Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better society

Part 5:  The illusion of happiness

2 April 2017

Why are humans so deceptive and secretive?
Different leadership positions require different mental characteristics
Our new environment gives us more responsibilities
Genetics is more important than an organization's structure
People should have responsibilities, not rights
Why do people commit crimes?
Some people's thinking ability is substandard for our era

Why are humans so deceptive and secretive?
Although human behavior is superior to that of animals, we have some undesirable characteristics. One is that we have a tendency to be very secretive about ourselves, and to deceive people with false images. This behavior is so natural to us that we rarely notice ourselves doing it, and our societies encourage it without any shame or embarrassment. For some examples:
• Every society automatically hides our school records, job performance reviews, medical records, and mental problems. If a person were to post that information on the Internet, he would be arrested for invading people's privacy, when in reality all he would be doing is exposing the truth about people. We don't want people to know the truth about us. We want the freedom to keep secrets from other people.

• Every society allows us to lie about cosmetic surgery, the coloring of gray hair, and hair transplants. It is not considered to be illegal or immoral to lie about these activities. Nobody is even embarrassed to lie about these issues. We want the freedom to lie and deceive.

• When children are adopted, every society automatically hides the identity of their biological parents, and if the children try to discover who their biological parents are, society interferes with their investigation rather than provide them with the truth.
Why are we so deceptive? Why do we want so much secrecy? Why are we so afraid of honesty? Why would humans have such terrible qualities?

The answer is that these are not terrible qualities, at least not in the environment that they evolved for. In a prehistoric environment, these characteristics are beneficial.
Our prehistoric ancestors grew up in such close contact with one another that they did not have any secrets.

They knew all of the intimate details of one another's lives and bodies. They even knew how people slept at night.

When the prehistoric men and women tried to impress one another by grooming themselves and decorating themselves with clothing and jewelry, it would not be accurate to describe them as creating a phony image of themselves in order to impress one another. The reason is because those people knew every detail about one another, so they were not deceiving anybody. It would be more accurate to describe them as proudly displaying their best qualities.

We could summarize this by saying that our desire to deceive is a actually a desire to impress. It is only in our modern environment that our emotional qualities are causing trouble. We are growing up in an environment in which we don't know much about one another, and the result is that when we follow our emotional cravings to impress people with our wonderful qualities, we inadvertently deceive people about what we really are.

Our new world requires that we evolve slightly different emotional qualities, and until we have those new qualities, we need to exert self-control and push ourselves into doing what makes the most intellectual sense rather than what we want to do. If we do what we want to do, we will inadvertently hurt ourselves and one another with lies and deception.

Our emotions evolved for a competitive battle for life and a mate. Our primary concern is surviving the battle, attracting a mate, taking care of our children, and becoming the leader of our group. We never developed any desire to show people our limitations, undesirable qualities, or embarrassing features. Rather, we evolved a craving to impress people by showing them our best qualities. We have cravings to promote ourselves and make our competitors seem inferior to us. We want people to notice our achievements and our good qualities, and we want them to ignore our problems and failures.

Our culture changes haphazardly through time because we are not yet making an effort to get control of it and determine where it is going, but it does not change in a truly random manner. It changes to fit our emotional desires. As a result, every society has developed culture that considers it normal and sensible to allow people to hide information about themselves. No society encourages people to be honest, and the reason is simply because no animal or human developed an emotional craving to be honest.

Our cultural attitudes towards children are also affected by our emotions. The primary goal of every animal is to raise children, and as a result, parents have a strong craving to protect their children, and to regard them as better than other people's children. Our culture evolved to fit this bias. Specifically, every society considers it normal for parents to be biased in favor of their children. For example, when parents describe their retarded children as "slow", or as "special", they are not regarded as being unrealistic, dishonest, or deceptive. Rather, we consider such bias as "normal" for a parent. There is no pressure on parents to be serious about their children.

Furthermore, nobody is under pressure to be serious about their competitors, either, or other societies. Our natural tendency is to bring attention to the imperfections and failures of other people and societies, and to make them look inferior to us. We want to create the impression that we are better than other people, and that our society is better than other societies. Animals compete with one another by biting, kicking, and growling, and humans also compete by yelling, hitting, sabotaging, plagiarizing, and murdering.

Our craving for secrecy is a fear of being attacked
Certain animals, such as deer and rabbits, live in constant fear of being attacked by predators. At the other extreme, elephants, hippos, and lions don't show much concern about whether other animals are observing them. When the animals that are easily frightened are put into zoos, they are difficult for us to see because they want to hide. By comparison, the elephants don't care if we look at them.

If animals had enough intelligence to create cities, the rabbits and deer would undoubtedly create homes in which they could completely hide themselves. It is possible that they would not put windows in their homes, and if they had windows, they might be afraid to open the curtains. Some animals would prefer homes that are underground, and have only one tiny entrance that is easily defended.

By comparison, elephants would undoubtedly create homes that are much more open, and which may have many entrances and exits. They may enjoy houses with large windows, and they may have so little concern that somebody sees them that they don't have any desire to block their windows with curtains.

Humans are not as fearful as rabbits, but we are more fearful than elephants. Women and children are more fearful than adult men, but even adult men are afraid of being observed.
Human children have a craving to find a place to hide. Many children make tiny homes out of pillows or cardboard boxes, or they climb inside bushes.

Children behave in this manner because it is "fun", and the reason it is fun is because there is a section of our brain that generates fear, which makes us uncomfortable, so when we hide, that emotion calms down, allowing us to relax. That emotion is intended to cause an animal to hide from predators. This behavior is an indication of our animal qualities, and the dangers of prehistoric life.

We do not like being observed. We are extremely sensitive to eyes and facial expressions. We become frightened when we see a set of angry eyes staring at us. I think it is our fear of being observed that causes us to want to keep our school records, medical records, and other information a secret. When we think about somebody looking at our school records or medical records, we visualize their eyeballs looking at us, and that triggers our fear of being observed.

Nobody has any intelligent justification for keeping information about his life a secret, which is a sign that they never put any intelligent thought into the issue. Rather, every society is choosing to keep information a secret because they are following their emotional feelings. The only justification for keeping information a secret is that it is "personal" information, but that is not an explanation.
Our craving to hide information is so extreme that we sometimes hide information that normally is not hidden. For example, in this article about a father in China who carries his disabled son 18 miles to school every day, the child's eyes were blocked out in all of the photos, such as the one to the right.

How would the child be harmed if we could see the child's eyes? The people who promote this type of secrecy have no answer to that question because they never thought about the issue. They are simply following their emotional cravings, like a stupid animal.

The child in that particular article is disabled, and since we have strong cravings to protect children, and since we do not like disabled people, we react by trying to protect the child by hiding him. However, hiding his eyes does not help the child, or the reader, or anybody else. This is just senseless, animal behavior.

Furthermore, these photos encourage other people to behave in this idiotic manner, and the children will mimic it, thereby perpetuating this stupid behavior in the next generation. We need leaders who can stop mimicking crude behavior and start setting a good example.

Journalists and the police also hide photos and names of criminals who are under the age of 18. During prehistoric times, if a child were to misbehave, everybody in the tribe would know about it, and his bad behavior could affect who became his friend and spouse. Today, by comparison, we consider it normal and sensible to hide the bad behavior of people under the age of 18. This is allowing people with bad behavior to get into friendships, marriages, and business relationships with people who would otherwise avoid them, or at least be cautious of them.

We should pass judgment on which squeaky wheel really needs grease
Humans and animals have a very powerful craving to take care of children, and we become emotionally stimulated to an extreme when we hear a child crying. We were designed to stop what we are doing and help the child. We also have a strong desire to help adults who are crying.

It was sensible for our prehistoric ancestors to help whiny children because they cried over sensible issues, such as having a thorn in their foot. Today, however, children are whining about hundreds of issues of no importance, such as toys and candy bars.

We cause ourselves even more trouble when we try to appease whiny adults because adults today are whining over thousands of intangible concepts that they have almost no understanding of, such as freedom, discrimination, women's rights, gay rights, abortion, and religion. Furthermore, it is impossible to appease all of the whiny adults because they want conflicting policies.

In this modern world, we should not rush to appease a child or adult who whines about something. We should exert some self-control over our craving to be a hero and help the person, and we should pass judgment on whether he really needs our help. A simple example is when children whine for a particular toy that they saw on television.

Children today are whining for a lot of things they don't need, and when parents appease those children, they are encouraging their children to become spoiled brats. The parents can also cause their house to become cluttered with toys, and cause their children to become sickly and fat.

We cause ourselves even more trouble when we appease adults who whine about something. The reason is because most of the time that people whine about something, they are whining about emotional issues, not issues that they are putting intelligent thought into. As a result, they usually whine about something they don't need, or which is harmful to them, or which is unrealistic.

For example, some vegetarians whine about people who eat meat or use animal skins for clothing. Their whining can trigger our craving to appease them, but they don't need our help. They need to be suppressed. They have not thought about the issue and developed an intelligent analysis for us to discuss. Rather, they have become emotionally stimulated over the thought of killing animals, and they are reacting like a child who wants a candy bar.

In other documents I suggested that we prohibit demonstrations and require people who disagree with our culture or the government to put their opinions in a document and post it on the Internet for everybody to read. We benefit from intelligent analyses, but not from people who are chanting slogans and throwing rocks. We need to make a distinction between when a person is "whining" about something, and when they are providing us with a proposal or an analysis.

When we appease the whiny people, we make our life more complicated, and we encourage the people to whine even more. For example, when restaurants and airlines appease the vegetarians by providing them with special meals, they add a burden on the airline personnel, and the vegetarians become accustomed to having special meals, which can cause them to want special meals at business cafeterias, Navy ships, schools, weddings, and Christmas parties.

Furthermore, I suspect that the adults who whine the most have the lowest quality minds. Their behavior is like a child who screams, throws objects, or bites us when he doesn't get what he wants. This behavior should be considered as "disgusting" and "animal-like", not as a "first amendment right". When we appease the whiny adults, we are modifying society to fit the inferior people.
People who resort to temper tantrums in order to influence society should be regarded as inferior to the people who can create documents for us to read and discuss.
The adults who will not or cannot write a document to describe their complaints or suggestions should be regarded as a "talking monkey" rather than a human. We should not feel sorry for them and allow them to yell at and kick us. They should be regarded as inferior creatures who are unfit to influence our lives and our future. We should stop feeling sorry for them, and stop pandering to them.

We should prohibit all types of demonstrations, temper tantrums, and whining. When a person doesn't like a particular policy, he should provide an intelligent analysis of it so that we can think about it and discuss it.

By following that philosophy, a society will have conflicting proposals to deal with rather than conflicting protests. This requires that our government deal with those conflicting proposals rather than ignore them.

Requiring government officials to read through people's proposals might seem to be putting an incredible burden on them, but the leaders of businesses and militaries already do this without complaining about it.

Business executives are expected to read the analyses, complaints, and proposals from other managers, customers, and employees, rather than ignore them, and they are expected to make intelligent decisions about them.

Furthermore, we can reduce the burden on government officials by keeping track of what everybody does and holding them accountable for it. In other documents I suggested that the people who make a lot of stupid proposals be classified as intellectually inferior and told to shut up, thereby reducing the burden on the government officials who have to read the proposals.

Businesses and militaries keep track of what their members do, and those who are substandard are demoted, fired, put on restrictions, or told to shut up. A government should follow the same policy.

In that type of environment, people will be under pressure to develop their opinions, and to refrain from saying something unless they have put some thought into it. By comparison, in our world today, people are not held accountable for their decisions. Voters are allowed to select government officials in secrecy so they cannot be held accountable for their decisions; people can join protests in the street without it being recorded in their history; and people can whine about government policies without being held accountable for any of the stupid remarks they make.

Secrecy and deception are detrimental today
Our craving to show people our best qualities and hide our undesirable qualities was acceptable during prehistoric times because there was no secrecy, but in the world today, we have the ability to hide our unpleasant qualities to such an extreme that we can deceive people about our true qualities, and this hurts all of us, except for the truly disgusting people. For some examples:
• We are marrying people we don't know much about.
• We hire people for jobs, including government offices, without knowing much about their past job performances, medical problems, criminal history, mental disorders, or physical problems.
• We live among neighbors we know almost nothing about.
• We send children to schools and hospitals to be in contact with adults we know nothing about.
In 2013, Canadian police arrested 348 adults for involvement with child pornography, and they "rescued" nearly 400 children. What were the children rescued from? What were the adults doing? We provide people with so much secrecy that we don't even provide details about these crimes. There is no database that we can access to find out who those people are, and what they have been doing.

The article says that 40 of the people were teachers, 9 were doctors and nurses, 6 were in law enforcement, 9 were church officials, and 3 were foster parents. We are providing people with so much secrecy that doctors, policemen, and teachers are able to get involved with child pornography and pedophilia without anybody noticing. This was impossible during prehistoric times. A group of adults in a small prehistoric tribe would not have been able to kidnap or rape children on a regular basis without the other people noticing.

Our emotions want us to fight with one another for status, food, material items, and mates, but we no longer need to behave like animals. There is plenty of food, material wealth, and potential spouses for everybody. We should push ourselves into regarding other people as friends. We should compete for fun, and to inspire one another, not to hurt one another or fight over material items.

We are afraid to be honest about ourselves because we worry about being denied a job, insulted, or denied health insurance. We also worry that we will not be able to attract a spouse. These are valid concerns, but remember the advice I have provided many times: instead of becoming frightened by problems, react to problems by analyzing them and looking for solutions.

In regards to marriage, it is true that by being honest, a lot of people will not want to marry us, but we should not be afraid of that because that is what we need! Our emotions want to be deceptive, but deception will give us the opposite of what we need; namely, a compatible spouse. Deception will cause us to form a fraudulent marriage that is likely to be miserable for us and our spouse, and which will waste both of our lives.

By comparison, if we exert some self-control and force ourselves to be honest with potential spouses, a lot of people will reject us, which will hurt our feelings, but that is for the best. We will create a more successful marriage if we control our emotions, stop acting like stupid animals, and look for a spouse who is attracted to us for what we truly are.

In regards to health insurance and jobs, it is true that a person today who admitted to his genetic flaws and limitations would likely be denied some jobs and health insurance, but one method to deal with that problem is to change our economic system to what I suggest in which everybody has their basic necessities given to them for free, and the government helps people find jobs. Nobody would have to worry about unemployment. Instead of using a person's medical history, school records, and other information to insult him or deny him a job, the government would use that information to help him find a job that he can do properly, and in a team that he fits in with.

That type of government would behave like responsible parents. Most parents know a lot of intimate details about their children's mental and physical characteristics, but they do not use that information to ridicule their children, or to deny them health care. Rather, they use that information to make wise decisions about meals, activities, and chores. Many parents also use the information about their children to provide them with advice about jobs and hobbies.

Likewise, an athletic coach, military drill sergeant, and supervisor of a construction crew will use information about a person's physical and mental characteristics in order to help the person and the team, not hurt him.

If we were to create a new city and restrict it to people who are capable of behaving like responsible parents, then nobody would ridicule other people for their genetic defects or limitations, and nobody would boast that they are perfect. People would quietly accept the fact that everybody has imperfections, and they would use the "personal information" about one another to help each other find friends, a spouse, a job, and leisure activities. The information about people would be regarded as valuable knowledge about the person, not as "personal information" that must be kept secret and which we should be embarrassed or ashamed of.

The only people who would suffer by eliminating secrecy are the people who have undesirable behavior. For example, eliminating secrecy would show us that we are living among people who are kidnapping and raping children. However, we should not provide secrecy for those people. We should not design a society to appease the misfits. It is better for the human race that those people be exposed.

Our culture should encourage us to learn about ourselves, discover our strengths and weaknesses, and be honest about what we really are. Our culture should also encourage us to appreciate other people's talents rather than look for opportunities to criticize other people. We should inspire one another to develop their talents rather than try to suppress or insult one another.

My proposal is to stop the secrecy completely. All of our school records, job performance reviews, medical data, and other aspects of our lives should be put in a public database for everybody to see and analyze. We should encourage people to be honest about themselves. We should regard people who want secrecy, or who boast about themselves, or who ridicule other people, as behaving like animals rather than humans.

If we were living with that type of culture, we would discover that each of us has a different ability to handle and accept honesty. We would discover that some people put up more resistance to being honest, and some people have more trouble appreciating the talents of other people.

The people who have the most problems with honesty, or who are the most unfair in their treatment of other people, need to be regarded as inferior people. They are troublesome in this modern world, especially if they get into influential positions. For example, if a government official cannot appreciate other people's talents, he is likely to look for ways to suppress and eliminate his competitors rather than encourage us to develop our talents. Those type of leaders are hurting society by suppressing talented people. They will try to use the police and military as their personal attack dogs.

It makes sense for society to suppress people who are destructive, but we should not tolerate people who suppress people simply because they are envious of their talents, or to eliminate their competitors. In this modern world, we are a team, and we should appreciate and inspire one another, not sabotage or suppress one another.

The people who cannot become productive team members should be regarded as inferior people. We should stop promoting the attitude that all people are equal and face the reality that some members of society are so disruptive that they need to be restricted to certain neighborhoods and jobs, or evicted.

You will hurt yourself if you cannot accept your imperfections
Our emotions want us to ignore our imperfections, pretend that we are better than everybody else, and criticize other people. This is resulting in a society in which the people are struggling to make themselves appear better than other people. This in turn is having the undesirable effect of causing people to become self-conscious of their imperfections and limitations.

Very few people are capable of calmly admitting that they have imperfections, or seriously discussing their imperfections. Of the people who are capable of admitting that they have imperfections, most of them can do so only in a joking, sarcastic, or deprecatory manner.

It might be easier for you to understand why this dishonesty is detrimental if you consider how it applies to people applying for jobs in a free enterprise system. All of the people who are looking for a job are in competition with one another, so if some of them are getting jobs by exaggerating their good qualities, lying about their education, and hiding their criminal history, mental problems, and other undesirable characteristics, all of the other people will be under pressure to be just as deceptive in order to compete.

Eventually the situation will get to the point that we see here in the United States in which businesses cannot believe a person's resume, and they cannot trust his references, and they are forced to do their own background checks. The people who get jobs with their deception believe that they are benefiting from deception, but it is hurting society by encouraging everybody else to be deceptive, and by causing businesses to distrust our resume.

The same concept applies to athletes. If one athlete cheats, he will have an advantage, but his cheating will encourage the other athletes to cheat in order to become equal to him. If all of them cheat, they once again become equal, in which case none of them benefit from the cheating. It would be better if they were honest.

The same concept applies to businesses in a free enterprise system. They are in competition to attract consumers, so when some businesses are attracting customers by exaggerating the good qualities of their products and ignoring the undesirable qualities, the other businesses will be under pressure to be just as deceptive in order to compete.

If any business were to advertise a product in an honest manner, they would include a description of the limitations and disadvantages to their product. Their product would appear inferior when compared to the products that are boasting about their wonderful qualities and ignoring their limitations and disadvantages. Therefore, when one business decides to deceive customers about their product, they put pressure on the other businesses to be equally deceptive in order to compete.

When all of the businesses are honest, they are equal, and when all of the businesses are equally deceptive, they are equal. Therefore, when all of the businesses are deceptive, they don't benefit from the deception. A business will benefit from deception only when they are more deceptive than the other businesses.

When all businesses are equally deceptive, none of them benefit from the deception, but their deception hurts society by causing consumers to become suspicious of the claims that businesses make. It would be better for everybody if the businesses were so honest that we could trust them.

Free enterprise also encourages idiotic deception
In a free enterprise system, businesses are sometimes deceptive simply because they are selling a product that consumers don't understand. For example, the Libby's company sells canned pumpkin for pumpkin pie that they claim is "100% pure pumpkin", but other people claim that is actually a variety of squash, not "pumpkin". What is the difference between a "squash" and a "pumpkin"? How many people know?

Libby's does not want to be honest and describe the product as "Squash for pumpkin pie" because they worry that consumers are too stupid, ignorant, and/or neurotic to understand that the squash makes a better tasting pie with a better consistency than pumpkin. So they treat the consumers like stupid animals and deceive them into thinking that they are eating pumpkin.

My suggestion is to design society according to the best behaved people, not the worst members of society. Squash would be referred to as "squash", not as pumpkin. This would actually be beneficial because it would help people to realize that "pumpkin pie" does not have to be made with "pumpkin".

This article claims that Red Kuri squash makes the best pumpkin pie. I have never tried that, but I think yams make an excellent pumpkin pie because they are thick and tasty. If you cook the yams as I've suggested, that is, at a lower temperature, and don't let them get to the point at which they have turned to mush (which they apparently did in that article, judging by the appearance of the yams), they retain such a thick consistency that you don't have to do anything further to make them into pie. You don't have to add eggs, for example. All you do is mix in some molasses, spices, coconut oil, or whatever you like, and put the mixture into a bowl or a pie shell. You don't even have to bake it any further. Or, you can mix in some frozen, concentrated orange juice and make an orange flavored pie.

In a free enterprise system, businesses do what is best for profit, and that causes them to be deceptive and abusive. If we get rid of the free enterprise system, businesses will treat us with respect rather than as profit opportunities, and they will do what makes the most sense for society rather than what will make a few executives and investors absurdly wealthy.

Our flaws will be less embarrassing if we live among honest people
Now consider how these concepts apply to you and your personal life. We are currently living in an environment in which everybody is boasting about themselves and hiding their unpleasant characteristics. We don't know the truth about other people. Rather, we know only the false images that they have created for themselves. This creates the impression that we are surrounded by incredibly talented people. Unless you are extremely arrogant, their false images can intimidate you into causing you to feel inferior.

Most of us are aware that we have some physical and mental limitations and problems. When we are living among people who are constantly boasting about themselves and hiding their unpleasant qualities, it can cause us to feel inferior because it makes us wonder:
• Are we the only person who occasionally pouts or has a temper tantrum?
• Are we the only person who has trouble understanding how to use the remote control for a television, or the features of a cell phone?
• Are we the only person who picks his nose?
• Are we the only person who occasionally has crude sexual thoughts?
When we are surrounded by people who are constantly boasting about themselves, we will want to keep the unpleasant aspects of ourselves a secret because if we were to expose that information, we would appear to be the only person with those undesirable qualities. We would feel like a freak among perfect people.

Even worse, being surrounded by perfect people can make us afraid to try something we've never done before because it can cause us to worry about failing, which would make us look inferior to all of the talented people. We become afraid to try something new because we are afraid of being ridiculed by all of the perfect people.

During prehistoric times, by comparison, everybody knew the intimate details of everybody else. As a result, when somebody boasted about himself, the other people realized that he was simply advertising his good qualities and ignoring his unpleasant qualities. The other people were not intimidated into believing that he was superior. He might have been more talented in some characteristics, but the other people realized that he was just another human, like the rest of them, and that he had unpleasant qualities, also.

People are becoming intimidated and introverted
The fear that we are inferior to other people, and that we will be criticized for our inferiority, is interfering with our leisure activities and relationships. An example that I mentioned years ago here is that most people today are afraid to sing, play music, or dance in front of other people because they are afraid other people will criticize them for being substandard.

In previous centuries, there were no electronic devices to provide people with entertainment, and so the people had to provide their own entertainment. The people who enjoyed singing would do so, and the people who enjoyed making music would do that, and the people who enjoy dancing would dance.

My grandmother said that when she was a teenager, the girls would usually dance by themselves or with other girls because most of the boys preferred to watch rather than dance. The girls in her small town did not need boys to dance with. They were not embarrassed to dance by themselves or with their girlfriends.

When I was a young child, there were still a lot of mothers who would occasionally sing to their children, and the adults would sometimes sing or play music in the evenings after dinner. However, during the following decades, that type of activity has almost completely ceased.

Some people might respond that the reason we no longer create our own entertainment is because we prefer to watch professionals on television, but I suspect the reason is because people have become intimidated, and they are afraid to do what they want to do because they worry about being ridiculed.

To support my assumption, consider how many people will sing when they are alone, such as in their shower or automobile. There are so many people who sing in the bathroom that the Wikipedia has this entry for the issue. I find it even more interesting that Hyundai recently collected data on 1000 British automobile drivers, and one of the results of their analysis was that 54% of the people said that one of the things that they enjoyed while driving was singing.

Why do so many people sing in their bathrooms or cars? This website claims that people sing in showers because we are relaxed and happy in the shower, and the Wikipedia claims that people sing in the bathroom because the hard walls create a pleasant acoustic environment. However, nobody designs music theaters to simulate the acoustic environment of a bathroom or automobile.

I think that a bathroom and automobile are terrible acoustic environments, and I don't think people are singing in their showers or cars because they are relaxed. I think the explanation is actually much more sad.

If we could go back in time thousands of years, we would find that the men tended to wander away from the campsite every day to hunt animals and make tools, but in the evening everybody was usually at the campsite. I think we would find that on many evenings, one or more of the people would sing or dance, especially the women. I think that singing and dancing were a regular part of life during prehistoric times. Eventually people began making musical instruments, and they sometimes decorated themselves for the dances with special clothing items, jewelry, hairstyles, and colored pigments.

Our natural tendency is to:
work during the daytime, and socialize during the evening.

A lot of songs have lyrics that are nonsensical, but we enjoy them anyway because our mind treats songs differently than conversations. When someone speaks to us, we try to decode their words into a concept, but when people are singing, our mind treats their words as a form of acoustical artwork. Instead of trying to decode the words, we let their voice entertain us. This allows us to enjoy songs even if we cannot understand the words, or if the singer is speaking a foreign language, or if the singer is making noises like "beep" and "bop" rather than using words.

For example, I think this woman sings "Hey Diddle Diddle" so well that I find it relaxing, even though the lyrics are senseless. Somebody who does not know English might love the way she sings it. Unfortunately, the music is awful, or maybe it is just too loud. I have to struggle to focus on her voice and avoid the music.

That "Hey Diddle Diddle" song reminds me of when I was young and my mother and grandmother would sing songs like that to us. I think mothers have been singing silly songs like that to their children for much longer than the anthropologists want to believe, and during the evening, the women would entertain the men. My dad occasionally sang a song, also, but men don't have as much of an interest in singing as women.

During the past few thousand years, and especially during the past century, our social environment has been deteriorating. We are living in a significantly more unfriendly environment compared to our prehistoric ancestors. We are living among people we don't know, don't like, don't trust, and don't feel comfortable around. We are also living among people who boast about themselves and ridicule other people. People do not want to get together in the evening with their neighbors and coworkers, as our prehistoric ancestors did. Rather, many people today stay inside their houses in the evening, and lock their doors and windows.

Our prehistoric ancestors were essentially on an eternal camping trip with their friends and relatives. When the men arrived home after a day of hunting, they walked into a small campsite that had a friendly social environment. They knew and enjoyed all of the people, and they trusted everybody. They all spoke the same language, ate the same foods, and had the same beliefs. They had no concept of professional singers, musicians, or entertainers, and so none of them felt inferior at providing entertainment. The people who enjoyed singing and playing music would do so without fear of being ridiculed.

I think that the reason so many people today are singing in their car and shower is because they want to sing, but they feel so inferior to other people that they are afraid to do it around other people. In order for people to sing in front of other people, they must feel comfortable around the other people. However, I don't think many people today feel comfortable around other people. I think that is why so many people spend so much of their time alone with a dog, television, video game, or cell phone.

In other words, I would say that the enormous number of people who sing in their shower and car are a symptom of a miserable social environment. They are not singing because they are enjoying life, or because they enjoy the acoustical characteristics of their bathroom. They are singing in their cars and their showers because they want to sing, but are too uncomfortable to sing around other people because they are afraid that people will criticize them.

In order for a person to sing in a pleasant manner, they must be able to relax and use their voice as an instrument. They must be able to create auditory artwork. A person who is self-conscious will not be able to do it. We need to be in an environment in which we feel relaxed around one another.

Incidentally, it is ridiculous for people to be embarrassed about singing with their friends because when everybody is singing, nobody hears anybody else because their own voice is louder than the other people. Therefore, you will not notice if somebody else is doing a terrible job of singing, and they won't notice if you are not singing very well, either. Therefore, you are a fool to be embarrassed to sing with a group of people.

Are you are enjoying your life?
A lot of people assume that they are happy, but I don't think many people truly are. I think most people are somewhat lonely and frustrated, but since they have never had any other life, and since they cannot imagine any other type of life, they don't realize that their life could be more pleasant.

Some people sense that they are not enjoying their life very much, but most people react to their unhappiness by struggling to titillate themselves, usually through sex, food, babies, dogs, or fame. Other people try to ignore their misery with drugs, religion, Star Trek fantasies, or video games.

Unfortunately, we are not going to improve our lives simply by titillating our emotions. That only provides us with some momentary pleasure. And drugs, religion, and other distractions do nothing to improve life, either.

Are you enjoying your life? If you could live your life again, would you live it in the exact same manner? Or would you make changes?

There are some people who have claimed that they have enjoyed their life so much that they would not make any changes to if they could live a second life, but we cannot determine whether a person is truly enjoying his life simply by asking him. In order to determine whether our societies are providing us with an appropriate life, we have to analyze the behavior of the people.

I mentioned this concept years ago here when I pointed out that when we design exhibits for zoo animals, we will know when the exhibit is providing the animal with a proper environment when the behavior of the animal is "normal". When an animal in a zoo exhibit displays unnatural behavior, we must come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the environment, and that the animal is miserable.

The people supervising zoos have noticed that one of the most obvious symptoms of an inappropriate environment is that the males and females have trouble forming stable relationships and raising families, resulting in the animals rarely or never reproducing.

If we were to apply that concept to human societies, then we would come to the conclusion that our modern societies are inappropriate for us because during the past few centuries, men and women have been having an increasingly difficult time forming relationships and raising children.

Unfortunately, the majority of people have a tremendous resistance to the concept that humans are just a different species of monkey, and that the concepts that apply to animals apply to us. Our arrogance is so extreme that we want to think of ourselves as being completely different from all of the animals.

There are so many people who refuse to believe that humans are animals that even the Nature programs avoid admitting that humans are animals. For example, in 2017 this series of documentaries were completed that showed video of animals that was taken by cameras that had been put into robotic animals. At the beginning of the documentaries the narrator says that the cameras are showing us a view of animals that:
"may change our perception of animals forever. Could animals be more like us than we ever believed possible?"
His remark might seem intelligent, but it shows the arrogance of humans. A less biased, more realistic remark would have been phrased like this:
It may change our perception of humans forever. Could humans be more like animals than we ever believed possible?
Even the zoologists who study animals have trouble facing the possibility that they are just an educated monkey. They don't want to believe that humans are like animals. They would rather believe that animals are like humans. The difference is subtle, but important.

Humans are an advanced branch of the monkey category of animals. Therefore, it makes more sense to say that humans are like animals rather than say that animals are like humans. However, our arrogance causes us to want to stand on a tall pedestal and look down on all of the animals and plants. When we see some animal behaving like us, we want to bring him up to our pedestal rather than lower ourselves to his level.

I mentioned this concept in a previous document when I pointed out that when we encounter a person with exceptionally good athletic talents, math abilities, music abilities, or artistic abilities, our tendency is to make a remark such as, "He has exceptional talent!" We have a tendency to put him on a pedestal.

Because we are arrogant, when we encounter somebody who has better qualities than us, we have a tendency to praise that person rather than criticize ourselves. For example, my grandfather never had any tooth decay, headaches, or medical problem until he was 78 years old. He never missed a day of work because he was never sick. Some people might describe him as having exceptionally good health, but I would say it makes more sense to describe him as having "normal" human health, and that those of us who suffer from diseases, tooth decay, headaches, and other medical problems are "defective".

If we could go back in time tens of thousands of years, we would find that humans were as healthy as the wild animals. We would find that the people rarely got sick, and that tooth decay was rare, also. We would find that the people living in the colder climates were capable of dealing with the cold, and that everybody could qualify as an athlete.

Unfortunately, during the past few thousand years, humans have been degrading as a result of not controlling reproduction. Today a significant percentage of the population is mentally and/or physically defective and sickly, and the situation is getting worse during every generation.

Unfortunately, people are still about as arrogant as they ever were. Therefore, when we encounter somebody who is in good physical or mental health, we don't want to regard them as "normal" humans. We want to put them on a pedestal. The reason is because each of us wants to stand on a very tall pedestal and imagine that we are better than everybody else. Therefore, if we regard somebody in good health as being "just a normal human", that means that he is not on a pedestal. He is simply standing on the ground like other normal people. Since most of us are sickly, that means that we should get off of our pedestal, dig a pit into the dirt, and lower ourselves into it so that we can be "below normal", with all of the other defective, sickly people.

We don't want to be in a pit with defective people. Therefore, when we encounter somebody in good health, we want to put him on a tall pedestal. We want to describe him as "exceptional" so that we can continue pretending that we are above-average.

In reality, the people who are in excellent health are actually just "normal" humans, and most of us are better described as "sickly, defective" creatures who are suffering from a lot of genetic problems. If we could go back in time 50,000 years, we would likely discover that the majority of people had what we would regard as excellent athletic abilities.

If we were to control reproduction, then eventually everybody would be in even better health than the wild animals and our prehistoric ancestors. Nobody would have tooth decay, get sick, have headaches, or have allergies. There would only be a few doctors and dentists in the world, and they would be needed only to deal with accidents and elderly people.

Our social environment is disgusting
If some aliens in another solar system were selling humans as pets, they would provide instructions to owners on how to create a terrarium for their pet humans, and how to determine when the environment of the terrarium is inappropriate. In those instructions, it would say that if the humans are singing by themselves in isolation, there is something wrong with the environment of the terrarium. The instructions would explain that humans are supposed to sing with other people.

The instructions would also point out that the male and female humans should be able to form stable relationships, and if they do not, something is seriously wrong with the environment. The instructions would warn the owners that they should not ignore this issue, and they should not try to resolve the loneliness by providing the humans with sex robots or dogs.

I think the reason so many men and women are having trouble with relationships today, and the reason so many people are singing when they are alone, and the reason so many people are forming such close relationships with dogs, is because we have created a miserable social environment for ourselves. If we were to experiment with our culture, we would discover that some environments increase these problems, and others decrease them.

For example, I think that the design of a city has an effect on our social activities and our enjoyment of life. Our prehistoric ancestors lived in extremely close proximity to one another, but today we are in isolated houses, and we have to travel long distances in order to visit friends. Also, prehistoric parents did not need babysitters. Their children were always surrounded by other adults and children. The parents didn't have to worry about kidnappers, gangs, pedophiles, or rapists.

The city that I've suggested in other documents comes close to providing us with the intimate environment of a prehistoric campsite. For example, we would be able to freely move around the city, giving us the opportunity to live close to our friends.

Furthermore, by eliminating the free enterprise system and providing everybody with free access to recreational facilities, museums, theaters, picnic areas, social clubs, swimming areas, hobbyist equipment and supplies, musical instruments, costumes, jewelry, karaoke equipment, and whatever else we wanted, the city would feel as if it was our home. We would not be under pressure by businesses to spend money. We would be able to have meals without any concern for carrying money or who will pay the bill. We would be able to go swimming, bicycle riding, or snorkeling without any fees or obligation.

Instead of encouraging us to purchase products, the city officials would encourage us to participate in activities and experiment with life.

For an example of how this would work, if a group of employees decided to get together at the end of the workday for dinner, they could walk or take a train ride to one of the sections of the city that is full of restaurants. After they were finished with dinner, if they decided to sing some songs, they could walk over to one of the recreational rooms that provide musical instruments, karaoke equipment, or robots that play music.

None of the people would need to carry money with them, or purchase musical instruments, or carry equipment back and forth to their homes. The people who wanted to sing or dance would do so, and the others would watch and listen without insulting them. It would create a social environment that is as friendly and relaxed as that in the painting, below, from 1663.

The city government would ensure that there are enough restaurants, recreational rooms, swimming areas, bicycles, video rooms, arts and crafts supplies, 3D printers, and other equipment and facilities so that we don't have to wait in line to use them. The attitude in the city would be to put resources into community buildings, activities, and supplies rather than personal homes and possessions.

Our homes would be small, and we would not have many possessions. We would instead have access to the facilities, supplies, and material items that the city provided.

In addition to the business sections of the city providing social and recreational areas, the apartment complexes would also provide recreational facilities. If a group of friends at one of the apartment complexes decided to get together in the evening to sing songs, they would be able to go to one of the facilities within their own building by taking a short walk or elevator ride. They would then be able to use whatever equipment they wanted without worrying about carrying it back and forth to their homes, or purchasing any of it.

If we were living in that type of city, I think we would be much more interested in getting out of our home during the evenings and joining other people in recreational and social activities.

Our arrogance causes us to believe that we are super geniuses who know what is best for ourselves, but I don't believe anybody truly understands life so well that he knows what will provide him with the most pleasant life. Most people have fantasies of giant mansions and giant plots of land, but is that really what will provide us with the most pleasant life? There may be some people who actually prefer that type of life, but I don't think it is what the more advanced humans would be happiest with.

I think most people have made a mess of their life by trying to satisfy their emotional cravings for material wealth and status. I think that as soon as we find the courage to experiment with our culture, we will quickly realize that the life we have right now is not very pleasant, and that it is easy for us to improve upon it.

We should reduce the emphasis on status
In our current social environment, there is tremendous emphasis on winning competitions and being important. For example, schools encourage students to compete in intellectual and athletic activities, and to insult the people who do not perform well. We also create lots of contests, such as beauty contests, Nobel prizes, and food eating contests. Only the winners of these contests get praise and prizes; the losers are treated as worthless creatures.

The free enterprise system adds to the problem by encouraging us to compete for material items and status, and to insult the people who do not make lots of money. Businesses also provide "status products" for wealthy people, such as goldplated cell phones, to show off their status.

I think our societies are putting too much emphasis on winning competitions and showing off our status, and the reason this happened is because we are trying to satisfy our powerful cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy. Our desire to be at the top of the hierarchy is stronger than other emotions. We want to feel important. We want to look down on other people as inferior. We want status products so that we can show everybody how important we are.

The reason we have this powerful craving for status is that the dominant males have been reproducing more than the others for millions of years. Furthermore, the males reach the top position through biting, kicking, and intimidation. This has caused male animals to evolve a powerful craving to bite, kick, and fight one another for the top position. It is difficult for men to relax around one another. We want to compete for status.

When a male animal reaches a high level position in the hierarchy, he wants the other animals to know that he is important, and he wants them to show submission. We inform people of our importance by showing them our expensive material items, our college diploma, and our trophies. We can also show them our wife, who displays expensive jewelry and clothing.

Our craving for status was kept under control during prehistoric times, but today it is causing us to distort our cultural activities into increasingly senseless, wasteful, and sometimes dangerous competitions. For example, millions of men are in senseless competitions to have gigantic mansions and yachts, and millions of other men are struggling to acquire hundreds of trophies, and millions of other men are boasting about their college diploma, automobile, or job title. Every nation is wasting a lot of labor and resources on mansions, yachts, trophies, and other status products.

Men have such a strong craving to be important and win competitions that we have created a lot of idiotic and dangerous competitions, such as competitions to drink the most beer, eat the most food, drive a car the fastest, or do the most dangerous stunt on a skateboard.

Our craving to compete for status is so extreme that people cannot even graduate from college without turning it into a competition. For example, the students who graduate from Harvard like to imagine that they are in a competition with other students, and that they are the winners who have graduated from the best college. That is a destructive attitude because it encourages arrogance, which in turn interferes with a student's ability to form friendships, learn from his mistakes, and enjoy other people. It encourages students to behave like stupid monkeys.

When we are successful in a competition, we titillate our cravings for status, and that causes us to believe that we are enjoying life, and that our life is worthwhile, but winning a competition provides only momentary titillation. It does not provide us with the type of pleasant memories that we will enjoy reminiscing about when we are older.

If winning competitions was truly the way to enjoy life, then the solution to enjoying life would be for a society to increase the number of competitions, and to design them so that everybody wins once in a while. We already have thousands of different athletic contests, intellectual contests, beauty contests, and food eating contests, and we could create even more contests so that everybody can win a contest on a regular basis.

For example, every neighborhood could hold a competition every day to see who could come closest to guessing at a random number. With contests like that, each of us would be able to win hundreds of trophies during our lifetime, no matter how little talent we have.

We could also design schools so that they give us more diplomas. For example, when a student completes his arithmetic class, he could get a diploma for arithmetic, and when he completes his geometry class, he could get a diploma for geometry. The history, language, and other courses could also provide diplomas.

That type of school system would allow each of us to collect so many diplomas that we could proudly display dozens of them in our home and still have dozens more for our office.

Unfortunately, we are not going to increase our satisfaction with life simply by gathering more diplomas or trophies. Our emotions are fooling us into believing that we can enjoy life simply by titillating ourselves. In reality, we get the most satisfaction from life when we work on projects that have some value to our team. And our greatest satisfaction comes from doing the work, not achieving the goal. Our most pleasant memories will come from working and "suffering", not from the trophy or the diploma.

We enjoy the process of achieving our goals. As soon as we achieve a goal, we want to work on another goal. It is the work that we enjoy. Unfortunately, our emotional cravings for status, material wealth, food, sex, babies, and pampering by servants causes us to believe that work is bad and that being pampered by servants is good, and that inheritances, trust funds, and winning the lottery will make us happy by allowing us to avoid work. In reality, animals and humans were designed to be under pressure by nature to work every day. We don't like the concept of working, but that is what we were designed to do, and that is what brings us the most satisfaction.

When we follow our emotional cravings for status without thinking about what we are doing, we will inadvertently cause our culture to evolve into increasingly idiotic competitive battles. We will waste a lot of our time and resources in attempts to be important, and we will waste our time and resources on status products in an attempt to show off to other people.

I suggest we stop producing all types of status products. They are a waste of resources, and they encourage stupid, monkey-like behavior. Furthermore, I suggest we eliminate peasants, and that requires that we eliminate as many unnecessary products as possible, and I would say that trophies are one of the products that we don't need to produce.

Unfortunately, the type of people who rise to the top positions in a free enterprise system and a democracy tend to be those who have intense cravings for status, so they are not likely to want to reduce or eliminate status products. They are not likely to want to eliminate peasants, either. They want servants to pamper them.

The people who currently dominate society are the people who have put an enormous amount of time and effort into getting into a leadership position, and the reason they have struggled to become a leader is because they have strong cravings to be the top monkey in the hierarchy. Many of them are also willing to get involved with crime networks in order to become a leader. They are not likely to want to give up their status products, or live in the same type of house that the rest of us live in. They want to feel special.

By comparison, the people who don't have such intense cravings to be the top monkey would be more willing to eliminate status products, but they are not likely to get into a leadership position because they don't have such intense cravings for status. Therefore, they will not have the authority to stop the production of status products.

We are currently allowing people to fight for leadership positions in business, government, and other organizations. This is not providing us with quality leadership. This is providing us with men who are extremely aggressive and have intense cravings for status. It is also providing us with leaders who are willing to join crime networks.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to fight for leadership, but in this modern world, we should take control of our economic and government system so that we can make wise decisions about who gets into a leadership position.

We need to make people qualify for leadership positions, and we need to give our leaders job performance reviews, and we must regularly replace the leaders who are doing the worst job. We should not allow people to become leaders simply because they have cravings to be a leader, and we should be especially concerned about stopping people from becoming leaders through intimidation, blackmail, crime, plagiarism, and einsteinism.

Recreation should be a social activity, not a business activity
Although we will sometimes want to engage in recreational activities by ourselves, our preference is for recreational events to be social events. We prefer to get together with other people for recreation.

Unfortunately, a free enterprise system causes businesses to manipulate our culture so that hobbies, sports, recreation, music, and other activities become profit-making ventures. For example, businesses encourage us to watch professional athletes rather than become active participants of sports.

It should be noted that most of the people who watch professional sports have more of an interest in getting together with other people than in watching the sports event. For example, when they watch the games on television, they prefer to watch them with other people. Also, most of the people are more interested in eating and socializing than in paying close attention to the game.

Even more significant is that many of the people who go to stadiums to watch sports events will arrive early so that they can get together with other people in the parking lot in order to socialize (as in the photo below). They refer to this activity as "tailgating". This site claims that 20 million Americans are regularly involved with this activity, which would make tailgating one of the most popular leisure activities in the nation.

Our emotions give us the impression that the key to happiness is acquiring a giant house, large piles of material items, and lot of fame, status, sex, food, and children, but in reality, what we enjoy the most is doing things with other people. The most exciting aspect of a professional sports event is other people, not the game.

Compare the way people watch professional sports to the way they watch the events in the Cirque du Soleil or the Nutcracker ballet. When most people watch a professional football or soccer game, they pay more attention to their friends and the snacks than they do to the game, or they are concerned only with who wins the game. They don't care if they miss large sections of the game.

Even more bizarre, some people are more interested in watching the advertisements or the halftime show of the Super Bowl than the game.

By comparison, when people watch the Cirque du Soleil, they quietly focus on the performers. They don't want to miss any part of the performance. When they watch the Nutcracker ballet, they are also silent because they want to listen to the music as well as watch the dancers. This is an indication that the circus performers and dancers are providing real entertainment, whereas the professional sports events are boring.

Furthermore, people enjoy watching Cirque du Soleil and the Nutcracker ballet on video even years or decades after it has been performed. This is more evidence that we truly enjoy the performances. I suspect that people even centuries from now will enjoy watching the Mariinsky theater's production of the Nutcracker. I like their performance better than the other ballet companies, and unlike a lot of Internet videos, they provided good video quality. However, will anybody years from now want to watch the football games that are being played today?

Furthermore, people can watch the Nutcracker more than one time without becoming bored by it. How many people want to watch the same football game over and over?

Watching a bunch of strangers play a sports event is not exciting. A sports event would be more interesting to us if we were participating in it, or if we knew some of the people who were playing. Unfortunately, during the past few centuries, sports have evolved to become so expensive, dangerous, and difficult that most people don't have any interest in participating.

I think the reason so many people watch professional sports is for the same reason that lots of people sing in the shower; namely, most people are lonely and bored.

I think we would have a more pleasant life if we encouraged people to participate in recreational events. This requires modifying sports to make them more appropriate as social events, and to design a city that provides us with easy and free access to recreational facilities.

I also think we will get more enjoyment from recreational activities when we exert enough self-control over our craving to win competitive events so that we can eliminate the emphasis on winning. The winners of recreational events should get a meaningless award, if they get anything. We should play for entertainment, exercise, and to socialize, not to collect trophies or to feel superior.

Nobody should have to train for a recreational event, and nobody should be embarrassed that they are not good enough to participate in an event. I discussed some of these concepts years ago here.
Businesses are manipulating us into believing that we need to win sports events and, in order to win, we must constantly purchase new and improved equipment. The advertisement to the right is just one example.

The free enterprise system is encouraging us to develop detrimental and idiotic attitudes towards recreation, and it causes society to waste a lot of its resources and labor on unnecessary sports equipment.

We should experiment with recreational events that are simplistic, safe, and entertaining so that people can get some exercise and socialize without breaking their bones, getting concussions, or needing training. I also suspect that men and women have slightly different interests and abilities in recreational activities, which would require us to acknowledge that men and women are different, and to experiment with different recreational events for men and women.

By designing cities as I've suggested in which clusters of tall buildings are surrounded by parks and recreational areas, and in which material items are provided for free, nobody has to purchase their own recreational equipment, and nobody has to transport the equipment to and from their home to the recreational areas, and nobody has to store recreational equipment in their homes.

The lakes would have free access to snorkeling equipment, inner tubes, scuba equipment, towels for drying off, and rowboats; the grassy areas would provide various types of balls, badminton equipment, or whatever people wanted; and scattered around the city would be various types and sizes of bicycles, including those that hold two or more people. There could also be small electric vehicles for people who want to go for rides around the city, or out into the recreational areas outside of the city.

Instead of watching some strangers compete in American Ninja Warrior, the city could provide some equipment similar to that so that people can play with their friends. The city could also provide lots of small theaters for people to play variations of Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, or whatever people enjoy, rather than watch them on television.

That type of city would make recreation so convenient that many people who have no interest in recreational activities right now are likely to discover that they enjoy occasionally doing something.

In the world today, many large cities spend a lot of money on sports stadiums, but I don't think people truly enjoy sitting in a stadium and watching strangers play games. People seem to have more fun with the tailgating activities in the parking lot before the game begins. The tailgating reminds me of the parents who buy their child an expensive toy, but the child has more fun playing with the cardboard box that the toy was inside of.
The city of Los Angeles is planning to spend a few billion dollars building another gigantic sports stadium (the drawing to the right), but I think more people will have more fun in the parking lot than they will in the stadium.

I don't think a city should waste resources on large sports stadiums. I think we should design a city to encourage people to participate in events. This requires changing the economic system so that the city can be designed to provide people with activities. Instead of a small number of gigantic stadiums and theaters, we should have lots of tiny stadiums and theaters for us to use with our friends and neighbors.

I also think we should stop putting resources into the video recording of professional sports. Most of the people who watch professional sports want to watch them live, not years after they have occurred. The reason is simply because professional sports are boring to watch. There are only some singers, actors, dancers, musicians, and athletes who are so talented that we want to watch recordings of their performances.

Rather than record professional sports, I think we would get more satisfaction from life if the city made it easy for us to record ourselves and our friends as we played recreational activities, created music, had a picnic, or celebrated an anniversary, birthday, or wedding.

To make the video more pleasant to watch, the city would provide free access to high-quality video cameras so that we don't have to use low quality consumer cameras. The city would not bother producing low-quality cameras.

To make recording ourselves easier, cameras could be permanently installed in some recreational areas and theaters so we do not have to set up the equipment. To further simplify the recording, computers could use tracking software to keep the cameras focused on the people so that nobody has to operate the cameras.

One of the problems with video is finding it when we want to watch it in the future. Computers would make this job easier, especially if people could get over their paranoia of being tracked. If the city computers were constantly tracking everybody, then the computers would know who was in a theater or recreational area, and that would allow the computers to identify every video segment according to date and according to the people in the video. This would allow us to find video according to a person or date. The computers would also know which recreational area or event they were recording, so we could also find video according to that criteria.

Computers will not operate a video camera as well as a human, but the simplicity of the system would make it so easy to record ourselves, and so easy to access the recorded video, we might discover that everybody loses their interest in doing what they do today, which is to create a disorganized jumble of photographs and video that nobody wants to look through.

You probably have some photographs or video in your home right now, but how often do you or other people look at them? Imagine if you had been living in a city in which you were being tracked, and there was video of you at the recreational areas and theaters. Imagine if all you had to do to watch some of those videos was tell a computer to show the video of a particular person, date, or event. It would be similar to what people are doing right now with Netflix, except that instead of requesting Hollywood movies, they would request video of themselves, their friends, or their children.

The computer would search its database, locate the video, and then display it for you. And imagine that the video is high quality rather than from a consumer camera. You might find that the system is so easy to use, and there are so many videos to choose from, that you enjoy occasionally watching yourself, friends, and family members playing recreational events, singing, learning how to do snorkeling, or participating in a city festival.

A lot of what we enjoy is because we are bored
I will provide more detail about the remark I made earlier that people who watch professional sports are doing so because they are bored. This is a significant issue because it affects our leisure activities and hobbies.

When a person foolishly believes that happiness comes from becoming so wealthy that we can retire early, be pampered by servants, lounge around the beach all day long, and do whatever we please, he is going to get bored. We have some emotions that want us to avoid work and spend the day lounging, but we evolved to work, and as a result, when we have nothing to do, we get bored.

When a person is bored, his mind starts looking for something to do, and if he is unaware of this issue and not putting any intelligent thought into what he is doing, he may end up getting involved with a stupid, wasteful, destructive, or expensive activity, which in turn can cause trouble for him, even though he believes that he enjoys doing it.

A woman who is attracted to horses, for example, might get involved with horseback riding, which can create financial problems for her, and another woman might get involved with pets, which can interfere with her human relationships.

Men like to compete for dominance, so many of them get involved with hobbies and activities that allow them to show off, such as doing dangerous athletic stunts, or something expensive, such as sailing.

Our prehistoric ancestors never had vacations, sick days, or retirement. They did not have the concept of "weekends", either. They worked every day of their lives.

Humans evolved to spend every day looking for food, finding a place to sleep at night, and taking care of our children. Also, we were designed to be our own boss, even though we often work with other people. Our reason for working is to take care of ourselves and our family.

In this modern world, almost everybody has a job that is unnatural for us. We did not evolve to work on an assembly line and do the same repetitive motions hour after hour, day after day, year after year. We also did not evolve to be insurance salesmen who spend their lives trying to deceive and manipulate other people, or submissive government officials who pander to other people. Most important of all, we did not evolve to be somebody else's slave. We did not evolve to work for other people and make them and their children absurdly wealthy.

Ideally, we would study humans, get a better understanding of our emotional, intellectual, and physical abilities and limitations, and try to design jobs to be more practical and satisfying. However, almost everybody ignores this issue. There is very little interest in designing an economic system that provides us with an environment that allows us to enjoy working.

During the 1800s, the situation was even worse. Businesses were creating jobs with almost no concern for the safety or health of the employees, and with almost no concern for whether the people could afford to live on the wages that they were getting. Unions developed in order to put pressure on businesses to provide better working conditions, but the unions only reduced the misery; they did not provide us with an economic system that we truly enjoy.

A lot of people have jobs that they don't enjoy, or which cause them physical or emotional stress. Many employees also resent that investors and executives are becoming absurdly wealthy from their work.

Our miserable economic system causes a lot of people to want vacations, and to retire early. However, our cities were not designed for vacations. Our cities don't provide us with activities. Our cities are dominated by businesses that are trying to make money from us. As a result, when people have several weeks or a month of vacation, they quickly become bored.

Businesses look for ways to exploit the bored people who are on vacation. For example, some businesses offer us travel opportunities; some businesses produce low cost products for tourist to purchase as souvenirs; and some businesses arrange for entertainment shows for the tourists.

Ideally, our government officials would analyze the issue of vacations and provide us with some intelligent guidance on what to do. For example, they might decide to support a variety of activities for people on vacation. However, the voters continuously elect dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent people to government offices. Our government officials don't analyze anything, or provide us with any type of guidance.

Instead of providing us with guidance and suggestions, the city government officials join the business executives in looking for opportunities to exploit the people on vacation. The end result is that the city government officials compete with other cities to lure tourists to their city in the hope that they can increase their tax revenue.

The businesses regard the people on vacation as profit opportunities, and the government officials regard those people as tax opportunities. I would describe this as a disgusting social environment, a disgusting economic system, and a disgusting government. None of the people in leadership positions are offering us any intelligent guidance or suggestions. None of our leaders are interested in designing a city for human life.
The travel magazines should be described as a form of pornography because they are intended to titillate our emotions rather than provide our intellect with useful information. They often show unrealistic scenes, such as the image above in which the people are underwater. The fantasy images titillate us into desiring to go to those places so that we can experience the excitement.
The journalists are as detrimental as the businesses because they are businesses. They are competing with one another to grab our attention and, just like other businesses, they will sell us whatever we want to purchase. They provide us with television programs and magazines that glorify traveling, which reinforces the attitude that traveling will provide us with pleasure, and that lounging on a beach in Tahiti will make our life worthwhile.

Although humans are better behaved than animals, our social environment is still very similar to theirs. For example, we are fighting with one another for food and land; we look for opportunities to exploit one another; lots of people steal and plagiarize one another; and the manner in which we fight for leadership positions is not much better than the biting and kicking of animals.

The end result of people who go on vacation is that they get bored, and businesses, government officials, and journalists exploit the situation by encouraging them to become tourists.

Many tourists might respond that they enjoy spending their vacation traveling around the world, but how would they know what they enjoy? They have never experienced any other type of life.

In our world today, a person who is on vacation doesn't have many options about how to spend his time. If he remains home, he will get bored. Traveling is a better option, but that doesn't make it the ideal option.

Tourism is based on the false assumption that other cities are more exciting than the city that we live in. The people in Chicago will travel to Paris on the assumption that Paris is more exciting than Chicago, and the people in Paris will travel to Chicago under the assumption that Chicago will be exciting.

In reality, the cities of the world are not that much different from one another. They are all chaotic, ugly, overcrowded, crime-ridden, noisy, and filthy. They are all full of graffiti, traffic congestion, unwanted pet animals, and unwanted children. Furthermore, everywhere we go in the world we find businesses trying to take our money, governments taxing us, and people trying to steal from us and cheat us. Nobody truly enjoys the city they live in, and they make the mistake of assuming that the grass will be greener on the other side of the fence.

There are only a few areas of the world that are truly unpleasant to live in, such as those near the poles, which are extremely dark and cold during the winter, and those in the extremely hot deserts.

If everybody in the world was living in a city that was attractive, clean, free of crime, and offering lots of recreational and social activities, I think most people would discover that they prefer remaining in their own city during their vacation because that avoids the annoying aspects of traveling. However, we are not going to provide ourselves with that type of city with a free enterprise system or a democracy. We must be willing to exert enough self-control to experiment with a new government system and a new economic system.

Why do tourists take so many photos?
We often take cameras with us when we travel outside of our city, and many people take a lot of photos. What happens to those photos? People are so secretive that it is impossible to know, but from my casual observations of people, most people look at those photos once after getting back from their vacation, and then the photos go into storage, and they are rarely seen again.

Why do so many tourists spend so much time and money taking billions of photos that almost nobody bothers to look at? We could describe what most tourists do as being analogous to the "hoarders" who collect excessive amounts of material items.

I think the reason most tourists take lots of photos is because they are bored. Traveling is not exciting. Our free enterprise system is fooling people into believing that we will find happiness if we give some business a lot of our money and then travel to Tahiti, Paris, the Galapagos islands, or the Antarctica. In reality, traveling is annoying to most of us.

Traveling to Stonehenge, for example, is time-consuming and boring, and when we finally arrive, there is nothing there except some grass and rocks. We can only spend a few moments looking at the grass and rocks before we become bored. Stonehenge is more interesting to us when we look at it on certain Internet sites, Museum presentations, or video documentaries because then we get an explanation of what we are looking at.

The wealthy people increase this problem by boasting about how they have traveled around the world. Their boasting creates the situation described in Dr. Seuss's book The Sneetches. Specifically, by boasting about traveling, they cause other people to believe that they are suffering because they cannot afford to travel around the world. This causes millions of people to fantasize about traveling.

When people have an opportunity to travel, they will boast about it to their friends. Some Caucasians deliberately let themselves get sunburned when they travel so that they can show everybody that they have traveled. Their boasting about traveling allows them to become the center of attention for a while, and that will titillate their emotions. However, they make the mistake of assuming that the emotional titillation is the result of traveling.

Another reason people enjoy traveling is because they frequently remind themselves over and over that they are special people for being able to travel. By stimulating themselves like that over and over, they titillate themselves over and over. This can fool them into thinking that traveling is exciting.

In reality, traveling is usually irritating, boring, and time consuming, and when we finally reach our destination, there is nothing for us to do except look at things with our eyes. We quickly become bored.

If traveling was as exciting as people assume it is, then we would enjoy doing it by ourselves. However, not many of us want to travel alone. Furthermore, when we get to our destination, most people don't pay much attention to the area that they traveled to. Most people are not interested in exploring it, or learning about it. They are more interested in spending time with their friends, visiting with other people in the area, eating food, drinking beer, playing games, going swimming, and taking photos of themselves and their friends. They enjoy the people and the social activities much more than the traveling.

I think the reason tourists take so many photos is because they are bored. By taking photos, the people have something to do. If they did not have cameras, they would become even more bored.

The free enterprise system is fooling people into believing that happiness comes from material items, traveling, being pampered by servants, lounging around a beach, having a gigantic house, and retiring early. In reality, what we enjoy the most is having activities and friends. We want to do something with our lives, and we want to do something that other people appreciate.

This magazine implies that we will find romance if we travel. This magazine implies that sailing is exciting. This magazine implies that lounging is exciting.
Instead of promoting and encouraging traveling, I think we will provide ourselves with a more pleasant life if our societies were sending the people who truly enjoy exploring the world to create museum displays and video documentaries.

There are a few people producing documentaries right now, but they are small groups of people with very limited budgets. I suggest that we experiment with increasing the labor and resources that go into producing those documentaries, and reduce the labor and resources that is going into encouraging people to travel.

I think that if we were living in a city that offered us lots of small video rooms with high quality monitors, and if we had access to lots of high quality and informative documentaries, more people would enjoy the world by watching those documentaries compared to when they travel. This is especially true of certain types of destinations, such as Stonehenge, the moon, and Mars, which are very boring.

The recent documentaries by Nature in which cameras were put into robotic animals required a tremendous amount of time and effort by the photographers, technicians, and other people. If we were to travel to those same areas of the world, we would not have seen any of those animals. Those type of documentaries allow us to see the world as we would never have seen it as a tourist.

David Attenborough also provides documentaries about the world that require a lot of time and skills to produce. If we were living in a city that had thousands of small video rooms with large, high-resolution video monitors, as in the image below, we would learn more by watching those videos than we would by traveling. Furthermore, we would be able to watch those videos in comfort, and never worry about mosquitoes, hotel rooms, or tropical diseases.

The free enterprise system is putting a lot of resources and labor into tourism, Hollywood movies, gambling operations, pets, and other entertainment, but not because our leaders have put a lot of effort into analyzing humans, and have come to the conclusion that those activities provide us with the most pleasant life. Rather, a lot of resources are going into those particular activities because the free enterprise system gives us what we want, and what is profitable to businesses.

As I have mentioned before, we should assume a zoo exhibit is inappropriate when the animals behave abnormally. It is not abnormal for people to want to take photos, but I think people are taking an abnormally large number of photos, and I think the reason is because they are bored. I think that when a city starts experimenting with its social environment, they will discover that as life improves for the people, the people spend less time taking photos, and when they take photos, they put more effort into creating the photo.

I think that one of the reasons that people want to become tourists is because their city is not providing them with enough recreational and social activities, and our cities are ugly, chaotic, noisy, frightening, and unpleasant. If we were living in attractive, clean, and quiet cities, and if we reduced crime to extremely low levels, and if the city government was providing lots of recreational and social activities, we would have less of an interest in leaving our city and more of an interest in enjoying it.

Why not let computers provide us with video of ourselves?
I suspect that we would see a decrease in the interest in taking photos if we were living in a city in which computers were keeping track of us and recording video of us at recreational activities, social clubs, weddings, and other events. In that type of city, we would have access to a tremendous about of video of ourselves and our friends, and without any effort. The computers would not provide us with video that is as entertaining as if humans were operating the cameras, but I think we would enjoy it, anyway.

Right now the software to control video cameras and track people is crude, and voice recognition software could use some improvements, but imagine living in a city in which the software is more advanced. In that type of city, you could get together with your friends in one of the thousands of small video rooms in the city and give the computer some voice commands, such as: "Show us the video of when we were at the city festival five years ago and playing volleyball at the beach."

The computer would know who is in the room, and who was speaking, so it would look in its database of video and find those people five years ago at the city festival when they were playing volleyball. It would then display it on the large, high resolution video monitor for them to watch, as in the image below.
Would you use that system if you had access to it? Even though the video from that system would be coming from cameras that were not controlled as well as people would do, I think the system would be so simple to use, and provide us with so much video about ourselves, that most people would enjoy using the system once in a while to look back at their life, and that of their friends and family members. It is conceivable that we lose some of our interest in watching strangers play sports and develop a greater interest in reminiscing about our lives.

Technology offers us a tremendous number of options. I can only imagine a few of the possibilities. Thousands of years ago, nobody could have imagined that we would have computers, airplanes, and food products from around the world. As soon as we start exploring our cultural options, we are going to start discovering all sorts of ways to improve city festivals, schools, leisure activities, and jobs.

Thousands of years from now the people are likely to have holiday celebrations, economic systems, recreational activities, and social clubs that we cannot imagine, but which we would consider to be superior to what we have today. They are also likely to create cities that are more beautiful, quiet, and orderly than anything we can imagine, and with transportation systems, swimming areas, parks, and recreational facilities that are superior to anything we can fantasize about.

However, we are not going to improve anything as long as people are frightened to explore their options, and as long as we allow our world to be dominated by criminals and monarchies.

Businesses are trying to convince us to pay a fee to watch strangers play sports, music, Jeopardy, and other games, but I think we will have more fun playing the games ourselves, watching our friends and family members play them, and recording the events on video so that we can scan through them decades later and reminisce about our life.

A lot of people today do not want to reminisce about their life because their life has been unpleasant. I think this is more evidence that people today are not truly enjoying life. When most people get old, they do not want to start singing, "What a Wonderful World". Rather, they want to cry.

I suspect that one of the ways that we can conclude that we have truly improved our society is when we notice that a larger number of people enjoy reminiscing about their past.

What do you enjoy the most about Christmas?
Because of our craving for material items, and because we enjoy giving gifts, Christmas has evolved through the centuries to become a holiday in which we give lots of gifts to one another. If material items truly provided us with happiness, then people would enjoy reminiscing as they watched video of themselves opening presents at Christmas. Although many people take photos or videos of themselves at Christmas, there are two important aspects of this to notice:
My parents took only a few photos during Christmas holidays, and they show family members, such as the one above of me and my two brothers. My parents did not take photos of gifts, Christmas trees, or food. What do your Christmas photos show?
1) Most people focus the camera on the people, not the gifts.
2) Years later, when we look at the photos or video, most of us enjoy the memories of the people, not of the gifts.
If we truly received pleasure from material items, then the person with the camera would focus attention on the gifts rather than the people.

Furthermore, if material items were the most exciting aspect of Christmas, we would be just as happy to spend Christmas alone, and we would be just as happy to purchase gifts for ourselves. However, to most of us, the saddest Christmas would be a Christmas that we spent alone, not a Christmas in which we did not have any gifts.

To complicate this issue, everybody has slightly different emotional characteristics, so each of us enjoys slightly different aspects of Christmas. For example, to the people who have an above-average craving for material items, the gifts of Christmas will have more significance to them compared to the people who have a below-average interest in material items.

To further complicate this issue, since we are not controlling reproduction, every generation has more diversity in emotional and intellectual qualities than the previous generation, and more defects. This is resulting in a wider variety of people, which in turn means that different people are enjoying different aspects of Christmas.

Even worse, some of the defective people are enjoying "abnormal" aspects of Christmas. For example, the pedophiles may regard Christmas as an opportunity to dress up as Santa Claus and fondle children. To the religious fanatics, Christmas may be a celebration of Jesus. To people with extreme cravings for food, the most exciting aspect of Christmas may be the food and candies.

To the "normal" people, the most exciting aspect of Christmas are the people. However, since we are titillated by receiving gifts, and we enjoy giving gifts, especially to children, most people come to the false conclusion that gifts are the most exciting aspect of Christmas.

As a result, most people waste their Christmas holidays on gift related activities, such as shopping and packaging gifts, and returning some of the gifts after Christmas is over. They focus their attention on objects that have no meaning to them. This is one of the reasons they don't want to reminisce about their life. Who wants to reminisce about shopping for gifts, opening gifts, or returning gifts?

If we were to live in the kind of city that I've suggested, there would be no gift giving of any type during any of our holidays. There would be no businesses or organized religions to manipulate the holidays, either. Christmas would be a social affair for us to get together to enjoy the winter recreational activities, enjoy the people, and enjoy life.

Christmas could extend for weeks if we wanted it to. It could be a time of city festivals and recreational activities. Some people might enjoy getting together to sing at the festivals, and others might like to get the together to decorate the city, and others might enjoy taking children on an exploration of the forest to show them how it changes during the winter. By getting together with people and doing things with them, we have something to record on video, and we have something to reminisce about when we get older.

We regard obese people as having low self-control, but not billionaires
Nobody wants to be obese, and we all enjoy criticizing other people, so we all enjoy criticizing obese people for having low self-control, or for being stupid and/or neurotic. However, we have such strong cravings for material wealth that we do not regard people with enormous wealth as being analogous to obese people.

We do not regard the wealthy people as having low self-control, or as being neurotic. Rather, most people believe that the more material wealth we have, the better our life will be. Not many people believe that there is a point at which they have acquired so much material wealth that they are interfering with their lives and happiness. Our emotions are titillated so strongly by gigantic mansions, private jets, gigantic yachts, and goldplated phones that most people cannot believe that it is possible to have "too much" material wealth.

If people would put some effort into thinking about the issue of material wealth, most people probably have the intelligence necessary to understand that after a person has acquired a certain amount of material wealth, anything beyond that becomes a nuisance and a burden, but just as most people have trouble controlling their consumption of food, most people have trouble controlling their craving for material wealth. Some people have so little self-control that they will commit crimes to get more material items, and some people will form friendships and marriages simply to get access to more wealth.

To make the situation worse, we have a strong desire to compete with one another, and that causes us to compare our pile of material items to the pile of other people. We want to acquire more than they have, even if it makes no sense to have more, and even if we hurt ourselves in the process of acquiring more.
The magazines that glorify material wealth should also be described as a form of pornography.
Every society is currently promoting the attitude that the people who acquire extremely large quantities of material wealth are admirable, talented people who are superior to the rest of us. Most women seem to fantasize about marrying a wealthy man, and there are enormous numbers of men struggling to become wealthy, often through illegal or immoral manners.

Imagine if a group of monkeys were to behave in this manner. Imagine if a few of the monkeys acquired such enormous piles of bananas that most of the bananas were rotting before they could eat them. Imagine the other monkeys reacted by admiring those monkeys, and struggling to create gigantic piles of bananas for themselves. You would not admire those monkeys. You would regard them as neurotic.

Most people would be embarrassed to watch a pornography video or look at a Playboy magazine in a public location, such as an airline terminal, cafe, train, or the waiting room of a doctor's office. They would be even more embarrassed to masturbate as they watched the video. However, every society considers it normal and acceptable for people to look at magazines that glorify and stimulate our cravings for material wealth. Many businesses, doctors, and dentists even put those type of magazines in their lobby.

What is the difference between a person who is sitting in a lobby of a hospital and masturbating while he looks at a Playboy magazine, and a person who is stimulating himself as he looks at magazines that glorify material wealth? It is exactly the same behavior, but the people are stimulating different emotions.

In a free enterprise system, we get whatever we want, even if it is stupid, wasteful, or detrimental. For example, businesses are providing us with a wide variety of magazines and videos for us to stimulate various emotions. There are magazines to stimulate our sexual cravings, our cravings for material wealth, a woman's craving for babies, a woman's craving for weddings, a man's craving for status, and our craving to lounge and be pampered.

The magazines titillate us, which causes us to be attracted to them and to assume that they are good for us, but pornographic material is harmful because it causes us to develop unrealistic goals, and to imagine that we are suffering because we don't have whatever we see in the photos. For example, a lot of people have developed the belief that an infinity pool is more exciting than a regular swimming pool.

An infinity pool is exciting only because they are so rare that the people who have one can jerk themselves off by telling themselves that they are special people for having one. If infinity pools were common, then the businesses would compete with one another to find some other type of unusual pool to titillate the wealthy people with.

I think we would find that our lives improve if we take control of our economic system and prohibit journalists and businesses from stimulating us and exploiting us. Businesses should compete to improve society, not to make profit. Journalists should be competing to provide us with useful information, not to titillate us. Our economic system is encouraging idiotic and wasteful behavior, and causing people to develop idiotic goals in life.

Our culture is a reflection of our mental characteristics
If we were to put all of the obese people in their own city, their cravings for food would slowly cause their social affairs to evolve around food. Birthday parties, Christmas celebrations, weddings, and other activities would increase their emphasis on food, and they would provide excessive amounts of food.

If we were to put all of the religious fanatics in their own city, their attraction to religion would slowly cause their social affairs to become more religious. Their birthday parties, Christmas celebrations, weddings, city decorations, and other culture would become increasingly involved with religion.

If a society consisted of people who enjoy becoming intoxicated, their culture would evolve into regarding drunken people as amusing, and they would provide alcoholic beverages at weddings, to the winners of sports events, and at other social occasions.
If people like Tony Podesta and Biljana Djurdjevic dominated society, then the artwork would evolve into what they supposedly like, such as the image to the right, which is a portion of one of Djurdjevic's paintings. And, of course, the social activities would evolve to fit whatever they enjoy.

At Voodoo Doughnut in Portland Oregon, which I mentioned in the previous document as using a pedophile symbol in their logo, they have an annual contest in which the men compete to fit the most donuts on their penis.

They also produce a cream filled doughnut that is supposed to look like a penis and testicles. They refer to it as the Cock-N-Balls doughnut. If our nation had a greater percentage of those type of people, then more of our food products would be shaped like sex organs, and there would be more contests and activities that have a sexual aspect to them.

Now imagine a city in which everybody has a lot of self-control over their cravings for food, material items, status, envy, sex, revenge, and anger. Their social affairs would slowly change through time, also, but in a different way. For example, they would have food at many of their social affairs, but they would be more likely to arrange it in artistic manners rather than sexual manners. They might have contests, also, but they would prefer contests that were safe and fun rather than dangerous, sexual, or wasteful.

Our culture is changing haphazardly through time to fit the emotional desires of the people in society. Also, many businesses, governments, religions, and other organizations try to manipulate culture for their own selfish benefit, and some government officials try to manipulate our culture to appease their supporters or themselves.

Obese people want more food; religious fanatics want more religion; the gun fanatics want more guns; the people who have abnormally strong cravings for sex want more sex; and almost everybody craves more material wealth and land. Our cravings are causing us to inadvertently modify our culture in order to give us what we want. Unfortunately, what we want is not always what we need. We are allowing our culture to become inappropriate and irrational.

Everybody has cravings for something, and we believe that satisfying our cravings will make us happier, but this is not true. We cannot increase our happiness simply by satisfying an emotional craving, and we do not ruin our life simply by refusing to satisfy an emotional craving.

Our prehistoric ancestors had the same strong cravings for food, material items, sex, children, weapons, and status, as you and I do, but their cravings could never get out of control. It was impossible for them to acquire enormous amounts of material items or food. They could not arrange for thousands of sports contests, beauty pageants, Nobel prizes, and other contests, or provide the winners with giant trophies or large amounts of money. They could not provide themselves with pornography, either, and it was impossible for them to create organized religions with giant churches and religious paraphernalia.
In this modern world, our technology allows us to go to extremes in order to titillate our emotional cravings. For example, we can produce food in such enormous quantities that we become obese, and we can produce enormous amounts of religious materials, such as gigantic statues of Jesus that overlook the city.

Men today have access to enormous amounts of pornography that allows us to stimulate ourselves beyond the level that is natural for us, and for longer periods of time, but we are not going to improve our lives with more sexual titillation. Women today have access to enormous quantities and varieties of dolls and pet dogs that they can use to titillate their cravings for babies, but that is not going to improve their lives, either.

People assume that they are enjoying life as a result of having large quantities of food, material items, sex, pet dogs, religion, and guns, but we do not increase our enjoyment of life simply by eating more food, having more sex, acquiring more material items, becoming more famous, or spending more time praying to Jesus. Life is not that simple.

Unfortunately, people who don't want to think about what they are doing, or who don't have the intellectual ability to understand these concepts, will assume that they are increasing their happiness as they titillate their emotional cravings.

We assume that we become happy when we satisfy our cravings, but we were designed for an environment in which we never truly get what we want. Animals were designed to work every day. We were designed for an environment in which we never have as much food, sleep, or material items as we want. We were designed to enjoy the pursuit of our cravings. We get the most enjoyment from the process of trying to achieve our goals, not from the achievement of the goals.

We create fantasies of having lots of material wealth and food, and of being admired and pampered, and of spending our time relaxing and sleeping, but we were not designed to achieve our fantasies. We were designed to struggle to achieve our fantasies, and to deal with problems in the process. We fantasize about lounging around on yachts while servants pamper us, but that would become incredibly boring after a few weeks. We are happiest in an environment in which we are under pressure to do something, and something that other people appreciate.

The illusion of happiness
Most people believe that they are happiest when they can do what they want, and they believe they are miserable when they have to do something they don't want to do. As a result, businesses, journalists, schools, and governments can fool people into believing that they are happy simply by pandering to them. For some examples of how you can fool a person into liking you and thinking that you are helping to make him happy:
• If a person wants to eat excessive amounts of food, don't argue with him. Let him eat excessive amounts and he will believe that he is happy, whereas if you try to control his food consumption, or if you criticize him, he will assume that you are making him suffer.

If he becomes sick, obese, or develops diabetes from his excessive food consumption, don't reprimand him for making stupid decisions about food. Let him react in whatever manner he pleases. For example, if he wants to follow some idiotic diet, give him whatever diet he wants to try. If he wants to inject himself with insulin rather than lose weight, then provide him with insulin.

Let him do anything he pleases, no matter how worthless or self-destructive, because every time he does something that he wants to do, he will receive some pleasure. He will assume that he is enjoying life as a result of that momentary pleasure, and that you are his friend, even if he is actually making his life more miserable.

• If a person wants to feel important, then create a contest for him that he can win. Because people have different abilities, this requires we create lots of contests. For example, the Olympics offers contests to run 60 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, 400 meters, 800 meters, and so on, and some of those contests have hurdles to jump over.

For people who are not athletic, set up some other contest, such as eating the most hard-boiled eggs in five minutes. The entertainers have created dozens of awards for themselves, such as Creative Spirit Award, Golden Globe awards, and the Oscars.

Provide people with contests that they can win, even if the contests seem idiotic to you. The people who win the contest will be titillated every time they win a contest, and they will assume that they are enjoying life as a result, and that you are wonderful for creating the contest, even though you might regard the contest as a waste of their life.

• If a person wants a large trophy rather than a small trophy, then give him a large trophy. As long as he is getting what he wants, he will feel happy, even if he is getting nothing of value, and even if he puts himself through a lot of stress and frustration in the process of winning the trophy.

• If a person wants to collect excessive amounts of material items, let him, even if it clutters his home, puts a financial burden on him, or causes him to waste a lot of his time maintaining his items.

• If a person wants some advice, then give him whatever advice he wants, and if he wants some criticism, then give him whatever criticism that he wants. However, don't give him real advice or real criticism. Give him whatever he wants. For example, when people ask, "Do you like my hair?", they usually want you to say "Yes". If you sense that they have doubts about their hairstyle, then you could say "no". Tell people what they want to hear and you will make them feel good, and they will like you.
• If a student wants good grades in school, then give him good grades, and if he wants a diploma, then give him a diploma. Don't make him earn what he wants; just give it to him. The high grades and diploma will be meaningless, but he will feel good because he will get what he wants.
• If parents want to boast about their child doing well at school, don't criticize them. Instead, give them bumper stickers to put on their car, such as the one to the right.

• If a person wants Hollywood gossip, don't argue with him. Give him whatever gossip he is interested in.
If you pander to a person, you will fool him into thinking that you are his friend, and that he is happy. This is the reason democracies and free enterprise systems are so attractive to us. Democracies cause government officials to pander to us, and free enterprise systems cause businesses to pander to us. No matter what we want or complain about, some government official or business will try to please us.

In a free enterprise system, businesses promote the attitude that "The Customer Is King". Some businesses advertise their services with such phrases as, "You're number one with us!" Animals have cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, so we are titillated when businesses pretend that we are special, and that they are subservient to us.

We can even ask for something ridiculous, and some business or government official will try to please us. For some examples:
• Do you want to fantasize that you are a race car driver or a bicycle racer? Businesses will sell you imitation racing cars, such as Lamborghinis and Corvettes, so that you can imagine that you have a race car, and they will sell you lightweight, imitation racing bicycles so that you can imagine that you are a bicycle racer. (I have this document about imitation racing bikes.)

• Do you want to live forever? The Cryonics Institute will freeze you in liquid nitrogen, and store you until the technology becomes available to give you eternal life, and the Ambrosia company will give you transfusions of blood from younger people.

• Are you worried about aliens from another planet abducting you? Businesses will sell you insurance policies to protect you and your family from that potential disaster.

• Do you want to go to the moon or Mars? Businesses will provide you with that opportunity, and Hollywood will provide you with movies in which you can pretend that you are an astronaut.

• Do you want to believe that you have a free press, and that people in other nations are victims of propaganda? Journalists and authors will sell you news reports that let you read about how our journalists are honest and providing us with the truth, and that other nations are deceived with propaganda.
If you let a person do whatever he pleases, and if you tell him whatever he likes to hear, he will assume he is happy. He will also appreciate you, even if you are hurting him and exploiting him. However, if you interfere with his attempt to satisfy himself, or if you criticize him, he will assume that you are making him suffer, "insulting" him, and "oppressing" him. He will become angry with you, even if you are actually helping him.

Who is our friend? Who is helping to improve our life, and who is exploiting us? Most people routinely make terrible decisions about this issue. For example, most voters are attracted to candidates who provide them with praise, and who promise them whatever they want. As a result, the voters are routinely electing liars. Our natural tendency is to behave like Katie Piper, who assumed that a man who gave her a lot of praise and attention was her Prince Charming.

Democracies and free enterprise systems provide us with government and business leaders who pander to us, and that allows us to satisfy our cravings, which creates the illusion that we are happy. Whenever we satisfy one of our cravings, we experience some momentary titillation, and that causes us to assume that we are enjoying life, even if we are actually hurting ourself. By comparison, whenever somebody interferes with our attempt to satisfy one of our cravings, we assume that we are suffering, even if he is doing something beneficial for us.
Democracies and free enterprise create a society in which people are constantly trying to titillate themselves over and over, like a rat with an electrode in its brain. They are not enjoying life; rather, they are simply titillating themselves.

Democracies and free enterprise systems are fooling people into believing that they are happy when in reality most people are so miserable that they don't want to reminisce about their life. They want to forget about their past. When they get old, they don't have a collection of wonderful memories to look back on and talk about. They have miserable memories of fighting, frustration, loneliness, and awkwardness.

In our current economic and government system, the people are treated as Kings and Queens, but in the government system I propose, the people will be treated as team members. They will be treated like soldiers in a military, or employees of a business. The government officials and businesses would create policies to create a stable society, not to please the people.

In order for that type of government and economic system to be successful, the people must be able to exert enough self-control to think about what is best for society. People cannot assume that they are suffering simply because they cannot do something that they want to do. As with employees of a business, they will have to think of what is best for the organization.

People who cannot exert enough self-control, or who cannot understand these concepts, are not going to be able to become members of a more rational society. They will want to behave like animals that chase after simplistic emotional titillation. They will become upset when they cannot get what they want.

The free enterprise system has become inappropriate
The free enterprise system was practical many centuries ago because most of the people were self-employed farmers or business owners, and there was not much business activity. Today the situation has reversed itself. All of us are purchasing almost everything we use and eat. Furthermore, most people are employees, and they are working to help make some business executives and investors extremely wealthy. They are not working for themselves, or for society.

Animals evolved to satisfy themselves. They were not designed to be slaves or servants of some other animal. Humans are even more advanced than the animals. We want to work in teams for the benefit of the team. We do not get much satisfaction from working to make somebody else wealthy.

Free enterprise works very well for primitive people, and it is the only system that they are capable of understanding, but it is becoming increasingly undesirable as our technology increases and our societies become more complex. In this modern world, our jobs would be more satisfying if we could work with other people, and for the benefit of society, as opposed to working for a few business executives, and for the purpose of making them extremely wealthy, especially if we are also doing a job that is worthless or detrimental to society.

It's easy to manipulate people's desires
We enjoy getting what we want, but many people don't realize that a lot of what they want is actually something that other people want. As I pointed out in other documents, we pick up bits of information from other people as we grow up, and I use the word "information" to include "goals" and "desires". As a result, many of the goals that we have set for ourselves are not actually "our" goals. Rather, we are picking up ideas from other people on how to spend our life. Our goals are influenced by the information that we were exposed to.

It is very easy to deceive people into believing that they are getting what they want when in reality they are being manipulated. A simple example is that businesses arrange for contests and awards, such as food eating contests, athletic contests, beauty pageants, and awards for setting world records. At the Guinness World Records website, this page is encouraging people to apply for the fastest time to cut a pumpkin underwater.

If a person were to practice cutting pumpkins underwater, and if he were to win the world record for doing it, he would be proud of himself. He would assume that he has achieved what he wanted to achieve. However, it would make more sense to describe the situation as a person who has been manipulated into desiring such an award, and then foolishly wasting his time trying to achieve a goal that he had no interest in, and does not benefit from.

Businesses, schools, governments, and other organizations offer us thousands of contests and awards, and this stimulates our competitive nature. This causes some people to put a lot of time and effort into practicing for the contests, and other people to become spectators of the contest.

All of the participants and spectators of the contest believe that they are doing what they want to do, and they believe they are happy doing it, but in reality, they have been manipulated into desiring something that they did not have any interest in.

There are thousands of people practicing to win beauty contests, food eating contests, and athletic contests. The people who are practicing to win contests believe that they are doing what they want, but if they had been raised in a society in which they had the basic necessities for free, and there were no financial prizes for winning contests, would those people continue to be interested in putting phenomenal amounts of time and effort into practicing for those contests? I don't think so.

In a different environment, our desires and goals would change. For example, if we remove the financial rewards for winning contests, we will still enjoy competing with one another, but we will be interested only in competitions that are more casual and safe, and which provide us with entertainment, exercise, and/or socializing.

The magazines and television shows that glorify material wealth and traveling are also causing people to develop goals and desires that they would otherwise never have. The people who take a trip to Tahiti to lounge on the beach assume that they are doing what they want to do, but the businesses gave them that idea. They would have saved a lot of time, money, and trouble if they had lounged inside their own home.

The religions also manipulate their members into doing things, such as putting displays of a baby Jesus on their front lawn at Christmas, or traveling through neighborhoods to recruit new members to their religion. The people who get involved with those activities believe that they are doing what they want to do, but the religions manipulated them into having those desires.

If the government were to prohibit food eating contests, and competitions to cut pumpkins underwater, many people would become angry that the government is interfering with their life and their pursuit of happiness. However, if we could provide ourselves with higher quality government officials, then we would benefit if they promoted beneficial activities and prohibited the idiotic, wasteful, destructive, and dangerous activities.

Parents do not set up idiotic activities or contests for their children to participate in. Parents don't arrange contests for their children to eat the most hotdogs, or to set a world record for sitting in a tub of ice water. Parents try to create activities that are more beneficial.

Also, parents do not stimulate their children into desiring material items or vacations by showing them photos of infinity pools, or children lounging on a beach in Tahiti, or showing them photos of toys and candy bars.

Actually, if parents were to stimulate their children with photos of candy bars and toys, most people would describe them as "tormenting" the children. What is the difference between parents who are doing that to their children, and businesses that are stimulating adults with magazines and television programs of material wealth?

If the voters would provide us with leaders who behave like parents, then our government would design a city to provide recreational and social activities that have more value to us than those that the businesses and religions are currently providing.

Furthermore, the government would not permit businesses or other organizations to stimulate people with any type of pornographic material. The government would insist that all businesses and organizations encourage beneficial attitudes and behavior.

We will not improve our lives simply by having government officials or businesses pander to us, or by having schools give us good grades or diplomas, or by having journalists tell us that we have a free press. We are animals, and we get the most satisfaction from life by being a member of a society, and working with our friends to do something useful for the group.

Free enterprise does not always provide us with jobs that we can get satisfaction from, and it does not encourage people to work together for the benefit of society. It encourages fighting between businesses, and it encourages people to focus excessively on material items and money. It encourages people to regard one another as profit-making opportunities or as enemies rather than as people and friends. It also encourages a lot of idiotic activities.

A democracy does not give us what we need, either. In order to improve our lives, we have to stop being fooled by our emotions into thinking that happiness comes from pleasing ourselves. Parents don't pander to their children, and governments should not pander to the people, either.

Will blood transfusions prevent old age or death?
Incidentally, I mentioned that the Ambrosia company will give transfusions of young people's blood to extend a person's life. Blood transfusions can indeed help a person whose body cannot maintain proper blood chemistry, just as a kidney dialysis machine can help people with defective kidneys, but the beneficial effect is only for a few days. People who have blood problems would need the transfusions or dialysis machines on a regular basis.

Furthermore, those type of treatments will not stop a person from growing old and dying because those treatments cannot extend our life. Rather, all they can do is delay the death of a sickly person so that he might be able to live as long as the people in better health.

Elderly people who have problems with their blood chemistry might benefit from transfusions, but they might also benefit by taking supplements of whatever they are missing, such as vitamins or thyroid hormones, or by having dialysis machines clean their blood. They don't need to have transfusions of blood.

The fact that so many people want transfusions of blood that businesses are developing to satisfy them makes me wonder if some people are involved with the kidnapping and killing of children for their blood. I saw an accusation on the Internet that George Soros wanted Madeline McCann because he believes that she has the type of blood that he needs. Is that just an idiotic rumor? Or are some wealthy people actually buying children from parents, and kidnapping other children, and then killing those children for their blood?

Democracies encourage parasitic behavior
If you feed a wild animal of certain species, it will eventually become accustomed to getting food from you, and it will come back for more food. You will train it to become a parasite. The situation is even worse if you do this to the children of the wild animal. Those children might become dependent upon you for food because they might not bother to learn how to survive on their own.

Animals have a craving to spend every day relaxing, and every night sleeping. They do not want to work, be responsible, think, learn, or have discussions. If animals could have inheritances, trust funds, welfare, Social Security, tax benefits, or alimony, they would take it. Animals would not be too proud to take handouts. They don't have any desire to earn what they want. If they could make a living by investing in the stock market, or by winning lotteries, or by marrying somebody wealthy, they would do so.

Animals also grab at whatever attracts their attention. They don't care how they get what they want. They have no desire to earn what they want. If some animals are living in an area where humans were regularly putting food in an area where the animals could grab at it, they would take it from us. If they were successful in grabbing the food, they would come back to do it the next day, and they would do this throughout their entire lives, and without any guilt or shame. Actually, there are animals doing this right now. For example, there are seagulls regularly grabbing food from people along piers, and there are monkeys in some nations regularly grabbing food from tourists.

As a result of these characteristics, animals are easily domesticated. A domesticated animal is a parasite that becomes accustomed to handouts and pampering. If we want a domesticated animal to do something for us, we have to offer it food and attention as a reward. However, the animal is not actually doing something for us. Rather, it is doing something for the reward.

Humans can also become domesticated. If there were some aliens from another solar system offering to give us free robots to be our maids, cooks, and gardeners, and if they were offering to provide us with free and wonderful food and material items, we would take the offer. Most people would quit their job and survive on the free food, free material items, and free robots. We would become like domesticated pets. Who among us would refuse the free robots or free material items?

Some people might claim that they would not take handouts from aliens from another solar system, but we cannot believe what people say about themselves. People are arrogant, and we are always looking for opportunities to boast about ourselves.

The history of the human race shows that people enjoy being parasitic. Take a look at the primitive nations. All of them are parasitic. The people in the primitive nations constantly beg for handouts, especially food and medical services. They also want our handouts when they suffer from earthquakes or floods. Has there ever been a nation that suffered an earthquake or drought and then told the other nations, "No, don't help us! We need to learn how to deal with these problems and take care of ourselves."

Our emotions have cravings for food, sex, status, and other things, but we don't have any craving to earn what we want. We want things, but we don't care how we get them. As a result, our emotions are attracted to the concept of getting something for nothing.
Businesses take advantage of this characteristic by offering us things for free. Our emotions have a difficult time resisting an offer that is "free". In reality, businesses are not providing us with anything that is free. We are paying indirectly for all of the free items.

The offers of free items are deceptive. We could describe it as abusive and disgusting because the businesses are treating us like dogs on a race track who are chasing after a simulated rabbit.

All humans have these crude characteristics, so don't let your arrogance fool yourself into believing that you are better than the rest of us and are not attracted to offers of free items, or that you are not easily domesticated.

All of us need to exert some self-control and think about what we are doing so that we can avoid being manipulated by offers of free items, and resist becoming parasitic, domesticated creatures.

In this modern world, we need to learn about our crude characteristics rather than pretend they don't exist. We must face the evidence that we are animals, and that some of our qualities are undesirable today.
In addition to being attracted to free items, our emotions want us to grab at whatever we are attracted to, just like pets that grab at meat on the kitchen counter.

People often giggle at this behavior when animals do it, but it is not amusing when humans do it. This characteristic causes a lot of crimes, and in addition, it causes a lot of fights between nations.

People all around the world are regularly grabbing at one another's material items, land, children, and resources.

This behavior is also occurring among our leaders. For example, business executives and investors try to grab all the material wealth for themselves. They boast that they are earning their billions of dollars, but it makes no sense to say that some people are earning that much money. Those people are simply grabbing at what they want.

If some aliens from another solar system were to visit us, we would find that billions of people would beg the aliens for handouts, especially medical services, and that many people would try to steal items from them. Some men would try to rape their females or, in the case of our government officials, rape their children.

If the aliens were willing to give us robots and material wealth, we would take it. This would create a world in which the human children were growing up in an environment in which the adults were getting everything they wanted from the aliens and the robots, and that would cause the children to lose their incentive to learn a skill and get a job. The children would become so dependent upon the aliens and robots that they would be unable to survive without them. They would become just like domesticated animals.

If aliens refused to give us technology, and if they also refused to help us when earthquakes destroyed our cities, many people would become angry at them, but would they be hurting us by doing nothing? Or would they be helping us?

When zoologists observe wild animals, they do not feel sorry for the animals. They do not give the animals food when they are hungry, and they do not help the dying animals to survive. They merely observe the animals, and they allow them to eat one another, die from accidents, and die from diseases.

We need to follow the same philosophy with humans. We are not helping the primitive nations when we give them handouts. When they experience earthquakes or hurricanes, we should ignore their suffering and deaths. We can provide them with advice and information, but they need to learn how to deal with the problem themselves. Handouts simply encourage people to become parasitic crybabies who whine for more handouts.

The only sensible way to help other people and other societies is to provide them with information. If the people of a foreign nation cannot or will not use that information to take care of themselves, that is their problem, not ours.

Giving handouts to primitive nations can also inadvertently help to support corrupt or incompetent governments and businesses. For example, if the North Korean people were to experience such a shortage of food that some of them began dying of hunger, what should happen is that the North Korean people become so disgusted with their nation that they make changes to their economic system and/or government, thereby improving their nation. However, if we feel sorry for them and give them food, we will pacify the people, thereby dampening their desire to improve their nation.

In the previous document of this series, I pointed out that humans and animals have a high tolerance for abuse. Our natural tendency is to ignore problems until they become severe. We have to suffer to an extreme before we are willing to make changes to our attitudes or society. This is especially true of the people who call themselves "conservatives". Therefore, when primitive nations suffer from problems, we should let them suffer, and we should tell them to do something to fix their problem.

We must face the evidence that we are monkeys
We are not going to improve our world by lying to ourselves about what we are. We are monkeys, and there are genetic differences between us that make some of us inferior to others. We need to understand ourselves, exert some self-control, and design a world that makes intellectual sense, even if it is emotionally unpleasant.

People are constantly fantasizing about getting lots of money through investments, gambling, winning lotteries, marrying somebody wealthy, or by creating a popular YouTube video, book, or business. Not many people fantasize about earning what they want, or getting together with other people to maintain their city. We fantasize about lounging, being pampered by servants, having other people grow food for us, and having servants to clean up our messes.

Our fantasies are unrealistic and absurd, and we should encourage one another to stop these fantasies and be more sensible. Television programs, books, and magazines should stop glorifying material wealth, Hollywood celebrities, and retirement. They should stop making it seem as if people who are lounging are having more fun than people who are working. We should stop promoting the belief that children who have trust funds and inheritances are having a better life than children who have to work for everything they want.

Humans have a greater interest in taking care of themselves than animals, but this desire is not equal in all of us. At one extreme are the people who have the least concern about earning what they want. They will beg for donations and handouts without any shame, embarrassment, or guilt. Many of them will commit crimes to get what they want. They are frequently looking for ways to make money without doing anything in return. Those people should not be allowed in influential positions.

Our societies are currently dominated by people who want to be pampered Kings and Queens. They are promoting a crude, animal-like philosophy. We should restrict leadership positions to people who will be team members, and who work with us and live with us.

There are a lot of possible government systems, but the democracy is the most appealing to us because it satisfies our craving to be important and have other people pander to us. In order for us to create a better world, we need to exert some self-control and give ourselves the type of government we need rather than the government we want. We need leadership, not pampering.

A democracy causes humans to behave like domesticated animals. It causes people to become accustomed to getting whatever they want. It encourages us to make demands of other people. It does not encourage us to control ourselves, think, learn about ourselves, deal with criticism, or work with people for the benefit of the team.

A democracy encourages everybody to believe that they are so educated and intelligent that they will make wise decisions about which political candidate to vote for, and what the best policies are for abortion, terrorism, and unemployment. It encourages people to become arrogant.
The red line shows that the government has been hiring people continuously since 1939. The blue line shows the people in manufacturing.
Another problem with democracies is that because we do not like to work, and since a democracy gives voters control over the government, many voters pressure the government to provide them with jobs in the government, and they pressure the government into making it difficult to fire somebody. This causes the government to become larger every year, and to accumulate a lot of useless employees.

Most of the growth in the United States government has been among local governments, and some people justify the growth by pointing out that the population is increasing, but that does not justify hiring more government employees or increasing taxes. We have to judge a government according to what it does for us. We should provide job performance reviews to government employees.

What are the local government employees doing for their city? What are the state employees doing for their state? What are the federal government employees doing for the nation?

The growth in government would be acceptable if the government employees were providing us with useful services, but in a democracy, there is no quality control department to ensure that government employees are doing something useful. Instead, the voters are supposed to watch over the government and tell the government officials what to do.

Also, government employees are allowed to vote, which creates a conflict of interest. Specifically, the government employees are not likely to vote for candidates who will make government employees do useful work, or who will reduce the size of government.

The end result of a democracy is that the government becomes large and inefficient. Instead of providing leadership to the nation, the government becomes a burden.

Actually, our governments are worse than a burden; they are criminal operations that are ruining life for everybody. The voters are so incompetent, and so many people are so apathetic, that crime networks have been able to dominate our governments, police departments, media, schools, military, and other organizations.

We will never improve our nations as long as we continue to promote the philosophy that the majority of people can make wise decisions about voting, abortion, economic issues, and schools. We need to face the evidence that the majority of people are unable to cope with life today, and that we need to provide ourselves with leaders who can provide us with intelligent guidance.

We promote freedom, but we practice oppression
Everybody promotes the concept that each of us should have freedom, and Americans are constantly boasting that we have more freedom than the people of other nations, but in reality, all people and all societies practice the same behavior that we see with monkeys. Specifically, we have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, and to force other people to do as we say. Our emotions want to control other people, not give them freedom.

For example, the people who regard themselves as "conservatives" boast about how they support freedom, but they do not want to provide people with the freedom to choose assisted suicide or abortion, or to have the freedom to use marijuana, heroin, thyroid hormones, insulin, and other drugs. The conservatives are willing to provide us with only the freedoms that they want, such as the freedom to own guns, drink alcohol, and join organized religions. They want to suppress all of the freedoms that they don't approve of.

The conservatives are hypocrites when they claim to support freedom. They do not support freedom. They behave just like monkeys who want to force other people to follow their orders. They want to be dictators, and they want us to be their slaves who obey their demands.

The liberals are also hypocrites. They claim to support freedom, but they want us to have only the freedoms that they approve of, and they want to suppress all other freedoms. They also claim to promote love, peace, and nonviolence, but many of them practice violence, hatred, tantrums, and bullying. For example, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election, many of them had tantrums, some of which were violent.

As I have mentioned many times, we cannot believe what people say about themselves. People are arrogant, and we don't have a good understanding of ourselves. We are constantly looking for opportunities to boast about ourselves and criticize other people. We boast about how we support freedom, and how we are peaceful and loving, but in reality, we behave just like monkeys. We are dictatorial and selfish, and we want other people to obey us, not do as they please.

We are descendants of a long line of top ranking monkeys, and that has caused us to evolve cravings to control other people, not provide them with freedom. We are hypocrites when we claim to support freedom.

We should try to understand our characteristics, and then design a society to deal with what we really are rather than what we like to think we are. We should design our culture so that we dampen our crude qualities and encourage our good qualities. For example, by changing our economic system so that we compete to bring improvements to society rather than compete for money, our economic system will encourage us to regard other people as friends and look for ways to improve society, rather than encourage us to fight with one another for money, and with no concern for how we acquire the money.

Our culture should also encourage us to understand ourselves, such as why we are so dictatorial. There is a sensible reason for all of our physical and mental qualities, and it is important to understand them. Evolution did not give us any qualities simply to annoy us, or to cause trouble. Our qualities evolved because they served a valuable purpose.

There is a sensible reason for why high-ranking monkeys are so dictatorial, and why they try to restrict freedom. The reason is because this is how a group of animals create a society. An organization cannot exist when the members are doing whatever they please. Freedom must be restricted in order for a group of individuals to form an organization. The members of an organization must be united and coordinated, and that requires they follow an authority rather than do whatever they please. The members can have freedom, but there has to be limits on it.

The social animals, especially the males, have a powerful craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, and to force other members to follow them. Animals did not evolve a desire to tolerate freedom. Our brains evolved a craving to force other people to obey us.

One of the reasons there are so many fights in human societies over freedom is because there are a lot of people who don't understand these concepts. When they are denied a particular freedom, they react by becoming angry. They assume that they are suffering from oppression. If people could understand that we need to put limits on freedom, they would be less likely to whine about having more freedom.

We need leadership, and we need restrictions on freedom. Instead of whining that we need more freedom, we should put our effort into discussing which freedoms are beneficial, and which freedoms should be suppressed. For example, should people have the freedom to become obese, purchase machine guns, drink alcohol, or have as many babies as they want? Or should we have restrictions on some of those activities? Should we have the freedom to experiment with medical drugs, or should we have to get a doctor's prescription for every drug?

When we discuss these issues, we should not think about what we personally like or dislike. We should think about what is best for society. We should consider how providing a particular freedom, or suppressing it, will affect society. It makes no sense to argue over right or wrong because there is no right or wrong to the issue of freedom. Instead, there are advantages and disadvantages to providing a freedom, and for suppressing it. We simply have to decide what we want society to be.

Freedom of speech is a beneficial freedom
Prehistoric tribes did not need to tolerate a difference of opinion because they did not have any significant differences of opinion. Most of the issues that people argue about today didn't exist in prehistoric time, such as religion, abortion, unemployment, crime networks, and assisted suicide. In this modern world, however, we have a lot of complex problems to deal with, and we will make better decisions on how to deal with our problems when we have the freedom to discuss the issues, and the freedom to disagree with our leaders.

Freedom of speech is valuable because it allows people to learn from one another. However, providing people with freedom of speech does not guarantee that they will use it. In order to benefit from this particular freedom, a person needs the emotional ability to listen to and think about other people's opinions. Unfortunately, because we are arrogant creatures, and because we want to be at the top of the hierarchy and give orders to other people, our emotions interfere with this freedom. Our emotions want to react to critical remarks with anger, pouting, or hiding. Also, our emotions resist listening to other people. Our emotions want to stand on a tall pedestal and tell other people what to think. We want to give orders to people and criticize them, not listen to them.

Why are some people more productive as scientists? Why are some organizations and nations achieving more technical progress? Most people would probably answer that question by saying that some people are more intelligent than others, but a person needs more than intelligence in order to be productive in thinking. A person needs the ability to listen to differences of opinion and look critically at his own opinions. He also needs the desire to spend a lot of time thinking, and the desire to do research.

The differences between people and nations are due to more than our differences in intelligence and education. Our emotional differences have a significant effect on our lives. The emotional differences between us determine how well we learn from one another and work together. It also affects how we spend our time, such as whether we waste a lot of our time on hatred, envy, whining, and pouting, or whether we spend more time thinking, researching, cleaning up after ourselves, and being responsible.

The emotional differences between zoologists, for example, can make the difference between a zoologist who notices some similarities between humans and monkeys, and a zoologist who cannot see any similarities because he resists the possibility that he is a member of a species of monkey.

The people with the better emotional qualities will be noticeably more productive. For example, if a farmer has a difficult time listening to other people's opinions about farming, his ability to farm will be limited to what he is capable of figuring out by himself. He will not be able to learn from other people. Or, if he doesn't want to think, he will resist thinking, which will result in lots of idiotic decisions. Farmers with those emotional qualities will be less productive, even if they have a lot of intelligence.

Our emotional characteristics have a significant effect on our lives, activities, goals, and opinions. The people whose emotional characteristics are more similar to animals than modern humans, or who have genetically defective emotional qualities, will waste more of their life hating, fighting, pouting, whining, and being envious. They will have a more difficult time learning from their mistakes and learning from other people, and their resistance to thinking and research will result in quick and simplistic decisions.

Some news reports about Donald Trump imply that he does not want to spend much time doing research, and that he prefers to depend on other people for information about the world. If these reports are accurate, it would be easy for a group of people to manipulate him because all they would have to do is censor the information that they provide him. People who don't want to do their own research have to be very careful about who their friends are.

The voters should look for political candidates who have demonstrated an ability to do research and think, and who can listen to differences of opinion, including critical opinions. Voters should look for candidates who have shown that their opinions improve over time because those people are showing that they have the ability to learn from their mistakes and learn from other people.

Some conservatives have boasted that a particular person is an admirable leader because he doesn't change his opinions, but a person whose opinions never change is actually more like a monkey than a human. How can anybody in this modern world not change his opinions over time when we are exposed to so much information about life? People whose opinions don't change are obviously not learning or thinking. They are going through life like an animal; namely, completely oblivious to all of the knowledge around them.

The people who resist thinking and research, or who react to critical remarks with anger or pouting, or who prefer to insult other people rather than look seriously at their opinions, will promote the same opinions over and over. Those type of people might be useful as supervisors for teams that are doing the same tasks over and over, such as supervising an assembly line, but they would not be very effective in jobs where they must be able to explore the unknown, such as supervising a team of scientists, or in a top leadership position of the government.

Those of you who have tried to discuss the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, feminism, religion, euthanasia, or abortion must have noticed that a tremendous number of people - I suspect it is the majority - cannot discuss issues in a productive manner because they don't like to think or do research; they react to critical remarks with anger or pouting; and they have such a strong craving to follow the crowd that they resist looking seriously at opinions that are non-standard.

When most people have a discussion about social or political issues, they don't learn anything from the other people, and they don't actually discuss anything. Rather, each of them simply promotes his particular opinions. They have a fight, not a discussion. They behave like monkeys who are competing for dominance, but instead of biting and kicking one another, they insult one another, interrupt one another, yell at one another, make angry facial expressions, make sarcastic remarks, and make noises to express their disapproval of one another.

A democracy will not work well because it requires the majority of people to make decisions on what to do, but most people cannot have discussions, do research, or compromise on policies. The end result is that the people argue incessantly with one another. Their submissive representatives in the government cannot do anything about a problem when the people cannot agree on what to do, and the end result is that most of the nation's problems are ignored. A democratic nation is a nation without leadership, which makes it helpless. Crime networks, other nations, and immigrants can easily take advantage of the situation.

The organizations that have been the most successful are those in which the leaders are more educated, intelligent, and talented than the members, and the leaders provide guidance to the members.

It is possible that a democracy would work for an organization that consists of people who are genetic clones of one another, and if the person that the others were cloned from was in good mental health, was capable of doing research, and was capable of compromising on policies. In the real world, however, there is a tremendous difference in our intellectual abilities, emotional characteristics, and genetic defects. A democracy cannot function when an organization consists of people with a wide range of mental characteristics and disorders.

Democracies are becoming increasingly impractical. We must be willing to experiment with a new government system and a new economic system in order to improve our world.

Can you see the hypocrisy with freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech is a valuable freedom, but not everybody is willing to practice it all the time. This is most noticeable when somebody tries to discuss a crime, such as "pizzagate", the 9/11 attack, or the Holocaust. The people discussing those issues are attacked for spreading hate speech, fake news, anti-Semitism, or conspiracy theories.

One of the techniques people use to suppress freedom of speech is to complain that it is inappropriate to discuss certain issues at certain events. For example, if you were trying to bring up the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack at a recreational event, music concert, or birthday party, many people would respond that it is inappropriate to discuss political issues at nonpolitical events. However, those people will discuss other "inappropriate" issues if they want to discuss them.

An example of this hypocrisy occurred with the 2017 Academy Awards. Although I did not watch the ceremony, I saw news reports in which the Jews had announced that they were going to allow people to use the event to criticize Donald Trump. While that might appear as if the Jews were promoting freedom of speech, they were actually allowing criticism only of Trump, and not to provide freedom of speech. Rather, they are becoming very frightened that they are losing control of the American government, and that the Trump administration might arrest a lot of them.

In this news article we find that in 1978, the actress Vanessa Redgrave criticized "Zionist hoodlums" at the Academy Awards, and she was attacked for expressing her opinions. One Jew, Sidney Chayefsky, responded with “I’m sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own personal propaganda.”

If somebody criticizes a Jew at the Academy Awards, he is "exploiting" the Academy Awards and spreading "personal propaganda", but when Jews want to criticize somebody, they claim to be practicing freedom of speech, or protecting the world from tyranny.

The criticism of Vanessa Redgrave and Donald Trump are examples of how the Jews are intimidating and manipulating the majority of people into remaining silent about certain issues, such as the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and pizzagate.

The Jews also do the opposite of suppressing opinions; specifically, they manipulate people into discussing certain issues by giving it a lot of publicity, and by telling us that it is "going viral", or that "everybody is talking about it".

Another example of how the Jews are hypocrites is that if we try to discuss the evidence that Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, they will criticize us for discussing "conspiracy theories". However, those same Jews will promote other conspiracy theories on a regular basis, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs.

For example, here is an article from a British newspaper about conspiracy theorists who believe that a photo of Mars shows a squirrel. The article says that "Conspiracy theorists have made an incredible discovery on Mars", but when we talk about 9/11, those same Jews will not produce news articles that say "Conspiracy theorists have made an incredible discovery about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings."

The Jews are not practicing freedom of speech. They are practicing manipulation, deception, and intimidation. Unfortunately, a lot of people, possibly the majority, do not have the intellectual or emotional ability to understand or resist this type of abuse. A lot of people cannot even see the evidence that Jews dominate our media, courts, and government, and that the Jews are discriminating against us when we apply for jobs in those organizations.

Ben Stein published a document in which he claims that Jews control Hollywood, and years later Joel Stein (no relation to Ben Stein), wrote this amusing article in which he complains about how dumb the Americans are for not noticing that Jews control America. Some Jews dismiss Joel Stein's article as satire, but is it really satire?

Is a Jew being sarcastic when he says to you, "Yes, we lied about the Holocaust. The conspiracy theories are true!" Or is he trying to manipulate you with sarcasm into believing that the conspiracy theories are absurd? Are you smart enough to figure this out? The television show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?", should be modified to, "Are you smarter than a sheeple?", and it should ask questions such as those.

As I mentioned in a previous document, most people need protection from abusive people. They need protection from the weirdos who push us into idiotic initiation ceremonies; they need protection from the destructive people who encourage us to ignore laws and warning signs; and they need protection from the Jews who manipulate us with accusations of anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial, and Fake News.

Our military and police should be protecting our freedom of speech, and dealing with the hypocritical, dishonest, selfish, and mentally defective people who are abusing us, manipulating us, lying to us, and cheating us.

Freedom of speech requires that we exert self-control
A mother's natural tendency is to praise her children, and to repeatedly tell them that they are talented, good-looking, and have a wonderful personality. It is not natural for parents to be honest about their children.

During prehistoric times, the constant praise that parents gave their children would have been useful in helping them to develop the confidence they needed to face the problems of their world, but in this modern era, we need less arrogance, not more of it. People today need the ability to look critically at themselves and notice the good qualities in other people. We are no longer battling one another for survival. We need to work together. People today need encouragement to suppress their arrogance, not become more arrogant.

It is no longer appropriate for parents to encourage their children to be arrogant. Parents, schools, and society should teach children that all humans are imperfect creatures with limitations and flaws. Children should be given practice in looking critically at themselves, looking favorably at other people, and dealing with differences of opinion, unpleasant situations, and critical remarks. Children today need practice in exerting self-control.

By changing our culture from encouraging arrogance to encouraging self-control, freedom of speech, and criticism, we will reduce the number of people who whine about being bullied, unappreciated, oppressed, and insulted. It will also improve the ability of adults to handle criticism and have discussions.

Of course, putting children through programs to help them practice self-control will not ensure that they all develop appropriate levels of self-control. No matter how well we design the school courses, we will discover that half the population is average in regards to self-control, and a certain percentage of the population has unacceptably low levels of self-control. We should regard that minority of the population as inferior to the rest of us. If we were to restrict their reproduction, then every generation will have less of a problem with arrogance, criticism, and self-control.

We should stop tolerating people who bite and kick
When monkeys encounter problems, they react either by running away and hiding, or by becoming angry. If a monkey becomes angry, he reacts by yelling, throwing objects, kicking, and hitting. Humans also react to problems by either hiding from them, or by becoming angry with them.

In this modern world, our culture should encourage us to exert self-control and discuss problems in a calm manner, but culture tends to evolve to give us what we want, and what is natural to us, rather than give us what is best for us.

For example, the First Amendment gives us the right to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The men who wrote that sentence were certainly expecting people to behave in a peaceful and sensible manner. However, people have been interpreting the First Amendment in the manner that they want to interpret it. They don't care what its purpose was. Millions of people interpret the First Amendment to give them the right to go into public streets and sidewalks to yell, chant slogans, block traffic, and throw rocks.

It seems that every day there is a group of Americans protesting about something on a public street or sidewalk. We refer to these protests as "freedom of speech", but we should regard this behavior as unacceptable and destructive. It is monkey behavior. The people involved in these protests are not providing us with a different view of life, or with constructive criticism. Rather, they are having a temper tantrum, and they are trying to manipulate and intimidate us.

Imagine a business executive allowing his employees to have the freedom to yell at other employees in the manner that Rebecca Goyette is yelling at the police in this video. (She claimed to be a professor of New York University, but she lied about that. She is an artist.)

It is natural for us to become angry when something bothers us, so we consider tantrums to be "normal", but it would be more beneficial for us to regard protests as being as worthless and as disgusting as a child's temper tantrum, or analogous to monkeys who are biting and scratching one another. We should regard protests as illegal and unacceptable. We benefit from freedom of speech, but not from a freedom to have tantrums. We need to make a distinction between "speech" and "tantrums".

Now that we have the Internet, anybody who disagrees with a government policy or social custom should be told to post his opinions on the Internet. That will let the entire world and the future generations see and think about his opinions. People should no longer be allowed to justify protests in public streets and sidewalks by claiming to be expressing their opinions.

If we were to restrict the reproduction of the people who are the worst in regards to having tantrums, then each generation would have fewer tantrums. Eventually the human race would become capable of having calm discussions about their problems.

Another reason to prohibit protests is that protests make the job of a policeman less desirable. The police are expected to tolerate protesters who throw rocks and bottles at them, spit at them, and yell at them. The more unpleasant the job of a policeman is, the more difficult it will be to find people willing to be policemen.

We should stop tolerating lies and suppression of speech
It makes sense to suppress a person who says something that causes trouble. A popular example is that we are justified in suppressing a person who yells "Fire!" in a crowded building in order to cause the people to panic.

However, some people and opinions are being suppressed simply because the people in influential positions disagree with our opinions. The laws against Holocaust denial, for example, are not intended to protect society from troublesome people; rather, they are to protect the criminal Jews who are lying about the world wars.

Our school books, the Wikipedia, and journalists are suppressing information about pedophile networks, global warming, the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and people such as myself. They are also lying to us about many events.

The Jews promote laws against "hate crimes" and "Holocaust denial" so that they can arrest whoever tries to expose their lies, but it would make more sense to arrest people who suppress freedom of speech. Any journalist, teacher, government official, or business executive who we determine to be deliberately hiding information from us in order to deceive and manipulate us should be considered as a "criminal".

Most people believe that they will protect society by putting people in jail for using or selling marijuana or heroin, but they are not protecting any of us by arresting drug users or drug dealers. By comparison, if the police would start arresting the people who lie to us or suppress important information, there would be a noticeable and dramatic improvement to our news reports, Wikipedia, and school books.

The people who are suppressing information, and the people who are lying to us, are causing more damage to us than the people who are using drugs. For some examples:
• They fooled millions of people into believing that 19 Arabs attacked us on 9/11, which tricked people into supporting a war that is still going on.
• They are deceiving millions of women into believing that they have been oppressed for 6000 years.
• By ignoring and criticizing information about pedophile networks, they are deceiving people into thinking that the problem is not very serious.
Your life and my life have been severely and adversely affected by the dishonest journalists and government officials. By comparison, how has your life been harmed by people who are using drugs?

We are currently designing laws according to how a crime affects our emotional feelings. We must change our attitude and design laws according to how they affect society.

Free enterprise systems discourage participation in life
The free enterprise system has a lot of detrimental effects on human life. I've mentioned some of these problems, such as how it forces everybody to find a way to make a living, but with no concern for what they do, and the end result is that many people make a living through idiotic, irritating, or destructive activities.

Another problem with the free enterprise system is that businesses encourage us to be passive, lazy, voyeurs who pay other people to do things for us. Businesses cannot make much profit from us when we are doing things for ourselves.

For example, if we were to get together with our friends and create our own recreational activities, music, and other entertainment, businesses would not make nearly as much money from us compared to when we are passive spectators of professional athletes, musicians, and entertainers. Likewise, if we were to make our own bread, clothing, furniture, and other items, businesses would not make nearly as much money as when they can create those products for us.

It is impractical to expect people to make their own computers and telephones, but in a free enterprise system, the decisions about what businesses provide for us and what we do for ourselves are being made according to what will bring in the most profit, not according to what is best for human life.

Businesses are offering us thousands of different television shows, contests, music concerts, and sports events, so almost everybody can find something he enjoys. They are also offering thousands of food products and drinks, so most people can find food products that they enjoy. They offer children thousands of different types of toys.

The free enterprise offers such an enormous smorgasbord of food, entertainment, contests, and other products and services that everybody can find lots of items that they like. By choosing the items that we are attracted to, we titillate our emotions, which causes us to assume that we are enjoying life and getting what we want from it.

However, I don't think the businesses are providing us with what we truly need to enjoy life. Instead, I think the free enterprise system is encouraging us to become like domesticated pet animals that spend most of their life in a passive state and lounging around the house, and that this is actually causing us to get bored, lonely, restless, and frustrated.

Although we will not know for sure what type of life we enjoy the most until we find the courage to start experimenting with our culture, I suspect that most of us will have a much more satisfying life when we get rid of the free enterprise system and create a city in which we are encouraged to do something rather than watch other people do something.

I suggest experimenting with a city in which we are provided with a wide variety of recreational facilities and equipment, theaters, musical instruments, arts and crafts projects, museums, and other social activities. All of the activities and equipment should be free, as if the city is a part of our home. I think that type of environment would encourage people to get out of their house and do something, rather than sit in front of a television and watch other people do something.

There are some people who are so talented with music, singing, and other activities that they are entertaining to watch, and so the city could provide events in which we can watch those unusually talented people, either in person or on television, but the watching of other people would be just one activity in our lives rather than our primary leisure activity.

Free enterprise encourages battles for money

Since the only other economic system the world has experienced is communism, which is a failure, we assume that free enterprise is the best possible system, but I think that free enterprise works so well and appeals to us only because we are animals, not because it is a wonderful system. Our natural behavior is to fight with one another over land, food, mates, and material items, not to share the resources.

The free enterprise system puts us into competition for food, material items, and land, just as animals compete with one another for food and land. Since women want a husband who can support a family, the free enterprise system inadvertently also puts men into competition for women because the men must acquire a certain amount of money in order to attract a woman.

We need a certain amount of food and material items for our survival, and the survival of our children, and men need to attract a woman in order to reproduce. Therefore, the free enterprise system is putting us into competition for items that are vital for our lives and reproduction, as opposed to competing over unnecessary luxuries. As a result, the competition is very significant to us. Nobody wants to be a loser in this type of battle. This type of competition encourages a lot of fear, worry, fighting, cheating, hatred, and sabotage.
The free enterprise system creates an environment that is similar to what we see with the animals, such as with the four gorillas in the photo to the right that got into a fight over a tomato.

What is the difference between a group of apes fighting over a tomato, and a group of humans fighting over material items?

Animals are in constant fear of hunger, so they do not want to share food. Actually, animals are so fearful of hunger that when they find food, their tendency is to eat it as fast as possible. They do not relax, take their time, and enjoy the meal. Furthermore, animals do not want to eat with other animals. They prefer to eat by themselves. They do not regard meals as a social event.

Humans are much better than animals. We have the ability to share items to a certain extent, and we can also relax when we eat. We can enjoy our meals, and we can enjoy the people that we are eating with. However, as with animals, we have a resistance to sharing wealth and land. The free enterprise system appeals to us because it satisfies our animal cravings to fight over food and land, and it allows us to keep whatever we can grab for ourselves. However, fighting over money is not an efficient or sensible way of providing ourselves with material wealth, food, housing, or social activities.

Free enterprise is also inefficient for providing health care. Free enterprise causes businesses to look for ways to profit from health problems, not help us to maintain our health, and with no regard to the value of what they do. This results in a lot of worthless or wasteful health related products and services.

For example, many businesses have discovered that they can make a lot of money by selling health insurance. Those companies do nothing to improve our health. They have simply found a way to profit from our fear of health problems. They are parasites of the healthcare business.

Health insurance is an expensive way of providing healthcare because it requires that we pay for all of the people involved with the health insurance companies, and all of their investors. We also have to pay for their advertisements as they fight with one another for customers. Most people don't realize it, but every advertisement is an expense that the customers of health insurance are paying for, but which does nothing to improve their health.

We no longer need to fight over food and homes
Our modern technology allows us to so easily produce food and material wealth that we have the option of creating a city in which all of the basic necessities are provided for free. This will eliminate the competition for food, homes, and material wealth. In that type of environment, nobody would be in competition for clothing, beds, phones, or computers, and nobody would be fearful of losing the competition.

The government would own all of the land and businesses, so nobody would have to invest his money in a business. If a person wanted to be a farmer or business manager, he would apply for the job, and if he failed at it, he would not go bankrupt. He would just get a different job, and the government would help him find a job if he needed help.

With that type of economic system, businesses would not sell products to consumers. None of the employees would waste their time creating advertisements, or trying to figure out how to manipulate consumers into desiring particular products or services. Instead, the factories would produce whichever products the government authorized for production. The businesses that were involved with the development of new products would compete with one another to impress government officials, not titillate consumers.

Furthermore, since the government officials would be living in the same homes, eating in the same restaurants, and riding on the same trains as everybody else, the businesses would not be producing products specifically for the "elite, wealthy class" because there would be no elite or wealthy class.

In that type of economic system nobody would be able to do anything to make themselves wealthy. If a business executive or government official wanted to improve his home, recreational facilities, trains, or restaurants, he would have to improve society for everybody.

That type of economic system would encourage people to think about what is best for society, rather than encourage people to fight with one another over food and material items. It would encourage us to regard other people as our friends rather than as profit opportunities or enemies.

In a free enterprise system, businesses want their competitors to be failures, but when we are sharing our wealth, we want everybody in society to be successful.

Furthermore, in a free enterprise system, businesses can profit from unemployed people, mentally ill people, criminals, and idiots. For example, they can sell the unemployed people low cost, low-quality products that nobody with a job would be interested in, and they can sell worthless products to stupid people, such as worthless insurance policies and astrology predictions.

To make the situation even worse, businesses in a free enterprise system can exploit natural disasters, divorce, loneliness, and other problems, and they have an incentive to prolong the misery and suffering.

In a free enterprise system, there is no concern for how people make money, and the end result is that many people make money through producing idiotic products, copying the products of other businesses, creating idiotic contests and events, and investing in the stock market.

In a free enterprise system, schools can profit by providing worthless courses. The free enterprise system also allows people to retire whenever they please, and the end result is that many people who make a lot of money choose to retire at a young age.

Another problem with the free enterprise system is that businesses try to avoid hiring old people because old people are not as productive as young people, and the end result is that many old people cannot find a job, even though many of them are capable of contributing something of value to society, and want to contribute.

In a free enterprise system, a business can exist simply because it is capable of making profit, but by switching to an economic system that the government controls, businesses will exist only if they can justify their existence to the government.

Of course, this requires that we be able to provide ourselves with better quality government officials, but if we can do so, we will have a government that ensures that all businesses are doing something useful for society. Those type of government officials will behave like the managers of a business who eliminate the departments that don't serve a useful purpose.

When we share the wealth, we will encourage the type of attitude that we see among people in other organizations. Specifically, we will want everybody to be a productive member of society. The people in a business do not want parasites working with them, and the musicians in an orchestra do not want to hire people who are parasitic, and the military does not want parasites in their organization, either. When we are sharing the wealth, we want everybody to contribute something of value.

Our attitude towards schools will change, also. Instead of allowing schools to become expensive, profit-making ventures that provide children with diplomas, schools will be under pressure to provide a useful education to children so that they become productive members of society rather than unemployable, unskilled parasites.

Another advantage to sharing the wealth is that nobody will be able to make a living through inheritances, investments, alimony, marrying wealthy people, or gambling. The government will help find people jobs, and ensure that every job is useful. There would be no unemployment because even the most unskilled person could be put to work. A modern city has an enormous amount of chores, so there is no excuse for unemployment. Even the most unskilled people can be put to work on chores, such as cleaning, maintenance, farming, and gardening.

The government officials would also provide older people with jobs. Even though older people are less productive than young people, it is better to give them something to do than to tell them to do nothing. For example, the government might give older people first preference at the simplistic jobs at elementary schools, such as helping with the meals, or arranging for recreational activities for the children. It might require twice as many old people to do the work, but that is better for society than to have the old people sit at home and do nothing while some younger people do the work.

In this type of economy, nobody would be wealthy, so nobody would feel as if they are a slave who is serving a wealthy King or Queen. Everybody would be working for society. I think this will provide everybody with much more job satisfaction.

Nobody will benefit from medical problems
Another advantage to putting the government in control of the economy, and to sharing the chores that need to be done, is that nobody will have an incentive to profit from somebody's medical problems, or to prolong their medical problems. We will instead have an incentive to keep everybody in the best possible health so that they can do their chores and contribute to society. When somebody gets sick, we will want them to get over their sickness as quickly as possible.

Our attitude towards healthcare will be similar to our attitude towards the "healthcare" of airplanes. Specifically, we want airline companies to keep their airplanes in good working condition rather than wait for the airplanes to have trouble. We will want society to have the same attitude towards human health. Specifically, we will want doctors and dentists to keep everybody in good health rather than wait for us to have medical problems.

Some people might respond that the doctors and dentists already have that attitude, but in our current societies, there is nothing they can do about it. An airline technician has the ability to prevent problems because he has dictatorial control of the airplane, and the airplane does not fight back or demand its freedom to do as it pleases. By comparison, doctors and dentists cannot control what people do.

If doctors had dictatorial control over our food and drinks, they could prevent people from becoming overweight, anorexic, and malnourished, and they could prevent people from using abusing drugs and alcohol. Or if doctors had dictatorial control over our sexual activities, they could prevent unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases.

Another difference between maintaining an airplane and maintaining human health is that the airline technicians know exactly how to maintain airplanes, but we don't know enough about human health to be certain about a lot of medical issues. For example, doctors do not know much about the role of dietary cholesterol. There are also disputes over whether "red" meat is harmful, and if so, in what quantities.

An airline technician knows for certain how to fix a particular problem with an airplane, but doctors cannot be certain about what we should eat, or how we should mix foods in our meals, or how many meals we should have each day. They also don't know much about the difference between men and women, or different races.
When the "health experts" talk about health issues, they often create the impression that there are only two possibilities with health issues; specifically, the experts either understand an issue, or they don't understand an issue. In reality, it would be more helpful if they treated every medical issue as if there was a sliding pointer that would show our level of ignorance.

With some issues we have a lot of knowledge, so the pointer would be near the "high" level. For example, we know that eating large amounts of sugar is harmful. However, the pointer for red meat and cholesterol should be near the low level of knowledge.

In the society I propose, the government has total control over everything in the city. This gives us a lot of options. One of them is to allow doctors and scientists to design the meals for the restaurants, which allows the government to exert some control over what we eat and how we eat it. The government would not force us to follow a particular diet, but they could require that every restaurant provide meals that they regard as healthy. For example, they could prohibit or restrict products that are primarily sugar, such as cotton candy and lollipops, and they could require all bread products be made from whole-grain flour that is less than an hour old.

For the issues that they don't know a lot about, such as red meat, they would provide people with the truth that they don't yet know if red meat is harmful, and they would tell people to watch the scientific research and make their own decisions.

Another option is to let people eat whatever they please at the restaurants, but have computers keep track of what everybody eats, when they eat, how much they eat, and what type of medical problems they have. This would provide scientists with a lot of information that could help them figure out how food is affecting our health.

We also have the option of passing judgment on who among us cannot handle the freedom to choose their own meals, and the government could restrict those particular people to certain diets, restaurants, or quantities of food. This would allow us to deal with the anorexic, overweight, alcoholic, and sickly people rather than allow them become a burden on society.

Participate in life, don't dream of pampering
As I mentioned earlier, in a free enterprise system, businesses look for opportunities to do something for us. For example, they remove walnuts from their shells and they arrange for sports events for us to watch. Because animals and humans have a tendency to avoid work, we enjoy being pampered. We assume that being pampered is making our life better, but I think we would actually enjoy life more if we changed our attitude from expecting other people to pamper us to participating in life's activities.

In the previous document of this series I pointed out that when you order a beer in some of the small German towns, it takes about 1/2 an hour to get the beer, which forces everybody to sit at the table and socialize. Now I would like to point out how these concepts could be applied to meals.

In a free enterprise system, the restaurants pamper us, as if we are babies. They put us at a table that they have provided with plates, utensils, and glasses, and they provide us with whatever foods we ask for, and then they clean up whatever mess we make. We don't have to do anything. A free enterprise system promotes the attitude that the more pampering we get, the better our life becomes.

When people are in a rush to eat, such as when a group of electricians are trying to restore electricity during a storm, it makes sense to provide them with meals quickly, and to have somebody else clean up their mess. However, when people are not in a rush to eat, I suggest we experiment with restaurants that expect people to participate in certain aspects of their meals. One purpose for this would be to reduce the amount of unskilled labor that restaurants need, and the other is to encourage people to do something rather than be passive babies who expect other people to do things for them.

For example, people could set the table themselves, and they could clean the table when they are finished. Eating at these restaurants would feel like you are eating at your own home, except that somebody else would provide the meals and clean the dishes. The advantage to that type of restaurant is that it:
1) Reduces the number of peasants that the city needs.
2) Gives people something to do before and after their meal, thereby forcing them to spend more time together.
The thought of having to set the table yourself, and especially the thought of cleaning the table, might frighten you, but remember to react to problems by thinking of solutions. By designing restaurants specifically for this activity, we can make those chores easier compared to what we do right now in our own home.

In a free enterprise system, restaurants are cramped in order to increase profit, but in a city in which people are getting meals for free, there is no sense in making the restaurants cramped. It makes more sense to provide restaurants with so much space that people feel comfortable, and this in turn allows us to have enough space to push carts of dishes and utensils to the tables.

Instead of carrying items to and from the table, as we do in our own home, we could set the table by pushing a cart with dishes and utensils over to the table, take what we want, and then push the cart back. (I mentioned this years ago here.)
To clean the table after the meal is finished, we could push a cleaning cart over to the table, put the dirty dishes in the cart, and use the sponges and cleaning rags in the cart to clean the table. Then we push the cleaning cart to the kitchen where the employees of the restaurant, or some robots, put the dirty dishes through a dishwasher, and put the dirty rags and sponges through a cleaning process.

Those carts would make setting the table and cleaning the table even easier than it is in our own home. That type of restaurant would require you spend a minute or two setting the table for yourself, and a few minutes cleaning up after yourself when you are finished with your meal, but is spending a few minutes on those chores really going to ruin your life?

Hopefully after reading the beginning section of this document you will agree with me that you are not going to suffer if you have to do some of these chores. Furthermore, consider the advantage that this type of restaurant provides us; specifically, it reduces the number of peasants that the city needs.

Our emotions fool us into believing that we will improve our life by avoiding work and having servants pamper us, but our emotions are wrong. You will not suffer if you have to participate in the chores required to feed you.

Furthermore, by forcing people to participate in these type of chores, it forces people to interact and socialize. Instead of just sitting down at a table with a group of people, you would first have to spend a few minutes pushing a cart over to the table, and then setting the table with them. This would not make you suffer. Rather, it would give you something to do with the people.

By specifically designing the restaurants to make it easy for people to set the table and clean the table, we can make it easy for people to participate in those chores. Nobody is going to suffer, unless they want to suffer.

There are already some smorgasbords, salad bars, cafeterias, and other restaurants that expect people to pick up a plate and utensils, get their own food, and clear their table, but nobody is complaining about those chores.

We could go even further and tell people to process some of their food. In the previous document of this series, I pointed out that walnuts should be removed from their shells only when we are ready to eat them. The problem with processing food is that it can create a mess. Therefore, it should be restricted to restaurants that are specifically designed for such activities.

In the city I suggest, restaurants would be in clusters so that we can easily walk from one to another. Some of those restaurants could be designed to let people process food items. For example, if you wanted some nuts as an appetizer, you would walk to a "nut bar". Inside you would be provided access to nuts, and high quality nut cracking equipment, not low-quality consumer nutcrackers. In this type of economy, the government does not create low-quality products.
In case you never noticed, the standard, low cost, nutcrackers that are produced for home use are not very useful. A better type of nutcracker is similar to the plumber's tool called a channellock (with curved jaws, not straight jaws). The reason is because when the nut cracks in a channellock, you do not crush the nut and send the pieces flying through the air.

We certainly have the intelligence to develop nutcrackers that allow us to extract the nuts without destroying them, and without pinching our fingers. By also providing the tables with small, hot air devices, we could warm the nuts up, or roast them. The tables could also provide toppings, such as spices, powdered salt, and molten chocolate. Those type of restaurants would make it easy and pleasant for us to have some nuts as an appetizer.

Those "nut bars" would not offer a complete meal. They would only offer nuts as an appetizer. After you are finished with the nuts, you would have to walk over to some other restaurant for your primary meal. Or you could go to a salad bar and have a salad.

By having specialty restaurants, such as restaurants that serve only nuts or only salads, we would have to travel from one restaurant to another in order to have a complete meal, which would be a nuisance in a free enterprise system and our chaotic cities, but when all of the restaurants are free and clustered together, it would be easy for us to walk from one restaurant to another. Besides, taking a short walk once in a while would be better for us than sitting still for hours.

There are a few areas in our cities right now where a lot of restaurants are clustered together, such as in the photo below of Paris, but these areas are not as pleasant as they could be because they have been designed for businesses, not humans. For example, the streets tend to be straight so that businesses and people can drive vehicles on them, and the dining areas are cramped because of the high rents.

By designing a city for humans rather than businesses and vehicles, the sections of the city with the restaurants would be primarily gardens, with some restaurants scattered among the trees, flowers, and ponds. They would be quiet, pleasant areas to relax and have a meal. Walking from one restaurant to another to have a complete meal would be a pleasure rather than a chore. With the meals free, nobody has to worry about carrying wallets, credit cards, or dealing with bills or tips.

The ground level of most cities today is dominated by asphalt roads, parking lots, and businesses trying to sell products. It is unpleasant and inconvenient to walk around our cities. However, in the city I suggest, the situation will be dramatically different for three reasons:
1) The primary transportation will be underground, leaving the surface available for people.

2) The city would consist of clusters of tall buildings rather than an enormous number of short buildings spread out over an enormous area. This allows the area around the buildings to be parks, gardens, ponds, creeks, and canals.

3) In a free enterprise system, the ground level of a city is dominated by retail businesses that are displaying material items in windows. There are an enormous number of those businesses, and they are producing an enormous variety of items. However, when the material wealth is free, the government will produce significantly fewer material items, and there will be no attempt to sell or advertise the items. Therefore, the city will not be dominated by retail stores that are competing to sell products.

Some of the material items will be available only at social clubs and hobbyist centers, such as arts and craft supplies, cameras, microscopes, telescopes, CNC equipment, musical equipment, and 3D printers. There will be stores that offer clothing and shoes, but they will simply offer them rather than try to grab our attention with displays of manikins in windows. Some of the items would be available where they are used. For example, snorkeling and scuba equipment would be available at the lakes and ponds, and volleyballs, and other equipment would be available at the recreational fields.

By switching to the economy I suggest, the ground level of the city would be dominated by restaurants, social clubs, small theaters, and other types of activities, rather than displays of material items. This would make it very easy for people to wander around to get meals, and to find entertainment and recreational activities.
In a free enterprise system, the cities are designed primarily for shopping, but the city I suggest would be designed for people to do something, such as meet people, do some arts and crafts, get some exercise, or listen to music. The restaurants would be clustered together to make it easy for us to walk around to get food. Clustering the restaurants together would also make it easier for us to deliver fresh food to the restaurants, and get rid of the food waste before it becomes stinky.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are in a rush to give us some food, take our money, and get us out of the restaurant. However, in the city I propose, the clusters of restaurants will be in such pleasant areas that we will sometimes want to prolong our meal so that we can enjoy the area and relax. One of the ways of prolonging the meal is to participate in some of the food preparation.

For example, if we wanted a tangerine as an appetizer, we would walk over to a "fruit bar". Peeling citrus fruit is messy because the skin has oil in it. As you peel the skin, oil sprays onto your hands and the table. Also, the seeds are a nuisance. It's best to restrict citrus fruits to restaurants that have been designed for such a mess.

I think the tangerines that have seeds are tastier than the tangerines that are seedless, but it is unpleasant to eat with people who are spitting out seeds. One solution to this problem is to simply change our attitude towards life. Instead of being in a rush to eat, and instead of assuming that work is bad and that servants are good, take some time to first remove the seeds.

It is actually easy to remove seeds from citrus fruits by cutting the wedges along their length, which exposes the seeds, making it easy to knock them out. When people cut shrimp like this, they refer to it as "butterfly shrimp", so we could refer to this as "butterfly tangerines" or "butterfly fruit".

The tangerines from my tree have a lot of seeds, and the photo below shows how I cut the wedges, knock the seeds out, and create butterfly tangerines. This is what I do when I eat the tangerines, although I usually eat them as I make them rather than make displays of them.

Imagine walking into a fruit bar with one of your friends, and then making a display of butterfly tangerines. You then sit down and eat them. You might spend a couple of minutes making those butterfly tangerines, but how many of us are in such a rush to eat that we cannot do it? Creating the butterfly tangerines will give you something to do with your friends, and it will eliminate the problem of people spitting out seeds. It also allows us to create a more visually attractive display of tangerines.

The point I want to make in this particular section of the document is that a free enterprise system encourages us to believe that happiness comes from being pampered, but I think we will enjoy life more if we participate in activities. Work is not bad, and pampering by servants is not the key to happiness.

When you participate in the preparation of your food, even if it is something as simple as removing seeds from tangerines, or removing the husk from an ear of corn, the food will taste better than if a peasant processed your food. When you participate in life, you will get more satisfaction from it.

If you participate in maintaining a garden in your city, that garden will have more significance to you. If you participate in the design of a building in your city, or the construction of it, or the maintenance of it, that building will have more significance to you. If you participate in the design or maintenance of a museum display, that display will mean more to you. By comparison, when you are a pampered King, nothing has much meaning to you.

What is "fun"?
Of course, as always, life is more complex than I make it appear. Specifically, because each of us is genetically unique, we received different amounts of satisfaction from participating in activities. For example, imagine if everybody in a city spent a few afternoons each year helping to maintain their city park. When people went into that park, they would receive some satisfaction for the work they did, but if we could measure that satisfaction, we would find that most people have an average amount of satisfaction, while a small minority does not get much satisfaction from it. To the people who don't get much enjoyment from work, they will want to live in a city in which servants are pampering them. They will not want to work.

Different people want to spend their leisure time in different ways. We all have different hobbies, and we all have different ideas on what is "fun". Some women enjoy spending some of their leisure time cleaning and organizing their house, whereas others prefer to play with dolls, children, or dogs. Some men like to spend some of their leisure time building things, or exploring the creeks and forests near their home. Some people like spending their leisure time skiing, skateboarding, or golfing.

Our hobbies and our idea of what is "fun" changes according to our environment. If we had been born thousands of years earlier, we would have had a very limited selection of hobbies, and if we had been born 10,000 years in the future, we would have a much greater variety of hobbies.

We don't need any particular hobby in order to enjoy life. There are thousands of possible ways for us to enjoy our leisure time. If we were living in a city in which we had to share chores, some of us would certainly discover that we enjoy spending an occasional afternoon working with our neighbors on some chore for the city. In such a case, those chores would become fun, not miserable "nigger work".

The men who enjoy building and repairing things, for example, might enjoy getting together once in a while to maintain the rowboats and scuba equipment, and the people who enjoy arts and crafts might enjoy getting together once in a while to create and maintain artwork for the restaurants, city parks, and office buildings. The women who enjoy cleaning and organizing their home might enjoy getting together with other women to clean and organize some of the social clubs or museums. The women who enjoy children might enjoy the chores that involve taking care of and cleaning up after children.

However, because of the genetic diversity of our minds, there will be some people who do not get any enjoyment from doing chores, just as there are children who don't enjoy doing chores around the house.

The city that I propose is not going to appeal to everybody. It will appeal only to people who are similar in emotional characteristics to me. If somebody with a different personality were to design a city, he would design it differently, and it would appeal to a different group of people than a city that I designed. For some examples of our differences:
• There are some people who point out that modern technology allows us to reduce our work week to only a few hours a day, and only a few days a week, and that would allow us to spend a lot more time on leisure activities.

• There are some people who receive so much enjoyment from pet dogs, cats, pigs, goats, and other animals that they want the city to allow and support a variety of pets. And there are a few people who want to get married to their pets.

• There are some people who do not like the idea of equality, and would rather live in a society in which there are servants who are pampering a wealthy class.
When the human race decides to start experimenting with new cities and new culture, the design of their city, and the type of culture they want to experiment with, will depend upon the genetic characteristics of the people who dominate the city.

The future of the human race will be set by the people who become active in setting our future. It will not be determined by the apathetic sheeple. At the moment we are dominated by people who want mansions, yachts, servants, and pampering. If those people remain in control forever, then this is all we will ever have. If people with my interests are a tiny minority, then my proposals for cities will be ignored.

Incidentally, I will once again remind you that my proposals would be practical only if the people in the city were willing to control immigration and deal with misfits. For example, in a city in which people are expected to clean the table after they are finished eating, we would discover that some people do a terrible job of cleaning, and at the other extreme are the OCD people who waste a lot of resources cleaning the table to excess. Some of the OCD people would want to use so much bleach that they create air pollution in the restaurant.

Also, when material items are free, we would find that some people are abusive with the free items. For example, when provided with free access to arts and craft supplies, 3D printers, drones, CNC laser machines, and musical instruments, some people will be abusive with the equipment, and some people will leave a tremendous mess for other people to clean up, and some people will waste a lot of materials.

The type of city I propose requires that the government and citizens be willing to restrict the slobs and misfits to their own neighborhoods, evict those who are regarded as unacceptable, and keep the OCD people under control.

Learn about yourself, don't boast about yourself
What type of city do you want to live in? What type of culture do you want? Do you know the answer to those questions? The suggestions I have for cities are just suggestions to experiment with. I don't know what I would enjoy the best, and you should not assume that you know what you want, either.

Our arrogance causes us to assume that we understand ourselves extremely well, but humans are complex creatures. A better attitude is to regard life as an exploration, and to spend some of our time trying to understand our mental and physical characteristics.

As you gain a better understanding of your body's characteristics, you will be able to reduce the chances that you get sick, and you will reduce your chances of being injured from physical tasks, and you will have a better idea of what type of physical tasks you will be able to complete.

As you gain a better understanding of your mental characteristics, you will be more successful in life because you will be able to choose the activities that bring real satisfaction to your life rather than doing something that only fools you into thinking you are happy. You will also be able to choose goals, jobs, and tasks that you can do well, and avoid those that you are not so good at. You will also be able to avoid the situations and activities that are likely to cause you frustration, envy, pouting, or anger.

How many people can adequately handle failure?
No animal or human enjoys failing. We want to be successful in what we do, even if it is an idiotic or dangerous activity. All of us become upset when we fail, but each of us deals with the disappointment in a different manner. For example, after failing in a sports event, some people throw or break their golf clubs, tennis rackets, or other objects; some people cry; some people make sarcastic or insulting remarks about the winners, judges, or other contestants; and some people become angry at their competitors and try to hurt, murder, or sabotage them.

During prehistoric times, people experienced problems all the time, but they tended to become angry at animals or nature rather than other people. For example, the men would frequently fail in their attempt to catch pigs or squirrels, but they would become upset at themselves, the world, or the animals. They remained friendly with one another.

It was actually beneficial when a prehistoric man, who failed to catch a pig, became angry at the pig. The reason is because when we become angry, we acquire more physical energy, and we also forget about our other problems and can more easily focus on achieving our goal. Furthermore, when we become angry, we will not notice that we have a wound on our arm, or that we are hungry, or that we are cold. Becoming angry is analogous to turning on the afterburner of a jet engine. When a prehistoric man became angry at a pig, he put a lot more effort into catching the pig.

If you agree that evolution gives us only the qualities that are necessary, then you should realize that anger is not a frivolous, unnecessary quality. Rather, it was vital during prehistoric humans. The men who reacted to failure with anger were more successful than those who reacted with apathy. Also, anger was useful in dealing with the defective members of society. For example, if a man became so angry at a badly behaved child that he killed the child, he was cleansing his tribe of a genetically inferior member.

However, our emotions are inappropriate for many of the jobs and activities that we do today. We are no longer chasing after pigs with sharp sticks. We are working in teams to grow food, assemble computers, and design robots. When we become upset during our modern activities, we cause trouble for ourselves and other people because we tend to become upset at other people.

During prehistoric times, it was acceptable for a man to become angry at a pig when he failed to catch the pig. His craving to hurt the pig would not have disrupted society, or caused him to be irritating to other people. Rather, his craving for revenge would have motivated him to put more effort into hunting the pigs.

Furthermore, when prehistoric humans became angry at pigs or wolves, the animals did not respond by becoming angry at the humans. The animals did not try to get revenge on the humans. The anger was going in only one direction; namely, from the humans towards the animals.

Today, however, we spend most of our time interacting with other people, not with pigs or wolves. Therefore, when we become angry today, we are likely to become angry at other people, such as our boss, neighbors, spouse, or government officials. We will want to hurt the people we become angry with, but those people have the same emotions, and so they will react by becoming angry at us and wanting to hurt us. This can cause senseless fights to persist for years, and sometimes for generations.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to become angry when they failed at something, or to pout, but modern humans need to exert some self-control and think about the problem.

Men and women should study one another rather than hate one another
An example of how people hurt themselves and society with their inappropriate reaction to failure are the men and women who fail to find a compatible spouse, and who react with hatred, anger, crying, or pouting. Some develop a "sour grapes" attitude and insist that they don't want a spouse.

Many of the complaints of the feminists are actually accurate, such as when they complain that men are violent, arrogant, self-centered, dictatorial, selfish, and promiscuous. Likewise, the men who are the male equivalent of feminists, such as the men who describe themselves as MRA or MGTOW, are making valid complaints about women. For example, a MGTOW man created this video to complain about the characteristics of women that irritate him.

The men and women who are complaining about the opposite sex are often making valid complaints, but they are wasting their life because complaining doesn't improve anything. The only way to improve something is to be willing to experiment with changes.

Unfortunately, the men and women who are complaining about the opposite sex are not trying to understand the problems that they are suffering from, and they are not advocating that people find the courage to start experimenting with our courtship procedures, marriages, divorces, social activities, government system, or economic system. Rather, they are having a temper tantrum, and that encourages other people to whine, make sarcastic remarks, and hate.

The men and women who are whining about the opposite sex are interpreting the situation incorrectly. For example, a man posted a comment on the Internet that the men in the office where he works usually have photographs of their wife on their desk, and they often carry photos of their wife in their wallet, but most of the women in the office are more likely to have photos of their children rather than their husband. This man interpreted that situation as evidence that most women do not have much of an interest in their husbands, and that their marriages are frauds.

His complaints are valid; it is true that a man has a strong attraction to his wife, but his wife has a stronger attraction to her children. To a female animal, a male is nothing more than a slave to provide her with food and protection. She has no interest in him as a friend.

However, it is inaccurate to claim that women are inferior or awful because of this characteristic. This is simply the way animals evolved. It is these characteristics that have allowed all of us to be alive. If it were not for our female ancestors devoting their life to raising children, and if it were not for their husbands devoting their lives to providing their wives with food and protection, none of us would be here today.

Likewise, when women complain about men, their complaints are often valid, but they are complaining about characteristics that evolved in us for an important reason.

Do you appreciate your mother?
Almost all of us were raised primarily by our mothers, not our fathers, and if you can look seriously at women, you should be able to see that your mother put a lot of time and effort taking care of you. Actually, most mothers devote their lives to their children.

Unfortunately, animals were not designed to appreciate their mothers, or their fathers, other animals, food, flowers, birds, or the universe. Animals were designed only to fight for survival and to reproduce.

Humans are more appreciative of life than animals, but that is nothing to be proud of when you realize how crude an animal is. If you can look seriously at yourself, you will notice that you spend most of your time trying to figure out how to titillate yourself with material items, food, status, sex, and babies, just like an animal. We rarely spend time appreciating what we have, or appreciating other people, or appreciating the universe.

It is not natural for a child to appreciate his mother, or for a woman to appreciate her husband, or for a husband to appreciate his wife. Furthermore, it is not natural for us to appreciate the farmers who are providing us with food, or the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, and other people who are providing us with homes, cities, running water, and electricity.

Our arrogance causes us to look down on one another rather than appreciate one another. This is especially true of the people who think of themselves as being high in the hierarchy, such as people who have lots of money, or people with college diplomas. For example, the people who get college diplomas have a tendency to think of themselves as superior to the farmers, carpenters, and factory workers. They don't appreciate what the farmers are doing until a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, causes them to run out of food. When people become hungry, they are more likely to realize that the farmers are "people" rather than some type of subhuman creature.

Most people don't appreciate anything until it is taken away from them. Children would appreciate their parents if they were abandoned for a few weeks. People would appreciate their eyesight if they went blind. People would appreciate the ability to breathe if they got polio and had to live in an iron lung, such as the children in the photo below.

If we could measure our ability to appreciate things, we would find that we create a bell curve. At one extreme are the people who have the least appreciation. As with animals, they spend their lives trying to titillate themselves and rarely appreciate other people or life. They are not likely to appreciate their eyes, hands, or legs until they have an accident that damages those parts of their body.

The people who are the least likely to appreciate other people are the most likely to spend time whining about how they are abused, unappreciated, oppressed, mistreated, insulted, and bullied by their parents, spouse, teachers, other students, boss, coworkers, and neighbors. I don't think many of the people who whine about being abused are truly being abused. Children are especially likely to whine about being abused when they are actually being pampered.

There certainly are a lot of violent and neurotic people who truly do abuse their family members, friends, spouse, and coworkers, but they are a minority. Most people are not abused. They only think they are abused, and the reason they come to that conclusion is because they expect special treatment, and they are upset that they are not getting what they believe they deserve.

Forming a friendship, marriage, or business relationship requires certain mental qualities. Forming a team also requires the people have certain mental qualities. People with the inferior mental qualities will form inferior relationships. For example, if a person does not have much appreciation for what other people do, he may not appreciate what his spouse is doing, and that might cause him to believe that he is doing a tremendous amount for his spouse while getting almost nothing in return. He may feel that he is being abused or neglected. This could lead to arguments and a divorce.

During prehistoric times, nobody had to understand anything about this issue. Nature took care of this problem automatically. The people who were inferior at forming relationships were less successful in reproduction, and the tribes that had the best ability to form teams dominated the tribes that were more crude.

Today, however, we are helping the people with problems to successfully reproduce. This is going to create a greater variety of mental characteristics in the next generation, causing more problems with relationships. There will be more people in every generation who believe that they are being abused and neglected, and there will be more people who have so much trouble forming friendships that they spend their life alone, or with a dog or cell phone.

The police records already show that there are some women who have married a man, convinced him to take a large life insurance policy, began to slowly poison him to death, and after he died, she married another man and started the cycle over. Those women cannot form a stable marriage because they regard men as profit opportunities. Likewise, there are some men who regard women and children as sex toys.

Life is complex today, and we must form complex relationships. People today need higher-quality intellectual and emotional characteristics than our prehistoric ancestors. If we don't do something to control reproduction, we are going to increase the abuse, loneliness, fighting, divorces, and misery.

No matter what type of society we create, we need certain intellectual and emotional characteristics in order to function in it, and we need certain characteristics to enjoy the social activities, people, foods, and jobs.

Today, for example, people need to be able to go to school, learn a skill, work at a modern job, clean up after themselves, follow laws, appreciate other people, form friendships, and consider how his actions will affect other people. The people who have substandard mental qualities are going to be misfits, and we have to deal with them in some manner rather than ignore them. We must ensure that the misfits don't disrupt society. We should also limit their reproduction options so that each generation has fewer misfits.

Why are people so focused on money?
The free enterprise system does not force us to do anything in particular. It does not require that we complain that prices are too high, and it does not require that we compare how much money we have to how much money other people have. It does not force us to cheat in the stock market, or use illegal immigrants as cheap labor.

There is no rule in the free enterprise system that requires a business to lay off employees when sales drop. It is entirely possible that businesses react to a drop in sales by lowering the wages of the executives. There is also no rule in the free enterprise system that business executives make more money than the employees.

The free enterprise system puts us into competition for money, but how we react to that competition depends on our intellectual and emotional characteristics.

Because we are animals, we are very selfish, and we have a fear of being hungry and homeless. We also have very little concern for the well-being of other people. Just like a herd of sheep, we will ignore another sheep who is being eaten by a wolf. We care about ourselves and our children, not strangers.

Business executives several decades ago were making about 20 times as much money as the average worker, but today they are making hundreds of times as much. During the past few decades, technology has made it easier for us to produce food and material items. Business executives could have reacted to this technology by increasing wages of the employees, but they reacted in the opposite manner. They have been trying to reduce wages, such as by bringing in more immigrants and refugees, and by hiring illegal immigrants. They have also been increasing their own salaries, and the profits of the investors. The free enterprise system does not require business executives to behave like that. They are doing this because of their intellectual and emotional characteristics.

The free enterprise system is causing people to fight over money, but it's not because the free enterprise system makes us do this. We do this because we are selfish animals.

We need to understand our animal qualities and design an economic and government system to suppress our undesirable qualities and encourage our desirable qualities. Free enterprise encourages us to fight with one another like animals over food, housing, and material items. We need to design an economic system that encourages beneficial behavior.

Why do married couples fight over money?
The same issue applies to the fights that married couples have over money. There is no rule in the universe that married couples must fight over money. They get into these fights simply because we are animals. We are so selfish and arrogant that we have trouble compromising on policies, and we are frequently imagining that we are unappreciated, abused, oppressed, and bullied.

Married couples might assume that they argue over money because they don't have enough of it, but their arguments have nothing to do with the amount of money they have.

Most of the people in the advanced nations today are incredibly wealthy. Even the "poor" people have houses, electricity, refrigerators, and thousands of material items. Almost all of the people in the advanced nations are incredibly wealthy, but they argue over money because they and their children want more than they have, and they want more than they can afford.

If you were to encounter an obese couple who were arguing over how to divide up the food between themselves, you would undoubtedly be disgusted with them, but what is the difference between that couple and a wealthy couple who are arguing over money?

The couples who argue over money are not suffering from a shortage of money. They are arguing with each other over money because of their emotional and intellectual characteristics, and their attitudes towards life. For example, some of their fights are because:
• They have trouble controlling their cravings for material items.
• They cannot control their cravings to give gifts to their children or friends.
• They cannot control their cravings to feel sorry for their unemployed, drug addicted relative who is begging for handouts.
Our technology provides us with a tremendous amount of food and material wealth. We could be enjoying this technology, and we could be sharing the food and wealth, but instead a significant percentage of the population spend a lot of their time whining about prices, and trying to grab everything for themselves. Millions of people are even worse than that; they get involved with crimes.

Some criminals are very wealthy, so we cannot say that they are involved with crimes because of poverty. They are involved with crimes because of their particular emotional characteristics.

Of course, as always, life is more complex than I make it seem. Married couples are not fighting only because they have trouble controlling their cravings. There are lots of reasons as to why men and women get into fights. One of them is ignorance and another is inaccurate information.

When people are raised on television programs and religion, they pick up some unrealistic views of life, marriage, and humans. They will have a more difficult time coping with the modern world compared to a person who realizes that humans are monkeys, and who has a better understanding of our emotional and intellectual characteristics and limitations.

Men and women need to understand and accept each other
The people who react to problems in their relationship by becoming angry at the opposite sex, or by developing the sour grapes attitude, or by ignoring the problem, are behaving in an inappropriate manner. People today need to remain calm and look for solutions to problems. The people who react to problems like animals should be described as inferior to those of us who react by looking for solutions.

Men and women are frequently making valid complaints about the opposite sex, but it is senseless to complain about the genetic characteristics of the opposite sex. It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine a child who has convinced his parents to give him a pet dog, but who complains incessantly that he does not want to clean up after the dog, feed the dog, or provide the dog with exercise. Imagine the child complaining,
"I want to enjoy the dog, not clean up its messes and feed it. I spend more time taking care of the dog than I do having fun with it! Furthermore, this dog is so stupid that I cannot talk to it."
Most parents have the sense to tell a child that if he wants a pet dog, then he must be able to accept the responsibilities and unpleasant aspects of a dog. Parents will ruin their family's social environment if they allow a child to have a pet dog even when he whines about the responsibilities of a dog, because his whining will make him miserable, and it will be unpleasant for the other family members. It will also be unpleasant for everybody who visits the family.

The same concept applies to humans who want a spouse. Ideally, men and women would have an understanding of what they are getting into before they get married. We are hurting our society when we allow men and women to get married when they have unrealistic fantasies and expectations of marriage, themselves, or the opposite sex. The confused, ignorant people will get into arguments with one another and whine about one another, and that will hurt their relationship, irritate other people, and make life miserable for their children.

Imagine if animals were intelligent enough to speak to us. Imagine a male peacock complaining to you that the female peacocks are so stupid that the only way he can attract a female is by waving his feathers at them. He complains that he cannot talk to the females in an intelligent manner. He complains that the process of finding a female is degrading and frustrating.

And then imagine a female peacock complaining to you that she wants a beautiful male peacock, but she has to frequently tolerate unwanted male peacocks who chase after her, try to titillate her with their feathers, and want her only for sex. Certainly your response to those peacocks would be, "You are peacocks. That is how you behave. Learn to deal with it. I don't want to listen to your whining about the characteristics that you evolved with."

The same concept applies to humans. Imagine a man complaining: "I spend more time taking care of my wife than I do having fun with her! And her primary interest is our children, not me! I want a wife to enjoy, and who cares for me, but there is almost nothing I can talk to her about or do with her because all she cares about are our children, astrology, and Hollywood gossip."

A man who whines that women want men primarily for financial support, or that women don't have much in common with men, should be told that if he wants a wife, he must accept the fact that he is getting into a relationship with a female monkey, and if he doesn't like the characteristics of that species of monkey, then he should not get married. It is idiotic to get into a relationship with an animal and then whine about the characteristics of that animal.

Men and women evolved with certain mental and physical characteristics. Furthermore, we evolved to take different roles in life. We are not a unisex creature. The male of our species was designed to spend his life taking care of a female, and the female of our species was designed to spend her life taking care of children. The people who cannot understand and accept our animal nature should not get married.

Instead of men and women complaining about one another, we should be trying to understand ourselves and the opposite sex, and we should experiment with our culture in order to provide ourselves with stable, pleasant relationships.

For example, our concept of "home" has changed dramatically since prehistoric times. To our prehistoric ancestors, "home" was a campsite. The women wanted their husbands to be home with them every evening, and when the men were in the campsite, the men were home. The men could spend the evening making tools by themselves, or chatting with other men, but the women would have regarded them as "being home" since they were in the campsite.

Likewise, the men wanted their wives to be home every evening, and when the women were in the campsite, the men were satisfied. A man's wife might spend the evening with other women, making clothing, singing with other people, or playing with her children, but he would have been satisfied that she was "home".

Today, however, when men and women expect their spouse to "be home" every evening, they are expecting their spouse to spend every evening isolated from other people in a house. This is not natural for either of us. This creates a lonely, boring life.

A lot of people are spending many hours every evening watching television, or interacting with people on the Internet, but I think they do this because they are lonely and bored, not because it is truly exciting to spend thousands of evenings in that manner.

The reason I suggest we design a city so that people are living in clusters of tall apartment buildings, and that the city have an excess of apartments and allow people to freely move to whatever apartment they please, is to allow us to come close to re-creating the intimate, friendly environment of a prehistoric tribe. We will be able to live among our friends.
And the reason I suggest the cities provide a wide variety of free social and recreational activities is to encourage people get out of the house in the evening and do something with other people, even if it is something passive, such as sitting in a cafe and listening to people play music.

Furthermore, this modern world requires a wife to be willing to let her husband spend time with other men rather than be like a devoted dog who follows her around, and a man must have the confidence to let his wife do things with other women without becoming paranoid that she will run off with another man.

This in turn requires that we develop better courtship procedures so that people have a better chance of developing a stable marriage, which in turn would cause married couples to be less paranoid that their partner will abandon them.

Who will provide music and singing?
As you look at the drawing above, you might wonder who is going to play music at cafes or concerts in the type of city I suggest when there is no free enterprise system, and no money. In a free enterprise system, people provide music, singing, and a variety of other types of entertainment simply to make a living. Some people provide music and other entertainment for donations. What will happen when we are living in a city in which we have the basic necessities for free, and there is no money for donations, and everybody is required to have a job and contribute to society?

The city I suggest is not going to appeal to everybody. People like Vincent van Gogh would love the idea of a city in which the basic necessities are free, but their antisocial behavior and their inability to function properly at a job would result in them being evicted.

In a free enterprise system, people and businesses are constantly looking for opportunities to make money, and the end result is that they offer a wide variety of entertainment, such as singing, music, beauty contests, dancing, skateboards stunts, and magic acts.

There is also some pathetic entertainment, such as the people who are so desperate for food and housing that they play music or perform other entertainment on the sidewalks for donations. Those people are not enjoying themselves or their life, and they create an uncomfortable situation for the people walking along the sidewalk.

In the city that I suggest, the government is in control of all of the jobs, so we will have total control over our entertainment options. We can discuss and make decisions about what type of entertainment to provide, when to provide it, how much of it to provide, who is going to provide it, and whether people who provide it are doing so as a full-time job. We have a lot of options, two of which are:
1) We can design the city to make it easy for people to produce music on their own. Since the city will provide everybody with free access to material items, nobody has to purchase musical instruments. The city could provide lots of tiny theaters that have musical instruments, karaoke equipment, and whatever else people wanted. If a group of friends wanted to create music for themselves, or for other people, they would go to one of the tiny theaters and use whatever equipment they were interested in. The city would feel as if it is a giant mansion full of rooms that they can use whenever they want.

2) The city will have a lot of chores to do, such as mowing lawns, trimming trees, pulling weeds, cleaning the social clubs, and maintaining the swimming pools. However, is up to us to decide what we designate as a "chore" that we must share, and what we refer to as a "job". We could say that one of the optional chores that people can choose from is providing entertainment at city festivals, restaurants, and parties. This would allow the people who excel at music, singing, or other entertainment, to choose one of the entertainment chores rather than help with the maintenance of swimming pools.
Furthermore, robots will eventually be useful for creating music, and those robots will make it easy for people with excellent singing abilities to put on shows for the public. I find it difficult to imagine that people would enjoying robots that sing, but I think that musical robots will become very popular for two reasons:
1) The people programming the robots would be able to design music that humans don't have the coordination to play, and they could create instruments that only robots have the ability to play. The competition between the people who are programming the robots would inspire new and different types of music.

2) There are many more people who are excellent singers than there are excellent musicians. When a city provides us with free access to musical robots, then any of the thousands of people who sing well would be able to put on shows for the public at cafes, festivals, and parties.

Without musical robots, putting on a show requires contacting a lot of human musicians to find out who is interested in performing at the show, who has the talents that they need, and who will be available at the time that they want to do the show. It is a lot of work.

With musical robots, however, one woman who likes to sing can arrange a musical show very quickly by herself simply by taking some musical robots and telling them what to play. The robots would provide better quality music than an MP3 player, and be more visually entertaining.

Hollywood creates the impression that only Lady Gaga and a few other people are excellent singers, but Hollywood is fooling people. Hollywood gives publicity only to the people who are part of their crime network.

In my opinion, an enormous percentage of women are very good or excellent singers. Actually, the people who control Hollywood seem to use this information to intimidate Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and other people that they have chosen to be celebrities. Specifically, they occasionally remind the celebrities that they can easily be replaced because there are lots of people with just as much or more talent than they have. The celebrities respond to this intimidation with angry remarks in their songs about how they are insulted and bullied, but the truth is that they can be replaced because there are lots of people with just as much or more talent.

3) The music created by robots will have a better sound quality than the music produced by speakers. Therefore, robots will allow small groups of people to have higher quality music. There will be no distortion, buzzing, hiss, or other problems associated with speakers.
Although we will never be sure what provides us with the most pleasant life until we find the courage to start experimenting with life, I suspect that we will have a much more satisfying life when we can do something in the evening, and be with other people, rather than just sit at home with a television, a computer, or a dog

With more self-control, dancing will become more popular
Another use for musical robots is to make it easy for small groups of people to create high quality music for dancing, and to produce shows for the public, such as the Nutcracker ballet. It is difficult to set up those type of ballets because so many people are necessary. Musical robots will eliminate a lot of the people, thereby simplifying the situation to the point at which more people would be able to put on those type of shows.

However, we should also make a change in our attitude towards dancing. Just as sports have been evolving through the centuries to become increasingly difficult and dangerous, dancing has also become incredibly difficult, especially for the ballet dancers who dance on their toes.

Many centuries ago ballet was just another form of dancing, but it has evolved through the years into an increasingly difficult and painful form of dance. In the 1800s, for example, one woman decided to try dancing on her toes, and that caused other people to compete with her, and the end result is that today no women can qualify as a ballet dancer unless she can dance on her toes. This restricts who can be a dancer, and it requires the people who want to be dancers to spend enormous amounts of time training and practicing. It also requires special shoes, referred to as "pointe shoes".
Have you seen the Nutcracker ballet? (I think the Mariinsky theater has the most entertaining variation, and it also has good video quality.) There is a section in which the dancers are doing dances of different cultures. Notice that none of the women are dancing on their toes, and they are not wearing pointe shoes, either, but I and millions of other people regard that section of the ballet to be very entertaining. Also, men are not capable of dancing on their toes, but that doesn't ruin the ballet.

Women do not have to dance on their toes. It is our competitive nature that causes us to push ourselves to extremes, and to develop the attitude that we must dance in a particular manner. In reality, there are lots of different ways to enjoy dancing. The women are tormenting themselves by dancing on their toes, and they are making ballet so difficult and painful that most people cannot become ballet dancers.

This concept applies to all of our activities, not just dancing. There is no correct way to design sports or recreational activities, or to have a wedding, birthday party, city festival, or Christmas party. For example, as I mentioned in my document about bicycles, we do not have to crouch over our bicycle and pretend that we are racers in order to enjoy a bicycle ride. It is our competitive nature and our desire to impress and intimidate other people that causes us to believe that we must ride bicycles in a certain manner.

Football players do not have to give themselves concussions or destroy their knees, and there is no correct or incorrect way to go swimming or snorkeling. Sports equipment does not have to be expensive, either, and sports do not need to be so difficult that we need years of training to play them. As I mentioned in my document about sports, we have tremendous options with sports, and we should design them to be simple, safe, and entertaining. We do not improve sports by making them expensive, dangerous, complex, or painful.

Likewise, we could design weddings, anniversaries, birthday parties, and other celebrations to be more casual, more entertaining, and more sociable. A lot of people are tormenting themselves with their complex and expensive weddings and parties.

In a free enterprise system, city festivals are designed to allow businesses to sell products, but we could design city festivals to provide ourselves with recreation, exercise, entertainment, and socializing.

We have a lot of options in life, but we must exert some self-control and use our intellect in order to see those options and experiment with them. If we follow our emotions, we won't notice that we have options because we will focus on competing for status, fighting, and trying to impress other people.

We should push ourselves into making intelligent decisions. If a society did not require the ballet dancers to do incredibly difficult stunts, the dancers would not have to spend so much of their time practicing, which would allow them to do other things with their life, and it would allow more people to become ballet dancers, thereby allowing more people to put on shows.

Furthermore, by dancing on their toes, the women are causing themselves a lot of pain and medical problems, and they are wasting an enormous amount of resources and labor on pointe shoes. One of the reasons ballet is so expensive is because the ballet companies have gotten out of control with the shoes and clothing. The Pittsburgh ballet theater claims to be spending about $100,000 every year just on pointe shoes. In addition, they are spending unnecessarily large amounts of money on other clothing items for the dancers.
Furthermore, the male ballet dancers usually wear tights rather than pants, kilts, short pants, or other clothing items, but they have the option of wearing a variety of different clothing styles, colors, and patterns. In some dances, the tights create an interesting visual image, but in most scenes, especially when the men are wearing a jacket or shirt, the tights seem out of place, and a bit homosexual. In the Nutcracker, there are a few scenes in which a few men are wearing pants (the image to the right), and it does not ruin the performance. Also, note that the women are wearing boots in that dance, not pointe shoes.

In a free enterprise system, we don't know the details of how our money is spent on pointe shoes or treating concussions of football players, or how much money is needed to arrange for food eating contests or basketball tournaments, but if we switch to the economy I suggest, the government will be in control of everything, and we will be able to see exactly where our labor and resources are going. This will give us the ability to pass judgment on which activities we want to eliminate, and which we want to simplify in order to reduce labor, resources, or medical problems.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are in competition to attract our attention, but we don't need to go to extremes in order to provide ourselves with entertainment and recreation. Dances can be entertaining without difficult and dangerous stunts. I think that dancing should be regarded as a form of visual artwork. We should design dances to be entertaining rather than have dancers impress us with their painful and difficult stunts.

The Nutcracker ballet would be just as entertaining without the difficult stunts and pointe shoes. By altering the dances so that they are easier to do, the dancers won't have to practice so much, and they won't be in pain at the end of a performance. This will allow more people to become dancers, and that makes it possible for us to have a lot of shows in small theaters rather than just a few shows in large theaters. The small theaters don't need audio amplifiers or speakers, thereby giving us better sound quality, and we will be able to see the performers better. I think we will find that to be much more pleasurable.

Furthermore, when more people are involved with dancing, there is a greater chance that you will know some of the dancers in the performances, which can make the performance even more entertaining compared to watching a group of strangers.

We should admire the people who contribute to society
In all societies today, both men and women admire whoever becomes wealthy and famous, and we show no concern for how those people achieved their position. We should encourage people to change their attitudes about who among us deserves our respect. We should judge people by what they contribute to society, and how they behave.

The people who are providing us with food, electricity, and homes are doing more for us than the people who have merely gathered a large pile of money, or who were born into a wealthy or famous family. Unfortunately, people are most attracted to whoever brings them the most pleasure. Lady Gaga, for example, entertains a lot of people, so she is admired much more than the people who are doing something that is truly useful for us. Furthermore, we are especially unlikely to admire a person who provides us with useful, constructive criticism.

We currently consider a man to be a successful father and husband if he can make a lot of money, but we should judge a man by whether he can provide his family with sensible guidance, behave in a responsible manner, contribute something of value to society, and be a good role model for children.

We regard a man as brave and courageous if he can get into fistfights, which was a useful trait for prehistoric men, but in this modern world, it would be more useful for us to consider a man be brave and courageous when he can listen to and discuss information he does not want to hear, such as constructive criticism, or evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust. The men who are capable of conducting experiments with culture should also be considered courageous, not the men who insist on following their ancestors.

If every society would change its attitudes like that, then we would want leaders who contribute to society, provide us with intelligent guidance, set a good example for us, and have the courage to experiment with our options in life. This would give us leaders who slowly bring improvements to society, rather than letting the problems persist for years.

Those type of leaders would encourage the men to exert some self-control, provide guidance to their wife and children, and look for ways to improve society. That would be a significant improvement over the situation today in which men are wasting their life on a senseless competition to acquire the largest pile of material items and awards, and who frequently get into arguments over who has the correct opinions about abortion, drugs, and other issues.

Children today need to be educated about relationships
Our prehistoric ancestors did not need to teach their children about marriage, sex, clothing styles, or much of anything else because the children picked up everything they needed to know simply by observing and mimicking the adults. The children learned which items were safe to eat, how to make clothing and tools, and how to make a shelter for the night. Furthermore, they regularly saw naked bodies, sex acts, childbirth, and breast-feeding. The children observed how men and women treated one another, how often they had sex and how they had sex, and what to expect from a marriage.

Today, by comparison, children are picking up a lot of unrealistic and psychotic information about life from Hollywood, the Internet, and books. Scientists have discovered a tremendous amount of information about humans during the past few thousand years, but children today actually have less of an understanding of some issues, such as childbirth, sex, breast-feeding, and what human bodies look like, other than their own body.

Prehistoric children grew up in a small, friendly, homogenous society, and so they did not pick up lots of conflicting beliefs about religion, abortion, politics, material wealth, marriage, or tattoos. By comparison, children today are picking up so many conflicting and idiotic opinions about life that they are confused about what to do with their life and how to treat other people.

For an example of how men and women can ruin their relationships when they have unrealistic information about life, consider a man who assumes that after he gets married, his wife will continue to have the same flirtatious personality as when they were dating, as we can see sometimes in the Hollywood movies. After he gets married, his wife will lose interest in flirting with him, and as soon as she has a baby, she will show a much greater interest in her child. She will want her husband to be a slave who provides her with financial support and gifts, tells her how much he loves her, and spends the evening at home like a faithful servant who is waiting for orders.

A female animal selects a male in a similar manner as a farmer would select an ox to pull a plow, or the manner in which a business would hire a factory worker. The females are not looking for companionship, compatibility, or friendship. They are looking for a slave to feed them, give them attention, and protect them from danger.

The unmarried women put a lot of effort into looking pretty and being flirtatious and adorable. Once they pick a husband, however, they lose their interest in flirting with men and become what they were designed to be, namely, mothers. Of course, since every woman is unique, some of them change more than others after getting married. Some women are so crude that after they get married they lose their interest in their physical appearance and allow themselves to become overweight and sloppy.

If a man does not realize that this is normal behavior for females, he might become angry or disappointed when his wife loses her interest in him after the wedding is over. He might feel that he was deceived by her; that she pretended to be in love with him simply to trick him into marrying her. He might decide to look for that flirtatious behavior by having extramarital affairs, or he might decide to get divorced and search for a woman who behaves in the manner that he expects.

If, instead, he had been raised on realistic information about men and women, then he would have realized that the natural relationship between a man and woman is for the man to spend his life supporting his wife, and for her to spend her life taking care of children. He would have expected his wife to lose interest in him and focus on the children. As a result, when she did that, he would not be surprised or upset. He would accept his role in life rather than complain about his wife.

The prehistoric children observed men and women every day, and that filled their memories with realistic information about what men and women do each day, and how men and women treat one another. The prehistoric boys saw the men spend each day looking for food and making tools, and bringing food home to their families. Those observations caused the boys to realize that when they grew up, they would spend each day doing those same activities, and they would treat their wives just like the other men were treating their wives.

Likewise, the prehistoric girls realized that when they grew up, they would spend their lives raising children with the other women, and they would treat their husbands in the same manner that the adult women treated their husbands.

Today, by comparison, children are exposed to all sorts of idiotic and unrealistic information about marriages, jobs, sports, and other issues, and it is causing a lot of them to be confused about what to do with their life, what to expect from a marriage, and how to treat other people.

There are marriage counseling services to help couples handle their marital disputes, but those services are for couples who are already married and fighting with each other. They are not intended to prepare single people for marriage.

Furthermore, those counseling services are based on a religious view of life, not a scientific view, so the counseling services are worthless. The only counseling services that would be of use to couples would be those that provide them with realistic information about human behavior; give them practice in exerting self-control; and push them into getting accustomed to thinking about problems rather than reacting to them.

Imagine a society in which people are allowed to fly airplanes without any type of training or education, and after they crash an airplane, some businesses offer counseling services to the pilots to help them cope with the trauma and provide them with some guidance on how to fly an airplane. And imagine that those pilot counseling services are designed by religious fanatics rather than pilots, resulting in a service that focuses on making the pilots feel better about themselves rather than provide sensible flight lessons.

In this modern world, we need to prepare children for life. We need to provide them with information about human bodies, sex, marriage, and human nature. We cannot expect them to learn what they need simply by mimicking the adults, especially when the adults are so sexually inhibited that they will not allow their children to learn about sex, human bodies, masturbation, childbirth, or breast-feeding.

It is also ridiculous to expect children to learn about life when there are thousands of businesses, religions, and other organizations that are struggling to manipulate children and adults into desiring certain products, following a particular religion, becoming feminists, or following a particular political belief.

We must alter our culture to fit our genetic characteristics
We must do more than merely learn about and accept our animal-like qualities. We should also alter our culture to fit our qualities. For example, we need to stop allowing businesses, religions, and other groups from manipulating children. If you can understand that children are picking up bits of information as they grow up, you should realize that it is important for us to ensure that children are picking up useful and realistic information, rather than picking up idiotic beliefs from organizations that are trying to manipulate them.

Organizations are trying to convince children to desire certain types of clothing, toys, candies, religious beliefs, political beliefs, and beliefs about men and women. We should not allow businesses, religions, or other organizations to manipulate children.

I think the primary reason that men and women are having so much trouble forming stable relationships today is because boys and girls are picking up unrealistic information about marriage, relationships, and sex, and most of this false and deceptive information is coming from businesses and religions. In order for men and women to form satisfying relationships, the boys and girls need to pick up realistic information about human nature.

We should also design our leisure activities to fit our characteristics. For example, women have a strong desire to chat with one another, especially when they are upset. If they don't have female friends, they are likely to expect their husband to listen to them. Unfortunately, men and women cannot spend a lot of time talking to one another because we have significant differences in our intellectual and emotional qualities.

From the point of view of a woman, chatting is a social activity. When women run out of topics to discuss, they will usually just repeat a topic, which irritates most men. The men have to suppress their craving to yell, "You just talked about this issue five times today! Shut up already!"

Women usually talk about something because they have a craving to talk, not because they are interested in discussing an issue or listening to somebody else's opinion. Chatting is a social activity for women.

Women also talk when they are upset, but they don't want a conversation. They just want to talk, and they want somebody to at least pretend to be listening. Talking is their method of relieving their frustration. By comparison, when men are frustrated, they tend to yell, throw objects, or remain silent.

During prehistoric times, women were never alone. They were always surrounded by women and children. Even when the people were in their teepee structures, they were within auditory range of one another, and the women were capable of chatting with one another.

Women were designed to spend the day and evening among women and children, and so they expect to be surrounded by human voices. Today, however, most people are living in homes that are separated from one another. When women are alone in a house, some of them will turn on a television simply to provide them with some human voices. During the evenings, when a husband and wife are alone in their house, some women deal with the loneliness by spending a lot of time on the telephone or on the Internet, and some women expect their husband to talk to her, or at least listen to her.

Men don't have much of an interest in the type of chatting that women do. This usually results in husbands who do not pay much attention to what their wife is saying. Instead, the husbands tend to occasionally make remarks such as: "Yes dear." Women have such a craving to talk that even though they sometimes sense that their husbands are not paying attention, they continue talking anyway.

We are currently designing society to satisfy our cravings for big houses and large plots of land, but this is creating an unfriendly, lonely social environment. It is causing husbands and wives to spend a lot of their time in their house by themselves. Humans evolved to spend our evenings in a campsite with other people. When we put a man and woman together in a house by themselves, they are going to get bored, lonely, and annoy one another.

Millions of people spend many hours during the evening watching television programs or on the Internet, or on the telephone. There is nothing wrong with any of this, but if we take a look at what they are doing, and why, I think we will come to the conclusion that most of them are bored and lonely. For example, they are selecting the television shows that allow them to feel as if they are among other people, and they choose the Internet activities that allow them to chat with other people. When they are on the telephone, it is not to discuss anything of value; it is simply to chat because they are so lonely.
By watching a television show in which people are playing sports or singing, or by watching a television program such as "Seinfeld", we can imagine that we are among other people. Those type of television programs make it feel as if we are sitting around a campfire and watching other people do things.

However, if a person's only contact with other people is through electronic devices, then he may as well cut out his brain, put it into a jar, and connect himself to a television signal. With their brain in a jar, they don't have to worry about getting sore from sitting in a chair for hours, or having to get up every few hours to eat or go to the bathroom.

During prehistoric times, the people were always in close proximity to one another during the evenings. Some people would make tools, while others might play music, sing songs, or dance. The children would play with each other, and some of the adults would play recreational games, tell stories of what they did during the day, or teach one of the children how to sharpen a stick into a spear. Sometimes one of them would reenact what he did during the day, similar to an actor in a play.

Most of our television programs are simulating that prehistoric campsite. By sitting in front of a television, we can watch other people, including children, interact with one another, play music, dance, and play recreational games.

Most people select television programs according to their emotional feelings; specifically, to provide themselves with pleasure, not to educate themselves or help them practice self-control. The type of programs that people are attracted to gives us an indication of the emotional feelings of the people. The programs that are the most popular are those that make it feel as if we are among other people. I think this is evidence that most people are using television as a substitute for friends and activities.

When the television programs provide us with sports, music, and other types of entertainment, they don't keep their cameras focused on the athletes or musicians. Instead, the cameras frequently show us the audience, and there are frequently narrators who talk to us. I think this is an indication that people who watch these programs want to feel as if they are in the audience. They don't want to watch the event. They want to fantasize that they are among other people.

Because men and women have different intellectual and emotional qualities, we are attracted to slightly different types of television programs. Women have a greater attraction to the "soap operas" because those programs simulate the ancient campsite in which women would chat with one another about other people and their children.

I think the strong attraction to telephones, television, and social media is evidence that our social environment has degraded significantly, and that we are not getting what we truly need; namely, human companionship, and activities with other people. I would describe most television programs as being analogous to sex robots, pet dogs, and dolls. In other words, people are not watching television because it improves their lives. Rather, they are watching it because they are lonely or bored. Most television programs are being used as a substitute for a life.

Imagine if a zoo installed lots of televisions in a cage of monkeys, and if the zoo also produced television programs for the monkeys. Imagine if the monkeys were spending almost all of their leisure time alone in front of a television. Imagine the monkeys also getting fat and sickly, and having trouble forming relationships and reproducing. You would likely complain about that zoo exhibit, but what is the difference between monkeys behaving like that, and humans?

Imagine that the zoo also provided the male monkeys with "monkey pornography", and they provided the female monkeys with dolls that look like baby monkeys and dogs that have been specially bred to become pets for monkeys. Imagine the male monkeys spending a lot of their time masturbating, and the female spending a lot of time with the dolls and dogs. You would likely regard that zoo exhibit as disgusting, but what is the difference between that type of zoo exhibit and what we see in human cities today?

I think that if we were living in cities that are more homogenous and friendly, and if we were within walking distance of our friends, and if we had easy access to a wide variety of free recreational activities, music concerts, social clubs, and other activities, our interest in television would decrease, and we would also want to watch different types of programs on television.

When people are extremely hungry, they think a lot about food; when women become frustrated about not having a baby, they might spend a lot of time thinking about babies; when a man has strong cravings for sex, he might spend a lot of time fantasizing about sex. Likewise, when people are lonely and bored, they are likely to spend a lot of time trying to satisfy their cravings for people and activities.

Therefore, if we were living in a city in which people had satisfying friendships and activities, they would not be bored and lonely, which in turn means that they would not have intense cravings for television programs that make them feel as if they are among other people. Their interest in television programs would change.

I suspect that in a more appropriate social environment, people would lose their interest in the type of television programs that make us feel less lonely, such as General Hospital, Seinfeld, and Friends. I also suspect that people would lose their interest in programs that frequently show us the audience, and the programs that have fake laughter. I also suspect that if people were having a more satisfying life, they would have less of an interest in pet dogs, dolls, and sex robots.

If we were living in a more satisfying social environment, we would still enjoy television, but I think we would want different types of television programs, such as:
• Programs that are purely entertainment, such as music concerts, plays like the Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker, and acts like those of Cirque du Soleil.
• Programs that are truly educational, similar to those produced by David Attenborough and Nature.
• Videos of ourselves and our friends from the past.
Our cities are not providing us with an appropriate environment. Our cities are unfriendly, ugly, and frightening, and the cities are so chaotic, and the transportation so difficult, dangerous, and time-consuming, that it is inconvenient for us to get together with our friends in the evening and join them in activities.

The fear of crime is also causing parents with young children to be afraid of leaving their children alone. Actually, we have made it illegal for parents to leave their children alone. Compare that to prehistoric tribes in which the children could freely wander around the campsite. Children today are isolated from other children, and many of them are afraid of being kidnapped or raped. Parents need babysitters in order to spend time with other adults.

Furthermore, our cities do not truly provide us with social or recreational activities. There are businesses offering us sports events, food, music concerts, and other services, but they are businesses that are trying to make profit from us. Businesses are not going to provide us with what we need. They are going to provide us with what is profitable to them. We should design a city for human life, not for businesses.

We must acknowledge that some of us are unusual
Most people are ordinary, but there will always be a minority of people who are at the extreme edges of the bell curve. Two reasons that this issue is significant to us are:
1) The people who are unusual must realize that they are unusual, and that society has been designed for people with slightly different characteristics. They should not expect society to change to give them what they want.

2) Every society must restrict the reproduction of the unusual people in order to ensure that society is friendly and homogenous. We cannot allow unlimited diversity in physical and mental qualities.
There will always be people who are unusual in some particular quality, and they must realize that they are unusual because if they assume they are ordinary people, they will assume that what they want and think about is what everybody else wants and thinks about, and that false assumption will lead them to absurd conclusions about life.

For example, there are some women who do not have strong cravings for children, and who would rather have the type of jobs and leisure activities that men have. If they assume that they are typical women, they will assume that other women also prefer to behave like men, and that in turn will bring them to the false conclusion that most women are raising children because society is pressuring them to become mothers. They will assume that most women are suffering, and that they need to be liberated from the sexism.

If the masculine women could understand that they are unusual women, then they would realize that they should quietly do what they want to do, and they should allow the majority of women be mothers.

Likewise, the feminine men who do not realize that they are unusual men will come to idiotic conclusions about life, such as claiming that the reason most men never cry is because we are suppressing our emotions, and that the reason we don't spend hours a day with babies is because we have been brainwashed by sexist propaganda. The feminine men should accept the evidence that they are unusual men, and that most men truly do not want to cry or play with babies.

Men were not designed to react to problems by crying. A male monkey's natural reaction to problems is anger or fear, not crying. The females, and especially the baby monkeys, tend to react to problems by crying and screaming.

A male monkey evolved to react to a problem with anger or fear because both of those reactions provide leadership to the females and the children. For example, when a male monkey becomes angry at some problem, such as a predator or competitor, his anger gives him the courage and physical energy to face the problem. If a problem is so dangerous that he becomes frightened, then he will run away from the problem, and he will take the females and children with him, thereby protecting them from danger.

Men are supposed to be leaders. A man's tear glands are triggered by certain emotional situations, both pleasant and sad situations, such as a wedding and the death of a friend, but our tear glands were not designed to be triggered when we encounter a problem in life. We have been designed to react to problems with anger or fear, not with tears. Of course, in this modern world, it is absurd for us to react to a problem with anger or fear. Today we need to exert some self-control so that we can push ourselves into remaining calm, analyzing the problem, and looking for an intelligent solution.

The men who have a tendency to react to problems by crying are "abnormal". They struggle to suppress their tears, and they assume that other men are also suppressing tears, but most of us do not suppress tears. We truly do not want to cry when we are confronted with a problem.

The men who accuse us of suppressing our tears have an unrealistic view of humans. Their accusations are as idiotic as if Jerry Sandusky were to claim that every man wants to have sex with young boys, and that we are suppressing our cravings. Most men truly do not have a sexual attraction to other men, and especially not to little boys.

If homosexuals or pedophiles believe that they are "normal" men, then all of the opinions they create based on that unrealistic assumption will be absurd.

Schools should teach children that even though all humans have the same mental and physical characteristics, each of us is unique, and we all have a unique set of flaws and defects. Students should be put through lots of activities and tests so that they can determine their particular qualities. This will allow the students to discover whether they are "typical" people, or whether there are some unusual characteristics about their body and/or mind.

There will be some people who are so ordinary in every quality that they could truly boast that what they think is "typical", but until we have been put through tests to determine our qualities, we should not assume that our desires, qualities, or fantasies are typical. This is especially true of people who read my documents. You obviously do not have a typical mind because if you did, you would be sitting in front of a television or playing with a cell phone instead of reading this type of material. Because you are not typical, you might have a difficult time understanding the typical people, and the typical people might have trouble understanding you.

We must restrict the reproduction of the misfits
Religious fanatics and social scientists promote the philosophy that we should love one another and tolerate one another's differences. That philosophy would be practical if the human mind was truly like a piece of clay that molded itself to the environment. However, if you believe that our intellectual and emotional characteristics are due to our genetic design, then you should realize that there are an infinite number of possible intellectual and emotional characteristics, and that the only way a society will be homogenous, friendly, and pleasant is if we restrict reproduction to ensure that the people have compatible mental characteristics.

An example is this former policeman who wanted to have a child simply to rape the child. His desires are so bizarre that it's difficult to believe that the news report is telling the truth. The accusations by orphans at the Boystown orphanage, and the accusations of the children at the McMartin preschool, the pizzagate information, and all of the other hundreds of accusations about pedophilia, is showing us that there are possibly millions of people who enjoy using children for sex, and drinking their blood, eating their flesh, and torturing them.

The pedophiles are just one example of how people are developing significantly different and incompatible emotional and intellectual characteristics. If we do not control reproduction, each generation will have a wider variety of personalities and intellectual characteristics.

If you agree with me that our bodies, personalities, and intellectual abilities are genetic, then you should realize that every generation is going to create a diversity of physical and mental characteristics.

During prehistoric times, nature took care of this problem in a very cruel manner. For example, the undesirable children were bullied, which reduced their chances of survival and reproduction, and sometimes the adults would kill the undesirable children. The bizarre adults had trouble surviving, attracting friends, attracting a spouse, and raising children. Today, however, we struggle to stop the suffering and help everybody to survive and reproduce.

There are already some people who have such unusual personalities that they cannot find a friend or spouse, and there are some people who are excessively violent, and there are other people who don't want to go to school, work in a modern job, follow schedules, or obey our laws. There are also people who believe that they are witches or warlocks, and there are some people who are so involved with religion that we should classify them as mentally ill.
Every generation has a wider variety of personalities and intellectual abilities, which is causing each generation to be more incompatible than the previous generation.

Furthermore, every generation is also experiencing a wider variety of physical qualities. Each generation has a wider variety of sizes and shapes, and each generation has a wider variety of skin blemishes, speech disorders, odors, allergies, and other problems.

If we don't restrict the variations, people will eventually have such a wide variety of shapes and sizes of bodies that everybody will need different sizes and shapes of chairs, tables, beds, clothing, bathrooms, and doorways.

Eventually the human race will become millions of different species with different medical and nutritional requirements.

In other documents I have proposed allowing cities to develop their own culture, but I have also suggested a world government that supervises all of the cities and prevents them becoming so genetically different that they start causing trouble for one another.

We can allow different societies to be genetically and culturally different from one another, but we must ensure that everybody is compatible enough to form a peaceful, stable world. We have to put limits on how different the people can become. Those limits are arbitrary, and so the only way to set them is to have a world government make the arbitrary decisions and force them on the cities.

We are not being nice when we allow such incredible diversity. Rather, we are causing the unusual people to suffer a miserable, lonely life.

I pointed out in other documents that many of the people who choose bizarre clothing styles, tattoos, body piercings, and lifestyles are not doing this because they are enjoying their freedom, or because they enjoy their clothing styles or body piercings. Rather, they are deliberately choosing to do something different from the "normal" people because they don't feel as if they fit in to society. They are misfits, and they are miserable, angry, envious, rebellious, and lonely. They are not enjoying life. They are suffering. We are tormenting the misfits, not being nice to them.

Why is autism increasing?
Several studies of autism have shown that it has been increasing tremendously between 1996 and 2007, such as the graph to the right.

President Trump is one of many people who is promoting the theory that vaccines are causing autism. I don't know whether it is possible for a child to become autistic from a vaccine, but it should be obvious that vaccines cannot explain the rise in autism because there is no corresponding rise in the use of vaccines. I suspect that the rise in autism is due to these five factors:
1) More parents and doctors are aware of the issue of autism, thereby resulting in more people looking for signs of autism, whereas decades ago a lot of the autistic children were regarded as simply being different, stupid, or weird.

2) Pollutants are increasing in our environment. Some chemicals have already shown to have the ability to interfere with the development of animals and humans. The chemicals that are obviously dangerous have been prohibited, but we should consider the possibility that we have not yet noticed that some of the "safe" chemicals are causing developmental disorders that are more difficult to notice. For example, it would be very difficult to determine if a child of ordinary intelligence would have had an above-average intelligence if it were not for the pollutants in the environment.

3) Different races of humans are interbreeding. Mules are an example of how a mother and father from different gene pools will produce children with mental and physical disorders. The different races of humans are more genetically compatible than horses and donkeys, but there is no evidence to suggest that we are so compatible that we can interbreed without producing children with mental and physical disorders.

4) Genetic disorders are accumulating in every race because we are not restricting reproduction to the healthier people.

5) More parents are having children later in life, which results in children who are the result of elderly eggs and sperm.
Autism is a vague word that is being used to describe a variety of undesirable behavior. I don't know how to explain autism, but I can say with certainty that even if we eliminate vaccines and pollutants, there will be more autism in each generation, and there will be a wider variety of autism in each generation. The reason I can state this as a fact is because biologists and farmers have already proven that when reproduction is not controlled, every plant and animal population will degrade genetically.

The people who cannot understand this concept, or who refuse to acknowledge it, are analogous to people who refuse to acknowledge that 2+2 = 4. These people should be classified as "intellectually and/or emotionally inferior", and they should not be allowed in influential positions. They are causing the human race to degrade into freaks.

When we do not control reproduction, every generation will have a wider variety of emotional characteristics, intellectual abilities, mental illnesses, crooked teeth, diabetes, headaches, and autoimmune diseases. Every generation will have a wider variety of physical sizes and shapes, and a wider variety of digestive problems, nutritional requirements, and sexual cravings. People will become increasingly antisocial, making it increasingly difficult for them to form stable friendships, marriages, and organizations.

Eventually so many people will have so many serious genetic disorders that it will cause society to degrade because there will be too few people available to maintain modern technology. There will be such a shortage of skilled machinists, technicians, engineers, and other people that the situation will resemble the movie Idiocracy, in which the people have trouble maintaining their buildings, electric power network, factories, and farms.

Every generation has more people who have trouble with school, jobs, and laws. Every generation has more people who want to be taken care of by somebody else while they spend their time behaving in an obnoxious manner, watching television, getting drunk, or playing games. Every generation has more people who want to waste their time at work looking at pornography, playing video games, or sending text messages on their phones. Every generation has more people who have such bizarre personalities that it is difficult for them to form stable friendships, marriages, and business relationships, and which results in them becoming best friends with animals, sex robots, fictional characters, and dolls.

In an earlier document I speculated that homosexuals frequently flaunt their homosexuality, such as in parades, because most of them are actually unhappy that they are homosexual, but they are trying to make themselves feel better by repeatedly telling themselves over and over that they enjoy being homosexual.

When we find somebody routinely saying something over and over, especially if he says it to himself, it is very likely that he is lying, and that he is trying to fool us and/or himself.

We can see this same situation occurring with people who have autistic children, or who are autistic themselves. The parents of autistic children are suffering, and the people who are autistic are suffering, also, but many of these people are struggling to make themselves feel better by repeatedly telling themselves that autism is wonderful. For example, some of them proudly display such graphics as the three below.

Some of those people have created clever ways of misspelling words, such as "autism is ausome" and "We're autastic". They will provide themselves with some momentary titillation every time they praise themselves for being creative, but they are doing nothing to reduce their misery, or reduce the number of autistic children in the next generation.

The only way we are going to reduce this problem is to restrict reproduction, and to eliminate secrecy so that we can study the human race and get a better understanding of what is causing our problems. How many of our mental and physical problems are due to chemicals in the environment? How many are due to the interbreeding of races or genetic defects? We need to answer these questions, not ignore them. The people who are resisting the issue of genetics and pollutants should be regarded as inferior creatures who are destroying the human race.

Multiculturalism and tolerance is impractical

Zoos do not promote multicultural exhibits. In other words, they do not put different species of animals together in the same cage and expect them to coexist peacefully. Zoos do not practice "tolerance", either. Rather, they promote compatibility. In other words, they do not mix psychotic monkeys, midget monkeys, tall monkeys, violent monkeys, retarded monkeys, shy monkeys, and sloppy monkeys. They do not expect a variety of monkeys to tolerate and love one another. Instead, they put animals together that are compatible with one another.

We should design cities with the same attitude that we design zoo exhibits. Mixing people with different physical and mental characteristics results in frustration, fighting, unemployment, bullying, loneliness, and misery.

Take a look at this comment that was posted on, which is one of the many sites that Jews and their cohorts use to spread propaganda. The person who posted it makes angry, sarcastic remarks about Donald Trump and Germans. His document is vague and confusing, but that is to be expected since crime networks don't attract people with high quality minds.

His remarks show a lot of anger towards Germans and Trump, and it seems to be because he does not fit into our society. He describes the Germans as being like "bugs". Some of his remarks are:
People are after the governments constantly, to create more “jobs”.
A typical bug behaviour. Keep everybody busy, for the “collective”, “public”, “society”, with zero respect to individuality.

The government's duty is not the creation of jobs, but to provide “fertile grounds” for EVERYBODY to flourish, to thrive, without interfering on others, without being parasitic.

Trump's promise to create jobs bothers him. He does not want a job. He wants the government to provide "fertile grounds" for us to "flourish" and "thrive". What does that mean? He does not provide any detail, perhaps because he is ashamed to admit that what he wants is to be taken care of by people who provide him with food, housing, electricity, and computers, while he spends his time promoting propaganda, eating, and playing video games.

He also posted a brief response to his document in which somebody who agreed with him made some vague, insulting remarks about "long necks". I suppose that is an indication that these people are Neanderthals with short necks.

It is possible that those two people would have been happy living with a tribe of Mongols a few centuries earlier because back then they could have made a living by stealing from people who traveled through their land. When we let them live with us, however, they become angry, miserable misfits because they don't like our schools, work habits, jobs, and other culture.

The two people are just two of millions of people who are living in America and Europe, but who don't like our schools or jobs. They like our material wealth, and they like how we treat them, but it is idiotic to let them live with us because they don't fit in. They become angry, bitter, frustrated, and envious. Some of them become criminals, and others get jobs in the government where they conspire against us, or waste their time watching pornography or playing video games. We are not being nice when we accept immigrants who cannot fit into our society because of their mental or physical differences, or who don't want to adapt to our culture.

If the Jews and other immigrants would remain on their own land, they would not cause anybody any trouble, but they don't want to live with their own people. They don't like their own people. For example, the Jew that married Trump's daughter did not want to marry a Jew; he wanted Trump's daughter, and Mark Zuckerberg did not want a Jew, either. They would rather live with us and marry our women. They want our food, not the food they produce. They want the homes that we build, not the homes that they build. We have to stop feeling sorry for the immigrants who don't like their nation and want to live with us.

We are a nation of immigrants, but we are not equal immigrants
A lot of people point out that America is a nation of immigrants, and they claim that because of this, we should continue to accept immigrants and refugees from every nation. However, the issue is more complex than they make it seem.

It is true that everybody in the United States can be described as an immigrant, including the Native Americans. However, the early immigrants were considerably different from the immigrants that started appearing in the 20th century. The Native Americans, the pilgrims, and all of the early immigrants traveled to North America to start a new life for themselves. They were not going to an established nation. They were pioneers and explorers. They were taking a big risk, and a lot of them died in the process.

Some of the early immigrants to America were mentally disturbed, and some were criminals, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that they were explorers. Furthermore, and more important, they were willing to adapt to the culture of the new nation. Those from England did not have to adapt, but those from Germany, France, and other nations had to learn a new language and a new culture.

However, the immigrants began to change significantly by the end of the 19th century. As America became more wealthy, and as it developed a more pleasant social environment, we began attracting a different type of immigrant. Specifically, an immigrant that is analogous to the rats and mice that want to live in our home. They were coming to America because they were attracted to the food, material wealth, and better living conditions. They were not pioneers, and they were not interested in adapting to American culture. They were like animals who wanted to enjoy the benefits without becoming a member of American society.

Many of the refugees and immigrants who are coming to America today are analogous to rats who come into our house simply to grab at our food and enjoy our better social environment. They are not interested in learning our language, becoming our friends, and adapting to our culture. They just want our food, houses, and better living conditions. We don't owe those type of immigrants anything. They are not "citizens". They are just "pests".

Imagine if IBM were to give jobs to people who had no interest in becoming a member of the IBM team, or who have no ability to contribute to it. Imagine that the only reason they want to become IBM employees is so that they can have access to the paychecks, healthcare, retirement programs, cafeteria, bathrooms, parking lot, computers, air-conditioning, and Internet.

IBM management is not so stupid as to hire people who lack the skills to contribute to their organization, or who do not want to adapt to it. However, there are millions of people pushing America into accepting immigrants and refugees who are only interested in getting access to our food, houses, and better living conditions. This will not create a pleasant nation. This will cause America to become just a gathering of animals who are trying to use and exploit one another, and who will eventually get into fights over who this country belongs to.

We must regard our children as immigrants, also
The concept that America is a nation of immigrants is more complex than I have made it appear. The reason is because every nation can be described as a nation of immigrants. If the human race developed from some small group of monkeys in Africa, then every nation can be described as a nation of immigrants.

The argument that a nation should accept immigrants simply because it is a nation of immigrants does not make sense. It makes more sense to say that every nation needs to control immigration.

Every nation should require people to apply to become a member of the nation, and every nation should analyze that person and pass judgment on whether they want him as a member of their society. They should pass judgment on whether he will fit in, and whether he will be able to contribute to the society.

Furthermore, to make this issue more complex, we need to realize that our children should be put into the same category as immigrants. Our attitude today is that when citizens of a nation give birth to children, their children automatically become members of society, but children are just a haphazard jumble of genetic traits, and the end result is that some children are not going to fit into our society at all, and some will fit to a certain extent, but not very well. Our children need to go through the same type of scrutiny that we put immigrants through.

This policy might seem bizarre, but this is the policy that businesses, militaries, and other organizations have been practicing for thousands of years. For example, when an employee of IBM has children, his children do not automatically become IBM employees. The children of the IBM employees who want to become an IBM employee have to apply for a job just like everybody else.

When we give birth to children, we cannot assume that the children are going to fit into our society. We need to observe them and pass judgment on whether they have the qualities necessary to fit in. If not, they need to be put on restrictions, such as restricting them to certain jobs or neighborhoods, or they need to be evicted, and some may need to be euthanized.

What is the difference between a nation that accepts a bunch of stupid refugees, and a nation that gives birth to a bunch of stupid children? The effect is the same in both cases. It does not matter whether we accept idiots from a foreign nation, or idiots from parents within our own nation. It does not matter whether we accept criminals from Cuba or whether we accept criminals from the parents of our own nation. We must control the people in our nation regardless of whether they are immigrating into this country, or whether people are giving birth to them.

If we continue to ignore the fact that some of our children do not fit into society, we allow the misfit children to suffer, and that in turn causes trouble for society. For example, the misfit children are hurting schools because parents and teachers are pandering to them rather than suppressing them. One example of their detrimental effect on school is that they are putting pressure on teachers to give higher grades to students. This problem is often described as grade inflation.

Another example of how the defective children are altering school and culture is that schools have recently begun eliminating showers in the gym classes. When I was in school, from seventh grade onward, we had to take physical education classes to get some exercise, and we were required to change from our school clothing into gym clothing. At the end of the class we would go into a community shower to rinse off. During the years since I was in school, many American schools have stopped telling children to take a shower. Why has this change occurred?

I don't think schools have been seriously discussing this issue, and that they have come to the conclusion that showers are detrimental or unnecessary. I think they are eliminating showers because the newest generations of American children are so mentally and physically defective that they cannot tolerate community showers.

A significant percentage of the American people are ashamed of their bodies. A lot of them are overweight, underweight, deformed, or ugly. America is also a mixture of races with different physical appearances and sizes, and this adds to the awkwardness of the children. A lot of the Americans are also suffering from such serious emotional disorders that they cannot handle nudity.

In one of my earlier documents, I suggested that we develop a shower similar to a car wash so that people could quickly rinse off during their lunch time, but the only people who would be willing to use that type of device are people who are not ashamed of their body, and who can handle nudity. How many people is that? It may only be few percent of the population.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have private bathrooms. When they wanted to wash off in the rain or in a pond, they had to do so in front of other people. They were not ashamed, however. They did not care if somebody saw their naked body. Today, however, people become hysterical if somebody sees their naked body.

The situation is going to get worse, not better. Every generation is more physically deformed than the generation before it, and every generation has more emotional and intellectual disorders.

There are already a lot of people who have trouble pronouncing words, and some people stutter, and some people have an unpleasant voice. These problems are getting worse with every generation, and it will eventually have a detrimental effect on schools. There will be a point in the future at which there are so many children who are ashamed of their voice or their inability to pronounce words that they put pressure on the schools to stop asking children to speak in class.

Eventually their voices and speaking ability will be so defective that the people will be so ashamed of themselves that speaking in public will be prohibited, just as nudity is. People will communicate by sending text messages. When they want food at a restaurant, or clothing from a retail store, they will point to what they want rather than speak.

We are not cruel to abort or euthanize the defective babies. We are simply protecting the defective babies from suffering decades of loneliness and misery, and protecting society from their bad influence, and protecting their parents from becoming burdened by them.

If we allow every city to control their citizens and immigration, then we can create peaceful, pleasant, safe, and homogenous cities, and every generation would become more sociable, less violent, and better looking. Every generation would develop more stable friendships and marriages, and be more willing to learn, work, cooperate, and contribute to society. People would eventually be able to use some type of carwash-type shower that I've suggested. In fact, they might enjoy running through them and rinsing off before they go back to work.
Different leadership positions require different mental characteristics
It is difficult to say what type of intellectual, emotional, and physical qualities a particular job requires, but it is easy to see that different jobs require different abilities, and that a person who does well at one job is not necessarily going to be good at another job.

When voters are selecting people for leadership positions, or when we are designing a business, government, or other organization, we should be aware that different positions of leadership require different abilities. We should not regard all leadership positions as being identical to one another. For some examples:
• Some leadership positions require people to determine the future path of the organization, and those leaders need the emotional characteristics of an explorer who can face the unknown and discuss their options.

• Some leadership positions require the people to deal with dangerous and frightening confrontations, and those leaders need the characteristics that we would want in a military commander or police chief.

• Some leadership positions require the people to organize a team to do the same tasks over and over, such as people who are working on an assembly line. We often refer to those type of leaders as supervisors or managers rather than as leaders because they don't have to explore their options or deal with frightening situations.
The physical requirements of the leadership positions are different, also. Some leaders can do their work at desks, or through computers and telephones, so it is possible for older people and physically inferior people to do those jobs.

In order for voters to fill a leadership position, they need to know what sort of characteristics the position needs, and they need to be able to pass judgment on whether a particular candidate has the intellectual, emotional, and physical qualities necessary for the job.

It is easy to pass judgment on whether a person has the physical qualities necessary for a job, but it is not easy to pass judgment on whether somebody has the intellectual and emotional qualities that we need. One reason is because we don't understand the human mind very well, and another is because we are providing people with so much secrecy that it is impossible to determine what their true mental qualities are. Therefore, in order for voters to do a better job of selecting candidates for leadership positions, we must stop the secrecy so that we do better analyses of people's mental abilities.

President Trump obviously has some exceptional talents, which is why he became so wealthy and famous, but he is so secretive and deceptive that it is difficult to guess at what his talents and limitations might be. He has described himself as a "negotiator", and as a "dealmaker". If he is correct, then he should not be in a top leadership position. If he really does have that talent, he would be useful in helping the government to get businesses, nations, and other groups of people to cooperate and compromise.

One reason there are so many problems in the human world is because we have trouble cooperating and compromising. Our selfishness, and our intellectual and emotional differences, cause endless arguments on what to do and how to do it. The government needs people who have the ability to get people to negotiate and compromise.

As I mentioned in a previous document, Trump's ability to fire people would also be very useful for a government official in a Quality Control department. Trump seems to have the ability to face troublesome people without backing down, crying, or needing somebody to provide him with emotional support. That is the type of personality we need to get rid of the corruption and inefficiency in society.

The people in a Quality Control department are going to have endless confrontations with other people, and they must have the emotional ability to stand up to those confrontations. They have to be able to do what Trump apparently has no problem doing, which is telling people, "You're fired!", or "You are under arrest."

Most of us do not like to deal with those types of confrontations. I think that most people, especially women, would be failures in a Quality Control department. Most people would be failures as policemen and military leaders for the same reason.

When Trump was running for president, a lot of people complained that his personality was too aggressive and rude for a government leader, and that we should vote for somebody who has a more pleasant personality. However, it is idiotic to select people for jobs according to whether we like somebody's personality. Voters need to select people for jobs according to who has the characteristics to do the job properly, not according to whether we want them as our friend or spouse, or whether we like their personality. Trump should have responded to the complaints about his personality with a remark similar to:
"Yes, I am more aggressive than Hillary Clinton and your other government officials, but that is what you need. You have been electing submissive, emotionally weak pansies for decades, but what good has it done you? Those people are easily pushed around, bribed, intimidated, and manipulated. You need somebody like me who can stand up to the abuse, and who cannot be intimidated."
Voters who look for somebody that they "like" should be disqualified from voting. A voter is trying to hire a person for a very important job, and he should analyze the candidates to determine which of them has the physical, emotional, and intellectual qualities necessary for that job. A voter should not be judging the candidates according to who they are most emotionally attracted to because they are not trying to find a friend or spouse.

We need a quality control department to fire incompetent officials
Some of our government officials are honest, and some have good intentions, but that does not qualify them to be leaders. You would not let somebody perform surgery on you simply because he has good intentions and has a nice personality. A lot of our government officials need to be classified as "incompetent", and they need to be fired. This is emotionally difficult for us to do, but we must do what is most sensible, rather than what our emotions want. We need to create a Quality Control department, and we must ensure that the people in that department have the emotional ability to tell incompetent people, "You're fired."

For example, in California, every two years we have to give our automobile a smog inspection. The government officials who created this law may have had good intentions; specifically, to reduce air pollution. However, it is wasting a tremendous amount of time, labor, and resources, and it is doing nothing to reduce pollution. It is extremely rare for an automobile to fail the smog inspections.

Requiring millions of automobiles to be inspected every two years is as ridiculous as requiring everybody have their refrigerators inspected every two years for leakage of the refrigerant.

It would make more sense to give a vehicle a smog inspection only when it is creating stinky or visible exhaust gases, or when it is being serviced and the mechanic suspects that it may have a problem.

In a free enterprise system, businesses can profit from wasteful activities, but if we switch to the economic system that I've suggested, and if we also eliminate peasants, we will want to eliminate as much unnecessary work as possible. This requires that we provide ourselves with government officials who can make better decisions about which inspections are necessary, and what type of regulations businesses should follow. We need to keep track of what our government officials are doing, pass judgment on which of them are truly improving society, and replace those who are making the worst decisions.

Governments should suppress the irritating citizens
I also suggest that the Quality Control department be authorized to deal with annoying citizens; that is, citizens who have not violated any law but who are irritating. For example, some of the people on trains, theaters, museums, restaurants, and airplanes, are irritating because they have a selfish, sloppy, or inconsiderate personality.

Our current method of dealing with annoying citizens is to create posters that encourage people to behave properly, such as the poster to the right, but this does not solve the problem.

We have to stop promoting the philosophy that we are going to fix bad behavior with punishments, posters, public service announcements, or rewards. I suggest that the Quality Control department have the authority to deal with all annoying people, not just the annoying government officials.

Schools should prepare children for society by teaching them about manners, and the adults who are unable or unwilling to follow our manners should be confronted by the Quality Control department. Those annoying people should be restricted to certain neighborhoods, or restricted to certain trains, airplanes, theaters, or social events. The people who are especially annoying should be evicted from the city. Ideally, those irritating people would also be restricted to zero or one child, thereby allowing each generation to become better behaved.
This news article has some photos of people who irritated other passengers on airplanes. Most people do not want to confront the annoying people, which allows them to continue irritating people. In order for a Quality Control department to be of value, it has to hire people who have the ability to confront and deal with troublesome people.

Some people would respond that it would be miserable to live in a city in which there was a Quality Control department that was confronting people merely for being annoying, and that it would be cruel to allow the Quality Control department to restrict those people to certain neighborhoods, theaters, or trains, or to evict them from the city. They would complain that such a policy would create a "police state" in which everybody is afraid of being evicted or put on restrictions for some trivial incident.

However, it should be noted that businesses, militaries, and most other organizations, are following this type of policy, and nobody is suffering from it, and nobody is complaining that it is creating a "police state".
For example, if the employees of a business were to behave in the same obnoxious manner that the public is allowed to behave on trains, airplanes, theaters, and restaurants, they are likely to be fired. For example, how many businesses would ignore employees who leave a mess in the bathroom, like the one in the photo to the right of what somebody did to an airline bathroom?

The military also has rules of behavior, and the people who don't follow the rules may be evicted from the military.

Different organizations set different standards for behavior, but all of them set standards, and all of them evict members who cannot or will not follow the rules, or they put those members on restrictions. This policy is cruel only to the people who cannot or will not follow the rules. To the people who want to follow the rules, this policy is wonderful.

Our governments allow people to behave in a manner that would not be tolerated by a business or military. Our cities have rules for behavior, but the rules are only suggestions; they are not enforced. For example, the government officials do nothing about citizens who make a mess in the public bathrooms, discard chewing gum on sidewalks, drop litter on the streets, or are obnoxious on public trains.

Singapore reacted to the problem of people discarding gum on sidewalks and under furniture by prohibiting gum, but that is similar to reacting to the people who make a mess in public bathrooms by prohibiting public bathrooms. Although we don't need chewing gum, the point I want to make is that we are currently designing society to appease the worst behaved people, but we have the option of restricting and evicting the badly behaved people.

We do not have to continue tolerating the citizens who are obnoxious or sloppy. A city could have a Quality Control department that restricts or evicts the slobs and misfits. With that type of government, we would create a city as I've described in a previous document. Specifically, when you leave your job to go home, you would leave a clean, orderly environment and enter another clean, orderly environment. The people in the city would behave in the same polite, responsible manner as the employees of a business.

Our current solution to badly behaved people is to punish them, but that is an unrealistic policy for adults. The adults who misbehave realize they are misbehaving. They don't need the police to reprimand them, and they don't need to be punished in jail. They need to be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or evicted from the city.

Our world will improve when we develop a realistic view of life
In order for us to make wise decisions about an issue, we need to base our decisions on a realistic foundation. If we design governments, laws, an economy, or schools according to the beliefs of religious fanatics or Sigmund Freud, our culture will be unrealistic, and that will cause a lot of problems for us.

For example, when people refuse to accept genetics and evolution, the only way they can explain left-handed people and homosexuals is to assume that something in their environment caused them to become that way, and that they can be cured through punishments or therapy.

Without genetics, we cannot solve any of our problems because we will have false assumptions on what is causing the problem. For some examples:
• We will assume that starvation is the result of a lack of food, and that we can eliminate starvation by providing hungry people with handouts of food. Rather than eliminate starvation, this policy allows the hungry people to reproduce in even larger numbers, thereby increasing the number of hungry people.

• We will assume that people abuse drugs because drug dealers are selling drugs, and that the solution is to start a "War on Drugs". Rather than stop drugs, this policy results in fights between the police and the people who sell and use drugs.

• We will assume that poverty is the result of a lack of money, and that we can eliminate poverty by providing poor people with housing, welfare, and other government programs. Rather than eliminate poverty, this policy allows the poor people to reproduce in even larger numbers, creating more of them.
None of our problems are due to a shortage of energy, land, food, or other items. All of our problems can be traced to the behavior of certain people. Our problems are due to decisions that people make. We could classify the world's problems into two categories:

1) Problems that are caused by people who misbehave.
These people either have trouble controlling their emotional cravings, or they have defective intellectual and/or emotional characteristics. They steal, plagiarize, rape, vandalize, sabotage, and throw acid into people's faces.
2) Problems that are caused inadvertently by honest, well behaved people.
Some of these people cause trouble because they are intellectually defective or stupid; some are ignorant; some cannot control their emotional cravings enough to do what is sensible; and some are too apathetic or selfish to react in a sensible manner. Examples are:

• Many people believe that birth control and abortion are evil, and many also encourage large families. These people are inadvertently causing overpopulation, overcrowding, hunger, starvation, and the slow degradation of the human race.

• The parents believe that they are being nice to their children by pampering them with services, gifts, and praise, and by pressuring the schools into giving their children good grades. These parents are inadvertently hurting our school system and encouraging their children to become spoiled brats who have no useful skills.

• Many parents have so little control of their sexual inhibitions that they cannot provide any sex education to their children, and will not allow schools to provide any education. These people are causing a lot of children to become sexually ignorant and confused adults.

• Most people ignore the evidence that Jews blew up the World Trade Center towers; that Jews are lying about the Holocaust; and that NASA is lying about the moon landing. Their apathy is allowing crime networks to thrive and continue abusing us.

• Most voters believe that when they don't like any of the candidates, they should select "the lesser of the evils". This philosophy is allowing criminals and incompetent people to get elected.
We cannot solve the world's problems with money, Bible studies, punishments, handouts of food, or therapy. The world's problems are the result of people's bad decisions. The only way to reduce our problems is to first educate everybody so that we eliminate the problems that are caused by ignorance. For example, parents need to be told that they are hurting society when they pressure the schools into giving good grades to their children, and that they are encouraging their children to become spoiled brats when they pander to their children, and that they are creating sexually ignorant and confused children by denying them a sex education.

Ideally, our schools would teach children about the responsibilities of a parent. We don't allow people to fly airplanes without first learning about the issue, and we don't let people become dentists without first learning about that issue. However, we let people have sex and become parents even if they know nothing about the issue, and even if one or both of the parents don't want any children.

After everybody has been educated, the only problems remaining are those that are caused by people who deliberately misbehave, and those caused inadvertently by people who have low levels of self-control, or who are apathetic, intellectually defective, or emotionally disturbed. Regardless of what their problem is, all of those people need to be regarded as mentally inferior members of society. They need to be put on restrictions, such as preventing them from becoming voters or holding leadership positions, restricting how many children they can have, or restricting them to certain neighborhoods. The most troublesome of those people need to be evicted from society or euthanized.

The customer should be a friend, not a king
Most adults are willing to accept the theory that parents cause their children to become spoiled brats when they pander to the children, but most adults do not want to apply that concept to themselves. Specifically, they want society to pander to the adults. They do not want to believe that adults might become spoiled brats. As a result, most adults are attracted to a free enterprise system and a democracy.

Both of these systems encourage us to become arrogant, spoiled brats, but how many adults are capable of looking critically at themselves and acknowledging the evidence that these systems are encouraging our arrogance and selfishness?

Humans are naturally arrogant and selfish, and as a result, we are attracted to the social systems that make us feel important, and which offer to give us whatever we want. In a free enterprise system, businesses promote the philosophy that "The customer is King". We love the concept of being treated like a King or Queen when we enter a retail store. We are not attracted to a philosophy that "The customer is equal to the people in the business."

The United States was created with the attitude that all people are equal, but we don't practice that philosophy. We want to be treated special. We don't want to be ordinary.

A democracy appeals to us because we love the concept of having government officials who are submissive representatives, and who give us whatever we ask for. We also enjoy being pampered by servants, even if the servants are illegal immigrants, and even if they speak a different language. We love being treated as if we are special.

A lot of people promote the concept of equality and fairness, but none of us actually want equality or fairness. We all want special treatment, and we want our children to have special treatment. We all think that we are better than other people, and that our children are better than other people's children.
The people who boast that they believe all people are equal are hypocrites. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have the emotional and/or intellectual abilities to see their hypocrisy. They are essentially making remarks like this:
"All people are equal. The people who believe that some people are superior to other people are inferior to people like me who believe that all people are equal."
Why are we so incredibly arrogant? Why do we have such a craving to climb onto a pedestal and boast about ourselves and insult other people? Why do we like being pampered? Why do so many people believe that they have the most brilliant opinions on abortion, religion, the creation of the universe, euthanasia, and crime?

The reason is because we are the descendants of the winners of millions of battles for dominance. We evolved from animals who spent millions of years competing with one another for dominance. Our minds have evolved a craving to be important, and to be at the top of the hierarchy and give orders to other people. We do not want to be "ordinary".

Females don't have such an intense craving to be leader, but they prefer males who are at the top of the hierarchy, not males who are ordinary or below-average.

It is also important to note that female animals don't care how the males became dominant. Female animals don't need to care about this issue because there is only one method for the males to become dominant, and that is to be healthy and strong, but female humans should control their cravings and look for men who have earned their position rather than achieved it through crime, inheritances, gambling, murder, extortion, or blackmail.

Both male and female humans are the descendants of a very long line of dominant monkeys. As a result, we are attracted to the social systems that make us feel important. We are attracted to status products because they make us feel important. We are attracted to awards and trophies because they make us feel important.

Unfortunately, when we design a society to appease our cravings for importance, we encourage ourselves to become even more selfish and arrogant than we would otherwise be. We encourage ourselves to become spoiled, selfish brats. We need to design society to dampen our undesirable characteristics and encourage our good qualities. We have a difficult time discussing issues and compromising on policies because we want to be the dominant monkey who makes decisions.

We should not do what we want to do. We should exert some self-control and do what makes the most intellectual sense. We should do what will provide us with the most pleasant life, even if it is emotionally painful. We have to stop thinking that life will become better when we please ourself and start realizing that it doesn't matter if we don't always get what we want.

Business leaders do not pander to their employees, and military leaders do not pander to their soldiers. Instead, the leaders of most organizations demand that their members behave in a responsible manner. They do not encourage arrogance or selfishness. Instead, they encourage teamwork, consideration, skills, and responsibility.

If a city were to follow the same philosophy as a business or military, the citizens of the city would be required to behave in a responsible manner, and to work with other people rather than think of themselves as Kings and Queens. They would develop the same attitude as employees and soldiers, which should be a dramatic improvement.

For an example, consider that large businesses often have tool rooms or supply rooms that are analogous to retail stores, except that they do not use money. When an employee needs some tools or supplies, he asks the employee who works at the supply room for whatever he needs. The person requesting the items does not expect to be treated like a King or Queen. The supply room of a business does not follow the philosophy that "The Customer is King".

If a city were to follow the same philosophy, then the retail store employees would have a similar attitude as the employees who work in the supply rooms of a business. When you walked into a retail store, you would be treated the same way an employee is supposed to treat another employee. The retail store clerks would not try to sell you anything; they would not pander to you; and they would not treat you like a King or Queen.

Also, they would not make idiotic conversations with you. For example, at a market near me, the cashiers are required to ask each customer something to the effect of, "Did you find everything you wanted?" Since we visit food markets on a regular basis, it becomes annoying to hear that question every few days, at least to those of us who realize that they are forcing themselves to say it and don't actually mean it.

If a city were to follow the same philosophy as businesses and militaries, then as you wandered around your city and went into parks, museums, retail stores, restaurants, and social clubs, you would be treated in the same manner that you are treated by other employees at your job.

We could share the chores
When the government is in control of the economy, there will never be any unemployment because the government will help people find jobs, and there are always chores to do in a modern city. However, the government's priority is to give people jobs that provide society with the greatest benefits. For example, it would be foolish to tell a person to be a full-time gardener for the city parks if he has valuable engineering skills. He should be given an engineering job.

Ideally, after everybody finds a job that they are satisfied with, there will be no remaining jobs available, but in reality, there are likely to be thousands of chores remaining because nobody wants to do them, or because they are part-time jobs. Examples are cleaning public bathrooms, maintaining foot paths, mowing lawns in the city park, and cleaning the windows of office buildings.

What do we do with those unwanted chores? In some cases, we can alter society to reduce the amount of unwanted chores, and in other cases we can design the city so that machines can do some of those chores. For example, we could design buildings so that there are some type of tracks along the outside that allow a window washing machine to crawl around on the outside of the building and wash the windows for us. We certainly have the artistic ability to figure out how to make those tracks blend in with the architecture.

In a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, individual citizens and organizations are allowed to design buildings in whatever manner they please, and there is no coordination or cooperation between the people. This is resulting in lots of different styles and qualities of buildings, and lots of buildings that don't fit in with their surroundings.

By replacing the free enterprise system, the government will be in control of all of the buildings. This allows us to design every building according to what will be best for society. We will be able to design buildings that are easy to maintain and clean, and which blend in with the surrounding buildings and vegetation.

In regards to cleaning bathrooms, some engineers have already designed a public bathroom that is self-cleaning, and there is already a self-cleaning toilet. There are also some simpler, less expensive bathrooms and toilets that can be cleaned quickly with a high-pressure spray of water or steam.

However, even after we alter society to reduce the chores, there are likely to be a lot of chores remaining. What do we do about that? My suggestion is to divide them up among the people.

For an example of how this system would work, consider the mothers who have to feed their babies and young children. In the city I propose, none of the homes will have kitchens or dining rooms, so everybody will get their meals from restaurants. The people will live in clusters of apartments, and that means every day a lot of mothers will take their babies to one of the restaurants that have been specifically designed to provide meals for young children. Who is going to work in those restaurants to make the meals and clean the messes?

Instead of assigning those jobs to people on a full-time, permanent basis, we could designate those jobs as one of the chores that people must share. In such a case, when a mother has a child, one of her possible chores is to work in those restaurants. The advantage with this system is that the mothers of a neighborhood would be working together in restaurants that are feeding their own children. I think the mothers will get a lot of job satisfaction from this, and I think the children will enjoy it also because they will be served by the mothers of their neighborhood rather than by strangers.

Since it is much more efficient for a few women to produce meals for a lot of children, rather than have every mother provide a meal for her own children, only a small number of the mothers would be needed to provide meals for all of the children of their neighborhood. There would not be enough work in the restaurants for all of the mothers to participate. However, this will not be a problem because it is not likely that every woman will want to work in the restaurants.

The women who are interested in working in the restaurants can share the work. In some neighborhoods there might be so many mothers who want to work in the restaurants that the women are working only one morning each month in the restaurants, whereas in other neighborhoods there might be so few women interested that the women are working every day in the restaurants.

However, it does not matter how chores are divided up in a city, just as it does not matter how children divide chores in their home. As long as everybody is contributing something, we can let people do the chores they prefer. The only time we have a problem is when there are chores remaining, and nobody is volunteering for them. In that case we might need a computer to divide the chores among the people who haven't done many other chores.

The point I want to bring to your attention by mentioning this example of mothers sharing the work of providing meals for their children is to remind you that we have an unbelievable number of options available for designing a city, dividing the chores among ourselves, and designing our culture.

Instead of being frightened at the thought of sharing chores, put some time and effort into thinking about the issue. You might find some impressive solutions to the problem. You will accomplish nothing by being frightened, but you might impress us - and the future generations - if you think about the issue and discuss it with other people.

Living in a city in which we are sharing the chores also has the advantage that when you encounter somebody in the city park who is doing gardening, or when you encounter somebody at a museum who is cleaning or maintaining a display, you will be encountering one of your neighbors, friends, or relatives, rather than an illegal immigrant, a refugee, or some illiterate, uneducated immigrant who speaks a foreign language. I think this will make the city feel much more friendly, safe, and homogenous compared to our cities of today. You will regard the gardeners, cleaners, restaurant workers, and other people as friends and neighbors, not as peasants or idiots.

You might prefer doing chores with your neighbors
In our cities today, many people spend a few hours on a weekend doing yard work or housework. In the city I propose, the homes would be smaller, and they would not have kitchens or dining rooms, and nobody would have yards. Therefore, people would have less housework to do, and there would be no yardwork.

Instead of doing yard work for themselves, some people would have to share the chores of maintaining the parks, swimming areas, ponds, waterfalls, and gardens around their apartment complex. Even though those people would have to occasionally do some gardening chores, I suspect that some people would find it more pleasurable to get together on a Saturday morning to do those chores with some of their neighbors and friends compared to spending the time working by themselves in their own yard.
Furthermore, the city would provide all of the apartment complexes with higher quality gardening equipment compared to consumer quality equipment, which would allow us to do the jobs in less time, and make the work more pleasant.

Also, we can reduce gardening chores with a better design for the city. For example, we could design the grassy areas so that large lawnmowers can mow the lawns, thereby avoiding the need for small lawnmowers that people have to push around by hand.

Since there would not be enough gardening chores for many people, most people would get involved with other chores, such as maintaining the trains, restaurants, museums, or social clubs. However, I don't think we would suffer to get together once in a while with our friends and neighbors and help to maintain the city we live in.

An additional benefit to this type of social environment is that because you, your neighbors, your relatives, and your friends will share in the work required to maintain the city, you will appreciate the city much more. For example, when you ride a bicycle or take a walk in a city park, and you pass by a garden that you or one of your friends helped to maintain, or when you walk over a footbridge that you or one of your friends helped to build, that section of the park will mean more to you than if the work had been done by a peasant that you don't know, don't want to know, and who speaks a foreign language.

A lot of people assume that they will get the most satisfaction from life when they are wealthy enough to pay peasants to pamper them, but I think "normal" humans will get more satisfaction when they participate in life. When you, your neighbors, and your friends are getting together to help to maintain your city, I think you will get more satisfaction from the city and from life. You will also be more appreciative of what other people have done.

In a free enterprise system, people are encouraged to get involved with hobbies inside their home, but in the city I suggest, the government would support a wide variety of social clubs to encourage people to get out of their house and join other people who are involved with doing something for the city. Instead of doing arts and crafts for yourself, or growing orchids or bonsai trees for your home, or maintaining a fish tank for yourself, or creating a collection of computer memories for yourself, get together with other people and do these activities for the city.

When you are eating in a restaurant that is decorated with bonsai trees or artwork that was created by you, your friends, or neighbors, the decorations will mean more to you than decorations produced by hungry children in Pakistan. When you take a ride on a rowboat, the boat will mean more to you when you or your friends helped to build it compared to a boat that was made by some starving people in India. When the city decorates itself for a holiday, the decorations will mean more to you when you, your spouse, children, or neighbors participated in the work as opposed to using illegal immigrants to decorate the city.

However, I will once again remind you that because people are genetically unique, we will not all enjoy participating in the chores of the city. At one extreme will be the people who enjoy this activity the most, and some may enjoy it so much that they look forward to getting together with their neighbors and friends to participate in chores for the city. At the other extreme are the people who have the least interest in doing chores and in participating in their city.

We can see this difference in both children and adults right now. Some children and adults are more willing to do chores around the house, and we also differ in our desire to clean up after ourselves. If, however, a city were to restrict the reproduction of the people who don't fit into this modern world, then eventually each generation will be more interested in participating in the chores of the city.

What is the difference between work and play?
A lot of people complain about having to "work" for a living. They want to retire and do as they please. Some people are willing to work, but they want to reduce the work week to only a few hours a day, or only a few days a week. They want to spend more time playing. A lot of people also complain about school.

The issue of what is work and what is play is very simple to resolve when a person looks at the issue from his own perspective. Work is whatever he doesn't want to do but realizes that he must do, and play is whatever he enjoys. However, in reality, "work" and "play" depend upon:
1) Your genetic characteristics.
2) The information in your mind.
3) Your social environment.

1) Your genetic characteristics.

People engage in a wide variety of leisure activities. One reason we have different activities is because we have different levels of income, but even if we all had the same income, we would choose different activities because we have different intellectual and emotional characteristics. Some people enjoy playing video games, others like to ski, play tennis, or practice musical instruments. Some people think it's fun to brew beer, rescue stray animals in the city, create bonsai trees, or read Harry Potter books.

What a person considers to be "fun" is fun only to him and people with similar characteristics. To somebody else, the same activity might be considered dull, boring, miserable, or horrible.

The same concept applies to what we like or dislike about work. If we could travel back in time tens of thousands of years, we would find that our ancestors enjoyed the work that they had to do. The men enjoyed hunting animals, catching fish, making tools, starting fires, and roasting meat. Even today we find a lot of men who enjoy hunting, fishing, making tools, and barbecuing meat.

A lot of people complain that their job is boring, menial, degrading, monotonous, or miserable, but whether you enjoy a particular job depends upon your emotional characteristics. To a person who does not like to hunt, hunting animals is boring. To somebody who doesn't like sitting still, lounging on a yacht for hours would be boring. To somebody who does not enjoy playing video games, playing those games is monotonous or boring.

We all want a job that is fun and exciting, but the problem is there is no such thing as a fun job. What you like and dislike depends upon your emotional characteristics.

Our prehistoric ancestors gave birth to a variety of children, and some of the boys did not enjoy hunting, making fires, or making tools. They became the misfits of society. Furthermore, because they did not enjoy that type of work, they would do it only when they had to, and they would complain more often about it. They would be likely to do the minimum amount of work possible, and as a result, they would be less successful than the men who enjoyed that type of work.

Likewise, our prehistoric ancestors would occasionally give birth to a girl who did not want to do the jobs that women did. Some of the girls did not have the same desire to take care of babies as the normal women, and some did not have the same interest in taking care of a home, or making baskets and clothing, or whatever else the women did. As a result, those misfit girls would have been less successful as mothers.

The competitive battle for life ensured that our prehistoric ancestors were adapted to their environment. The competition ensured that they enjoyed the work they had to do, enjoyed their climate, and enjoyed the people they lived with. They would have enjoyed life. To them, the challenges of life were fun and exciting.

During the past few thousand years, the situation has changed dramatically. The men who want to spend their time fishing and hunting are now becoming the misfits. The women who want to do nothing but raise babies are also misfits. People today need to enjoy doing more than what our prehistoric ancestors would do. People today need to enjoy going to school, learning a skill, learning how to read and write, learning how to do arithmetic, and learning how to operate computers, telephones, and airline seat belts.

A lot of people today are having trouble finding a job that they enjoy. Millions of people complain that their jobs are boring or monotonous. However, there is no such thing as a boring or monotonous job. There is only a job that is boring or monotonous to people with certain emotional characteristics. To some of us, lounging around a swimming pool for hours a day is boring and monotonous.

If we do not control reproduction, every generation of children will have a wider variety of emotional characteristics. There will be more children who don't enjoy school, and who don't enjoy any of the modern jobs. They will want to spend their time "playing". Those people might be very friendly, honest, and nice, but in this modern world, they are misfits. They should not be reproducing. We must control reproduction so that humans adapt to this new world. Humans must evolve so that they enjoy learning a skill; getting a modern job; following laws; and enjoying the activities and responsibilities of modern society.

If we don't control reproduction, every generation is going to have more trouble with school, jobs, laws, and relationships. They will work only because they have to, which will be like living among circus animals. They are also likely to spend a lot of time complaining about jobs, school, laws, the police, and society.

2) The information in your mind.

Although you cannot change your emotional characteristics, you can control what you think about, and what goals you set for yourself. For example, if a child decides to get a job that is similar to one of those he sees in a television program, he is likely to be looking for a job that doesn't exist. This can cause him a lot of frustration, and it can cause him to believe that the only jobs that he can find are boring. The television programs and movies, for example, portray lawyers, architects, policemen, and artists in unrealistic manners.

Our mind has the ability to make us like or dislike something simply by repeatedly reminding ourselves that we like or dislike it. Therefore, if you constantly tell yourself that you need a certain job, you can make yourself feel miserable. If, instead, you stop exposing yourself to unrealistic television fantasies, and switch to exposing yourself to realistic information, and if you also push yourself to change your concept of what a job is, you might discover that there are lots of jobs that you enjoy.

3) Your social environment.

Our social environment plays a very significant role in what we consider to be "work" and "play". In a free enterprise system, we compete for money, and we want to pay other people as little as possible. This creates an environment in which people don't want to do anything unless they are being paid for it. Children in a free enterprise system grow up among adults who won't do anything unless somebody is offering them money. Not surprisingly, many children do not want to do chores around their home unless they are paid for it.

We are not interested in volunteering to help businesses, or help with chores in our city. Actually, we have laws to prohibit certain types of volunteer work in order to prevent abuse and unfair competition.

By switching to an economic system in which everybody has the same level of material wealth, and everybody is expected to contribute to chores, the situation will change dramatically. When a person in that type of economy is helping a business, school, or other organization, he is not helping a few investors or business executives become wealthy. Rather, he is helping his city. Since the businesses in that type of economic system are not competing for profit, volunteers do not create unfair competition, so there is no reason to prohibit it. For some examples of how this would work:
• Some businesses produce educational documentaries for schools or the public, such as the videos produced by Nature and David Attenborough. There are a lot of carpenters, engineers, technicians, scientists, scuba divers, and farmers who have valuable information and could contribute to some documentaries, but in a free enterprise system, they are not likely to volunteer. However, in the economic system I propose, the volunteers would not be helping a small number of investors or business executives become wealthy. Rather, they would be helping their city, and the future generations. Therefore, some of the people who currently have no interest in getting involved in their leisure time to help create educational documentaries might discover that they enjoy it in that type of environment.

• There are lots of artists, carpenters, machinists, and other people who have a hobby of creating things, but in a free enterprise system, they tend to create items for themselves and friends, or for sale. They are not interested in getting together to create things for businesses, restaurants, or factories. For example, they would not be interested in providing free, stained-glass windows for the factories.

In the economy I propose, however, the arts and crafts supplies would be free. Furthermore, the city would own all of the restaurants, businesses, trains, and factories. Therefore, if some people wanted to create some stained-glass windows for the factories, they would not be helping a few greedy businessmen or investors. Rather, they would be decorating their city. They would be improving life for everybody in their city, and the future generations, as well as impressing visitors to the city. Some people who currently have no interest in creating things for their city might discover they enjoy it in that type of environment.
Some people would respond that it would be boring and monotonous to volunteer to join other people and do work for the city, but we need to change our attitude towards such issues as boredom, happiness, misery, work, and play. We have to stop feeling sorry for people who complain that school or jobs are boring, or that laws and the police are cruel, or that we need more freedom to do as we please. People who do not enjoy modern life should be regarded as inferior to those of us who enjoy it.

The competition for life ensured that our prehistoric ancestors enjoyed the work they did, and enjoyed the climate they lived in. We must do the same today. We need to restrict reproduction so that each generation is better able to enjoy going to school, learning a useful skill, and doing the type of work that we must do today.

Ideally, everybody would regard the work that we do as "fun". They should enjoy doing their job, just as our prehistoric ancestors enjoyed hunting and fishing. They should regard the modern world as fun, not as a "rat race", a "police state", or a form of "oppression".

The people who don't have the emotional or intellectual characteristics to enjoy this modern world are going to be miserable, and some will be parasitic because they will not want to contribute to their care. We currently feel sorry for the misfits, but we have to face the evidence that their misery is coming from inside them because they don't fit into this modern world. We cannot cure them of their problems with punishments, Bible studies, or handouts of money.

What is the difference between sloppy people and apathetic people?
Earlier I mentioned that sloppy people are sloppy because of their genetic characteristics, not because of poverty or the environment. That concept applies to apathetic people, also. For example, millions of people around the world have been exposed to the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, but of those people, only some of them showed enough concern to do something about the issue, such as spread the information to other people, and even fewer people were interested in doing something more significant, such as cancel their subscriptions to the dishonest newspapers, or discuss how we can improve our governments.

Likewise, a lot of people have been exposed to complaints from children that they are being used as sex toys by government officials, journalists, doctors, and policemen, but only some of those people show a concern about stopping this crime.

Most people react to the problems of society like a group of sheep. Specifically, they ignore the problems. This is not due to ignorance or stupidity. Some of those people are above average in intelligence, and many of them have college educations.

The people who litter are not necessarily stupid, poor, or uneducated. Likewise, the people who show no concern about the corruption in our government are not necessarily stupid, poor, or uneducated. Whether a person shows a concern about these issues depends upon his brain's genetic characteristics, mainly his emotional characteristics.

In the 1980s, Vicki Polin told the world on the Oprah television show that her family was involved with killing babies and pedophilia, but to most people it was just entertainment. Recently, in March 2017, a woman named Kendall went on the Doctor Phil television show to talk about how she was sold when she was a baby to be a sex slave to a wealthy man in a pedophile network. She explains how she was passed around to wealthy and important people to use as a sex toy, and how she witnessed the man murder children.

So far her story is just entertainment, and the television show is probably going to be copyrighted so that the television company can make money from it, so the people who are putting copies on YouTube have to use tricks, such as adding their own background, to prevent YouTube from deleting it. A copy of it is here, for example. Update: that video has been removed already.

A few years ago, Ross Kemp, a British journalist, interviewed a man in India who claims to have kidnapped, sold, and killed thousands of children. As with other journalists who produce reports about human trafficking issues, Kemp is disgusted, but none of the journalists or police agencies show any interest in investigating the problem. These news reports are just entertainment to most of the television audience, and profit-making opportunities for the television companies.

Why is there so much human trafficking? Who is purchasing the children? Where are the children coming from?

An investigation of this issue would show that most of the children who are sold by human traffickers are genetically inferior children. Even if there was no human trafficking, many or most of those children would have had a miserable life, and many would have had an early and painful death.

The crime networks usually do not attack people at random. As with lions and other predators, they have a preference to attack the weak and defective members of society, such as the prostitutes, homeless people, unwanted children, drunks, cripples, and elderly.

Even if we were to eliminate human trafficking, millions of children will continue to suffer a miserable life. The people in every nation ought to be ashamed and embarrassed of their unwanted children, their homeless people, and their poverty. The photo below is of some poor people living along the railroad tracks in India. Are any of the people or government officials in India embarrassed about this? How many of them care that some of these children end up being kidnapped for sale as sex slaves?

Unfortunately, the only way to stop the suffering is to control reproduction, so unless we are willing to do that, there will continue to be millions of hungry, homeless, unwanted, and miserable families, in which case there is no sense for journalists and other people to pretend to care about the suffering. If you are not going to do something to reduce a problem, there is no sense in pretending that you care about the victims.

If we were living among people who were truly concerned about society, Kendall's testimony about being used as a sex slave, and Ross Kemp's interview with a man who claims to be involved with the sex slave trade, would not be copyrightable entertainment. It would be considered evidence of a crime, and people would be demanding that the police department investigate it. Unfortunately, to our media, and to most other people, that type of information is entertainment and/or a profit making opportunity.

What would happen if somebody released some truly convincing evidence to support the accusation that Barack Obama is homosexual, that his wife is transgender, or that the Comet pizza parlor is involved with providing young children to government officials, lawyers, and policemen for use as sex toys? I think that the majority of people would react with the same apathy that they showed when we gave them evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives. Or perhaps they would regard it as entertainment, as they are doing with Kendall's accusations on the Dr. Phil show.

Most people are too similar to animals to care about these issues. They want to focus on titillating themselves with food, children, sex, television, material items, and status.

If we were to create two completely new cities, and fill one city with people who show no interest in investigating the Comet pizza parlor, and fill the other city with people who show a concern about this issue, there would be a noticeable difference between those two cities. The city with the apathetic people would resist dealing with problems in the city, such as broken water lines, factory workers who produce shoddy products, and school teachers who lie about history. Even worse, those apathetic people would be easily manipulated by crime networks because they wouldn't care about being cheated and lied to.

In the city of concerned people, by comparison, the people would regularly do something to help their city. For example, if one of them noticed a broken water pipe in the city, he would be concerned enough to contact the government and inform them of the problem. If he noticed corruption in the government, he would spread information to other people so that the corruption can be investigated.

From the point of view of the apathetic people, the city of concerned people would be a city of "tattletales" who are "uptight" and "intolerant". The apathetic people would boast that they are easy-going and fun-loving. However, from the point of view of the concerned people, the apathetic people are stupid animals who ignore crime, corruption, filth, and deterioration.

Each of us has a different level of interest in society and our environment. There are some people who have almost no concern for whether their home or neighborhood is full of litter, whether the schools are lying about historical events, or whether the government is corrupt. They are only interested in titillating themselves with money, television, food, sex, alcohol, gambling, and children.

When people join a business, sports group, military, or other organization, they become a member of a team. I can understand why an employee would lose his motivation to be a team member if he discovers that his business is dishonest, worthless, or abusive, but even if everybody could be a member of a respectable team, we will find a noticeable difference between people in regards to their desire to become a team member. For example, some employees care so little about their team that they ignore a dripping water pipe, a broken piece of equipment, and employees who steal from the business.

The apathetic employees are analogous to circus seals who perform tasks for a reward, but don't show any concern for what they are doing. They do their job only to make money, and they don't care about the people they are working with, or what they are doing.

At the other extreme are the employees who have so much concern for their team that they look for ways to help the team, and they notify their supervisor when they see problems and crimes. Those employees are team members, not circus seals.

The differences between us in regards to our desire to be a team member is not due to our different environments. It is because we have genetically different minds. The environment has an influence over our attitudes, but most of us grew up in an environment that is very similar to that of other people, so we cannot use the environment to explain why we have such significant differences between us.

What is a "tattletale"?
One of the effects of not suppressing the badly behaved people is that we have allowed them to promote the philosophy that people who expose bad behavior are "tattletales", and that tattletales are undesirable. The fear of being labeled as a "tattletale" causes some people to be intimidated into remaining quiet about the badly behaved people rather than expose them.

It might help you to resist the intimidation if you note that many of the people who whine about tattletales are hypocrites. For example, when a person exposes somebody's crime to the police, and the police arrest him for it, the criminal might complain that the person who exposed him is a tattletale. However, when those criminals become victims of crimes, they want other people to be tattletales and identify that criminal.

The issue of being a tattletale is actually quite complex. For example, when a government is corrupt, the officials are likely to encourage the citizens to identify critics of the government so that the government can secretly and quietly have their critics murdered, blackmailed, intimidated, or beaten. Although the citizens believe that they are helping their nation by being tattletales, they are actually fools who are inadvertent attack dogs for a corrupt government.

In order for a citizen to truly help protect his society from crime and corruption, he needs the sense to know when he is truly exposing a crime, and when he is helping criminals or corrupt government officials to identify and suppress their critics.

Another reason the issue of tattletales is complex is that a person needs to be able to make wise decisions about when he is exposing a crime, and when he is exposing something that is so trivial that he is wasting people's time. For example, an employee is helping his business when he tells the supervisor that another employee is stealing items from the business, but he is not necessarily helping the business when he complains that an employee is 30 seconds late from his lunch break, unless that employee has a job that is so critical that being 30 seconds late has serious consequences.

Modern life is becoming increasingly complex. We must spend more time thinking about issues and trying to make wise decisions about what to do. However, because each of us has a genetically different brain, even if everybody puts a lot of time and effort into thinking about what to do, we are going to reach different and incompatible conclusions.

Furthermore, if we do not control reproduction, the differences between our minds will increase, causing an even wider variation of behavior and attitudes in every succeeding generation.

The people who are sloppy, noisy, dishonest, abusive, or obnoxious promote the philosophy that tattletales are undesirable, and that we should learn to love one another and accept one another, but that philosophy is unrealistic. We cannot let everybody do whatever they please, and we cannot let everybody reproduce as often as they please. We have to restrict reproduction in order to keep people compatible with one another, and we need tattletales to expose the people who are hurting society.

There are already such extreme differences between human minds that we are regularly causing one another a lot of frustration and anger, and people are regularly getting into fights, committing crimes, pouting, and hating one another.

All organizations restrict membership to people who are compatible with one another, and who have the characteristics necessary to be a productive team member. All organizations will also evict members who become disruptive. They do not promote the philosophy that we should tolerate everybody's unpleasant characteristics. Our governments have to follow the same philosophy in order to create pleasant societies.

If we continue to do nothing to control reproduction, the human race will continue to create more diversity in physical and mental qualities. Every generation will have a larger number and a wider variety of midgets, scrawny people, obese people, sickly people, sexually disturbed people, and criminals. There will be a wider variety of digestive disorders, mental disorders, autoimmune disorders, and liver problems. Eventually our nations will resemble those in the movie Idiocracy.

The people who cannot see this problem, or who do not care about it, should be regarded as mentally inferior to the rest of us, and they should be prohibited from holding important positions in society, such as voters, government officials, school officials, and business leaders.

Each of us has a different interest in society
Two Caucasian men who are married to Chinese women, and who have been living in China for many years, created this video in which they point out that the majority of Chinese people in their area do not show any interest in doing any work for their community, or spending any of their money on their community. They claim that most Chinese people have an attitude of taking care of themselves and ignoring society.

The video shows them driving around the streets and pointing out how the buildings are ugly and deteriorating because none of the people care about society. The photo below, for example, shows a temple that is still in use, but the people don't maintain it. A portion of the wall collapsed, but the Chinese people show no interest in fixing the wall, or even removing the rubble. The rubble has been sitting for so long that there are weeds growing on it.

The two men also point out that most of the Chinese do not put much effort into maintaining their bicycles, automobiles, or other items. They also point out that some of the ugly apartment buildings appear to be slums, but they are actually homes for people with above-average wealth.

For example, in the photo below, the rusty security grates over the windows and patios make it appear as if it is an apartment building in a crime-ridden slum of Detroit, but they say that if you go inside one of those ugly apartments, you will discover that the residents are wealthy and have nice furniture, televisions, and computers. Each resident shows a concern only for the inside of his apartment, not for the outside of the apartment, or the community.

The attitude those two men are complaining about can be found in neighborhoods all around the world. This is not exclusive to China. Every nation has lots of people who don't care about their community, and who don't have any concern about litter, graffiti, vandalism, crime, or corruption.

With the Google Street images, we don't need somebody to drive around our cities with a video camera to show us the filth, homelessness, traffic congestion, and neglect. All we have to do is look at the Google Street images, such as the image below, which shows a street in Bangladesh.

Or the image below, which shows a few of the hundreds of homeless people who live on the sidewalks of Los Angeles.

Incidentally, the street in the photo above is full of "wealthy" homeless people who have tents. There are other streets in Los Angeles where the homeless people are so poor that they sleep on pieces of cardboard, or nothing at all. In other words, the homeless people segregate according to their wealth, just like you and I do.

The concept of multiculturalism, diversity, and tolerance is unrealistic. Even the homeless people want to live in a homogenous society. Our natural tendency is to separate according to who we have something in common with.

We cannot stop poverty with handouts or technology
All large cities have neighborhoods that are filthy, dilapidated, and ugly. The social scientists promote the theory that those areas are miserable because the people in those areas are suffering from "poverty", and that we can end the poverty by giving those people money, food, or other types of handouts.

The social scientists seem to be promoting a sensible theory; specifically, that we can eliminate poverty by building some beautiful new homes for the poor people, moving them into those homes, and then destroying their filthy, dilapidated homes. This will create a city in which everybody is living in a beautiful neighborhood.

However, every time the government has implemented this type of policy, the poor people quickly ruined their beautiful neighborhood with litter, graffiti, and vandalism, and they did not clean or maintain their houses properly, thereby causing their houses to slowly become dilapidated and ugly. After a few years, their beautiful neighborhood became just as ugly and filthy as their previous neighborhood.

The cities of Europe, Japan, America, Taiwan, and some other nations have significantly less poverty than the cities of Bangladesh, India, and China. This is not because America is "wealthier", or because we have more technology. A century ago the European cities had less technology than the people in Bangladesh do today, but even with that lower level of technology, the cities of Europe were more pleasant than those of Bangladesh are today.

The reason some cities have more filth, crime, and homelessness is because those cities have a higher percentage of mentally inferior people. This is most noticeable if you look at the military bases of the world. In every nation, the military bases are cleaner and more orderly than the cities they are protecting. The reason is not because the military has more wealth or technology. It is because the military demands that their members be responsible, participate in chores, and follow the rules. They evict people who cannot or will not behave properly.

Bangladesh is not suffering from "poverty". It is suffering because of the behavior of the people. Giving handouts of money, food, or technology to Bangladesh is not going to reduce their hunger, filth, homelessness, or traffic congestion. Bangladesh will improve itself only when the people start improving their behavior.

Likewise, giving handouts to India is not going to reduce their air pollution, or the number of women who are raped. According to the Indian government, the number of rapes has increased 10 times since 1971. This increase is not because India has become 10 times more poor since 1971. The increase in crime in India is due to decisions that the people have made.

We cannot help India by giving them technology, money, or bags of rice. They need to change their behavior and their attitudes. If the Indian people are unwilling to change their attitudes, then they are going to continue suffering regardless of how much technology they have, and no matter how many handouts we give them.

During the past few decades, a lot of organizations and government agencies have struggled to end poverty, homelessness, and hunger with handouts of food, public housing, and education, but they have had a 100% failure rate. Rather than reduce the problem, there is more hunger, crime, homelessness, and unemployment today than there was a few decades earlier.

We should face the evidence that the people who are sloppy, dishonest, unemployable, unable to learn a skill, unable to handle school, and unable to follow laws are mentally and/or physically inferior to the rest of us, and that no amount of pity, handouts, punishments, or education is going to fix them because their inappropriate behavior is due to their genetic design, not the environment.

The only way to eliminate poverty, littering, crime, and other problems is to restrict reproduction to the people who can take care of themselves and behave appropriately.

If China were to create some new cities and restrict immigration to the Chinese people who have a concern for society, a willingness to follow laws, and the ability to learn a skill and work in a modern job, then those cities would be clean, orderly, safe, impressive, and pleasant.

At the other extreme, imagine if China filled a beautiful new city with people who litter, are unable to hold a job, who dislike school, and who complain about following laws. That city would quickly resemble an insane asylum that doesn't have any supervision.

Every nation has poverty, unemployment, crime, litter, graffiti, and other problems. These problems are the result of people who do not have the mental or physical qualities to deal with this modern world. No nation is going to reduce poverty or unemployment by whining about other nations, or by feeling sorry for poor people. Every nation has to start restricting reproduction to people who are capable of fitting into this modern world.

Our new environment gives us more responsibilities
During prehistoric times, a child who wanted a pet dog did not need to be responsible with it. The reason was because those people were nomadic and had simple shelters to sleep in, and the result was that the children never had to pick up dog poop from their yard, and they never had to clean dog hair from their bedroom floor or furniture. The children did not have to take their dogs on walks, either, because their dogs would get exercise naturally.

I also doubt if any of the children had to feed their dogs, or provide their dogs with bowls of water. I suspect that dogs would have eaten the unwanted parts of animals that the humans had captured for their own meals. Also, I suspect that the dogs often caught food by themselves because wildlife would have been much more abundant during prehistoric times. Furthermore, the people would have tended to put their camps near sources of water, and that would allow the dogs to get their own water when they wanted it.

Today, however, children who want pet dogs put a big burden on themselves and their family. They have to spend a lot more time cleaning up after their dog, feeding their dog, and providing their dog with exercise.

The same concept applies to marriages. During prehistoric times, most of the men and women would have had wonderful relationships. The men would have loved spending every day looking for food, and bringing it home to their hungry wives and children. Their wives would have looked forward to the evening when their husbands come home with food and other gifts, and the men would have enjoyed coming home to their wife and spending the rest of the evening in a small, intimate campsite. Our prehistoric ancestors had a crude relationship, but they would have loved life and one another because that is the social environment that humans evolved for.

Today, however, our environment is significantly different. Men are still going off to work every day, but they are no longer working in order to bring food to hungry women and children. Most men in modern societies are bringing home such excessive amounts of money and gifts that neither their wife nor their children appreciate their efforts.

Prehistoric men provided their families with basic necessities, but men today are providing such excessive quantities of food that their wives and children are often becoming obese and sickly. Men today provide such excessive amounts of material items that they encourage their wives and children to become spoiled brats who don't appreciate any of it, and they create a home that is cluttered with unnecessary toys and material items.

Another advantage that prehistoric men had is that they enjoyed the work they did. Every man was his own boss, and they enjoyed making spears, chasing after animals, and starting fires for barbecues. Today, however, many men are working at jobs that they regard as irritating, detrimental to society, or dishonest. A man who does not like his job is not going to be excited to go to work each day, especially if he has to come home to a wife and children who don't appreciate his efforts.

Life for women has also changed significantly. They are no longer spending the day in a small, intimate campsite with other women and children. They are now living in large, isolated homes, and their children spend most of the day in school.

Our social environment is inappropriate
We should be experimenting with our social environment, economic system, schools, and leisure activities to figure out how to provide ourselves with a more pleasant life, but we do not have leaders who react to problems by experimenting with solutions.

I think the primary reason that so many men and women are failing to form a stable relationship today is because we have picked up bits of fantasies from movies and books about what men and women are, what a marriage should be, and what sex should be. People today have unrealistic expectations of life, and when they struggle to achieve their unrealistic goals, they cause themselves and other people a lot of frustration, anger, and disappointment.

Children are not being taught that men and women are intelligent monkeys, and that the relationship between a man and a woman is as crude as it is with the animals. Instead, many people are trying to achieve the fantasy relationships that they picked up from movies, television, and romantic novels, such as couples that are so compatible that they spend 16 hours a day together.

In reality, men and women do not have much in common with each other because we evolved for different roles in life. We have different personalities, physical abilities, and intellectual qualities. Men and women also seem to prefer slightly different diets. We irritate one another if we spend a lot of time together because we want to spend life slightly differently. Men evolved to spend the day with other men on certain types of activities, and women evolved to spend the day surrounded by women and children and certain other activities.

In the movies, a man and woman can spend hours flirting with each other, including couples who have been married for 30 years, but in reality, courtship is a brief event in our lives, and it is supposed to be finished during our teenage years.

The movies also show husbands and wives who are best friends, but that is not realistic, either.

People who search for the type of relationship that they see in the movies are going to become frustrated, angry, or disappointed. They will be looking for a spouse that does not exist. If they get married, they may put pressure on their spouse to behave in the manner that fits their fantasy, and that will cause problems for their relationship.

For example, if a woman puts pressure on her husband to be her best friend and spend hours a day chatting with her, or if she expects her husband to show the same interest in babies that women have, she will be trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Children should be provided with on realistic views of men and women, and realistic expectations of marriages.

We need to control our sexual inhibitions
As I have mentioned in other documents, one reason I think relationships today are so miserable is because people in the modern nations are being raised in what I would describe as sexually perverted environments. In the United States, for example, children are not allowed to see naked bodies, sex acts, nipples, or penises, but we allow businesses and the media to use sexual titillation in advertisements and television programs, and we further increase the titillation of boys by requiring girls to wear bathing suits at beaches rather than be naked, and to wear pretty clothing at school. Women further increase the sexual titillation by shaving their legs and armpits, and using cosmetics to make themselves look better than they really do.

I think the sexual inhibitions of modern society combined with the excessive sexual titillation is the reason that many boys are developing abnormal fascinations with women's breasts and vaginas. This fascination in turn causes some boys to develop cravings for gigantic breasts, and it causes other boys to irritate women with their lewd remarks about breasts, sex, and vaginas. Actually, some men have such fascinations with sex issues that they even annoy other men with their lewd remarks.

Furthermore, the fascination with women's bodies is causing a lot of boys - and adult men! - to secretly use cameras to get photos of women in bathrooms, or to get photos under their dress. How many men during prehistoric times tried to look underneath a woman's loincloth?
The photo to the right is a portion of a photo that a woman took of herself and her friend. She inadvertently caught a man who was taking a photo underneath a woman's dress.

There are a lot of people staging photos, so that particular photo might be staged, but there are men using cameras to get photos underneath women's dresses, or while in the bathroom.

Our reaction to the men who do these types of things is to arrest them or reprimand them, but we do not solve crimes or other problems with punishments.

Our emotions are inappropriate for this modern world, and we should experiment with more sensible culture that will encourage better behavior and better attitudes. I think we will reduce the fascination with sex and women's bodies if we:
1) Provide children with realistic information about sex, women's bodies, childbirth, and related issues.
2) Eliminate the sexual titillation that is widespread in modern societies.

Both of these policies require the adults to exert some self-control over their sexual inhibitions to:
1) Prohibit organizations from using sexual titillation to manipulate people.
2) Allow schools to design a useful sex education course.

The boys who grew up 50,000 years ago would have regarded the breasts of a teenage girl as attractive, but the boys would have so frequently seen women breast-feeding babies that they would have regarded a woman's breast as being mainly a food source for babies rather than as a sex toy for men. Furthermore, they would have seen women giving birth many times during their life, and they would have seen naked women on a regular basis, and they would have seen women pooping and peeing.

All of that realistic information about women would have caused the prehistoric boys to regard a vagina as a stinky, ugly organ. If a woman in that era were to accidentally expose her crotch, the men would not giggle for hours that she just suffered a "wardrobe malfunction". They would just quietly turn away and ignore it. They would not be fascinated by a woman's crotch.
None of the prehistoric women wore bras, and they did not have bathing suits when they went swimming, but today men giggle if a woman does not wear a bra, and the adults worry that their children will suffer psychological damage if they see somebody naked at a beach.

Men today have such a problem dealing with women's breasts that businesses regularly attract the attention of men with photos and remarks of women who are exposing some or all of their breasts, as in the two headlines to the right.

How can anybody look at the news articles of the modern world and then boast that we are more socially advanced than our prehistoric ancestors? I would say that our news articles are evidence that our social environment has become so unnatural and so perverted that is causing adult men to behave in a neurotic, abnormal manner.

I have heard a couple men make a remark similar to, "I don't want other men seeing my wife naked." What are they afraid of? None of our ancestors worried about somebody seeing naked bodies.

If we were raising boys in a more appropriate environment, they would not develop fascinations about sex or women's bodies, or develop unrealistic expectations of women or marriage. As a result, they would be more compatible with the women, and better able to form more stable marriages.

The girls today are also picking up unrealistic attitudes towards men, marriage, and life by watching television and reading romantic novels. By comparison, the girls who grew up 50,000 years ago were not influenced by television or books, and they did not have feminists trying to convince them that they are a unisex creature, and that they have been abused by men for 6,000 years.

The girls 50,000 years ago learned about men and women by observing people in their campsite. Their eyes and ears gave them a lot of realistic information about how men and women treat each other, and what a marriage is. Those girls would have developed realistic expectations for men, sex, and marriage.

Children today are not picking up realistic information about men or women, marriages, material wealth, sex, fame, traveling, or many other issues. Instead, the children are collecting bits of confusing, contradictory, idiotic, and false information, as well as lots of unrealistic fantasies.

It is not difficult to improve this situation. All we have to do is experiment with the environment in which we raise children, and watch the behavior of people to determine which environment produces adults who form the most stable friendships and marriages.

Men and women are crude partly because of one another
If prehistoric women insisted on husbands who had hair on their head, then none of us men would be bald. The reason some men are bald is because some of our female ancestors did not care whether a man was bald. The reason some races have more of a problem with baldness than others is because there are subtle differences in the emotional characteristics of the races. Apparently, the women in Asia are more demanding that men have hair compared to the women in Italy.

Some of the characteristics that an animal develops have little or nothing to do with its survival. Some characteristics evolve simply because the opposite sex develops an attraction to it.

Prehistoric men selected women primarily according to their visual appearance and personality. The men did not care whether the women were intelligent, in good mental health, or whether they had any interest or ability in making tools or exploring the world. As a result, the prehistoric men inadvertently bred women into creatures that have pleasant personalities and spend a lot of time grooming themselves, but who are not very intelligent, have a higher level of mental illness than men, and don't have much interest or ability in mechanical items, engineering, or science.

By comparison, the prehistoric women were selecting men according to their ability to provide them with food and protection. The women did not have much concern for whether the men were honest, nice-looking, sociable, in control of their temper, or interested in doing something of value for society.

Men and women complain about the undesirable qualities of one another, but part of the reason we have those undesirable qualities is because our ancestors had been selecting a spouse according to other criteria. If men would start putting more emphasis on a woman's intelligence and mental health, then through the generations, the women would become less interested in astrology and religion, and more intelligent.

Likewise, if women would put more emphasis on the man's appearance, honesty, responsibility, self-control, personality, and value to society, then each generation of men would become better looking, more sociable, more honest, more responsible, and more willing to contribute to society.

If you don't like the characteristics of the opposite sex, complain about your ancestors, not the people who are alive today. Furthermore, unless you are willing to improve the situation by restricting reproduction, you are going to allow these undesirable characteristics to perpetuate into the next generation.

Everybody who is complaining about the characteristics of men or women ought to be willing to restrict reproduction in order to create better quality men and women for the next generation. Complaining doesn't do any good, but restricting reproduction will change the course of the human race.

What do we want the future generations to become?
If we would prohibit the most undesirable people from having children, limit the ordinary people to one or two children, and encourage the higher-quality people to have large families, each generation will become physically healthier and better looking, and they will become more intelligent, more sociable, more honest, and better able to handle schools and modern jobs.

In the world today, however, instead of improving each generation, we are encouraging the inferior people to reproduce. The religious people and the conservatives, for example, discourage birth control and abortion, and many businesses are profiting by helping sexually defective people and lesbians to reproduce through artificial insemination and fertility pills. We are also helping criminals and unemployable people to reproduce by providing people with welfare and counseling services.

To make the situation even worse, the feminists are encouraging women to look for a husband who is their equal, which encourages women to marry a man who is abnormally feminine. This will increase the number of feminine men.

We are influencing the evolution of the human race regardless of whether we take an active role in determining our future, or whether we hide from it. Therefore, it makes the most sense to push ourselves into discussing what we want the human race to evolve into. Ignoring this issue will not make it vanish.

We should notice how people react to failures and disappointments
A significant percentage of adults are having trouble forming a stable relationship with the opposite sex. There is a tremendous amount of frustration, arguing, divorce, and loneliness. Ideally, a person who is having trouble would react by studying the problem and experimenting with solutions, but a lot of people are spending a lot of their time becoming angry, crying, or pouting.

If you regard all people as being equal, then you will regard the different reactions of people as being meaningless differences between us. In reality, the differences in how we react to problems are not meaningless. They are an indication of our mental qualities. We should observe and pass judgment on who among us reacts to problems in an appropriate manner, and who is reacting in a destructive or annoying manner.

Anger and pouting are destructive. We have to expect everybody to occasionally become angry or pout, but if we were to keep track of everybody's anger and pouting, we would find that we create a bell curve. We should regard the people who spend abnormal amounts of time on anger or pouting as inferior humans, rather than what we do right now, which is to feel sorry for them or pander to them.

This is especially true of the people who react to problems with violence. For example, this website has a list of some of the men who reacted with violence when a woman terminated their relationship. In case you are unaware of this issue, here are some examples:
A 16-year-old boy killed a girl because she would not go to a dance with him.
• In Italy, this man burned his girlfriend to death after she ended their relationship.
This man burned his pregnant girlfriend to death for the same reason.
A man killed his girlfriend after she refused to marry him.
• A man killed a woman on a train because she refused to get involved with him.
I suspect that if we could remove the secrecy and collect data about everybody's life, we would find that the men who are the most violent towards women are also the most violent towards other men, children, and animals. This would lead us to the conclusion that the men who are violent with their wives are not violent because their wife caused them to become violent. Rather, they are violent with their wives because the genetic characteristics of their mind cause them to be more likely to react to problems with violence. In other words, they are inferior men.

When we look for leaders, we should consider how they have reacted to problems in the past. We should be looking for people who react by analyzing the problems, discussing the problems, and experimenting with solutions. People who react with anger, revenge, hatred, sarcasm, pouting, and apathy are inappropriate for leadership positions.

What is the difference between a feminist and a violent husband?
The concepts I just mentioned also apply to women. Specifically, we should observe how women react to problems, and we should pass judgment on which women are displaying unacceptable reactions.

All women experience failures in their attempts to find a husband, but they react differently to those failures. Most women just continue passively waiting for a husband, but a minority of women have temper tantrums and whine that men are terrible creatures.

The feminists create the impression that they are "typical" women who are trying to make life better for all women, but I suspect that if we could study women, we would discover that the women who are actively involved in the feminist movement are those who have a tendency to react to problems with anger, pouting, and hatred.

What is the difference between a woman who whines incessantly about sexist men, and a man who whines that women are manipulative, selfish, and abusive? What is the difference between a woman who makes angry, hateful remarks about men, and a man who beats or kills a woman?

If a woman reacted to the problems of relationships by studying the issue, and if she provided us with some intelligent analyses, or if she offered suggestions for improving relationships, then she could be described as a "scientist" who is analyzing relationships and trying to help us understand and improve our lives. However, the feminists are not providing us with any analyses or suggestions. They are only whining and hating.

If the feminists had inherited a Y chromosome instead of two X chromosomes, they would have become men, but their other qualities would have remained the same, such as their tendency to react to problems with hatred and anger. Therefore, if they had been men, their angry personality would result in them becoming angry men who whine about women, and some of them might become serial killers, or husbands who beat their wives.

Men have such a strong craving to pamper women that we have a difficult time looking at women seriously. We like to think of women as adorable princesses. In reality, they are just female monkeys. If every woman had been given a Y chromosome instead of two X chromosomes, they would have been men, and that would make it easier for us to realize that some of them are abnormally violent, neurotic, selfish, irresponsible, dishonest, and arrogant. It would be easy for us to see that they are monkeys, not princesses, and that many of them have emotional and intellectual qualities that are inappropriate for this modern world.

The highest quality people try to solve their problems
If you can look seriously at yourself, you should notice that when you become upset with something, your emotions want to react with anger or pouting. All of us have those emotional feelings, but there are differences between us in how strong those emotions are, how long they persist once they have been triggered, and what type of events will trigger them. There is also a difference in how well we can suppress or ignore those emotions.

Most of the population is "average" in regards to their reaction to problems. They have an average amount of anger, and do an average amount of pouting.

The people who react to failures with above-average levels of violence, tantrums, anger, and pouting are behaving in this awful manner because of their genetic characteristics. When those people have children, their daughters and sons are likely to inherit the same mental characteristics, thereby creating more people who react inappropriately to problems.

The people who react to problems with violence or tantrums are detrimental, and so are the people who react by crying, praying to Jesus, or looking for excuses to do nothing. Our world is full of corruption, overcrowding, traffic congestion, loneliness, divorce, and other problems, and we are not going to solve them with temper tantrums, sarcasm, prayer, or apathy.

When we are trying to make a decision about who to put into a leadership position, we need to consider how they react to problems. The people who will become the most useful leaders are those who react to problems by analyzing them, discussing them, and experimenting with solutions.

The leaders of the feminist movement are not providing us with analyses, and neither are any of the men in leadership positions. The people who dominate the world right now are not providing us with leadership.

We will not improve relationships between men and women by whining about one another, or by ignoring our problems. We need to study the differences between men and women, and we need to experiment with our lives. We should experiment with courtship procedures to help people do a better job of finding a spouse, and we should experiment with our customs for marriages, divorces, and anniversaries. We should also experiment with the environment in which we raise children.

This concept applies to all problems in life, not just relationships between men and women. For example, when a nation experiences economic problems, some people react with anger, tantrums, pouting, or apathy. Some people hate the unions; others hate the corporations; others hate some foreign nation; and others hate the immigrants. However, we are not going to solve our economic problems through hatred or whining.

We need leaders who will analyze our problems and experiment with changes to our culture. This requires that we observe how people react to problems, and that we pass judgment on who is reacting in a productive manner, and who is reacting with hatred, pouting, tantrums, or apathy.

Why not tolerate one another's differences?
One of the goals of the United States was to allow people to have the freedom to practice their particular beliefs without interference from the government. For two examples of how America has actually practiced what it preached in regards to this policy:
• The Amish are allowed to follow an incompatible culture.
• We have laws prohibiting public nudity, but we allow nudist colonies.
The reason this policy has been successful for the Amish and the nudist colonies is that those two groups of people have formed their own communities that are physically separated from the rest of us, and when the people leave those communities, they follow the laws of the nation. If, instead, the Amish and the nudists were mixed randomly in our neighborhoods, there would be a lot of fights, frustration, anger, and pouting.

We cannot expect a community to be pleasant when we mix people with incompatible cultures. When people want to follow incompatible cultures, they have to be physically separated from one another.

To complicate this issue, there are some types of behavior that most people will not tolerate even when the people are separated from us. For example, the two children in Hampstead, England claim that their families have a history of sexual abuse, and of murdering and eating people during bizarre rituals, and that they sometimes used the skin of their victims for making shoes.

Imagine if those particular families decided to follow the example of the Amish and create their own communities here in the United States. Imagine them telling us that they will practice pedophilia, cannibalism, and murder rituals only within their own community, and when they leave their community, they will follow the laws of the nation. Imagine them telling us that we should learn to love one another and tolerate one another's cultural differences rather than criticize other people for being different. It is not likely that many people would tolerate their community.

Businesses limit the differences between members
There is no right or wrong for culture. Every society has to make arbitrary decisions on what they will allow, and what they will prohibit. It is unrealistic for a society to allow people to do whatever they please, and to tell people to love and accept one another. Every society must set limits on what people are allowed to do.

Businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations have to deal with this issue, also. Those organizations practice the philosophy that the members can be different from one another, but only to a certain extent. An organization considers the stability of the team to have priority over the freedom of the individual members. Organizations allow their members to be unique, but only if it does not disrupt the team. All organizations set arbitrary limits on the freedoms of the individual members.

By comparison, nations are trying to put individual freedoms ahead of the organization. The United States is probably the most extreme in regards to providing citizens with freedom. This is the reason that we cannot switch to the metric system. The American people have so much freedom that we are allowed to behave in a manner that causes inefficiency.

Another example of how the United States regards the freedom of an individual to be more important than the stability of the nation is that, as I wrote a year ago here, American citizens are allowed to bring refugees from Syria into America, even though they are not providing those refugees with jobs, homes, useful skills, or school courses on how to speak English, and even though most of the American people do not want the refugees.

Imagine a business allowing its employees to have so much freedom that they can bring refugees into the business, and abandon them in the hallways. No business would tolerate such a ridiculous situation, but this is what our government tolerates. Actually, some of our government agencies are also bringing refugees into the nation, and then abandoning them in the streets.

The United States regards the freedom of the individual citizen to have a higher priority than the stability of the nation, and this allows us to do irrational, selfish, destructive, and idiotic things. We are allowed to hurt ourselves and one another.

None of the people who get into leadership positions of businesses, militaries, or other organizations are so stupid that they would put the freedom of their members ahead of the organization. Parents do not put the freedom of their children ahead of the stability of the family, either. Only nations follow such a stupid philosophy.

A nation should follow the practices that have proven to be successful for other organizations, and that means switching to a philosophy in which the team has a higher priority than the individual members. The citizens should not have the freedom to decide for themselves what type of measurement system they will use. That decision should be made according to what is best for society. Likewise, the citizens should not have the freedom to decide whether they want to bring refugees into the nation.

A lot of the decisions that a government must make are arbitrary. There is no right or wrong measurement system, and there is no right or wrong policy for refugees, clothing styles, foods, holiday celebrations, or hairstyles. We simply have to make decisions about what we want the human race to be. However, these decisions should be made according to what will be best for the human race and the future generations, not according to what some individual person or organization wants. We should not care what some individual person or organization likes or dislikes. We should care about what is best for us as a group.

The people who are retarded, mentally ill, unusually short, or obese will complain that we need to take their unusual desires and characteristics into account when we design trains, houses, furniture, and other aspects of society, but we should not design society according to genetically defective or inferior people. We should design a society according to what we think will be best for the human race. We should not try to appease anybody.

People should have responsibilities, not rights
From the point of view of businesses, militaries, and other organizations, the members have responsibilities and privileges, not rights. Businesses treat their employees with respect, but they do not encourage their members to make demands about their "rights". Businesses do not emphasize a "Bill of Rights" for their employees.

A nation should follow the same philosophy. The government should treat citizens with respect, but instead of encouraging citizens to demand "rights", every citizen should be told that they have a responsibility to follow the rules of society, contribute something of value, and treat other members in a respectable manner. A modern society is a team. We depend upon farmers to provide us with food, electricians to provide us with electricity, and other people to provide us with homes, computers, and plumbing. The team is more important than the individual. We can function without certain individuals, but everybody suffers if the team is disorganized, fighting with each other, or inefficient.

When nations promote the philosophy that the people have rights, and that the individual citizen has higher priority than the nation, it encourages us to become selfish, demanding, and arrogant. It encourages us to think about ourselves rather than what is best for the team.

Selfishness and arrogance were valuable during prehistoric times, but they are detrimental in this modern world. We need to dampen our selfishness and arrogance, not encourage it. We should not follow whichever philosophy we "like" the most. We need to follow a philosophy that will provide us with the most pleasant life.

Businesses, militaries, and other organizations do not give their members what their members want. They try to set up a social environment that provides the members with what they need to form a productive team.

Parents also do not give their children what their children want, either. They also try to set up an environment that creates a productive family. A nation should do the same. A government should not do what the people want. The goal of a government should be to create a social environment that provides us with the most pleasant life. This requires giving the team a higher priority than the individual. The citizens should not be encouraged to believe that they have "rights". They should be told that they have a responsibility to be a productive team member.

Culture will always be determined by physical force
It is possible for scientists to conduct experiments in a laboratory to determine whose theory about chemistry or electronics is most accurate. However, we cannot conduct an experiment in a laboratory to determine the best government system, school system, holiday celebration, abortion policy, clothing style, or other cultural issue. There is no way of putting a tiny human society into a petri dish and then experimenting with it.

Mathematicians and computers can "figure out" the answers to math problems because every math problem has one and only one solution, but we cannot "figure out" what our culture should be because those decisions are arbitrary. There is no way to determine the answer to an issue that is a personal opinion. The decisions on what to do with the future of the human race have to be resolved by compromising on policies, or by some group of people making an arbitrary decision and forcing it on the other people.

Unfortunately, the history of the human race shows that people have not been very successful at compromising on policies. There are too many emotional and intellectual differences between us to make it possible for us to compromise. With genetic diversity increasing every generation, this problem is going to get worse, not better. It will be more difficult for the future generations to agree on policies than it is for us today. The longer we wait to do something, the more difficult it's going to be to get people to agree on what to do.

We should expect that disputes over what to do about the future of the human race are going to be resolved by groups of people who make arbitrary decisions, and then force those decisions on the other people.

While I might seem to be advocating violence, I am simply stating what has been going on for millions of years among both humans and animals. All of the decisions that have been made about culture have been made by force.

For example, people have been arguing with one another for centuries about whether alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs should be legal, and if so, what age a person should be to have access to those drugs, and during what hours should a business be allowed to sell them, and which parts of the city should be allowed to sell them.

People have not been able to resolve their differences of opinion on drugs in a peaceful manner, however. These issues are being resolved by groups of people who make arbitrary decisions and then force their opinions on other people with the use of a police and military.

We cannot expect people to agree on a policy for alcohol, marijuana, abortion, euthanasia, or even whether it is acceptable to eat horses or dogs. There is too much genetic diversity among the people in regards to their emotional and intellectual qualities. Disputes over culture are going to be resolved when some group makes an arbitrary decision and has the ability to dominate the other groups.

No matter what type of government we create, and no matter what type of culture we decide to follow, there are going to be people who don't like something about it. I have suggested that we start building new cities and let each of them be culturally independent. This will allow a greater diversity of culture, but even with hundreds of different cities, there will be millions of people who are unsatisfied with the culture of all of the cities. It is impossible to create enough cities so that everybody can have the culture that they want.

To complicate the issue of providing us with the culture that we want, none of us actually knows what culture we would be happiest with. As we grow up, we pick up bits of opinions from other people, and that causes us to develop certain goals and attitudes. Because we are arrogant, we assume that we are so intelligent and educated that we know what we want. In reality, we don't know what will provide us with the most pleasant life.

Each of us has opinions on what the world should be, but we cannot be certain that our opinions will actually provide us with a pleasant life, or create a stable world. All of us need to get off of our pedestal, be willing to experiment with life, force ourselves to listen to other people's opinions, and push ourselves into trying new things once in a while.

Until we have experienced a variety of different environments, we are not going to be certain as to what will provide us with the most pleasant life.

The people today who are Protestants, Muslims, or Buddhists believe that they must be able to practice their religion, but if they had been born 10,000 years earlier, they would have been raised in an environment in which those religions did not exist. Would they have suffered as a result of not being able to practice those particular religions?

Our arrogance causes us to assume that we know what we want from life, and we often make demands that we get what we want, but we are fools to assume that we understand life and ourselves well enough to make such demands.

If you had been born in a different era or family, you would have had the same genetic personality and intellectual characteristics, but your life would have been significantly different. Your attitudes towards life, your goals, your job, your leisure activities, and your language would have been significantly different from what it is right now. Would you have suffered because of those differences? Not necessarily.

I think that if you could experience different eras and social environments, you would discover that you don't want to go back to the life you have right now. I think you would find that you prefer one of the environments in the future.

I also think that if you had the opportunity to experience life thousands of years in the future, you would regard the 21st century as a primitive era that is dominated by loneliness, litter, fighting, hatred, confusion, misery, and chaos.

We are so arrogant that we assume we know what is best for ourselves and other people. We argue incessantly with one another over politics, drugs, abortion, crime, and other social issues. We are so arrogant that some government officials will refuse to follow laws that other government officials have created. For example, the people in many states have voted to make marijuana legal, but there are some officials in the federal government who are resisting the changes in the law. Those federal government officials are so certain that they know the correct policy for marijuana that they are not going to allow the states to make inappropriate decisions about marijuana.

Those federal officials are aware that the U.S. Constitution allows the states to do this, but they don't care what the law says. They want to impose their arbitrary decisions on the nation. They think they know what is best for us, and they don't care what the other government officials or citizens want. They believe that they are superheroes who are going to protect us from detrimental laws.

There are also people who believe that they are going to protect the nation by fighting the crazy people who believe in evolution.

If the people who don't like the rules would obey the rules anyway, then there would not be any need for police departments or militaries. Unfortunately, we cannot expect people to obey the rules they do not like. We cannot even expect government officials or policemen to follow the rules. As a result, every organization must be able to deal with the members who don't want to follow the rules. This requires that we have a quality control department that will watch over the government officials. It also requires that we design the quality control department so that they are not given dictatorial authority to do as they please. They need to be watched also, and they need job performance reviews just like everybody else.

With businesses, militaries, and other organizations, the rules can be enforced without any violence because all organizations follow the philosophy of evicting people who don't follow the rules. We should design a government that follows the same philosophy. Specifically, instead of a government sending a police force to fight with and punish people for disobeying the rules, the government could evict those people, or put them on restrictions.

The people who violate what we regard as "insignificant" laws could be restricted to their own neighborhoods, or restricted to certain types of jobs, and the people who are more irritating could be evicted from the city. The people that nobody wants could be evicted to the City of Misfits.

By evicting the misfits rather than fighting with them and punishing them, we will reduce violence, and we will make the job of a policeman more desirable.

How can a nation get rid of a corrupt government?
The two children in Hampstead, England, Kendall, and the "pizzagate" information provides a lot of evidence that many government officials, journalists, and other people are involved with an international pedophile network.

The Internet is full of false information, but the people who are complaining about pizzagate ignore almost all of it except for the pizzagate accusations. If they are so concerned about "fake news", why don't they show any interest in stopping any of the other fake news?

For example, consider the accusations that Barack Obama is homosexual, and that Michelle Obama is a transgender. Why haven't any of the government officials or journalists who whine about "fake news" bothered to complain about that particular fake news? Why is it acceptable to accuse Michelle Obama of being a transgender, but it is wrong to accuse a pizza parlor of being involved with a pedophile network?

A new accusation, as of December 2016, is that President Obama has been lying about his real father. None of the people who complain about fake news are complaining about that accusation, however.

At this website, a person provides links to documents that he claims are from pedophiles, cannibals, and criminals, such as this one. (Update June 2017: the original page has been deleted. That is an archived copy.) It describes how to choose girls to eat, and it also provides a couple of recipes. One section of the document explains that if the girl is to be cooked alive, there are techniques to prolong her life while she is being cooked.
Who created those documents? There are also photos of children who are tied up. If these documents truly are instructions that pedophiles have written to each other, and if the photos are of their victims, then there really is an international pedophile network that is kidnapping, killing, eating, raping, and torturing children.

How can people dismiss this information as meaningless? How can people treat this as entertainment? If these documents and photos are fake, why are people allowed to put them on the Internet and pretend that they are real?

Update: somebody mentioned to me that he thinks the two girls in the photo above are pregnant. He also pointed out the instructions on choosing girls to eat mentioned that lactation makes breast tissue less tasty, which could mean that those two girls are not for cooking and eating. Rather, they are for sex and to provide babies for sacrifices and blood.

In this email message, with the title, Get ready for "Chicago Hot Dog Friday", a man believes that Obama spent $65,000 to have pizzas and hotdogs flown from Chicago to the White House for a private party, and at the expense of taxpayers. In this email message, John Podesta invites people to a party in Washington DC, and he tells them that handmade tortillas will be flown in from Mexico, although he does not specify whether it is at the expense of taxpayers.

If Podesta and Obama were truly interested in discrediting the pizzagate theories, then they should show us evidence that they really did have hotdogs, pizzas, and tortillas flown into Washington DC. Otherwise we are going to continue assuming that they were flying children into Washington DC to use as sex toys.

In December 2016, thousands of people traveled to the Comet pizza parlor in Washington DC to complain about the "fake news" and defend the pizza parlor from accusations of pedophilia. Their behavior is identical to, and as suspicious as, the college students and other people who defended Jerry Sandusky after he was accused of being a pedophile. Why would anybody rush to defend a person from accusations of pedophilia before there has been an investigation of the issue? Why would anybody assume that the accusations are false?

Many women have been caught making false accusations about rape, but despite this, many journalists and citizens, especially women, support accusations of rape without waiting for an investigation. By comparison, how many children have been caught making false accusations of pedophilia? Why would somebody assume that the accusations about Sandusky or the pizza parlors are false?

Journalists and other people promote a wide variety of "fake news", such as UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and that the earth is flat, but the journalists and government officials are concerned only about the "fake news" about the pizza parlors involved with pedophilia.

Furthermore, and even more suspicious, there are people in other nations who are trying to stop the fake news about the pizza parlors. Why would foreigners want to defend some American pizza parlors against accusations of pedophilia?

If you are an American citizen, imagine if some people in England were complaining that a pizza parlor in London – a pizza parlor that you know nothing about – is involved with a pedophile network. Would you have an urge to go on the Internet and try to convince the British people that the accusations were "fake news", and that the pizza parlor is innocent?

Obama complained about the fake news about the pizza parlor, also, so if he really cares about fake news, why doesn't he let people around the world have DNA samples of Michelle Obama? And then, if Michelle turns out to be a female, he would be able to justify complaining about the people who are claiming that she is a man. He could also provide DNA samples of himself so that we can verify who his father is. And he could provide DNA samples of his daughters so that we can find out who their real parents are.
The two photos at the top are John and Tony Podesta. The two drawings are supposedly police sketches of the men last seen with Madeline McCann.
Some of the people who are discussing pizzagate are claiming that John Podesta and his brother Tony closely resemble the police sketches of the men who were last seen with Madeline McCann.

After Madeline vanished, the McCanns were invited to stay at the home of Clement Freud, who the Daily Mail refers to as a pedophile. I would say that this is suspicious, also.

I also think it is suspicious that the journalists, Facebook executives, government officials, and other people who complain about "fake news" are complaining only about the pizzagate issue. For example, the comedian Stephen Colbert created this routine to convince us that pizzagate is nonsense.

Their fear of an investigation is evidence that they are guilty of something. If an investigation is honest, it is like putting rocks into an acid bath, so honest people will welcome the investigation since it is the only way to prove their honesty.

With all of the evidence that pedophile networks are very large, and in every nation, who would dismiss the pizzagate accusations without an investigation?

For a few examples of how much evidence there is that pedophile networks exist, and that some of their members are policemen, government officials, teachers, and other influential members of society:
• In 1977, the Chicago Tribune reported that there was a nationwide homosexual network that was sending boys around the nation to have sex with wealthy men.
• In the 1980s, the Franklin Coverup book and the Conspiracy of Silence video exposed a network that was flying orphans in Boystown to Washington DC for use as sex toys.
• In 2013, Canadian police arrested 348 adults and freed 400 children from whatever the adults were doing to them.
• In November 2016, two websites posted articles, (this, this, and this) about Operation Darkroom, which was an investigation of a Norwegian pedophile network. Thousands of Norwegian citizens were involved with that network, and one of the women involved with the investigation said that many of the pedophiles "would be defined as resourceful members of society."
• In February 2017, 474 people were arrested for human trafficking, and the sheriff said that 70% of the children who were trafficked were from foster care, which means that there might be a lot of government officials and employees involved with it.
Is it a coincidence that journalists and comedians are ridiculing the pizzagate information, while minimizing or ignoring the news reports about pedophile networks? For example, do a search of Google news for "Operation Darkroom" and you will find that the BBC is the only "mainstream" news agency to produce a report about it, and it lacks details.

Why doesn't the FBI investigate people using pedophile symbols?

Several companies use pedophile symbols in their logos, such as Journey, (the image to the right) and a few variations are sold by Shutterstock, which sells geometric designs in addition to photos. Why would any business want to create a logo for itself that uses a symbol that is already in use, and which is for sale?

These two variations are sold by Shutterstock

Update: After reading the paragraph above, somebody decided to look more closely at the Journey company. He pointed out to me that the main page of their website has an embedded YouTube video about their company. The image that displays for their video is of a man sitting on the edge of a cliff, as you can see at their YouTube site, and in the image to the right. That photo implies that Journey is providing adults with an opportunity to explore the world.
However, on the main page of their website, they don't allow the YouTube video to show the image of that man on a cliff. Instead, they overlay that image with a large photo of young boys playing in the water.

If you were designing a website for a company, would you overlay the image of your company video with a photo of young boys? This could be considered as more evidence that they have an abnormal fascination with children, and that they are trying to attract people who are interested in children rather than attract people who want adventure and exploration.

A pedophile symbol also appears on some police badges. The photo below shows a close-up of one badge, and next to it is another badge that has the same symbol. It is also interesting to note that those particular badges also have a six pointed star. Most police badges do not have six pointed stars. Take a look at the Google images for "police badge".

In our world today, our government officials are not held accountable for anything they do, and we allow them to have so much secrecy that we have no idea who in our government authorizes or creates these badges. We ought to wonder if some Jews created these badges for the Los Angeles police, and that they used a six pointed star and pedophile symbols in order to identify the Los Angeles police as being under their control, and protecting the pedophile network. It would certainly explain why none of the police in Los Angeles are interested in investigating the accusations of pedophilia in Hollywood.

Since the FBI published a document claiming that certain symbols are used by pedophiles to identify one another, you might expect the FBI to keep quiet about the pedophile symbols while they investigate the people, businesses, and police departments that use those symbols. Later, after they arrested the pedophiles, they would explain to the court that they identified the pedophile network by discovering the symbols they were using.

However, if the FBI management is involved with the pedophile network, then they would quietly publish the pedophile symbols so that pedophiles around the world could locate one another. Furthermore, instead of investigating the people that used those symbols, the FBI would protect the people who displayed the symbols.

Incidentally, in case you haven't noticed, most of the people who are exposing the pizza pedophile network are putting out the same type of propaganda as the "truth seekers" and "investigators" of 9/11, the Holocaust, and other crimes. Specifically, they try to minimize the role that Jews play in these crimes, and try to direct our anger to the Congress, the "Illuminati", or the CIA, or a very small group of Jews, such as George Soros, Anthony Weiner, and Jeffrey Epstein.

An example of their propaganda that I find amusing is that occasionally one of them will claim that we should be very cautious about exposing pizzagate because the pedophile network is so large and so thoroughly involved with our governments, media, military, businesses, and schools that exposing the network would cause the sheeple to panic, and removing the pedophiles from so many organizations would cause the collapse of our governments and economy, which in turn would result in economic chaos and war. Some of the "9/11 truth seekers" used this argument years ago to fool people into keeping quiet about the evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives.

Will you be part of the group who determines the future?
The crime networks are so large and have infiltrated so many government agencies, businesses, police departments, schools, and other organizations, that it is going to require an enormous number of people to get them out of our lives. Furthermore, it is unlikely that they will all surrender peacefully. We must expect that a large number of police and military personnel are going to have to use force.

The future of the human race will be set more by policemen and militaries than by the people who only talk about the issues. The people who discuss the issues can make lots of plans, but without a large team of men who are willing to use force, nothing is going to change. The military and the police might regard themselves as low level members of society who follow orders, but they are actually the people who will make the final decisions about the future of the human race.

Many of the people who regard themselves as "low level" or "unimportant" members of society are more important to the human race than they realize. Some of the factory workers, farmers, mechanics, and other people regard themselves as ordinary people of no importance, but without people doing those jobs, modern society would collapse. We don't need philosophers, psychologists, Hollywood celebrities, or salesmen, so all of those people could vanish tonight and nobody would notice anything different tomorrow. Actually, we would notice that the world was slightly better tomorrow because we would no longer have the burden of providing those people with material items, and the cities would become less crowded. However, if the farmers, mechanics, and other people vanished tonight, we would be in serious trouble.

Some people might respond that if the farmers, electricians, and mechanics vanished, we would simply replace them, but they are not easy to replace. Many people cannot do those jobs because they lack the physical or mental talents necessary to learn those skills and do those jobs properly.

Furthermore, some people are unwilling to do what they condemn as "hard work", "menial work", or "nigger work". They want a job where they can feel important, usually some type of management position. They want to sit in an office and give orders. They don't want to repair an electrical generator or help build a railroad.

The people who are willing and able to do useful work are valuable members of society. They have more influence over the world than they realize.

The same applies to the police and militaries. They should not regard themselves as meaningless, low-level people who follow orders. They need to understand the importance of what they do, and be more demanding of their leadership.

The assembly-line workers can safely follow orders without questioning them, but the police and military are in a much more critical job. The police and military are not low-level workers who can safely do whatever they are told. They need to realize the significance of their jobs, and they need to ensure that their leadership is honest. If the police and military mindlessly follow orders, they run the risk of becoming attack dogs for crime networks. History provides us with numerous examples of this problem. For example, the world wars got started when militaries in different nations joined a war without asking why.

For another example, the policemen in Chicago who arrested Christopher Bollyn were tricked by Jews into hurting somebody who was helping the nation.

The Jews are still struggling to trick the police into arresting honest people, so the police and military need to be aware of this issue so that they don't become victims. For some examples,:
• In March 2017, the ADL announced that its creating an organization to stop "cyberhate".
• There are Jews in Europe who are trying to fool the police into arresting people for "Holocaust denial"
• In the United States, many of the pedophiles are trying to get authorization to suppress, censor, or arrest the people who are producing "fake news".
We are not going to stop these Jews with people who only talk or whine. We need men who are willing to use force.

In other documents I pointed out that there is a reason that men evolved the quality of losing their temper and becoming violent. It is because violence is nature's only way of resolving certain types of problems. Neither humans nor animals have the ability to resolve issues peacefully. We don't like violence, but the police and the military sometimes have no other option to stop people from causing trouble.

Unfortunately, the police and military are in a confusing situation because many of the people in our government, police departments, militaries, media, courts, and schools are involved with crime networks, and that makes it difficult for the police and military personnel to know which of their leaders they should listen to, and which of their leaders they should be suspicious of. They need to make wise decisions about when they are truly protecting the nation, and when they are being tricked into helping a crime network.

The police and military personnel need to ensure that their leaders are truly trying to get rid of crime, rather than sending them on worthless projects to waste their time, or sending them into a trap where they will be murdered.

The criminals who currently dominate our governments have already killed, threatened, arrested, and intimidated a lot of people, and they have instigated a lot of senseless wars. It would be foolish to expect them to suddenly stop their violence and treachery. It would be more sensible to expect them to continue struggling to murder and abuse us, and through any method they can think of.

In order to defeat them, our military and police are going to have to become educated about what is going on, and they need the support of other people. So, don't just sit around like a sheep. Try to find some way to assist in this battle.

Freedom creates incompatibility
The Pilgrims and Puritans left England to start colonies in North America because they wanted the freedom to practice their particular religion. A century later, when the colonists decided to become independent of England and create the United States, one of their goals was to continue providing people with religious freedom.

The concept of providing people with "religious freedom" sounds wonderful, but hopefully you realize that everything in life has advantages and disadvantages. What are the advantages to providing people with religious freedom? What are the disadvantages? What exactly is "religious freedom", and how does providing it to a group of people affect their lives?

To complicate the issue, the United States government does not make any distinction between religious "beliefs" and religious "organizations", but there is a significant difference between a person who has "beliefs" about the universe, and a person who joins an organization. Beliefs are just intangible concepts in our minds, but organizations are teams of people that have leaders, rules of conduct, and goals. Organizations exert control over their members, and some of them also try to influence society.

Since nobody can explain the universe, it makes sense to provide people with the freedom to believe whatever they want about the universe, and to be able to freely discuss those beliefs with other people. However, we do not have the right to create any organization we please. For example, we are not allowed to create a business that produces vaccines, food products, or explosives without getting approval from the government. Furthermore, some organizations, such as food processing businesses, are regularly inspected by the government in order to ensure that they are operating properly.

Governments all over the world are regularly passing judgment on which organization is acceptable, and governments are regularly inspecting businesses to ensure that they are operating properly. However, the United States government doesn't have any restrictions on the type of organized religion that we can create. If we want an organized religion to qualify for tax benefits, we have to meet certain requirements, but otherwise we have the freedom to create any religion we please.

It makes sense to give people the freedom to discuss issues, but it doesn't make sense to give people the freedom to create whatever organization they please. The primary purpose of the United States is a mistake; namely, providing people with the freedom to create their own organized religions.

When the pilgrims were living in England, they had the freedom to believe whatever they pleased. They had to follow English laws and customs, but they were not suffering from a lack of freedom. However, they did not want to follow some of the English customs. Exactly which customs the pilgrims did not approve of is a mystery because they lived in a primitive era, and because different pilgrims had different opinions on what to do, but this site lists some of the issues they disagreed with, such as:
• Some pilgrims did not want to celebrate Christmas or Easter because they regarded those holidays as creations by people rather than as holidays specified by the Bible.
• A few pilgrims did not believe that a bride and groom should exchange wedding rings.
No matter which society you live in, you must follow the culture of that society or you will be a misfit. If you don't like the culture, your best option is to discuss the issue with other people and try to convince them to alter their culture. If, instead, you refuse to follow the culture, you become a misfit who irritates other people, and if you violate certain laws, you become a criminal.

The Pilgrims did not want to follow all of the customs of England, and this created a conflict between them and the other people of England. Some of the English people wanted to push them aside and ignore them, and some wanted to cure them of their problem with insults, criticism, and other punishments. The pilgrims reacted by whining about being discriminated against, and of being oppressed.

The Pilgrims were correct when they complained that they were being discriminated against, but they were ignoring the fact that they brought the discrimination on themselves by refusing to follow English culture. From their biased point of view, they were wonderful people who were following the correct religion, and the discrimination occurred because the English people were cruel creatures who were following a false religion. In reality, the discrimination occurred because they were arrogant jerks who were disrupting English society.

The whining by the Pilgrims of discrimination is a very important issue. Specifically, the people who whine about discrimination create the impression that they are innocent victims of cruel people, and that we should feel sorry for them and hate the people who are discriminating against them, but in most cases, the people who whine about discrimination are bringing it on themselves by irritating people.

This is also true with accusations of racial discrimination. For example, there are lots of black people living in the United States who are getting along peacefully with other races, but some black people are constantly whining about discrimination. They claim that they are being discriminated against because they are black, but it is not because they are black. It is because their personalities are irritating.

If we were to analyze the lives of the black people who whine about being discriminated against by white people, we would find that black people also want to push them away and complain about them. The black people who whine about discrimination are rarely suffering from "discrimination". Rather, they have unpleasant personalities that irritate other people.

The Pilgrims were arrogant religious fanatics who caused themselves trouble by insisting that their particular religion was correct. They reacted to the discrimination like a spoiled child who runs away from home. Specifically, they had a temper tantrum and ran away from England to start their own community in North America.

The American history books make the pilgrims appear to be high quality people who were rebelling against abuse, but in reality, they would be more accurately described as misfits, brats, or arrogant religious fanatics.

A lot of Americans have the attitude that the Pilgrims are our ancestors, and that they created America, and that we should be proud of them. However, most of us are not related to them, and they did not create America. All they did is start a couple of crude, religious communities in North America. The nation of America was created long after those original Pilgrims had died, and by a different group of people.

The pilgrims boasted that the communities they created in North America were providing people with religious freedom, but the community that they created did not provide people with religious freedom. Rather, they pushed their particular religion on everybody in their community. They were actually more dictatorial in regards to religion than the people in England. However, nobody complained about the lack of religious freedom because all of them wanted to be members of that religion. It was only after they had children that it became obvious that they were not truly providing religious freedom.

Some of the children of the pilgrims grew up to become adults who were unwilling to follow all of the rules of their religion. Those particular people became misfits who were discriminated against, and some of them reacted by starting their own community with a slightly different religion. This process continued for centuries, and with other religions, also, and the result is that the United States today has hundreds of different organized religions.

This brings me to a very significant issue. People throughout history have been following a particular pattern. Specifically, a small number of people whine about discrimination, abuse, or government oppression, and that they need freedom. However, when they start their own community, instead of providing everybody with freedom, they become dictators of their community and force their opinions on other people, just like the people they complained about. They did not practice what they preached.

All throughout history we find people whining about how they need freedom, but when they get into positions of authority, most of them are just as dictatorial and abusive as the people they complained about. This causes some of the people who are victims of their dictatorship to complain that they need freedom, and the cycle repeats itself.

The reason for this hypocrisy is that the people who are most likely to complain that they need more freedom are not thinking about what is best for society. Rather, they are some of the most selfish and arrogant people. They want to be the boss. They want to do as they please.

During the time that they are fighting for freedom, they appear to be heroes who are working for you and me, but in reality, they are working for themselves. They want to be the monkey at the top of the hierarchy. They want to set the rules.

American history books portray the pilgrims as wonderful, intelligent, responsible people, and they portray the English people as cruel, ignorant, stupid, and abusive. However, if we could go back in time and live among those pilgrims, most of us would have treated the pilgrims the same way the English people treated them. Most of us would have been as disgusted with the pilgrims as the English people were.

Our history books make it appear as if the English people in the 1600's were abusive and cruel, but the English people in the 1600's were almost identical to the English people today. England has a greater variety of people today since it now has lots of people from Africa, Asia, and East Europe, and there are more retarded and defective people, but the majority of the Caucasian English people today are virtually the same as they were during the 1600s. Do you see any evidence that the English people are abusive or cruel?

The people who abandoned Europe and moved to America often provide us with stories about how terrible Europe is. Likewise, the employees of IBM who quit because they don't like something about the company are likely to tell us that it is an unpleasant business to work at. A person who gets divorced is likely to have a lot of critical remarks about his former spouse. The people who leave Chicago because they don't like the city are likely to provide us with stories about how terrible the city is.

The point is that we must keep in mind that when somebody tells us something, we are hearing only his biased view of the issue.

The pilgrims created the impression that they were wonderful people who loved freedom, and that the English people were oppressive and cruel, but the leaders of the Pilgrims were not interested in providing their members with "freedom". Rather, they wanted to create their own organized religion, and they wanted to be able to dominate their organization just like the leaders of the Church of England and the Catholic Church dominate their members. The leaders of the pilgrims were competitors of the Catholic Church and the Church of England, not saviors of the people.

The communities in North America that were created by the pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, and other religious groups did not provide people with freedom. Rather, they imposed their particular religious beliefs on their community. Some of their members eventually became tired of the oppression and started their own community with their own religion. This cycle continued for centuries.

Our religious freedom has resulted in a nation with hundreds of different organized religions, and if we don't like any of them, we are free to create our own religion, but how does this freedom improve our life? I would say that our religious freedom is making people more incompatible.

The people who create organized religions are hypocrites. They claim to be fighting for our freedom, but most of them have no interest in providing us with freedom. Rather, they want to be the leader of an organization, and they want to impose their opinions on other people.

Because the organized religions are created and dominated by dictatorial, arrogant people, their leaders have a tendency to encourage their members to be arrogant jerks who criticize other religions and try to impose their beliefs on other people. Some of them encourage their members to travel through our neighborhoods and convert us to their religion. Some of them also try to force their religious phrases and symbols on society, such as putting "In God We Trust" on buildings and money.

The people who are creating organized religions are not providing any of us with freedom. They are disrupting society. The organized religions should be prohibited. We do not benefit from the freedom to create organized religions.

We don't yet show any concern for whether an organization has value to society. In a free enterprise system, any business can exist if it can cover its operating expenses, regardless of how worthless it is, and regardless of whether it gets its operating money by selling products, from government handouts, or by begging for donations from the public.

If we were to analyze the benefits and disadvantages of our organizations, I suspect that we would come to the conclusion that many businesses, think tanks, organized religions, and sports groups have significantly more disadvantages than benefits, and that we should eliminate some of them, and change some of the others.

Some of our saviors are actually selfish or neurotic

The people who fight for freedom, or who fight abuse, oppression, or discrimination, are not necessarily heroes who are improving the world. Some of them are simply arrogant, selfish people who want to be the top monkey in the hierarchy, and who want to give orders to us, and who want us to pamper and obey them. Many of the people who have gotten into top leadership positions turn out to be abnormally selfish, hypocritical, violent, or sexually disturbed.

We are not yet showing much concern for who is getting into an influential position, or holding them accountable for what they do, or passing judgment on whether they are providing leadership. If we were to push ourselves into analyzing people in influential positions, we would come to the conclusion that a lot of them are neurotic or selfish, and that they are exploiting and abusing us rather than providing us with guidance.

The issue of incompetent and abusive leadership is especially significant for younger people, including college students, because children are much less critical of their leaders than adults, and it is much easier for abusive people to manipulate children with praise, threats, deception, and candy.

Children do not need more freedom; they need guidance, and they need protection from the abusive and neurotic people who push other people into doing things that they would never otherwise do.

The idiotic, embarrassing, and dangerous initiation ceremonies are an example of why society should pass judgment on who should be permitted in influential positions, and whether they are truly providing leadership. When we assume that people – especially children – are capable of providing themselves with sensible leadership, we allow the aggressive and neurotic people to push them into doing things that they would never otherwise do, such as the "elephant walk" of Mark Cuban's college rugby team.
The leaders of society should protect both children and adults from the people who are abusive, selfish, and neurotic. However, this requires a significant change in attitude. A democracy promotes the attitude is that everybody over the age of 18 is a super genius, but we need to change our attitude so that we regard the majority of people as "ordinary", and that a certain percent of the population has bad behavior, and that the majority of people need protection from the abusive people.

If we can find enough people to make that type of change in attitude, then schools could prepare children for society by giving them practice in analyzing people and passing judgment on who is providing sensible leadership, and who is abusive, stupid, selfish, arrogant, incompetent, or neurotic. These type of courses would also show us which students are better at providing us with useful analyses of people.

It is not easy to analyze a person and his motives, but if schools could get children into the habit of analyzing people and passing judgment on them, it would be more difficult for weirdos to push other people into doing idiotic activities and initiation ceremonies.

We should have practice in analyzing things
The concept of encouraging children to analyze people and pass judgment on whether they are stupid, arrogant, or neurotic might seem to create an awful social environment in which people are judging one another all the time, but people are already judging one another. All of us regularly pass judgment on other people's behavior, clothing, friends, and verbal expressions. All I am suggesting is that schools make this an official course, and the reason is to help people do a better job of judging people. It would also help us identify which students are best at judging people.

This concept applies to more than people; we should also get practice in analyzing material items, government policies, recreational activities, and everything else in life. We benefit from analyses, and by passing judgment on things.

All of us regularly pass judgment on material items, such as houses, cars, cameras, clothing, refrigerators, and cell phones. We pass judgment on their appearance, ease of use, value, noise, and ease of maintainability. However, our reviews of material items are not equal. Some people produce analyses that are very helpful, and others produce analyses that are so biased, stupid, or incomplete that we learn nothing of value from them.

For example, at one extreme is a person who becomes frustrated with an item, and who reacts by making angry remarks to his friends about how he hates the item, and that the engineers who designed it are idiots. He is not providing a useful analysis of the product. Rather, he is whining.

At the other extreme are the people who make money by reviewing products. They put a lot of time and effort into analyzing products and comparing them to one another. They produce documents or videos that provide such a useful analysis of the product that they help us make decisions about which product to purchase for ourselves.

Most of us produce very simplistic reviews of material items, and we keep the review inside our mind. For example, when we purchase a refrigerator or phone, we are likely to notice that we like or dislike certain features, but we don't bother to put any effort into creating a useful review of the product.

If schools gave students practice in reviewing products, everybody would become better at it, and we would discourage the tendency of people to make whiny remarks about products.

Once students became accustomed to doing analyses of products, the schools could move on to giving them practice analyzing people, government officials, recreational activities, and holiday celebrations. This would get people into the habit of thinking about issues rather than whining about them or ignoring them.

It would also get students accustomed to the concept that analyzes of people are valuable, not an "invasion of privacy" or "insulting". An intelligent analysis of a person can help him understand his physical and mental characteristics, which is valuable for a lot of different reasons, such as showing him what he is allergic to, or that he has some verbal expressions that are irritating other people.

When we get into the habit of analyzing policies and people, we will do a better job of passing judgment on who among us is providing intelligent suggestions or analyses, and who is promoting selfish, angry, or deceptive ideas.
In the photo to the right, Chelsea Handler created a pinata of Donald Trump and went to Mexico to arrange for children to beat the pinata. Many journalists gave her favorable publicity.

Schools could ask students to write a brief analysis of Chelsea Handler, and discuss such issues as:

• Was she providing the world with an intelligent analysis of Trump, or was she promoting hatred, bad behavior, or violence?

• What should society have done in response to her? Should she have been given favorable publicity, criticized, arrested, ignored, or something else?

• Looking at her past, is this typical of her behavior? Or is this unusual?

There is no right or wrong answer to those types of questions, but by giving children practice in analyzing these issues and people, they are more likely to become adults who put some effort into thinking about what they are doing, and analyzing what other people do.

We benefit from intelligent analyses and suggestions, but not from whining and hating. Most of the people who advocate more freedom are not providing us with an intelligent analysis of freedom or laws. They are simply upset that they cannot do what they want to do. That type of person is not a "freedom fighter". That is a crybaby, or a selfish brat.

A person who provides us with an intelligent analysis of a camera or automobile is providing us with a valuable analysis. By comparison, when a person tells us that he hates the camera, and that the engineers are stupid, he is describing his emotional feelings. He is "whining", not "thinking".

The difference between "whining" and an "analysis" is that an analysis is the result of our intellectual unit thinking about an issue, whereas "whining" is the result of a person who is expressing his emotional feelings.

Most of the people who demand more freedom are not providing us with intelligent analyses of our laws, or providing us with an explanation of how our laws are interfering with our lives, or how society will improve if we change the laws. Rather, their complaints about freedom are vague and confusing, and the reason is because their remarks are not the result of their intellectual unit doing research or analysis. Rather, their words are expressing their feelings. They are not our saviors who are going to liberate us from oppression. They are analogous to spoiled brats who are whining that they want to do as they please.

The difference between whining and an analysis is complex, and there is no dividing line between the two. Likewise, there is no clear dividing line between a selfish brat and a freedom fighter.

Modern life is complicated, but if schools would give children practice in dealing with these issues, they would become less frightened by the complexity and better able to cope with it. It is important for us, especially people who are voting, to be able to pass judgment on who among us is whining about problems, and who is providing us with valuable analyses of our problems.

The people who vote need to be careful that they don't put the brats into positions of influence. The whiny people are not going to help us. They are simply going to encourage whining, and demand that we give them what they want.

We are all attracted to the concept of having more freedom, but we have to exert some self-control and realize that we don't actually need any more freedom. Rather, we need a more homogenous, friendly community. We need to be among people that we trust and respect. We need to be a member of a united group. We do not need the freedom to create our own organized religion, or our own hairstyles.

The aggressive, selfish, whiny people who demand freedom are a small minority of the population, but they exert a lot of influence over society because:
1) We are attracted to their promise of freedom because we create images in our mind of doing whatever we please, and those images titillate our emotions.

2) A monkey's natural tendency is to follow the aggressive male who has fought his way to the top, so our natural tendency is to follow an aggressive man. It is not natural for us to analyze men and choose a leader according to his ability to provide us with guidance.
We need to push ourselves into making a distinction between when a man is truly providing us with leadership, and when he is exploiting us, serving his own selfish interests, or too incompetent to be of any value as a leader.

Society needs to protect itself from the dishonest and incompetent freedom fighters, heroes, businessmen, and government officials. This requires that we raise standards for people in influential positions, give them regular job performance reviews, hold them accountable for what they do, replace those who turn out to be incompetent, and evict those who are too abusive to tolerate.

People should need a license to influence society
We require that anybody who wants to become a truck driver, pilot, dentist, or doctor must first show evidence that they can do the job properly, and if they can, they get a license for those jobs. Many businesses also restrict certain jobs to people who have passed certain training courses.

Neither a license nor a training course will guarantee that a person can do his job properly, or that he will be honest and responsible, but it is better to have imperfect training programs and restrictions than to let each person take whatever job they please. This policy has proven to be beneficial, so we should extend this policy to include voters and other influential positions.

Anybody who wants to become a voter, or get into any type of leadership position, should have to first show evidence that they have an adequate understanding of society, genetics, history, and culture. They should also show an ability to think properly, do research, and exert enough self-control to listen to criticism and do what is best for society. They should also show an ability to provide intelligent analyses to problems. People who can demonstrate those type of qualities would be given a license to be a voter or a leader.

The people who could not qualify for a license would be free to post their opinions on the Internet and discuss their opinions with other people, but they would not be allowed to take any job that gives them influence over society.

The first society to create training programs and tests for people who want to become a voter or leader will be unable to look at history to learn from previous mistakes, so we must expect their training programs and tests to be crude, but if we react by looking for ways to improve the system, then through the years the process will improve, and we will provide ourselves with increasingly better voters and leaders.

In order for the human world to improve, every society has to replace their leadership with people who can accept the evidence that humans are just a species of monkey. We have to design our schools, government system, recreational activities, courtship activities, and other culture in the same manner that zoologists design zoo exhibits for animals, and we have to deal with our social problems in the same manner that farms and zoos deal with problems with their animals.

The people who cannot regard a human city as being analogous to a zoo exhibit or a farm, or who cannot handle the concept that humans are a species of monkey, or who are incapable of noticing their animal-like qualities, or who insist that people are equal to one another, need to be regarded as inferior people. They should not be allowed in influential positions because they are pushing the human race along an unrealistic and destructive path.

Most people classify themselves as either conservatives or as liberals, but a more useful classification would divide people into two groups according to whether they are willing to follow evolutionary theories. The people who do not believe that humans are monkeys should be regarded as intellectually and/or emotionally inferior to the rest of us. We should stop worrying about hurting their feelings. We should stop pretending that they merely have a difference of opinion.

If a person insisted that 2+2 = 7, you would not politely tell him that he simply has a difference of opinion, and that you respect his opinion, and that everybody is free to have their own opinion, and that we should tolerate and love one another's differences. Rather, you would regard him as mentally defective. You would not hire him as an engineer.

We need to follow the same attitude towards people who are resisting genetics and evolution. We are currently pandering to these people because there are so many of them, and many of them are our family members and neighbors. However, we should not let the large quantity of them intimidate us. We should tell them that we are tired of their nonsensical theories, and that they are intellectually inferior to the rest of us, and they should not be allowed to vote or have any position of influence.

“Don't judge me!”
None of us enjoy being judged or receiving criticism. We don't want people looking closely at our life and passing judgment on whether we behaved properly, and whether our mind is functioning correctly. However, we differ significantly in how well we can tolerate criticism and analyses. At one extreme are the people who quietly accept it, and at the other extreme are the people who react with arrogance, anger, pouting, whining, or violence. The people who have the most trouble tolerating criticism and analyses will often respond with variations of the remark, "Don't judge me".

Now that we have the Internet, people are turning their angry expressions into images that they can display in their Twitter messages and Internet pages. Do a search of images for the phrase "don't judge me" and notice the incredible variety and quantity of them. Six samples are below. Can you sense the anger and arrogance in those remarks?

Imagine if you were a supervisor and one of the employees, who you criticized in a job performance review, responded to you, "Before you judge me, make sure you are perfect." Since none of us are perfect, a person will make that remark in an attempt to intimidate us into allowing him to behave in whatever atrocious manner he pleases.

Or imagine if you were involved with a military tribunal that was trying to determine whether John Podesta, Jake Tapper, and other people are involved with a pedophile network, and they angrily respond to you, "Don't judge us by our past. We don't live there anymore." If we do not judge people by their past, how else can we judge them?

Hopefully you can see that all variations of these remarks are angry, arrogant, emotional reactions that are intended to intimidate, confuse, or manipulate us. They are not conveying intelligent information. People who use those remarks should be regarded as inferior to those of us who are willing to be analyzed and judged.

In this modern world, it is becoming increasingly important that we analyze one another and pass judgment on one another, and that we do this on a regular basis. We need to regularly analyze people at their job to ensure that they are doing their job properly, and we need to regularly analyze people in their leisure time to determine whether they are beneficial members of society, or whether they are parasitic or destructive. We have to conduct these reviews regularly because people change through time as a result of gaining more information, and because of changes to our brain and body due to aging, accidents, and disease.

None of us want to be analyzed or judged, but we need to accept that modern life requires much greater teamwork, cooperation, and honesty compared to a prehistoric life. We are no longer savages who can do whatever we please. People today have to be members of a complex team, and that requires that we analyze one another to ensure that everybody truly is a productive team member.

We especially need to be able to analyze our leaders. It is idiotic for us to allow our leaders to analyze us while they have secrecy to do as they please. The issue of "pizzagate" is another example of why it is so important to stop providing secrecy to people in leadership positions. It is absurd to allow our leaders to have so much secrecy that we don't even know if Michelle Obama is a woman, or whether our government officials are involved with an international pedophile network.

Many of the people who complain about being judged, or who complain about security cameras, claim to be defending our right to privacy. They boast that they are heroes who are fighting to provide us with the freedom from government intrusion into our personal lives. However, we don't need the freedom to have secrets. The type of freedom we need is freedom from government officials, journalists, and other people who lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate, and abuse us. That freedom requires eliminating secrecy.

Everything in life has advantages and disadvantages. Providing people with secrecy has the advantage that it can make us feel safe, similar to how a deer feels safe when it is hiding behind some bushes, but secrecy has the disadvantage of making it easy for crime networks to operate. If we want the freedom to walk around in a city without fear of crime, we need to make sacrifices, such as eliminating secrecy. We cannot get everything we want. We have to make compromises. There are no perfect solutions to life's problems.

Many of the people who whine about freedom and rights are destructive people who are thinking of themselves rather than society. Everybody who demands rights or freedom should be analyzed. We should pass judgment on why they want rights and freedom, and who are they trying to help. Are they trying to help you and me? Or are they making these proposals for themselves? Do they have an intelligent analysis of the issue? Are they merely expressing their emotional feelings?

I think that if we were to analyze the people who whine for more freedom, we would discover that there is something abnormal and undesirable about their minds. Some of them may be abnormally independent, selfish, and/or arrogant, thereby making it difficult for them to follow rules. Others may be suffering from such serious mental defects that their emotions want to follow radically different rules, such as the people in the NAMBLA organization, who want to have sex with children.

What caused the Pilgrims and Puritans to want more freedom? Why were they unhappy with life in England? Why did they regard themselves as being oppressed and discriminated against? We may never know the answer to that, but I don't think any of the people who have created an organized religion have a mind that is admirable. Some of them seem to be neurotic, and others seem to have intense cravings to be the leader of a group. None of them seem to be qualified to be in a position of leadership.

We want peace and unity, not freedom
Providing people with religious freedom is like providing them with the freedom to create their own calendars, holiday celebrations, sports events, clothing styles, and language. Most people don't want or use the freedom they already have. For example, everybody in the world already has the freedom to believe whatever they want about the universe, but very few people are using that freedom. Most people are instead either joining some religious organization, or they are joining the group of scientists who believe in the Big Bang. Most people are not interested in analyzing the universe and creating their own theories about it.

We do not want the freedom to create our own culture. Rather, we want to be a member of a community of friends. We will not improve our lives by providing ourselves with more freedom. Rather, more freedom will give us more confusing options on what to do, and it will result in more people following a wider variety of incompatible beliefs, which causes communities to break down into small, incompatible groups that argue with one another and look down on one another. Providing people with more freedom gives us the opposite of what we want, which is more unity, peace, and friendliness.

America provides people with so much freedom that each of us can choose to use whatever measurement systems we want, whereas the governments of other nations have forced their citizens to use the metric system. The result is that some Americans, mainly those in science and the military, have chosen to use the metric system, but most other people are using the Imperial system. The military has also chosen to use a 24 hour clock. The end result is a nation, and a military, in which everybody has to know and use both systems. This is causing a lot of waste and inefficiency. It is also delaying the inevitable switch to the metric system.

When we are given the freedom to choose our own measurement system, most people will ignore that freedom and do whatever they picked up as a child. People do not want the freedom to choose a measurement system, and they don't need that freedom in order to enjoy life. Our nation would be slightly more efficient, and our lives would be slightly simpler, if this freedom had been canceled decades ago, and if we had provided ourselves with intelligent and responsible government officials who analyzed the issue of measurement systems, and then imposed the system that they felt was best for society. This is what the leaders of the military did.

Of course, the issue of freedom is more complicated than I make it appear. Restricting freedom will improve our lives only if we have government officials who can make intelligent decisions that are best for society. If we allow a group of criminals, pedophiles, or lunatics to get control of society, it would be better for us to have the freedom to do as we please rather than be required to follow the government. For example, imagine what our nation might become like if the members of NAMBLA, Black Lives Matter, or the Amish were to get control of our nation.

Hundreds of organized religions have developed in the United States as a result of our religious freedom, but life for the American people is not better because we have the freedom to create new religions. Providing people with religious freedom is simply causing the people to develop incompatible religious beliefs, thereby causing arguments between people who would otherwise be living in harmony with one another.

Business executives cannot behave as badly as government leaders
We don't need more freedom. Rather, we need our laws to be more sensible. Businesses, militaries, and other organizations follow this philosophy, as opposed to following the philosophy that people need freedom, or that people need "rights". Business executives are not concerned about providing their employees with freedom or rights. They are concerned with designing rules that will create an efficient and productive team.

Business executives regularly alter the rules of their organization, but not for the purpose of increasing freedom. Rather, it is to create a more sensible, efficient, and organized team.

By comparison, when governments create or modify laws, they do so to pander to their supporters. Furthermore, government officials rarely show any interest in analyzing their laws and making them more sensible or useful. An example I've mentioned before is that the United States government has prohibited American farmers from growing hemp for fiber or food, thereby forcing us to purchase those products from Canada or other nations. That law is as idiotic as IBM executives prohibiting their employees from purchasing coffee from American businesses, and requiring that they purchase foreign coffee.

Business executives cannot behave in the same disgusting manner as government officials because if business executives were to create laws that are as irrational, selfish, and dishonest as those produced by government officials:
• A lot of the managers, employees, and stockholders would complain that those executives are incompetent or insane, and they would demand that those executives be fired.

• If the incompetent executives were not fired, the employees would have the option of quitting their job, and the stockholders would have the option of selling their stock. This is analogous to the people in a prehistoric tribe becoming upset with their leader and splitting the tribe into two or more independent tribes. In a free enterprise system, this has the effect of driving the incompetent business executives to bankruptcy.

• The employees who are afraid to quit their job because they don't believe they can find another may react by becoming apathetic, which has a detrimental effect on the business. In a free enterprise system, the competition is going to cause the businesses with the most apathetic employees to be driven to bankruptcy, thereby getting rid of the executives who cannot keep up the morale.
The free enterprise system does not ensure that business executives will do what is best for society, or treat people with respect, but it prevents the executives from becoming as abusive as government officials, Kings, and Queens.

During prehistoric times, the leaders could not become very abusive, either, and for the same reasons that business executives cannot become too abusive. In addition, prehistoric people had one other option to deal with abusive leaders; specifically, killing them.

Unfortunately, when we are faced with undesirable government officials, we don't have the options that employees have. For example, we can demand that the officials be replaced, but their successors will be selected by an enormous number of incompetent voters, not a small group of intelligent executives or stockholders, and this almost guarantees that the replacements are going to be worthless.

Furthermore, it is no longer practical for us to "quit" a nation and start another nation, or move to another nation. In the communist nations, the citizens do not even have the option of emigrating to another nation.

Many people react to incompetent governments with apathy, which hurts their nation, which in turn can result in its eventual disintegration, as we saw with communist Russia, and are now seeing with Venezuela, but that is a long, slow and painful process.

Modern societies are significantly different from prehistoric tribes. We need a lot of government officials today, and they must have a lot of authority over us. However, we have less control over our government officials, and we have fewer options in dealing with incompetent leaders. Leaders are more important to us than they were to our prehistoric ancestors, but our prehistoric ancestors had better options to deal with incompetent leaders.

People today have to treat leaders differently than our prehistoric ancestors did. We have to stop letting our leaders do whatever they please. We must design government so that we can observe our leaders and pass judgment on them. This requires removing the secrecy that we are providing them so that we can see what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who they are associating with. We must require that every law they create have an explanation for it, and the people involved with creating the law be identified as the author and held accountable for it. We should also design the government so that voters are required to regularly replace the worst performing officials in order to reduce the problem of stagnation and corruption.

We need a significantly different attitude towards government leaders than the attitude our prehistoric ancestors had to their leadership. Our prehistoric ancestors were impressed by a man who could catch pigs and chase away wolves and neighboring tribes, but we need voters who are impressed with a man's ability to analyze issues, experiment with solutions, and provide us with guidance. The people who cannot or will not put a lot of effort into analyzing government officials and replacing the worst officials should not qualify as voters. Voting should be regarded as a difficult and serious responsibility, not as a duty or a right.

We need better laws, not more freedom
If we provide ourselves with better leaders, then we will get better laws, and that will make it more obvious that we don't need more freedom. We need more sensible laws.

For example, consider our clothing laws. The United States does not provide us with the freedom to wear whatever clothing we prefer. We have to follow certain rules, such as we are not allowed to wear police uniforms if we are not policemen who are on-duty, and we are not allowed to wear certain types of clothing that expose sexual organs. Also, we are not allowed to be naked in public. Some restaurants, schools, and businesses have imposed additional restrictions on us, such as requiring that we wear shoes or shirts.

The people who want to become voters or leaders should show an ability to discuss and provide sensible responses to such questions as:
Which policy would improve life for the American people, and explain why:
a) People should have more freedom in regards to clothing at their job, school, and in their leisure time.
b) We should reduce the freedom people have in regards to clothing.
c) Other.
I would select "b" as the answer to that question. I've given some examples as to why in some of my previous documents. For example, women are permanently deforming their feet with high-heeled and pointed shoes, and this adds an unnecessary burden to our healthcare system because many of those women eventually go to doctors and surgeons and try to have their feet fixed. There are also women who want surgeons to provide "Cinderella surgery". Some businesses are requiring female employees to wear high-heeled shoes. Men also have shoes that are unnecessarily pointed, and which can damage their feet.

We are not going to improve our lives by providing us with more freedom in regards to clothing. Rather, I would argue that we would benefit much more if our government reduced our clothing freedom and created more sensible clothing laws, such as prohibiting women from wearing sexually titillating clothing while working; prohibiting high-heeled shoes or restricting them to certain social activities; and prohibiting young girls from wearing shoes that damage their feet. These type of changes would also reduce the number and types of shoes and clothes that we have to produce, which would be important if we want to get rid of the peasant class.

I would also argue that it would be better for society to restrict the freedom young girls have for nail polish, makeup, piercings, tattoos, and hair dyes. Furthermore, without a peasant class, who wants to work in a factory to make that stuff for them? Do you?

I would even restrict adult women to using cosmetics on special occasions, and for entertainment purposes, rather than for daily use. Women have a strong craving to look pretty, but I don't think we are making life better for either men or women when we pander to that craving and provide them with cosmetics.

I don't think cosmetics make women look better, except when we are standing so far away that we cannot notice the cosmetics. I think the cosmetics are causing women to become embarrassed of their natural appearance, and causing them to waste time and resources. Cosmetics can be entertaining for artistic performances, and for special occasions, such as weddings and parties, but I would recommend prohibiting them from everyday use.
I think we would improve our lives by reducing some of our freedoms. The fewer freedoms we have to deal with, the simpler our lives become because we eliminate unnecessary choices that we have to make. It also eliminates the stress of having to make those choices, and it reduces the incompatibilities between people who make different choices.

I've given some examples in other documents, such as how forcing children to wear uniforms at school would eliminate the stress and frustration among children and parents in regards to selecting clothing. That policy would reduce the freedom that the children have in regards to clothing, but I think it would make life more pleasant for both the children and their parents. It would also give the parents more leisure time because they would not have to waste any of their time helping their children choose clothing items.

It would also make life more pleasant for the teachers because they would not have to look at bizarre, and sometimes obnoxious, clothing. The classrooms would become visually more attractive.

Incidentally, who designed the shirt in the photo above? We do not know because we provide people with a lot of secrecy. Even if we knew who did that, and even if we knew that he did it simply to laugh at or embarrass the Chinese, we do not have laws prohibiting people from being obnoxious, disruptive, irritating, or abusive. We provide people with the freedom to behave in obnoxious manners, and in secrecy.

I think people have too much freedom. Nobody needs the freedom to put subliminal messages in artwork, or to perform obnoxious or dangerous pranks, or to deliberately mis-translate foreign languages in order to be amusing. I think we would improve our world if we eliminated secrecy, raised standards of behavior, and held everybody accountable for what they do.

If we can provide ourselves with a respectable government that creates sensible laws, the government would be able to eliminate a lot of our freedoms. Rather than suffer from the lack of freedom, we would benefit because the reduction in freedom would reduce the unnecessary choices we have to make, and it would make people more compatible with one another since they would have to follow the same options.

Another example of how reducing freedom can be beneficial to us is, as I've mentioned in another document, the government could prohibit us from eating food in theaters, museums, trains, public streets, and other areas, and restrict food to restaurants and picnic areas. We don't need the freedom to eat and drink wherever we please. We are not animals. We can restrict our eating and drinking to certain areas.

Our lives do not automatically improve simply by giving us more freedom. In many cases, freedom merely gives us more opportunities to make stupid decisions, hurt ourselves or other people, and cause ourselves unnecessary stress.

For an example of how we can reduce stress by restricting our freedom to eat and drink, parents would not have to argue with their children about eating in trains, elevators, swimming areas, and other inappropriate areas. The parents would be able to terminate the issue with a remark such as, "You cannot eat here. It is against the law."

We will not improve our lives simply by providing ourselves with more freedom. We don't need the freedom to choose our own clothing styles, measurement systems, holiday celebrations, or language. We don't need the freedom to eat whenever and wherever we please. Rather, we will improve our lives when we can live and work among people that we can trust and feel comfortable with, and when we have jobs and activities that we enjoy and are proud of.

We do not enjoy living among people who are following different languages, religions, clothing styles, or holiday celebrations. We want to be a member of a homogenous, peaceful, cooperative team. This requires that we provide ourselves with leaders who can reduce our freedoms and provide us with intelligent guidance.

Unfortunately, no matter how wonderful our government is, there are going to be some members of society who dislike some of the rules of society so much that they have trouble following the rules. From their point of view, they are oppressed, denied their rights, and abused. However, we should not design society to appease the misfits. We should design society according to what we think is best for the human race and the future generations.

Business executives do not design rules to please the misfits. They do not practice the philosophy of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". They design rules according to what is best for the team. A government must follow the same philosophy. Governments should not appease the misfits. The squeaky wheels must be pushed aside, suppressed, and told to shut up.

A government must face the fact that there will always be misfits because every living creature is a haphazard collection of genetic traits. The process of creating new life will always result in misfits, retards, and defects. A government must be designed to keep those misfits under control so that they don't harm society.

Rather than boast about our culture, everybody in every nation should face the fact that all governments are disgusting. We should push ourselves into finding the courage to experiment with a government that follows the successful principles of businesses and militaries. We need to design a government that provides leadership to the people rather than freedom. We need to design a government that is dedicated to creating a productive team rather than trying to appease individual citizens or groups of people.

A better government is a personal opinion
Everybody wants a better government, but we disagree on what a better government is. To the people who enjoy watching fights between dogs or roosters, a better government is one that allows or supports that type of activity. To the people who believe in Noah's ark, a better government is one that suppresses evolution and genetics. To the members of Nambla, a better government is one that allows adults to have sex with children.

How is it possible for us to create a better government when we cannot agree on what a better government is? How can we improve our laws when we disagree on what the laws should be? How can we decide which freedoms people should have when we have different ideas on which freedoms are necessary?

With prehistoric humans, differences of opinions were settled with fights, and the loser of the fight would either become submissive to the winner, or he would leave the group and start his own group.

During the past few thousand years, a popular method of resolving disputes has been to let people vote on what to do, but this is not a good solution because the majority of people are not capable of making wise decisions, and they are easily manipulated.

The human race has a serious dilemma to deal with. There are lots of incompatible groups of people trying to influence the future, such as religious groups, crime networks, and think tanks. Some of these people are using murder, blackmail, bribery, intimidation, and other illegal techniques to influence society.

The only way the world is going to improve is if the people who are truly better behaved than the others get together and take control by overthrowing the current government. It might seem impossible for a small group of people to successfully take control of a large nation, but every nation is already under the control of small groups of people.

I have heard many Americans boast that the United States is a democracy, and I have heard them insulting the Chinese, Koreans, and Russians for allowing their nations to be under the control of a small network of selfish and abusive criminals.

However, all nations are under the control of small groups of people. The United States was even created by a small group of people, not by the majority of colonists. The majority of colonists were too apathetic to participate in the revolution.

All throughout history we find very small groups of people making all of the improvements to human society. The British Magna Carta for example, was created and imposed upon the monarchy by a very small group of people, not the majority. Centuries later, the Europeans who were involved with forcing the monarchies into an insignificant role of society were also a small group, not the majority. The reason they could only suppress the monarchies rather than get rid of the monarchies is because the majority of people were so apathetic that there were not enough people to eliminate the monarchies.

Take a look at the people in Europe today. They are just as apathetic as their ancestors. They are doing nothing to improve their governments, get rid of their monarchies, or stop small groups of Jews from bringing refugees into their nations. They are behaving like a herd of sheep. Or, we could describe them as behaving like a retarded girl who is allowing men to rape her over and over.

A democracy promotes the attitude that the majority of people are intelligent and educated, and that they will make wise decisions, but that is a false philosophy. We are never going to improve the world until we start basing our theories on a realistic foundation.

The majority of people are ordinary, and they are selfish and apathetic. They are like sheep, or monkeys. We cannot expect them to deal with the world's problems, or improve our government, or provide us with guidance for our future. Some small group of people has to take control and treat them as if they are helpless children.

At the moment, America is under the control of a network of pedophiles, Jews, and other weirdos. The majority of people are doing nothing to stop this, and we can't expect them to do anything. Even if the majority of people were willing to throw those officials out of office, they would replace them with people who are just as bad, or worse.

The majority of Germans are doing nothing to stop the Jews from promoting Holocaust propaganda, or from bringing refugees into Germany. The majority of British are still worshiping their Royal family, and we cannot expect them to change.

In order for America to improve, a small group of Americans has to take control of this nation. Some people might worry that a change like that would cause the majority of people to riot, but they're not going to riot. Most Americans are already regularly complaining about some government policy or government official, and no matter what type of government we create, there will always be millions of people complaining about some aspect of it. However, if we create a government that is more attractive to the higher quality citizens, we will reduce the complaints from those particular people, and that will be a significant improvement over the situation we have right now.

We can see this concept with businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations. The management of a large organization cannot please all of their members, but the most important people to please are the people who are most valuable to the organization; namely, the people who are skilled, capable of working in teams, honest, and who have the initiative to do things on their own. The least important people are the idiots, the unskilled people, the people who do only the bare minimum of work that is necessary, and the people who are so untrustworthy or unreliable that they need extra supervision. It is most important to appease the high quality people, not the misfits, drug addicts, and weirdos.

I have seen hundreds of remarks on the Internet about how the majority of people will be outraged if they discover that Michelle Obama is actually a man, or if they discover the FBI is protecting pedophiles, or if they discover that the Jews have lied about the Holocaust, but the majority of people are not going to riot if they discover that they have been lied to or abused. The majority of people are passive. Most of them will react just like the audience did on the Dr. Phil show when Kendall talked about being a sex slave.

Likewise, if we were to install a new government, the announcement on television of the new government would be entertainment to most of the people, even if they did not like the new government.

We have a tendency to assume that the majority of people will get involved with society because we assume that they are like us, but they are not like us. Anybody who is reading my documents is not like the majority of people. The majority of people are interested in entertaining themselves, not exploring life or dealing with complex problems.

If we were to put a new government into power, a lot of people are certain to make critical and insulting remarks about it, and some people will threaten to leave the nation or start a rebellion, but most will not actually do anything, just as Barbra Streisand, Ruth Ginsburg, and other "important people" did nothing after threatening to leave the nation if Donald Trump became president.

Furthermore, if the new government is better behaved, most people would quickly calm down and get on with their life, even if they do not understand or agree with the new leaders. This is how the majority of people have been behaving for centuries, and this is how they will continue to behave. This behavior is due to their genetic characteristics, and their mental circuitry cannot change.

The monkeys in a zoo exhibit do not change their behavior when the management of the zoo changes, and the majority of Americans are not going to change their behavior if the management of the nation changes.

If a small group of people in Britain were to get rid of their monarchy, a lot of people would complain about it, but they would do nothing to bring the monarchy back. Some small group of British people just need to do it, and get it over with.

Businesses have undesirable qualities, also
I have suggested that we design a government that is based on the successful practices of businesses, but we have to keep in mind that businesses have developed some undesirable attitudes because their primary goal is profit, not human life. Three problems with businesses that we must avoid are:

1) Businesses tend to fight rather than compete
The free enterprise system does not specify how businesses compete. The manner in which they compete depends upon the personalities of the people who get involved with free enterprise. If humans were as wonderful as we like to believe, then all business executives would compete in an honest, respectable manner.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are willing to cheat, deceive, manipulate, and lie in order to be successful in business, and they have an advantage over the people who are more generous, honest, and polite. The end result is that many of the people who become successful in a free enterprise system are abusive, selfish, arrogant, and manipulative.

When we create a government that is based on businesses, we need to ensure that there are checks and balances to reduce the chances that government officials can cheat. For example, we should eliminate secrecy so that we can see what all the officials are doing, and we should hold all of them accountable for what they do so that when they cause trouble, they can be fired.
2) Businesses compete for money, not improvements to human life
The free enterprise system puts businesses into competition for money, and that type of competition causes businesses to regard people as profit opportunities rather than as friends, and it causes businesses to develop products that have no value, or which are worthless, simply because they have a profit potential.

We need to design a government that will select products according to what is best for society, rather than according to something else, such as what they want, or what their friends want. One method is to make everybody equal in regards to wealth. When the government officials and business leaders have to live in the same homes and use the same material items as everybody else, it will be impossible for them to create products for the special, elite group of wealthy people. They will have no option except to design products for society.
3) Citizens become obsessed with money
A free enterprise system puts so much emphasis on money that it encourages the citizens to become obsessed with money. For example, consider how a child's life is affected by this:
• When children are in school, they often think about which courses and schools will provide them with the most money, rather than wondering what their talents and limitations are, and trying to learn a skill that allows them to contribute something of value to society.
• After they graduate from school and are selecting a job, they tend to be more concerned with the initial salary and the potential for a higher salary, rather than whether the job has any value, or whether they will enjoy the job.
• After they get a job, they spend a lot of their time comparing their salary to that of other people, and they spend a lot of time trying to get increases in their salary.
• When women look for a husband, they put a lot of emphasis on how much money a man will make rather than whether they will form a pleasant relationship.

We should create a government that will dampen people's interest in material wealth. My suggestion is to make everybody equal in regards to their level of material wealth. This would stop the students from being concerned about how much a job pays, and none of the adults would waste any of their life comparing their income to other people's income.

Furthermore, women would not be able to select men according to their income. People would have to choose school courses, husbands, and jobs according to something else, such as what they enjoy, and what will be useful to society.

How can we compete in something as complex as improving life?
It is easy for me to suggest that we switch from a competition for money to a competition to improve our lives, but how do we set up such a competition?

The reason the free enterprise system has been so successful is that it doesn't need any supervision. The free enterprise system does not need leaders to maintain the system, or to determine who is winning the competition. The system operates on its own, and winners are selected as people spend money. It is a self-regulating economic system, and it is so simple that children can use it.

However, I cannot think of any way of designing an economic system that is self-regulating while putting us into a competition to improve human life. How can an economic system, which is just an intangible concept, determine who is winning such an arbitrary competition?

I've described some of the details of this economic system in a previous document, but to summarize it, in a free enterprise system, businesses produce a smorgasbord of products, present them to the public, and the public determines which of them is successful by how they spend their money. The consumers are the judges that determine which businesses are successful.

In the economic system I propose, the businesses do not produce anything. Instead, they send prototypes and proposals to the government's Product Development department, which is in control of manufacturing. That department decides which products to put into production, and which research projects to fund. The officials in that department are the judges of this economic system.

In the free enterprise system, the judging occurs effortlessly and automatically, without any of the consumers understanding what is going on. The consumers don't have to cooperate with each other, either, or even speak the same language. Consumers do whatever they please.

By comparison, in order for the system I propose to be successful, the officials in the Product Development department must understand that they are selecting products for society, and they must be able to discuss issues with one another so that they can ensure the products are going to be compatible and easy to maintain and recycle. They have a lot of responsibilities.

The Product Development department is analogous to the departments of large businesses and militaries that have to make decisions about purchasing supplies, components, and machinery for their organization, and need to make decisions about which research projects to fund. The people in those departments do not select products or research proposals according to what they personally like or dislike. Rather, they make decisions that are best for the organization.

The people in those departments are in a role that is similar to the judges of a gymnastics or beauty contest. All of those people have to make arbitrary decisions, and they must be able to control their own bias because they are making decisions for a group of people, not themselves.

The Product Development department will suffer from the same type of problems that we find in the departments of businesses and militaries that do the same job for their organization, and the same type of problems that we find among judges of gymnastics and beauty contests. Specifically, people sometimes bribe the judges, and sometimes the judges do what they personally want rather than what is best for the organization. The Nobel prizes are so corrupt that the judges have been selecting people like Bob Dylan and Barack Obama for Nobel prizes.

In order for the Product Development department to be of value, we must devise some checks and balances that will reduce the possibility that the officials make decisions according to what somebody is bribing them to do, or threatening them to do, and that the officials are not doing what they personally want, or what their friends want. If the Product Development department becomes as corrupt as the Nobel prizes... I'll let you entertain yourself with the possibilities.

How do we keep corruption under control? How do we ensure that the officials make wise decisions? This is the same dilemma that businesses and militaries have, and the same dilemma that the gymnastics and beauty contest have.

One method for reducing bribery is to make everybody equal in material wealth, in which case people cannot be bribed with money or material wealth since everyone will have access to the leisure activities and other things that people want to buy with bribe money.

We will further reduce corruption by eliminating secrecy in governemnt. We could require the officials to explain everything they do, and require them to put their names on their documents so that they can be held accountable for all of the products they authorize and reject. This will allow us to pass judgment on which of them is truly making decisions that are best for society. We must also regularly replace the worst performing officials in this department so that we let other people have a chance to try their talents.

Since no government official could possibly know enough to make the decisions by himself, every official will depend upon engineers, scientists, and other advisors to help him make decisions. However, none of the advisors will be able to operate in secrecy, either, and they will also be held accountable for their decisions. Therefore, the advisors who make the worst decisions are not likely to be called upon for advice in the future.

Incidentally, replacing the worst performing officials can also help reduce corruption because sometimes the worst performing official is the the worst because he is occasionally doing what he is told to do rather than what he thinks is best.

Who is going to select the officials for the Product Development department? We cannot let the majority of people vote for these officials because they don't have the ability to make wise decisions. We could do what the businesses, militaries, and sports organizations have been doing; namely, let the people in other management positions select them.

Although it will be difficult to figure out who should be selected for this type of department, businesses and militaries have been doing it for centuries without complaining, and without letting the majority of people get involved with the decisions. Gymnastic contests, beauty contests, and other contests have also been selecting judges for centuries, and the majority of people are not allowed to get involved with those decisions, either.

The people in the Product Development department are going to have a lot more responsibilities than the people in a business who do the same job. History provides us with lots of examples of bad decisions by businesses, such as the businesses that put into production medical products that turned out to be dangerous. History also has lots of examples of businesses that ignored modern technology, such as the American automobile companies that resisted industrial robots. There are also lots of examples of businesses making terrible decisions about working conditions, resulting in fires or explosions.

Although it will be difficult to figure out who should be selected for the Product Development department, don't be discouraged. Many businesses already have employees who are doing this type of work right now. We can do it for a government, also, if we want to.

The way to create this type of government is to regard a city as a giant corporation, in which case all of the people become "employees" rather than as "citizens". That should make it easier for you to realize that a society doesn't need money, and there will never be any unemployment. The management will ensure that everybody has jobs, and that the jobs are useful, just as the management of a business wants all of their employees to be doing something useful. The government will provide everybody with whatever they need for free just like the management provides their employees with what they need for free.

However, the situation is a bit more complicated than it might appear. It's easy for me to say that we should design a city like a big corporation because you will visualize a successful corporation with good management, and that will make my proposal seem realistic. However, creating a successful corporation is not easy.

We don't notice how difficult it is because the free enterprise system takes care of this problem automatically, without any of us noticing or getting involved. The competition for sales is causing corporations to constantly hire and fire people in leadership positions, and move them around, and demote and promote them.

By comparison, governments do not have competition, so how do we ensure that we get good management?

We need to put our government officials into some type of competition. This is why I suggest that we create some completely new cities that are large and physically isolated from one another. This will allow us to compare cities together, and we could go even further and break a city into three, virtually equal pieces. This will make it easy for the people within a city to compare the three groups of government officials to one another and pass judgment on which of them is doing the best job of managing the economy.

For an example of how this type of competition would work, imagine if this system had been in place when farming tractor was first conceived. One government official might reject the proposal to develop tractors on the grounds that horse-drawn plows were adequate for farming. Another government official might decide to fund the production of the tractor. The official who funded the development of the tractor would be taking a big risk because if the project turned out to be a failure, he would have wasted a lot of labor and resources.

However, as you know, the tractor turned out to be incredibly useful, so, in this scenario, it would have allowed the farmers in his section of the city to be phenomenally more productive. Therefore, the government officials who rejected the tractor would have that decision listed in their job performance review as a failure.

With a government system in which the worst performing officials are regularly replaced, the officials who made the most failures would be replaced. This would provide society with government officials who do the best job of selecting products and research projects.

For a more complex example of how this competition would work, consider that many people today want to fund projects to put colonies on Mars. Imagine living in a city in which there are some government officials who want to fund these projects, and others who regard the projects as a waste of labor and resources. How do we determine which of these government officials is making the most sensible decisions?

In the case of a tractor, it is easy for us to determine whether a tractor is useful because we can compare the productivity of a farm with the tractor to one without. However, there is no test to determine whether a project to put colonies on Mars is sensible. So how do we determine which government officials are making the wisest decisions?

Before you answer, consider that there are other projects that are even more complex. For example, there are some people who want to spend enormous amounts of money on more "atom smashers". Are those wise proposals, or are they a waste of labor and resources? And at some of the semiconductor businesses, the executives are discussing whether they should fund new factories to produce 10 nanometer chips, or should they instead put the money into 7, 5, or 3 nanometer chips?

The British government has spent 120 million pounds trying to develop graphene, and some government officials are complaining that the government is wasting research money. Should they continue funding these projects? Or should they stop, give up, and consider the projects to be a failure? Or should they regard the money spent as being trivial in comparison to the money they spend every year on pets, refugees, sports, the Royal family, and television? Or should they recommend replacing some of the scientists involved with the graphene research to see if the lack of progress is due to the limitations of the particular scientists who are doing the research? Or should they recommend that the scientists work on a different aspect of graphene research?

It is not easy to make decisions about which products to put into production, and which research projects to fund, but businesses, militaries, and governments are making these decisions on a regular basis. The government I propose would make the situation better for us because there will be only one department to make all of the decisions. It will be a large department, but it is easier to observe one department than to observe lots of individual, independent businesses, schools, and government agencies. By having all of the decisions made by one government department, it will be easier for us to observe who is making decisions and why, and we will be able to replace the officials who make the worst decisions. This system will give us significant control over our material items and research projects.

For example, there are some businesses working on projects to put people on Mars and the moon. In a free enterprise system, none of us have any control over whether these projects are funded. If a business is capable of making money from a project, they will do so, regardless of who wants it, and whether it is a sensible use of society's technical talent and resources.

There are also government agencies funding projects to put people on Mars and the moon, and even though every government claims to be doing what the people want, they are funding these projects simply because a small group of people want them.

With the government system I suggest, all of these decisions will be made by one department, and there will not be any secrecy, so we will be able to see what the decisions are, why they are being made, and who is making them. This will give us more information and control over how our technical talent and resources are being used.

The people who do not approve of what the government officials are doing, will be free to post their suggestions and complaints on the Internet for all to see. Although only a small number of people are going to do this, all we need is a few people to help watch over the government in order to keep it functioning properly.

The Internet provides proof of the value of my proposal
To summarize the concept of the previous paragraphs, I suggest that the government be given control of the decisions of which products to produce and which research projects to fund. Other government departments would analyze business leaders and determine which of them need to be replaced.

My suggestion for how we keep the government honest and productive is to require all of the government officials operate without any secrecy, and to post their decisions on the Internet, with their name on the documents, so that we can see what they are doing and why. I further suggest that the citizens be allowed to post their own analyses of the government officials and policies when they disagree with something or have suggestions.

Some people are likely to respond that only a few mentally unstable people are going to post their opinions, and that this will only give us idiotic suggestions and complaints, and that the citizens and government officials will waste their time if they read those opinions. My response to such criticism is that the Internet is proof that my proposal will work as expected.

The world has changed dramatically during the past 20 years, and I would say that the primary reason is because the Internet has allowed ordinary people around the world:
1) To have easy access to information that was previously secretive or difficult to access.
2) To discuss issues with one another.
The Internet is the reason that millions of people today know that Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, and that Jews are lying about the Holocaust and the world wars, and that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.

The Internet is proof that the government system that I am proposing is possible and practical, and that it will be more beneficial than the system we have right now. The government system that I am proposing is essentially duplicating the situation that the world has been benefiting from ever since the Internet became popular.

Actually, the government system I propose would provide us with even more information then the Internet is providing us right now because, by eliminating secrecy, we would be able to see what our government officials are doing, and why. The government officials will be required to post explanations of what they do, and why. The officials who create a law will be identified as the author. They will not be allowed to operate in secrecy. They will not be allowed to hide information. We will be able to see who our officials are, what decisions they make, and why they made those decisions. This will allow us to hold our government officials accountable for their actions.

Furthermore, the government officials will be held accountable for how they write the laws. They are expected to write laws clearly, just like scientists write their reports, as opposed to what the lawyers are doing right now, which is to deliberately write documents in a confusing manner.

For example, Jonathan Gruber, one of the authors of Obamacare, said that they deliberately wrote the law "in a tortured way" to confuse and deceive people. In our current societies, government officials are not regarded as incompetent when they write confusing laws. Even when they admit that they deliberately wrote a law to deceive us, they are not regarded as deceptive, and they are not replaced. We don't even demand that they rewrite the law in a more sensible manner. Just like medieval peasants, we let our government officials do whatever they please.

Gruber also said that the "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" in getting the Obamacare law passed. In the system I propose, secrecy will be removed, so there will be no "lack of transparency" to provide the government officials with a "political advantage".

Deception is not a good method for dealing with stupidity
Gruber justified the deception on the grounds that the American people are "stupid", and that he was doing this for the benefit of society. His argument is valid. A democracy requires the government officials to pander to the public, and this makes it difficult for the government to do anything that could be described as intelligent or sensible. The government officials are often tempted to deceive the public about what they are doing, but deception is not a good solution to the problem of a democracy.

A more sensible solution is to get rid of the democracy and set up a government that is similiar to that of businesses and militaries. The leaders of most organizations have to occasionally implement a policy that their employees do not understand, and may not agree with, but they don't deceive their members, as lawyers and government officials do. Rather, they implement the policy and tell the employees to shut up and deal with it.

With that type of government system, the government officials will appease other intelligent, responsible members of society, not the public. The government officials will be expected to write laws clearly, and to fix their typos and confusing sections when somebody points them out. They will be held accountable for what they do.

Even though only a small percentage of the population will be interested in reviewing what the government officials are doing, that is all we need. We don't need, or want, the majority of people to get involved with reviewing the government. Most people will not have anything intelligent to say about what the government is doing. We want only a small percentage of the population to get involved.

Only a small percentage of the population was involved with passing information around about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the pedophile networks, and other issues, but those few people have had a significant effect on the world.

Furthermore, by designing the government to require the worst-performing officials be replaced on a regular basis, the system will push us into analyzing the government officials and making decisions about how to improve the government. This system will not allow the voters to do what they do today, which is to reelect the same officials over and over.

The voters in this system will not elect or reelect people; rather, they will regularly replace the worst officials. That is a subtle difference, but it causes the voters to have a different attitude. Instead of analyzing candidates to figure out which of them to elect, they will analyze the current government officials and try to figure out which of them should be replaced. This will put more emphasis on passing judgment on what the government officials have actually done for society, as opposed to focusing on the promises that the candidates are making.

By allowing people to post their opinions about what the government officials are doing, and by not allowing the government to censor anybody, the small minority of the population that has something intelligent to say will be able to influence society, even if they are not in any position of authority.

Some people might complain that this government system will create a miserable work environment for the officials because it puts the officials under tremendous scrutiny, but my response to those type of complaints is that most employees already have that type of work environment, and they are surviving. Factory workers, waitresses, plumbers, and almost everybody else is regularly observed by supervisors, customers, and other employees, and many people are regularly passing judgment on how they are doing their job, waitresses, stewardesses, and other people are even judged according to their clothing, hair, and personality.

Don't be intimidated by people who insist that government officials be allowed to operate in secrecy. The only people who can justify secrecy are some of the people who investigate crimes. The people who supervise the economy, schools, recreational activities, transportation systems, telephone networks, or farms do not need secrecy.

We can improve the Internet
Although the Internet has been responsible for allowing us to expose corruption, we could improve upon it significantly. At the moment, the Internet is so chaotic and so full of lies and propaganda that it could be described as an information cesspool. For example, crime networks have created millions of messages, websites, and videos to spread propaganda, and there are millions of children, idiots, religious fanatics, and mentally ill people posting stupid and worthless messages, documents, and videos.

Furthermore, because people are allowed to make money from YouTube videos, YouTube is full of worthless videos as a result of people who are trying to make money. Sometimes they post a copy of somebody else's video, thereby creating multiple copies of the same worthless video, but often at a lower quality level. Some of those people are deliberately deceptive in order to increase the number of people watching their video, such as by advertising their video in a deceptive manner. Nobody is held accountable for deceptive descriptions of their video, or for having deceptive keywords for their website.

We don't even care if people have deceptive domain names. The website is obviously an entertainment site, but some of the people who create deceptive domain names are trying to manipulate us. However, we do not regard those people as criminals, or as immoral. We allow them to do it. We regard the freedom of the individual person to be more important than the stability of society.

There are also people making videos because they are lonely and hoping to attract friends or a spouse, and there are people posting videos because they have a craving to be important, and they want to show everybody how intelligent they are.

There are lots of ways that we can improve the Internet. Six methods are:
1) By getting rid of the free enterprise system, nobody will be able to make money from anything on the Internet.

2) By experimenting with courtship procedures, the single people can go to those affairs rather than post videos or waste their time on Facebook.

3) By designing a city to provide us with a wide variety of social and recreational activities, the lonely people are more likely to find friends and activities, thereby reducing the number of people who are wasting their time on the Internet.

4) By eliminating crime networks, we will eliminate a tremendous number of websites, messages, and videos that have been created only to promote propaganda.

5) The Internet has domains for nations, and a few other categories, but it would be better to have some domains for subject matters. The problem with the Internet right now is that when we do a search for some subject, we will get a mixture of sites from children, criminals, scientists, businesses, and mentally ill adults.

It would be better to have one or more domains for serious information, and to restrict who is allowed to post in those domains. Those domains would be restricted to scientists, engineers, schools, businesses, and government agencies to post serious technical information. That is where we would find encyclopedias, technical information about products, maps that show us the water pipes that are running through the city, medical information about our bodies, and scientific analyses of food items. When we do a search, we would be able to restrict it to those domains.

The people posting information in those domains would be expected to maintain their information, and correct their mistakes. The author of the information would have to identify himself and the date of the document, but he would not own the information, or be able to copyright it. The information in these domains would be considered as "public knowledge", and it would belong to society. When a person dies or retires, somebody else would edit and maintain the information, and that person would have to identify himself as one of the editors of the information.

6) We should regard the stability of society as having a greater priority than the freedom of the individual person or organization. People should not be allowed to create any domain name they please, post whatever document or video they please, use whatever keywords they please, or be deceptive about the author of a document or its date of production. No person or business should have the freedom to deceive or manipulate. Instead, everybody should have a responsibility to use the Internet in an appropriate manner.
We should remove disruptive people from the Internet just as this lady is being removed from an airplane.
We should pass judgment on a person's use of the Internet just as we pass judgment on whether they are behaving appropriately in a train or airplane. When a person misbehaves on an airplane, he is removed from the airplane. We should apply the same policy to the Internet. People who cannot use the Internet appropriately should have their access restricted or prohibited, or they should be evicted from society.
By making those type of changes, it will be even easier for us to observe our government officials and keep them under control because all of the government documents could be posted in a particular domain, making it easy to search through them.

There could also be a domain specifically for the public to post their comments and suggestions, thereby making it easy for everybody to see and search through the complaints and suggestions.

With that type of system, when we want to find educational or technical information about a product, medical drug, or animal, or when we want some historical information, we would restrict the search to the "knowledge domains", and that would provide us with easy access to information that is regularly updated and maintained. This would make it easier for students to find useful educational materials, and for adults to find information about products or historical events that they are curious about.

That type of system would also allow us to look at the history of how the knowledge developed. At the moment, the information on the Internet is too recent for it to have a history, but thousands of years from now some people will find it interesting to occasionally look at how some of the knowledge developed, and who was responsible.

An example of our absurd secrecy
In December 2016, the Trump administration asked the Department of Energy for a list of the names of their employees and contractors who were involved with climate research. Since Trump does not support carbon taxes, most people assumed that the Trump administration wanted those names to either fire those employees, or to put their names on a list of people who should not be allowed to influence government policies.

However, the Department of Energy justified keeping the names a secret by saying: "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees". An anonymous employee of the department said: "This feels like the first draft of an eventual political enemies list". That employee justified remaining anonymous by claiming that he was worried that the Trump administration would get revenge on him.

If you don't think the Department of Energy is behaving strangely, note that scientists, carpenters, mechanics, pilots, dentists, doctors, and almost everybody else, are proud of themselves when they accomplish an impressive task, and they want to be acknowledged for their contributions.

By comparison, when a person does something that he is ashamed of, he does not want to be identified as the person responsible for it.

The scientists who are studying global warming should be proud of themselves, and they should want us to acknowledge their brilliant research and analyses. They should be complaining that the department is hiding their names and not giving them credit for their brilliant work. However, they are hiding from us, and it is because they know that what they are doing is deceptive. They are ashamed of themselves, and they do not want to be held accountable for their crimes.

The Department of Energy justifies keeping the names a secret in order to "respect professional and scientific integrity and independence", but that phrase does not have any intelligent meaning. It is just an attempt to intimidate us. It is impossible to disprove that remark because nobody can understand it. Unfortunately, a person who does not have a good understanding of language may assume that the reason he does not understand that remark is because he is too dumb or uneducated.

Actually, that remark is so meaningless that Trump could have made the same remark. For example, Trump could have told the Department of Energy:
"We want a list of the people involved with climate change research in order to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of your researchers."

A congressman, Elijah Cummings, responded to Trump's request by saying:
“This looks like a scare tactic to intimidate federal employees who are simply doing their jobs and following the facts”.

That remark is so vague that Trump could use it. For example, Trump could say,
"It looks like Congressman Cummings is using a scare tactic to intimidate the Trump administration personnel, who are simply doing their jobs and following the facts."

John Palguta has been praised by the Washington Post as a "civil service expert", and he is a member of the Partnership for Public Service, which is another "think tank" that begs for donations. He responded to Trump's request with such remarks as:

“A greater concern would be that selected employees could be marginalized, i.e., ignored, by new leadership at the Department solely based on unfounded conjecture that those employees cannot be trusted by the new political team.”

Palguta would have been more honest and accurate if he said:
“We are concerned that employees will be held accountable for their work, and that they will be ignored by new leadership if the Trump administration concludes that those employees cannot be trusted.”

A week or so later, the Trump administration requested the State Department to provide them with some information about women's rights issues, and they also asked for some names of government officials who are working on programs to stop extremism. Once again the government officials responded to these requests by becoming frightened that the Trump administration will hold them responsible for what they are doing.

Imagine if IBM were to hire you to help them resolve some problems they were having in a particular department, and you asked for a list of names of the people working in that department, and what each of them was doing, but the employees refused to identify the people and what they had done.

Businesses and militaries do not allow their members to work in secrecy. They hold their members accountable for what they do. We must design a government to follow the practices that have been successful for businesses and militaries. We must eliminate the secrecy that we are providing government officials so that we can see what they are doing, and their reasoning for it. We must also be able to hold them accountable for their decisions, and we should regularly replace the worst performing officials. This will allow us to create a government that consists of officials who are proud of their work, rather than officials who are ashamed of themselves and hiding from us.

Why do people commit crimes?
The concepts I mentioned about litter, sloppiness, and apathy apply to crime, also. Crime is not the result of some environmental issue, such as poverty, ignorance, discrimination, or bad parenting. As with littering and sloppiness, crime is the result of people who make a decision to commit a crime.

It is true that certain types of environments will encourage crime, but the best way to understand why humans commit crimes is to understand animal behavior.

Animals do whatever they please without any regard to their effect on other animals, the future generations, or the environment. The only time that an animal will hesitate to do something that it wants to do is when another emotion overpowers the craving to do it, such as the emotion of fear.

If a human were to behave exactly like an animal, he would grab at whatever food and material items attracted his attention, and he would not show any embarrassment, guilt, or shame. He would hesitate to grab something only when some other emotion was overpowering his desire for the item, such as when he was afraid of being attacked by somebody for grabbing at the item.

Furthermore, he would follow all of his other emotions without any embarrassment or guilt. For example, he would eat, poop, sleep, and masturbate whenever and wherever he pleased, just like the animals do. He would be likely to rape people, and rape other species of animals.

He would have no interest in society, and would spend all of his time trying to satisfy his cravings for food, sex, babies, and status. He would have no interest in learning about the world, maintaining material items, cleaning up after himself, or working in a team. He would be extremely arrogant, and anybody who criticized him or interfered with his desires would be treated as an enemy, and he would whine about being abused, neglected, unappreciated, and bullied.

No human behaves exactly like an animal, but if we could measure our similarity to an animal, we would find that the population fits a bell curve, with the majority of people as "average", and a small percentage who are more similar to animals.

If all humans behaved exactly like animals, crime would be intolerable because none of us would be interested in following laws. Since every human is better behaved than an animal, all of us are willing to follow laws, but we differ in our willingness to follow laws, and we differ in which laws we are willing to follow.

The people who commit crimes are not "evil", and they are not committing crimes because of poverty or bad parenting. They are not necessarily stupid, either, or uneducated. Rather, they are committing crimes after contemplating the issue and coming to the conclusion that it makes sense to commit the crime.

The environment that we live in can affect whether we choose to commit a crime because the environment will affect our attitude towards people, laws, and the government. For an extreme example, children who grow up in homeless families in which the parents are routinely stealing food are likely to get into the habit of committing that type of crime.

Even though some environments encourage us to commit crimes, we cannot ignore the fact that even when people are living in the same environment, we will differ on our decisions about whether to commit a crime, and which crime to commit. Most people in the United States are living in a very similar environment, and most of the people in Japan are living in a similar environment, and so on. However, even though most of us are living in an environment that is extremely similar to that of millions of other people, we do not behave in the same manner.

The people who are involved with shoplifting, murder, pedophilia, stock market fraud, and embezzlement cannot claim that they are in an environment that is encouraging such crimes. They are in virtually the same environment as people who are refusing to commit those crimes. The people who commit those crimes are doing so because they want to. Their mind thought about the issue and made the decision to commit the crime.

Likewise, the people who are involved with kidnapping and raping children cannot claim that they are involved with those activities because of their environment. They are choosing to commit those crimes.

Some members of the "New World Order" may have been tricked
To be fair to the people involved with corruption, some of them were pressured or tricked into committing some crimes. Many organizations have some type of idiotic or obnoxious initiation rituals, and crime networks go even further by requiring their members to have committed some atrocious crime.

Certainly you can see that the crime network that is responsible for the 9/11 attack consists of a lot of government officials, military leaders, policemen, professors, lawyers, journalists, and businessmen. How did the network become so large? How did they attract so many people in leadership positions?

One method that crime networks use to pressure people into becoming members is to operate illegal or embarrassing business ventures, and then blackmail their customers. For example, when a crime network is operating gay bath houses, strip clubs, gambling casinos, pedophile networks, or prostitution operations, they will occasionally discover that one of their customers is a policeman, professor, military leader, or government official. The crime network will be able to blackmail him into becoming a member. They can also blackmail some of their customers into running for a government office, thereby giving the crime network control of the political candidates.

The people who don't go to strip clubs or gambling casinos could be recruited through what appear to be innocent conversations about sex issues. For example, when I first started exposing the 9/11 attack, people like Jon Gold would contact me and make all sorts of crude homosexual remarks, and Trond Halvorsen tried to convince me to take a trip to Thailand with him to have sex with the prostitutes. If I had shown an interest in their activities, they would have responded by trying to get me to do something that they could use to blackmail me.

By having "innocent" conversations with government officials, professors, businessmen, and scientists, a crime network will occasionally discover that the person is homosexual, using cocaine, or that he might be interested in taking a trip to Jeffrey Epstein's island to have sex with teenagers. The criminals would set the person up to be blackmailed, and then announce to the victim that he is now a proud member of the New World Order.

To pacify the victim, the criminals would tell him that he does not have to worry about getting in trouble because he has just joined an exclusive club of special people, and he will be working with The Elite for the noble purpose of getting control of the hordes of useless eaters. He would be told that he will be able to use his talent to create a better world for the human race. The criminals would justify their murders and rapes of children by pointing out that they kill only the children of retards, criminals, and idiots.

A crime network can also recruit members with deception. For example, when a crime network has a lot of members who are government officials, professors, billionaires, scientists, policemen, and military leaders, they can boast that they are not a crime network at all. Rather, they are an organization of society's leaders; that they are respectable people who are trying to bring improvements to the world by getting control of it. They could describe themselves as the saviors of the human race.

By bringing naive people to meetings where they can meet the government officials, policemen, and professors who are part of the network, the naive people can be fooled into believing that they are joining a wonderful organization.

A "normal" crime network consists of mentally defective people who commit crimes for their own financial benefit with little or no regard to the effect on other people. The New World Order, however, creates the impression that they are a group of respectable people, and that their goal is to help the world, not to burglarize houses or rob banks. Their goal is to get control of the hordes of irresponsible, apathetic sheeple so that they can provide proper leadership and improve life for everybody. It is a noble goal, not something to be ashamed of.

When the crime network noticed that Arnold Schwarzenegger was becoming famous, and that he had an abnormally strong craving to be a leader, they decided to recruit him, so they gave him what everybody loves; namely, lots of attention and praise. In the photos below, Arnold Schwarzenegger is being given an award by some Jews, and in the other photo, he was invited to visit Jacob Rothschild and Warren Buffett.
After a naive person has been convinced to join The Elite in creating a better world, he is told that the New World Order has no option except to commit crimes in order to improve the world, and therefore, all members must remain silent about those crimes or they will be killed. They undoubtedly put pressure on one another to commit some atrocious crime so that they all can be blackmailed into remaining silent about the crimes the organization is committing.

The New World Order may also acquire some members by finding parents who want to kill one of their defective or unwanted children. The Jews would deceive the parents into believing that they are secretly working with important government officials, such as John Podesta and Hillary Clinton, and that they have the authority and resources to make the child's death appear natural, or arrange for a fake kidnapping. When one or both parents agree, the Jews fake the death or the kidnapping of the child and then let the parents realize that they have just become proud members of the New World Order. This scenario would explain the mysterious disappearance of Johnny Gosch.

The New World Order probably has a few other methods of recruiting people, but I won't bother discussing all the possible ways that they could trick people into joining their "wonderful" organization.

The point I want to make is that although it is possible some of the people involved with the New World Order were tricked into committing a crime in order to join the organization, we have to face the fact that the majority of people who are committing crimes are doing so because they want to, not because they have been tricked into it, or because of bad parenting, poverty, or discrimination. The people who choose to commit a crime have contemplated the issue and have made a decision to do it.

One of the reasons we cannot stop crime with punishments is because the people who commit crimes have already contemplated the issue that they will be punished if they are caught, but they came to the conclusion that they will be able to commit the crime successfully. They are not concerned about the punishment because they don't believe they will be caught. A punishment will not deter a person who believes that he will be successful.

Furthermore, the punishments for most of our crimes are so insignificant that some people don't care if they get caught. There is a British television program, Criminals Caught On Camera, that shows security personnel watching thousands of security cameras around the nation, and the narrators point out that the security personnel frequently catch the same criminals over and over. The reason the criminals are caught over and over is because they are not frightened by the punishment.

For an example of how meaningless the punishments for shoplifting are in England, some of the people who are caught shoplifting are told to stay out of the shopping center for one year. How is that type of punishment going to deter an unemployed drug user who is desperate for drugs? And in this episode, a man was caught stealing hundreds of purses, bags, laptop computers, and other items from customers at restaurants and bars, but all he had to do was spend two years in jail. Update: that video has been deleted already, also. You have to look at the links soon after I post them!

Punishments will not stop an animal from grabbing items that it wants, and punishments will not stop humans from grabbing things that they want. We have to face the fact that the people who commit crimes are doing so because they made a decision to do so, and they don't care about the punishment.

Some people might claim that punishments are ineffective because most people are ignorant about how miserable it would be to spend time in jail. To cure them of their ignorance, some schools have taken students to a jail so that the students can see a jail, and see how the criminals live in a jail cell. The schools hope that by showing the students a real jail, they will develop a more realistic view of how unpleasant it would be to spend time in jail, and that in turn will cause them to be more honest.

Unfortunately, the knowledge of how miserable jail is does not stop people from committing crimes. There are many people who are very familiar with jails, but they continue to commit crimes anyway. An example are the policemen who commit crimes.

The police have a job that puts them into confrontation with criminals, and as a result, we must expect fights between police and criminals, and we must expect that the criminals will frequently complain that the police are rude and using excessive force. I can understand and forgive a policeman for losing his temper with a criminal, but there is no justification for policemen to rape women or children. Unfortunately, according to the Cato Institute, the second highest complaint about police officers in the United States is sexual abuse.

For example, a former sheriff's deputy in Oklahoma, Gerald Nuckolls, was arrested for sexually assaulting two women while on duty. He was convicted and sent to jail for eight years, and agreed to pay $300,000 to his victim. His knowledge about jail and punishments did not deter him from committing those crimes.

To confuse the issue of policemen raping women, in the days before video cameras existed, we could not be sure how many of the accusations of rape were true. For example, here is a video of a confrontation between a policeman and a woman, and when the policeman tried to get her out of her car, she started yelling that she was being raped.
Update: that video has been deleted already, also.

If it were not for the video camera, we would not have any way of determining whether he tried to rape her. This is another example of the importance of security cameras, and how they protect honest people. It is also another example of how some women will use accusations of rape as a weapon.

That video is also a good example of how some people are getting carried away with the attitude that they can do whatever they please, and that the police have no right to stop them. A business would not tolerate a female employee who behaved like that, or who made false accusations of rape, and neither would a military. Only governments allow citizens to behave in such disgusting manners.

The people who commit crimes cannot blame their crimes on poverty, ignorance, or other factors because there are other people in the same situation who are honest. We have to face the fact that each person is genetically unique, and the people who are committing crimes are inferior in some manner to those of us who are honest.

One of the reasons we have trouble dealing with criminals is because they all have some good qualities. Criminals are not a different, sub-human species. They are humans, just like you and me, but for various reasons they are having trouble following laws, fitting into society, and controlling their emotions.

Furthermore, none of us are perfect, so if you analyze yourself closely enough, you will find lots of imperfections to complain about and be embarrassed of. However, don't let the complexity of life frighten you into hiding from this issue. We cannot expect anybody to be perfect, but we can and should pass judgment on who among us is destructive to society, and we should not overlook those destructive people simply because they have a few admirable qualities.

This brings me to the most significant difference between governments and other organizations. Specifically, governments insist that bad behavior can be fixed with punishments, pity, and rehabilitation programs, whereas businesses, militaries, and other organizations evict or restrict the dishonest, mentally disturbed, and destructive members.

Nations have a 100% failure rate in reducing crime and corruption, but the organizations that evict and restrict the troublesome members have a 100% success rate in reducing the problem. The obvious solution to reducing crime and corruption is to do what the businesses, militaries, and other organizations do, which is to put the troublesome people on restrictions, and evict those who are destructive to society. The people who cannot understand this concept are deliberately refusing to see it.

It doesn't require much education or intelligence to understand this concept. Farmers have been practicing it for thousands of years. Farmers do not try to cure the badly behaved animals with punishments or Bible studies. They euthanize the defective animals.

People who cannot see their animal nature are inferior
It does not require much intelligence to notice and understand that children inherit mental and physical characteristics from their parents. Even people who are below average in intelligence are capable of understanding this simple concept. The people who cannot see this concept are deliberately refusing to see it because they don't want to see it. I suspect they are suffering from a mind that is so similar to an animal's mind that they don't care what the evidence shows. They prefer to believe theories that are more emotionally titillating.

I don't think an animal has a concern for reality. I think they believe whatever their emotions want to believe. However, as monkeys developed into humans, they began developing the ability to notice and accept reality. Unfortunately, since each human is unique, we have a different ability to accept reality.

If we could measure our ability to accept reality, we would find that most people are average, and that a small percentage of the population has an extreme resistance to reality.

Everybody believes that he can accept reality, and we frequently accuse other people of living in a fantasy and ignoring reality. The people who believe in Noah's ark, for example, believe that they are accepting reality, and they accuse the people who believe in evolution of believing in a fantasy.

Each of us also believes that our opinions are based on fact, and we accuse other people of having opinions that are unsupported, or based on nonsense.

How do we determine which opinion is realistic and which is a fantasy? How do we determine what a "fact" is? How can we determine if an opinion is supported with "evidence" rather than "nonsense"?

Is there really some valid evidence for the theory that the universe appeared from nothing in a Big Bang? Do we really have sensible evidence to believe that one, large meteor is responsible for the "sudden" extinction of thousands of species over a span of millions of years? Is there really evidence that the Cro-Magnon man appeared suddenly 30,000 years ago from some type of spontaneous creation? Is there really evidence that carbon taxes will improve the earth's climate? Is there evidence that legalizing drugs will ruin society? Is there any evidence that children will be harmed if schools provide them with unlimited access to information about sex, digestion, and childbirth?

The human mind is not nearly as wonderful as we like to think it is. All of us have a crude, imperfect, monkey brain inside our skull, and each of our brains has slightly different intellectual and emotional characteristics. We differ in our talents with music, math, science, and chemistry. We differ in our ability to control our muscles, express our thoughts, decode other people's words into their original thoughts, and draw pictures. We differ in our ability to understand and cope with reality and other people.

A person might have a brain that can perform very well in certain school courses, and he might excel in creating music or performing math, but that doesn't guarantee that he can make a sensible decision about whether Noah's ark is a real historical event or a fantasy.

All of us have such crude brains that we all have trouble differentiating between reality and fantasy. All of us have to learn to be critical of our brilliant thoughts, and to look for supporting evidence.

Our primitive ancestors could believe all sorts of idiotic fantasies without suffering from it, but today a person needs a much better ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality, especially the people in influential positions. When we allow people into leadership positions who do a substandard job of differentiating between fantasy and reality, they will impose idiotic beliefs on us, such as insisting that children start every day in school with a prayer, or insisting that punishments will cure criminals.

If we could measure the ability people have to accept and understand reality, I think we would discover that the majority of people are below the threshold necessary to truly cope with this modern world. I think this is the reason that the majority of people in every nation are constantly promoting theories that fail, such as the theory that punishments will stop crime. It would also explain why religion is so much more popular than science.

Ideally, we would restrict influential positions to the people who have an above-average ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. The people who have the most trouble dealing with reality are causing a lot of problems for themselves and others. We have to stop feeling sorry for them and punishing them. We have to keep them out of influential positions, and in some cases, restrict them to certain neighborhoods. Ideally, we would also restrict reproduction to improve the mental qualities of the human race.

There is no point in any of us wasting our lives trying to convince people that the story of Noah's ark is idiotic, or trying to convince people that punishments will not cure criminals. Arguing with those people over those issues is as much of a waste of time as trying to teach arithmetic to a dog. Those people are going to believe what they want regardless of the evidence.

In order to improve the world, we need to find a large group of people who have a better quality mind, and we need to take control of society, stand up to the mentally inferior people – many of whom are quite intelligent and educated – and tell them to shut up.

Healthcare should be designed by our intellect, not our emotions
An issue that is becoming increasingly significant to modern societies is the issue of healthcare. Prehistoric people occasionally suffered from disease and broken bones, but they did not have to take care of elderly people, and they did not have to worry about healthcare because a person either became healthy on his own, or he died. As with wild animals, prehistoric humans were in good health simply because the sickly and elderly people died.

Today, however, a lot of people are being kept alive with medical technology, and every year the percentage of people who are being kept alive by medical technology is increasing.

Some people rarely get sick or injured, and the result is that they don't put much of a burden on our health care system, except when they become elderly. At the other extreme are the people who are suffering from serious genetic disorders, such as autoimmune diseases, that require tremendous medical assistance.

There are also people with such inferior minds that they cause themselves a lot of medical problems as a result of their idiotic decisions in regards to diet or drugs, or who routinely injure themselves because they want to perform risky stunts. The people with the defective minds and bodies are a burden on our health care system.

The extremely wealthy people can afford whatever medical care they want, but it is impractical to provide everybody with unlimited medical assistance. Somehow we must make decisions about how much medical care to provide a particular person.

In the United States, the most popular method of dealing with medical care is for people to purchase health insurance, but this is an inefficient way of dealing with the problem. Insurance requires a lot of people to work at insurance companies, and a lot of people at hospitals must process insurance forms. All of those people do a lot of work, but they are not improving our health. They are just processing documents.

This site believes that the typical costs of health insurance in 2015 is about $6250 per year for a single employee, and $17,500 per year for a family. That is a significant amount of money when you consider that most Americans make $20,000 to $60,000 per year. People are putting a lot of money into the healthcare system, but most people don't get back much of it.

I would describe the insurance businesses as scams. The concept of health insurance is acceptable, but in a free enterprise system, the companies exploit people. They take advantage of a characteristic of animals and humans; specifically, our desire to be taken care of. This attitude is strongest in children and women, but even adult men retain it to a certain extent.

Most animals are in a perpetual state of fear because the world is a dangerous place. The social animals have a strong craving to be among members of their group rather than be alone. People and animals feel safer when they are with a group.

The insurance companies exploit this emotion by creating the impression that when we buy their insurance, we are becoming a member of a protected group. Many of them even have pictures of hands on their logo, which titillate our emotional feelings because it makes us feel like a baby who is being held by his mother. Some logos have soldiers to titillate our craving to be protected from danger. The insurance companies are titillating our emotions with their logos and services, not appealing to our intellect. Five different logos are below.

The reason people are so willing to purchase insurance without complaining about the absurd expense is because we are attracted to the fantasy that somebody is going to take care of us. The insurance companies offer to take care of us for a monthly fee, but in reality, they are a business that is trying to make a profit, not help us.

I mentioned earlier that our culture is not changing in a truly random manner because our emotions are influencing it. Likewise, the healthcare industry changes slowly through the years to appease our emotions. The healthcare businesses have altered their logos to make us feel better, and they have reworded their advertising slogans to be more emotionally appealing. They are becoming better at fooling us into believing that they will take care of us.

It is impossible for the healthcare insurance companies to provide us with unlimited healthcare. They deal with this problem by having large deductibles, and if a person uses a lot of healthcare, they try to raise his fees or cancel his policy.

We need to design a healthcare system according to our intellect, not our emotions. We have to be willing to create a healthcare system that is emotionally unpleasant. We must be able to tolerate the concept that healthcare must be divided, and that decisions must be made on when to deny or limit it.

The free enterprise system does not make intelligent decisions on how to divide up healthcare resources. It simply allows wealthy people to have the most resources, and it allows the mentally defective people, the terminally ill, and the elderly to be a significant burden on our health care system. The people who suffer in the free enterprise system are the people who take care of their health and avoid dangerous stunts and activities.

It would make more sense for us to design a healthcare system in which humans are making decisions about how to dispense the healthcare rather than letting money make the decision. Of course, this assumes that we can provide ourselves with leaders who will make decisions that are more sensible than a free enterprise system.

The Healthcare Department of the government needs to be just like the Product Development Department. Specifically, the officials in that department must not have secrecy. They must post their decisions on the Internet so that everybody can see how they are dividing up the healthcare resources, and why, and that will allow us to pass judgment on which of them is doing the worst job and should be replaced.

Should a society try to separate Siamese twins who are joined at the face? Right now we have no idea who is making decisions about such issues; we have no way of getting access to the data that shows how many people and resources are necessary for such an operation; and we have no idea how many people are going to suffer as a result of diverting all of those people and resources to the Siamese twins.

By putting our healthcare under the control of a government agency, we will have access to what is going on, and we will be able to pass judgment on the decisions that the government officials are making.

This system allows government officials to make intelligent decisions about healthcare, rather than pander to the emotions of the public. Government officials will be able to implement policies that are emotionally unpleasant. For an example that I mentioned in other documents, the people who want to do risky stunts, such as riding skateboards on handrails, could be told that they must suffer the consequences rather than expect us to rush to provide them with medical assistance. We could also tell people who want to use alcohol or drugs, or who become obese, that they are not going to get special healthcare privileges, either, which means that they will suffer the consequences of their idiotic behavior.

Some people will say that it is cruel or unfair to make the mentally defective people suffer, but somebody has to suffer. I suggest we follow the philosophy that society be designed for what we consider to be the well behaved people, rather than what the United States promotes, which is to give pity and special treatment to the underdogs, the disadvantaged, the wretched refuse, the huddled masses, the mentally ill, the violent, and the dishonest.

We must also face the fact that everybody is going to die, and there is a point in which a person has deteriorated to such an extent that it is more sensible to euthanize him rather than continue wasting resources trying to keep him alive. We need to consider the quality of a person's life rather than the quantity of days that he is technically alive.

In our economic systems today, a lot of businesses are making a phenomenal amount of money by keeping terminally ill and elderly people alive, but this should be described as exploitation and abuse, not "healthcare". It could also be described as cruel.
Incidentally, there is an interesting aspect to the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia for elderly people. Specifically, when we are young, we are likely to regard the people in nursing homes as having a miserable and worthless life, and we are likely to prefer assisted suicide. However, as we grow old, our brain deteriorates, and we become increasingly stupid and more like an animal. We may also have strokes.

If we wait too long to commit suicide, we will reach the point of deterioration at which we are so much like an animal that we no longer care about the quality of our life. We will simply exist from one day to the next.

An animal does not care about the quality of its life. We can poke out the eyes of an animal, cut off its legs and arms, and beat it every day with a stick, but it will never choose suicide. Likewise, a human whose brain has deteriorated to a certain extent will have no problem spending every day sitting in a wheelchair or laying in a bed, and suffering from pains, diapers, and digestive problems.

What this means is that an offer of assisted suicide has to be made while a person is still in such good mental health that he can make a decision about the issue. If we wait too long, his brain will have deteriorated so much that he will become so similar to an animal that he will refuse assisted suicide. This will create the illusion that not many people want assisted suicide.

Colleges are as abusive as insurance companies
Our school system is also evolving through the years to fit our emotional cravings rather than our intellect. Colleges are especially abusive because there is a tremendous profit potential for colleges. Colleges are abusing and exploiting us just like the insurance companies do.

The colleges create the impression that by giving them money, they will give us an education. This is deceptive. The only way we can get an education is if we want to be educated, and if we put effort into becoming educated. A training program can only help us to help ourselves. However, schools treat us in a manner similar to how insurance companies treat us. Specifically, they create the impression that we are going to get an eduction simply by giving them some money. They imply that they are going to take care of us, as a mother takes care of her baby.

Although some college courses have been designed to put pressure on students to learn a useful skill, many of our colleges are providing silly courses simply to make the students feel educated, and to provide them with diplomas. Most college courses should be described as "scams" or "exploitation".

The reason students and parents don't complain that the colleges are expensive and worthless is because animals and humans don't want to learn. Most people go to college to get a diploma, to find a spouse, to delay adulthood, and/or because they believe college will allow them to get an easy, high-paying job. They are not going to college to learn a useful skill, to practice self-control, or to discover their talents and limitations.
The Marines want people to realize that their training programs are going to be emotionally and physically brutal because they want people who are going to put effort into the program, not people who want something for nothing.
Businesses and militaries have training programs, but they do not design the programs to make a profit, or to appease students or parents. They design the programs to accomplish some particular type of training, and as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Furthermore, notice the difference in the way the military and the colleges advertise themselves. The colleges are likely to show photos of students who are smiling, pretty women, and people having fun playing games. They lure people to their college in the same manner that a pedophile attracts a child.

By comparison, the military lets everybody know that the students are expected to put in a lot of effort, and that some of them are going to drop out or be evicted because they don't have the qualities necessary.

In a free enterprise system, people are nothing more than profit opportunities. Schools will sell us anything we want, no matter how stupid it is. They will exploit us, deceive us, and abuse us.

We are not going to create effective schools as long as we continue to operate on a free enterprise system. School courses should be designed with the same attitude that businesses and militaries design their training programs.

We are not necessarily hurting a person when we make him suffer
Our emotions fool us into believing that the best way to enjoy life is to do whatever titillates us, and avoid whatever we find unpleasant. Our emotions fool us into believing that we are suffering whenever we experience an unpleasant feeling.

It is easy to see that this philosophy is false in regards to our body. For example, if we were to do only what our body likes and avoid whatever causes discomfort, then we would eat lots of sweet and fatty foods, and we would never get much exercise. In order to keep our body in optimum health, we need to figure out what our body needs, rather than give it what it wants.

The unconscious part of our mind gives us what we need, but the conscious part has desires that are not necessarily appropriate in this modern world. For example, our unconscious mind knows when we need to increase or decrease our breathing rate, heartbeat, and digestive chemicals. We do not have to monitor those aspects of our body. However, our conscious part is influenced by emotions, and that requires we have to be able to exert some self-control and make intelligent decisions rather than follow those emotions.

The reason we should not do what our emotions want is because our DNA cannot know what our environment will be, and so it designs our muscles, bones, immune system, and probably a lot of other aspects of our body, with the ability to adapt - to a certain extent - to the environment.

If we use our muscles so much that they become sore, our muscles react by growing stronger. If, instead, we foolishly believe that we will have a more pleasant life by avoiding discomfort, we will avoid pushing our muscles to the point at which they become uncomfortable, and the end result is that our muscles and bones will not develop properly.

Furthermore, our bodies were designed under the expectation that we are going to use our muscles and bones throughout our life. We were not designed for retirement, or for weightlessness. When astronauts become weightless, their bones, muscles, and other parts start to deteriorate.

In order to do what we need to do, we must realize that everything needs to be kept within a certain range. For example, we need oxygen, but too much oxygen will kill us. Too little exercise is detrimental, but too much exercise can cause trouble also, such as breaking our tendons and bones, or worse, killing us (see Rhabdomyolysis).

If parents provide their children with an environment in which the children never have to use their muscles, the children's bodies are not going to develop properly. Forcing children to "suffer" the discomfort of physical activities is actually helping them to become healthy, so we should not feel guilty for causing them to "suffer". However, we have to realize that each child is genetically different, which means that we must adjust the physical activities to fit each child's particular abilities. We cannot expect all children to handle the same levels of exercise.

Many schools realize that children benefit from exercise, and so those schools encourage the children to get exercise during lunch, and after school, but we will not apply this concept to adults. Every society promotes the attitude that adults are capable of making wise decisions about how to spend their lives. We allow adults to do whatever they please, and the result is that many adults are choosing to eat unhealthy foods, eat excessive quantities of food, avoid exercise, drink excessive amounts of alcohol, and titillate themselves with television, video games, and pornography. There is no pressure on adults to do what is best for themselves. Instead, most adults are pursuing activities that make them feel good.

The military demands most of their members get exercise on a regular basis, but most businesses and government agencies do not even encourage their employees to get exercise. I suspect that we would have a better life if we changed that attitude. I think we should design cities to encourage the adults and children to get out of their house and participate in some recreational activities.

In previous documents I suggested a city in which the office buildings and factories are in clusters surrounded by parks and recreational areas so that people have easy access to recreational activities at lunch and during breaks. We could also experiment with extending the lunch hour. If those cities existed right now, would the employees want to go outside during lunch and get some exercise? Or would most of them sit inside the office buildings, play games on their cell phones, and eat excessive amounts of candy bars? Would the people need pressure to get some exercise, such as forcing them out of the building at lunch?

The answer to those type of questions is, of course, that it depends upon all sorts of factors, primarily the genetic qualities of the people in the city, and how well they get along with one another. If the city is restricted to people who are compatible with one another, and who enjoy engaging in activities rather than playing with a cell phone, then they will enjoy the other people, and the activities that the city offers.

We have a tremendous number of options available to us in regards to our work environment, city design, transportation facilities, social affairs, and recreational activities. As soon as some group of people finds enough courage to start experimenting with our options, I suspect that they will discover the paradox that the most pleasant life overall comes from a culture that puts pressure on the children and adults to occasionally do what they don't want to do.

The reason I suspect this is because our emotions were not designed for this modern world, and so we should not do what we want. We should do what makes the most intellectual sense. When a society makes people do something they don't want to do, they will feel as if they are suffering, but we cannot judge a policy according to whether people like it. We have to look at the overall effect on our lives, and the future. This is how businesses and militaries design policies. They don't care whether their members "like" a policy. They are concerned with creating a functional, stable organization.

We are not necessarily helping a person by giving him what he wants
The opposite concept is also true; namely, we do not necessarily help people by giving them what they want. The issue of food is a good example. We are not helping people, especially children, when we give them whatever foods they want to eat.

Our prehistoric ancestors never had to make intelligent decisions about their meals. Food is normally scarce for animals, so they can eat whatever they can find, and as much as they please.

In order to ensure that animals eat foods that are healthy, each species developed emotional cravings for particular textures and chemicals, and a distaste for certain textures and chemicals. For example, humans have strong cravings for sugar, and that might have evolved in us because our ancestors who had an attraction to sugar would prefer ripe fruit over unripe fruit, and that would have kept them in better health.

In this modern world, we can no longer eat to satisfy our emotional cravings. We have to learn about food and human health, and we must use that information to make intelligent decisions about what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and how to mix foods in a meal.

For example, animals do not normally combine eating and drinking. For most animals and prehistoric humans, eating and drinking are often separated by hours. Today, however, people are combining a variety of foods and drinks into one meal.

Humans are obviously capable of eating and drinking in one meal since billions of people do it on a regular basis but, for all we know, we will do a better job of digesting our meals if we separate eating and drinking. The reason I wonder about this is because when we drink a lot of liquids with our meals, we dilute the contents of our stomach, and our stomach has to compensate for that excessive amount of liquid. Does everybody have the ability to compensate for it? Perhaps we do, but perhaps it is causing mild digestive problems for some of us, which in turn interferes with our nutrition, or allows excessive amounts of bacterial growth.

The people who force themselves to drink when they are not thirsty, such as the people who are following the philosophy that we must drink eight glasses of water a day, might be causing themselves even more trouble than the people who drink a lot of liquids during their meals. No animal forces itself to drink, and we should not have to force ourselves to drink, either, just as we should not have to force ourselves to breathe. Our unconscious mind should be capable of operating our body.

Perhaps some people are in such a polluted environment that they should force themselves to drink to help their body rinse out the pollutants, but if a person's unconscious mind is so defective that he actually has to force himself to drink, or force himself to breathe faster than he wants to, or force himself to blink his eyes more often, he is in serious trouble because it is not easy or pleasant for us to control those functions. We need to restrict reproduction so that everybody's body is doing an excellent job of controlling its hormone levels, breathing, thirst, and digestive chemicals.

Our natural tendency is to assume that when we discover something that is pleasurable or beneficial, we can increase the benefit simply by doing it more often. This false assumption causes people to behave like a rat with an electrode in its brain. Specifically, when they discover something that makes them feel good, they assume that doing it again will make them feel good again, and so they do it again, and again, to the point of excess. This is most noticeable with material items and fame. People assume that the more they get, the better they will feel. In reality, we need to keep everything within a certain range.

Some people behave this way with drugs, also. For example, some people have discovered that marijuana helps relieve some of their mental disorders, or that alcohol helps them to socialize, or that a particular hormone improves their health or helps them to grow big muscles, but instead of realizing that the beneficial effect will be the greatest at certain amounts of the drug, some people take excessive amounts under the false assumption that the more they take, the more they benefit.

Are we digesting our food properly?
Getting back to the issue of food, there is another reason that I wonder if our eating habits are interfering with our digestive system and our health; namely, why do I clog low-flow toilets so often?

I have replaced my toilet a few times, but all brands and models get clogged occasionally. The toilet I have now, from Toto, does the best job, but I can clog this one also.

I produce two types of poop that clog these toilets. One is a very long poop that is so firm that it cannot travel through the narrow, serpentine passage. I have to break it into pieces. The other type is a bunch of smaller but firm pieces. Some toilet manufacturers boast that their toilet can flush a bunch of golf balls, but golf balls do not stick to one another. Poop is sticky, and so balls of poop create a sticky pile at the bottom of the toilet, and a gentle flow of water cannot force them through the small exit hole.

Why is it that other people are not clogging these low-flow toilets? I wonder if it is because most people are producing soft, watery poop because either:
a) They have an unnatural diet
b) They eat excessive amounts of food.
The human digestive system evolved for a prehistoric diet of meat, fruits, and vegetables, and food was normally in short supply. Also, when the people found vegetables, they would find only a small amount of a particular vegetable. They would not find a gigantic field of asparagus or corn. Therefore, they would eat a mixture of vegetables rather than an enormous amount of just one type of vegetable. Also, most of the fruit trees in prehistoric times did not produce such enormous volumes of large fruits as they do on modern farms.

Furthermore, animals drink water only when they are thirsty, not while they are eating their meals. Today, however, people are drinking enormous amounts of liquid at the same time that they are eating excessive quantities of food. Some people are even forcing themselves to drink under the assumption that they need eight glasses of water a day.

I suspect that the human body was designed to produce small packages of fairly firm poop, similar to that produced by rabbits, horses, and other animals that are eating a diet that is natural for their species. However, producing that type of poop might require that we reduce the size of our meals so that the food is digested properly, and it might also require separating the drinking of liquids from the eating of foods.

If most people are producing a soft, pasty or watery poop, that would explain why they don't clog toilets. It could also explain why I seem to be the only person who has noticed that my lower intestine seems to produce some type of scented liquid. I wrote about this years ago, and some of the people in the so-called "truth movement" insulted me.

Although it is conceivable that my body produces this liquid because of some genetic mistake, it is more likely that I inherited this characteristic, which means that it's in the human gene pool, and therefore, other people must have it. Furthermore, many male animals produce scented liquids in order to mark their territory, so we should not be surprised to discover that male humans do it. Perhaps women do it, also.

I suspect that millions of men have this feature, but that they don't notice it because their butt is so filthy that the stench of their poop overpowers the delicate fragrance of this particular liquid. Furthermore, many people are eating excessive amounts of food, and this is causing their body to produce enormous amounts of poop. Some bodybuilders and obese people are apparently pooping 4 to 6 times every day.

Throughout most of my life I would poop once a day, but during the past year or so, it has been only 3 to 5 times a week. Unfortunately, I don't have a database of my life to help me guess as when it changed or why, but it might be because I switched to four smaller meals a day.

Our body may produce such small amounts of this liquid that people who poop several times a day will never notice it. The gland that produces this liquid might be withering away in us, like our appendix, so it may not produce much of this liquid, and it might be nonfunctional in some people.

I don't notice this liquid until 12 or 18 hours after I poop, so people who poop every few hours would never notice it. It is most noticeable in the morning when I wake up. However, if a person has poop smeared around their butt, then as this liquid comes out, it will mix with that poop, creating a thick liquid. This could explain why so many men get brown streaks in their underwear, and why they don't notice the scented liquid.

Animals do not normally produce a pasty, messy poop. The reason is because the animals that produced messy poop would be at a disadvantage compared to the animals who were cleaner.

Evolution went one step further in order to help animals keep their butt clean. Specifically, our anus has been designed to be a retractable spout. Just before we start the process of pooping, the muscle around the anus push outward, creating a spout. It is easiest to see this with the large animals, such as horses and elephants. After the poop has exited, the muscles pull the spout back in, which leaves the rear of the animal fairly clean.

To understand why evolution designed our anus in this manner, look at your mouth. Our lips are similar to our anus, and the inside of our cheeks are similar to the inside of our intestines. Food does not stick to the inside of our cheeks. You might imagine that if you could look inside your intestines, it would look like a filthy sewer, with food sticking along the walls, but in reality, the walls of the intestine are clean. The food travels through our intestines without sticking to the walls. Food sticks only to our teeth and to the dry section of our lips.

The processed food does not stick to the wet, inside section of our anus. It sticks only to the outside, dry section. Therefore, in order to keep our butt clean, our anus pushes itself outward, creating a spout, so that the poop touches as little of the dry section as possible.

If everything is working as it should, our large intestine will process the pasty food into firm lumps, and the lumps will travel through the anus without touching the dry section, thereby leaving our butt amazingly clean.

If the large intestine also had a gland to produce a fragrant liquid, that liquid could serve as both a lubricant and as a fragrance, thereby allowing the poop to slide through even more cleanly and pick up our particular odor, which would be useful for animals that have a much better sense of smell, and are not disgusted by the smell of poop.

When our digestive system is malfunctioning, or when we are eating the wrong foods, the poop will be a paste rather than firm packages, and that will allow some of it to remain at the anus and be smeared along the outside. To make the situation worse, most people clean their butt with toilet paper, but that only removes large amounts poop from the outside of the anus.

In order to properly clean an anus, we have to force our anus to form a spout, and then clean it with water. Unfortunately, we don't have much control over those muscles, so it is not easy to clean our anus. Also, most people in modern societies don't have an easy way to clean their butt with water.

People who are producing pasty, messy poop ought to consider the possibility that they are doing something wrong, such as eating such excessive quantities of food that their digestive system cannot process it properly, or they are eating the wrong types or quantities of food.

For example, during prehistoric times, when people discovered asparagus, they would discover only a few shoots, and so each person would get only a few bites of asparagus. Today, however, we can produce enormous amounts of asparagus. There may be nothing wrong with eating large amounts of asparagus, but it has a detrimental effect on our poop, which is a sign that the human body did not evolve to consume large quantities of asparagus.

If we could figure out how different types of food affect our digestive system, we could design meals that digest with less irritation and gas, and which produce a cleaner poop. Of course, to complicate the issue, everybody has unique genetic characteristics.

There are so many problems in the world today, and so many people are lonely, miserable, and frustrated, that most people probably don't care about their digestive system, or that their butts are stinky and filthy. However, centuries from now, if people are living in clean and orderly cities that are free of crime, homelessness, and loneliness, I think people will start developing an interest in issues that we consider trivial, such as producing meals that digest better.

Mechanics realize that analyzing the exhaust gas of an engine can help them determine how well the engine is functioning, and if people could exert more self-control over their inhibitions about digestion and waste products, we could analyze our waste products to get an idea of how well our body is digesting food, and what sort of medical problems we might have.

There are some bodybuilders who give advice to people on how to build giant muscles, and one of the remarks some of them make is that a bodybuilder must eat a lot of food, especially meat. Actually, some recommend eating more than they want to eat. A few of them have made remarks that eating is a chore rather than a pleasure.

I would say that eating should be one of life's pleasures. Is it really necessary for bodybuilders to force themselves to eat?

Imagine if athletes were feeding themselves similar to how farmers feed geese to produce Foie gras. Imagine if some gyms built an array of feeding tubes so that the bodybuilders could shove a tube down their throat and have food pumped into their stomach, thereby sparing them the trouble of eating a large amount of food. Would that be extreme enough for you to agree with me that bodybuilders are another example of how men can get out of control with their cravings to win competitions?

I would say that people who are forcing themselves to eat are denying themselves one of life's primary pleasures. Some athletes might respond that they get more enjoyment from bodybuilding and athletics than from food, but their enjoyment is only because our current social environment is encouraging athletics with large financial rewards and status.

If they were living in a society that did not encourage such intense competitions, or did not offer athletics as a career, they would have some other job, and athletics would be a leisure activity. In that type of environment, they would be much less likely to be interested in forcing themselves to eat.

It is possible that some athletes have to eat excessive amounts of food because they are not digesting their food properly. There are several possible reasons as to why a person may not digest his food properly. I mentioned one earlier; namely, people are mixing drinks with food. Another problem that some people may have is that they don't chew certain foods thoroughly. We may not need to chew meat and certain types of fruit, but seeds evolved to pass through our digestive system. In order to digest seeds, such as almonds, sunflower seeds, and corn kernels, we have to chew them.

The whole-grain breads that have large chunks of wheat or other grains might look healthy, but it does not do us any good to eat whole grains. If a person does not chew the seeds properly, he will not extract much nutrition from them. Therefore, he will have to eat more food simply to provide himself with the nutrition he needs.

Some people may not be chewing their food properly because they have excessive saliva production, causing them to swallow before they have finished chewing. Other people may be so emotionally similar to animals in regards to eating that they have a tendency to eat at a rapid pace. People who drink at the same time they eat are also likely to swallow food before it has been chewed thoroughly.

Putting smaller amounts of food into our mouth, and chewing it more thoroughly, also has the advantage of allowing us to enjoy the taste for a longer period of time.

Another possible reason as to why some people are not digesting their food properly is because they may be eating meals that are too large for their digestive system to properly handle. Alligators and snakes can handle enormous meals, but did the human digestive system evolve for enormous meals?

I suspect that as we increase the amount of food in a meal, our digestive system becomes increasingly inefficient. Each of us will be able to handle different amounts of food. We produce different amounts of bile, for example, and different amounts of acid and pepsin.

When we eat a very large meal, we might be able to extract a lot of the nutrients that are easy to digest, such as sugar, but we might have trouble with some of the more complex nutrients. This imbalance could cause health problems.

There are millions of people who believe that they are eating properly, and they give us advice on a proper diet, but nobody thoroughly understands the human digestive system, so all of us are guessing. We need to do a lot more research into the issue of human health before anybody can make sensible statements about the role cholesterol plays in heart disease, or what type of diet would be the most healthy for us. Furthermore, each of us is genetically unique, and unless the researchers are capable of acknowledging that, their advice is not going to be of much value. Maintaining a database that has details of everybody's life and medical problems would help us to understand these issues.

How well do you digest food?
Each of us has a digestive system with unique characteristics and limitations. If we eat too much food, some of it will pass through undigested, but how much is "too much"? Our gallbladder provides us with bile to allow us to digest fat, but it can only produce so much. How much fat can we eat in one meal? How do people differ in their ability to digest fat? What happens when we eat more fat than we can digest?

How much protein is too much protein for one meal? Many people have bad reactions to the protein in wheat or milk. How many other proteins does the human race have trouble with? If there was a database with information about everybody, we could see which proteins cause the most trouble, and we could look at our relatives and ancestors to see which proteins are causing the most trouble for them. This would help us make guesses about whether we might have a problem with certain proteins.

If a computer were to keep track of the foods we eat, and if we were to analyze our blood, saliva, pee, and poop on a regular basis over a long period of time, each of us could get a better understanding of the characteristics of our particular digestive system. It would also help us to understand how people differ in their digestive system, and what differences there are between men and women, adults and children, and different races, and the elderly. We don't yet have the technology to do that, but the future generations may be able to do it.

Technology is giving us a lot of options that our prehistoric ancestors never had, such as the option of studying human health. However, some of these options require people to get control of their inhibitions, and allow scientists to collect data about us.

Are people who use toilet paper superior to people who use water?
I have heard Americans ridicule people who wash their butt with water or who have bigets. Since most Americans grew up using toilet paper, they assume that toilet paper is superior to water. However, in reality, the people who use water have much cleaner butts.

When Americans go swimming in pools, more poop gets into the water compared to people who clean their butt with water. Also, I would not be surprised if some people have such filthy butts that some of the poop passes through their clothing and onto the public furniture that they sit on.

It is conceivable that people in the future will get over their inhibitions of waste products to such an extent that they stop producing toilet paper, and develop an improved toilet that allows people to more easily clean their butt with water. They might find it disgusting for a person to go into a swimming pool with a filthy butt.

A lot of our enjoyment and suffering is self-inflicted
In my documents I've made such suggestions as sharing the chores in the city; putting pressure on the adults to get some exercise; requiring religion to be beliefs rather than an organization; and restricting voting to a small number of people. Some people would respond that my suggestions are cruel to some people.

The point I want to make in this section is that a lot of what we regard as "cruel" is what we want to regard as cruel. A simple example of this concept are the children who insist that they are suffering when their parents deny them a particular toy or candy bar. They are not truly suffering. They are suffering only because they have chosen to make themselves suffer. They have the option of choosing to ignore the issue, and they could also choose to be grateful that their parents have provided them with intelligent guidance.

There are certain situations that truly cause suffering to all humans, such as when the air temperature goes beyond a certain range, but many situations are miserable only if we want to interpret them as miserable, and they are enjoyable if we prefer to enjoy them.

For example, imagine if you were discussing the pizzagate issue during your lunch, and the police arrested you for spreading "fake news". Imagine spending the rest of your life in a prison. You would undoubtedly consider yourself to be "suffering" in that prison.

However, what is the difference between spending the rest of your life in prison, and voluntarily allowing SpaceX to send you to Mars? The people who go to Mars are going to live in a small, underground chamber, and they will have to produce their own food, which is going to result in a bland, monotonous diet. Occasionally the people on Mars would get so bored that they would put on spacesuits and wander outside into the sandstorms and radiation, but there would be nothing for them to do out there, and it would be very uncomfortable in spacesuits.

The prisoners in the modern nations have more comfortable life than the people who would be living on Mars, and the food in prisons is more desirable and has more variety than what the people on Mars would eat. Prisoners can also go out into the sunshine without pressurized suits, and they do not have to worry about getting sick from radiation. Some prisoners have windows that face outdoors, providing them with fresh air and sunshine. Nobody on Mars would have that wonderful feature. However, despite the unbelievably miserable, dangerous, monotonous, and unhealthy conditions on Mars, many people believe that they would love to live on Mars.

Mars would bw interesting only to the very small minority of people who truly enjoy exploring the universe. Furthermore, it would be exciting only for a few weeks or months, and then it would become dreary and monotonous. The rocks on Mars are not much different from those on the moon or earth. You can "enjoy" the rocks on Mars for only a certain amount of time before you become bored.

Why do so many people want to live on Mars when the living conditions would be more miserable than what people in a jail are experiencing? The reason is because they are creating exciting fantasies in their mind about what life on Mars would be like. They are creating animated movies inside their mind in which they visualize themselves having fun on Mars. They also visualize themselves becoming the center of attention for being the first people on Mars. Those fantasies are titillating their emotions, and the people make the mistake of assuming that the titillation they receive from those fantasies is proof that going to Mars will provide them with that same excitement.

A lot of what we enjoy, and what we assume we will enjoy, is due to our titillation of ourselves. Conversely, a lot of our suffering is self-inflicted as we fantasize about how we are suffering. Children, for example, often work themselves into a frenzy when their parents don't give them a toy they want. The children torment themselves by repeatedly reminding themselves of how they are suffering.
Adults torment themselves just like children do, but adults are more intelligent, so their self-inflicted misery is more complicated and more difficult to notice. For example, adults will torment themselves over not having enough freedom, or not having enough money, or not getting enough respect, or not being appreciated.

As I mentioned in this previous document, Jennifer Lawrence and many other women worked themselves into a state of hysteria over the thought that some men might be looking at photos of their naked bodies.

And in this document I pointed out that people are making themselves hysterical over the thought of people looking at their school records, work history, medical records, and other personal information.

Some of the fights between married couples are the result of one or both partners imagining that they are abused. For example, when a man sees his wife flirting with some other man, he might react by creating fantasies of how she is going to abandon him, or that she is having secret affairs, thereby tormenting himself over an incident he knows nothing about, and which may be meaningless.

A lot of the adults who are suffering in life are suffering only because they are making themselves suffer. They could be enjoying our spectacular planet, but instead they remind themselves repeatedly that they don't have enough money, or they must travel to Mars, or they must become famous, or that people are looking at their personal information.

The issue of "happiness" is confusing because we don't need anything in particular, but we need certain things in order to enjoy life. For example, we need certain amounts and qualities of food and water, and our body will be noticeably more comfortable when we have certain material items, such as a home that can protect us from the weather and insects, and shoes that can protect us from thorns.

However, we don't need any particular food, home, or shoe. We don't need to eat expensive caviar, drink expensive wine, have gigantic mansions, or wear shoes that are made from alligator skin. We want to decorate our homes with artwork, but we don't need a painting that costs $50 million. We want our clothing to be attractive and to fit properly, but we don't need clothing that contains gold fibers.

Some wealthy people are enjoying life, but they are making a mistake if they assume that their happiness is coming from their expensive houses, expensive cars, and their other expensive material items. If a wealthy person is enjoying his life, his happiness is coming from something other than his material items.

It is possible that some of the wealthy people, who are enjoying their life right now, would discover that they enjoy life even more if they were to get rid of some of their wealth and material items. The reason this is possible is because it would reduce the burden in their life for cleaning and maintaining the items.

The happiness that the wealthy people receive from material items is not "real" happiness; rather, it is the result of mental masturbation. If we could read their minds, we would find that they are frequently reminding themselves of how weathy they are, and that they are special, important people. It is that titillation that makes them feel good, not the material items.
When we have something that most people do not have, we can titillate ourselves by feeling special. This causes people to be attracted to expensive items. An example is artwork. If the price of a piece of artwork is very high, more people will describe the artwork as "beautiful" compared to the artwork that has a low price.

For example, the New York Times claims that the painting by Paul Gauguin, to the right, sold for almost $300 million. The people who purchase expensive paintings are convinced that they are receiving intense levels of pleasure as a result of owning them, but the pleasure that they receive from those paintings is not due to the artwork.

Although the sale of some artwork might be a method for criminals to pass money to one another without attracting the attention of the police, there are some people who truly get excited by expensive artwork, and simply because the artwork is expensive.

When we look at a painting, our eyes send some visual data to our brain, and our brain decodes it. If we could follow the path the data takes as it is processed by our brain, we would find that some artwork decodes in such a manner that it directly triggers emotional feelings of pleasure. For example, photos of babies will directly titillate women, and photos of pretty teenage girls will directly titillate men.

However, we would find that the data takes a different path when we decode the expensive artwork. Instead of directly triggering pleasurable emotions, we would discover that the data triggers a lot of images of wealthy people who are dressed in expensive clothing and who are high in the social hierarchy. The artwork also decodes into images of mansions, limousines, and private jets. It is those images of wealth and status that titillate our emotions, not the artwork.

The wealthy people who own expensive paintings imagine that they are important people, and that we admire them, and that we are envious of them. In reality, some of us are not envious of them, or admiring them. Rather, we regard them as fools who will hang anything on their wall if it has a high price tag.

The same is true with diamonds. We have a strong craving for diamonds, but not because diamonds actually provide us with a better life. Rather, diamonds decode into images that titillate us, such as images of wealth, and a woman is likely to decode a diamond into images that a man loves her. We are attracted to the images that the diamonds decode into, but we make the mistake of assuming that it is the diamond that we are attracted to.

There are some things that truly do have qualities that can improve our lives. For example, humans do not enjoy loud noises or vibration, and as a result, the cars, trains, and airplanes that are smoother and quieter will make our lives more comfortable. Therefore, a person who has a higher quality car will have a more pleasant life compared to a person who has to drive a car that is noisy and vibrating.

However, a car that has gold plated components will not improve our lives. A person who has a goldplated car might believe that the gold plating is making his life better, but whatever pleasure he receives from the gold plating is coming from his mental masturbation of how the gold makes him a special person.

The same concept applies to homes. We will have a more comfortable life when we live in a home that protects us from the weather, insects, and other animals, and which reduces the level of noise coming from the outside. Therefore, a person with a high quality home is going to have a more comfortable life than a person who has a low-quality shack. However, we are not going to increase our happiness simply by hanging a $300 million painting on the wall, or by increasing the size of our house.

The products that we describe as "status symbols" have no value to us, and should be described as "a waste of resources". People are titillated by status symbols only because they are jerking themselves off with fantasies of how they are important people for having such items. A society should not produce status symbols because, in addition to wasting resources and labor, it encourages people to behave in an idiotic manner.

All nations are wasting a lot of their labor and resources on useless material items for wealthy people that titillate us but do not provide us any real benefit, such as excessively large houses and diamond jewelry, and on projects of no value, such as sending people to Mars. We need to exert more self control when we make decisions about which products and services to offer.

Adoption could be wonderful
Most, perhaps all, of the children who are offered for adoption are the children of retards, idiots, drug addicts, lunatics, and other low-quality people. The parents want secrecy because they are ashamed of themselves. Most of the adopted children will grow up to be low-quality adults simply because they are the product of low-quality parents.

If a nation were to restrict reproduction, many people would be prohibited from reproducing, and others would be restricted to one or two children. If a nation were to also euthanize defective children, there would be no unwanted, homeless, or retarded children. There would be no need for orphanages, and there would be no children for adoption.

When a society restricts reproduction, the couples who are authorized to reproduce need to produce enough children for the next generation, which might be more children than they want to raise by themselves. This will not be a problem if people can learn to treat adoption as an acceptable activity.

We need to change our attitudes towards adoption so that we can transform it from a secretive activity that people are ashamed of, to an acceptable activity that people can be proud of. We need to encourage the higher-quality people to have children simply for the purpose of providing them for adoption. The adopted children should know who their biological parents are, and there should be no shame in being adopted.

However, animals have emotions that resist this type of policy. First of all, parents have a resistance to giving their children away, and second, parents have a resistance to raising other people's children. In order for this policy to work, people need to exert some self-control.

We will make this policy more desirable and successful when we switch to the economic system I suggest, in which everybody is provided with the basic necessities for free, including the children. In that type of economic system, the adopted children will not be a financial burden on the parents.

We have a natural resistance to raising somebody else's child, but whether we enjoy or hate adoption depends upon our attitude. If we want to enjoy adoption, then we will enjoy it. If we want to hate the concept of raising somebody else's child, then we make ourselves miserable over the issue.

Actually, we could say that almost everybody in the world is already enjoying some variation of adoption. For example, a lot of people have a pet animal, and we could describe that as the adoption of a child from parents of a different species. There are also some people who are taking care of plants, sometimes inside their home, and sometimes outside in their yard. This could be described as adopting the children of plants.

If the only pets that were available to us were from retarded, mentally ill, drug addicted, and violent animals, then not many people would want a pet, and the people who offered pets would want to keep the ancestry of the animals a secret from potential customers. Adopting a pet would be as secretive and shameful as adopting a human child is today.

The reason millions of people are willing to adopt pets is because most people who offer pets are controlling reproduction so that they can offer healthy animals, and they allow customers to know the ancestry of the animals. We could implement the same policy with humans.

We could make the adoption of human children as pleasant and honest as the adoption of pets. The adopted children would not be ashamed of their parents, or the reason that they were put up for adoption.

Whether we enjoy adoption and restrictions on reproduction depend on how we design the policies, and on whether we want to enjoy them. There will be people who insist that restrictions on reproduction are making them miserable, and that we are denying them their freedom and rights, but we should not feel guilty. They are making themselves miserable by repeatedly reminding themselves that they are miserable. We are not cruel when we restrict reproduction. Rather, we are showing a concern for the health and happiness of the next generation.

People are different, not equal
Each of us has a craving to be at the top of the social hierarchy. We want to be important and admired. We want to believe that we are among the most talented, intelligent, educated, and best looking.

A democracy appeals to our emotions because it allows each of us to feel important, educated, and intelligent. Each of us can imagine that our opinions about voting, schools, drugs, abortion, and religion are as brilliant as everybody else's. A democracy allows us to believe that our opinions are different but equal.

The philosophy of a democracy is partially correct. In regards to our tastes in food, artwork, and recreation, everybody's opinions truly are different but equal. Nobody can claim that his particular preference for food, music, or recreational activities is better than somebody else's. Although it is possible for a person to show evidence that his choice of food is healthier than somebody else's diet, it is senseless for somebody to claim that the food that he prefers has a better flavor than the food that other people enjoy. We are equal in regards to what we enjoy as art, music, food, and recreational activities.

A democracy would be a valid concept if everybody had identical brains and educations. This was almost possible during prehistoric times. In a tribe of perhaps 10 adults, all of whom are closely related to one another, there would not have been much of a difference in the intellectual and emotional qualities of the people, and all of them were equally ignorant. At that time, a democracy would have been somewhat practical because everybody in that tiny tribe would have been very similar to one another.

In this modern world, however, there is a significant difference in the intellectual and emotional qualities of the people, and their education. It no longer makes sense for us to say that our opinions are equal.

For example, our prehistoric ancestors were equally ignorant about rainbows, and as a result, their opinions about rainbows were different but equal. During the past few thousand years, however, the human race has acquired a lot of information about rainbows, math, engineering, chemistry, farming, carpentry, and dentistry. Our opinions on these issues are no longer equal because we can now prove that some people truly do know more about rainbows, and some people's brains are better at producing intelligent analyses.

There are still a lot of issues that we are ignorant about, so everybody's opinion on those issues is different but equal. For example, we still know nothing about how the universe came into existence, and as a result, everybody's opinion on this issue is different but equal; actually, different but equally stupid. Nobody has an opinion on this issue that makes sense. Everybody's theory fails to explain what was here before the universe was created, and how that empty area came into existence, and whether universe has a boundary, and if so, what is on the other side of the boundary.

Thousands of years ago the people knew so little about governments, schools, economic systems, marriage, crime, language, holiday celebrations, and recreational activities that everybody could be described as having different but equal opinions on those issues. We are still ignorant about these issues, but we are now capable of showing that some people can do a better job of analyzing information and producing intelligent thoughts about governments, schools, crime, and drugs. We can now point out that some people's opinions on these issues are showing signs of faulty reasoning, incorrect science, or emotional bias. It no longer makes sense to claim that everybody's opinion on the social issues is different but equal.

For an example of how we can show that some people's brains are not capable of producing intelligent thoughts about social issues, either because they lack the intellectual ability, or because emotions are influencing the results of their thinking, there are people who insist that we can stop people from using marijuana by punishing drug dealers. These people are promoting a theory that has a 100% failure rate, and so we can conclude that they are not thinking properly.

When one of our brilliant ideas fails repeatedly, we are foolish to continue repeating it. We need to analyze why it is failing and experiment with changes. The people who cannot understand this concept should be disqualified from a leadership position on the grounds that they don't have the intellectual qualities necessary to provide us with leadership.

To complicate the issue of who is qualified for leadership position, some people have the intelligence necessary to be leaders, but are emotionally unfit. For example, some people have such a strong craving to follow their ancestors and such a fear of the unknown that they do not have the courage to experiment with improvements to society. Even though they may be very intelligent, they will be ineffective at solving our problems simply because they will try to retain the culture of their ancestors, thereby resisting experiments to improve their situation.

People are not equal to one another. We are similar to one another because we all have the same basic features, but we are not identical. We have subtle differences in our physical abilities, emotions, and intellectual abilities. The differences between us cause some people to be unacceptable for leadership positions.

Genetics is more important than an organization's structure
In the previous document of this series, I pointed out that the genetic characteristics of the members of an organization are more important to the organization than information. This concept applies to nations, also. The genetic qualities of the people in a nation are more important than the structure of their government, schools, farms, economic system, and other culture.

For an extreme example, if we created a new nation and filled it exclusively with idiots and mentally retarded people, it would not make any difference what type of government system, school system, economic system, or holiday celebrations we provided those people. They would be unable to function as a team and operate their nation regardless of how we designed the social systems.

All nations today are promoting the opposite attitude; namely, that the design of our government, economic system, schools, and other systems are important, and that the genetic qualities of the people are irrelevant. There is no concern yet in any nation about the genetic qualities of the people, their children, or the immigrants. We don't care if other nations are sending us criminals, retards, or mentally ill freaks.

Every nation also promotes the attitude that anybody can become an effective government leader, business leader, journalist, athlete, carpenter, and doctor. Children are taught that they can do whatever they want if they put a lot of effort into the task.

We are attracted to the philosophy that we can do whatever we please if we try hard because it makes us feel good. We are arrogant and competitive, so when we see somebody accomplish something, we like to think that we can do it, also, if we want to put the effort into training and practice.

In reality, no matter how much training and effort we put into a task, some people will be better than others. We are not equal. We cannot do what we see other people do simply by "trying hard". That is just a lie that we tell ourselves because we are such arrogant creatures.

It is true that if a child practices gymnastics, dentistry, and carpentry, he will improve his performance, and that the more effort he puts into training and practice, the better he will become. However, if everybody put a lot of time into training for a particular activity, and received excellent instructions from a qualified teacher, everybody's performance would improve, but even with the same level of practice and instructions, most of the population would continue to be "average" in that activity, and half the population would be "below-average".

The significance of this concept is that if we want doctors to be above-average in their ability, we must acknowledge that the genetic differences between us are going to give us different abilities as a doctor, so we need to put the potential doctors through training programs and tests and pass judgment on which of them is showing excellent abilities. We cannot follow the philosophy that we can take a person at random, put them into a medical training program, and end up with an excellent doctor.

Most people are willing to acknowledge that the genetic differences between us are causing some people to become better athletes, but there are not as many people willing to believe that the genetic differences between us are causing some people to become better doctors, pilots, carpenters, and machinists. There are even fewer people willing to believe that the genetic differences between us are causing some people to become better government officials, voters, and parents. Most people want to believe that everybody is equal as a government official, voter, and parent.

A parent is analogous to a government official, but he is a leader of a very tiny group, namely his family. We are not equal as parents. Some people are superior parents.

An easy way to see that some parents are inferior is to watch the television programs that show families that are receiving financial aid from the government. Even though the government is giving them money every month, they complain incessantly that they don't have enough to survive. However, the reason they don't have enough money is because they are making stupid decisions on how to spend money.

For example, some of them spend money on pets, tattoos, jewelry, television, video games, and other unnecessary items. Their choices for food are idiotic, also. They often buy candy, ice cream, and a lot of nutritionally unbalanced food products, such as processed white flour in the form of bread and pasta.

All throughout history people have experienced poverty as a result of economic problems, wars, disease, hurricanes, and other problems. However, different people react to poverty in a different manner. The people with the higher quality minds react by refraining from purchasing unnecessary items, such as jewerly, and doing more work for themselves, such as cooking a chicken rather than purchasing processed meat.

After months or years, many of the poor people find a job or start a business, and they resume their normal life. Other people, however, cannot get out of poverty, and the reason is because they have inferior minds that make idiotic decisions.

The people who have the most trouble getting out of poverty are those who waste money on gambling, alcohol, drugs, or high-interest loans. Some people decide to commit crimes to supplement their income, which often results in them going to jail, causing even more financial troubles to them and their family.

Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for the "poor people", especially their children, but those people are genetically inferior to the rest of us, and their children are inheriting inferior qualities.

We are not equal to one another as parents, government leaders, voters, carpenters, machinists, or farmers. During prehistoric times, nature took care of this issue by causing the inferior people to suffer. We don't like suffering, so we help the inferior people. It is acceptable to help those people, but it is not acceptable to let them reproduce.

Our nations are full of apathetic, dishonest, and irresponsible people, and millions of people are whining about poverty, discrimination, sexism, or anti-Semitism. There are people who are littering, abandoning unwanted pet animals in the city streets, and joining crime networks.

These problems are not going to be eliminated simply by giving money to the poor people, or giving counseling to the married couples who are fighting, or punishing the people who are committing crimes.

Imagine if a god were to appear tomorrow and replace all of our cities with new and beautiful cities. And imagine if he were to create some new continents in the Pacific Ocean and fill them with new and beautiful cities, thereby allowing people to move to those new cities, thereby eliminating the problem of overcrowding and traffic congestion. The world would become a beautiful place, but would that eliminate all of our social problems?

No, and the reason is because the majority of people would begin destroying the beauty as soon as it was created. Some people would spray graffiti on the walls, and some people would litter, and some people would set forests on fire. People would continue reproducing excessively, eventually causing overcrowding and traffic congestion. The beautiful world would soon become just as filthy and overcrowded as it is right now, and there would be just as much crime, marital fights, homeless people, unwanted children, and government corruption.

The reason I can state this with certainty is because it has already happened, and more than once. Thousands of years ago every tribe of humans had an incredibly beautiful section of the planet for themselves. Every society had plenty of land, clean water, and beautiful scenery.

Every nation started their existence with a beautiful piece of the earth, but every nation has allowed their section of the earth to become ugly, overcrowded, full of litter, and polluted.

All of the problems that an organization experiences, regardless of whether the organization is a business, orchestra, military, or nation, are due to the behavior of the people in the organization.

The nations that are experiencing a lot of hunger, crime, pollution, and corruption believe that they will solve their problems by getting access to more fishing grounds, by terracing more mountains into farms, by stealing technology from the more advanced nations, by finding more sources of oil, and by acquiring more gold. However, none of those things are going to solve their problems because their problems are due to the behavior of the people, not because they have a shortage of fishing grounds, farms, or technology.

Many Americans believe that they can improve their nation by electing more liberal or conservative government officials; by purchasing more guns; by bringing prayer back to the public schools. However, none of those policies are going to improve America because our problems are due to the behavior of the American people, and none of those "solutions" are going to improve the behavior of the people.

The problems that every organization experiences are due to decisions that the people have made. We can improve the behavior of people by providing them with a better education, a better government system, and other social technology, but changing the environment can bring only limited improvements to human behavior. The most significant aspect of a nation is the genetic qualities of the people.

The nations that have a higher percentage of apathetic, sloppy, violent, selfish, dishonest savages will always have more crime, corruption, litter, and chaos no matter which era they live in, and no matter how much land they have, and no matter how good their government and economic system is.

The nations that have genetically superior people will be more pleasant, orderly, and efficient even if they have less material wealth, a more unsuitable climate, and fewer natural resources.

A nation can improve the behavior of the people by improving its educational system and social technology, but those type of improvements have limits that are based on the genetic qualities of the people. Therefore, to bring significant improvements to a nation, the nation must get control of reproduction and start improving the genetic qualities of its people.

Until we start facing the evidence that human behavior is due to our genetic design, and that some people have a genetically inferior mind, and until we start pushing ourselves into controlling reproduction and experimenting with new culture, nothing is going to improve.

We must be willing to get off the path that we are on and try something different. We need to find people for leadership positions who have the courage to experiment with their future.

If we select appropriate people for the government, then they will devote their time to looking for ways to improve society. We do not have to worry about making mistakes because if we have appropriate leaders, when we discover that we are making a mistake, they will simply react to it by making changes. Through the years of trial and error they will find ways of improving life for us.

Our social sciences are worthless
Recently two economic professors analyzed marriages, and they noticed that the couples that spent the most money on engagement rings and wedding ceremonies had the most unsuccessful marriages. Those couples were more likely to get divorced, and they got divorced sooner than the couples that spent less money on rings and ceremonies.

There have been analyses of elderly people which have discovered that the elderly people who exercised the most often tended to be in the best health and live the longest.

After reading those type of reports, a person might come to the conclusion that if he reduces the money he spends on his wedding, he will have a more successful marriage, and if he forces himself to exercise when he becomes elderly, he will live longer. However, these assumptions are incorrect because they assume that all people are identical to one another, when in reality there are genetic differences in our mental and physical qualities. When comparing people to one another, we have to take into account the genetic differences between us.

For example, if we were to study a group of elderly people, we would discover that those who are the most physically inactive need wheelchairs sooner than those who get regular exercise. This could lead us to the conclusion:
The elderly people who do not get much exercise become confined to wheelchairs at an earlier age.
While exercise undoubtedly helps us maintain our health, it would be more accurate to conclude:
The elderly people who get the most exercise are those who are in the best health.
Or, we could state it like this:
When an elderly person reduces his level of physical activities to the point at which he is rarely walking, it is a sign that his health has deteriorated so much that he will soon be confined to a wheelchair.
The difference is subtle but important. Consider a more extreme example to understand this. I don't know what we would discover if we analyzed the women who were not sure who the father of their child is, but what would you think if a scientist announced:
In a study of women who were unsure of the father of their child, 82% had the vocabulary of a 10 year old child. Therefore, to ensure that your daughter knows the father of her child, encourage her to learn a larger vocabulary.
It would make more sense to conclude:
The women who are so mentally inferior that they have a vocabulary of a 10 year old child are the most likely to get pregnant without knowing who the father is.
Now apply that concept to the analysis of engagement rings and weddings. Instead of making the claim that a couple is more likely to get a divorce if they spend a lot of money on rings and weddings, it would make more sense to say:
One of the symptoms of couples who have low self-control is that they tend to spend a significant amount of their money on wedding rings and ceremonies. Their inability to make intelligent decisions will make it difficult for them to cope with the problems of marriage, thereby resulting in more arguments, idiotic behavior, and divorces.
The same concept applies to elderly people who exercise on a regular basis. They are not necessarily in good health because they are exercising. Rather, they may be exercising because they are in good health. The difference is subtle but important.

For example, as I wrote here, in 2011, my body had become so skinny and weak that I assumed I was dying from old-age earlier than is typical. If psychologists had done a study of people my age, they would have noticed that I was not getting any exercise, and that I was extremely weak, and that I was getting cold on warm days. They might have created a report that concluded:
In a study of men who are 50 to 60 years old, the men who get the least amount of exercise were found to be the most physically weak, skinny, and the most sensitive to cold temperatures.
That type of conclusion would have been absurd. A more sensible conclusion would have been:
In a study of men who are 50 to 60 years old, those who were getting the least exercise were discovered to have the most serious medical disorders, such as low thyroid hormones, autoimmune diseases, arthritis, or defective livers.
This concept also applies to children. As I mentioned in this document, when I was in 8th grade, I was surprised that I was running slower than I did during 7th grade, and during 9th grade I could not run more than a few hundred meters. If psychologists had done a study of teenagers, they would have produced an idiotic conclusion like this:
A recent study of teenagers shows that those that do the least amount of running become slower every year, eventually becoming unable to run more than a few hundred meters.
A more sensible conclusion would have been:
A recent study of teenagers shows that their physical abilities should improve each year. If a teenager's physical abilities degrade each year, he should be examined to determine if he has a medical disorder that is preventing his body from developing properly, or to find out if he is doing something to hurt his health, such as following an improper diet or abusing drugs.
This concept might seem simple, but most of the population has trouble accepting it. For example, most people want to believe that children abuse drugs, such as alcohol or cocaine, because drug dealers are selling drugs. They do not want to face the possibility that their children have genetic disorders that are causing them to enjoy the effect of the drug.

I think people resist this concept because they don't want to believe that we are whatever our DNA designed us to be. We prefer to believe that a human is like a piece of clay that can be molded into whatever we want to be. We prefer the concept that we can fix our health problems and live a longer life simply by eating a particular food, or by following a particular exercise program, or with acupuncture. We like to think that we can solve drug problems simply by getting rid of the drug dealers. We like to think that our mental problems can be solved with a few therapy sessions, or by watching some motivational videos.

If we accept the evidence that we are whatever our DNA designed us to be, we have to accept the possibility that we have genetic flaws, and that our medical technology is too crude to help us. In order to accept genetics, we must be able to look critically at ourselves, and we must be willing to admit that we have flaws and limitations with our genetic design. Unfortunately, a lot of people have a resistance to facing the possibility that they are defective.

My father for example, discovered that he stopped getting headaches when he avoided dairy products, but that did not fix all of his problems. He still did not feel quite right. He wanted to believe that whatever else was causing him irritability would also be easily cured with some change in diet or nutritional supplement. He did not want to consider the possibility that some of his problems were due to a genetically defective mind or body, and that our medical technology cannot fix the problem.

He even had this attitude with his ankle. When he was a teenager, there was a time when he stepped on a large pebble and his ankle twisted. Although his joints never caused him any trouble, that ankle always felt a bit weaker than the other ankle, and it would want to twist in certain circumstances. Once he became elderly, that ankle would sometimes feel sore.

He believed that the reason his ankle would try to twist was because he had damaged it when he stepped on that pebble. I told him that his ankle was probably defective to begin with, and that the reason it twisted when he stepped on that pebble was because it was defective. He did not want to consider the possibility that his ankle was defective. He wanted to think that the pebble caused his ankle to become damaged. If he considered his ankle to be genetically defective, then there is no cure, but if his ankle was was damaged by an accident, then there is the possibility that it will eventually heal itself.

Humans were not designed to be defective. We were designed to think of ourselves as better than other people. We were designed to think that we are perfect, talented, and capable of doing anything we please. During prehistoric times, the competition for life eliminated the people who had defective ankles, defective stomachs, and defective thyroid glands. There was no reason for prehistoric people to face the possibility that they were defective.

Wild animals are in good health, despite the fact that they are always low on food, frequently suffering from a lack of sleep, and subjected to tremendous amounts of abuse by bacteria, viruses, and parasites. If domesticated animals had to endure the brutal conditions that wild animals are surviving, most of them would quickly die.

Likewise, if most of us were transported back in time 50,000 years, most of us would die within a few months, especially if we had to live in the cold areas of northern Europe or Asia.

Humans and domesticated animals have become defective, sickly creatures who have trouble coping with what our ancestors would consider to be insignificant problems, such as an uncomfortable bed, a lack of sleep, and cold weather. And the situation is getting worse, not better. Every generation is more defective than the one before it. If we continue on this path, eventually everybody will have trouble sleeping, and everybody will have so much trouble coping with cold and hot temperatures that people will need to wear a battery-powered suit that can maintain a particular temperature for them.

The beauty of life comes from death and suffering
The flowers, birds, plants, and animals are beautiful, and they have amazing talents, such as the birds that can fly, the beavers that can cut down trees with their teeth, and the dogs that can smell incredibly faint odors.

Religious people believe that the beauty of the earth, and the talents of the living creatures, is proof that we are creations of a wonderful, loving God. In reality, the beauty and talent is proof of how cruel and vicious the battle for life is.

In order for an animal or flower to become beautiful, the uglier animals and flowers must not reproduce as often. In order for a creature to be healthy, the creatures that are less healthy must not reproduce as often. In order for an animal to develop good eyesight, the animals with the inferior eyesight have to reproduce less often.

Since animals and plants cannot make intelligent decisions about which of them should reproduce, the determination is made by putting them into competition for life and mates. This battle creates a tremendous amount of death and suffering. The majority of animals and plants must suffer from an early death, and many of them also suffer from loneliness, rejection, and bullying.

An enormous percentage of creatures die of starvation, accidents, or disease before they become adults, but those deaths are not random. The sickly and defective creatures die at a higher rate than those with superior genetic qualities.

Furthermore, animals eat one another, but they do not eat one another at random. Spiders, for example, do not catch bugs at random. They tend to catch the sickly, defective, and elderly bugs. Likewise, cats do not catch mice at random. They tend to catch the sickly, defective, and elderly mice.

The battle for life favors the creatures that have the best genetic qualities and health. This is why it is so rare to find an elderly or sickly animal. Only our pets become sickly and elderly.

The same concept applies to people. During prehistoric times, a lot of children died before they became adults; some women died during childbirth, or shortly afterwards; and some men died in fights with predators or neighboring tribes. However, these deaths were not random. The people who were the most sickly, defective, and elderly tended to die more than those with higher-quality genetic characteristics.

The reason we have high-resolution color vision is because millions of our ancestors who had inferior eyesight did not successfully reproduce, usually because they or their children suffered an early death. Our ancestors who had inferior eyesight had a greater chance of dying during fights with predators and neighboring tribes, and they were more likely to injure themselves because they were less likely to notice that they were about to step on a thorn. They also suffered from hunger and malnutrition more often because they would be less likely to notice a wild pig in the bushes, or fruit hanging on a tree limb.

The impressive characteristics of living creatures is proof that evolution is extremely cruel, and that a lot of creatures suffered a lot of pain and loneliness in order to allow these characteristics to develop.

Although humans are now interfering with our evolution, it is still going on. Millions of people today are suffering because of their inferior characteristics. For example, there are lots of people who have so much trouble with school and jobs, or following laws and schedules, that they become unemployed, homeless, or criminals. Some of them die at a young age as a result of their inferior characteristics, and those who survive have a miserable life and don't reproduce as often as the people with superior genetic qualities.

There are also lots of people who are ugly or deformed, and they tend to suffer from bullying, loneliness, and rejection, just like such people did thousands of years ago.

The people who are suffering are not suffering because they are evil. They are humans, very similar to you and I, and most of their genetic qualities are wonderful. However, there have a few inferior genetic qualities that cause them to become misfits.

We now have the technology and knowledge to take control of the cruel and brutal process of evolution and eliminate most of our suffering, but doing so requires us to follow policies that are intellectually sensible but emotionally unpleasant.

Specifically, by restricting reproduction to the healthier people, every generation will become increasingly healthy, sociable, intelligent, responsible, talented, and honest. And by euthanizing the defective babies, we will spare the inferior people from a life of loneliness, unemployment, misery, bullying, homelessness, and rejection, and we will spare society from the misery that they cause us.

Our technology has given us the option of creating an increasingly wonderful world for ourselves. However, that option is emotionally unpleasant, so it requires we have the ability to do what is intellectually sensible rather than what our emotions want to do. If we refuse to take that option, the human race will slowly lose the wonderful qualities that required trillions of deaths over billions of years.

Why do we dream?
We like to believe that the human mind is incredible, but it is just a monkey brain, and it is has flaws and limitations. Evolution gave us what we needed to survive, but it is not what we would like to have. We still have a lot of crude, animal qualities, and all of us would benefit tremendously from more intelligence and self control.

I think the issue of dreaming can help us to understand just how crude our mind is, and it may help us understand how our mind thinks. Although some people believe that dreams can predict the future, or that dreams are some type of housekeeping operation that our mind performs while we sleep, I don't think there is anything important about dreams. However, I think dreams can be used as a diagnostic tool to help us understand how the human mind thinks, and it can also help people to understand their own lives. I'll give some examples in the following sections. First I will mention two of my recent dreams.

In one recent dream, I was driving down the street near my home, but I was not sitting in my car seat because there was no car seat. Imagine if you were to cut a car into two pieces so that the front section has the engine and dashboard, like the automobile in the photo below, although in my dream my automobile had a windshield.

The car was initially at a stoplight, so I was standing on the street and holding onto the steering wheel with both hands. When the light turned green the car somehow began accelerating with the other cars. I had to walk behind my car to keep up with it, and it increased its speed, I was soon running to keep up with it. Eventually the car was going so fast that I had to lift my legs up and hold onto the steering wheel in the same manner as the girl in the green shirt is holding onto the shopping cart in the photo above.

As I was driving down the street in this car, with my feet dangling above the ground, I suddenly became fearful that if I were to get into an accident, I would go flying through the windshield because I was not wearing a seatbelt. Also, a policeman might give me a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. I then thought to myself, "Don't I normally wear a seatbelt when I drive?" Then I realized that there is no seatbelt in my car, and there is no way to attach a seatbelt because there were no seats, and so I came to the conclusion that I must be one of the people who does not wear a seatbelt. I then relaxed and continued driving down the street, and then I woke up.

I was so surprised at how ridiculous the dream was that I spent some time thinking about it, which caused me to remember it.

About two weeks later I woke up remembering another dream, but this time it was a more realistic dream. I dreamed about being somewhere in a city where buildings were close together, and there were lots of people casually walking around and looking at the displays that the people in the buildings had provided, as if it was some type of city festival. I remember only one of the buildings. Inside was a man who had dozens, maybe hundreds, of black, plastic containers of blooming roses. He was kneeling besides his roses and smiling, obviously proud of his roses.

I was under the impression that the building was also his home, and that growing roses was his hobby, but he had so many roses in the building that it would have been difficult to live in it, so I walked over to him and told him that he needs either a larger building or he needs to get rid of some of his roses. He did not say anything to me; he just continued kneeling by his roses and smiling, and I then woke up.

One reason I wanted to mention this particular dream is to remind you of another issue I mentioned years ago here; namely, the human mind is so poorly designed that it is possible for us to get our dreams mixed up with memories of real life.

I mentioned that as I was waking up one morning, I heard my grandmother and other family members talking in the kitchen. After getting out of bed and going into the kitchen to see them, I discovered that everybody was still asleep, and my grandparents were not in the house. I came to the conclusion that I was dreaming, but if I had dreamed something that was possible, such as that my grandparents went home after eating breakfast, and that everybody else had gone back to sleep, then when I woke up I would have continued to believe that my grandparents had visited us that morning, had breakfast with everybody except me, and then went back home.

My grandparents lived about six hours away, so it would have been senseless for them to drive to our house only for breakfast. If I had asked my family members why our grandparents visited us that morning and then went home after breakfast, they might have thought I was suffering from a mental disorder. If I told them that I heard all of them in the kitchen, they might have worried that I was hallucinating.

Ever since that particular dream, I have been aware of the possibility that I can get dreams mixed up with reality, so I have been watching out for that possibility. However, if I had been unaware of this issue, I might have retained some of those memories of the roses in black pots, and after a few months or years, I might have forgotten that they were from a dream. In such a case, if I were to encounter a nursery or festival in which there was a similar display of roses in black pots, the images of those roses might trigger memories from my dream, creating what some people describe as feelings of deja vu.

I might have assumed that I had seen the display at some earlier time. If there was a man in the area responsible for the display, I might even mention to him, "I met you once before, and I told you that you need a larger building or fewer roses." He would not remember that incident, of course.

Or, if I realized that my memories of the roses were from a dream, and if I was also suffering from certain types of mental disorders, then I might believe that I had the ability to predict the future.

The fact that I sometimes remember bits of dreams, and that I don't always realize that they are dreams, should cause us to wonder about such issues as:
• How often do bits of our dreams get mixed into memories of real life, thereby causing us to mistake our dreams with reality?
• All throughout history we find people claiming to feel deja vu, or to have memories of a previous life, or to be able to predict the future, or to have had contact with ghosts or gods. How many of those people were getting dreams mixed up with reality, and how many are simply mentally ill?
• How do we distinguish between a person who is "mentally ill" and a person who is getting his dreams mixed up with reality?
I suppose some people will boast that they never get dreams mixed up with reality, but how can anybody be confident about that? If you are capable of occasionally remembering bits of your dreams, you should consider the possibility that you occasionally get some of those dreams mixed up with reality.

It seems as if everybody occasionally remembers dreams, so this should be considered as a characteristic of the human brain rather than as some type of anomaly that occurs to only a few of us. When we discover that a particular characteristic is common in a particular species, and when that characteristic spans different time periods and environments, we should assume that the characteristic is due to the design of the creature rather than the environment.

Therefore, it would be foolish for a person to assume that he does not get bits of dreams mixed into his memories. If we could connect a computer to everybody's brain and analyze their memories, I suspect that we would find that everybody has a few bits of dreams mixed into their memories. We would end up with a bell curve in which some people have only had few bits of dreams mixed up with their memory, and at the other extreme are the people who have lots of dreams mixed into their memory.

This issue is significant to us in a lot of ways, such as the investigations of crimes. For example, as I mentioned years ago here, the magician James Randi is a member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, which is an organization that tries to convince us that the children who complain about sexual abuse often have "false memories".

It is certainly possible that some children occasionally get dreams of sexual abuse mixed up with reality, but we should investigate a child's complaints about sexual abuse rather than assume that the child has false memories simply because some psychologist or magician claims that they are false. We should also consider that the adults who advocate that we disregard accusations of sexual abuse as false memories are actually trying to cover up their crimes.

If a child's dreams about sexual abuse are like my dreams, they will be vague, unrealistic, and lacking in important details. It should be possible for us to separate the dreams from the real sexual abuse if we do not allow dishonest investigators to confuse the children. A child who has truly experienced sexual abuse will have a lot of details that dreams are not likely to have. This is assuming, of course, that the child has not been given drugs to alter his ability to remember the incident.

Furthermore, when many children have very similar complaints about sexual abuse, such as they did in the McMartin preschool case, that would be evidence that the abuse really happened. If the children were merely dreaming about the abuse, each of them should have had unique dreams.

The WikiLeaks emails provide more evidence that there really is an international network of pedophiles, and that a lot of their members are in our government, law enforcement agencies, media, schools, military, children's hospitals, and other organizations.

These types of problems are another reason for why we need to end secrecy. If there was surveillance of the entire planet, we would be able to figure out which rapes and sexual abuse are real crimes, and which are lies or dreams.

Having access to surveillance data would also help each of us get a better understanding of our own mind because it would enable us to look back in time to verify that our memories of a previous incident are accurate. If we could look at video of our lives, each of us would undoubtedly discover that some of our memories are inaccurate, and some of us would discover that some of our memories are of events that never occurred, which would be a sign that we either remembered a dream, or that our memory is not recording data accurately.

Where do dreams come from?
Some people believe that dreams are serving some useful purpose, as if dreaming is some type of maintenance operation that occurs during the night. However, I don't think our brain was designed to dream. The reason is because evolution gives a creature only the features that it needs to survive and reproduce. The only way dreaming would be a deliberate design of our brain is if our ancestors who were the best at dreaming had a competitive advantage over those who were not so talented at dreaming.

I doubt that an animal or a prehistoric human who had a better dreaming ability would have had a survival advantage over the other animals or humans. Therefore, I suspect that dreaming is better described as a "flaw" of our brain. Specifically, when we go to sleep, the part of our brain that we call our "consciousness" becomes inactive, but other parts of the brain remain active in order to keep our body alive. However, with our conscious brain in active, the other parts are functioning but without any supervision.

I have the impression that the part of our brain we call our "consciousness" is a particular section of the brain that supervises an independent and different section that we could describe as our "processing unit". When we are awake, our conscious section determines what data to send to the processing unit, and it analyzes the results to determine which conclusions to keep and which to discard. Our conscious section behaves like a quality control department.

When we are sleeping, our conscious section becomes inactive, but the processing unit continues to operate. However, the processing unit will not have any supervision, so it processes whatever data is easily accessible, which may be the information that we acquired recently, or which we have recently thought about.

The human mind is just a biological computer, and it was designed by random changes to DNA, which is not going to produce perfection. Random changes are going to result in lots of idiotic features and flaws.

Our body has lots of flaws and idiotic features, so we should expect our brain to also have flaws and idiotic features. For some examples of flaws and idiotic designs with our body:
• We have a nerve running along the outside of our elbow, without much protection.
• When we eat spicy foods, the top of our head will sweat and our nose will produce mucus.
• Men have testicles dangling between their legs.

One of the most serious flaws of living creatures is that we were not designed to grow old. We were designed only to live long enough to reproduce successfully. Once we become an adult, our body and brain begin degrading in a unplanned manner. This causes us a lot of suffering in our old age.

If we were to design humans, we would design ourselves so that once we become an adult, our body maintains itself as well as possible from that point onward. We would not become wrinkly, weak, or develop gray hair. We would design our components so that they all fail at about the same time, causing a quick death.

Some people believe that human growth hormone is a "fountain of youth", but once we become an adult, do we really need growth hormone? Or is it causing our intestines, nose, ears, and other parts to continue growing, resulting in protruding bellies, big ears, and other idiotic problems? It would be interesting if the people who are benefiting by taking that hormone are benefiting because when they take it, their body compensates by reducing their own production, thereby lowering their overall level rather than increasing it.

If we were to design a human body, we would do a better job than what nature has done for us. This is evidence that humans were not designed by an intelligent creature. We were designed by random events.

Our brain was designed by the same idiotic, random events that our body was designed by. Therefore, we can safely assume that our brain has features that are as idiotic as having testicles dangling between our legs, and that our brain degrades in an idiotic manner as we grow old.

Furthermore, some aspects of our body are undergoing genetic degradation because there is no longer enough natural selection to keep them healthy. The most obvious example is our appendix. Another example is that women are having an increasingly difficult time giving birth, and they are having messier and more troublesome menstruation cycles.

There are likely to be some aspects of our brain that are also undergoing genetic degradation. For example, monkeys do an excellent job of jumping from one branch of a tree to another because they can do an excellent job of judging distances in three dimensions, and figuring out how much muscle stimulation they need to jump the distance. That ability is undoubtedly degrading in humans. If we had the physical strength to jump from one branch to another, we would miss the branch more often than the monkeys.

I suspect that dreaming would be most accurately described as a "flaw" of the human brain, not as a "feature". I suspect that we dream when our conscious section becomes inactive, and our processing unit continued to function, but without any supervision. The end result is that while we are sleeping, our mind processes data for no purpose, and with no quality control.

In a digital computer, the processing unit is perfect, so there is no need for a computer to have a quality control section to verify the results of the processing. The human mind does not seem to process data like a digital computer. Our brain may seems to have a very different method of processing data. Our mind seems to process data in a manner similar to how we can modify images with graphics software. Specifically, our mind seems to modify, combine, cut, and morph images.

Our brain seems to think by manipulating images. This would explain why we have so much trouble with concepts that we cannot visualize, such as "time". Daniel Tammet says that every number has a unique visual image. Perhaps the people who are better at math are better able to visualize numbers.

How is it possible to produce intelligent thoughts simply by manipulating images? That method of thinking might be so unproductive that we need a quality control unit to analyze the results of the processing and discard the images that appear to be idiotic.

If a person's conscious mind is not very good at passing judgment on which thoughts are accurate, he may believe a lot of thoughts that other people would discard as absurd.

Although we do not know how our brains are processing information, it is obvious that different people have different abilities to process information, and we have different abilities to determine which information is the most realistic. For example, almost everybody in the United States has been exposed to the same information about Noah's ark and evolution, but we came to different conclusions about which of that data is realistic.

The people who believe in Noah's ark are not ignorant. They have a tremendous amount of information about science and evolution, but when they think about evolution, they dismiss it. Those people are not stupid, either. The reason they dismiss evolution may be simply because they have trouble visualizing the concept, whereas they can easily visualize Noah's ark, and in tremendous detail, thereby creating the impression that Noah's ark is more realistic.

The concept of evolution does not create a simple image in our mind. In order to understand evolution, a person must have the ability to create a complex animation in his mind in which a species of animal changes as a result of a small number of its babies surviving and reproducing. All of us can create animations, but the ability in some people may not be adequate to allow them to understand evolution and other complex concepts.

Other people might have the ability to understand evolution, but their emotions exert so much influence over them that they dismiss the concept because they don't like the image of a monkey morphing into a human.

Our imagination may be our intelligence
What is an "imagination"? Why do some people seem to have a "greater imagination" than others? The ability to imagine things may be the ability to create animations and manipulate images in our minds. This may be the same section of our brain that we call our consciousness, which may be the same section that we refer to as our intelligence. In such a case, the people who are better able to imagine things would also be more intelligent. However, if a person does not also have a correspondingly good quality control unit, he may end up believing a lot of idiotic thoughts, thereby appearing to be stupid or crazy.
When an engineer designs a electric drill, he creates a 3D image of it in his mind, similar to that in the image to the right, and he can animate that image. He can push the button to start the motor and watch how the components rotate and interact.

When a construction worker is building a house, he visualizes how the components fit together to make walls, ceilings, and windows. When a technician is repairing a washing machine, he creates an image in his mind of the components, and where the noises might be coming from, and which components might be broken.

If a person does not have a good ability to create and manipulate 3D animations in his mind, will he be successful as an engineer, technician, or carpenter?

Young boys can outperform adult women in fixing mechanical devices, and it may be because men have a better ability to visualize and manipulate images. If I am correct that our mind thinks with images, that would explain why men are more intelligent than women, and why women are not as good at the jobs that require creating and animating images.

We should not be afraid to tell a person he is mentally inferior
Although we don't know why people are coming to idiotic conclusions after processing the same data as the rest of us, we can conclude that it is due to genetic differences in our brain, not environmental differences. It is due to intellectual and/or emotional differences. Since these differences are genetic, there is nothing we can do to help people who are doing a substandard job of thinking. We cannot improve a person's emotions or intelligence.

We can teach people techniques for thinking and give them practice doing it, and we can help people practice self-control, but we cannot make a person more intelligent, or change their emotions.

Our mind has only a small ability to adapt to our environment. For example, when we practice doing math operations, we become better at solving math problems, and when we practice finding patterns, we become better at finding patterns. Therefore, if children are raised in an environment in which they never have to think, do math, or express their thoughts into words, they are undoubtedly going to become adults who seem less intelligent, more mathematically inept, and less able to communicate than children who have had spent years practicing such tasks.

The human body reacts to physical exercise by improving its physical abilities, and the human mind reacts to intellectual exercise by becoming better able to think, but these improvements are limited by our genetic blueprint. Each of us will become stronger and develop more stamina when we get exercise, but each of us has a unique genetic limit on how much strength and stamina we can reach. Likewise, each of us will become better at math, thinking, and writing when we practice these activities, but each of us has a different genetic limit on how good we can become at those tasks.

The people who have defective bodies, such as defective knee joints, defective livers, or defective kidneys, will never be as athletic as people whose bodies are genetically superior. Likewise, the people whose brains have lower quality processing units, defective processing units, or some other limitation or defect, will never be able to think as well as the people who have genetically superior brains.

When we select athletes to participate in the Olympic events, we restrict the contestants to the athletes who show exceptional abilities. We do not feel guilty about telling an athlete that his abilities are substandard for the Olympic events. We do not regard ourselves as insulting the athlete.

We should follow the same philosophy when selecting people for leadership position. We should acknowledge the fact that people have different quality minds, and we should restrict leadership position to people who have shown evidence that their thinking abilities are among the best available. We should not feel guilty about telling a person that his intellectual abilities are substandard for a leadership position, or that his emotional qualities are inappropriate.

Throughout history we find many people claiming to have experienced some type of contact with dead people, ghosts, gods, or animals. For example, Joe Smith created the Mormon religion after having experienced several "visions". There are also people who claim to be clairvoyant, and some believe that they have a few memories of a previous life. There are also some people who believe that they are witches or warlocks.

Although it is possible that some of these people are simply liars who are trying to exploit people, we should consider that some of these people might:
• Have gotten dreams mixed up with reality.
• Have such inferior thinking abilities that they reach these idiotic conclusions while they are fully awake and conscious.
During prehistoric times, it did not matter if people produced idiotic thoughts about the universe. For example, a person would not suffer simply because he believed he had been reincarnated from a wolf. All that mattered was that the people were successful in finding food and raising families.

How did somebody come up with the idea that sacrificing an animal or a child in some bizarre murder ritual would please the gods? How did somebody come up with the concepts of astrology, clairvoyance, ghosts, and reincarnation? How did somebody come up with the idea that witches and warlocks actually exist?

The two children in Hampstead, England show that some adults believe that killing babies, drinking some of their blood, and eating some of their flesh will help them remain young, or whatever it is they believe, and their murder rituals are not unique. For example, in 1989, Vicki Polin went on the Oprah TV show to expose her family's practice of killing babies for some type of ritual. The Mayans also supposedly sacrificed animals and people.

We should face the evidence that the human mind is a monkey brain, and that it is flawed. The human brain is a crude, biological computer that evolved through millions of years by random modifications to DNA, and that it has a lot of undesirable characteristics simply because evolution gives a creature only what is necessary for its survival, not what is ideal.

Improper blood chemistry can result in dreamy thoughts
Another reason I wanted to bring up the possibility that dreams occur when our conscious mind is not doing quality control is that when I look back at my life as a teenager, it seems that there were times when I was in some type of partial dream state. First, let me explain one another characteristic of me besides low thyroid hormones.

When I was in my 20s, there were times I went to work on a Saturday, and the supervisor would reward everybody for coming in on Saturday with donuts, and I ended up eating a couple donuts on an empty stomach. I would notice a particular pattern every time this happened. Specifically, I would start experiencing symptoms that resemble the symptoms of a diabetic who had high blood sugar, namely, an unpleasant feeling that I am "bloated", and my eyes would not feel is quite right. An hour or so later I started experiencing the symptoms of a diabetic who took a bit too much insulin, and an hour or so later I would feel normal again.

When I was in my 20s, I came to the conclusion that my body does not react properly to large amounts of sugar. I also noticed this problem occurs with food that processes into sugar quickly, such as refined flour. I found that I feel much better if I keep my consumption of sugar and refined flour to very low levels.

When I was a teenager, I was not aware of these issues, so I was undoubtedly experiencing wide variations in blood sugar levels, in addition to low thyroid hormone levels. When I look back at my teenage years, it seems that there were times when my mind was in a semi-dream state. I was not always paying attention to the world around me.

There were a few times when somebody would say something to me, and I would be looking at him and apparently listening to what he was saying, but I wouldn't remember anything he said because I would be thinking of something else.

This would also happen when I was reading a book. I could read several pages before realizing that I don't remember anything that I read because I was thinking of something else at the time I was reading it. However, my eyes were moving back and forth across the words as if I was reading.

Normal people sometimes behave in this distracted manner also, but the difference between me and a normal person is that my body was in a very relaxed state, and my thoughts were drifting about almost aimlessly. It was as if I was in a semi-sleep state. By comparison, when normal people behave like this, their body remains active, and their mind is focused on some particular task.

My life suggests that improper blood chemistry can interfere with our conscious mind's ability to do quality control, which in turn can put a person into what appears to be a dreamy-like condition.

There are undoubtedly a lot of other reasons as to why people are not thinking properly. For example, some people have a defective intellectual unit or defective emotions. However, I wanted to bring this issue up to point out that the human brain is not a microprocessor that we can depend upon. The output of the human brain can change according to our blood chemistry.

When does daydreaming become excessive?
Some people spend so much of their life involved with fantasies that they are concerned about their mental health, and some are annoyed that they are wasting their life on daydreams. One woman with this problem created the website Wild Minds Network where she describes her problem and allows other people to post their stories and questions.

Some of these people are describing their problem as Maladaptive Daydreaming, which is a phrase created by an Israeli psychiatrist (who claims to be the child of Holocaust survivors!) to describe people who daydream excessively. I think the social scientists have the wrong view of humans, and that their opinions about us are worthless and should be discarded. I think the only way to understand the human mind is to regard our mind is just a large monkey brain, and that its operation is affected by its genetic design and our blood chemistry.

People who cannot think properly, control their appetite, spend excessive amounts of time daydreaming, have trouble pronouncing words, or have intense cravings for material items are not suffering from psychological disorders. Our mental characteristics are due to the genetic design of our brain and our particular blood chemistry. Our brain is also affected by certain environmental factors, such as concussions, LSD, and mercury.

One of the chemicals in our blood that can affect our brains operation is our thyroid hormone. I can see a significant change in myself after taking thyroid hormones.

Ever since I was a teenager, I would often have idiotic fantasies that would persist for hours. They were often stimulated by news reports, television shows, movies, or something that somebody said. For example, if somebody said something about UFOs, I might spend a lot of time on an idiotic fantasy about aliens from other planets.

When I saw a news report about bank robbers, sometimes I would waste a lot of time on a fantasy in which I was one of the bank robbers, and I would imagine what it must feel like to live their life, and other times I would waste time imagining myself as one of the policeman who catches the bank robbers, and other times I would waste time imagining myself as one of the bank employees who is held hostage.

When I saw a report about some child being kidnapped, I would sometimes waste a lot of time on idiotic fantasies about being kidnapped, and other times I would waste time imagining that I was one of the people doing the kidnapping. I wasted a lot of my life on those stupid fantasies.

Once I started taking thyroid hormones, those amazingly long and idiotic fantasies essentially vanished. I still have thoughts going through my mind that could be described as "daydreams", but they are probably like the daydreams that "normal" people have, as opposed to what I was having before, which I would describe as resembling the dreams that we have at night.

In my case, the excessive daydreaming was caused by the low thyroid levels, but other people may be involved with excessive daydreaming for some other reason, and it may be a reason that medical technology cannot yet understand or help them with.

Many people, when they discover that some particular drug, activity, or food makes them feel good, will do it to excess because they assume that the more they do, the better they will feel. This attitude that "more is better" causes many people to eat excessive amounts of food, or desire excessive amounts of material wealth, fame, sex, or drugs.

However, I don't follow the philosophy that "more is better". Rather, I believe that everything in life should be kept within a certain range, and in many cases, especially with drugs, it is better to keep the levels near the low end of the range rather than the high end.

As a result, when I discovered that thyroid hormones make me feel better, I did not have the attitude that I should take enormous quantities in order to feel even better. Rather, I have been experimenting with the levels, and trying to keep them as low as possible.

In this previous document I mentioned that I could hear my heartbeat in my right ear, and that it would go away if I popped my ears, but that it would soon return. I also noticed on the Internet that some people think that high thyroid levels can cause this problem.

During the months after I wrote that article, I was experimenting with lower levels of the thyroid hormones, mainly lower levels of the T4 hormone. After a few months this problem completely disappeared. Is it a coincidence that lowering the thyroid hormones caused this problem to vanish? Or was this problem due to something else, such as a clogged or infected ear canal that eventually fixed itself of whatever its problem was? Or was it due to a combination of things, such as high thyroid levels and a defective ear canal?

If I was willing to treat myself like an expendable laboratory rat, then I would experiment with large and small dosages of the hormones, but I have been raising and lowering the hormone levels in a more gradual, cautious manner.

The problem with experimenting with these hormones, especially the T4 hormone, is that the effects are not immediate or obvious. Alcohol, LSD, cocaine, and other drugs affect us within minutes, and that makes it easy to figure out how they affect us, but the thyroid hormones do not have immediate effects, especially not the T4 hormone.

These hormones are so confusing and mysterious that doctors cannot provide specific dosages to people who need these hormones. Rather, we have to experiment with the dosages. If you are unfamiliar with this issue, here are two remarks from this page about the dosage for T4:
• "Think of your initial dose as an estimate of your need. There is likely to be a bit of trial and error"
• "Once the initial dose has been decided, remember that it may take several weeks before you experience any changes in your system."
A few months ago I stopped taking the T4 hormone completely to figure out if I actually needed both hormones. After a few weeks, I started feeling worse, and even more interesting, my interest in listening to music increased to the point at which I actually spent time listening to music on my computer during the daytime while I was working on my computer software. That is something I normally cannot do because the music distracts me. Also, I normally do not want to listen to music during the daytime.

I have since increased the dose of T4 hormone. I don't need much of it, but I need some of it. My last blood test showed that I was my TSH levels were nearly zero, so my body has reacted to my taking of the hormones by shutting down its own production, which would explain why I need to take both of them.

I don't have any interest in listening to music when I work, except when I have to do a monotonous task. Also, I don't like listening to music when I am alone. Singing and music feel like social activities to me, not activities that I want to do by myself. I find singing and music to be most enjoyable in the evening, and with other people.

Listing to music by myself gives me the same empty feeling as having a dog is a best friend, or having a sex robot, or being best friends with fictional characters. However, when I stopped taking the T4 hormone, my interest in listening to music by myself increased to such an extent that I could not resist doing it. What is the significance of that? I do not know, but it may be more evidence that the people who become artists truly do have something wrong with them. I would sometimes wake up with a song playing in my mind, also.

People have noticed for centuries that artists tend to have strange behavior. My craving for music when my hormone levels were low makes me wonder if I would have become an artist if my hormone levels had been more unstable, and if I had also had a few mental disorders. Perhaps I would have behaved like van Gogh, Picasso, or Lady Gaga.

If we had a database with all of the intimate details of everybody's life and body, all of us would benefit by being able to look through the database to see who has symptoms similar to us, and what they have discovered from it. The database could also help us understand why some people spend so many hours a day listening to music. What is different about them? Who has songs playing in their mind when they wake up in the morning, and when does it happen to them?

Earlier in this article I mentioned that humans want work during the day, and socialize in the evening. After that we want to go to sleep. What causes us to want to follow that schedule?

My guess is that our mind and body evolved to work during the daytime, for perhaps 12 to 14 hours. During the evening, however, our body deliberately reduces its production of energy, causing us to want to relax. However, our lower energy level may do more than make our body tired. It may also cause certain sections of our brain to become less active, thereby allowing other sections to become more dominant. Specifically, the section that does the thinking may become less active, and the sections that are involved with socializing, music, art, and sex may become more dominant.

Late at night our body reduces its production of energy even further, causing us to want to sleep. While we are sleeping, our energy levels may become so low that the part of our brain that does the thinking is almost completely shut down, resulting in irrational dreams.

Is there a difference between thinking and daydreaming?
I don't think there is a dividing line between thinking and daydreaming. We usually refer to somebody as "daydreaming" when they are thinking about something that is unrealistic, such as when they are imagining themselves in a Harry Potter movie, or when they are imagining how they will spend money when they win the lottery. However, if we could observe everybody's thoughts, I don't think we would be able to find any way of separating "daydreams" from "thoughts".

For example, when a person thinks about what type of meal to make for himself for dinner, is he "thinking" about the issue, or is he "daydreaming" about it? If a person were to spend only a few minutes thinking about the meal, and then make a decision, we would say that he is "thinking", but what if he were to spend an hour thinking about it? Or what if he spent two hours? If he spends a lot of time thinking, should we describe him as "daydreaming" instead of "thinking"?

Or should we ignore the amount of time he spends thinking and be concerned with whether his thinking is helping him to solve the problem that he is thinking about? For example, if a person who is thinking about what type of meal to make for himself spends some time analyzing the items he has in his kitchen and trying to figure out whether he has enough items to make a meal, or whether he needs to purchase more items, then we could say that his thinking is for the purpose of solving the problem of what type of meal to make for himself.

By comparison, if a person spends his time visualizing himself cooking and eating, we could say that those animated images have no value in helping him determine what type of meal to make for himself. We could describe that activity as "daydreaming" because it has no purpose, other than entertainment.

In other words, we could say that the difference between thinking and daydreaming is that a person is thinking when he is trying to solve a problem, but he is daydreaming when he is creating thoughts for no purpose other than entertainment. Although that would give us a distinction between thinking and daydreaming, if we could observe everybody's thoughts, we would find that everybody is occasionally doing some of both, thereby making it difficult to say when a person is thinking and when they are daydreaming. We would also find that some people spend more time daydreaming than others, and we would also find that some people's daydreams are more unrealistic than others.

Why do some people spend more time daydreaming than others? And why are some people's daydreams more unrealistic?

When I was a teenager, I was unaware of my blood sugar problems and thyroid problems, so I did not making any attempt to control my blood sugar or thyroid levels, and I was not considering the possibility that my thoughts were being distorted as a result of improper blood chemistry, so I made no attempt to stop myself from thinking idiotic thoughts.

As I mentioned earlier, when I was a teenager I wasted a lot of time on idiotic daydreams. Some of them were almost as unrealistic as sleep dreams. It seems as if my mind was creating animations with almost no regard to whether they made any sense, or whether I was wasting my time. It was as if the quality control section of my mind was partly inactive.

Judging by the number of people on the Internet who are complaining about their excessive daydreaming, there are a lot of people who have this type of problem. However, it is not likely that everybody is having this problem for the same reason. In my case, it seems to be because I have a problem with both blood sugar levels and the T3 hormone, but some people may be daydreaming excessively for some other reason. Therefore, although my daydreaming diminishes when I control my blood sugar and thyroid hormone levels, that may have no effect on some other people.

Thinking intelligent thoughts requires a lot of energy
There is a lot I could say about the issue of how our mind thinks, and what I've noticed about my own mind, but I'll mention one other issue that I think is significant. Specifically, before I was taking the thyroid hormones, there were many times during my life when I was trying to think, such as during a school test, or when I was trying to solve a problem with my computer software, that I would start feeling sleepy. My eyes would want to close, and my head would fall forward in that characteristic manner that happens when we become sleepy. I would also start dreaming. I assumed that I was falling asleep because I did not get enough the night before.

When this happened to me while I was at home, there were a few times when I gave up trying to stay awake and decided to take a nap, so I went into the bedroom to lay down. However, by the time I laid down on my bed, I was no longer sleepy. I would lay there for a few minutes wondering why I lost my interest in sleeping. Was it because the act of walking into the other room was enough physical activity to wake me up?

I would get up out of the bed and go back to the computer. However, after spending another 15 or so minutes thinking, I would start feeling sleepy again.

This process of feeling sleepy, going into the room to take a nap, and then realizing that I wide awake happened several times before I came to the conclusion that it must be happening because the process of thinking was depleting my limited supply of energy, which puts me into a sleepy state, but by the time I walked into the other room and laid down on my bed, my energy levels had risen enough to wake me up.

Apparently, certain types of thinking require a lot of energy, and there were certain times when I was consuming energy faster than I could create it. Why would this problem happen only occasionally? The pattern I noticed is that it occurred a couple hours after a meal, which, as I mentioned earlier, would correspond to when my blood sugar levels were below normal. If I do a lot of thinking while my blood sugar levels are low, I will consume energy faster than I can produce it, and that makes me sleepy.

This problem still occurs, even though I am now taking thyroid hormones, but it doesn't occur as often. Apparently my blood sugar levels are still going up and down excessively. Thyroid hormones do not fix problems with unstable blood sugar levels, at least not for me.

Our mental and physical health influence our decisions in life
For those of you who don't have problems with blood sugar levels, the only important aspect of this issue to understand is that when your blood sugar levels go high, you feel miserable. It feels as if you are swollen or bloated. Your eyes feel somewhat uncomfortable, also. By comparison, when your blood sugar levels drop below normal, you feel comfortable. You don't have much energy, and you will want to relax or sleep rather than work, but you feel fine.

In my particular case, my blood sugar levels would rise too high for about an hour, and so I would be uncomfortable for only about an hour, but there are some people whose blood sugar levels rise to even higher levels than mine, and they remain high for many hours. Even worse for them, by the time their blood sugar levels were starting to decrease to normal levels, they would be eating another meal, which put their blood sugar levels into the abnormally high range again. People with that type of problem will be in a miserable condition throughout much of the day.

The aspect of this issue that I want to bring to your attention is that when a person is in a miserable state for a long periods of time, it can affect his attitude, leisure activities, and goals in life. In a previous document I pointed out that my low energy levels were one of the reasons I never wanted to get married.

Those of you who are in good health may have trouble understanding this issue unless you have been sick or injured, in which case you may have noticed that your ability to think and do physical activities diminished during those periods of time.

Imagine if you were to develop up some type of cancer that was causing a constant pain. Although you might assume that you would be able to ignore the pain, it would have an effect on your life. For example, the pain would make it more difficult for you to concentrate on intellectual tasks, thereby causing you to be less productive at thinking, which in turn would affect your job performance, and your views on life. If the cancer was also interfering with the movement of your joints, or reducing your energy levels, it would result in you changing your activities, and you might have to change your job. You might change your friends, also, and your goals in life.

When a person is in a miserable condition only occasionally, such as when a person gets sick once a year, it will not have a significant effect on his life. However, when a person is born with a genetic disorder that causes him to be in a miserable condition throughout most of his life, it can affect his attitude, which in turn can affect his behavior, friends, goals, and leisure activities.

If a person does not realize that his misery is due to his genetic characteristics, he is likely to assume that his misery is due to something outside of him, such as "work", society, or the way his parents are treating him. Some people may react to their misery by assuming that they will become happy if they can acquire more money, or if they can become a famous Hollywood celebrity. Some people might react by using alcohol or other drugs to mask their misery. Some people might notice that they experience some enjoyment from sex, food, or committing risky crimes, and so they may do those things excessively in an attempt to provide themselves with more pleasure.

Some of the people that have bad attitudes, who are struggling to become rich or famous, who are having excessive amounts of sex, who are involved with crime networks, or who are eating excessive amounts of food, may not be stupid or mentally ill. Rather, they may be suffering from a defective body that is not controlling their blood chemistry properly, and that in turn is causing them to feel miserable, and they are reacting to the misery in an inappropriate manner because they don't understand why they are miserable.

When I look back at my life, I feel fortunate to have the ability to look critically at myself and face the possibility that something was genetically defective with me. I did not blame my misery on my parents, society, or poverty. Rather, I wondered what was wrong with my body, and how to fix it. However, there are a lot of people who have trouble looking critically at themselves, and I can understand how they can end up with a bad attitude towards life, and why some of them end up becoming alcoholic, obese, or criminals.

Happiness does not come from material wealth, fame, food, babies, or sex. Our happiness is coming from within our brain. If a person's brain or body is flawed in certain manners, he is going to be miserable no matter how much money he acquires, and no matter how much food he eats, and no matter how much sex he has.

Conversely, if your brain is functioning properly, you will be able to enjoy life regardless of whether you are living in the primitive conditions of 20,000 BC, or the advanced world that will exist 20,000 years in the future.

There are millions of miserable people in the world, and some of them are causing a lot of trouble with their crimes, whining, drug abuse, and bad attitudes. There are also a lot of people who have trouble thinking, paying attention, and being responsible. Some of these unhappy people are undoubtedly suffering from genetic flaws in the design of their brain, in which case there is no hope for them, but some people may have problems that are similar to mine; namely, problems that can almost be completely eliminated simply by controlling their diet, or by taking certain hormones.

Here is an interview with Lady Gaga in which she explains how she admires Marina Abramovic, who is involved with "spirit cooking". I don't think these women have minds that are functioning correctly, but what is wrong with their brains? If they have genetically defective brains, there is no hope for them, but everybody who is angry, miserable, envious, dishonest, irresponsible, obnoxious, or suicidal should look into the possibility that their problem is due to improper blood chemistry because if that is all your problem is, it may be easy to bring a significant improvement to your life and your thinking ability.

How much of our suffering is due to our modern diet?
When I mentioned that after I ate donuts and processed white flour my blood sugar levels would rise too high, some of you might have been thinking to yourself, "Well, of course! These are unnatural foods for humans. Thousands of years ago people did not eat donuts, and they did not have processed white flour."

During the past few years, a lot of people have been promoting the "Paleo Diet" in which they avoid grains and almost all other carbohydrates. It is possible that if my parents had been raising me on that type of diet, my blood sugar levels would have been more stable.

Although the Paleo Diet seems sensible, before we recommend that diet, we need to take several issues into account:

1) The quantity of carbohydrates may be more important than eliminating them.
The Paleo diet promotes an attitude that reminds me of a reformed alcoholic. Specifically, many reformed alcoholics are so frightened of alcohol that they avoid it completely. They go from one extreme to the other. The Paleo diet is similar. The Paleo diet recognizes that sugar and grains are a recent addition to the human diet, but they go to the extreme of assuming that we must eliminate them completely in order to remain in good health.

For the people who have bad reactions to gluten, fruits, or grains, it makes sense to avoid them completely, but for everybody else, I suspect that the Paleo diet would be more sensible if it recommended that people eat fruits, grains, and other carbohydrates in moderation rather than prohibiting them. I doubt that those foods are dangerous for all of us.

Some people die when they eat peanuts, but that does not justify encouraging everybody else to remove peanuts from their diet. Likewise, just because some people have trouble with gluten, strawberries, or barley does not mean that all of us have to be afraid of those foods.

Millions of people are suffering from health and blood sugar problems, but I don't think they are suffering because they are eating carbohydrates. I suspect that most of them are suffering because they are eating excessive amounts of carbohydrates, and also because a lot of their carbohydrates are highly refined, such as white flour, which digests at a rate faster than our bodies were designed for.

It is also possible that some of the problems that we have with food is because of how we eat and prepare foods. For example, in a previous document I mentioned that eating raw, red cabbage (such as coleslaw) in the same meal as meat seems to interfere with my digestion.

For people who have a problem controlling their blood sugar levels, as I do, it is sensible for a diet to prohibit certain types of food, such as sugary sodas and juices, cotton candy, candy canes, and other forms of sugar. If I eat candy, especially on an empty stomach, I feel unpleasant very quickly. Apparently sugar does not take long to get into our bloodstream.

However, I suspect that normal people can eat carbohydrates without any problem, as long as they keep the quantities in moderation.
2) The Paleo diet is not accurate
The Paleo diet claims to be giving us what our prehistoric ancestors had, but that is not true. There are two significant differences between the meals we have today and those of prehistoric people:

a) Animals and prehistoric humans tend to eat only one food item during a meal. When they caught an animal, they had a meal that consisted entirely of meat. They did not take pieces take a piece of meat and combine it with bread, tomato, lettuce, and onions and make a burger.

Likewise, when they found fruits or vegetables, their meal was entirely fruits or vegetables. Prehistoric humans did not collect food items and then create meals that consisted of a mixture of meat, nuts, fruit, vegetables, pies, and beer. They did not make "smoothies" with cow's milk, fruit, and nuts, either.

b) Animals and prehistoric humans do not mix eating and drinking. As I mentioned earlier, prehistoric humans did not consume beer, soda, or water with their meals. They ate food by itself, and they would drink water only when they became thirsty. Drinking water in prehistoric times was a chore because it required the people walk over to a lake or creek.

Our digestive system and emotions evolved for that environment. We become thirsty before we actually need water, and we become hungry before we actually need food. We do not need to drink water the moment we sense a bit of thirst, and we do not need to eat the moment we sense a bit of hunger. Prehistoric humans would drink water only when the feeling of thirst became strong enough to cause them to want to walk over to a creek. They ignored mild levels of thirst. They also did not whine about being hungry when they experienced a mild sensation of hunger.

To truly follow the diet of our prehistoric ancestors, we should eat meat by itself, and let the meat digest a bit before we have liquids or other foods. Likewise, we should drink water between meals, not during meals.
3) Different races have different dietary needs
Every species of animal is following a particular diet, and after thousands of generations, they evolve to fit that diet. Each species evolves to enjoy the taste of their particular foods, and they evolve the ability to digest those foods properly. The reason they adapt to their diet is because when they have children, the children who are less able to enjoy and digest the foods will be less successful in survival and reproduction.

This has happened to humans, also. For example, thousands of years ago people in the Middle East began harvesting wheat and other grains. When they fed those grains to their children, some of the children became sickly or died because they had trouble handling gluten, or they had problems controlling their blood sugar levels from the high levels of carbohydrates. The parents did not understand that their children were suffering as a result of the grains, and so they did not change their diet. The end result was that the children who had the most problem with grains were less successful with survival and reproduction. After hundreds of generations, the children in that area of the world evolved a better ability to handle gluten and large levels of carbohydrates.

The Alaskan Eskimos fed their children a lot of fat and meat. The children who had trouble with that diet became sickly or died. After thousands of generations, they evolved the ability to enjoy and survive on that type of diet.

In addition to evolving the ability to digest the foods of their particular diet, the children also developed an enjoyment of the taste of their foods. The reason is because if a child did not like the taste of the foods that his mother was giving to him, he would not want to eat much of it, and the result would be that he would be thinner and more malnourished than the other children, which would lower his success rate in survival and reproduction. The children who became the healthiest were those who enjoyed the foods that their mothers gave them.

In the Scandinavian countries, parents have been feeding dairy products to their children for so many generations that most of the people today are capable of digesting dairy products. By comparison, some African tribes never ate dairy products, and so they have trouble digesting it.

In Hawaii, the Polynesians ate a diet that had a lot of fruit. As a result, they developed a greater ability to handle large amounts of fruits.

Before we recommend a diet, we should take into account the differences between the races. A diet that is best for some African whose ancestors never had dairy products or grains is not necessarily the best diet for an Alaskan Eskimo, or a Polynesian, or somebody from Denmark.

To complicate the issue, this evolutionary process is still happening today. For example, many parents today are providing their children with lots of sugar, white flour, candy, ice cream, potato chips, and soda. Some of their children develop diabetes, or have wild swings of blood sugar levels, or become sickly and weak. The children who have the most trouble with this modern diet are less successful in both survival and reproduction compared to the children who have a better ability to handle the modern foods. After thousands of generations, the human race will eventually improve its ability to handle these modern foods.

Of course, we are making a tremendous effort to prevent this evolution. For example, we are providing a lot of medical assistance to children who have allergies to peanuts, strawberries, and other foods, and we provide insulin for children with diabetes. We don't restrict any of these people from reproducing, and so they are passing on their problems to the next generation rather than allowing each generation to become better adapted to this modern diet.
4) Men and women may have different dietary needs.
A lot of people have noticed that women have a greater interest in vegetables than men, and this may not be a meaningless issue. Men may have evolved to desire and handle higher levels of meat, and women may have evolved for higher levels of vegetables. To complicate this issue, these difference may occur only in certain races. For example, the female Alaskan Eskimos may have had exactly the same diet as the male Eskimos, so it may not apply to them.
5) We should decide what we want the human race to become.
Before we recommend a diet, we should decide on what we want the human race to become. For example, it might be true that men and women need slightly different diets, but that does not mean we have to maintain those differences in the future. We could decide to make our diets more similar in order to simplify our lives. In such a case, we would start restricting reproduction to the men and/or women so that we enjoy the same foods.

For another example, it might be true that the Paleo diet is best for a large percentage of the human population, but that does not mean we should promote that diet for the future generations. That diet has the disadvantage of eliminating a tremendous variety of fruits, vegetables, and grain products that millions of people enjoy.

I think that it make more sense to restrict reproduction to people who can handle grains, fruits, and carbohydrates so that future generations are able to eat those foods without suffering health problems. I think the future generations would be much more appreciative of us if we gave them the ability to eat fruits and grains, rather than leaving them restricted to the Paleo diet.

Furthermore, consider the possibility that most of us would improve our health if we separated meat from other food items, and if we also separated eating from drinking. Although that might improve our digestion and health, is that what we want for the future generations? That policy eliminates a lot of the foods we enjoy, such as sandwiches, burgers, and quiches.

A better situation would be for humans to be able to eat whatever we want, and be able to mix eating and drinking. This requires restricting reproduction to the people who are best at handling these modern meals.

If we create a diet to fit the people who are alive today, we would have to eliminate gluten, peanuts, strawberries, sandwiches, and a lot of other foods. It would make more sense to design a diet according to what we want the human race to become. We should restrict reproduction rather than restrict our diet.

After thousands of generations, this policy would result in people who can eat a tremendous variety of fruits, grains, meats, and other food products without digestive problems, allergies, or headaches. Their meals would have much more variety than ours.

Which type of world would you want to be born into:
a) A world in which people have such a crude digestive system, and have so many food allergies, that they have to be careful about what they eat and how they eat it.
b) A world in which everybody has such a highly advanced digestive system that they can eat a tremendous variety of foods.

This issue also applies to sugar. We could restrict reproduction to the people who don't want high levels of sugar, or we could restrict reproduction to the people who can handle high levels of sugar.

My opinion is that the best path for the human race is to reduce our craving for sugar, and to reduce our sensitivity to bitterness. The reason is because when we are sensitive to bitter chemicals, and when we have a high craving for sugar, we want to put large amounts of sugar into our foods, but high levels of sugar make it difficult for us to notice the subtle flavors of the foods.

Animals evolved the ability to regard certain chemicals as bitter in order to cause us to avoid poisonous foods, but we no longer need that safety mechanism. Rather than breed people into handling high levels of sugar, I think it would be better to breed people so that we don't have such a sensitivity to bitter chemicals, and we don't have such a strong craving for sugar. This would allow us to enjoy the subtle flavors of food.

We are altering the genetic future of humans whether we want to or not
In other documents I pointed out that we are going to alter the future genetic characteristics of the human race regardless of whether we make decisions about who reproduces. For example, the nations that put high levels of capsaicin into their food are breeding themselves into a creature that cannot eat food without that chemical. Everything will taste bland to them without that chemical.

Centuries ago that chemical may have been desirable as a food additive because it compensated for the bland and unpleasant flavor of rice, beans, and seaweed, and it masked the stench of partially rotten foods. It also seems to me that the chemical has some type of health benefit, such as reducing cancer.

However, when people evolve a desire for that chemical, food will taste bland to them without that chemical. Eventually they will have to sprinkle the chemical on almost everything they eat. I think this is an idiotic decision for the human race. I think it would be much better for those nations to start breeding themselves into people who enjoy the natural flavor of foods. Spices and sauces should be for variety, not a necessity.

Another example of how we are altering human genetics is this news article that explains that a mother's baby died a few weeks after birth because she was breast-feeding him, but she did not realize that her breasts were not producing milk, and the baby slowly dehydrated. The news articles about this incident are creating fear of breast-feeding with such idiotic remarks as,
Although breast-feeding is considered the ideal way to feed a baby, she said, women should understand the risks....
It doesn't make sense to describe breast-feeding as "risky". This article is even more idiotic. It claims that breast-feeding "can also be extremely dangerous."

The articles also complain that women are "pressured" to breast-feed their babies, but it makes no sense to say that women are under pressure to breast-feed their babies because female animals are designed to breast-feed their babies. However, the women who do not enjoy the sensation of breast-feeding do not want to do it, so from their point of view, they are under pressure to breast-feed.

A woman should not feel pressured to breast-feed a baby. Rather, she should be in awe of her ability to feed a baby. I think it is amazing that a woman's body can convert food into a nutritious milk for babies. Other aspects of our body are also amazing. Our eyes, tendons, digestive system, and other features are incredible. The fact that life exists at all is amazing. We should be enjoying our wonderful qualities, not encouraging women to be fearful and paranoid of breast-feeding. Unfortunately, because each person is a random jumble of genetic traits, some girls are born with defective breasts, and they cannot properly breast-feed their babies.

Every girl that is born has a unique heart, stomach, uterus, brain, breasts, hair, and skin. During prehistoric times, a lot of the baby girls died while they were young because they did not have the qualities necessary to survive in their particular environment. Of the girls who survived to adulthood, some of them did not attract a man. Of those who attracted a man, some were unable to get pregnant. Of those who got pregnant, some of them died in the process of giving birth. Of those who could give birth, some of their babies died because their breasts could not produce appropriate milk, or because they did not enjoy the sensation of breast-feeding, or because the shape or design of their nipples was inappropriate.

Nature is cruel, but the end result of all of the suffering and death is that women evolved the ability to give birth to babies, and to feed their babies. However, during the past few thousand years, we have been fighting with nature. For example, the women who don't like to breast-feed, or whose breasts are too defective, have been able to feed their babies with animal's milk, or they have been able to find a woman who is willing to breast-feed their babies for them. Women who cannot give birth properly are provided with cesarean operations.

If we continue on the path that we are on right now, eventually every woman will have such defective breasts that all of them will depend upon cows to feed their babies, and all of them will need fertility pills to get pregnant, and they will all need cesarean operations to give birth. We are slowly destroying a woman's body by doing nothing to control reproduction.

This genetic degradation is also occurring to men. During prehistoric times, the men who had defective penises or testicles would have had less success in attracting a woman, but today men can hide their bodies to such an extreme that a woman will not realize that a man is sexually defective until after she is married to him, and even then she may not realize it because she may not know what a normal man is.

There are men whose penises have the wrong shape or size, or point in the wrong direction when erect, or who are producing semen that is of inappropriate quality. There are men with testicles that are defective, or who have sex cravings that are bizarre.

Unfortunately, rather than restrict reproduction to make each generation of humans healthier, more intelligent, have more self-control, and be more compatible with other people, we are helping the defective people to reproduce.

Furthermore, millions of people regard defective sexual organs as a joke rather than as a serious issue that we should deal with. For example, during the presidential elections of 2016, some people were making jokes that Donald Trump's hands are small, and therefore, his penis is small. Let's assume Trump does indeed have a penis that is abnormally small. Is that funny?

A defective penis is no more amusing than a cleft palate, blindness, multiple sclerosis, or a defective kidney. However, the social environment of our modern societies is so sexually perverted that it is creating adults who giggle like children over sexual issues.

Our inappropriate social environment is also causing millions of women to want gigantic breast implants, and lots of men are struggling to increase the size of their penis and muscles. Some women have made their breasts so large that their back becomes sore from the weight, and this man in South America has stretched his penis so much that it has become a handicap. However, he is refusing to have surgery to reduce its size because he enjoys being famous.

Would a man 10,000 years ago have become famous for stretching his penis to a length of 18.9 inches? Would any prehistoric woman have wanted breasts that were the size of volleyballs? I don't think so.

I would describe our social environment as sick, perverted, disgusting, and appalling. Our social environment is causing many people to develop bizarre sexual cravings and behavior, and causing adults to giggle like children over sexual issues, and to become hysterical when they see breast-feeding, nudity, or childbirth.

We would understand ourselves much better without secrecy
Medical doctors have a difficult job because even though all humans have the same characteristics, each of us is unique, and we all have a different set of flaws. The best way to understand ourselves is to eliminate secrecy and allow a database to be created with as much detail about humans as zoologists create for animals.

That would allow each of us to get a better understanding of what our particular medical problems are and how to reduce them because we would be able to search the database to find people who have had similar symptoms as ours, and that would allow us to see what they have experimented with to reduce their problems.

A woman wrote this article about her excessive daydreaming, and she mentioned that after going to several therapists, one of them recommended Fluvoxamine, an anti-depressant drug, and that the drug has helped her. However, there may be better ways of helping people like her. For example, in my case, thyroid hormone has helped me.

Unfortunately, we are never going to understand these issues as long as social sciences continue promoting the philosophy that our mental problems are the result of "maladaptive daydreaming", and other psychological disorders. The reason that philosophy is worthless is because our emotional cravings, intellectual characteristics, and "psychological disorders" are the result of our genetic characteristics. Psychological problems are symptoms, or effects, of low-quality or defective genetic information, not the cause of bad behavior.

Trying to determine what our medical problems are is difficult because all of us are likely to have a combination of problems rather than just one simple problem. For example, I noticed that my blood sugar levels are not very stable, and I also have thyroid problems. What else is wrong with me? I don't know, but there could be several other problems.

Do you have perfect health? You might think so, but it is very unlikely that anybody can claim to be perfect. Some athletes may come close to having a body that functions properly, but most of us are likely to have a combination of flaws and defects.

The particular flaws that you have may be so minor that you don't notice them, but that doesn't mean that you should ignore them. If you could understand what they are, you might be able to find a way to improve your health. That in turn could improve your thinking, or reduce the problems you have with illnesses, or simply make you feel better, thereby improving your life.

Dreams might be a useful diagnostic tool
I suspect that both daydreams and night dreams may be useful as a diagnostic tool for a doctor or scientist. Dreams may give an indication of what type of mind and body a person has. I can see this by looking at how my dreams have changed since I began taking thyroid hormones. Throughout my life, I would occasionally have a dream in which I was trying to run. My running would appear to be in slow motion, but I was not actually running in slow motion. Rather, every step was such a struggle that my legs would not move quickly.

Trying to run was so frustrating that it would sometimes wake me up, and that would allow me to remember the dream. I never remembered why I was running. I only remember that I was struggling to move my legs, and how it appeared as if I was running in slow motion. I can remember the frustration of trying to move my legs.

However, since I began taking thyroid hormones, I have had a couple of dreams in which I was running, but I was running at normal speed, and without any pain.

If we had a database of everybody's dreams, we might start noticing that some dreams give indications of the person's mental or physical characteristics, or the things that are causing them problems, or their intellectual disorders.

Our daydreams and sleep dreams are undoubtedly also affected by our personality. For example, some people may spend a lot of time daydreaming about material wealth, and others may daydream about fame, food, or sex. I spent a lot of time daydreaming about creating better cities, better transportation systems, better water heaters, better lawnmowers, and other items.

Our thinking ability changes throughout the day
A computer will always process the same data into the same results if it is provided with an appropriate environment, such as the appropriate voltage and current levels, and the appropriate temperature. However, the human mind is not as dependable. Our ability to think is not consistent from day to evening, and it can change from one day to the next. We produce different results from the same data for a variety of reasons. Some of the factors that affect our thinking are:

1) Our blood chemistry affects our thinking

Our brain is a biological computer that uses blood rather than electricity, so the quality of that blood is critical. Our thinking will degrade when our blood chemistry becomes inappropriate, such as if we are suffering from abnormal levels of glucose.

In order for a person to do his best at thinking, he needs a body that can maintain appropriate blood chemistry. We need a properly functioning liver, lungs, thyroid gland, and other organs. A person will never achieve the full potential of his intelligence if his body is defective.

If a person with improper blood chemistry finds a way to improve it by changing his diet or lifestyle, he may appear to become more intelligent, thereby creating the false impression that intelligence is due to the environment rather than our genetic blueprint.

2) The environment can interfere with our thinking

The environment can interfere with the way a computer processes data. For example, if the temperature goes too high or low, the circuits do not perform properly.

The human mind is also affected by the environment, but more so than a computer. Our thinking ability degrades in hot weather, just like a computer, but some studies of students have shown that their intellectual performance degrades if they are in a noisy environment. Unpleasant odors and vibrations can also cause our thinking ability to degrade.

The reason our mind is affected by these environmental issues is because, unlike a computer, our mind was designed for survival, not for processing data and producing intelligent thoughts. Our brain was designed to keep our body alive by processing an endless stream of data that is coming from inside our body, and our brain was also designed to watch for external danger by monitoring our eyes, ears, and other senses. This characteristic of monitoring the outside world is most obvious with cats who appear to be sleeping, but whose ears are moving around to monitor the environment.

As a result of these characteristics, when we are thinking about a problem, our mind is also processing a lot of other data that is coming from inside our body and from the outside world. This characteristic can cause our thinking to be disrupted by meaningless noises that are occurring outside of our body, as well as pain signals from inside our body.

We do not have much control over our brain. For example, when we are in a noisy environment, we cannot tell our brain to disregard the data that is coming from our ears so that we can concentrate on a task. Our brain was designed to keep us alive, and so it will not disregard the noises, unpleasant odors, or vibrations in the environment. In order for us to do our best thinking, we need to provide ourselves with an environment that reduces the outside stimulation so that we can relax and focus on thinking.

Since our brain is also constantly processing data that is coming from inside our body, in order to do our best thinking, we need a healthy body and a comfortable environment. People who are suffering from a hot or cold environment, an uncomfortable chair, medical problems that result in internal pains, or high levels of hunger or thirst, are not going to be able to concentrate as well as somebody in a better environment and in better health.

3) Our emotions try to manipulate our thinking

An example of how our emotions can distort our thinking is a zoologist who is contemplating the issue of why baby humans are so helpless compared to baby monkeys, zebras, and elephants. His intellectual unit may create several dozen possible reasons for this helplessness, but as he thinks about each of them, his emotions will be titillated by some theories more than others.

His arrogance, and his craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, will cause him to favor the theories that make him feel special. He will be titillated by the theories that human babies are helpless because we are special creatures, and his emotions will be upset by the theory that human babies are helpless because the human race is degrading genetically into retards.

If he does not have much self-control, he will believe the theory that brings him the most emotional pleasure, even if it doesn't have any supporting evidence.

Another example of how a person's emotions can influence his decisions is that some of the people who do not like President Trump believe the theory that is being promoted by such Jews as Noam Chomsky and Patricia Arquette; specifically, that Trump might stage a false flag operation.

The reason they will believe this theory is because they do not like Trump, so when they encounter a news report that makes Trump appear to be a terrible person, their emotions will be titillated. The people who have low self-control, which seems to be the majority of people, are likely to believe whichever theory their emotions are most strongly attracted to. For the people who dislike Trump, they will be attracted to the theories that give Trump a bad image, even if there is no sensible supporting evidence for them, such as the theory that Trump got elected simply because a Russian hacker manipulated the American election.

A person who does not have good control of his emotions is likely to believe a lot of theories that don't have any supporting evidence, or which are truly idiotic, simply because those particular theories make him feel good. This is most noticeable with the people who promote religious theories. They want to believe that some god loves them and will take care of them, and that they are going to heaven. They don't care what the evidence shows.

If we could measure a person's ability to control his emotions, we would find that most people are "average", and I suspect that "average" is below the threshold necessary to deal with the complex problems we have to deal with today. This results in the majority of people being easily manipulated by deception and promises from political candidates, crime networks, religions, charities, and news reports.

My father had a lot of trouble dealing with life's problems, and even though he eventually discovered that his headaches ceased when he stopped drinking milk, which improved his life somewhat, he did not want to believe that his problems were due to his genetic disorders. He is very strongly attracted to the theory that a small group of "super rich" people are making life miserable for the ordinary people like him.

The reason he likes this theory is because it provides a simple solution to his problems; specifically, if we were to elect the appropriate government officials, they would increases taxes on that small group of billionaires, and all of the ordinary people will live happily ever after. Nobody will suffer, not even the billionaires, since nobody needs to be a billionaire, so it is a very simple and painless solution to a complex problem.

By comparison, the people who are failures in life are upset by the theory that their problems are most likely due to their genetic flaws and limitations. They don't like that theory because it doesn't provide them with any simple solution to their problems.

When president Eisenhower went on television and warned people about the "military-industrial establishment," my father was attracted to the theory that such an entity exists because it provides a very simple solution to the problem of war. Specifically, we can eliminate war simply by telling the police to shut down that mysterious organization, and then everybody will live happily ever after. That theory allows us to eliminate war without any of us having to do any work, learn anything new, exert any effort, or suffer any emotional discomfort.

By comparison, my recommendation to eliminate wars is to break all of the nations down into large, semi-independent cities so that none of them have the resources or manpower to create much of a military force. I also suggest that we create a world government to provide supervision to the cities to ensure that they are cooperating with one another and compatible, rather than fighting with one another. The world government would be prohibited from having military weapons, also. This type of policy is going to require a lot of people to be willing to push themselves into experimenting with a new life, new attitudes, and new governments. It requires a lot of people to do a lot of work, and suffer a lot of emotional discomfort. It is not a simple solution.

The people who describe themselves as "liberals" tend to be like my father; specifically, they want to feel sorry for themselves and blame their problems on the simplistic theory that the wealthy people are making life miserable for the ordinary and poor people, and that all of our problems can be solved simply by taking away some of their money.

In this modern world, we must be able to accept whichever theory makes the most intellectual sense, even if our emotions are upset by the theory. How many people are capable of doing that? I suspect that it is a minority of the population.

The majority of people put up a resistance to the theories that are emotionally upsetting to them. Most people do not seem to have enough self-control to do what makes the most intellectual sense. I think this is why religion is so popular, and why the majority of people consistently choose to follow theories that make no sense, such as the theory that carrying a gun is going to stop crime, or that jail is going to rehabilitate criminals, or that we can end hunger by giving food to starving people, or that we can end poverty by providing handouts to the poor people.

Most people do not care what the evidence shows. They have a tendency to believe whatever brings them the most emotional pleasure. Most people have such a strong tendency to do whatever feels good that they cannot even control their consumption of food.

Another example of people who believe whatever theories make them feel good are the men who become frustrated with women, and who are attracted to the theory that women are disgusting, selfish, abusive creatures. At the other extreme, some men are attracted to the theory that women are magical princesses that make a man's life worthwhile.

It requires a certain amount of self-control for a man to accept the theory that women are just females of a particular species of monkey; that the relationship between male and female humans is almost as crude as it is between other species of monkeys; and that getting involved with a woman has both advantages and disadvantages.

A person is not going to be able to benefit from his intelligence if he has so little control over his emotions that he believes whichever theories are the most emotionally pleasing, and who dismisses the theories that have the most sensible supporting evidence. All of the zoologists and biologists are above average in intelligence and education, but how many of them have the self-control necessary to regard a human as nothing more than a species of monkey?

We are not as "special" species of monkey. We only like to imagine that we are special. Humans have some unique characteristics, but there are a lot of bacteria, plants, and animals that have unique and amazing characteristics. We could say that there are thousands of creatures that are "special". However, a more sensible attitude is that no species is special. We are simply different.

When we think about life, government systems, school systems, and other issues, our emotions cause us to attracted to some theories more than others. If we don't have enough self-control to choose the theories that make the most intellectual sense, we will end up choosing theories that make us feel good, and that is going to result in idiotic, destructive, or worthless opinions, government systems, economic systems, social affairs, and holiday celebrations.

A person is not going to be able to create intelligent theories about men and women unless he has enough self-control to keep his emotional cravings from distorting the results of the processing. He must be able to regard men and women as male and female monkeys.

The same is true when we design a government system. We have an emotional craving to be at the top of the hierarchy and for other people to obey us. We also want our children to have special treatment. If we let those emotions influence our creation of a government, we will prefer monarchies and nepotism.

If, instead, we can enough exert self-control to do what makes the most intellectual sense, then we will regard government officials as employees who are doing a job, and their family members will be expected to stay out of the job.

When we design school systems, holiday celebrations, recreational affairs, courtship procedures, and economic systems, we should exert some self-control and think about what makes the most sense for the human race. We should not do what feels good.

The people who are selected to be voters should show an above-average ability of to control their emotions and make intelligent decisions about which government official to replace, and who to hire. The government officials should also show above-average self-control. They should make decisions according to what is best for society, not according to their emotional cravings.

4) Our emotion can distract us

Our emotions can interfere with our thinking simply by distracting us. For example, when an engineer is trying to design a better microprocessor, if he is desperate for sex he might find that particular emotion is interfering with his thinking by creating images of women, thereby reducing his productivity.

When a man is designing a refrigerator, he does not have to worry about his emotions trying to manipulate the design because his emotions don't care about refrigerators, but he has to watch out for his emotions distracting him, such as his emotional cravings for sex, food, or thirst.

5) Our fatigue level affect our thinking

Some creatures never sleep, such as some of the creatures in the ocean, and bacteria. Other creatures, such as some bears, can sleep for several months at a time. The social animals that adapted to the daytime, such as humans and monkeys, are physically and mentally active during the daytime, but during the evening we become tired, which causes us to gather together to relax and sleep.

Humans do our best physical and mental work from the time we wake up to perhaps 8 to 14 hours later. Both our mind and body become tired after 12 to 14 hours, which causes us to want to relax. We can continue to do physical and mental work during the evening, but if we could measure that work, we would find that we are not as productive as we are during the daytime.

Once we start getting tired, we want to get together with other people to relax, have casual conversations, listen to music, or engage in some type of entertainment that is not physically or intellectually strenuous. We become more sociable when we are tired, and I suspect that men and women get along better when we are tired.

A lot of people complain that television programs don't stimulate our intelligence, but I think the main reason people want simplistic entertainment in the evening is because both our mind and body want to relax at night.

Different people have different levels of physical and mental stamina, so there are some people who start becoming physically and mentally tired after only a few hours of work, whereas other people can do physical and mental work for more than 14 hours before they show signs of fatigue. However, we all get tired at night, and I think it is because we were designed to get tired. In other words, it is not an accident or a flaw that we become tired.

The social animals seem to have evolved a mind and body that deliberately gets tired at night so that we stop working, get together, and socialize. If my assumption is true, then we could design a city to deal with this characteristic. For example, during the daytime everybody would be expected to work. All of the entertainment options would be shut down during the day. There would be no music concerts, for example. Recreational facilities would be available for employees during their lunch break, however.

At the end of the workday, in the evenings, the city would go through a transformation. The restaurants, social clubs, music concerts, museums, and theaters would open up for us to get together for food, music, courtship activities, arts and crafts, hobbies, and other types of entertainment and recreation.

One of the reasons I suggest we experiment with extending our lunch hour to possibly three hours and encourage recreational activities during that time is to give the office workers some exercise during the day. Since our body was designed to be active during the day, this might be more natural than getting exercise in the evening. If everybody was getting physical exercise during the day, then the recreational activities in the evening would be primarily for entertainment and socializing rather than for exercise.

I don't know what would be best for us, but I mention these options to help you realize that the better we understand our mind and body, the better we will do at providing ourselves with a social environment that provides us with the most pleasant life. This assumes, of course, that we have the courage to experiment with our options.

Some people's thinking ability is substandard for our era
People have developed a lot of idiotic beliefs, such as the belief that some women are witches, and that killing a child will appease some god. We like to blame the idiotic ideas of the previous generations on ignorance, but there are people today who are producing equally idiotic beliefs, so we cannot say it is due to ignorance.

For example, consider the people who offer models of Noah's ark (one of which is below). They are not ignorant people. They were exposed to virtually the same information about religion and science that you and I were exposed to. However, when they analyzed that information, they came to the conclusion that the story of the ark is true. There is something significantly different between the way their brain processes information, and the way my brain processes it.

Those of us who regard Noah's ark as fiction cannot have an intelligent discussion about the issue with people who believe that Noah's ark is a true historical event. The reason is because we process the same information into different conclusions, and the reason for that is because the people who believe in Noah's ark have an inferior brain.

We must stop promoting the attitude that everybody is equal. We are not equal. We are different, and some people must be described as intellectually and/or emotionally inferior. The inferior people are causing trouble for us in many ways, and they must be suppressed. For example, they promote idiotic beliefs, such as Noah's ark, and many of them behave in destructive manners, such as having violent demonstrations in the streets, and some of them promote detrimental attitudes that hurt morale or encourage bad behavior, such as the men and women who hate the opposite sex.

Every day each of us processes a lot of information and makes a lot of decisions, such as what to eat, the quantities to eat, and when to eat. We also make decisions about when to go to work, or whether we should quit our job, or whether we should look for another job. We also make decisions about how to treat other people, and whether we should look at a website, book, or television program.

We make decisions by processing information, but because we have genetically different brains, each of us reaches different conclusions, even if we are processing the exact same information. For some examples:
• Two boys who grow up in the same neighborhood and go to the same schools can end up taking different paths in life, such as one of them joining a crime network, and the other joining a police force.

• When we look through the window of a retail store and see an item that attracts our attention, some of us will come to the conclusion that we cannot afford it, and we then turn away and continue with our life. However, another person who looks at the same item will start thinking of ways to steal the item, or thinking of ways to steal money so that he can purchase the item.

• When we encounter a vendor who is selling rabbit's feet, rhinoceros tusks, and manta ray gills, some people come to the conclusion that these products are worthless, but other people come to the conclusion that these are magical products that can improve our health or life.

• When we encounter a child, some of us will interact with the child in some manner, such as by saying hello to him, or by and asking him his name, but another person who meets the same child will think of ways to touch the child, or kidnap the child.
• When the candidate that we voted for fails to get elected, some of us decide to forget about it and continue with life, whereas other people, such as the woman in the photo, decide to break the windows of retail stores with a baseball bat.
When different computers process the same data, they come to the identical conclusions, but when different human minds process the same data, they reach different conclusions.

Some people's brains are causing them to be destructive to society. We need leaders who have the emotional ability to publicly admit that some people are inferior and detrimental, and who will deal with those people rather than pander to or ignore them.

Imagine if every person in the nation were to behave like the Clinton supporters who broke windows and started fires after Clinton lost the 2016 election. Obviously, our cities would be destroyed after every election. Or imagine a business allowing their employees to break windows and start fires in the office buildings and factories whenever the management implemented a policy that they didn't approve of.

We tolerate this destructive behavior because it is coming from a small minority of the population, and because we believe the U.S. Constitution provides people with the right to have protests. However, businesses don't provide their employees with the right to have violent tantrums, so why should a society? Violent protests should be regarded as "crimes" and "temper tantrums", not as "free speech".

We like to assume that if we put a group of people into a meeting to discuss an issue, and if we provide everybody with the same information, they will eventually agree to the same conclusion, but this is never going to happen because:
1) Our emotional characteristics are different, causing us to have different desires and different amounts of self-control.
2) Our intellectual abilities are different.
The people who behave in destructive or crazy manners are not "evil". Rather, their brain is processing data in a different manner. We should face the evidence that a certain percentage of the population needs to be classified as mentally inferior, and that their behavior is unacceptable.

Evolution only gives us what we need, and during prehistoric times, people did not need a high quality brain. Prehistoric humans only had to capture wild animals, find fruits and vegetables, and protect themselves from weather and predators. It did not matter if their dreams were mixing into their memories of reality, and it did not matter whether they were bipolar or schizophrenic, as long as their mental illness was not so serious that it interfered with their ability to survive and raise children.

In this modern world, however, a lot of the mental characteristics and problems that were acceptable in prehistoric times are no longer tolerable. We must raise standards for mental qualities, and the people in influential positions should meet even higher standards.

Biblical passages are acceptable if we acknowledge the authors are humans
Although I oppose organized religions and the story of Adam and Eve, it is acceptable for people to extract some of the sensible remarks from the Bible. For example, some people like to use the Bible to remind themselves of how to treat other people, or to help them control their anger, envy, pouting, or cravings for money. There is nothing wrong with using the Bible in this manner, but the people who do this should realize that they are reading a book that was written by humans, not by a God.

If they could understand and accept this concept, then they could extract the useful remarks from the Bible and discard the rest. They should also rewrite the remarks to make them more understandable and to get rid of the idiotic remarks about Jesus. They would be left with a tiny book of philosophical remarks, such as how to treat people, and what sort of goals to set for yourself.

For example, some people like to remind themselves of Galatians 6:14 to help them suppress their craving to boast about themselves. However, most of the translations are confusing, and they refer to Jesus. This page lists 54 different translations of Galatians 6:14.

The religious people should remove the remarks about Jesus and create a more sensible philosophical remark about exerting some self-control over our craving to boast. If a person needs to believe in God in order to help him control his boasting, then he could modify that biblical remark to use God instead of Jesus, such as:
May I never boast, except to praise God for the glorious universe he created for us to enjoy.

A test is a reflection of the people who provide the "correct" answers
We have different abilities to think, create music, draw pictures, remember information, do math, control our muscles, concentrate on tasks, and identify patterns. Each of us also has slight differences in our emotional reactions, and we have different levels of self-control. How do we determine who among us is thinking properly? How do we measure the quality of a person's thinking? How do we determine who is mentally ill?

The only way we can determine if a person's brain is functioning properly is the same way we determine whether a computer is functioning properly. Specifically, give the processor a certain set of data to process, and then verify that the results of the processing are accurate. However, it is important to realize that the conclusions to these tests depends upon who is providing the answers to the tests.

For example, if we allowed a group of religious fanatics to design the tests to determine who among us can think properly, they would say that correct answer to the following question is "a":
"Which makes more sense:  a) Noah's ark  b) Evolution"

It is easy for schools to measure a student's ability in math because everybody agrees on the correct answer to math questions. A computer also agrees with us on the correct answers to math questions.

Unfortunately, there are no correct answers to cultural issues, such as abortion, the legalization of drugs, and the prevention of crime.

To complicate the issue, there are many issues that people are lying about, such as: Did astronauts land on the moon? Did the Nazis kill and burn 6 million Jews? Why did the World Trade Center buildings crumble into dust?

Our schools put children through tests to determine how well they know history and social science, and the students who do good on these tests are regarded as experts in the Holocaust, women's studies, economics, psychology, philosophy, and human relationships. However, the tests in social science are designed by people who are scientifically incompetent, and history tests are designed by people who are either dishonest, or so naive that they do not realize that they are promoting Jewish propaganda.

The end result is that the students who perform the best on school tests are as incompetent, naive, and/or dishonest as the people who designed the tests. This is why none of the "experts" in social issues have anything intelligent to say.

For an example of how incompetent our "experts" in social issues are, unemployment is rising every year, and some economists claim that the reason is because technology is "eliminating" jobs. In reality, technology merely "alters" the jobs that are available to us. It is a subtle but important difference that the "experts" do not understand.

Technology does not "eliminate" jobs; it merely "changes" the jobs that are available to us. There are just as many jobs and business opportunities today as there were hundreds of years ago, but technology is causing the jobs to require higher levels of skills, responsibility, and intelligence. Unfortunately, human minds are not evolving to fit the changing technology. Actually, the human race is breeding itself into retards. As a result, as technology improves, fewer people have the intellectual and/or emotional characteristics necessary to do one of the available jobs.

When we base a theory on a false assumption, we cannot solve the problem. For example, if we believe that technology is eliminating jobs, there is no solution to unemployment, except to get rid of technology. By comparison, when we believe that technology is merely changing the jobs that are available, then we can see a solution to unemployment; namely, restrict reproduction to the people who can handle the new jobs.

The minimum wage is another issue that the experts in economics cannot provide an intelligent analysis of. When somebody proposes raising the minimum wage, most wealthy people react by creating animated images in their mind of poor people who are grabbing at their money. Those images trigger their emotions of anger. Some wealthy people go even further and frighten themselves with animated images of how they will have to give so much money to the employees that thousands of businesses will be driven to bankruptcy, and the economy will collapse.

The unskilled laborers, by comparison, are more likely to create animated images of themselves working like slaves to allow a small number of people to become absurdly wealthy from their efforts. They don't regard themselves as grabbing at the money of the wealthy people; rather, they regard the wealthy people as selfishly taking a bigger piece of the economic pie than they deserve. They believe that by increasing the minimum wage, they will be treated more fairly.

There are constant battles between the wealthy people who want to keep the minimum wage low, and the unskilled laborers who want to increase the minimum wage. The "experts" in economics are doing nothing to resolve these disputes because their view of economics is based on a false foundation, so nothing they say has any value.

Ironically, raising the minimum wages does the opposite of what the wealthy people are afraid of, and it does the opposite of what the unskilled laborers are hoping for. When we raise the minimum wage, we make labor costs more expensive. In a free enterprise system, this puts pressure on businesses to find ways of reducing labor costs, such as by redesigning products so that they can be produced with fewer laborers; finding ways to design factories that are more efficient so that fewer employees are needed; and developing more advanced machines and robots to replace employees.

Through the years, the businesses find ways to reduce the number of unskilled and low-paid workers. The wealthy people terrify themselves into believing that raising the minimum wages will ruin the economy, but it will actually give them what they would prefer; namely, a business that does not have as many unskilled or low-paid workers.

The unskilled laborers believe that by raising the minimum wage, they will make more money, but in reality, they will slowly reduce the number of jobs that are available to them, thereby increasing unemployment. If the minimum wage goes high enough, all unskilled labor jobs will be eliminated.

By comparison, when the minimum wage is very low, it becomes more efficient for businesses to hire lots of unskilled laborers than to develop machines and robots. This would provide a wide variety of jobs for people who don't have any useful skills.

The unskilled laborers are making a mistake by assuming that increasing the minimum wage will provide them with more money. They are making the same mistake that the unions make when they promote the theory that increasing wages will provide the workers with more money.

The only way a group of people can increase their share of the economic pie if they reduce the slices that the other people are getting. Unfortunately, the experts in economics do not understand this concept. This is why the think tanks, economic professors, government officials, and other "experts" on economics never point out the absurdity of what the unions are doing, or that the wealthy people should be glad to raise the minimum wage.

The only sensible way to increase the wages of the workers is to reduce the income of the wealthy people. However, this is not likely to happen in a free enterprise system. This requires the government to get more involved with the economy, such as by putting a limit on how much money a person can make.

The free enterprise system puts people into a battle for money, and as a result, whenever one group of people tries to get a bigger piece of the economic pie, it causes the other people to fight even harder to keep what they already have. As I mentioned in a previous document, one of the other effects of this fight over money is that it causes inflation. For example, when the minimum wage goes up, in addition to looking for ways to eliminate unskilled labor, some businesses will increase their prices, thereby causing inflation.

Other businesses will eventually respond to the inflation by increasing their prices, and eventually the increase in the minimum wage will be negated by the inflation, thereby putting the unskilled laborers back where they started, or in an even worse situation since some of them will have been replaced by machines in the meantime.

We inadvertently hurt ourselves with our lack of self-control
The free enterprise system is an idiotic system for a modern world. There is no sensible reason for us to fight with one another over food and material items like a group of animals. The economic pie today is so enormous that we can share it. Our fighting over money is causing inflation, strikes, stress, hatred, and aggravation.

The wealthy people support the concept of fighting for money because they believe it is allowing them to become wealthy, and they believe that their wealth is allowing them to enjoy life more than those of us who are "poor", but we should not let those people determine our future. Technology is providing us with a tremendous number of options, and we should start exploring some of them rather than continuing to fight with one another over money.

The wealthy people are inadvertently hurting themselves and society as a result of their selfishness and greed. They keep wages low so that they can become wealthy, and they believe that their wealth will make them happy, but I think most of us would enjoy life more if we were living in a city that didn't have a peasant class or a wealthy class.

Our fight over money is creating an unpleasant social environment. A few examples are:
• It creates a city in which there are an enormous number of peasants, some of whom don't speak the same language, or have any desire to be part of our society.
• It creates a society in which unions are frequently staging strikes and protests to raise wages, which results in endless inflation.
• It causes people to spend a lot of time comparing their income to other people's income.
The wealthy people believe that fighting over money is beneficial because it allows them to become wealthy, and they believe their wealth is making their life more pleasant, but I think their selfishness and greed is creating a miserable social environment for everybody, including them.

During prehistoric times, some of the men and women were more successful at the finding food, and in creating tools, clothing, and other material items. They were the wealthy people of the prehistoric era. They were admired and respected. They and their children could wander around the tribe and interact with other people without fear of crime, and without being disgusted by hordes of peasants, criminals, homeless people, and weirdos.

During the past few thousand years, however, the fights over material wealth have significantly altered our social environment. The wealthy people today are living in nice homes and country clubs, but our cities are so miserable that the wealthy people and their children do not enjoy the city or the people who live in it. Many of them also live in fear of crime.

This miserable environment is the result of people who cannot control their craving for material wealth and status; who want to use other people as a cheap source of labor; and who who have such gigantic houses and yards that they want peasants as maids and gardeners. Some of them do not even want to take care of their children; they want peasants to be nannies.

I think everybody, including the wealthy people, would enjoy life more when they can enjoy the city they live in and enjoy the people. As it is now, the giant houses of the wealthy people are essentially luxurious prison cells. Just like prisoners, they spend most of their time inside their cell, and they try to avoid contact with the unpleasant people they live among. They also spend a lot of time and effort trying to protect their children from crime.

This concept of how we inadvertently hurt ourselves by following our emotional cravings can also be seen with the issue of abortion and birth control. If the conservatives had dictatorial control of the USA, there would be no abortions, and that would mean that every year there would be an additional million unwanted children. And that they were also capable of preventing birth control, there would be millions of more unwanted children. Their policy would result in a world that is miserable for everybody, including them.

If the conservatives had dictatorial control of the world, they would destroy the human race, and they would destroy the beauty of the earth with pollution, overfishing, and excessive harvesting of trees. This is not because conservatives are uneducated, stupid, or evil. It is because humans are monkeys, and the conservatives are following their animal cravings to reproduce, and to fight for food, status, and land. They are not exerting any self-control or thinking about what would make the most sense. They are doing what feels good.

Our natural tendency is to fight over resources, not work together and share resources. Our natural tendency is to produce and raise lots of babies, not control our sexual and reproductive cravings and pass judgment on which of the babies need to be euthanized.

The liberals also demand polices that are destructive. Their behavior is similar to that of children. They want something for nothing, just as children expect their parents to give them things. When liberals don't get what they want, they are likely to have a temper tantrum, cry, whine, or beg, just like a child. They like to feel sorry for themselves.

Neither the conservatives nor the liberals are providing us with appropriate guidance in life. Both groups need to be ignored. Both groups need to be regarded as intellectually and emotionally unfit for this modern world.

Our schools need to be redesigned, not given a trivial modification
The experts in economics, psychology, law, journalism, foreign affairs, women studies, and other social sciences are regarded as "experts" because they have done well in the school courses. Unfortunately, the social science curriculum was designed by criminals who are promoting Jewish propaganda, and people who cannot understand genetics. As a result, the students who do good in the social sciences are those who share the inferior mental qualities of the people who designed the courses.

Our courts are full of judges and lawyers with college diplomas in the subject of law, but they cannot even provide us with a sensible analysis of the Second Amendment. Our economic experts are doing nothing to resolve strikes and minimum-wage disputes. The experts in women's studies are doing nothing to help men and women form more stable marriages.

The people who have college diplomas in economics, journalism, law, and other social sciences are not experts in any of those subjects. They are simply people who have diplomas. The people who graduate from religious schools claim to be experts on religion, God, Jesus, and the Bible, but they don't know anymore about religion than you and I do. If there was a college giving diplomas in clairvoyance or reincarnation, the students who graduated from those courses would claim to be experts in those issues.

In order for the social sciences to become useful school courses, we must replace the people designing the curriculum with people who have a much better understanding of science, and who are more honest about historical events.

Schools should teach about deception
During prehistoric times, nobody had to understand anything about crime networks, propaganda, or manipulation techniques, but today everybody should have an understanding of these issues.

People in influential positions today, including voters, need a better-than-average understanding of how people can be manipulated and deceived. A voter who does not or cannot understand how candidates and journalists can manipulate our opinions is essentially a helpless child.

For example, Craig Silverman wrote this article to explain how the pizzagate conspiracy got started and spread throughout the world. People who want to vote or be a leader could be asked to write a brief analysis of articles such as that, and explain if the article is informative or deceptive.

There is no right or wrong analysis of an article, but the people who cannot show that Silverman's article is trying to manipulate us should be regarded as too helpless to influence the world. His attempt to manipulate us is so blatant it is almost amusing. For example, here are some of his remarks to convince us that the pizzagate issue is nonsense:
• The unhinged conspiracy theory now known as “Pizzagate”
• This strange and convoluted conspiracy theory
• has its origins in false accusations
• This one example shows how Trump supporters, members of 4chan and Reddit, and right-wing blogs in the US and in other countries combined to create and spread viral misinformation during the election season.
• no law enforcement agency has said anything about these crazy claims.
• The claims have been concocted and are being spread to misinform people.
Silverman also tries to give a bad image to the people who promote the pizzagate issue. This technique is described as attacking the messenger rather than discussing the message. He refers to the people as:
• One random account on Twitter
• An anonymous person
• A conspiracy theorist
What is a "random" account? Humans have a craving to follow the crowd, and to follow authority, so by referring to an account as "random", our mind is likely to visualize an individual person of no importance, and who has wandered away from the crowd and is all alone, which stimulates our emotions of fear. We do not want to follow a low-ranking person, or a person who has wandered away from the crowd.

We are not attracted to a "random" person. We are attracted to celebrities, experts, scholars, leaders, and distinguished people. This is why some journalists praise Craig Silverman as a "fake news expert", such as this article, in which Silverman is praised for having "spent years studying media inaccuracy".

Voters should have the ability to realize that those type of remarks or attempt to manipulate us. If studying something for years makes us an expert, then all of us are experts on lots of different subjects because we all spent many years studying various subjects while we were in school.

If schools would give children practice in identifying deception, they would become better able to avoid being manipulated. For another example, published this article to help us identify "fake news". Here are a few of their remarks about "Pizzagate":
• Some fake news writers pushed the debunked "Pizzagate" conspiracy
• the notorious "Pizzagate" conspiracy
• Countless fake news pieces were written about the alleged scandal, without a shred of evidence. But do some digging, and you'll find that the entire conspiracy originated from a single unsubstantiated tweet from a white-supremacy account.
The people who want to vote or get into influential positions should be required to take courses in deception, and those who cannot show a better-than-average ability to see and avoid the deception should not qualify as voters, or for any other influential position.

Many conservatives have been complaining for years that the media is "liberal", and some of the liberals complain that the media is controlled by the corporations, the military-industrial establishment, or the CIA. In reality, the media is under the control of Jewish criminals, and I would say that their fear of an investigation into the pizzagate issue is evidence that many of them are also involved with pedophilia.

I would say that as of 2017, the people who cannot see that Jews are the primary group dominating the media are either intellectually inferior to those of us who can see the Jewish dominance, or they are refusing to see the Jewish dominance because they don't want to see it. In either case, they should be described as inappropriate as voters and leaders.

Likewise, we should consider people to be inferior to us if they cannot see, or if they refuse to see, the Jewish influence in the 9/11 attack, or that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, and dozens of other issues. Those people are dangerous as leaders and as voters because they are easily manipulated by criminals.

What is a "constitutionally limited-government republic"?
For a more complex example of deception, this article has such suggestions as:
Donald Trump should do America and the world a favor. He should ask Congress to dismantle the CIA, the Pentagon, and the NSA and restore a constitutionally limited-government republic to our land.

Why don’t we we just ditch the entire national security establishment and restore a constitutional republic to our land?
What is a "constitutionally limited-government republic"? What is a "national security establishment"? Most people will be fooled by the vague remarks into thinking that they are not intelligent enough to understand the document. However, if you continue reading you will find this remark near the end:

"the 9/11 attacks, which were retaliatory blowback from U.S. foreign interventionism."

It should be obvious that he is trying to cover up the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack and direct anger towards the American government. This should make you suspect that he wants to get rid of the CIA, Pentagon, and NSA because he worries about them doing something about the crime networks, and/or so that he and his Jewish friends can get involved with creating the agencies to replace them.

People who cannot see this deception can be fooled into allowing criminals to get into our government. Regardless of why they cannot see the deception, we should stop ignoring their inferiority and start pointing out to them that they are unfit to influence the world.

Some people get into arguments over whether America is a democracy or a republic, but it does not matter which word we use to describe this country. We could create a new word to describe America, such as a Fraudocracy:
Fraudocracy: A nation in which a small crime network has acquired so much influence over the nation's media, businesses, schools, military, and government that they dominate the nation, but they have done so in such a secretive and deceptive manner that most of the public does not realize the crime network exists, and so they foolishly believe that the majority of people are in control of the nation.
Be careful about getting into arguments over words and expressions. The people who want to "restore our Republic" are either following their emotions like a stupid animal, or they are trying to manipulate us. They are not providing us with an intelligent analysis of our problems. That is why they have chosen the word "restore".

We have a craving to follow our ancestors. When a person advocates that we "restore" our Republic, they are implying that we have wandered off the established path, and that we will improve our situation by going back to what our ancestors had.

Some people advocate restoring the Republic simply because they have a craving to follow their ancestors, but criminals will advocate it because they want to be in control of the restoration project. This allows the criminals to modify the government in any manner they please because "restore the Republic" is such a vague expression that it is virtually meaningless.

In reality, the only way to improve life is to improve upon what our ancestors have done. We need to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and blaze a new path into the future. We need to experiment with changes.

However, learning from the mistakes of our ancestors requires that we have the ability to look critically at our ancestors and our society, but many people are too arrogant to do that. They want to boast about their ancestors and their society. And blazing a new path for ourselves requires that we find the courage to explore the unknown and experiment with our life, but most people don't have that courage.

By comparison, a proposal to "restore the Republic" seems simple and effortless. It doesn't require us to look critically at our society, and we don't have to experiment with our lives. We simply mimic our ancestors, and our problems will magically disappear. It is essentially a promise to get something for nothing. It is another example of how people are attracted to the concept of getting something for free. It is also another example of why we have to push ourselves into doing what makes the most intellectual sense, even if it is emotionally unpleasant.

In order to improve the world, we have to regard the people who want to follow their ancestors as unfit for leadership positions. They may be wonderful as electricians, supervisors of factories, chefs, and doctors, but they are not suitable for a leadership position in this modern world.

We must pass judgment on a person's mental qualities
The emotional and intellectual characteristics that were acceptable during prehistoric times are not necessarily acceptable today. For example, consider the issue of how differently we defend our nations today compared to how prehistoric men defended their tribe. The prehistoric men would defend their tribe from animals and neighboring tribes just like a group of monkeys; specifically, by throwing rocks, yelling, kicking, and hitting. A prehistoric man would be effective in defending his tribe even if he was psychotic, anti-social, unable to work in a team, or believed that he was a reincarnated wolf.

Today, however, the people in the military need to be able to read and write, do arithmetic, work in large teams, follow complex orders, follow time schedules, operate and maintain a lot of complex equipment, and have a certain understanding of complex issues, such as spies, deception, propaganda, and false flag operations. Some men in the military have to also have the bravery and skills to use parachutes, scuba gear, and airplanes. A man who did an adequate job of defending his tribe in prehistoric times would not necessarily be of value to a modern military.

Likewise, a prehistoric man who did an adequate job of taking care of himself and his family would not necessarily be successful in our world today. A man today needs a considerable amount of education, intelligence, and skills compared to our prehistoric ancestors.

A modern society should set higher standards of behavior than what was acceptable during prehistoric times, and we should pass judgment on who among us meets those standards. The people who do not meet those standards need to be put under restrictions or evicted from society.

Another reason to pass judgment on people's physical and mental qualities is so that we can help people find appropriate jobs. Schools should not promote the attitude that everybody is equal, and that we can do any job we please if we try hard enough. That philosophy makes us feel good, but it is unrealistic, and it causes a lot of people to waste a lot of their time and money training for a job that they don't have the ability to do properly, or which there are not enough jobs for all of the students.

Our schools don't care whether the students get jobs because they are not responsible for finding jobs for the students. I propose a school system in which the school officials are responsible for finding jobs for the students. This would cause the school officials to change their attitude towards school. The schools would not teach children that they can do whatever they please. Instead, the schools would put students through lots of activities and tests in order to discover which jobs they enjoy, and which jobs they are capable of doing properly.

Instead of being separated from the businesses, the school officials would work with the businesses to find out which jobs are available and which jobs are coming up in the future. The businesses will help the schools to design courses that will provide the students with appropriate skills, and avoid wasting time teaching unnecessary skills. The businesses will also provide feedback on how the previous graduates are doing at their jobs, and the schools will use that information to adjust the curriculum to make it even more useful.

That type of school system will not promote the attitude that all students are equal. It will promote the attitude that everybody is genetically different, and that some people will be better at certain jobs because they are genetically superior in certain mental or physical abilities.

Most people are probably willing to accept that type of school system without whining that it is promoting an insulting or elitist attitude because most people seem to be willing to admit that we differ in our abilities and desires to be engineers, carpenters, surgeons, pilots, and farmers.

However, the school system should also promote the attitude that we are not equal in regards to voting and providing leadership. There are likely to be people who complain about that philosophy because most of us have been raised on the philosophy that everybody is equal in those activities.

Furthermore, our society should also promote the attitude that we are not equal in regards to being a parent, husband, wife, or friend, and an even larger number of people are likely to complain about that philosophy.

Although we don't know enough about the human mind to seriously rate a person's ability to be a friend or spouse, it is possible for us to pass judgment on a person's ability to be a spouse or friend. Actually, everybody already does this, and on a regular basis.

For example, when we encounter a husband who causes his family financial problems because of his inability to control his shopping, drug use, or gambling, most us criticize him as an inferior husband compared to the men who have greater self-control and make more sensible decisions. Likewise, when we encounter a person who steals from his friends, or causes them some other type of problems, we criticize him as being a terrible friend.

It is easy for us to give a rating to a person's ability to do math because we can put him through math tests that have definite right or wrong answers, but we don't yet know enough about the human mind to figure out how to give create tests which show us how a person rates in regards to being a friend or spouse. However, we do have the ability to speculate about whether a person is a good friend or a terrible friend.

During prehistoric times, the competitive battle for life determined who was an appropriate parent, friend, and spouse. The people who had inappropriate behavior were less successful in raising children. This resulted in the lower quality parents, friends, and spouses always being a small percentage of the population.

However, during the past few centuries, the situation has changed dramatically. We now live in societies in which there is so much secrecy that we don't know much about the people we are forming friendships, business relationships, and marriages with. This is causing a lot of unstable and abusive relationships.

To complicate the issue, some of the people who have successful marriages are actually lower quality people than the people who get divorced. For example, some women have miserable marriages but they don't want to get divorced because they are frightened of the thought of earning a living in this modern world. Likewise, some men will remain in a miserable marriage because they are too emotionally disturbed to live on their own. Those people appear to have a successful marriage, but their marriage is a farce that exists only because of their mental problems.

It would be better if we were to remove secrecy so that people can know who they are forming relationships with. We should also experiment with courtship procedures to help people find a compatible spouse. Once we start doing that, we need to also start passing judgment on who is inappropriate parent, friend, and spouse.

It might seem idiotic to pass judgment on who is an appropriate friend, parent, or spouse, but nature does this to all of the animals, and now that we are preventing nature from doing its job, we have to do it so that the next generation does a better job of raising children and forming friendships, marriages, and business relationships.

If we continue promoting the philosophy that everybody is equal as a friend, parent, and spouse, then every generation will have even more problems with relationships. There will be more people who are antisocial, more fathers who rape their children, more mothers who don't want to take care of their babies, more marriages that are psychotic, more loneliness, more pouting, and more suicide.

We are not even equal in regards to how we show affection. Some men, for example, are so awkward, bizarre, or clumsy that pet animals don't even like them. During prehistoric times, the men and women who could not satisfy one another were less successful in forming relationships and raising children. Today we have to make decisions about who has the qualities we want for the next generation.

It seems that everybody is willing to admit that some people are better as athletes, carpenters, doctors, surgeons, mechanics, and engineers, but what percentage of the population is willing to admit that some people are better as parents, friends, or spouses?

We must start facing the reality that humans are animals, and each of us is genetically different. Some of us are more like animals than others, and we all have different limitations, flaws, and defects. We can and should pass judgment on one another's physical and mental qualities.

We need to design tests for leadership
During prehistoric times, a man would be an effective leader for a tribe if he had the type of physical and mental characteristics that the leader of a group of monkeys has. Specifically, a man who was in excellent physical shape, a good fighter, aggressive, and intimidating.

Today there are a wide variety of leadership positions. Examples are the leader of a sports team, the supervisor of an assembly line, the manager of a scientific research team, the principal of an elementary school, the leader of a group who is exploring an unknown area of the world, the supervisor at a day care center, and the leader of a nation. Different leadership positions require slightly different physical and mental characteristics.

A person who is excellent in one particular leadership position is not necessarily the best for other leadership positions. An obvious example are the men who are capable of providing supervision to a group of men, but when allowed to supervise a daycare center or children's sports group, they cannot control their sexual cravings enough and end up molesting or raping the children.

Our schools are putting children through lots of tests on a regular basis, and we have government agencies to put adults through various tests in order to make them qualify as pilots, dentists, or other jobs. However, we rarely try to check emotional qualities or leadership abilities. For example, doctors have to go through extensive tests of their medical knowledge and abilities, but they are not tested for their sexual cravings for children, their drug problems, or any other emotional qualities.

The problem with testing emotional qualities and leadership abilities is that the tests are only as useful as the people who create them. If we allow psychologists or religious people to design tests of emotional qualities, they will create worthless tests because they have unrealistic views of emotions.

However, if the zoologists and biologists were to start working on this problem, they would eventually come up with some useful tests. Even though their tests would always be imperfect, it would be better for schools put students through those tests and provide society with an educated guess about every student's leadership abilities and emotional qualities than to ignore this issue. With those type of tests, a student's report card would not only show how well he does in certain subjects, it would also show how well he did on the tests for selfishness, arrogance, working in a team, providing leadership, dealing with failure, sexual attitudes, inhibitions, fear of the unknown, and ability to tolerate criticism.

Since children change emotionally as they become adults, the tests could be given to adults who are applying for certain jobs. For example, the men who want to work with young children could be put through some tests to determine their sexual behavior and self control. We could restrict the jobs to the men who have done well in those tests.

Even though the test would be imperfect, it would be better to restrict the jobs to men who have done well on those tests rather than ignore the issue, as we are today. Furthermore, as flaws in the tests are exposed, the tests can be improved. Through the years this will result in the tests becoming increasingly accurate.

We could also apply this concept to leadership positions. Anybody who wants to be a leader could be put through some tests to analyze their self-control, leadership abilities, fear of the unknown, and other qualities. Even though the tests will be imperfect, it could help voters make a decision about who to put into a leadership position.

How do we test leadership qualities?
A test for leadership would be similar to a test for athletic abilities. We do not test a person's athletic abilities by giving him a piece of paper that has questions on it. Rather, we put him through some athletic events, and then analyze his performance.

Schools would test leadership abilities in the same manner. They would put the students into a variety of different situations that test different leadership abilities, and the teachers would observe their performance. These type of tests will also allow the students to figure out whether they enjoy being a leader, and if so, what type of leadership position. When robots become more common, one of the tests could be to give a student a group of robots and observe how well he can organize them into getting a task accomplished, such as building a product, playing music, or cleaning a bathroom.

After a person has graduated from school and has been given a management position, he will get job performance reviews, and those reviews will supplement his school records. That will give us a more accurate understanding of his leadership abilities.

The job performance reviews will also allow the teachers to improve improve the school courses because they will be able to see who did good on the school tests, and how well they did in a real job. Of course, this assumes that all of the school records and job performance reviews are put into a public database rather than kept secret.

The idea of testing people's emotional qualities and leadership abilities might seem cruel, but all of us already do this all the time. For example, during the 2016 election, millions of people around the world passed judgment on the intellectual, emotional, and leadership qualities of Clinton and Trump. As a result of those analyses, millions of people complained that Trump is unusually arrogant, narcissistic, and lacking in self-control.

There is nothing wrong, strange, or cruel with passing judgment on a person's emotional stability, selfishness, sexual behavior, arrogance, temper, or leadership abilities. However, we cannot do a useful job of analyzing people if we allow people to keep secrets. If we had more access to information about Clinton and Trump, for example, we would have been able to do better job of analyzing their personalities and leadership abilities. Most of us don't know much about either of those people. All we know is what they are should choosing to show us.

Help find people to admit that some people have inferior minds
We are not afraid to publicly admit that some people have superior athletic, music, or math abilities, but we are afraid to admit that the people who believe in evolution are intellectually and/or emotionally superior to those who believe in Adam and Eve.

The problem is especially serious in the United States because this nation was deliberately designed to provide people with the freedom to join whatever religious group they pleased. It is understandable that the ignorant people centuries ago would want to join an organized religion, but in the 21st century, people should be able to understand that the organized religions are destructive because they encourage arrogance, fighting, and hatred.

A person does not cause trouble merely for believing in God, the Big Bang, or the ancient Roman gods, but organized religions encourage people to form arrogant groups that argue incessantly with one another. The organized religions also suppress people's curiosity about life because they encourage blind obedience. The organized religions are also a financial burden on society because they consume a lot of resources but don't give anything of value in return. They also irritate us by trying to convert us to their particular religion, and by trying to manipulate our culture.

Some of our lawyers and judges believe that Jesus walked on water, and others are Jews who believe that they are "The Chosen People". How can we expect a legal system to function properly when the lawywers and judges have minds that are of such low quality that they believe such nonsense? Why are we allowing such mental nitwits to influence our future? Those people might be effective as gardeners and truck drivers, but they are unacceptable for influential positions.

Nobody knows how the universe was created, so the theory that some type of god created the universe is just as sensible as The Big Bang Theory. However, we should prohibit organized religions, and we should also stop pretending that the people who believe in Adam and Eve and Noah's ark are just as intelligent as the rest of us. The people who believe those religious stories are showing signs of emotional and/or intellectual inferiority.

School should put students through tests in order to pass judgment on their ability to think and deal with reality. The students who believe that Jesus walked on water, or that Jews are The Chosen People, should be classified as intellectually and/or emotionally unfit for influential positions. We should raise standards for people in influential positions so that none of those religious fanatics can qualify as a lawyer, journalist, teacher, government official, voter, judge, business leader, or other influential job. We should stop pretending that the religious fanatics are intellectually and emotionally equal to the rest of us. They are inferior to us, and you should find the courage to admit to it.

However, it is not practical for just one person by himself to promote this theory. An individual will be attacked and ridiculed for such a theory. We need to find a lot of people who are willing to promote this theory. And it would help if they are impressive people, as opposed to unemployable losers, drug addicts, and religious fanatics.

Help find people to admit that men are more intelligent than women
We also need to stop pretending that men and women are a unisex creature, and accept the evidence that women in general are less intelligent than men, and that women also have different emotional characteristics. As we learn more about men and women, we might discover that women are superior to men in some intellectual tasks, but anybody who cannot see that men - as a group - are more intelligent than women should be classified as emotionally and/or intellectually inferior to those of us who can see this.

A lot of men realize that women are less intelligent than men, but they are afraid to admit it in public because they don't want to upset their wives, daughters, mothers, and other women. Other men are afraid that it will cause problems for them at their job, and that they will have to put up with both men and women accusing them of being "sexist".

The men who are afraid to publicly admit the truth are actually causing more trouble for both men and women than if they were honest. The reason is because their silence is inadvertently encouraging the women to believe the nonsensical femisist theories, and that in turn causes the women to create nonsensical opinions. For example, when women notice that there are not many female engineers, mechanics, machinists, supervisors, or scientists, the women who believe that men and women are unisex creatures will come to the false conclusion that women are being discriminated against in those jobs.

If instead, millions of men would publicly announce that feminism is incorrect, and that men are more intelligent than women, they would create a lot of emotional turmoil, but it would not last very long. It would be similar to pulling off a Band-Aid. Specifically, millions of women would suffer a lot of emotional pain, but it would end quickly, and none of them would suffer any permanent damage.

The reason the emotional turmoil would end quickly is because most men and women are capable of realizing that men and women are different, not a unisex creature. Millions of women simply need to be pressured into admitting what is obvious.

If millions of men would stand up to feminism, millions of women would react by whining, but most of them would quickly calm down and resume their life. The men would cause most of the women to develop a more sensible attitude. For example, when a woman noticed that men dominate certain types of jobs, instead of assuming that women are being discriminated against, she would think to herself: "Well, since men, as a group, are more intelligent and better at leadership than women, it would make sense that most of those jobs are taken by men."

Men have a strong craving to get on their hands and knees, tell a woman that he cannot live without her, and spend his life providing her with money and gifts. Men need to exert some self-control and stop acting like monkeys. Modern men should provide guidance to their wives and children. Men should start impressing women with their intelligence and self control, not their money. Women should respond by admiring men who can provide guidance rather than men who pander to them.

The people who design our school curriculum should be restricted to those who can exert enough self-control to teach the boys and girls that they have different physical, intellectual, and emotional characteristics. Schools should put the boys and girls through various tests to help them discover their strengths and weaknesses, and to show them that boys and girls perform differently on different mental and physical activities.

However, schools should not promote the attitude that boys are superior to girls. Rather, schools should point out that boys and girls evolved for different roles in life, and that it is idiotic to say that one sex is better than the other.

Modern societies should set standards
An orchestra will not accept a person who does not know how to play an instrument, or whose personality prevents him from fitting into the team. Our cities could follow the same philosophy that other organizations follow; specifically, a city should not accept a person who does not fit in, or who cannot contribute to it.

A person needs more intelligence, self-control, and knowledge to fit into a modern city compared to our prehistoric ancestors. People today should be able to read and write, operate a telephone, use modern plumbing, have a basic understanding of electricity, and be able to operate a seatbelt. The children and adults who don't have those skills need to be restricted from certain machinery, activities, and jobs.

People today also need a basic understanding of genetics. The people who don't have the emotional or intellectual ability to understand that we need to control reproduction, and that people are not equal to one another, should be regarded as unacceptable for reproduction and influential positions.

We must stop feeling sorry for adults who cannot function in this modern world, and start putting them on restrictions, or evicting them from society.

A modern city should set standards for behavior. Adults who cannot read and write, for example, should be described as unfit for a modern city. We could go even further and say that adults who are unable to control their food consumption, sexual inhibitions and cravings, drug use, temper, pouting, and tantrums are also unacceptable.

For example, a city could say that men who grab at women on public trains are unacceptable, and need to be restricted to their own neighborhoods or evicted. We could also say that the people who become obese, or who abuse medical or other drugs, are unacceptable and need to be restricted or evicted.

We have an incredible number of options available to us, but a city is not going to be able to experiment with its options if the people are promoting the American philosophy of feeling sorry for the underdogs, the wretched refuse, the disadvantaged, the poor, the refugees, and the huddled masses. We need to find people who are willing to create a city that promotes the type of philosophy we find with businesses, orchestras, militaries, and other organizations.

The longer we wait, the worse it gets
The longer we do nothing to improve our world, the more difficult it will become to improve it simply because problems tend to get worse each year rather than resolve themselves. Every generation has a wider variety of intellectual and emotional characteristics, which results in a wider variety of dishonest, apathetic, selfish, and anti-social people. Every generation has more lunatics, pedophiles, weirdos, and freaks in their government, military, police department, courts, media, and school system, thereby making society increasingly chaotic, inefficient, dishonest, and disgusting.

The physical defects are increasing also. Every generation has more people who bite their tongue as they eat, choke on their food, and get food down their windpipe. Every generation has more people who have problems with their eyesight, hearing, and sense of smell. Every generation has more trouble with insomnia, snoring, and sleep apnea.

The human race is on a path to destruction. We are degrading into sickly, miserable, angry, violent, dishonest, and neurotic freaks. Are you interested in changing this situation?

Some of the Asian nations are experimenting with better neighborhoods, such as the apartment complex below.

Will you help the human race go even further
and experiment with entire cities and our culture?

If so, then help find some people to join us, and let's get going!