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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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 whitehouse.org 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, Businessinsider.com 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.