It's very popular to ridicule government "bureaucracies". The recent success of a private company in putting a rocket into Earth orbit is adding more evidence to the theory that governments are hopelessly incompetent, and that we should let businesses handle virtually all of our products and services. In the title of this article in Time magazine is the phrase "The Private Sector Muscles Out NASA". Many companies are now submitting proposals to NASA and offering to help develop spacecraft, but how could NASA need help from little businesses when they have an enormous budget and lots of supposedly intelligent scientists, engineers, and technicians?

What are the people at NASA doing with all of their money, besides faking moon landings and who knows what other crimes? NASA is reinforcing the belief that government "bureaucracies" are inherently incompetent, and that businesses can do the same jobs for less money, in less time, and with fewer people.

Because millions of people have a bad image of government and a good image of businesses, I thought I should begin this article by reviewing the concept that an organization is whatever its people are, and its leaders are the most critical. Our problem is not the intangible concept of a government "bureaucracy". Our problem is the people who are destructive, especially those in leadership positions. If we were to identify and remove the destructive people from our government agencies, businesses, schools, and other organizations, then the performance of all of those groups will improve dramatically. Don't be fooled into thinking that our problem is something intangible, such as a bureaucracy, or poverty, or the military-industrial establishment. Our problem is certain people who are living among us. I'll quickly review this concept by using the media as an example.
 

Our television networks, newspapers, book publishers, and magazines are controlled by businesses, not government "bureaucracies", but our media companies are lying to us and abusing us more than any government agency. In fact, NASA wouldn't be able to get away with faking a moon landing it were not for the criminals within the media to support them. Furthermore, the history books in American schools and colleges are saturated with lies about 9/11, the world wars, Israel, the Holocaust, feminism, slavery, and other issues, but those deceptive books were produced by businesses and professors, not the government.

Our media is disgusting simply because criminals have gotten control of the media companies. If we can find enough people who understand this simple concept, then we can start working on the task of identifying and removing the criminals from the media, government agencies, businesses, schools, and other organizations. Until then, get into the habit of being suspicious of everything the people in media do and say. It's especially important to learn their tricks so that you can counteract their propaganda rather than become a victim. For example, the media promotes idiotic theories to explain the problems of the world, such as blaming the military-industrial establishment, poverty, or government bureaucracies. They are trying to fool us into becoming angry at intangible concepts. They don't want us to realize that our problem are criminals, all of whom can be identified.

Furthermore, an incredible percentage of the most horrible criminals refer to themselves as Jews, and once you realize that, you can make sense of some of their propaganda, such as this article from Professor Chossudovsky that blames the CIA for controlling the innocent media, and being involved with Wikileaks.

It's also important to notice that only certain people get publicity, and only for certain behavior. For example, Lady Gaga, who MTV is promoting as "Woman of the Year" for the second year in a row, is getting publicity because Senator Harry Reid sent her the message "We did it!". What is the relationship between Senator Harry Reid and Lady Gaga? And why are both of them so concerned about getting homosexuals in the US Military? It should be obvious that the Jews are pushing Lady Gaga on us, but they're not trying to help us understand or accept homosexuals. Rather, they have some other agenda, but what? We are not likely to figure out their true motives, but we should get into the habit of looking for diabolical motives in everything the Jews do. Perhaps they're pushing homosexuals because a lot of their crime network is homosexual, in which case they may be trying to get their members into the military so that they can get more influence over the military.

For another example, a woman named Miley Cyrus is in the news for smoking Salvia. I don't know who Miley Cyrus is, but all we have to do is glance at the headlines to realize that she is another example of how the media manipulates us. One article mentions that sales of Salvia have gone up significantly because of that video. Anthony Adams, a former California official who tried to get salvia outlawed, points out that "Miley is a star, and young kids are going to emulate her behavior." If Miley is a bad influence, then why is she a star? Why not ignore her on the grounds that she's not qualified to be a role model? Or why not ignore her smoking and report about something else that she did?

We cannot figure out the details of what is going on, but it should be easy to see the pattern that the Jews are promoting and encouraging bad behavior, and they ignore people who are honest, intelligent, or who set a good example. Once you see that pattern, you can expose it to other people so that they can watch out for it. We can also expose their use of children for sexual titillation, as you can see in the photos of this news report about Miley Cyrus. If more people understood that the Jews were using children as sex objects, then the only parents willing to let their children be used would be the criminals and psychos... or is that already the case?

To further confuse the issue of why the Jews give some people publicity, some of the people who get publicity may be staging events for their own personal benefit. For example, some news reports suggest that Anna Oliver created the video of Miley Cyrus in order to shift attention away from another celebrity. A more confusing example is the television meteorologist, Heidi Jones, who was just accused of lying about her claim that a Hispanic man tried to rape her. Did the Jews arrange for that stunt in order to stir up anger towards Hispanics? Or did Jones do it on her own for her own personal benefit? We will not figure out what Jones is doing, but we will protect ourselves by being suspicious of the media.
 

Imagine a company newsletter with the same type of propaganda, lies, toilet humor, and sexual titillation that we tolerate in television, newspapers, and magazines.

In one of my other files, I pointed out that when you have trouble understanding how a concept applies to a society, think of it on a much smaller scale. In regards to the media, if you realize that America could be described as a "large organization of people", then our newspapers, television news reports, and other publications could be described as large versions of "company newsletters". Therefore, it might help you to understand the media if you imagine a company newsletter that has been taken over by a crime network.

Imagine an organized group of criminals within the Ford Motor Company acquiring all editorial positions of the company newsletter, and using the newsletter to cover up their crimes and fool people into thinking that the newsletter was providing the truth. Also, imagine that the criminals are promoting sexual titillation, drug use, toilet humor, homosexuals in top management positions, and childish attacks on employees that they didn't like.

Most people would be disgusted with such a newsletter, but that is what we are tolerating from our newspapers, magazines, and television shows!

For a final example, Angelina Jolie was recently attacked once again, this time by the Jewish comedian, Chelsea Handler. Would you have given Handler's crude, nasty remarks any publicity? Imagine a company newsletter giving favorable publicity to an employee who attacked another employee like that.

We don't need the details of why the Jews are attacking Angelina Jolie to realize that we are fools to allow the Jews to use the media to manipulate us. We don't have to put up with their abuse. Furthermore, don't fall for their propaganda that our problems are coming from "bureaucracies", a "military-industrial establishment", "poverty", or the CIA. All of the world's problems are the result of people who are lying, cheating, murdering, deceiving, raping, and manipulating. All of those people have names and addresses. We will improve the world as soon as we find enough other people who can understand this simple concept and are willing to help identify and remove those destructive people.

In this article I will describe some of our opportunities in regards to sports, but keep in mind that I'm referring to a government in which we have removed the criminals, not the governments of today.

A Chinese gymnastic trainer sitting on a young child. (More photos here.)

Most nations are putting an enormous amount of time, effort, and resources into professional and amateur sports. For a few examples:

• Many cities, high schools, and colleges have their own sports facilities.
• Children around the world are putting a lot of time and effort into extreme training programs to become athletes.
• A lot of businesses are profiting from the production or sales of sports equipment, and some businesses are conducting research into improving golf balls, football helmets, and other sports equipment.
• There are so many athletes being injured that some medical personnel are specializing in sports injuries, and there are organizations that are supposedly reducing the problem, such as the National Academy of Sports Medicine. There are even some psychologists referring to themselves as "sport psychologists".

In America, some football games and Olympic events are watched by about half of the households in America, according to the list of the most popular television shows. Some of our sports organizations are so large (the Amateur Athletic Union claims to have more than 500,000 participants) that there may be millions of Americans who would classify as a professional or amateur athlete.

Considering that a lot of people and resources are going into sports, and considering that those people could be working on other projects, we ought to analyze our sports and determine if we want to improve any of them. We should also discuss the role we want businesses to play in sports. For example, as I write this Mark Cuban wants to alter college football to increase profit. Businesses always justify their proposals by claiming that everybody benefits when we allow them to make a profit, but we need to take a serious look at the effect businesses are having on sports. I think businesses are a bad influence on sports and social activities.
 

The concept of "improving" a sport may seem silly, but a "sport" is just like a telephone, computer monitor, and refrigerator. It is just some technology, except that a sport is intangible, social technology. Sports can be analyzed and improved just like we analyze and improve airplanes.

For example, the sport of ice skating began as a very simple competition of talent, such as being able to skate in a figure 8. It was referred to as "figure skating". When I was a child, the Olympic ice skaters were still doing those figures. It was so boring that it was discarded prior to the 1992 Olympics, but why stop with that minor improvement? I think the sport of ice skating is still putting too much emphasis on athletic stunts and should become more artistic and entertaining. Also, the people who dropped the figure skating events didn't bother to drop the word "figure" from the sport of "figure skating". Why not refer to it as "ice-skating"?

Instead of allowing our sports to evolve in a silly, haphazard manner, we should take control of them and make them become what we want them to be. We should analyze all of our sports and ask ourselves such questions as, "Who benefits from this sport? And what is the benefit? Can we make this sport more entertaining, or less expensive, or less dangerous, or more useful to either the athletes or society?"

The food-eating contests are a good example of a sport that needs to be abandoned. Nobody benefits from those sports. Actually, I think those sports are detrimental to society because I think they encourage childish behavior. You might assume that only stupid or uneducated people get involved with food-eating contests, but there are universities holding these contests for what are supposedly the most intelligent members of society, such as this at the University of Wisconsin, and this at the George Washington University. In Taiwan, a student died as a result of choking on food during his university's annual food-eating contest.

There are also businesses holding these contests for their employees. For example, Nokia-Siemens held one in India, and one of the employees died as a result. Why should universities and businesses promote food-eating contests? According to this website, businesses in India hold these contests "to spur competition between employees, in a culture which fosters cooperation." I don't understand that remark, but I doubt that the food-eating contests are giving the people in India a better attitude.

What would you think if the situation was a bit more extreme, such as universities and businesses holding beer drinking contests? Actually, some college students already hold that type of contest! Can you think of a food-eating contest that is more ridiculous than what people are doing right now? Here is a video in which contestants on a television show had to eat live spiders. (In the photo, the spider's legs are sticking out of the woman's mouth, and she is holding her nose and covering her eyes to make it easier to eat it.) Perhaps that type of contest would help the people in India to "spur competition"!
 

Women love to look pretty and put themselves on display. This craving gives women a very strong attraction to beauty contests. There are also beauty contests for children, and even babies. The TLC network promotes this behavior with their television show Toddlers and Tiaras.

A lot of people are putting a lot of time and money into these contests, but I don't think any of the contestants are benefiting, and I don't think society benefits, either. I think the parents are wasting their time and money, and I would describe the businesses that profit from this sport as exploiting people. Also, I would not be surprised if some of the men who are involved with these contests are secretly trying to have sex with the women or children.

How young do the contestants in a beauty contest have to be before you considered the situation to be out of control? There are already beauty contests in which some of the contestants are sucking on pacifiers, so how about if we arrange for a beauty contest in which the contestants are premature babies in incubators? What would you think if businesses were profiting from beauty pageants for "Miss Preemie America"?

Most people seem to believe that sports are paid for by ticket sales and advertisers, and therefore those of us who are not purchasing tickets should not criticize or complain about somebody else's sport, or how other people spend their money. However, life today is much more complicated. We are no longer isolated savages who can do whatever we please without affecting other people in the world. People today are like gears in a machine. We are all interconnected. It is the entire human race that is paying for all sports around the entire world. Everybody who purchases products is indirectly covering all Olympic events, boxing events, automobile races, football games, and basketball games. The people who purchase tickets for these events are paying much more of the cost, but all of us are contributing something to everything.

Money and resources are flowing all over the world, and it doesn't make any sense to claim that the money that you spend is going to certain activities and not others. A more sensible way of looking at the issue is that all of the people in this world are working together like gears in a machine. For example, we are directly and indirectly supplying money to universities and businesses, and some of that money is spent on food-eating contests. Therefore, all of us are indirectly supporting the food-eating contests of universities and businesses.

For another example, the people in America, China, and other nations are indirectly helping to pay for the costs of rugby games in Britain, even though we never buy tickets for those games or watch those games on television. To understand this concept, imagine if America and other nations were to stop conducting business with Britain. That would "isolate the British gears" from the "world machine", and this would have a significant effect upon all of the British people. There would be a tremendous reduction in money available for the British to support their rugby games, television shows, schools, government, and even their precious, royal family.

Everybody today is interconnected with everybody else. It's impossible for you to do something without having some indirect effect on other people. The theory that sports are subsidizing themselves through advertisements is also deceptive. It's true that businesses pay for the advertisements, and the advertisements support the sports, but all that money ultimately comes from all of us. Even though you may not purchase any of the products that are being advertised, we are indirectly putting money into the "economic machine", and it is flowing around the world.

When you purchase a product, you are directly supporting that particular company, but that business puts your money into their bank account, and from there it is redistributed to taxes, bank loans, rent, utility companies, and other businesses that provide raw materials or services. Furthermore, some businesses contribute money to charities or political candidates. Therefore, when you purchase a product, your money will be redistributed by that business to a variety of other organizations, and each of them will redistribute it to still more organizations. Some of the people who end up with that money are crime networks, which means that you are indirectly funding the crime networks when you spend money. Americans are indirectly supporting criminals in Britain, for example. If Americans were to stop conducting business with Britain, then the flow of money into the British criminal organizations, such as Common Purpose, would diminish. (I mentioned Common Purpose in my complaint that Brian Gerrish is another wolf in sheep's clothing.)
 

Mark Cuban wants to increase profits to college football, but where will the profits come from? Every nation has a limited supply of people and resources. In order for a business to acquire more profit, it must take profit away from other people. In order for one organization to grow, others must shrink. Life requires death.

Mark Cuban wants to alter the flow of resources so that more are flowing to college football, but who benefits from this change in the flow? Cuban claims to be a wonderful person who is sacrificing the potential profit he could make by purchasing a baseball team so that he can help the entire nation:

"The more I think about it, the more sense it makes as opposed to buying a baseball team. You can do something the whole country wants done."

However, I don't think Cuban is thinking of what's best for the nation. All of the extremely wealthy people seem to be con artists, criminals, or neurotic freaks. Their success seems to be a result of their ability to deceive people, and they also seem to have a very aggressive personality that intimidates the ordinary person. For an example of how he manipulates people, he claims that he has the support of "all kinds of people". This is a very common trick in which a con artist takes advantage of our tendency to follow other people. Often they entice us into following the crowd by bringing out a "celebrity", such as Lady Gaga.
 

Our ancestors 50,000 years ago didn't have much of an effect on people outside of their local area. Today, however, each of us indirectly affects everybody in the world. Each of us is directly or indirectly supporting all of the world's sports, think tanks, organized religions, crime networks, and political candidates. Americans, for example, are indirectly supporting the reproduction of Jews in Israel.

As of today, the attitude everywhere in the world is that people are free to spend money in any manner they please, and the organizations are allowed to operate in secrecy. However, we don't have to continue following that philosophy. We could decide to take control of our culture. We can choose to remove the secrecy from all organizations so that we can observe the flow of resources. This would allow us to pass judgment on how we want our resources used. We could choose to control the flow of resources and determine our destiny. We don't have to behave like stupid fish who have no idea where we are going. We can make our future be whatever we want it to be.

If we choose to take control of our culture, then we can have discussions about if and how much of our resources we want flowing into the food-eating contests, the Mormon church, the Red Cross, international soccer competitions, the Olympics, the Heritage Foundation, cosmetics, college football, jewelry, Hollywood movies, pornography, and all other sports, activities, charities, and organizations.

For example, do we want the Newman's Own Foundation to exist? That organization shouldn't exist simply because they want to exist. Ideally, we would have discussions about whether we want that group to exist, and if we decide to allow them to continue, we should decide how much of our resources we want them to have. For example, they are giving 2 million dollars of our resources to some public broadcasting stations in America. We are fools to allow these secretive organizations to fund criminals within the media who lie to us and manipulate us.

It's also important to notice that Paul Newman, who considered himself a Jew, is dead, but organizations are using his name to make money and influence society. If we take control of our culture, we can decide if we want Hollywood celebrities to be used in any manner. Furthermore, we can decide if we even want such a thing as a Hollywood "celebrity" to exist. We could decide to tell all of the actors, musicians, and other celebrities that they are going to be employees who earn a living just like the rest of us, and that they will not be treated like kings or queens. If we decide to continue the concept of the Hollywood "celebrity", then we should openly discuss the issue of who the celebrities should be. We shouldn't allow secretive, criminal Jews in Hollywood to select people for us, such as Miley Cyrus and Paris Hilton.
 

We should change our attitudes towards life. We should take control of our society and our life. We should remove the secrecy that we are providing to sports organizations, religions, charities, think tanks, and government agencies so that everybody can see exactly what is going on within the organization. We can and should analyze every organization and pass judgment on whether they are contributing to this world, or hurting it. We should decide which of the religions, charities, think tanks, businesses, and sports groups that we want to operate, and we should tell them what they are allowed to do. We don't have to put up with abuse from any of them.

We can also decide what type of information we provide to children. We don't have to let mysterious, secretive Jews write our history books for us. We can also decide what type of television programs we want. We don't have to be submissive babies who eat whatever the Jews, religions, charities, or businesses feed to us. We don't have to be submissive to anybody within our society. We can be in control of society and our future. We can demand that every person and every organization serve society rather than themselves. We can decide what we want our society to become. We can decide if we want some people to be billionaires, or if we want everybody to have a more similar income. We can decide how our cities are designed, and what type of transportation systems we use.

We should know how much money is going into football games, basketball games, Olympic events, beauty contests, food-eating contests, and college sports. We should analyze our sports and make a decision on which of them we want to continue, and how much of our resources we want each of them to have. We don't have to tolerate secrecy among the billionaires, either. And with all of the evidence that Jews are conspiring against us, we should especially investigate Mark Cuban, Steven Spielberg, and all of the other wealthy Jews.

Don't be intimidated by rich people, especially not Jews

A large amount of our resources are flowing to a small number of very wealthy people, and we should change our philosophy towards life and start demanding that we know what they are doing with our resources. Don't let wealthy people, especially not Jews, intimidate or frighten you. Nobody should have a right to live in this world. We should change our philosophy and tell everybody that they have a responsibility to be a respectable human, and if they don't want to be respectable, then we should kill or exile them. We don't have to tolerate their abuse.

We have unbelievable opportunities. All we have to do is take control of society rather than let criminals and freaks dominate us.

When the ancient Greek Olympics first began, if the winner of a contest was given a prize, it was something very simple, such as an olive branch, as in the drawing. Incidentally, notice that neither man is wearing shoes, and the man giving the olive branch to the athlete is wearing a piece of material loosely wrapped around his body. As I pointed out in Part 8, the difficulty of making clothing and shoes is a better explanation for the widespread nudity and partial nudity of our ancestors.

During the past few centuries, manufacturing technology has allowed businesses to produce a tremendous variety of trophies and other types of awards. Businesses are producing thousands of them every year. People like to collect trophies, but we shouldn't do something simply because we enjoy it. Instead, we should analyze everything we do and make sure that we are actually benefiting from our activities. Who benefits from trophies? And what exactly is the benefit?

I think only businesses benefit from trophies. I think trophies are actually a burden on the winner, and the larger the trophy is, the larger the burden, and the more trophies a person wins, the larger his burden becomes. For example, there are some people who have collected so many trophies that they have to build shelves in their homes to hold them all, and some people with smaller homes have to put some of the trophies into storage. Years later, when the person dies, his children have to waste their time disposing of the trophies.
 

Pete Sampras was saving dozens of awards and lots of newspaper clippings for his children, and recently most of them were stolen. He is very upset, but we need to think about where we are heading. When a parent saves a box of awards for his child, will that child pass them on to his children? If so, what happens if he wins some awards during his life? In such a case, his child will inherit two boxes of awards; namely, one box of his father's awards, and another box of his grandfather's awards. And then what happens if that child wins some awards? In such a case, his child will inherit three boxes of awards. After 50,000 years, the children will be inheriting millions of awards from thousands of different relatives. How ridiculous does this situation have to get before we ask ourselves, "Where are we going?"

My recommendation is to stop the production of trophies. Trophies are another example of how our economic system is crude. Businesses are producing a lot of products that serve no purpose, or which waste resources. We need to develop an economic system in which businesses are striving to make improvements to society, not exploit consumers.

If we decide to give awards to the winners of a contest, then we should give something that's practical. For example, we could give something edible, such as the carved watermelon in the photo, which shows an ancient Greek athlete getting ready to throw a disc (from the Melounovy festival). Or we could give an electronic award on the Internet.

Another possibility is to make a smaller number of high quality, durable trophies that can be reused over and over. The winner of a contest would keep one of these trophies only until the next contest, at which time he gives it back, and it goes to whoever wins the next contest. With this system, a person's collection of trophies would change constantly through time, and when he dies, all of his trophies would go back to society and be given to other athletes. Furthermore, these trophies would be nicer than the crude trophies that businesses are producing today. They could be beautiful works of art.

Instead of parents passing on newspaper clippings or trophies to their children, my recommendation is for parents to spend some time talking to their children about their life. When their children are young, they could tell them stories while they are getting to sleep at night, or while they're having dinner, or when they're taking a walk through the park. When the children become adults, then they can have more detailed conversations. If children are not interested in talking with their parents or learning about the accomplishments of their parents, why bother giving them trophies?
 

I don't think beauty contests have any value to anybody, but we could modify them to make them useful, such as to help single people find a spouse. For example, we could remove the competition, judges, and the trophies so that there are no winners or losers. Without the competition, it becomes just a presentation of women, or an introduction of women. The women would appear on stage, be introduced to the audience, and then perhaps show their talents or give talks, but nobody would judge them on what they do. Next we could remove the "beauty" aspect so that it becomes open to all women rather than only those who are exceptionally pretty. Next we could modify the contest so that after the women have been presented to the audience, they join the audience. Finally, we could modify the contest so that after all the women have joined the audience, that mixture of audience and contestants can do something together so that they get to know each other better, such as have dinner, games, dances, sports, singing, piano playing, or a bicycle ride.

By making these modifications to a beauty contest, both the "beauty" aspect and the "contest" aspect are eliminated. The beauty contest becomes transformed from a competitive event in which a small group of good-looking women waste their time and money competing for a trophy, to a pleasant, relaxing social affair in which a group of women are introduced to an audience, and then everybody mixes together to get to know one another more thoroughly. It could be described as a "pageant" for single women, and we could make a variation for single men. We could refer to them as "Singles Pageants".

These Singles Pageants would provide women with the opportunity to get dressed up and show themselves to crowds of people, but unlike a beauty contest, the Singles Pageants would have a very useful purpose. Specifically, these types of social affairs would help single people meet, get to know one another, and find a spouse. We could make variations of this affair for young children to help them find friends, and to help children become accustomed to standing in front of a group of people and talking to them, which is becoming an increasingly necessary skill in this modern world. Everybody should become less shy and awkward, and it would be best to start the process at a young age.

I will refer to the people who are introduced at the Singles Pageants as "debutantes" since it wouldn't be appropriate to call them athletes, players, or contestants. Exactly what goes on at a Singles Pageant is limited only by our imagination. I would recommend creating a wide variety of these pageants for different age groups. Some pageants could be designed to introduce only women, and others could be designed for introducing men, and some could be designed to introduce both men and women together. Some pageants could be designed for people of a particular interest, such as gardening, bicycling, music, cooking, or science.

If society would accept homosexuals as just people with a different type of problem, and if homosexuals could deal with their problem rather than make a big issue of it, they could have "Homosexual Pageants".

I would encourage people to experiment with different methods of introducing the debutantes. At one pageant, the debutantes might be introduced individually and interviewed for a few minutes, and another pageant might put all debutantes on the stage together and interview them as a group. At another pageant, the debutantes might be interviewed by just one host, and at another pageant each debutante might be interviewed by several hosts. A pageant could also provide each debutante with perhaps 3 to 10 minutes to show some of their talents, such as singing or dancing, or presenting videos that show their abilities with gardening, CNC wood carving, hydroponics, engineering, or scientific research. A pageant could allow the debutantes to give brief lectures about some topic, such as history, science, social affairs, gardening, cooking, or raising children.

After all of the debutantes have been introduced, they would mix with the audience. What happens next is limited only by our imagination, and once again, I would encourage experimenting with all sorts of activities, such as dinner, going on a bicycle ride, dancing, taking a walk in the park, or cooking some food for one another.
 

To understand why these Singles Pageants would be much more beneficial than the beauty contests, imagine living in a city in which there are a lot of people who have the role of Pageant Managers. Each of the managers would be independent. Some of the managers might be interested in designing pageants for people of a particular interest, such as sports, music, or science. Each manager decides how to design, organize, and supervise his pageants. Each manager would also restrict the audience and the debutantes. For example, a pageant to introduce 16 year old girls would prohibit adults from attending the event, and prohibit boys as debutantes.

Each manager would decide how many debutantes he wanted at each of his pageants; what type of activities he wanted to provide; how the debutantes would be introduced; and the time, location, and day of the event. The managers would be like chefs and musicians because people would eventually get to know their style, just as people learn the styles of a chef or musician. This would help people decide which of the pageants they were interested in becoming a debutante of, or an audience member of. The pageants would become known by the manager.

Imagine growing up in a futuristic city in which these pageants are occurring all the time, and all of them are slightly different. As a child, you would be overwhelmed with all of your options the first time you decided to go to one, but through the years you would learn how to read the descriptions of them, and you would recognize the style of different pageant managers. You would look through the upcoming pageants and make a decision about whether you want to attend one as an audience member, or apply to be a debutante. You would make decisions according to the description of the pageant, and according to the manager. In some cases you might attend a pageant because it was arranged by a manager whose previous pageants you enjoyed, and sometimes you might be attracted to one according to its description. Occasionally you would want to apply as a debutante, but most of the time you would be an audience member. Because there would be a limited number of debutantes at each pageant, you wouldn't always be a debutante at every pageant you applied to, but there would be so many pageants that you would have plenty of opportunities. The purpose of the pageants is to help single people meet and socialize, and to help people get accustomed to talking to groups of people, so the city would ensure that there are plenty of them.

A pageant could also be designed to let the debutantes do something for the audience. For example, each debutante could make a different portion of a dinner. Each could also serve the food they made, either by going to each table, or at a buffet. This interaction between the debutantes and the audience would help them get to know each other.

People in modern society need help in finding a spouse, and we shouldn't depend upon businesses, churches, friends, or parents to provide this service. I think it's best for society to get involved and create activities to introduce people and get them mixing together. By having a wide variety of Singles Pageants, people will get to know a lot of the people they live with, and that will help everybody find a spouse and friends that they truly have something in common with. Also, having a variety of different Singles Pageants makes it practical for the same debutantes to be introduced to the same audience because if the introductions are conducted in a different manner, and if the activities afterwards are different, then the people will see different aspects of one another, which will help them to get to know each other better. It is the interaction of people that helps us to get to know one another.

We don't get to know one another by saying "Hello". We have to interact. We've got to do something together. However, Businesses cannot provide this type of service. Actually, we cannot depend upon businesses to provide us with any type of social activity because businesses must sell something. We are foolish to expect businesses to help us find friends or a spouse. The only way we will provide ourselves with advanced social activities is for the government to get involved. This requires that we create a government that is dominated by people who truly have an interest in helping society. We cannot expect a government to help us when the government officials are primarily interested in money, fame, pedophilia, or promoting Holocaust propaganda. Social activities must be designed and supervised by people who are truly interested in making life better for all of us.

It's important to keep in mind that if we provide ourselves with advanced social activities, they won't have any value unless the people that we are living with are capable of using and appreciating those activities. As of today, a lot of the people we live with, including our own relatives, are like primitive savages who don't care about better culture. They want to watch television, get drunk, play with their dog, titillate themselves with pornography, gamble, or play video games. We can dress a savage in nice clothing and take him to a nice restaurant, music concert, or Singles Pageant, but he will continue to make lewd remarks, steal items, and leave a mess in the bathroom.

If we were to provide ourselves with these Singles Pageants right now, who would become the debutantes? Who would be in the audience? Would there be anybody that you want to meet? In order for us to enjoy these advanced social activities, we need to create a city in which the people are better quality than the sheeple, savages, and criminals that dominate society today.
 

We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we don't need help meeting people. I think we should experiment with variations of the singles pageant for married couples to meet other people of similar interests. If we lived in a city in which we enjoyed the people we lived with, as opposed to the situation we have right now, I think we would eventually figure out how to design some social affairs for married couples that are so much fun that people enjoy going to them once in a while to socialize and meet some of the people that they live with.
 

In another file I mentioned the concept of how we should constantly replace the worst performing business managers in order to force those managers to find something that they are better at, and to give new people the opportunity to test their abilities in that particular job. This creates a constant flow of new people into management. This concept applies to government officials, also. We should judge the government officials according to their ability to help society with whatever activity they work on, and we would constantly replace the worst performing managers so that there was a constant flow of new people into government.

For example, the government officials who are designing and supervising the Singles Pageants would be judged according to their effectiveness in helping people to meet one another and form friendships and marriages. We would also judge them according to their ability to keep morale high. Of course, it is not easy to judge people on such intangible qualities, but we can do it! We will sometimes make a mistake and replace a manager who was actually doing a better job than somebody who remained in his position, but we can't expect perfection. If we can bring improvements to what we have right now, then we have accomplished something. And we can certainly improve upon what we have right now.

Sports were never designed to serve a useful purpose. They developed inadvertently and haphazardly as people tried to titillate their emotions. The beauty contests, for example, developed so that women could titillate their craving to look pretty and put themselves on display. The women were simply following their emotions and doing whatever feels good.

Another reason sports are so stupid is because a lot of businesses got involved with sports, but not to provide intelligent guidance. Rather, they were like a pack of hyenas who saw an opportunity to make money. The businesses exploit the people and cause the sports to become even more ridiculous by turning them into profit-making ventures. For example, they convinced the women in beauty contests that they must purchase lots of expensive makeup, jewelry, high-heeled shoes, and an amazing variety of hair products. However, women don't need those products. Women should be encouraged to be more natural and stop behaving like prostitutes and pole dancers. Women should also stop letting their daughters be used as sex objects by Hollywood.

Businesses are a bad influence over sports because they inadvertently alter the sports to make it possible for them to sell products and services, such as trophies, and new and improved golf balls, but their increasingly expensive products make the sports increasingly more expensive, not "better".

Some sports are stupid because they started as a silly contest for dominance. For example, the sport of figure skating developed as a contest of who could skate more accurately on the ice. It was a boring contest that had no entertainment value or useful purpose. The men were simply struggling to feel important and show off to the other men.

The craving men have to be the dominant male has also caused a lot of sports to develop some extremely risky stunts, silly displays of strength, death-defying acts, and ridiculously difficult displays of coordination. These extreme displays will titillate people, but nobody benefits from them, and a lot of athletes are injured as a result. Furthermore, the extreme stunts require absurd amounts of training.
 

Since sports developed as a way for people to compete for dominance and feel special, if the athletes don't control their emotions, the sport can easily evolve into a ridiculous display of abilities as the athletes try to show off and intimidate one another.

The sport of figure skating was initially just a boring competition for the ice skaters to show off their talent by doing figures. The boring figure events have been dropped, but the sport still has that crude attitude in which the athletes try to show off their talents. For example, the skaters will try to impress one another with spins in the air. Although these stunts are very interesting to watch, they are so difficult that the skaters frequently fail and fall down on the ice.

What is the sense of having athletes trying to show off talents that are so difficult that they frequently fail? Would you want to go to a music concert in which the musicians are trying to show off to such an extent that they frequently fail at their incredibly difficult music? Would you want to go to a restaurant in which the chef is trying to show off his talent by making something that is so incredibly difficult that he frequently fails and burns your food?

Who benefits when athletes get into in these extreme competitions to show off? Nobody benefits! The audience doesn't benefit, and neither do the athletes. It's understandable for basketball players to frequently miss the basket, but they're not trying to show off. What would you think if the basketball players were trying to make the basket from across the court in order to show off to one another? In such a case, they would miss much more often, and after a while you would get tired of it and tell them to stop showing off.

The ice skaters are very smooth and graceful, so when they fall down while doing some ridiculously difficult stunt, I think it ruins their performance. It's like watching dancers who fall down while trying to show off. I think the ice skaters and gymnasts should remove the ridiculous stunts and be more artistic and entertaining, like the dancers.
 

We have a tendency to assume that sports are a great way to get exercise, but sports didn't develop to provide exercise. They are competitions to win trophies and feel special. As a result, most sports provide exercise to only a few muscles, and only in a limited manner, and some sports put extreme strain on certain bones, muscles, tendons, or internal organs.

Sports should not be considered as a form of exercise. They should be considered as a competitive struggle. The football players, golfers, baseball players, and other athletes don't get exercise from their sport. This is why so many athletes spend a lot of their time doing real exercises.

Furthermore, a person doesn't get much useful exercise when they do the same sport over and over. The bicycle races that go on for days are a good example. How does a person benefit by sitting in that cramped position for days?
 

Our primitive ancestors were barefoot, and they walked over rough ground. Try doing that sometime and you will discover that you take smaller steps, and you land on the front of your foot rather than your heel. Your toes become like fingers to let you know if you are about to step on something dangerous, such as sharp rocks. Today, however, we wear extremely padded shoes, and when we walk or run we tend to land on our heel.

When people walk or run for exercise, they are certainly getting exercise, but it's not the same type of exercise that our ancestors were getting, and it is not the type of exercise is that our feet and legs were designed for. Walking or dancing in high-heeled shoes is especially unnatural. Therefore, if you walk or run for exercise, it might be best if you occasionally force yourself to walk in a more "natural" manner by taking smaller steps and landing on the front of your foot rather than your heel. That will give exercise to some of your other muscles, and it might also make your ankles and feet stronger.
 

The sports of today are senseless competitions for trophies and dominance. We need to modify our sports to bring some intelligence to them. Compare the difference between the beauty contests of today, and the imaginary Singles Pageants that I described earlier in this file. The winner of a beauty contest gets a trophy and perhaps money, but what good does it do her? By comparison, there are no winners or losers in a Singles Pageant because it is not a competitive event. Instead, it is a social event in which everybody benefits by getting to know one another.

The sports of today have no benefit to anybody. The winners get trophies, but trophies don't make life better for anybody. There is no sense in having thousands of people practicing to win beauty contests, foot races, food-eating contests, and baseball games when nobody benefits from their efforts. Those people should either do something more useful with their life, or we should modify the sport to make it more useful. There is no point in having thousands of competitions every year if nobody benefits from any of them. I think the human mind has the intelligence to create sports that are enjoyable and which have some benefit to us.

I suppose some people will defend the uselessness of sports by pointing out that people find them entertaining. I have no objection to people doing silly things simply for entertainment. In fact, we could describe singing as a useless activity. However, singers are not consuming enormous amounts of resources, and we don't have hundreds of singers in wheelchairs as a result of "singing injuries", although there have been some singers who got so carried away that they needed medical attention on their vocal cords.
 

“I like it! Let me do it!”

Consider an extreme example. Imagine a society that supported whatever activities their children found entertaining, such as food fights. Imagine a society building special sports arenas around the nation for the children to have food fights, and imagine them televising the food fights to entertain the children, and imagine them forming the National Food Fight Association to arrange the food fights, and imagine businesses providing sponsorship to subsidize the cost of the food fights, and imagine their elementary schools having food fight competitions with one another. Finally, imagine businesses developing special products for the food fights, such as helmets with windshield wipers and water sprays to keep the visor clean, and imagine lots of engineers spending their lives trying to develop new and improved food fight helmets that do a better job of wiping away the food.

We have to make a distinction between when people are entertaining themselves, and when they are a burden or a bad influence on society. We also have to be concerned about injuries. Society should not support - or even promote - an activity simply because lots of people consider it to be entertaining. Possibly half of the human population is entertained with alcohol, drugs, gambling, Jesus, and prostitution, but that doesn't justify diverting resources from sensible activities into those activities. There are some activities that people should do in their leisure time at their own expense.

Our prehistoric ancestors could do whatever felt good to them, but in this modern world, if we follow our emotions and do whatever feels good, then we will design sports with excessive emphasis on winning the sport, and we will want large trophies, and we will want to stand on a podium during an award ceremony so that we can feel important. If we design an activity according to what feels good, we will end up with a stupid and useless activity. We have to control our emotions and think more often.
 

Animals have no understanding of what they're doing. For example, when a male animal pursues a female for sex, he doesn't realize that he is reproducing. The males are simply trying to satisfy their emotional cravings. They are following their emotions; they are doing whatever feels good. They have no concern about the females, and no awareness that they will produce babies. Likewise, when a female resists a male, she is simply following her crude emotions. She has no understanding that her resistance is helping to determine which of the males is worthy of reproducing. When a female feeds and cares for her babies, it appears as if she has a concern for her babies, but she has no understanding of what she is doing. Her babies are just objects that she uses to titillate herself with.

As animals become more intelligent, they figure out artificial methods of stimulating their emotions. For example, the craving for sex is supposed to cause male animals to pursue females, and thereby reproduce. However, some animals, such as monkeys, have figured out that they can titillate these emotions in other ways, such as by using a frog as a sex toy.

However, nature will not allow masturbation to become truly satisfying. If an animal ever figured out how to stimulate itself sexually to such an extent that it lost its interest in real sex, then it wouldn't reproduce. As a result, the male animals that reproduced were those that didn't get too much pleasure from masturbation.

Humans are much more intelligent than animals, and as a result, we have devised lots of methods to titillate our sexual emotions. Women also have a variety of methods to stimulate their cravings for babies, such as a variety of different dolls and pets. We also titillate ourselves in regards to food. We have figured out how to extract the chemicals we enjoy, such as sugar, and we have figured out how to modify the taste of foods with artificial flavors, sodium nitrite, fermentation, and by letting items age or cook for long periods of time. We have figured out how to produce foods that are more emotionally satisfying than the natural foods.
 

What is "masturbation"? Everybody understands the concept of sexual masturbation, and we are aware of when and why we do it, but most people don't realize that when we create artificial food products, we are behaving in the same manner as a monkey that uses a frog as a sex toy. We are stimulating ourselves; we are masturbating. There is nothing "wrong" with masturbating, but we have to be aware of when we are doing it, and we have to consider the consequences. The most obvious consequence with artificial foods is that unless we know enough about health and nutrition, we may hurt our health.

Likewise, using a doll or a dog as a substitute for a real baby or a real friend is behaving like a monkey that uses a frog as a sex toy. It's just another form of self-stimulation; a form of masturbation. We could create a new word to describe the stimulation of ourselves in a non-sexual manner, but for now I'll use the word "masturbation" to describe it.

Our primitive ancestors could follow their emotions and do whatever brought them the most pleasure. In fact, that was how they survived! For example, they ate the foods that tasted good to them, and they avoided the foods that tasted bad. In the modern world, however, we can't simply do whatever titillates us. We have to think about what we are doing. It can be beneficial to stimulate ourselves, but we have to look at the consequences. We have to be aware of when we are stimulating ourselves, and we must consider whether it will help us or hurt us.

For example, I think we are hurting society when we encourage people to use dogs as substitutes for friends, and when we encourage people to use television as a substitute for real life. I think we would be much happier if we redesigned society so that we have real friends and activities. There is nothing wrong with watching television, playing with an animal, or using sugar to make food taste better. Rather, we need to be aware of when we are stimulating ourselves so that we can keep our masturbation under control. We need to seriously think about when we are improving our lives with these techniques, and when we are making our lives worse. There are some people whose closest friends are dogs or fictional characters on TV, for example. I would describe this as a sad situation, not as people "enjoying" dogs or television.

I think many people are getting carried away with masturbation. For example, as people become more attached to their dogs, they are willing to spend more time and money to treat their dog's medical problems. The most extreme example that I'm aware of are the bone marrow transplants for dogs. According to the North Carolina State College of Veterinary Medicine, the success rate is incredibly low, less than 2%, and the treatments can easily exceed $20,000. However, this Florida couple is making plans to waste their money on this senseless operation to save their dog.

Some people may respond to my critical remarks by pointing out that different people have different ideas on how to spend their money. I agree that we have different tastes, but I don't think that the people who are hurting themselves financially in order to help their dog are merely people with different tastes. These people are making a financial sacrifice for an animal. I think these people have simply become too attached to their dog, perhaps because of extreme loneliness or unhappiness, or perhaps because of a mental disorder.

I can understand a wealthy person agreeing to these ridiculous treatments as a way of providing researchers with an opportunity to conduct experiments on a real specimen, but most of the people who are spending lots of money on their dogs are not wealthy, or doing it for the medical research.

There are also lots of people who spend a significant amount of their time and money on gambling, sex toys, drugs, alcohol, pornography, video games, and prostitution. If a person does some of these activities once in a while, and in moderation, then we could say that he is simply having some fun once in a while, but there are people who do these activities to such an extreme that I would say they have become carried away with the ability to stimulate themselves.
 

A man's most powerful emotion seems to be the craving to be important; to be dominant; to be a leader. A woman is more interested in being loved and admired. Both men and women can titillate these particular cravings by winning sports events. However, if the sport has no benefit to the athletes or to society, then the athletes are merely stimulating themselves. For example, what is the benefit of a food-eating contest or a beauty contest? The contestants don't get any exercise, and there's not very much socializing during those contests. Society doesn't benefit from them, either. The people involved in those sports are simply titillating themselves.

If a sports event has no benefit to anybody, then it is equivalent to a group of people sitting in a circle and masturbating, and for hours. Furthermore, when people practice these worthless sports, it is equivalent to people spending hours to practice masturbating. This is the type of behavior we would expect from an animal that has just recently developed enough intelligence to figure out how to stimulate itself. A human ought to be able to develop sports events in which there is some benefit to either the athlete, or to society.
 

If Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or any of the other billionaires were to spend 16 hours a day sexually masturbating, virtually everybody would agree that there was something seriously wrong with them, but what is the difference between a person who spends hours every day stimulating his sexual emotions, and a person who spends hours each day titillating himself with shopping, material items, and pampering by servants?

Furthermore, many of those billionaires are involved with crime networks that are cheating, murdering, kidnapping, bribing, and blackmailing us. What is the difference between a billionaire who is committing horrible crimes in order to get even more money to titillate himself with, and a lunatic who has such intense cravings for sex that he is kidnapping children for use as sex slaves because he wants even more sexual titillation? How about a fat person who has such an intense craving for food that he commits crimes to get even more food?

Everybody wants food, money, and sex, but we have to pass judgment on when a person has crossed the line from being "normal" to being "mentally ill" or a "potential danger to society". Many people admire the dishonest businessmen for being "clever businessmen" but we should be disgusted that a group of neurotic, mentally ill freaks are getting control of our economy. We have to become accustomed to passing judgment on which of our leaders are beneficial to society, and which are detrimental. We shouldn't admire a businessman simply because he makes lots of money.
 

People are very demanding of waitresses at restaurants. We expect them to work hard for a low salary. By comparison, government officials, Hollywood celebrities, bankers, business executives, investors, and lots of other people make enormous amounts of money without anybody asking, "What are these people doing in return for us?"

The same problem occurs with sports. There are businesses profiting from Olympic events, football games, basketball games, beauty contests, food-eating contests, and baseball games. There are businesses that own sports teams and sports facilities. There are businesses producing new and improved golf clubs, race cars, and trophies. However, nobody is demanding accountability. How much money are we spending on the Olympics? How much money do our schools spend on sports? What is the benefit to us, the athletes, and society for supporting all of these different sports?

Sports doesn't have to be this chaotic and mysterious. We can take control of sports and make sports into whatever we want. All sports should be analyzed to determine how we benefit from them, and we should look for improvements that will make them less expensive, less dangerous, and more useful to all of us. We shouldn't promote a sport simply because it titillates emotions. Since all of our sports developed inadvertently, and since businesses have been exploiting them for profit for centuries, we can certainly find improvements to all sports.

Also, why do we have to mix sex with sports? The sport of boxing uses partially naked women who dress and behave like dumb prostitutes, and football, basketball, and other sports use partially naked women as cheerleaders. Why does sexual titillation and toilet humor have to saturate sports, television shows, advertisements, movies, and even children's cartoons? I think we will create a better society when we tell the men who want pornography to get it separately. I think the sexual titillation and toilet humor should be removed from sports.

Recently a 16-year-old girl, Holland Reynolds, was competing in a foot race. When she got close to the finish line, she collapsed and had to crawl the final distance on her hands and knees. News reports describe her with such adjectives as showing "remarkable courage"; having a "heroic finish", and showing "incredible determination". Some reports are even more extreme, such as this one with the headline "Teen runner puts pro-sportsmen to shame".

George Stephanopoulos also praised her to an extreme on Good Morning America. Watch that video and notice that all of the other athletes are running by her without any problem. That particular race was not difficult. She did not collapse because she put in some amazing effort. She was just having a bad day for some reason. Furthermore, she had been running for many years, so she had a lot of experience with this sport. And this brings up the most important point. For many years she had been running races, and she did fine, but nobody noticed; nobody cared. Then one day, for whatever reason, she has trouble finishing a simple race, and she collapses. Suddenly people notice her, but instead of describing her as having a bad day, she was promoted as a hero! She gets television publicity. She is held up as a great athlete who "puts pro-sportsmen to shame".

Imagine if a dentist could become a hero simply by having a bad day and failing at what he does. Imagine that your dentist is exhausted, but instead of scheduling you for a different day, he decides to work on one of your teeth, and near the end of the job, he collapses from exhaustion. He then climbs up on the table and continues working on your tooth while on his hands and knees, and he ruins your tooth. Would you want him interviewed on television and held up as a hero who showed incredible determination and remarkable courage? How about an engineer who is exhausted but shows up for work anyway, and then he does a terrible job? Or how about a person on the Dancing with the Stars television show having a bad day, and he collapses to the floor during the dance, and he finishes the dance on his hands and knees?

An athlete who doesn't perform well on a particular day is not a hero. Rather, he is simply having a bad day. However, millions of Americans have a very strong tendency to feel sorry for Underdogs. As a result, millions of Americans felt an emotional attachment to Holland Reynolds when she was a failure, not when she was a success. Now that she is once again running successfully, everybody is ignoring her.

I think the issue of Holland Reynolds is very significant. I think it shows perhaps the most serious problem with America, Canada, and Australia; namely, these three nations promote a "feel sorry for me" attitude. I think the reason Holland Reynolds became a hero is because most Americans love to imagine themselves as the saviors of Underdogs and disadvantaged people. Americans are always looking for an opportunity to feel sorry for a loser.

A lot of Americans react to healthy, talented, and happy people with bitterness, pouting, envy, or anger. Those miserable people prefer to be around losers, weirdos and freaks so that they don't feel like they're the only miserable person. America doesn't encourage people to deal with their problems. America doesn't encourage the admiration of people who are responsible, skilled, talented, honest, or who contribute something to society. Instead, America promotes the theory that there are such things as "Underdogs" and "disadvantaged" people.
 

As I mentioned in other files, everybody has physical and mental defects. Since we are created in God's image, this means that God also has problems, perhaps crooked teeth, tinnitus, or bad eyesight. Maybe the Almighty is also allergic to angel dust. Regardless of what His problems are, all of us humans should try to understand our defects, limitations, and talents; find a way to deal with our problems; and contribute to society. We should also help to maintain morale, rather than encourage pouting, hatred, or envy.

Unfortunately, some people don't want to deal with their problems. They would rather pout or hate. Robert May, for example, was a very short man, about 5 feet tall (150 cm). He felt inadequate as a child, and apparently spent his entire adult life feeling sorry for himself. He got a job with the Montgomery Ward department stores in 1936. A couple years later the management asked him to write a short story about Christmas for the company to print and distribute to their customers as an advertising trick. He came up with the idea of a retarded reindeer with a red nose who was bullied as a child. Eventually the management was convinced to use the story, and millions of copies were distributed.

Years later his brother-in-law, Johnny Marks, decided to make a song about Rudolph. He sent copies to some of the famous people in that era, and Gene Autry's wife convinced her husband to sing the song because she thought the "ugly duckling" theme would have widespread appeal. She was correct. Most people feel a stronger emotional attachment to a retarded reindeer than a healthy reindeer!

A cartoon about Rudolph was created in 1964, and additional concepts were added, such as the Island of Misfit Toys. The Island of Misfit Toys provided the television viewers with another opportunity to stimulate themselves with pouting, or by imagining themselves as the saviors of the misfit toys. The story of Rudolph brings up such interesting issues as:

• The Rudolph story is another example of how our economic system is crude. The story was created in an attempt to manipulate consumers, just as the Guinness Book of World Records was created as an advertising trick. Businesses are not looking for ways to improve society. Rather, they are looking for ways to make profit. What would the world be like today if the millions of people in businesses during the past century had been looking for ways to improve society rather than manipulate consumers?

• Robert May is another example of people who are analogous to dirt in a transmission. He couldn't accept the fact that he was a short man, so instead of quietly dealing with his problems and helping to keep morale high by writing a pleasant story, or a funny story, or a story that encouraged good attitudes, he wrote a story that encouraged people to feel sorry for misfits and imagine that the world is full of bullies.

People like Robert May are slowly destroying our culture. Each of these people seems insignificant, but each of them is like a lock in the "Locks of Love" because their bad attitudes are accumulating in books, movies, songs, and television shows. This website describes Rudolph as "the blessings of being different", but in reality these stories encourage pouting, envy, and fights.

• Gene Autry didn't want to promote the song, but his wife wanted it. I suspect that if we could go back in time and observe the initial reaction to that song and story, we would find that women were more attracted to Rudolph than men. Since women were designed to take care of children, they have a greater tendency than men to feel sorry for losers, retards, and criminals.

• Johnny Marks was a Jew who wrote songs, and he wrote many Christmas songs. How many of the Jews who get involved with Christmas have truly mixed with the rest of us, and how many are involved with Christmas only to exploit it for money, or to encourage bad attitudes? Also, how many are promoting bad attitudes simply because they enjoy those bad attitudes?

Did that teenage girl, Holland Reynolds, show courage when she crawled over the finish line? What is courage? When does an athlete deserve praise? When an athlete competes while they are sick or has broken bones, are they showing toughness, determination, initiative, or courage? Or are they taking the game too seriously? What if instead of being merely tired, Holland Reynolds had pushed herself to such an extreme that she had died at the finish line? Would you have considered her a hero who died for a good cause?

We have to make a distinction between when an athlete is behaving in a respectable manner, and when they are behaving like lunatics or savages. Another example happened recently with the television show Skating with the Stars. Brandon Smith became extremely sick on the day of one of the shows, supposedly because of food poisoning, and the doctor told him that he shouldn't compete. However, Johnny Weir, one of the judges, said that Smith should have ignored the doctor's advice. The host of the show responded that vomit doesn't look good on ice, but Weir implied he didn't care. This incident brings me to the following issues:

1) Weir is a professional athlete, and all of the athletes seem to have more physical energy when they are sick than the rest of us have when we are healthy, so it may be easy for them to compete while they are sick.

2) I think women have a much higher tolerance for bodily functions because they were designed to take care of babies. Weir behaves and dresses in a very feminine manner, so perhaps the reason he isn't bothered by vomit is because he has a more feminine mind.

3) With all of the crimes that the Jews are committing, and with all of the sabotage that goes on in sports events, Nobel prizes, Academy Awards, and television shows, and with the intense hatred that Jews have for Africans and Orientals, whenever an African or Oriental person suffers from some accident or suicide, I think we should wonder, are the Jews involved? Smith was showing a lot of talent as an ice skater, so perhaps the Jews were worried that he might win the competition. Smith should consider the possibility that the Jews put something into his food or water. Incidentally, Smith has since dropped out of the competition because his mysterious illness went on for so many days that it interfered with his ability to practice.

4) The Jewish crime network seems to be full of homosexuals, many of whom are being blackmailed because they are foolishly trying to hide their homosexuality and deceive us into thinking they are heterosexual. Johnny Weir acts like a woman, so he would fit the pattern of a blackmailed homosexual. Consider the possibility that the Jews made Smith sick, and that Weir is following orders from those Jews. Weir criticized Smith for following his doctor's advice, but if Smith had forced himself to perform, and if he had done a terrible job, or if he had thrown up, then Weir would have been able to criticize Smith for not following his doctor's advice, and not having the sense to realize that it's better to put in a good performance than to be a disgusting failure. In other words, Weir may have been prepared to criticize Smith regardless of what happened.

5) Every activity requires that we consider the benefits and risks and make decisions on how much effort we should put into it. If you were being attacked by a wolf, then it would make sense to disobey medical advice and risk vomiting in order to save your life. However, the audience of an entertainment show doesn't benefit when a very sick person forces himself to appear and risks vomiting. The show is just entertainment!
 

A lot of athletes, especially those in boxing, rugby, and football, are often described with such adjectives as tough, masculine, courageous, and brave. Those particular athletes are physically very strong, but it is important to make a distinction between when a man is emotionally courageous, and when he is merely strong or violent. For example, members of teenage gangs, adult crime networks, and the leaders of communist nations will frequently display weapons and engage in violent acts in order to prove to us that they are tough and courageous, but that type of behavior is merely a display of violence.

If a man is emotionally tough, then he will be able to calmly listen to critical analyses of himself, and look at the evidence that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust, and that the Apollo moon landing was a scam. And if a man is courageous, he will join the fight to free ourselves from all of the crime networks, corrupt government officials, corrupt policemen, and corrupt university professors.

Of course, most people have to be careful about fighting the Jews publicly, but everybody can secretly resist the Jews and help destroy their crime network. For example, everybody can easily stop purchasing Jewish propaganda newspapers and magazines, which would help drive the Jewish media to bankruptcy.

Although there are exceptions, people that look like this man don't listen to music. Rather, they use music like a drug.

First consider how this concept applies to music. People with certain types of mental disorders have trouble sitting quietly. When they dominate the audience at a music concert, they create an unbelievable amount of noise, and many of them are on drugs or alcohol. My conclusion is that these people are not interested in listening to the music. Rather, they are using the music concert to distract them from their internal pains. They have no interest in the music or the musicians. They are trying to find relief from their suffering. The musicians are just tools to them.

Many years ago I saw a portion of a television show in which Madonna was trying to read a short story to her audience. She would read a sentence or two, and then the audience would start screaming, and she would tell them to be quiet. Then she would read another sentence or two, and then the audience would scream again. This continued for a while, and eventually she became so frustrated that she reprimanded her audience and stopped reading the book.

Madonna and other famous entertainers don't seem to realize that they attract a lot of unhappy and psychotic people. Their "adoring fans" pay very high prices to attend their concerts, but they're not interested in listening to the music. They are trying to find relief from their misery. Madonna and the other entertainers are just tools that these lunatics are using to temporarily overpower their misery. They don't care whether they hear the music, or whether it's performed properly.
 

The unhappy and psychotic people use sports in the same manner that they use music. They don't sit quietly and watch the athletes because they don't care about the sports event. Rather, they are looking for relief from their misery. They want the athletes to titillate them with risky stunts and wild behavior. If they are watching the event on television, they prefer the cameras to frequently change positions, and since they can't handle silence, they prefer the televised events to have several commentators who constantly talk. Their biggest thrill with automobile racing seems to be the accidents, and their primary enjoyment with hockey games seems to come from the fights that players get into. They are often drunk or on drugs, also, because they're not truly interested in watching the sports event. They are just looking for some titillation.

Our current economic system is geared towards profit, and the end result is that businesses compete to attract as many consumers as possible, regardless of who they are or what they want. If all consumers were responsible and healthy, then the businesses would be struggling to please respectable people. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population in every nation is unhappy, and a lot of people are psychotic. As a result, these unhappy and psychotic people are influencing the sports events, music concerts, and other activities.

We should change society and our economic system so that businesses, schools, and government agencies have no regard for what the lunatics want. We should design our cities, social activities, jobs, sports, and other aspects of our culture according to the healthy people, and the lunatics can be told to deal with it. Automobile racing, for example, is so boring that an accident can relieve the monotony, but if a sport requires accidents in order to make it entertaining, why should we bother with it? We should develop sports that don't depend upon fights, accidents, and risky stunts.

We should also pass judgment on when adults are behaving like children. For example, children enjoy playing with their food, and boys love to play in mud, but adults should not be encouraged to behave like children.
 

The Internet has thousands of videos of ordinary people doing extremely risky activities for no apparent reason, such as riding skateboards on staircase railings. These people often cause serious damage to themselves, such as breaking their teeth. Why are they willing to take such risks? What are the potential benefits? How can they believe that the risk is worth taking?

The only benefit from those risky activities is some momentary pleasure, but who would take a terrible risk just to get some momentary pleasure? Some of them claim to enjoy the "thrill" of a dangerous or life-threatening activity, but I think that a person in good mental and physical health gets mild pleasure all throughout the day simply by living. I think the people who must take terrible risks in order to experience pleasure are showing signs that they are suffering from some serious mental or physical disorder that prevents them from enjoying a "normal" life.

The image in my mind is that there are electrical storms going on inside their brain, and when they survive an extremely risky activity, they experience the intense pleasure that comes from avoiding death. That level of pleasure is so extreme that it momentarily overpowers all of their internal pains, and they suddenly enjoy life. Unfortunately, that intense pleasure vanishes quickly, and soon they are miserable once again, and so they have to take another life-threatening risk. These people believe that they get a "thrill" from their dangerous activities, but I don't think they are actually "enjoying life". I would describe them as suffering from so much internal pain that the only time they enjoy life is when they "escape death".

The "thrill seekers" seem to be similar to the people who go to music concerts and then spend their time screaming and taking drugs. I don't think any of these people are enjoying life. I think they are looking for relief. When athletes or businesses try to please these unhappy people, the athletes do idiotic stunts and the businesses provide crazy products and services. We should be trying to understand what causes their misery; not trying to titillate them.
 

Do you want our resources producing shows such as I'm A Celebrity?

We should design sports to fit to the people we regard as normal and healthy. We should distinguish between when healthy people are being entertained, and when we are trying to stimulate the mentally ill with absurd, risky, disgusting, or dangerous activities. For example, there are television shows in which people compete in such events as putting live spiders in their mouth. Since people, especially women, have an intense dislike of spiders, this provides a lot of emotional titillation, but what is the benefit to the contestants or the audience? We should be discussing such issues as:

Do we want our society to put its resources into the production of this type of television show? Is this a sport? Is it "entertainment"? Or is this "insane titillation" for lunatics? Is this helping to make society better, or is it encouraging idiotic behavior?

Everybody, including athletes, should behave in a respectful manner and inspire us. They should not be clowns at an insane asylum who are struggling to titillate the lunatics. We should design society for the healthy people, and we should ignore the complaints from the mentally ill people that our activities are boring. It's their problem that they don't enjoy "normal" activities. It's not our fault that they are miserable. We don't owe them anything, and we shouldn't feel guilty that they are having trouble with life. They are not our responsibility. Each of us has our own problems and limitations to deal with.

The US military has a wide variety of sports. They have football players, gymnasts, and even drill teams. The secrecy of the military and the secrecy of the professional sports organizations makes it difficult to figure out what, if any, differences there are between the military sports organizations and the private sports organizations, but the sports events of both groups are visually very similar to each other, and I would say that this is proof that a government agency is capable of training athletes and putting on sports events.
 

Imagine an extreme situation in which we eliminated all private sports organizations and told the military to expand their sports activities and training programs to provide the nation with all of the sports that we want. After the military has those divisions running properly, all of the groups are separated from the military and become independent government agencies that don't require the athletes or coaches to be members of the military. The end result would be a lot of different government agencies training athletes and putting on sports events. What effect would this have on sports? How would it affect the athletes and the coaches? Would any of us suffer if we had to watch government sports rather than private sports? Would any of us even be able to distinguish between the government events and the private events, or the government athletes and the private athletes?

The answer to these questions is that the effect that the government has on sports depends entirely upon the government. A government of criminal Jews, for example, would exploit sports to promote toilet humor and Holocaust propaganda, and there would be lots of suspicious suicides and accidents, and lots of problems with bribery, blackmail, drug use, and pedophilia.

The concept of a government being in control of sports may seem strange, but the government is just an organization of people. If we were to remove the criminals and parasites from society, and if we could develop a better election system, then we would be able to provide ourselves with a much more effective and impressive government, and I think the government would do a better job with sports than businesses are doing right now.

The military needs only slight modification in order to allow them to take control of sports. They already have training programs for football, drill teams, and a lot of other sports, so all they have to do is create some training programs for whatever additional sports we wanted them to provide for us. They already control military bases, airports, ships, submarines, and lots of other facilities and equipment, and so all they need is be given control of all sports facilities. Of course, we also have to remove the criminals and parasites from the military leadership. Once we made those changes, the military would be in complete control of all sports, and they would be able to put on sports events for the public. And then we could separate the sports divisions from the military so that each of them becomes an independent government agency.

In this imaginary scenario, all athletes and coaches would become government employees making an ordinary living. Businesses would not be allowed to exploit any of the sports events or the athletes. The athletes would not be used for advertising, either. All of the people involved with sports would simply be doing their job for society. This brings up a lot of important issues, such as who among us would want to become a government athlete?
 

Who would want to be a baseball player, gymnast, ice skater, basketball player, or soccer player if they had to be an ordinary government employee who makes an ordinary income, lives in an ordinary home in an ordinary neighborhood, eats ordinary food, and lives the same ordinary life as the rest of us ordinary people? Would Tiger Woods be interested in becoming a "government golfer"? Would Vince Lombardi have been interested in being a "government coach"?

If a person's primary attraction to sports are the trophies, money, or fame, they may lose their interest in sports if they had to be an ordinary government employee. They may prefer to be a factory worker, dentist, gardener, or restaurant worker. My response to this "loss" is the same as my response to the people who insist that we must provide business executives with very high salaries and special pampering; namely, let them find another job.

If any of the rich and famous people cannot tolerate life as an ordinary person, that's their problem, not mine. I'm not going to get on my hands and knees to worship them, or provide them with money. We all have emotional cravings to be rich and famous, but some of us are capable of becoming an ordinary gear in a machine. The people who cannot tolerate being an "ordinary" person, and especially those who commit crimes in order to become rich or famous, should be regarded as dirt in the transmission.
 

It might be helpful if you consider that the concepts I just described in regards to sports also applies to other entertainment, such as singing, music, television programs, and movies. The US Military has a few of its own musicians, and we could allow the military to expand that program. The military could create several large divisions to train a variety of singers, musicians, actors, video cameramen, and other people necessary to create various types of entertainment. This would allow the military to produce a variety of television shows, movies, music albums, and music concerts.

Those divisions could then be separated from the military and made into independent government agencies. The end result would be several government agencies that provide society with a variety of entertainment. The singers, musicians, television producers, cameramen, actors, and other people would become ordinary government employees who make ordinary incomes and live in ordinary homes in ordinary neighborhoods.

Imagine a society in which the government has complete control of all of the entertainment activities. How would this affect the quality and style of entertainment? Who would want to apply for a job of as a "government singer", or a "government television producer", or a "government actor"? As of today, a significant percentage of children and adults are fantasizing about becoming an entertainer, and many of them are spending a lot of time practicing music, singing, and acting, but how many of would continue to fantasize about becoming an entertainer if they had to make an ordinary salary?

If we could create a respectable government, I think we would bring noticeable improvements to society by letting the government control the entertainment activities. The government would be able to determine who becomes an entertainer, and what type of entertainment they produced. I'm sure lots of people will respond that I am promoting government censorship, and this is a very important issue that I will discuss in more detail in the next file of this series. For now, let me point out that we already have censorship, and there will always be censorship. It is impossible for humans to be truly un-biased. Instead, we have to decide which type of bias we want. We currently have bias by criminal Jews. As I pointed out in other files, they promote toilet humor, pirates, Bonnie and Clyde, organized crime, drugs, alcohol, pornography, and other crude, disgusting, and childish activities and attitudes.

If we allow the government to control the entertainment activities, then we can publicly discuss what we want in regards to bias and censorship. Compare that to our current situation in which our only influence over the entertainment field is our spending of money. This is allowing a small network of criminal Jews to get control of the media and force us to accept their movies, television shows, and songs.

By allowing the government to determine who gets a job as a singer, news reporter, and actor, and by allowing the government to set guidelines for censorship, then these issues become out in the open, and we can discuss what type of censorship we want, and who we want hired for the jobs. Compare that to the situation today in which people have been fooled into thinking that there is no censorship, and that we all have equal opportunities to become television reporters, actors, singers, and television documentary producers.
 

I think that if the athletes were government employees, we would eliminate the life-threatening stunts and the extreme training programs, such as sitting on children (as in the photo near the beginning of this file). A government agency would have no incentive to encourage the athletes to risk their health or life with steroids, drugs, death defying stunts, or extreme training programs. The government officials would be under pressure to make the job of an athlete as sensible as any other government job. Every job has risks, and decisions have to be made in regards to when a risk is worth taking, but there's no point in encouraging athletes to take risks simply to titillate the audience.

I don't even see any justification to put young children through intensive training programs. I think that schools should expose children to a lot of different activities, but I don't see how the children or society benefits by training young children to become athletes, singers, or musicians. There are some children who are entertaining, such as Shirley Temple and Michael Jackson, but as I mentioned in 2008 (here), I don't think we should be using children as circus animals. Children should be treated as the next generation of humans, not as toys for adults to play with.

Furthermore, if the government takes control of sports and other entertainment activities, then everybody would be restricted to an ordinary income, and I think that would cause a lot of parents to lose interest in promoting their children as entertainers. I think most of the parents who are promoting their children right now are interested in the money, not their children.

My point is that I don't think the government athletes would get as much training as the athletes are today, and the end result would be that the government athletes would be less talented. Therefore, their performance would be less impressive, and they would not be able to break any world records. However, my response to this is, so what? Our lives don't improve by training children for sports. It makes no difference to any of us if an ice skater can do a triple spin or only a single spin. We don't gain anything by training children. In fact, we hurt society by creating socially defective children. Michael Jackson is probably the best example of this.

Likewise, it makes no difference to any of us if the government basketball players are slightly less accurate, or if the government swimmers were not quite as fast. If we were to switch from private sports to government sports, there would be an initial period of adjustment as we became accustomed to the less talented government athletes, but after that period of adjustment was over, life would go on, and nobody years from now would notice or care that the government athletes were a bit less talented.
 

Another way to look at this issue is to imagine treating some other profession in the same manner that we treat sports and entertainment. For example, as I mentioned in Part 2 of this series, if we were to treat plumbers as "celebrities", and if we picked some of them to become incredibly rich and famous, then a lot of people would struggle to become plumbers, and some would cheat, murder, bribe, and sabotage their competition. Millions of children would fantasize about being a rich and famous "celebrity plumber", and they would fantasize about having their name added to one of the gold stars in the "Celebrity Plumber Sidewalk Walk of Fame" in Hollywood. But who would benefit from this?

Animals and humans want to feel special, so we love the philosophy that some of us are allowed to become rich and famous "celebrities", but I think we would create a more pleasant, more stable society when everybody is just "people"; when we are all just gears in a machine that work together for the benefit of everybody.

The people who become rich and famous assume that they are happy, but our life doesn't improve as our pile of material goods becomes larger. Also, we are titillated by the fantasy of being followed around by photographers and by people who want our photograph, but in reality, only a crude or mentally ill person would actually enjoy that type of life. I don't think we should design society in order to appease those type of people. We should design society according to what we think are the healthy humans.

Living creatures have lots of checks and balances, but during the past few thousand years humans have been inadvertently changing their environment, and today we find ourselves in situations that we have no checks and balances for. For example, nature never intended for hundreds of homosexual men to get together. As a result, when they gather at bathhouses, there is nothing to stop them from having unbelievable amounts of casual sex with one another.

Humans were never designed for awards, trophies, Nobel prizes, or Pulitzer prizes, either. Men have strong cravings to be the dominant male, and women have strong cravings to be the center of attention, and these crude emotions cause us to be attracted to the awards, but there are no checks and balances to counteract that craving. As a result, a lot of people get carried away trying to win contests and collect awards. They are like homosexual men at a bathhouse, but instead of having sex with every man they see, they try to collect every trophy that they see.

Which is more pathetic: a) Homosexual men trying to have sex with every man they see. b) Athletes pushing themselves to extremes in order to win every trophy that they see.

Some athletes want to win a sports contest so badly that they spend enormous amounts of money on training programs and equipment. Some children spend so much of their leisure time on training that they deprive themselves of a normal childhood. Some athletes have such intense cravings to win that they routinely risk serious injuries to themselves. Some athletes go further and risk their health with performance-enhancing drugs or steroids. Some athletes go even further and cheat, murder, sabotage, and bribe.

Our emotions are titillated by trophies, but there is nothing to counteract this craving except our intelligence. Therefore, we have to think about our sports and other activities, and we have to verify that what we are doing is sensible and beneficial. We cannot behave like a stupid animal and do whatever "feels good".
 

Coaches often make remarks like that in order to motivate their athletes, but in this modern world, everybody must be capable of analyzing their goals and making sensible decisions about whether the goal is worth risking their life, or whether it's only worth risking their health, or whether the goal is so meaningless that they should give it only a few minutes of casual effort.

For example, if you were being attacked by a wolf, then you must be willing to risk your life in order to win that particular fight. Likewise, we are being attacked by a Jewish crime network, and winning isn't merely an option for us; it should be our primary goal right now, and it makes sense for us to take risks with our lives in order to achieve this goal. We must defeat these freaks.

Unfortunately, there are some adults who believe that winning a sports contest is so important that they will risk their life or health for it, and some will commit crimes in order to win. These people should be regarded as savages, lunatics, or idiots who cannot cope with modern life.
 

If we could measure everybody's concern about winning a sports contest, we would find that people fit the typical bell curve. I think that an analysis of the people who have the most extreme interest in winning (the blue section of the chart to the right), would show us that those people have a personality that is more like a primitive savage, and some of those people may simply be mentally ill or stupid.

If we could measure the cheating that everybody does during sports, we would find that people follow a bell curve with that characteristic also. We would find that most people cheat only occasionally and only to a small extent, whereas some people are willing to murder, blackmail, sabotage, and bribe in order to win. I think we would find that the people who do the most extreme cheating are also the most crude and/or mentally ill.

I think this concept applies to other activities, also. For example, if we could measure everybody's interest in acquiring money, we would find that we all want money, but some people have such intense cravings for it that they are willing to cheat, murder, blackmail, and steal in order to get money. Likewise, if we could measure every man's desire for sex, we would find that some men have such intense cravings that they will lie, rape, murder, sabotage, and deceive in order to get it.
 

The athletes who go to extremes to win, such as pushing themselves to the point that they risk their health, or who use steroids, or who cheat, or who sabotage their rivals, are putting pressure on the other athletes to also go to extremes. This concept is similar to the problem I mentioned with the "locks of love". We can't ignore bad behavior simply because it is "trivial". If we allow one athlete to go to an extreme, then he will have an advantage over the others, and that will put pressure on the other athletes to go to an extreme, also. This competition will continue until the athletes are becoming absurd in their attempts to win a contest.

The people with extreme cravings are a bad influence on society, regardless of whether they crave trophies, money, fame, sex, or food. And if they are willing to murder, deceive, or sabotage in order to get what they want, they are destructive, and they should be removed. Athletes who cheat are equivalent to rapists and burglars. Everybody should earn what they want. Athletes who cannot play games fairly should be removed from the sport.

We don't have to live among people who refuse to earn what they want from life and who refuse to treat us with decency. We should stop tolerating people who behave like savages. Furthermore, if this crude behavior is an inheritable personality trait, then allowing these people to reproduce will cause our society to degrade into savages. The same concept applies to people who want to inherit everything from their parents rather than earn what they want. We shouldn't tolerate that parasitic attitude.
 

When I was a child, some Americans complained that the American athletes had to beg for donations and look for corporate sponsorship, whereas the Communist nations were funding athletes with tax money. A lot of Americans were impressed by the tremendous support that the Communist leaders provided for sports. However, my impression was that the Communist leaders had no concern about the citizens of their nation. They didn't seem to be encouraging sports in order to help their citizens maintain good health, or to help them socialize. Rather, they seemed to be using their citizens to win international sports events in order to promote their nation and feel special. They seemed to be exploiting their athletes, not supporting them.

As I pointed out 14 Dec 2008, the men who get control of Communist nations, especially those of decades ago, behave like gang members. For example, they try to intimidate people with displays of weapons. I'm not surprised that men who behave in these crude manners are also putting extreme emphasis on the winning of sports contest. Furthermore, if we could measure cheating, I think we would find that the Communists cheat more often, also, and their cheating is more extreme.

The leaders of communist nations are extremely secretive about themselves and their government, and they claim that the secrecy is to protect themselves from imperialists and other imaginary monsters, but they are secretive simply because they don't want anybody to know what they do and how they live. They are not people who impress us with their intelligence. They have nothing to boast about; no talents to show us. They acquired their positions through murder, blackmail, and other diabolical tactics. They must be secretive because if we knew how they lived and treated people, we would be disgusted.

President Putin often appears to be a "normal" man. For example, he recently got publicity for singing a song, and for somebody who doesn't speak English, I think he does an impressive job. Of course, for all I know, he is like American government officials who merely follow orders from the Jews. Russia is so secretive that I wonder if a lot of the Russians are as confused as we are about their nation. When I was a child, China was the most secretive and mysterious nation, but they have recently become much more open and friendly. Today Russia is the most secretive nation. The Russian people should start asking themselves,

"Where are we going in life? Do we want to join the human race and contribute to it? Or do we want to continue living in isolation and fear?"

The people who promote extreme training programs claim that the children are benefiting from them by becoming better athletes, and they point out that the audience of the event will be able to watch much more talented athletes. It is certainly true that the increasingly extreme training programs are causing athletes to become better every year, which is why the athletes are continually breaking world records. However, the athletes are not making life better for anybody, not even themselves. It doesn't matter to any of us whether the world record for the hundred meter race is 10 seconds, 12 seconds, or 25 seconds. Likewise, it makes no difference to any of us whether an ice skater can do a triple spin or a single spin.

It's possible that if we took children away from their parents soon after birth and put them into even more intensive sports training programs, then they would become even faster runners, better basketball players, and more talented ice skaters, but why should any of us care? Nobody benefits from this type of "improvement".

We should pass judgment on when people are "training" for a sports event, and when they are behaving like a stupid animal who is getting carried away with attempts to titillate its emotions. Imagine an extreme situation. Imagine a nation that searched for children who showed athletic ability, removed the portion of their brain that caused them to have a desire for a normal life, and put them in intensive training programs with lots of drugs and steroids.

Want to feel special? I have a special deal for you! Hufschmid's "Outrageous Compliments"! Why waste your time and money struggling to win awards? Why risk getting in trouble for cheating? Now you can titillate yourself at any time, any day, any where. Simply play Hufschmid's Special Collection of Outrageous Compliments with your CD or MP3 player! Listen to hours and hours of extremely stimulating compliments! You'll blush; you'll be embarrassed; and you'll love it! Plus, I'll include an Applause CD as a free gift, if you order now! The Olympic athletes and Nobel Prize winners get only a very momentary applause; but with this CD, you get a wide variety of applause, whistles, and clapping, and it goes on for hours and hours! So bypass the silly process of competition and jump directly into the praise portion of the award ceremonies! A satisfied customer writes: “Eric, I used to crave fame. I wasted a lot of my life struggling to be an Olympic athlete and a movie star, but now that I have your CD, my emotional needs are fully satisfied. I can finally relax and have a real life! I'm tempted to thank you, but your CD has such amazing compliments that I doubt you would want my mediocre praise.”  - John G., Idaho

Would you want to watch dancing if the people were covered with advertisements?

Some sports, such as dancing, require so little land, equipment and other resources that the professionals can survive without selling their bodies as advertising space. At the other extreme are the sports that require expensive equipment and/or a lot of land, such as automobile racing. These sports have to sell advertising space on the athletes and their equipment.

At the moment, sports are developing haphazardly and inadvertently, and we have no idea how much money is involved in sports, or how many people are involved. However, if society takes control of sports, then everything about sports becomes open to the public. When the athletes, coaches, and other people in sports become government employees, we will know exactly how many people are involved with sports, and how much money we are spending on their salaries, and how much money we are spending on stadiums, medical bills, and sports equipment. We will discover how much money is necessary to support automobile racing, football games, soccer games, and the Olympics.

If we take control of our sports, then we can make decisions on which sports we want to support; how many athletes we want in each sport; and how much money, land, and other resources we want to give to each sport. How many professional athletes do we want training for skateboarding, skiing, ice skating, running, and pole vaulting? How many professional football players, basketball players, and boxers do we want to support? How many children do we want training to become a professional dancer, automobile racer, bicycle racer, ski jumper, or bobsled racer? Which animal races do we want to support?
 

Video recording technology has only existed for a few decades, but we have already recorded thousands of Olympic events and thousands of professional, college, and high school football games, basketball games, and other sports. After another century, there will be millions of recordings. After a few thousand years, there will be so many trillions of recordings that the people will have to use the moon as a data storage center, and they will have to use Venus as a source of raw materials to produce whatever devices they use for recording video.

I think the people thousands of years from now will enjoy having samples of sports events from history, but I don't think they will want a recording of every sports event that has occurred since 1950. Imagine if the ancient Greeks and Romans had video recorders, and if they recorded every sports event. Since their societies existed for a few centuries, they may have recorded thousands of virtually identical foot races, javelin throwing contests, and other events. It would certainly be interesting to look through a sample of their sports events, but it would be a waste of our life to watch thousands of hours of virtually identical foot races.

If we are going to keep recordings of every sports event, then why not also keep a recording of every birthday party, corporate meeting, wedding, and picnic? Why not go even further and keep a recording of everybody getting a haircut?
 

Another interesting way to look at the issue of professional sports and the video recording of sports is to consider that it is virtually impossible to distinguish between a live event and one that was recorded a week earlier, or a year earlier, or even 20 years earlier. Therefore, instead of bothering to hold new football games, volleyball games, foot races, and automobile races, we could put the previous games on DVD or the Internet and let everybody watch events from the past.

Why bother wasting time and resources every year on training thousands of professional athletes and then holding thousands of virtually identical basketball games, football games, and Olympic events? Why not watch the recordings of the past? What's the difference between watching a football game that's happening today compared to a football game that happened 5 years ago? The new generation of children don't know who Howard Cosell is, so from their point of view, they would be watching live football games.

Why are we saving recordings of every sports event when we don't want to watch any of them? The future generations would certainly enjoy looking at samples of different sports at different points in time, but I don't think they're going to want a recording of every sports event that the human race has engaged in. It is a burden on society to maintain recordings, so I think we should keep a variety of recordings of all sorts of activities, but we don't need to save every sports event.
 

Since there is no way to distinguish between a live sports event and a recording from years earlier, why do people care whether the event is live or recorded? Why don't people enjoy watching a football game that was recorded years earlier? Why don't we watch the Olympic events from the previous decade? I think the reason is simply because most sports events are boring to watch.

It might also help you to understand this issue if you consider the issue of diamonds. Nobody can distinguish between a real diamond and a phony diamond. Humans do not have any attraction to diamonds. In order to create an attraction to diamonds, people have to be fooled into thinking that the possession of a diamond makes a person special. A person with a diamond can then stimulate himself into thinking that he is special. In other words, the person is not attracted to the diamond. Rather, he is jerking himself off.

Humans do not have any emotional attraction to any particular sport. The reason people like to watch live sports is because we like to get involved with the competitive struggle of who will win. In other words, it is not the sport that we care about; rather, it is the competition.

If people could understand that they don't actually care about diamonds, then we wouldn't have to waste resources on diamonds. Likewise, if people could understand that they don't really care about sports, then we could change our sports so that they become more useful.

Many people enjoy watching old recordings of Shirley Temple, Fred Astaire, and Michael Jackson, but those people were not involved with competitive sports. They were entertaining people with singing, acting, and dancing. Michael Jackson did a lot of dancing that rivals what the Olympic gymnasts are doing, but Jackson wasn't doing it to compete for a stupid trophy. Also, Jackson wasn't abusing or cheating other people during his performances. Rather, he was working with the other people to entertain and inspire the audience.

People enjoy entertainment, but there's not much entertainment value in watching athletes fight, cheat, and abuse each other in a senseless, competitive struggle to win a stupid trophy. The athletes would be appreciated more if they put on truly entertaining shows. I think sports should be redesigned in order to reduce the emphasis on winning, fighting, cheating, and extreme behavior, and put more emphasis on being pleasant, entertaining, and inspiring.
 

There is evidence that the government officials of ancient Greece were exploiting the Olympics for political purposes, and we can see the same problem happening today. In addition, businesses are exploiting the Olympics. Furthermore, thousands of athletes participate in the Olympics, but only a small percentage of them get television coverage. All of the events are recorded, but nobody wants to look at recordings of the previous Olympics, so the recordings are put into storage. Why do we bother recording the events? Why are we supporting this incredibly expensive activity? Who among us is benefiting from this? If there is no benefit to society, then we are fools to waste our resources on this activity.

Furthermore, the concept behind the Olympics is ridiculous. The Olympics is supposed to be a competitive event between nations, but a "nation" is just an arbitrary boundary that changes through time, and the larger nations have a lot more athletes to choose from, so they have an incredibly unfair advantage over the smaller nations. To make the situation more ridiculous, some people change their citizenship simply to get into the Olympics. It doesn't make any sense to claim that the Olympics is a contest between nations when people are deliberately changing their citizenship.

There are already a lot of international sports events in which athletes from around the world are allowed to compete with each other. So what purpose does the Olympics really serve? Who among us is benefiting from the Olympics? I think the Olympics should be eliminated, or we need to make drastic changes so that they become more sensible and less expensive.

What happens to the gymnasts after years of performing extreme contortions? Do they suffer from joint problems later in life? How many boxers end up with brain damage? How many football players end up with medical problems? There are also a lot of people hurting themselves in various stunts with bicycles, skateboards, and motorcycles. On a German television show, Samuel Koch, a gymnast was trying to jump over a moving automobile and severely damaged his spinal cord (photo). As of December 2010, he is paralyzed forever.

Some people might respond that athletes are paid a lot of money, and they can use some of their money to pay for insurance and medical support. However, this doesn't justify injuries. Even if the athletes are paying their medical expenses, it is actually society that is taking the burden. It is society that provides an athlete with his money, house, food, clothing, electricity, and other items. And it is society that provides them with medical support, artificial knees, and drugs.

It is possible that the injuries from sports are trivial, but it's also possible that the situation is much worse than we realize. If we allow the government to control sports, then we would have access to all of the information about injuries for each sport. We would discover which sports are producing which type of injuries, and what the actual burden on society is. We could then make decisions about which of the sports should be modified to reduce the injuries.

As of today, the primary source of injuries and deaths in most nations are automobiles, but if we were to switch to a different type of city in which private automobiles are replaced by trains or computer-controlled cars (I suggested one possibility here), then the injuries from automobile accidents would be reduced dramatically, which in turn might cause injuries by sports to become the most significant source of injuries.

As of today, no society is truly dealing with the problem of athletes who cheat or who go to extremes to win, and no society cares about the effect lunatics have on sports. As a result, there is lots of pressure on the athletes to take risks. This is resulting in unnecessary injuries. Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if 20% of the population was in wheelchairs as a result of sports. Now imagine if the spectators of a sport were solely responsible for all aspects of their medical care. Imagine if the spectators of football games had to take turns helping the crippled football players in and out of their wheelchairs, and if the spectators of boxing had to take turns changing the diapers of the brain damaged boxers. Furthermore, imagine if the spectators had to produce all of the artificial knees that the athletes needed, and if they had to perform all the surgeries the athletes needed, and if they had to provide all of the blood needed for transfusions.

The point I'm trying to make is that people today have no sense of responsibility. Athletes can behave in reckless manners because they have a safety net underneath them, and the audience is not responsible for anything. When the athletes get hurt, large teams of people at hospitals, medical labs, machine shops, and factories will help them with their medical problems. The audience members can ignore the injured athletes.

If we change society so that we are in control of our culture, then we can decide if we want this ridiculous situation to continue. We could tell the athletes and the spectators that they are going to have to be more responsible. Or, we could tell them that they can take risks, but we are under no obligation to care for them if they hurt themselves.

As of today, the spectators of boxing events want more violence, not safer fights. Likewise, the spectators of football games want more risky activities, not safer games. But who benefits from the risky activities? A sport doesn't become "better" as it becomes more dangerous. Every activity has a risk, but we have to pass judgment on when we are "entertaining normal people", and when we are trying to "titillate lunatics". In my opinion, most sports crossed the boundary from entertainment to insanity many years ago.
 

When should the government protect us from ourselves?

It is necessary for the government to protect us with safety regulations and quality control inspections for products, factories, elevators, and restaurants because none of us have any control over those products or activities. It makes sense for the government to ensure that pilots truly know how to fly an airplane, and that dentists have the skills necessary to fix our teeth. However, do we want the government telling people what they can do in the privacy of their own home?

As of today, we follow the policy that everybody should be treated as if they are irresponsible and stupid children. Some messages on billboards in South Africa (photo) treat people like savages. Some people want cigarette packages to be frightening, such as showing people with cancer. There are also people trying to discourage methamphetamine use by showing photographs of people who used the drug.

Schools should educate children about the dangers of alcohol and other drugs, but my attitude is that if cthere are adults living among us who have to be treated like a baby, then they shouldn't be living with us! We should raise standards for adults. If an adult cannot function properly in our society, then he should be exiled to some other city. We shouldn't waste our time or resources treating him like a baby.
 

There are so many people doing crazy stunts that we can't always figure out which of these photos are real and which are jokes. (This is a joke.)

Accidents occur in every activity, and there are risks in everything we do. Almost everybody has hurt themselves many times in the kitchen with ordinary kitchen knives. However, sports are more dangerous than most other activities, and some sports are inherently dangerous, such as boxing. There are also a lot of risky recreational activities, such as climbing a mountain during winter storms. Every nation tries to reduce injuries by demanding that everybody follow certain safety regulations, but there are a lot of people who ignore the regulations, and some athletes secretly use drugs to help their performance.

What should we do with people who hurt themselves after taking risks that they shouldn't have taken? One option is to tell people to ignore safety regulations at their own risk. For example, if some people go hiking in a mountain during a winter storm, and if they get lost and need help, why should society send a group of people, helicopters, and airplanes to search for and rescue them? Why should we save irresponsible people? And consider the people who hurt themselves while doing risky stunts, such as riding a skateboard down a staircase railing, or doing a backflip. They expect ambulances, doctors, and dentists to stop what they're doing and give them immediate medical treatment, but why should society care about people who behave in such idiotic manners? Also, consider that the irresponsible people often need help at awkward times, such as when we are having dinner, or while we are sleeping. Why should any of us have to stop our dinner, or get up in the middle of the night, to save irresponsible people from their stupid, self-destructive behavior?

I think a better policy is to be like a gardener. We should pass judgment on the people we live with. We should take care of the people who are valuable to society, but we should not feel responsible for the people who are self-destructive or worthless. This policy might seem cruel, but it merely provides adults with the freedom that they had thousands of years ago. Our primitive ancestors could take whatever risk they pleased, and if they were injured, they suffered the consequences. Over time this resulted in humans evolving into a creature that contemplates risks and makes wise decisions.

For another example, in the city that I live in, there is a cliff along the ocean where a lot of university students have parties. Occasionally an intoxicated student falls off the cliff. Usually they suffer only minor injuries, but some have suffered serious injuries. Some people want tax money spent on programs to warn college students about alcohol and drugs, and some people want more and better railings along the cliffs. Why should society waste time or money educating supposedly intelligent, educated adults on the dangers of getting drunk next to a cliff? And why should hospitals have to take care of these jerks? It might help you to understand this concept if you look through history and notice that our ancestors considered a person over the age of 18 to be an adult. Today, however, America treats college students as if they are helpless children.

Thousands of years ago the irresponsible people would often die as a result of their idiotic behavior, and that helped to improve the human race. Today we feel sorry for the jerks. How about this baby carriage that rolled onto a subway train track? In this case, the baby survived, but why should we care about these idiots? We want to be heroes, but we're not a hero when we save the mentally defective people. A fireman is not a hero when he saves a bag of trash in your burning house.

If a few people want to get together in the privacy of their own home to have a food-eating contest, and if one of them chokes on the food, we should not feel any obligation to rush to his rescue. The people at the hospital should not feel any obligation to stop what they're doing to help him, either. Let him die. We shouldn't feel sorry for losers, misfits, and freaks who kill themselves as a result of their own insanity. Our reaction should be, "Good riddance!"

There are lots of ways of modifying the American game of football to make it less violent and more interesting, but I'll mention only one of my ideas. The aspect of football that I find most interesting is the ability of the quarterbacks to throw the ball to a person who is running. I still remember being amazed many years ago that Lynn Swann could somehow catch balls thrown by Terry Bradshaw, even while facing away from Bradshaw, as in the photo. Unfortunately, the rules of the game are allowing people to interfere with this process.

I would change the rules so that whenever the quarterback throws the ball, everybody is allowed to try to catch it, but nobody can push or tackle anybody until they clearly have possession of the ball. This would allow a lot more of the passes to be completed.

When one of the players tries to run with the ball, he usually doesn't get very far because there are so many people on the opposing team trying to stop him. Therefore, it might be interesting to experiment with a reduction in the number of players on each team. That might allow the people running with the ball to get farther.

I think football would improve if the emphasis on winning was eliminated. They behave too much like dogs in a fight. They should play a game, not try to hurt one another. For example, when one team is trying to kick the ball over the goal post, the other team should not be allowed to get near the man kicking the ball. They could jump up to try to block the ball, and they could be ready in case the other team decided to run with the ball or pass the ball, but they shouldn't be allowed to interfere with somebody who is trying to kick the ball. They should stop taking the game so seriously and make it more pleasant and entertaining.
 

The cheerleaders at high school games are rarely noticed, and the cheerleaders at professional games are occasionally seen on television, but most people never notice them, either. Most of them are wasting their time and talent. And society is wasting money training them. Furthermore, some of them are seriously hurt by their risky stunts, which causes them to become a burden on society.

A cheerleader is already a combination of a gymnast, singer, and dancer, so it wouldn't take much of a modification to transform cheerleading into its own unique form of entertainment. All we have to do is remove the risky and difficult stunts, remove the sexual titillation, and make the dancing and songs more entertaining.The cheerleaders would be able to provide entertainment at a lot of school activities, and activities outside of school. As of today, they chant songs for a sports event, but they could write chants for other occasions. For example, if they were performing at a wedding, they could have romantic chants about marriage, and if they were performing at a dinner, they could have chants that are related to food, cooking, or socializing. If they were performing on a television show, or at a city fair, or at a "singles pageant" that I described earlier, then they could have a chants about birthdays, life, school, meeting people, gardening, or exercising. Some of their chants could be comedy, and some could be educational.

By making these changes, the cheerleaders become a form of pleasant, relaxing entertainment for all of society, rather than an obscure group of athletes who try to titillate men at a football or basketball game. Also, by reducing the risky and difficult stunts, more girls would be capable of becoming cheerleaders, and that could encourage more girls to get involved with some activities rather than watch television. This type of cheerleading would also be practical for very young girls.
 

When I was about seven years old, we lived in Carmel, California, and my cousin, who was a few years older, would sometimes take me and my younger brothers to the beach (we could walk to the beach), and we would pick up some of the golf balls that had been lost along one of the cliffs at the 8th hole of the Pebble Beach golf course. (We collected the balls for my cousin, but I don't remember why he wanted them.)

The issue of lost golf balls is trivial, but it's a simple example of a sport that is out of control, and a good example of an economic system that needs to be modernized. American businesses produce a lot of golf balls, but some of them are simply to replace balls that have been lost. Our economic system is so crude that businesses are not interested in looking for ways to reduce the number of lost balls. Businesses have no incentive to look for ways to improve society or to reduce waste. Their goal is simply to make profit.

If a few golf balls were the only resource that were wasted in the world today, then the issue would be trivial, but there is waste everywhere. To understand the significance of the waste, imagine that you are the dictator of the nation, and imagine that you discover that football players are routinely losing helmets; musicians are routinely losing their instruments; and airline mechanics are sometimes losing entire airplane engines. At what point would you complain about the lost items? What if 50% of the nation's mining and manufacturing operations were devoted to replacing lost items? How about if 90% of the manufacturing activity was to replace the lost items? At what point would you reach the conclusion that something needs to be done to reduce the number of lost items?

A more serious problem with golf is that it requires a tremendous amount land and resources, which is why it is an expensive sport. Men have become so carried away with the development of golf equipment that they have created golf balls that fly for enormous distances. Therefore, golf courses require an enormous amount of land. If everybody in the world wanted to play golf, there probably wouldn't be enough land available.

Furthermore, somebody decided that sand traps should be scattered throughout the golf course, but sand traps require resources to build and maintain. This increases the price of the sport, but what benefit results from the sand traps? We should be discussing such issues as:

"How much do sand traps add to the cost of the game? How is the money spent on sand traps benefiting the people who play golf? Are those people getting their money's worth? If a golf course did not have any sand traps, would the people playing on that course have less fun, or less exercise, or less socializing?"

Perhaps some people like the sand traps, but I think the sand traps are ugly, as in the photo of the 7th hole at the Pebble Beach course. I think the sand traps look like open sores on the grass, and I don't see how the sand traps improve the game. Actually, I think the golf courses would be more attractive without them, thereby making the game more pleasant.

The "greens" or "putting areas" of the golf course are even more expensive to maintain than the sand traps. They require phenomenal amounts of fertilizer, water, and gardening services. Also, the grass can't handle the abuse, and so it has to be routinely torn up and replanted. How does the game of golf improve from this extreme situation? Why not use artificial grass for this part of the golf course? Or why not use ordinary grass? What difference does it make if the golfers play on ordinary grass or an incredibly expensive, resource-intensive grass? How do they benefit from the special grass?

I think the only people who benefit from that incredibly expensive grass are the businessesmen who sell the supplies and services necessary to maintain it. I don't think the golfers benefit. The golfers could easily play on ordinary grass. I suppose that some of the golfers would complain that ordinary grass makes it more difficult for the ball to travel in a straight line, but that merely makes the final shots more difficult. They could compensate for that situation by making the hole larger. Or, they could simply accept the difficulty as part of the game. If they are really interested in having the ball travel in a straight line, then the grass should be replaced by a flat, concrete slab that is covered by felt, like a pool table.

I think the golfers are as out of control as homosexual men in a bathhouse. They are getting carried away worrying about issues of no importance. Nothing improves by making the putting green more expensive. And nothing improves as the golf ball flies farther. In fact, the farther the ball flies, the more ridiculous the game becomes because it causes more balls to be lost, and it causes the size of the course to become larger. The large courses would be useful if the players were walking around and getting some exercise, but the phenomenal amount of resources that are required to maintain golf courses make the sport very expensive, and so the only people who regularly play golf are those who are old or retired, and they have a tendency to ride electric golf carts, which requires more of society's resources. So, who is getting exercise at a golf course? And how much exercise are they getting? The gardeners get more exercise than the "athletes"!

Imagine an extreme situation. Imagine the golfers getting so carried away that they developed a golf ball that would travel from one continent to another, and therefore, a golf course had to span the entire planet. Imagine a group of golfers hitting their balls, and then taking a private jet to get to the location of their balls, and then hitting their balls again, and then taking a ride in a jet to the next location, etc.
 

As I mentioned, when I was a child we would pick up golf balls at the Pebble Beach golf course. If we went to the golf course early in the morning, almost nobody was on the course, and so we would sometimes walk around on the fairways. (During that era, 1962 and 1963, it was common for young boys to wander around by themselves all day.) The foggy mornings were the nicest because it would hide a lot of the buildings and telephone wires, thereby making the grass, ocean, and trees the dominant aspect of the golf course. I can still remember the beautiful green grass, with trees and other plants along the edges in some areas. The Pebble Beach golf course is on a beautiful section of the California coast, and there are other golf courses in that area that are also spectacular. Some sections of the beach have white sand, and other sections have large, colored pebbles, and other sections have small pebbles. There are also amazing rock formations along the beach, and it is one of the few areas where sea otters come so close to the coastline that you can sometimes see them very clearly. (Childhood memories are very intense and long lasting, which is one of the concepts behind my remark here about equalizing everybody's childhood).

Even as a child it seemed to me that a golf course was a waste for an area as beautiful as Pebble Beach. (Some photos are here and here.) The city also wasted an area along the beach with a road for automobiles; one section is called "The 17 mile Drive". Most Americans refuse to walk or ride bicycles, so instead of providing paths along Pebble Beach, there are asphalt roads and a constant stream of noisy, filthy cars. What good does it do to drive by a beautiful beach and look out the window? From an automobile, you don't even notice that some of the beaches are truly composed of millions of pebbles! Furthermore, the pebbles look nicer when you get out by the water and see them when they are wet.

Another problem with that particular area of the coastline is that businesses and people are putting hundreds of homes, roads, and buildings along the beach in a haphazard manner. There is no significant city planning anywhere in the world yet. We should start asking ourselves such questions as,

"Why are we living? Do we exist merely to provide businesses with profit? Should businesses be allowed to own the land around Pebble Beach? Should businesses be allowed to own any land or any buildings? Do we want beautiful areas to be covered by roads and parking lots? Do we want to encourage people to drive everywhere? Or should we encourage people to walk and ride bicycles in the beautiful areas?"

If we change our government and economic system so that society is in control of all of the land and buildings, then we can take control of the land. Instead of passively wondering what the people and businesses will do with the land and buildings, we become active participants in our future. We can decide what we want to do with all of the beaches, rivers, moutains, and forests. We would be able to decide how much land we want to set aside for a golf course, a baseball field, a picnic area, and an artificial lake. We could take control of sports activities and decide what we want the game of golf to become. For example, we could demand that the golf balls be redesigned so that they don't fly very far, thereby reducing the size of golf courses. This would also result in fewer balls getting lost, and fewer balls flying into buildings that are outside of the course. We could also demand that the golf courses be designed with ordinary grass in order to reduce maintenance.

I suspect that future generations are going to get rid of golf because it takes a lot of land and resources, but it doesn't provide much exercise, and is not very useful for socializing. Most of the socializing that goes on with golf is happening inside the recreational buildings of the golf course. If golf remains as a sport, I think it will be with balls that don't fly very far, such as wiffle balls. This will allow the courses to be very small. Also, the players would need only one club. The golfers shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that the game will become "better" if they have a variety of different clubs. The wiffle balls and the one club would make golf into a more casual, recreational activity, similar to miniature golf, except that it would let the players make full swings with the club.

This incidentally brings up the important issue that the equipment of a sport has no correlation to the benefit that we receive from the sport. It doesn't matter whether the game of golf has one club, 50 clubs, or 500 clubs. It doesn't matter whether the golf ball has dimples, is smooth, or is a wiffleball.

By using wiffle balls for the game of golf, we wouldn't have to set aside a special area for golf. Any grassy area could become an instant golf course whenever it was needed. Instead of hitting the wiffle balls into holes, the golfers would hit them into "dishes" that they place at whatever locations they please. This variation of golf would allow people to play golf whenever they pleased simply by scattering the "holes" around a grassy area. Furthermore, since nobody has to worry about getting hurt by whiffle balls, the golfers could play next to people who were having picnics or riding bicycles. They could also play around buildings without worrying about breaking windows. (The photo shows Adare Manor Golf Resort)

As of today, golf courses are not considered as a waste of land because most people don't want to use the land for anything else because most people prefer to lounge for hours in front of a television, video game, or at a pub. A lot of adults today are also very lonely, and those lonely people are not much interested in doing anything except finding a friend, or playing with their dog.

However, if we were to create a nicer society, there wouldn't be so many lonely people, and if we created a city with lots of parks scattered within it and along the outside of it, and if transportation was easier, then more people would enjoy getting outside into the parks once in a while, and then the consumption of land by golf courses would become an issue. I think most people would decide to get rid of the game of golf completely, or modify it into "wiffle golf".
 

Another sport that consumes tremendous resources is the racing of vehicles. This is another sport where history might help people to understand that they are getting carried away. Photographs and descriptions of previous car races show that the racetracks haven't changed much during the past century, and neither has the behavior of the spectators or the people involved with racing, but the vehicles are becoming increasingly complex and expensive. However, an analysis of the previous car races will show that neither the spectators nor the participants are having more fun as the sport becomes increasingly expensive. So, who is benefiting from the increasingly expensive vehicles? Only the businesses that provide products and services.

History can also show us that this sport is on a path towards absurdity. The race cars of next year will be even more expensive. If we continue on this path, a race car will eventually require as much resources as faking a moon landing. The people involved in automobile racing are as out of control as homosexuals at a bathhouse. It doesn't matter whether we race with expensive vehicles or inexpensive vehicles, and it makes no difference how fast the vehicles travel. So why bother with expensive vehicles? What is the purpose of racing? Do the people involved with the sport have any idea? I don't think so.

The racing of vehicle should either be abandoned, or they should use low-cost vehicles. Or, as I mentioned in a previous file, they could have competitions that are useful, such as riding lawnmowers and mow portions of a park.
 

I don't think the game of baseball has a useful purpose, either. It doesn't provide much exercise, and is not very useful for socializing or entertainment, either. This is a game that Americans claim to have created, but I don't know if this is something to boast about or be embarrassed of. Baseball may be the sport in which people get the least amount of exercise. The reason is because very few people can hit the ball, and when they do hit the ball, they are almost immediately taken out of the game. Most of the players remain nearly motionless throughout the entire game, especially the person in right field. The professional baseball players are often seen chewing enormous amounts of gum or tobacco, and when an athlete is capable of doing that, it's a sign that he's not doing anything.

This game should be altered so that it becomes more active. For example, the pitcher should be on the same team as the players who are at bat. Instead of throwing pitches that he hopes nobody can hit, he should try to understand the abilities of each person on this team, and give them a pitch that they are capable of hitting. The pitcher could also try to help control the direction that the ball travels. Each player would get three pitches, and if a player fouls or misses those three pitches, then he strikes out. No umpire would be needed to pass judgment on whether a pitch was good or bad.

This change would allow most people to hit the ball, thereby making the game much more active. To increase the activity, catching the ball should not cause the player to go out. Rather, it would give a point to that team. They would still have to throw the ball to the base in order to get the player out. With these rules, there would be no such thing as a "home run" because hitting the ball out of the field would count as a foul. They would also have to hit the ball beyond the pitcher's mound or it would be count as a foul. This variation of baseball would provide a lot more exercise to the players. I would also suggest that the baseballs be made softer so that they don't fly so far, which reduces the amount of land necessary to play baseball.
 

A problem with modern sports is that they require equipment or large fields. Therefore, it's not practical for ordinary people to have spontaneous and informal games. Also, it is difficult for most sports to mix boys and girls, or young and old people. One sport that is an exception, to a certain extent, is the game of kickball. It is exactly the same as baseball, except that there is no equipment, except for one soft, inflatable ball. The pitcher rolls the ball along the ground, and the person at home base kicks the ball. Since everybody can kick a ball, the game is very active, and since nobody is good at throwing large, inflatable balls, girls are not at such a disadvantage, and neither are old people. By using a wiffleball, it becomes even more difficult to kick and throw, which reduces the size of the field that is needed, and it makes it less likely for a person to be injured when they are hit by the ball. A game of wiffle kickball would be even better than whiffle golf in regards to providing exercise and helping people to socialize.
 

I suppose the people who play baseball and golf would complain about playing with a wiffle ball that doesn't travel very far, but the equipment involved in the sport is meaningless. Neither baseball nor golf become "better" as the ball becomes harder. It's important to contemplate the philosophical issue, What is the purpose of playing a sport or game? If you're playing for entertainment, exercise, or socializing, the equipment has nothing to do with the benefits you receive.

Any competitive activity could be described as a "sport" or a "game", regardless of whether it uses balls, and regardless of whether the balls are hard, soft, or inflatable. For example, at a birthday party in my neighborhood many years ago, some of the young girls played a game that only required some ordinary balloons. It was a race in which the girls would try to walk across their front yard as quickly as possible (the yards in my neighborhood are very small, so they were only racing about 6 meters). About 5 to 8 girls would race at one time. The girls would stand in a line at one end of the front yard, and they would rub a balloon on their hair to fill it with static electricity, and then they would put the balloon on the top of their head. When someone told them to go, they would try to get to the other side of the front yard as quick as possible, but without touching the balloon. The balloon would slip down their head as the moved, but they could keep going as long as it was clinging to their hair. If it started to slip off their hair, they had to stop and rub the balloon to put more static electricity in it. This particular game didn't require much money or equipment, and it wasn't dangerous, but they were enjoying it anyway.
 

The sport of soccer is another example of how history could be useful in helping us to understand the game. I think soccer has an irritating rule; namely, the players are not allowed to touch the ball. I suspect this rule developed centuries ago because the original balls were so crude that it wasn't practical to hit them, or even to grab or throw them. However, today we can make soft, inflatable balls, and so we could change the rules and allow people to hit, catch, and throw the ball, as we do in volleyball. Furthermore, we should make the soccer ball softer so that it doesn't travel so far, which would reduce the size of the soccer field, and it would also reduce the problem of people being injured by the ball. There is no point in making a soccer ball travel enormous distances. The game doesn't improve as the ball travels farther.
 

I would prefer that the gymnasts and ice skaters become more like the dancers. They should wear attractive clothing, and make their routines more artistic and entertaining. The ice dancers should actually dance on the ice rather than perform difficult, athletic stunts. Their ability to glide around the ice could make a dance appear "dreamy". They could even have some dances with ribbons, like the rhythmic gymnasts use.

Also, they should stop the extremely difficult and life-threatening stunts and become more artistic and entertaining. They could have performances in groups as well as individually. If they reduce the emphasis on winning trophies and concentrate on artistic performances, they might create some performances that people enjoy watching centuries from now. The gymnasts and ice skaters should start experimenting with new ideas instead of simply following the gymnasts of the past.

In gymnastics, the pommel horse is interesting to see a couple of times, but not over and over. I would eliminate that event. Furthermore, the male gymnasts tend to dress in what appears to be their underwear. Why can't athletes wear nice clothing (as the woman in the photo)? This is not ancient Greece! There is also an event in which the gymnasts run and then flip over an object, but who wants to watch that more than three times?
 

There are thousands of beauty contests for dogs, horses, and other animals, but I don't think those contests are helping anybody. I think the businesses are exploiting people's desire to win awards and feel special. These events should be modified to make them into educational social events, mainly for children. Schools and museums could be in a supervisory position to design and coordinate these events. They would arrange for people who are involved with animals, such as farmers, ranchers, forest rangers, and gardeners, to teach an audience about animals. Some of the animals could be brought to the event so that the children can see them.

Instead of competing for trophies, the people at these types of events would be helping people understand animals and their role in human life and the planet. It would help children learn how some chickens are raised for their meat, and others are raised for their eggs; how gophers live and how gardeners control gophers; how forest rangers use wolves and mountain lions to control deer and elk; and how sheep can be used for wool as well as meat.

Athletes and coaches are frequently caught cheating, but compared to the crimes committed by people in government, business, and Hollywood, the athletes commit insignificant crimes. For example, during a recent football game, Sal Alosi, one of the coaches, deliberately put his knee out as one of the opposing players, Nolan Carroll, ran past him, which caused Carroll to fall. Tripping somebody while they are running at high speed is dangerous, but being a football player who was experienced at falling, Carroll reacted quickly by twisting, put his arms out, and rolling. However, that doesn't justify tripping football players... or does it?

The journalist Ray Ratto justified it. He wrote that Alosi was showing "initiative" because his team was losing. Does that make sense to you? A team doesn't need to cheat if it is winning; only the losers need to cheat. Therefore, if we promote the attitude that a losing team is showing initiative by cheating, then the sport becomes a contest of who is the best at cheating. Ratto also implied that we shouldn't care about the cheating because football is amoral:

If there is a more amoral game than football, it comes with boxing gloves or an octagonal ring. It doesn't build character, or inspire noble thoughts, or make men out of boys. It's large men running into each other at high rates of speed and occasionally trying to unscrew each other's exposed appendages, or to scare the hell out of the opponent while trying.

Ray Ratto (photo) may be correct that football is currently an amoral sport in which a group of men cheat and hurt one another, but that doesn't mean football or other sports have to remain useless and disgusting. The point I want to make in this file is that we can improve our sports. We can also create completely new sports.

Furthermore, we should not tolerate cheating or crime in sports, business, science, government, or schools. When we tolerate crime, we allow our society to be destroyed by the badly behaved people. This is true even if the crime seems insignificant. Consider the "trivial" incident in which Sal Alosi tripped a football player:

• The tripping of Carroll served no purpose because Alosi's team was going to lose regardless. So why did Alosi trip him? It's possible that Alosi tripped Carroll in revenge for some cheating that Carroll had done, and it's possible that other people were encouraging Alosi to become angry, but it's possible that Alosi was simply angry that his team was losing the game. The journalist, Ray Ratto, claims that Alosi was showing initiative, but when a person hurts another person simply because he is losing a silly game, we ought to wonder, what would he do if he were losing something that was much more valuable to him? How would he react if he was a government official, business executive, Hollywood producer, or police official, and what if he was losing his job, or about to be exposed for a crime he committed?

• JJ Cooper, a writer for the NFL, describes the lineup of people along the sidelines as "gamesmanship". However, I would describe it as an attempt to annoy or interfere with the opposite team.

• What would happen if Alosi got a job with the opposing team? Imagine the same two teams playing a game, but coach Alosi is now working for the opposing team, and that team is losing. Would Alosi become angry and trip one of his former friends? If so, then he is behaving like an animal whose loyalty is to his particular group.

This type of behavior could be turned into a comedy routine. For example, after coach Alosi tripped Nolan Carroll, the other team offers the coach a job with their team in order to stop the abuse. The coach takes the job, and then begin tripping the players from his original team. His original team then responds by offering him an even higher salary, along with gifts, such as a vacation in Bermuda, so that they don't have to be tripped any longer.

Getting back to the issue of abuse and cheating in sports, animals do not pass judgment on one another; their loyalty is to their group. They don't care if some members of the group are disgusting, or if some members of other groups are wonderful. If animals were intelligent enough to be mercenaries, they would be ideal mercenaries because they would be completely faithful to whoever was offering them money.

Although humans are biased in favor of our own group, the more advanced a human is, the more capable he is of realizing that some members of our own group are disgusting, and some of the members of other groups are wonderful. The ability to pass judgment on other people, to look critically at our own group, and to look favorably at other groups, is a very advanced and valuable quality.

• If a man will hurt somebody simply out of anger for losing a game, even though he gains nothing, what would he be willing to do to somebody if a crime network offered him a reward that he wanted, such as an acting job in a Hollywood movie, or a job in politics, or lots of money?

• I suspect that the people who want to become a sports journalist have slightly different personalities compared to people who want to specialize in politics, Hollywood, science, and other fields. I don't know if there would be any significance to figuring out what their differences are, but until we study the issue, we will never know. (Ariel Helwani, a journalist for "mixed martial arts", is in the photo.)

• Coach Alosi and other people were standing along the sidelines in an attempt to annoy the other team, and there were accusations that they were ordered to stand there. The NFL refused to investigate, perhaps because they didn't want to expose the bad behavior that they know is routinely occurring, but the next day coach Alosi was suspended forever for ordering the people to stand there. Some people believe that Alosi is taking all the blame to protect people above him in the hierarchy. If so, then this would be another example of how people in leadership positions are routinely getting away with bad behavior - and sometimes horrendous crimes - by forcing or setting up other people to take the blame.

• Steve Tasker, a football player, tried to minimize the cheating by pointing out that it happens all the time. He made such remarks as:
"Guys were always giving me extra shoves. You don't want to see someone get hurt, but it's not a big deal."
It's easy to dismiss the cheating that occurs in sports because it's trivial compared to the murders, blackmail, kidnappings, and other crimes that are being conducted by businessmen, government officials, and Hollywood executives, but people in sports have no reason to cheat because all they are doing is playing games. Friends sometimes cheat each other for amusement during informal games, but tripping a person who is running at full speed is not cheating for entertainment. That was a crude act.

America spends a lot of time and money training people to become football players, building stadiums for football games, and broadcasting football games on television. If Ray Ratto is correct that football is just a bunch of violent men who serve no useful purpose, then why not change the sport so that it serves a purpose? And why not remove the violent men so that football becomes a fun game of talent rather than a brutal fight?
 

If we allow one man to trip a player, use steroids, bribe a judge, or cheat in any other manner, then somebody else will want to do it in the future, and then another person. The "locks of love" are a good example of this concept. Likewise, when one person throws litter on the streets, it seems meaningless, but if we ignore it, then another person will do it, and then another. After a while the entire street is filthy.

When we allow cheating in any type of competition, the criminals will eventually dominate. A related concept is that if we try to fix the badly behaved people with punishments but allow them to remain in the competition, then the criminals who are the most clever and subtle at cheating will eventually dominate.

In order to maintain society, we need the same attitude as a gardener. We must constantly remove the weeds, even if they seem harmless. We cannot feel sorry for destructive people. We cannot ignore them on the grounds that what they are doing is trivial.

You can visualize these concepts as a dog in a cage. The rules of a football game are analogous to the cage, and the dog is analogous to an athlete or coach. In regards to businesses, the laws that the government makes are analogous to the cage, and the dog is analogous to a businessman.

A man who can play a football game or who can operate a business without cheating can be visualized as a dog that is so content to remain in the cage that you could open the door without fear of him attacking you. At the other extreme are the men who don't want to follow the rules and who are looking for ways to get around the rules. They regard the rules as a nuisance, and they look for ways to circumvent them. Those men can be visualized as a dog that is struggling to find a way to get its mouth between the bars in order to bite you.

The Bank of America company was recently forced to pay a fine because some of the management was caught cheating schools, hospitals, and dozens of government organizations. You can visualize that situation as a dog that found a way to get it's head through the bars and is biting somebody, and now we are hitting the dog with a stick and forcing it back into the cage. This solution doesn't improve anything. The dog is still angry and barking, and is still looking for a way to bite people.

Likewise, punishing an athlete or coach for cheating can also be visualized as hitting a dog with a stick after it has found a way to get its mouth through the bars and is biting somebody. Sports would be much more pleasant for both the players and the audience if everybody involved with the sport would follow the rules because they actually wanted to follow the rules. Our natural tendency is to try to control the badly behaved people with laws, threats, punishments, and beatings, but this doesn't work. We need to find people who behave nicely because they want to.
 

Another advantage to removing and replacing the dishonest and incompetent people is that it gives other people the opportunity to test their abilities. For example, if we were to replace those Bank of America executives who were cheating, then other people would have an opportunity to show us their talents, and it's possible that some of them would be more honest. By continually replacing the more dishonest and incompetent executives, we would improve the quality of the management. Likewise, replacing the dishonest athletes would give other people an opportunity to show us their athletic talents.

Why should a badly behaved businessman or athlete be allowed to keep his job forever? We should stop following the concept of monarchies, tenure, and lifetime employment. Let people earn their position. It's understandable for people to make honest mistakes, but we have to pass judgment on when a person is making a mistake, and when he is incompetent or committing a crime, and we should replace those that can't perform or behave properly. We should stop feeling sorry for badly behaved people. We should be looking for the men who are naturally honest and respectable.

Imagine if we treated ordinary criminals in the same manner that we treat business executives. For example, imagine that your child is raped, and after the police catch the rapist, they make him pay a small fine. Months later that same man is caught robbing a bank, and the police make him pay another small fine. Months later he is caught murdering somebody, and once again he is made to pay a small fine.
 

Sometimes athletes and coaches who misbehave are suspended for a while. The hockey players who misbehave have to sit in a penalty box for a brief period of time. Many parents use this method of punishment with their badly behaved children. They refer to it as a "time out". The drawing to the right shows a boy being forced to sit in a chair, and it was made in 1894. The time-out technique was a failure before 1894, and it's still a failure. How many more centuries are we going to promote this idiotic policy? Jail is also worthless. In fact, a few days after the British released Raoul Moat from jail, he shot a couple people, and blinded a policeman, but most people don't care that people who are released from jail frequently continue to commit crimes.

Instead of facing reality, most people continue to promote the same failed policies. We even have organizations promoting these failed policies, such as the Child Development Institute, which has idiotic articles for parents on how to use the "time out" technique. What would you think if a "Business Executive Development Institute" promoted "time outs" for the Bank of America executives or Bernie Madoff? Or how about if the US Military investigates the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Holocaust, and after determining that Jews are responsible, they make Larry Silverstein, Steven Spielberg, and other Jews take "time-outs"?

Most people cannot handle the possibility that human behavior is the result of the design of our brain, and that there is no way to change a person's brain to make it a better quality. We can educate people, but if they don't respond, there's nothing we can do. People who are prone to bad behavior will continue to have the same mind and the same personality even after spending time in jail, paying a fine, or taking a "time out".
 

One of the professional dancers on the Dancing with the Stars television show made a remark that competitive dancing is not as pleasant as it appears. He says there is a lot of subtle sabotage on the dance floor. The reason this is possible is because the competitive dancing competitions are designed so that several pairs of dancers are performing at the same time in the same area, which allows the more crude dancers to bump, shove, and push other dancers and make it appear as if it was an accident.

We cannot prevent cheating, but some sports could be modified to make cheating more difficult. For example, we could reduce the cheating in competitive dancing by letting the couples perform individually. I think this modification would make more sense anyway because it would be easier to observe the talent of the dancers when only one couple is on the dance floor. What is the sense of having all of the couples performing at the same time? Imagine watching all of the gymnasts in the Olympics performing at the same time, or every ice skater on the ice rink at the same time. Or how about a singing contest in which all of the singers are on the same stage and singing at the same time?

Our sports are idiotic. Competitive dancing is so stupid that it can't attract an audience. The television show Dancing with the Stars, by comparison, attracts an enormous audience. The difference is that competitive dancing is an idiotic fight for a stupid trophy, whereas the television show is entertainment. Competitive dancing would be more entertaining to an audience if each of the couples appeared separately.

Some people might claim that having the couples dance individually would take too much time, but are we trying to get the competitions over with as quickly as possible? What is the purpose of having a competitive dance? If there are so many dancers in a competition that there is not enough time to judge them all individually, then why not spread the competition over more than one day? Why are we having dance competitions if we have to rush through them? What is the sense of having people training for an event if nobody has the time to watch them perform? This brings me to the next issue.

How many athletes and sports events do we need?

During the past few thousand years, the number of athletes and sports events has been increasing. If this pattern continues, there will be more athletes and sports contests in the future. If the judges of the dancing contests cannot handle the number of dancers that we have today, how are they going to handle the number of dancers a hundred years from now? How many football players and football games will there be in the next century? How many professional soccer players and baseball players will there be in the future? Why are we supporting men who do pole vaulting or javelin throwing when almost nobody wants to watch them? Who are they performing for? How many children do we want training for bobsled racing, automobile racing, baseball, and soccer? Why are we building more sports stadiums if we can't even handle what we already have? Who is benefiting from all of these contests?

If a sport is not providing something of value to society, then why do we bother supporting it? If a sport is only of interest to a few athletes and their families, then it should be a leisure activity that they do at their own expense. Society should not support sports that don't offer us some benefit. We are giving athletes a lot of food, electricity, stadiums, and other resources, and so we should ask ourselves, what are we getting in return from these sports?

We are currently holding more sports events than anybody can watch. There are a lot of Olympic athletes that are never noticed, so what is the sense of having them waste time and money in the Olympics? What would you think if restaurants were providing every customer with such excessive amounts of food that most of the customers were throwing away most of the food? This wasteful situation is happening with sports right now. We are training more athletes and are producing more sports events than anybody can watch. We are wasting people and resources.
 

After a few years of training, it becomes obvious that most people will never become one of the best athletes. Therefore, there's no point in continuing to train them. Sports should become a leisure activity to those people. They should not expect their parents or society to support their fantasy of becoming one of the world's best athletes. The businesses that train mediocre athletes should be described as parasitic, or even as con artists, for encouraging them to continue training.

Every once in a while we hear a story about a person who appeared to be a failure, but later became one of the best athletes, and this is used to justify the endless training and exploitation of mediocre athletes. However, I don't believe these "ugly duckling" stories. Nobody magically develops amazing talents. Everybody with some unusual talent was born with it.

The reason schools should encourage children to try different physical and mental activities is because when you try different activities, you are essentially putting yourself into an acid bath and determining what your qualities are. Forcing yourself to try a new activity will help you determine if you have a beautiful gemstone within you. If you do have a gem, then training and educational programs will help you to develop it, but if you were not born with that gem, there is no way a training program will create it for you. There is no way to give a person a quality he wasn't born with.
 

The retired European soccer player, Eric Cantona, recently arranged for people in France to withdraw their money from the banks in order to cause financial chaos to the banking system. Why would he want to fight with the banks? He claims to oppose the corruption and cheating in our banking system, but if he is truly concerned about abuse and crime, why doesn't he help us expose and stop the Jews who lie about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and the world wars? Why doesn't he expose the Apollo moon landing as a fraud?

It's possible that Cantona doesn't realize that the banks are only one of our problems, and it's also possible that he is afraid to go after all of the Jews so he is restricting his attack to the banks. However, I suspect that he is secretly working with the Zionist Jews, and now that millions of people are becoming aware that Jews are responsible for most of the world's problems, the Zionist Jews are struggling to shift attention away from themselves and onto the banking Jews.

It's also interesting that Cantona became a famous actor after he retired from sports. Nobody seems to become a famous actor without the approval of the criminal Jews. Furthermore, after the Jews allow somebody to become famous, if that person shows signs of honesty or independence, the Jews will attack him. For example, Christina Aguilera is once again under attack, this time by some mysterious person who released private photos of her partially naked. This is an attempt to embarrass her, but I don't think the photos are any more embarrassing than the way some women are dressing for advertisements and music videos. (Uuhhhh... I looked at the photos only because I was thinking of adding a page about body shapes to my Neanderthal pages!)

Incidentally, have you noticed that the Jews have an amazing ability to find secret photos and video of people they don't like, and Wikileaks can get access to thousands of secret documents that embarrass a few Americans, but the Jews cannot find any information that exposes the Jews who planned the 9/11 attack, or who are lying about the Holocaust?
 

Vince Lombardi

As I mentioned in the previous file of the series, different personalities are attracted to different activities. It might be useful to study the personalities of the different athletes to see if certain personalities are dominating certain sports. The athletes of the violent sports, for example, often seem to have Neanderthal physical features. Some of the coaches also show these features. Is this just a coincidence? Or is there some significance to this?

Eric Cantona, for example, had a reputation for crude behavior when he was a soccer player, and now he is showing evidence that he works for the Jewish crime network. How many athletes are criminals? And is criminal behavior more common in certain sports?

Businesses should develop products, and the government should get involved with social activities. By putting the government in control of sports, and by providing a city with a wide variety of recreational and exercise facilities (as I described in Part 7), the athletes could be employees of these facilities. In addition to putting on performances for the public, some athletes could spend some of the time arranging activities for children and adults; some could teach people how to use the medical monitoring equipment to help them maintain their health; and some could be "motivational leaders" who encourage people to get some exercise, try different activities, and discover their talents and weaknesses.

The athletes would contribute something beneficial to society rather than just collect trophies and consume food and other resources. Also, I think the athletes would have greater job satisfaction if they did something useful. Furthermore, you and I would appreciate the athletes a lot more if they were working with us rather than just fighting for trophies. The athletes could become gears in our machine rather than dogs on a race track chasing after a mechanical rabbit.

The dancers on a television show Dancing with the Stars are inspiring to a lot of people, even with the bad influence that criminals have over the show.

Humans are the only animal that can analyze and alter its culture, and we would be fools if we didn't take advantage of our incredible ability. It would be equivalent to a bird that never bothered to use its wings. Don't underestimate the human mind!