Hufschmid's main page
Part 11 of this series
Philosophy page

A supplement to Food and Society
More Justification for Databases,
and an Update to my Capsaicin Experiment

14 August 2011

An update on my experiments with capsaicin
We need the freedom to experiment
What are the medical differences between us?
More health related issues to investigate
Serious research should be funded by society, not donations
We should routinely analyze and improve our culture
A medical database would be valuable to everybody
We should design society for advanced humans, not savages
Imagine a society of high quality humans
Our future can be fantastic!
Updates on my health are 6 October 2011 and 1 February 2012

An update on my experiments with capsaicin
My energy levels have returned to "normal"
During this month (August 2011), my energy levels have returned to normal, but I've made so many changes that I'm not exactly sure what has caused it. The two primary changes are:
1) July 2011: I reduced my consumption of capsaicin
2) August 2011: I try a mixture of different brands of DHEA

1) July 2011: I reduced my consumption of capsaicin

After posting my article in which I described my experience with the chemical in hot peppers and red chili powder, I stopped eating the Haberano peppers, and I reduced my intake of black pepper and red chili powder to the very low levels that are typical for Caucasian Americans. After a few days, I began to feel much better, and my energy levels began increasing, although they did not return to their "normal" levels. I am also starting to regain some of the weight that I lost. Apparently, at least in my case, consuming high levels of this chemical over a year or two causes significant side effects; namely, lower energy levels and weight loss.

I'm not sure when I began experimenting with this chemical. I think I started in 2007 or 2008, but originally it was with low levels of chili powder and jalapeno peppers. Since I was consuming low levels of capsaicin, I didn't notice any side effects. However, the low levels caused some of the dry patches on my arms to vanish, and it reduced the severity of the basal cell carcinomas on my face, so by about 2009 I began increasing the levels of chili powder, and trying to switch to Haberano peppers in order to completely get rid of those patches on my face.

I never bothered trying to keep records of my consumption of this chemical mainly because there is no way for me to figure out how much of the chemical I was consuming. The fresh peppers are of different sizes, and two peppers of identical size and weight have different amounts of the chemical. The red chili powders are different, also.

A better situation would be for a business to provide these chemicals in the form of pills of specific levels. The pills would allow us to consume the chemicals without burning our mouth, and we would know exactly how much of the chemical we are consuming. This would allow us to do more serious experiments.

We might discover that these chemicals are most effective in high doses for a few weeks, followed by a couple of weeks or months in which we let our bodies recuperate, or we might discover that it's better to have a lower level over a long period of time, with a few high levels every once in a while.

I asked a doctor to check my hormone levels

Reducing my consumption of capsaicin didn't completely restore my energy levels,  so I went to go to a doctor to have my blood tested for hormone levels. I told the doctor that a blood test in 1997 showed that I was low on DHEA, and that I wanted to find out what the blood tests were showing today. I told the doctor that I was wondering if I was getting low on testosterone now, also.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to discover that the doctor didn't know what DHEA was since I already knew that our medical organizations are more interested in doing surgery and prescribing drugs than in understanding human health. He told his assistant to withdraw four small cylinders of blood from my arm, and told me to come back in a few days to go over the results. However, on my return visit, I was shocked and annoyed to discover that the doctor had asked for an ordinary blood test, not a hormone test!

As is typical of American doctors, his attitude is that he is God, and that I am an idiot. He disregarded what I wanted and decided that he will start with the standard blood test, and he will do additional tests only if the standard test shows no sign of problems. I suppose he was following his medical education, which is to start with a particular blood test, and then proceed to other tests only if more tests seem to be needed. Unfortunately, I don't need a doctor who is operating like a train on track. I decided to experiment with myself rather than go back to that doctor, or some other doctor.

2) August 2011: I try a mixture of different brands of DHEA

It was somewhere around the year 2006 that I had become so disillusioned and disgusted with the crude, sheep-like behavior of my relatives, neighbors, and virtually everybody else, that I had lost hope for America and the human race, and I was expecting the Jewish crime network to start a nuclear war, economic chaos, food shortages, or some other disaster, so I decided to purchase a few years supply of DHEA since that was something I need, but it is much more likely to become scarce during chaos compared food and water since only a few people are interested in DHEA.

Unfortunately, I do not keep detailed records of my life, but from what I can remember, I finished that supply of DHEA about two months ago. The local health food store didn't have the same brand so, assuming all brands are virtually identical, I purchased a different brand. After a few weeks it occurred to me that perhaps this new brand of DHEA wasn't as effective, perhaps because they were shortchanging us on the quantity, so I increased the quantity.

As I became increasingly weak, I assumed that I was deteriorating from old age and overdosing on the hot peppers, and so in July I reduced my consumption of the hot spices to virtually nothing. I began feeling better, but I was still weak. I went to a doctor to have my hormone levels checked, which I discuss farther down in this article, and I also began increasing my dose of DHEA, which helped a bit, but didn't solve the problem.

At the beginning of this month (August 2011) I decided to try a few different brands of DHEA, and a small amount of pregnenolone. My method is to empty the contents of the capsules, and crush those that are pills, mix the powder, and then I take small amounts of this mixture throughout the daytime. I assume it's better to have small doses throughout the day, or is it better to have larger doses? Or is it better to have it all in the morning, or all in the evening, or with a meal?

I also decided to try taking coenzyme Q, a multi-vitamin pill, and a vitamin B12 lozenge. I now feel significantly better, but I made so many changes at the same time that I'm not sure what is making me better. Is it one of the brands of DHEA? Do I react better to some brands than others? Or is it the coenzyme Q, vitamins, or pregnenolone?

The bottle of pregnenolone says that it "may" increase levels of DHEA, which implies that different people react differently to it. If it does not increase my DHEA levels, then what does it do to me? And what amount should I take? I am currently taking 10 mg pills.

This brings me to an important issue that I've mentioned before and should emphasize again; namely, there are lots of companies producing automobiles, insulin, computers, refrigerators, vitamins, DHEA, and other products, but instead of providing us with serious descriptions of their product and how it differs from other products, every company is making arrogant, manipulative, childish claims of how their particular product is the best.

It's not possible for a drug company to produce the "best" drug because different people react differently to the exact same chemical. For example, morphine is a very effective painkiller for most people, but every time my mother has been given morphine, she became nauseous. She needs a different painkiller. And consider that peanuts are a food for most of us, but some people die from them!

How could different brands of DHEA affect me differently?

First consider how this concept applies to a very simple product, such as bottled water. If 10 different companies were to produce bottled water, you might assume that they would produce identical products, but there are four primary variables that can cause each company to end up with a slightly different bottle of water:
1) Starting materials.
For example, one company might start with ocean water, and another company that is burning hydrogen and oxygen in one of their manufacturing processes could collect the resulting water, and another company might use water from a deep underground well.

2) Processing techniques
3) Quality control
The processing and quality control is much more significant than the starting materials because this determines whether they properly clean the water, or allow even more contamination from metals, oils, insects, or plastics.

4) Additives or "extras"
Finally, some companies add other items to the final product, such as minerals, carbonation, or flavors. The end result is that 10 different companies may end up with 10 slightly different variations of bottled water.

Those four variables affect the production of all biological molecules, such as DHEA, insulin, blood thinners, vitamins, and mineral supplements, except that biological molecules are so much more complex that these four variables become even more significant:
1) There are a lot more options for starting materials with biological molecules.

2) There are a lot more options for processing biological molecules. Furthermore, some biological chemicals can be produced in both left-handed and right-handed variations (chirality), but living creatures produce and use only one of the variations. Therefore, we have to wonder, is it safe to produce both left and right handed variations? Will the unnatural variation be ignored by our body? Or will it cause health problems?

3) The quality control for biological molecules is very complex, and as a result, different companies can end up with slightly different products simply because they have different quality-control personnel, and they may also have different quality-control procedures or equipment. Also, a lot of issues are not understood very well. For example, is it acceptable to allow both left and right handed variations of a molecule in the final product?

4) Many companies provide "extras" to their drugs, creating a mixture of chemicals that they think will work together better. For example, one company provides a mixture of DHEA with a chemical that they registered as Biopirine®. Does their additive make their DHEA better for me? I have no idea, so I put one of their pills into my mixture of DHEA just in case it is beneficial to me.

Are there different variations of DHEA molecules?

Some companies offer a form of DHEA which they refer to as 7-Keto. What is different about that molecule? Is 7-Keto better for me? I don't know, so I put one of those pills in my mixture of DHEA, also!

Are you fed up yet with the abuse and deception?

Rather than provide us with honest, serious information about their product and how it differs from other products, each company makes arrogant, manipulative, and deceptive claims about how they have the best products. We have to ignore the disgusting attempts to manipulate us and experiment with different brands. However, don't be an arrogant jerk who believes it's easy to experiment with yourself! Experiments with living creatures, especially humans, are extremely difficult because it is difficult to keep track of and control all the variables.

For example, if you try a particular brand of insulin, blood thinner, or DHEA, and then months later discover that you feel better with a different brand, that doesn't necessarily mean that the other brand is better. Something may have changed during that period of time that has made you feel better. For example, the changing weather patterns may have reduced the pollen or pollutants in the air that you breathe, or perhaps something at your job has changed, such as a reduction in stress, or perhaps they changed the air filters and you are now breathing cleaner air.

Or, perhaps you were infected by some bacteria, but to such a small extent that you never realized that you were actually "sick". Weeks later your immune system had completely eliminated the infection, and you had healed, but you didn't realize that the reason you are feeling better is because you will no longer had that mild infection.

For another example of the complexity of experimenting with yourself, you might decide to eat the exact same food for dinner, but that doesn't guarantee that you will be eating the same food! For example, if you have one apple every night, you are not necessarily eating the same apple each time. When apples are ripening in your area, the retail stores may sell fresh apples from your local area, but at other times of the year you may be eating apples that were in long-term storage, and that may have altered their sugar or nutritional value slightly, and at other times of the year you may be eating apples from foreign countries that were growing in nutrient-deficient soil, or where pesticides are in widespread use.

The difficulty of experimenting with humans is another reason that we must change our economic system. Medical researchers should be able to concentrate on the understanding of human health; they should not be wasting any of their time worrying about profit, patents, registered trademarks, or copyrights.

Pills and bottles are unnecessarily large

Incidentally, have you noticed that pills, and especially bottles, are often unnecessarily large? The 25 mg capsules of DHEA from different companies are of different sizes because they contain different amounts of cellulose or rice powder, and the bottles are mostly air or cotton. Ideally, pills would be small because they would contain only what is necessary, and the bottles would be small, also. Businesses concentrate on attracting the attention of the sheeple, and as a result they waste a lot of their time and our resources on visually attractive and oversized packages.

How can we measure our hormones?
The doctor that I went to in July has an attitude that is another example of what I consider a very serious problem with every society. Specifically, every society is designed for idiots and freaks, not high-quality people. I've complained about this attitude before, and I will emphasize it once again in this document, this time to show how it affects the medical industry and our ability to experiment with ourselves and our health.

Of course, I can understand one of the reasons doctors are in the habit of ignoring us. A lot of people are being manipulated by the deceptive advertisements on television. They are asking their doctors for the particular drug that attracted their attention, and as a result, a lot of doctors are in the habit of ignoring their patients' requests.

As I mentioned, the bottle of pregnenolone said that it "may" increase DHEA levels. How do we determine if the pregnenolone actually worked for us and increased our DHEA level, or if it changed some other hormone level? Ideally, we would be able to have our hormone levels checked. However, this requires that there be a doctor who will send a sample of our blood for a hormone analysis. The doctor that I went to took a lot of blood, but he didn't check hormone levels, even though that was the only reason I visited him!

Furthermore, why do the doctors have have to remove four cylinders of blood? Why can't they take only the amount of blood that is actually necessary? Our society is in need of a complete overhaul!

My "normal" is "below average"

The mixture of DHEA and pregnenolone that I am taking now actually makes me feel a bit better than my original brand of DHEA, so this is actually a slight improvement, but I am still "below average" in regards to energy levels, so there is still something wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think medical doctors today have the knowledge or equipment to figure out what my problem is. The only way I'm going to be able to figure out what's wrong with me is to experiment with myself.

It took 10 years for doctors to notice Gena Nolin's problem!

Gena Nolin (the woman at the upper left corner in the photo), was in the television show Baywatch. She appears to be just another normal, healthy woman, but she says that while she was in that television show, she suspected that she was suffering from some mysterious medical disorder. She went to a doctor and complained that something was wrong with her body, but his diagnosis showed that she was suffering postnatal depression as a result of having a baby. She says that after 10 years some doctor finally discovered that she was low on a particular thyroid hormone.

Like me, Gena Nolin has a minor imperfection. Both of us could sense that there was something wrong with our bodies many years before the problem became severe enough for it to show up on blood tests. People like us should be allowed to experiment with ourselves, not be insulted for having a psychological disorder. There are millions of people who are suffering from runny noses, watery eyes, fatigue, acne pimples, headaches, sleeping disorders, or digestive problems, but our current medical knowledge is too crude to understand these trivial problems. Many of us have no option except to experiment with ourselves.

It's difficult to experiment with yourself!

The human body is so complex that we can easily misdiagnose our problems. This concept is most easily understood by looking at history. For example, before anybody knew what vitamin C was, people would occasionally develop the mysterious disease known as scurvy. To our ancestors, scurvy was just another mysterious ailment, similar to acne pimples, polio, headaches, nearsightedness, and measles. I wouldn't be surprised if some of our ancestors came to the conclusion that scurvy was contagious, in which case they would have avoided people with symptoms!

An example of how we can misdiagnose problems even today is in regards to the people who are getting injections of vitamin B12. I know one woman who said that these injections helped reduce the fatigue that she was suffering from. How many of the people who get vitamin B12 injections are actually suffering from a shortage of B12? And if they truly do have low levels of vitamin B12, why is that? Is it because their digestive system is unable to extract the B12 from their food? If so, why can't they get the vitamin B12 they need from the lozenges that dissolve under your tongue, thereby bypassing their digestive system? Why do they need injections of large amounts of B12?

It is possible that some of these people are actually suffering from some other disorder. If we had a better understanding of human health, we might discover that they are actually suffering from something else, such as a defective liver or hormonal imbalances, and that there is a better solution to their problem than injections of vitamin B12.

In the case of the woman I know, she had serious allergies to certain foods, such as dairy products, so perhaps her true problem was some type of allergic reaction to something that she wasn't aware of, and perhaps the large injections of vitamin B12 were somehow compensating for that allergic reaction, or suppressing it, or interfering with it in some way, thereby making her feel better, but not truly solving her problem. If the medical doctors would do more experiments and knew more about human health, they might discover that there is a much better solution to her problem.

For another example of how confusing health and nutrition can be, in addition to some people having allergic reactions to certain foods, each of our stomachs produce slightly different levels of acids and other chemicals, and we each have a pancreas that operates slightly differently, and there are subtle differences with our intestines, also. Therefore, each of us could be given the exact same foods and in the exact same quantities, but each of us would extract slightly different levels of nutrients from the food. This in turn means some people who are eating properly may actually be suffering from some slight nutritional disorder simply because their digestive system is not as good at extracting a particular nutrient.

For all we know, some of the people who are suffering from acne pimples, allergies, or headaches may in reality be suffering from a digestive disorder which is preventing certain nutrients from being extracted from their food in the proper amounts. Some people claim that a chemical in black pepper can help extract certain nutrients, and raw ginger, papaya, and pineapple have enzymes that break down proteins. Therefore, it's possible that some people who are suffering from a minor medical problem will find that their health improves slightly by supplementing their diet with certain spices or other foods. They might come to the false conclusion that papaya or black pepper is necessary for human health, when in reality they are simply suffering from a defective digestive system.

The point I'm trying to make is that just because some particular medical treatment makes you feel better, that doesn't mean you have just discovered and solved your problem. It's extremely difficult to experiment on humans! Furthermore, a lot of the drugs that we could used in our experiments are restricted to prescription only, so this requires that we find a doctor who is interested in helping us with our experiments. Are there any doctors who are willing to experiment with their patients? And are doctors in America even legally allowed to experiment with their patients?

All societies are designed for the most stupid, irresponsible, and dishonest people. We are not allowed access to drugs or hormones on the grounds that we are too stupid or dishonest to be trusted with those drugs. We must get a doctor's prescription to use most drugs and hormones, and that requires we find a doctor who is willing to cooperate with us in our experiments. Unfortunately, our medical system is not designed for experiments. Actually, our medical industry is designed for the exact opposite; namely, operating like a train on a track. Doctors are worried about getting sued, and so they mindlessly follow the medical authorities in order to avoid getting into trouble.

We need the freedom to experiment
Doctors can solve only certain medical problems
Doctors do an excellent job of fixing broken bones, replacing bad hip joints, and helping wounds to heal, but they cannot do much of anything to help people with who are suffering from acne pimples, headaches, ringing of the ears, allergies, cancer, or digestive problems.

If doctors were truly gods who understood everything about human health and medical disorders, then it would make sense to tell people to do whatever the doctor says, but doctors don't know much about human health. There is no such thing as an "expert" on human health. All we can do is make guesses, experiment, and observe the results.

We should be allowed to experiment with ourselves

Those of us who want to experiment with ourselves should be free to do so, and we should be able to go to doctors for guidance and advice rather than be treated like an idiot. Only the people who truly are stupid should be treated like idiots. In my case, for example, I should be able to get my hormone levels checked, and if I decide to experiment with some hormone, then I should be allowed to do so. The doctors should simply provide me with advice on the quantities to experiment with, and what sort of side effects to watch out for.

Some school teachers who have experience in medical issues could get involved with these type of experiments, also. This would allow the teachers to use their knowledge for something useful, and at the same time their students would be able to observe real experiments, and possibly get involved in some manner, such as keeping track of variables, which would help the students become accustomed to keeping accurate records for scientific research.

People who assist with experiments should not be responsible for them

In order for medical experiments to be practical, the doctors, nurses, teachers, and other people who agree to get involved and help people like me would have to be free of any responsibility for problems that occur. If I choose to experiment with myself, then I should take all of the risk. The people who are willing to help me with my experiments should be considered as observers who are merely providing their advice, but I would decide what I do, and I would take full responsibility for everything that goes wrong. Also, they could walk away from the experiments whenever they wanted to, such as when they were worried that I was so irresponsible that I was going to hurt myself.

Also, the doctors, school teachers, and other people who get involved with these experiments should be able to choose which experiments they want to get involved with, and which people they want to get involved with. Everything should be voluntary. If a doctor doesn't feel comfortable with a particular patient, or with a particular medical problem, then he could choose to tell that patient to find some other doctor. Nobody should be forced into participating in any type of medical experiment.

The doctors, teachers, and other people who got involved with these experiments would slowly gain some knowledge about human health, even with the experiments that went wrong, or in which the person was so irresponsible that he hurt or killed himself. Even the failed experiments would help the doctors give increasingly better advice to other people who have similar problems. And if the information from the experiments was put into a central database for everybody in the world to have access to, then everybody would benefit from these experiments, not just the doctors who were involved. This is another example of why it's best to consider medical information as a "valuable resource" rather than as "private data". A database of medical information is not an "invasion of privacy". Rather, it is "knowledge about human health".

Which medical problems do we sense before the doctors?

If we had an extensive database of everybody's life and health, we would notice that some people complain about medical problems months, years, or decades before the doctors can sense that the problem exists, and we would also notice that doctors can identify some problems years before we are capable of sensing that we have a problem. For example, some cancers can develop and spread inside of us for many years before we are aware of them. At the other extreme, there may be lots of medical problems that we can sense many years before they become serious enough for a doctor to notice or identify them.

For example, Gena Nolin may have been able to sense that there was a problem with her body when her thyroid was malfunctioning by only a very slight extent, but our current medical knowledge and tests may not be able to identify minor thyroid problems. Doctors may only be able to sense thyroid problems after they have been developing for years and have become much more serious.

Likewise, I first started wondering if something is wrong with my body in the eighth grade because I noticed that my running ability was getting worse each week rather than better. By the end of the ninth grade I could clearly see that something was wrong with me. In seventh grade we would run three quarters of a mile every week, and I didn't have any trouble, but by the end of the ninth grade, after running about 15 minutes, my muscles were in pain. It also felt as if my lungs were burning. I had images in my mind of flames inside my throat. By the end of high school, I couldn't even do 15 minutes of intense exercise without pain. From my teenage years onward, I never became tired from physical exercise because before I had a chance to become tired, I would be in too much pain to continue.

I had no idea what was wrong with me, but I knew that physical activity causes muscles to develop lactic acid, and so my assumption was that perhaps my body was not doing a good job of removing the acid fast enough, and that it was building up in my muscles. It never occurred to me that I could be low on a hormone that I never heard of, namely DHEA. However, if a doctor had analyzed me at that time in my life, I'm sure they would have told me that I was in perfect physical health but suffering from a psychological disorder in which I wanted to attract attention to myself!

If our society would keep track of everybody's physical condition, eating habits, and other medical information, we would notice that some people complain about certain problems years before the doctors can see it, and doctors find certain other problems years before we realize it. This type of information would be valuable because it would show the doctors that they cannot dismiss certain complaints simply because their tests show us to be in perfect health, and it would show us that we need to periodically check for the problems that can develop without our being aware of them.

So, what are people like me to do?

Although my energy level has returned almost to where it was a year ago, "normal" for me is still "below average". There is still something wrong with me, but what is it? How am I supposed to figure out what is wrong with me when society is designed for morons and freaks? People like me, Gena Nolin, and possibly millions of others  - possibly even you! - would benefit tremendously if we could find doctors, medical researchers, or teachers who are willing to help us with experiments. But even if there are some people willing to help me, would they be legally allowed to do so in this idiotic society that is dedicated to protecting the imaginary "Underdog" and the "disadvantaged"?

Of course, at this particular moment in time I wouldn't get involved with any doctor who is possibly Jewish or who resembles a Neanderthal. When the US military finally rises up and cleans our society of criminals, then I will feel safe around whichever doctors the military decides to let live among us.

What are the medical differences between us?
How does the aging process affect us?
Throughout my life I've noticed occasional news reports that the President of the United States is developing gray hairs, and the reporters imply that is due to the stress of being president. However, lots of men and women develop gray hairs around the age of 50. Dogs also get gray hairs with age, and so do gorillas. So, how do we determine if a person is developing gray hair because of the normal aging process, or if it's due to stress, disease, or some other environmental issue?

The issue of gray hair may turn out to be of no importance to anybody, but there are other age-related problems that are very serious, and which we need a much better understanding of. For example, hundreds of thousands of people are getting hip or knee replacements every year, but how many of those bad joints are due to the genetic design of the joint, and how many are the result of environmental factors? How does diet, stress, exercise, disease, mercury, pesticides, radiation, and other environmental factors affect our hips and knees? Do any environmental factors affect the development of cataracts or wrinkles?

If we had a better understanding of the aging process, we would be able to do a much better job of maintaining our health for a longer period of time. A lot of people develop diabetes as they age, or they gain weight, or the develop cataracts. How many of our age-related problems are the result of, or worsened by, environmental factors? How many of our age-related problems could be reduced, delayed, or eliminated simply by making changes to our diet, pollution levels, hormone treatments, vitamin supplements, or living conditions?

I think there are two main reasons that it is difficult for scientists to study the aging process:
1) As I've already complained about many times, our crude economic system is causing medical researchers to concentrate on profit rather than health.

2) The majority of people are emotionally very similar to primitive savages who avoid reality and create a fantasy world for themselves. They do not want to face the fact that we deteriorate with age because the issue upsets them, and it leads to other unpleasant issues, such as death, funerals, euthanasia, and convalescent hospitals. The majority of people actually make attempts to avoid dealing with problems and unpleasant issues. Certainly you've noticed that characteristic when you try to discuss the lies about 9/11 or the Holocaust. Most people react by trying to stop the conversation and switch to something they find more pleasant. Likewise, most people try to stop serious conversations about euthanasia, funerals, and deterioration from old age.

What are the medical differences between men and women?

The article about Gena Nolin points out that women are 10 times more likely to have that particular thyroid problem than men. This brings up an important issue that I've mentioned in another file; namely, the feminist movement is preventing us from understanding the differences and similarities between men and women. Whenever somebody brings up the issue of our differences, the feminists cry that we are sexist creatures for implying that there is a difference between us.
We must eliminate the feminist movement. I don't think feminism was ever intended to help women. I think feminism is the result of a network of criminal Jews. Have you noticed how many Jews, both male and female, are pushing feminism on us? And have you noticed how many Jews seem to be instigating or organizing most of the idiotic demonstrations in the street over feminism, civil rights, racism, and other issues? And a lot of the people who cause the most trouble during the demonstrations, such as throwing rocks, seem to be Jews.

The photo shows a demonstration from many decades ago when the Jews didn't hide their Jewishness and sometimes had Hebrew on their idiotic posters. Today, with people more aware of these troublemaking Jews, most Jews are hiding their Jewishness.

There are lots of non-Jewish people pushing feminism, also, but most of those people are either in close contact with Jews who are encouraging them to promote feminism, or they are attracted to the feminist philosophy because they are miserable or psychotic. Whoopi Goldberg, for example, may not have any Jewish ancestors, but I think that the reason she is attracted to feminism is the same reason she likes to whine about racism, and which is also the same reason she wants to be rich and famous. Specifically, because she is suffering from some type of mental defect that is keeping her in a perpetually miserable mood. She wants to convince herself that her misery is due to:

1) Men who abuse her because she is a woman.
2) Caucasians who abuse her because she is black.
3) A shortage of money and fame.
When a psychotic person convinces themselves that they are suffering from racism or sexism, then the solution to their misery is simple; namely, stop racism or sexism! And when a psychotic person can convince themselves that they are suffering from a shortage of money, fame, sex, gambling, or attention, then they can see a solution to their misery; namely, acquire more of whatever it is they need! When a person is unhappy, he searches for relief, whereas people who are truly happy are simply enjoying life.

If we could get rid of the feminist movement, then we would be able to study men and women, and we might discover that we should have slightly different diets, or that we would be happier with slightly different working conditions or school courses. We might also discover that men and women have slightly different reactions to medications, or slightly different sleeping habits. The greater our understanding of men and women, the better we will do at designing society to make life nice for both men and women, and that knowledge will also allow us to improve the relationships between men and women.

Women should contribute to society, or be removed

The feminists are not trying to understand men or women, or make life better for either men or women. Rather, the feminist movement is full of anger, bitterness, pouting, and envy. The feminists are competing with men; they are fighting with us. We should put an end to the disgusting, destructive, angry feminist philosophy, not appease the feminists!
We need to study and understand men and women and try to make life better for us all. We should not tolerate either women or men who encourage fights, competition, or hatred. Everybody - including women! - should contribute something of value to society. The people who are destructive should be removed. Don't feel sorry for them, even if they are very attractive women. Would you allow a nice-looking dog to bite you?

Unfortunately, most men have such strong attractions to women that they allow women to get away with a lot of abusive behavior. This is especially true if the woman is sexually attractive to the man. In this modern world, we need men in leadership positions who can control their sexual cravings and who can understand what a woman really is; namely, a female human, not a princess. A man who allows women to get away with abuse is as disgusting as a man who allows visually attractive dogs to bite him.

What are the medical differences between the races?

As with feminism, a network of criminal Jews is stopping serious discussions about the differences between the races, and the Jews are recruiting miserable people of other races, such as Whoopi Goldberg, to join them in making lots of angry, whiny remarks about "racism".

Anybody who cannot see that there are physical differences between the races should be regarded as mentally incompetent, or psychotic, or a criminal who is trying to instigate fights. Furthermore, anybody who cannot deduce that there must also be mental differences between the races should also be considered as too stupid for this modern world, or psychotic, or a criminal. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that when two races of humans or animals are separated from each other for such a long period of time that they develop different physical characteristics, that they will also develop subtle differences in their minds.

Everybody would benefit tremendously if we had a better understanding of the races. We might discover that some races are more prone to thyroid problems, and some have more problems with sugar or dairy products. We might also discover that some races need a different balance of hormones, or higher levels of vitamin C, or a different balance of proteins and oils.

Men and women of different races may be different

In addition to men being different from women, and different races being different from one another, I suspect that the differences between men and women are not exactly the same in all races. In other words, the differences between Japanese men and Japanese women are not exactly the same as the difference between Danish men and Danish women.

Life is fascinating, not sexist or racist

I consider the differences between us as fascinating, not "sexism" or "racism". I think we should be understanding these issues, and that we must stand up to the idiots and troublemakers who whine about sexism, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, or homophobia. 

In this modern world, we need to study and understand all aspects of life, and we must be able to have calm and serious discussions about all issues. The people who try to start fights should be treated as criminals, and the people who become hysterical should be treated as savages who don't belong in this modern world. We should not tolerate their abusive and destructive behavior. We should not allow them to ruin our lives, or interfere with scientific and medical progress. We should exile the crude people who want to fight, whine, and hate.

More health related issues to investigate
Which medical problems are environmental? Which are genetic?
Some of the physical and mental problems that we suffer from are due to genetic mistakes, but some of them are due to environmental events, such as chemicals that interfere with the development of a fetus (alcohol is an example), or because of drugs, radiation, toxic chemicals, or physical damage to our body or brain.

We would have a better understanding of our medical problems if our society would collect and maintain an extensive medical database about all of us. The database would allow us to see a lot of patterns, such as that certain types of medical problems are more prevalent in certain areas of the world, which would give medical researchers a clue that the problem is due to the genetic differences of the people in that area, and/or because of differences in their particular environment.

This database would also show us that the people who are patients of certain doctors and dentists have fewer overall dental or medical problems, and this would be a clue that either those people were in better health to begin with, or those particular doctors and dentists are doing a better job of maintaining health.

The more detailed and accurate the database, the more we would learn about the differences between doctors; the differences between men and women, different races, and people of different ages; and how living in different areas of the world can affect our health and allergies.

I assume that my low energy levels are due to a genetic disorder, but it's possible that my low energy is partly - or entirely! - due to something environmental, but what environmental factor could possibly lower my energy levels? When I was a child, lead (the metal) was used in gasoline, paint, and other products, and by the 1970s there were so many people who realized that lead was harmful to us that it was removed from a lot of products. Today some people worry that the fluoride in toothpaste, or the mercury in dental fillings, is also harmful to our health. I was exposed to all three of those dangerous elements, and there are probably other dangerous items that I was exposed to. Is it possible that any of those dangerous compounds had an effect on my energy levels?

And what about you? Were you exposed to anything dangerous during your life? And if so, did it have any effect on your health? For all we know, a lot of people have been harmed by dangerous and toxic compounds, but to such a small extent that they did not realize it.

Which problems are more serious? What should our priorities be?

A lot of people are concerned about the harmful effects of asbestos, microwave ovens, mercury fillings, cell phone radiation, fluoride, pesticides, and food preservatives. A database that had extensive medical and dental information about everybody in the world would help us to determine the effect each of these chemicals are having. It's possible that we will discover that mercury fillings and pesticides are indeed dangerous, but we might also discover that they are much less dangerous than many problems that nobody is even concerned about right now.

For example, we might also discover that crows, pigeons, and dogs are scattering significant amounts of bacteria all around our cities, in addition to hairs and microscopic pieces of skin and feathers, and that those animals are causing more stomachaches, allergies, and other health related problems, than fluoride toothpaste, mercury fillings, and food preservatives.

Or, perhaps we would discover that our daily breathing of tiny bits of asphalt and rubber that are produced by automobile tires are more harmful to our health than the exhaust of the cars, microwave ovens, cell phone radiation, and the asbestos in ceiling tiles.

The point I'm trying to make is that we are currently just guessing at what is harmful to our health, and if we had honest researchers, and if we could collect data from around the world, we might discover that our priorities need to change. We may discover that we are worrying about insignificant problems, and that we need to shift our attention away from food preservatives, cell phone radiation, and mercury fillings, and put more effort into controlling birds and other animals, and designing cities with cleaner, safer transportation systems.

How dangerous is fluoride?

The fluoride toothpastes have a warning to keep the toothpaste away from young children, and to contact a poison control center immediately if accidentally swallowed. However, if fluoride is poisonous, why are we putting it in our mouth? The lining of our mouth, especially the area under our tongue, allows chemicals to pass directly into our bloodstream, which is why vitamin B-12 is provided in lozenges that we put under our tongue. So, does fluoride also pass through the lining of our mouth and get directly into our bloodstream? If so, then what does this poison do after it gets into our bloodstream? Does it harm our body or our mind?

When I was a child, fluoride toothpaste was promoted as one of the wonders of the 20th century. My family believe the advertising claims, and so I grew up using fluoride toothpaste. I may have seen the warnings on the fluoride toothpaste containers, but as a child, the warnings didn't mean much. I didn't eat the toothpaste, but I don't remember being worried about rinsing my mouth of every trace of fluoride toothpaste. Therefore, it's possible that through the years I ingested quite a bit of fluoride. Did that fluoride harm me in any way?

How dangerous are mercury dental fillings?

Mercury is a dangerous element, but is it dangerous when we use it in dental fillings? This issue is significant to me because it's possible that I ate a lot of tiny pieces of mercury fillings. When I was in the sixth grade, I was getting a drink of water from a water fountain during one of our brief recesses. Some younger children were playing a casual game of baseball in the grassy area next to the walkway. They were not very good at baseball, however, and one of them threw the ball at first base, but missed, and the ball hit me on the side of the face and caused a piece of my molar to chip off.

My mother took me to a dentist, and he said the chip was big enough that my tooth should be protected. Unfortunately, since it was a chip at an angle, it was difficult for the dentist to put the mercury filling in it. I still remember him struggling, and I remember the feeling of lots of little pieces of filling in my mouth. Although he had a suction tube to remove the pieces of filling, I didn't realize that the fillings might be dangerous, so it's possible that I swallowed some pieces.

Furthermore, when I was a child (the 1960's), the dentists had to make the mercury dental mixture by rapidly combining and mixing the raw materials, and then quickly installing the filling. Therefore, the quality of the filling depended upon the skill of the dentist. This in turn means that the dentists who were less talented may have caused more mercury poisoning and created lower quality fillings that had a shorter lifetime.

The filling that I received was at an angle, rather than like a typical filling that is horizontal and held securely in place. As a result, it didn't survive very long. I'm not sure when it began to break apart, but it seemed like it was only a year or two. I remember getting little pieces of it in my mouth, and I may have swallowed some of them. Eventually the entire filling fell out, and the dentist installed another filling, thereby exposing me to more mercury.

I can't remember if that second filling fell out after a few years, in which case it was replaced again, but I know that it broke apart and fell out during my early 20s because by then I had a different dentist, and he said I could either continue having new fillings every few years, or have a gold or porcelain crown instead. I decided to replace it with a gold crown.

At some point in my childhood I also had large mercury fillings put into both of my bottom molars, although I don't know if I got them before or after my tooth was chipped. I also got sick in sixth grade with what the doctor referred to as "walking pneumonia", but I don't know if I got sick before or after any or all of the mercury fillings. Incidentally, this is another example of how a medical database would be useful. If our society maintained a publicly accessible database of our medical history, then I could easily determine whether I got the pneumonia before or after exposure to all of that mercury.

Also, if we had complete video surveillance of us, I would be able to observe my behavior prior to being diagnosed with the walking pneumonia because I don't remember being "sick". I faintly remember having a fever and complaining that I didn't feel well, but did I really have some form of pneumonia?

Now that I am aware of how dangerous mercury is, I wonder if I became sick after getting that mercury filling in my chipped tooth, and if so, I wonder if mercury can cause a child to have a fever and feel sick. When some medications are taken together, they have a slightly different effect than when taken alone, so since I was getting contamination by fluoride and lead, what does that combination do to a child?

I also remember a few times during my childhood when one of us children would find a drop or two of mercury that came from a broken fluorescent light bulb or thermometer. We would put it in our hand and push it around with our finger, or play with it in a bowl. Mercury was a curiosity during the 1960s rather than as a dangerous element. Did any of my brief contacts with liquid mercury had any effect on my health?

I was frequently bitten by fleas as a child because we had pet cats, and there were gophers and other wild animals passing through our backyard, so my assumption was that I got the pneumonia from a flea, but is that possible? Do fleas carry that type of disease?

Incidentally, my mother has never had much of a problem with fleas, but they have a tremendous attraction to me. What is different about me and my mother that causes fleas to avoid her and bite me? If both of us walk out into the same area where there are fleas (the rear end of her backyard is full of fleas from gophers and other animals), they will jump on my leg and bite me, but she won't have any problem! Why do fleas like me so much?

Can mercury damage testicles?

Until a few months ago, I didn't worry that the mercury dental fillings in my mouth were harming me because I was under the impression that mercury causes us to go crazy, but it doesn't affect our body or our health. I remember hearing that the Mad Hatter in the Alice in Wonderland story was crazy because of mercury poisoning. Since I don't consider myself to be crazy, my assumption was that my mercury fillings had no effect on me.

Recently, however, I looked on the Internet and discovered that some people (eg, here) are claiming that mercury can damage testicles, and so now I wonder, is it just a coincidence that during my teenage years I became weaker and weaker, and when I finally had my blood tested, I was extremely low on DHEA, which is related to testosterone? Also, I didn't have to shave my beard until my last year of high school, but both of my brothers had thicker beards and began shaving at a much younger age. Also, there were times that I was wondering if my sex drive is weaker than other men. (Actually, I still wonder about that!) Were my testicles damaged by mercury, lead, fluoride, or something else? Or is my problem entirely genetic?

Is our modern diet harming our health?

Some people worry that soybeans can interfere with our hormone levels because they contain a chemical that is very similar to estrogen. There is also a concern that some plastics produce chemicals that interfere with hormones. A lot of spices and flavoring agents contain chemicals that are described as "toxic" when consumed in "large" quantities, but what exactly does a "toxic" chemical do to our health? And what quantity is "large"?
Our primitive ancestors never had to worry about these issues, but now that we have farms and advanced chemical technology, we are producing and consuming enormous quantities of these mysterious foods, spices, and chemicals. We ought to analyze all of our foods, spices, and other chemicals that we are exposing ourselves to in order to determine if we are disrupting our hormones, or causing other health problems. For all we know, some of the homosexuals or feminine men are genetically "normal" men who became feminine as a result of these chemicals. These chemicals might also be part of the reason that some girls are maturing too early today.

Of course, once you realize that the FDA is forbidding American businesses from using Stevia as a sugar substitute, and from growing hemp, then you realize that our government officials and scientists are routinely lying to us in order to promote their friends who are involved in certain businesses. Therefore, we should consider the possibility that the concern that soybeans are disrupting our hormones is just more of their propaganda, perhaps to hurt the soybean businesses, or to reduce tofu imports from Japan. 

Our scientists, media, government officials, and schools also routinely lie to us about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, and other crimes. We cannot trust any of these people. Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world in which we could trust and respect one another?

Serious research should be funded by society, not donations
Why should we donate money for medical research?
Our businesses don't really do any serious medical research; rather, they get involved in profit making ventures. The American government doesn't do much medical research, either. As a result of the lack of interest in medical research, some private organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, have been created to do some of that serious research. Since these private organizations don't have any source of money, they have to beg for donations.

Consider how ridiculous this situation is. First of all, consider the funding. Human health is important to everybody on the planet, and so every society should contribute money to these projects. Citizens should not have to beg for money in order to fund such important and valuable research.

Next, consider how ridiculous it is to allow private organizations to do medical research. We have no control over private organizations. Although the organizations provide us with information about how they spend their money and what type of work they are doing, it is extremely easy for them to deceive us about what they are truly doing with the donations, who they are hiring, and what type of progress - or lack of it - they are making with their research programs.

If you want an example of how easily a private organization can deceive us, take a look at the Mormon and Catholic churches. Both of them claim to be wonderful groups of people who help the world, and both organizations provide us with information about their finances and activities, but there is lots of evidence that they are lying to us, as well as protecting pedophiles. Also, I don't see any evidence that they are providing leadership to their members. For example, neither of those churches are making any attempt (at least not publicly) to help their members understand that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack.

Both of those churches occasionally spend money in a manner that makes it appear as if they're trying to help people, but are the members really getting their money's worth? Although their secrecy prevents me from knowing the truth about them, I suspect that both organizations are dominated by parasites and criminals, and I think that both organizations should be destroyed.

The American Cancer Society is one of many private medical organizations that beg for donations, but what are they giving in return? They have been studying cancer for decades, but what have they actually accomplished in regards to understanding, curing, or preventing cancer? I can do a better job of eliminating my basal cell carcinoma simply by looking on the Internet and noticing messages posted by ordinary people that hot peppers and other home remedies are effective in eliminating cancer!

The American Cancer Society registered the phrase "Making Strides Against Breast Cancer®". (Notice the ® in the image of a portion of the word "cancer".) Why did they register that silly phrase? I think that they are trying to convince us that they are doing something useful to stop cancer, and since they cannot boast about their impressive achievements, they are registering silly phrases with the trademark office. In other words, they are trying to deceive us. They should be doing research about cancer, not research into more effective advertising campaigns.

I don't think we should donate money to any of the private medical organizations, "think tanks", religions, or other organizations that beg for money, mainly for these three reasons:

1) Valuable people should not have to beg for money

Why should scientists who are doing useful work have to beg for funding? All of the scientists, engineers, technicians, mechanics, carpenters, and chefs who are willing to do useful work for society, and who have the talent to accomplish something, should easily be able to find a job and make a living. They should not have to beg for donations! Our society should support and encourage people who are willing to contribute something of value.

Actually, I think the philosophy that begging is an acceptable way of raising money is a disgusting philosophy, and that we should eliminate it completely. We should not encourage anybody to beg for anything. I don't even think we should follow the philosophy of leaving tips for servants. I think we should treat everybody in a nicer manner. So, instead of donating money, which encourages more begging, we should be discussing how to alter society so that nobody has to beg.

If we are going to tolerate the begging of money, then we should alter society so that the people who must beg are those who contribute little or nothing of value to society. The Hollywood producers, such as Steven Spielberg, should beg for money in order to fund one of their movies, and so should the people who want gambling casinos.

2) We should shift resources away from stupid activities

Have you noticed that while scientists beg for small amounts of money to do medical research, there are billions of dollars available for the research and development of video games, Hollywood movies, toys, and pornography?

Have you ever wondered why there is so much money available for gambling casinos, video games, pornography, and toys? Have you ever wondered why a Steven Spielberg movie can bring millions of dollars of profit to Hollywood? Have you wondered why there is so much money available for cocaine, heroin, and other drugs? Did you hear that the videogame, Angry Birds, is so popular that the company that made it is supposedly worth $1.2 billion?

Every society is dominated by people who have the mind of a primitive savage, and they will voluntarily put enormous amounts of money into silly entertainment. If the world was dominated by people like me, many very profitable businesses would disappear due to a lack of sales, and many others would be reduced to almost nothing.

In 2004, Carol Brouillet invited me to speak at a 9/11 meeting that she and her friends were arranging in San Francisco, but it turned out to be a trick; they didn't really want me to speak. She and her friends turned out to be more of thousands of Wolves In Sheep's Clothing and blackmailed puppets, and their true goal was not to promote anything I say but to watch and control people like me in order to deflect attention away from Israel and Jews.

They allowed me to give my speech, but only on the second floor of the building in a small room, and I suppose the few people in that room were Jews who were simply wondering what I was going to say. In this speech, I asked people to consider what a planet would be like if it was dominated by people who were identical to them. Have you ever thought about this concept? I suggest you spend some time seriously thinking about this.

Instead of donating money, we should be discussing where our priorities should be. Should we provide billions of dollars every year for Hollywood movies, gambling casinos, and games for cell phones? Or should we divert some of our resources away from the infantile entertainment activities and over to more useful and serious programs?

3) Charities seem to be dominated by freaks
As I pointed out in other files, the "charitable" organizations that beg us for money seem to attract criminals and parasites. I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of these organizations are full of Jews and people who look like Neanderthals. The organizations may occasionally produce something useful, but I do not think that we are getting our money's worth.
For example, Jerry Lewis, a Jew, has been begging for money since 1966 in order to fund research into muscular dystrophy, but what has his organization accomplished after all these decades?

The majority of people have the attitude that every problem can be solved by giving money to somebody. For example, most people think that schools will be improved by giving more money to the schools, and they think the solution to crime is to give more money to the police departments. This is why political candidates promise to give more money to police departments, schools, and other organizations.

However, giving money to an organization is just wasting the money unless the people in the organization have both the desire to do something useful with the money, and the talent to do something useful. Giving money to a corrupt police department will actually increase crime, not decrease it! And the same is true when we give money to a school system, charity, or a church that is full of criminals, parasites, pedophiles, and idiots. Likewise, we are fools to give money to scientists who don't have both the ability and the desire to understand muscular dystrophy.

We need Quality Control Inspectors for our organizations

Every organization requires people and resources, and so we should periodically review every organization to ensure that they are giving society enough of a benefit to justify giving them those people and resources. Just because an organization provides us with some benefit doesn't justify their existence. We need to look at their efficiency. For example, the university near me, UCSB, has about 12,000 employees and 23,000 students. How can any society justify such an incredibly high ratio of staff to students? And some American schools have an even higher ratio of staff per student. Many of our schools can boast that they have provided some students with useful skills, but that doesn't justify allowing those schools to hire as many people as they please, and it doesn't justify allowing them to beg for donations.
“Why does this school have so many staff members?”
Every society should routinely analyze its organizations for efficiency. I am certain that most - maybe all - of our government agencies, businesses, schools, hospitals, and other organizations, could get more work accomplished, with fewer people, and with fewer resources, if we were to provide them with better management, eliminate some of the paperwork that doesn't provide much of a benefit, and allow every organization to easily fire people from their jobs.

The people who do these routine analyses of organizations would be "quality control inspectors". This would be an ideal job for people who are retired because it doesn't require any physical effort, but it requires extensive knowledge and experience in order to pass judgment on which paperwork is unnecessary, and whether a person is doing his job properly, or which people are likely to be parasites or criminals. These quality control inspectors need a personality that is unusual; specifically, a personality that can stand up to criminals, parasites, and incompetent people, but we can certainly find enough of those personalities among the retired people.

A more serious problem with doing quality control of our organizations is that nothing is going to improve if all we do is make the criminals pay a small fine or spend a few months in jail. The criminals and parasites need to be removed from society, and the incompetent people need to be forced to try some other job.

The quality control inspectors should also analyze the organizations and jobs to determine whether an organization or job has so little value to society that it should be eliminated. For example, I don't think any society benefits from people who do reviews of Hollywood movies. America currently supports television shows in which movies are reviewed, and we have various types of "film festivals" and awards ceremonies in which movies are reviewed and awards are given. I don't think anybody should make a living from these activities, and I don't think these organizations should be allowed to exist. I think it would be better for the people who enjoy the reviews to get together during their leisure time and make it into a social activity for themselves. This would encourage them to get out of their house, meet other people, and entertain one another, and without being a burden on society.

From what I've seen in my personal life, a lot of people are "working hard", but they are doing tasks that are not truly beneficial to society. They are wasting their time and our resources. We need quality control engineers to analyze all of the organizations and jobs and pass judgment on which paperwork needs to be eliminated, who should be provided with some other job, and which organization should be eliminated. Unfortunately, with our current economic system, we cannot easily eliminate organizations, or force people into other jobs. Our current system is much too chaotic, and as a result, everybody is frightened at the thought of losing their job. This brings me to an issue that I've mentioned years ago, and will emphasize again; specifically, society must help us with jobs.

We need help with training and finding jobs

This is not the Middle Ages, during which a person who wanted a job could walk to the nearest farm and offer to help with the chores. Jobs and businesses are becoming very complex. It is becoming increasingly difficult for adults to find jobs, and increasingly time-consuming and expensive for businesses to find employees. We must alter our society so that organizations and jobs can easily be eliminated, and so that people can be provided with new jobs without suffering from unemployment.

The government must get involved and help people find jobs. As I described in other files, we must make finding a new job so effortless and painless that nobody resists it. We are wasting people and resources when we pay people unemployment benefits to look for jobs. It is in everybody's best interest that everybody have a job that they enjoy and are productive at, so it is in everybody's best interest for society to help us find jobs, and as quickly as possible

Schools must also get involved with helping us find jobs because they should be training students, as opposed to entertaining them with silly courses and college diplomas, and this requires that the schools know what jobs are most likely to be available many years in the future. It's becoming increasingly absurd to expect a child to figure out by himself what to do with his life. The training of children, and the matching of people with jobs, is becoming a complex task that society should get involved with.

We must give people lots of opportunities

We need to alter society so that everybody can find a job that they enjoy, and which they are actually capable of performing properly at, and which is truly useful to society, but how do we determine who will make a good carpenter, secretary, or dentist? How do we know which scientist will have the ability to make some progress in the research of muscular dystrophy, cancer, or diabetes? How can a child figure out which career he should pursue?

As technology becomes more advanced, jobs become increasingly complex. This makes it increasingly absurd to expect children to pick a career by themselves, and for adults to figure out which job they will enjoy and will be capable of doing properly. Both children and adults need assistance from society in finding jobs.

Schools should start the process by encouraging young children to experiment with different activities in order to determine their strengths and weaknesses, and discover what they enjoy and dislike. When the students become teenagers, the schools could cooperate with some businesses to provide the teenagers with short-term, part-time jobs to help them determine which jobs they enjoy and are capable of performing properly. When they become adults, their job performance should be routinely analyzed, and if they're not performing very well, then society should help them find another job.

Adults should not be locked into any particular job or business, either. After an adult finds a job, he should be allowed to consider other jobs without any fear of being fired, and without having to hide from the other employees that he works with. Actually, adults should be encouraged to occasionally consider other jobs, and to occasionally consider the part-time jobs. 

With our current economic system, the employees are almost slaves, so when they want to look for another job, they have to do so very secretly. We must change this attitude. A job should be considered as one of life's pleasures. A job is like a spouse; it's like a friend. We all benefit when everybody finds a job that they enjoy, and which they are productive at. If a person finds a particular full-time job to be monotonous, and if he prefers two or more part-time jobs, as long as he is doing all of his jobs properly, we all benefit. There is no reason to force a person to do one job for his entire life.

Until we can develop robots to do some of the jobs that humans don't enjoy, there will be people who have to do work that they don't care much for, but as technology improves, that will change. In the meantime, the people who have to do the less desirable jobs should be encouraged to find a way to make it less unpleasant for them, such as by switching jobs once in a while, or having several part-time jobs.

We have to pass judgment on when scientists are getting nowhere
There is no way to determine which scientist will be productive, and because the human mind has a lot of different qualities, it's possible that a scientist will be good in certain research projects, but not so good in others. We have to be willing to experiment by giving every scientist the opportunity to research the issue he is interested in. We then observe his performance. If he doesn't seem to be making much progress after a few years, we have to pass judgment on whether he should be given another project, or whether he should be forced to try some other type of job, such as a technician, or engineer.

Furthermore, an important issue to consider in regards to scientific research is some projects may be beyond the ability of all humans. For example, a lot of scientists have spent a lot of time and resources in an attempt to create a fusion reactor, and I suggest we consider the possibility that the reason none of these projects is even coming close to success is because these reactors are beyond the abilities of all humans. We may be wasting our time on these projects. We need quality control inspectors to look into these fusion projects and pass judgment on whether the scientists are making progress, or if they are just parasites who are goofing around and wasting our money.

For another example, I don't think we should fund any of the "big bang" related projects. As with the people who enjoy reviews of movies, the scientists who want to investigate the creation of the universe should get together in one of the city's recreational centers and do so during their leisure time.

Another example are the scientists who do "atom smashing". As I've mentioned in this file, I think they are wasting their time and an enormous amount of our resources. Smaller versions of those machines are useful because they produce radioactive elements and radiation that is used in research and medical projects, but the scientists who are involved with "smashing atoms" give me images of Peter Pan; of children who never grow up. They also remind me of the mathematicians who waste their time on silly activities, such as memorizing pi. These physicists and mathematicians have very impressive mathematical abilities, but don't seem to care whether they do anything of value with their lives. They just want to play, like children.

Most people don't want to stand up to physicists or mathematicians, but don't be intimidated by their math abilities. I think they are wasting an enormous amount of resources, and we should force them into some other job. If they are too emotionally immature to do anything useful, then they should be removed from society. What difference does it make if they are talented at math or physics? If instead of contributing to society, all they do is consume resources, then they are not members of society; rather, they are "educated parasites". Would you allow a tick to suck your blood if the tick was intelligent enough to get a college diploma? 

The same concept applies to other scientists, such as those at the American Cancer Society. If a scientist cannot provide society with something of value, then we should force him to try some other job. Don't be intimidated by a college diploma! If a dog were capable of graduating from college, would you allow it to bite you?

We should routinely analyze and improve our culture
Medical documents should be converted to an electronic database

Decades ago, before computers and other modern technology, all information had to be recorded on paper, and so it was understandable that different doctors, schools, businesses, government agencies, etc., had lots of filing cabinets that were full of paper documents about our medical treatment, job performance, X-ray photos, school records, etc. Furthermore, the inability to make photocopies of documents required that the people fill out the same or similar forms for different schools, businesses, doctors, and government agencies.

However, with today's advanced computer systems, digital X-rays, and other technology, we can make the situation much more efficient by putting all of the information into just one, publicly accessible, electronic database. We no longer need to write our name, Social Security number, or address, on form after form after form. We are wasting our time by filling out all of these forms. The information about ourselves should be maintained in an electronic database that is available to everybody, and all we should have to do is occasionally update the database with new information.

If we move to another city, our new dentist should not ask us to fill out any forms, and he should not waste any of his time contacting our previous dentist(s) for copies of our dental information. Instead, he would look at our entry in the database, and that would give him access to all of our medical and dental information throughout our entire lives, regardless of how many different dentists or doctors we had visited, and regardless of which parts of the world we were living in at the time. If our new dentist did any work on our teeth or took any X-rays, then he would add the information to the database.

In America today, information about us is scattered all over the nation. There are thousands of businesses, schools, government agencies, and other organizations with paper and computer data about us. Every one of those collections could be described as a "database" of information about us. Most people believe that having thousands of small databases scattered all over the nation is better than putting all of the information in one central database, but how is it better? How exactly do you or I benefit by having information about us scattered all over the world as compared to having it in one central location?

The fear of a central database is irrational

I think the main reason that most people are afraid of a publicly accessible, central database is for the same reason that many Americans are afraid to try Mochi; namely, their crude, animal-like nature causes them to resist changes. The people who are paranoid of databases have no intelligent reasons to justify their paranoia. Those people should be regarded as savages who are simply afraid of something different.

We grew up in a very disorganized, chaotic world in which information about us is scattered everywhere, and most people want to keep the situation exactly as it is right now rather than discuss the issue. However, if we had grown up in a more orderly world in which information about us was maintained in a central database, then if somebody were to suggest that we break the database up into tens of thousands of pieces and scatter them all over the world, I'm sure most people would panic at the thought of information about themselves being scattered everywhere.

The only way we are going to improve our lives is to analyze society and experiment with changes to our economic system, schools, government, phone system, transportation systems, and other social technology. We must ignore the majority of people when we make plans for our future. Most people, regardless of their intelligence and education, are afraid of changes and experiments, and they must be regarded as primitive savages who don't belong in this modern world.

Remember: fish are for eating, not role models!

We are fools to never consider where we have been or where we are going. Technology is changing rapidly today, and once in a while we should make changes to society to adapt to the new technology so that we can benefit from it. We should not fear the changes; rather, we should look forward to them. Instead of resisting changes, we should be enjoying such discussions as,
"What are some of our options?
What would we like our future to be?"
Another example: paper mail is becoming unnecessary
The postal office is a good example of why we need to occasionally analyze the path we are on and discuss whether we want to change courses. When I was a child, most of the paper mail that we received was important, such as bills to pay, or letters from friends and relatives. Today almost all of the paper mail that I receive are advertisements, some of which ought to be classified as illegal, such as those that try to fool us into thinking that they are from the government, when in reality they are from private businesses that are trying to sell something.

I have automatic payment for every company that allows automatic payment, so I don't have to receive or pay many bills by paper mail. I put most of the mail I receive directly into the recycling bin without bothering to open it. Consider how wasteful this is. There are people all around the world creating paper, ink, and machinery to produce the advertisements, and people in the post office distribute the advertisements to my home, and then I put the advertisement into the recycling bin, and then other people take the contents of my recycling bin to other people to be recycled into... what? More advertisements to repeat the cycle? We are wasting a lot of paper, ink, electricity, people, and other resources with this worthless, idiotic activity.  Furthermore, the post office is encouraging this wasteful behavior by giving financial discounts to bulk mail.

I suggest eliminating regular mail delivery services

What is the purpose of the Postal Service? Is it merely to make a profit so that they can provide jobs for some of us? I think that all organizations and people should contribute something of value to society. This requires that we analyze the post office and make a determination of whether they are providing enough of a benefit to justify all of the resources and people that they are using. I think we have already reached a level of technology to eliminate the paper mail service.

The American Postal Service is losing money, and as of today, a lot of Americans are worried that the Postal Service will close more of its retail outlets, or eliminate the delivery of mail on Saturday. However, the people who resist changes to the Postal Service are similar to the savages who are afraid to try Mochi. Technology is always changing, and we should routinely analyze society to determine if we should alter something to take into account the technical improvements. The people who are resisting changes to the Postal Service should be treated as balls and chains around our legs. Instead of trying to keep the post office exactly as it is, every few years we should have such discussions as,

"Is there anything about the Postal Service that should be altered as a result of the changes in technology during the past few years? Should we reduce mail delivery to only one day per week? Or have we finally reached a level of technology that allows us to convert all data to an electronic form and eliminate the need for paper mail? If so, the Postal Service would be needed only to deliver packages, and the few documents that cannot be converted to electronic form, such as historical papers, can be treated as packages rather than first-class mail."
The US Postal Service had 596,000 employees and 218,000 vehicles during 2010, and more than 31,000 retail outlets in July 2011. They are using an enormous amount of people, land, electricity, and other resources, and their vehicles are creating pollution and increasing our traffic congestion problems. Are we benefiting enough from their mail delivery services to justify their existence? I don't think so.

I think those employees and resources should be put into something that is more useful to society. Although most of the employees probably don't have the ability or desire to do any of the complex jobs that are available today, such as in robotics or medical research, they can certainly do tasks that are much more useful than the delivery of idiotic advertisements. For example, I'm sure they're capable of helping us build and maintain much more beautiful, advanced, and decorative cities, greenhouses, schools, and farms.

All aspects of society need routine analyses

During the past few centuries, people around the world have been routinely analyzing and looking for improvements in farming equipment, houses, transportation devices, and other material items. Unfortunately, people are not yet in the habit of analyzing or trying to improve the intangible social technology that we use, such as our school system, economic system, or governments. However, we should occasionally review all of our social technology, including holiday celebrations and city fairs. We should routinely review and look for improvements in all of the paperwork that we impose on ourselves, and all of our business practices, and all of our school courses

By improving both social and physical technology, we can create more enjoyable and more useful social affairs; more efficient and decorative cities; more pleasant jobs and working conditions; and more pleasant restaurants. We would be fools not to take advantage of our intelligence and creativity. We would be fools to resist improvements to our culture.

Another example: where are we going with voice recognition software?

Some organizations are trying to use voice recognition software through the telephone so that we can talk to their computers, but one problem they face is that the quality of our phones is so low that it is difficult to use a phone for voice recognition, except for simple responses, such as yes or no, or the digits. The quality of our phones is so low that even we humans sometimes have trouble understanding one another.

In order to make voice recognition more useful over telephones, we have to increase the quality of the phones by a significant amount. The disadvantage to increasing the quality is that each phone call would require more bandwidth, and this either requires we create more phone lines, or we have to convince people to make fewer phone calls, and reduce the length of the phone calls so that there is more bandwidth available for each call.

My personal opinion is that we should reduce the number of phone calls and the length of the calls. I think that most of the phone calls that are made today are worthless. A lot of them are attempts to sell products, and an incredible percentage of women and children are making phone calls because they are so lonely or bored. I don't think we should encourage lonely people to use phones as a substitute for human friends. Our current attitude is that it is acceptable for people who are lonely to become best friends with a dog, a cell phone, or a Hollywood celebrity, but I think we should describe this type of behavior as sad; as a symptom of loneliness.

Society should be designed to encourage people to get out of their house, meet other people, and have real friends and real activities. People should not sit at home for hours with a dog, or spend hours having idiotic conversations on the telephone, or having imaginary friendships with Lady Gaga or other famous people.

By increasing the quality of our phones, then (when voice recognition software becomes more advanced), we will be able to talk to computers over the phone, thereby making it much easier for us to give and get information without a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. It would allow us to talk to computers while we are riding a bicycle, or rowing a boat. This might seem silly, but it would be useful for people who have to monitor manufacturing processes, such as to check the status of their CNC equipment.

When talking to a computer becomes easy and effortless, then people are much more likely to do it, which is beneficial to all of us. For another example, a surgeon could be taking a leisurely ride on a rowboat on an artificial canal along one of the beautiful areas of our city, and while he's enjoying the beautiful sunset and the beautiful city, he could use his phone to quickly check the status of a person that he performed surgery on earlier in the day. He would call the computer that is monitoring the person's medical situation, not the people at the hospital, and since he would not be bothering any humans, he could call as often as he wants without anybody complaining. Furthermore, the computers would provide him with information very rapidly, so he would be on and off the telephone quickly.

Whisper-recognition software would be better than voice-recognition

Voice recognition software is currently designed for "normal" volume levels, which may be acceptable for some situations, but I think it would be better if we switched to "whisper recognition" software. At the moment this issue is not of much concern because not many people are using voice recognition software, but imagine if it becomes so advanced that everybody wants to use it. Imagine working in an office in which people are talking to their computers. It would make the office very noisy and irritating.

A city would be much more quiet and pleasant if people could whisper to their computer rather than speak in a normal, loud voice. It would also be nice to get whisper recognition software working with telephones. To use my previous example, it would be better for everybody if a surgeon, who was having a leisurely ride in a rowboat, could whisper commands over his phone rather than speaking them in a normal, loud voice.

When we have to speak in a normal voice, then people within a certain distance will have to listen to us. And if there are other people within that same area also trying to talk to a computer... you can certainly figure it out.

Many years ago, when IBM first offered ViaVoice, I tried to train it to understand my whispers, but I had no luck. It seems as if this software is designed only for our normal speaking voice, or maybe the problem was the microphone in the headset I was using. Will somebody at the voice recognition software companies look into this issue?

A medical database would be valuable to everybody
We need honest information about drugs!
If we were to alter our society to allow us to experiment with medical treatments, then we would have to allow everybody to have access to honest, serious information about how to use these drugs, and what their true side effects are. At the moment, it would be dangerous to allow us to experiment with prescription drugs because the drug companies are providing only childish and deceptive sales brochures and exaggerated claims.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the smaller companies are deliberately lying simply to make money, and some other small companies may be so incompetent that they don't realize that they are offering worthless medical products. Consider, for example, apricot seeds. Some people claim that the seeds contain a compound called amygdalin, which some people promote as vitamin B 17, or as laetrile. Other people insist that it is not a vitamin, and that it can produce cyanide, which is deadly. Why are businesses allowed to make such conflicting claims? There are also businesses making all sorts of claims about herbs, acupuncture, and the body parts and horns of various animals.

We need honest government officials, also!

Many of the drugs that we used to cure medical problems are actually dangerous, and this requires that we have access to honest information. For example, antibiotics are dangerous, but they are justified for bacterial infections when the benefits outweigh the side effects. The treatments for cancer are often extremely dangerous, such as high doses of x-rays or gamma rays, but doctors justify these dangerous treatments on the grounds that the person could die otherwise. It is possible that apricot seeds, capsaicin, and many other chemicals are also dangerous, but they may also be justified for certain types of medical problems.

Because the treatments for medical problems are dangerous, we must be very careful when we experiment. Ideally, medical researchers, the FDA, and other people would provide us with whatever serious information they have about medical issues, and as we learn more, they would add the new information to the database. Unfortunately, we don't have access to a database of honest information, and our government is so corrupt that the FDA has been getting away with the outlawing of stevia, hemp, and possibly other extremely beneficial products that I am not yet aware of.

Before we can experiment, we need to replace all of the disgusting, criminal freaks that dominate our courts, government offices, media, schools, businesses, and law enforcement agencies. Then we need to put our medical information into a publicly accessible database, and add to it as we learn more.

We need access to other people's use of drugs!

Today we follow the philosophy that medical information should be kept a secret. We don't even have easy access to our own medical or dental information, and we have virtually no access to information about other people. However, we would all benefit if everybody's medical information was available to everybody. Our medical information is as valuable as the information we gather about apple trees, tigers, and hurricanes. A database of our medical information allows us to understand human health.

When a person takes a drug, regardless of whether he's experimenting on his own, or taking the drug because the doctor is recommending it, his reaction should be considered as valuable scientific data on how his particular body reacted to the drug. When lots of people take the same drug, then we can learn how different people react to that particular drug. This in turn can help all of us understand the value and dangers of that particular drug. By comparison, when everybody's information is secret, we cannot learn anything!

A database of everybody's reaction to a drug would also help us to understand which drugs are completely worthless. For example, a database would allow us to look through the medical records of everybody who has used apricot seeds as a cure for cancer, and that could help us determine if those seeds have any potential. It would help to expose the incompetent medical researchers. The only people who have to fear this type of database are the con-artists, criminals, and freaks. The rest of us would benefit tremendously with such a database.

People who fear databases are savages

Dentists and doctors can now take digital X-rays, which makes it extremely easy for our X-rays to be transferred directly to a public database on the Internet. We can also easily transfer MRI images, CAT scans, drug prescriptions, and all other medical information. Unfortunately, most people are afraid that if their medical information is public, then... what? Are they going to die?
No! Don't let people see my X-rays!
Animals don't "think" about problems or issues; rather, they "react". And when they encounter something they don't understand, or something that is unfamiliar with to them, they react with fear. Likewise, most people react with fear to everything that is unusual, even if it's completely harmless, such as Mochi.

We currently keep all of our medical information a secret, so putting all medical information in a public database requires that we change our course for the future. Most people react with fear to changes. They don't want to think about the issue, or discuss the issue, or change their course in life. They want everything to remain exactly as it is. The people who fear a publicly accessible database should seriously ask themselves such questions as:

"Who on this planet would want to look at my medical information? And of the few people who looked at my information, how would it affect my life? How would I even know if somebody were to look at one of my x-rays, or my medical history?"

I posted images of my MRI scan

My father's side of our family has good hip joints, but my mother and some of her sisters have already had their hips replaced, and my mother had a knee replaced, also. The Danish side of my ancestors have bad joints. Therefore, I was wondering, do I have my father's, strong hip joints? Or do I have the inferior joints from my Danish ancestors? Am I going to need my hips or knees replaced when I get older? Since I don't have any health insurance, if my hips or knees are going to need replacement, I must start saving money for the rather expensive surgery.

Incidentally, most of the money that Americans spend on hip and knee replacements is going to parasites at hospitals, insurance companies, and other businesses, not to the doctors, nurses, machinists, or other people who are doing useful work.

In October 2007 I was feeling a strange pain near my right hip, and although I doubted it was a sign that my hip was failing (I suspected it was just some sore muscles), I decided to go to a doctor anyway and have an MRI scan just so that I can get some idea on whether I need to start worrying about saving money for hip replacement surgeries. Also, I was curious as to what an MRI scan was like, and what it would show. Unlike CAT scans, the MRI scan is supposed to be safe.

I posted the images from my MRI scan in the zip file below. And, now that I've posted that file, I challenge the people who are paranoid of putting medical information on the Internet to find a way to use my MRI information to hurt me, or to hurt society.

Here is a zip file of my MRI scan:   20 mbytes (fixed link!)

Instructions for the MRI zip file:
The zip file has the folders and files that were created by the MRI scanning software. Unzip it into whatever folder you please, but let it create the sub-folders that it wants to create. Then, in whatever folder you installed it, you will find 4 files, one of which is called launch.exe, which is the only file you run. You can ignore all of the other folders and files. Once the MRI software is running, look for the title Study List, and then click the only link, which is the time and date of my MRI scan: 2007/10/22 10:08:01

Once you click on an image to make it full size, there will be a section at the top of the screen that shows the word Image, and there will be two arrowheads (< >). You can click the arrowheads to scroll forward and backward through the "slices" of my body. Some sets of images are vertical slices (as in the image above), and some are horizontal slices. If you have never seen images from an MRI or CAT scan, you might find it fascinating, and it might help you to understand how valuable this technology is in regards to helping us understand what is inside of ourselves.

Nobody will figure out how to use my MRI data in a harmful manner. Rather, my MRI data will be beneficial to a few people who have never seen an MRI scan because it will help them to understand what the MRI scan of a hip looks like, and it will show them how to use the software that views the MRI images. Therefore, the overall effect on the world of my MRI data is that it will have a trivial but beneficial educational effect for some people. It will not be detrimental to anybody.

Furthermore, some people might find some entertainment value in those MRI scans as they try to solve the puzzle of identifying the bones, internal organs, and muscles. For example, can you figure out where my bladder is in those images? Can you see the cartilage in the hip joints? Are my kidneys visible in any of them? What about my spleen or liver?

I posted my dental X-rays, also!

Here is a zip file of my dental X-rays:   660 K bytes (fixed link!)

Unlike the MRI scan, which comes with its own software to view the images, these are just 17 individual, jpg images.

The image to the right is a small version of image #10, which shows the rear, left side of my mouth. The large white area is a gold crown, and to its right is my rear molar with a large mercury filling.

The X-ray images show a large mercury filling in each of my bottom, rear molars, and some smaller filling in some of the other teeth. All of my fillings are from my teenage years or earlier, and the two large fillings were starting to deteriorate. I had both of those large fillings replaced this month, and it was a good thing because there was a bit of decay starting underneath. Now I have only the smaller mercury fillings. I don't know if it's better to leave them in my teeth, or have them replaced, but I am leaving them alone for now.

Incidentally, my dentist has a small CEREC CNC machine that cuts ceramic fillings. This is truly amazing technology! He first removed the mercury filling (probably in a way that contaminated me with mercury, but what can I do about that?), and then he drilled a bit of the tooth to remove some of the decay that was underneath the old, decrepit mercury filling, and to make it more suitable for the ceramic filling. Next he took a three-dimensional image of the tooth, and then used CAD/CAM software to design a ceramic insert to fit into that tooth and match the upper teeth. Then he used the CNC machine to cut a rectangular block of ceramic. Then he installed the ceramic insert. He replaced one filling on one day, and the other filling the next week, and in both cases I was in and out of his office in about two hours! This is another example of how CNC equipment is much more useful than most people realize. Perhaps after a few decades the dentists will be supervising robots to do the dental work even faster and more accurately.

I looked through some of the videos on the Internet of the CNC machine, but the ones I saw were silly or idiotic, rather than serious and descriptive. Not many people are interested in manufacturing, CAD/CAM software, or CNC equipment, but as I described here, I think that if this technology was presented properly, we could make a television show about it that is both entertaining and informative.

Why should we tolerate deception?

The only people who have to fear public access to their medical information are people who are trying to deceive us about themselves. This brings up a very important issue that you should seriously contemplate. Specifically, why should we encourage people to deceive us about who they really are? 

Consider the people who color their gray hair in order to deceive us about their age, or to hide the fact that they are turning gray prematurely. Should society allow scientists and other people to research and manufacture hair dyes? Or should we put those people on more productive tasks? If we produce hair dyes, should we allow people to use them secretly? Or should we maintain a public database of everybody and their activities so that we can easily see who among us is using the hair dyes, and how often, and what type of dyes?

As I've mentioned in other files, I don't think we should tolerate deception, especially not when we are looking for a spouse. We are young for only a few years, and when we allow people to deceive us, we can waste an enormous amount of our precious youth, and if we get married and then discover that the person is not what we thought, we waste even more time.

Furthermore, when we encourage people to deceive one another, even if it is for something "trivial", such as hair color, other people will eventually want to deceive us about some other feature that they are unhappy with. Eventually some people will be having so much cosmetic surgery that they transform themselves into alien creatures from other planets. (Joan Rivers is in the photo.)

I don't see how you, me, or society, will benefit when we allow people to deceive one another about their physical or mental qualities. I also think that society is wasting people and resources on the research, manufacturing, cosmetic surgeries, and other activities related to this deception. We should know exactly who we are living with, and who our potential friends and spouses are.

Cosmetic surgery should be to fix problems, not to deceive one another. If we allow people to get cosmetic surgery simply for deception, then we should require that all of these cosmetic surgeries be listed in a public database so that none of those people can deceive us or hide their surgeries. Everybody's medical information should be available in a publicly accessible database. We should create a society that is honest. Our distant ancestors knew one another intimately, and I think we would have a much nicer society if we also promoted extreme levels of honesty.

When we select a spouse, we should fall in love with a human, not a fictional image that a con-artist has created. When a business hires a person, they should be hiring a human, not a fictional image. When you form a friendship with somebody, you should become friends with a human; you should not form a friendship with a fictional image.

The only people who benefit from deception are people who have disgusting qualities, but why should we encourage them to deceive us? Whose "rights" are going to dominate? Consider this issue seriously! Do people who dislike themselves have a right to deceive us? Or do we have a right to know who other people really are?

Growing old should be part of life's adventure

A lot of Americans over the age of 60 are having cosmetic surgery, and some of them claim that is because they want to "look the way they feel", but I think the primary reason people have these surgeries, whether they are young or old, is because they are actually unhappy with their lives, and they are hoping that cosmetic surgery will bring them some happiness.
The people who are the most resistant to growing old and dying claim that they don't want to die because they are having so much fun, but I think the exact opposite is true. I think that when people have truly enjoyed their life, they will be much more willing to accept gray hair, wrinkles, and death. By comparison, the people who have never truly been happy will be terrified when they see wrinkles on their face and realize that they will be dying soon because the thought of death makes them feel as if they have been cheated; as if they have missed out on life.

If we were living in a society in which we trusted and respected the people we lived among, and if we all had friends, jobs, and activities that we enjoyed, then we would grow old with our friends. When we retired, we would all switch to jobs that have been set aside for retired people, and we would change some of our social activities, and we would simply continue to enjoy life with our gray and wrinkled friends. Growing old should simply be the final path in the adventure of life, and it should be full of surprises, fun, and wonders, just as the earlier parts of the path.

Unfortunately, we are living in a society in which an enormous percentage of the population is miserable, lonely, frustrated, and confused. America has an unusually large number of lonely people because many of us are surrounded by neighbors that we don't like, or who we fear, or who we cannot speak to because they refuse to learn English. A lot of people are growing old without any real friends. Some of these unhappy people think that the solution is cosmetic surgery, but the solution is to improve society.

Imagine total surveillance of all of us

To understand how valuable a medical database could be, imagine an extreme example in which we are under total surveillance. Imagine living in a more advanced city in which robotic waitresses keep track of exactly how much food they served to us, and how much food we leave on the plate, thereby allowing the database to keep track of how much of every type of food we consume, and the time of day at which we consumed it. And imagine robotic toilets that do an analysis of our waste products to determine how much of our food was properly digested, and whether our kidneys inadvertently released important chemicals. Imagine other computers around the city keeping track of pollen, wind, air pressure, and other environmental variables. 

With this type of extreme database, we might eventually start noticing patterns in our behavior and health. We might notice that under certain weather conditions, more people get into louder, longer, and/or more arguments, whereas other weather conditions result in the city becoming quieter overall as the people become more relaxed and their conversations become more quiet and pleasant.

We might also notice that after restaurants serve certain types of food, people have more trouble sleeping at night, and when certain other meals are served, the people are more prone to engage in physical activities, and certain other meals cause people to relax. The robotic toilets might notice a pattern that certain types of food cause more digestive problems.

The surveillance of our coughing, use of tissues, sneezing, and nose-picking might show us that allergies increase and decrease according to much more than just the pollen levels in the air. We might find that allergies are also affected by certain foods, drinks, physical activities, and sleeping patterns. 

The more extensive a database is, the more valuable it is. People who resist these databases should be regarded as savages who are interfering with our understanding of health and nutrition. We have to stand up to these mindless creatures. We have to decide, who are we living for? Why should we try to appease the crude, irrational jerks who behave like animals? We should design society for high quality people and tell the others to deal with it, or be evicted from society.

We could conduct experiments without people realizing it!

An extreme monitoring of the population would allow us to conduct all sorts of interesting experiments very easily and safely. For example, a group of restaurants could participate in an experiment in which they serve the same exact meal to everybody, but half of the people are given some fresh pineapple or papaya at the beginning of the meal. We would then be able to observe whether there is any difference in the behavior or waste products of those people. Another experiment would be to serve the pineapple or papaya at the end of the meal to see if those fruits are more beneficial when served after eating.

Another experiment would be to serve two groups of people the exact same meals, but one group would eat the meat first, and then have to wait an hour before being served the vegetables. This would help us to determine whether it's better to mix all foods into one meal, or whether it's better to eat certain foods separately and give them a chance to digest before eating certain other foods.

Experiments like this are so harmless that we don't have to bother asking people if they are willing to participate. In fact, it would be better if they didn't realize they were part of an experiment because the psychological effect can alter the results of the experiment.

Another reason that it's better to conduct harmless experiments without asking for volunteers because the people who volunteer are not likely to be a random sample of the population. There will be something slightly different about their minds, which is why they volunteered. But if their minds are different, their bodies may be different, also. Therefore, we will get a better understanding of human health by taking a truly random sample of the population, and that requires using people at random rather than asking for volunteers.

Would surveillance of our fingernails be useful?

The idea of keeping photos, chemical analyses, and/or other information about people's fingernails, might seem silly, but I've noticed that sometimes my fingernails develop ridges, bumps, or discolorations. If any of these changes have significance to our health, then monitoring our fingernails might help us to understand our health.

The biggest change I've ever seen with my fingernails happened a few weeks ago, or maybe it started a couple months ago. A ridge (or trough) formed on all fingers of both hands, and the ridge was extreme on the four fingers of my right hand. I don't remember anything like this happening to my fingernails before. (If I was one of those "conspiracy nuts", I would wonder if somebody put poison in my food!)

The photo shows only three fingers of my right hand because by the time I decided to take this photo, the ridge had already grown past the end of my little finger. The ridges on my left hand fingernails are small and insignificant by comparison.

(The photo is from 1 Aug 2011)

When this ridge first started, the entire fingernail was intact, but as the weeks passed, the section above the ridge begin to separate and tear away from the rest of the fingernail. This allows dirt to get underneath, and it makes the fingernail very weak.

This change in my fingernails may have happened when my original brand of DHEA ran out, or maybe it happened when I stopped the high levels of capsaicin.

Is it useful to analyze hair, saliva, or skin?
At the moment, it is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming for us to analyze fingernails, blood, and hair, but as technology improves, there may be a point at we have the technology to create sensors for robots that can identify microscopic amounts of certain chemicals, in which case the robots would be able to analyze our breath, perspiration, saliva, hair, or whatever, thereby making it practical to keep detailed medical information about us.

The antenna of a moth has an incredible ability to identify certain molecules, and if we could develop electronic versions of a moth antennae, and design them to be sensitive to a variety of chemicals that humans produce, then it would be easy for us to monitor the chemicals that our body produces. We could routinely collect data about the chemicals our body is producing. This might provide us with valuable information about how our health is affected by diet, age, exercise, and weather conditions.

We should design society for advanced humans, not savages
What is the best way to help defective people? 
Most people believe that the best way to take care of retarded, poor, homeless, and other defective people is to feel sorry for them, give them handouts of some type, and entertain them. Two examples,
• The television show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, builds houses for people that they consider especially wonderful citizens. However, their philosophy is that the people who are most special and who deserve new homes are people who are giving pity to defective children.

• During every Christmas there are lots of people who want to do something for other people. However, virtually all of these people follow the philosophy that the people they need to help are children in poverty, and that the way to help them is to provide them with handouts of some type, such as toys or food. Some of the Hells Angels motorcycle riders even get involved with "Christmas Toy Drives"!

Defective and poor people are having a much nicer life today than they did in previous centuries, but it's not because they are getting more pity or toys today. Rather, it's because of advances in technology. The television show, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, would actually do more good for defective people if they changed to "Extreme Makeover, Skill Center Edition" and switched to the philosophy that the people most in need of their assistance are those who are showing signs of intelligence, talent, responsibility, and a desire to help society. Instead of providing homes and wheelchairs for retarded children, they should provide schools and cities with training centers and laboratories so that healthy, responsible, happy children can learn about and practice with CNC equipment, robots, greenhouses, computers, nutrition, manufacturing techniques, and other technology. Everybody benefits as more people in society develop useful skills and increase our knowledge about health, life, and science. Incidentally, although I have not seen all of their episodes, I have never seen the people on the Extreme Makeover television show using CNC equipment. Are they resisting modern technology?

The people who believe that "Christmas Toy Drives" are helping poor people are also fools who are wasting their time. They are also wasting our resources by encouraging the production of toys. Those people would also do more good for everybody - including poor children - if they would instead have a "Christmas CNC Equipment Drive", or a "Christmas Scientific Laboratory Drive".

When the people on the Extreme Makeover television show build a home, they help a retarded child have a more comfortable life, but that doesn't do the millions of other retarded people any good. And it doesn't do anything to help the future generations of retarded people. The people on that television show are as foolish as a person who tosses a bag of rice to a million starving Africans. These people praise themselves for being generous and loving, but in reality they are fools who are wasting their time and wasting our resources. The only way to help people is to educate them so that they can help themselves. Therefore, the Extreme Makeover crew, the Hells Angels, and all of the other people who are throwing food to starving children, should instead encourage children to develop useful skills.

Protecting Underdogs adds a burden to society

Consider the issue of eyeglasses. Most people have no way of measuring their eyesight, so they have to go to a doctor to have their eyes tested. The doctor writes a prescription for eyeglasses, and that allows the person to purchase eyeglasses. If the person loses those eyeglasses, he cannot walk into any retail store that offers eyeglasses within an hour and get an instant replacement because he needs a prescription! But why should he need a prescription? If he remembers the strength of his eyesglasses, why can't he just ask for it? This is an especially annoying problem if the person is traveling at the time that he loses his eyeglasses. If the person is not certain of the strength of his eyeglasses and orders the wrong value, if he is traveling and in a rush, getting glasses that are too strong or too weak is better than having none at all.

Furthermore, if everybody's medical information was in a publicly accessible database, then nobody would need to wonder what strength their eyeglasses are because it would be accessible anywhere in the world to anybody with an Internet connection.

Eyeglasses are a restricted item in order to prevent people from inadvertently asking for the wrong glasses, which could cause some eyestrain. And supposedly, some people who don't have much money would order eyeglasses by guessing at what they or their children need. But why should we care if somebody orders the wrong strength of eyeglasses?

A lot of women are purchasing shoes that hurt their feet, but nobody cares about that. Actually, women are doing more than hurting their feet, they are causing permanent damage to their feet. Why are women allowed to destroy their feet, but people are not allowed to purchase eyeglasses without a prescription? Why not make women's shoes by prescription only so that we can ensure that they are wearing shoes that are comfortable? And why are we allowing people to get jewelry in their tongue? That often causes infections, and sometimes it harms their teeth.

You may think that this issue has no effect on your life, but as I pointed out in other files, humans today are like gears in a transmission. We work together as a unit, and when some of us are doing unnecessary work, it becomes a burden on everybody. When we have laws that require eyeglasses be by prescription only, we are all burdened because this law requires the retail stores to deal with additional paperwork, and government agencies have to enforce the rules. In the case of eyeglasses, the burden is trivial, but this is just one of many small burdens that we have to deal with. We have thousands of unnecessary laws, and this is creating a lot of unnecessary work for people in retail stores, police departments, government agencies, schools, and businesses.

Every law adds a burden on society, and so we should make sure that every law has a benefit that outweighs its burden. What is the benefit to making eyeglasses by prescription only? And does that benefit justify the burden? I don't think so.

We should change our philosophy and stop feeling sorry for "Underdogs", retards, and freaks. We should provide everybody with access to honest information about the dangers of medical drugs, shoes, eyeglasses, and jewelry, and if an adult chooses to hurt himself, that is his problem. The rest of us should not feel responsible for him, or treat him like a baby.

If we were to eliminate the unnecessary laws and paperwork, the people who are currently wasting their time with that burden would be able to do something more productive, or their hours could be reduced, which would be useful for people who want to work part-time, especially women who have children to take care of.

Most people do not need or want medical information

The people who are afraid of databases probably imagine that other people will spend hours a day looking through the database, but if we had free access to an extensive database of everybody's medical and dental information, a lot of us would be curious and look through some of the information, but we would soon get bored. After our initial curiosity was satisfied, we would look in the database only for a sensible reason, such to look at the medical and dental information of a person that we are considering as a spouse. Nobody's privacy would be "invaded", and nobody would suffer, other than the people who are trying to hide something from us.

Some people are so crude that they don't even want access to their own medical information! For example, there are a lot of people who have made remarks that if their doctor were to discover that they have a dangerous, life-threatening disease or cancer, they would prefer their doctor keep the information a secret! A lot of people have trouble handling the unpleasant aspects of reality. Many people cannot even handle criticism! Most people behave like a primitive savage, or an animal. Why should we design society to appease these crude people? We should design society for healthy, advanced humans, and we should tell the crude people to keep quiet and ignore the databases.

Don't feel responsible for "medical Underdogs" !

One of the reasons we restrict certain drugs to prescription-only is to protect people from their stupidity, ignorance, incompetence, laziness, irresponsibility, or refusal to read instructions. Also some people mix medical information with religion, voodoo, women's intuition, gut feelings, and hunches.

Doctors and dentists follow the philosophy that we are stupid, ignorant jerks who must be protected. We should change our attitude. Society should not try to protect savages. If a person is incapable of functioning properly in society, he should be regarded as an intelligent monkey, not as a human. These misfits should be removed, or they should be classified as second-class citizens who have restricted freedoms.

We should stop feeling sorry for the mentally incompetent people, misfits, criminals, psychos, and idiots. We are not going to help ourselves or society by feeling sorry for people whose minds are too primitive for this modern era. The human race must evolve into a more advanced creature that is better able to deal with this technically advanced world.

Why are some people choking to death on food?

News reports make it appear as if people at random are choking to death on hot dogs. Some pediatricians are asking for a choke-proof hot-dog. Recently a 14-year-old boy, Colton Rhines, (in the photo) choked to death on a hot dog during his school lunch. In that particular news article, Colton Rhines is described as "apparently" autistic, but I would say he is "obviously retarded", or "obviously defective".

The choking on food is another example of the value of an extensive database of everybody's life. We would be able to analyze the people who have a tendency to choke to death on their food, and I suspect that we would discover that those people tend to be genetically inferior. They may be more like animals, which have a tendency to swallow large chunks of food at a rapid pace rather than chew their meal and enjoy the food, like a human. Or there may be something defective about their mouth, throat, or eating habits.

Who is choking on food? And why? And which foods?

When someone chokes on food, we should not react with fear, panic, or horror. Instead, we should remain calm and analyze the situation. We cannot solve a problem until we analyze it. Why were they choking? We need to find out what type of food they were choking on, and the location that they were in. Were they sitting in a chair at a dinner table? Or were they trying to eat while walking, or driving a car? Or were they eating while reclining in a chair, a bed, or a couch? Were they watching television, talking to people, playing with their pet dog, talking on the telephone, playing a videogame, or doing some other activity while they were eating? What type of food were they eating? Was the food hard and dry, or soft and sweet, or acidic?

Almost everybody has noticed that they might choke on their food when somebody makes them laugh while they are eating, but that type of choking is rarely fatal. However, after decades I noticed another reason I sometimes choke on food. Specifically, when I am eating something that is very acidic or spicy, such as something with lots of vinegar, orange juice, or chili, and, in addition, when I have my head tilted backwards while eating those foods.

Normally I do not have my head tilted backwards when I eat. However, this can happen when I am in the process of swallowing those types of foods and something or somebody causes me to look upwards. Also, I can get into that position when eating outdoors on typical patio furniture, which has a tendency to put us in a reclined position, or if I try to eat on a couch or in a reclining chair. I have come to the conclusion that I should not eat acidic or spicy foods while reclining!

If we had complete surveillance of everybody all throughout the day and night, we would notice that the choking on food is not occurring at random. I eventually discovered that I was choking when I was doing something that I would describe as unnatural, namely, eating highly acidic or spicy foods while in a slightly reclined position. Our primitive ancestors didn't eat those types of foods, and they didn't eat while reclining. Our ancestors had a tendency to eat while sitting down, kneeling, or standing. They didn't have patio furniture, couches, or recliners. As a result, humans did not evolve into a creature that was designed to eat while in a reclined position, and our throat did not evolve the ability to keep acidic or spicy liquids away from our lungs.

A database of everybody's activities would help us uncover other patterns with people who choke on food. I suspect that most of the people who have died from choking on food are simply defective people. The type of choking I have done during my life was never life-threatening. I have never even come close to choking on big pieces of food because I have never attempted to swallow any giant pieces of food.

Why have I never tried to swallow large pieces of food? I don't remember ever forcing myself to chew food, not even when I was a child. I always chewed my food, and I chewed the food because I wanted to chew it, not because I was frightened of choking on large pieces. So, why are some people swallowing large pieces of food, like an animal? I think it is because those people truly are more like animals. Animals do not get together to socialize during dinner, and they don't have slow, relaxed meals. They eat at a very rapid pace, and they take large bites, and swallow the pieces quickly.

Which drugs should be freely available to us?

Some drugs are illegal, such as cocaine, and some drugs are legal, such as alcohol and aspirin, and lots of drugs are restricted to prescription only. There are sensible reasons for restricting a child's access to such dangerous items as drugs, razor blades, and electricity, but I think adults should have access to virtually all drugs. I would restrict everybody's access to certain dangerous items, such as radioactive elements, poisons, and explosives, but I don't think it's a good philosophy for society to try controlling an adults use of recreational drugs or medical drugs.

I don't think our current drug policies make any sense. For example, aspirin, which is dangerous, is available to everybody - even children can purchase it! - whereas marijuana, which doesn't seem to be very dangerous, is illegal, and testosterone, which is a natural hormone that both men and women need at certain levels, is available by prescription only. What is the justification for providing everybody with access to the dangerous aspirin, but restricting access to the less dangerous marijuana and testosterone?

A lot of tax money is spent in an attempt to stop ordinary people from acquiring marijuana, heroin, steroids, Vicodin, and other drugs, and policemen are sometimes killed or permanently injured in the process, but the people who want those drugs are getting them anyway. So who is benefiting from the attempt to control the drugs?

Most people react to problems like a stupid animal

When most people experience a problem, their reaction is to run and hide from it rather than remain calm and analyze the problem. For example, when I was a child, we could buy spray paints and glues, but during the 1960s and 1970s, some children began deliberately breathing the fumes of certain glues and paints, as if they were a recreational drug. Adults reacted by restricting access to those particular chemicals, and some companies changed the formula they were using to reduce the chemical that the children were using as a drug.

Although this policy may have reduced the number of children breathing those particular chemicals, it didn't solve any problem. The children who were attracted to that particular activity continued to have whatever problem they were suffering from.

For another example, prior to the 20th century, marijuana was legal in America. It was made illegal in order to... do what? What is the purpose of making it illegal? Our restrictions on marijuana are ineffective because the people who have strong cravings for marijuana will find a way to get it, and if they want to abuse the marijuana, they will abuse it regardless of what you or I say or do. We are fools to waste our tax money and risk the lives of policemen on the futile attempt to stop people from using - or abusing - marijuana or other drugs.

Why not make high-heeled shoes illegal?

Why not outlaw high-heeled, pointed shoes in order to protect women? What would you think if police were dying in an attempt to stop women from purchasing high-heeled shoes? What would you think if gangs were forming to sell high-heeled shoes to your wife, mother, daughter, or sister?

Would legalizing all drugs increase drug abuse?

Many people worry that if we were to remove restrictions on prescription and illegal drugs, then lots of people would abuse drugs, but consider how unrealistic that concern is. It is certainly true that there are some people who are afraid to use drugs because they are illegal, and those people would use drugs if we were to make them legal, but I think they are a very small percentage of the population. I think most of the people who want drugs are using them right now.

To understand this concept, imagine an extreme example. Imagine that starting today, the government made all drugs legal to all adults, and that all the drugs are subsidized by tax money, so they are free. Imagine that supermarkets, and other retail stores, have large bins of Vicodin, insulin, LSD, steroids, cocaine, and all sorts of other drugs, all of which are completely free of charge. Would you be excited to have this freedom? Would you pick up some Vicodin pills, or some vials of insulin? And if so, would you use those drugs carefully, or would you abuse them?

Let's go one step further and assume that the government is also subsidizing all of the alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. If you had free access to all of those items, would you be excited? Would you pick up any of the free beer or Cuban cigars? And if so, would use those products in sensible quantities, or would you abuse them?

Let's go even more extreme. Imagine that the government picks up all of the unwanted children from the streets and the orphanages, and puts them in retail stores for us to use as sex slaves or labor slaves. Would you enjoy that? If so, would you prefer to rape the boys or the girls, or both?

What would you do if you were to walk down a row in your local market and find bins of free Vicodin pills, bottles of beer, unwanted children, heroin, steroids, and insulin? Which of those items would you take home with you? And of the items that you took home, which of them would you use in a sensible manner, and which of them would you abuse?

Why should we protect freaks who abuse drugs or rape children?

We currently try to stop people from raping children, abusing drugs, or doing other destructive things, but why should we design society from the point of view of protecting the retarded, freaky, defective, and psychotic people from hurting themselves, or hurting us? My suggestion is to change our philosophy and stop feeling sorry for freaks, retards, and criminals. We should design society according to the best-quality people.

For example, we should not "protect" children from pedophiles; rather, we should remove the pedophiles. There is no sense in feeling sorry for people who don't fit into modern society. We are wasting our time and money, and the lives of policemen, by fighting with them, putting them in jail, making them pay fines, and trying to control them.

Adults should not be treated like animals

The ideal society is one in which everything is legal, and none of the adults have to be treated as helpless babies and protected from their idiotic behavior. Furthermore, we should not have to treat any adults as potentially dangerous animals that must be controlled. All adults should be responsible, honest, pleasant, and contributing to society. We should not have to fear or be suspicious of one another. We should be able to trust and respect each other.

If all adults had access to all drugs, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and unwanted children, we would discover that only some of us want to use those drugs and rape the children. Furthermore, of the people who used some of the drugs, only some of those people would abuse the drugs. So, why should society feel sorry for the people who want to abuse drugs or rape children? Why should we waste time, resources, and the lives of policemen on the futile attempt to protect those freaks from their horrible behavior? Get them out of society!

Let every city set standards for behavior

I think a better solution is to set standards of behavior for the people in society, and evict the people who don't fit in, rather than try to fix or control them. As I wrote years ago here, my suggestion is to design cities to be semi-independent nations. This allows every city to have its own unique culture. This would provide a lot of variations with culture, and we would select the city that is most appropriate for our personality. If one particular city did not want any drug use or public intoxication, then the people who had an interest in those activities would be exiled rather than punished. They would have to find a city that tolerates their particular behavior.
Of course, since my concept of the cities allows each of them to restrict immigration, there are going to be a lot of people whose behavior is so bizarre or destructive that no city will accept them. Those unwanted people would have to be sterilized and sent to the City of Misfits. This might seem cruel, but it is cruel to put them in and out of jail, also. There is no pleasant way to deal with misfits.

Crime prevention is a burden

We are not stopping burglaries by putting locks on our doors. We are actually causing more trouble for the honest people. How many people have tried to break into your house but were prevented because of the locks on your doors? Probably none! However, if you ever locked yourself out of your house, then your locks caused more trouble to you than to any of the burglars. Furthermore, you must pay for some of the locks and keys that you use, and even though they are a small expense, there are millions of other locks, keys, and security devices that we must all indirectly contribute to.

Likewise, many honest people are wasting money and time in a futile attempt to deal with computer viruses and deceptive e-mail messages. Our lives would be more pleasant if we could reduce the quantity of security devices. This requires we exile criminals rather than make them pay fines or put them in jail for a while.

We should reduce unskilled labor to the bare minimum

I advocate the legalizing of prescription drugs so that we can experiment with them, but there is another advantage to legalizing virtually all drugs and medical treatments; specifically, as we reduce the number of items that are illegal or restricted, we reduce the number of jobs that are needed to monitor those controlled substances, and many of those jobs are unpleasant, dangerous, monotonous, or unskilled labor.

When we make something illegal or restricted, we impose a burden on society because it requires people to control the item. Therefore, whenever we classify something as restricted or illegal, we have to occasionally analyze the situation to determine if the burden is worth the benefit.

For a simple example, when we make eyeglasses a restricted item, we impose a small burden on doctors, manufacturers, and everybody who deals with eyeglasses, but what is the benefit to restricting eyeglasses? And does the benefit compensate for the burden? I don't know of any benefit, so even though the burden is small, it should be removed. We should make society as efficient as possible. 

For another simple example, we are currently restricting access to public trains and buses. This imposes a burden on society because we need tickets of some type to use the systems, and lots of people have to design, build, maintain, and monitor the machines, turnstiles, security cameras, and other devices that are used in the ticketing and security systems. If we were to remove the restrictions on public transportation, then all of those people and resources could be shifted to more productive tasks. We should ask ourselves, is the burden worth the benefit? I think the best policy is to design cities that have efficient public transportation systems, and provide it for free. The only transportation systems that would need restrictions are those in short supply, such as airplanes, or those that are used for recreation, such as when thousands of people decide to use rowboats on a small lake at the same time.

Another advantage to removing restrictions is that many of the jobs that are eliminated are unskilled or low-skill labor, such as the people who have to distribute, sell, or verify train tickets. I think society will be more pleasant when we can reduce the number of adults who must do unskilled labor. Ideally, computers and children would handle all of the unskilled labor, and there wouldn't be any adults in that role, especially not adults from other nations who speak foreign languages.

Imagine a society of high quality humans
A submarine crew is like a transmission of precision gears
Although I have never been on a submarine, my impression is that due to the extreme crowding, the Navy must set high standards of behavior for the crew members because the crew has to share virtually everything, and they must keep everything clean and orderly. I doubt if the crew members would tolerate or ignore an irresponsible sailor who leaves a mess on their dining room floor, or who refuses to put items back in their proper location, or who refuses to contribute to the work that needs to be done, or who wastes water, food, clothing, or electricity.
I am also under the impression that a submarine crew is provided with its basic necessities for free, thereby sparing them the burden of paying rent for their bed, paying monthly utility bills, using coin-operated bathrooms, or paying for their meals. Finally, although the people in leadership positions may get slightly better treatment than the other men, I don't think a submarine crew would tolerate the extreme differences between ordinary people and wealthy people that we tolerate on land.

Imagine a city living like a submarine crew

A submarine is not a "city" or a "society"; rather, it is just a large weapon with people temporarily living inside it. However, ignore the military aspect of a submarine and try imagining a city in which the people behave like a submarine crew. Imagine the city sets high standards of behavior for everybody and evicts a person who doesn't meet the standards. Imagine that the city provides all of the basic necessities for free. Imagine that everybody in the city is responsible, trustworthy, cleans up after himself, and contributes to the care and maintenance of the city. And imagine the residents of the city consider every aspect of the city - ie, the parks, trains, buildings, and restaurants - as public property that each of them takes care of and shares.

And imagine that all of the homes are virtually identical in size, furnishings, and other features. Imagine that the difference in living conditions between the people in leadership positions and the rest of the population is as insignificant as it is on the submarine. Nobody in the city is pampered, treated like a king, or allowed to collect large piles of material wealth. 

Imagine a city in which the meals, housing, laundry services, clothing, medical services, electricity, water, telephones, and other basic necessities of modern life are provided free. This would eliminate the need for all of the unskilled and low-skilled employees who deal with money and financial transactions. Imagine a city in which everybody is speaking the same language, and that nobody has been brought in from a foreign nation to serve as a servant or as unskilled labor.

The people in this city would be like precision gears that work together for the benefit of all of society. I think that life in such a city would be much more pleasant and relaxing, and it would be much easier to find a spouse and plenty of friends.

Furthermore, this type of city would seem to be much wealthier because they would save a lot of labor and resources by providing the basic necessities for free. For example, restaurants wouldn't have to waste any of their people or resources on cash registers, credit card processing, or tips. The people who work at the restaurant would concentrate on providing meals, not on collecting money, paying rent, or paying insurance.

The more items that people are capable of providing for free, and more items that they are capable of sharing, the more efficient their society will be. Their engineers, computer programmers, technicians, mechanics, and lots of other people could put more of their time and resources on useful activities rather than on designing, building, maintaining, and operating equipment and software to control people's access to food, laundry services, electricity, etc.

Why should we permit extreme differences in material wealth?

I suggest you start to contemplate the philosophy of allowing some people to become phenomenally wealthy; that some people are so special that we should treat them like kings and queens. The following three photos are of a private home that is for sale (as of July 2011). My opinion is that we are fools to provide a few people with such incredible material wealth. We are not making their life any better, and we are not making society any better.

The room below, for example, allows a small number of friends to watch television in comfort. However, what difference does it make if you own this room or whether the room belongs to society and you share the room with other people? In either case, the room would be incredibly lonely if you did not have some friends to watch television with, and in either case, the room would be very pleasant if you did have some friends. However, when you own the room, then you have the burden of maintaining it, whereas when you share the room, then society handles the maintenance and cleaning, so all you do is enjoy it with your friends.

I think a better philosophy is for our homes to be relatively small and more equal to one another, and society should put its resources into providing a wide variety of recreational rooms, gardens, restaurants, cafes, and other facilities for us to get together for social activities, meals, and entertainment. None of us would own any of the facilities, and they would be of different architectural styles to provide us with lots of variety.
What is the sense of being burdened with the care and maintenance of swimming pools, boats, and large houses with rooms that are rarely, if ever used? Life is more pleasant and relaxed when we are free of such burdens. We should put our resources into providing a variety of rooms for all of society to share.
The wealthy people believe that their collection of material items and their gigantic houses are making them happier than the rest of us, but as I described in other files, human happiness has nothing to do with the quantity of material items we own. Unfortunately, I think that only the truly happy, mentally healthy people will be able to understand this concept. I don't think it's possible to explain it to somebody who is suffering from certain types of mental disorders or intellectual limitations. Therefore, I don't think we should waste our time trying to convince those people that material items have no effect on their happiness. Let them think what they want.

Furthermore, we should not listen to those psychos when we design society. They will push us into allowing some people to become incredibly rich and pampered, but we should ignore the psychotic people. They are not likely to understand that they are psychotic. We should design society according to who we think is healthy, and I don't think the people who are truly healthy and happy believe that they need giant piles of material items in order to enjoy life.

A better society requires better people

We cannot create a society that provides food, housing, public transportation, and other items for free unless we raise standards for behavior of the people in that society. An enormous percentage of the population - probably the majority! - are much too wasteful, selfish, and irresponsible. It is easiest to understand this concept when you look at people who are wealthy. The wealthy people think of themselves as better than the rest of us, but I think they are psychotic. In fact, I think that's why they became wealthy.

Most wealthy people try collecting everything that attracts their attention. They have houses that are so large that they don't use most of the rooms, and some of them have lots of cars, boats, airplanes, or other devices that they have no need for, and rarely, if ever, use. Some of them have more than one house, and some wealthy women have hundreds of shoes, or they have clothing that they wear only one time. These people are behaving just like a stupid animal that grabs at everything that attracts its attention, regardless of whether it has any need for the item.

Some wealthy people also waste enormous amounts of water, electricity, gas, and other resources because they don't care about wasting resources, and some of them don't even care about the fines that they sometimes have to pay for wasting resources. For example, in 1989 there was a shortage of water in my city because of a drought, and we were required to reduce water consumption. A billionaire Neanderthal Jew who lives in Texas, Harold Simmons, and who spent about 10 days a month in Montecito, didn't care about our water shortage. He used an enormous amounts of water for his mansion. He was fined $25,000, but he didn't care about the fine, or the wasted water.

You might be interested to glance at descriptions of this man and consider what a society - or a submarine! -  would be like if every man behaved like him. For example, here is the Jew-biased Wikipedia article about him. He has some type of friendship with Opera Winfrey.

A society can only be as good as its people. A society of "intelligent monkeys", criminals, parasites, and retards cannot provide themselves with free access to food, housing, or laundry services. In order to create the advanced cities that I have suggested in other files, immigration to those cities would have to be by invitation-only, and we would have to set very high standards for the people. Those cities would have to consist of people who are responsible, honest, and trustworthy. We need to live among people who truly want to contribute to society rather than savages who are looking for ways to exploit, manipulate, plagiarize, and deceive us.

Exile the people who cannot handle the freedom that we want for ourselves!

I want to end this article by once again emphasizing my philosophy that we should design society the way we want it to be. We should not lower our standards and design society to fit the crude, stupid, primitive, and retarded people. We do not owe anything to the criminals, retards, idiots, or parasitic people.

The human race is entering an era in which we must work together. Being a member of an organization should be considered a privilege and a responsibility, not a right. We don't owe anybody membership to our city, or to our neighborhood, or to any of our schools, social clubs, or recreational centers. We don't have to allow anybody into our restaurants, either. People who waste food or other resources, for example, can be evicted from society. We don't owe anything to anybody!

We should set standards for behavior, and the people who cannot fit into our society should be exiled. We should not suffer just because some people have a crude, primitive, or defective mind.

Our future can be fantastic!
Most artists have unrealistic designs for cities because they don't know much about science or engineering, but their drawings can help you realize that the human mind is capable of creating a much better world than what we have today. We have the creativity, imagination, and talent to design beautiful cities.
What is holding us back from mixing attractive buildings 
with beautiful canals, parks, greenhouses, bicycle paths, and walkways?
We are held back by feeling sorry for the horde of crude, selfish, psychotic, destructive, and parasitic people. As soon as we can overcome our inhibitions about dealing with destructive people, we will set ourselves free of our ugly, crime-ridden world and take the human race to a paradise!

Help locate the higher-quality people; help them understand our problems and our potential; and inspire them to get involved in this exciting, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the world!

We can do it!