social environment of our cities. This is another example of why we should push ourselves into implementing policies that make the most sense, even if they are emotionally unpleasant.

The plan to build a telescope at the top of a Hawaiian volcano has been delayed because a small group of people are complaining that if the telescope was built, they would suffer some type of emotional turmoil.

I am not suggesting that the telescope is a valuable project. If I were to analyze all of the telescope proposals, I might come to the conclusion that it would be better to put our resources into space-based telescopes. The point I want to make is that we allow a small group of people to interfere with a construction project simply because we have a strong craving to be nice to people.

The telescope project was stopped because a small group of people were whining, not because they had intelligent reasons to stop it. Their whining triggered our emotions to comfort them. However, by feeling sorry for those people, we encourage other people to imagine that they are also being tormented when somebody proposes a project for some other piece of land.

This telescope is another example of how we must push ourselves into following policies that are intellectually sensible even if they are emotionally unpleasant. We should push ourselves into telling the people who are whining about the telescope that if they suffer any trauma from the telescope, it is because they want to suffer, and that they are making themselves suffer. We should tell them that if they choose to suffer, they are fools, and they should not expect any of us to feel sorry for them.

An issue similar to the Hawaiian telescope is that we allow people to manipulate one another based on historical events. For example, some of the black Americans are stimulating themselves into a state of anger or sadness over the historical information about slavery. Those particular black people are not trying to learn from historical events; rather, they are using historical events to stimulate hatred of Caucasians or pity for themselves.

For another example, most of the people who are alive today in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan did not participate in the events that led up to the separation of those three groups. However, the people in mainland China are not trying to learn from historical events. Millions of them are instead repeatedly reminding themselves of those historical events in order to stimulate hatred and envy of Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are promoting a "One China Policy".

Imagine if everybody was behaving in this manner. For example, imagine if a group of the Chinese people were repeatedly stimulating themselves into believing that they are part of the Ming Dynasty, and that they must re-create it. Imagine them promoting a "One Ming Dynasty Policy".

Or imagine if the people in certain parts of Europe were trying to re-create Prussia with a "One Prussia Policy".

Or imagine a group of people in England discovering that their ancestors were in France 2000 years ago, and that they were driven to England by the Romans. Imagine them repeatedly stimulating hatred of the Romans and claiming that France is part of their "One Celtic Policy".

Nobody will stand up to this nonsense because we don't want to call people stupid, or tell them to stop stimulating their hatred and start doing something useful. We don't want to make them feel inferior. We want to be nice to them.

This is yet another example of how we need leaders who will push us into following policies that make intellectual sense, even if those policies are emotionally painful. We should tell people to stop using historical events like a dildo to stimulate hatred and envy. People should be told to learn from history, and try to improve their future.

We should tell China to stop stimulating hatred with the "One China Policy" and do something to improve their society. If they were to turn China into a truly impressive nation, many of the people in Hong Kong and Taiwan would want to join them rather than remain separate.

Likewise, we should stand up to the black people who are using historical information about slavery to stimulate hatred of Caucasians and pity for themselves. Furthermore, most of the slaves were sold into slavery by Africans, so if the black Americans want to hate somebody over slavery issues, they may as well hate the Africans.

We should tell the Germans to stop feeling guilty about the world wars and start learning from the wars. There is so much evidence that Jews instigated the wars and are responsible for the Nazi party that it is ridiculous for the Germans to feel guilty about the wars and the Nazis.

The German people today should be trying to learn from that manipulation and avoid becoming victims again. However, they are not learning anything from history. For example, the Merkel government is abusing and manipulating them right now. We should tell them to stop acting like beaten dogs, but nobody wants to hurt their feelings.

We need people in leadership positions who can push themselves into standing up to people who are behaving in irrational or destructive manners. Our leaders should encourage intelligent behavior, even if it is emotionally painful.

Our colleges have created a lot of useless courses for two reasons:
1) To provide students with courses that are easy enough for them to get a diploma.
2) To provide a job for some of the graduates of those useless courses.

Our school officials are encouraging children to spend enormous amounts of money on these useless courses, and the result is that many of the students and their families waste enormous amounts of their savings, and some of them end up with enormous debts. After the students graduate, most of them discover that there is nothing they can do with their college education, except become a college professor for those particular useless courses.

Our schools could be described as cruel, abusive, and disgusting, and we could describe them as running a scam, and of being a group of criminals. So why do we behave in this horrible manner? Why don't the schools design courses to be useful?

There are lots of ways to explain why schools have been adding useless courses to the curriculum during the past few centuries, but I would say the primary reason is because people want to be nice.

For example, centuries ago college was expensive, and it was primarily for wealthy people and students with truly exceptional intellectual abilities. However, the wealthy students had trouble getting through the courses, and so the colleges added silly courses for them so that they would be able to get a diploma and feel special.

During the 20th century, millions of ordinary people became attracted to the fantasy of sending their children to college, and so the colleges added courses that are even more idiotic so that students who are even less intelligent and less interested in learning would be able to get a diploma.

In order for us to improve our school system, our government and school officials would have to tell the majority of people that their children are too stupid for college, and that their children are also lacking the emotional desire to learn and study. It requires telling the students that they don't belong in college.

The same concept applies to our high schools. In order for high schools to become more useful, our school officials would have to publicly admit that most of the students are not going to go on to college, and therefore they should learn a useful skill rather than waste their time on idiotic courses.

In a democracy, the government officials are never going to tell the majority of people that they and their children are intellectually and emotionally unfit for college.

A significant percentage of the ordinary people fantasize about having a college diploma, and democratic government officials are going to pander to them, and so will the school officials. Nobody will stand up to them and tell them to accept the fact that they are ordinary people, and college is inappropriate for them.

Businesses and militaries are regularly training some of their members for certain tasks. Some of the courses that the military puts people through are extremely expensive, such as the courses that train pilots.

It should be noted that when it becomes obvious that a student is not going to be able to succeed in his course, he is evicted from the course. The businesses and militaries do not react by creating some silly courses for the students so that they can graduate and feel special.

For example, if a business is training somebody on how to use a DNA sequencer, and it becomes obvious that he cannot understand the concept and is not going to succeed, the business doesn't create a course in "Wasting time on the Internet", as the University of Pennsylvania has created.

I think the zombie and disaster movies are showing us some Jewish fantasies, just as the UFO movies show us their fantasies of faking an alien invasion.

When a pilot in a military training program is failing to be a pilot, the military doesn't react by creating a course that he can graduate from, such as "Zombies in Popular Media", as did the Columbia College in Chicago.

I do not mean to imply that it is stupid to study how people waste time on the Internet, or why there are so many zombie movies. Actually, I suspect that an analysis of the zombie issue would show us that the reason there are so many zombie movies is because the Jews have been fantasizing for years about turning us into zombies with diseases or drugs, and then killing us.

Likewise, it could be useful for government officials to study how people spend their leisure time, and how people are wasting their life on the Internet, because that type of information could help us make decisions about what we would like to experiment with in regards to our social environment, holiday celebrations, city design, and recreational activities.

My complaint about these courses is that they are not designed to be useful. They are designed to provide students with a college diploma.

Schools should be designed the way militaries and businesses design their training courses. They should be designed to provide students with useful skills as quickly as possible.

This requires government and school officials to have the emotional ability to tell a person who wants a college diploma that he is too stupid and/or emotionally unfit for college. We need leaders who can do what makes the most intellectual sense, even if it is emotionally painful.

In a previous document I discussed a child who was killed by an alligator at Disneyland, and I pointed out that a badly behaved person is likely to encourage someone else to behave badly, and then he will encourage somebody else, and so on, until a lot of people are misbehaving.

Animals and humans have a tendency to follow one another, but the person we chose to follow is not necessarily appropriate to be a leader. We often follow people who make us feel good, or who are doing what we want to do, rather than people who provide leadership. Sometimes we end up following somebody who is pushing us into doing something we don't want to do. This is most noticeable with children. It can also be seen with the teenagers who are pushed into doing idiotic and sometimes dangerous stunts, such as "butt chugging".

Once we start doing something, the activity has a tendency to evolve through time, but usually not in a sensible manner because:

1) We rarely think about what we are doing. We usually follow our emotional cravings. For example, our craving to win competitive events can cause a casual recreational event to slowly evolve into an increasingly serious battle. The food eating contests are an example. Thousands of years ago a person might have challenged his friend to see who could eat the biggest piece of meat, but those casual contests have since evolved into events in which people are training to win food eating contests, and there are organizations of competitive food eaters, and there are contests that provide financial prizes to the winners.

As of 2017, the professional food eating contestants have developed some truly incredible skills. For example, Joey Chestnut set a world record of eating 13.7 pounds of pork in 12 minutes. Eventually some business might start selling drugs to help people expand their stomach, if those drugs are not already available.

2) The people who are most likely to modify a cultural event are those who regard the established practices as "boring", and the most likely reason that they are bored by the established events is because they are emotionally and/or intellectually defective. They want to do something that "normal" people would describe as idiotic, outrageous, or dangerous. I think the mentally disturbed people are responsible for causing initiation ceremonies to evolve from something harmless and silly to something idiotic or dangerous, such as the elephant walk or butt chugging.

Ideally, our leaders would watch over our activities and pass judgment on when they are about to evolve into something wasteful, expensive, dangerous, or destructive. However, our emotions do not want the government to take that role because it requires the government to put limits on our activities before the activities have evolved into something truly idiotic or dangerous. Unfortunately, when the government puts restrictions on an activity before it has become absurd, the people will complain that they are not doing anything wrong, and that the government is unnecessarily oppressive.

It is not easy for a government to prevent people from engaging in idiotic or destructive behavior because that behavior can develop slowly and inadvertently without anybody realizing what is happening, just as clothing and hair styles slowly change through the years without anybody realizing what is happening.

An example happened recently in India. The people in India have been flying kites on windy days for centuries. However, because of our competitive nature, and because we have a desire to fight with one another for dominance, at some point in time somebody came up with the idea of trying to knock somebody else's kite out of the air. This eventually evolved into a contest in which people would get together with their kites, and each of them would try to fly his kite so that he could knock somebody else's kite out of the air.

Because we have such an intense craving to win, people would look for ways to improve their chances of knocking somebody else's kite out of the air. Somebody came up with the idea of coating the string with pulverized glass, thereby making his string very abrasive. He would steer his kite towards the string of another person's kite, and the glass particles in his string would cut the other person's string.

Instead of complaining that the glass particles were "cheating", or that he was getting carried away, other people began putting glass particles in their strings, also. The sport had evolved to the point at which everybody was putting glass particles in their strings.

One day some people in India were playing this particular sport when one of their kites fell towards the ground, and its string crossed over a road. A family was driving along that road, and a child was looking out of the sunroof. The string rubbed across his neck, slicing through his skin and killing him. Another kite also fell down and crossed over a road, killing another child in another car in a similar manner. A third kite also fell down and crossed over a road, and an adult on a motorcycle was killed by the abrasive string of that kite.

If we could go back in time to when the first person put glass particles in a kite string, and if we told him and other people that this was a dangerous practice, the people would have responded with such remarks as, "We are just playing a game. Nobody is going to get hurt. This is harmless entertainment."

If the government had forbidden the abrasive kite strings before somebody had been killed by them, the people would have complained that their freedom was being restricted by an oppressive government that was forcing excessively cautious safety rules.

The danger of abrasive kite strings is just one example of how our intense craving to win competitions is causing a lot of our leisure activities to evolve into battles, and that our battles have a tendency to become increasingly violent and dangerous as people try to figure out how to do a better job of winning the battle.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that our activities are often altered by people who should be described as mentally inferior. For example, "normal" people would not put abrasive glass particles into their kite string. That idea is most likely to come from somebody with a neurotic craving to win, and little concern about the safety of himself or other people. People who play recreational events for fun are not likely to conceive of such concepts.

When most people fly kites, or participate in any other type of social or recreational activity, they are more concerned with enjoying themselves, the other people, the sunshine, the trees, the grass, and the food. They are not spending their time trying to figure out how they can win the contest. It is the people with abnormally intense cravings to win, or abnormally intense cravings for dominance, or who are abnormally envious or angry, who are spending their time trying to figure out how to win a meaningless contest.

Likewise, when people visit Disneyland, most of them want to enjoy themselves, not look for excuses to disregard warning signs and fences. It is the neurotic people who don't want to follow the rules, and who encourage and push other people into behaving in an irresponsible or dangerous manner.

Parents will prevent their children from getting involved with an activity that could become dangerous, wasteful, or annoying, and our government should do the same. If not, our government will allow our activities to get increasingly ridiculous.

The Indian government reacted to the three deaths by prohibiting abrasive kite strings, but if the people had been using abrasive strings in an area that was isolated from roads, they would not have killed anybody, and so the government would not have prohibited the practice. Therefore, the contest would have continued to evolve.

Eventually somebody might decide to put steel shavings or broken razor blades on his kite string, and that might evolve into kite strings that are similar to razor wire. Perhaps somebody would hang a firecracker from his kite and try to blow up somebody else's kite, which would encourage other people to use even larger explosives. Eventually somebody might use a drone to burn or explode somebody's kite, and then they would start using drones to attack other drones. Soon there would be a war going on in the sky above them. At some point in time the contest would become so destructive that the government would have to stop it.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to be concerned that their leisure activities were getting out of control because they had to spend most of their time trying to take care of themselves and their family, and they did not have much technology. Today, however, we must occasionally give our activities a critical review and pass judgment on whether they are evolving into something idiotic, wasteful, destructive, or dangerous.

If we could go back in time far enough, we would find a point at which our ancestors did not have any activities that we would recognize as a "sport". We would discover that the people only occasionally had a few simple, informal competitions, and purely for entertainment, such as when two friends were returning to their campsite after exploring the forest, and one challenged the other to see who could run to the campsite faster. They might also occasionally have a contest to see who can throw a rock the farthest, or who can throw a rock more accurately.

The casual contests of 50,000 BC evolved into the complex sports that we have today, in which people train for sports for several hours every day, as well as take drugs and hormones. Many of the bodybuilders and other athletes are also forcing themselves to eat food because they claim that it is the only way to maintain their excessively large muscles. In this modern world, we need to do checks and balances on ourselves. We need to analyze our activities and pass judgment on whether the benefit of the activities outweighs the burden. In my opinion, a tremendous number of our social and recreational activities should be classified as "out of control" and "absurd".

This issue also applies to our competition to acquire material items and land. Our natural tendency is to compare what we have to what other people have, and try to gather more than they have. This type of behavior was acceptable in prehistoric times because nobody had much of anything, and nobody could acquire excessive amounts of items. Today, however, we can produce material items so easily that millions of Americans have lots of material items that they rarely, if ever use. Lots of items are stuffed in attics, basements, and garages.

Even though most Americans have more material items than they need or use, they behave like athletes who have lost a competition. Instead of enjoying what they have, they are upset that they don't have more items and a bigger house. They continue to compare their pile of items to the piles that other people have collected, and they struggle to acquire even more items.

There is no right or wrong way to spend our lives. Every recreational and social activity has advantages and disadvantages. A modern society should discuss the benefits and burdens of every activity, and make decisions about which activities to encourage, which to quietly tolerate, and which to forbid.

A modern society requires that we be a team, and that team requires laws and cooperation. Although each citizen can have a certain amount of freedom to do as he pleases, our freedom cannot be unlimited. We must follow laws and rules. We must be supervised and coordinated.

There is no need to force everybody to spend their leisure time in exactly the same manner, but we should pass judgment on whether our leisure activities are beneficial or detrimental to society. This is not an easy decision to make, however. For example, consider the activities that create air pollution:
• Some people like "burnouts" in which they burn the rubber on their tires.
• Fireworks create air pollution, as well as littering the ground and water with firework debris.
• People create air pollution when they barbecue food, or have fires in their home.

To some people, the entertainment from these activities outweighs the pollution they create, but other people believe the pollution outweighs the entertainment value. Ideally, a society would discuss the advantages and disadvantages to our social and recreational activities, and make decisions on which activities to allow, and what rules we must follow to prevent the activities from becoming dangerous or wasteful.

Should fireworks be allowed? If so, how often should they be permitted? What areas of the city should they be restricted to? Should we restrict the chemicals in fireworks in order to reduce the air pollution? Or should we develop safer alternatives, such as projecting images into the clouds, or using drones with LEDs and lasers to create colorful patterns in the sky?

Should society support the training of children for sports events? Or should we reduce the emphasis on sports so that sports become casual, leisure activities rather than full-time jobs?

Should a society support food eating contests, beer drinking contests, or beauty contests? And if so, what should the regulations be? How much of society's resources should be put into those contests? What type of awards should the first place winner received? Which contests should give an award to the second place, third-place, or fourth-place winner?

There is no society yet discussing these issues, but if we were to do so, and if we were to experiment with our activities, we would undoubtedly discover that there are better ways of spending our leisure time than what we are doing right now. The culture that we follow right now developed inadvertently, and it is unlikely that the particular collection of customs that we are following as of today is the best that we can provide for ourselves.

Don't let your ignorance and arrogance fool you into believing that you know what you want from life. An athlete who is currently training full time for one, specific sport might assume that he would be miserable if he could not spend his life on that activity, and a person who is currently spending his life struggling to be a billionaire might also assume that there is no other way for him to enjoy life.

However, if each of us could experience life in 1000 different societies, each of us would discover that there are lots of ways to enjoy life, and that the culture we follow at this particular moment is not the culture that we enjoy the most.

By not thinking about what we are doing with our leisure time, we allow our leisure activities to change haphazardly through time. Because we have a powerful craving to compete for status, our leisure activities do not change in random ways. Rather, they have a tendency to evolve into competitive battles. Once they become battles, our craving to win causes us to put excessive amounts of time and resources into winning.

Furthermore, the emotionally and intellectually disturbed people are pushing culture towards absurd directions. They can cause an activity that was originally harmless entertainment to evolve into a wasteful, frustrating, intense, or dangerous competition.

This concept also applies to the making of money. During prehistoric times, nobody had much material wealth, and it was impossible for nomadic people to acquire much wealth. In such a primitive era, the people would have had fun competing to acquire the most furs, tools, and jewelry. They would have enjoyed the competition, and they would have inspired one another to try harder in acquiring the tools. They also would have enjoyed showing off their material items. However, in this modern world, we can produce material items so easily that our battle for wealth is absurd for lots of reasons, such as:

• Our social environment degrades when people who do not acquire much wealth become frustrated, envious, bitter, or angry.
• We waste resources, technical talent, and labor on worthless "status products" for wealthy people, such as yachts, goldplated cell phones, and mansions.
• We cause ourselves unnecessary stress and frustration when we compare our home and material items to what other people have. This includes the stress that a wife puts on her husband when she complains that her parents, neighbors, or friends have more money.
• Our homes become cluttered with items that we don't need or use.
• We waste resources on the production of products that collect dust in our attics and garages.

We will create a more pleasant social environment if our government is capable of providing us with some sensible checks and balances over our emotional cravings. We will not enjoy those checks and balances, but they will force us to live in homes that are uncluttered, and they will prevent us from wasting our time and causing ourselves unnecessary stress by comparing one another's collection of material items, and they will stop us from getting involved with idiotic or destructive competitions.

In a democracy, and in a free enterprise system, government and business leaders pander to us, but we are not going to provide ourselves with the most pleasant life by doing what pleases us. We need to exert some self-control and experiment with life so that we can give ourselves what we need, not what we want. We need to have enough self-control to force ourselves to do what makes the most sense, even if it is emotionally unpleasant.

We want the government to let us do as we please, but that is not going to give us the most pleasant life. That will give us a life in which our hairstyles, clothing styles, social activities, holiday celebrations, and recreational activities change haphazardly through time, often becoming idiotic, disgusting, wasteful, and dangerous as a result of the influence of the mentally disturbed and intellectually inferior people.

We will create a more pleasant and rational environment for ourselves if the government treats us the same way parents treat their children, or the manner in which business executives and military leaders treat their members. Our government should watch over our culture and take steps to prevent it from evolving into something ridiculous or wasteful. This requires that we be willing to accept restrictions and rules that make intellectual sense but which may not be emotionally desirable.

In a previous document, I pointed out that the military has prohibited its members from using cell phones in certain areas. A person could complain that nobody will be harmed if somebody uses a phone in those areas, but the military doesn't care what people want. The military is more concerned with the organization. The military leaders create laws according to what they believe will create the most efficient team. They don't care about what some individual soldier wants to do.

Business executives will also set rules according to what will create the most efficient business. They do not care about what some individual employee wants. They make decisions according to what is best for the team. They do not follow the philosophy that the squeaky wheels deserve some grease. They will ignore, fire, or reprimand the squeaky wheels, not appease them. They don't tolerate demonstrations, whining, or fighting.

We need the same type of attitude among government leaders. We need government officials who can put restrictions on initiation ceremonies, sports, and other activities before they become absurd, dangerous, or wasteful. We need government officials who will create laws according to what will make the most efficient and pleasant society. We need government officials that will not tolerate demonstrations or whining. Citizens should be allowed to express their opinions, but they should not be allowed to throw rocks and have tantrums. This requires the government officials to have the emotional ability to ignore the demands of the individual citizens rather than pander to them. It requires government officials who can implement policies that make intellectual sense, but which may be emotionally unpleasant.

Why don't we put restrictions on our activities right now? Because we want to be nice to everybody. We don't want to tell the college students that they are behaving like submissive retards for allowing themselves to be pushed into doing the elephant walk, or for butt chugging. We don't want to hurt their feelings.

We don't want to tell people who are trying to knock one another's kites out of the air that they are behaving in an idiotic, obnoxious, and destructive manner, and that they are also wasting resources. We don't want to hurt their feelings. We don't want them confronting us and complaining that we are insulting them.

We have to stop worrying about hurting people's feelings and start behaving more like military and business leaders. We need to face the evidence that humans are just monkeys, and we need supervision. We are not being nice to people when we let them do whatever they please and allow their activities to be manipulated by psychotic people.

We will help the college students much more when we provide them with information about human behavior, and when we encourage them to stand up to the psychotic people who push them into doing idiotic stunts. We will help the public much more when we encourage them to stop letting themselves be manipulated by psychotic people into crossing over fences, disregarding warning signs, and participating in dangerous or absurd competitions.

We are not being nice when we pander to people. We help them when we give them intelligent guidance and information, and by setting sensible rules for them to follow, even if it is emotionally painful to us and/or them.

In this amazing video, a woman in China is spitting in the faces of many passengers of a train. Most of the passengers react by either trying to get away from her or blocking the spit. Nobody will stop her. Her behavior is so appalling that it makes you wonder if she and the person filming her are doing this simply to make a popular video. If not, then she is mentally ill.

Although it is unusual to encounter a woman who spits on people, there are irritating people all around the world, and people ignore them just like the passengers on that train ignored that woman. Men are especially tolerant of abusive women, and women are especially tolerant of abusive children.

Furthermore, both men and women are very tolerant of abuse from people who are are obviously mentally ill. For example, we allow parents to take retarded children into restaurants, and if those children make noises or throw objects around the restaurant, nobody will complain. If somebody complains, he will be criticized for being cruel.

We don't demand that the retarded people be separated from the rest of us because we consider discrimination to be cruel to both the retarded people and the family of the retarded people. We want to be nice to the retarded people and their families.

By comparison, business and military leaders do not tolerate abuse, and they do not give special privileges to people who are mentally ill. If an employee of IBM were to wander through the offices and spit in the faces of the other employees, or if somebody in the military were to walk around a military base and spit in the faces of the military personnel, he would be dealt with like a criminal.

Only governments allow people to be obnoxious, sloppy, irresponsible, and inconsiderate. And only governments will allow mentally disturbed people to have special privileges. Actually, our government will allow mentally ill people to get away with crimes; they refer to it as: "not guilty by reasons of insanity".

We think that we are being nice when we allow mentally ill people to be "not guilty for reasons of insanity," but we are simply allowing them to abuse us.

Likewise, allowing retarded people into a restaurant, park, museum, music concert, swimming pool, or other facility with normal people is not being nice to the retarded people or the normal people. It is tormenting everybody.

Our emotions consider "discrimination" to be bad, but everything in life has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage to mixing people together is that everybody will feel as if they are an accepted member of the group, but the disadvantage is that the people are not a truly unified group. Although everybody in the group will be in the same physical area, they are emotionally separated from one another, and that causes frustration, awkwardness, loneliness, and fights.

We have emotional cravings to be an accepted member of a group, so we don't like the concept of discrimination. However, we ruin our social environment when we allow a person to join our group when we don't want him in our group.

For example, imagine if you were invited to a dinner with people who don't want you, but they invited you because they have to fill a government quota to invite people like you, or because they feel sorry for you, or because your mother paid them to invite you. Imagine sitting at a dinner table with a group of people that don't want you at their dinner, and all of them are ignoring you. Would you consider that to be a pleasurable dinner?

When we encourage people to discriminate against their friends, neighbors, and coworkers, we allow everybody to provide themselves with a friendly social environment. The only people who will oppose discrimination are the people who want to be a member of a group that does not want them. For example, there are some people who want to be friends of Hollywood celebrities or famous athletes. They become sad, bitter, or angry that the people they want as friends do not want them. Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for those people and invite them into our group, but that is not being nice to them. That is tormenting everybody.

Our emotions do not like the concept of discrimination, but all of us will have a more pleasant life if we do what makes the most intellectual sense, which is to discriminate with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers, rather than follow our stupid emotions, which is to believe that we are being nice to a person when we accept him as a friend or neighbor when we don't want him. We are actually being nicer to him when we force him to find friends and neighbors that he is compatible with.

When we make decisions that are intelligent, some of our decisions are going to be emotionally painful. For example, it is emotionally traumatic for us to tell somebody that we don't want him as a friend, neighbor, or coworker, or that we don't want to eat dinner with him, but it is worse to bring him into our group and then ignore him.

Our emotions cause us to feel sorry for the mentally ill people, but we are not being nice to them when we allow them to mix with us in our restaurants, parks, neighborhoods, and schools. That policy creates a miserable social environment for all of us.

We would create a much more pleasant life for ourselves by restricting the mentally ill people to their own neighborhoods, or by euthanizing them. That type of policy will be emotionally painful, so it will require that we exert some self-control and do what makes the most intellectual sense rather than what we want to do.

For a more complex example, consider the issue of vegetarians and animal rights activists who believe that farmers are cruel to raise and kill animals for food. If farmers were capturing wild animals and forcing them into pens, then we could say that the farmers are cruel because the wild animals would be in a state of stress, fear, and frustration. However, farmers are giving life to animals that never would have been born. Furthermore, the farmers give them a pleasant life, and access to higher quality food and water than what the wild animals have. Even more significant, the farmers give them a much more pleasant death. Most wild animals die in a very cruel manner, such as slowly through starvation or disease, or by being eaten alive.

The Humane Society International has a campaign to rescue dogs from Korea that are being raised for food. They have already shut down six dog farms, and are now, January 2017, begging for donations to bring another 200 dogs from farms in Korea to homes in America. These people believe that they are heroes who are saving dogs, but they are a nuisance to the Koreans and Americans. The ASPCA estimates that 2.7 million unwanted pets are euthanized every year in the United States, so bringing in dogs from other nations will make the problem even worse.

Vegetarians believe that they are being nice to animals, but if the farm animals could speak to us, I suspect that they would tell us that they would rather have a short, pleasant life as a farm animal than to not be born at all.

Some of the farms in Asia are crude by comparison to those of Europe and America, and that causes people to complain that the Asian farms are torturing animals, but the farm animals in Asia have essentially the same life as the Asian people. Most of Asia is overcrowded, filthy, and disgusting for both humans and animals. Life is also miserable for the wild animals of Asia because of the pollution and overcrowding.

If we are going to rescue the farm animals of Asia, we may as well rescue the people and wild animals of Asia, also. However, a better solution would be for the Asian nations to start doing a better job of managing their nations, farms, rivers, and wild animals.

It is not cruel for farmers to raise animals. Actually, I would not be surprised if most animals would rather be farm animals than wild animals. The reason I say this is because, as I mentioned in this previous document, most humans do not want to live like wild animals. We want to live in homes that provide us with protection from the weather, insects, and predators, and we want to waste every day lounging and eating. Humans all over the planet are constantly fantasizing about retiring early and lounging for hours while servants pamper us with food, just like a fat pig in a farmer's pen.

We are not tormenting animals when we raise them for food. We are giving the animals what they want; namely, protection from the weather, lots of healthy food, and a pleasant life with lots of time to lounge around and do absolutely nothing.

The vegetarians are reaching irrational conclusions when they assume that farmers are tormenting animals. As a result, instead of improving the world, they irritate us with their stupid complaints about eating meat, and with their idiotic protests, such as the women in the photo who complain that animals are suffering because we use animal skin and fur to make clothing.

The vegetarians also disrupt our social environment by refusing to eat the same meals as the rest of us in airlines and cafeterias, and demanding special, vegetarian meals.

Those of us who eat meat should stand up to the vegetarians and force them to stop disrupting society, but we don't want to stand up to them because we want to be nice to them. We don't want to classify them "mentally defective", and we don't want to force them to stop their protests.

The people who become vegetarians want to be nice to the animals, and those of us who eat meat want to be nice to the vegetarians. The end result of each of us trying to be nice to other people and the animals is that we torment one another. Nobody is benefiting from this irrational behavior.

Ideally, our leaders would analyze the issue of which foods are appropriate for humans, and they would provide us with intelligent guidance. Until somebody can come up with some truly intelligent reasons for humans to avoid the eating of meat, our nation should promote the attitude that vegetarians are making a mistake, and they should stop disrupting society.

Unfortunately, the people who currently dominate the world do not have the emotional desire to analyze the problems of modern society, and they don't have the intellectual ability to produce intelligent analyses of the problems. The US government doesn't even have the authority to stop the vegetarians from causing trouble, even if they wanted to stop them.

When we don't know much about a subject, we have to expect people to have different and inaccurate opinions about it. For some examples of issues that we know so little about that nobody can seriously claim to have the correct opinions:

• Does fracking cause earthquakes? If so, is that bad? Or is it beneficial to inject water into the Earth's crust in order to cause a lot of small earthquakes in order to prevent a few larger, more destructive earthquakes?
• Some people believe that methane is being produced continuously in the Earth's crust from calcium carbonate, and therefore methane should not be classified as a "fossil fuel" that will eventually be depleted, but where did the calcium carbonate come from? If it was produced from living creatures, then methane is indeed a fossil fuel, and methane will eventually be depleted if we are consuming it faster than living creatures are creating the raw materials for it.
• Was the universe created by a God, a Big Bang, or some other method?

Discussing these types of issues can be entertaining, but only if people can control their arrogance enough to avoid fighting with each other. We must realize that nobody has the answers to these questions.

There is nothing wrong with a person who wants to believe that the universe was created by a God, the ancient Roman gods, or a Big Bang. However, we can safely conclude that the organized religions are detrimental. Instead of encouraging unity and cooperation, and instead of encouraging sensible discussions about religion and other issues, they encourage people to separate into organizations that encourage arrogance, fighting, and hatred. They also demand a lot of money from their members, and some expect tax benefits from society.

It is absurd for a Christian to claim that his method of praying is better than that of a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.

I have heard some Christians criticize the Muslims because of their "idiotic" method of praying, which is to get on their hands and knees while facing towards Mecca, and praying five times a day. Christians believe that they are better than the Muslims because they pray before eating a meal, before going to sleep, and whenever they want something from God, such as a new television or a cure for their disease. Some Christians get on their knees to pray, but they think they are better than Muslims because they don't face any particular direction when they pray.

It can be entertaining to have a discussion about the universe, but people who are members of organized religions do not have pleasant discussions about religion. Rather, they have the arrogant attitude of a prehistoric tribe that regards their tribe as superior to the other tribes.

The members of organized religions insult people with different opinions; they don't discuss anything. They behave like dogs that are barking at one another. This type of behavior should be considered as disgusting, appalling, and unacceptable.

The organized religions are so arrogant and demanding that they also try to influence elections, holiday celebrations, school curriculum, and other culture. Prior to the 1991 Iraq war, some of the Christian churches were encouraging a war with Iraq, even though religious people claim to oppose war.

The organized religions are not beneficial to any society. They encourage fighting, hatred, arrogance, idiotic holiday celebrations, and wars. However, the government officials in a democracy will pander to the organized religions, not complain about their disgusting behavior. Likewise, businesses in a free enterprise system pander to the organized religions by providing them with whatever products and services they ask for.

It would be more sensible for a society to demand that religion be a personal belief about life rather than an organization. Nobody should be allowed to raise money for a religion, and the government should not provide anybody with tax or other financial benefits for their particular religious beliefs.

However, implementing that type of policy would be emotionally unpleasant for our government officials because millions of people would react by whining that they have a right to join an organized religion, and that the government is oppressing them. Millions of people would cry that they are suffering.

It would be emotionally painful for the government officials to tell the members of organized religions to shut up, stop their whining, and start behaving in a respectable manner. The government officials would need a lot of self-control to push themselves into telling the people that we are tired of their insults and arrogance.

We need government officials who have the emotional ability to demand that religion become a personal belief rather than an organization. Considering that there are millions of people involved with organized religions, prohibiting organized religions will require that the government have a lot of people who are willing to support this policy, and it will also require the police and military be willing to enforce it. Does any nation have enough people who are willing to prohibit organized religions?

Although there are lots of people who will sell defective and worthless products simply to make money, there are some businesses who reluctantly sell products that they disapprove of simply because the consumers want them, and the businesses do not want to upset the people by telling them that they are fools for wanting what they want.

For example, as soon as walnuts are removed from their shells, they start going rancid and they develop a bland, miserable flavor, but most consumers are unaware of this because they have never tasted fresh walnuts.

The proper way to distribute walnuts is to leave them in their shells. However, animals have a natural desire to do the least amount of work, so as soon as one business offers walnuts without shells, consumers will purchase them, thereby putting pressure on the other businesses to remove the shells.

Since the children grow up eating rancid walnuts, they don't realize that fresh walnuts taste better, and none of the businesses will say anything to the consumers because most consumers become angry when they are given advice or criticism. Furthermore, most of us are suspicious of advice from businesses because there are so many businesses who will deceive us in order to sell their products.

To complicate the issue, there are a few businesses selling walnuts in shells, but because consumers are ignorant about walnuts, most consumers assume "dirty" walnut shells are inferior to clean and shiny walnut shells, so businesses put the walnuts through an intensive cleaning process in order to remove all traces of the outer husk. In the process, they put the walnuts through so much vibration that they essentially give the walnuts "concussions". The walnuts develop the equivalent of brain damage.

Some of the pieces of the walnut have vibrated against one another to such an extent that they have created tiny particles that cover the pieces like dust. Those nuts go rancid inside their protective shell.

The proper way to sell walnuts is to either leave the husk on the shell, or gently scrape off most of the husk and leave the black, messy marks on the shell, and tell the consumers to ignore the "filth" of the husk.

Furthermore, consumers should be told that one of the pleasures of life is getting together with other people and doing things with them. When I was a young child, nuts were often sold in their shells. When people wanted nuts for an appetizer, they would provide people with nuts and nutcrackers, and people would crack open the nuts. This was a social activity, and it provided nuts that tasted better, and were healthier.

Walnuts become ripe at the beginning of winter, and when you heat the freshly shelled walnuts in a hot air popcorn popper for 10 to 15 seconds, they become warm, but they do not cook. I think a few warm walnuts are a nice appetizer on cold winter days. This could be another activity to enjoy with other people during the winter.

Incidentally, if you heat the walnuts too long, they develop a fishy odor. It makes me wonder if the oil in walnuts is the same oil that gives fish its fishy odor.

Pumpkin seeds are also available at the beginning of winter, and I think they are also a good appetizer on a winter day. However, they need to be in the hot air for a longer period of time, and then I like to spray them with a mist of water and then some powdered salt. Raw peanuts that are warmed up and salted can also be a nice appetizer on cold days, but it is not easy to find raw peanuts.

I think we would create a more pleasant social environment, waste less food, have healthier food, and have better tasting food, if our government, farmers, and other people would stop pandering to the consumers and start providing guidance. Most people have no idea how food is produced, and so they don't know how to select fruit, vegetables, nuts, or meat. We want people to pander to us, but we benefit from leadership and guidance.

Businesses are not being nice to us when they give us whatever food items we want. Our business leaders, or our government leaders, or both, would be much nicer to us if they provided us with intelligent guidance, but that requires they be able to stand up to the people who whine that they are being insulted or criticized.

Democracies and free enterprise systems encourage arrogance by promoting the attitude that everybody knows what is best. In reality, we are all ignorant about life. We need leaders who will experiment with life, explore our options, and try to determine what truly provides us with a better life.

We want to be nice to criminals, so we put them in a jail cell for a while in an attempt to cure them of their bad behavior. Although a few people will push themselves into behaving better after receiving this type of punishment, the overall effect of this policy is to make the problem of crime worse, not better.

The reason is because jail will make many criminals even more angry, expose them to criminals who teach them better crime techniques, and expose them to criminal gangs. Their criminal record will make it more difficult for them to get a job, find friends, and find a spouse. It will also be more difficult for them to find an apartment to live in. Pedophiles often have trouble finding a neighborhood to live in.

Furthermore, when we release a criminal from jail, we don't show any concern for how he is going to get a job, afford food, for find a place to live. We abandon the criminal in the city, just like people abandon their unwanted pets. The end result is that many of those criminals cannot find a job, and some of them don't have a home, and so they end up committing crimes almost immediately simply to feed themselves.

If we are going to punish somebody in jail, we should help him get a job and a place to live after we release him from jail. Otherwise, the criminal will become the equivalent of an unwanted pet dog that roams the streets in search of food and a place to sleep. However, we don't want to help them get jobs. Actually, we don't help anybody get a job. Everybody is on their own to feed themselves and find a place to sleep, just like a group of animals.

We like to believe that we are helping the criminals by putting them in jail, but this behavior is disgusting, cruel, and worse than what the animals do. We should not punish people with jail, and we should not abandon criminals after we release them from jail. That is not a solution to crime. That is simply tormenting both the criminals and the rest of us.

I think it would make more sense to evict criminals from the city, and if no city wants them, send them to a City of Misfits. If they are extremely dangerous or hopeless, then euthanize them. Although that policy is cruel to the criminals, it provides the rest of us with a significantly more pleasant life.

We think we are being nice when struggle to keep defective babies alive, and when we separate Siamese twins, but most of the defective babies end up having a miserable life. For example, a woman in India (in the photo) was born without a face. She has spent her entire life inside her house with her parents. Nobody wants to marry her, be her friend, or give her a job.

Since she doesn't have eyes, there are not many jobs that she could do even if people were willing to hire her, but no society has the decency to set aside jobs for any of the defective people. We keep millions of defective people alive, but we push them aside like unwanted trash, and we make them live a miserable, lonely life.

If a psychotic man were to kidnap a baby girl, blind her, tear up her face, and then keep her inside his house for her entire life, he would be considered as committing a horrible crime. He would have been described as ruining the life of that girl.

What is the difference between a baby girl who is blinded and deformed by a psychotic man, and a baby girl who is blinded and deformed by genetic defects? The effect is the same in both cases.

There are more people suffering from genetic defects than there are suffering from criminals. Furthermore, the genetic defects are tormenting people to a much greater extent. Some genetic defects torment people throughout their entire lives without even a brief moment of relief.

We are not being nice when we keep defective people alive. We are allowing them to be tortured incessantly, and we are tormenting their parents, and we are wasting a lot of resources on their medical care and surgeries.

Some of the defective people don't realize they are suffering because they don't know of any other life, and some are so mentally defective that they cannot understand the concept of suffering, but their ignorance about their suffering does not justify allowing them to suffer and cause trouble for the rest of us.

Some of the defective people end up becoming criminals, and some become homeless people, and some become alcoholics, and others eventually commit suicide. There is no sense giving life to a person who is going to suffer, or who is going to torment the rest of us.

If a person is too mentally defective to get a job and fit into society, what is he going to do with his life? What is he going to do every day? Most people don't want to think about those issues. They want to keep the defective people alive in order to titillate themselves and imagine that they are heroes for helping the defective people, but they don't want to worry about what happens to them, or what they do to the rest of us.

Modern humans have to stop doing whatever feels good and start exerting enough self-control to do what makes the most intellectual sense, even if it is emotionally unpleasant.

The miserable paintings of some artists, such as the three below, should not be described as "artwork". Their paintings should be described as "a symptom of a miserable life" or as "evidence of a serious mental illness". Those artists are not enjoying their life. They are being tormented by their genetic defects 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all throughout their lives. They are not thinking pleasant thoughts or enjoying this beautiful universe. They are thinking of suicide, ripping off their faces, or numbing themselves with drugs.

Most people ignore the artists who create miserable artwork, just like we ignore orphans and homeless people, but we should show a concern for our team. The miserable people are members of our team. We should be concerned that a significant percentage of our team is so miserable that they waste their life pouting, contemplating suicide, getting drunk, hating other people, and behaving in anti-social manners.

Some people might respond that I am cruel to describe the artists as mentally defective and miserable, but in order to improve a problem, we must be willing to admit it exists. If the artists would look seriously at themselves, they might see that they are indeed suffering from mental disorders. If they can admit that they have a problem, they might find ways to reduce it, or at least prevent it from ruining their life.

For example, Vincent van Gogh displayed mental disorders his entire life, but instead of recognizing that he had a mental disorder, he reacted with anger or depression when he encountered disappointments in life. If he had been able to accept the fact that he was mentally ill, he might have been able to understand that nobody wanted to be his friend or wife, and that he would have a difficult time making a living. He might have also been able to realize that he should keep his alcohol consumption under control.

We are not being nice when we ignore a person's mental illness and pretend that he is normal. Actually, we hurt them by fooling them into thinking they are normal. The reason is that when a mentally disturbed person does not realize he has a mental problem, he may react to his problems with anger, depression, criminal activity, or drug abuse, as van Gogh did. Rather than improve his situation, his inappropriate reaction will cause him to be an irritation to other people, and that in turn will make his life even worse.

We are not hurting mentally ill people when we tell them that they are mentally ill. We are simply providing them with some valuable information about themselves. If they want to react to that information with anger or pouting, that is their choice, but we should at least give them the information so they have the opportunity to improve themselves.

When a person sings a song, draws a picture, or creates a statue, his intellectual and emotional qualities influence the decisions that he makes. Artists who enjoy life are likely to create artwork that is pleasant, and they will sing songs in a cheerful tone. Artists who are miserable are more likely to create miserable paintings, and to sing songs with an unpleasant tone of voice and of an unpleasant subject.

The artist who created this artwork is supposedly one of Tony Podesta's favorite artists.

I suspect the opposite is also true; specifically, the artwork that we are attracted to gives us an indication of our emotional state. People who are angry, for example, are likely to be attracted to angry and violent artwork, and people who are sad are likely to be attracted to sad songs.

If we had a database with all sorts of details about our lives, we would be able to see what type of art and music each of us likes, and how our desires change according to events in our life. For example, we might notice that when people are experiencing problems, such as trouble finding a job, or when they are going through a divorce, they might spend more time listening to angry songs. This information would be useful for everybody because it could help us notice problems in ourselves, friends, family members, and coworkers.

The database would also show us who is attracted to the type of art in the image to the right, and that might help us understand why they regard that as art.

If a poll were conducted to ask people if they are enjoying life, most would probably respond "yes", but how can any of us be sure that we are happy when we have never known of any other life? How can we determine if we are satisfied with life?

My documents propose building some new cities with a radically different layout, transportation system, homes, economic system, government system, and culture. Would you be happier in that type of city? Or is there some other type of environment that you would be happiest with?

If each of us could live for a million years and experience 10,000 different social environments, I suspect that everybody would come to the conclusion that the life we are living right now is one of the most unpleasant, and that each of us would be shocked that we never noticed how miserable we are.

The reason I don't think our current environment is ideal is because this environment developed haphazardly, and because our culture has been influenced tremendously by people I would describe as neurotic. I think that almost any type of environment we create will be better than the haphazard mess that we have right now. I think that as soon as we stop being passive observers of culture and start experimenting with it, and when we get the crime networks out of our government, media, and other organizations, we will find lots of ways to improve our cities, economic system, transportation systems, social activities, television programs, and other culture.

There will always be disappointments and frustrations in life, so we have to expect everybody to occasionally be unhappy with something. However, I don't think many people are satisfied with life. When I look around this world, I see people who are searching for happiness. Most of them are hoping that wealth or fame will make them happy, and others are trying to find relief from their misery by using drugs, doing risky athletic stunts, praying to God, withdrawing into a science fiction fantasy, committing bizarre crimes, or having more sex.

I also see men and women arguing with each other; businesses fighting with each other; and religious groups arguing about the correct religion. There are unwanted children living in orphanages and on the streets, and there is an international pedophile network raping and killing children.

I could go on and on with some of the miserable behavior I see around me, but the point I want to make is that we have made our social environment worse than what it is for animals. The reason is simply because we have used technology to make dramatic changes to our lives, but we are continuing to behave as if we are prehistoric savages. We need to stop acting like animals, and start experimenting with our culture.

The Earth could be a paradise. The Earth has beautiful mountains, flowers, trees, birds, butterflies, creeks, and cloud formations. The people on this planet could be working together to create attractive and clean cities, and we could fill every city with attractive apartment buildings, office buildings, factories, restaurants, swimming areas, museums, social clubs, and parks. We could be creating beautiful clothing for ourselves, and decorating the city with tiled plazas, footbridges, bicycle paths, and gardens.

Our cities could be free of graffiti, litter, unwanted pet animals, and homeless people. We even have the technology and resources to make every foot path, bicycle path, and bridge as decorative as those in paintings, such as the one below.

When we were children, we collected up bits and pieces of opinions, clothing styles, verbal expressions, and other information from other people. We essentially toss them into our memory with no regard to their accuracy, value, or source. Our arrogance causes us to believe that our opinions are intelligent and well organized, but if we could look inside our mind, we would find that every child's memory resembles the home of a hoarder.

In the previous document of this series I pointed out some of the differences between a business and a government. In this section I will point out that a significant difference in the philosophies of businesses and democratic governments could be described as "nature versus nurture", or as "science versus religion", or as "genetics versus the environment".

Since many business leaders are religious, they would probably respond that they are following religious philosophies. Most business leaders seem to be oblivious to how they promote religion but operate their business according to scientific principles. What they practice is not what they preach. However, they don't notice their hypocrisy.

Most religious people follow a conflicting mixture of religious and scientific theories. The reason this is happening is because children are picking up bits of information from a variety of sources, and a lot of the information is contradictory. Just like the home of a hoarder, our memory is a disorganized collection of bits of information. Don't regard this analogy as insulting, however. Here are four important reasons why it is useful to understand this concept:

We like to believe that we have brilliant opinions, but very few people have created original opinions. Most of what we believe is the result of an indiscriminate gathering of information during our childhood, and the end result is that we all have lots of idiotic, inaccurate, confusing, and hypocritical information.

During prehistoric times, a child picked up information from the other people in his tiny tribe, all of whom spoke the same language and followed the same culture. Today, however, especially in large cities, children are exposed to conflicting information about manners, money, marriage, clothing, religion, and verbal expressions.

To aggravate this problem, many journalists, school teachers, and government officials are deliberately lying to us about many issues, thereby causing us to mix their lies and propaganda into our disorganized horde of information.

For example, when I was a child, I and other children picked up the information that lemmings are such stupid creatures that they will sometimes follow one another over a cliff and die. Decades later I heard that the information is false, and that it comes from a Disney documentary called White Wilderness. Although the documentary was given an Academy Award, a Canadian television program, The Fifth Estate, accused the Disney crew of staging the event.

Anybody who reads my documents certainly knows that journalists and other people in influential positions are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and many other events. You can certainly understand their motivation for lying about crimes, but why would they lie to us about the behavior of lemmings?

It is because a free enterprise system puts businesses into competition for money with no regard to how they make it. Businesses that deceive us are not considered to be committing crimes. Rather, they are praised for developing "clever marketing techniques", or for doing a good job of "promoting their products".

The end result is that people can be successful in a free enterprise system if they are willing to lie, exaggerate, and manipulate us into purchasing their products. They will not be held accountable for their lies, and if somebody exposes their lies, they will not be under any obligation to correct their lies.

How much information in our minds is false? Unfortunately, nobody has the time or resources to analyze all of the information that he picked up. Furthermore, none of us knows enough about the universe to figure out how much of our information is accurate. However, we can be certain that all of us have some idiotic and incorrect information.

If you do not understand the concept that you have picked up some inaccurate and dishonest information, your craving to be important will cause you to look for opportunities to impress us with your knowledge, such as informing us that lemmings will follow one another over a cliff and die. You will also want to impress us with your brilliant opinions about the 9/11 attack, abortion, and the asteroid that exterminated the dinosaurs.

However, if you can understand that your memory is just a disorganized horde of bits of information that you have been gathering indiscriminately throughout your life, and that businessmen, journalists, government officials, and other people are routinely lying to us, you will be more likely to wonder which of your information is accurate. You will realize that some of your opinions may be based on false information, and that most of your opinions are not your own creation but opinions that you picked up from other people.

Instead of boasting about your brilliant opinions, and instead of trying to impress us with your knowledge, you will be more likely to look critically at your brilliant opinions, listen to what other people have to say, and wonder who has the most accurate information. You will be aware of the very likely possibility that some of the information that you picked up during your life is stupid, hypocritical, and contradictory.

An example of people who picked up hypocritical beliefs are the religious people. Their mind has a mixture of primitive religious beliefs and advanced scientific theories. For example, a lot of religious people today believe in evolution and dinosaurs.

It is interesting to note that centuries ago, before anybody understood genetics or evolution, many people were practicing the principles of evolution even though they were more convinced of the accuracy of religious theories than people are today. For example, farmers centuries ago were breeding plants and animals even though they were promoting the philosophy that God created all living creatures. Also, many parents were afraid that if their child were to marry a "low quality" person, they will have low quality grandchildren.

The reason our ancestors were following evolutionary principles even though they were religious was because they had noticed that best tasting cantaloupes come from the seeds of the best tasting cantaloupes; the healthiest baby pigs come from the healthiest adult pigs; the children of ugly adults tend to be ugly; and the children of idiots tend to be stupid. It doesn't require much intelligence to notice that the children of humans, animals, and plants have a strong resemblance to their parents.

Unfortunately, it never occurred to our ancestors that their opinions about how children were inheriting characteristics from their parents were conflicting with their religious beliefs. Therefore, they never bothered to discard their religious beliefs. The end result is that children today are still picking up a mixture of contradictory beliefs about religion and science.

Ideally, as each of us becomes an adult, we would take some time to analyze the information that we picked up during our childhood. We would discard the idiotic information, and try to ensure that our mind has only sensible information. However, it is not natural for animals to question the information that they picked up. Our natural tendency is to assume that we know everything we need to know, and that everything we know is perfect. We want to mimic our ancestors and boast about them, not analyze their culture and blaze our own path into the future.

When you realize that your memory is a disorganized horde of bits of information, you can use that knowledge to help yourself remain calm when somebody criticizes one of your opinions, or points out that you are a hypocrite who promotes one theory while practicing another.

For example, if I had mentioned to a group of people that lemmings will follow one another over a cliff and die, and if somebody had responded that lemmings do not behave in that manner, my natural emotional reaction would be to feel insulted.

Once we pick up information, our natural tendency is to assume that it is our own creation, and we treat it just like a woman treats her baby. We are proud of the information that we pick up, and we will become defensive if somebody criticizes it.

An animal's reaction to any type of confrontation is to fight or hide, but if you can understand that the person is criticizing an opinion that you picked up from other people, you should find it easier to remain calm because you can reassure your emotions that he is not attacking you. You can tell your emotions that he is criticizing somebody else's opinion.

You can also apply this concept when somebody criticizes your verbal expressions. For example, a lot of the younger people today are starting sentences with "So" and "I mean", and when somebody tells them that they should stop using those idiotic expressions, they can reassure their emotions that they are not being attacked, ridiculed, or insulted. They can tell their emotions that the person is simply criticizing an annoying expression that they picked up from other people.

You can also use this knowledge to reduce the chances that you cause somebody to become angry and embarrassed. For example, when somebody tells you that lemmings follow one another over a cliff to die, or that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11, if you understand the concept that he is simply repeating some information that he picked up from other people, then you can adjust your response to avoid stimulating his anger or embarrassment.

Specifically, do not tell him that "he" is incorrect or stupid. Instead, point out that "we" have been lied to about that issue by the journalists, businesses, or government officials. Direct your criticism toward the people who made the false remark, not the person who is passing the information to other people. The person might react with anger or pouting anyway, but at least you gave him the opportunity to respond in a respectable manner.

A democracy promotes the philosophy that the government should give the people what they want. A democracy promotes the theory that the majority of people are educated and intelligent, and that they have valuable opinions about economics, abortion, international relationships, and crime. To help the government pander to the people, polls are frequently taken to find out what the people want.

If you can understand that our memory is a disorganized collection of bits of opinions, then you should realize that a poll of the majority of people is not providing us with valuable information about economic issues or abortion. Rather, a poll is simply giving us an indication of the type of information that people picked up during their life.

A poll gives us an idea of what people are learning from school, other people, the television, and the Internet. However, a poll does not provide us with valuable information on what we should do with our future.

Most people can understand this concept in regards to children. Most people realize that polls of what children believe would be useful to figure out what the children have learned, and what the children believe, but that the polls would be useless in helping us solve our problems. For example, a poll to find out whether children support a bombing of Iran would be useful to give us an idea of what type of information children have been exposed to and picked up, but we would be fools to design government policies according to what the children want.

We are currently conducting polls with the attitude that the government should give the people what they want. This is an idiotic reason to conduct polls, and it has the additional problem of encouraging the people to become arrogant and selfish. To understand why this encourages arrogance and selfishness, consider the effect on children if the school officials would conduct polls of what the children want to eat for lunch, and if they gave the children whatever they asked for.

The first time the school officials conducted a poll, the children would not be certain of what to ask for, but after a few months of getting whatever meals they want, it would cause the children to regard their opinions about food to be intelligent, and they would become accustomed to getting what they ask for. This would likely cause them to start demanding that their parents also give them the foods they want. They would become arrogant and selfish.

If a group of scientists were polled about a particular issue that they are researching, then the poll would be a valuable summary of their research. However, not many people are doing research, and very few people have original opinions. Most adults are just picking up bits of opinions from other people. Therefore, a poll of the ordinary people is simply telling us what they picked up during their life.

A poll of the ordinary people is useful for government officials to determine if people are being educated properly, what they like and dislike, and whether they have appropriate attitudes, but it will not help us solve our problems. For an example of how a poll would be useful, if a poll were taken to find out if people know how to buckle an airline seatbelt, we might find that 100% of the adults already know how to buckle a seatbelt, and the government could use that information to tell the airline personnel to stop showing passengers how to buckle a seatbelt.

However, it would be foolish for government officials to create policies on the assumption that polls are providing us with intelligent answers to our problems. For example, if we were to conduct polls to find out if the people support abortion, or who they think is responsible for the 9/11 attack, or what we should do about the "pizzagate" accusations, the poll would only help us understand what the people believe. It would not help us to solve our problems.

You are not an expert just because you learned a lot of information

Many adults believe that they are experts in food, raising children, investing in the stock market, or pizzagate because they have read lots of documents about the issue, or because they took some school classes, but exposing yourself to information does not make you an expert in any subject. Rather, it merely exposes you to different people's ideas about the subject.

If the information that you picked up was the complete and absolute truth about the subject, then of course you could claim to be an expert on that issue, but all of us are just picking up bits of information from other people, and we are not sure how much of it is correct, complete, or accurate.

For example, there are some documents that warn us about eating cholesterol, and there are other documents that claim that our body produces cholesterol, and that dietary cholesterol has little or no effect on our health. The people who read these documents believe they are educated, and some might describe themselves as "experts", but they are simply picking up different people's contradictory opinions about the subject.

Birds build nests by gathering items from their environment, which in this case included some cigarette butts. Likewise, children develop opinions about cigarettes, money, marriage, and other issues by gathering information from their environment.

You can visualize what we do as being similar to a bird that is gathering bits of grass, clothing fibers, pieces of string, plastic bags, and twigs, and weaving them into a nest. Each adult believes he is an expert in religion, abortion, crime, economics, and politics, but in reality, each of us is creating opinions in nearly the same manner that a bird builds a nest.

Democracies encourage selfishness and arrogance by promoting the belief that polls are providing government officials with valuable information, and that government officials should give the people what they want. This philosophy encourages people to believe that their opinions are intelligent, and that what they want is what they should get.

A more appropriate philosophy is to teach people that our opinions are a disorganized collection of bits of other people's opinions, and that polls of ordinary people and children are useful only for determining whether people are being educated properly, what their attitudes are, what they like and dislike, and how disorganized their opinions are. Governments can use polls to help them improve the school courses, recreational activities, and other social activities, but they should not use polls to pander to the public.

Another characteristic of the human mind that we must watch out for is that we have the tendency to develop theories by processing our own fantasies. This is something that computers don't do, but we have the ability to make computers do this. At the moment, computers will process only the data that we provide to them, but we could design a software program to create some data, and then process that data. The results would be nonsensical, of course.

Humans have emotions that cause us to create fantasies. If we are not aware of this issue, we might inadvertently process our fantasies, thereby creating some truly idiotic opinions. I think this explains why some physicists are coming to the conclusion that there are multiple universes, and that time travel is possible. Specifically, I think those physicists are processing some of the fantasies that they created after watching Star Trek movies.

In November 2016, there was yet another article in which some scientists claimed that parallel universes and time travel is possible. A few years earlier, a NASA physicist announced that he is working on the development of a spaceship with a warp drive that will travel faster than light.

The concept of a parallel universe is as idiotic as the concept of a perpendicular universe. In order to produce sensible opinions about the universe, we must process data that is accurate. If we process fantasies, then we will come to the conclusion that parallel universes and warp drives are possible.

Many physicists believe that by combining the words "space" and "time" into one word their theories become more brilliant, but words are just symbols that represent something. We don't have a good understanding of space or time, and putting the words together just creates a new symbol that we have no understanding of. In order for the word "spacetime" to be of value to us, it has to represent some sensible concept.

The physicists define "spacetime" as "a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum", but we can combine any two words together with that type of meaningless definition. For example:

lifedeath: a mathematical model that combines life and death into a single interwoven continuum.

Although people with phenomenal math abilities routinely surprise me with their idiotic theories and odd behavior, they are not the only people who like to process their own fantasies. I think everybody does it occasionally, but some people do it more than others. I would not be surprised to discover that this is the reason people purchase lottery tickets. Specifically, they might be coming to the conclusion that it makes sense for them to purchase lottery tickets because they are processing their fantasies about winning the lottery rather than processing accurate information about statistics. They also avoid processing the information that many contests and gambling operations are dishonest, and therefore, the lotteries might be dishonest, also.

Likewise, when a lonely, single man encounters a woman that he is attracted to, his emotions might create fantasies about her that are based on Hollywood movies. His mind might process those fantasies, and that can cause him to embarrass himself and annoy the woman with remarks and behavior that belong in a Hollywood movie rather than real life. He might also expect her to be as sexually active as the women in the movies.

Incidentally, I think movies and television are one of the reasons that people today are having trouble with life and relationships. The media is filling children's memories with a lot of unrealistic information about people, money, houses, marriage, and other aspects of life. Since most people are unaware that their memories are a disorganized horde of information, they are likely to process information that they picked up from Hollywood, and that can lead to unrealistic decisions on what to do with their life, and how to treat other people.

For example, Hollywood frequently depicts women as being almost as sexually active as men, and the women often giggle or become sexually excited by remarks and behavior that, in reality, would cause most women to become angry, embarrassed, or disgusted.

Hollywood also frequently shows women wanting sex in elevators, on the kitchen table, and in a hospital laboratory. Pornography videos can give men even more unrealistic information about women. The men who foolishly process that unrealistic information can develop idiotic conclusions about women that can cause trouble in their relationships.

Lady Gaga and Marina Abramovic are at a party in which a woman, or a simulation of a woman, is lying in sauce. (Here is another view of it.) This behavior might be typical for entertainers, but it is not typical of the human population.

It is certainly true that there are some women who behave similar to the women in the Hollywood movies, but those women are a small minority. Hollywood seems to be dominated by people with drug problems, bipolar disorders, pedophilic tendencies, sexual disorders, gambling problems, and psychotic cravings for wealth and fame.

It is possible that Lady Gaga, Madonna, Cher, and other female celebrities actually behave like the women in the movies, but, if so, those celebrities are not typical women. Hollywood is promoting a distorted view of women, and that can cause boys to develop unrealistic views and expectations of women.

During prehistoric times, children picked up information about life by observing other people, not from movies, books, or television. The boys picked up information about women by observing their mother, sister, and other women. That information provided them with realistic information about how women behave, and how men treat women. They also saw adults having sex, so they knew what sex was, and how often men and women have sex.

The prehistoric children would have learned that women are not sexually aggressive, and they don't giggle at lewd remarks. When the boys processed their data about women, they processed realistic data about women, not Hollywood fantasies or feminist propaganda. As a result, they would have behaved differently around women compared to the boys today.

The prehistoric boys and girls would have treated one another in a more appropriate manner because they would have mimicked the typical adults. Today the children are picking up a lot of information from a small minority of psychotic people in the entertainment business. During prehistoric times, the mentally ill people were pushed aside by the others and ignored, but today they can become wealthy and famous in the entertainment business, thereby allowing them to exert a tremendous influence over children.

During prehistoric times, people like Lady Gaga would have been bullied as a child, and if she survived to adulthood, she would have been treated as a freak. Today these weird people are still bullied as children, but when they grow up they can become role models.

Most people today believe that they are protecting their children from danger when they prevent children from seeing sex acts, penises, and women's nipples, but children are not harmed by naked bodies or sex. However, I think children are harmed when we allow their memories to become filled with idiotic, psychotic, and unrealistic data about men, women, money, fame, jobs, marriage, and other issues.

When children process unrealistic data, they come to unrealistic decisions about what to do with their life, how to treat other people, and what their goals for jobs, marriage, and life should be. For two examples of why I think children are developing unrealistic attitudes as a result of being exposed to psychotic and idiotic information:

1) Our view of material wealth is distorted

Salaries of business executives have been rising during the past few decades. According to this page, in 1965, the top executives were making about 20 times as much money as the common worker, whereas in 2013, they were making almost 300 times as much. If this trend continues, the executives will eventually make a million times as much money.

Why were executives in 1965 satisfied with an income that was 20 times as large as that of the common worker, but executives today demand 300 times as much? Furthermore, the ordinary people have much more material wealth today than their ancestors, but a significant percentage of them are constantly struggling to get more, and complaining they don't have enough.

Why are people today, who are so wealthy, spending so much time complaining about their poverty? I suspect that the primary reason is because Hollywood movies and television programs have been filling children's memories with images of how exciting material wealth can be. When children process those fantasies, they can come to the conclusion that in order to truly enjoy life, we must have gigantic mansions, yachts, and goldplated cell phones.

I mentioned in a previous document that when I saw the Beverly Hillbillies television show as a child, I was fascinated by the staircase in their mansion, and for many years afterwards, I wanted a house with that type of staircase. That is just one personal example of how television programs can affects a child's goals in life, and cause a child to develop idiotic fascinations for particular material items, jobs, or lifestyles.

A child's mind is like a sponge that soaks up information without questioning any of it, and they mimic the people in their environment. This characteristic allows them to rapidly learn a language, learn which items are food, and learn how to treat other people. When we expose them to Lady Gaga, unrealistic fantasies about wealth, and idiotic information, they will pick up that idiotic information and base their decisions on it.

The people in the United States are wealthier than almost everybody else in the world, and we are much wealthier than our ancestors, but many people are constantly fantasizing about getting more money, or whining about "high" prices, or whining about having to pay somebody a "high" fee for plumbing or carpentry.

One of the reason that illegal immigrants can find jobs so easily in the United States is because there are so many Americans who are so convinced that they are suffering from poverty that they will save a small amount of money by hiring an illegal alien rather than an American citizen.

Why are so many people so unsatisfied with their level of material wealth when they have so much of it? Why are they spending so much of their time complaining about prices and fantasizing about becoming wealthier? Why were the people decades ago more satisfied with their level of material wealth when they had so much less? Why were the business executives of decades ago more willing to share the wealth than they are today?

I suspect the main reason that people today are unsatisfied with their wealth is because they have been processing unrealistic fantasies about wealth. Those fantasies have brought them to the idiotic conclusion that they don't have enough money in order to have a "good life".

The people who complain that they don't have enough money did not come to this conclusion after analyzing their life and and calculating how much more money they need in order to be satisfied. They have no idea how much more money they need in order to "be comfortable" and "have a good life". The reason is because they never put any intelligent thought into the issue. Rather, they are picking up these attitudes from television programs, movies, and other people.

They also picked up the expression "good life" from other people. For example, when they say, "I need more money in order to have a good life", they are simply mimicking an expression they don't understand.

What is a "good life"? What is a "good job"? What is "being comfortable"? The people who use those expressions have no idea what they are talking about because they never studied the issue. They just picked up the expressions from the television and other people.

Our prehistoric ancestors grew up in an environment in which the only material wealth they knew about was fur coats, flint knives, and simplistic bits of jewelry. A prehistoric man who wanted to reach the top of the social hierarchy had to acquire only a few material items.

Today children are exposed to wealthy people who have yachts, private jets, maids, and several gigantic mansions. Today a man who wants to be at the top of the hierarchy needs an absurd amount of money.

One of the many reasons that I suggest we create a society in which everybody has virtually the same level of material wealth is to prevent this competition for absurd quantities of money. Children raised in that type of environment will not develop the attitude that they must acquire a giant house and a giant pile of material items, and the adults will not waste their life comparing their pile of material items to that of other people.

2) Our view of guns is distorted

The children who grow up in the USA are regularly exposed to adults, television shows, and movies that promote the theory that guns will protect us from criminals. We are also taught that owning a gun is one of our basic rights. By the time a child has become an adult, his memory will have a tremendous amount of information about how guns will protect us. I suspect that the primary reason that tens of millions of Americans believe that guns will protect us is because they are processing that unrealistic information.

If children were raised in an environment that provided them with accurate data about guns and crime, they would come to the conclusion that guns do not protect individuals from crime, and guns do not reduce crime in a nation. It does not require much intelligence to understand these concepts. All a child has to do is compare the crime statistics of different nations and he will notice that guns have no effect on crime.

The people who promote guns as a solution to crime are not processing realistic data about guns. They are processing fantasies about guns. Many of those people have above-average intelligence, but intelligence has no value when a person processes false information.

Computer programmers have an expression about the concept that we must process accurate information; namely, "garbage in, garbage out". Computer programmers are very concerned about providing computers with high quality data, but there is no concern in any nation about providing people with high quality information. We allow businesses, religious groups, governments, charities, and other people to provide both children and adults with whatever information they please, and with no regard to whether any of that information is accurate or beneficial.

Since nobody knows the truth about the world, we have to expect everybody to occasionally promote false information without realizing it, but we are allowing people to deliberately lie to us in an attempt to deceive and manipulate us. We allow websites to promote lies about UFOs, the flat earth, chemtrails, Morgellon's disease, and reverse speech. We allow history books to lie to students. We allow Hollywood to provide children with psychotic and unrealistic views of people and life.

We are not providing people with "free speech" when we allow them to lie to us. We are instead providing them with the freedom to manipulate, cheat, deceive, and abuse us.

During the final months of 2016, many journalists, government officials, and other influential people complained that Donald Trump was elected President because "fake news" had influenced many people's opinions. I agree that we should stop deceptive and inaccurate information, but the supporters of Clinton are not truly interested in stopping deceptive information. Rather, they complained only about the fake news that they did not approve of.

We assume that people who make stupid decisions are stupid, but this is not necessarily true. Some stupid people will produce opinions that are more intelligent than people who are very intelligent. Your ability to produce intelligent thoughts depends upon more than your intellectual ability. It also depends upon your emotions, your ability to control your emotions, and your ability to pass judgment on which data is accurate and which is questionable. For example, a brilliant physicist who processes unrealistic fantasies about time travel is going to create some stupid opinions even though he may be intelligent.

If a government were to require that television programs depict women, material wealth, sports, violence, guns, and other issues, in a more realistic manner, some children might complain that the shows are less entertaining. The children might complain that the shows are so realistic that watching them makes them feel as if they are sitting in a school classroom. However, for all we know, people will have a much better childhood and form more stable friendships and marriages when we stop exposing children to unrealistic fantasies and false information.

We should also consider the possibility that some of our "harmless entertainment" is detrimental for children. For example, many adults are making money by providing frightening information to children, such as horror movies and frightening books. Although children are not damaged by frightening information, we ought to wonder if it is beneficial. Children are naturally frightened of the dark, and we might be making their life worse by frightening them even further with movies, books, and Halloween.

There was a time when I was a child that I was reading a book that gave me some frightening images. I cannot remember anything about the book, but I think it was some type of murder mystery, and I remember that it caused me to start fantasizing that there might be some adults inside my house who wanted to kill me. I was the only person in the house at the time, and I became so frightened that I jumped out of my bedroom window and finished reading the book in the front yard.

Children are not damaged by frightening materials, but we ought to think about the issue of whether we want some of the adults spending their time on the creation of horror movies and books in order to frighten children. Do the children benefit from this? Perhaps, but I doubt it. And do the adults benefit from it? I don't think so. I recommend that adults be required to have jobs that are more useful to society.

Furthermore, I suspect that children have a more pleasant childhood when the adults are not trying to frighten them. Children are already frightened of the dark and other things, and I don't see how frightening them even further is making their life better, or preparing them for society.

In a free enterprise system, businesses can profit by frightening people, but we should change our attitudes towards jobs and analyze the value of our jobs. We should not do something simply because it provides us with profit.

Ideally, we would have leaders who are interested in experimenting with our social environment, especially the environment in which we are raising children. How are children affected by television programs that promote unrealistic attitudes towards guns, sex, violence, sports, time travel, and material wealth? Would it be best to provide them with television shows that are more realistic? Or would it be better for the government to limit all materials produced for children to be for educational purposes only? Should television be restricted only to adults? Instead of providing children with television, video games, and other devices that they play with by themselves, should the government provide children with a wider variety of social and recreational activities, arts and crafts, and educational events?

If we were to create some cities that are culturally independent of each other, and if we could provide the cities with better leadership, then we could experiment with these issues. Don't assume that you can figure out the best way to raise children. It is easy for our mind to create an animated fantasy about raising children, and we can process that fantasy and reach a brilliant conclusion, but a conclusion based on a fantasy is not likely to be of any value. We cannot solve our social problems by processing our fantasies. We must find the courage to conduct experiments on ourselves and our children.

The government officials of the United States do not have much authority to do anything. I propose a smaller government in which each official has a tremendous amount of authority. This will undoubtedly frighten the people who believe the concept that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I pointed out years ago (here and here) that power does not corrupt, and this section will add details to that issue.

First consider how this concept applies to the problem of pedophilia. There is significantly more pedophilia occurring in the organizations that have young children than there are in the organizations that are primarily adults. For example, pedophilia is much more common at churches, schools, daycare centers, and children's hospitals than it is at IBM, Sony, and other organizations where there are very few, if any, children.

The fact that pedophilia is more common in organizations that provide adults with access to children could lead us to the conclusion that "having access to children causes pedophilia". Furthermore, we might find that the most extreme and bizarre cases of pedophilia are occurring when the children are unconscious because of drugs, such as at children's hospitals. The adults who have access to unconscious children could be described as having "absolute access" to the children. However, it would be inaccurate to come to the conclusion that:

"Having access to children causes pedophilia, and having absolute access to children absolutely causes pedophilia."

A more sensible conclusion is that having access to children provides us with opportunities to commit pedophilia, and having "absolute access" to children provides us with even better opportunities, but whether we take that opportunity depends upon our mind.

Most men would never sexually abuse children, especially not boys, even if they had access to children who are under anesthesia. Providing an adult with access to unconscious children will not make him become a pedophile. There are also some men who will not rape a woman who is unconscious from alcohol or anesthesia, and there are even fewer men who would rape a man who is unconscious.

The same concept applies to alcohol. The title of this article is "The 17 Jobs Where You're Most Likely To Become An Alcoholic". It says that bartenders are more likely to die from alcohol abuse than people in other jobs.

A lot of bartenders have an alcohol problem, but it is not correct to say that "bartending corrupts". It is true that bartenders have more access to alcohol than people in most other jobs, but there are lots of people who never become alcoholics even though they have access to alcohol. Actually, many people have beer, wine, and liquors in their home without becoming an alcoholic.

Bartenders have a greater problem with alcohol because a higher percentage of the people who decide to become a bartender have a problem with alcohol. It is a person's mind that causes him to become an alcoholic, not his job.

For another example, the entertainment businesses seem to have an unusually high percentage of people with sexual disorders, bipolar illnesses, drug problems, gambling problems, antisocial behavior, and other mental disorders. However, it would be incorrect to say that "Hollywood corrupts" because those people were mentally disturbed before they got involved with entertainment.

A lot of the people in the entertainment business are mentally disturbed, but it is not because the entertainment business is causing people to become mentally disturbed. Rather, mentally disturbed people are attracted to the entertainment business, and they are more successful in it.

I suspect that an analysis of the arts and entertainment businesses would show us that certain types of mental illnesses:

1) Cause people to prefer a job in art or entertainment.
For example, a person who is antisocial, or who has a problem working in teams, or who cannot concentrate on a task for more than a few moments, will prefer to make a living in a job where he can work by himself and be his own boss, such as painting pictures, creating music, or behaving in an obnoxious manner to entertain other people.

2) Make a person more successful in art and entertainment.
A "normal" person is not very entertaining. Although a lot of normal people might fantasize about being an artist, actor, or comedian, I would not be surprised if the best actors are people who don't like their life and want to withdraw into a fantasy world. They might enjoy pretending that they are somebody else because their own life is miserable.

In order to be successful in a job, a person must be comparable to his competition. However, if certain mental problems help a person become more successful in a particular field, that means the normal people are going to have trouble making a living in that field. That particular job will be dominated by people with that particular mental problem.

For example, could a "normal" person make a living as a comedian? I don't think so. The successful comedians seem to have some type of mental problem that makes it difficult for them to be normal. They want to joke around and act silly. For some reason, they don't want to be normal or serious.

A normal person might not be very good as an actor, either. The best actors might be the people who do not enjoy their life or reality, and who want to withdraw into fantasies.

For another example of how our mental characteristics influence both the type of job we want to do, and the job we are successful at, an analysis of the men who work in construction crews, assembly lines, and daycare centers would probably show us that there are significantly more pedophiles at the daycare centers. However, it would not be because "daycare centers corrupt". It would be because the men who are interested in having sex with children are more likely to want a job at a daycare center.

If a person becomes an alcoholic, pedophile, thief, or heroin addict, it is because his mind made the decision to do so. However, his job did not force his mind to make those decisions. His mind made those decisions voluntarily by processing the information in his memory.

Why do some people make the decision to become an alcoholic, pedophile, or thief? The psychologists and religious people claim that we choose different activities in life because each of us grew up in a different environment. Although each of us did indeed pick up slightly different information during our lives, the differences in our environment are too insignificant to explain the incredible differences in our behavior.

Almost every American citizen has been exposed to the same information as other American citizens, and almost every Chinese citizen has been exposed to the same information as other Chinese citizens, and almost every Japanese citizen has been exposed to the same information as other Japanese citizens. Therefore, if the environment is the primary factor in determining human behavior, then a citizen of a particular nation should behave very similar to other citizens of his nation, but the people of his nation should have significantly different behavior than the people of another nation.

This assumption is true with language, food, and other culture. For example, a citizen of China is speaking a language that is similar to other people of his nation, and a citizen of America is speaking a language that is similar to other people in America, and there is a significant difference between the languages of America and China.

This assumption is true for the behavior that we picked up from other people, such as language, clothing styles, foods, holiday celebrations, and other culture. For another example, the people in China are following certain holiday celebrations, and the people in America have certain holiday celebrations, but the holiday celebrations are noticeably different between China and America.

This assumption applies to culture because we pick up culture from other people. Culture comes from our environment, not our DNA. In regards to the basic characteristics of human behavior, there is no difference between the people in China and the people in America, or, for that matter, the monkeys of Africa, or the ducks of Pennsylvania, or the falcons of Alaska.

For example, the courtship procedures of male and female Chinese people is virtually identical to the courtship procedures of male and female Americans, and that is almost identical to the courtship procedures of male and female monkeys, ducks, and falcons. No matter which nation or species we look at, we find the same courtship behavior. Specifically, when the females reach sexual maturity, they develop a craving to look for males and passively watch them. They wait for a male to titillate them. The males try to titillate the females with displays of feathers, or by building a home for the female, or by giving her gifts. After the male and female form a relationship, the male becomes her slave, and she becomes a slave to her children.

The children in China grow up in a significantly different social environment compared to the children in the United States, and that causes the children of each nation to pick up a significantly different culture. However, all humans inherit the same basic genetic blueprint, and that blueprint is just a modification of a monkey, which is a modification of some other animal. Therefore, all humans and animals have the same basic behavior.

The environment does not change or affect our basic behavioral characteristics. For example, the men in China have cravings for sex with women, and their craving is virtually identical to the craving that men in France have, and it is virtually the same as the craving that male monkeys in Africa have, and it is virtually the same as the craving that male ducks in Pennsylvania have.

Because we all have the same basic genetic blueprint, the behavior of people is the same in all nations. Only our culture is different. Although there are some subtle genetic differences between different races of people, we are all extremely similar in behavior.

As with monkeys, we have a craving to form a tribe, and to believe that our tribe is better than the other tribes, and this craving causes us to boast that the people of our nation are better than the people of other nations. However, an unbiased analysis of every nation would show us that if we ignore culture, there is almost no difference between the people of different nations.

Because all of the Americans are following the same culture as other Americans, we feel a friendship and compatibility with other Americans. Likewise, because all Chinese are following the same culture as other Chinese people, all of the Chinese people feel compatible with one another. However, because America and China have significantly different culture, the Americans and Chinese people do not feel as if we are compatible. Rather, we feel as if we are separate tribes. We feel as if we have a friendship only with people of our own nation.

If we ignore the cultural differences between us and look at the genetic characteristics and behavior of the people, we will find that there are significant differences between the people within a nation, but no significant difference between the nations.

For example, some American citizens are honest, some are members of crime networks, some are alcoholics, some are incredibly stupid, some are suffering from bipolar disorders, and some are retarded. Those differences between us are very significant. It causes us to have very little in common with one another. The intelligent, honest, responsible Americans do not have much in common with the Americans who are involved with crime networks, or who are alcoholic, or who are retarded.

Likewise, if we look at the Chinese people and ignore their culture, we find the same exact situation. Some of the Chinese people are honest; some are members of crime networks; some are alcoholics, some are incredibly stupid; and some are retarded.

The significance of this is that the honest, responsible Americans have more in common with the honest, responsible Chinese than with millions of other American citizens. Likewise, the alcoholics of America have more in common with the alcoholics of China than they do with the other people of their own nation. The religious fanatics of America have more in common with the religious fanatics of China than they do with the non-religious people of their own nation. The pedophiles of China have more in common with the pedophiles of America than they do with the other people of their nation.

Because we are monkeys, we have a craving to form a tribe, and to believe that our tribe is better than other tribes, but if we can control our emotional cravings and look seriously at the human world, we will realize that our tribe is full of people we have nothing in common with, and that we have more in common with some of the people of other tribes.

The people in Japan are growing up in a significantly different environment than the people in America, but the better behaved Japanese have more in common with the better behaved Americans than either group has to the badly behaved members of our nations.

Another way to understand this concept is to imagine what would happen if we took the best behaved Chinese and the best behaved Americans, and put both groups on an uninhabited planet. Those two groups of people would have significantly different languages and cultures, but they would be capable of living together in peace. Their world would be free of crime, and the people would behave in a respectable manner. They would be able to cooperate with one another on economic issues, scientific development, and exploration of their planet. They would treat one another in a much better manner than what we see between America and China today. The reason would not be because the environment of the new planet was better. Rather, it would be because the people were genetically superior.

How much do you have in common with your close relatives?

These concepts apply to a family, also. The members of a family grow up in the same environment, but the genetic differences between the siblings can cause them to develop significantly different behavior. One child might be retarded, for example, and another might become a crime network member, and another might become a talented machinist. The siblings may not have much in common with one another.

When we grow up in close contact with other people, we develop a friendship with them, even if we are not closely related to one another, as in the case of adopted children. We assume that we have a lot in common with the people we grow up with, but in reality, most family members do not have a lot in common with one another. There are some siblings who are so similar to one another that they form close, long-term friendships, but most people will find that they have more in common with people from other families than they do with their own relatives. This is why most people have friends from other families.

Our genetic qualities are the most significant aspect of us

From the point of view of an organization, the genetic qualities of a person's mind are more important than the information in his memory. If two people have different sets of data in their memory, it is easy to equalize them simply by providing them with an education in whatever information they are missing. However, when two people have genetic differences in their intellectual or emotional abilities, there is nothing we can do to equalize them.

In order to create a successful business, sports group, or other organization, we must select people who have the genetic qualities necessary to work together as a team and do the tasks that are necessary for that particular organization.

For example, if we want to create a rugby team that can compete against the others, we must discriminate against the people who want to join the team. We must restrict the team membership to the people who have inherited physical and mental abilities that are comparable to those of the competing teams. We cannot take people at random and then educate them to become rugby players, or use rewards and punishments to make them become rugby players. They must have been born with the genetic qualities necessary, or else the team will be a failure.

Likewise, if we want to create a scientific research lab, we must discriminate against the people we hire for the lab. We must restrict the members of the lab to the people who inherited the intellectual and emotional qualities necessary to be successful at scientific research. We cannot take people at random and then use education, punishments, or rewards to make them become successful scientists.

If we want to create a nation that is free of crime, and in which the people cooperate with one another, trust one another, and work together for the benefit of everybody, we must discriminate against who is allowed to live in that nation. We must restrict the nation to people who inherited the intellectual and emotional qualities necessary to create that type of nation. We cannot take people at random and then educate them, or use rewards and punishments, to make them become honest, productive citizens.

The primary enemy of every organization is their own members, not the people of other organizations. Every nation is suffering from crime, antisocial behavior, pedophile networks, fights, divorce, gambling, drug problems, prostitution, homelessness, unwanted children, and other problems because every nation has lots of people who cannot or will not behave in a more respectable manner.

The environment has an influence over our behavior, but the genetic design of our brain is the primary factor determining our behavior. For example, the environment can influence what type of staircase we crave for our house, and what we expect from a marriage, but the environment cannot make any of us become an alcoholic, rape a child, or condemn the pizzagate information as "fake news".

Our genetic characteristics are the primary factor determining what we do with our lives, and how we treat other people. Each of us has different behavior because there are subtle differences between us in our intellectual and emotional characteristics. Some people are more arrogant, and some are more likely to grab at what they want, and some have stronger cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy. The genetic differences between us are the primary factor determining how we treat other people; what we want to do for a job; and whether we can be trusted.

Each citizen of a nation has been exposed to similar information as other people in his nation, but when we process that information, some people choose to become alcoholics, some choose to become thieves, and some choose to become billionaires.

The people who misbehave sometimes claim that their terrible behavior is due to their environment, but they are simply making excuses for their bad behavior. They don't want to be held responsible for themselves. They prefer to believe that their childhood was extremely unusual, and that none of us can understand what they have experienced. In reality, they grew up in virtually the same environment as you and I, and they were exposed to almost the same information and events.

The reason we reach radically different decisions about how to behave is because each of our brains are processing information differently, and the reason for that is because each of our brains is designed according to its slightly different genetic blueprint. Some people are more selfish; some are more arrogant; some are more unwilling to compromise; and some are more easily frightened of the unknown.

The issue of religion is a good example of how the environment does not determine what we believe or do. A lot of people have grown up in religious families, or were surrounded by religious people, but they chose to become atheists. Likewise, some atheist families have produced children who decided to become religious. Religion is an environmental issue, but whether you become religious, and if so, which religion, and how religious, and whether you join an organized religion or want religion to be a personal belief, depends upon your genetic characteristics, not the environment.

The environment is nothing but an influence. The environment is like a breeze that is blowing gently against your face. It is your genetic characteristics that determine whether you follow a particular environmental breeze.

Children are designed to adapt to the environment, and so the environment has a strong effect on them, and adults can easily manipulate children. To a child, the environment is a powerful wind, not a gentle breeze. As we become adults, we develop some independence, especially the men. However, we develop different amounts of independence, and our cravings to follow other people is at different levels, and we have different desires to explore the unknown. It is the genetic differences in our intellectual and emotional characteristics that are the primary factors determining our behavior.

Another example of how our genetic characteristics are the primary factor affecting us can be seen with the children who are stupid. There are millions of stupid children scattered around the world, and most of them are regularly insulted and criticized by family members, school teachers, and other children. Although those stupid children are suffering from a very similar type of abuse, they are not reacting to it in exactly the same manner. The reason is because even though they are all intellectually similar to one another, they have different emotional characteristics. Three of the ways that stupid children react to abuse, and the ways people react to those children, are:

• If the child has a tendency to react to problems with violence, he may develop a rebellious, angry attitude. He might deliberately do something that he was told not to do, such as put piercings in his face or vandalizing property, or he might join a gang. Most people react to his rebellious attitude by becoming angry with him and hating him.

• If the child has a tendency to react to problems by crying and pouting, he might react to the criticism by feeling sorry for himself. He might cut his arm repeatedly with a knife, or he might become shy and avoid people, or he might withdraw into some type of religious or science fiction fantasy where he can imagine that he is loved and appreciated. Most people will react to his crying by feeling sorry for him.

• If the child has a tendency to react to problems by looking for solutions, he might react by avoiding the things that cause criticism and trying to find a job that he can do properly. He might become an acceptable member of society, even though he is stupid. Most people will not notice him because he will quietly fit into society without causing any trouble or attracting any attention.

A stupid child experiences a significantly different environment compared to a child who does well in school, but all stupid children experience a very similar environment, and all of the children who do well in school experience a similar environment. Nobody is experiencing a unique environment. No matter how unique you think your life has been, there are likely to be millions of other people who experienced a similar life. However, you do not behave exactly the same as the people who had a similar environment as you.

We behave differently because we inherited a different mix of emotional, intellectual, and physical characteristics. The people who react to problems with violence, pouting, vandalism, rape, plagiarism, envy, and hatred are doing so because of their genetic characteristics. The environment did not make them choose such undesirable behavior. Their mind made those choices because their brain was designed to have a greater tendency towards violence, pouting, envy, and hatred.

The circuitry of our brain determines what our behavior will be. A person whose brain is designed to have a higher level of violence will always react more violently than other people regardless of the environment. If a person's brain is designed with a stronger craving to mimic other people, he will be more frightened of exploring life regardless of his environment.

Those two children in Hampstead, England, and their mother, rebelled against the sexual abuse and murder rituals. I suspect that they rebelled because they are not genetically as similar to the people who enjoy that activity. The father of those two children, Ricky Dearman, was a member of a family that had a history of that behavior, but he may have married a woman from some other genetic background, resulting in her and her children becoming disgusted and rebellious.

If Ricky Dearman had married a woman who was from a family that was involved with that behavior, then the two of them may have formed a stable marriage, and their children may have eventually enjoyed the sex and murder rituals, and they may have grown up to be adults who do the same to their own children.

The psychologists and religious people promote the belief that children resemble their parents because children mimic their parents, but even though it is true that children mimic their parents, it is more accurate to say that children resemble their parents because they inherit similar mental and physical characteristics.

The children of religious people do not inherit a gene for religion. Rather, they inherit certain intellectual and emotional characteristics from their parents that result in a tendency to be attracted to religion.

Everybody today has been exposed to a variety of beliefs about religion and science. The people who are choosing to be religious are doing so because of their mental characteristics. For some examples of how a person's genetic characteristics will cause him to choose religion:

• Some people have such a strong craving to follow their ancestors that they don't want to consider their options, and will follow what their parents or friends are doing without bothering to be critical of it.
• Some people are frightened by the crime and other problems of the world, and are emotionally comforted by the fantasy that an incredibly powerful God is watching over them and protecting them from harm.
• Some people are lonely and feel unwanted, and they are titillated by the fantasy that Jesus and God loves them.

When religious adults have children, their children are likely to inherit the intellectual and emotional characteristics that caused their parents to become religious. However, children are not identical to their parents, so occasionally the child of a religious couple will want to become an atheist, and he will have a tendency to marry somebody who is also an atheist. When those atheists have children of their own, their children will inherit a random mix of the mental characteristics of their parents, which will result in their children having a tendency to become atheists, also.

The children of atheists are likely to become atheists simply because they will inherit a genetic blueprint from atheists, but occasionally some of their children will have different emotional and intellectual characteristics that cause them to be attracted to religion. That religious child is likely to choose a religious person for a spouse, and that will result in their children having a greater interest in religion than their cousins.

When alcoholics have children, their children will not inherit a gene for alcoholism. Rather, their children will inherit a random mix of the intellectual and emotional characteristics of their ancestors. Therefore, the children of alcoholics have a greater tendency to become alcoholics than the rest of us, but they may instead develop some other abnormal behavior, such as an excessive cravings for marijuana, candy, money, shopping, sex, fame, or babies.

When people who are involved with crime networks reproduce, their children will have a greater tendency towards becoming criminals than the rest of us because they will inherit a genetic blueprint from people who are interested in such a life. They are not inheriting a gene to be a criminal. Rather, they are inheriting certain mental characteristics that can result in a person choosing that type of life.

The men who have intense cravings for material wealth are likely to attract and marry women who have intense cravings for wealth, and their children are likely to inherit an intense craving for wealth.

After thousands of generations, our tendency to reproduce with somebody who is similar to ourself will result in the development of different races with significantly different emotional and intellectual characteristics. The billionaires are breeding themselves into a species that has an increasingly neurotic craving for wealth, and the criminals are breeding themselves into a species that is increasingly dishonest, and the religious fanatics are breeding themselves into an increasingly religious species.

If we continue to do nothing to control reproduction, our apathy will eventually result in humans evolving into thousands of incompatible species.

A lot of people drink alcoholic beverages on a regular basis without becoming drunk, and some become drunk once in a while but they don't become alcoholics. Why do some people keep their alcohol consumption under control, and others do not? Who among us is most likely to have a problem controlling his alcohol consumption, and why would a person have such a problem?

We don't know enough about the human brain to know why some people have trouble controlling their consumption of alcohol, but since humans and animals do what makes us feel good, and we avoid activities that annoy us, we can safely conclude that the people who enjoy being intoxicated are suffering from some type of problem, and that the alcohol is making them feel better.

The people who become intoxicated are doing it because they either enjoy the sensation of intoxication, or they enjoy whatever alcohol provides as a reward, such as suppressing or masking some unpleasant feeling; helping them to relax enough to socialize with other people; or helping them to ignore the problems in their life that they cannot cope with.

Whether a person abuses drugs depends upon the design of his brain and body. It is not due to our environment. Everybody who abuses drugs should consider the possibility that there is something wrong with their brain or body. If they can consider such a possibility, they might find ways to keep their drug use under control, and they might figure out how to reduce the underlying problem.

If we thoroughly understood DNA and living creatures, we would be able to analyze a child's DNA and determine whether he is likely to become an adult who has a tendency to abuse drugs.

To complicate the issue, two people with similar mental disorders might react differently because of environmental differences. For example, one person might become an alcoholic, and the other person might choose heroin, or he might choose to withdraw into a religious fantasy, or choose to engage in life-threatening stunts.

Therefore, it would be more accurate to state my previous remark as: If we thoroughly understood living creatures, we would be able to analyze a child's DNA and determine whether he is likely to become an adult who has a tendency towards undesirable behavior, such as abuse of drugs, abnormal cravings for wealth, sex, or status, withdrawing into fantasies, or engaging in life-threatening stunts.

If a person with certain types of mental problems is hired to be a bartender, he is more likely than an ordinary person to become an alcoholic, and that can create the impression that the job has corrupted him.

Likewise, if a man who has a craving to have sex with children is hired to work at a children's hospital, he is more likely than an ordinary man to sexually abuse the children. This can create the impression that the job has corrupted him.

If a person with intense cravings for material wealth, status, and revenge is put into a top government position, he is more likely than an ordinary person to do things to make himself wealthier and more famous, and to get revenge on the people he doesn't like. This can create the impression that "power" has corrupted him.

You will appear to be corrupted by whatever you have strong cravings for, and which you do not have much self-control over. People who misbehave need to be held responsible for their behavior rather than shifting the blame to their job, or to "power".

Sometimes I point out that information is the most important aspect of a human, and other times I point out that our genetic design is the most important aspect of a human. Am I contradicting myself? To help prevent confusion, I will explain this issue in more detail.

Years ago I wrote this document to explain that our culture can be considered as "human software", and that information has a tremendous effect on us. The information in your mind determines whether you are an illiterate, ignorant savage who chases after pigs with sharp sticks, or whether you are a modern human who can read and write, operate a computer, and knows enough about human and animal behavior to exert control over your emotional cravings.

From the point of view of an individual person, information is the most important aspect of his life. An individual cannot change his genetic design, but we have some control over information. We don't have the ability to erase information from our memory, but we have the ability to add more information to it by reading other people's documents, having discussions with other people, and by doing scientific research.

We can influence our behavior and our future because each of us has the ability to determine whether we will learn more information, and if so, which information we will learn. For some examples:

• Some people read and discuss Harry Potter books, or learn about Hollywood gossip or sports events. This is useful for entertaining themselves and socializing.

• Some people read the Bible or other religious documents. They foolishly believe that they are developing a greater understanding of the world, and that they will be able to make wiser decisions about life, but in reality they are doing the equivalent of dumping sewage into their brain.

• Some people read and discuss scientific reports or my documents. These people are exposing themselves to differences of opinions, and this can help them improve their opinions and change the course of the human race.

Information has a tremendous effect on individuals, even if we do not understand it or agree with it. For example, even though I cannot use language perfectly, and you cannot decode it perfectly, as you read my documents, some of my thoughts are being transferred into your mind. You will not agree with everything I say, and you might find some sections too confusing to understand, but some of my thoughts will remain in your mind for the rest of your life, and they are going to influence your decisions. Your life will be permanently altered by it. You cannot undo the effect this information has on you.

It is also interesting to consider that when our mind puts information in its memory, it does not keep track of where the information came from. After a while, we forget where some bits of information came from, and that can cause us to assume that we are the creator of the information.

This characteristic of not keeping track of where we got information never caused a problem during prehistoric times, but it causes a problem today with the people who create information for a living, such as musicians, authors, and scientists. If they do not make an attempt to keep track of where they pick up information, they might inadvertently plagiarize somebody. People who make a living by creating information have to do something that our prehistoric ancestors never had to worry about, which is to keep track of where they get information.

It's also interesting to consider that because we cannot erase information from our minds, a person can be influenced by people and ideas that he despises and disagrees with. Many of the people who read my documents, for example, hate me and want to suppress me and my opinions, but they are going to be permanently altered by my opinions.

Furthermore, even the people who disagree with most of what I say are likely to agree with some of my opinions, which can result in them passing that information to other people, even though they want to suppress me.

The significance of this is that when you give a person information about how we have been lied to about the Apollo moon landing or the Holocaust, they might argue with you, and you might assume that you have had no effect on them, but don't make that assumption. If you provided them with information that they can understand, it is very likely to have an effect on them, even if they struggle to resist it.

It is even more likely to have an effect on them if another person provides them with similar information, and then later another person. When more than one person repeats virtually the same information, they refresh that information, and they cause people to think about it again. This can result in a person eventually facing the possibility that our "crazy" conspiracy theories are correct.

Don't assume that when you give somebody some information, it has had no effect, and that you wasted your time. Even if the person hates you, it is likely to have an effect on him, but you might not notice the effect for months or years.

Information is incredibly valuable to an individual person, but from the point of view of a organization, the most important aspect of the organization is the genetic qualities of its members. For a few examples:

• An organization that consists of people who are genetically prone towards abnormal levels of violence, selfishness, envy, arrogance, and other detrimental qualities is going to be a miserable organization no matter what type of information is provided to the people.

• An organization that is dominated by people who are genetically prone to follow their ancestors and be frightened of new ideas is going to be an organization that cannot adapt to changes in the environment, and does not try to improve itself. Information will not be of much value to them because they will ignore anything that does not fit the information they grew up with.

• An organization that consists of people who are capable of working together as a team for the benefit of all, and who are capable of exploring new ideas, discussing issues, compromising on policies, and controlling their emotional cravings is going to be able to accomplish a tremendous amount and be able to adapt to changes in their environment. Information will be of tremendous use to them because they will have the ability to discuss the information, research more information, and experiment with new ideas.

• The difference in behavior between butterflies, dogs, and humans is due almost entirely to the differences in our genetic qualities, not a difference in the information that we have been exposed to.

• An organization that consists of morons or retarded people will be as worthless as an organization of dogs because the people will be as unable to organize themselves and set useful goals as dogs. It would not matter what type of information we provided them.

Now consider how these concepts apply to leadership positions. Many top government officials and business executives show an extreme craving for material wealth, and many are also abnormally selfish, arrogant, and abusive. For example, some have been caught taking bribes, even though they are so extremely wealthy that they don't have any use for more money. Many government officials, especially in the communist nations, have also used their police force as a group of attack dogs to suppress or murder their critics.

Many people respond to their selfishness, violence, and greed by saying that "power corrupts". Since communist dictators, Kings, and Queens are the most abusive of all, people also add, "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

We assume that people are very similar to one another, so when we find government officials behaving in an atrocious manner, we assume they are people similar to ourselves who have somehow been corrupted. We assume that we would be just as selfish and greedy if we were put into a position of authority.

Since the environment has an effect on us, a person's attitude and behavior will change when he is put into a top position of a business or government, but whether a person becomes abusive, violent, greedy, or selfish depends upon the genetic characteristics of his brain. A job does not force a person to become selfish or abusive.

It might help you to understand this if you consider how children are affected by the environment. For example, there are lots of wealthy families who are providing their children with excessive amounts of gifts, pampering, praise, and servants. Some of those children become spoiled brats, but it is important to note that some of them do not become brats, even though they were raised in the same environment.

Humans are naturally selfish and arrogant, so when parents pamper a child, they encourage the child to become selfish and arrogant. However, the environment is merely an influence over us. The environment does not force us to do anything in particular. What we end up choosing to do depends upon the genetic characteristics of our brain. Encouraging a child to become a spoiled brat will not force him to become a brat. It simply encourages him.

For a real example, consider the behavior of Ethan Couch, who became famous for having the mysterious disease "affluenza". His lawyer essentially claimed that Ethan was an ordinary young man who had been raised in such a wealthy environment that he didn't learn some of the lessons in life that the ordinary people had learned.

A more sensible explanation of Ethan's bad behavior is that it was due to the undesirable mental characteristics that he inherited from his parents. Both his mother and father displayed criminal and anti-social behavior before and after their son was arrested. For example, several years before Ethan was arrested, his father was stopped by the police for driving while intoxicated, and he tried to hurt the policeman's feelings with the remark, "I make more in a day than you make in a year!"

We cannot say that he was driving while intoxicated simply because he was wealthy, and that he made that insulting remark because he was wealthy. The people who make remarks like that are displaying an angry, arrogant, vengeful attitude, and it has nothing to do with their level of material wealth. It is due to the genetic design of their brain. It is due to their emotional characteristics.

When a person who is suffering from "poverty" makes insulting remarks to the police, the psychologists claim that the reason the person is so angry is because he is suffering from poverty, and when a wealthy person behaves in the same manner, the psychologists say his anger is due to his wealth. The psychologists are simply refusing to acknowledge the evidence that human behavior is due to our genetic characteristics, not poverty or wealth.

It does not make sense to say that Ethan's parents were badly behaved because they were wealthy. They were badly behaved because of the genetic design of their brains. When we allow people like them to reproduce, we increase the chances that there will be more misfits, criminals, and anti-social weirdos in the next generation.

Ethan picked up his language, clothing styles, verbal expressions, and other culture from his parents and other people, but the primary reason his behavior resembled his parents is because he inherited their inferior mental circuitry.

If we could analyze the lives of all of the extremely wealthy people, we might come to the conclusion that they are more involved with crime than the average person, and that they are more abusive, arrogant, vengeful, hateful, envious, dishonest, and deceptive than the average person.

If it turns out that the wealthiest people are more badly behaved than the typical person, it is not because their wealth caused them to become badly behaved. Rather, their bad behavior is due to their genetic mental circuitry, and they would have been just as badly behaved if they were living in the type of society that I've suggested, in which everybody has the same level of material wealth.

If wealthy people are more badly behaved than the typical person, the most likely explanation for why is because the free enterprise system gives those people an advantage over the honest, nice people. In other words, "the scum is rising to the top".

Every competitive event, whether it be a free enterprise system, athletic contest, or political contest, favors certain types of physical and mental characteristics. By making changes to the competitive event, we change who wins the competition.

The person who wins a competition excels in some particular quality, but that quality is not necessarily desirable. For example, a contest to determine who can drink the most beer in 10 minutes will show us who excels in that particular activity, but a person who has the talent to win that type of competition does not have a desirable talent. If we were to put the winners of those beer drinking contests into the top government positions under the assumption that a government full of "winners" is better than a government of "losers", we would not necessarily be improving our government.

In a free enterprise system, the people who rise to the top are those who excel in making money through free enterprise, but they are not necessarily desirable as leaders. If we thoroughly understood the human brain, and could understand everybody, we might come to the conclusion that many of the people who excel in making money should be described as mentally ill, or as unfit for leadership.

A lot of people have noticed that many of the people in top positions of business and government are abusive, selfish, arrogant, vengeful, violent, and envious, but it is incorrect to claim that they were ordinary people who became badly behaved because a position of authority causes people to become corrupt and abusive. Their bad behavior is due to the genetic characteristics of their brain, and they would be just as abusive if they were factory workers or farmers.

The proof for what I am saying is that there are some people in management positions who are not abusive, and there are lots of factory workers, retail store clerks, welfare recipients, and insurance salesmen who are just as dishonest, abusive, selfish, and greedy as the billionaire business executives and communist dictators.

In a previous document, I pointed out that in order to truly determine who among us is honest, we have to put everybody into an environment in which we have good opportunities to commit crimes. The same is true with abusive leaders. If we want to figure out who among us is going to be an abusive leader, we need to put everybody into a position of authority.

If everybody had the opportunity to be a dictator of a nation, we would discover that the behavior of the dictators fits a bell curve. We would discover most people become an "average" dictator who shows an average amount of selfishness, greed, violence, and revenge. We would also discover that a minority of dictators become extremely selfish, abusive, and violent, and another minority are at the other extreme and are the least abusive.

It is false to say that everybody would behave in the same manner if put into the same environment. It is true that everybody's attitude and behavior will change slightly when they are put into a position of authority, but it is not true that everybody will become equally selfish, abusive, cruel, and disgusting. A person's genetic personality determines how abusive he will become when he is put into a position of authority.

The same is true of pedophilia. There are a lot of men who are capable of being around children who are unconscious in hospitals without sexually abusing the children.

To complicate the issue, some of the men who do not abuse unconscious children actually want to abuse the children but are suppressing the desire because they realize that it is wrong to do so, or because they are afraid of being arrested or criticized. Although they do not abuse children, they are not genetically the same as those of us who are not suppressing the craving to abuse children.

The men who choose to abuse children are doing so because they want to, not because of the environment they are in. And if they have a preference for boys, it is because their brain was designed with that preference, not because they have more access to boys. The pedophiles are in virtually the same environment as the rest of us, but their mind comes to different conclusions on what to do, and the reason is because their brain is designed according to a different blueprint. They have different intellectual and/or emotional qualities.

When we select people for jobs, we should analyze the genetic characteristics of the job applicants. For example, if we are trying to hire a man to work at a children's hospital, day care center, or other organization in which he will have access to young children, we should look for a man who does not have a desire to have sex with children. Since we do not yet know how to accurately analyze a person's emotional characteristics, it might be best if we were to give first preference to women for the jobs that provide access to children.

Likewise, when voters are selecting a political candidate for a top government position, the voters should analyze the life of the candidates and pass judgment on their intellectual and emotional characteristics. Voters should avoid the candidates who show abnormal selfishness, envy, and revenge, or who have abnormal cravings for material wealth, status, or violence.

Voters should look for candidates who have shown an interest in analyzing society, exploring our options, and providing people with guidance. If a candidate has never shown such qualities, we should not assume that they are going to suddenly develop those qualities after they get the job. We should assume that the personality characteristics they showed during their past is what we are going to see in their future. We have an expression for this concept; namely, a leopard cannot change its spots.

When Donald Trump was running for president, many people complained that his behavior was crude, arrogant, and obnoxious. During a television interview, he responded to those accusations with the remark:

"When you’re president, or if you’re about to be president, you would act differently."

He implied that if he were president, or if it seemed likely that he would become president, then he would go through a metamorphosis and transform into a well-behaved man. This is a common promise among people who are badly behaved. For example, children will often promise their parents that if they are given a toy that they want, or a pet dog, they will become more responsible. It would have made more sense for Trump to justify his behavior, such as:

"This is my personality, and I am trying my best to control myself. I ask that you make an effort to accept my personality. Furthermore, I ask that you consider that you will benefit from a president with my personality as compared to the typical politician who panders to people. I have a tendency to defend myself and fight back. I am not easily manipulated or intimidated. I have the ability to stand up to and deal with the corrupt and incompetent government officials. That is what this nation needs."

Trump is bringing a lot of wealthy people into the government. He said: "I want people that made a fortune". Trump is assuming that people who have been extremely successful at making money in the free enterprise system are going to be excellent leaders in the government, but that is not necessarily true.

Every year there are lots of food eating contests, and the winners of those contests have truly exceptional abilities to eat large quantities of food. If Trump were trying to put together a team to win food eating contests, then it would make sense for him to hire people who have been successful in food eating contests. If he were trying to start a rugby team, he would want to hire people who have been successful in starting a rugby team.

Trump is trying to create a government, so ideally he would pick people who have been successful as government officials, but our government is such a failure that none of our officials can claim to be successful as a government official. As a result, Trump is picking people who have been successful in business and the military.

Hopefully Trump has the sense to select people who can do more than make money. Some business executives and military leaders are excellent at organizing people into teams, working with them to accomplish goals, getting people out of positions they cannot do properly, and promoting people who have talent. Many military leaders and policemen also excel in the ability to deal with troublesome people rather than hide from them or pander to them.

If Trump selects people who are interested in improving the world rather than simply gathering more money, then his administration will be able to remove the crime network that is tormenting the world, thereby bringing an incredible transformation to the world. They will also be able to get rid of the corruption in our government, schools, and media, and we will be able to fix our history books so that they tell the truth about the Apollo moon landing, the world wars, and the 9/11 attack. People like Christopher Bollyn will be freed, and people like me will no longer have hordes of Jews suppressing us.

Some alcoholics have successfully controlled their use of alcohol, and some obese people have successfully reduced their weight. Those type of successes show that it is possible that the wealthy people in the Trump administration will be able to control their cravings for money and push themselves into doing something useful for the human race during their final years of life.

However, if Trump and his friends are just an alternative crime network, we may see only a few trivial improvements. So far he is surrounding himself with Jews and other people who are silent about the lies about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and the pedophile networks.

Another possibility is that the Trump administration is truly interested in helping the world, but after a few months they will lose the self-control necessary to continue. The reason this is a possibility is because many alcoholics and obese people are initially successful at controlling their problem, and then after a few months, go back to the behavior that is more natural to them. It is possible that the billionaires in the Trump administration will initially exert some self-control and do something useful for the nation, but after a few months they might revert to following their psychotic cravings for wealth and status.

The governments of the world are so corrupt and incompetent that it can cause us to assume that the future will be just a continuation of the present, but an important concept to keep in mind is that we do not have to hope that Donald Trump – or some other government official – does something to improve the world. If we can cooperate and compromise with one another, we can decide for ourselves what our future will be.

Most voters have the attitude of a child who waits patiently for Santa Claus to bring him some gifts. Specifically, every four years the voters select a president, and then they hope that the president will improve the nation. When the president turns out to be a failure, they hope that the next president will do a better job. All they do is hope. They don't take action.

The voters have been putting different people into government offices for centuries, but despite all of the changes in government officials, the government corruption continues; the school system remains expensive and ineffective; there is still no city planning; traffic congestion is getting worse; our cities continue to suffer from floods; our government and private organizations are still bringing refugees and illegal aliens into the nation; and all of our other social problems and economic problems continue.

A democratic government requires the citizens to take an active role in the nation's affairs. We are supposed to discuss our options, compromise on policies, and tell the government representatives what we want them to do for us. Unfortunately, most citizens will not discuss our options, and most cannot compromise on policies. They can only argue with one another, and usually only over a few issues, such as abortion and guns.

Furthermore, how can we discuss our options when a network of criminal Jews is suppressing the people and opinions that they don't approve of? Europe, Japan, and the United States do not have free speech. We have censorship, but the Jews have been so successful with their propaganda that most people don't realize it.

I can see that the Jews are censoring me, and that they spent years trying to convince my relatives and other people to put pressure on me to erase my website, and they spent years trying to set me up for blackmail and manipulation, and undoubtedly murder and kidnapping, also. I am not the only person that they have been doing this to. For example, they did this to Christopher Bollyn, and there could be tens of thousands of other people in Europe, Japan, and America that they are censoring, murdering, getting fired from their jobs, and intimidating into silence.

How are we going to discuss our options when the majority of people allow the Jews to control the information we are exposed to? Actually, American taxpayers give billions of dollars a year in aid to Israel to help fund their criminal operations.

Our universities, media, courts, and government agencies are under the control of Jewish criminals and blackmailed puppets. They are promoting Jewish propaganda and suppressing anybody who tries to expose their crimes or discuss an issue that they don't want discussed.

We can discuss whatever we want on the Internet, but most people are too afraid of being insulted or fired from their jobs to take advantage of the Internet. For example, Trump recently selected Michael Flynn to be National Security Adviser, and Flynn's son was assisting the administration in some manner. However, after his son showed an interest in investigating the accusations about "pizzagate", he was reprimanded by the media, and he was forced to resign from his job with the Trump administration.

Unless we get rid of the Jewish crime network, nothing is going to improve, but how do we get rid of such a gigantic crime network?

Trump cannot get rid of the crime network by himself, assuming that he wants to get rid of it. Our police departments are too small to do this by themselves, also. The "ordinary" citizens outnumber the criminals by a tremendous amount, and they could get rid of all crime networks if they were capable of forming a team that would work together for the goal of eliminating crime networks, but we cannot expect citizens to organize themselves without a leader.

Tens of millions of Americans own guns, so theoretically they could create a militia that is larger than our military, but most citizens have guns for the same reason that a child clings to a teddy bear. Specifically, they are frightened of crime. They are not interested in using their guns. They want their guns only for emotional comfort.

In order to stop a crime network, we need a large number of men with the emotional ability to use their guns, and with the leadership to organize them into a team. We need men who have the courage to either arrest or kill the criminals. We are not going to stop a crime network with a disorganized bunch of frightened adults who are clinging to teddy bears.

The US military is the only organization that has enough members with the emotional ability to arrest or kill potentially dangerous people, and who can work together in a team for the benefit of society. What becomes of America will depend mainly on how well our military can clean its organization of criminals, and how successful they are in a battle with a gigantic, international crime network.

Even though the majority of citizens do not have the emotional ability to assist the military in eliminating the Jewish crime network, the citizens and the police departments have an important role in our future. The reason is because a nation is a team, and what becomes of a team depends upon its members. If a team is dominated by people who are apathetic, selfish, or dishonest, it does not matter how talented the military is. That type of team will always suffer from a lot of problems.

If you cannot understand how significant the team members are to a team, consider that the United States is still resisting the metric system simply because the majority of citizens are ignoring it. It should be noted that the citizens are not actively fighting the metric system. Rather, they are merely ignoring it.

The American government is just a group of submissive servants, so there is no leadership in this nation. The military and the scientists are operating on the metric system, but the American citizens are using the Imperial system. We do not even have the leadership necessary to force everybody in the nation to operate on the same system.

The US military is just a small fraction of the American population, and some members of the military are members of the Jewish crime network. Many people in the military might want to destroy the Jewish crime network, but how much success can they have if they do not get support from the American people? The Jewish crime network is enormous and international, and we need a lot of people to help get rid of it. We are not going to have much success if most of the people are apathetic, selfish sheep.

Rather than help to expose and stop the Jews, most citizens ignore us when we show them evidence that Jews are lying about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the pizzagate issue. The college students, who are supposed to be the most educated and intelligent people, don't even show any concern that they are being lied to. Furthermore, some people are even worse than apathetic; they ridicule us as "conspiracy theorists" or as "anti-Semites", and they try to suppress us when we tell other people about these crimes.

This problem of apathetic, selfish citizens is worldwide. It is not restricted to America. For example, the majority of Germans are ignoring the evidence that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust, and that allows a small group of Jews to exploit and abuse Germany and other nations.

Apathy was acceptable in prehistoric times, and for sheep and monkeys, but it is not acceptable in this modern world. Unfortunately, the military seems to be the only organization that fully grasps the concept that team members must participate in the team. The military will execute deserters, for example. They realize that a deserter is putting other members in danger. They don't tolerate selfishness or apathy. Our nation needs to follow that same philosophy. The citizens who are apathetic and selfish should be regarded as dangerous animals who are allowing crime networks to thrive.

The American government officials do not have much authority to do anything, so even if the Trump administration wants to eliminate corruption and crime networks, we would be fools to wait for our government to do the job. The only way our nation is going to get rid of the crime networks and corrupt government officials is if a lot citizens get together and do something as a team.

We don't know if the Trump administration wants to improve the nation, or if they are merely an alternative crime network, but we don't have to sit around like passive children and wonder what Trump is going to do for us. We can get set the course for our future with or without him. We could discuss what we want to do, and then tell the Trump administration to either work with us, or be replaced. We do not have to wait for Trump to do something.

Furthermore, even if the Trump administration arrests thousands of criminals in our government, media, schools, and businesses, that doesn't mean we should be pacified, or even that we should thank him for his work. When your garden is dominated by weeds, and the gardener removes a few of them, he has not solved the problem.

Prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu is facing criminal charges in Israel, but even if he is arrested, that doesn't solve the problem of Israel extorting money from America and Europe, starting wars, conducting murders, and committing other crimes.

We would be fools to be satisfied by the removal of a small percentage of criminals. Unless the Trump administration wants to completely cleanse the nation of crime networks, he is just a member of an alternative crime network who is willing to get rid of only the criminals that he is not associated with.

The people in the military should not wait for the government officials to tell them to destroy the Jewish crime network. Neither should the police, and neither should you. The military, police, and the rest of us should take it upon ourselves to do something. Trump should be working with us. We should not be passive children who wait for Trump to do something for us.

Actually, the reason the Jewish crime network has been disintegrating during the past decade is because there are lots of people who have decided to take an active role in society and put some of their time and effort into stopping the crime networks. We need to recruit more people and expand these operations, not stop what we have been doing and hope that the Trump administration will finish the task.

Getting rid of the crime networks and corrupt government officials will not cause our social and economic problems to vanish. It will not cause air pollution to disappear, either, or traffic congestion to cease. It will not cause burglars to become honest, or cause lonely men and women to form stable marriages. It will not cause the lies in our history books to be replaced with the truth. It will not stop people from abandoning unwanted pets in the city, and it will not stop people from abandoning unwanted children in orphanages. It will not even cause the United States to switch to the metric system.

Getting rid of crime networks and corrupt government officials will merely allow us to correct the lies in our history books; allow better people to run for government office; and allow us to discuss our options in public without fear of retaliation.

However, whether we actually elect better government officials depends upon whether the people are capable of selecting better government officials. Whether the lies in the history books are corrected will depend upon whether the people are willing to put the effort into correcting the lies. Whether traffic congestion is reduced will depend upon whether the people are willing to experiment with better city designs and better transportation systems.

Getting rid of corrupt government officials and crime networks will not solve our problems. It will only provide us with the opportunity to improve our lives. If we don't take that opportunity, nothing will improve. If people continue to behave as they have in the past, nothing will change. For two examples:

• Some corrupt government officials have already been fired or arrested, but the voters replaced them with other corrupt government officials.
• The police have already arrested lots of criminals and eliminated some crime networks, but after the criminals were released from jail, they committed more crimes, and after they died of old age, other criminals replaced them.

In order to improve the nation, we need to provide ourselves with leaders who have the courage to step off of the established path and blaze a new path into our future. We need a group of leaders who are capable of experimenting with new attitudes, new designs for cities, new government systems, new ways of electing governments officials, new economic systems, and new transportation systems.

How are we going to provide ourselves with better leadership? If we continue to allow the majority of people to vote, nothing will improve because the voters will select the type of candidates that they have been selecting in the past. A leopard does not change its spots.

I think the only way a nation is going to bring significant improvements to itself is if a group of citizens work with the military to install a better government, and if we tell the majority of people to accept the new government and keep their mouth shut.

My suggestion that a small group take control of the nation with the military might seem traitorous or illegal, but all improvements to the world have been the result of individuals and small groups of people. For example, that is how the United States was created in 1776, and only a small group of people got together to create the British Magna Carta.

Even the unpleasant changes to the world have been the result of individuals and small groups of people. For example, a small group of criminal Jews has gotten control of the American government, media, and many schools, businesses and other organizations. Individuals and small groups are also manipulating our holiday celebrations, creating idiotic initiation ceremonies for college students, and encouraging feminism.

The majority of people do not participate in their future because they behave too much like sheep. The majority of people believe that they are in control of the their nation and their lives, but they are being manipulated, abused, exploited, cheated, and intimidated on a regular basis. Unless a small group of people within the United States decides to take action and do something, nothing is going to improve.

Animals react to problems in only two ways; they either become angry or they become fearful. However, most of the problems that an animal experiences are insignificant, not life-threatening. For example, they are constantly irritated by insects and parasites; they must regularly deal with unpleasant weather; and the social animals are regularly irritating one another by bumping into one another, trying to eat the same foods, and trying to attract the same female.

It makes no sense for an animal to react to every problem that it encounters because animals encounter problems continuously. Animals evolved to react to problems only when the problem stimulates its emotions above a certain threshold. For example, being bit by a fly will cause an animal to use its tail to knock it away, but the fly will not stimulate its emotions enough to cause the animal to react with anger or fear.

Humans are exactly the same as animals. We are irritated constantly by insects, the weather, and other people. We also irritate ourselves because we are regularly making mistakes, forgetting something, and remembering something incorrectly. However, unless a problem stimulates our emotions above a certain threshold, we will ignore it.

Since each of us is genetically unique, each of us has a different threshold in regards to what will stimulate us into reacting to a problem. To complicate the issue, our tolerance level can change from one moment to the next. For example, we are less tolerant of annoyances when we are very tired, or in pain.

Most people have an "average" threshold level. For example, consider how people react when they are standing in lines at a retail store to purchase items, and the cashier is serving a person who is causing a delay. Most people ignore the person, even though they are irritated by his annoying behavior, but occasionally there will be somebody in the line who has a lower threshold, and he will react with anger, such as by making an insulting remark about the person, or by moving to another line in the retail store.

In our world today, we praise the people who react to irritations by doing nothing. We describe these people as having self-control, and being polite. However, a person who does nothing about a problem is not necessarily polite or showing signs of self-control. In some situations, his behavior would be better described as "apathetic". We have to analyze the situation before praising somebody for doing nothing about his problems.

For example, consider a female employee at an office who tolerates lewd remarks and other abuse by the men. If she is ignoring what we could describe as "ordinary" interactions between men and women, then we could say she is being polite, but if she is tolerating behavior that most of us would describe as unacceptable, then she is encouraging the man to continue his unacceptable behavior, which can encourage him to do it to other women, and it can encourage other men to do it, also. In that case, by doing nothing about the abuse, she should be described as tolerating abuse, or apathetic, or encouraging bad behavior.

This issue is actually very complex. As I mentioned many times, there is a reason that people have a temper, and that is to make us do something about our problems. The people who get angry are often performing a useful service. A woman with a low threshold for abuse, for example, will yell at a man who is abusive in the office, and that can cause him and other men to exert more self control. The attention she brings to the man can also result in the managers passing judgment on whether the man's behavior was unacceptable, in which case he might be transferred or fired. Those women are helping the team by losing their temper.

For another example, I have seen some women who stand quietly in front of a cashier who is adding up the items that they are purchasing, and those women do not bother to get their money or credit card out of their purse until the cashier tells them what the total is. Some of these women then spend what feels like several minutes trying to find their money inside their large purse that is so full of items that they cannot easily find their money. Meanwhile the cashier is standing still with nothing to do.

After the woman finds her purse, if she decides to pay with a credit card or ATM card, many women are so ignorant about technical issues that they slide the card so slowly that it does not read properly, and so the cashier has to tell them to slide it again, or the cashier becomes so frustrated that he grabs the card and slides it for them.

If a person waiting behind this woman has an unusually low threshold level for irritations, he might become so upset that he blurts out some angry remark such as, "Can't you get your money ready while you are standing in line, you stupid bitch? And slide your card faster, you idiot."

His angry remark might cause the woman to realize that she is annoying people, and the next time she is standing in line to purchase items, she might get her purse ready.

If everybody was aware of these issues, and if everybody had better self-control, then when a person becomes upset at a woman who doesn't bother to get her money ready while the cashier is totaling her items, he would refrain from yelling at her. He would instead force himself to remain calm and politely point out to her that she should get her money ready while the cashier is totaling her items.

Unfortunately, even if he is polite, most of the adults who need that type of advice are likely to have mental disorders that will cause them to react to even the most polite suggestions by either pouting or becoming angry. This can lead to an argument between the two people, which in turn could lead to a fight.

The reason that the adults who need that type of advice are likely to have mental disorders is because the "normal" people pick up customs from other people without any effort simply by observing them, and they are willing to follow those customs. However, some adults have such mental disorders that they either do not pick up some of the basic customs, or they do not want to follow them.

Parents and schools should prepare children for society by teaching them about the technology that they must use, and by providing them with basic information about the government, marriage, holiday celebrations, and the economy. Unfortunately, many parents pamper their children to such an excess that they create spoiled brats who will not even bother to clean up after themselves, and schools have no interest in preparing children for society.

Even if we were to alter our school system so that the teenagers had some courses on how to function in society, some of them would grow up to be adults who don't remember the rules or don't want to follow all of rules. If we ignore those people, we let them irritate us, and if they reproduce, we allow them to create more irritating people in the next generation.

Every society has a police department that will deal with burglars and murderers because that particular behavior irritates us to such an extent that it triggers our anger. However, we do nothing about the people who irritate us at a level that is below the average person's threshold that triggers anger. We don't consider those people to be committing "crimes".

Some women are harassed by their ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands, but when they complain to the police, the police respond that they cannot do anything until the man commits a "crime". The police explain to the woman that a man is not committing a crime simply for annoying a woman, or for frightening a woman.

There are some people who complain to the police about their neighbors, and the police respond that being annoying is not a crime, and until those neighbors commit a crime, there is nothing the police can do.

How do we determine what type of behavior is classified as a "crime"? At the moment, every society is designing laws according to how they affect our emotions. If a particular behavior triggers our emotion of anger, we will describe it as a crime. If the behavior does not cross the threshold of triggering anger in most people, we might regard it as annoying, immoral, or disgusting, but we will not regard it as a crime.

If we were to design laws according to our intellect rather than according to our emotions, then we could classify a lot of annoying behavior as "criminal" behavior. This would allow the police to confront the irritating people and pass judgment on why they were so annoying.

If the police determined that a person was ignorant about his irritating behavior, then they would explain to him what he was doing wrong, but if the police came to the conclusion that the person was aware that he was irritating people, they could recommend putting the person on restrictions, such as restricting him to certain neighborhoods, restaurants, and/or recreational areas. If the person is a constant source of irritation, the police could recommend evicting him from society.

You might be frightened at the thought of a society in which the police can arrest people simply for being an irritation, but this type of policy is doing nothing more than raising the standards for behavior. There are lots of organizations that have set standards of behavior for their members that are noticeably higher than the standards that nations set for their citizens, but those organizations are not suffering as a result. Actually, the members of those organizations benefit by the high standards.

Most businesses and militaries, for example, will not tolerate the level of sloppiness and littering that our governments allow for the citizens. Furthermore, when militaries and businesses discover that one of their members does not know how to properly use a seatbelt, magnetic card reader, or other device, they provide him with information, and if he still cannot use it properly, they restrict him from using it. They don't tolerate people who ruin equipment, waste time or resources, or cause disruptions to the team.

There is no reason that a city cannot set the same high standards for behavior that businesses and militaries set, or even higher standards. The only people who will suffer from the high standards are those who do not want to follow the standards, or are too mentally defective to follow the standards. The rest of us will regard the high standards as creating a more pleasant environment.

Most people will not do anything about a problem until the problem is so severe that it crosses their emotional threshold and makes them angry or fearful. As a result, we are ignoring a lot of the problems in the world. For example, the people who abandon unwanted pets in the city are a drain on the financial resources of a society, but that activity does not upset us enough to want to do something to stop those people.

Many people have noticed this concept with alcoholics. For example, some of us have known an alcoholic man who ignored his alcohol problem until his wife became so upset that she threatened to get a divorce. The thought of being abandoned triggered the man's emotions of fear and sadness to such an extent that he was stimulated into making an attempt to control his alcohol consumption.

We can see this same behavior in regards to air pollution. During the past few centuries we have been creating such large quantities of pollutants that we are harming the health of all living creatures, and we are ruining the visual beauty of the earth.

Air pollution has been annoying people for centuries, but it did not irritate them enough to trigger their anger or fear. However, every once in a while a city would experience an unusually severe case of air pollution, and that would cause some people to become fearful of their health to such an extent that they wanted to do something to stop the pollution. For example, in 1952 the air pollution became so severe in London that thousands of people died during a few days. The pain in their lungs and the deaths of the people caused some people's level of fear to rise above their level of apathy, and they reacted by creating laws to reduce the air pollution.

Air pollution is still a problem in many cities, but it is not irritating enough to trigger enough anger or fear in the majority of people, so they ignore it. If governments continue to do whatever pleases the ordinary people, we are going to continue suffering from air pollution, water pollution, littering, and trash in our lakes and oceans. We are also going to continue suffering from traffic congestion, overcrowding, graffiti, ugly cities, homeless people, orphans, crime networks, and corruption.

Humans were not designed for the problems of modern society. Our threshold for abuse is much too high for this modern world. We have to become extremely angry or fearful before we will do something about our problems.

The reason humans are this way is because that is how animals are. Animals will suffer a tremendous amount of abuse before they are willing to do something. Animals evolved with a very high threshold for suffering because they don't have the intelligence to solve their problems, and they cannot discuss issues with one another, and they cannot compromise on solutions.

When animals are abused by the weather, they must be able to tolerate it because there is nothing they can do to stop it. When they are attacked by predators, they must get over the problem quickly because they cannot do anything to stop it from happening again. Animals must be tolerant of abuse.

In this modern world, we need to exert some self-control and deal with problems before they make us angry or fearful. The governments must stop appeasing the majority of people and start providing them with leadership. We must stop promoting the philosophy that the majority of people make wise decisions.

We need to restrict top government positions to the people who will solve problems before the problems have become so severe that the majority of people are angry or fearful. Unfortunately, a lot of people will resist that type of government because they will regard that type of government as abusive or unnecessarily safety conscious.

If, for example, a government official were to advocate putting resources into developing a better way of disposing of trash, many people, especially those who call themselves conservatives, would complain that the "crazy environmentalists" are worrying about an insignificant problem, and that the government should put tax money into something more useful, such as a new sports stadium, or a life-size replica of Noah's ark.

We have to use our intelligence to determine whether a particular problem is significant, but most people are using their emotions instead. For example, we dispose of trash by dumping it outside of the city where we cannot see or smell it. Since it does not affect our emotions, we regard trash as insignificant. The conservatives, who have a strong desire to follow their emotions rather than think for themselves, are the most likely to regard trash as an insignificant issue.

Business executives sometimes hurt their business by ignoring problems. For example, the American steel and automobile companies during the 1970s began facing competition from the Japanese, who were building more modern steel mills and factories. However, the American businesses were so large and profitable that they did not consider the Japanese to be a significant threat to their business. Most of those business executives were conservatives who wanted to follow their ancestors and keep everything as it is. They were not interested in analyzing the new technology that the Japanese were using, and they were not interested in dealing with a problem that they regarded as insignificant.

Through the years the Japanese businesses became larger and more efficient, and that in turn caused the profits of the American companies to decrease, and eventually profits went so low that the executives and stockholders became fearful of bankruptcy. That fear pushed them pass their threshold of apathy, thereby causing them to do something to modernize their businesses. Unfortunately, some of them waited so long that it was too late, and they went bankrupt.

We need leaders who can deal with problems before they become serious. We need leaders who make decisions according to intellectual analyses rather than emotional feelings. If we had installed those type of people in our government a few centuries ago, they would have dealt with pollution, garbage disposal, crime, homelessness, unwanted children, and other problems long ago.

Another example of how we are hurting ourselves by ignoring problems is that a lot of valuable time is being wasted by engineers, machinists, computer programmers, and other people who have to exchange drawings through the DXF file format. There are two primary problems with the DXF format:

1) Autodesk will not provide adequate documentation, or any software to help us read or write the DXF files. This means that we cannot read all of the DXF files correctly.

2) Autodesk changes the format every year or so.
This means that the software that was designed to read the DXF files this year will not necessarily read them correctly next year.

Autodesk is aware of these problems but does not care. For example, the DXF file has some "extrusion values". Years ago I sent an email message to Autodesk and asked them what we are supposed to do with the "extrusion" values, and they sent back the exact same, brief and completely useless response that is in their documentation. Their response was something like this: "The extrusion direction is the normal vector of the plane that contains the entity."

Perhaps that is an adequate explanation to a mathematician, but to 99% of the population, it is meaningless. The person who created the ExpertGPS software gave up trying to figure out how to deal with the extrusion values, so when his software encounters a DXF file with unusual extrusion values, it displays this message that explains that they can only read DXF files that have standard extrusion values.

The Internet has thousands of messages from people asking what to do with extrusion values, what to do with negative scaling factors, and how to deal with splines that don't have "fit points". For example, this forum has some questions about extrusion values, and here is one about "fit points".

There seem to be thousands of people, and from many different nations, asking questions on forums about how to read DXF files. If these people were unemployed, then I would not care that they are wasting their time, but most of them are computer programmers with valuable technical skills. These people are wasting valuable time. Autodesk should be held responsible for all of this wasted time. Ideally, Autodesk would provide a free software library to read the DXF format.

If some employees of a business were causing other employees this much confusion, the executives would be disgusted and angry with those employees, not let them cause confusion for decades. However, our government officials don't care about this waste. Our government doesn't even have the authority over the economy to stop businesses from behaving in this disgusting manner.

Individuals cannot do much of anything by themselves. The greatest accomplishments come from teams of people. This is not simply because adding more people to a project allows more work to be done. It is also because different people have slightly different talents. The end result is that a team becomes much more talented than any individual could possibly be.

What will become of the United States? Will Europe continue to be a European Union? Will all of our nations continue to be victims of Israel and other crime networks?

Every nation's future will be decided by the people who have the ability to form a team and get control of the nation. At the moment, the Jews are the only people who are showing the ability to form a team and do something as a group.

There are a lot of American citizens who don't like the corruption, traffic congestion, crime networks, littering, vandalism, and other problems, but unless enough citizens are willing to compromise on a policy and work together as a team on the same goal, nothing is going to improve.

The United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, and other democracies claim to be under the control of the majority of people, but in reality small teams are fighting one another for control of these nations, and the Jewish teams have been dominating for decades, or centuries. The majority of people believe that they are in control of their nation, but they are being manipulated and abused.

Years ago there were predictions that since the Internet was allowing us to expose the truth about the 9/11 attack, the majority of people will soon learn the truth that they were tricked into a war by Jews. Many people assumed that the public would react to that knowledge by becoming angry at their corrupt government officials, and very angry with Israel. Those predictions have turned out to be failures because most people are either refusing to look at the evidence that the 9/11 attack was a false flag operation, or they don't care about it.

During the final months of 2016, information about pizzagate was spreading around the world, and there were predictions that the public will be outraged when they discover that an international pedophile network is in control of their government. However, those predictions are failing, also, and for the same reasons.

Those of you who read my documents probably regard yourself as being capable of handling the truth, but are you capable of facing the truth about the majority of people? We have a tendency to ignore the unpleasant aspects of our family members and friends, and make excuses for their bad behavior. This is the reason we are frequently making predictions about how the public will be outraged when they discover the truth about something. We prefer to assume that the majority of people are responsible, and that they will take action to stop the abuse.

Unfortunately, history provides us with a tremendous amount of evidence that the majority of people will never take an active role in society. The majority of humans behave exactly like the majority of monkeys, dogs, and sheep. Specifically, they spend their time trying to titillate themselves, and they ignore the suffering and abuse that is going on around them.

The majority of humans are friendly, and you might enjoy spending time with them occasionally, but they are emotionally so similar to monkeys that they are not capable of making wise decisions about government officials or policies. They are as helpless and easily manipulated as a group of sheep.

During the Middle Ages, the majority of people were dominated by Kings and Queens, and during the past century or so, our nations have become dominated by teams of Jews. Some small team is going to dominate the majority of people, but which team will it be? If you don't get involved with this struggle, then you are one of the "majority of people" who allow other people to determine your future.

Imagine if you were alive when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. You might have predicted:
"As people discover that humans evolved from animals, they will discard their Bibles, and organized religions will soon cease to exist."

Or imagine if you were alive when people were discovering how enormous the universe was, and that some of the dots of light in the sky were actually gigantic galaxies with billions of stars. You might have predicted:
"As people discover the truth about the universe, they will realize that religion is nonsense, and they will replace their Bibles with science books."

In the world today, many people believe that men and women are a unisex creature, and that women can make intelligent decisions about voting. Imagine somebody predicting:
"As people discover that women are less intelligent than men, they will abandon feminism, and soon everybody will understand why men dominate certain jobs, such as science, machining, and engineering."

Or imagine somebody predicting:
"When dogs discover that vacuum cleaners are inanimate objects, like rocks and trees, they will stop barking at them."

The information about evolution did indeed cause some people to discard their Bibles, but not the majority of people. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much evidence we have for evolution because most of the religious people have chosen religion over science because they do not have the intellectual and/or emotional qualities necessary to look at the evidence and/or understand it.

Likewise, it doesn't matter how much evidence we have that men and women have different intellectual qualities, and it doesn't matter how much evidence we provide a dog that a vacuum cleaner is an inanimate object.

Every human brain has certain genetic intellectual and emotional abilities and limitations. If a person does not have the genetic ability to understand or accept certain information, there is nothing we can do to help him. The people who believe that Adam and Eve makes more sense than evolution have a genetically inferior brain, and there is no way we can improve their mind. We must regard them as mentally inferior people who are unfit to influence our future.

Can you face the evidence that the majority of people are so much like monkeys that we cannot expect them to make wise decisions about our future? Or do you have such a craving to be nice that you want to allow the majority of people to participate in decisions about our future?

A lot of people are friendly, honest, and nice, but they do not have the intellectual and/or emotional characteristics necessary to make wise decisions about how to manage a nation. Most of them cannot even make wise decisions about how to manage their own personal life.

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the human population is suffering from serious mental disorders. The reason I included images of some miserable artwork in this document is to remind you that there are millions of people who hate themselves and their life, and who cannot think properly. We cannot expect the mentally defective people to make wise decisions about the future of the human race.

Imagine somebody making this prediction: "As the information spreads that the majority of people are incapable of coping with modern society, the minority with higher quality minds will realize that a democracy is hopeless, and they must form a team to take control of the world, and that they must treat the majority of people as a group of helpless children." Will you help make that prediction come true?

The leaders of businesses, militaries, sports groups, and other organizations put the stability of the team ahead of the desires of the individual members. They realize that a team can accomplish much more than a group of individuals.

Individuals will always fail in competitions with teams, no matter how talented those individuals are. Among the teams, those who have the best ability to discuss their problems, compromise on policies, and work together as a group will dominate the teams in which the members waste more time arguing over what to do and how to do it.

Our schools are an example of how individuals can easily be beaten by even small organizations. The United States colleges have about 1.5 million faculty members, which is a lot of highly educated and intelligent people. However, they are not members of an organization. They are just a bunch of individuals scattered around the nation, and each of them does whatever he pleases with no regard to what the others are doing.

Some of the professors are productive in their research programs, but since they are individuals rather than an organization, they are helpless in competitive battles with even tiny groups of people.

For example, a small group of Jews has been controlling which books our schools are allowed to purchase, and they have been restricting schoolbooks to those that promote lies about the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and the 9/11 attack.

During the past two decades the Internet has allowed millions of people to realize that we are being lied to about hundreds of historical events, but the schools continue to promote lies. Why don't the teachers complain about this? Why are they willing to lie to their students?

Obviously, some faculty members are promoting lies because they are members of the Jewish crime network, but the others are doing so because they are helpless individuals. If any teacher were to promote the truth, he would be harassed and threatened by the Jews, and he would risk being fired. Instead of defending that teacher, the other teachers would react just like all animals react when they see an animal being attacked; specifically, they would worry about their own safety rather than help the victim, thereby allowing the attack to be successful.

If the teachers were members of an organization, and if that organization decided to tell the truth to students, then if one of the teachers was harassed or fired for telling the truth, the organization would come to the defense of that member. The organization would be so large that they would be able to protect their members from abuse.

The American Federation of Teachers represents employees of school and healthcare facilities, but that is just an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, and as with other labor unions, they are concerned only with wages and retirement benefits. They don't care about providing students with an honest or useful education, or dealing with crime networks, or looking for ways to improve society.

The University professors titillate themselves and one another with praise of how they are the most intelligent and educated people on the planet, but their inability to form an organization, or to work with other organizations, is allowing them to be abused by small groups of criminals. If they were as intelligent as they think they are, they would not be so easily abused.

The college professors could form a team that consists only of professors, or they could work with some other team, such as the military, some government agency, or some businesses. They have more than one option, and they should take one of them. They will be able to accomplish a lot more by working with other people.

Furthermore, if they are as intelligent and educated as they believe, they would be extremely valuable team members, even if they are only part-time members who assist some military, police, or government agency. So, why don't the professors get together with other people and put their intelligence and education to some use?

Some professors might justify their refusal to join a team by pointing out that if the law enforcement agencies and military would do their job and protect the nation from crime networks, then the professors would not need to form a team to deal with the corruption.

However, even if there were no crime networks to interfere with the schools, the professors and other faculty members would benefit by being part of an organization. The reason is because as individuals, there is nothing they can do to improve the school system or society. As individuals, they are helpless.

For example, some professors complain about the process they have to go through to get funding for research projects, and some complain that some courses have no value to the students. How can the professors solve any of the problems of the school system when they refuse to create a team to deal with the problems? Different professors will have different ideas on what to do, and even if they could agree on a solution, none of them have the authority to change the school system.

In order to improve a school system, a lot of people have to get together to discuss the issue, and they must be able to compromise on policies. Then they must have some authority to implement their policies. If they do not have the authority, they must convince the appropriate government officials to do something.

Individuals will not be able to do much to improve a school system, economic system, holiday celebration, or any other social system because they will argue incessantly with one another over what to do and how to do it. Only organizations will be able to bring significant improvements to our social systems.

Social technology is not the same as physical technology. An individual citizen can develop a new mousetrap by himself without anybody's assistance, and if other individuals like his mousetrap, they can create their own version by themselves. No organization is needed to develop or promote a mousetrap, although an organization will be able to build a factory to produce enormous numbers of mousetraps.

Furthermore, the people who want to use the new mousetrap can do so regardless of whether other people want to join them. We do not have to force everybody to use the same mousetrap. Also, people can use the new mousetrap as well as the older style mousetraps at the same time. They don't have to discard the older style.

By comparison, an individual citizen can devise an improved school system, government system, and holiday celebration, but as an individual, he cannot use any of those improved systems by himself because all social systems are useless to individuals. In order for his improvements to be of value, a group of people must be willing to switch to his improvements.

However, it is not practical for some members of a nation to follow a different government system, economic system, or school system. Everybody has to follow the same systems. Furthermore, it is not possible for people to follow a new government system at the same time they are following the old system. They have to discard the old system and switch to the new system.

In order to bring improvements to our government system, school system, and other social systems, we need an organization that has the authority and emotional ability to force people to switch to the new systems.

Professors have been complaining about various aspects of the school system and society for centuries, and they are going to continue whining about these problems until they face the evidence that they cannot solve these problems as individuals. They must be willing to get together to form a team, or join other teams.

The issue of global warming is an example of how an enormous number of professors can be manipulated by a small group of people who are capable of forming a team. In January 2017, Professor Judith Curry, who is involved with climate research, retired early and wrote this document in which she complained about the "craziness" in the field of climate science. Exactly what is "craziness"?

She doesn't provide any detail. I assume she is upset that she is under pressure to lie about climate science in order to promote carbon taxes, but instead of clearly stating her opinions, and instead of complaining that she is under pressure to lie, she makes such vague remarks as:

"my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists"

Her vagueness is typical of people who describe themselves as scientists, professors, and scholars. For example, she has a link to this document from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, and his document is even more vague than hers.

He has vague remarks about "academic freedom", and "being a serf to the central plan of the ideal society," and that we should "free the nightingale". He is as vague and evasive as a political speech, or an astrology prediction.

He is so vague that I cannot figure out if he is complaining about schools being forced to promote Jewish propaganda, or if he is a member of the Jewish network and is complaining about the growing resistance to their propaganda.

The professors, scientists, and scholars are supposed to be the most intelligent and educated people, so why don't they use their intellectual talent to accurately describe their complaints? Why don't they expose the people who are lying about global warming and carbon taxes? Why don't they identify the people who are pressuring them to lie?

Why don't they also use their intelligence to impress us with suggestions on how we might improve the universities, the school curriculum, the climate research programs, or the government policies? Why are most of them silent about the abuse? Why do those who express their opinions make such vague remarks that it is a waste of our time to read their documents?

It should be obvious that although some of the professors are intelligent, they are not capable of organizing themselves, standing up to crime networks, or dealing with many of the other problems of a modern society. They need assistance from people who have skills and talents that they lack, but how many of them are capable of admitting that they have limitations?

How many professors have the intellectual and emotional ability to form or join a team? How many of them are capable of compromising on policies? How many are capable of following orders and working with other people as a team? How many are too antisocial, arrogant, or neurotic to be useful team members?

There are millions of professors, teachers, and other faculty members in the schools of the United States, Japan, Russia, and Europe. That is a very large group of people. If all of them were employees of one business, they would form an international business with phenomenal intellectual abilities. So why can't such a large group of intelligent people do something beneficial for themselves or us? It has been 15 years since the 9/11 attack, but they are still lying to students about what happened. They are also still lying about the Apollo moon landing and the Holocaust.

One obvious reason as to why they cannot do much of anything beneficial is because many of them are involved with the Jewish crime network, but the reason the honest professors cannot do anything is because they are individuals rather than members of a team. They have no organization or supervision. If any of them were to be honest about the climate or the Holocaust, they would be attacked, fired, murdered, or threatened.

If the professors would join a team and defend one another, and especially if the public would also defend them, then they would not be afraid to express their opinions. Unfortunately, unless they are part of the team, they will not defend one another, and the public will not defend them, either. The end result is that if any professor were to publicly state that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, he would find himself standing alone. None of the other professors would support him. He would be analogous to a sheep who is being eaten alive by a wolf, and the other sheep would just move away and continue grazing.

The men who join the military are willing and able to work together as a team, and they will defend one another, even when it means risking their own lives. They will even risk their lives to help people they don't know, such as you and me. The athletes who play rugby, football, soccer, and basketball also work together as a team.

By comparison, the professors are not a team, and they do nothing to help one another, and most of the public will not help anybody, either. Most people will protect their own children, but they don't care about other people.

During the 1800s, some of the unskilled laborers and children of poor people were abused by businesses. Eventually some of the more aggressive workers decided to form a labor union. However, it was very difficult for them to get a union established. The reason is because the majority of workers could not understand the purpose or value of forming an organization, and many of them understood the purpose but were frightened at the thought of fighting with the business owners.

Although there is not a lot of details about how the unions became established, it appears that they had to use physical violence to frighten and intimidate some of the workers to join the union. The union members apparently had to hit some of the factory workers with sticks. As with animals, humans are more likely to respond to violence than to intelligent reasoning. Many of the factory workers had to be more frightened of the union than they were of losing their job.

The professors believe that they are so intelligent that they don't need to form an organization, but an individual is going to lose a battle with a team even if he is above-average in intelligence.

I suppose the only way to convince the professors to suppress their arrogance, join a team, and start working together to improve society, would be to hit a few of them with sticks. If the people who are hitting them with sticks are more frightening than the group of Jews that is forcing them to lie about the Holocaust and global warming, then they will form a team and fight the Jews. However, as long as the Jews are the most frightening group, they will follow orders from the Jews.

If the professors are as intelligent and educated as they claim to be, they would be incredibly valuable members to whichever team they joined because they would be able to provide valuable guidance and intelligent policies for the team members who are less intelligent and educated.

On the television program, Gilligan's Island, the professor provides the other people with useful guidance and advice, but is Gilligan's Island just a fantasy? If we were stranded on an island with a professor, would he be of any value to us? The answer is, of course, that it depends on which professor we are stranded with.

There are lots of professors, especially those in the social sciences, who are promoting idiotic theories, such as men and women are a unisex creature. Any adult who cannot see that women are different from men physically, intellectually, and emotionally should be classified as suffering from some intellectual and/or emotional disorder. They should not be allowed to be teachers, or in any influential positions. We need to set higher standards for people in influential positions.

The adults who promote idiotic concepts are not educating us, or providing us with guidance. They should be regarded as mentally inferior people who are contaminating other people's minds with nonsense.

The professors who have higher quality minds are doing nothing to increase the standards at the universities. Their silence and apathy is allowing incompetent people to become professors and school officials. That in turn is allowing those incompetent people to create worthless school courses, and it is allowing the universities to accept students who should be turned away.

If the professors who have better quality minds remain as independent individuals, there is nothing they can do to improve the universities, but if they would work in a team, especially if they would join with other people, such as the military, businesses, and police, then all of them together would be able to exert an incredible influence over society.

The military has been trying to resist feminism, but the government officials, Lady Gaga, and thousand of other people are putting pressure on them to pretend that men and women are a unisex creature. Most of the men in the military and police can see that men and women are different from one another, so even if only 20% of the professors would work with the military and police, they could help the military and police resist feminism, and the military and police could return the favor by defending the professors from the Jews so that the professors don't have to live like frightened rabbits.

Imagine a few million professors, scientists, engineers, school officials, and military personnel working together to oppose corruption, feminism, Israel, and the lies in our history books. How would any crime network or group of feminists be able to stop them? By comparison, as long as the professors are individuals, they can be pushed around by a small group of feminists.

How smart is a professor if he cannot understand this concept, and who allows himself to be abused by crime networks, feminists, and Israel?

In order for a team to reach their maximum potential, they need each member to discover his particular strengths and weaknesses so that each member can get involved with the tasks that they do best, and avoid the tasks that they do the worst. This requires each person to be able to admit that he is not the best in everything, and that other people are better than him in some tasks. Team members should be able to appreciate other people's talents rather than insult them or be envious of them.

A lot of professors excel at math or scientific research, but a team needs more than one talent. For example, a team needs members who can provide leadership; who can face frightening or difficult problems; and who can provide for the security and defense of the team.

The professors have some valuable talents, but it should be obvious that - as a group - they do not have the ability to organize themselves, provide themselves with leadership, or fight a crime network. The professors should get off their pedestal and start working with people who have the talents that they are lacking. They need to regard themselves as members of a team who are combining their talents with those of other people.

The same applies to the scientists, engineers, and other people who think that they are more intelligent than other people. They need leadership, also, and they need to work with people who have talents that they don't have. If they don't become a member of a functional team, they are just a disorganized horde of helpless monkeys.

Some scientists, engineers, and professors complain about various aspects of their job or society, but as individuals they cannot solve any of their problems. They have to start working with other people. If a person doesn't like what the team is doing, he should use his intelligence to create better policies rather than remain silent or make vague complaints that nobody can understand.

The future of the world will depend upon the people who can form the most effective team. It will not be decided by people who cannot work with other people, or who are silent, frightened, or apathetic.

We all want to be at the top of the hierarchy. We want to be praised, pampered, and worshiped. We want to think of ourselves as special. Our craving to be special is interfering with the way we design our organizations. For example, schools give a tremendous amount of praise to children who do good on the tests, and torment the students who are below-average. Who benefits from this type of school system?

The students who do good in school believe that it is a wonderful system because they enjoy the praise, but the praise does not improve their lives. The praise titillates their emotions, but it also encourages them to become arrogant brats who boast about their intelligence and their school diplomas. Furthermore, the tormenting of students who are below-average causes them to become bitter, envious, depressed, apathetic, or angry.

It would be better for schools to teach children that each of us is a random jumble of genetic characteristics, and that all of us have certain talents and weaknesses. The schools should emphasize that nobody should feel badly when he discovers one of his weaknesses, and nobody should imagine that he is special if he discovers he has some unusual talent. If a student discovers he has a particular intellectual or physical talent, then he should use that talent for the good of society, as opposed to expecting other people to praise him and give him an award.

Our competitive nature, and our craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, causes us to design schools so that the people who do the best in some particular activity are given praise, and those that do the worst are treated as inferior. This is how animals behave, but it is not appropriate in this modern world. Our schools are not preparing children for society. They are encouraging arrogance among the students who do good, and bad attitudes among the other students.

One of the reasons that I suggest we create a society that does not have a wealthy or peasant class, and in which people are treated more equally, is to dampen our craving to climb onto pedestals and regard one another as inferior.

A person who is born with unusual math abilities, or an unusual athletic ability, or an unusual artistic ability, does not deserve praise. He did not create his talent. Rather, it was given to him at random by some mindless chemicals.

Another reason that it is idiotic for people to boast about doing good in school is that our schools are not truly analyzing a person's mental or physical characteristics. Our schools are simply testing a few, specific physical and mental qualities. For example, some athletic programs test a student's ability to run certain distances, and math classes test certain math abilities.

However, schools are doing nothing to test a student's ability to work in teams, face reality, explore the unknown, provide supervision to other people, or produce intelligent thoughts about social issues. Furthermore, students can do good in school even if they are abnormally selfish, violent, dishonest, arrogant, envious, or mentally ill because schools make no attempt to analyze the quality of a person's mind.

To make the situation even worse, some school courses promote deceptive information about historical events. Therefore, the students who do good in those courses are not necessarily intelligent or educated. The students who do good on tests about the Holocaust and the 9/11 attack are the students who have been deceived by propaganda, not the truly educated students.

Imagine a school that praised the students who had a particular shade of eye color, criticized the students with some other color, and described the majority of students as having an "ordinary" color. What would be the value of that? Who would benefit from it?

What is the difference between praising a student who does good in a school course, and praising a student who has a particular eye color? Some people would respond that students cannot change their eye color, but they can change how much effort they put into their school work. Those people would claim that by praising the students who do good in school courses, the schools encourage the students to put more effort into learning and thinking.

It is true that we can use rewards and punishments to make at least some of the students put more effort into their school work, but life is more complex than it appears. We tend to think of everything as being in one of two categories, namely, either good or bad. In reality, everything is like a spectrum in which there is no dividing line between anything. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything.

Using rewards and punishments to inspire students has the benefit that some students will indeed put more effort into what they do, but it has disadvantages, also. It might be easier to understand this if you first consider how this concept applies to athletics.

Each of our bodies was designed with particular physical characteristics. This causes each of us to have different athletic abilities. If a person never bothers to put effort into physical activities, his body will become weak and sickly. A person who doesn't try different activities will never know what he is good at. If he puts some effort into a variety of activities, his body will become better at all of them, and he will discover what he enjoys doing, and what he is good at doing.

Because we have a natural tendency to avoid physical exertion, children will benefit when a school encourages them to participate in physical activities. Adults will also benefit when other adults push us into getting some exercise. However, there is a point at which we are pushing too hard.

Imagine an extreme situation. Imagine if you were a student in a school in which the students are regularly forced into athletic contests, and the losers were beaten with a wet bamboo pole. The worse a student performed in the event, the more severe the beating was. If you were a student in that school, you would likely react to those beatings by putting more effort into training for the events and winning the events. You might even consider cheating.

The advantage to punishing students for bad athletic performance is that they would all get a lot of exercise and become very athletic. However, there would be a lot of disadvantages, such as some of the students would develop angry attitudes, and some would become accustomed to cheating. Furthermore, once the students got out of school, most of them would immediately reduce their physical activities. Some of the students might want to avoid all physical activities because they have such unpleasant memories associated with athletics. The end result would be a lot of adults would not get much exercise, and their bad attitudes might have a detrimental effect on their adult life.

A similar situation would occur if the school were to offer money to the students for participating in athletics instead of beating them with a wet bamboo pole. Imagine being a student in a school in which every student who participated in an athletic event would win a large financial prize, and the size of the prize would increase depending on how good the student did in the event.

In that type of school, the students would put a lot of effort into training for the events and trying to win the events, and many of the parents would also put pressure on their children to train for the events.

The advantage to providing rewards for good athletic performance instead of punishments for bad performance is that the students would not develop bad attitudes towards athletics, although some of them would resent the pressure that their parents were putting on them. However, the other disadvantages would remain. Specifically, some of the students would cheat in order to win, and once the students got out of school, they would reduce their physical activities because they would no longer have any rewards waiting for them.

Schools that use rewards or punishments to push students into doing athletic activities will appear to be creating talented athletes, but it would be an illusion. Many of the students would do good in athletics only because of the punishments or rewards. If a sports team hired them to be an athlete, they would be substandard because they would no longer have punishments or rewards to push them, and they might not be able to cheat, either.

The best athletes are those who train and compete because they want to, not because somebody is threatening to punish them or offering them a reward.

We help students by encouraging them to do something that is beneficial for them, but we have to be careful about using rewards or punishments to pressure people into doing something, especially when the rewards and punishments become extreme.

These concepts apply to intellectual activities, also. Students will benefit when schools encourage them to try different intellectual activities, develop their talents, practice dealing with criticism, and discover their weaknesses, but using punishments or rewards is not necessarily beneficial. A school that uses rewards and punishments to push students into doing intellectual activities is likely to create bad attitudes, such as rebellion among the dumb students, arrogance among the good students, and cheating.

The school will appear to be creating some talented students, but once the students get out of school, the rewards or punishments will cease, and that will cause the students to revert to what they truly are. If a business hired one of the talented students, they may discover that he is performing at a substandard level because he no longer has punishments or rewards to push him, and he is no longer able to cheat.

The ideal engineer, scientist, manager, government official, carpenter, and machinist is a person who does the work because he wants to, not because somebody is threatening to punish him or offering to reward him.

Your desire to learn and think, your self-control, your arrogance, your craving for sex, your craving for food, the amount of sleep you need each night, and all other aspects of your mind are due to your genetic design. You do not control any of those aspects of your mind. You cannot increase your self-control or reduce your temper. You cannot alter your brain to need less sleep. A school cannot change any of your mental or physical characteristics, either.

Schools cannot increase a student's self-control, motivation, honesty, responsibility, or ability to work in teams. A school can only help a student to discover his abilities and limitations, expose him to different opinions and information, and help him to practice and develop his talents. If a student does not have the genetic abilities to handle the school course, he needs to be removed from the course because there is nothing anybody can do to eliminate his limitations or give him a talent that his DNA did not provide him.

A student with low self-control, a bad temper, or an excessive craving for food or sex, is going to have those characteristics regardless of what the school does. Donald Trump is an example. He has already been through a military school, and he has had many people reprimanding him and criticizing him for not having much self-control, but none of the schools or criticism has done anything to change him. He continues to have exactly the same intellectual and emotional characteristics that he was born with. He cannot change his personality, and we cannot change him with rewards or punishments.

A school should be regarded as an organization, and a student should be regarded as a temporary member of the organization, and as having a relationship with the teachers and students in the school. The student cannot passively wait for the school to educate him. The student must be an active participant in the relationship. The student must think of himself as being on a journey to explore his mind and body, and to develop his talents. The school is merely providing guidance, encouragement, knowledge, constructive criticism, tests, and advice.

It makes no sense for a school to praise a student who is good at math, basketball, chemistry, or music. It is as idiotic as praising a student who discovers that he has the ability to equal or exceed the world record for drinking 500 milliliters of water. When a student excels at math, the teachers should tell him something like this:

"The tests show that you excel at this particular type of math, so if you enjoy this math, you should consider a job where you can put this talent to use. Here is a list of some jobs where this ability is useful, so you should consider whether you would enjoy any of these jobs. However, you may have some other talents, so continue exploring your abilities. Don't assume that this is your only useful skill."

If a student does substandard in a particular field, criticizing him is as idiotic as criticizing a student who cannot drink 500 milliliters of water very quickly. When a student does poorly, the teachers should tell him something like this:

"The tests show that you are below-average in this particular course, so we are going to put you into another course and see how you do with that one. If you truly enjoy this particular field, you can study it on your own, and if you actually become better at it, we will allow you back into this course. Until then, we want you to experiment with some other courses."

People have a difficult time compromising because we are extremely selfish and arrogant. Businesses and militaries are aware of this characteristic, and their solution is to ensure that there is somebody with the authority to make decisions when the people cannot agree on what to do.

Unfortunately, we don't apply this policy to governments. The United States government gives the government officials so little authority that they frequently get into arguments that they cannot resolve, and so they do nothing about the problem. It would make more sense to design a government the way militaries and businesses are designed; specifically, with leaders who have the authority to resolve disputes.

However, we should do more than ensure that a government can resolve disputes. We should also pass judgment on why people are not compromising. We like to believe that people do not compromise when they have a difference of opinion, but we have to acknowledge the evidence that some people cannot compromise simply because they are too arrogant, selfish, stupid, envious, or inferior in some other mental quality.

For example, there is a lot of evidence that Israel demolished the World Trade Center with explosives, and that some government officials and pizza parlors are involved with an international pedophile network, and that Jews are lying about the Holocaust. If we were to have a discussion about those issues with a group of people selected at random, we would find that they argue incessantly over the issues.

If a group of people were selected at random to be government officials, and if they had to deal with the 9/11 attack, the pedophile information, or the Holocaust issue, they would argue with one another incessantly and never agree to anything. Ideally, we should pass judgment on why the people are having trouble agreeing on what happened. This will allow us to identify the intellectually and emotionally inferior people, and remove them from the government.

For example, in regards to the 9/11 attack, some people are simply too stupid or too uneducated to understand that buildings cannot disintegrate without explosives. Those people don't have enough of an understanding of the concepts of freefall or inertia, or they don't understand that structural steel bends, it does not shatter and crumble like wooden sticks or tool steel.

Those people should not be allowed into positions in which they need an understanding of basic physics. They might be acceptable as a supervisor for an assembly line, but they should not be allowed in positions of influence for crime investigations.

Some people cannot agree on what happened during the 9/11 attack because they have such a hatred of Muslims or such a love of Israel that they twist the evidence to bring them to the conclusion that Arabs attacked us on 9/11. Everybody is biased, but a person who continues to blame Muslims for the 9/11 attack after seeing the evidence that Israel is responsible is showing such an extreme emotional bias that he should be classified as emotionally unacceptable for leadership positions.

In order for a discussion to be useful, each person needs to provide intelligent evidence to support his theories. Unfortunately, we are not equally capable of supporting our theories. We have different intellectual and emotional characteristics, and different educational levels, and this results in some people being more useful in discussions than others. We need to pass judgment on who is providing intelligent supporting evidence, and who is unacceptably biased, selfish, arrogant, hateful, or envious.

Classifying a person as emotionally or intellectually unfit for a discussion or for leadership is going to be difficult, but don't let the difficulty frighten you. It is not easy to determine who qualifies to be a pilot, or who qualifies to be a dentist, but the benefits of analyzing a person's skills is tremendous.

A lot of people will oppose the concept of having their emotional and intellectual characteristics analyzed and judged, but we have to stop doing what people like and start doing what makes the most sense. We already routinely pass judgment on who has the skills to be a dentist, engineer, computer programmer, truck driver, gardener, and farmer. We can go even further and pass judgment on who is capable of providing intelligent analyses of the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, abortion, marriage, recreational activities, economic systems, and other social and political issues.

By passing judgment on who among us is capable of practicing dentistry, we feel safe going to somebody who has been qualified to be a dentist. Our qualification process is not perfect, and so there are some dentists who turn out to be incompetent, but it is better to pass judgment on a person's dentistry skills and restrict dentistry to the people who show a talent to do the job properly than to let everybody become a dentist.

Likewise, if we were to classify people according to their ability to provide intelligent analyses of social and political issues, our classification process would not be perfect, but it would be better to restrict government offices to people who showed a talent with social and political issues than to let everybody become a government official.

By restricting government offices and other leadership positions to people who show an above-average ability to provide intelligent analyses to problems, discussions about political and social issues will be much more productive and useful.

When a group of people are in a discussion, if one of them is unusually aggressive and selfish, there is a possibility that the other people will eventually get tired of arguing with him and agree to his demands.

The reason people have this tendency is because this is how animals behave. When animals compete for leadership, or when they have any type of dispute, they will resolve the problem with biting, kicking, and intimidation. The winner is whoever has the greatest physical strength, stamina, and aggressiveness.

Our natural tendency to resolve the dispute is to yell at one another, intimidate one another, and hit one another, but we must exert enough self-control to prohibit that type of behavior in discussions. If we allow a man to behave like a monkey, there is a chance that the other people will eventually get tired of fighting with the aggressive man, and they will give in to his demands. This will allow the aggressive man to dominate.

We must take steps to avoid allowing the overly aggressive men to get into leadership positions, or from dominating discussions.

The reason that I have been suggesting that we require people who want to influence the world to put their opinions into a document and post it on the Internet is that it allows us to carefully analyze everybody's opinions, and it prevents us from being intimidated by facial expressions and tones of voice. Also, nobody will be able to use the excuse that he didn't have time to think about the issue. We will be able to pass judgment on who is truly providing us with intelligent analyses and suggestions.

We should raise standards for people in influential positions so that people like Lawrence Krauss is regarded as unfit for an influential position.

Some people believe there is enough evidence to prove the theory that humans are causing global warming through the production of carbon dioxide, and that carbon taxes will solve the problem, but other people have doubts about this theory. Lawrence Krauss is one of the people who claim that those of us who have doubts are "global warming deniers" rather than people who are simply unimpressed with the evidence.

I suggest that we pass judgment on a person's intellectual and emotional characteristics, so how would I determine whether Krauss is providing intelligent supporting evidence for his opinions, or whether he is emotionally or intellectually unacceptable for a position of influence?

How do we determine which theory has enough evidence to be considered factual, which theory needs more evidence, and which theory should be dismissed as nonsense? This is an important issue for modern societies, but it is very complex.

We have to look at the documents that Krauss has produced, and pass judgment on whether he has been supporting his theories with intelligent evidence, or whether he is trying to manipulate our emotions.

It is not easy to determine whether a particular remark is an attempt to manipulate us, or whether it is a sign of faulty reasoning, but don't let that complexity bother you. Get into the habit of passing judgment on whether somebody is providing you with intelligent remarks, and whether they are trying to stimulate your emotions. It is better to make these judgments than to ignore the issue.

Krauss has produced a lot of documents, and my conclusion is that he is trying to manipulate us. For example, Krauss is one of many people who accuse the Trump administration of waging a "war on science". If he were to provide some evidence that Trump is waging a war on science, then the expression would be acceptable, but his article is not an intelligent analysis of global warming, or the Trump administration's science policies.

Krauss is accusing Trump of "waging a war" in order to stimulate unpleasant emotions by causing us to create images of warfare in our mind. It is an attempt to manipulate us into developing a bad impression of Trump, and to regard the global warming scientists as victims of this war. His article should be described as an attempt to deceive and manipulate. It should not be described as an intelligent analysis.

His article should be considered as unacceptable for a person in an influential position. I would say that he should be classified as unfit for leadership position. The media should not be publishing his articles or promoting him as a world leader.

Of course, there are certain to be people who will disagree with me and complain that I am the person who is unfit to influence the world, and that Krauss has written articles that are more sensible than my articles. How do we determine whose opinion is more accurate?

People cannot agree on whether evolution makes more sense than Adam and Eve, and as a result, most schools support evolution, but some support biblical stories. How are we going to agree on something even more complicated, such as who among us qualifies to influence the world, or whether carbon taxes will improve the earth's climate?

There is no math formula that can determine whether a theory has adequate supporting evidence, or whether it is nonsense, or whether more research is needed. There is no formula to determine who among us should qualify for an influential position in society, and who should be classified as unfit. These type of issues are decided by the people who dominate society.

I cannot prove to a religious fanatic that evolution makes more sense than Adam and Eve, and I cannot prove that Lawrence Krauss is trying to manipulate us. The evidence that I can provide to support my theories will be regarded as sensible evidence only by some people.

This is one of the reasons I suggest that professors, scientists, and other supposedly intelligent and educated people stop being individuals and start pushing themselves into working in a team. The future of the world will be decided by whoever dominates it. We need to ensure that the world is dominated by truly respectable people and not by criminals, religious fanatics, lunatics, or pedophiles.

The human race is going through what all animals and plants go through. Namely, a battle for life. Humans are using technology to interfere with nature, such as by helping to keep retards and mental defects alive, but even so, we are involved in a battle for life.

The battle that is going on is not between good or evil, or right or wrong. It is a battle over who is genetically superior for their particular environment.

The crime networks are very large, and the criminals are working well as a team, and this has allowed them to exert a tremendous control over the world. However, if the professors, scientists, technicians, and other people would stop acting like stupid monkeys and start working with other people, we could easily defeat the crime networks.

In a battle for life, the people who dominate in the long run are those with the highest quality minds and bodies. They will be able to work better as a team, make better plans, make fewer mistakes, concentrate better on their tasks, and correct their mistakes faster and better. In the long run they will dominate.

Furthermore, it is not practical for crime networks to dominate a society, as I mentioned here. They are most successful and stable when they are in the role of parasites, not when they are in control of society.

Crime networks need secrecy, deception, murder, blackmail, and other tricks in order to be successful. The reason is because they are genetically inferior people. If they were the superior people, they would not have to resort to crime. If they were as talented as they think they are, they would be analogous to adults among children, or analogous to a man with eyes among a group of blind people. They would be able to accomplish what they want simply through their intelligence and talent.

Crime networks are not groups of "evil" people. Rather, they are genetically inferior people. We can beat them if we don't allow them to frighten or intimidate us, and if we can push ourselves into working as a team. They will beat us only if we remain as individuals, or if they can deceive us into attacking the wrong people, or if we allow them to infiltrate and sabotage our teams.

This concept applies to all of the other groups that are fighting for control of the world, even those that are not involved with crime. There are groups of religious people, vegetarians, nudists, feminists, communists, and people who want monarchies, fighting for control of our government policies, school curriculum, holiday celebrations, and other culture.

There might be thousands of organizations fighting for control of our future. Which groups will dominate? It will be the groups that are genetically superior. We are not in a battle over right or wrong, or good or bad. We are in the same type of battle that animals go through. It is a battle over genetic superiority. It is a battle over who can form the most efficient teams, and who can think the best, and who can avoid becoming a victim of deception.

The Catholic Church and the Mormon church have enormous amounts of money and lots of members, but that doesn't mean they're going to determine the future. Those organizations consist of people who are intellectually and emotionally inferior to many of us. They are not going to beat us in a battle unless we remain disorganized and apathetic.

If you can understand this concept, you should understand why the Jews are struggling to instigate fights between men and women, different races, different religions, the wealthy and the poor people, and other groups. If we work together as a team, we can easily defeat the crime networks. The crime networks must break us down into small groups or into individuals. They cannot beat us if we work together. They are inferior creatures, and they would lose in a fair battle.

The Jews want us to be apathetic, or so frightened that we do nothing. They also encourage us to be arrogant, selfish jerks who demand more freedom and independence because they don't want us to compromise on policies and work together for a common goal. As a team, we are powerful, but as individuals, we are helpless monkeys.

Crime gangs are exerting a tremendous influence in the world today. Teenage gangs are also tormenting a lot of people with their vandalism, shoplifting, burglaries, graffiti, and other crimes. People often describe crime gangs as "powerful", but they are not powerful. They are groups of inferior humans.

The reason crime networks have so much influence is simply because most people are allowing them to have influence. Most people are behaving as if they are sheep. They want to spend their time grazing in the grass, having babies, and fighting for status. They don't want to deal with crime networks, or any of the other complex problems of the modern world.

We can deal with crime, but we cannot "solve" the problem because it is not a math problem with a simple solution. All we can do is experiment with policies to reduce crime. Unfortunately, most people do not want to experiment with society.

Experimenting with policies to reduce crime is going to create emotional trauma for us. For one reason, most people are frightened of changes, and for another reason, most policies to reduce crime will be emotionally unpleasant for all of us.

Some crimes could be blamed on the environment, and those could be reduced in a pleasant manner. For example:

• Changing our economic system so that everybody is provided with food and a place to live will eliminate the crimes that are committed to provide a person with his basic necessities.
• Changing the school system so that stupid people are provided with useful skills rather than tormented for being stupid can reduce the number of students who develop an angry, rebellious attitude, thereby getting involved with vandalism, graffiti, and gangs.

Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the crimes seem to be due to those two issues. Most crimes seem to be due to the genetic design of people's brains. For example, the men who grab at women on crowded trains, rob banks, burglarize houses, and rape children are not committing those crimes because of their environment. Those type of criminals are behaving like animals. Animals have the attitude that they own the world, and they grab at whatever they please, and they fight with anybody who gets in their way.

We are not going to reduce those crimes by changing the environment. Those people have to be classified as genetically inferior to the rest of us, and as unacceptable members of a modern society. Those people have to be restricted to certain neighborhoods, evicted from the city, or euthanized. Unfortunately, those policies are emotionally unpleasant, especially when one of our children, relatives, or friends commits a crime.

If we were to create a more pleasant social environment, we will reduce crime, but crime will continue simply because humans are a haphazard jumble of the genetic traits of monkeys.

If humans would start controlling reproduction, then after thousands of generations they might be able to reduce arrogance, selfishness, hatred, envy, and other detrimental qualities to such an extent that crime ceases, but during our lifetime, we must expect criminals to appear in every generation.

As of today, January 2017, the crime networks are dominating the world, and the situation might seem hopeless, but if we can encourage more people to join the battle, then we will win.

We need to find more people to exert some self-control and push themselves into participating in the future of the world. A lot of the people who regard themselves as intelligent and educated, such as professors, engineers, technicians, computer programmers, and scientists, need to get off their pedestal and start working with other people to get rid of these crime networks.

Once we defeat the crime networks, we can discuss what we want to do with our future. We do not have to wonder what Donald Trump is going to do for us, and we don't have to wonder if Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2020. We will be able to decide for ourselves what our future will be, and who we want in our government. We don't have to be passive children who wonder what other people are going to do with our lives.

It is not easy to pass judgment on whether a person should qualify as an airline pilot, dentist, Olympic athlete, or welder for stainless steel, but we are doing it right now, and it is very beneficial to do it. Through the years we learn more about how to judge a person's abilities, and that allows us to improve the qualification tests and do an increasingly better job of judging these qualities.

We do not yet pass judgment on who should qualify as a journalist, government official, lawyer, judge, or professor, but as soon as we start doing it, we will become better at it. We will develop better methods for analyzing a person's mental qualities and leadership abilities, and we will improve the qualification tests. This will allow us to provide ourselves with increasingly higher quality journalists, government officials, professors, and other people in influential positions.

How do we pass judgment on a person's mental qualities? I have some suggestions scattered haphazardly throughout my documents. Until I create some specific guidelines, Lawrence Krauss shows us three issues to be aware of:

1) Watch for emotional stimulation
Scientific theories need a lot of supporting evidence. When somebody tries to stimulate our emotions, we should regard his attempt as a sign that he doesn't have enough supporting evidence for his theory. We should not dismiss attempts to manipulate us as insignificant. We should regard manipulation as unacceptable, disgusting, appalling, immoral, and/or "criminal". If we would raise standards for discussions of scientific issues, people who tried to manipulate us would be removed.

2) Don't be influenced by awards or "experts"
The Wikipedia says that Lawrence Krauss is "one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a 'public intellectual'", and he has won numerous awards.

If awards, college diplomas, Nobel prizes, knighthoods, and other honors were truly given only to people who excelled in something, then they could help us make a decision about which person might be more useful to society, but hopefully you realize that most of these awards are dishonest or meaningless.

We should be even less impressed by a person who is described as an "expert". If there was an organization of intelligent people who were analyzing the population and making intelligent decisions about who classifies as an expert, then the title might be useful in helping us make decisions about who to believe, but that title is given by individuals simply to promote somebody they like.

3) Don't be influenced by a person's math abilities
Krauss excels in math abilities, and although our schools regard people with excellent math abilities as being "intelligent", a computer is capable of doing math, and so are children, and so are retarded people. Obviously, it doesn't require much intelligence to do math.

Our schools should be revised to regard math abilities as a talent that is completely separate and independent from intellectual abilities. A person who excels in math is not necessarily intelligent, honest, or responsible.

The social scientists have been unproductive all throughout history. Sigmund Freud and other social scientists have produced theories that are as useless as the medieval concept that iron can be turned into gold through some type of chemical process.

Social science will remain a failure until we treat it as a branch of biology or zoology. We must face the evidence that the human brain is just a monkey brain, and that a person who lacks the intelligence to understand a monkey brain is not going to understand the human brain. Schools must stop promoting the attitude that students who are failures in physical science can be successful in social science.

This news article claims that "experts" have identified 10 personality traits of unusually intelligent people. Those 10 characteristics are:

1. You are left-handed
2. You are messy
3. You swear a lot
4. You are funny
5. You stay up late
6. You didn't have sex in your teenage years
7. You are a worrier
8. You are modest
9. You are a cat person
10. You are an older sibling

The article is an example of how the people who are currently regarded as "experts" in social science are lacking the intelligence necessary to help us understand the human mind, and how to judge people. Here are my comments on some of those 10 traits.

After studying several thousand students, some psychologists came to the conclusion that left-handed people tend to be slightly better at math. They assume that people who are good at math are also more intelligent, so they come to the conclusion that left-handed people are more intelligent.

However, there are retarded people who are good at math, which is evidence that math abilities are a separate, independent mental quality. Therefore, schools should stop promoting the theory that a person who is good at math is also more intelligent.

The experts claim that people who are messy are more intelligent than people who are neat, but this is based on just one, simplistic study of some students.

The people who like to promote this theory will often mention Albert Einstein as an example, but once you've seen the evidence that Einstein was both a plagiarist and an einsteinist, it supports the theory that sloppy people are intellectually inferior to the rest of us.

The people who are the neatest are those who are suffering from OCD, so if we allow those people to be included in an analysis of neatness, everybody who is "normal" is going to seem sloppy.

I suspect that a more sensible analysis will show us that sloppiness is more connected to a person's emotional characteristics, and his physical and mental health, than to his intelligence. In other words, people who are in good mental and physical health will be more neat and clean with their body, home, automobile, office, and other possessions compared to people who are suffering from mental or physical problems.

The reason I believe this is partly due to personal observations of people, and partly from observations of animals. The animals that are substandard in grooming are those who are suffering from physical or mental disorders.

The people in the poor neighborhoods tend to be extremely sloppy, but their sloppiness is not due to being stupid. There are some stupid people who are neat and clean, and there are some wealthy people who are sloppy.

I mentioned a similar concept in a previous document in which I pointed out that the people who join a conservative political party tend to be more polite, better groomed, and better looking than the people who join a liberal political party. This is not because conservatives are more intelligent. I think it is because conservatives are genetically more similar to our prehistoric ancestors, whereas people with genetic mental disorders tend to join groups of liberals, communists, or anarchists.

Two psychologists did a study that they believe refutes the "common assumption that people who swear frequently are lazy, do not have an adequate vocabulary, lack education, or simply cannot control themselves."

They claim that people who swear frequently have a larger vocabulary than other people, and tend to have good communication skills. From that study, some people are concluding that people who swear frequently tend to be more intelligent than the rest of us.

This brings up an issue I've mentioned before; namely, that our schools are promoting the theory that people with larger vocabularies are more intelligent. Schools are encouraging the detrimental practice of using unusual words rather than common words. For example, schools praise a student for using "proffer" rather than "offer". This does not improve communication; this just increases confusion, and it makes voice recognition software and translation software more difficult.

People who swear are more honest, also?

Another group of psychiatrists claim that people who swear the most tend to be more honest than other people.

A lot of us have noticed that we are naturally deceptive about our true feelings. This is most noticeable with women. For example, when a woman encounters a person she does not like, she is likely to behave in a very friendly and polite manner, and she is also likely to give the person some compliments. However, as soon as that person has walked away, she might start making insulting remarks about the person.

Women have a strong craving to be nice, and so they frequently give people compliments that are deliberate lies. However, they are not doing this to be deceptive; rather, they are doing this to be friendly and polite.

A man in the same situation is more likely to remain silent, or look for a way to change the subject, or make a remark that is neither a compliment nor an insult.

Because women have a craving to be nice, they are almost worthless for providing constructive criticism. It is extremely difficult for women to be critical of somebody. However, when a woman becomes angry at a person, her anger can override her other emotions, thereby causing her to blurt out her true feelings. The same is true of men.

If you want to know what a person truly thinks about a document you have written, a painting you have created, or your hairstyle, you must make the person angry at you. His anger might result in him blurting out his true feelings. Unfortunately, this is not an effective method for discovering the truth because some people have such strong inhibitions about criticizing people that they release only a small amount of their true feelings.

To summarize this, people are more likely to swear when they are angry, and they are more likely to be honest when they are angry. This can create the illusion that people who swear are more honest. Unfortunately, we cannot judge a person's honesty by how much swearing he does. The people who join crime networks, for example, probably swear more than the ordinary people.

To complicate the issue, when people are angry, even though they are more likely to be honest, their angry mood will cause them to have a slightly different view of life, which means that their true feelings when they are angry are not exactly the same as when they are relaxed. For an obvious example, if a person is angry with himself, he might blurt out remarks about how he hates his life and wants to kill himself. He will be expressing the truth, but it is the truth only for the brief period of time that he is angry. As soon as he calms down, he will have different thoughts.

Donald Trump seems to blurt out angry remarks more often than a typical man, and every time he does so the journalists use the remark to make him look like a terrible person. I suppose the journalists are hoping that Trump becomes angry at somebody of another race and blurts out some racial insult. Imagine Trump blurting out a remark about a "nigger", for example.

We need to keep in mind that the remarks people make when they are angry are not necessarily an indication of what the person truly thinks. You should be able to see this when you make angry remarks about both yourself and other people. Or have you never insulted yourself?

Social scientists are substandard scientists

There is obviously something different about people who swear a lot, but I think it is due more to differences in:
1) Our emotional qualities.
2) Our social environment.

I do not think swearing can be regarded as an indication of either intelligence or honesty. One reason I say this is because I find swearing to be annoying, but not because of intellectual issues. Rather, because of emotional issues.

I find it unpleasant to listen to somebody who is scattering words such as vomit, asshole, and shit in their conversation, because every time I hear those words my mind creates an image that I find unpleasant. I don't enjoy having images of vomit, shit, murder, anuses, and diarrhea frequently popping up in a conversation that has nothing to do with those issues.

I find it especially annoying to be eating food while somebody is scattering words like shit, diarrhea, asshole, and vomit in the conversation. It is not easy to enjoy the food while images of those things are popping up in my mind.

When we hear a word, it decodes into memories, and so the environment that we grew up in is going to affect how we decode a word. Also, our minds differ in its ability to create images, and we have different emotional reactions to images.

For example, imagine having dinner with some people, and somebody says, "Could you pass the gravy? I want to put more of that shit on my potatoes." As I decode the beginning of that sentence I create images of gravy, but when I decode the word shit, I an image of shit pops up in my mind. I don't want images of vomit, shit, or assholes appearing in my mind while I am trying to enjoy my food, or while I am having a discussion about government, computers, the weather, or sports. To me, it is equivalent to having a conversation with somebody who occasionally spits in your face as he speaks.

However, other people might decode that sentence without visualizing shit. Or they might not be bothered by the image of shit. When I was a young child, for example, I thought vomit was funny. In fact, I remember one time me and my brothers and sister were in the backseat of our car and I was pretending to have a vomit gun, and I was shooting vomit at the other cars. I suppose me and my brothers were also shooting vomit at one another, but I can't remember the details. Something about my mind changed as I grew up because I now consider vomit and poop to be disgusting.

When I talk to myself, I sometimes swear, but I find it just as annoying when I do it as when somebody else does it, and so I often tell myself to stop it.

My conclusion is that swearing is not a sign of intelligence or honesty. It has more to do with your particular emotional characteristics, the environment you grew up in, and the images that appear in your mind when you decode words.

Each of us is bothered by slightly different things. For some more examples, I am not bothered by dust on furniture, but some people are irritated by dust. I consider sticky furniture to be annoying, but not dry dust. I consider dirty dishes in the sink to be irritating, and so I almost always clean dishes after using them. However, some people have no problem leaving dishes in the sink. I don't like leaving clothing on the floor, but some people have no trouble tossing their clothing on the floor. I don't mind having spiders in my house, with the exception of spiders that bite people, such as black widows, but other people are horrified by spiders.

We have a tendency to assume that our preferences are the best, but there is no right or wrong to this issue. However, this issue is important when looking for a spouse. During prehistoric times, people did not have to worry about what they were irritated by, but in this modern world, we will create more stable marriages when men and women keep this issue in mind and look for somebody who has compatible preferences.

A psychologist claims that his research shows that people who worry a lot tend to be more "verbally intelligent". When people worry, they are doing what I've described as mental masturbation. Their mind is processing a thought, and then processing it again, and again, over and over.

Some people do this to such an excess that we describe them as suffering from OCD. For example, there are some people who will lock the front door to their home, and then check to make sure it is locked, and then they check it again to ensure that it is locked, and then they check it again, and so on, sometimes many times.

Their mind is processing the thought that the locked door might not be locked, and as soon as they verify that it is locked, their mind once again processes the same information that it might not be locked. We could say that a mind that has this ability is a mind that is intelligent, but we could also say that there is a point at which it becomes so excessive that we need to describe it as neurotic, or as a serious mental defect.

This trait evolved in us because it is valuable. Our brain seems to have some type of function similar to the electronic alarm clocks and calendars of computers to remind ourselves of something. For example, prehistoric mothers would occasionally consider whether their children were hungry, cold, or in some type of danger. After looking around and verifying that their children were safe, they would go back to their tasks, and then a few moments later that section of the brain would once again process the same information, and the mothers would once again check to see that their children were safe.

The women who continuously reprocessed the same information ended up becoming the most successful mothers. In this modern world however, this trait is excessive in most women. Women who do not exert any self-control over their worrying will worry excessively. For example, they will worry about their children getting cold, but in the world today, children have clothing and shoes, and they go to school inside protected classrooms. How many children today suffer from cold weather?

Mothers are worrying excessively today. Furthermore, the mothers continue to worry even after their children have become adults. This causes frustration, and sometimes arguments, between mothers and their grown children.

The process of reminding ourselves of something we need to do is a valuable trait, but we need to pass judgment on when a person is doing this in a productive manner, and when they are causing trouble for themselves or other people, in which case they need to be classified as neurotic or defective. We should not describe excessive worrying as a sign of intelligence. That would encourage neurotic behavior.

The article says that intelligent people tend to be more modest, and the article refers to this concept as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Psychologists explain human behavior as being due to syndromes and psychological effects, but there are more sensible ways of explaining why intelligent people tend to be more modest.

Animals are naturally arrogant. An animal assumes that it is talented, and that it knows everything it needs to know. Animals have no desire to do research, or to look critically at themselves.

Humans also naturally assume that we know everything that we need to know, and that we are good-looking, talented, and healthy. In order for us to realize that we don't know as much as we think we do, and that our mind and body has flaws and limitations, we need:

1) A certain amount of knowledge.

In order for us to realize that we are ignorant about a subject, we must first learn enough about it to realize that there is a lot more to learn. The more we learn, the more we realize that we don't know as much as we assumed we did.

For example, during the past few centuries, telescopes have allowed us to learn a lot of information about the universe, and that has allowed us to realize that we were ignorant about the universe. People today know much more about the universe than our ancestors, but we are more aware that there is an incredible amount we don't know about the universe.

Many of our ancestors were certain that they had a good understanding of the universe, but their arrogance was not due to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It was because of other reasons, such as they were so ignorant that they did not realize they were ignorant.

People today, especially those with college educations, boast about being educated, but people in the future will regard all of us as being extremely ignorant about many subjects. The arrogance that people show today is not due to any syndromes. It is because of other reasons, such as being too ignorant to realize that we don't know as much as we think we do.

Likewise, in order to realize that our body is imperfect, we need a certain amount of knowledge about the issue to understand that every living creature is just a random jumble of genetic traits, and that it makes no sense to say that any living creature is perfect.

2) A certain amount of intelligence.

In order to realize that we are ignorant about a subject, or to realize that our body is imperfect, we need a certain amount of intelligence. A stupid person might boast that he knows how the universe came into existence because he read the Bible. His arrogance would not be because of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It would be due to his inability to understand that the Bible is not an explanation of the universe.

Likewise, a stupid person might boast that he has so much intelligence that he can figure out the true dimensions of Noah's ark, or that he is a talented athlete, or that he is one of the greatest carpenters that has ever existed. His lack of modesty would not be due to any syndromes. Rather, it could be simply because he does not think well enough to understand that he is actually less intelligent and talented than most people. He may be so stupid, for example, that he regards the scientists who believe in evolution as being too stupid to understand the story of Adam and Eve.

An example of a person who is too dumb to understand that he is stupid is Frankie McDonald, who believes that he is providing intelligent weather forecasts. He is so dumb that he doesn't realize that most people are either feeling sorry for him, or laughing at him, as if he is a clown in a circus.

Earlier in this document I mentioned that we give special privileges to mentally ill people. McDonald is an example. He has won some awards; some government officials have praised him; he has been given publicity by the media; and he is allowed to have this page in Wikipedia. He gets better treatment than I do, and probably better than most of the people who read my documents.

What is the difference between Frankie McDonald and the leaders of the Mormon or Catholic Church? There's not much of a difference. They are all people whose intellectual abilities are so crude that they don't understand how ignorant and stupid they are.

We need a certain amount of intelligence to realize that we are ignorant about an issue, and to realize that we are not as intelligent, flawless, or talented as we like to believe.

3) Certain emotional characteristics.

Human emotions did not evolve for scientific research. We have strong cravings to follow our ancestors rather than explore the world; we are so arrogant that we resist looking critically at ourselves and our brilliant theories; and we react to criticism as if we are being attacked by a predator, rather than analyzing the criticism and trying to learn from it.

In order to realize that we are ignorant about a subject, or to realize that our body is imperfect, we need certain emotional characteristics. We need more than intelligence in order to produce intelligent thoughts. We need the emotional ability to look critically at ourselves, look favorably at other people's opinions, admit that we make mistakes, learn from our mistakes, and exert enough self-control to prevent our arrogance, anger, envy, and pouting from distorting our opinions.

A person with tremendous intelligence may not produce intelligent thoughts if he has psychotic emotional cravings, such as extreme arrogance, or an incredible inability to deal with criticism. For example, extreme arrogance can interfere with a person's ability to look critically at his opinions.

An intelligent person who is excessively arrogant may appear to be of ordinary intelligence, or even below average, because he will not be able to reach the full potential that he is capable of. He will create the impression that the most arrogant people are the least intelligent. We may not notice that he is intelligent. We may regard him as an arrogant idiot.

Conversely, if a person of ordinary intelligence has the ability to look critically at himself, explore the world, learn from his mistakes, and listen to other people, he might be able to produce some intelligent opinions simply because his emotional characteristics are more suitable for scientific research and analysis. He will create the impression that intelligent people are more modest.

A lot of the best athletes do not spend much time boasting about themselves or criticizing other athletes. Are they suppressing their craving to boast? Not necessarily. It could be that the reason they became the top athletes is because they are naturally less arrogant. They may be more capable of looking critically at themselves, admitting that they make mistakes, learning from their mistakes, and learning from other people. They may be naturally more modest, and that in turn has allowed them to improve their athletic abilities.

Conversely, an athlete who is arrogant or has temper tantrums when somebody criticizes him, will have a difficult time learning from his mistakes because he will resist admitting that he makes mistakes, and he will not learn from other people because he will want to criticize them instead.

In an interview, Donald Trump said “I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.” He is an example of a person who has trouble dealing with criticism. He may be more intelligent than he appears to be because he may be unable to reach his full potential due to his abnormal arrogance, and/or because he reacts to criticism with anger.

The "experts" say that one of the 10 signs that a person is intelligent is if he is modest. I think it makes more sense to say that people with certain emotional characteristics, such as less arrogance, a greater ability to learn from criticism, and a greater ability to explore the unknown, will be better able to produce intelligent thoughts than other people because their emotional characteristics will allow them to be more productive at thinking.

To an observer, the modest people will appear to be more intelligent than other people, which can lead us to the false conclusion that the people who have certain other personality characteristics are also more intelligent, when in reality, the people with those emotional characteristics are simply more productive at thinking.

By comparison, people who are unusually arrogant, have strong cravings to follow their ancestors, have a strong fear of the unknown, or who react to criticism with anger, are more likely to simply repeat their opinions over and over, and to insult and fight with other people, thereby creating the impression that they are stupid. This could lead us to the conclusion that arrogant people are also less intelligent, when in reality some of them may be extremely intelligent but unable to create intelligent thoughts because of their bizarre emotional characteristics.

Unlike a computer, which processes information flawlessly, the human mind has emotions that try to distort the processing of information. Having intelligence is not enough for us to be productive at thinking. Producing intelligent thoughts requires both a high quality intellectual unit, and certain emotional characteristics.

To reach the full potential of your intelligence, you must be able to do research, spend a lot of time thinking, be able to look critically at yourself, be able to look favorably at other people's opinions, be able to explore the unknown, and be able to discuss issues with other people.

Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he never wanted an "ordinary" life. He apparently had an unusually strong craving to be at the top of the hierarchy. One of his remarks is: "I was always fascinated by people in control of other people." His desire to be the top leader created a conflict with his father, who believed that punishments would help cure his son of his attitude.

Although there is not much detail on the childhoods of Schwarzenegger or Donald Trump, my impression is that both of them were unusual as children. All male animals want to be at the top of the hierarchy, but Trump and Schwarzenegger seemed to have abnormally intense cravings for fame and status. Both of them had such intense cravings that they caused their parents to become concerned about their attitudes.

Although Trump and Schwarzenegger seem similar in some respects, Trump seems to be more aggressive and vengeful than Schwarzenegger, resulting in Trump getting into more arguments and fights, and spending more time trying to get revenge on people who upset him.

All male animals want to be at the top of the hierarchy. However, if we could measure our emotional cravings, we would find that most men are average in their craving to be the leader.

The men who have abnormally intense cravings to be leader will be willing to put lot more time and effort into becoming leader than a typical man. Furthermore, since their craving is abnormally intense, failure will be more emotionally traumatic to them than it would be to an ordinary man.

If a man is capable of accepting failure, then he will not be a problem, but some men have trouble accepting failure. Some men react to failure with anger or pouting, and some resort to crime in order to achieve their goals. Some of them will marry a famous or wealthy woman in order to increase their opportunities to become a leader, and some will create friendships according to whether they think it will help them achieve their goal.

The men who resort to cheating, deception, and manipulation to become leaders are going to be inappropriate as leaders. Rather than ignore this issue, we should design a government to reduce the chances of people getting into positions of importance through undesirable methods.

It might help you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to sports. Everybody wants to win athletic events, but if we could measure our craving to win, we would find most people have an average craving. An "average" craving is not strong enough to cause us to put time and effort into practicing for the event. The people who choose to put enormous amounts of time and effort into winning athletic events are people who have an abnormally intense craving to win.

Because most of us do not have a strong craving to win an athletic event, we can play recreational games without much concern about who wins or loses. We can play games for socializing and exercise. However, a person with an intense craving to win an athletic event will suffer a much greater level of emotional trauma if he loses the event.

If the athletes who fail to win events are capable of accepting failure, then they might be able to enjoy the event anyway, but some athletes will not accept failure. They resort to cheating, such as sabotaging their competitors, bribing judges, or using drugs.

In an earlier document, I pointed out that some people have accused Donald Trump of cheating during casual games of golf. Trump may have such trouble accepting failure that he will cheat in order to win an event that is truly meaningless.

Sports events are ruined by cheating, and so the organizers of events pass judgment on which of the athletes are cheating, and they evict the cheaters from the events.

It should be noted that it is not easy to determine who is cheating. For example, is an athlete cheating when he takes testosterone? The answer to that question depends upon how you want to look at the situation. For example, if one athlete has a naturally high level of testosterone, and another athlete has an abnormally low level of testosterone, then we could say that the athlete with the low level is justified in taking testosterone simply to compensate for his genetic defect. We could even say that an athlete with a normal level of testosterone is justified in taking testosterone in order to compensate for the athletes who have abnormally high levels.

It is not easy to determine which athletes are cheating, and how to define "cheating", but the people who organize sports events do not let that complexity frighten them. It is better to make imperfect judgments of the athletes than to do nothing because doing nothing allows the athletes to do whatever they please.

Furthermore, instead of frightening ourselves with the complexity of passing judgment on cheating, we should react to the complexity by analyzing the results of our decisions, and experimenting with improvements to the process. This will allow us to do an increasingly better job of judging athletes and defining "cheating".

We should apply the same concept to leadership. The people who are competing to influence our future are analogous to athletes in sports event. However, we are not doing anything analogous to passing judgment on which of those people are cheating, or whether they even qualify for leadership. We allow everybody to join the competitive battle for leadership, and we allow every contestant to behave in any manner he pleases. Nobody is restricted from entering the contest, and nobody is evicted for cheating. Political candidates can even make statements that are incorrect without even being told to correct them.

Sports events have the equivalent of a Quality Control Department that has two important roles:
1) To design qualification tests to restrict who qualifies for an athletic event.
2) To reduce cheating among the athletes.

We should apply the same concept to leadership positions. We need a quality control department in our government to
1) To design qualification tests to restrict who qualifies for an influential position in society.
2) To reduce cheating among the candidates for leadership.

If nobody had to qualify to get into an Olympic event, then a lot of incompetent athletes would participate because they either have absurd levels of arrogance, or because they have intense cravings to win the contest. This would cause the Olympic events to become a mixture of talented athletes and neurotic athletes.

If there was no attempt to stop cheating, the neurotic athletes would be able to cheat, and in any manner they pleased. As soon as one of them won by cheating, it would put pressure on the others to cheat, and the cheating would evolve through the years to become increasingly complex and extreme.

Since a team of criminals will always be more successful than an individual criminal, crime networks would eventually dominate the Olympics. The talented athletes would lose interest and find some other sports event to participate in. The Olympics would become a battle between crime networks.

This is the situation we have with our nations. Nobody has to qualify to become a leader in business, schools, government, journalism, or the military. Furthermore, there is no Quality Control Department to stop cheating.

Anybody can join the competition to become president of the United States, or a top executive of a business, or a journalist, but since nobody has to qualify, a lot of the people who are struggling for those positions are people with abnormally intense cravings for status, or who are so arrogant that they believe they would make a wonderful leader.

Furthermore, since nobody is stopping cheating, the process has become dominated by crime networks. The presidential elections are not a "job interview" in which the voters analyze the leadership abilities of the candidates. Rather, the elections are a battle between crime networks to blackmail one another, suppress their competitors, and manipulate the voters with lies and deception.

If we were to create a quality control department for the government, they could set standards for people in all types of leadership positions, just as we have standards for pilots, dentists, and welders. The quality control department would also watch over the people in influential positions in order to identify and remove those who are cheating or incompetent.

The nation that is the first to create a quality control department for leadership positions will be doing the equivalent of building the first airplane. They will be doing something that nobody has done before them, and so they will not be able to learn from other people's mistakes. They will be exploring the unknown. This will result in them making a lot of mistakes.

However, instead of reacting to mistakes with panic or fear, we should react by studying the problem and looking for ways to improve the situation. This will allow us to slowly improve the quality control department, resulting in increasingly better people in leadership positions. The two issues we need to be concerned about are:

1) We should restrict who becomes a leader

We don't show any concern about who becomes a journalist, school official, judge, lawyer, government official, military leader, or business leader. We are allowing everybody to fight for those positions as if we are a group of monkeys. We need to design a qualification process that will reject the people we regard as having undesirable intellectual or emotional qualities.

2) We should control how people become leaders

We don't show any concern for how people get into journalism, television, schools, government, businesses, or other positions of importance. We don't care how George Soros, the Bronfman family, John Podesta, Wolf Blitzer, or Larry Silverstein achieved their positions of influence. We don't care if a person gets an influential position by inheriting money or a business from his parents, by working with a crime network, by getting married to somebody who is wealthy or famous, or by murdering, blackmailing, or sabotaging his competitors.

Trump selected his son-in-law to play an important role in the government, and many other government officials have also appointed their friends and family members to positions of importance. By comparison, we don't allow a pilot to select his son-in-law to be his copilot. We don't allow a surgeon to select his son-in-law to help him with surgical procedures. We don't allow Olympic athletes to select family members to participate in the games.

We need to design a quality control department to watch over the contest for leadership positions and ensure that the people who are competing for leadership are earning their position and not getting into their positions through diabolical or other inappropriate techniques.

We don't have to continue allowing people to fight for leadership, as if we are a bunch of monkeys. We can design a society in which people in leadership positions are treated just like doctors, pilots, aircraft mechanics, and other employees. We don't have to get on our hands and knees and bow before our leaders. We don't have to ignore their idiotic remarks, disgusting behavior, incompetence, nepotism, or suspicious behavior.

We can make people qualify for leadership, give them job performance reviews on a regular basis, pass judgment on their leadership qualities, and replace those who are doing the worst job.

We can go even further by making the quality control department completely open so that we can see who is in the department, what each of them does, and hold each of them responsible for their decisions. We could also make all of the existing quality control organizations open so that we can see who is passing judgment on who qualifies to be a dentist, welder, and airline pilot. We don't need to provide any of the quality control departments with secrecy.

However, we are not going to make changes to the world by being individuals. We have to get together, discuss our options, compromise on policies, and then work as a team to implement those policies.

A democracy promotes the concept that government officials should be submissive representatives. This creates an environment in which we feel equal to or superior to our leaders.

If we switch to a government that is modeled after businesses and militaries, we will create an environment in which our leaders regard themselves as superior to the ordinary people.

This will create a noticeably different social environment, and it will require people to push themselves into adapting to it. We are accustomed to ridiculing government officials, and we are accustomed to government officials who remain silent about our insults.

Donald Trump is changing the situation somewhat by fighting back at the people who criticize him, and we can already see that it is creating conflicts with the people who don't like the idea of a government official who defends himself.

If we switch to the government I suggest, the situation will become even more extreme because all of the government officials will be intolerant of abuse. The government officials will behave just like athletic coaches, business executives, and military leaders. They will demand that people treat everybody, including the government officials, with respect, and they will not be afraid to criticize people who are misbehaving.

The government I propose would consist of officials who regard themselves as more educated, more intelligent, and better behaved than the ordinary people. This is going to create emotional turmoil for the people who are accustomed to ridiculing government officials and who expect government officials to pander to them. Those people will accuse the government of having an attitude of superiority, and for being insulting to the ordinary people.

The government I propose requires people to treat their government officials the same way athletes treat coaches, and the way employees of a business treat their manager, and the way people in the military treat their leaders.

It might help you to understand what I am talking about if you imagine the opposite situation. Imagine if an athlete had grown up in a nation in which the coaches were submissive servants who pandered to the athletes. That athlete would be accustomed to giving orders to his coach and ridiculing his coach. If he then moved to a nation where the coaches behaved like leaders, the athlete would suffer emotional turmoil when the coach criticized his performance, defended himself from insults, reprimanded the athlete for having a bad attitude, or pointed out that his competition is more talented. The athlete might become angry and yell something like:

"I don't want you as my coach! You think that you are better than me. I want a coach who treats me as his equal, not like some inferior animal. You think that you know more than me, and that you are more talented than me. You are insulting and rude to me. I want a coach who treats me with respect."

The athletes who are successful do not look for coaches who are submissive servants. They don't want a coach to pander to them, or to blame their failures on other athletes or the judges. They want a coach who knows more than they know, has had more experience, and has had success in training other athletes. A coach who knows less than the athletes is going to be worthless.

Voters need the same attitude towards government as athletes have towards coaches. If voters were doing a proper job of selecting people with leadership abilities, then the government would be full of people who are more educated, more intelligent, and have better self-control than the ordinary citizen.

The successful athletes do not want coaches who lie to them. They want the coach to provide honest analyses of their abilities. They want constructive criticism, not praise. They also want honest analyses of other athletes, not insults about other athletes.

By comparison, voters put pressure on political candidates to lie to them. Voters want praise, not criticism, and they want insults about their competitors and foreign nations, not honest analyses. An honest candidate cannot get elected.

An example of how candidates must lie to the voters is that when Trump was running for president, he was asked about his religious beliefs, and he claimed that the Bible is his favorite book. He lied to the voters, and the reason is simply because he realized that the only way he can get elected is to pretend that he is religious.

The majority of voters are not looking for guidance, intelligent analyses, or constructive criticism. They are looking for a submissive servant who will pander to them. Since the majority of voters have a strong interest in religion, they want a candidate to have a strong interest in religion. The voters are not interested in listening to a difference of opinion, and they will not tolerate a candidate who criticizes their opinions.

The same situation occurred with the abortion issue. Years ago Trump stated on television that he supports abortion, but when he was running for president, he claimed to oppose abortion. Although it is possible that he changed his opinion during those years, it is most likely that he deliberately lied simply to appease the Republican voters.

You might assume that a candidate who lies to the voters will have trouble getting elected, but many voters will not notice that they have been lied to, and of those who notice, most will not care because political candidates lie so often that the voters dismiss the lies with a remark similar to: "it is just politics as usual".

The only way a person can get elected in a democracy is to lie to the voters, and to express opinions that are as vague as astrology predictions. I would describe this election system as crude and disgusting.

The only way we are going to improve this situation is to find enough people who are willing to push themselves into experimenting with a new attitude towards government. We need people to regard government officials the same way athletes regard coaches. Voters should be looking for leadership, not submissive servants.

Incidentally, I don't think we will be able to provide ourselves with leaders that we can truly respect when we allow them to have giant mansions, thousands of pairs of shoes, yachts, and other absurd luxuries. There are three reasons as to why I think we need to equalize our levels of material wealth:

1) When we provide our leaders with phenomenal material wealth and pampering, the people with abnormal cravings for wealth and pampering will be attracted to leadership positions. However, it would be better if our leadership positions were attracting people who truly had a desire to provide leadership.

2) Humans do not like being peasants, so I think we will create a more pleasant social environment when our leaders are team members who work and live with us, just as it was during prehistoric times.

3) When a society allows a minority of the population to be extremely wealthy, their children become misfits and have to be separated from the other children. This creates a society in which the leaders send their children to special schools, special recreational areas, and special social activities.

This causes many parents and children to be envious of those wealthy children, but providing children with lots of material wealth and maids does not give them a more pleasant childhood. Providing children with luxuries is as idiotic as providing a pet dog with a goldplated food bowl. Young children do not care about luxuries, or appreciate them.

I think the children of our leaders will have a more pleasant life if they lived in ordinary neighborhoods and were treated like ordinary children. We should not give special treatment to the children of government officials, athletes, entertainers, or business leaders.

The leader of a group of monkeys or wolves is not pampered by the others. Rather, he faces constant competition, and must continuously earn his position. The leader of a prehistoric tribe of humans would not have been pampered, either. The leader of a prehistoric tribe would have worked with and lived among the other members of his tribe, not been pampered like a King. He would have earned whatever he wanted. His tribe did not provide him with taxes, mansions, housecleaning services, or red carpets.

I think we will create the most sensible environment for us when our leaders are treated in a similar manner as they were during prehistoric times. Specifically, there should not be much of a difference in the material wealth or homes between the people. We should not pamper the people in leadership positions. They should be regarded as employees who are doing a job.

When a person is hired for a job, the business does not spend money on an inauguration ceremony for the new employee. Rather, he is put through a probation period. We should follow the same philosophy with government officials.

We should not waste time or money on inauguration ceremonies. The president should be put through a probationary period of perhaps six months. During that probationary period, we should watch him more carefully than normal, and we should pass judgment on whether we want to continue allowing him to be president, or replace him.

Our attitude towards the government is idiotic. We do not regard the president as an employee doing a job. Rather, becoming elected President is treated as if a person has won a lottery.

Trump visited the Japanese government in November 2016. His daughter and her husband were with him at least some of the time while he was meeting with the Japanese government officials. It was a casual meeting of no significance since he was not yet officially the President of the United States, and there is nothing wrong with people bringing their family members into informal meetings, but the point is that Trump's children, and the children of other people in leadership positions, are treated the same way as medieval royal families. Trump has since hired his son-in-law for an important job in his administration.

Imagine this type of situation happening at IBM. Imagine a man is hired to a management position, and he brings his wife, daughter, and son-in-law along with him to a meeting with some executives at Sony, and he hires his son-in-law to be his adviser. Businesses would not tolerate that situation.

In order to provide ourselves with better governments, we need to do what businesses do. A person in a leadership position must be regarded as a person who is doing a job, and his wife, children, friends, and relatives should stay out of his job, and should not get any special treatment.

It should be noted that Trump is not the only government official to provide jobs for his family members and friends. This is a common problem all around the world. President Obama's wife, for example, is treated as a world leader.

The spouse and the son-in-law of a business executive are not allowed to join business meetings or behave like business executives. When you go to a doctor, you don't find their spouse or son-in-law participating in meetings and pretending to be a doctor.

We are not treating government officials as "employees" who are doing "jobs". Rather, we are pampering them and their families as if they are Kings and Queens. Our attitude should change. We should treat government officials the same way that businesses treat their executives.

In the United States, the president has the ability to release people from prison. According to the White House web site, Obama released more people from prison than any other president. I think that prison is an idiotic solution to crime, and if we were to analyze Obama's reasons for releasing those prisoners, some of us might agree with his decisions. However, the point I want to bring to your attention is that it is idiotic to have a legal system and then give one particular official the authority to override the legal system, and without any explanation, and without being held accountable for what he does.

A government needs checks and balances, but we are not going to provide checks and balances to a legal system simply by allowing one official to have dictatorial control over it. My suggestion is that we provide checks and balances with a Quality Control division, and that everybody in that division be required to explain their decisions, and be held accountable for their decisions. We should not give any person dictatorial control to do as he pleases.

One of the reasons that governments are failing to solve our social problems is because most people are resisting the evidence that human behavior is due to genetics. The environment influences us, but the genetic design of our mind and body determines our intellectual, emotional, and physical abilities.

I think that most people are capable of understanding that human behavior is controlled by genetics, but they resist the concept because they don't like the conclusion that it brings us to. That conclusion is that people are not equal; that some of us are genetically superior.

When we believe that the human mind is like a piece of clay that is shaped by the environment, then everybody is equal to one another. Nobody is inferior. Furthermore, whatever problems we discover in ourselves are curable through environmental changes.

For example, with this philosophy, a person who commits a crime is not inferior to the honest people; rather, he is merely the victim of a bad environment, and he can be cured of his criminal behavior with therapy or punishments. Likewise, a person who has a bizarre personality is not inferior to other people; rather, he is a victim of bullying, bad parenting, discrimination, or some other environmental issue, and he can be cured of his problem with therapy, pity, or punishments.

By comparison, when we believe that human behavior is determined by genetics, we come to conclusions that we do not like. We come to the same type of conclusions about humans that farmers have in regards to their animals. For example, when a farmer discovers that a pig is antisocial, he regards that pig as having a genetically inferior brain, and he will isolate that pig or euthanize it.

Most people have enough intelligence to understand that animal behavior is genetic, and therefore, they have enough intelligence to realize that human behavior is also genetic. However, they don't have the emotional ability to accept this concept, so they react by ignoring it and convincing themselves that humans follow different rules than animals.

It doesn't do a person any good to have a lot of intelligence if his emotional characteristics cause him to disregard reality and believe idiotic fantasies.

You can see the same concept in regards to the 9/11 attack. Most adults have enough intelligence to realize that Building 7 and the two World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. A person does not need much scientific or engineering knowledge in order to realize that those buildings did not "fall down" because of fire. However, not many people have the emotional ability to deal with the conclusion that the evidence brings us to; namely, that some group of people put explosives in those buildings, murdered thousands of people, and deceived us into believing that we were attacked by Muslims.

This concept is especially obvious with parents. Many parents have the intelligence to realize that one of their children is psychotic, violent, or retarded, but they don't want to face that unpleasant conclusion so they tell themselves that their child is merely slower at learning, or "different", or "special".

Some people suspect that Donald Trump's son, Baron, is autistic. There are only a few seconds of video of his son, and I agree that it appears that something is wrong with his mind, but his odd behavior could also be due to being tired or bored.

Some people have responded that it is none of our business if his son is autistic. Most people have the attitude that it is acceptable to be secretive and deceptive about mental illness.

I pointed out in other documents that animals and humans are naturally deceptive. We are constantly trying to impress one another. Most people are frightened that other people will learn the truth about them. We want to hide our school records, job performance reviews, medical records, and other information. When somebody tries to learn the truth about somebody else, he is likely to be reprimanded with an expression such as, "It's none of your business!"

I can guarantee that Baron Trump has mental and physical disorders. The reason is simply because it makes no sense to say that there is such a thing as a "perfect" human. I don't know what Baron Trump's problems are, but I can guarantee that he has flaws. Although we have different ideas on what a "flaw" is, everybody should be able to find some flaws in his body and mind. Anybody who believes that he is perfect is stupid, ignorant, and/or too emotionally defective to look critically at himself.

Donald and Melinia Trump are not stupid or ignorant, so if they cannot admit that their son has problems, it is a sign that they have trouble looking critically at their children and facing reality. Likewise, the people on the Internet who are reacting with anger to the speculation that he is autistic, and who are insisting that he is a normal child, are also showing signs of an inability to face reality. They know as little about Baron as I do, so it is ridiculous for them to believe that they are experts on Baron's mind.

The inability of people to consider the possibility that Baron Trump has mental problems is not something to ignore. If Trump and his supporters cannot consider the possibility that his son is mentally ill, that is a sign that they are ignoring reality and living in a fantasy. This is a problem because Trump is working with Jews and homosexuals. If he has trouble with reality, will he be able to consider the possibility that he is being manipulated by his "friends"?

For example, as of 23 January 2017, Trump supports moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, but did he develop that policy? Or is he being manipulated by his Jewish "friends"?

We currently allow government officials to do whatever they please without any explanation, and without being held accountable for their actions. I suggest that we create a government in which the officials are required to write a document that explains their decisions, and post it on the Internet for everybody to see.

If Donald Trump had to follow that rule, then he would have to post an explanation for why he believes we should move the US embassy to Jerusalem. He would have to give us an estimate on how much money we will have to spend to move the embassy, and what he believes the benefits and disadvantages will be to both our nation and the world. How exactly are we going to benefit by spending money to move the embassy?

By requiring him to post that type of explanation, we would be able to pass judgment on whether he is making intelligent decisions. If we agree to let him move the embassy, we would then observe the results and hold him accountable for his decision.

For example, if the embassy is moved within its budget, and the benefits are what he predicted, then he will get credit for creating a beneficial policy. However, if it turns out that moving the embassy is much more expensive than he predicted, or if we come to the conclusion that it is causing more trouble for our nation and/or the world, he will have a failed policy recorded in his job history.

I also propose a government in which we are continuously replacing the officials who fail the most often, and that we will provide our nation with a government that is much more productive and successful. We will provide ourselves with government officials who give more accurate estimates to the cost of projects, and who can more accurately predict the advantages and disadvantages to a project.

Exactly which emotional traits we need for leaders is a personal opinion, but I suggest we restrict leadership to people who have the emotional ability to accept reality, be honest with us, be able to look critically at themselves, and accept the evidence that human behavior is genetic.

This will provide us with leaders who can acknowledge that people are not equal to one another. It will provide us with leaders who can acknowledge that the people who are more honest are genetically superior to the people who are more likely to steal, lie, cheat, manipulate, and murder; that the people who are better able to work in a team are genetically superior to the people who have trouble cooperating with other people; that the parents who can admit that their child has mental problems are genetically superior to the parents who refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

The Declaration of Independence claims that "all men are created equal", but I propose a government that promotes the philosophy that people are not equal; that some people are genetically superior.

To complicate the issue, nobody is superior in every quality. Some people are superior in one quality but average in another, and below average in another.

The United States promotes the concept that everybody is qualified to become president, but we should promote the concept that everybody be given an opportunity to show us his talents, but leadership is restricted to the people who show evidence of having genetically superior brains in regards to the qualities we want for the particular job.

One of the concepts I want to emphasize in this series of articles is that governments and businesses have significantly different attitudes towards people. Governments practice the theory that all people are equal, and that we can fix the misfits with counseling, rewards, and punishments. By comparison, businesses, militaries, and most other organizations practice a philosophy that people have different characteristics, and they evict the misfits.

Another way to look at this issue is that businesses follow the same philosophy as the people who are creating "guide dogs" to be companions for blind and disabled people. Some of the people who train guide dogs promote religious nonsense, but they practice genetics. Specifically, they carefully analyze the mental and physical characteristics of the dogs, and they evict the dogs that don't have the qualities that they want.

They do not practice the belief that all dogs are equal, or that they can cure a badly behaved dog with punishments or rewards. They practice the philosophy that a dog's behavior is genetic, and it cannot be changed. They believe that unless a dog has the appropriate genetic characteristics, they cannot train it to be a guide dog.

All governments have been failing consistently to reduce corruption, graffiti, drug abuse, unemployment, littering, divorce, loneliness, crime networks, homelessness, illegal immigrants, and other social problems. I think the reason is rather obvious; namely, because they are basing their theories on an unrealistic view of humans. I will now give a few examples.

The neighborhoods that we describe as suffering from "poverty" have much more litter than other neighborhoods, and their buildings and yards are not maintained as well. All nations today are promoting the theory that the reason those neighborhoods are filthy is because the people don't have enough money to properly maintain their neighborhood. The people who believe in this theory encourage us to feel sorry for the people in those neighborhoods, donate money to them, or volunteer to clean their houses and streets.

However, it doesn't make any sense to claim that filthy neighborhoods are filthy because the residents do not have enough money to be neat. We do not need money in order to be neat. Children are not charged a fee for picking up their toys or clothing, and adults do not have to pay a fee to put their trash into a public trash can. Actually, in some cases, it is less expensive to be neat. For example, spraying graffiti requires spending money on paint, so the people who do not spray graffiti will save money.

Many of the people in the filthy neighborhoods do not have jobs, and that provides them with a tremendous amount of leisure time every day. They could easily spend a few minutes picking up their litter, and doing some gardening in their yards, and making their neighborhoods more attractive. However, they spend less time cleaning up after themselves and doing gardening than the people in the neighborhoods who have full-time jobs.

It does not require much time or effort to keep your home neat. If you need proof, just watch some typical people for a few weeks and keep track of the amount of time they spend cleaning up after themselves. Aside from the OCD people, most of us spend less than a few hours a week on cleaning. Our homes are not clean enough for surgical operations, but they are adequate.

Ordinary people do not spend much time cleaning up after themselves, and if we were to observe the people in the filthy neighborhoods, we would discover that they spend less time cleaning than the typical people, even though they have much more leisure time.

Furthermore, a close observation of the people in the filthy neighborhoods would show us that they are creating most of the mess in their homes and yards. For example, they frequently discard clothing on the floor rather than put it where it belongs, and they often leave dirty dishes scattered around their house and kitchen rather than clean them. They also allow their children to abandon toys throughout the house and yard.

Why do the people who are suffering from poverty spend less time cleaning up after themselves? Why do they discard their clothing on the floor and leave dirty dishes scattered around the house? Does "poverty" have the ability to force a neat, clean person to behave like a slob? No; poverty cannot cause a neat person to become a slob.

The reason the poor neighborhoods are filthy is because they are dominated by people with mental and/or physical characteristics that prevent them from being as neat as the rest of us. For example, some of them are suffering from physical disorders, such as arthritis or obesity, that make it difficult for them to do physical work, and some have mental characteristics that result in them preferring to spend their time watching television, getting drunk, playing with their children, or playing video games.

Litter and filth has nothing to do with money. If a person is messy, it is because his mind made the decision to be messy. For some examples:

• When people are in a theater to listen to music or watch a movie, some people will leave litter where they are sitting, whereas others carry their litter to the trash cans.

The people who leave litter in a theater are not necessarily suffering from poverty. Actually, the people who go to the expensive symphonies have above average incomes and educations. Those people might not make a mess in their home, but they have no inhibitions about leaving a mess in public buildings and parks.

• Some people spit, discard chewing gum, or blow their snot on sidewalks, but they are not necessarily suffering from poverty.

• Some people discard trash out of the window of their automobile, and some people dump their ashtrays in parking lots. The people who create such litter are not suffering from poverty. Actually, they are wealthy enough to own an automobile.

• When people take a trip on an airplane, some people leave trash in seat pockets or floor, even though the airline employees provide a free trash removal service. The people who create such litter are not necessarily suffering from poverty. Actually, they are wealthy enough to fly on an airplane.

• A British television program about some of the people in the cleaning businesses shows that the people who attend the horse races create a large amount of litter. However, those sloppy people are not suffering from poverty; actually, many of them have above average incomes. Furthermore, the supervisor of the cleaning crew mentions that women's bathrooms are messier than men's bathrooms, but that is not because more women are suffering from poverty than men.

People do not leave litter in theaters, make a mess in a bathroom, discard clothing on the floor, or toss trash in a river because they are suffering from "poverty". The people who make a mess are doing so because their mind made the decision to do so. We don't know enough about the human mind to determine exactly why a particular person is messy, but I would say that the messy people are genetically inferior to the neater people in whatever characteristic influences our desire to be neat.

Some of the messy people have some genetic qualities that are better-than-average, but there is something inferior about them that causes them to be messy.

If the people who are training guide dogs noticed that one of their dogs was messy, they would not feel sorry for the dog and assume that it was suffering from poverty. They would assume the dog is suffering from some type of mental disorder, and they would evict it from the program. If we were to follow the same philosophy with people, then the people who make a mess in the city would be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted from the city, and the end result would be that the rest of the city would be neat and clean.

To be fair, some people are messy because of ignorance. For example, a lot of people are ignorant about how our sewage system works, and this results in people who do not realize that they should not pour oils and fats down the kitchen drain, and that they should not flush certain items down the toilet. For example, I did not realize that putting fat in a kitchen drain would cause problems until I clogged a drain by doing it, and I have met other people who did not realize this, so there must be a lot of other people who also grew up without learning this.

After I had clogged the drain, I recalled memories of our mother telling us to put grease into the trash instead of the sink. However, she never explained why. As with most people, my mother will follow rules even if she is not provided with a reason, and even if she does not understand the reason. I, on the other hand, have a tendency to ignore something if I don't understand its purpose. This characteristic sometimes causes problems for me, but I suppose it is the reason I am willing to explore life.

I sometimes have to remind myself that many of the established procedures have become established for a very good reason, and I should not disregard them simply because I don't understand them.

One of the reasons that people with my type of personality tend to disregard established procedures that don't make sense to us is because a lot of our established procedures are idiotic. For example, do we really need to pray to God before we go to sleep or eat dinner? When people with my personality grow up in a society that is following a lot of idiotic procedures, we get into the habit of disregarding procedures that don't make sense to us, but in some cases they don't make sense to us because we are ignorant of something, or too dumb to understand it.

This issue is similar to what I mentioned in a previous document in which I pointed out that we put unnecessary warning messages on products, such as a warning that coffee is hot. The excessive warning messages are causing people to disregard the warnings.

If you can imagine the dangers facing an animal or prehistoric human, you can understand why the people who had a tendency to mindlessly follow established procedures had a greater chance of survival than the people who wandered off on their own path. There is a very good reason as to why people follow one another like sheep, and the reason is because people with that characteristic had a significantly greater survival rate.

However, in this modern world, children are being raised in a society that has a lot of idiotic warnings and customs, and this can cause children to get into the habit of disregarding the warnings and customs. It would be better if we were to make all of our warnings and customs more sensible.

Getting back to the issue of messy people, the video I gave a link to earlier, this one, shows that Britain has to regularly clean deposits of fats from their sewer system, and I suppose that means that other countries must also waste resources on the cleaning of fat from the sewer systems. How much labor and resources are being wasted on this problem?

A lot of people do not realize that they should not dump fat down their kitchen drain. As a result, we can reduce that particular problem by changing our school curriculum so that children are better prepared for society. Children should be taught how to properly use and maintain drains, toilets, phones, computers, and other devices. In such a case, every adult would realize that we should not put fat in the sewer, and we should not flush certain items down the toilet.

Unfortunately, although a better educated public would reduce the problem of clogged sewers, we would discover that some people continue to dump fat and trash in the sewer, and they do it for the same reason that they discard trash on the streets and in the rivers. Specifically, because they want to do as they please rather than follow the rules.

After I clogged a sewer, I never again put fat or oil down any drain. However, there are some people who will continue to do this even after they have clogged the sewer.

In order to significantly reduce litter and clogged sewers, we must face the fact that people are genetically unique, and that some people are going to be messy, irresponsible, dishonest, and destructive regardless of their education. We must face the fact that the reason that they behave in a detrimental manner is because they want to, not because of poverty, ignorance, or the devil. We have to evict those people from our cities, or restrict them to special neighborhoods.

Incidentally, in addition to schools teaching children about our sewage system, schools should also provide better information about the dangers of natural gas. In a free enterprise system, the businesses that produce natural gas have a tendency to deceive us into believing that natural gas is "clean burning".

When I was a child, I saw so many advertisements and articles about how natural gas is clean burning that I assumed that it was burning completely into carbon dioxide and water. As a result, I was under the impression that when the kitchen is cold, we can heat the kitchen quickly simply by turning on the oven, opening the oven door, and letting the natural gas flames heat the kitchen.

Many years ago I rented a room in my house to a woman who needed a place for a few months, and one winter evening she asked me to turn on the natural gas fireplace to warm the room up, and because, like all of us, she enjoys a fireplace. It used artificial logs, so I lit the fire and shut the vent to heat the room up faster.

After a few minutes she sensed that the vent was shut, and she asked me about it, and I told her that I shut the vent in order to heat the room faster. She became hysterical that we would die, and demanded that I open the vent. She had grown up in Sweden, so I was thinking that maybe she grew up with wood-burning fireplaces and was unfamiliar with how clean natural gas is.

I told her that natural gas burns clean, so all it produces is carbon dioxide and water vapor, but she demanded that I open the vent. So I opened the vent, and the next day I called the natural gas company and asked them if it really is necessary for us to open the vent. The gas company told me that we must keep the vent open.

I am not the only person who was fooled by the gas companies into believing that natural gas is clean burning. Now that the Internet exists, I have noticed people advising one another to stop trying to heat a room with a natural gas oven or fireplace. In this article about hoarding, the photo at the top of the article shows a child heating his hands with the oven in his messy kitchen. I used to do that sometimes, also.

It turns out that the natural gas companies are deceiving us when they say natural gas is clean burning. Apparently, when natural gas is burned, it produces some carbon monoxide. How much carbon monoxide is produced by the blue flames of a typical stove? Is it enough for us to worry about? How much is produced by the yellow flames of a natural gas fireplace?

Some people burn candles in their home, and some burn incense, and some smoke tobacco, marijuana, or other materials. Has anybody measured the amount of carbon monoxide that those activities create? How do candles compare to stoves in the production of carbon monoxide?

What about the production of carbon dioxide? How high does that have to be before we need to worry about it?

In a free enterprise system, businesses have a tendency to exploit us. The information that businesses provide to us is more intelligent and organized than the information that governments provide, but because of competition, businesses don't want to be honest. They want to bias everything in their favor. This results in them providing us with a distorted view of their products, and a distorted view of their competition.

In a free enterprise system, we will get only the products and the information that we are willing to purchase. A lot of people are willing to purchase information about Hollywood celebrities, sports events, and automobiles, and so there are lots of paper magazines, television programs, and Internet sites that provide us with a variety of details on those issues. If people were interested in understanding the world they live in, there would be businesses providing us with information about the carbon monoxide production of candles; the silverfish and other mysterious creatures that are living in our homes; and about the poisonous plants and animals that live in our neighborhoods.

Businesses are deceiving us on a regular basis in order to promote themselves and their products, and many of their products and services should be described as worthless. We are not going to solve this problem by passing more laws or by punishing business executives. Solving this problem is going to require experimenting with significant changes to our culture. For example, we should change our economic system so that businesses are competing to improve society. It is idiotic to put businesses into competition to make money.

During prehistoric times, it made no difference if people were sloppy because they were nomadic, and all of their trash was biodegradable. Humans never developed any inhibitions about littering or tossing trash into rivers.

Today, however, a lot of our trash requires millions of years to degrade, and some of it is poisonous, radioactive, or otherwise dangerous. Today sloppy people are a significant problem because they require other people to clean up after them, and that is one of the reasons that modern nations want to bring in refugees, idiots, and uneducated people from foreign nations to serve as a peasant class.

The significance of littering and sloppiness might be easier to understand if you imagine if we were to create three, completely new cities that are identical in all respects, except that we put only messy people in one city, neat people in the second city, and OCD people in the third city. Initially all three cities would have identical buildings, roads, schools, and parks, but after a few months the cities would become visually different, and they would sound different, also.

• The messy people

The city with the messy people would become increasingly filthy, and the filth would eventually reach such a level that the city government would have to hire peasants to clean up their endless production of litter, spit, snot, and chewing gum. They would likely import dumb and uneducated people.

That peasant class would have a significant and detrimental effect on the social environment. If the peasants were of different races, it would cause the city to have a different visual appearance simply because the people are a mixture of races, and if the peasants were also speaking different languages, the city would sound different because of the different languages and music. If the peasants wore different clothing styles, and had different recreational activities, and had different holiday celebrations, they would further change the visual appearance and sounds of the city.

• The OCD people

The city with the OCD people would be the cleanest of the cities, and they would not need any peasants to do cleaning, but their city would suffer in other ways because the people would waste a lot of their time and resources on cleaning chores, thereby reducing their time for other activities, such as socializing, developing new technology, taking their children to a park, and getting together for dinner.

As a result of their obsession with cleaning, there would be fewer people on the streets, in the parks, riding bicycles, swimming, and in restaurants. The city would be clean, but it would be socially unpleasant. The city would also be noticeably more quiet because the people would spend most of their leisure time cleaning things rather than getting together to socialize, ride bicycles, or go swimming. Living in that city would feel as if we are living among industrial robots.

• The normal people

The city with the "normal" people would not need peasants for cleaning, either. Their city would be the most pleasant of the three cities, but only until they started raising children. Some of their children would be messy, and some would have OCD problems, so unless the people were capable of controlling reproduction, eventually their city would have a mixture of neat, sloppy, and OCD people, thereby causing their city to resemble the other cities in the world today.

The reason I want you to think about how life would differ in those three imaginary cities is to help you realize that sloppy people are not a trivial problem that we should ignore. Sloppy people are one of the reasons that we need a peasant class to do cleaning chores. By evicting the sloppy people, or restricting them to their own neighborhoods, a city becomes so neat and clean that we can do as I've suggested, which is share the cleaning chores.

The photo below of people picking up litter might cause you to become horrified at the thought of having to participate in the cleaning of your city, but if we were living in a city in which sloppy people were evicted, there would not be much cleaning to share. We would not have to clean fat and diapers from sewers, and we would not have to clean up tons of litter, chewing gum, snot, and spit from the streets, parks, and sidewalks.

Furthermore, if a city is restricted to people who look for solutions to problems rather than whine or have tantrums, then instead of complaining about the cleaning chores, we could work together to reduce the cleaning chores. Two examples of what we could do are:

1) Since the government will be in control of the economy, we can shift some of our resources from developing unnecessary products to the development of machines to help with the cleaning. For example, instead of developing self driving automobiles, we could create self-driving sweeping and mopping machines that clean the offices, factories, and plazas. Since these type of machines do not have to travel at high speed, and since they can operate at night when we are asleep, it would be much easier for us to create these machines compared to self driving automobiles.

2) Since the government will be in control of the design and layout of every aspect of the city, we can design the city to make it easier to clean. For example:
• The doors of buildings could be designed so that a machine and open and close them, thereby allowing cleaning machines to travel through the office buildings and factories by themselves.
• The outsides of the buildings could be designed with rails for automated window washers to travel on.
• The toilets could be designed with a larger and less serpentine path, and they could be connected to the walls rather than the floors, thereby allowing the floors to be easily cleaned.

In the diagram below, a conventional toilet (on the left) has a narrow and serpentine path, and only about 1.3 liters of water. Why not design toilets with a wider, less twisted path? And why not also control the human population so that we don't have to skimp on the water for the toilets?

Incidentally, some of the techniques to reduce cleaning would also help us save labor in other areas. For example, by designing buildings so that cleaning machines can open and close the doors, we also allow machines to travel through the buildings to pick up and deliver packages, laundry, and trash.

We currently create laws according to our emotional reactions. For example, we want to remove murderers from society because murder upsets us tremendously, but littering does not stimulate our emotions very much, so we don't have a strong desire to stop littering. If we design laws according to what will provide us with the most pleasant life, then we would evict people who litter, or restrict them to certain neighborhoods.

Humans are no longer living like animals, and we should no longer tolerate people who behave like animals. Unfortunately, we will resist putting people on restrictions, and especially evicting them, because many of our relatives and friends would be caught behaving like an animal, and we want to give them special treatment. In order to create a better life for ourselves, each of us must be able to allow the security personnel to enforce the laws on our family members and friends. Do you have that level of self-control?

If a city were to set standards of behavior that are similar to that of a Navy submarine, or higher, then everybody in the city would be so responsible and honest that the city would be able to provide services that are impractical in our cities today, such as operating without money, and providing free, self-serve food and drink bars.

If you wanted a banana or apple, you would pick it up at one of the free, self-serve fruit markets, and if you wanted a glass of orange juice or beer, you would pour yourself a glass at one of the free self-serve bars. The city would feel as if it was your own home.

If our cities were to offer those services today, we would have a similar problem as what we find at the smorgasbord restaurants, except worse. Specifically, people would pick up excessive amounts of food and drinks, and then waste a lot of it. Many people would also leave a mess for somebody else to clean up.

Furthermore, the free food would attract homeless people, unwanted children, refugees, and illegal immigrants, and the food would enable them to reproduce in much larger numbers.

The higher we raise the standards for behavior in a city, the more options we have in regards to designing the economic system, apartment buildings, social clubs, recreational activities, trains, and work environment. The city would also look more attractive. For example:

• The city would not need chain-link fences to discourage badly behaved people from crossing into areas they should stay out of.
• The businesses would not need to roll down metal grates at night to protect themselves from burglars.
• The city would not need bright lights at night to discourage vandals, gangs, and robbers.

What do you want to do with the rest of your life? Are you willing to experiment with a city that sets higher standards?

Incidentally, my remark that a city could provide us with free, self-serve bars that offer beer brings up an interesting issue. Many people in Europe have a custom of drinking beer or wine at dinner, or when they get together with their friends, but most of those people are not alcoholics, and some of them do not even become intoxicated. Why is this custom so popular? Why would people who are not interested in becoming intoxicated be interested in regularly drinking beer or wine?

Some people might be drinking beer and wine simply because they picked up the habit from their ancestors, similar to how people pick up hairstyles and clothing styles, but that doesn't explain why this custom became so popular.

I think the reason this custom is popular is because beer and wine are not beverages that we want to consume quickly, especially not wine. The alcoholics claim that wine has a wonderful flavor, but wine is as unpleasant as diluted vinegar. I don't think diluted apple vinegar is much different from apple wine. Alcoholics might drink wine quickly, but most people sip it slowly. The end result is that a person might sip a glass of wine for more than an hour.

The unpleasant taste of wine forces people to drink it very slowly, and this forces them to remain longer at the dinner table, which in turn encourages them to socialize. The enormous variety of wines also provides people with something to talk about.

The same is true with beer, especially the beers that are available in some of the small towns in Germany. In the German towns that I visited, when we ordered a beer, it took about 1/2 an hour to get the beer because it produced so much foam that when the bartender pours some into a mug, most of it becomes foam, and so he has to let the beer sit for a few minutes. Then he pours a bit more beer into the mug, which once again produces a lot of foam, so he has to wait a few more minutes for the foam to break down, and so on.

Therefore, when we ordered a glass of those type of beers, we were forced to sit at the table for about 1/2 an hour before we got the beer. This forces people to socialize and relax. Then, when we got the beer, we would sip it slowly rather than drink it quickly. This forces us to socialize for another half an hour or longer.

If, after we have finished our beers, we decided to stay longer and get another beer, we once again had to wait about 1/2 an hour to get the second beer. The end result is that we drink beer so slowly that we don't get intoxicated.

To summarize this, my observations of the non-alcoholics who drink beer and wine gives me the impression that the custom of drinking beer and wine became popular because it helps people to socialize.

We like to think of ourselves as wonderful creations of a loving God, but we are just monkeys, and we have a certain amount of awkwardness when we are around other people. Men are always in competition with other men, for example, so it is difficult for men to truly relax around one another. Likewise, men and women are somewhat uncomfortable and awkward around one another.

Beer and wine force people to drink slowly, which encourages them to socialize. It also gives us something to do with our hands while we are sitting at the table. If we were to sit at a table without beer or wine, we would have nothing for our hands to do. A lot of us have trouble sitting motionless. We want to do something with our fingers. When we are sitting at a table with beer or wine, we can repeatedly use our hands to sip some of the beer or wine. It makes the sitting at a table less awkward. And the wide variety of beers and wines gives people something to talk about.

To people who are not interested in becoming drunk, beer and wine are social drinks, not drugs. Therefore, we could lower the alcohol level without interfering with the purpose of the drink, which brings me to another interesting concept.

In this previous document, I pointed out that the human race certainly has the ability to create beverages that don't have high levels of alcohol, and which are also nutritious. For example, if you put some ordinary yeast into a glass of ordinary apple juice, grape juice, pineapple juice, or other juice, and let it ferment, you will end up with a carbonated beverage that is less sweet and has a very low alcohol level. If the juice is warm, it will take only a few hours to ferment, depending on how much yeast you put into it, of course. The process is so easy and quick that restaurants and bars could start the process in the morning, and the drinks would be ready that afternoon. I have not tried fermenting ordinary grapes, but I suspect that they would make an acceptable wine, but with a lower level of alcohol.

There are businesses producing fermented apple juice right now, but they are adding sugar to the juice because the people who want such beverages are interested in becoming intoxicated. However, we don't have to add sugar.

We can further simplify the production of fermented drinks if we leave the yeast in the drink. In a free enterprise system, the competition between businesses is causing them to remove the yeast, but removing the yeast also removes the carbonation, so after they remove the yeast they have to add carbonation artificially. If people would tolerate the yeast, then we can simplify the production of fermented juices. We can provide ourselves with fermented juices that are more nutritious, low in alcohol, and just as effective at forcing people to socialize.

If I am correct that people enjoy beer and wine primarily because it forces people to socialize, then beer and wine is more evidence that what bring us the most happiness in life is not material items, trophies, or money. It is people.

Most people today are struggling to get more money because they believe that money is the source of happiness, but I think we would have a much more satisfying life if we created a more pleasant social environment for ourselves in which we have people we feel comfortable with and activities to do with them.

Instead of spending each day in a struggle to acquire more material items, we should be working together to create a city in which we can trust and enjoy the people we live with, and which provides us with a work environment we enjoy, and in which there is a wide variety of leisure activities to enjoy. We should focus on human relationships and doing things with people rather than focus on mansions, pampering by servants, and material wealth.

These concepts about littering also apply to "poverty". Our government promotes the theory that people who cannot make a living are ordinary people who either had bad luck, or are victims of discrimination. Our government tries to eliminate poverty by providing the poor people with apartment buildings, educational programs, and handouts of food. However, the programs have failed to help them get out of poverty.

According to government statistics, in December 2016, there were 95 million Americans who are not working. Some of them might be mothers with young children, but many of them are adults who either cannot find a job, or who do not want any of the jobs that they are capable of getting. (The government's has this page to let you create your own graphs and charts if you are interested in analyzing the data.)

Every year the number of adults without jobs increases. Millions of people are hoping that President Trump will provide more people with jobs, but all he can do is use tax money to provide financial support to a small number of people. That does not solve the problem of unemployment. In a free enterprise system, the government cannot do anything to eliminate unemployment because it has no authority over the economy. The government can only deceive people into believing that it is reducing unemployment.

For example, at the end of 2016, Trump convinced the Carrier company in Indiana to remain in the United States rather than moving to some foreign nation. Although the people involved with the deal are being secretive about the details, he apparently offered them some type of financial assistance. It is common for governments to offer financial benefits to businesses in an attempt to keep the business in their area so that the government officials can boast that they are providing jobs, but this does not solve the unemployment problem. Two of the reasons that this policy is worthless is:

1) When a government provides financial assistance to a business, they are providing that business with an unfair competitive advantage over its competitors, and that can cause their competitors to suffer a loss in sales, which will cause them to eliminate employees or go bankrupt, thereby increasing unemployment in other companies.

2) Other businesses will want the government to provide them with some type of financial benefits in order to remain competitive. However, the only businesses that are likely to get the benefits are the very large businesses. Therefore, this type of policy will help the large businesses and hurt the smaller businesses. The end result could be described as: the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

A government cannot reduce unemployment by offering financial benefits to businesses, but they do this on a regular basis anyway. Why are the government officials doing this? In some cases it might be to appease some group of voters, and in other cases it might be to help their friends who are involved with those particular businesses.

I can think of only one sensible reason for government to offer financial benefits to a business, and that is when a primitive nation offers benefits to businesses from other nations. For example, when China convinces IBM, Apple, or other technically advanced businesses to build a factory in China, the Chinese people benefit in two ways:

1) Some of the Chinese people will be provided with jobs that they would not otherwise have.
2) The Chinese people will be paid by the foreign business to learn how to use the advanced manufacturing technology. Eventually the Chinese will be able to build their own factories and compete against the business that they lured into their nation.

Earlier in this document I explained that the voters are responsible for our inept and corrupt government. Now I want to point out that in a free enterprise system, the public is responsible for the economy. The people control the economy by spending money. When they spend money, they are voting to support certain businesses. For example:

• Businesses are moving to China because consumers are purchasing products primarily according to price and not paying any attention to how they are being produced, or where.
• Many businesses are deceptive and abusive because consumers are supporting those businesses.
• Many businesses are using illegal immigrants as cheap labor because the consumers are supporting those businesses.

In a free enterprise system, the responsibility of the economy is on the consumers. They are supposed to analyze the businesses and make wise decisions about which business to give their money to. Unfortunately, this is impractical in a modern society. Our economies are too complex for consumers to make wise decisions about.

The only sensible solution is to find the courage to experiment with a more advanced economic system. We are not going to solve this problem by using tax money to appease a few businesses.

Some businesses want to move their operations to China or Mexico because the labor costs are much lower in those nations. The reason this problem exists is because the nations are not equal to one another. There are significant social differences between us. The people in the primitive nations are reproducing excessively, which is causing the primitive nations to have enormous numbers of people who are desperate for jobs.

The free enterprise system depends upon fair competition, but it is not possible for competition to be fair between two nations that have extreme differences in standards of living. It is not possible for businesses in Europe or the United States to compete fairly with businesses in China or India.

Sri Lanka supposedly has a tremendous problem with child prostitution. In China, there are reports of people selling their internal organs and their children. In India there are reports of parents cutting off legs and arms of their children in order to make them more successful as beggars. How can people in the United States or Europe compete against nations like that?

The people in the primitive nations should be ashamed of what is going on in their nation, and they should be making an attempt to improve their nations, but almost none of the people show any shame or embarrassment. Their governments don't show any concern, either. As with government officials everywhere, they waste their time struggling to become absurdly wealthy, whining about foreign nations, trying to eliminate their competition, and fighting with their neighbors.

One way to solve this problem is to stop doing business with the primitive nations. If the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada were to buy and sell products only among one another, we would not have to compete with the hordes of hungry people in India and China. The people in India and China would compete against one another rather than us. Unfortunately, there are two reasons as to why most people would oppose this policy:

1) This policy would cause the people in the primitive nations to whine that we are being cruel to them. Therefore, in order for us to implement this policy, we would have to provide ourselves with government leaders who have the emotional ability to tell the primitive nations to stop whining for handouts and pity and start improving their nations.

Unfortunately, most people do not want government officials to be "leaders"; they want officials to be submissive servants. Donald Trump probably does not even have the ability to tell the primitive nations that we are not going to do business with them until they improve their standard of living.

Furthermore, many people in the United States, Canada, and Australia have a strong "feel sorry for me" attitude, and the result is that they have a tendency to promote policies that allow them to feel sorry for the "poor" and "disadvantaged" people, rather than the policies that tell the poor people to do something to improve their lives.

2) This policy would cause products to increase in price because we would have to pay Americans, Japanese, or Europeans to make computers, clothing, and phones. Some people would not be able to afford a new cell phone every year, and people who are currently discarding clothing items when they get a trivial stain or tear would not be able to afford such wasteful practices.

Although a minority of the population would understand and accept the higher prices, the majority would likely whine about it simply because animals and humans are extremely selfish. We want to exploit the people in primitive nations, not encourage them to improve their nations, increase their standard of living, and join the advanced nations. We will not voluntarily stop exploiting the primitive nations. We have to be forced to stop it. Unfortunately, we will not be forced to do anything as long as we have governments of submissive servants who pander to their supporters.

The United States is accepting lots of immigrants and illegal aliens from other nations, and this is creating a similar economic problem. Specifically, the people who come into the United States from poor nations are willing to work at low wages because it provides them with a better life than what they could get in their own nation.

For example, in the city that I live in, some families from Mexico and South America are willing to live in one room of a house, which in turn allows them to offer themselves as a very low cost source of labor. This makes it impossible for the American people to compete with them. These immigrants don't complain about the low wages or the miserable living conditions because they regard their life in the USA as being an improvement from what they had in their own nation.

Immigrants from poor nations create an unfair economic battle. The only good way to stop this problem is to restrict immigrants to people who want the same standard of living as the rest of the population. In such a case, the immigrants will blend in with the other residents of the city, rather than be analogous to slaves.

Although Donald Trump is promising to provide Americans with jobs, he is so far showing no interest in stopping the unfair competition from immigrants. Actually, he is behaving like typical businessmen. For example, in December 2016, even though he was elected President and was promising to bring jobs to the American people, he got approval to hire 64 foreigners at Mar-a-Lago through the H-2B visa program.

Trump justified this by claiming that he cannot find enough Americans for the tourist season in Palm Beach. This brings up a very important issue that businessmen and government officials are ignoring. Specifically, there are two significantly different reasons as to why businesses have trouble filling jobs:

1) The job requires a skill that not many people have

Donald Trump is hiring foreigners to work in a hotel, and most of the hotel workers don't need much education, intelligence, skills, or training. By comparison, there are some businesses who are looking for highly skilled workers, such as machinists who can operate CNC equipment, technicians who can repair railroad engines, and technicians who can do DNA sequencing.

2) The wages are too low

Donald Trump got permission to hire cooks for $12.74 per hour, waiters and waitresses for $11.13 an hour, and housekeepers for $10.17 per hour. Would you be interested in working for those wages, especially for a temporary job during the tourist season?

If Donald Trump would double the wages, he would find that a lot of Americans are willing to do the job. That would prove that there is no shortage of people willing to do the work. They simply don't want to work for the particular wages that Trump is offering.

By comparison, a business that is looking for someone to do DNA sequencing could increase the salary and still not find somebody capable of doing the job.

Businesses and government officials are not being honest when they tell us that the reason they bring foreigners into the country is because there are no Americans to do the jobs. We have to make a distinction between when a job is difficult to fill because the wages are low, and when it is difficult to fill because it requires a skill that the majority of people do not have, or do not want.

Most of the human population does not have the intelligence, desire, ability, or skills to be a useful engineer, machinist, technician, scientist, or computer programmer, so the government could justify bringing those type of people into the country, but most people are capable of working in hotels, farms, retail stores, and factories. We do not need to bring immigrants into the country to work in a hotel.

Why does Trump pay such low wages? One reason is because of competition. The other restaurants and hotels are also bringing immigrants into the nation to work at low wages.

However, the primary reason that Trump and the other businessmen are paying such low wages is because they want to be billionaires. They are not satisfied to have an ordinary living, or even make 20 times as much as the ordinary person. They have neurotic cravings to be Kings and Queens. They want gigantic mansions, yachts, private airplanes, and goldplated cell phones.

It should be noted that as the businessmen struggle to become billionaires, they inadvertently create a nation that they don't like. For example, when they bring poor and uneducated foreigners into the nation, they create a society in which they complain about all of the uneducated immigrants, and that the immigrants will not speak English or adapt to our culture. Their low wages also cause the city to become full of overcrowded neighborhoods with poor people.

Many businessmen are destroying society as they struggle to become billionaires. If it were not for our environmental regulations, many businessmen would have already destroyed the creeks and lakes with toxic waste and garbage, and they would have ruined the forests with their clearcutting techniques, and they would have destroyed the fishing areas with their indiscriminate fishing practices.

Since most businessmen are hysterical at the thought of abortions and birth control, they encourage people to give birth to unwanted and retarded babies, and they encourage even the idiots, mentally ill, and criminals to have lots of babies. Then the businessmen complain about all of the stupid, uneducated, unwanted people who are homeless, on welfare, or committing crimes.

As the businessmen struggle to become billionaires, and as they impose their crude, conservative philosophy on society, they create a city that is so miserable that they don't want to live in it, or have their children go to school in it. They want to isolate themselves from the city that they helped to ruin.

We should experiment with a more sensible economic system. For example, by creating a society that does not have a wealthy class or a peasant class, and in which everybody has virtually the same home and material items, the leaders of society will not be allowed to isolate themselves in mansions and gated communities. They will have to live among us. They will have to go to the same restaurants, use the same elevators, and ride on the same trains. And by not allowing their children to have any special privileges, their children will have to go to the same schools and use the same recreational facilities as the "ordinary" children.

If the leaders of that type of society want to improve their home and recreational facilities, they have to improve the city for everybody. They will not be allowed to improve only their community because they will not have their own community. They will be a member of society, not a member of special, pampered class that has their own land and privileges.

Some of the billionaires and government officials will undoubtedly claim that they should not have to live in an ordinary home like an ordinary person because they are special, talented people. The problem with this argument is that a lot of people can claim to be special and talented. There are some unusually talented carpenters, musicians, athletes, technicians, chefs, gardeners, and teachers. There are thousands of people who could point out that they excel in some particular talent, and therefore, they should be treated as a King or Queen.

I think a better philosophy is to tell people that your mental and physical qualities are the result of a random jumble of genetic characteristics, and that nobody should be praised simply because they inherited a quality that gives them some unusual mental or physical talent. Conversely, we should not torment the people who are below-average in their qualities. They did not ask to be below-average. Society does not benefit by insulting them.

Giving special treatment to people who inherit some unusual talent, and tormenting people who are substandard in some area, is as ridiculous as having every person in society toss some dice, and giving special pampering to people who get two sixes, and tormenting the people who throw two ones.

The people who are exceptional as managers, artists, musicians, or whatever, should be told to quietly use their talent without boasting, and not expect special treatment.

If the advanced nations would stop conducting business with the primitive nations, then our businesses will remain in our nation rather than move to India or China. This will provide more jobs for us, but it will not stop unemployment from rising every year.

As I have described in other documents, unemployment is rising because technology is causing our jobs to become increasingly complex. Every year there are fewer people who want one of the modern jobs, and of the people who want a job, there are fewer people who are capable of doing them properly. To restate that concept, every year there are fewer people who have the emotional desire to have a modern job, and who have the intellectual and physical ability to do a modern job.

During prehistoric times, the jobs were intellectually simple, and more important, the jobs provided significant emotional satisfaction. For example, when the people were hungry, they would search for food, and that work provided them with direct emotional satisfaction.

By comparison, the jobs people do today do not provide us with much emotional satisfaction. For example, a person who is working on an assembly line, or an engineer who is designing a bridge, or a scientist is who is doing some research, will spend hours every day doing his job, but the results of his efforts do not provide him with any direct emotional satisfaction. In order for those people to enjoy their job, they have to enjoy the concept of what they are doing.

Another problem with jobs is that many of the jobs in a free enterprise system are unappealing to us, such as selling fraudulent insurance policies, or trying to manipulate children into desiring a particular toy or candy. People are not going to get job satisfaction from those type of jobs. People do those type of jobs only for money, or only until they can find a better job.

In order for people to enjoy jobs today, we need to redesign our economic system so that we can ensure that all of the jobs are useful, and that everybody can be proud of what they do. However, even if we were to do that, some people are not going to enjoy any of the modern jobs simply because they don't receive much satisfaction from doing something that is useful for society.

We differ in our interest in society. The people with the least interest in society will want to spend their time pursuing their emotional cravings, not working in a team and considering what is best for society. They will not enjoy teamwork. They will want to work for themselves and never have to worry about their effect on society.

One of the reasons that communism is a failure is because it expects people to work for the benefit of society. Unfortunately, most people do not seem to have enough of an interest in society to want to work for society. Animals evolved to work only when their emotions have been triggered, such as hunger, thirst, or fear. When an animal has no particular problems, it has a tendency to take a nap.

Humans have a greater interest in society than animals, but each of us differs in how much of an interest we have. For example, there are some people in the police and military who are willing to risk their life to help society. Why are they doing this? They certainly have the ability to find some other job. Obviously, they have a strong desire to help their society.

If we could measure a person's interest in society, we might find that the majority of people have an interest that is too low for them to live in the type of city that I am proposing because they will not have enough of an interest in contributing to society or sharing in the chores.

A significant percentage of the American population is showing no concern that Israel blew up the World Trade Center towers, or that there is a pedophile network in control of our governments. Some of those people might truly be naive, but we should consider the possibility that they are apathetic because they have such a low interest in society that they want to ignore those issues and focus on titillating themselves. This would explain why they are willing to talk about Lady Gaga and sports, but not about the lies about the Holocaust or the lies about the 9/11 attack.

When we provide the typical person with information about some of the world's problems, such as pizzagate, they have a tendency to turn away. They don't want to listen to the problems of society. They want to focus on themselves. Like an animal, they want to spend their time entertaining themselves with food, sex, babies, material items, status, and television.

The crime, corruption, wars, and other problems are coming from a small minority of the population. Since they are a minority, the majority of people could easily stop them from causing trouble, so why don't we?

Anybody who has told his friends or relatives that we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and the Holocaust, should be able to see the answer to that question; namely, the majority of people do not care enough about society to want to get involved with society's problems. Most people want to focus on titillating themselves. Most people do not have much of what we could describe as a "team spirit".

Each of us differs in how much we care about society; in how much we want to be a member of a team. It should be noted that I am not the first person to notice this difference between us. People in management positions have been complaining for centuries that some people do only what they have to do, and are more concerned with themselves than with the team.

Ideally, when we are working with a team, we would be able to control our personal preferences so that we can focus on our job, but that is not easy to do. We are inherently selfish, so we want to spend some of our time thinking about ourselves. As a result, each of us spends some of our time worrying about who on the team is getting the most attention, promotions, or money, and we also spend some time fantasizing about what we will do on the weekend, or how much fun we will have when we purchase a new material item, or what we will do with our children, friends, or spouse when we are finished working.

Each of us differs in our ability and desire to ignore our personal desires and focus on the team. An employee who does not have much of an interest in society is going to spend more of his time thinking about what he will do on the weekend, or fantasizing about purchasing a new television set. Those type of employees are the most likely to make mistakes because their mind is not on their job, and they are most likely to overlook opportunities to help the team. Those type of employees are similar to circus seals because they do only what they have to do, and they need a lot of supervision because they don't want to figure out what they need to do. They want to spend their time fantasizing about food, sex, television, and other issues.

By comparison, an employee who has more of an interest in his team will be more focused on his job, so he will be less likely to make mistakes, and more likely to notice opportunities to improve the team.

Communism will not work properly because most people are too selfish to work for society. Communism depends upon people who will work for the team. If everybody is provided with free food, housing, and other items, as communism promotes, most people would choose to spend each day entertaining themselves. They would not choose to learn a skill and do some useful work.

During prehistoric times, it was acceptable for people to be selfish. They did not need much of an interest in society. Although the prehistoric men would often hunt together, that type of activity does not require much teamwork. Hunting does not require advanced intellectual abilities. Groups of wolves and hyenas are capable of hunting together. Prehistoric life was so intellectually simplistic that both the men and women could be independent and selfish without causing any trouble for their community.

It makes sense for animals and prehistoric people to be more concerned with themselves and their children than with their community. However, the aspects of modern society that we enjoy require large and highly supervised teams of people who can focus on their job and work together. It is becoming increasingly important for people to have a desire to help their community and work in teams.

Unfortunately, most people who have jobs seem to be working only because they want money, not because they want to contribute something of value to society. Most people do not show much of an interest in society. They are much more concerned with their income, and they waste a lot of their time worrying about who has more money than they do. They are behaving like monkeys who are fighting over a bunch of bananas.

People who work only for money are behaving like circus seals. They will do some work if we offer them some money, but they will not do anything otherwise. The people who have the least concern for society are actually dangerous because they can be hired to do jobs that are detrimental. For example, there are accusations that George Soros has been hiring people to stage demonstrations. There are also lots of people who can be hired to murder strangers, or hit an ice skater in the knees with a baseball bat.

People who work only for money will not help their community unless they are paid to help. For example, when we tell the typical person that we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the majority of people show no concern. In order to get the typical person to do something about the 9/11 attack, or the corruption in the government, we must offer them some reward.

For example, if I had as much money as George Soros, then instead of hiring people to participate in demonstrations, I could hire people to help investigate and expose the lies about 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and other crimes. People who ridicule me as a conspiracy theorist would be willing to take the job and help me expose the crimes. The more money I offered, the more people I would attract to this type of job. If I offered a high enough salary, many people would quit their current jobs and help me expose these crimes.

This concept applies to children, also. For example, children do not have a natural craving to clean up after themselves. Children must be taught to clean up after themselves, but every child differs in their interest in being clean. If the parents of sloppy children were to offer money to their children for cleaning their bedroom, some of those sloppy children would take the offer. If the parents increased the amount of money that they offer, more of the sloppy children would take the offer.

Of course, there is a point at which this technique fails to control a sloppy child. For example, once a child has enough money to satisfy himself, he is not going to care if he is offered more money. He will revert to being as sloppy as he wants to be.

Because we can manipulate animals and people with rewards, at least to a certain extent, many people believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest economic system possible because it provides us with rewards for our work. Many parents believe that the proper way to raise children is to offer them money to be clean, and to offer them money for doing well in school. However, I think we would create a much better world when we don't have to control human behavior with rewards and punishments.

It is true that we can get people to do work by offering them money, but I think the ideal solution is to control reproduction so that people become less like an animal. People should clean up after themselves because they want to be neat, and they should do something useful for society because they want to contribute. People should be honest because they want to be honest, and they should resist pedophilia because they do not have any interest in it. Children should go to school because they want to learn something useful, not because their parents are offering them money.

In a previous document, I suggested you spend some time imagining what it would be like to create a new world on another planet. I think that type of scenario can help you to get a better understanding of yourself and other people. If you had the resources to travel to a beautiful, uninhabited planet in another solar system, who would you want to take with you, and what type of world would you end up creating?

Would you want to take a bunch of idiots so that you can use them as peasants to pamper you with luxuries, allowing you to become the king or queen of your planet? Or would you take people who are more equal to you, in which case you would become a team member who works with them rather than having them work for you? Would you want to take people to your planet who will work only when you offer them money, and who follow the laws only when you threaten to punish them with jail or executions?

Hopefully you can understand that the world you create would be a reflection of your mental qualities, and the qualities of the people that you selected to take with you.

No human is so mindless that he will do anything for money. However, we differ in our concern for following laws and contributing to society. Some people will refuse to work at an insurance company that sells fraudulent insurance policies, for example, whereas another person can be hired to kill somebody for a small amount of money. Of the people who can be hired to kill somebody, some of them show a concern that they are killing somebody that they regard as worthless to society, whereas others don't care who they kill.

The less concern a person has for society, the more dangerous he is. The reason these people are dangerous is because they will do something that is destructive to society simply to make money. They can be used by crime networks, corrupt government officials, corrupt judges, and your ex-spouse to commit crimes and murder people. They will also start businesses that manipulate and deceive people.

There are insurance companies that offer policies for people who are worried about being abducted by aliens from another planet. Supposedly tens of thousands of people have purchased such insurance policies. Were those insurance policies created by somebody who actually believes that they are sensible policies? I suspect that they were created by somebody who wants money more than he cares about society, and that he is deliberately and consciously exploiting foolish people.

It is conceivable that eventually we understand the human brain so well that a computer would be able to analyze a person's DNA and provide a list of the type of bribes that the person is willing to take, the type of deceptive products he would be willing to sell, and the type of crimes that he could be hired to commit. Each of us would undoubtedly be surprised to see the results of our own mind.

We like to believe that we are so intelligent and educated that we know how we will behave in different situations, but we cannot accurately predict ourselves because we don't understand ourselves well enough. We often behave differently than we expect.

If a person doesn't have much of an interest in society, it is because of his genetic personality. We cannot increase his desire through punishments, rewards, Bible studies, or drugs. If a person can be bribed with small amounts of money, it is also because of his genetic characteristics, and there is nothing we can do to make him become more resistant to bribes.

Why don't the people who take bribes show any guilt? Why don't the businesses that sell worthless products show any guilt? How can a person enjoy a job in which he is cheating other people? To understand this, just take a look at how predators feed themselves.

A predator survives and feeds its family by sneaking up to and chasing after other animals, and then killing them. What they do could be described as "murder", but they do not regard themselves as cruel or murderous. They regard themselves as having fun, and as feeding their children. Their brains have evolved to enjoy the act of capturing and killing other animals. They get pleasure from being successful with the act of murder.

When a hyena sees a lion with a dead antelope, the hyena will try to steal the antelope, but he does not regard himself as a thief. Animals will steal items from one another without any guilt or embarrassment because they regard themselves as owner of the planet. Each animal regards the other animals as trespassers on his territory, and he regards the other animals as taking things that belong to him.

When a male bird brings an animal for the female to eat, the female never complains that he is murdering innocent creatures, or that he is taking food away from birds who are hungrier than she is.

Predatory animals enjoy hunting and killing, and as a result, they would exterminate themselves if they enjoyed killing their own species. Therefore, the only predators that survived were those that evolved emotional inhibitions towards killing their own species.

In another document I pointed out that I think the reason humans are disgusted by our waste products is to compensate for our curiosity and intelligence. The same concept applies to murder. As our monkey-like ancestors developed intelligence and tools, they became increasingly better at killing. Those who survived the battle for life were those who developed stronger inhibitions against killing, especially the killing of their own species.

These inhibitions caused our prehistoric ancestors to "respect" animals; ie, to kill them only for food rather than for entertainment. Furthermore, unlike animals, who kill animals in any manner they please, our inhibitions cause us to be concerned about whether the animal is suffering. We want to kill animals in a "nice" manner. Our concern about suffering is so extreme that children are often reprimanded for pulling off the wings of flies.

A lot of people like the fantasy that animals are better behaved than humans, but animals are actually much more selfish, irrational, and cruel than humans. For example, no animal shows a concern about whether an animal that it is killing is suffering. Only humans show this concern.

Humans are actually much more kind and thoughtful than animals. Animals appear to be more peaceful and loving than humans only because they are so stupid, have a very limited memory, and don't engage in much mental masturbation. For example, when a human is upset by some other human, he might spend decades reminding himself of this, thereby stimulating anger towards the other person for decades. Animals do not do engage in such mental masturbation.

Humans have actually become much more polite, peaceful, and loving than the animals. We become upset at the thought of killing animals for entertainment, or in a cruel manner, and we have such intense inhibitions about killing our own species that when people have fights, we have rules about how to fight, and when it is acceptable for a person to kill another person. Soldiers have to follow rules when they fight wars. By comparison, when animals fight, they don't follow rules. They do whatever they please. They don't care about cruelty or senseless killings.

Unfortunately, our inhibitions about killing creatures is inappropriate for the world today. If we follow our inhibitions without thinking about what we are doing, we will do a lot of senseless things, such as struggle to keep retarded babies alive, even if the baby does not have a brain; complain about farmers who raise animals for their meat; and complain that it is cruel to use animal skin as leather.

Our inhibitions about killing our own species is so strong that millions of people cannot tolerate abortion, euthanasia, or assisted suicide. Our inhibitions have also caused people to develop elaborate funeral rituals. We are so upset at the visual appearance of a dead human that we pay funeral businesses to clean the dead body, and place it in a casket so that the person appears to be sleeping.

Furthermore, we don't want to recycle the dead humans as fertilizer, or use their meat as animal food. We want to bury the bodies in a cemetery, and we like to imagine that they will survive in the cemetery forever. Some people become so attached to their pet dog or cat that they want to put it through the same type of funeral ceremony.

Family members that live in different areas of the world will get together for a funeral, and they will spend a significant amount of money on the funeral and on traveling to the funeral. However, all that time and money is spent simply to allow them to cry and pout.

It was acceptable for our prehistoric ancestors to have funerals because their funerals were quick and simplistic, and since they were nomadic, they didn't have permanent cemeteries with expensive graves and coffins. In our era, businesses are exploiting our inhibitions about death and providing us with absurdly expensive and idiotic funeral procedures. (I discussed the issue of funerals in more detail here.)

Although our monkey-like ancestors developed strong inhibitions against murder, we did not develop inhibitions against stealing things. Rather, all animals have the attitude that they are the most important creature, and that everything belongs to them. Animals grab at whatever they are attracted to. They do not recognize the concept of personal property.

When an animal fights with another animal over water, food, or land, they do not regard themselves as selfish, abusive, or dishonest. Rather, they regard themselves as defending their food in land from intruders that are trying to steal it from them. Animals are proud of themselves when they grab food and water. They do not feel guilty that they are stealing something.

Humans also have the attitude that everything belongs to us. We have a tendency to grab at whatever we want, and fight with anybody who tries to take it from us. This is most noticeable with children. As we grow up, we develop some self-control and intelligence, but each of us develops different levels of self-control and intelligence.

The reason humans enjoy stealing items is for the same reason that animals enjoy grabbing at food and fighting over land. Specifically, we do not regard ourselves as "stealing" items. Rather, we regard ourselves as taking what is ours. Many people who shoplift, burglarize homes, cheat the government, or steal from the organization they work for will justify their behavior with such remarks as, "I am simply getting what I deserve." Or, "I am taking what they took from me."

If you were living in an environment in which lots of people were stealing items on a regular basis, you would be more tempted to steal items, also, simply to get back what they were stealing from you. However, it is important to note that even though the environment can cause you to become more likely to steal, the environment does not change our genetic personality. The people who are the most likely to steal items will continue to be the most likely to steal no matter what the social environment is.

If we could measure a person's tendency to grab at what he wants, we would find that we create a bell curve. As we change the environment that we are living in, we can cause crime to increase or decrease, but that bell curve remains the same. The environment can cause the bell curve to shift towards the right or left, – to cause people to be more likely to commit crimes, or less likely – but it doesn't change the people's genetic characteristics.

In other words, if we put people into an environment that encourages crime, everybody will be more likely to commit crimes, but if we were to measure the crimes, we would find that people remain in nearly the same position of the bell curve. In other words, the minority of people who steal the least will continue to steal the least, and the people who steal the most will continue to steal the most, and the majority of people will continue to be average.

Animals and humans enjoy being successful at hunting, chasing away dangerous creatures, and finding water, and we become upset when we fail. Unfortunately, emotions are so simplistic that they don't know or care about whether we are successful at something that is meaningful. This can cause us to become excited when we are successful at something that is worthless, and we can become upset when we fail at something that is worthless.

For example, a dog can be entertained when somebody throws a ball for him to chase after. The dog's emotions don't know or care that the ball has no meaning to him. The dog will be titillated simply by becoming successful at capturing the ball.

Humans can also titillate themselves when we are successful at something, even if the activity is meaningless. For example, certainly you have frequently seen two men throwing a football back and forth to one another, playing games of checkers, or solving a crossword puzzle. None of these activities provide us with anything of value, but we are titillated if we are successful at the activity. Furthermore, we become upset when we fail at the activity, even though failure in those particular activities is meaningless. Even worse, the people with the least self-control, or the least ability or desire to think about what they are doing, can react to failure with anger, tantrums, crying, or pouting.

Because our emotions are so simplistic, we can also become titillated when we are successful at destructive things, such as stealing items. One of the reasons people enjoy crime is because they get satisfaction out of being successful at it. Furthermore, a person who fails in one of his crimes will become upset with his failure. This enjoyment of crime is another example of why modern humans must think about their behavior rather than do whatever titillates us.

This concept also applies to the people who become absurdly wealthy. They are collecting more money than they have a use for. The reason is because they are enjoying the act of making money. Although the wealthy people are considered to be "successful" in a free enterprise system, unless they are doing something useful for society as they make money, they are essentially just intelligent dogs that waste their life chasing after sticks.

If everybody would put some effort into thinking about what they are doing with their life, and if we all had enough self-control, then instead of enjoying shoplifting or making money, we would want jobs that are truly beneficial. We would not want to work for a business that sells useless products or insurance policies, and we would not want to steal items from one another.

Furthermore, we would want our leisure activities to have more value. For example, instead of sitting at home alone and titillating ourselves with crossword puzzles or collections of Barbie dolls, we would be more interested in doing something useful for our community. I've discussed the issue of more useful leisure activities in previous documents in which I suggested the city government support a wide variety of social clubs that offer us beneficial leisure activities to choose from, such as arts and crafts clubs that decorate the city; gardening clubs that produce orchids and bonsai trees for the parks and restaurants; and CNC clubs that cut rock, wood, and other materials for foot bridges, rowboats, and other items for the city.

Although our environment can alter our attitudes and moods, and cause us to become disgusted with our government or other people, the environment does not change our personality. If a person has an interest in society, he will continue to have that interest even if he is working at a business that has caused him to lose his interest in his team, or even if he is living in a nation that he is so disgusted with that he has no interest in helping.

Perhaps a good way to understand this concept is to consider how it applies to food. All of us have a strong craving to eat food when we are hungry. However, what we eat, and how much we eat, depends upon the environment that we are in. For example, if you were invited to dinner at somebody's house, and if they provided an environment that you did not find appealing, or if you did not like their food, your desire to eat food would be noticeably suppressed.

For example, imagine if a family in Cambodia invited you to dinner to eat fried tarantulas with them. Even though your desire for food is just as strong as theirs, you may find that their environment has caused you to lose your appetite. However, that environment cannot alter your brain. You will retain the same genetic circuitry that you had before you were invited to dinner. Once you leave that environment, you will return to eating the foods in the quantities that you were eating before.

The same is true with a person's interest in society. If a person gets a job for a business that he discovers is dishonest or abusive, he might lose his interest in working for the business, and he might go to work only to get a paycheck. While he is working, he may not spend any of his time thinking about how to help his team. He may instead spend his time daydreaming about his family, his hobbies, getting another job, or retiring. However, that environment will not change his brain circuitry. He will retain the same interest in society that he had before he got the job. Therefore, if he were to find a job in a more respectable company, he would become a productive team member.

When parents pamper their children, they encourage their children to become accustomed to thinking of themselves rather than contributing to the family and exerting self-control. The parents who believe that they are giving their child a wonderful life by pampering them are actually encouraging their children to become arrogant and selfish. Pampering a child will not rewire his brain and cause him to become a spoiled brat, but it encourages such behavior.

The significance of this concept is that there are some people who don't show much of an interest in their job or society, but it is not necessarily because they don't have any interest in becoming a productive team member. It could be because they are working in a government agency, business, or other organization that they regard as useless, destructive, or disgusting.

It is also possible that some of the people who show no interest in society have been pampered so much during their childhood that they have become accustomed to thinking only of themselves, and that they would develop an interest in society if they volunteered for some type of military-like training program to get them accustomed to thinking of themselves as team members.

I think we should experiment with a society in which the schools are putting children through programs that give them practice in controlling their cravings, and give them practice working in teams. We cannot expect parents to do this because mothers have too strong of a craving to play with their children rather than prepare them for society, and fathers don't have much of interest in raising children. The military should not have to teach adults how to make their bed, clean up after themselves, or become team members. Children should learn those lessons.

If schools put every child through these programs, we would find that every child becomes better at controlling himself, and develops a greater ability to work in a team, but we would find that the children differ in their abilities and desires. We would find that half the population is always below-average in regards to controlling themselves and in working in a team.

The people who have a below-average ability to control their cravings, or who have a below-average interest in society, cannot be fixed through punishments, rewards, or drugs. Likewise, the people who can easily be bribed cannot be fixed of that problem. Our self-control, selfishness, interest in society, and other qualities, are due to the genetic design of our brain. Educational and training programs can help us to understand ourselves, practice self-control, and develop our talents, but there is nothing we can do to improve our genetic blueprint.

If a person's brain was not designed to have a strong interest in society, there is nothing we can do to fix him. If a person's brain is willing to kill a stranger for a small amount of money, there is nothing we can do to fix that problem, either.

The attitude in the military is to give everybody an opportunity to discover and develop their abilities by putting all recruits through the same training program. However, the military does not try to fix bad behavior with punishments or Bible studies. We should apply the same concept to a society. All children should be given the opportunity to develop their talents. They should all have the same educational and training programs. However, we must face the evidence that a certain percentage of the population is going to be genetically unfit, or genetically inferior. We must stop trying to fix the destructive people. They need to be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or exiled to the City of Misfits, or euthanized.

I recommend that we pass judgment on people's emotional and intellectual qualities, but it's not an easy thing to do. Consider the issue of judging a person's weight. We regard fat people as inferior to people who are capable of maintaining a proper body weight, but life is not this simple. Almost everything in life is more complicated than it appears. There are different reasons as to why we have different body weights. For example:

• Some people who have a normal body weight might be eating excessive amounts of food on a regular basis, but their digestive system is so defective that they extract only a small amount of the nutrients.

• Some overweight people might have a "normal" appetite and eat "normal" amounts of food, but have such a superior digestive system that they should be eating less than "normal". In order for those people to maintain a normal body weight, they would have to regularly suffer from hunger because their appetite was set for a "normal" digestive system, not an efficient digestive system.

• A person might maintain a normal body weight because he is forcing himself to vomit after some of his meals.

• Some people may be maintaining a normal body weight only because their spouse provides such unpleasant meals that they don't want to eat excessive amounts of food. That might seem to be a ridiculous remark for me to make, but the reason I say this is because I have seen many families that regularly create meals that I don't like the taste of, and I can understand why the people in those homes do not overeat their meals.

• Some people have a diet that is dominated by foods that are undesirable to humans, and I can understand why they don't get fat. For example, many of the people in Asia and Africa have diets that are dominated by rice and seafood. When Asians or Africans move to America or Europe, they often become fat, and it does not seem to be because they become more sedentary. Rather, it seems to be because they enjoy the foods in America and Europe much more, and eat them excessively. To rephrase that, a lot of people in Asia and Africa are maintaining a normal body weight only because their food is disgusting, not because they have good self-control.

In order to truly understand who among us is capable of controlling our body weight, we have to take into account the fact that we have different digestive systems, and we would have to put each of us into an environment in which we have access to excessive amounts of food that we enjoy.

The concepts about our body weight apply to other issues, also, such as crime. For example, we cannot judge a person's honesty by whether he has been convicted of a crime. The reason is because some of the people who have never been convicted of a crime may actually be more dishonest than the people who have been convicted, but they were never in a situation that gave them the opportunity to commit a crime.

For example, not many of us have embezzled money from our employer, but if all of us were in a business that gave us good opportunities to embezzle, we would discover that some of us would take that opportunity. Likewise, a lot of men have not been involved with pedophilia, but if all of us were hired for a job in a Children's Hospital, and if we all had access to young children who were under anesthesia, especially if there were other pedophiles working in the hospital, we would discover that some of us would join in on the pedophilia.

In order to truly determine who among us is honest, we have to put each of us into a variety of environments that gives us the opportunity to commit a variety of crimes.

Furthermore, as with the issue of food, in order to truly understand who is honest, we have to fix everybody's medical problems. For example, some of the people who have been born blind or crippled may be living an honest life, but that might be because their physical disabilities make it difficult for them to commit crimes, not because they are honest.

If we were to put all of the physically disabled people, midgets, and dwarves on their own planet, and fix all of their medical problems, we would find that they create a world that has similar social problems. In other words, half of their population would be below average in intelligence, honesty, and self-control, and there would be criminals, obese people, alcoholics, drug addicts, and pedophiles.

We have a natural tendency to feel sorry for people who are born with a physical disorder, but all of us have genetic disorders. There is nothing special about a person who was born blind or crippled. They simply have a different set of disorders than you and I have. The blind people are no more honest than the rest of us, and they have just as much trouble as the rest of us in controlling their eating habits, gambling, and alcohol consumption.

The social scientists are explaining human behavior as being due to a variety of psychic apparatus, syndromes, Id, psychological disorders, Oedipus complexes, and other concepts that I cannot understand. The social scientists might respond that I am too stupid to understand the social sciences, but a more sensible explanation is that the social scientists are producing nonsensical theories.

The social sciences are based on the assumption that humans are distinctly different from the animals. If their assumption were correct, then their theories about human behavior might be correct, also. However, if you believe that humans are just a modification of animals, then it should be obvious to you that the social sciences are such nonsense that we need to toss all the books and research papers in the recycling bin, and re-create the social sciences as a branch of biology or zoology.

The reason this should be obvious to you is because if the social scientists are correct that human behavior is the result of syndromes and complexes, and if humans are just a modification of animals, that means we inherited these syndromes and complexes from the animals. Therefore, if we study animal behavior, we should find a simpler version of those syndromes and complexes in animals, and we should be able to explain animal behavior through those syndromes and complexes. We should be able to find some type of simplistic Id and Oedipus Complex in monkeys, dogs, and ducks.

However, animal behavior can be explained much more accurately when we regard an animal as just a biological robot that follows the same laws of chemistry and physics as everything else in the universe. Likewise, we can more accurately explain human behavior when we regard humans as just a modification of a monkey.

The social sciences are based on a false assumption, and as a result, all of their theories are worthless. The entire field of social science needs to be discarded. All of the books in our universities and libraries on the social sciences need to be tossed into the recycling bin. They have no value.

The students who are graduating from their social science courses are regarded by the schools as being educated about human behavior, and the schools regard them as "experts" in social science, but in reality they are analogous to students who are getting diplomas in astrology, witchcraft, Mormonism, Buddhism, and Christianity. They are wasting their time and money. They become adults who lack useful skills and knowledge. They become parasites who require lots of food and other resources, but who give nonsense in return.

In a free enterprise system, universities can profit by offering worthless courses to students, so the universities have no incentive to fix the social sciences. In a democracy, the government officials will do only what the voters demand, but the voters don't care whether the universities are offering useful courses. The voters do not even care that the universities are promoting lies about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landing.

We are not going to be able to fix our school system unless we replace our economic system and our government system. This will require finding a large group of people who are willing and able to work as a team and experiment with a new life. Will you help to change the course of the human race and put us on a more intelligent path?