1
Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society
 
A Constitution for Kastron

Part 2: Problems to deal with
1 April 2019



C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
Modern nations are too complex for democracies
Material items
Food and meals
Nobody should be able to censor information
How do we judge a person's leadership abilities?
We must eliminate secrecy
We need an authority to resolve disputes
We must do our own chores
We need leaders who have an interest in society
We must prevent “special interests” from dominating us
We must hold everybody accountable for their behavior
We should determine which jobs exist


Modern nations are too complex for democracies
The USA has another flood
In March 2019, the Missouri River flooded a lot of cities and farms, and killed more than a million farm animals.

This news report implies that climate change is responsible, but this news report claims that our dams and levees are in terrible condition and need a tremendous amount of maintenance.

This flooding brings up several important issues that I mentioned in other documents, but I will mention again to further justify restricting the people who can vote.

  • We are letting our nation deteriorate
When there are floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, and other disasters in foreign nations, the American people donate money and labor to help the people recover. We also give billions of dollars a year to Israel, and billions more to other nations. However, we do almost nothing to help our own nation.

Compared to Japan and Europe, many of our bridges, dams, drainage systems, trains, and ports are in need of maintenance, and many of the businesses in Japan and Europe have done a much better job of modernizing their factories.

Why do we donate so much money and labor to other nations, but do so little to help our own nation? Why is it that cities in the USA flood almost every year? Why are so many of our train tracks in need of maintenance? Why are so many of our factories and machine shops using primitive equipment?

The answer to these questions depends upon our view of life, as I emphasized in Part 1 of this series. For example, if you cannot look critically at yourself or your nation, then you are likely to consider flooding to be due to something outside of us, such as climate change, bad luck, or the devil. Likewise, you will consider the deteriorating train tracks, crime, corruption, traffic congestion, and other problems as being due to something that is beyond our control.

However, if you are willing to look critically at humans, and if you can accept the evidence that we are just a species of monkeys, then you are more likely to realize that all of the problems we suffer from are due to our behavior, and unless we are willing to push ourselves into improving our behavior, our problems will persist.

  • Modern nations are too complex for democracies
My explanation of why we are allowing our nation to deteriorate is that most people are behaving like the grasshopper in the fable of The Ant and The Grasshopper. Most people prefer to spend their time entertaining themselves, not dealing with society's problems or preparing for the future.

That fable would be more appropriate for people today if it took place during an election, in which case the grasshoppers would vote for liars, criminals, and pedophiles, and the ants would vote for intelligent, responsible candidates.

The leaders of an organization have the most responsibility for it, but if an organization is a democracy, then the voters determine who their leaders are and what their leaders do, which means that the voters are responsible for their organization.

Unfortunately, most voters refuse to take responsibility for their disgusting government, so instead of making an attempt to do a better job of judging candidates, they whine about being helpless victims of rival political parties or mysterious entities, such as "special interests", "The Military-Industrial Establishment", or "Russian Collusion".

A democracy might have worked 10,000 years ago in a tribe of 20 closely related people, but we should face the evidence that a modern nation is too large and complex for a democracy to function properly. It is absurd to expect the majority of people to make wise decisions about managing a modern nation. It is especially ridiculous to expect of democracy to work properly when we do not control reproduction because that results in every generation of voters becoming more mentally defective than the previous generation.

The same concept applies to our economy. Specifically, the people in leadership positions of the economy, such as the business executives, are responsible for the economy, but if the economy uses a free enterprise system, then it is a variation of a democracy. Therefore, the consumers are responsible for the economy. When consumers spend money, they are "voting" for that business and product. The consumers decide who becomes a business leader, how the businesses behave, and which products are manufactured.

The economy of the USA puts an enormous amount of labor and resources into automobiles, video games, pet products, Hollywood, status products, soda, candy, gambling, state lotteries, alcohol, pornography, toys, and charities because a phenomenal number of Americans are "voting" for those businesses. Furthermore, our business leaders are selfish, greedy, deceptive, and manipulative because those people who are routinely winning the competitive battle to attract consumers.

The free enterprise system worked very well a thousand years ago because there were only a few businesses, and they were very simplistic and small. However, we should face the evidence that a modern economy is too complex for a free enterprise system to function properly. Even if a person had the intelligence, education, and desire to make wise decisions about which businesses and product to support, there are too many businesses and products, and they are too complex, for an individual citizen to make wise decisions about.

The same concept applies to all of the other organizations in a modern society. Specifically, none of us have the time or resources to adequately analyze and pass judgment on all of the different schools, sports groups, charities, religious groups, political groups, and think tanks.

  • Our cities flood because of our stupid decisions, not climate change
Although nature is responsible for rain and earthquakes, most of the time that our cities and farms become flooded it is because we are not designing our cities to handle rainstorms, earthquakes, or strong winds, and we are not maintaining our drainage systems.

Why don't we create higher quality cities? It is because we have a democracy and a free enterprise system. Our government and business leaders are pandering to the people. This results in a nation that puts a lot of labor and resources into lotteries, pets, churches, foreign aid to Israel, bombing Arabs in the Middle East, and providing Hollywood celebrities with gigantic mansions, but we don't put much effort into the design or maintenance of our cities.

However, since humans are arrogant, we avoid blaming ourselves for the flooding, so we blame the weather.

To make the situation more appalling, there is an international crime network that is exploiting the flooding to promote their carbon tax proposal.

  • We are doing nothing to stop sabotage
To make the situation with flooding even more absurd, most people do not even care about the evidence that the international crime network is sabotaging our cities. For example, there is evidence that the failure of the levees in New Orleans in 2004 was due to sabotage, not Hurricane Katrina; that the bridge that failed mysteriously in Minneapolis in 2007 was deliberately demolished; and that the mysterious damage at the Orville dam in 2017 was due to sabotage.

Unfortunately, the majority of people are refusing to look at the evidence that a crime network is routinely destroying levees, dams, and bridges, and routinely setting fires in forests and in cities. The majority of people are doing nothing to expose or stop crime networks, pedophile networks, Zionist groups, or teenage gangs. Some people will not even stand up to bratty children.

If evidence appears that some of the flooding in Missouri in 2019 was the result of sabotage, we can be certain that most people will not care, and will refuse to look at the evidence of the sabotage.

Kastron will experiment with a better government and economic system
Human history shows us that it is ridiculous to expect the majority of citizens to manage a modern society. The people who believe that a democracy can function properly today should be regarded as ignorant, stupid, mentally disturbed, or foolish.

Furthermore, some of the people who are promoting democracies are liars who promote the concept only because they and their criminal friends are benefiting from democracies, such as by getting themselves elected, and by getting away with crimes that they would never be able to get away with in a nation with better leadership.

Kastron requires high-quality people
In order to create Kastron with the advanced features that I suggest, we need a lot of people who can work as a team, and for the benefit of the city. I don't think this type of city could be designed or built in a free enterprise system, or in a democracy.

Every city on the planet today is a jumble of buildings, roads, garbage dumps, and other structures because it is virtually impossible for people in a democracy or a free enterprise system to work together to the extent necessary to design and build an advanced city. Nobody has the authority to coordinate or supervise the businesses or the people.
The owner of the building refused to sell his property, so the road was built around it.
The end result is that everybody puts their home and other structures wherever they please, just like a group of prehistoric savages.

A good example of this idiotic situation are the buildings that people refuse to sell, and so other buildings and roads have to be built around them, as in the photo to the right. Click the link to see more.

Amazon and other businesses are successfully designing advanced warehouses and factories because the management of those organizations have authority. They are not submissive representatives who pander to the employees.

In order for us to design, build, and maintain a truly advanced city, we have to be organized like a business or military. Our leaders need enough authority to accomplish tasks, and we must judge those leaders according to how well they do their job, not according to what they promise to do, or how pretty their wife or daughter is. We must raise standards for voters and leaders. Good leadership is a necessity, not an option.

Furthermore, we will not be able to create or maintain an advanced city with people who are too proud to do "nigger work". Designing, building, and maintain a city requires architects, engineers, carpenters, construction workers, mechanics, welders, technicians, electricians, plumbers, farmers, gardeners, and other people who are willing do some useful work. We cannot create a city with psychiatrists, think tank experts, priests, rabbis, YouTube celebrities, Hollywood stars, or instagram influencers.
Material items
Attitudes towards material items will be noticeably different
Since Kastron will not have free enterprise, the attitudes towards material items will be significantly different. Businesses, engineers, and scientists will develop products according to what the government wants, not to titillate consumers. This will have a significant effect on material items, and on people's attitudes towards material items. Some of the significant differences are listed below.

  • There will be no shoddy products
In a free enterprise system, it makes sense for businesses to produce shoddy products that break quickly because it allows them to sell more products. In Kastron, all of the material items will be free for everybody to use, so if the people produce shoddy products, they hurt themselves. Therefore, the Kastron government officials will put pressure on the businesses to ensure that all products are useful, durable, easy to build, easy to repair, and easy to recycle.

  • There will be fewer variations of products
The more variations of a product that the Kastron government authorizes, the more factories that we have to create, and the more people we need to work in the factories. This increases the burden on the people. It also increases the burden on the people who repair items.

Therefore, the businesses will be under pressure to produce only the variations that they can justify as worth the burden of creating them. Furthermore, they will be under pressure to use as many of the same parts as other items, thereby reducing the number of different spare parts that the maintenance people have to deal with.

For example, instead of manufacturing 100 trivial variations of telephones, the government may authorize only three styles. Instead of having 500 different variations of cameras, there may be only five variations.

The exception would be the items that we want lots of variations for, such as clothing and artwork.

  • Products will have a different visual appearance
It is difficult and expensive to repair material items because we don't yet have robots that are capable of diagnosing problems and fixing them on their own. Furthermore, in a free enterprise system, businesses do not design their items to be easily repaired. Rather, they design products to appeal to consumers. Furthermore, some businesses do not want their products to be repaired by consumers. An extreme example are the Apple iPhones in which the batteries were sealed inside, and could not be replaced.

Some businesses inhibit the maintenance of their items by using left-hand screws and bolts. Businesses are also hiding a lot of the screws and bolts in order to make the product more visually appealing to consumers. Some businesses weld components together to reduce manufacturing costs, or to prevent people from disassembling the item.

In Kastron, however, the engineers do not pander to consumers. Instead, they will design products to be beneficial and easy to build, maintain, and recycle. The engineers will also be under pressure to design products so that robots can do more of the production, repair, and recycling chores. This is going to cause products to have a very different visual appearance, such as products that use bolts that have been designed for use by robots, and which are exposed so that robots can easily access them, rather than using bolts for use by humans and which are hidden.

In case you do not know what I am talking about, take a look at your refrigerator, washing machine, automobile, or toaster oven. Do you see any bolts? You might find a few bolts on the rear or bottom, but most of the bolts have been hidden. Furthermore, most of the bolts and screws are designed for humans, so robots would have a difficult time disassembling those products for maintenance or recycling.

In Kastron, however, engineers will be under pressure to design products so that it is easier for robots to do more of the manufacturing, repairing, and recycling. As a result, the material items are going to have a different visual appearance. They will resemble "steampunk" art.
(Steampunk artists deliberately expose bolts, screws, gears, springs, tubes, and valves.)

A steampunk speaker case A steampunk computer case

The photos above are of artwork, not functional products, so they have lots of gauges, gears, and bolts that don't do anything. However, in Kastron, the engineers will design products with a lot of exposed bolts, screws, and components so that robots can easily access the components.

  • There will be fewer "New and Improved" models
In a free enterprise system, businesses struggle to be the first on the market with a new or improved item. The automobile companies, for example, are producing new models every year. In 2018, new models of drones were appearing on the market every few weeks.

Creating a new model puts a burden on society because it requires a lot of engineering work, and it requires people to create new factories, or modify existing factories. It may also cause the existing items to become obsolete or incompatible, even though they are still functional.

For example, I have a 1987 Acura Legend. Although that model seems to have had a few defects, such as oil oozing out along the gaskets, Acura did not observe that model for 10 years and create a list of improvements to it. Instead, they came out with a new model the next year, and another new model the year after that, and so on. After about 20 years they stopped making spare parts for that model, so when my speedometer cable failed in 2019, I could not get a replacement. I had to take one of the newer cables, cut it up, chop off the ends of my broken cable, and glue them into the new cable. Should I continue trying to maintain this car? It has 146k miles, so it should run a while longer. Or should I stop maintaining it and use it until it breaks?

We are wasting a lot of our labor and resources on the production of new and improved models, and by discarding old items rather than repairing them. Ideally, we would produce a material item and let people use it for a certain number of years. During that time the engineers should study the item, collect data about its maintenance and annoying features, and then create a truly improved model. This does not happen in a free enterprise system, however.

In order to reduce the burden of new and improved models, the Kastron officials will determine how long the engineers should spend on development before a new model is put into production. For items that are easy to produce and recycle, and which are experiencing rapid changes in technology, the government might allow new models twice a year. For products that are not changing rapidly, such as bicycles, or items that are difficult to produce and recycle, such as CNC machines, the government may tell the engineers to spend five or ten years on the research and development of a new model. In that case, the people will use the items for many years before they become obsolete, and then they will get a significantly better product rather than some trivial improvement.

  • Engineers will share our technology
I described this concept in previous documents, such as this, so I will only summarize it here.

In a free enterprise system, businesses keep some of their technology a secret, and they copyright and patent other technology.This forces companies to duplicate technology that other companies have already created, rather than improving upon the existing technology. This is wasting the time and talent of the engineers, and it prevents businesses from using the best technology.

For example, according to the car mechanic, Scotty Kilmer, the CVT transmissions made by Aisin Seiki, are significantly more reliable than those made by JATCO. From the point of view of society, Aisin Seiki and JATCO should share their technology so that each of them can take the best aspects from one another's transmissions, and then each of them would once again compete to create an improved transmission.

They would then repeat the cycle; specifically, observe each other's transmissions, and take the best aspects from both, and then once again compete to create an improved transmission. By following that type of development cycle, they compete with each other to improve upon what has already been developed. Society benefits because consumers have the best transmissions, which reduces the amount of transmission failures and maintenance chores.

Food and meals
Food is a significant aspect of life
If you have not noticed how food and meals are a significant aspect of human life and our culture, here are some issues to consider:

• Searching for food is the major daily activity of animals and prehistoric humans, so they don't have much leisure time for other activities. However, modern technology allows us to produce so much food that only a small percentage of the population has to produce food, which allows the majority of people to do something else.

What do we want those other people to do? Do we want them to conduct research into human health, develop better computers, or build a better train system? Or do we want them to play sports for us, build gambling casinos, breed pet dogs and cats, produce alcoholic beverages, or make movies?

We have an infinite number of options, but in a free enterprise system, these decisions are made as people, including children, spend money. In order for us to make better decisions, we must change our government and economic system so that have leaders with the authority to discuss and determine our future.

• Animals gobble food as rapidly as possible rather than enjoy their meals. Modern humans, by comparison, use meals as a social activity. Unfortunately, a lot of people are lonely, or they are living or working among people that they don't know or feel awkward around. We should improve our social environment so that we enjoy having meals with other people.

• A tremendous amount of land is required to produce the food we need, and this reduces the size and number of forests, creeks, and rivers for us to enjoy.

• Farmers use a lot of herbicides, pesticides, and other chemicals of questionable safety to ourselves and other creatures.

• We produce much more food than we need, possibly wasting more than a third of it, which means that we are wasting a lot of our labor, land, and chemicals.

• We are harvesting so many salmon, whales, lobster, and other sea creatures that we are decreasing the amount available to us. We are also reducing the supply of sea creatures by polluting the water and building dams.

• Every home has a kitchen with a stove, refrigerator, dining room table, and a variety of other food related items. That is a significant amount of material items to produce and maintain. This requires a lot of people to become assembly-line workers, which nobody seems to enjoy.

• By processing and eating food inside of our homes, we make it easier for ants, cockroaches, mice, and other creatures to live in our homes.

• Most people have so little self-control that they eat excessively, and/or eat unhealthy diets, causing themselves a lot of misery, and becoming a burden on the healthcare system.

• If nobody was eating excessively, we could reduce the amount of land and other resources we use for producing food.

• Most people are producing meals for themselves or their family two or more times a day, which means that a tremendous amount of labor is going into the production and cleanup of meals. It is significantly more efficient for a small number of people at a restaurant to provide meals for a large number of people than it is for each person to make a meal for himself or his family. However, in a free enterprise system, the meals at restaurants are so much more expensive that it causes people to make meals for themselves. To restate this, the free enterprise system is so crude that we cannot benefit from the efficiency of restaurants.

Kastron is designed to improve food and meals
Despite the significance of food, no society is yet putting any effort into analyzing food related customs, or experimenting with improvements. Instead, we are allowing our food customs to drift about aimlessly, and we allow businesses, religious groups, vegetarians, and other people to manipulate our food customs to suit their particular desires. Kastron, however, is specifically designed to improve the situation with food and meals. Two primary differences with the Kastron culture are:

1) The government will control the economy and culture.
The government will have authority over all farms, food production, restaurants, and other culture. The government officials will determine which foods are produced, and in which quantity. The farmers and food processing businesses will follow instructions from the government rather than pander to consumers.
2) Nobody will have a kitchen.
Everybody in Kastron will live in an apartment building, but none of the apartments will have kitchens or dining rooms. Everybody will get food from restaurants. There will also be markets for us to pick up food that doesn't need preparation, such as fruit and snack bars, for when we want to take food with us for a picnic, bicycle ride, or walk in the forest.
Those two changes will provide us with a lot of significant advantages. The following sections will discuss some of those advantages.

• We save time on food chores
By getting meals at restaurants, nobody has to waste any of their life on meal-related activities, such as shopping for food, preparing meals, and cleaning up the mess. It also eliminates the time and frustration involved with purchasing, repairing, and cleaning all of the food related equipment, such as stoves, refrigerators, microwave ovens, knives, and dining room tables.

In a free enterprise system, restaurants require that we pay for everything, and in the USA we also have to deal with tipping. This requires us to carry money or credit cards, which means worrying about losing them and having them stolen. However, in Kastron, the restaurants, and everything else, are free, so we don't waste any of our time with bills or tipping, and we don't have to carry wallets or credit cards.

In Part 1 of this series, I pointed out that instead of fantasizing about living longer, it would be more beneficial for us to reduce the time we waste. Some people might respond that they enjoy making meals, but that might be only because they have nothing better to do in their leisure time. A lot of the activities that people are choosing to do right now are being chosen because of the lack of better alternatives, not because the people truly care about those activities.
Would you want to spend your time alone in a kitchen if you were living in a beautiful city that provided you with drinks and meals for free?
If we were living in a city in which we enjoyed and respected the other people, and in which the city is beautiful, and in which we have lots of free recreational and leisure activities to choose from, all of people who like to make meals might discover that they would rather go out in the city and do something, or just relax in the city with a friend, rather than spend an hour or two alone in a kitchen.

The people who truly enjoy making meals would have the option of working in a restaurant, and the Kastron government would not care whether he was working full-time, or as seldom as one evening a month. I think this will provide those people with more satisfaction because it allows a lot of people to appreciate their meals, whereas only a few people appreciate their meals when they are making meals only for their friends or family.

• Food distribution becomes more efficient
In all existing nations, most of the food is sold to individual citizens and their families, rather than organizations, such as restaurants and cafeterias. The food is provided in small packages, and is distributed to markets that are scattered around the city. Trucks deliver most of the food to the markets.

The situation will be significantly different in Kastron. Since nobody in Kastron will have a kitchen, most of the food will be delivered to restaurants, although there will be some small markets that provide citizens with food for picnics and snacks.

Since most food is shipped to restaurants, the farmers and food processing businesses (I will refer to them as "food producers" for simplicity), will not put many of the food items into small packages for consumers. Rather, most of the food will be put into larger, reusable containers that stack on one another, and the containers will be put onto trains. The trains will deliver the food to the clusters of buildings in the city, and the empty containers will be sent back to the food producers. This will be much more efficient, and significantly reduce the amount of trash that is generated from packaging.

Since the restaurants will be located in the clusters of buildings, and since every cluster will have a train station, the food will go directly from the trains into the restaurants without being transferred to trucks. The containers of food will travel only short distances from the trains to the freight elevators, and then travel another short distance to the restaurants.
The orange devices are the robots that are moving containers of items around the warehouse.
Rather than use unskilled laborers to move the packages of food from the trains to the restaurants, Kastron is designed for robots to move items in and out of trains at each of the clusters of buildings. The freight elevators would be designed for robots, also. It would be similar in concept to the Amazon warehouses in which robots are moving containers around.

To summarize this flow of food, the food producers would put the food into containers that stack on top of each other, and robots would put those containers into trains. At the train stations, robots would take the containers out of the trains, into the freight elevators, and into the restaurants.

Every cluster of buildings will have a robotic delivery system at one area of the train station. The trains that carry freight will stop at that robotic station to load and unload items. This allows items to be distributed throughout the city without human labor. This system will distribute food, packages, medicines, clothing, sports equipment, musical instruments, industrial supplies for businesses, and supplies for arts and crafts clubs. This system will also remove trash, and send items to recycling centers.

In previous documents I pointed out that when people borrow bicycles or cameras, they do not have to return them to the place they picked them up. The reason is because the robotic delivery system will deliver the items to wherever they are needed.
Apples, peaches, tomatoes, and other fruit are bruised by dumping them into large containers.
Food will be given better protection

In a free enterprise system, the emphasis is on profit, and this results in the food producers dumping avocados, tomatoes, apples, and other items into large containers, which can smash and bruise the items.

In Kastron, however, the emphasis is on human life, and so the containers that the food producers use will be higher-quality, and designed to protect the food. This will be more expensive, but so what?

We should also develop robots to pick more of the fruit. Those robots would require a lot of labor to design and build, but so what? We will provide a better life for ourselves by eliminating undesirable chores and putting more emphasis on the quality of our life.

Peaches and other delicate items could be put into containers that have a lining of foam, with a depression for each item. The containers would stack up on each other, and be sent throughout the city on the underground train system. A restaurant would take one or more of the containers of peaches.



Delicate fruit, such as peaches and apricots, could be shipped in foam depressions.


The containers would be stacked, and each restaurant would take as many as they needed.

There would be no consumers to squeeze and sniff a peach or other item, and then put it back, then squeeze and sniff another. Instead, the restaurants would take one or more containers without inspecting them. When the containers of food are empty, they are sent back to the farms to be reused. They would be no wasted paper or plastic.
The restaurants and consumers should
inspect perishable food, not the food producers.
By distributing food for free, the food producers can avoid the extremely boring job of inspecting perishable food items that are traveling down conveyor belts. Since perishable items can deteriorate after they have been packaged, it is more sensible to tell the final user do the inspection.

Machines would do simplistic inspections, as they do today, but the people at the restaurants will do the final inspection when they are ready to use the food. If some item is bad, they discard it. Since they did not pay for the food, they will not complain that they just spent their money on damaged food.

In a free enterprise system, food producers have to create identical packages of specific weights or quantities, but when the restaurants are given food for free, the food producers don't need to be concerned that some containers have less food than others.

The food producers can also avoid the machinery and chores involved with pricing. The farmers and government officials would keep track of how much food they produce for management purposes, but not for pricing purposes.

We would have more variety in meals
It is difficult for individual citizens and families to provide themselves with a wide variety of meals because it requires us to purchase a lot of different food items and spices, and it requires that we have experience with lots of different recipes. By getting meals at restaurants, however, we can have access to an enormous variety of foods.

However, whether a variety of meals is beneficial depends upon our attitude towards life. Many years ago I wrote about how I brought some Mochi ice cream to a party, but almost nobody had the courage to try it, and one person took a bite and then put it back.

Most people are so frightened of the unknown, and have such a strong craving to follow established procedures, that they do not want a variety of meals. They want to eat the same foods over and over. Their attitude is that there is a correct way to make ice cream, pizzas, sandwiches, and other food items.

If we were to offer the typical person a wide variety of meals, they would not regard the offer as a "variety" of meals. Rather, they would regard it as an enormous amount of bad, disgusting, incorrect, and stupid meals.

What is the best way to make a pizza? What is the best way to cook chicken? The answer to that question depends upon our view of life. I would say that there is no such thing as a "correct" pizza. Rather, there are an infinite number of ways of making pizza.

What is the best way to cook eggs? There is no correct or best way. I prefer gelled eggs rather than scrambled, hard-boiled, and other types of eggs, but gelled eggs are not a single recipe. Rather, there are an infinite number of ways of using gelled eggs. For example, they can be put into a bowl and mixed with a variety of flavorings, such as lemon zest, onions, or pumpkin pie spices. I usually put the gelled eggs on flat sheets of bread, but even that is not a single recipe because the sheets of bread can be made with different types of grains, and they can have a variety of flavorings, such as pizza spices, cinnamon and molasses, onions and turmeric, or orange zest.

The same is true with burgers. A burgers can be 100% ground meat, or it can be a mixture of ground meat with bite-size chunks of meat. It can also be a mixture of meat with an infinite number of other items, such as spices, rice, or pieces of potatoes or vegetables. Furthermore, the burgers can be eaten by themselves, or they can be combined with breads to make sandwiches, or combined with corn tortillas to make various types of enchiladas or tacos.

In a free enterprise system, businesses pander to the citizens, which encourages us to become spoiled brats who demand what we want, and who believe that we must be given what we want. When most people go to restaurants, they demand certain types of foods that are prepared in certain ways. They don't want to try anything different.

Furthermore, most people want foods that are extremely titillating to their senses. As a result, businesses tend to use a lot of sugar. Sugar is an ingredient in catchup, salad dressings, and even some meat products.

There is nothing wrong with putting sugar in our foods. The only reason sugar is a problem for modern societies is because our emotional attraction for sugar evolved for an era in which there was not much sugar available, so if we eat foods according to our emotional cravings rather than our intellect, we will consume more sugar than our body was designed for.

Every living creature evolved for a certain environment. Our lungs, for example, evolved for a certain air pressure with a certain quantity of oxygen. We evolved to drink a certain amount of water. Too much oxygen or water will cause health problems.

Our emotions were not designed for a world in which we have access to phenomenal amounts of sugar. We must exert some self-control and use our intellect to ensure that we are providing our bodies with appropriate amounts of oils, proteins, carbohydrates, oxygen, water, minerals, and whatever else it needs. There are two primary ways for us to deal with our extreme amounts of food:
1) Let each person exert self-control over his consumption of food. This method is obviously not working very well since most people are overweight and/or sickly.

2) Let the government control the production of food products, and influence the meals that restaurants are providing. Although this will not guarantee that everybody eats a proper diet, it will make it much easier for us.
My recommendation is that Kastron try option 2. Although the Kastron government will not control meals, they should put restrictions on certain items. The possibilities are infinite. For a few examples, the government might prohibit sugar in the coating of chicken wings, and prohibit honey and brown sugar in pork products, except for special occasions, such as holidays or weddings. They might also restrict candy, donuts, soda, and other sugary products to weekends or holidays, or restrict them to people who are getting physical activity during their job, or during their leisure time.

Some people might complain that a government that puts restrictions on food products is oppressive, but as I emphasized in Part 1 of this series, these issues depend upon our view of life. I would say that a government that provides restrictions on food is behaving like parents who put restrictions on what their children can eat. Are those parents abusive?

I would say that the parents that provide their children with the freedom to eat whatever they please are irresponsible parents because they are allowing their children to ruin their health. They are giving their children a freedom that the children cannot handle. I would say that the parents who put restrictions on what their children can eat are providing sensible guidance to their children.

Of course, to complicate this issue, a government will provide us with sensible food restrictions only if we have the ability to provide ourselves with responsible, intelligent, honest government officials and scientists. We are not likely to get sensible food policies from the pedophiles, Zionists, and criminals that dominate the world today.

• Restaurants would be easier to manage
My remark in this document, and other documents, that a person might want to manage a restaurant one evening a month, or one evening a week, might seem bizarre, but in Kastron, managing a restaurant would be much simpler and easier compared to a free enterprise system.

Everybody in Kastron is an employee, so nobody has to deal with rents, landlords, taxes, or other business expenses. The chefs at the restaurant are employees of the government. The government doesn't care whether a person works as a chef, mechanic, gardener, or machinist one evening a month, or seven days a week. As long as people are doing their jobs properly, the government doesn't care if a person has 20 part-time jobs, or one full-time job.

The chef at a restaurant doesn't own anything in the restaurant. The government owns all of the buildings, furniture, land, and everything else in the city. Furthermore, the restaurants do not pander to the people, so the chef doesn't have to worry about providing extensive menus, or dealing with whiny customers. A chef can produce the foods that he wants to produce. He doesn't even have to provide a menu. He has to design meals according to what the government considers to be healthy, but he can choose to make whichever meals he wants to make.

It would even be possible for a person to work as a chef one evening a month to provide meals for a group of his friends and relatives. One of the primary reasons for eliminating kitchens in the homes is to make food production more efficient, so if a person is willing to make meals for a group of his friends and family members, even if he only does it once a year, then he will be fulfilling that requirement, so he will be allowed to do it.

The relationship between the Kastron government and the citizens will be similar to that between parents and children. If a child wants to cook a meal for his family, and if he has the ability to do so, his parents will let him, even if he wants to do it only once.

• Restaurants can share everything
Since the city owns all of the land, buildings, and material items, and since all of the restaurant employees are essentially employees of the city, the city can design restaurants so that they share equipment, heating and cooling equipment, electrical lines, plumbing, and even employees.

For example, the city might put a cluster of five buildings at the bottom of a particular building, and although it appears as if they are five separate, independent restaurants, the backs of the restaurants may open up into the same area where all of them have access to the same freezers, refrigerators, and automatic dishwashing machine. All five restaurants may share the same electrical wiring, plumbing, and the same heating and cooling lines.

If it seems bizarre that separate restaurants would share equipment, remember that the city is like a one large corporation, or like a Navy ship, or like a giant family. In a large corporation, for example, there may be two different groups of machinists, each with different managers and working on different projects for different groups of engineers. However, some of the expensive equipment that neither group needs full-time may be shared between them. Also, each machine shop may be supplied with electricity, compressed air, heating and cooling lines, and other utilities, from the same source.

This is how most people build their homes, also. Specifically, there are separate bedrooms in the house, but they are not independent apartment units with their own utility lines, bathrooms, and kitchens. Rather, they share the same refrigerator, the same electrical lines, the same plumbing, in the same heating ducts.

Since the employees of a restaurant belong to the city, the restaurant can share employees, also. In other words, if one restaurant is busy, and another is not, the some of the employees that don't have anything to do can work for the other restaurant. The businesses do not own their employees. Employees are not slaves, or animals. They are people. The employees work for the city, and so do the restaurants. Therefore, if one restaurant is too busy, and another has too little work, the manager of the busy restaurant can ask for some of the unnecessary employees at the other restaurant.

If that seems bizarre, consider a big corporation. If one particular machine shop is overloaded with work, and the other has too little work, the management will not tell the unnecessary machinists to play games all day, every day, until they have some work to do. They will tell them to go over to the shop that needs some assistance.

The businesses in Kastron compete with one another, but they compete to make life better for the city, not for profit. They are separate, independent businesses, but they all work for the same goal; namely, to improve their city. The attitude towards the employees and equipment will be significantly different than it is in a free enterprise system. The employees, business executives, and government officials will behave as if they are one big family. This will allow them to share equipment, buildings, utility lines, and employees.

For another example of how the sharing would work, if one restaurant is so busy that they are running low on their supply of pork or apples, they can take food from one of the other restaurants. None of the restaurants are purchasing food, so they don't own any of it. The food belongs to the city.

The food will be distributed to each individual restaurant, and each restaurant will put their supply into their freezers and storage units, but none of the restaurants own the food, freezers, or storage units. Also, the restaurants are judged according to how much food they waste, so none of the restaurant managers want to waste food. They want the city to use food efficiently.

In addition to sharing employees, they can also share managers. If one particular manager is sick or busy, another manager can help, even though he is a competitor. The people in Kastron get credit for the work they do. They are not competing for profit, so they are judged according to their contributions to society, not by whether they can drive a competitor to bankruptcy.

In case it has not occurred to you, these concepts apply to all businesses in Kastron.

• Meals will be smaller
The restaurants that serve the public will be in competition with each other to attract customers, but the competition will be significantly different than it is in free enterprise system. For example, the chefs will not be able to use tricks, such as increasing the sugar or fat in their meals. Furthermore, since the customers do not pay for the food, the restaurants will be required to provide meals that are an appropriate size for the customer, rather than offering enormous meals. A chef will be considered as inferior if he provides such large meals that his customers become overweight.

Since nobody in Kastron will have kitchens or dining rooms, the restaurants will not provide "doggy bags" for customers to take food home. Therefore, the chefs will adjust the meals so that small women receive less food than large men. The restaurants that produced the most food waste would be regarded as having the most inferior chefs.

By judging the chefs by their food waste, the chefs would be under pressure to make meals slightly too small to ensure everybody eat everything. The chefs would also be under pressure to avoid giving people food items that they don't want to eat. For example, instead of giving lima beans to everybody without asking, the lima beans would be an option.

In a free enterprise system, restaurants don't care about wasting food because the customer is paying for the food. The pressure on restaurants is to sell a lot of food, not care about wasting food, or care about the health of their customers. In a free enterprise system, an obese person is regarded as an exciting profit opportunity, rather than as a waste of society's resources.

The attitude towards meals in Kastron will be considerably different. The pressure on the restaurant chefs will be to behave like parents who are serving meals to their children. Instead of providing people with a gigantic meal, the restaurants will be under pressure to provide smaller meals that will leave the people slightly hungry. The people who are so hungry after their meal that they want more to eat can get more, just as is true when you are eating with your family.

In other words, the attitude in Kastron will be to serve too little food, and tell people to get more if they are still hungry, rather than serve an enormous amount of food and allow people to waste food.

Another option that the city officials might experiment with is for the restaurants to provide only one meal per person. If a person is so hungry after his meal that he wants additional food, he will have to get up from the table and go to another restaurant. The advantage to this policy is that it forces people to walk around a bit after eating. This will help the food settle, which can get rid of some of the air that we swallow when we eat. This in turn can reduce digestive irritations and farting. It can also force the people to get a bit of exercise before they eat more food.

Furthermore, since the restaurants will be clustered together in an area that has no automobiles, when people have to walk from one restaurant to another, they will encounter other people in the process, and that can encourage people to get together with other people for a second meal, or skip the second meal and go do something together.

The image below might help you to visualize this concept. Imagine that the image is showing a cluster of office buildings in Kastron. Along the base of the office buildings are restaurants, social clubs, and theaters for music and other entertainment. There are no automobiles, bicycles, skateboards, or other vehicles, so everybody in the area has to walk. All of the restaurants are serving small meals. It would be easy to walk from one restaurant to another, and in nice weather, a lot of people would be eating outside.

Imagine that the city has no illegal aliens, and is controlling immigration. There are no people whining about "white privilege" or "white supremacy". Imagine that you respect and enjoy all of the people. You don't fear anybody in the city, and you don't have to be concerned about wallets or money because all of the food and entertainment is free.

In that type of the city, if you are hungry after eating a small meal at a restaurant, you would walk around to look for something else to eat, and in the process, you might encounter some friends. You might go with them to eat something, or you might go with them to a music concert, or you might get involved with some recreational activity with them. I think that type of environment would provide us with a more pleasant life, and help prevent us from eating excessively.

In addition to serving small meals, the restaurants could have very limited menus. This would create a very different environment compared to that of a free enterprise system.

In a free enterprise system, the restaurants want customers to spend a lot of money in their restaurant, and so they offer a large menu. Providing a wide variety of meals requires the restaurant stock a lot of different food items, which can result in the less popular foods going bad before somebody orders it. It makes the job of a chef more difficult because it requires that they have more experience with a larger number of recipes. It also requires the restaurants to have larger kitchens, refrigerators, freezers, and storage areas so that they can maintain a wide variety of food, spices, and drinks.

By comparison, when the restaurants have very limited menus, the restaurants don't need to stock so many different types of food items, and the chefs don't need experience with different types of foods. The restaurants will have less food waste, and it will be easier for the chefs to create meals because they only need to know how to make a few items. For example, a chef could serve only salads made with lettuce or spinach, and another chef at another restaurant could serve only salads made with fruits and vegetables, and another restaurant could serve salads with meat, such as seafood and chicken salads. Another restaurant might specialize in certain types of sandwiches, tacos, curries, or pancakes.

In a free enterprise system, it would be a serious irritation to have to go to several different restaurants to have a complete meal, but when the food is free, and when the restaurants are located within walking distance of one another, it is easy to walk to a restaurant, have something to eat, and when you are finished, walk to another restaurant. Or you could walk to a music concert first, or go to a recreational activity, and then walk to another restaurant.

The environment of Kastron would be similar to that of your own home. When you are home and are hungry, you will walk into the kitchen to get something to eat. If you are still hungry after finishing that food, you will walk back into the kitchen and get something else to eat. Or you might do something before eating again, such as listen to music, or chat with people.
The clusters of buildings will be surrounded by gardens and parks, so there will be lots dining tables that provide beautiful views of the area.
One of the goals of Kastron is to make it feel as if the city is our home. The city is intended for you and me to enjoy, not for businesses to make money. The city is intended to be so pleasant that we want to get out of our homes and enjoy the people, the buildings, the parks, the recreational activities, the music, the sunshine, the moon, the stars, the birds, and the butterflys.

The restaurants in Kastron will not be judged according to profit. Rather, as long as people are choosing to eat at a restaurant, and the restaurant is not wasting food or providing inappropriate meals, the restaurant will be considered a "success". Instead of focusing on profit, the chefs will focus on providing meals that are healthy, tasty, and appropriate in size, and in an environment that the people enjoy.

• Smaller portions become more practical
In a free enterprise system, businesses tend to provide such large meals that by the time a person is near the end of the meal, all of the warm food has become cold. This is also a problem at our own homes. Our food would remain warmer if we were served a very small portion, and after ate that portion, we were served another very small portion. However, that method of serving a meal requires a lot more labor, so most people don't bother to do it for themselves or their family. When restaurants do it, it causes the price of a meal to increase tremendously.

In Kastron, however, this type of meal would be extremely practical and efficient. As I mentioned earlier, the restaurants in Kastron will be under pressure to serve meals that are slightly too small so that everybody eats their food. All we have to do is expand on that concept.

Specifically, the restaurants would deliberately make small meals, and deliberately have an extremely limited menu. With that system of restaurants, we would not get a complete meal at any of the restaurants. Instead, we will get one small portion of one meal. In order to have a complete meal, we would have to get up and go to another restaurant to get another small portion.

While that might seem to be an inconvenience, I don't think it would be if the restaurants are within walking distance of one another. I think it will actually be much more pleasant because it will give us fresh, warm food, and give us a chance to walk around and let the food settle before we eat again.

To understand what I am referring to, take a look at the photos below of tiny meals. Imagine walking into a restaurant, sitting down, and the only thing available to eat are those tiny Shepherd's pot pies (the left photo, with potato and parsley on the top). Everybody at the table gets one of those warm, freshly baked, tiny pies. The only thing this restaurant is creating that evening are those pot pies, and they are coming out continuously, fresh and warm.

A mini Shepherd's pot pie A slice of quiche A lemon bar

When you are finished with that pie, you could wait for another to be cooked and then have another, or you could get up and walk to another restaurant. You might walk over to a restaurant that is serving nothing but small slices of freshly baked, warm quiches, (the photo in the middle).

After having one of those tiny quiches, you might decide to walk around, or go to a music concert, or walk over to our restaurant for a mini taco, or a mini egg foo young, or a mini bowl of chicken curry. Then you might walk over to a restaurant that has a dessert, such as a freshly baked, warm, miniature apple pie, peach pie, or lemon bar (the photo to the right).

Would this type of restaurant system be annoying? We will never know until we find the courage to experiment with it. However, I suspect that even though we will not like the idea of walking around to get a complete meal, if we alter our view of life and stop fantasizing about being pampered by servants, and stop fantasizing about avoiding work, I think we might discover that it, or something like it, provides us with a better life overall.

The reason is because this system of getting meals will force us to get some exercise as we eat, which will help settle our food, and the walking will help prevent us from eating to the point at which we do not want to move. It will also increase the chances that we encounter other people and decide to do something other than eat more food.

Providing the food slowly like this will also allow us to start digesting the food, which will reduce the chances that we overeat because the first tiny meal will start increasing our blood sugar, helping us to feel full.

In other words, even though we dislike having to walk around, I think it will be better for us, and provide us with a better life. Of course, as soon as we start experimenting, we are likely to discover ways to improve upon the system. Future generations may design a city and a method of providing meals that we cannot imagine.

• We get more enjoyment from smaller portions
Animals are in a fierce competitive battle for food, so they gobble food as quickly as possible, and although humans inherited this tendency, we evolved a desire to make meals a social activity. This ability to enjoy our food makes humans somewhat unique among the animals.
However, women are more capable than men of eating slowly and enjoying their food, so men need some help. By designing restaurants to provide smaller meals, we encourage people to eat at a slower pace, and I think that will allow us to get more enjoyment from our food. This is another reason I suggest we experiment with restaurants that provide us with small meals.

For example, if we were given a tiny little sandwich for our lunch, such as the ham and pineapple sandwich in the photo to the right, and then have to wait a few minutes before we get another mini sandwich, it gives our mouth a chance to clean itself out. This will allow the next mini sandwich to taste better.

By comparison, when we are given one large sandwich, it is very difficult for us to exert the self-control to take a bite, and then let our mouth clean out itself out. It is more practical to design the restaurants to force us to eat smaller portions.

When I was in a small town of Germany in the 1980's, their local beer produced so much foam that when somebody ordered a glass of it, it took about 30 minutes to get it. When the person was finished with the beer and asked for a refill, he had to wait another 30 minutes. The end result is that drinking a couple of beers took a few hours, forcing the people to relax and socialize. It was also unlikely for somebody to become drunk because it required too much time to drink enough beers to get drunk.
Restaurants could serve food in a similar manner. Specifically, instead of giving us a large plate that is full of food, we would be provided with a small portion of a meal. Some numbers of minutes later we would get another portion of the meal.

The restaurant could also provide smaller forks and spoons so that we are forced to take smaller bites. This might also encourage us to chew our food more thoroughly so that we enjoy it for a longer period of time.

Why not experiment with our breaks at work?
Another possible way of enjoying small meals is to have three small meals during the work day rather than one big lunch. The lunch break would be mainly for recreation, not eating.

If businesses operated on that schedule, then in the morning everyone would have a short break to have a mini meal.

Lunch would be a longer break, and we would have another miniature meal, such as a smoked salmon sandwich (the photo to the right), but we would spend most of the lunch time relaxing or on some recreational activity.

Then a few hours later we would have another short break for another min meal.

Would we enjoy that type of work schedule? I don't know. We would have to try it for a few months. I mention these possibilities to help you to realize that we have a phenomenal number of options, and to encourage you to find the courage to start experimenting with our culture. We are not going to improve anything unless we can wander away from the established path and try something different.

Warm foods are more pleasurable
Reindeer evolved to eat frozen lichen, but humans evolved for warmer foods. Ice cream, popsicles, and other frozen and cold desserts cause our tongue to become numb, which makes it less sensitive to foods, and the cold temperature interferes with the vaporization of the chemicals that give food it's odor. As a result, frozen foods require more sugar and flavorings than warm foods.

It is also possible that by cooling the roof of our mouth, the sensory organs in our nose decrease in temperature also, which in turn could decrease their sensitivity to the flavoring chemicals.

The same concept applies to foods that are solid at room temperature, such as chocolate bars. We will not get much satisfaction from a chocolate bar until it starts to melt in our mouth. The problem is that as we chew on it, we start swallowing it, which means that some of it goes into our stomach before it has had a chance to titillate our mouth and nose.

The point of this section is that frozen and cold foods require more sugar and flavorings than warm foods. Therefore, it would be best for our health if we eliminate the cold and frozen desserts and replace them with desserts that are warm. By providing a chocolate dessert that is warm, we don't need as much sugar. Furthermore, a warm chocolate dessert doesn't need as much chocolate, and since chocolate is bitter, reducing the chocolate further reduces the amount of sugar we need.

If you doubt that warm desserts provide us with more pleasure, here is an experiment that you could try. Eat a chocolate bar, and measure the time it takes you to eat it. Try to estimate how many minutes of pleasure you got from that chocolate bar.

Then make some chocolate chip cookies that are equal in calories to that chocolate bar. You will not know for sure how many calories are in your cookies, but take a guess. Then eat the chocolate chip cookies while they are fresh and warm. Measure the time it takes to eat them, and try to estimate how many minutes of pleasure you receive. Also, pass judgment on whether the pleasure from the cookies is at the same intensity level much as it was from the chocolate bar, or if you got a more intense pleasure from one of them.
Which provides you with the most pleasure, assuming 100 calories for each:




a) Warm chocolate chip cookies? b) A cold chocolate bar?

I think that if we could measure the pleasure that we receive from food, we will discover that for the same number of calories, we get more pleasure from fresh, warm chocolate chip cookies than from a cold chocolate bar.

I think we would discover the same thing with frozen items. For example, if you were to eat 100 calories of peach ice cream, you would receive a certain amount of pleasure for a certain amount of time. If you were to make a fresh peach pie, and take a piece that has 100 calories, and eat it while it is still fresh and warm, I think you will find that the pleasure is more intense.

Which provides you with the most pleasure, assuming 100 calories for each:




a) Warm peach pie? b) Cold peach ice cream?


If we had a way of measuring the pleasure that we received from food, we would be able to create a "pleasure per calorie" value. Then, on the food labels, instead of just listing the number of calories, protein, and vitamins, there would also be the pleasure per calorie that the "typical" person receives from the food. I think we would discover that the cold and frozen foods have a lower pleasure per calorie than warm foods.

Ice cream, popsicles, chocolate bars, candy bars, and other cold and frozen desserts are very popular desserts today, but I don't think it is because we prefer them over warm desserts. I think it is because of convenience. I think that if we were living in a city in which we had easy and free access to a variety of foods, we would find that we prefer the warm foods.

I suggest that Kastron government officials allocate labor and resources to the development of small machines to make it easier for the restaurants to produce small quantities of high quality food items so that everybody in the city has easy access to fresh, warm food.

In other words, instead of having a gigantic factory that produces thousands of loaves of bread, which are then distributed throughout the city, we would develop a smaller machine to grind grains and make fresh bread in small quantities. Those small machines would be put into all of the clusters of buildings so that everybody has easy access to fresh, warm bread.

This also avoids the work involved with shipping bread throughout the city. The bread would only have to be shipped within the cluster of buildings that it was produced in, which could be accomplished easily with robots because Kastron would be designed for robotic delivery systems.

Likewise, every cluster could have small machines for providing fresh, warm pies, cookies, and rotisserie chicken. None of those food items would need preservatives because they would be made only when needed.
How long does the meat sit in
the rotisserie before you eat it?
The shops that make gyros are cutting strips of meat from a large block of meat pieces that was on the rotisserie for... how long? Days? Weeks? We have no idea how fresh the meat is, and businesses in a free enterprise system are under no obligation to tell us the truth.

I suggest that Kastron officials develop small machines that can do rotisserie cooking of smaller amounts of meat so that we can have fresh and warm meat.

If we can provide ourselves with a wide variety of fresh and warm meals, we will have much less interest in frozen desserts, so nobody would complain if the Kastron officials put tremendous restrictions on frozen and cold foods in order to cut down the consumption of sugar.

We might even decide to prohibit chocolate bars and ice cream. If you wanted a chocolate dessert, you would have to eat warm chocolate chip cookies, a warm chocolate cake, warm chocolate oatmeal, warm chocolate pudding, or a chocolate fondue.

On hot summer days, the city could provide frozen desserts, but with low sugar levels. Popsicles, for example, would be mainly fruit rather than sugar. Very ripe bananas are also useful as frozen desserts, especially if they are heated up in their skin first, as I've described here. Certain grapes are also useful as a frozen dessert. Frozen peas can also make a nice appetizer on hot days, and they can be mixed with diced, frozen grapes and other items to make a cold vegetable salad.

• Difficult food items become practical
Restaurants can provide us with foods that would be too difficult for us to make for ourselves, or which require equipment that is too expensive or complicated for home use. For example, consider popcorn.

A lot of people make popcorn for themselves, but they do a very simplistic job. Most people either use a popcorn machine, or they cook the popcorn in a pan of oil. The popcorn machines do a better job, and require less cleanup, but in both cases the popcorn is dry and bland. Most people solve that problem by pouring butter on the popcorn. However, most people are already eating excessive amounts of oil, so they don't need more of it on their popcorn.

Furthermore, if we eat the oily popcorn with our fingers, which almost everybody does, the oil gets on our fingers, and everything we touch will accumulate oil, such as furniture, doorknobs, and clothing.

My preferred method of making popcorn is to use a hot air popcorn popper, and have the popcorn fall into a plastic bag. Then I give it a very fine mist of water. Then I sprinkle it with a flavoring, such as a mixture of powdered salt, turmeric, and a bit of Stevia to counteract the bitterness of the turmeric. There are lots of other spices and flavorings that can be put on the popcorn, if they can be produced in a powder form. Then I close the bag and shake it up. Then I give it one final mist and a bit more of the flavoring, and shake it up again.

However, it is difficult to do this. One reason is that the ordinary spray bottles that are available to consumers do not create high-quality mists. This can result in some popcorn that becomes wet and soggy. Likewise, there is no easy way to sprinkle flavorings evenly over the popcorn. This is why I close the bag and shake it.

If I do this properly, the popcorn picks up some moisture from the mist, but it does not become wet. This gives it a better texture than dry popcorn. At the same time, the water causes the turmeric flavoring to adhere to the popcorn. By doing this when the popcorn is still hot from the popcorn machine, some of of the water evaporates, which prevents it from getting soggy. And, although the turmeric mixture will get on my fingers, it is not nearly as messy as oil.

If we were to develop a small machine to pop the popcorn, and then immediately spray it with a high-quality mist and flavoring, we would have warm but moist popcorn that has a nice flavor, and without any additional oil. However, that type of popcorn needs to be eaten immediately. It cannot be stored, packaged, or shipped around the city. The restaurants would need the machine inside the restaurant, and it would have to produce popcorn on demand.

Incidentally, by eliminating the oil on the popcorn, we can reduce the salt. In case you haven't noticed, we do not like to eat oil by itself. When we eat something that is oily, such as peanuts or butter, we prefer that it to have a lot of salt. Why is this? I don't know. Perhaps somebody will do some research into why we like the combination of salt and oil.

Furthermore, by reducing the salt on the popcorn, it becomes easier for us to notice the subtle flavor of the popcorn, turmeric, and whatever other flavors we use. In case you had not noticed, the more salt or sugar that we put on an item, the less we notice the flavor of the item. Therefore, by figuring out ways to reduce the salt and sugar in our foods, we can make the flavoring of the food more noticeable. To complicate the issue, if we go to the extreme of not using any salt or sugar, some food items become less desirable.

• There are lots of things we can do with gelatin
There are also lots of food products that restaurants could make with gelatin that most people would not want to bother with. For example, gelatin can be added to bread products in order to give it a different and more moist texture. It doesn't make the bread "better"; rather, it creates a different texture, thereby providing us with variety. Gelatin can also be added to oatmeal, and it can be used in warm sauces for warm vegetable salads, such as diced brussels sprouts, broccoli, carrots, or cauliflower.

In this document I pointed out that gelatin does not have to be heated to a high temperature in order to make gelatin products. Making gelatin products at a low temperature takes more time, however, so most people don't want to bother. However, a restaurant does not need to be in a rush, and we can also develop machines to help with the food preparation. Therefore, restaurants could create a variety of gelatin products that contain fruits and vegetables.

Since most children enjoy gelatin products, this will provide children with food they enjoy, and which is healthier than the artificially flavored sugar gelatin products that we are currently getting from the free enterprise system.

• Parents will not have to tolerate children’s demands for food
In Kastron, everybody gets meals from restaurants, and certain restaurants will be designated for children, and others will be off-limits to children. This will make it easy for the city officials to ensure that the children are getting healthy meals.

This will also make life nicer for the parents because they will not have to tolerate children who demand candy bars, potato chips, or soda. If a child complains about the food, the parents will be able to stop it easily by telling the child something to the effect of, "I have no control over the food we eat. The city officials decide what we can eat."

• We should develop high quality, frozen, prepared meals
Businesses are providing us with a lot of frozen meals that are already cooked and only need to be warmed up. However, I think most of the frozen meals are of low quality. There are only a few exceptions, such as the Foster Farm chicken wings. They have done an excellent job of cooking the chicken at a low temperature so that the meat is still tender and juicy.
I love these chicken wings,
but do they really need sugar?
However, Foster Farms does the typical trick in the free enterprise system, which is to add sugar to the batter. Their Mango Habanero Chicken Wings also has stevia, which I have no objection to, but I don't think we should put sugar into meat products, except for special occasions, because we already eat too much sugar.

When sugar is added to a meat product, it should be classified as "candy" or as a "dessert". The most extreme examples that I am aware of are the hams and turkeys from the Honey Baked Ham Company. It is deceptive to describe their food products as "meat". According to their website, 109 grams of their roasted turkey breast has 10 grams of sugar. That is almost 10% sugar! That should not classify as "turkey" or as "meat". That should classify as "turkey candy" or "candied turkey".

The Foster Farms chicken wings are proof that it is possible to cook and freeze chicken wings so that the meat remains juicy, delicious, and tender. My suggestion is for the Kastron government to support the research and development of frozen, prepared meals. The reason is because frozen, prepared meals have a lot of advantages.

If we can develop a wide variety of good tasting, high quality, and healthy frozen prepared meals, we will make it much easier to operate restaurants. Actually, some restaurants could be completely automated. We would give our order to a computer, and the computer would remove the appropriate meal from the freezer, warm it up for us, and let us know when it is ready, or send a robot to deliver it to us. If we were in a rush, we could use our cell phone or computer to request the meal for a certain time, and the meal would be ready for us when we arrived at the restaurant.

The restaurants that were warming up these frozen meals would not produce any smoke or fumes, and they would not have any pots or pans to clean up. The only items that would need cleaning would be the dishes and utensils that the people used to eat the meal with. With a wide variety of frozen meals, human chefs would be needed only to produce special meals, or to produce meals that did not freeze very well.

• Farmers become ordinary employees
In a free enterprise system, farmers are responsible for natural events that are beyond their control, such as hailstorms, insects, and diseases. This results in farmers who fear that nature will destroy their crops and animals, and that fear causes the farmers to use a lot of pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals of questionable safety.

By putting the government in control of the farms, the farmers become employees, and they are no longer responsible for natural disasters. If a hailstorm, fungus, or insects destroy a particular crop, for example, it becomes the government's problem.

The Kastron government will support research programs to reduce the destruction by nature. For example, they may fund research programs to determine if it is practical to make greenhouses that are biologically isolated from the world so that fungus and insects cannot get inside.

Another possible solution, for certain crops, might be to develop farm machinery that makes it practical to use an "agricultural quilt" technique of farming. Instead of planting a gigantic field with just one crop, a machine would plant tiny patches of cabbage, and then another machine, possibly at a later date, would plant tiny patches of carrots in some of the vacant areas of that same field, and then later another machine would plant some tiny patches of beets. The end result would be an "agricultural quilt" of vegetables. The mixture of plants might significantly reduce the spread of certain insects and diseases.

The "agricultural quilt" farms would be impossible to do with the farming equipment of today, but we could develop machines to do make it work, if the concept proved to be useful. The machines could be automated so that people don't have to bother driving them. The cabbage harvesting machine, for example, would drive itself through the quilt of crops and pick out only the cabbage. On another day, the carrot harvesting machine could drive down the aisles and pick up the carrots.

The biologically isolated greenhouses, and the machines that support agricultural quilts, would be expensive to produce and maintain, but in a city that doesn't use free enterprise, expensive farming equipment can be justified.

To understand this concept, consider an example I've mentioned in a previous document; specifically, mowing lawns. Imagine that a city has a million homes, each with a private yard. That city requires a million small lawnmowers. If each person spends an hour a month mowing his lawn, and if they do this eight months of the year, that means the people put 8 million hours every year into mowing lawns. In addition, the city needs people to work on assembly lines to produce lawnmowers, and people are needed to spend time on lawnmower maintenance and recycling.

If those same people were living in Kastron, then the land between the clusters of buildings belongs to the city. Therefore, the city does not need a million small lawnmowers to mow the grass. Instead, the city would use a small number of much larger lawnmowers. Furthermore, the city could afford to make those lawnmowers so automated that they operate at night so that nobody is bothered by the mowing of lawns. The machines would follow predetermined paths, and have cameras and other sensors to avoid unexpected obstacles.

Although those lawn mowing machines would be expensive to produce and maintain, the city would need only a few of them. The city would not need anywhere near 8 million hours of labor a year to mow lawns.

Farmers don't have to deal with equipment decisions

Another advantage to the farmers by becoming employees is that they do not have to deal with the decisions of what type of equipment to get for their farm. Instead, the government officials will decide what type of equipment the farms need, and they will tell the businesses to develop and produce it. The businesses will produce farming equipment according to what the government wants, not according to what the farmers want. The government will also be responsible for maintaining all of the equipment.

The Kastron government would provide the farmers with high quality and efficient tractors, drones, robotic devices, sensors, and other equipment, rather than low cost items that are affordable to a farmer in a free enterprise system. The machinery that the farmers need only occasionally, such as machines to harvest crops, and drones to inspect an area, would be shared among the farmers, just as employees within IBM share equipment.

Farmers can work more normal hours

Another advantage to the farmers in Kastron is that their work hours and schedules would become more "normal". Although some farmers already have a desirable work schedule, some of them claim to be working more than 15 hours a day, month after month. It would be acceptable for them to work that much if they truly enjoyed doing it, but some of them are working that much because they cannot afford the employees and/or equipment that they need. This situation can occur when a person is trying to get a new farm established, or when he is recovering from a natural disaster.

In a free enterprise system, the people who start businesses, or who are recovering from some type of economic problem, may have to spend years struggling to gather enough money afford the equipment and employees they need. This gathering of money is a waste of time. From the point of view of society, we should provide everybody with the equipment they need to be productive, regardless of whether they are farming, repairing bicycles, making meals at a restaurant, or doing scientific research.

This concept is similar to what I mentioned in Part 1 of this series in which I pointed out that if we alter our view of the human lifespan, we will not want a child to waste his youth on gathering money to afford a home or paying for an education. We would instead provide everybody with an education and home.

Likewise, it is foolish to make a person struggle for years to afford the equipment that he needs to do his job efficiently. From the point of view of society, everybody should be provided with whatever they need to become productive immediately.

The farmers can have a more normal social life

The families of the farmers will also benefit from the Kastron economic system because the farmers will be able to live in the clusters of apartment buildings, which will allow their families to live among people and social activities, rather than be isolated on a farm. The underground trains could quickly take the farmers to whichever farm they needed to get to, and without any concern about the weather.

To reduce the time farmers have to spend on the farm, the city could put cameras around the farms so that farmers can check on animals and crops from any phone or computer in the city. For areas where there are no cameras, the farmers could send drones or robotic cameras. When robots become more advanced, the farmers could also send them to do work, such as harvest crops, remove weeds, and feed animals.

If a farmer is involved with crops that are seasonal, he could switch to another job during the months when there is nothing for him to do, and not necessarily in the farming area. For example, a person might want to be involved with producing vegetables during the spring and summer, while spending autumn and winter working in the city with everybody else in a restaurant, factory, bicycle repair shop, museum, or school.

Farmers don't have to worry about overproducing food
In a free enterprise system, farmers have to be concerned about producing too much food. In Kastron, however, the government decides how much of every type of food to produce. The government is responsible for producing too much food, or too little.

The Kastron officials will do a job that is similar to that of the management of a Navy ship. Before a ship leaves port, the management has to decide which foods to bring on the ship, and in what quantities. As the ship travels around, the chefs make meals according to the food on the ship, not according to what they wish to do.

The Kastron officials will have a similar task. They will know exactly who is in the city, and their ages. This will let them know how many adults and children they need to provide meals for every day. They will also have historical data about how much food has been eaten in the past. The officials will use that information to determine how much of every food item the farmers should produce.

• Which foods should be seasonal?
In a free enterprise system, businesses pander to the consumers, so businesses do everything they can think of to provide seasonal fruits and vegetables throughout the year. One trick that works with apples is to use a controlled atmosphere storage system. Another method of providing fruits and vegetables that are out of season is to import them from the other side of the planet. For example, in my city, some markets are importing blueberries and other fruit from Chile.

Are the apples that have been stored for months with this system really tasty enough to justify doing it? My personal opinion is that these storage systems are not worth the trouble. Are the blueberries and other fruit from Chile worth the trouble of importing them? The bananas from South America are acceptable, but the blueberries and certain other fruit have to be harvested too young and/or end up too moldy to make them worth it to me.

My opinion is that a lot of the fruits and vegetables in the markets are of unacceptably low quality. I think the reason they are selling so well is because most people grew up eating those fruits and vegetables, and so those low quality foods seem "normal" to them, rather than inferior in flavor and texture.

Most people do not have fruit trees, or grow their own vegetables, so they don't know what apricots, walnuts, apples, pears, persimmons, and other items are supposed to taste like. Walnuts, for example, lose their flavor quickly once they are removed from their shell, but most people have never had a fresh walnut. Some markets sell walnuts in their shells, and although they are a higher in quality than the shelled walnuts, they are lower in quality than what they should be because they have been through abusive cleaning and polishing machines in order to make them visually attractive to the ignorant consumers.

Most people who grow or purchase fuyu persimmons do not realize that they can be left on the tree until they start becoming soft, and they will continue to ripen and soften after picking. My own brother, who has one of those trees in his yard, even insisted that I was incorrect, and that those type of persimmons cannot become soft. Like most people, he cannot control his arrogance. He still believes the official story about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues. I don't waste my time talking to him any more.

A couple years ago I recorded some video of fuyu persimmons that I picked when ripe, and then let ripen until they become soft in order to show people that it is possible, but I haven't yet bothered to edit it into a video for YouTube. Perhaps I'll find the motivation soon.

In a free enterprise system, the businesses focus on profit, not on the quality of food, or the quality of human life. The farmers and markets are pandering to consumers who are ignorant about food, and who judge food by visual image rather than by flavor. This is resulting in a lot of low quality food items selling in large amounts.

People who have higher standards for food, and who know more about food, should make decisions for the public. Likewise, we should not let the public make decisions about GMO crops, or other issues that they know nothing about.

Since Kastron will not have free enterprise, farmers and businesses not will not pander to the citizens. Instead, the Kastron officials will decide what to do about seasonal fruits and vegetables. My suggestion is to be more concerned with the quality of our food rather than its visual image.

Rather than try to store fresh fruit and vegetables in controlled atmospheres, and rather than try to import fruit that has a very short shelf life, it might be better to freeze some of the crop.

When my plum, peach, or apricot tree has a large crop, I harvest the fruit as it ripens, remove the seeds, and warm the fruit up to about 140F for the apricots and peaches, and up to 160F for the plums, in order to break down the enzyme that seems to cause deterioration, and I add ascorbic acid in case that helps to preserve them, and then I freeze the slurry. That does not provide me with fresh fruit, but it has an excellent flavor. Since the fruit is ripe when I do this, it doesn't need any additional sugar, but a little Stevia and/or sugar will make it into a delicious dessert.

Rather than try to store fresh fruit for the off-season, and rather than import low-quality fruit, I think it would be better for us to put research into freezing fruit. We should study whether the fruit should be heated, and if so, to what temperature, and for how long. Should ascorbic acid or some other chemical be added to the fruit? What temperature should the freezer be?

By figuring out how to freeze fruit without ruining the flavor, we can have delicious jams, pies, tarts, and gelatin desserts all throughout the year.

• There may be occasional shortages of some foods
The Kastron government will try to produce only as much food as is necessary so that they don't waste labor and resources. This can result in shortages of certain types of food. For example, imagine that a natural disaster destroys the cantaloupe crop. In a free enterprise system, the stores would respond by importing cantaloupe from other areas of the world, possibly at a high expense, but the Kastron government does not pander to the people. Instead, the government officials would discuss what would be best for the city.

They may come to the conclusion that there is so much other food that they are not going to waste labor and resources on the importation of cantaloupe, in which case they will tell the citizens that there is no cantaloupe this season. The citizens will have to deal with it quietly rather than whine about it.

In a democracy, the government would never be able to get away with that type of policy, but this is the policy we find in all other organizations. For example, if a Navy ship were to discover that their shipment of cantaloupes has gone moldy, they would tell the sailors that there is no cantaloupe, and the sailors would deal with it quietly.

A "normal" family also follows this policy. For example, if a mother purchases a cantaloupe, and if she discovers that it is rotten, she will tell her children that there is no cantaloupe for that meal. A "normal" mother will not rush to the market to get another cantaloupe in order to appease children who whine that they were promised a cantaloupe.

• Scare foods would be shared
With modern technology, we can produce such an excess of food that it is absurd for us to compete for food. We should provide everybody with free food. The exception would be the foods that are in short supply, such as certain types of seafood, truffles, and seasonal foods.

In a free enterprise system, the scarce food items are set to a higher price. This encourages stupid, monkey behavior in which the wealthy people purchase expensive food items and titillate themselves with thoughts of how special they are for being able to afford the most expensive lobsters, truffles, caviar, and other "delicacies", and it encourages other people to pout, be envious, or become angry.

In reality, most of the scarce food items are foods that humans don't have a strong attraction to. They are not delicacies. Rather, they are scarce. It is detrimental for us to treat those items as if they are special foods that make our life worthwhile.

Since everybody in Kastron will have virtually the same material wealth, there will be no wealthy people, so we need a different method of distributing the scarce food items. One method is to share those items. For example, during one year, some of the people who want caviar, lobster, and truffles would be given access to them, and during the next year a different group of people would have access to them. By sharing the scarce foods in this manner, everybody who wants them will eventually get them.

I predict that many people in Kastron will discover that they don't care much for those "delicacies", and they will decline to eat some of those items when it is their time to have them. Caviar, for example, is as unappealing to me as the salmon eggs that people use as bait to catch fish. I prefer chicken, pork, and other meats.

I like filet mignon, but I think other cuts of beef have more flavor. I think the attraction to filet mignon is because it is expensive.
Also, filet mignon is easy to chew, and most people have the attitude that the less work we do, the better our life becomes. I think we are promoting a bad attitude when we boast about food that "melts in our mouth." We should stop promoting the attitude that being pampered like a baby, and given soft foods like a baby, is going to make our life better.

Another method of dealing with scarce foods is to offer them as rewards for something, such as to people who volunteer for chores that nobody wants to do, or people who have done something exceptional.

Of course, if somebody offered me caviar or lobster in return for doing a chore, I would consider that to be a punishment rather than a reward. That type of "reward" would be appreciated only by people who truly want to eat those items. I would consider a rack of lamb, crispy chicken drumsticks, or a pork roast to be a reward, as well as ripe, red cherries, apricots, persimmons, and other fruit.

• Apartment buildings will be cleaner and safer
Another benefit to living in apartments that do not have kitchens or dining rooms is that people will not be eating food in their homes, or in the elevators or hallways, which means that the homes will remain cleaner, thereby reducing the problem of cockroaches, rats, and other creatures.

It will also significantly reduce the amount of trash produced at the apartments. Furthermore, since most of the stench of trash comes from food related garbage, that means the apartments will smell better inside, and wherever the trash is collected.

Furthermore, the air in the apartments will be cleaner and safer to breathe because there will never be any burnt oil, a stench of frying fish, or any type of burnt food. This will also result in the walls and ceilings of the apartments remaining cleaner, and so will everybody's clothing, furniture, and other items. The reason is because there will not be billions of tiny droplets of oil drifting around to collect on walls or items.

Many people have noticed that cigarettes create an oily residue that sticks to walls and clothing, but they have not noticed that cooking food at high temperatures does the same thing, but with food oils rather than tobacco oils. I cook food at a low temperature mainly because I think the food taste better, but partly because it's easier to clean up afterwards; partly to avoid breathing the fumes; and partly to prevent the walls and furniture from getting coated with food oils.

Another benefit to not having kitchens is that it will eliminate the main cause of fires. According to statistics, most of the fires in both houses and apartments are caused by cooking.

Another advantage is that there will be fewer cooking related injuries, such as being cut by a knife, or burned by a stove or hot liquids. This will be especially important for people who have babies and young children. Parents will not have to worry about their children getting into the kitchen or dining room.

• Meals will be healthier, eventually
Most people boast that they eat healthy meals, but in reality, none of us truly knows what is healthy for a human. Furthermore, each of us are genetically unique, so a healthy diet is different for each of us.

There are only some foods that scientists can prove are definitely bad, or need to be processed in certain ways. For example, scientists can prove that we must cook red kidney beans at a certain temperature for a certain amount of time in order to destroy a chemical that causes trouble for us. Scientists can also create charts that show us how long a particular food needs to be cooked at various temperatures in order to kill salmonella.

However, scientists do not yet know enough about cholesterol or red meats to tell us what our consumption of eggs, beef, pork, and other items should be.

The government officials of Kastron will determine which food items to produce, and they will provide the restaurants with guidelines for meals, but the government will impose a rule only if it can be backed up with scientific evidence. For example, the government will be able to require red kidney beans to be cooked in a certain manner, but they cannot prohibit eggs or red meat.

As scientists learn more about food and health, the government can increase the restrictions on how meals can be made. Eventually the scientists will know so much about human health that the government will be able to dictate exactly how meals can be made. In that distant future, the restaurant chefs will choose recipes that have been designed by scientists, rather than create their own recipes, or follow recipes from Betty Crocker or Aunt Jemima.

In Kastron, each person will go to the restaurants that serve the meals that they want to eat. This requires that all of the restaurants identify the recipes of their meals. Although the restaurants in Kastron are in competition to attract customers, they are not independent businesses of a free enterprise system. The restaurants belong to the city, and the chefs are employees of the city. The chefs cannot keep their recipes a secret, or copyright their recipes. They must disclose their recipes to their customers so that everybody can decide if they want to eat the food.

Furthermore, the chefs will not be able to deceive people by saying that their meals contain "flavorings" or "spices". Instead, they have to identify what is in the meals. The chefs must treat us as friends and team members, not as profit opportunities.
The gold foil is exploiting people,
not treating them as friends.
The citizens will have a wide variety of restaurants to choose from, but they will not be able to influence how the restaurants make the meals. The restaurants will be competing with each other, but they will not be allowed to pander to the citizens. The chefs will be employees of the city, and like all employees, they will be expected to treat people in a respectable manner.

For example, the chefs will not be able to attract customers by increasing the sugars or artificial flavors in their food, or by putting gold foil on bagels to make customers feel special.

Instead, the restaurants will design meals according to what the government determines is "healthy". Since we don't truly know enough about human health to say exactly what a healthy meal is, the government will fund research programs into the issue, and the recipes will be continuously adjusted as we learn more about health.

Since people will be able to choose their restaurants, some people, especially children and teenagers, might choose to eat only at the restaurants that provide desserts, or some other food that would be inappropriate when it becomes a major part of their diet. However, when the government is in control of the entire city, we have a tremendous number of options to deal with that issue.

For example, the government would impose restrictions on the food that children and teenagers have access to, just as parents put restrictions on their children. Also, many restaurants would be off-limits to children and teenagers, such as those that serve desserts.

Adults would have a lot more freedom to make bad decisions. If an adult chooses to eat an unhealthy diet, my suggestion is to regard him in the same manner as an adult who does other detrimental things to himself, such as cut himself with a knife, or drink excessive amounts of alcohol.

We have a responsibility to take care of children, but when adults do something detrimental, my suggestion is that we tell them to deal with the consequences. We should not feel sorry for them, or give them special pampering or treatment. If an adult become sickly as a result of his excessive consumption of candy, for example, we do not have to provide him with medical services. We could tell him to suffer the consequences, or we could evict him from the city on the grounds that he doesn't have the mental abilities to handle the freedom that the city provides him.

Since we all have strong cravings for sugar, the government could help us control our consumption of sugar in a lot of different ways. For example, the government could restrict candies, donuts, honey glazed hams, apple strudels, coffee cakes, pies, and other sweet foods to the people who do physical labor during their jobs. For the office workers, the sweet foods could be restricted to the weekends, or available only to people who who get involved with some type of physical activity.

For the people who are not involved with physical activities, the government could restrict them to desserts that have very low levels of sugar, and/or stevia, monk fruit, xylitol, and erythritol.

Another possibility for dealing with sugar is to put more resources into breeding plants that are less bitter, and therefore don't require so much sugar.

What is the best policy? There is no such thing as a "best" policy. If you can suppress your fear of the unknown and find the courage to wander off the established path, you will realize that we have a tremendous number of options available to us. We simply have to start experimenting with our options, observe the results, and discuss which option is giving us the best life overall.

Nobody should be able to censor information
Who should decide which information the truth?
Are you aware of how many organizations are actively involved with censoring information? Here are a few examples:
• In January 2019, Microsoft announced NewsGuard. It is software that will protect us from the websites that have "a hidden agenda or knowingly publishes falsehoods or propaganda". Microsoft boasts that they are going to let us know which websites "are trustworthy--and which ones aren't."

• Also in January 2019, YouTube announced that "we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the Earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11." YouTube is also developing software to do "fact checking" of videos in order to determine which videos have misinformation.

• In February 2019, Brietbart reported that the CEO of PayPal admitted to working with the SPLC to blacklist conservatives.

• In March 2019, Facebook announced that after discussions with "members of civil society and academics who are experts in race relations around the world", they have come to the conclusion that they must censor the "praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram".

• During the past few years, there has been a lot of evidence and accusations that the executives of the NFL and other organizations have been suppressing and censoring information about the dangers of concussions in sports.
The executives of the NFL, YouTube, Microsoft, Google, NASA, the FBI, the SPLC, the ADL, and CNN are just a few of many people who are, or who want to, suppress and censor the information and people that they don't want us to know about. They claim to be doing this to protect us from racists, white supremacists, Nazis, anti-Semites, global warming deniers, Holocaust deniers, sexists, propaganda, pornography, and false information.

Facebook boasts that they are getting advice from academics who are experts in race relations, but who are these experts? Even more important, what makes them "experts"? We have specific training courses and tests to determine if somebody can refer to himself as a pilot or dentist, but nobody has to prove anything in order to be an "expert in race relations". Therefore, that remark by Facebook could be described as an attempt to intimidate, manipulate, and deceive us.

We need laws against the opposite of slander
We have laws against slander, but we don't care if people do the opposite of slander; namely, giving praise or credit to themselves or other people who do not deserve it. The government created the Stolen Valor Act to stop people from getting financial benefits by pretending to be a military veteran, but if a person is not making money from his lies, then he cannot be arrested. For example, Don Shipley has created lots of videos in which he exposes men who are lying about being Navy SEALs, but he cannot stop them from lying, and none of those men can be arrested for their lies.
Don't be intimidated
by experts, scholars, or academics.
It is idiotic to allow every business, religious group, charity, political group, sports group, and other organization to claim to be experts on fake news, hate speech, racism, sexism, etc., and then allow those phony experts to suppress and censor whatever information and people that they don't like.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to let them do this in secrecy, and to conspire with one another secretly.

A society needs censorship, but it should be restricted to a government agency that we have control over. That agency should not be able to operate in secrecy. Rather, the officials should be required to provide documentation to explain what they are censoring, and why, and they should be held accountable for everything they do. We need to be able to pass judgment on whether they are making wise decisions, or whether they are trying to suppress their competitors, or whether they are trying to manipulate, intimidate, or deceive us.

We need to have higher standards for "experts". For another example, Einstein is given credit for all sorts of quotes, as well as a lot of scientific theories, but look at the evidence that he is a plagiarizer.

What is “the truth”?
In Part 1 of this series, I pointed out how our view of life determines our culture. This concept also applies to "the truth". Specifically, the truth depends upon our view of life. We could also describe this as saying the truth depends upon our perspective, or on our emotional and intellectual characteristics. For example, consider these two issues:
1) Which is the truth about the extinction of the dinosaurs:
a) A giant meteor hit the Earth.
b) Continental drift resulted in a cooler climate.
c) Nobody has any idea.
d) Other.
2) Which is the truth about the creation of the universe:
a) It was created by a supreme being.
b) It created itself in a Big Bang.
c) Nobody has any idea.
d) Other.

As we learn more about the universe, we become more aware of our ignorance
As I mentioned in one of my earlier documents, the less we know about an issue, the more we think we know about it. As we learn more about a subject, we realize how ignorant we were about it.
We can create a variety of creatures when we have only one bone.
You can visualize this concept as the process that paleontologists go through. If they find only one bone, they can create a variety of different creatures from it, as in the drawing to the right. If they don't control their arrogance, they will assume that they are making accurate assumptions. However, as they discover more bones, they will realize that their initial assumptions were incorrect.

I think that as we discover more about the dinosaurs, we will come to the conclusion that it is inaccurate to say that the dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago. I would say that the lizards, Komodo dragons, iguanas, and other reptiles are descendants of dinosaurs. Therefore, some dinosaur species are still alive.

Most species of dinosaurs have gone extinct, but I doubt if it was because of a meteor hitting North Dakota. That meteor would have caused significant changes to the climate, which in turn could cause a lot of animals and plants to die or go extinct during the following years, but I suspect that the large dinosaurs were going extinct before the meteor hit, and that the meteor only increased the extinction, rather than caused it. A large meteor might even be able to crack some of the continents, thereby altering continental drift.

If that meteor had truly caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, then millions of dinosaurs would have died within a year or two, which would have resulted in millions of dead dinosaurs all over the surface of the earth, and in the water. It would have resulted in a lot of putrid meat, and a lot of skeletons. However, nobody has found any evidence of that yet.

I predict that future generations will make a lot of corrections to our "scientific facts". The only "fact" that they will not be able to improve upon because it is truly "definite" and "undeniable" is: as we learn more about the universe, we will discover that we don't know as much as we thought we knew.

Nobody knows “the truth
Consider yourself on a journey to a rainbow.
I think the most productive attitude is to regard "the truth" as sitting at the end of a rainbow because we can never get to the truth. We can learn about the universe, but we do not live long enough or have the intelligence to learn everything there is to know.

It is also important to remind ourselves that some of the "truth" that was discovered by previous generations has turned out to be false. Therefore, we should assume that some of the truth of today is going to be considered false by future generations.

The lesson to learn from history is that nobody truly knows what the truth is. We should consider ourselves to be on an endless journey to explore the universe. We should not censor opinions that we assume are false because some of them will turn out to be partially truthful, and some of the truth will turn out to be partially false.

The “truth” depends upon our mind
A "scientific fact that nobody can argue with" and "the truth" depends on our mental characteristics and our education. Since each of us have different intellectual and emotional characteristics, and different educations, different people will come to different conclusions on what the truth is. A good example are the religious people who claim that science proves the Bible is true. For example:
• Some educated, intelligent "scholars" have spent decades studying the universe, and they tell us that science has proven the Bible to be accurate, and they have estimated the age of the Earth to be about 6000 years. Some other scholars have verified that date.

• Some educated and intelligent scholars have verified that the story of Noah's Ark is the truth, and they used science and math to calculate the size of the ark. Some people have created this museum to allow us to see a full-size replica of the ark.
To some people, Noah's Ark and other biblical stories have been proven to be true, and they are based on scientific facts that we cannot argue with. In reality, the truth about bible and Noah's Ark depends upon our genetic mental qualities and the information that we picked up during our life. Likewise, the truth about abortion, marijuana, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, climate change, sex education, crime, and other issues depends upon our mental qualities and education.

We do not need to fear false information
Some Jews are routinely whining that anti-Semites are spreading false information, and that the public must be protected from that false information with laws that prohibit Holocaust denial, fake news, anti-Semitism, racism, white supremacy, and hatred. However, false information does not hurt anybody. We don't want people slandering or insulting one another, but we do not have to fear inaccurate opinions.

Freedom of speech will protect us from false information
As long as everybody is free to discuss issues, nobody will be harmed by a false opinion. Inaccurate opinions are dangerous only when we allow people to suppress alternative opinions. If a society has the sense to enforce freedom of speech, they do not have to be afraid of people who are promoting inaccurate, false, or deceptive opinions.
The best protection against false information is freedom of speech. You can visualize this concept as being analogous to a science fair (the photo to the right). If everybody is free to present their opinions to the world, and everybody is free to listen to everybody else's opinions, and everybody is free to verify any information they please, then nobody has to be afraid that some of the information might be inaccurate or false.

Actually, the opposite is true. By allowing everybody to see, discuss, and verify everybody else's opinions, everybody will learn more about the universe.

Of course, everybody will come to slightly different conclusions about which information is accurate. The religious fanatics, for example, will come to the conclusion that the evolutionary information is nonsense, and the vegetarians will come to the conclusion that the people promoting meat and leather are spreading false information. The Catholics will come to the conclusion that the Mormons are spreading false information, and the Mormons will conclude that the Buddhists are spreading false information.

However, nobody will be harmed by allowing the public to be exposed to a chaotic mixture of conflicting and inaccurate information. The religious people will not suffer simply because some people are promoting evolution or other religious beliefs, and the people who promote evolution will not suffer simply because some people are promoting religion. Likewise, the people who promote that the Earth is spherical will not suffer simply because some people are promoting the concept that the Earth is flat.

The only way people will be harmed as if we allow somebody to censor information. For example, a few centuries ago the Catholic Church tried to censor Galileo and his information. They were unsuccessful, but you can certainly imagine the effect on the world if they had been able to continuously censor alternative opinions to this day.

We like to believe that human behavior has improved from the Middle Ages, but people are still behaving in the same manner. There are lots of organizations today trying to suppress and censor information, just like the Catholic Church did centuries ago. The most obvious example are the Jewish organizations, but there are also vegetarians who want to censor information that is critical of their opinions, and there are people trying to censor information about the genetic differences between men and women.

All of the people who advocate the arrest, firing, censorship, or suppression of people and information claim to be our heroes who are trying to protect us from false information, sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, etc., but they are not helping us. The only protection against false information is freedom of speech.

Children do not benefit from differences of opinion
Modern societies have a dilemma to deal with, and I doubt if there is a "good" solution to it. Specifically, should we raise children on one set of beliefs, or let parents raise their children on different beliefs?

Adults are not harmed by differences of opinion, but children will have a more pleasant life if they are exposed to only one set of beliefs. By allowing children to grow up in a society in which they are exposed to a variety of different opinions, they pick up bits of conflicting and hypocritical opinions about life. This can result in teenagers and young adults wasting a lot of their time wondering what to believe in regards to men and women, abortion, religion, material wealth, recreational activities, tattoos, jewelry, and hairstyles.

A child's life will be more relaxing if they are raised in a society in which they are exposed to only one culture. They would become adults who follow the same beliefs. That type of society would resemble a prehistoric tribe in which everybody was raised on the same culture.

Although most people seem to be unaware of this issue, all modern societies have been inadvertently dealing with it to a certain extent. Specifically, our societies have decided to allow adults to have access to all information, but we restrict the information that businesses and schools can provide to children.

For example, our school systems are teaching evolution, not Adam and Eve. However, we do not prohibit adults from discussing Adam and Eve. We do not accuse them of being "Evolution Deniers", or "Anti-Evolutionary Conspiracy Theorists". We do not accuse them of spreading propaganda or hate speech, and we are not arresting them or putting them through rehabilitation programs.

Unfortunately, the people in leadership positions are not making good decisions about which information to protect children from. For example, they are "protecting" children from information about sex, digestion, childbirth, and waste products, but that is not helping the children. Rather, it is causing children to become adults who giggle at naked bodies, have abnormal cravings for pornography and sex, have bizarre sexual desires, and have inaccurate views about how their body processes and deals with food.

Furthermore, our leaders are preventing businesses from providing children with pornography, but they do nothing to protect children from sexual titillation by businesses, or from the businesses that manipulate children into wanting certain toys, candies, and clothing items.

To make the situation more absurd, instead of protecting the children from false information, our schools, government officials, scientists, and journalists are lying to them about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, carbon taxes, the Holocaust, and many other issues. We also allow the NFL and other sports groups to deceive children about the dangers of concussions.

Our societies are not doing a good job of protecting children. Rather, we are allowing children to be manipulated and deceived. And we are causing them to be ignorant about human bodies.

We must defend our freedom of speech
If we allow organizations to censor the information that they don't like, then every business, government agency, sports group, and other organization will censor different information because we all have a different idea about what is "the truth". Therefore, the best policy is to prohibit everybody from censoring information. We should not allow anybody to determine the truth. Everybody must be free to express their opinions.

When the executives of Google fired James Damore, and when the executives of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory harassed James Watson, our legal system should have reacted by regarding those executives to be unfit for influential positions because they were trying to suppress their competitors, and because they were denying a person his freedom of speech. They should have been fired from their jobs.

The police should also have investigated those executives to determine whether they were part of a conspiracy to intimidate and manipulate the public. If so, they should be arrested for that crime. Furthermore, since the Google executives lied that James Damore disrupted the company, those executives should be arrested for deception and slander.
The apathetic men are behaving like
a dog that is allowing itself to be beaten.
The people who ignore the abuse and crimes of business executives, government officials, crime networks, pedophiles, and teachers, are allowing the criminals to destroy our society. They are behaving like a stupid dog that is allowing itself to be beaten.

An organization can tolerate a certain number of apathetic men, but every organization needs a certain number of men who will defend their group from destructive people. An organization should encourage men to take an active role in exposing crime and corruption, and helping to maintain the organization.

We must expect women and children to be submissive and passive, but the men who ignore the abuse by the Google executives, pedophile networks, and other criminals are analogous to sailors on a submarine who ignore a lunatic who is poking holes in the walls of the submarine in order to sink it.

Who wants to arrest their competitors?
If we were to divide the population up into two groups, namely, those who want to arrest people for promoting false information, and those who are tolerant of a difference of opinion, I suspect that we would discover that the people who want to arrest us are most likely to refer to themselves as "liberals".

Furthermore, I suspect that those people also spend more time than other people boasting that they believe in freedom of speech, and that they oppose jails, violence, fascism, Nazis, liars, and restrictions on freedom.

It also seems to me that the vegetarians who are the join protests about eating meat, or who advocate laws to stop people from eating meat, are most likely to be liberals, also.

Many conservatives oppose abortion, but only a few conservatives want to arrest or murder the "Right to Life Deniers". Most conservatives are also religious, but how many of them are demanding the arrest of the "Bible Deniers" or "Jesus Deniers"?

From my casual observations of people, the conservatives are more tolerant of a difference of opinion than the liberals. However, the liberals boast the most about being open-minded, fair, and tolerant.

Furthermore, which of the liberals are advocating the arrest of people who have a difference of opinion? Is it primarily the male liberals, or the young ones? Or is it liberals of a certain racial background? Or is it the liberals who have a particular type of emotional disorder?

This is not a trivial issue. In order to provide ourselves with high quality leadership, we need a better understanding of human behavior so that we can do a better analysis of one another. Voters must be able to pass judgment on which of our leaders are providing guidance, and which of them are hypocritical, arrogant jerks who want to arrest people who disagree with them.

We should arrest people only for slander or lies
It is foolish to allow a government to arrest people for meaningless accusations, such as climate change denial, racism, sexism, Holocaust denial, and anti-Semitism. It is also foolish to allow businesses, scientific laboratories, sports groups, charities, and other organizations to fire or torment employees for those accusations.

A society should fire, suppress, or arrest people only if there is supporting evidence to show that the person is truly detrimental to society.

For an extreme example, imagine that a school teacher was teaching children that 2+2 = 5, and other nonsense. If an investigation determined that he was stupid or uneducated, then we would be able to justify firing him from his job and forcing him to take a job that is more suited to his mental abilities and education. However, if it was determined that he was deliberately lying to the students, then he should be regarded as a criminal who is detrimental to society.

Consider how that concept would apply to the firing of James Damore. If the Google executives had evidence that Damore was promoting false information, or that he was disrupting their organization, then they could justify firing him. However, they do not have any evidence. Therefore, the executives should be considered as committing the crime of making a false accusation against Damore, or of slandering him, or of tormenting him.

It would be foolish to allow a government to arrest people for having a difference of opinion, but the government should arrest people for false accusations, lies, deception, and slander. Of course, this is a complex issue because there is no dividing line between "slander" and "opinions".

To further complicate the issue, almost all of us are spreading some false information because all of us have been fooled into believing some of the lies about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and other events. For example, some of the teachers who are telling students that astronauts have driven electric cars on the moon actually believe what they say because they were fooled by the people who lied about the issue. Those teachers are victims, not liars.

However, don't let the complexity of this issue frighten you into doing nothing. We must deal with this issue, not hide from it.

My suggestion is to regard accusations of sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, climate change denial, and Holocaust denial as slander, insults, and false accusations, not as descriptions of crimes, or as "personal opinions". For example, James Damore is "expressing an opinion" when he says men and women have genetic differences, but the Google executives are slandering him when they accuse him of being "sexist" because they have no explanation for that accusation.

If we had a government that followed that philosophy, then our courts would not allow accusations of racism, sexism, climate change denial, Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, white privilege, or toxic masculinity. The people who make those accusations would be arrested, not the people that they accuse. This would make our social environment more pleasant, and make us feel more comfortable about using our freedom of speech. Unfortunately, we cannot get that type of court system unless we are willing to change our government, and raise standards for lawyers and judges.

Should it be legal for us to break the leg of our competitors?
In 1994, Nancy Kerrigan was hit in the leg in order to eliminate her from an ice skating competition, thereby allowing Tonya Harding to win. The man who hit her was arrested, but imagine living in a nation in which sabotage was legal.

In that type of nation, when you were looking for a spouse, you would have to watch out for your competitors throwing acid in your face in order to make you look horrible. When you were called for a job interview, you would have to watch out for your competitors sabotaging the brakes on your car, or poisoning your food, in order to eliminate you as a competitor.

None of us would want to live in that type of nation, but our nations are not much better. For example, what is the difference between:
• Hitting Nancy Kerrigan in the leg.
• Google executives firing James Damore.
• Jews demanding the arrest of anti-Semites, climate change deniers, and Holocaust deniers.
In all of those cases, people are trying to eliminate their competitors through diabolical techniques. It should not matter to you whether you are fired from your job because the executives fire whoever expresses a difference of opinion, or because some competitor sabotaged your work to make you look incompetent. In either case, you will live in fear of being abused by people who do not like you.

To make the issue more confusing, what is the difference between hitting Kerrigan in the leg, and journalists conspiring to ignore particular people or issues? For example, when the journalists conspire to promote carbon taxes and ignore the scientists who oppose it, they are suppressing their competition. Those journalists are essentially pushing Nancy Kerrigan into a wood chipper in order to get rid of her.

The "Fraudulent Interview Trick"
Another technique that the journalists use to manipulate and deceive us is that they sometimes give publicity to a competitor, thereby making it appear as if they are providing the audience with different viewpoints, but they pick a competitor who is an idiot, or they pick a person who agrees to deliberately make himself look like an idiot.

For example, Jim Jefferies interviewed four conspiracy theorists, which makes him appear to be giving fair coverage to the conspiracy theories. (Image to the right.)

However, I think he picked four people who are working with the criminal Jews, and they deliberately tried to make themselves and the conspiracy theories look stupid.

This could be described as the "Fraudulent Interview Trick". This technique is analogous to Tonya Harding arranging for an ice-skating competition in which she selects her competitors, and she deliberately picks people with no talent, or who agree to allow themselves to be beaten. This creates the impression that Harding is winning a fair ice-skating competition.

The "Edited Interview Trick"
Another method that journalists used to deceive people is that they give publicity to the people that they are want to suppress, thereby allowing them to boast that they are giving their opposition equal opportunity to express their opinions. However, in reality they interview the person extensively, and then edit the interview in such a manner that they make him look like an idiot. This could be described as the "Edited Interview Trick".

An example of this technique is when Penn and Teller interviewed me and Jimmy Walter. They interviewed us for a few hours, but they never truly gave us an opportunity to explain ourselves because they were in control of the questions, and they could interrupt us whenever they pleased. Furthermore, and more important, they took those hours of interview and reduced it to just a few minutes.

Furthermore, the cameramen would frequently put the camera below the level of our face so that they were looking up at us, which they normally do only in horror movies. This creates an especially unpleasant view of a person's face, especially when the lighting is also coming from below.

Another example of the Edited Interview Trick is when Deborah Feyerick of CNN interviewed Christopher Bollyn (photo below). Fortunately, he recorded the entire conversation so that people could hear the complete, unedited interview, which allows us to compare what he said to what CNN put on television. That exposed how CNN edited the interview to remove his intelligent remarks and try to make him look like an idiot.


The "Unbalanced Publicity Trick"
Recently the criminals at YouTube and Google have been using another trick to manipulate people. Specifically, underneath videos that expose crimes, they add a message that they hope will counteract and confuse the people who are watching the video.
The YouTube criminals added the gray bar under the video (the photo of the astronaut, the message about the Apollo space program, and the link to the Encyclopedia Britannica)
For example, Geraldo Rivera interviewed Bart Sibrel in an attempt to fool people into believing that Rivera gives equal opportunity to the people who claim that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. The interview was deceptive, as typical.

Sibrel posted the interview on YouTube, and YouTube added a message underneath with a link to an Encyclopedia Britannica article that supports the claim that Apollo astronauts were on the moon.

The criminals at YouTube and Google are so worried that people are realizing that some of the "crazy conspiracy theories" have some valid points, that they are now putting messages under thousands of videos that expose the Apollo moon landing hoax, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust hoax, and other crimes.

They are also putting these messages under videos that are coming from their own crime gang members who are acting as pied pipers and wolves in sheep's clothing.

We could describe this as the "Unbalanced Publicity Trick" because they are give a tremendous amount of publicity to the lies that they want to promote, but they give superficial publicity to the alternative opinions.

This trick can also be seen in the news coverage of President Trump. Specifically, there many more news reports about President Trump that are critical of him than are neutral or favorable to him. This is not because President Trump is doing so many terrible things that there is no other news to report about. Trump is not much different from the other government officials. The incredibly unbalanced news reports are simply an attempt to manipulate us.

Imagine if we had fair treatment by YouTube. In such a case, then underneath the gray bars from YouTube that provide information and a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica, we could have a yellow bar to provide alternative information and a link to HugeQuestions.com, as in the video below.






Doing nothing allows criminals to dominate
No society is doing anything to stop journalists from suppressing or ignoring their competitors, or arranging for deceptive, fraudulent interviews. Also, no society is yet standing up to the Jews who are demanding the arrest of Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, climate change deniers, white supremacists, Nazis, and racists. This is equivalent to a society that does nothing to stop people from eliminating their competitors by hitting them in the leg, cutting the brake cables on their car, or poisoning their food.

Everybody must be required to compete fairly. Everybody should earn what they want. Nobody should be permitted to cheat, sabotage, deceive, manipulate, or arrest their competitors.
The people who try to eliminate their competitors should be regarded as the dangerous. They should be regarded as behaving like animals, not humans.

If an organization does nothing to stop people from suppressing their competition, they will give an advantage to the people who are the most likely to do it. In other words, if we allow sabotage, then the people who rise to the top are likely to be the people who are the best at sabotaging their competition, not the best at leadership.

This is most noticeable in crime gangs and communist nations. The people who get to the top of gangs and communist nations are "earning" their position by intimidation, murder, blackmail, and other methods of eliminating their competitors.

Animals get to the top of their hierarchy through biting, scratching, kicking, murder, and other crude techniques. Human societies are not much better because we are allowing behavior that is similar, such as allowing journalists to conduct fraudulent interviews, and allowing Jews to slander us with false accusations of Holocaust denial, hate speech, and anti-Semitism.

In order to improve our situation, we need a certain number of men to become actively involved with stopping people from suppressing their competition. Everybody must be required to compete fairly. Nobody should be afraid to express their opinions. Nobody should be worried about getting hit in the legs with a baseball bat, arrested, or fired from their job for expressing an opinion about men and women, or for investigating the Holocaust or other historical events.

We should design laws with our intellect, not our emotions
As I mentioned in other documents, our governments are currently designing laws in the same manner that a monkey would design laws; namely, to satisfy our emotional feelings, not according to intellectual analyses. For example, when the dominant monkey is irritated by a submissive monkey, his anger emotion will be triggered, and he will react by glaring at, biting, or kicking the subservient monkey. The more irritated the dominant monkey becomes, the more violent his reaction is.

If monkeys were to create laws, they would come up with the concept that "the punishment should fit the crime." In other words, if a monkey does something that is only slightly irritating, he will be given a moderate kick, but if he does something that is very irritating, he will be given a more severe kick.

Humans developed the concept that bad behavior can be fixed with punishments, and that "the punishment should fit the crime" because we are following our emotions, not our intellect. The crimes that annoy us the most, such as pedophilia and murder, are considered to be the worst crimes, and we want to give those criminals the most brutal punishment. By comparison, if a person commits a crime that is only slightly irritating, such as shoplifting food, we react with an insignificant type of punishment.

The only way monkeys can control bad behavior is to bite and kick one another, but this technique does not work modern human societies.

Furthermore, by designing laws to fit our emotional cravings, the people who commit crimes that don't trigger much anger are not punished much, if at all. For example, if a man were to burglarize thousands of homes, the emotions of virtually everybody would be triggered to an extreme, and that would cause those people to become furious with that burglar.

However, when George Soros is accused of cheating nations of much larger amounts of money through complicated financial crimes, many people will admire him for his cleverness, rather than criticize him for his dishonesty.

To make our crime policies even more absurd, some of the crimes that people are committing are so complicated that most people don't even regard them as a "crime". For example, when Jews accuse somebody of Holocaust denial and demand that he be arrested, I would say that those Jews are committing a crime that is much worse than a pedophile who rapes a child. The reason is because those Jews are trying to trick the police into arresting an honest person.

Furthermore, those Jews are doing it for the purpose of manipulating society. They are trying to intimidate people into becoming afraid to use their freedom of speech. They are causing people to become easier to abuse. Those Jews have a devastating effect on a nation because they are ruining the culture of the nation. They are causing the social environment of the nation to become like a communist prison.

A pedophile who rapes a child is hurting only one child, not the entire nation, or the future generations. However, that pedophile will trigger our anger emotion much more than a Jew who is accusing somebody of Holocaust denial. Therefore, instead of becoming angry and disgusted with the Jews, people become angry at the pedophile.
For another example, if a crime gang were to go into a tall building in New York City and toss thousands of people out of the windows, people would be furious with that gang. However, when we show people evidence that a gang of Jews put explosives in the World Trade Center buildings and murdered thousands of people and hundreds of firemen, most people do not become angry.

Likewise, if a crime gang were to grab 10,000 people from the streets of New York City, force a hose in their mouth, and blow fine dust into their lungs, thereby causing them health problems, people would be furious. However, when 10,000 people suffer health problems as a result of breathing the demolition debris of the World Trade Center towers, most people, including the victims, do not even consider it to be a crime.

Why don't people become upset with the gang that demolished the World Trade Center towers? I suspect it is because that particular crime frightens most people. A lot of people boast that they are courageous, and many people boast that they have guns to protect themselves and their family, but most of those people are not as courageous as they claim to be. They are merely creating an image of toughness, like a cat arching its back and hissing. In reality, most people become frightened by crime networks, including teenage gangs, and they run away and hide. They will not pick up their guns, get together with other people, and destroy the crime networks.

When we create a legal system according to our emotional feelings, we end up with a system that punishes criminals according to how angry we become, which does nothing to stop crime, and which allows certain types of criminals to get away with their crimes.

Our legal system is crude and idiotic. In order to create a better system, we need to exert enough self-control so that we can design it according to what makes intellectual sense. We have to stop trying to please our emotions. We have to stop behaving like stupid animals who react to bad behavior by biting and kicking. We have to react to crime by thinking, and by experimenting with different policies.

The Sixth Amendment should protect us from senseless accusations
The Sixth Amendment is intended to prevent the government from arresting and convicting people in secrecy. It gives us the right to know what we are being accused of, the right to a trial, and the right to confront the people who are accusing us of a crime. Consider how the sixth amendment should protect us from idiotic accusations, such as climate change denial and Holocaust denial.

If a Jew could provide an intelligent explanation for their accusation of "Holocaust denial" or "anti-Semitism", then it would be acceptable for them to accuse people of it. However, they have no sensible explanation for what that crime is, or why it should be considered a crime.

The Jews want to convict us of crimes without a debate over what the crime is. In order to get away with this abuse, the Jews have so far arrested only the people who are willing to be convicted. Those people will not defend themselves properly when accused of Holocaust denial. Instead, they allow themselves to be convicted of a nonsensical crime in order to intimidate and manipulate the public.

The people, including the lawyers and judges, who voluntarily participate in the fraudulent trials of Holocaust denial, should be regarded as criminals. They should be considered guilty of the deception, manipulation, and intimidation of the public, and of the suppression of their competitors.
Arresting people for Holocaust denial or sexism is as stupid as arresting people for being a jackass.
The people who make an accusation without supporting evidence should be described as committing the crime of slander, or making a false accusation. We should not tolerate such crimes.

When we allow people to make accusations that have no explanation, we are putting the accused person into the situation of defending himself against a crime that makes no sense.

Allowing a Jew to arrest us for being a Holocaust denier is equivalent to allowing them to arrest us for being an "asshole". How can a person prove that he is not an asshole? Our courts should interpret the sixth amendment as providing us protection from those senseless accusations.

The same concept applies to the other adjectives that people are accusing us of, such as anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and white supremacy.

We should not tolerate unsupported accusations, but most people do not regard unsupported accusations as a "crime" because those accusations do not trigger our anger. This is allowing people to make these accusations on a regular basis. It seems that every day there are news reports of people accusing one another of anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, white supremacy, toxic masculinity, and other meaningless insults.

These idiotic accusations are more evidence that the majority of people should not be allowed to dominate society. The government should not pander to the citizens because the majority of people cannot make wise decisions about legal issues.

To protect the truth about history, allow research of it
The Jews justify the arrest of "Holocaust deniers" by claiming that putting those people in jail will protect historical facts from lies. However, if the Jews truly want us to learn the truth about the Holocaust, they should encourage us to do research on the Holocaust. The more research we do on the Holocaust, the more we will learn about it, which in turn makes it easier for us to identify the lies and mistakes.

Earlier in this document I explained the concept that Freedom of speech will protect us from false information. A similar concept is: researching an issue will allow us to understand it. Or: researching history will expose the inaccurate information.

For example, by researching the poison gas the Nazis used in the prison camps, we will discover the details of which businesses were involved with producing the poison gas, the quantities that were being used at the camps, and which businesses were involved with distributing it to the death camps. We would also learn some details about whether the people who were living downwind from the camps were affected by the poison gas. Did any of them get sick or die? Were there more birth defects in those neighborhoods? Did any of the wild or domesticated animals in the area suffer?

Studying the death camps will also help us understand how much coal and wood the Nazis used to burn the bodies. We will also discover how the Nazis managed to provide the death camps with all of that fuel when the war was causing extreme shortages of fuel in both the USA and Europe. We would also discover the details of what the Nazis did with the millions of teeth and the thousands of tons of ashes.

You do not need a Jew to protect you from lies!
The Jews want us to know about the truth about the Holocaust, so why don't they want us to research it? Why don't they want us to uncover the details of what those Nazis did?

It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that the reason the Jews want to censor, suppress, intimidate, and arrest the Holocaust deniers is because the Jews are lying about Holocaust. They want us to learn about the Holocaust from the Jews so that we they can control what we know about it. They do not want us to do our own research because they do not want us to discover the truth.

Censorship may be inhibiting a child’s brain development
A lot of parents want their children to become more intelligent. Businesses have responded with with toys, software, books, and other products that they claim will stimulate the development of a child's brain. Some people have also created private schools that claim to make children more intelligent.

Humans and animals have a certain ability to adapt to their environment, and therefore, as we learn more about ourselves, we will do an increasingly better job of figuring out how to raise both humans and animals. For example, nature's method of having a human baby adapt to the bacteria in his particular environment is to give babies a craving to put things into their mouth. However, this is a crude method. Eventually the future generations may learn enough about the human body to figure out a better method, such as providing pacifiers that contain a particular mixture of bacteria, viruses, fungus, and yeast. They may also create pacifiers with chemicals from certain foods to reduce food allergies.

The people in the future may also figure out how to design exercises for our body that are much more effective at maintaining the health of our muscles and tendons without damaging them, and which are less boring, time consuming, and painful.
Are any of the products or schools helping a baby to increase his intelligence?
Furthermore, people may eventually figure out how to design products and school courses for babies and children that truly do help their minds develop their maximum intellectual abilities. However, we know so little about the human mind as of 2019 that I suspect that all of our current products and schools are worthless.

I suggest you consider the possibility that our societies are actually inhibiting the intellectual abilities of children, and that the situation is getting worse. For example, the firing of James Damore and the harassment of James Watson may have the effect of causing both adults and children to become frightened to think "bad" thoughts.

If those were the only two incidents like that in the world, they might have been insignificant, but they are just two examples of millions of these incidents that are occurring on a regular basis. For example, there are people around the world regularly ridiculing the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who believe that the 9/11 attack was a false flag operation. There are also millions of people ridiculing, insulting, hating, and accusing people of sexism, racism, climate change denial, anti-Semitism, and bigotry.

The liberals, Jews, Blacks, feminists, and Hispanics who whine about racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, etc., claim to love everybody, and they boast about promoting peace and harmony, but in reality they are constantly harassing, insulting, intimidating, and hating people who think differently than they do. They are bullies who want to suppress freedom of speech and force us to be obedient and submissive. They are intolerant of differences of opinion. They are hypocrites.

Instead of encouraging intellectual development, the Google executives, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory executives, the ADL, the feminists, the BLM, the carbon tax promoters, and all of the other groups that are constantly trying to suppress alternative opinions, and that may be causing both adults and children to become frightened to think and discuss new ideas.

They may be interfering with the intellectual development of children by causing children to become frightened to think "sexist" or "hateful" thoughts. They may be causing children to become more passive, apathetic, and subservient. They may be suppressing the curiosity and intellectual abilities of children. Alsop, they may be having the biggest effect on their own children.

They may also be encouraging children to join in on the idiotic accusations of sexism, racism, and Holocaust denial. Google goes even further and lets their employees encourage the punching of Nazis.

By comparison, if a society encouraged people to express their opinions, think new thoughts, explore the universe, and learn from other people's opinions, the children would never be reprimanded for expressing "sexist" opinions, or for being a "climate change denier". Those children would have no fear of expressing their opinions because they would have no concern about being insulted as a "racist" or a "white supremacist". And they would have no fear that the police might arrest them for "Holocaust denial" or "climate change denial".

That type of social environment might stimulate their intellectual abilities, thereby helping them to reach their maximum intellectual potential. It might also cause the children to become adults who are better able to deal with differences of opinion.


Exercises to help people think new thoughts


Here are two documents with some issues that might encourage people to think new thoughts rather than follow the established ideas.
1) Continental drift
2) Miscellaneous issues

How do we judge a person's leadership abilities?
We create a procedure, and then improve it
We cannot truly determine who among us qualifies as a dentist or pilot, but we must make those decisions. We must create some testing procedure, and then put people through it. We can then observe the results and experiment with improvements to the procedure. Through time we will slowly improve the process.

Likewise, we cannot truly determine who among us qualifies as a leader. However, as soon as we start the process, we can analyze the results and improve it. My suggestion is for the procedure to consist of two decisions:

1) Has he provided intelligent analyses of social issues?
Our leaders should provide us with intelligent analyses of social issues. Therefore, we should read the documents that a political candidate has written about social issues, and pass judgment on whether he has demonstrated an ability to provide useful analyses, or whether his documents are confused, idiotic, or incomprehensible.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned at the beginning of this document, we have different ideas on what an "intelligent" analysis is. My suggestion is to stop being intimidated by the religious fanatics and psychologists, and demand that leadership positions be restricted to people who understand the basic concepts of science and evolution.
2) Does he show appropriate emotional characteristics?
We should analyze a candidate's treatment of other people, and pass judgment on whether he has better-than-average emotional qualities, in regards to leadership. For example:
• Has he treated other people as team members? Or does he regard himself as superior to us, and use us as steppingstones to his personal goals?
• Has he handled criticism better than most people? Or does he become angry with critics?
• Has he competed fairly? Is he willing to earn whatever he wants? Or does he look for ways to cheat, intimidate, sabotage, or eliminate his competitors? Or does he try to get handouts or special treatment?
• Has he shown an above-average interest in society? Or has his life been dedicated to titillating his particular cravings for sex, fame, status, wealth, awards, or pampering?
• Has he shown an above-average level of self-control? Or does he show unacceptable levels of envy, selfishness, anger, pouting, or arrogance?

Examples of people who will fail this type of test
• Social scientists and economists have created thousands of documents about economic issues, crime, divorce, school systems, and other issues, but almost all of their documents are indistinguishable from those created by the SCIgen software program. Therefore, all of those people would be considered as unacceptable

• The millions of people who produce opinions that are based on religion would be considered as unacceptable for leadership.

• The people who have never produced any documents about social issues would be considered as unacceptable for leadership because they are analogous to a person who wants to be a carpenter but who has never had enough of an interest in carpentry to do any carpentry work. We should look for people who show an interest in society.

• The executives who fired James Damore, and the people who support the firing, should be regarded as having an inappropriate attitude for a leadership position because we are going to suffer if we put people into leadership positions who want to censor, suppress, intimidate, torment, or murder their competitors.

We should not tolerate secretive leaders
In other documents I pointed out that a significant percentage of the people who claim to be truth seekers and crime investigators are very secretive about themselves, and some are so secretive that they want to be anonymous, and some do not even want us to know which nation they are living in. The most extreme example is the group that refers to themselves as "Anonymous".
The secretive people boast that they are secretive because they are are exposing important criminals, and that they are afraid of retaliation from the crime network, but it is more likely that they are secretive for other reasons, such as to hide the fact that they are Jews; to hide the fact that they are living in Israel and pretending to be Americans, British, or some other nationality; to hide their criminal background; or to hide their connections to the Zionist groups.

If people would follow my advice, everybody would ignore the secretive people. In such a case, the only people who could influence the world would be those who identify themselves and allow us to see who they are, and who they are associated with.

Example: Are Jews manipulating the MGTOW movement?

During the past few years, the MGTOW movement has been growing in popularity around the world. One of the peculiar aspects to this movement is that the many of the men who are producing videos and documents about the issue are anonymous and secretive, just like the "truth seekers" and "investigators" who claim to be exposing the 9/11 attack, pedophile networks, and other crimes. The mgtow.com website is dedicated to this movement, but the people responsible for the website are also secretive and anonymous.

Another peculiar aspect of this movement is that, just like the feminist movement and the 9/11 truth movement, the people involved are not trying to help anybody understand anything, or help them to make a better life for themselves. Most of them are not providing intelligent analyses of male-female relationships, or of marriage, or providing any suggestions on how to improve people's relationships. Most of their videos and documents are not encouraging men to think or discuss the issues of male-female relationships.
Instead, just like the feminist movement, most of them are encouraging insults, sarcasm, hatred, whining, and fighting. They also provide a variety of sarcastic and insulting T-shirts, such as the drawing to the right.

Another peculiar aspect of the MGTOW movement is that a lot of the secretive men are also begging for money, which is typical for the "truth seekers" who are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues.

The MGTOW men who beg for money create an interesting situation. Specifically, one of the primary complaints of the MGTOW men is that the women want financial support from men, but many of the MGTOW men are begging for money, so why would any woman want one of those men? Is their anger towards women the result of their inability to take care of themselves? To understand how bizarre this situation is, consider animals.

In Part 1 of this series I described how a male falcon spends his life catching animals for his female. Imagine that there is a male falcon that is so mentally disturbed that the only way he can feed himself is by begging for food from other male falcons.
None of the females falcons would be interested in him, so imagine that he becomes angry at the females and starts a Male Falcons Going Their Own Way movement. Imagine him spending every day begging for food and whining that the female falcons are disgusting creatures because they expect males to provide them with food.

It is true that women expect men to provide them with financial support, but so what? That is the role that many male and female animals evolved for.

The MGTOW men complain about women wanting men for financial support, but they beg us for financial support! Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Men want women to be pretty and have a nice personality, and this results in women who are ugly, or who have unpleasant personalities, having a difficult time finding a husband. Those undesirable women either remain single and lonely, or they have to accept one of the "leftover men" that the desirable women do not want.

A woman, by comparison, wants a man to provide her with financial support, and to regularly display his devotion to her. This results in the men who have trouble making a living, or who ignore their wives, having a difficult time attracting a woman. They either remain single and lonely, or they have to accept one of the "leftover women" that the desirable men do not want.

The whining and anger of some of the MGTOW men give me the impression that they are the "leftover men" that the desirable women do not want. They are the male equivalent of the feminists who are whining about men. The MGTOW movement and the feminist movement seems to be dominated by the "leftovers" who are angry, not by people with leadership abilities who provide us with intelligent analyses and advice.

I think the relationships between men and women are terrible today, and getting worse, but many of the men in the MGTOW movement are not trying to improve relationships, or help anybody understand relationships. They are just begging, whining, and hating.

No female animal wants a male that has to beg other males for food. If you have a daughter, would you want her to marry such a man? How many men in the MGTOW movement can truly be described as respectable men? How many of the MGTOW men would you want as a son-in-law?

I suspect that the MGTOW men are secretive because they realize that we would be disgusted with them if we knew the truth about them, and that we would warn our daughters, sisters, and friends to avoid them.

Another suspicious aspect of the MGTOW movement is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has written this document to accuse them of being one of the groups that is promoting the "hateful ideology" of "male supremacy".

In case you don't understand the significance of that, when I got involved with exposing the 9/11 attack in January 2002, by 2003 the Jews started becoming aware that the Internet was exposing them, and they began telling one another to stop giving publicity to me, and undoubtedly some other people also. I described this in this timeline.

Today the Jews are giving publicity only to people and groups that they have some control over. Therefore, by giving publicity to the MGTOW movement, we should consider that the Jews have some control over that movement. It is possible that the Jews started that movement in order to increase the fighting between men and women. Or, perhaps the movement got started on its own and the Jews are infiltrating it and trying to dominate it.

I don't know what is going on with the MGTOW movement, but because the Jews are giving publicity to the movement, and because many of the men involved are secretive, hateful, insulting, and begging for money, I regard the movement as a Zionist operation, and for the purpose of instigating fights, and to make money at the same time.

Don't trust people with bags on their head!

I've mentioned this before, but I'll remind you again. It is foolish to trust a person who is secretive, and it is even more foolish to regard him as a leader and follow his advice. It is better to tell the people who want to influence your life to identify themselves, and allow people to look at their past, and their associations with other people and organizations.

Donate to productive people, not losers

There are lots of people and organizations asking for donations, including schools. Before donating money, I suggest passing judgment on which of these three categories the people belong in:
1) They are losers who cannot make a living for themselves, and want handouts.
Giving money to those people is providing them with welfare, not funding useful work.

2) They can make a living, but they want more money.
Giving money to those people is also providing welfare.

3) They could use additional money to fund some important work they are doing.
Giving those people money is increasing the rate at which important work is accomplished.
A person who is truly worthy of donations is capable of making a living for himself, and when he gets donations, it will fund useful work, not be wasted on jewelry, alcohol, or the latest cell phone.

It is difficult to become wealthy, but it is not difficult to make enough money to take care of yourself. I don't make much money, especially now that I am spending some of my time producing these documents, but I have always been able to figure out how to make a living. It is not difficult!
It is especially absurd to donate to secretive losers!
My impression of the people and organizations that are begging for donations is that most of them are begging for welfare. They do not give us anything of value in return. Actually, I think most of them are producing propaganda.

Most of the people who are begging for money are not productive scientists or engineers who are doing useful research, and they will not put the donations to a good cause. They are losers or greedy people who want handouts.

Unfortunately, many people have a tendency to donate to losers, rather than to people who are useful and productive. This is especially true in the USA because a lot of Americans have a "feel sorry for me" attitude. Their enjoy giving pity and money to the losers, rather than reward the people who are respectable and productive.

An example is that students in the USA who do badly in school will often get special attention and help, whereas a student who is doing good in school may not get any additional help. The justification for this policy is that the students who are doing good do not need any additional assistance.

As I described in Part 1 of this document, there is no right or wrong to these issues. Our culture depends upon our view of life. If we have the view that school is just a hurdle to overcome, and if we also have the view that we should feel sorry for the underdogs, then we are likely to believe that we should help the students who are failing in school, and that there is no reason to help the students who are doing good.

However, if we regard humans as monkeys, and if we regard school as preparation for society, then we are more likely to follow the same policy that farmers follow. Specifically, we will regard the students who do good in school as potentially valuable members of society, and we want to encourage them to learn more and develop their talents to the maximum possible so that they become productive adults. We will regard the students who do poorly as hopeless, and we will not want to waste resources on them. We will instead want them to quickly learn a skill, get out of school, and get a job.

Farmers do not follow a "feel sorry for the underdog" philosophy. Rather, they take care of the animals that are the most valuable. If we apply the same philosophy to humans, then everybody would benefit, including the people who are failures in school, because everybody benefits when we have more productive scientists, engineers, technicians, machinists, dentists, carpenters, and farmers.

When you die, will you donate money?

Incidentally, some people specify that when they die, they want some of their money donated to charities or schools, but after learning about the shocking levels of corruption in our world, I think it is better to specify the money be given directly to the particular professor, scientist, or engineer that is doing the useful work.

All of the universities already have plenty of money, but they waste a lot of it on worthless employees and professors. If you want to donate money to a school, give it to a specific professor who is doing some useful work. Don't give it to the school.

Furthermore, there is so much corruption, you should give copies of your will to different people so that if somebody, including a lawyer, modifies their copy, there will be other copies to expose the fraud.

We must watch out for people who can be blackmailed
Ideally, we would not care what a political candidate does in his leisure time, or how he has sex with his wife, but due to genetic diversity, and genetic degradation, there are a lot of people with such bizarre emotional characteristics that they get involved with activities that are illegal, or which they are ashamed of, and that allows those people to be blackmailed.

People who are secretive about their personal life are secretive because they want to hide something from us. In some cases, it is simply due to embarrassment. For example, we are secretive about whether we pick our nose. However, there are people hiding things that they are truly ashamed of, or which are illegal, and that allows the people who know what they are hiding to blackmail them.

To understand the importance of this issue, consider the accusations that Senator Barney Frank is one of many government officials who have been using orphans as sex toys; that the two daughters of Michelle and Barack Obama are actually the daughters of Martin Nesbitt and Anita Blanchard; that Senator Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump have been forced by a crime network into raping children; that Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia was a pedophile; that Bill Clinton is not Chelsea Clinton's biological father; and that John McAfee (a 2016 presidential candidate), may have been involved with murders, and several women are claiming that he paid them to poop in his mouth.

Are any of those accusations true? The accusations against Barney Frank are apparently true because they came out in court. We cannot figure out if the other accusations are true, but it is important to note that none of the people show any desire to disprove the accusations. Michelle Obama could easily disprove the accusation by giving a DNA sample to whoever wants to check her.

There are an amazing number of accusations that the people in leadership positions of government, business, the media, the military, and the police departments have bizarre emotional characteristics, and are being blackmailed by crime networks. This would explain why so many people in leadership positions are promoting secrecy, and are opposing DNA databases. One lesson that we should learn from this is that we should stop giving our leaders so much secrecy that we cannot even determine whether they are male or female.

We are not wonderful creations of a loving God
Another lesson we should learn from the current governments is that we must be more concerned about the emotional and intellectual characteristics of people we allow in leadership positions. We must stop promoting the attitude that all people are equal, and start facing the evidence that humans are just a bunch of animals.

Furthermore, because of genetic degradation, every generation is more defective than the one before it. Mental problems are increasing in every generation. People are becoming more bizarre, untrustworthy, neurotic, miserable, hateful, vengeful, selfish, sexually disturbed, and violent.
Do you have the ability to face the evidence
that humans are a species of ape?
We should study human behavior and pass judgment on which of us is acceptable for an influential position. We should stop pretending that all people all wonderful creations of a loving God. We should start identifying the people who are dangerous, violent, neurotic, hateful, and miserable.

For example, Daryll Rowe was recently convicted of deliberately spreading AIDS to other men. He did this because he reacted with anger and hatred when he discovered that he had been infected with AIDS. He reacted by wanting to infect other people.

If our societies had been passing judgment on people, he may have been identified as a potential danger when he was a child.

As I have pointed out in previous documents, children who are put up for adoption tend to be children with genetic problems. The news reports are ignoring Daryll Rowe's biological parents, and they ignore why he had foster parents, but remarks from his foster mother suggest that he was showing signs of trouble even as a child. For example, she said: "It was easy to love Daryll because he was so desperate to be loved".

She was titillated by his desperation for love because he enabled her to satisfy her craving to be a mother, but we should regard a person who is desperate for anything, including food, toys, money, awards, or sex, as suffering from a problem of some sort. Children and adults who show "abnormal" cravings should be investigated, not given pity, love, toys, money, or whatever it is that they are desperate for.

His foster mother also says that he had a "troubled childhood", but the journalists don't bother to provide details about his troubles. This is another issue that we should not ignore. Children who have "troubled childhoods" are likely to be children with problems, or they have parents with problems. We should investigate those children and their parents, not ignore them.

Adopting humans is not the same as adopting pets or buying a horse. Most of the people who are breeding animals are proud of what they are doing, not hiding the parents of the animals. By comparison, the adoption of humans is a secretive, shameful process.

If we were to remove the secrecy in the adoption of humans, and if we were to observe the children who are put up for adoption, I suspect that we would discover that most of those children are more genetically defective than typical children. As a result, most of them turn out to be adults who have more miserable lives, and are more troublesome to society.

Judging our leadership abilities will be traumatic to the “4th-place losers”
It is not truly possible for us to determine who has better leadership abilities. As a result, it's going to cause a lot of emotional trauma to the candidates who are regarded as being slightly below the necessary standards.

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, we do not care if we have substandard abilities in math or music, but we have strong emotional cravings to be the leader. Therefore, passing judgment on a person's leadership abilities is going to create emotional turmoil for the people who are classified as unacceptable as leaders, but who are near that dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable. We could describe those people as the "4th-place losers". To understand this concept, consider an athletic contest.
By rewarding only the top three athletes, those at 4th or below are losers.
In most athletic events, only the best three athletes are given an award. They are the "podium finishers". Everybody from fourth place onward is a loser, regardless of their position. We could describe all of them as the "4th-place losers".

Although the people who get second or third place may be upset that they did not get first place, the losers suffer much more emotional trauma, especially if they routinely fail to make it to the podium. Some of those people become angry, envious, or sad.

What is the point of competing in an athletic event if you do not have the talent to win? Unless you are involved with the competition for some other reason, such as entertainment or exercise, there is no point in competing. You are just wasting your life and tormenting yourself.

An athlete who gets involved with an event simply because he has a powerful craving to win awards and feel important will not enjoy the training or the competition, and if he continuously loses, he is likely become frustrated, sad, or angry. If he does not have much self-control, he might have a tantrum, or he might resort to cheating or sabotage.

The lesson to learn from athletes is that nobody should enter an athletic contest unless he either has the ability to win, or he enjoys the event or the people so much that he has fun even if he loses.

This concept applies to all competitive activities, such as leadership. People who want to be leaders simply because they have a strong craving to be the dominant monkey on the hierarchy, but who do not enjoy producing analyses, listening to criticism, doing research, participating in discussions, and having people closely analyze their lives, are going to suffer if they want to be a leader in Kastron.

In our world today, all of the political candidates want to keep their personal lives a secret from us. They do not even want to be specific about their opinions, so they make vague remarks and vague promises rather than provide us with intelligent analyses and specific plans on what they would like to do.

However, the only way for us to judge a person's leadership abilities is to look at his life and his opinions. We need to see how he has treated other people, what he has said to other people, and what he has written. The people who want to hide their past, hide their opinions, hide their friendships, and hide their associations with organizations should be considered as unacceptable.

Ideally, the only people who would compete for leadership are those who actually have an interest in doing what leaders need to do, which is research issues, discuss issues, look critically at themselves, look favorably at their competitors, listen to constructive criticism, and suggest experiments for improving society. They should be people who have already spent some of their leisure time thinking about society. If a person's only interest in being leader is to feel important, he is going to be a worthless leader.

Don't expect humans to go through a metamorphosis
People who do not believe in genetics are likely to believe that people can make dramatic transformations. For example, they believe that punishing a criminal in jail can transform them into an honest person. These people are also likely to believe that we can elect a comedian, actor, professional wrestler, or billionaire who has never shown any interest in society, or who has spent his life deceiving and abusing other people, and he will transform into a government official who develops a strong desire to spend the rest of his life improving our nation.

However, we should expect a political candidate to behave in office exactly as he behaved before getting elected.
Did Al Franken transform into an impressive leader after getting elected to Congress?
For example, before getting elected to Congress, Al Franken was a comedian and a radio host. As far as I know, he never provided any intelligent analysis of social issues during his first 58 years of life, and after he got elected, he continued to have nothing intelligent to say.

Mark Cuban was suggesting that he might run for president in 2020, but has he ever spent any of his leisure time thinking about society or how to improve life for us? Or has he spent his entire life trying to satisfy his intense cravings for wealth and status? Where are his brilliant analyses of society? Where are his brilliant suggestions on how to improve our lives? If he gets elected, is he going to transform from a man with intense cravings for wealth into a brilliant leader?

We are fools to expect humans to go through some type of metamorphosis when they are elected to the government and transform from a comedian, actor, pedophile, billionaire, criminal, or idiot into a responsible, honest, intelligent leader.

Most political candidates have been alive for many decades, and we should assume that the manner in which they have spent their life is an indication of their mind's characteristics. We should expect more of the same behavior when they are elected.

Why do we recognize only the top three athletes?
In case it never occurred you, consider that our ancestors could have designed sports events so that instead of recognizing only the top three athletes, every athlete is considered a winner. For example, if there are 40 athletes in an event, then there would be 40 podiums, from 1st to 40th, and all of the athletes would be recognized for their achievements.

However, humans did not choose that option when designing sports events. Why did our ancestors usually choose to recognize only the top three?

I think it is because we evolved from the dominant monkeys. We want to be at the top of the hierarchy, not number 12, number 27, or number 62. In a group of monkeys, and in prehistoric humans, the males that the very top have a significant advantage in reproduction. The other males are losers, regardless of whether they are fourth in the hierarchy, or at the very bottom. As a result of being the descendants of the dominate monkeys, we do not want to be a loser. We regard the losers as worthless, and we ignore them.

I suggest that Kastron experiment with recreational activities in which everybody who participates is regarded as a winner, and that we make the prizes meaningless, as I suggested here. Although it might initially feel awkward to do this, I suspect that most of us, after we become accustomed to it, will find that it creates a more pleasant, friendly social environment because it would not stimulate our craving to be the top monkey in the hierarchy.

When we reward only three people and treat everybody else as a loser, it stimulates our craving to win, and that causes us to focus on winning rather than on enjoying life. It would be easier for us to enjoy the recreational activity, the people, the sunshine, the moonshine, the stars, the trees, or whatever, when we don't have that competitive emotion stimulated to such an extreme. It will cause recreational activities to become social events rather than battles for worthless trophies.

Don't feel sorry for the losers
In a recreational event, it is possible for us to regard everybody as a winner, but when we are selecting people for jobs, only a few people can be winners. Most people must accept the fact that they are losers in that type of competition.

Unfortunately, no society yet promotes the philosophy that the majority of people are ordinary, half the population is below-average, and only a small minority of the people are capable of being useful leaders. Instead, every society promotes the attitude that all adults are virtually equal in their leadership abilities.

Our view of life determines our culture. When we have the view of that all adults are virtually equal, then we will come to the conclusion that it makes sense to let everybody vote, and we will assume that everybody is qualified to be a leader of governments, businesses, and other organizations.

If, instead, we believe that only a small minority of the population would be effective leaders, then we will consider the majority of people as losers in the competition for leadership. However, since men have a strong craving to be leader, it's going to be emotionally traumatic for the majority of people to accept the evidence that they are unsuitable to be leader. It will be especially difficult for the people who are above-average in leadership abilities, but not good enough to be leaders. They are analogous to the athletes who are always getting fourth, fifth, or sixth place, but never making it to the podium. They are the people I would describe as the "4th-place losers".

The 4th-place losers will have a difficult time accepting the evidence that they are not talented enough to be leaders. They are likely to become frustrated, angry, envious, or sad. However, feeling sorry for them will not help them, or society, but that is what societies are doing today.

For example, when a student is not quite intelligent enough to handle science or engineering, the school officials feel sorry for him and provide him with classes that are easier. Our colleges have created a wide variety of courses that ignore real science and promote either religion or the clay theory.

However, those nonscientific courses are not helping the students, or society. Actually, it is ruining the field of social science. It also results in thousands of students graduating from college every year with a diploma in social science, but who have no useful skills. Those graduates expect to make a lot of money, and they expect us to respect them and admire them, but they have nothing to admire.

What are those thousands of students going to do for a living? Some of them create worthless jobs for themselves so that they can feel important and make lots of money. For example, some of them create additional worthless school courses so that they can become professors, and some of them get involved with think tanks, charities, or some type of social, economic, or political organization in which they can boast about being an "expert" on some issue.

Social science could be a very useful science. The social scientists could be giving us intelligent analyses of historical events, human behavior, economics, crime, job environments, and other cultural issues, but social science is currently dominated by what I would describe as the 4th-place losers. They are the people who are more intelligent than average, but not intelligent enough to be real scientists. However, they are too proud to do "nigger work". Therefore, they refuse to learn a useful skill and become a machinist, technician, carpenter, farmer, or construction worker.

They get involved with schools, think tanks, political groups, government agencies, and charities. They call themselves "experts", but they are not providing us with any intelligent analyses or suggestions. Rather, they are destructive. For example, by allowing them into the schools, they create a variety of worthless social science classes, and they try to suppress people who promote science.

We need leaders who have the emotional ability to stand up to the 4th-place losers and tell them they either do something useful for society, or they get out. Those people are consuming a lot of food, electricity, and other resources, but what do they give us in return? They give us worthless school courses, charities, and think tanks. They also give us idiotic government policies. They also ridicule, slander, censor, fire, and advocate the arrest of those of us who disagree with their stupid opinions.

We should not tolerate this abuse. We need to overhaul the social sciences. We need to tell virtually all of the "experts" on economics, psychology, and human behavior to find a useful job, or get out of our nation.

Feeling sorry for the 4th-place losers does not help them, and it does not help us. We need to promote the philosophy that everybody should accept what they are, and find something of value to contribute to society. Every child should be taught to discover his abilities and limitations, and find a job that he can do properly.

Nobody should be able to suppress their competitors
Animals are in a battle for survival and reproduction. It makes sense for an animal to be extremely selfish, and to intimidate, or kill, their competitors for food and reproduction. However, that type of behavior is detrimental in a modern human society. Modern humans should earn what they want, and in a fair manner.

People who cannot accept competition are detrimental in every activity, not just leadership or athletics. For example, if Kastron starts experimenting with courtship activities to help men and women find a spouse, the people who try to push aside, intimidate, or suppress their competitors would interfere with the process.

A modern society should watch for people who try to censor, suppress, intimidate, blackmail, or murder their opponents. The people who cannot compete fairly should be regarded as savages or animals.

If we allow people like the executives of Google, YouTube, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, or the ADL to get into top government positions, then we end up with leaders who censor, harass, fire, and arrest their competition. That type of behavior allows them to create a government of submissive, obedient nitwits, which in turn creates a dictatorship.

When passing judgment on who among us has leadership abilities, we should pay special attention to a person's ability to handle criticism and competition. Our leaders should inspire competitors, not suppress them. They should help their competitors become better people, not look for ways to censor or arrest them.

All of the people who are promoting the censorship or arrest of their critics should be disqualified from leadership. They are not people who are thinking about issues or providing us with intelligent analyses. They are essentially biting and kicking their competitors, and trying to convince us to bite and kick them also.

A leader should have an attitude similar to that of a military drill sergeant. Specifically, a leader should not be afraid that somebody is going to become as good or better than him at his job. Rather, he should be focusing on providing guidance to people, and helping them to develop their talents. When he notices that somebody is improving in their leadership abilities, he should be proud of himself for helping that person, not frightened that the person will become better than him, and replace him.

Why does a person want to be leader?
Animals have sex for only one reason; namely, to satisfy their cravings for it. That is the most common reason for humans to have sex, also, but humans also do it for other reasons, such as:
• To have a baby.
• To please their partner.
• To get some reward, such as money, or an acting role in a Harvey Weinstein movie.
• According to Jenny Guskin, some people are forced to rape children by crime networks.
• There is also evidence that some men have raped a person only to punish or torment the person, or because they were angry and frustrated with their life.
Likewise, animals eat food for only one reason; namely, to satisfy their hunger emotion. However, humans sometimes eat food because of intellectual decisions rather than because our emotions want us to eat it. For some examples, we sometimes eat a particular food because:
• We think it will improve our health.
• We saved it from an earlier meal because we don't like the idea of wasting food.
• It was on sale at the market.
• Somebody prepared the food for us, and we don't want to tell them that we do not like it.
Animals do not make intellectual decisions about what to do. Their behavior is determined almost entirely by their emotional cravings. Human behavior is more complicated because we have more intelligence and self-control. This results in us occasionally doing things that our emotions do not want us to do.

Now consider how this concept applies to leadership. Animals want to be leader for only one reason; specifically, to satisfy their cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy. That is the primary reason that humans want to be in a leadership position, but we also have some other reasons:
• Management positions offer higher salaries, and our culture puts tremendous emphasis on making money.
• Some people prefer the job of a manager, so they want the management job even if it paid the same amount, or less.
• Some people don't want to work, and they want a management job because they are hoping that they can use their authority to avoid work.
• Some people may decide to become a manager because their existing manager is so incompetent that they got tired of the situation.
When analyzing people for leadership positions, we should consider why he wants to be leader. Is it simply to titillate his craving for status? Or is he doing it for money? Or is he hoping that it will allow him to avoid work?

A person who wants to be leader simply to titillate his cravings for status is behaving a monkey. When we put that type of person into leadership, he will not spend each day thinking about how to improve society. Rather, he will spend his time looking for ways to titillate his emotional cravings. He will want to find ways to have his photo taken, walk on red carpets, and be pampered by servants. He will not be interested in inspiring other people to become better leaders. Rather, he will want to suppress his competitors. He will want the attention on himself, not on other people.

Ideally, our leaders would be people who truly enjoy the job of analyzing society's problems, listening to constructive criticism, discussing issues with other people, and working with us to improve our lives. The people who are in control of Google, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and the communist nations are not those type of people.

We must eliminate secrecy
Secrecy allows abuse
Our prehistoric ancestors did not suffer
from their lack of secrecy or privacy.
As I have emphasized many times, our prehistoric ancestors had less secrecy than people today on a camping trip, but they did not suffer. Rather, it gave them very intimate relationships.

Their lack of secrecy made it difficult for people to abuse, deceive, or cheat one another. For example, it was difficult for people to steal items from one another because everybody could easily see everybody else's possessions. Likewise, it would have been difficult for a man to get away with raping a woman or child because the women and children were almost always within audio distance of one another.

By encouraging secrecy, we hurt ourselves because the only people who benefit from secrecy are people who want to deceive, cheat, or abuse us. Secrecy has no value to people who are honest.

Could a pedophile network exist without secrecy?
It would have been very difficult for a crime network to secretly exist within a small, prehistoric, nomadic tribe, and even if some of the members formed a crime network, they would never be able to get away with the type of crimes they are being accused of today.

For example, the Catholic Church has been accused of pedophilia for centuries, and in February 2019 a new book claims that 80% of the priests at the Vatican are homosexual. The book also claims that the priests who complain the most about homosexuality are the most likely to be homosexuals. It would have been impossible in a prehistoric tribe for a group of people to keep such pedophilia and homosexuality a secret.

For another example, Jenny Guskin says that President Trump and other influential people were required by a crime network to choose a child to rape. In a nomadic tribe, it would have been impossible for a crime network to keep children as slaves without other people noticing, and it would have been impossible for them to get away with forcing the leaders of the tribe to pick and rape children.

It would also have been impossible for a few families within the tribe to get away with the sexual abuse, murder rituals, and blood rituals described by David Shurter and Katy Groves, without the other people in the tribe noticing.

The only way those type of crimes could occur in a prehistoric tribe is if the entire tribe was involved, in which case the activities would not be regarded as "crimes". Rather, they would be regarded as respectable cultural practices or religious ceremonies.

The accusations that some families have been involved in murder rituals and pedophilia for many generations implies that if we could travel back in time, we would find entire tribes practicing that type of behavior. As I mentioned earlier, there was supposedly some tribes in Asia about a thousand years ago who would regularly blind people and use them as slaves.

If we could go back in time, we might find that there were a lot of different tribes practicing various murder and pedophilia rituals, and when they moved into permanent cities that prohibited that type of behavior, instead of adapting to the culture of the city, they merely continued their murder and pedophile rituals in secrecy. They would also put pressure on the people in the city, and the government, to allow secrecy.

How many Jews are involved with murder rituals or pedophilia?
In 1989 Vicki Polin claimed that her family, and other Jewish families, were involved with pedophilia and murder rituals. Jennifer Guskin was adopted by a Jewish family, and Katy Groves has Jewish ancestors, which provides more evidence that a lot of Jewish families have been participating in murder and pedophile rituals for many generations.
Jews insist that the accusations of pedophilia and murder rituals are lies, but they don't provide any evidence that the accusations are lies, and they cannot explain why so many people in different nations would lie about such an issue. And if we go back in time, we find artists painting pictures about this problem, and Chaucer wrote a poem about it.

If Vicki Polin, Jennifer Guskin, and the other people are correct — and nobody has provided evidence that they are not — that means that there are lots of Jews secretly practicing pedophilia and murder rituals in the USA, England, Australia, and other nations. Furthermore, many of those Jews are in influential positions, such as school teachers, policemen, government officials, doctors, religious leaders, and journalists.

Rather than dismiss these accusations as "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", we ought to be wondering, how many Jews are involved with pedophilia or murder rituals? And in how many cities? Jerry Sandusky was Jewish, and so was Ed Savitz. It would be foolish to assume that the only Jews involved with these activities are those that we know about. It is more sensible to assume that there are lots of other Jews who are also involved with these activities.

In 2017 YourNewWire.com posted this document that has shocking accusations from Mel Gibson about Hollywood, such as:
• “They harvest the blood of children. They eat their flesh. They believe this gives them life force. If the child was suffering in body and psyche before it died, they believe this gives them extra life force.”
• “The blood of a sexually abused infant is considered highly 'enriched' and is highly prized. The money changing hands, the favors, the kickbacks — you have no idea. Babies are a high-functioning currency all of their own. Babies are their premium brand of high-grade caviar cocaine diamond steak.”
If that interview with Gibson is a lie, why don't the government officials, journalists, and Hollywood celebrities who whine about "fake news" demand the accusations be deleted? Why don't the ADL, SPLC, and other groups that boast about protecting us from lies have no interest in protecting us from lies about pedophilia and murder rituals?

Would James Damore have been fired if he had written about those accusations from Mel Gibson instead of discussing the genetic differences between men and women? What if Damore had written about the accusations from the two children in Hampstead, England? What if Damore had written about Jenny Guskin's accusation that President Trump was forced to rape a child, or Karly Franz's accusations that some Freemasons are involved with pedophilia and murder rituals?

Something is seriously wrong with a nation when an employee is fired for discussing the genetic differences between men and women, but nobody complains about accusations that people in Hollywood, Freemason groups, the government, the police departments, etc., are involved with pedophilia and murder rituals, and the police and FBI ignore the accusations.

In March 2019, some people, such as Liz Crokin and True Pundit, began posting a variety of speculations that the government dropped charges against Jussie Smollett because he is involved with, or knows about, the pedophilia in Hollywood and the government, and that some people who have a lot of influence in our government are afraid of being exposed as pedophiles. Is it a coincidence that Jussie has a Jewish father? Why are there so many Jews and religious fanatics connected to the pedophilia issue?
Are any Kushner members involved
with blood
rituals or pedophilia?
Jared Kushner is a religious Jew; is his family involved with murders rituals, pedophilia, or blood rituals?

Jared Kushner's father, Charles, was sent to jail for various crimes, and when he got out, he hired two fellow inmates. Even if all three of them have gone through some type of transformation into honest people and are no longer committing crimes, were any of them involved with blood rituals, murder rituals, or pedophilia during the time that they were committing crimes?

A Bronx councilman, Ritchie Torres, made the accusation about Jared Kushner and his company that:
"The entire Kushner Cos.’ business model relies on ignoring the law, deception, fraud and using illegal methods to increase their profits..."

Vicky Ward wrote a book about the Kushners which makes the family appear to be arrogant, Jewish supremacists. It was common for people centuries ago to be insulting and suspicious of people of other nationalities, religions, and races, but Ward's book claims the Kushners are behaving in this crude manner today, such as referring to Josh Kushner's wife as a shiksa, and refusing for six years to let her attend family events. Jared supposedly said: "Don't worry. The family is going to take care of that. We're not very happy about him dating a shiksa."

Jared Kushner married a shiksa, also, but his shiksa has a wealthy father, so that makes her an acceptable shiksa. Or, is she an acceptable shiksa for some other reason, such as involvement with blood rituals, or because the Trump family is partly Jewish?

Is Ritchie Torres correct that the Kushners are ignoring laws, deceiving us, and cheating us? Is Vicki Ward correct that the Kushners regard us Goyim as inferior animals? If so, why would Trump bring a dishonest, Jewish supremacist into the White House and allow him to influence our future? And why would Ivanka want to marry a Jewish supremacist? Is he deceiving her into believing that she married a wonderful man, and that Jews are the most honest, loving, generous, and intelligent race?

It is also important to note that both of the Kushner boys married Goyim women. Wealthy men can choose from an enormous number of women, but many wealthy Jewish men are picking Goyim women for wives, not Jewish women. Why would the superior race of people want to marry an animal?

Furthermore, if we tell the Jews that we don't want them in our neighborhoods or social clubs, they whine that we are discriminating against them. Why would they want to live in a neighborhood that is full of animals, and join a social club that is full of animals? Why wouldn't they prefer to be with their own, superior race?

The answer should be obvious: The Jews are not the superior race. Their anger and hatred of Americans, Germans, Japanese, and other people is because of envy, not because we are anti-Semitic.

Near the beginning of this document I pointed out that Facebook and other organizations are involved with censoring such concepts as white supremacy, white nationalism, white separatism, and white privilege. However, they never complain about Jewish supremacy, brown supremacy, black supremacy, or any other supremacy. The reason should be obvious: They are conspiring to manipulate, deceive, and abuse the people they regard as "white people".

The Jews boast about their success in business, politics, science, and other fields, and they insult "white people" on a regular basis, but how much of their success is due to blackmail, bribery, cheating, plagiarism, and einsteinism?

The Jews have a lot of influence over the governments of the world, but is it because of their intelligence, or is it because of blackmail, bribery, murder, intimidation, and other crimes? In February 2019, Benjamin Fulford claimed that President Trump is being blackmailed with a film that shows him "bashing in a child's head". Is that accusation accurate? Is Trump just a blackmailed shegetz? Does anybody care? Will anybody in law enforcement investigate?

In March 2019 the FBI admitted that there was no "Russian collusion", and Trump responded that Congressman Adam Schiff should be forced to resign from from Congress because he spent two years lying about that issue. Why doesn't Trump demand that Schiff and other people be investigated and arrested? How is Trump going to "drain the swamp" when he politely suggests that criminals resign from their government positions?

It seems that everybody who is rising to the top of modern societies are pedophiles, criminals, blackmailed puppets, or psychos.

When Macaulay Culkin was at the Oscars in February 2019, he sent out some strange messages that the journalists dismissed as attempts at humor, such as:
• "Rami Malek eats babies. There, I said it."
"Just statistically speaking, there are at like at least 14 secret rapists in that room right now."

Does Culkin really believe those remarks are amusing? Or was he providing us with some hints about the bizarre people in Hollywood? Will anybody in law enforcement investigate? Does anybody care who is in control of our lives and our future?

Am I obnoxious?
Some people might complain that I am rude, cruel, insulting, or obnoxious to wonder if the Kushner family members are involved with blood or murder rituals. My response is that there are Jewish people claiming that their family members have been involved with this activity for many generations, but we have no idea which Jews are involved with the activities. Therefore, we ought to wonder which Jews are involved with pedophilia and murder rituals!

We are providing people with so much secrecy that we cannot verify or disprove the accusation that Michelle Obama is a man. The secrecy is so extreme that a crime network has been able to deceive lots of people into assisting with the 9/11 attack by fooling them into believing that they have joined an elite, "New World Order" who are improving life for the human race.
Don't be intimidated by the people who try to make us feel guilty for being suspicious. We are living in an environment in which secrecy and deception is so extreme that a crime network can get away with blowing up the World Trade Center buildings while thousands of people are inside. We are not living among people we can trust, and we cannot trust our FBI, police departments, or military to protect us from crime. We cannot even depend upon our government to enforce their own "do not call" list.

The people who are truly honest will be just as confused about who to trust as you are. They will understand why you are suspicious of them. The people who don't want you to be suspicious of them are likely to be hiding something from you, or they have an emotional problem with honesty. In either case, don't let them intimidate you. Don't be fooled into trusting people.

We know that one Kushner family member has been involved with crime, but we don't know much about the family, so there is nothing rude about wondering if other members are committing crimes. If the Kushner family, or any other Jewish family, cannot understand why we are suspicious of them, that is their problem, not ours. Don't let them intimidate you into trusting them.

Like father, like son
Donald Trump believes that children inherit their mental and physical characteristics from their ancestors, and these journalists complain that this concept is the "most horrible thing that Donald Trump believes". In reality, it is evidence that Trump has some superior mental qualities compared to the minds of the religious fanatics and social scientists.

There are certain to be some religious people and social scientists who have better math abilities, pattern recognition abilities, music abilities, and other mental characteristics, but Trump obviously has superior abilities in whatever characteristics are needed to understand and accept genetics.

Don Trump, Jr. believes that he inherited some wonderful characteristics from his ancestors. This is certainly true, but because we are arrogant, we have a tendency to ignore the fact that every family also has some undesirable characteristics, and that we are likely to inherit some of them, also, including some characteristics from our monkey-like ancestors. We could create an expression for this, such as: "Like monkey, like human." Don Trump Jr. should wonder which undesirable characteristics he inherited.

Everybody who is extremely successful in an activity has at least one genetic characteristic that is near the edge of the bell curve. Those people might be ordinary, or below average, in other mental or physical characteristics, but there is something exceptional about them.

President Trump has excelled in making money, becoming a famous television celebrity, and getting elected to the presidency without first getting elected to lower level offices, so he is certain to have one or more mental characteristics that are at the extreme edge of the bell curve. However, having a characteristic that is at the edge of a bell curve is not necessarily desirable.

ADHD is more common among successful athletes than among the ordinary people. Imagine that we discover that ADHD improves a person's athletic performance, and imagine that doctors figure out how to create ADHD in a healthy brain. Would you ask a doctor to give you the procedure so that you could improve your athletic performance? Is winning athletic events so important to you that you would be willing to suffer from ADHD? If you're not sure what it would be like to have ADHD, here is an article about the suicidal thoughts and subsequent devotion to religion of Michael Phelps.

Now consider the possibility that the reason some people have become extremely wealthy and famous is because they are suffering from some type of mental disorder. Many wealthy people and Hollywood celebrities have admitted to having bipolar disorder, or some other mental problem. Consider the possibility that their mental problems were the reason they ended up becoming billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and government officials. Perhaps their mental disorders made it impossible for them to form normal friendships, or live an ordinary life.

If doctors were offering a procedure to turn a healthy brain into the type of dysfunctional brains we see among the billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and government officials, would you want the procedure so that you could also become rich and famous? Which do you think would provide a person with the best life:
a) To be wealthy and famous because of a mental disorder.
b) To be an ordinary person in good mental health.
Most people in the world currently admire the successful, famous people. Most people assume that the wealthy and famous people are enjoying life much more than those of us who are suffering from poverty and obscurity. As a result of that view of life, people around the world are fantasizing about becoming wealthy and famous, and many people are actually struggling to achieve such a goal.

However, if we knew everything there is to know about humans, we might discover that the wealthy and famous people became wealthy and famous because they are suffering from mental disorders, and that their lives are actually worse than ours. In such a case, instead of wishing that we were like they are, we should be grateful that we are not like them.

All of us live only one life, so none of us knows who among us is enjoying life the most. We have a tendency to assume that the people who are stimulating their emotional cravings the most often are having the best life. For example, we have cravings for material wealth, and that causes us to assume that the people who have more material wealth than us are having a better life than we are. We also have cravings to be important, and that causes us to assume that the most famous people are experiencing the most happiness. Men have cravings for sex, and that causes to assume that the men who are having the most sex with the most women are having the best life.

Imagine that every time we die we are reincarnated, but while we are living another life, we don't remember any of our previous lives. However, every time we die we have the opportunity to review our lives before we are reincarnated again. In such a case, when you die you will be able to compare the life you are living right now to your previous lives.

If you were a successful, famous athlete in one of your previous lives, and if you had ADHD, you would be able to determine whether your fame and wealth gave you a better life than the one you are having right now, or whether the ADHD made it worse.

I suspect that if each of us had the opportunity to be reincarnated thousands of times, and each time in a person with different physical and mental characteristics, we would discover that the billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, and government officials are not having the most pleasant lives. I suspect that we would discover that the people who have had the most pleasant lives were the people who never became wealthy or famous because they didn't have an intense craving to spend their life struggling to be wealthy or famous. Instead, they spent their life enjoying it.

In a prehistoric, nomadic tribe, the men who became "wealthy" were the men who truly were talented and worthy of admiration, but in this modern world, that is not true. Becoming extremely wealthy in a modern nation seems to require mental disorders because it seems the only way somebody can become extremely wealthy is if they are willing to cheat, exploit, and abuse people. It doesn't seem possible to become a billionaire in an honest, respectable manner.

It made sense for our prehistoric ancestors to admire the men who were successful, but today we ought to investigate the people who become extremely wealthy. We need to change our attitudes towards life. We have to stop admiring people simply because they acquired something that we want. We need to ask ourselves, how did they get it? And why did they get it?

Do billionaires have better relationships?
I suggest you consider the possibility that some, maybe all, of the people who become billionaires, top government officials, and Hollywood celebrities, have become famous and successful because they are suffering from a mental disorder that is pushing them to becoming extremely wealthy and famous.

For example, some of them might have a genetic disorder that is similar to Prader-Willi syndrome, but which gives them an uncontrollable craving for status rather than food. This would cause them to spend their entire life pursuing wealth and fame.

Another possibility is that some of them have a mental disorder that causes them to be less capable of forming friendships, or less interested in friends, and so they are more likely to regard other people as "opportunities" or enemies, and that in turn causes them to exploit and abuse us rather than socialize with us.
Do the billionaires have better friendships or marriages than ordinary people?
In February 2019, some billionaires were accused of paying for sex at Orchids of Asia Day Spa from women who were essentially being held as slaves. That is not "normal" prostitution. I suggest that it be described as the "rape of prisoners", or as "prostitution with sex slaves".

Do you have fantasies of having sex with women who were tricked into coming to the USA, and then treated as sex slaves?

The men who enjoy that activity may be more like an animal that regards other people as opportunities rather than as friends.

Incidentally, the news articles imply that those billionaires were "ordinary" customers, but we ought to consider that they might be involved with financing or managing the human trafficking operation.

Some of the billionaires have exceptionally pretty wives and girlfriends, and many of their women are much younger than they are. Are you envious of them?
Do you think the billionaires are having better, more satisfying friendships, marriages, or sex than you?

When the billionaires have parties, they invite wealthy and famous business executives, Hollywood celebrities, and government officials. Furthermore, their parties offer expensive food and drinks, and they are held in luxurious mansions, restaurants, and hotels. The people at the parties wear expensive clothing and jewelry, and they, or their chauffeurs, drive to the party in expensive automobiles. Are you envious of those parties? Do the billionaires receive more emotional satisfaction from their parties than you receive from your parties?

Our emotions are stupid, so when we see photos of billionaires, our emotions are titillated by their pretty wives, their luxurious mansions, their expensive parties, and their chauffeurs. Our emotions can make us envious of them. If we are arrogant, we might assume that we deserve what they have, and that we are being cheated, which in turn can cause us to become sad or angry.

However, exert some self-control and do a critical analyses of the friendships and marriages of other people. Are the billionaires truly having better friendships or marriages than you?

I suspect that if we could measure the quality of a friendship or marriage, we would discover that the billionaires have some of the lowest quality relationships. The reason I think this is because:

• They care more about status than people
I suspect that the people who become billionaires regard wealth and status as being the most important aspects of life. In other words, they care more about items and showing off than they care about people and relationships.
• We prefer people who are similar to ourselves
We feel more comfortable when we are around people who have similar interests and personalities. We have an expression for this: "Birds of a feather flock together". Therefore, a person who has a psychotic craving for wealth and status will feel more comfortable around people with similar psychotic cravings. They would not want someone like me as a friend. They would feel more comfortable around somebody with a more animal-like attitude. This will result in billionaires associating with people who will use one another for their own selfish goals.

If a person has "good" qualities, then he will want to be friends with people with similar good qualities, and that can result in a pleasant friendship. However, if a person has a psychotic craving for wealth, alcohol, gambling, cocaine, food, or sex, he will prefer friends with similar psychotic cravings, and that can result in unpleasant, unstable friendships.

Furthermore, by associating with people with psychotic cravings for wealth, they encourage one another to pursue their cravings rather than encourage one another to control their cravings. This is similar to an alcoholic associating with other alcoholics, and all of them encouraging one another to drink excessively.
• They attract criminals and parasites
When a person becomes famous or wealthy, he will attract an endless stream of con artists and parasites who want to be his friend, business partner, financial adviser, lawyer, and spouse.

The wealthy and famous people can be visualized as a person who is being followed by a swarm of mosquitoes. This can result in them isolating themselves from other people, and being suspicious of everybody. This in turn can interfere with their ability to find real friends.
A few years ago I pointed out that Trump invited the Clintons to his wedding, but when he was running for president, he created the impression that he wanted to arrest the Clintons. It is possible that Trump was friends with the Clintons many years ago, but he has since decided that they are terrible people. However, it is also possible that many of the billionaires simply have deceptive relationships. They might not regard other people as "friends". They might regard other people as "opportunities". They might regularly deceive, abuse, sabotage, and exploit one another, and occasionally murder one another.
The parties of The Elite appear to be "better" than our parties, but is it just an illusion created by phony smiles and fake friendships?
The photos of their parties make them appear to be wonderful people having wonderful friendships and marriages. This can cause us to feel as if we are suffering with our low level of material wealth, and our unimportant friends who wear ordinary clothing. However, the billionaires might be creating phony images. Their relationships might be much more abusive and miserable than any of ours.

Many years ago I heard a Jew give some advice. He said that we should always be friendly with everybody because we don't know who they are. He was suggesting that we be friendly with strangers, and with people that we don't like, because we might find a way to benefit from the friendship. For example, we might be able to get a job through the person, or we might be able to meet somebody through him, or we might be able to sell him something at a high profit.

His attitude was that we should regard everybody as a potential stepping stone to our goals. He would form friendships with everybody simply as a way of looking for opportunities to benefit from them. To him, people were just animals to exploit. I don't think he had any real friendships.

Consider the possibility that many of the people who are rising to the top of positions of society have that selfish attitude of using other people for their benefit. This could explain why many famous and wealthy business executives, government officials, and Hollywood celebrities, seem to be so friendly with each other, but they occasionally turn on one another like pit bulls.

For example, this journalist describes Jeffrey Epstein as "cultivating relationships with the world’s most powerful men". What kind of relationships was he "cultivating"? Was he looking for friendships? Or was he looking for an opportunity to blackmail as many men as possible?
Do wealthy people have real friendships? Or do they exploit one another?
The behavior of President Trump's "friends" are also examples of this behavior. Some of them created the impression that they were devoted friends or supporters of President Trump, but they later turned against Trump. His lawyer, Michael Cohen, is an example. Did Cohen ever like Trump? Or did he only want to get at Trump's money, and/or observe or manipulate Trump for Israel?

Mark Cuban praised Trump and said that he would consider becoming his vice president, but when Trump showed no interest, he turned on Trump, like a pit bull. Did he ever really like Trump? Or was the only pretending to like Trump to find out if there was a chance that he could become vice president, thereby helping himself and/or Israel?

When Michael Cohen or Mark Cuban praise somebody, or when they agree to work with somebody, or when they become friends with somebody, are they really interested in a "friendship"? Or do they become friends only with people that they see as an opportunity to exploit, observe, blackmail, stab in the back, and/or manipulate?

What about the women who chase after the wealthy and famous Hollywood celebrities, billionaires, and government officials? The appear to be pretty, friendly, and desirable, but is it possible to form of pleasant, stable relationship with those women? Or are they looking only for extreme amounts of money or fame? Do they have such a psychotic craving for wealth and/or fame that they will tolerate a miserable relationship?

I suspect that if we could analyze people's relationships, we would discover that the people who are getting into the top positions of society have some of the most abusive, selfish, and dishonest relationships.
Do the elite have better marriages? Or do they get married simply to exploit one another?
Rather than admire or be envious of the rich and famous men, I suggest we look more critically at their relationships and attitudes. I think that at least some of them have something seriously wrong with their brain and/or body.

The fact that those men can have almost any woman they want, but they are sometimes choosing prostitutes, some of whom are being treated like slaves, and that some rape children, should be evidence that they don't want or care about "normal" human relationships, and that they regard other people as "opportunities". Their raping of children reminds me of the monkey that used a frog as a sex toy.

The wealthy and famous people certainly have some mental characteristics that are desirable, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that some of those people also have some disgusting, destructive, and undesirable characteristics. If we could measure the satisfaction we get from life, we might discover that they are more miserable than many "ordinary" people, despite their wealth and fame.

Now consider how this applies to people like Don Trump, Junior. He inherited qualities from his parents, grandparents, and so on. He certainly inherited some of their good qualities, but we can find crude, animal-like qualities in every family. Therefore, in addition to praising himself for having good qualities, he ought to wonder which of the less desirable qualities he inherited.

Consider some of the accusations made about Donald Trump, such as how he cheats in friendly golf games, and how he cannot sit still long enough to read a document, and how he became involved with a crime network that required he raped a child in return for whatever favor they were giving him. If those accusations are true, where did Donald Trump get those undesirable characteristics? Was it from his father, mother, grandparents, and/or great-grandparents?

Did Don Jr. inherit any of those undesirable characteristics? Does he also cheat in friendly recreational events? Would he also rape a child in order to get something that a crime network is offering?

There are accusations that Donald Trump didn't like his mother very much, and that his mother didn't have much of an emotional attraction to any of her children. Was she a "normal" woman in good mental health? Or did she have some type of mental problem? Did she leave Scotland and get married to Fred Trump simply for money? Did Donald get his intense craving for money from his father and/or his mother?

In 1990 Donald Trump's mother became upset with him and made the insulting remark "What kind of son have I created?" There are accusations that Donald Trump wants revenge on critics more than "normal" people do, so how did he react to his mother's remarks?

Donald Trump's mother was walking along a sidewalk on 31 October 1999 when an intoxicated teenage boy grabbed her purse and pushed her. She hit her head so hard that she suffered permanent damage to her sight and hearing. Was it really just a random purse snatching? The crime happened on Halloween, which is supposedly one of the days that the Jewish crime network prefers for crimes. Was his mother attacked in order to intimidate him?

In previous documents I mentioned that there are people claiming that in order to become a famous entertainer, the Jewish crime network requires the person to make a "sacrifice" to the network, such as authorizing the murder of one of his friends or family members.

A lot of famous and wealthy people have had friends and relatives suffer from mysterious deaths, suicides, and accidents. How many of those accidents and suicides were actually sacrifices to a crime network? In 2010, I wondered if Eric Holder was involved with the murder of Robert Wone. Today I wonder if he authorized the murder as his sacrifice to the crime network

Roman Polanski's pregnant wife and four friends were murdered by the Manson family. Considering that the police are regularly lying to us about crimes committed by Jews, why should we believe their story that the Mansons were members of a bizarre cult? It may have been the Hollywood Jews who were in a bizarre cult. Perhaps those Jews killed Polanski's wife because he made Rosemary's Baby. Or perhaps Polanski was involved with killing his wife as part of some ancient, Jewish murder ritual.

Did Donald Trump choose his mother to be one of his sacrifices? If so, Don Trump Jr. ought to wonder if he inherited that same willingness to make such sacrifices simply for wealth and fame. If he did, his friends and spouse ought to be concerned that they might become one of his sacrifices. Would Don Jr. consider choosing his father as one of his sacrifices?

Before you accuse me of getting out of control with my "crazy conspiracy theories", keep in mind that there are people such as Katy Groves and Jenny Guskin who are claiming to be victims of a giant, international pedophile and murder network. They also claim that the network has people in top positions of the government, police departments, NASA, military, corporations, hospitals, and other organizations.

There is no way that type of network could exist without a lot of support from people in top positions of our government, police agencies, military, businesses, media, and other organizations. A lot of "leaders of society" have to be involved with that pedophile and murder network, but which ones?

We would be fools to assume that Katy Groves and the others are fabricating the accusations. It is best to assume that everybody who is becoming extremely wealthy or getting into an influential position is a member of the network, or one of their blackmailed puppets. We should be especially cautious and suspicious of the people who have had friends and family members die mysteriously.

In 2006 I wrote this document to encourage you to investigate all of the 9/11 "truth seekers". Now that there are lots of accusations that an international pedophile network is infiltrating all types of organizations, that document should be updated to include investigating everybody in a position of influence. We should not allow any exceptions. People who want exceptions and secrecy should be considered as suspicious. Don't let them intimidate you.

Incidentally, if Donald Trump, FBI officials, military leaders, sheriffs, and other people in leadership positions are afraid to fight the pedophiles and Jewish crime network because they worry about their "sacrifices" becoming public, someone should point out to them that the Internet is slowly exposing a lot of their secrets, and so they should consider the possibility that whatever they are trying to hide will eventually be exposed.

Instead of worrying about having their crimes exposed, they should find the courage to fight the crime network. The crime network has more to lose by exposing the blackmail information, so stop worrying and start destroying the crime network. The people who don't choose to fight the crime network should be considered as voluntary members who don't get any special deals.

If anybody knows what material is being used as blackmail against Trump, our government officials, military leaders, etc., they should try to release it. It might embarrass those people, but once it's in the open, it cannot be used as blackmail. That might inspire them to stop being frightened and help fight this network.

Are you ashamed of your terrible qualities?
Some of the people who are being blackmailed might be ashamed of what they have done. If you are one of those people, or if you know of somebody who is, tell them to stop being ashamed of themselves, and find a way to use their miserable qualities to do something useful. For example, if you or somebody you know is an excellent liar, then use that "talent" to lie and cheat the crime network. We should regard people who do nothing to stop this crime network as being worse than the people who are trying to destroy it.

Are you willing to make a sacrifice to improve life?
I don't believe that we should make sacrifices to crime networks, but each of us needs to make a sacrifice to ourselves in order for us to improve the world. Specifically, we are going to have to give up some of our goals and dreams. For example, I am willing to give up private automobiles, private yards, income differences, and many other things... if it creates a society that is a significant improvement over what we have right now.

Unfortunately, we must sacrifice a lot more than that in order to eliminate crime and corruption. For example, consider all of the accusations that our government officials, FBI agents, policemen, Hollywood celebrities, church officials, and other influential people are involved with pedophilia and murder rituals. And consider the accusations that Michelle Obama is a man. That type of problem doesn't disappear simply by changing our economic system.

We cannot stop corruption simply by switching to a society in which we all have similar homes and there is no private land. We must be willing to face the evidence that all nations are failures in dealing with the problems of a modern society. We must be willing to experiment with some significant changes to our culture.

Nobody in a prehistoric tribe would have had doubts about whether the leader of their tribe was a man or a woman, or whether he was involved with a pedophile network. They knew every detail about one another. If somebody was born with both sexual organs, they would know that, and if a man was born with a defective penis, everybody would know that, also.

In an earlier document, I asked you to think about what you would be willing to sacrifice in order to put an end to war. My suggestion was to divide every nation into smaller and virtually equal sizes.

I would now like you to consider what you would be willing to sacrifice in order to eliminate corruption and crime networks. My suggestion is to eliminate secrecy, especially among people in influential positions.

Secrecy hurts our relationships
Our emotions want secrecy, but it is one of the desires that we need to suppress because secrecy is beneficial only to criminals. I've mentioned this issue in other documents, so in this section I will add some more information about how secrecy is hurting our relationships.

During prehistoric times, people grew up in such intimacy that they knew every detail about one another. There were no surprises between friends, or when men and women got married. Every person knew exactly what every other person's body looked like, how they slept at night, what they enjoy doing during in the evenings around the campfire, how often they masturbated, how often they had constipation, and whether they snored at night.

When the prehistoric men and women flirted with each other, they would try to impress one another, but they were not deceiving one another. Rather, they were simply showing off their best qualities.

Today, however, we know almost nothing about one another. Therefore, when we hide our undesirable characteristics and try to impress one another, we deceive one another into believing our false image. This is causing tremendous problems in our friendships and marriages.

In our world today, men do not know which women are single, and of the single women, which of them are looking for a husband. Men and women are also routinely lying about or hiding their age, mental problems, alcohol and drug use, income, credit card debt, political beliefs, religious beliefs, criminal background, interest in pets, and leisure activities. Some married people even fool people into believing that they are single, or getting a divorce.
Despite what our emotions tell us,
secrecy and deception is hurting us.
We assume that we are benefiting from secrecy and deception, but it is hurting everybody. It is interfering with our ability to form stable friendships and marriages. It is resulting in a lot of people wasting some of the best years of their life on awkward, uncomfortable, and failed relationships. It can also result in a man wasting a lot of his money.

Most of the relationships that men and women are forming today are so miserable that they fail within weeks or months, and of those that become marriages, about half of them end up divorced.

Of the couples who remain married, many of them do so only because they dread the thought of becoming single again, not because they enjoy their marriage.

Deceiving a person into becoming your friend or spouse is a terrible thing to do because it is likely to result in a miserable or failed relationship. Unfortunately, we are so selfish that we care more about satisfying our craving for a spouse than we care about whether our spouse will be satisfied with us.

My suggestion is to change your attitude towards deception, secrecy, and lies. We should regard people who deceive us as committing a disgusting crime. Specifically, the crime of wasting a portion of our life. For example, if a man lies about his gambling, drinking, or mental illness in order to deceive a woman into marrying him, he should be guilty of the crime of deception. He should be regarded as a selfish con artist who has wasted a portion of a woman's life.

When somebody steals an item from your home, you can replace it. However, when somebody deceives you into spending your time in a relationship that ends up failing because of their deception and lies, they have wasted something that cannot be replaced. You cannot replace your youth.

Think instead of reacting
If you follow your emotions rather than think, you are likely to end up with miserable relationships. For example, a man who follows his emotions is going to chase after every pretty woman he encounters, with no regard for the consequences. The reason we behave that way is because we inherited the sexual cravings of a male monkey. Our emotions want sex, and they do not have any concern about compatibility, pregnancy, venereal diseases, or children.

Our emotions do not even care whether a woman follows the same culture as us, or speaks our language. The result is that whenever there is a war, and soldiers are sent to foreign countries, they leave behind a lot of pregnant women, and bring back lot of venereal diseases.

If a man follows his emotions, he will try to have sex with every woman that titillates him. He will be proud of himself for having lots of women. He will feel superior to the men who have had fewer women. He will boast about the number of women he has had sex with. He will even boast if he has had sex in an airplane bathroom.

Women like to believe that they are better than men because they are not likely to boast about having sex, but women are not better. Rather, they are different.

A woman who follows her emotions is going to enjoy flirting with men, and she's going to want the men to give her gifts and provide her with meals. Her emotions have no desire to repay the men for their gifts. She takes, but she does not give. Her emotions regard a man as nothing more than a slave to pamper her, bring her gifts, and tell her how much he adores her. She will not regard him as a "person". She will regard him as a slave or servant. This can result in a man becoming angry over the amount of money and time he spends on a woman who is not showing any interest in getting married.

The crude relationships between men and women would have been wonderful 50,000 years ago. The men and women would have loved flirting with each other. The prehistoric men did not have to spend enormous amounts of money on expensive restaurants, jewelry, and other gifts. Rather, the men would have given the women something that they created, such as a flint knife, a bouquet of flowers, a piece of fur, or some food.

Furthermore, the prehistoric women needed men to take care of them, so the women wanted to get married quickly. Since they grew up in a small, homogeneous tribe, they knew all of the men intimately, so it would have been easy for a woman to pick a husband. Prehistoric women did not spend 10 years of their life going on dates with different men.

A woman regards herself as a Queen and regards men as her servants, so she to want to be in control of the courtship activities. She does not want men asking questions about her life, or making her feel that she is being interviewed. She wants men to entertain her and pamper her with gifts. She wants to passively observe the men. She wants to pick a husband from a group of men who are chasing after her. She does not want men to interview her, or choose her from a group of women.

During prehistoric times, a woman's Queen-like attitude did not cause any trouble because the men already knew the women intimately, so the men didn't need to ask a woman about herself.

Today, however, men know nothing about the women, and so their Queen-like attitude causes the women to become upset when men try to interview them. Furthermore, the feminists are encouraging women to believe that men are "sexist", which can cause women to develop an antagonistic or defensive attitude.
When we follow our emotions,
we behave like animals.
A woman's natural attitude is to passively watch the men and pass judgment on which of them she wants. She has no interest in providing the men with information about herself.

She wants to watch men pander to her; she does not want men to analyze her. She has no desire to provide men with her age, or any other personal information. Her attitude is that she is a Queen, and she will decide which man she wants. It is her decision to get married, not the man's decision.

Since men make the proposals for marriage, you may wonder how I can say it is the woman's decision to get married. It might help you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to business activity.

When a man wants to borrow money to start or expand a business, he has to ask a bank or investors for money. He may seem to be in control of the situation since he is the aggressive person who is asking for money, but he is essentially on his hands and knees, and the decision will be made by the people with the money. Although the investors want to lend money, the person who wants to start a business has a greater need to get the money than the investors have to lend it to him. Therefore, he is in a submissive position.

This concept can be summarized as: the person who has the greatest need for something will be subservient to the person who has less of a need. Incidentally, this concept could explain Jenny Guskin's accusation that Trump and other people have been forced into raping children. Perhaps Trump wanted something that the pedophile network had, such as a loan to bail himself out of bankruptcy.

Women don't want men as friends
A woman's emotions have no concern about the compatibility of a man because her emotions are not interested in friendship with men. Women form friendships with other women, not with men. Women also have close relationships with their children, especially their daughters.

A woman's emotions regard men as slaves. Therefore, any man who provides a woman with lots of gifts and praise is adequate to her, even if there are obvious incompatibilities between them, such as when one of them has an alcohol problem and the other abhors alcohol. Here are two examples:

Example 1: Ivanka Trump
Ivanka Trump is another example of how women have no concern about a man's qualities. She married an arrogant, Jewish supremacist who would have regarded her as an animal if her father was not extremely wealthy.

A few years after getting married, Jared Kushner's brother, Joshua, began dating the shiksa, Karlie Kloss. The Kushner family would not invite her to family gatherings, and Jared Kushner insulted Kloss as a shiksa, and put pressure on his brother to get another wife.
What did Ivanka do about the abuse of Karlie Kloss during the six years that Kloss was being treated as an animal? Did she ever complain to her husband that he is cruel and insulting, and that she is disgusted with his Jewish supremacy? She obviously was not upset enough by the abuse to want a divorce and become free of that family of Jewish supremacists.

Since Ivanka did not care about the abuse of Kloss by Jared or the other Kushners, is she going to care if the Kushners abuse you or me? What does Ivanka want from her relationship with Jared Kushner? Is she just a pretty face with no intelligence?

And why would Jared marry Ivanka? Is it simply because the Jewish women are so unappealing? Or does he want to get at her money? Is he just a Jewish version of a mosquito who, instead of sucking blood, wants to suck money out of wealthy women? What kind of relationships to these wealthy people have?

Some people are hoping that Ivanka will run for president, but would you want a president who doesn't care that her husband is a Jewish supremacist who treated his brother's wife as animal?

Example 2: Brena Firkins

After Jared Fogel was put in jail for child pornography, Brena Firkins, who had a brief relationship with Fogel many years earlier, contacted the media to encourage pity for Fogel. Notice that the only thing she admired about him were the gifts he gave to her:
"We just had a good time. He was, like, real generous. He took me shopping a lot. He paid for everything. He paid for my rent. He would give me gift cards."
A woman will be titillated by any man who behaves like a devoted slave, even if he is involved with child pornography or Jewish supremacy. A woman's emotions do not care where a man gets his money, or whether he is involved with a crime network. Female emotions do not pass judgment on the quality of the male, or care about compatibility, friendship, skills, or honesty. All they care about is finding a devoted slave who can provide her with gifts and food.

Our courtship activities are crude because we inherited them from monkeys. In this modern world, our monkey characteristics are becoming increasingly inappropriate. They are causing people to waste the best years of their life on awkward, miserable relationships.

Instead of encouraging deception and false images, our culture should encourage us to to exert self-control, and be honest. We should eliminate secrecy so that men and women know whether they are compatible with one another. We should not have to spend years together to figure out whether we are compatible. We should not have to wonder what age another person is, or whether they are single, or whether they have venereal diseases, or whether they are already married.

Why should anybody be allowed to deceive us about themselves? We need to change our attitudes towards life. We need to regard people who lie to us as committing a very serious crime; namely, wasting our life. We need to start admiring honesty, and start telling the people who are ashamed of themselves to deal with it. It is not our fault that some people are ashamed of themselves. We do not owe them the right to lie to us or be secretive.

We should instead give everybody the right to know the truth about who we are living with, and who we are thinking of becoming a friend with, and who we are considering as a spouse. We should be able to look in a database and find out all of the details of a person's life, just as if we had grown up together in a small, nomadic, prehistoric tribe.

Secrecy helps criminals

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, wants our "personal" information to be kept private. In October 2018 he told an audience in Europe that:
"Our own information, from the everyday to the deeply personal, is being weaponized against us..."
Does he truly believe that the government is conspiring to "weaponize" information against us? I don't think so because if he was truly worried about it, I would expect him to provide some supporting evidence for his conspiracy theory.

He would explain how a government can "weaponize" information, and who in the government is conspiring to do this, and how weaponized information can be used to hurt us.
I would not be surprised if he got the concept of "weaponized information" from the SCIgen Conspiracy Theory Suggestions.

If Tim Cook truly believes that some government officials are conspiring to hurt us, he should show us the evidence of his conspiracy. Instead, he encourages us to become frightened, and to believe that we can protect ourselves by demanding secrecy.
However, we do not protect ourselves with secrecy, and we do not improve a nation by hiding from criminals. The solution to corrupt policemen, government officials, military leaders, and journalists is to remove the secrecy that is protecting them, and identify and arrest them.

I think that Tim Cook wants secrecy because he does not want us to know the truth about what he and his friends are doing. He should be accused of being a con artist who is trying to deceive and manipulate the nation with fraudulent accusations against the government. He is another example of people who are trying to alter our culture and convert our nation into some variation of communist Russia. Unfortunately, the crime that he is committing is too complex for most people to understand, so most people do not consider him to be committing a crime.

Nobody wants to look at your personal information
In this article, Sameer Berry, who is studying to be a gastroenterologist, points out that a toilet that can analyze our waste products and send the data through the Internet would be of tremendous value for gastroenterologists, but he also encourages paranoia and secrecy by claiming that the data is "very, very personal", and that "a hacker or a thief or a curious houseguest" would be able to get access to the data from our toilet.

As I mentioned in other documents, most animals have a powerful fear of being watched. This emotion is causing us to worry about somebody looking closely at our life. However, if you can exert some self-control, you should realize that almost nobody cares enough about you to want to look through your data.

Imagine if there was a publicly accessible database right now, and it had details of everybody's life, including data from their toilets. How much of your leisure time would you spend looking through the toilet data of other people?

You may respond that most people don't care about toilet data, so this is not a good example for me to use. In that case, let's assume that the database also has analyses of our blood, hair, fingernails, hormone levels, MRI scans, dental records, school records, job performance reviews, fingerprints, and a list of all of the prescription drugs that we have taken during our life, and when we took those drugs, and the quantities.

If that database existed right now, our curiosity would cause us to look through it, but everybody, except perhaps a few mentally retarded people, would quickly become bored with it.

That database would be useful to us only if we had a reason to look in it. For example, if such a database existed when I was a teenager, I would have searched it for people with my particular characteristics, such as getting cold easily, and having the feeling that my throat is on fire after running for a short distance. That database might have helped me realize that I have a problem with my thyroid hormones.

I would have looked through other people's data to understand my particular problems, not to laugh at or insult other people. If somebody wants to look through your data to understand themselves, why would you care? Why not help other people by letting them have access to your data?

Sameer Berry brings up the possibility that a hacker or houseguest might look at data from your toilet, but let's be serious. Who would want to spend their leisure time looking through analyses of your waste products? Who would want to look through your dental x-rays, or your blood analyses? Do you really think you are so important that other people want to spend their leisure time looking at your data? Do you want to do spend your leisure time looking at other people's data?
I posted my dental x-rays and an MRI scan of my hip region here, and although the link was bad for years, I finally fixed it. If you have never seen an MRI scan, and how the software can go through my body layer by layer, and in two different directions, you might find it interesting.

My "personal information" has been available to the entire world for years, but have I suffered as a result? I challenge you to find a way to use that data to hurt me.

The only people who would be hurt by that type of MRI scan are the men or women who are pretending to be the opposite sex. That particular type of MRI scan would expose their lies. An MRI scan like that of Michelle Obama would let us determine whether she is male or female, or some combination of the two.

There is a TV program called Medical Mysteries, and it shows people struggling for years to figure out what their medical problem is. They are people with unusual problems, so most doctors misdiagnose them. If we had an extensive database with everybody's personal information, and if we had software to analyze that data, many of those people, or their doctors, would have been able to identify their medical problems much more quickly. We are hurting ourselves by encouraging paranoia and secrecy.

We should not encourage paranoia of "personal information". Instead, promote the advantages to gathering data about humans, and encourage people to control their paranoia. The only people who have to fear this type of database are those who are trying to deceive us.

Who is an “expert” on privacy?
In this article this news article, the journalist describes the people who promote paranoia and secrecy as "privacy and bioethics experts", but who is an "expert" in such issues? The answer is, whoever we want. You can call yourself a privacy expert, if you want to. There are no qualifications that you have to meet; no tests for you to take.
We have to meet specific and detailed qualifications in order to be an airline pilot or dentist, but nobody has to meet any standards to become an expert on bioethics, economics, marriage, abortion, religion, privacy, crime, marijuana, drug addiction, divorce, crime, or any other social issue.

Furthermore, all of us can claim to be experts on climate change, the Holocaust, racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, religion, astrology, and hate speech.

Don't be fooled or intimidated by the people who claim to be "experts" on social issues. You are just as much of an expert on social issues as they are.

In that article, Arthur Caplan of the New York University School of Medicine warns us that people who allow their DNA to be analyzed may "find it difficult to get disability insurance or it could affect your job or even your marriage prospects."

I agree with Caplan. However, my response is "So what?"

Caplan is promoting the philosophy that people should be allowed to hide their genetic characteristics in order to get a job, spouse, or insurance policy that they would otherwise not be able to get. This brings up the issue of what type of environment do we want to live in? Do you want to:
a) Give people the right to deceive us in order to allow them to get jobs, spouses, and insurance policies that they would otherwise not get?

b) Give people with the right to know the truth about who we are hiring, marrying, giving insurance policies to, becoming friends with, and living next door to?
I think we should design society for people who are honest, not people who want to be secretive and deceptive. I think we should have the right to know the truth about the people we are living and working with. We should not allow anybody to have the right to deceive us about themselves.

In regards to insurance companies, they are profit-making businesses, so it is foolish to expect them to provide us with medical care. We don't solve the problems related to insurance companies by hiding our DNA. We solve that problem by experimenting with a better economic system and a better health care system.

Be suspicious of awards, not impressed by them
The crime networks have such extreme influence over the world today that instead of being impressed by "experts" who win awards, we should be suspicious of them. For example, both Al Gore and Barack Obama have won Nobel prizes, so when they promote global warming or some other issue, we should consider that they are promoting it for their crime gang, not to help us.

Likewise, Paul McCartney was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. Have you seen the evidence that he died, or murdered, on 9 November 1966 (9-11-1966), and that he was replaced? If so, then you should regard everybody who has been knighted with suspicion, not admiration.

When we find somebody boasting that he has won various awards, we should regard it as a sign that he doesn't have any intelligent supporting evidence for his theories, so he is trying to impress and intimidate us. He wants us to feel inferior to him so that we believe whatever he says.

Be cautious of people who boast. If somebody really is talented, we should be able to see it for ourselves.

We need an authority to resolve disputes
Problems should be solved with intelligence, not by appeasing the majority
In a democracy, problems are solved by appeasing the majority of people. If the people are almost evenly divided on a particular issue, then nothing is done to solve the problem.

Businesses do not use this system simply because it is inferior to having leaders who have the authority to make decisions.

This section of the document shows how an authority would bring some sense to the endless and stupid arguments that are occurring over our Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment
The First Amendment has three sections (separated by semicolons), about what the Congress cannot do:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Unfortunately, the First Amendment is so vague that it is analogous to a page in a coloring book that requires us to chose the colors. This results in endless disputes over what it means. For some examples:
• In September 2018, Vernon Unsworth filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk for calling him a "pedo guy" and a "child rapist", and Musk responded by claiming that his remarks are protected by the First Amendment. Does the First Amendment give us right to call somebody a "pedo guy" or a "child rapist"?

• Do Jews have the right to call us Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites? Do women have the right to call men sexists or misogynists? Do we have the right to call one another racists, white supremacists, black supremacists, or female supremacists?

• When a group of people go into a public street to chant slogans, are they "peacefully assembling"?

The Freedom to Assemble was intended for primitive farmers
The freedom to assemble was necessary in the 1700's because of their crude technology. The small towns in that era did not have lots of empty conference rooms, convention facilities, sports stadiums, theaters, or auditoriums. Also, there were no electric lights or transportation devices. The people had to walk or ride horses to get to a meeting, and they had to travel on paths that were unpaved, rough, and often muddy. At night the paths were dark because there were no street lights in the USA during the 1770's.

As a result of their primitive technology, when a large group of people wanted to discuss an issue, they preferred to gather outside in a public area, such as a street or park. They had to yell at one another during their meetings because their voice was their only communication device. They also preferred meetings during the daytime and outside so that they could avoid kerosene lamps and candles. However, by holding the meetings outside, they had to yell even louder to overcome the background noises.

The freedom to assemble was
intended for primitive people
to have meetings in public areas.

When people march down a street to scream
slogans or harass the police, they are having a
"temper tantrum", not discussing their opinions.



Our primitive ancestors needed the freedom to assemble in public streets, but today we can discuss social or political issues much more efficiently, peacefully, and economically through the Internet, video conferencing, television, and by renting auditoriums.

Furthermore, there is no discrimination on the Internet. Each of us, regardless of our age, race, sex, nationality, weight, or ugliness, has equal opportunity to spread our opinions to the entire planet. We no longer need to provide people with freedom to use public areas for meetings. And we especially do not need to tolerate people who throw rocks and set things on fire.

Protests have never improved an organization
There have been so many protests in the USA that the Wikipedia has categorized them. For example:
U.S. national anthem protests
Protests Against Donald Trump
List of rallies and protest marches in Washington, D.C.
List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States

A lot of people want the freedom to participate in protests because they regard protests as an effective way of changing the course the nation is on. For example, when employees stage a protest over wages, they often get a wage increase. When citizens protest a particular tax, they often cause a government official to cancel the tax.

However, even though the protests often achieve their goal, they are not truly improving life for anybody. For example, when employees are given a wage increase, as I explained in other documents, they are not actually improving their life. They are merely increasing inflation. Likewise, when citizens force a government official to cancel a tax, the government increases other taxes.

The protests are causing changes to occur, but they are not bringing true improvements to our lives. You can visualize the situation as a slave who is complaining that the chain around his ankle is cutting into his skin, and so his owner moves the chain to his other leg, or to his neck. He is still a slave.

There have been a lot of technical and social advances in human life during the past few thousand years, but they have not come from protests. Rather, they occurred when a group of men (not women), found the courage to get together, discuss a particular problem, and then worked together to implement the change.

Some Americans assume that the "Boston Tea Party" had a significant effect on the creation of the USA, but the people involved with that protest, the Sons of Liberty, would also occasionally tar and feather the people that irritated them. Did the tarring and feathering help to create the USA? I don't think so.

Our emotions are titillated when we tar and feather the people who irritate us, but punishments do not solve problems. And throwing tea into the harbor is as worthless as setting fire to buildings. The Sons of Liberty did not create the USA through their protests or other acts. Rather, they instigated fights and hatred, just like protesters are doing today.

A British painting that exaggerates the tar and feathering of John Malcolm. Many citizens were entertained by the tar and feathering, but it did not solve any problems. The USA was created by people who spread new ideas to other people.


The USA came into existence when a different group of men who were more adventurous, intelligent, courageous, and better behaved got together to discuss their options. They decided to separate from Britain, and they wrote the Declaration of Independence to let the world see what they proposed to do.

Also, the USA came into existence because of the men who were willing to work together as a military team to fight the British military. Although those men used violence to achieve their goals, it was directed against the people who were opposing the new nation. They were not burning their own buildings at random, chanting slogans, throwing rocks at the police, or throwing tea into the harbor.

The type of people who go out into the streets to burn buildings and throw tea into the harbor are so mentally defective, arrogant, and/or stupid that they are very likely to take credit for anything good that occurs following their protest. And if something bad happens after their protest, they will blame it on somebody else.

We can see this behavior with the people who are promoting carbon taxes. Specifically, if the weather is good, they will say it is because they have been encouraging the reduction of carbon dioxide, and when the weather is bad, they will blame it on the people who are not reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. No matter what happens, they are heroes, and everybody else is causing trouble.

Progress comes from people who do work, not from people who have temper tantrums. All throughout history, all social and technical progress has come from men who put time and effort into analyzing problems, discussing issues, putting their conclusions into documents for other people to look at, and working in teams to experiment with new ideas. Progress does not come from people who throw rocks, chant slogans, pout, or whine.

The reason documents can bring social and technical progress is because it allows people to pass ideas from one person's mind to another. This in turn can stimulate intelligent discussions, and it can cause people to alter their attitudes, goals, and opinions. That in turn can alter the course of the human race. By comparison, when people have protests, they stimulate emotions rather than discussions. However, because our emotions are stimulated, people assume that the protests are effective. This concept is similar to what I mentioned in Part 1 of this series in which I pointed out that the PSA's stimulate our emotions, and that causes us believe the PSA's are effective.

The Magna Carta is another example of how documents bring progress, not temper tantrums. It was a crude document that was altered many times, and it had only a trivial effect on the lives of the English people, but it had more of an effect than protests. The reason it was effective is because it spread new ideas and stimulated discussions. This in turn caused some people to change their attitudes towards life.

All of the technical progress that we have today came from people who discussed issues, produced documents, and experimented with new ideas. Computers, airplanes, and refrigerators did not come about from people who were chanting slogans or throwing rocks.

Standards for slander had to be low in the 1700's

Does the First Amendment allow Elon Musk to call somebody a "pedo guy"? Do Jews have the right to call us "anti-Semites"? Do women have the right to call men "sexists"? Before you try to answer those questions, consider that standards for slander had to be lower in the 1770's because the people usually had spontaneous discussions, whereas people today are likely to prepare for meetings.

When people today want to discuss an important issue, such as starting a new business, or analyzing a scientific experiment, they are expected to put some time and effort into researching the issue and producing a document that they provide to other people. This allows people to prepare for the discussion.
This page can give you an idea of the time and work required to create crude ink and a quill pen.
Incidentally, if you don't know that the English government delayed its development
of pencils by keeping the world’s only source of graphite for military use, click here.
However, not many people in the 1700s prepared for a discussion by producing a document about the issues they wanted to discuss. The people in that era did not do much reading or writing compared to you and me because some of the people were illiterate, paper was expensive, and it was time-consuming to write with the quill pens of that era.

Also, making copies of a document for everybody at a meeting required printing or handwriting the copies, both of which were time-consuming and expensive.

Most of the people in the 1700s went to meetings without any preparation. Compared to people who are prepared for a meeting, this would have resulted in them making more mistakes, getting confused more often, and losing their temper more often.

The authors of the Constitution had been involved with hundreds of spontaneous discussions during their life, so they would have been aware of how often people make mistakes, get confused, and lose their temper. They could not set high standards for freedom of speech. They had to expect a certain amount of confusion, mistakes, and insults.

When people produce written documents, we can enforce high standards, but when people are involved with spontaneous, verbal discussions, we have to lower our standards. This is especially true if the conversation is about a topic that stimulates our emotions because that can cause us to lose our temper or make idiotic, emotional remarks.

Incidentally, if you can understand this concept, you can understand why criminals, political candidates, salesmen, and other people who want to manipulate us want to talk to us in person rather than provide us with written documents. A verbal discussion can be confusing, and it is difficult to hold people accountable for what they say. By comparison, if they produce a written document, we can analyze it and hold them accountable for what they wrote.

We need to determine the cause of a problem
The First Amendment does not prohibit us from calling somebody a "pedo guy", a "child rapist", an "anti-Semite", or a "sexist" but it is ridiculous to claim that we have the right to make such accusations. Those accusations would be acceptable only if a person provides some evidence to explain and support the accusation. If the person cannot provide any supporting evidence for his accusations, he should be considered guilty of slander, or of making a false accusation.

To complicate the issue, in the case of Elon Musk, we should lower our standards since Musk and Unsworth were making the insults during verbal conversations and on Twitter, rather than in formal documents.

One reason I wanted to discuss the dispute between Musk and Unsworth is because none of the journalists bothered to look into the reason that the dispute occurred. Instead, they attacked Musk. Before passing judgment on Musk and Unsworth, we should exert some self-control and analyze the issue in order to determine the source of the problem. We should try to understand why Musk make those remarks. We cannot solve a problem unless we know the cause of the problem.

I have not studied the Unsworth/Musk dispute, but from what I have noticed by skimming over a few news reports, Musk decided to build a tiny submarine to rescue some boys who were trapped in a cave in Thailand, and Unsworth reacted by insulting Musk with such remarks as:
• He can stick his submarine where it hurts.
• It just had absolutely no chance of working.
• Just a PR stunt.
Musk reacted to those insults with anger, and he posted a message on Twitter in which he referred to Unsworth as "pedo guy". The journalists reacted to Musk's insult by criticizing Musk and defending Unsworth. Eventually a journalist had irritated Musk so much that Musk once again lost his temper, and this time he referred to Unsworth as a "child rapist".

Unsworth is planning to file a lawsuit against Musk, but my interpretation of the dispute is that Unsworth instigated the insult by insulting Musk, and then some journalists added to the problem by annoying Musk. I would say that it makes more sense for Musk to complain about being insulted by both Unsworth and the journalists. I would say that Musk is the victim.

We should prohibit all types of insults
The dispute between Musk and Unsworth may seem to be of no importance, but it is about an issue that affect most of us. It also shows how corrupt, hypocritical, and stupid our legal system is.

Journalists are claiming that it is wrong for Musk to refer to Unsworth as a "pedo guy", but journalists, Jewish organizations, political groups, Google executives, and lots of other citizens and organizations are regularly accusing us of being racists, sexists, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, Nazis, Fascists, bullies, anti-Semites, bigots, xenophobes, homophobes, and promoter of harmful gender stereotypes. What is the difference between being called a "pedo guy", and being called a "sexist", a "white supremacist", or a "climate change denier"?

The US legal system allows journalists, government officials, organizations, and citizens to use those insults on anybody they please, and without any explanation. Therefore, if Musk had referred to Unsworth as a racist, fascist, or white supremacist, would that have been considered acceptable? Would Unsworth be able to file a lawsuit over those adjectives? If so, then everybody should be able to file lawsuits against the ACLU, the ADL, Google, and all of the journalists who insult us with those idiotic accusations.

Our freedom of speech should not include the freedom to make idiotic and unsupported accusations. Calling somebody a racist, sexist, Holocaust denier, climate change denier, anti-Semite, bigot, bully, homophobe, white supremacist, or misogynist should be regarded the same as accusing somebody of being a pedophile, burglar, or murderer. A person who makes an accusation should be required to provide supporting evidence for the accusation, and an explanation of the accusation.

Furthermore, accusing somebody of doing something as a "PR stunt" should also be unacceptable. Nobody should have the freedom to make any type of insulting accusation about a person unless he has supporting evidence. People who make accusations without supporting evidence should be considered guilty of a crime; specifically, of slandering the person, or making a false accusation.

Finally, remarks such as, "he can stick his submarine where it hurts" are meaningless insults. They are analogous to a monkey that is biting and kicking another monkey. All types of insults should be regarded as crude, unacceptable, animal behavior.

We must avoid the cat and mouse problem

If our courts were to prohibit the use the use of certain words, such as racist, Holocaust denier, misogynist, and anti-Semite, people will create new insults. Recently somebody created "toxic masculinity" and "white privilege". A phrase that I noticed in 2019 is "white language supremacy" in this description of this seminar.
Some people refer to this problem as the "cat and mouse game" because no matter what we do, we never stop the problem. The people who get away with this type of abuse are described as "finding a loophole" in the law.

If you are unfamiliar with this issue, an extreme example of this cat and mouse problem would be for a law to state: "Men are not allowed to rape women", and after a man is caught raping a young girl, he justifies it by saying the law prohibits him from raping a "woman", but he raped a "child". Imagine that the government responds by creating a law that prohibits the raping of "children". When a man is caught raping a baby, he justifies it by saying there is no law against raping "babies". This idiotic situation could be repeated over and over.
A more complex example is when the government tells businesses to list the ingredients of their food products, in the order from the largest amount to the smallest amount. A business that produces an oatmeal bar in which sugar and oil are their primary ingredients should list those items first, but to deceive people, many businesses modify their recipes so that they don't put as much "sugar" or "oil" into their products. For an extreme example:

The law expects this: So a business might do this:
Ingredients: Sugar, oil, oats,
wheat flour, dates, raisins, molasses, orange zest, cinnamon, and cloves.
Ingredients: Oats, wheat flour, dates, raisins, molasses, beet sugar, dark brown sugar, cane sugar, dextrose, glucose, sucrose, corn syrup, maltose, light brown sugar, invert sugar, grape sugar, high fructose corn syrup, unbleached beet sugar, date sugar, corn syrup solids, galactose, fructose, refinery sugar, barley malt, maltodextrin, honey, barley sugar, dextroglucose, raw cane sugar, corn oil, vegetable oil, soybean oil, canola oil, palm oil, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, orange zest, cinnamon, and cloves.

Nations do not have to tolerate loopholes. Businesses don't allow their employees to get away with finding loopholes in the rules. If an employee is truly too stupid to understand the rules, he is likely to be put under restrictions, or fired.

Nations could do the same. Specifically, the citizens could be told that they must be able to understand the purpose of the laws, or if they cannot, they will be put under restrictions, like children, or they will be evicted.

We should blame the instigators, not the victims
Another reason I wanted to mention the dispute between Unsworth and Musk is to point out that we should identify the troublemakers, not take the simple solution, which is to blame everybody.
Many people like to promote the policy that "It takes two to tango", and so they want everybody involved with a fight to share the blame, but blaming everybody does not reduce fighting.
When farmers or zoo managers notice that some of the animals are getting into fights, they don't punish all of the animals. Rather, they observe the animals and try to determine which animal is causing the trouble. The mentally disturbed animals are removed, not the victims of those badly behaved animals.

All societies today promote the theory that when we encounter a badly behaved person – especially a badly behaved child – we should remain calm and tolerate his abuse, but we do not reduce fights by telling the people who lose their temper to stop losing their temper. It is better to deal with the people who instigate problems.

For example, in the photo to the right, a Hollywood celebrity has become so irritated by the photographers that she kicks one of them. We don't want to encourage people to kick photographers, but we are not going to stop the kicking by telling the victims of abusive journalists to control themselves and allow the journalists to behave in any irritating manner they please. It would be more useful to fire the troublesome journalists, or put them on restrictions, or evict them.
Our courts need to acknowledge the evidence that animals and humans have a strong emotional desire to defend ourselves when poked, punched, or threatened. It is difficult for us to remain calm when somebody is yelling at us, spraying us with saliva, poking us, or pushing us, as Luke Gatti did to the security guard in the photo to the right. That guard had more self-control than most of us would have had in that situation.

Many people complain when the police and security personnel lose their temper, but most of us would lose our temper if we were in the same situation. Most of our police and other security personnel have been through training programs, and those with bad tempers fail to graduate. The end result is that the police are actually doing a better job of remaining calm than most of us would.

To summarize this section, we will be more successful in reducing fights when we:
• Identify and deal with the instigators of fights, rather than arrest the victims who lose their temper.
• Not allow anybody to push, spit on, poke, insult, slander, or ridicule somebody. This includes prohibiting people from calling one another a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, white supremacist, and climate change denier.
• Not give anybody the right to fight with security and police personnel. Security personnel should quickly subdue people who start fights because if they tolerate the abuse, they are letting other people know that it is acceptable to be abusive around security personnel.
To add confusion to this issue, animals have an emotional craving to abuse the misfits. This is most noticeable with children. Children regularly insult one another simply because it is nature's way of helping the children learn how to fit into their social hierarchy, and to make life miserable for the misfits. We cannot expect children to meet high standards of behavior. We have to deal with the bullying of the misfit children in some other manner, such as putting the misfits into a different school or classroom.

Why are journalists are ignoring the pedophile problem?
Another reason I wanted to bring up the dispute between Musk and Unsworth is because it seemed peculiar to me that the journalists would attack Musk. Why didn't they criticize Unsworth for insulting Musk? Why did they choose to defend Unsworth?

During the past few years, a lot of people have provided evidence that there is an international pedophile network infiltrating our government, media, businesses, and other organizations. This makes me wonder if the reason that they attacked Musk is because of his particular accusations; specifically, "pedo guy" and "child rapist".

It is important to note that journalists avoid investigating and providing news reports about pedophilia. For example, none of the investigative reporters have looked into the accusations by such people as Vicky Polin, Jenny Guskin, Katy Groves, the orphans at Boystown, and David Shurter. Journalists also ridicule the evidence that government officials, journalists, the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor, Besta Pizza, and other businesses are involved with a pedophile network.

The journalists would likely respond that they have produced a lot of news reports about pedophiles, but compare the articles they have produced about the pedophile issue to the quantity of articles they have produced about Hollywood celebrities, global warming, and accusations about president Trump. It should be obvious that the journalists consider pedophilia to be a very low priority.

Years ago I mentioned that Trond Halvorsen tried to convince me to take a trip to Thailand with him to have sex. He didn't mention having sex with children, but I have seen lots of remarks about children being offered for sex in Thailand. Am I the only person who has been contacted by friendly people who encouraged trips to have sex in Thailand? I doubt it.

I would not be surprised if people have tried to convince Musk to take a trip to Thailand to have sex, and that might be why he suspects Unsworth of being a pedophile. Musk may have also been offered a free trip on the Lolita Express to Jeffrey Epstein's special island for special people.

Considering that the journalists are refusing to investigate the accusations of an international pedophile network, we would be foolish to assume that they are telling us the truth about the Unsworth/Musk dispute. The anger that journalists are showing towards Musk makes me wonder if it is because they are upset that Musk is bringing attention to the pedophile issue.

Anger sometimes acts like a truth serum
Our anger emotion can override all other emotions in order to make us stop whatever we are doing and protect ourselves, but when that emotion becomes so strong that it overrides our inhibitions, we may yell what we are truly thinking. Making somebody very angry is like giving them a shot of truth serum.

People do not always yell the truth when they are angry. Sometimes angry people make cruel remarks in order to hurt the person who upset them. Therefore, Musk may have called Unsworth a pedophile simply to hurt his feelings. However, we ought to wonder if Musk called Unsworth a pedophile because he suspects, or knows, that Unsworth is indeed a pedophile.

After Musk calmed down, he apologized to Unsworth rather than provide supporting evidence for his pedophile accusation, but he may have apologized only because he was afraid of retaliation by the pedophile network.

As far as I know, none of the journalists asked Musk why he made that accusation, or what evidence he has. They did not bother to investigate the issue of pedophilia in Thailand, either. Instead, they attacked Musk. I suspect that they avoided investigating Musk's accusation because they want to protect an international pedophile network that is operating in Thailand.

The Second Amendment
In an earlier document I asked for your help in putting an end to the stupid arguments about the Second Amendment, but they are still occurring. For example, when President Trump prohibited bump stocks in December 2018, many gun owners complained that he was violating the Second Amendment, and this author complained that "Donald Trump Just Restricted The Second Amendment More Than Barack Obama".

The Second Amendment should have been rewritten when the government stopped depending on militias for the nation's security, and the two sentences in Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that refer to militias should also have been rewritten. That section lists what Congress is authorized to do, and the two outdated sentences are:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Those two sentences show the authors regarded the militias as organizations that performed police and military operations, and that the Congress and the state governments had a lot of authority over them. The militias were not independent groups of people who could do whatever they pleased. The militias were similar to our modern National Guard, except that in the 1700's the militia members had to keep their weapons and supplies at their home.

The Second Amendment gives "the people" the right to guns so that they could form those "well regulated" militias, and keep their weapons in their homes. The authors would have made this more clear if they had added more detail, such as:
Each state can decide how to regulate weapons for non-militia purposes.
Unfortunately, the field of social science is so crude that people do not yet regard a Constitution as just a document that can become outdated. Instead, most people regard the Constitution in the same manner that they regard the 10 Commandments. Specifically, as a document that cannot be altered, edited, or improved upon.

Another confusing word in the second amendment is the word "arms". To the authors, it meant flintlock muskets and bayonets, but they did not specify the meaning of "arms" because they had no idea that weapons were going to change dramatically during the next few centuries.

If the authors had provided some "obvious" details, such as "the right of the people to keep flintlock muskets", it would be obvious to everybody today that the Second Amendment is so outdated and irrelevant that we need to discard it and discuss a replacement that fits our modern world. For example, should anybody have the right to use machine guns, laser weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, robotic weapons, flamethrowers, microwave weapons, or drones with weapons?

The Second Amendment gives only trained, organized militias the right to weapons, and those militias are under the control of Congress, and for the purpose of performing police and military operations. How many of the people who want guns are willing to get training on the use of their gun, join an organized group, and assist the military and police? If they are not willing to do that, the Second Amendment does not give them a right to a gun.

Most of the people who insist that citizens have the right to modern guns also boast that they are law-abiding citizens. Some of them even boast that they have a small, "pocket Constitution". However, they are not following the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they are interpreting the Constitution as they please. That is not a "law-abiding" person. That is a person who doesn't care about the law, or who doesn't think very well.

The only way we can truly put an end to the idiotic arguments over the Second Amendment is to provide society with leaders who have the authority to make decisions about these issues. Nothing is going to get accomplished as long as we have a government of submissive representatives.

If gun owners would follow the law, fewer people would want guns!

An ironic aspect of the Second Amendment is that if the people who want guns would obey the U.S. Constitution, they would join militias and work with the police and military to reduce crime and corruption. That reduction in crime would cause everybody to be less fearful of crime and corruption, and that in turn would reduce the number of frightened people who want guns.
Unfortunately, instead of reducing crime and corruption, the gun advocates encourage everybody to buy guns and essentially hide under their bed like a frightened child, which allows crime and corruption to thrive, which in turn increases the number of people who become so frightened that they want a gun for protection.

By doing nothing to stop crime and corruption, the gun owners also increase the number of frightened people who want pepper spray, big dogs, security cameras, bodyguards, and steel gratings over windows.

The Fourth Amendment
The arguments about whether the Fourth Amendment allow us to keep our DNA a secret is another example of why we need to change our government system and provide ourselves with leaders who have the authority to resolve disputes. The Fourth Amendment is one sentence:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment was created before there were photos, fingerprints, retina scans, and DNA analyses. When that technology was developed, the courts had to determine whether the police had the right to collect any of that information from us. Their conclusion was that we do not have to give DNA samples or fingerprints to the police, unless we are arrested.

My interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is that it was intended to protect innocent people from abuse by the government. It prevents the police from going into our homes, confiscating our personal property as evidence, and from touching or restraining us in any manner, unless we are being arrested, or unless a judge considers us to be suspicious enough to justify such actions.

I agree that the Fourth Amendment is useful. It prevents corrupt government and police officials from intimidating and harassing the people that they don't like.

Some people might have a difficult time believing that our police or government could become so corrupt that they would want to harass innocent people, but it has already happened in the communist nations. The communist governments would send the police to harass everybody who was critical of the government, or who wanted to emigrate. The police treated the people as if they were animals in a cage.

The same abuse would happen here in the USA if we didn't have the Fourth Amendment. For example, the Google executives fired James Damore, and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory canceled the "honorary titles" of James Watson. If those executives got control of our government and police departments, and if we didn't have a Fourth Amendment, they would be able to use the police to harass, frighten, and intimidate everybody they didn't like.

The Fourth Amendment does not provide us with secrecy
The Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent harassment and abuse, not to prevent the government from creating databases that are valuable for crime investigations, scientists, and medical doctors. It does not prevent the government from requiring everybody to have a photograph on an identification card, or from creating a fingerprint database.

Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment does not give us the right to be secretive. It does not give anybody the right to hide their fingerprints, their face, or their DNA. And it does not give anybody the right to deceive other people about their history or characteristics.

We are hurting ourselves by hiding our DNA
We want to protect ourselves from corrupt government and police officials, but we are not protecting ourselves by keeping our DNA a secret. Actually, the opposite is true. By keeping our DNA a secret, we are helping criminals get away with their crimes. A DNA database would be extremely useful for law enforcement. Furthermore, a DNA database would be useful for medical researchers, and that in turn would help all of us.

Therefore, it is foolish to interpret the Fourth Amendment as giving people the right people to keep their DNA a secret. It would make more sense to allow the government to demand one DNA sample from everybody.

We would not want to give the government the right to demand DNA samples whenever they pleased because that would allow them to harass us by continuously demanding samples. However, we are not going to be inconvenienced by giving them one sample. My opinion is that we should add a sentence to the Fourth Amendment, such as:
The government has the authority to request each person to provide one sample of DNA and fingerprints, and photos for facial recognition software for a national database. When technology improves enough to justify rebuilding or adding to the database, the government can ask for an additional sample of whatever is needed.
With that modification, the police can have access to a database to help them solve crimes and protect the innocent people, but they will not have the authority to harass anybody. Also, if some technology in the future turns out to be useful for the police or the medical researchers, such as brain scanning, or terahertz scanning, then the government would be able to ask everybody for one sample of that.

Why don’t our courts allow a DNA database?
Why do our courts regard a DNA database as an invasion of our privacy? Considering how valuable such a database would be in protecting honest people and solving crimes, why don't they require the government to create a DNA database? And why not also require the government to build a database of fingerprints and photos for facial recognition?

Nobody has any sensible reasons for how a DNA database will hurt the public, but there is tremendous evidence that it would help the police solve crimes and protect the innocent people from false accusations. It would also help the medical researchers and scientists who are studying humans. A DNA database has tremendous benefits, but no risks.

So, how is it possible for our government officials and judges to come to the conclusion that they are protecting us when they prevent the scientists and police from creating a DNA database? How could they possibly be that stupid?

I don't think they are that stupid. I think they are afraid of a DNA database. For example, a DNA database would show us whether Bill Clinton is the father of his daughter, Chelsea, and it would also show us whether Michelle Obama is male or female, or some mixture of the two. It might also allow the police to discover that many of our government officials, judges, lawyers, military officials, journalists, FBI officials, and professors are the rapists or murderers that they have been trying to identify.

There is no reason for an honest person to be afraid of a DNA database. There is no evidence that an honest person has been harmed by DNA analyses. The only people who are "harmed" by a DNA database are the parents who have lied to their children about who their biological parents are; the men who have drugged and raped women and are afraid that they will be identified as the father; and the people who are involved with other types of crime or embarrassing behavior.

From the point of view of honest people, the best way to reduce crime and protect honest people from false accusations is to create a database that has fingerprints and DNA samples of everybody. As soon as a person is born he should have his DNA sample sent to the database. That way there is no need to ask for it a sample later. For the people who are already born, everybody should be required to give a DNA sample.

Some people have already put videos on YouTube in which they show the world the results of their DNA analysis, and as far as I know, none of those people have suffered as a result of exposing their genetic information to the world.

I suggest you consider that it would be beneficial to put everybody's DNA analysis in a publicly accessible database. This would allow everybody to determine who they are closely related to, and who their biological parents are. It will cause a lot of embarrassment among the adulterous people, but why should you or I be deprived of the tremendous benefits of a DNA database simply to allow a few people to hide their embarrassing behavior?

During the depression of the 1930s, my mother's father lost his job. He and his wife had to take care of my mother, and two other children. It was difficult for them, and one day my grandmother encountered the man who had wanted to marry her when she was younger, and he was still single. He had a job during the depression, and he convinced her to leave her husband and get married to him. So she took the children and moved into his house, but after only a week or so she decided that she could not take the children away from their father, and that the grass was no greener on the other side of the fence. Even though he had more money, she took the children back home and remained married to my grandfather for the rest of her life.

My grandmother told me this story. Whether the story is true can be determined by DNA analysis. My mother's younger sister was born about nine months after that incident supposedly occurred, and I have always felt that she and her children (my cousins), are different from the rest of the family. A DNA test would tell us if we have the same grandfather. If it turns out we have different grandfathers, who is going to suffer? It will surprise some people, but nobody will be harmed.

We should not always get what we want
Our emotions want us to be secretive, and to hide our undesirable characteristics so that we can impress people, but we should not always give ourselves what we want. We must realize that we inherited our emotional cravings from monkeys, and as a result, if we do what we want to do, we end up behaving like monkeys rather than intelligent humans.

The people who encourage paranoia or secrecy regarding DNA, school records, marital records, and other information, should be regarded as stupid, ignorant, monkey-like, emotionally disturbed, and/or trying to hide something from us. We should not look to them from for guidance.

How to counteract the paranoia of a DNA database
Some of the people who are paranoid of a DNA database are afraid that a group of Nazis will get control of the government, and then the Nazis will send the police to arrest and kill everybody with a certain racial background. The people that I have personally heard expressed this concern are the people who have been fooled by the Jews into believing all of the Holocaust propaganda.

We can counteract that paranoia by telling those frightened people that we heard that the Nazis plan to exterminate all of the people who refuse to provide a DNA sample. Therefore, everybody's best option is to submit to a DNA test and try to blend in with the crowd, rather than be a paranoid troublemaker who attracts the attention of the Nazis.

Do not feel sorry for the native Americans, alcoholics, or anybody else
After the National Institute of health started the All of Us Research Program to collect DNA from a million people, this PDF report was produced to complain that it might harm the Native Americans. The report admits that the research has potential benefits for Native Americans, but it points out that a research program of some native Alaskans in 1979 "resulted in widespread negative publicity about the use of alcohol in the community."

Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine if a university were to study a Native American community, and they produced a document that showed that the community has more pedophilia, burglaries, murders, kidnappings, and rapes than other communities. Imagine some Native Americans responding with such complaints as:
“The research has stigmatized or harmed AI/AN tribes because it resulted in widespread negative publicity of our community because of the pedophilia, burglaries, murders, kidnappings, and rapes that our people have committed.”
As I have mentioned many times, we should not feel obligated to help people hide their embarrassing characteristics. Instead, We should know the truth about the people we live with. We should not tolerate people who deceive us about their unpleasant characteristics.

That PDF report also points out that some previous researchers did not bother to provide the native Americans with the results of their study, which resulted in "tribal members feeling that they were used for the researcher's own professional advancement and that they received no benefits in return."

However, we cannot expect researchers to have the time to personally meet and discuss the results of their study with everybody involved with the study.

A more complex complaint in that PDF report is that some previous researchers have "engaged in practices that violate tribal beliefs". This brings up a significant problem in the world today. Specifically, the mixing of different cultures - "diversity" - is resulting in a society that is analogous to a mixture of oil and water. The USA is no longer a group of "united" states. We have become a gathering place of different, incompatible cultures. There are people in this nation speaking different languages, dressing in different styles, following different holiday celebrations, and even following different calendars.

That PDF report does a lot of whining, but it doesn't offer any evidence that gathering DNA samples will hurt Native Americans, or anybody else. Try not to be intimidated by the people who whine that they need to keep their DNA a secret.

We must do our own chores
We must stop using people as cheap labor
Animals and humans are inherently lazy in order to make us work efficiently and quickly. Unfortunately, most people misinterpret this emotion. They assume that work is bad, and that retirement and pampering is good.

As a result of that inaccurate view of life, when people from foreign nations offer to work for us at a low cost, we become excited because we assume that our lives will improve by paying them to do the "nigger work".

It is true that the immigrants provide us with more material wealth, but human happiness has nothing to do with material wealth, so the immigrants are not truly improving our lives. Besides, most of us already have excessively large homes and more material wealth than we need or use.

Furthermore, as the immigrant population rises, they worsen other problems that we have not yet learned to deal with, such as overcrowding, trash, and pollution. They also alter our culture, and they will eventually dominate the nation.

A wall along our border cannot stop the immigration problem because millions of people want the cheap labor that the immigrants are offering. Our immigration problem will stop only if we become willing to do our own chores.

In order to stop the custom of using foreigners as cheap labor, we need leaders who promote the attitude that we should do our own chores. However, the people who are rising to the top of our societies do not want to do their own chores. They want lots of servants to build, clean, and maintain their mansions and yatchs.

Our nations are dominated by people who want to be extremely wealthy and pampered. They don't think of us as "friends". They regard us as their servants. Can we expect such arrogant, selfish people to be interested in stopping the immigration problem? I don't think so.

I think the people who are devoting their lives to acquiring an absurd amount of material wealth, status, fame, or pampering should be regarded as having undesirable mental qualities. I think we need a different group of people in leadership positions. I suggest we restrict leadership to people who are willing to participate in chores, and who treat us as team members rather than as peasants, and not shiksas and shkotzim, either.

We also have to change our attitudes towards happiness and work so that we become willing to participate in the work that needs to be done.

We must do our own intellectual work, also
In addition to bringing unskilled foreigners into the USA to become a source of inexpensive labor, the USA is also bringing skilled foreigners into our nation to work as computer programmers, engineers, nurses, and technicians. People should be brought into a society if they fit in, not because they have a skill that we want to exploit.

What should the USA do about the shortage of skilled labor? In some cases, instead of bringing foreigners into our nation, we could pay the foreigners to do the work. For example, instead of bringing people from India into the USA to do computer programming, a business could pay a company in India to do the work.

In the case of nurses, carpenters, machinists, and other people who must work in the USA, the only good solution is to restrict reproduction so that each generation of Americans is more willing to learn a useful skill. We need fewer government officials, psychologists, think tank experts, Instagram influencers, Hollywood celebrities, and university employees, and more people who are willing to do something of value.

Unfortunately, every nation is resisting the evidence that we need to restrict reproduction. This is causing every nation to slowly become dominated by retards, weirdos, criminals, freaks, idiots, and psychos.

Europe and the USA are currently taking some of the skilled people from China, Japan, and India, but those nations will eventually suffer a shortage of those skilled people, also, because they are also degrading genetically. Eventually every nation is going to have a shortage of people who are healthy, trustworthy, and willing to work for a living.

Every nation is facing a the same, very serious problem: genetic degradation.

We need leaders who have an interest in society
Why is every nation ignoring corruption and crime networks?
Why are all of the world's governments, schools, and journalists continuing to promote lies about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, Anne Frank's diary, and the Holocaust? Why don't any of the police departments or militaries feel pressure from citizens to expose these lies? Why aren't any nations removing the lies in their school books? Why are so many people allowing crime networks to abuse us? Why are we allowing Jews, feminists, vegetarians, and liberals to slander us as racists, climate change deniers, sexists, white supremacists, and anti-Semites?

If you believe that humans are the result of Adam and Eve, you will blame the corruption on the devil, ignorance, poverty, or something equally idiotic, but if you believe that humans are a species of monkey, then the reason this corruption is occurring is because most people are behaving just like animals.

Animals spend their time titillating their emotional cravings, not thinking. Our prehistoric ancestors also spent their time titillating themselves. They did not have any complex problems to deal with, so they never evolved any desire to deal with such problems. There was no such thing as a crime network, or a corrupt government official, or a policeman who rapes children.

However, this selfish behavior is not tolerable in this modern world. We must expect women and children to be ignore the world's problems since they evolved to be taken care of, but an organization will suffer if a significant portion of the men are as selfish and apathetic as animals.

We need a certain percentage of men to get involved with the maintenance of society. We need men who have the desire to ensure that their leadership is competent and honest, and we need men who have the courage to face and destroy crime networks.

The meek will not inherit the Earth
There are thousands of organizations and individual citizens competing to determine the future of our world. A relatively new group in the USA, Brand New Congress, was successful in getting one of their political candidates elected to Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Will this organization increase in popularity and get more candidates selected? Or will the Zionist organizations get more control of us? Or will a pedophile or other crime network eventually dominate our nation?
A painting from 1481 of Jesus comforting people with such promises as "the meek shall inherit the Earth".
Some religions titillate people with the promise that "the meek will inherit the Earth", but the apathetic and passive sheeple will not determine our future.

If you want to help set the course for the human race, you must be willing to do some work, and you must find a lot of other people who have similar beliefs as you, and you must be capable of working with those other people in a team, and your team must be capable of defeating the other teams who are competing for control of our future.

Furthermore, many of the people who are fighting for control of the world are not fighting "fairly". They are murdering, blackmailing, lying, intimidating, kidnapping, and torturing. Some are also committing arson, causing airplane crashes, and arranging false flag operations. It is a vicious, diabolical, deceptive fight, and the people who cannot handle it are going to fail.

To add complexity to the issue, nobody can be sure if the information that they are being given is accurate. For example, is FBI Director Robert Mueller working for Donald Trump, some Zionist organization, a pedophile network, or some other group? Is Donald Trump working to help you, or to help Israel, or to help the Kushner family, or to help some other crime network?

You might be able to verify some information, but none of us have the time or resources to verify everything we are told. If you make the wrong decisions, you could inadvertently help your enemy to destroy your friends and team members. World War II is an excellent example of this. Millions of people were tricked into fighting their neighbors so that the Jews could get control of their nations.

How can you be sure you are not being tricked right now? If you don't control your arrogance and make wise decisions, you might become a victim of some group of Zionists, pedophiles, or criminals.

Don't let the complexity frighten you into doing nothing. Hiding from criminals merely lets them abuse you. If you are confused about what to do, then spread information to other people and encourage them spread it and think about it.

The most successful team will determine our future
It is impossible for a person to prove that his particular preferences for culture are more accurate, sensible, or intelligent than somebody else's preferences. It is conceivable that people have peaceful discussions and compromise on policies, but all throughout history we find that it's difficult for people to compromise. The creation of the USA is an example. The English government had no desire to discuss the complaints of the colonists.

What will the future of the USA be? Will we increase immigration and diversity, or decrease it? Will we put restrictions on reproduction, or will we consider birth control to be wrong and encourage people to have large families?

I doubt if we are going to resolve any of these issues peacefully. The reason I say this is because the Jews are already using violence to influence our future.

We have to fight to resolve our differences. The decisions about our future will be made by whichever group of people are capable of dominating their competitors, and that group will not necessarily be the most honest, responsible, or intelligent. They will instead be the group that is the best at working as a team and defeating their competition.

Some concepts to keep in mind:
• The people who are too apathetic to join a team will be dominated by the people who have the initiative to get involved with the fight for our future.

• The people who have the initiative to fight for our future, but are too selfish, arrogant, neurotic, violent, envious, or hateful to form a useful team will be dominated by people who are better able to form a team.

• The people who join a team but choose inappropriate people for leadership positions, such as Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh, will be dominated by people who make better decisions about who to select as a leader.
Earlier in this document I mentioned that Brand New Congress has succeeded in getting one person elected to Congress. Some of their goals are in the colored box below. Do you want that group to become more influential? Two of the founders of the organization are Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti. Do you want either of them influencing our future? If not, are you willing to do something to determine your future?

Also, consider that they are just one of thousands of groups that are fighting for control of us. For example, this news article is about groups of Hasidic Jews who are trying to influence our policy on prison reform. Do you approve of their ideas on prison reform?

Some of the plans of Brand New Congress (BNC)
My comments in black.
The purpose of this box is to show you how deceptive their remarks are. The BNC is not providing us with an intelligent analyses of issues. Rather, they are giving just one distorted view of life.

Immigration
We need to fix our broken immigration system and provide undocumented Americans with the pathway to citizenship that politicians have promised them for decades.
Brand New Congress will provide undocumented Americans efficient pathways to citizenship, ensure that their rights are protected, and manage taxpayer money used for immigration services in a fiscally responsible manner.


The BNC wants to ensure the rights of the undocumented Americans are protected, but who says the undocumented people have rights? We could say they are criminals, or invaders. It depends on how you want to look at life.

The BNC wants to fix our "broken" immigration system, but they regard it as broken because they want it to allow virtually everybody in the world to get into the USA without having to apply for citizenship. We could respond that our immigration system is indeed broken, and that by fixing it, we will be able to deport the illegal immigrants and raise standards for immigrants.

The BNC complains that some politicians have not kept their promises to increase immigration, which is true, but there are other politicians who have not kept their promise to decrease immigration and deport the illegal immigrants. Politicians have made a variety of unkept but contradictory promises. Which of the unkept promises should they fulfill? Should they fulfill the promise to increase immigration? Or should they fulfill the promise to stop illegal immigration?
Women
Women have been at the forefront of every movement for social change in this nation’s history,

That remark is senseless praise to titillate the women. History shows us that almost all technical and social progress has come from men, not women. The sentence continues:

yet inequality persists to this day.

They encourage the women to pout by claiming that women have been suffering from "inequality" all throughout history, and even today.

We need to protect the rights of women...
Protecting the rights of women has never been so urgent. Establishment politicians strive to police women’s bodies but refuse to pass legislation guaranteeing equality under the law.
They imply that they are knights in shining armor who are going to protect the women from abuse.

They are trying to titillate the emotions of women by giving women praise, blaming their problems on men, and promising to protect and care for the women. They are not providing intelligent analyses of male-female relationships, or about whether society should treat men and women differently in jobs or schools.
Racial Justice
It seems nowadays that our elected officials are more concerned with denying racism than actually addressing the rampant inequality plaguing communities of color. Brand New Congress will finally address the injustice that denies people of color the opportunities and rights they deserve.
Our nation was founded on slavery and genocide, and we have never been able to escape that legacy.
...we have seen establishment politicians reject the racial justice demands of the Black Lives Matter movement and sit by as racial inequality persists and even worsens...

The BNC is encouraging the non-white races to believe that they have been suffering from thousands of years of abuse, slavery, inequality, injustice, and genocide, and only by the white races.

When are the white Americans going to stand up to this nonsense? The Native Americans were slaughtering one another, scalping each other, and raping each other all throughout history, and the African people also fought with one another.

Furthermore, the "Latinos" and "Hispanics" are not native to the Americas. They are the descendants of Spaniards, Portuguese, and other Europeans, and many of them are the descendants of rapists, criminals, and mentally defective weirdos, not Europe's finest people. Most of the "Mexicans" who are whining about genocide and abuse by white Europeans are descendants of brown Europeans who slaughtered, raped, and abused the true natives of Mexico.

None of us who are alive today, or our parents, participated in the killings, slavery, or abuse that occurred centuries ago. The white, European Americans do not owe anything to the black Americans, Native Americans, or Hispanics because of events that happened centuries ago, but when are some white Americans going to join me and stand up to this abuse? When are white people going to stand up to the accusations that we are "white supremacists", or that we have "white privilege"?

The Hispanics and Latinos slaughtered and raped the native North and South Americans, so we could accuse them of being "Brown Supremacists" who are guilty of genocide and abuse. We could say they owe reparations to the Native Americans.
Were Africans stolen?
Or
sold for slavery?
Some people are passing around variations of the message to the right which claims that the African slaves that were purchased by the Americans were kidnapped from Africa. These people are implying that the slave traders did the kidnapping.

Alexander Falconbridge provided medical services for several of the slave ships, and he said that most of the slaves appear to have been kidnapped, but by Africans.

It is possible that some of the people involved with the slave trade did indeed kidnap some Africans, but none of the people who are making these claims are providing supporting evidence for that theory. Until they do, we should assume that the slaves were sold by Africans.

If Africans kidnapped and sold the slaves, then we could say the Africans are mainly responsible for the slaves in the USA. We could also say that Africa should take back the descendants of those slaves, give them reparations, and apologize for what they've done.

I would not be surprised if an analysis of history shows us that Jews were the primary group responsible for encouraging the Africans to sell slaves, and arranging for the transportation and sale of slaves. Unfortunately, most people of all races are too cowardly to point out the role Jews have played in crime, gambling, wars, and slavery.
Education
It’s high time that our country provide tuition-free education to students at all public universities, colleges, and trade schools.
If we want to rebuild our economy and encourage innovation in America, we need a highly educated and highly skilled workforce. Saddling students with debt is not only destructive to students’ futures, it also slows and depresses our economy.

I support the concept of a free education, but I also support altering the school system so that it becomes more like the training programs of a corporation or military. This will reduce the number of students in college, and reduce the time they spend in college, which reduces the cost of the education. I also support changing the school curriculum to get rid of the lies about the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, and other issues.

However, the BNC is not proposing any changes to the school system or the curriculum. The BNC merely wants to shift the burden of the colleges from students to taxpayers. This is not going to provide a "highly educated and highly skilled workforce." The students will continue to be lied to about the Apollo moon landing, the 9/11 attack, and the world wars, and they will continue to waste their time on worthless courses.

In order for students to get some useful skills, we have to experiment with a new school system and a new curriculum. However, the BNC has no proposals to improve the school courses. Instead, they titillate students and parents with promises of a free education.
The Economy
Until we fix our broken economy...
We need a bold economic vision if we hope to ever fix this rigged system.


They claim our economy is "broken" and "rigged", but "rigged" means corrupt and dishonest. How are they going to fix a broken, corrupt economic system? Instead of explaining that, they provide more promises:

...we will rebuild American industry, build an 100% renewable energy economy in 10 years, invest $4.6 trillion needed to repair our country’s crumbling infrastructure, rebuild our local communities, raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and tie it to inflation...

Those are such simplistic promises that you ought to wonder about the intelligence of the people who believe them. For example, how will they "rebuild American industry", or "build a 100% renewable energy economy"? We cannot order those services from IBM or Sony. And their plan to tie the minimum wage to inflation is going to cause inflation to rise forever (I have some information related to that issue here and here).


Why don’t the intelligent men solve our problems?
There are millions of men who are obviously very intelligent. They have impressed us with their computers, airplanes, LED lights, refrigerators, and medical technology. But with millions of intelligent men in the world, how can we have so many problems? Why don't those intelligent men use their intelligence to analyze our problems and find solutions to them? Why aren't they providing the government officials with brilliant policies? Why aren't they providing the public with intelligent advice? Why are the Hollywood celebrities, crime networks, pedophiles, and incompetent nitwits dominating our world? Why don't the intelligent men dominate?

The only way I can explain it is that the educated and intelligent men are not nearly as superior to the ordinary men as they like to believe. The difference between an intelligent man and an ordinary man is not as extreme as it is between a human and a monkey. Rather, it is subtle, like the difference between one monkey of a particular species and another monkey of that same species.

If we were to pick a few hundred "ordinary" men at random, put them into a conference room, and tell them to solve the world's problems, they would argue incessantly about what to do. Nothing would be accomplished. The "ordinary" men have tremendous difficulty working together as a team for the benefit of the group. They are too selfish, arrogant, and intolerant of criticism to have a productive discussion, and they are too afraid of the unknown to try something new.

The intelligent men have the same behavior. If we put a random group of intelligent men into a conference room, and tell them to solve the world's problems, they would also argue incessantly. Their arguments would be more intelligent, but we would discover that they are as selfish, arrogant, and intolerant of criticism as the ordinary men, and they are just as afraid of the unknown.

The intelligent people are not a superior species. Rather, they are best described as "ordinary people with some additional intelligence". Supporting evidence for that remark can be found at any college. The students and professors are intelligent and educated, but their behavior and opinions are only slightly better than that of the ordinary person.

Although different colleges attract slightly different people, all colleges have professors and students who abuse drugs and alcohol, have serious mental illnesses, are spreading venereal diseases to one another, and who produce opinions that are indistinguishable from the SCIgen computer software. Some professors and students are also involved with crime networks and pedophilia.

The college professors and students seem intelligent only if we compare them to ordinary people. If, however, the professors and students were the only people in the entire universe, we would have to compare them to one another, and that would bring us to the conclusion that most of them are "ordinary" people, half of them are below average, and all of them resemble monkeys.

Increasing the intelligence of a monkey does not transform him into a human. It simply creates an intelligent monkey. Likewise, increasing the intelligence of an ordinary, male human does not transform him into a man with leadership abilities, or a man we can trust, or a man who can work in a team for the benefit of all members. Furthermore, it does not eliminate his mental disorders.

The billionaires and Hollywood celebrities may be above-average in intelligence, but having a bit more intelligence than an ordinary person does not make them better people, or better as leaders. I would describe some of them as "intelligent lunatics", "intelligent criminals", or "intelligent pedophiles".

Some of the ordinary men have better behavior than some of the intelligent men. Some ordinary men can be trusted, and some can work in teams for the benefit of the group, and some are capable of exploring the unknown. There are also some who have the courage to destroy crime networks.

We have a tendency to blame the world's problems on "stupid" people, but the people who are buying and selling children for use as sex slaves are not stupid, and the people who are lying to us about the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Apollo moon landing are not stupid, either.

When we look for leaders, we have to find men who have more than intelligence. We need to look for certain personality traits. We need to find men who have the courage to face and deal with crime networks. We men we can trust, and who can work for the benefit of the group. We also need men who have enough control over their fear of the unknown that they can explore our options.

We also need to find men who can publicly admit that men make better leaders than women because men evolved to be leaders, and women evolved to be mothers. We need to find men who can admit that men are more intelligent, more adventurous, better able to work in teams, and better able to deal with crime networks.

We are not going to improve our world if we continue to allow our nations be dominated by pedophiles, blackmailed puppets, crime network members, men who pander to feminists, geriatric court judges, or people who want to be pampered Kings and Queens.

Why are we having trouble adapting to our new world?
Adapting to our new world requires looking critically at our culture, discussing our problems, and compromising on which experiments to try. Unfortunately, human emotions put up a resistance to critical analyses and experiments. Three emotions that we need to keep under control are:
• We have a craving to be the leader. We want to be at the top of the social hierarchy, so we do not want to discuss issues. Instead, we want to stand on a pedestal and dictate to other people. We want to impress them with our brilliant opinions, not listen to what they have to say. We want to criticize other people, not notice that they have something intelligent to say, or recognize their achievements, or learn from them.

• We follow established procedures. We become frightened at the thought of changing our lives. We prefer to do something that we are familiar with than experiment with something that nobody has done before.

• We are arrogant, so we regard criticism as an attack. We tend to react to criticism with anger, running away, or pouting. This causes us to resist and discourage critical analyses of our culture.
We need to find leaders who can keep their crude emotions under control, and who have a pioneer spirit so that they can experiment with changes to our culture.

We must prevent “special interests” from dominating us
Why do "special interests" have so much influence?
Many voters complain that our governments are incompetent and corrupt because the "special interest groups" are influencing the governments, but how is it possible for small groups to get that much influence? Two reasons that small groups can dominate our nations is because the majority of voters:

1) Will not get involved with their nation.
Our natural behavior is to run away from problems, or become angry. As I mentioned earlier, the meek will not inherit the earth. The people who do something will influence the future.

2) Cannot form effective teams.
Some voters want to get involved with determining our future, but they have trouble forming effective teams because they are too arrogant, introverted, neurotic, dishonest, or selfish to work together for the benefit of the nation. When they get together to form a team, all they do is argue with each other, or cheat each other.

Small groups can dominate unorganized and apathetic people
A democracy requires the majority of people to get involved with their nation's affairs, and make intelligent decisions for their nation, but that has proven to be an unrealistic expectation. History has proven that the majority of people behave like a herd of sheep, and that allows small groups of people to exert a tremendous influence over a democracy.

Since there are likely to be lots of groups with different ideas on what to do with the nation, a democracy will become a battleground as the groups compete for control of the nation. For example, there are more than 12,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC, and there are lots of other groups trying to influence the government that are not registered as lobbyists.

You can visualize a democracy as a large horde of sheep with thousands of packs of sheepdogs that are fighting for control of the sheep.

This absurd situation occurs only in democracies, not businesses, militaries, or other organizations that have a more sensible form of leadership. The executives of a business, for example, are provided with the authority to deal with disputes. The offices of IBM and Toyota do not have thousands of lobbyists wandering around the hallways and trying to influence the executives. The executives are not submissive representatives, and the executives do not allow the employees to form groups that fight with each other over how to manage the business.

The executives of a business cannot make "perfect" decisions, but they realize that they must do something to resolve disputes. It is better for an organization to provide leaders with the authority to resolve disputes than it is to let the members fight with one another over the issue. When we allow people to fight over issues, the decisions will be made by whoever wins the fight, and that group is not necessarily going to have the best ideas. They may simply be the best at fighting, or be the largest group.

Furthermore, when we allow people to fight for control of the nation, crime networks and groups of mentally defective people are certain to join in on the fighting, and they will advocate destructive or idiotic policies. For example, some teachers and school officials, such as at Harvard and Oxford, are trying to protect women from sexism by promoting the use of 'ze', 'xe', and 'zir' instead of 'he' and 'she'. Other groups are pushing for different pronouns.

How many of the people who are trying to change our language are truly interested in improving our culture? I suspect that most of them are working with Zionist organizations to create more fights between men and women, and a minority of them are mentally disturbed nitwits who want to be heroes, and they actually believe they are going to improve life for women by changing some pronouns.

There is a battle going on for the future of the English language. However, this battle is secretive and deceptive, and there is no supervision to keep it "fair". This is an idiotic way for us to determine what our language will be.

The USA has no leadership to resolve this issue, and so the arguments over our language are occurring year after year. Will any of the proposed changes take effect? Nobody can predict. Some small groups have already been successful in changing the meanings of some of our words. For example, during the past few decades, some homosexual men have changed the word "gay" to meaning homosexual men.

If any of the groups that are fighting for changes to our language can dominate the others, they will be able to implement their particular changes, but that will not stop the fighting. The other groups will continue pushing for their changes. Without leaders to resolve these issues, this chaotic battle will go on and on.

If you are too apathetic to get involved with the fight over what our language becomes, then you are not going to have much, if any, effect on the future of our language. Our future will be determined by the people who win the battles, not by the sheeple who do nothing.

For another example, America is accepting a lot of immigrants and refugees. Most Americans do not approve of this, but they are too apathetic to get involved and help to stop it. Some Americans whine that we should build a wall along the border to Mexico, but as I pointed out years ago here, there are people within our government, and a lot of organizations inside of our nation, bringing refugees and immigrants into our nation, and lots of businesses and wealthy people are giving them jobs and renting homes to them. A wall will not stop the American government officials, American organizations, United Nations organizations, and wealthy Americans from bringing immigrants into the nation and giving them jobs and housing.

As long as most Americans continue to do nothing about the immigration issue, other than whine about it, the immigrants are going to continue coming in. The American voters are continuously electing incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest government officials who allow this uncontrolled immigration, so how can we possibly stop it? Until the voters provide the nation with better leaders, or until the military overthrows the government, nothing is going to improve.

Furthermore, as the number of immigrants increases, they will have an increasingly significant effect on the nations language, economy, and other culture. American culture will change to reflect their desires. The immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America may become so numerous that they force the national language of the USA to Spanish. They may also force the USA to switch to the metric system.

We need leaders who have the authority to resolve disputes
The only way to stop "special interests" from manipulating a nation is to follow the procedures that have proven to be successful in business and other organizations. Specifically, a society must have leaders who have the responsibility and authority to resolve disputes.

We must hold everybody accountable for their behavior
We must eliminate secrecy in order to have accountability
It is impossible to hold people accountable for their actions when we allow people to be secretive. In order to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, we must know what they are doing, and why they are doing it.

In the USA, for example, we do not know what our leaders meant by the remark about Obama flying $65,000 worth of hotdogs from Chicago to Washington DC. This is a disgusting situation.

The USA was created by people who were ashamed of themselves and their history, so the U.S. Constitution promotes secrecy. For example, the US legal system was designed to make it very difficult for the police to expose a person's previous criminal activities during a trial. During the following centuries, people have been putting pressure on our legal system to allow more of a person's past to be exposed during a trial, but there is still a lot of secrecy.

No organization is held accountable for their actions
If a group of employees within a business want to start a new division or project, they have to submit their idea to the management. If the management authorizes their proposal, they will be able to do it, but they will not be able to do it in secrecy. Also, they will be held accountable for what they do, and the management has the authority to cancel the project if they feel it is detrimental or worthless.

By comparison, the U.S. Constitution gives everybody the right to form any organization we please, and none of the organizations have to justify their existence, meet any standards, or submit to any type of performance review. The government has no authority to pass judgment on which of the organizations are useful, and which should be terminated. The government cannot even demand that they identify their sources of funding, or who they are working with.

The end result is that the USA has thousands of unions, political groups, think tanks, charities, religious groups, and other organizations that are trying to alter our laws, attitudes, school curriculum, and language. Some of them are so secretive that we can't figure out who is truly in control, where they are getting their financial support, or what they are spending their money on.

Some of them hide their funding and associations by being divisions of other secretive organizations, which in turn are divisions of yet more secretive organizations. They create a maze of mysterious organizations.

“Let my people vote!”
For an example of why we need to hold organizations accountable, consider the organizations that were pushing the Florida government in 2018 into allowing felons to vote, such as secondchancesfl.org. Those organizations had deceived a lot of the black people into believing that the restrictions on voting were intended to discriminate against black people, rather than intended to suppress the influence that criminals have over our lives.

Those mysterious organizations convinced a lot of black people to support these changes in the law in order to help black people. Those organizations even made a movie about "Let My People Vote".

Those foolish black people marched down the streets with shirts and signs to LET MY PEOPLE VOTE. Those black people were victims of a mysterious, secretive group of deceptive, diabolical people.





There are laws that prohibit intoxicated people from driving. What would you think if a secretive organization convinced some black people that those laws were intended to prevent black people from driving. Imagine black people marching down the street, waving signs, and chanting:
"Let My People Drive!
Repeal the racist, drunk driving laws!"

Chris Rock should add jokes about this issue in his "black people versus niggers" routine.



Why would helpful people want to be secretive?
The "About" page of secondchancesfl.org, under the "Who We Are" category, does not mention the names of anybody in their management, at least not as of March 2019. Why are they so secretive? Who is funding them? Who is supervising them?

The bottom of the page implies that they are to connected to Floridians for a Fair Democracy, but that group is almost as secretive. The tides.org group is willing to list some of their members, but they don't provide much information about themselves, or their funding.

Why would somebody who is helping the nation want to be secretive and anonymous? Why wouldn't they want to get recognition or credit for their achievements in improving life for all of us? Why wouldn't they be proud of themselves? Why wouldn't the people who fund these organizations also be proud that they are contributing to a useful cause?

You should consider the possibility that the people who are trying to determine our future in secrecy are hiding from us because they are doing something that is illegal, deceptive, diabolical, and/or disgusting. They may also be ashamed of what they have done in the past.
Would you trust a dentist
who was secretive?
What would you think if a carpenter, plumber, airline pilot, or dentist was wearing a bag over his head and refused to identify himself? And what if he also refused to let you know anything about his history?

People who want to hide from us should not be allowed to determine our future. Those people should be regarded as:
• Ashamed of themselves.
• Trying to hide something from us.
• Suffering from some mental problem that makes them unable to interact with people in a normal manner.
Regardless of what their problem is, we should not tolerate secrecy. We should demand that everybody who wants to influence our lives identify themselves. The safest policy to follow is avoid relationships and interactions with people who want to be secretive.

We are helpless victims of secretive groups
The US Constitution doesn't provide the government with the authority to investigate the organizations that the people form, and the government has no authority to pass judgment on whether an organization is helpful, or whether it is manipulating, deceiving, cheating, or abusing us. The government has no authority to shut down any organization. There is no authority to hold people accountable for deceiving or manipulating us.

The US government has so little authority that they cannot even enforce their own "Do Not Call List" for telemarketers. The government cannot force the telephone companies to identify the telemarketers, or demand that they stop providing the telemarketers with telephone service. The government cannot force the banks to identify the telemarketers, either, or to freeze their bank accounts.

There are accusations that the unions are under the control of organized crime, and that the ADL, MoveOn, JDL, SPLC, and other Jewish organizations are working for Israel and trying to manipulate and deceive us. There are also accusations that the church of Scientology is deceiving and abusing some of its members, and that the Mormon, Catholic, and other churches are involved with pedophilia. However, the US government has no authority to investigate any organization, or shut any of them down. No organization in the USA is held accountable for its actions.

People who influence our future do not have to meet any standards
The US Constitution allows us to form any type of organization we please, without justifying its existence. An organization doesn't even have to make sense in their description of their purpose. A lot of the consulting firms, think tanks, and political groups have websites with such vague, confusing remarks about what they do that it looks like they used the SCIgen software to create the text. For example, at the tides.org site, they boast that their "mission" and "approach" is:
Tides accelerates the pace of social change, working with innovative partners to solve society's toughest problems.
We believe that to achieve shared prosperity and social justice, we must take a collaborative, bold approach to the work.

Those remarks are so vague and meaningless that every organization could use those remarks. For example, a group of pedophiles could use it simply by replacing "Tides" with the name of their organization:
NAMBLA accelerates the pace of social change, working with innovative partners to solve society's toughest problems.
We believe that to achieve shared prosperity and social justice, we must take a collaborative, bold approach to the work.

Those nonsensical remarks might impress a person who cannot think very well, but those remarks do not tell us anything of value about the organization.

We must hold people accountable for their actions
No business executive is stupid enough to allow his employees to form secretive groups, or try to manipulate the business with vague, meaningless remarks. Only nations allow this.

Nations should follow the procedures that have proven successful for businesses. People who want to form organizations should be required to identify themselves and submit their proposal to the government. The government must be lenient in approving organizations, but they must be strict in demanding that the organization operate openly, rather than be secretive or anonymous. Furthermore, the government must have the authority to pass judgment on whether the group is truly helping the nation, or whether it should be terminated.

We should determine which jobs exist
We have no control over jobs, organizations, or incomes
Our city, state, and federal governments have been growing in size through the years, causing taxes to go up, but have we been getting an increasing amount of benefits as the government gets larger? The education, healthcare, and insurance businesses have also been growing larger, causing those services to become more expensive, but are we getting better services from those businesses?

The entertainment businesses have also been growing, and some have become so profitable that some Hollywood celebrities have incomes that are larger than small towns, but are they providing us with increasingly better entertainment? There has also been a tremendous increase in charities, churches, political groups, businesses, sports groups, and other organizations during the past few centuries, but have our lives improved as a result?

Unfortunately, neither a democracy nor free enterprise system allows anybody to pass judgment on which jobs, government agencies, schools, sports groups, businesses, charities, think tanks, or other organizations should be eliminated, or whether somebody is making excessive amounts of money.

Theoretically, these issues will be resolved by "the people". For example, the voters are supposed to elect candidates who create an efficient government, and consumers are supposed to spend their money on the businesses that give them the best value for their money. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier in this document, we cannot expect a citizen to be able to deal with a modern society.

Kastron needs a government system that provides the officials with the authority to pass judgment on which jobs and organizations are worth the burden they impose, and get rid of those that do not provide enough benefit. This would allow the government to discuss and deal with such issues as:
• Do we want people working as telemarketers?
• How many engineers do we want developing slot machines and other gambling devices?
• How much of our resources should be put into the Olympics events, sports stadiums, and school sports? How much should we put into competitive eating contests, and beauty pageants for babies. How many people do we want involved with racing dogs, hamsters, and horses?
• Some businesses try to manipulate us into collecting the items they produce, such as encouraging young girls to collect beanie babies. Those businesses could be described as try to exploit us because they deliberately produce small amounts of certain items in order to create artificial shortages. Do we want to encourage people to collect items? If so, which items? Should we create artificial shortages, also?
However, in order for a government official to do this job properly, he must have enough of an education to understand that every job has a burden. Unfortunately, I don't think any of our government officials, economic "experts", or economic professors understand this concept. One reason I make this accusation is because I have heard economic experts and government officials proudly announce that jobs have been created after a hurricane, tornado, or other disaster.

It is true that in a free enterprise system, disasters cause an increase in business activity, and lots of unemployed people can get a job, at least temporarily, but from the point of view of the human race, a disaster is detrimental.

If it were true that disasters improve our economy, then every nation could easily improve their economic situation simply by telling their military to simulate tornadoes and hurricanes by dropping a few bombs on a different city every week.

The attitude in a free enterprise system is that anybody who makes money is working and successful, and the people who make the most money are the best people. There is no concern for how a person makes his money, or what effect he has on society. This is why economic experts believe that a tornado is helping the economy, and that people who are producing astrology predictions are successful entrepreneurs who are providing jobs for the people.

In Kastron, the attitude will be significantly different. The government will have control over the economy, but not for the purpose of making profit. Rather, for the purpose of improving life for the people. All businesses and jobs will be analyzed to ensure that they are contributing something of value to society. The Kastron officials will compare the advantages and disadvantages to every job and business, and get rid of those that don't provide enough benefit.

Every job is a burden to society
Every job is a burden because every person requires food, electricity, a home, and other items. In addition, the job may require the person to consume resources, such as electricity, iron, oxygen, or water.

In Kastron, the government will determine the benefit of a job and its burden, and then pass judgment on whether the job is worth that burden. However, this task is not as simple as it seems. To get an idea of the complexity of this issue, consider some examples:

• Farmers that produce food
A farmer is a burden on society because he wants food, clothing, cell phones, housing, and other items. A farmer also consumes resources as part of his job, such as tractors, fuel, and fertilizer. However, farmers produce food for us, so we need to compare what they take from society to what they give in return.

Each job has a burden to benefit ratio. In a free enterprise system, the competition between the farmers determines which of them is worth their burden. Specifically, the price of their food is affected by their burden. The farmers who are the most efficient will be able to offer the lowest prices, which usually keeps them in business and drives the less productive farmers to bankruptcy.

It might seem easy to pass judgment on which farmer should stay in business, but it is not easy. If we look only at the benefit to burden ratio, we are behaving like a free enterprise system that cares only about profit. Ideally, we would look at the effect the farmer has on society. For example, a farmer might be less efficient because he is producing better tasting food, or because his food has fewer toxic chemicals. Therefore, it would be better from the point of view of society to let that particular farmer remain in business even though he is less efficient and has a higher burden.

A farmer who uses a greenhouse to grow foods will be more of a burden than a farmer who grows the same foods without a greenhouse, and a farmer who has greenhouses that are sealed to keep out insects, fungus, and mold will be even more of a burden. However, the farmer with the sealed greenhouses might provide food that is much better tasting, and completely free of toxic chemicals, mold, and insects. Therefore, the Kastron government officials might come to the conclusion that even though his farm is more of a burden on society, his food is so much better and healthier that it is worth the burden.

In a free enterprise system, that farmer would likely go bankrupt but, in Kastron, profit doesn't determine whether a business is successful. Rather, the businesses are judged by how they affect the lives of the people in the city. If a farmer is reducing health problems and birth defects, and providing us with more pleasurable meals, then he may be considered the most successful farmer, even though his farm is a greater burden on society.

A sealed greenhouse would allow also a farmer to grow foods that would be impossible in his particular location, including crops that are sensitive to diseases and insects, such as the Gros Michel bananas. Is the burden of growing tropical fruits in a northern climate worth the benefit? At some point in the future the technology will certainly make it practical, but I don't know whether we can do it today. This is an example of the issues that the Kastron government will have to investigate.

The Kastron government also has to deal with the issue of how much automation to develop for the farms. As we increase the automation of a farm, we reduce the labor requirements of the farm, but we increase the labor requirements of building and maintaining the machinery. At what point does the burden of automation outweigh the benefit? That is not a simple question, and the answer changes as technology improves.

In the photos below, a greenhouse is on top of a building, which allows the growing of food without consuming any additional land. Should we put greenhouses on more rooftops? Should we make them so automated that people rarely have to go into them?


Furthermore, we have the ability to make the greenhouses much more decorative. We could make it appear as if the buildings have crystal rooftops, rather than greenhouses. Some artists are already making a variety of crystal lampshades (photos below), so why not crystal rooftops?



Those type of rooftops would make the city more beautiful for the people who enjoy sitting in the restaurants at the tops of buildings in looking out of the windows. Our rooftops do not need to be covered with ugly cooling fans or air conditioning units. New York City provides steam to buildings through underground pipes, and each cluster of buildings in Kastron could provide cooling to its buildings through underground pipes, rather than from rooftop air conditioning units.

In a free enterprise system, no business would be willing to spend the money on a decorative rooftop. Instead, our businesses are pandering to people, and so some business are putting a lot of labor and resources into creating decorative mansions for billionaires, this supersonic jet for trillionaires, and rockets to take people to Mars.

Since the USA has a free enterprise system, there is no authority to pass judgment on whether those projects are worth the burden. However, in Kastron, we can pass judgment on whether we want those type of projects, or whether we want to put our engineering talent and resources into other projects.

For example, we could provide our cities with bridges, walkways, office buildings, swimming areas, bicycle paths, gardens, and recreational areas that are much more decorative and attractive than what we have in our cities today.

What should we do with our labor, technical talent, and resources? This is not a simple question. We need to decide what we want from life. Here are some more examples of how complex this issue is:

Assembly-line workers that make items
The assembly-line workers in a factory are a burden on society because they need food, clothing, and other items. The Kastron government will have the authority to pass judgment on which of the factories are providing enough benefit to society to justify the burden of having people working on the assembly lines.

For example, the factory workers who are producing machinery for farmers can easily be said to be worth their burden, but what about the factory workers who are producing telemarketing devices, astrology charts, or yachts for billionaires?

Furthermore, the government might eliminate particular jobs on a particular assembly line simply because the job is annoying, or is causing health problems, such as carpal tunnel syndrome. In a free enterprise system, businesses don't care whether a job is irritating or causing health problems. They will replace a person with a machine only if it is more profitable. However, in Kastron, people can be replaced by machines even if it is a burden on society to do so.

The Kastron government puts human life ahead of profit. We can develop machines to do the annoying tasks even if a person can do the job more efficiently. For example, nobody likes to kill animals, so we could develop a robot to do it. With today's technology, that robot might require more people to build and maintain than it can replace, thereby making it less efficient.

In a free enterprise system, a business is not likely to replace an employee with a machine if the machine is more expensive. However, the Kastron government is more concerned with ensuring that everybody enjoy their jobs and their life. Therefore, the government will try to eliminate the jobs nobody wants, even if that has some other disadvantage, or they will develop a machine to do the job, even if a machine is less efficient.

Furthermore, as technology advances, all machines become more affordable, so the machines that are expensive today will be more affordable in the future. Therefore, even though a machine to slaughter animals might be expensive today, and for the next decade, it will eventually turn out to be more economical. So why not develop it now, and start benefiting from it now?

You might think that if we do things that are inefficient, we will hurt ourselves, but another concept to understand is that it is acceptable to do something inefficiently if it provides enough benefits. Every society is already doing a lot of inefficient things all the time. For example, we could walk upstairs rather than ride an escalator, and we could put on a jacket when it is cold rather than turn up the heat.

There is nothing wrong with doing something that is inefficient. However, the issue of which inefficient things we should do is complicated. It requires thinking; it requires comparing advantages to disadvantages.
Why not develop robots to dig for fossils?
An example of something that might be inefficient but useful would be to develop robots that can do archeology. The robots would have a variety of sensors to detect the composition of the materials, and people would program the robots to remove certain types of materials.

By cutting some of the samples out of the ground, the objects could be given a CAT scan. That would provide the robots with a better idea of the three-dimensional objects that they are trying to remove.

Developing those robots might require a lot of work by a lot of computer programmers, engineers, technicians, machinists, and other people, but once they have been created, they would be able to work 24 hours a day, and they would not care about the climate or the mosquitoes. Furthermore, we could produce thousands of these robots, thereby allowing us to analyze a lot more areas of the world.

Once those robots have been developed, they would be able to do other things, such as carving intricate artwork into buildings, bridges, and walls. Therefore, even though developing those robots might require a tremendous amount of labor, in the long run, they would be worth the burden.

We have a limited amount of resources and time, so we need to think about what will provide us with the best life overall. This requires leaders who can research issues, discuss issues, and produce intelligent analyses. However, we are not going to get intelligent analyses from the Google executives or other Jewish supremacists, Indian supremacists, and pedophile supremacists who lie to us, consider us to be inferior animals, and suppress us. We need much higher quality leaders.

• Technicians who repair machinery
The technicians who maintain airplanes, electric power generators, tractors and other machinery are a burden without a benefit. They are highly skilled people who are doing very important and necessary jobs, but they don't give us anything in return. Therefore, we should try to find ways to eliminate as many of these jobs as possible.

There are various ways of reducing the maintenance chores of machinery:
• We can improve the design of the machinery to require less maintenance, or to be easier to maintain, or to be maintainable by robots.
• We can improving the manufacturing process so that the factories are producing higher quality items with fewer defects.
• We can alter how the items are used so that they are used less frequently, or used in a manner that extends their life. For example, cities that have a train system for commuters reduce the maintenance of the trains, and reduce the fuel consumption, by reducing the size of the trains during the times when not many people are traveling.

Maintenance operations are a burden, not a necessity or a productive activity. Therefore, Kastron will become more efficient as we find ways to reduce maintenance chores.

• People involved with money
All of the people involved with the production or processing of money are doing a lot of work, but they are unproductive from the point of view of an economic system. All of those people consume a lot of food, housing, clothing, and other items, but they do not give us anything in return.

One of the reasons I suggest that Kastron does not have money is to eliminate all of the people involved with money related jobs. Nobody in the city will have to waste their time making coins or paper money, working in factories to make ATM machines, driving armored trucks, or working as cashiers. This will allow more people to do jobs that are beneficial to the city.

• People involved with insurance
The people who are involved with health insurance, life insurance, and other types of insurance, are consuming a lot of food, housing, and other resources, but giving us nothing in return. In Kastron, there will be no insurance companies. This will eliminate all of those jobs.

Some categories of insurance would have no purpose in Kastron, such as life insurance. Since everybody would be provided with a home, food, and other items, nobody would need life insurance. However, the Kastron government will have to make decisions about the other issues that the insurance companies are dealing with.

Health insurance is the primary issue that the Kastron government will have to deal with. Somehow healthcare needs to be distributed. In a free enterprise system, it is distributed according to who has the most money. For Kastron, I suggest giving first priority to people who are young, valuable members of society, have treatable problems, and who are not suffering from self-inflicted problems.

For example, a person who hurts himself by doing some risky activity, such as riding a skateboard on a staircase railway, would have low priority for healthcare on the grounds that he hurt himself through his own stupid decisions. An 80-year-old man who needs a kidney would also be given low priority on the grounds that he will soon die of old age, and because his medical care would require a tremendous amount of labor and resources.

If two 30-year-old men have the same healthcare problem, and there is only enough resources to treat one of them, then whichever is the most valuable to society would have first priority. For example, if one of them was routinely causing trouble, or could only do simplistic jobs, he would have lower priority.

It might seem cruel to have government officials determining who gets health care, but we could say the free enterprise system is cruel. There is no ideal solution to allocating limited resources. My recommendation is to put society ahead of individuals. Instead of giving healthcare according to who has has the most money, we should consider what is best for society.

• People involved with art and leisure
There are some jobs that don't provide us with any "necessary" products or services, but we want them because they provide us with emotional pleasure.

For example, we don't need clothing with colors or patterns, and we don't need homes with decorative architectural features. We could dress in drab clothing and live in bland, concrete apartment buildings, as we have seen in the communist nations, or in the movie 1984.

The Kastron government will have control of the city's culture, so they will have the ability to fire the artists we don't like, and support the artists that provide us with emotional pleasure. This will enable the city to create decorative foot paths, clothing, bridges, parks, office buildings, and factories.

Some people are likely to complain that allowing a government to pass judgment on which artists are worthwhile is going to create a city that resembles North Korea or communist Russia. However, Kastron will not resemble North Korea unless we select leaders who are similar in mental qualities as the North Korean leaders.

A concept that is very important to understand, and which I have mentioned many times, is that the design of a government is not as important as the people in the society, and especially the people in the leadership positions. If we allow people like Sundar Pichai, the executives of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, George Soros, Abe Fox, or certain other people, to have control of Kastron, then of course we are going to have a miserable city.

Don't be frightened by what you have seen in the communist nations. Instead, use those nations as lessons to learn from. The communist nations were miserable, but not because the government officials had authority over their culture. Rather, it was because of the decisions that the leaders made for the people, and those decisions were the result of the mental characteristics of those leaders.

For example, the communist leaders eliminated the architects who were adding decorative features to homes and buildings, and they eliminated the artists who were providing colors and designs to clothing. They created homes for people that are as bland and monotonous as the chambers of a termite mound. However, they did not do that because they had the authority to do it. Rather, they did it because their mind believed that it would create a better society.
I would not classify these statures as artwork. I think they are analogous to a gorilla pounding his chest.
They also authorized jobs to produce weapons, build walls to keep their citizens from escaping, and make giant statues and posters of themselves. They authorized those projects because their mind contemplated various projects and came to the conclusion that those were some of the best projects.

I enjoy a lot of the paintings and statues, but I do not like the statues and posters that have been created by the communist government. The artists that created them have exceptional talent, but the artwork is emotionally unpleasant to me. I think those statues and posters are crude, unpleasant, and animal-like.

I think the reason I dislike that artwork is because it was not intended to stimulate pleasant emotional feelings. Rather, it was intended to intimidate and impress us. It should not classify as "artwork". It should be classified as status symbols, or as intimidation devices. It is analogous to a dog that is glaring at us.

One lesson to learn from the communist nations, the firing of James Damore, and other abusive leaders is that we must be more concerned about the intellectual and emotional qualities of our leaders. We must pass judgment on whether they are providing us with intelligent guidance, or whether their brains are unacceptably defective, arrogant, dishonest, selfish, or neurotic.

We must stop behaving like passive sheep that allow criminals, pedophiles, Zionists, and incompetent weirdos to get control of our organizations.

We don’t have to be helpless victims
In a free enterprise system, we do not have any influence over our jobs, products, or services. We are helpless victims who have to wait and see how people spend their money. However, Kastron will let the government have control of the economy, and that allows us to discuss what to do with our labor and resources. We will be able to discuss which burden we regard as justifiable.

My suggestion is to reduce the resources we put into pet products, cell phone games, gambling operations, Hollywood, and professional sports, and put more labor and resources into creating apartments, office buildings, and factories that require less maintenance and are much more attractive.

I also suggest that we put more resources into making our foot paths, bicycle paths, and plazas much more decorative than the dreary, gray path in the image below. I made that image to give you an idea of what one of the foot paths or bicycle paths would look like between the clusters of buildings in Kastron. We could make the city so beautiful that we love walking and riding bicycles around it.


We should also make the bridges, plazas, and swimming areas more decorative. We could create our own creeks and ponds, and decorate them with attractive rocks. The ponds near restaurants and recreational areas could be decorated with underwater lights, which would also make them safer for swimming or drifting around in a row boat at night.

In a free enterprise system, we think only about profit, and we compare our incomes and worry about who has more money than we do, but when the government has control of the economy, we can put human life ahead of profit.

We have an infinite number of ways of designing a city, an economic system, a government system, and other culture, but will we try any of our options? Or will every nation continue following the path that they are on right now?

Choosing from our options requires we make some significant changes in our lives. Unfortunately, we cannot expect the people who are currently dominating our nations to encourage us to experiment with our options. Our governments, businesses, schools, media, and other organizations are dominated by people who are more likely to keep everything as it is rather than take the chance that they will be failures in a different type of culture, or that they will be arrested for their pedophilia or other crimes. The NFL executives, for example, are so frightened of changes that they don't even want people to know the truth about concussions. We cannot expect sensible guidance from those type of people.

In order for us to experiment with our options, we need a different group of people in leadership positions. We need people who understand science, rather than promote religion or Freudian nonsense. We need people who can work with us as a team, not people who want to be pampered billionaires. We need people we can trust, not blackmailed puppets of crime networks or Zionist groups that are following the protocols of Zion. And we need people who regard us as people, not as white supremacists, shiksas, and shkotzim.

The free enterprise system is cruel to mothers, old, and sickly people
Another reason to replace the free enterprise system is because it is abusive to people who are dumb, pregnant, young, old, have children, or have some physical or mental disability due to genetic problems, accidents, and disease.

By allowing the Kastron government to control the economy, we can adjust jobs to fit a person's mental and physical abilities. For example, everybody deteriorates as we grow old, so when a person starts becoming physically or mentally weak, the government could help him find him a job that is less demanding, or he could work fewer hours, or, he could work two or more part-time jobs.

Likewise, when a woman is in her late stages of pregnancy, or when she has young children to take care of, she could have her hours reduced. If she has a job that makes it impractical for her to reduce her time, such as a pilot of an airplane, she could temporarily switch to a job that makes it practical. We could also alter the work environment of certain jobs to allow the mothers to work with their babies.

The same concept also applies to people who are suffering from injuries or genetic problems, or who are recovering from surgeries. They might be able to work only a few hours a week, and they might have very limited mobility, but we could provide them with special working conditions and furniture.

With the government in control of the economy, and with the government putting human life ahead of profit, we can create and adjust jobs in the same manner that a family does. To understand this concept, imagine that you invite one of your friends or relatives to stay at your house for a couple weeks during the Christmas holidays. Imagine that he has a crippled leg due to an accident, disease, or genetic problem. However, he does not want to be a pampered parasite, so when he notices that you are doing some yard work, he offers to help. You would not respond: "No! I don't want a cripple doing yard work! You move too slowly. I could do the job three times faster than you."

Instead, you would find something that would fit his particular abilities. If you did not have any yardwork that he could do properly, then you would tell him that he could help with something else, such as reading a story to your children, or helping to clean the house, or helping prepare a meal.

Likewise, if your elderly parents or grandparents were visiting you, and they wanted to help with the chores, you would not tell them that they move too slowly. Instead, you would try to find something that they could do. You would not care that it takes them longer to complete the task.

In a free enterprise system, businesses cannot treat people in that manner because businesses are in a competitive battle for money. In a free enterprise system, the people who are not very productive cannot easily find a job because a business has to pay a certain amount of income to the employees, and provide a certain amount of healthcare and other benefits. Therefore, they want employees who are productive enough to justify the expense.

However, by switching to an economic system in which human life has first priority, we can adjust jobs to fit people. We don't have to care whether a person is sluggish. The government can set aside certain jobs specifically for the elderly, mothers with young children, and people with physical disabilities.

For example, some of the tasks at schools, restaurants, social clubs, and museums could be set aside for elderly people and people with physical disabilities. Even though they might work for only one hour each day, and even though they would not be as productive as a younger, healthier person, nobody will be harmed by allowing them to work at a sluggish pace. Rather, everybody benefits.

In Kastron, we regard everybody as friends and team members. We will want everybody to find a job that they enjoy and are productive at. We will want everybody to contribute to society, even if they cannot contribute much.


The Kastron Constitution is not radical!
You already have an idea of what Kastron will be like
Those of you who are frightened by new ideas should calm down. The Kastron Constitution is not "radically different". Rather, it will be a government system that most of you are already accustomed to because you experience it every day at your job.

The Kastron Constitution will seem radical only if you compare it to the existing governments. If you compare it to the system of leadership at IBM, Sony, the military, or Toyota, it will seem very familiar.

So, you have the option of frightening yourself about it, or discussing it. You also have the option of looking for reasons that will fail, or looking for ways to improve it. Which option will you choose?

The image below is a drawing of the "M City Condos" project in Canada, which I colorized a bit. To create Kastron, all we have to do is take the concept of clusters of tall buildings surrounded by parks, and expand it to an entire city. How difficult is that? It is not difficult.




We have the ability to design and build Kastron. The difficult aspect of this project is finding enough people who have an adventurous personality, and who have the desire and ability to work together in a team for the benefit of all, and who can be trusted. Can you help find enough of those people?