Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better society

Part 11: 
No pain, no gain

18 Jan 2014

Want to improve your athletic ability?

Then exert some physical effort,
and tolerate the physical pain.

Want to improve your society?

Then exert some mental effort,
and tolerate the emotional pain
of exploring the unknown and
experimenting with your future.

How much emotional pain can you handle?
My recent problems
Improving society requires an effort
Leaders must have a true interest in society
We have a responsibility to maintain our team
How much emotional pain can you handle? 
We must exert some effort to improve something
Athletes realize that the only way they can improve their strength or coordination is to exert some physical effort during their training programs. They also realize that they will suffer from tiredness, exhaustion, fatigue, or pain. A person who cannot handle the discomfort of physical activities will be a failure as an athlete, or in any job that requires physical exertion.

Not many of us are interested in becoming athletes, so we have no desire to put ourselves through intensive exercise programs, but everybody wants to remain in good health. Therefore, everybody should get a certain amount of exercise on a regular basis. However, some people are so irritated by the unpleasant sensations that result from physical activity that they don't even get enough exercise to maintain their health properly.

Why can athletes push themselves to extreme levels of physical pain whereas some people can't even tolerate the trivial discomfort that results from the small amount of exercise that we need to maintain our health?

We don't know enough about the human mind to answer such questions, but the point I want to bring to your attention is that there is a significant difference between us in regards to our ability to tolerate physical discomfort. At one extreme are the athletes, who can push themselves to tremendous levels of pain, and at the other extreme are the people who don't want to exert themselves at all, and in between are the majority of people.

Now consider how these concepts apply to organizations. As I described years ago, an "organization" is just a group of people who are held together by intangible concepts. We could describe those concepts as "social technology", or "human software", or "culture". Those concepts specify the role each member in the organization plays, provides rules for each member to follow, and creates a social environment for them to operate in.

In order to improve an organization, regardless of whether it is a school, business, orchestra, or nation, we must:

1) Analyze the intangible concepts that create the organization.
It may seem easy to analyze an organization, but it is similar to the homework assignments we did in school to analyze math problems or historical events. If you recall the time that you were a student in school, you should remember that we resisted homework assignments because we did not enjoy the unpleasant emotional feelings that result from intellectual work. All of us had to push ourselves to do the homework. Just as athletes sometimes train together to make the physical pain more tolerable, some students would do homework with their friends to make the emotional pain more bearable.

The people who will be the most successful at improving organizations are the "intellectual athletes" who can push themselves to extreme levels of intellectual work and tolerate high levels of emotional pain.

2) Discuss our analyses and compromise on which policies to experiment with.
It is easy for us to announce our opinions to other people, but it is not so easy to conduct a discussion in which we seriously listen to what other people have to say. The reason we have so much trouble with discussions is because we are naturally very arrogant. We want to tell other people what to think; we don't want to listen to their suggestions. We are also inherently selfish, so we don't want to compromise. We want to get our way all the time.

The people who will be the most successful at improving an organization are those who can deal with the emotional discomfort of suppressing their arrogance and selfishness; forcing themselves to seriously consider what other people have to say; dealing with the unpleasant sensations that result from criticism and disagreements; and forcing themselves to compromise in a sensible manner.

3) Experiment with potential improvements to those concepts.
Perhaps the most difficult part of improving a society is experimenting with possible improvements. There are probably a lot of people capable of analyzing society and compromising on possible improvements, but experimenting with society is going to trigger our fear of the unknown. This is a very strong fear in most people. The people who will be the most successful with experiments are those who have a personality like an explorer.

There are significant differences between us in regards to our ability to handle emotional pain. For example, in regards to our fear of the unknown, at one extreme are the people, such as Ferdinand Magellan, who can explore uncharted areas of the world. At the other extreme are the people who cannot explore anything. An example that I've mentioned in other documents are the Americans who love ice cream but are too afraid to experiment with Japanese Mochi. From the point of view of those particular Americans, a person who tries Mochi is showing amazing courage and bravery.

When we encounter something unknown or unfamiliar, such as Mochi, an unpleasant emotion is triggered to cause us to be cautious. Ideally, we would ignore the discomfort, push ourselves into analyzing the situation, and make an intelligent decision about whether we are truly in danger. However, if a person is incapable of ignoring that discomfort, or if he is incapable of pushing himself into analyzing the issue, then he will follow his emotional feelings. The end result will be that he is terrified of the Mochi. These types of people would be failures as explorers.

Many people, especially men, boast about their ability to push themselves physically, but how many of those people can push themselves into handling the emotional discomfort of analyzing our culture and experimenting with improvements?

This is just one of many men who pushed through the physical pain of an athletic event. Imagine living with men who can push through the emotional pain of experimenting with a better economic system and government system.

This is just one of many women who can handle tremendous physical pain. Imagine living with women who are capable of handling the emotional pain of experimenting with a better school system and social affairs.

Animals evolved an ability to handle physical exertion because they spend every day doing physical activities. However, as our technology becomes more advanced, we reduce the amount of physical work that we need to do, and we increase the amount of intellectual work that we must do. Modern humans need to handle the emotional discomfort associated with intellectual activities. Every generation of humans needs to be better able to handle the emotional pain of learning, research, discussions, critical reviews, experimentation, and exploring the unknown.

Many people enjoy pushing their body to extreme limits, such as climbing mountains, lifting heavy weights, or running long distances. For example, an 80-year-old Japanese man recently participated in a mountain climbing trip to the top of Mount Everest. It is wonderful that some people can push themselves physically, but as society becomes more complex, it becomes more useful to all of us if we push ourselves intellectually.

Imagine if an 80-year-old man pushed himself to the same extreme as that Japanese man, but to participate in a critical review of his government system, or to participate with the analysis of a holiday celebration, or to participate in a discussion of possible improvements to our school system. If we can encourage more people to push themselves intellectually, then we could bring a lot of improvements to this world. By comparison, we gain absolutely nothing by encouraging more people to climb mountains.

As I mentioned in other documents, we would benefit significantly if we could put everybody's school records, dental records, medical records, job history, and other personal information in a database on the Internet. This would be much more efficient than having separate, independent and secretive databases scattered around the planet, and it would allow us to study the human race in amazing detail. Why would anybody resist this concept?

I think there are two main reasons that we are afraid of a public database. One is that animals and humans have a fear of being observed and followed by predators. When we consider a proposal for a public database, we visualize people watching us, and that can trigger our fear of being observed by predators. If we do not, or cannot, control our fears, we can easily become frightened as we imagine ourselves being watched by potentially dangerous people who use the information to hurt us in some manner.

I think the other main reason that people are frightened of a public database is because animals and humans have an intense emotional craving to compete for dominance and reproduction. We have a craving to impress one another, not to be honest with one another.

A public database causes us to realize that other people will know the truth about us, and that causes us to worry that people will dislike us. “How can I go out in public? Everybody knows the truth about me. My life is ruined!”
Some people are concerned that security cameras, police surveillance, and a public database of our personal information will interfere with their lives and relationships, but these people do not have any intelligent supporting evidence for their fears. They are creating theories according to their emotional feelings rather than according to an intellectual analysis of the issue.

An example of this problem are the women who cannot admit their weight. Everybody who has eyesight can see whether a woman is overweight, but many women believe that by hiding the numeric value of their weight, they will fool us into thinking that they are lighter in weight than they actually are, and that this in turn will benefit them in some manner. These women are not putting intelligent thought into this issue. Rather, they are following their emotional cravings to impress and deceive us.

Some people complain that the government is overly cautious in classifying documents as secretive, but what people do with their personal information is beyond "cautious"; it is "absurd". For example, it is ridiculous for women to classify their weight as top-secret information. None of us need to classify our age, school records, or job history as top-secret information, either.

Modern technology is allowing people to get carried away with their cravings to impress and deceive one another. We are not benefiting from our excessive secrecy and deception. Rather, we are interfering with relationships, and making it difficult for us to figure out who to hire for jobs.

I think we will improve relationships and create a more pleasant society if we consider our personal information to be a "description" of us rather than as secretive, personal information. We should stop behaving like selfish and deceptive monkeys who fight one another for dominance and reproduction, and start forcing ourselves to be honest humans who work together for the benefit of all.

To complicate the issue of a public database of our personal information, there are indeed some people who will be adversely affected by such a high level of honesty. For example, criminals, parasites, and psychotic people are likely to suffer as a result of people learning the truth about them. However, their suffering does not justify allowing people to be secretive or deceptive. Rather, the people who suffer when the truth is known about them should be considered as unfit for modern society. They should either be removed from society, or given restrictions to prevent them from bothering other people.

We should not allow people to deceive us about themselves. We have a responsibility to know who we bring into our society, who we are going to marry, who we are putting into a leadership position, and who we are hiring for a job. If a person is ashamed of his life, that is his problem, not ours.

How do we eliminate secrecy and increase honesty? It cannot be done by passing laws, finding new sources of oil, or conquering other nations. It requires that we exert some effort to control our emotional cravings and think intelligently about issues. That will result in some emotional discomfort, and so we must be capable of handling that discomfort. If a person is unable to deal with the emotional pain, then he will follow his emotions like a monkey.

Why not practice controlling yourself?

Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that you are so special that you don't need to practice controlling your emotions. Fire departments, military units, athletes, and businesses have discovered that even though people think they know something, they must practice it, and more than once.

For example, the first time you have to stand in front of a group of people to conduct a meeting, give a lecture, or sing, you will be nervous because your emotions will be stimulated at the thought of them disapproving of your performance. However, your emotional trauma will not cause you any permanent damage. Rather, you should be able to learn from it. The second time you have to talk to a group of people, you should be a bit less nervous, and the third time you should be even more relaxed. However, no matter how many times you do it, you are likely to find your emotions are stimulated to some extent. You cannot prevent your emotions from being stimulated, but you can learn techniques to help yourself relax and reduce to stimulation. You might also find techniques to help you ignore the discomfort by focusing your attention on something else.

By comparison, if you have to do something that your emotions are unaffected by, you will not experience any nervousness. For example, if a young child were to ask you what time the clock is showing, you would be able to answer him without your heart pounding, without clenching your fist, and without blushing. Your emotions would remain inactive because they are not stimulated by clocks, the concept of time, or children who do not know how to read clocks.

However, if the child were to ask you where babies come from, or what a fart is, you would experience an unpleasant emotional feeling because we have emotions that are stimulated by sex and waste products. You would feel awkward and uncomfortable. If you do not have much control over your emotions, you would be unable to remain calm and provide the child with a sensible answer.

If you were to exert some control over yourself and push yourself into providing an answer to the child, you would suffer some emotional discomfort, but you would not cause any permanent damage to your mind or body. Rather, it would help you learn to deal with those emotions. If, a week later, another child were to ask the same question, it would be a bit easier for you to control yourself and answer the child's question. If a week after that a third child were to ask the same question, you would find it even easier to provide an answer.

When you force yourself to control your emotions, you do the equivalent of exercising, but you are building your self-control rather than building your muscles. If you were to push yourself into doing these "emotional exercises" for several years, you would eventually reach the point at which you had such a good control over your emotions that you could answer the questions almost as calmly as if somebody had asked you for the time of day.

Some people promote the theory that the human mind will suffer permanent psychological damage from certain emotionally stimulating situations. For example, many parents believe that their children will be damaged if they see a naked body, sex, or death. Some people claim that they became obese or suffered psychological damage after the death of a child. However, there is no evidence that "normal" emotional stimulation will cause damage to the human mind. Death, sex, and nudity are normal experiences for all living creatures. We are not damaged from it.

There have been some experiments in which baby animals were put into cages and abused, and those animals became psychologically disturbed, but that was "torturing" young animals with an abnormal environment. There is no evidence that "normal" experiences cause damage. All animals grow up around nudity, sex, and death, and so it is ridiculous to assume that those issues are going to cause damage to an animal or human.

When you force yourself to answer a child's question about sex, you are going to suffer some emotional discomfort, but you are not going to cause any permanent damage to yourself or the child. You might feel as if you are torturing yourself, but you are simply experiencing normal human emotions. You don't have to be frightened of the emotional pain.

Imagine meeting a man who decides to become an athlete. He starts exercising, and after a few minutes he feels some discomfort in some of his muscles, and so he stops exercising and starts whining that he needs a doctor immediately because he just broke his muscles, and he worries that he will soon be crippled and have to spend his life in a wheelchair. If you were to encourage him to worry about becoming a cripple, you would make his situation worse, not better.

Every society encourages people to get exercise and deal with the resulting physical discomfort, but we do not encourage people to practice the control of their emotions, and we do not encourage people to quietly deal with emotional pain. Instead, we encourage people to exaggerate and prolong their emotional pain. For example, some of our emotions are triggered when a friend or child dies, but we don't encourage people to quietly deal with the emotional pain in a rational manner. Instead, we try to "comfort" the people, but comforting them is encouraging them to continue whining. Businesses and churches add to the problem by exploiting the unhappy people with funerals. Businesses also sell special flower arrangements, cards, and gifts to people who are pouting over a death.

Imagine if athletes were to "comfort" one another whenever one of them complained about sore muscles. Imagine churches and businesses selling the equivalent of a funeral service to athletes with sore muscles. Imagine florists offering special flower arrangements for athletes who are suffering from sore muscles. Imagine special cards and gifts for athletes with sore muscles.

It should be obvious that if athletes did this, they would encourage one another to whine, and they would waste a lot of their time and money on worthless church services, cards, and gifts.

Every society promotes the theory that the people who whine and pout over emotionally unpleasant situations are showing compassion, love, and human emotions, while the people who deal with situations in a more quiet, rational manner are cold, robotic, and cruel. This attitude encourages people to prolong their pouting rather than exert control over their emotions and deal with problems in an intelligent manner.

We promote the philosophy that we shouldn't do anything that causes emotional pain because the pain can ruin our lives. This causes people to be fearful of emotional pain, and it also provides people with an excuse for their bad behavior. Specifically, they can blame their bad behavior on the emotional pain that they suffered as a result of being bullied in school, or because their child died, or because they were exposed to nudity.

As I will mention later in this document, Ty Warner avoided jail for cheating on his taxes, and one of the reasons the judge gave for treating him nicely was because Warner has suffered from "public humiliation" and "private torment". Why not let every criminal get away with their crimes on the grounds that their arrest caused them to suffer public humiliation and private torment?

Emotional feelings will not kill you

Many people behave as if experiencing an unpleasant emotional feeling will hurt them, kill them, ruin their life, or cause permanent damage to their personality. For example, during the war in Iraq, some people accused the Americans of torturing Iraqi prisoners by forcing them to be naked in front of other people. It would be more sensible and accurate to describe those prisoners as being "irritated" or "harassed", not "tortured".

When we force a person to be naked in front of other people, they will likely experience the emotion that we refer to as embarrassment, especially if they are ashamed of their body, and nudity is also likely to stimulate some emotions as a result of our sexual inhibitions. We do not enjoy those unpleasant emotional feelings, but they are as harmless as the feelings of pleasure.

Emotional feelings cannot hurt us. However, if a person enjoys pouting, then he will remind himself over and over that he is suffering, and he may stimulate himself into such a state of hysteria that he ends up crying and screaming. He will create the impression that he is being tortured, but in reality, his suffering is self-inflicted, so we should not care.

We need to be more serious with emotional feelings. We need to make a more intelligent distinction between torture and irritation. People who experience embarrassment, awkwardness, or humiliation should deal with it quietly rather than stimulate themselves into hysteria and expect the rest of us to feel sorry for them.

We should not encourage the attitude that emotional feelings are dangerous or capable of causing permanent psychological damage. We should instead promote the theory that emotions are a natural part of our mind and our life, and that it is natural to experience emotional feelings.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

I am not advocating that the police or military irritate prisoners with nudity. Rather, I bring this issue up to point out that when a society promotes the philosophy that we are suffering when we experience an unpleasant emotion, we encourage people to whine about insignificant events. For example, we encourage children to whine about being tortured by other children, by teachers, and by their own parents. We encourage adults to whine about how they are tortured by their spouse, employer, or neighbor. Some adults whine about being tortured by intangible concepts, such as society, corporations, or aristocrats.

If we were to experiment with our holiday celebrations, funeral practices, recreational activities, economic system, government system, and courtship activities, all of us would occasionally experience some embarrassment, awkwardness, frustration, and disappointment. If our schools started experimenting with courses about sex, digestion, marriage, childbirth, death, or waste products, teachers, parents, and children would occasionally experience embarrassment and awkwardness.

We will ruin the experiments if we encourage people to react to unpleasant emotional feelings by stimulating themselves into states of hysteria and whining about how they are being tortured, suffering from emotional distress, risking psychological damage, and ruining their life.

Our prehistoric ancestors had simple relationships with only a few people, and they didn't have any complex social issues to deal with. However, we must be deal with lots of different people, and our relationships are more complex. We also have lots of social issues to deal with, and lots of emotional temptations.

Every society is currently encouraging people to whine whenever they experience an unpleasant emotional feeling. When somebody dies, we are encouraged to stimulate our emotional feelings of sadness, and businesses exploit the situation by offering products to relieve our misery and show the dead person that we love him. In order to experiment with society, people must be told to exert some self control, analyze the problems they encounter, and offer intelligent solutions.

We must make a distinction between when we are truly being tortured, when we are merely being irritated, and when we are experiencing what should be described as a "normal event" in life that should be dealt with quietly. We don't want people irritating one another, but we don't want people exaggerating their suffering, either. We should not encourage people to overreact, stimulate themselves into states of hysteria or sadness, or look for opportunities to manipulate other people into providing them with pity.

Nobody is harmed when some of their unpleasant emotional feelings are triggered. We should not be afraid of experiencing an unpleasant emotion, and we should not be afraid of causing somebody else to experience some unpleasant feeling. We don't want to deliberately irritate one another, but it is virtually impossible to function in a modern society without occasionally stimulating unpleasant emotional feelings in both ourselves and other people. We must accept unpleasant emotional feelings as a part of human life.

The attitude that we should never cause emotional pain to ourselves or other people is causing us to be careful of what we say to people, how we look at them, and which subjects we discuss in public. For example, we don't allow the police to release the names or photos of criminals who are under the age of 18 because we don't want to cause emotional discomfort to the criminals, their friends, or their family. Documentaries about jail or criminals will often block the faces of some of the criminals in order to avoid causing them emotional discomfort.

Are we really protecting people by showing this level of concern for emotional discomfort? I don't think so. I think we are making life worse for ourselves by creating the impression that emotional discomfort is dangerous, and that we should avoid it. This attitude is encouraging people to be afraid of embarrassment, and it encourages people to pout whenever they are upset. It also allows people to blame their bad attitude or bad behavior on the psychological damage that they suffer from as a result of being embarrassed, humiliated, or tormented.

We will create a more pleasant society by encouraging people to control their emotions, deal with emotional pain in a rational manner, and take responsibility for their bad behavior. As I wrote in this previous document, funerals should be a pleasant occasion, not a circle jerk in which people stimulate themselves into a state of misery.

So, why not practice controlling your emotions? Don't be afraid of the emotional pain that results. Practice dealing with that pain. For a simple exercise, try having a discussion with your friend about something that stimulates your emotions, such as how we can reduce farting. All of us would benefit from a better understanding of this issue, especially astronauts and people in submarines. Can you have a calm, relaxed, and serious discussion about that issue? For example, is it caused by certain foods? What about certain combinations of foods? Does the size of the meal have any effect on it? What effect do carbonated drinks have? What affects the swallowing of air as we eat? How does burping reduce the problem? Does it happen more often in older people, and if so, why? Is it exactly the same for both men and women? Why do some farts have almost no odor? Does eating certain types of foods or supplements reduce the problem? Would we reduce the problem by chewing our food more thoroughly? Is the problem reduced with smaller meals? Some bodybuilders believe that they fart excessively, but are they merely imagining this, or is the problem worse for bodybuilders, and if so, why?

As you discuss those questions, notice that your emotions are trying to make you feel uncomfortable and awkward, and that if you follow your emotional feelings, you will stop talking about the issue, or you will make jokes about the issue. Don't merely suppress your emotional feelings and force yourself to continue discussing the issue. Rather, try to understand why these emotions are stimulated, and what they are trying to accomplish, and use that knowledge to reduce or control those emotions.

If you consider your emotional inhibitions about farts to be an irritation, as you consider a mosquito to be, then you will create emotional turmoil as you try to ignore or suppress the feeling. It is better to understand the purpose for those feelings because that knowledge allows you to find a way to reduce the intensity of the emotion. Although we are likely to make mistakes when we try to understand the purpose of our emotions, even an inaccurate explanation can help us to control the emotion.

So, why do we have emotions that cause us to feel awkward and uncomfortable about waste products? What is their purpose? Why do they want to stop us from discussing the issue?

Our emotions evolved for important purposes, not to torture us. We have unpleasant emotional reactions to waste products in order to prevent our primitive ancestors from playing with their waste products, eating them, etc. When you realize that these unpleasant feelings were intended to help our primitive, monkey-like ancestors, then it should be easier for you to convince your emotions to relax because you are not playing with your waste products, or feeding them to your children. You are simply trying to understand how our digestive system works, and how we can reduce some of the irritating aspects of digestion.

The first time you try to have a serious discussion about farts, you will be uncomfortable, and your conversation will be awkward. However, if you try it again after a few days, and then try it again a few days after that, you should find yourself improving. How much of an improvement can you make? That depends upon how your mind was designed.

If we put a random selection of people through some physical exercise programs, we will find that all of them increase their strength, coordination, and stamina, but some people will achieve greater results than others. Likewise, if we put everybody through some "emotional training programs" in which they discuss the issue of farting, we will find that all of them improve their ability to discuss the issue, but some people achieve greater results than others. The people with the greatest ability to control that emotion will have the most relaxed and intelligent conversations about farts, while the people with the least amount of control will giggle, blush, or make idiotic jokes.

This same concept applies to our fear of being observed when eliminating waste products. This fear developed in the animals that are vulnerable to attack when they are eliminating waste products. Birds don't have this fear, but many other animals become very observant when eliminating waste products, and they become prepared to attack any creature that comes near them.

This fear can cause us to be terrified that somebody will open the bathroom door and see us on the toilet. You may also have fantasies of attacking anybody who dares to open the door. If you do not understand this fear, the only way you can suppress it is to fight with your mind, but that will create emotional turmoil. By comparison, if you understand the purpose of this emotion, then you can tell yourself,
"Relax! I'm not surrounded by wolves or enemy tribes. If somebody were to walk into the bathroom right now, they would quickly shut the door and walk away. They don't want to watch me on the toilet, and they don't want to attack me, either. So calm down!"

How much better can you become?

Aside from athletes and other physically active people, most of us never discover the maximum potential that our body is capable of. If each of us were to push ourselves through a variety of exercise programs, we would become noticeably stronger, develop greater stamina, and become more coordinated.

How many people have discovered the maximum potential that their mind is capable of? It is not wise to assume that you have already reached your maximum potential, and that you have no more room for improvement. People tend to make excuses for remaining as they are, such as, "I am doing the best I can." for, "This is what I am, so accept it."

You may not be able to figure out how to improve your mental qualities, but if we had a thorough understanding of the human mind, we could certainly develop some training programs that would help you become noticeably better at research, analyses, controlling your emotions, and thinking.

It's important to note that exercises and training programs are an "unnatural" activity for animals and humans. Our prehistoric ancestors had no idea that they could improve their muscles and stamina through exercises. Eventually our ancestors had become so observant and intelligent that some of them noticed that certain physical activities caused their muscles to become larger and stronger. It may have been centuries or thousands of years later that one of our ancestors decided to deliberately do one of those activities simply for the purpose of developing his muscles.

The first person to exercise was doing something that no animal was capable of doing. Animals use their muscles, but only as a power source. The humans who were exercising were using their muscles simply to improve their strength and stamina.

It's also important to note that exercise programs are not obvious to us, and they are not easy to develop. It took a lot of trial and error for people to figure out which types of physical activities were useful in developing muscles, how hard they should push their muscles during those exercises, and how long they should rest between exercise sessions.

Furthermore, it should be noted that we still don't know everything there is to know about muscles, stamina, nutrition, and exercise. We are still learning about the issue. As the human race learns more about itself, future generations will be able to develop exercise programs that are more effective than those of today, require less time, and are less painful.

Those concepts apply to training programs for our mind, also. However, training programs for our mind are even more difficult for us to develop than exercises for our body because our mind is so intangible. Our eyes can easily see whether a physical exercise program is helping to improve our body's strength or stamina, but we cannot easily determine whether a mental exercise is helping us. Centuries of trial and error were required to develop school courses for children and training programs for adults, and we still have a lot to learn. A lot of trial and error was also needed to develop procedures for conducting scientific research.

Although we don't know what conversations were like 10,000 years ago, we know what some of the Romans were thinking. The Romans had learned how to read and write, do math, and do basic engineering, but they had not yet learned much about schools or scientific procedures. For example, a few of them wrote about their travels into the northern part of Europe, and they described races of people and animals that didn't actually exist. The Romans who wrote those descriptions were not stupid people. They were undoubtedly among the most educated and intelligent of the Roman people. However, people in that era were thinking in a more "natural" manner.

The natural method of thinking for animals and humans is to make rapid decisions based on the information that we have available to us at that moment, and we fill in any missing details as we assume it should be. It is not natural for us to spend months analyzing a problem, or doing research to fill in missing details, or verifying facts, or asking other people for their opinions and critical analyses.

Although the Romans were casual thinkers compared to scientists of today, the Romans were much better at thinking compared to people thousands of years before them. The Romans had learned how to build bridges, mine and transport rocks, and create impressive aqueducts. If we could travel further back in time, such as 10,000 years, we would certainly notice that the people in that more primitive era were thinking in an even more casual, natural manner. This would explain why our distant ancestors developed so many incredibly stupid theories about how the universe was created and what happens when people die.

Now consider that our ancestors thousands of years in the future may become even better at thinking. They will certainly have more effective school courses and scientific procedures. They will have gone through more advanced training programs in school, and they will have been exposed to knowledge and philosophies that we don't know about. They may have some effective "mental exercises" to help them improve their ability to think, research, and analyze, so they may be better at thinking than us.

Furthermore, the schools of the future may put students through training programs that exercise their ability to control their emotions, so they may behave in a more rational manner than us, and have an easier time dealing with constructive criticism. Schools may have put the students through so many emotional training programs that by the time they are adults, they can discuss sexual issues, digestive issues, and nudity without any giggling or blushing. From their point of view, people in our era might appear to be emotional monkeys rather than rational humans.

As I wrote years ago, the first schools to develop focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic. During the following centuries, a few other courses were added. As future generations learn more about the human mind, they will certainly add courses that we can't imagine, such as courses that help children learn how to think, analyze issues, deal with criticism, and control their emotions. All of us would certainly benefit if we could experience some of those future school courses.

Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that you have already reached the maximum potential that your mind is capable of. You could certainly become a much more impressive person. For some examples, you may be fearful that somebody will see your medical records or your naked body, and you may assume that this is the way you are and that you cannot change, but it is possible that your mind has the ability to overcome those fears so well that you have no problem with a public database of your personal information, including photos, x-rays, and MRI scans of your naked body.

Or you might be terrified at the thought of experimenting with a new government system, or new holiday celebrations, or a new calendar, but your mind might have the ability to control those fears so well that you enjoy the experimentation. Or perhaps you and your spouse are too inhibited to have a serious discussion about sex, and you may feel that there is nothing that you can do to improve the situation, but one or both of you might have the ability to overcome your fears.

Until you start practicing the control of your emotions, you are not going to know what you are capable of. So push yourself into giving it a try. And remind yourself, no pain, no gain.

Can you discuss the issue of low flow toilets?

I and other people have already purchased and discarded several different low flow toilets. We are wasting resources. Why are the people who design toilets having so much trouble getting them to work properly?

I don't think any nation has government officials who are capable of discussing the issue of low flow toilets without giggling, blushing, and making stupid jokes. All of us have to use toilets, so we should encourage one another to control our emotions and learn to deal with this issue in an intelligent manner.

I wonder if the reason some people can use these toilets successfully is because their poop is soft or full of air bubbles. With certain foods, I don't have any problem with low flow toilets, such as asparagus, or if I eat enormous amounts of fiber, but that creates messy, stinky poop. When we eat a diet that is more appropriate for us, our poop comes out in relatively neat, firm packages, and several of those packages will clog the low flow toilets. What I have learned to do is to flush the toilet after the first package of poop comes out, and then flush it again after I'm finished.

If we were to create a completely new city, I would hope that the people involved in the design are capable of controlling their emotions well enough to discuss the issue of toilets without blushing and giggling. I don't think we should even bother with low flow toilets. The purpose of a low flow toilet is to save water, but I think there are better solutions to the shortage of water.

For example, we could design a city for a certain population level, and ensure that there is plenty of water for that amount of people. We can also recycle a lot of water, especially if we design a city as I've suggested in previous documents. For example, if food is provided for free at restaurants, then none of the homes need kitchens. That reduces the total water requirements of the city because restaurants are a more efficient way of providing meals. The lack of kitchens in the homes also means that there won't be any cleaning chemicals going down the kitchen sinks.

If the city also provides everybody with lots of free activities, then people can do their hobbies at the social clubs rather than in their home. This eliminates the problem of people using chemicals in their home for their hobbies, such as automobile restoration or building model airplanes. The end result is that the wastewater from the homes would be much easier to recycle because it would be from the bathroom sink, shower, and toilet. That water could easily be recycled for irrigation.

I don't think we should suffer with ineffective toilets. I think we should design toilets with a much larger diameter exit tube, and they should use enough water to ensure they never clog. The concept of low flow toilets is similar to the concept that we should stop eating meat because meat requires a lot of land, water, and other resources. We ought to ask ourselves, Why are we living? What is the purpose of our life? Why should we suffer from low flow toilets or a vegetarian diet? What is the benefit to such suffering?

How much physical pain can you handle?

Professional athletes realize that in order to improve their strength, endurance, coordination, and gracefulness they must regularly put their body through a variety of exercises and training programs. They also realize that their activities will result in unpleasant sensations, such as sore muscles, tiredness, boredom, and fatigue. They also realize that they will sometimes have accidents or make mistakes which result in serious injuries, such as broken bones or torn ligaments. However, those athletes are not frightened of the physical pain or the potential for accidents.

If each of us had a sensor embedded in our body to send information to a computer database about our physical discomfort, we might discover that the typical athlete experiences discomfort for a total of 200 minutes of each day, and the ordinary people have about 30 seconds of discomfort each day. We might also discover that the discomfort that the athletes experience during those 200 minutes is at a much more painful level than what the ordinary person experiences. To summarize this, the athletes spend more time suffering, and at a higher level of discomfort.

If we could graph the level of physical discomfort we experience, we might end up with a graph like that below in which Bob, a professional athlete, experiences an extreme level of discomfort every day, whereas Fred almost never exerts himself except to a small extent on an occasional weekend.

If we also had a database that kept track of the whining that each of us does during physical activities, we would discover that the ordinary people whine more often about soreness and fatigue than the athletes, even though the database clearly shows that the athletes spend more time suffering, and at a higher level of discomfort.

The ordinary people also make more grunting noises during physical exertion, which creates the impression that they are tolerating high levels of pain, but the athletes suffer much more discomfort while remaining noticeably more quiet.

Imagine if we could attach a sensor to our head that could pick up our emotional feelings and transmit them to another person. This would allow a person to feel the sensations that another person is feeling.

Imagine an athlete going through his daily training program and transmitting his feelings to an ordinary person. After a few minutes, the ordinary person might start yelling, "Stop! You're hurting me!"

If we then reverse the situation by telling the ordinary person to go through his exercise routine, and we transmit his feelings to the mind of the athlete. The athlete might respond with something such as, "Are you kidding me? He considers this to be exerting himself?"

Our pain sensations are different

To complicate this issue, we do not experience pain in the same manner. The most obvious example of the unusual people who cannot experience pain at all due to a serious genetic disorder. Those people are capable of putting their hands into fire without any discomfort.

We experience pain for a very important reason, not to make our lives miserable. Pain is just a signal from the sensors that are scattered throughout our body to notify us that we may be harming ourselves. However, those sensors are stupid. We must make intelligent decisions as to when we are truly risking harm to ourselves, and when we should ignore the sensations.

If we could measure everybody's pain sensors, we would discover that some people sensors are being triggered during physical activities that would not trigger the sensors in other people's bodies. The end result would be that those people experience pain during activities that do not cause pain for other people.

If we could measure the performance of everybody's pain sensors, we would find that half of the population has "average" pain sensors. We might discover that the best athletes have pain sensors that are less sensitive than average, and if that is true, that would help to explain why they can engage in strenuous physical activities that would cause the "average" people to whine about pain. We might find that the people who are the least physically active tend to have abnormally sensitive pain sensors that causes them to experience sensations of pain before they have exerted themselves to any significant extent.

The people who have abnormally sensitive pain sensors have to exert more control over themselves in order to engage in physical activities. At the other extreme are the people who don't experience much pain and who have to be careful that they don't break their bones or tear their tendons by pushing themselves too hard.

It's also possible that some people experience less pain simply because their nerves are defective and not transmitting the signals properly, or because the portion of their brain that interprets those signals is defective.

Nature deals with these complex issues by putting animals into competitive battles. The animals that do not have the characteristics necessary for survival end up as food for some other animal. Nature does not care why a particular animal is having trouble. Nature makes no attempt to understand or help the animals with problems.

What does it mean to be “lazy”?

Everybody will stop doing a particular physical activity when their physical discomfort reaches a certain threshold, but that level is different for different people. If we could measure that level, we would find that there is some "average" level. We might discover that the people who are regarded as "lazy" are those who quit a physical activity before the physical pain has reached that average level.

If we could measure everybody's level of physical discomfort as they engage in physical activities, we would find that half of the population is below average in their ability to handle physical discomfort. Those people would quit the activity sooner than the other half of the population. We could describe a person as being "physically lazy" if he stops a physical activity when he experiences a level of discomfort that the average person would tolerate. 

What qualities does an athlete need?

Becoming an athlete requires more than the physical ability to be an athlete and the desire to be an athlete. It also requires a a certain attitude and mental ability. Three issues to consider in regards to why some people can be successful as athletes:

1) Athletes must tolerate pain
An athlete must be willing and able to experience physical discomfort at a level that an ordinary person would whine about. An athlete must be able to push himself to continue working even when he is experiencing unpleasant feelings. An athlete must be able to handle the possibility that accidents will occur, thereby resulting in even more pain.

2) Can we enjoy life when we are suffering every day?
Since athletes suffer from extremely high levels of physical discomfort, and since they are suffering from these high levels on a nearly daily basis, how is it possible for them to enjoy life? Can a person be happy while they are suffering? The only way a person will survive as an athlete is if he can deal with this paradox.

3) Athletes must accept criticism
An athlete will never become one of the best unless he has the ability to suppress his arrogance to the point at which he can critically review his performance. An athlete will improve at an even more rapid pace if he can understand that his own review of himself is inadequate and biased, and that he will benefit by getting critical reviews from people who have experience in the athletic field.

It is unnatural for us, especially men, to listen to critical reviews and advice. Our emotions give us arrogance, not a desire for critical reviews. We enjoy boasting and getting awards, not listening to criticism. We receive pleasure from telling other people what to do, and we feel insulted when they give us advice or criticism. We want to stand on a pedestal and be admired by other people, not be exposed on a laboratory table and be analyzed by other people.

In order to become one of the best athletes, a person needs enough self-control to suppress the unpleasant feelings that we experience when we are criticized or given advice.

If we could keep track of all of the constructive criticism that people receive, and their reaction to that criticism, we would discover that athletes receive more critical reviews than the ordinary people. Some athletes get critical reviews from their coaches and other athletes on an almost daily basis. Some athletes are occasionally yelled at by their coaches.

This type of database would show us that athletes receive more criticism every day than an ordinary person, and the criticism that they receive is often at a higher audio level, and sometimes in an angry tone of voice. However, we would notice that the athletes tend to remain quiet and attentive while receiving the criticism.

By comparison, the ordinary people only rarely receive constructive criticism, and they often react to the criticism as if they had been insulted or attacked. Some people react to criticism with temper tantrums, sarcastic responses, insults, or by ignoring the criticism. Some react by whining about being bullied, unappreciated, or misunderstood. Some complain that the criticism is lowering their self-esteem and causing them to have suicidal thoughts. Some of the most extreme cases are the people who react to criticism with anger or violence, and who hold a grudge for years, even with their own spouse, relatives, or friends.

Professional athletes handle criticism so well that their coaches feel free to give critical reviews whenever they are in the mood. By comparison, the "ordinary" people have such a bad reaction to criticism that most of us have learned to be extremely hesitant about giving constructive criticism, including to our own friends and spouse. Many managers hesitate to give constructive criticism to their employees, and some men have such a problem with criticism that we hesitate to point out to them that the zipper on their pants is open.

How much emotional pain can you handle?

Our emotions are stimulated all throughout the day, every day, and many of those emotions create unpleasant sensations. When you are criticized, you will experience some emotional discomfort. When you try to look critically at yourself, you will experience some discomfort. When you encounter something that is unknown or unfamiliar, you will experience some emotional discomfort.

We cannot prevent our emotions from becoming titillated and creating unpleasant feelings, but we have a certain ability to suppress, ignore, and tolerate those unpleasant feelings and make intelligent decisions. However, we differ in our ability to do this.

If we could put a sensor on our head and transmit our emotional feelings to other people, and to a computer, we would be able to experience what other people feel, and we would be able to create a database of our feelings. The database would be able to keep track of everybody's hunger sensations, for example. The database would show us that everybody experiences hunger sensations during every day. However, our reaction to those hunger sensations is different.

Imagine that an obese person is transmitting his emotional feelings to our minds. What type of hunger sensations would we feel? There are several possibilities. One possibility is that we discover that the obese person starts to eat food when his hunger sensation is at a level that most of us would ignore as insignificant. We might respond with something such as, "He wants to eat now?" Another possibility is that we discover the obese person has an overly powerful and/or overly active hunger emotion, thereby causing the obese person to either experience hunger at a much higher level, or much more often, even when he is not truly in need of food.

Why do we behave so differently?

All humans have the same mental characteristics, so why are there subtle differences in our behavior? Why can some people effortlessly maintain a healthy body weight while others have to struggle, and some become anorexic or overweight? Why are some people capable of controlling their fear of the unknown so well that they can explore uncharted areas of the world, while other people are terrified to try Mochi? Why are some children capable of pushing themselves into doing their school homework whereas other children give into their emotional cravings to do something else, such as eat or play games? Why do some men have so little control over their arrogance that they have trouble learning from their mistakes and listening to other people, while other men regularly seek and use constructive criticism to improve themselves? Why are some men capable of controlling their cravings to touch women on crowded trains, whereas other men cannot? Why do some men become angry when they are criticized, while others ignore it, and still others try to learn from it? Why are some of us able to earn what we want, whereas other people become criminals?

Perhaps the future generations will be able to answer these questions, but during our lifetime, all we can say is that there are genetic differences between our brains, and there are environmental differences between us, such as education, toxic chemicals, nutrition, and brain injuries. There are so many possible combinations of genetic and environmental differences, and we know so little about the human mind and body, that none of us will live to see the day at which we can fully explain human behavior.

During the past few thousand years, people have discovered that the universe is much more complex than they had imagined, and we are likely to discover that human behavior is also more complex than we realize. For example, in regards to why some people become obese, there are probably thousands of different reasons rather than just one or two. For example, here are four possible reasons:

1) Some people may become obese because of their inability to maintain a healthy diet, perhaps due to stupidity, ignorance, or an inability to resist their cravings for sugar. By consuming large amounts of candy or certain other foods, they may cause themselves to suffer from improper blood chemistry, which in turn makes them feel physically or mentally miserable, and they may foolishly react to the misery by eating more of the tasty but unhealthy food in an attempt to bring them some pleasure, thereby making their problem even worse.

2) Some obese people claim that they became obese after an unpleasant event, such as the death of a child, or a divorce. They blame their obesity on the unpleasant event, but it wasn't the event that made them gain weight; rather, it was their reaction to it. Those people may tend to react to unpleasant events by pouting, which would not be a problem if the pouting stopped after a few weeks, but they may have a tendency to remind themselves of the unpleasant event day after day, year after year, thereby maintaining that state of misery for years. That endless misery by itself would not cause a person to gain weight, but obese people may have a tendency to react to misery by eating food in an attempt to bring them some pleasure.

3) Some obese people may have defective brain circuitry that prevents them from thinking properly about their diet, or prevents them from exerting adequate control over their emotions. Those defects may be the result of genetic disorders, damage by toxic chemicals, or damage from brain injuries.

4) Some obese people may have a "normal" brain, but their body may have some defect that prevents it from properly controlling their blood chemistry, which in turn prevents their brain from functioning properly. The problem with their body may be due to genetic disorders, toxic chemicals, or injuries to internal organs.

Can obesity be inherited?

Some fat people have fat parents and fat siblings, and they assume that they have inherited a "fat gene". A more sensible explanation is that the children are inheriting a random sample of the mental and physical characteristics of their ancestors, and in their gene pool is some type of problem which can result in obesity. That might seem to be the same explanation, but it isn't. For example, if the reason a particular family is overweight is because they have lower levels of self-control, then the children will not necessarily be overweight. One of them might be able to control his consumption of food but instead have trouble controlling his consumption of alcohol, or his craving for status, or his craving for money, or his craving for children.

When alcoholics have children, they don't give their children genes for alcoholism. Rather, their children inherit a random sample of the mental and physical qualities of their ancestors. To complicate the issue, each of us may also be suffering from one or more environmental problems, such as poor nutrition, brain injuries, or toxic chemicals, and our parents have an effect on that environment. A child of alcoholic parents may inherit a certain type of mental problem, for example, and he may react to that problem by becoming intoxicated, just like his parents, thereby making it appear as if he inherited an alcoholic gene. However, another child in the family may suffer from the exact same problem, but he may react differently, such as becoming obsessed with food, money, religion, video games, or cocaine.

The same concept applies to physical qualities. If two professional football players have children, their children will not inherit a "football gene". Instead, their children will inherit a random mixture of the physical and mental qualities of their parents, grandparents, and other ancestors. Their children are likely to inherit an excellent athletic ability and an ability to tolerate physical discomfort, but they may not have any desire to become athletes.

When Christians have children, their children will not inherit a "Christian gene". The singer, Katy Perry, is the child of two religious fanatics, but she did not inherit a Christian gene. Rather, she inherited a random selection of the mental and physical characteristics of her parents and other ancestors. Her father enjoys giving religious sermons to an audience, and Katy Perry enjoys singing to an audience. Her father enjoys making an enormous amount of money, even if it means criticizing his daughter as a "devil child", and Katy Perry also enjoys making a lot of money, even if it means making deals with Hollywood criminals.

Many children criticize their parents for being abusive, selfish, violent, fat, alcoholic, dishonest, lazy, or psychotic, but every child who criticizes his parents should realize that he is a random mixture of his ancestors. Therefore, every child should ask himself such questions as, "Since I am the child of my disgusting parents, how many of their horrible qualities did I inherit? Am I really any better than they are? Or do I hate my parents because I have the same miserable, hateful personality that they have?"

A database of our personal information would be incredible

If everybody's personal information was posted in a publicly accessible database, we would slowly get an understanding of why people are different. We could study an obese person, and all of his relatives, and compare that group of people to a person of normal body weight and all of his relatives. We could compare a billionaire and all of his relatives, to an ordinary person and all of his relatives. We could compare a drug addict and his relatives, to a person who has no interest in drugs.

These type of comparisons would help us understand what is different about us. For some examples, we might discover that some obese people come from families in which the children show a greater resistance to doing homework and physical activities, and a greater tendency to follow their emotional feelings. We might discover that they put less effort into thinking than the ordinary person, and they spend much more time trying to please themselves. We might discover that some of them become obese as a result of this characteristic, while others develop different problems, such as spending excessive amounts of time playing video games, or not learning much in school, thereby interfering with their job opportunities as an adult.

We might find that billionaires tend to come from families in which the children show greater tendency towards ADD, bullying, selfishness, arrogance, and temper tantrums.

We might find that people with intense cravings for fame, awards, and trophies tend to come from families in which there is a greater tendency towards alcohol and drug problems, or more of a certain type of mental disorder, such as depression.

We are never going to understand humans when everybody is allowed to keep his life a secret, and especially when we are allowed to lie about our lives. We need to be able to study humans in the same serious manner that we study animals and plants. All of us would benefit tremendously if we had a greater understanding of the human mind and body.

The people who are paranoid of having their personal information in a public database are hurting themselves and the rest of us, and interfering with the future progress of the human race. When they whine about having their personal information exposed to the world, our natural tendency is to feel sorry for them and try to appease them, but we should exert some control over our emotions and tell them to shut up. Why should we suffer from a lack of understanding of the human race simply because they have a problem controlling their fear of being observed? We should regard them as animals, savages, or emotional retards.

In other documents I mentioned that we should restrict reproduction, and I will emphasize this many times in this document. How are we to make wise decisions about who should reproduce? In addition to judging a person for how he behaves, we should analyze the qualities of his relatives and ancestors. This requires a database with everybody's personal information.

Every family has undesirable qualities, but we have to pass judgment on which families have the worst qualities overall. A database would show us that some families have significantly more problems with mental illness, alcoholism, stupidity, religion, arrogance, envy, and temper tantrums. We follow this technique when breeding plants and animals, and we must follow it with humans, also.

Our emotions are triggered slightly differently

The issue of how we react to emotional feelings is complicated by the same concept I mentioned earlier in regards to pain sensors. Specifically, our emotions are sensors that are triggered by stimuli, and if we could observe how everybody's emotions are triggered, we would find that there are subtle differences between us. For example, our hunger emotion is triggered by certain changes within our body, and whatever triggers hunger, we would find that it is slightly different for different people.

Imagine an experiment in which a group of men of identical age and size are put in a controlled laboratory environment. The experiment starts by putting all of them in a cafeteria and giving each of them the exact same breakfast. If we could put probes into their brain and measure their level of hunger, we would notice that as they eat their breakfast, their level of hunger decreases, but at slightly different rates. When they are finished eating, we would discover that they end up at a slightly different hunger level. Some of them may have so little hunger that they have no desire to eat any more, while others may be slightly hungry and wish for a bit more food.

After they have finished breakfast, they are all forced to spend the following four hours doing the exact same physical activities, such as walking on a treadmill at the exact same rate, thereby consuming the exact same amount of energy. As the hours go by, they digest their breakfast and deplete their supply of energy. We would discover that their hunger levels slowly increase, but at slightly different rates. At the end of the four hours, most of the men will have an average hunger level, but there will be one man who is the most hungry, and another who will be the least hungry.

This concept applies to all of our other emotions. For some examples, the sexual emotions of some men are triggered by stimuli that do not trigger the emotions of "average" men, and sometimes the same stimuli will trigger all of the men, but to slightly different levels. The craving for status is triggered more often and more extensively in some people than others. If we could study the people who spend a lot of time pouting, we might find that some of their emotions are being triggered in situations that have no effect on an ordinary person, or that their "pouting emotion" is reaching an above-average level. All of us are upset by criticism, but the emotions of some people may be triggered by criticism that has no effect on ordinary people, and/or their emotions are triggered to a higher level, thereby making those people appear to be abnormally angry, irritable, violent, or arrogant.

To complicate the issue, there are emotional differences between men and women, and between children and adults, and we ought to consider that there are also emotional differences between different races of people.

Are you capable of having a serious, calm discussion about the emotional differences between different races and between men and women? Or would you be as awkward and uncomfortable as if you were talking about waste products? Why not practice such a discussion? But remember, don't merely suppress your emotions; try to understand them.

Why do you have trouble discussing the differences between the races or between men and women? Why are your emotions making you nervous? What are your emotions trying to accomplish? Are your emotions concerned that other people will become enraged by your opinions? Are your emotions afraid that you will be accused of sexism or racism? Are your emotions concerned that there will be fist fights or insults?

If your emotions are concerned that other people will become enraged, then you can calm yourself down by reminding yourself that you are trying to have a serious discussion, and nobody has justification for temper tantrums, pouting, or violence. Anybody who reacts in such a crude manner should be considered as a savage, not a human. Instead of letting those savages upset you or make you feel guilty, you should tell them to get out of the room because they are too crude to participate in such discussions. Don't feel sorry for destructive people.

What should we do about mental problems?

We can help individual obese people lose weight by providing them with better diets, exercise programs, gastric bypass surgery, or plastic rings around their stomach. Although these techniques can help the obese people to reduce weight, it doesn't actually solve the primary problem that the human race is suffering from. The only sensible solution to the problem of obesity is to restrict reproduction to the people who are better able to deal with the modern world. That will reduce the problem of obesity in every generation, eventually resulting in people who can keep their weight at a healthy level without any effort. Furthermore, this method will work even without any understanding of why some people have trouble controlling their weight.

Many healthy parents give birth to children who are defective, and many overweight people, criminals, and alcoholics give birth to healthy children. However, don't use the exceptions as an excuse to avoid the fact that the human race is degrading genetically. We must follow the same rules that we follow with plants and animals. Farmers have learned that they cannot let the sickly plants and animals breed, even though the sickly creatures sometimes produce healthy offspring.

If we continue to allow obese people to reproduce, there will be more people with this problem in every generation. Furthermore, this problem will become even more serious if we start colonies on the moon or Mars. Because of gravity, a human can gain only a certain amount of weight while on the earth, and then it becomes impossible for them to move out of their bed or chair. Many people have already reached this level of obesity. How large would these people get if they were living on Mars, or on the moon? How large would they get if they were living on the space station, where there is no gravity?

In a previous file, I pointed out that a Mars colony would have all of the social problems that we have here on earth. On Mars, obesity could become even worse than it is here on the earth. If you were the leader of a Mars colony, what would your policy be for obesity? Do you have the ability to push yourself into analyzing and discussing these issues? And can you also push yourself into experimenting with policies on this issue? Or would you avoid the emotional pain of analyses and experimentation by telling the people in the Mars colony that they have the freedom to do as they please?

Although we have the ability to help obese people to lose weight, how do we help the people who pout excessively? How do we help the people who are so arrogant that they have trouble facing constructive criticism? How do we help the people who are so frightened of the unknown that they are afraid to try Mochi? How do we help the people who cannot control their gambling, or their groping of women on crowded trains, or their craving for fame? How do we help the people with such intense cravings for material items and status that they insist on becoming millionaires with giant mansions?

We have developed techniques to help people lose weight, but we don't yet have any idea of how to help people with other emotional disorders. There are some mental health drugs that seem to help a few individuals, but we have to accept the fact that the human mind is more complex than we can deal with at this point in time. All we can do right now is provide people with information about these issues, and encourage them to experiment with themselves and their environment. The people who cannot get control of their problems need to be prohibited from reproducing, and in some cases, removed from society.

Why is gastric bypass surgery so successful?

Some fat people promote the theory that they are fat because of some mysterious and uncontrollable quality of their body that causes them to gain weight on normal amounts of food, but that theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. The human body cannot create energy from nothing. In order to get fat, a person must provide himself with more food than his body needs to perform its daily functions. His body will then convert the unnecessary food into fat.

It is ridiculous to assume that some people have a defective body that unnecessarily converts food into fat. If anybody had a body that converted food into fat when it needed that food for survival, then they would slowly die of starvation while becoming increasingly fat.

Amanda Beere, in this British television episode of Fat Doctor, is one of many obese people that proves that reducing food intake results in weight reduction. She lost a tremendous amount of weight when she followed a strict diet, and later she lost a tremendous amount of weight with gastric bypass surgery. In both cases, a reduction in food consumption caused her to lose weight.

Gastric bypass surgery apparently has a 100% success rate. The reason it is successful is because it reduces the level of hunger that obese people feel; it reduces the amount of time they spend each day feeling hungry; it reduces the amount of food that they can eat; and it makes it difficult for them to digest, and therefore eat, certain types of food, such as chocolate.

The people who have had gastric bypass surgery are proof that obese people can lose weight at a very rapid rate simply by reducing their consumption of food. This leads us to the question of why some people have so much trouble controlling their consumption of food. Do the obese people have more trouble resisting the feelings of hunger? Or do they have an overly powerful hunger emotion? Or are there other, more complicated reasons?

It is obvious that we differ in our ability to control our hunger, anger, temper, arrogance, envy, hatred, pouting, sexual cravings, and cravings for status, but we do not yet know enough about the human mind and body to figure out why we have these differences. Perhaps our distant ancestors will understand these issues, but all we can do is accept and deal with these differences. We also have to face the fact that half the population is going to be below average in regards to its ability to control itself.

We could describe a person as being "physically lazy" if they cannot push themselves into tolerating the physical discomfort that an "average" person can handle, and we could describe a person as being "mentally lazy" if they cannot control their emotions as well as the "average" person.

If we could measure everybody's level of emotional discomfort at different times of the day, we would find that half of the population is below average in their ability to resist hunger. Those "mentally lazy" people eat more often, and/or eat larger quantities of food. We would also discover that half of the population, although not necessarily the same half, is below average in their ability to resist their fear of the unknown, and half of the population is below average in their ability to resist their cravings to have temper tantrums, pout, and boast.

To complicate this issue, your ability to resist your emotional cravings depends upon how strong your cravings are. If your cravings are at a naturally low level, then it will be easier for you to resist them.

Our natural tendency is to assume that a person with a normal body weight has proper control of his hunger emotions, but that is not necessarily true. Rather, his hunger emotion may not be triggered as often, or as extensively, as in a normal person. He may actually have low self-control, but it doesn't show because he doesn't experience much hunger.

There are undoubtedly some people of a normal body weight who would become overweight if their hunger emotions would reach the "typical" levels. Conversely, there are probably some overweight who are suffering from hunger emotions that are excessively strong, and if they had normal hunger emotions, they might have a normal body weight.

Likewise, a man who can refrain from groping women on crowded trains is not necessarily in good control of his sexual emotions. It is possible that his sexual cravings are at a below-average level, and that if he had typical sexual cravings, he would be unable to resist groping the women.

Why could Magellan travel around an uncharted planet in a wooden sailing ship? Was he capable of overcoming his fear of the unknown? Possibly, but it is also possible that his fear of the unknown was simply weaker than that of the typical person.

What makes you do what you do? How much of your behavior is due to your emotions, and how much is due to your ability to think? How do your emotions compare to those of the typical person? How do you compare in your ability to resist your emotions?

Is obesity different from blindness or allergies?

A person who is obese is likely to be suffering from some type of mental or physical disorder, probably genetic, but in some cases environmental. Ridiculing obese people does not help them or us. We should put them into the same category as the people who are blind or crippled. Specifically, we should describe them as suffering from a "genetic or environmental defect" rather than having a lack of self-control or an improper diet.

Obese people don't feel comfortable in public because they are frequently insulted, but we don't ridicule people with blindness or allergies. Some blind people are blind at birth, due to a genetic disorder, and some are blind due to the environment, such as toxic chemicals that interfered with fetal development, or accidents at their job. We don't ridicule blind people. Rather, we try to understand the causes of blindness and figure out how to reduce the problem. For example, many businesses require employees to wear eye protection around certain types of machinery.

A person who is blind cannot overcome his disorder with self-control. Likewise, we should not assume that obese people are merely suffering from some trivial problem that they can overcome. Some obese people may be suffering from a defect that is so serious that nobody would be able to overcome it.

If we could implant an electrode in your brain to increase the level of your hunger emotion, would you be able to resist the craving to eat food? You might be able to resist it for a few weeks, but what if it persisted for your entire life? If you tried to ignore the feeling, it might make it difficult for you to get your work accomplished. It might also make you irritable. You might think that you have lots of that mysterious substance called "self-control", but you might give up after a few years and let yourself become obese.

What is "self-control"?

Is self-control the same as "will power" or "motivation"? Is it a single emotion somewhere inside our brain? Or is it a combination of emotions? Or is it some intellectual quality?

Why are some athletes capable of pushing their body to extreme limits and tolerating high levels of physical discomfort? Do they feel the same pain that we do? If so, are they ignoring it because they have more self-control? Or is it due to some other emotional or intellectual difference?

Why are some people capable of discussing the Israeli involvement in 9/11, whereas other people become so upset that they ignore the issue? Why are some students capable of pushing themselves into learning a skill, whereas others waste their time in school with daydreams or playing games?

If we could measure everybody's self-control, we would find that half the population is below average in self-control. We often tell the people who are low in self-control to find some self-control, but they cannot find a quality that they don't have. They cannot rewire their brain.

When businesses and militaries put people through training programs, many of the students show an increase in their self-control, coordination, skills, and other qualities. This creates the impression that self-control and other qualities are environmental rather than genetic. However, if we closely study the people before and after training programs, we will realize that the training programs are only helping people to understand, practice, and develop the qualities that they were born with. Training programs cannot give anybody an emotional, intellectual, or physical quality that their DNA didn't provide for.

Each of us is born with certain mental and physical qualities, and all we can do is learn about and develop those qualities; we cannot make any of them better. Some parents believe that schools can make their children more intelligent, and that military training programs can provide their children with discipline, maturity, or some other wonderful quality, but training programs cannot give a person a quality that he wasn't born with. A training program can only help a person discover and develop his particular talents.

Schools should be designed to put the students through a variety of mental and physical tasks so that the students can figure out what their strengths and weaknesses are, what they enjoy, and what they are good at. However, we must face the fact that no matter which mental or physical quality we look at, half of the students are going to be below average in that particular quality regardless of how wonderful the curriculum and teachers are.

Many people need "emotional bypass" surgery

The people who have trouble controlling their cravings for food are often ridiculed, but the people who have trouble controlling their cravings for status, fame, and material wealth are more likely to be admired. We don't consider a person with absurd amounts of material wealth to be a spoiled brat, or a person with no self-control, or psychotic. Instead, we praise him for being talented, intelligent, or clever.

What is the difference between a person who cannot control his craving for food and ends up becoming obese, and a person who has so little control over his craving for material wealth that his life is devoted to collecting a gigantic pile of material items? What is the difference between a person who eats food to stimulate sensations of pleasure, and a person who makes money or goes shopping to stimulate sensations of pleasure?

We admire people who gather excessive amounts of material items, but we insult people who eat excessively.

I would say that both rich people and obese people have a problem coping with modern life.

Many obese people complain that when they are in public, people stare at them, and sometimes make insulting remarks. Why do we insult the people who eat excessively while admiring the people who have excessive amounts of material wealth? I think it is because nobody wants to be obese, but the majority of people have trouble controlling their cravings for material wealth, so they frequently fantasize about becoming absurdly wealthy. Nobody wants to be obese, but most people want to become excessively wealthy.

Many people are willing to prohibit obese people from reproducing, but would they be willing to prohibit wealthy people from reproducing? Obese people waste food and are a burden on the medical industry, but wealthy people waste a lot more resources and labor by demanding that we provide them with mansions, servants, and material items. A world in which everybody is obese would be miserable, but a world in which everybody wants to be a pampered billionaire would be miserable, also.

Why should we admire a businessman who demands enormous amounts of material wealth? Why should we feel obligated to provide him with gigantic mansions or servants? How are his mental qualities any better than those of an obese person who is so fat that he cannot move out of his chair and is demanding that we bring him more food? Instead of giving into the demands of the wealthy people and providing them with mansions, we should send them to "emotional bypass surgery" to have a portion of their brain bypassed. Actually, a significant percentage of the human population needs emotional bypass surgery in order to reduce their arrogance, fear of the unknown, temper, and pouting.

Human societies are suffering from high levels of crime, selfishness, war, fights over territory, greed, pouting, envy, hatred, alcoholism, obesity, unwanted children, homelessness, and many other problems. Why are so many people having so much trouble coping with life? Why are so many governments fighting with other nations? Why are so many people fearful of or angry with people in other nations? Why are so many religious people arguing and fighting over the proper religion?

The problems of the human world are simply due to the fact that we are monkeys. Our mind and body evolved for a simple, primitive life, and most of the human population is still too similar to an animal to properly deal with the complexity of this modern world. If we could put the people who are better adapted to modern life in their own city, they would create a noticeably more peaceful, efficient, and pleasant society.

Many of the emotional and mental problems that are causing trouble today would be insignificant in prehistoric times, and some of them would be beneficial. For example, our prehistoric ancestors had a strong craving for food, just like we do, but they never became obese. Rather, their intense craving for food motivated them to find food. The craving for sugar would have motivated them to find fruit, and the craving for greasy foods would have motivated them to find meat.

If a person in prehistoric times had an abnormally powerful hunger emotion, the result would be that he would put more effort into finding food than the people who had less of an interest in food. Instead of becoming obese as a result of his powerful hunger emotion, he would be likely to start looking for food before he was actually hungry. He would have an advantage over the people who waited until they were hungry.

If a person's hunger emotion was "too strong", it could interfere with his ability to sleep, socialize, and make tools. The competitive battle for life determined whose emotions were appropriate, and whose were not.

People today have a very strong craving for food, and this is proof that our ancestors who had a strong craving for food had a survival advantage over the people who didn't have much of an interest in food. Unfortunately, now that food is available to us in excessive amounts, humans no longer need or benefit from an intense craving for food. Our craving for sugar is causing some people to eat excessive amounts of candy, and our craving for fat is causing some people to eat excessive amounts of fatty foods.

Normally, nature would take care of this problem. The people who are obese, anorexic, or who become malnourished through improper diets would either die or be less successful in reproducing. Each generation of humans would become better adapted to this new world. However, we are preventing nature from doing its job. We help the people with eating disorders, rather than let them die. There is nothing wrong with helping the people with problems, but we should not let them reproduce. We must allow the human race to adapt to our new environment.

The same is true with a craving for material items. In prehistoric times, a man with an abnormally intense craving for material items would put more effort than the typical person into developing tools, clothing, and a shelter to live in. While other people were relaxing around a campfire, he might make a tool.

Since it was difficult for prehistoric people to make material items, and since none of their material items were very durable, none of our prehistoric ancestors acquired excessive amounts of material wealth. Instead, the men with intense cravings for material items ended up with more and better quality tools, clothing, and shelters, and that gave them a survival advantage over the men who had less of an interest in material items. Also, the men with the greater collection of material items attracted the most women, thereby increasing the cravings for material items in the next generation. This would explain why people today have such intense cravings for material wealth.

It was desirable for our prehistoric ancestors to have intense cravings for food, material items, status, sex, children, and land, but in this modern world, our cravings need to be reduced. People with abnormally high (or low) cravings are a disruption. For example, the people with intense cravings for material wealth and status cannot be satisfied with an "ordinary" life. They want to be Kings and Queens, not team members. Instead of working with us for the benefit of society, they work to satisfy their excessive cravings for material wealth.

Instead of admiring the people with intense cravings, we should regard them as savages in a human world, and we should prohibit them from reproducing. The human race must start adapting to this new era. This requires us to pass judgment on who among us is properly suited to this new world, and who is too defective or too much like a savage. This in turn requires finding people who are capable of discussing these issues, making these judgments, and then enforcing them.

If you are not capable of controlling your emotions well enough to have a clam and serious discussion about farting, then you may not be able to control your emotions well enough to participate in controlling reproduction, either. So start practicing, and try to become an expert at controlling yourself. The human race doesn't need you to climb a mountain or lift heavy weights. We need you to get control of your emotions and reach your intellectual potential.

Most schools do not provide serious information to children about digestion, waste products, farting, childbirth, or sex. Can you control your emotions so well that you can calmly discuss how children should learn about their body and its functions? Which information should schools or the Internet provide? Which information should parents provide?

This issue is not being discussed right now because the majority of people have so little control over their emotions that when they try to discuss this issue, their pulse becomes rapid, they clench their fists, and they grind their teeth. They become awkward, inhibited, angry, or embarrassed. They behave like stupid, emotional monkeys, not intelligent humans. Many of those people can push themselves to climb mountains or participate in athletic events, but we need people who can deal with the social problems of the modern world.

Are we cruel to deny a person what he wants?

Is it cruel for society to put restrictions on people? For example, if we were to restrict a person's access to candy if he had trouble controlling his consumption of it, would we be cruel to that person? Would we be treating that person in an insulting or degrading manner? If we restrict reproduction, would we be tormenting the people who are prohibited from reproducing? If we restrict a person's access to alcohol, would we be treating him as a second-class citizen? If we took away the material wealth of a rich person, would we be hurting him? Would we be cruel to take away a person's inheritance and tell him to earn what he wants? Would we be cruel to tell all of the people in the monarchies to get a job and live in an ordinary home like everybody else?
“Give me what I want!”
Many parents have the intelligence necessary to figure out that they are not cruel or abusive when they refuse to give their child the candy or toys that he is whining about. The child might insist that he cannot enjoy his life if he is denied the candy or toys, but many parents can understand that the child does not need those items.

Most people are irritated by children who demand that we satisfy their every desire. We regard them as having low self-control, or being a brat, or being spoiled, or having a temper tantrum. We should apply the same concepts to adults. For example, we should regard a business executive as a spoiled brat when he demands an incredible income and a giant mansion.

Society is not obligated to satisfy any adult's desires, and society is not "cruel" to deny an adult what he wants. Actually, it is impossible for a person to satisfy all of his emotional cravings. The reason is because our emotions are triggered all throughout the day, every day of our lives. For example, when we see houses, cars, bicycles, clothing, and other material items, our emotions will occasionally be triggered by some of the visual images, thereby causing us to desire the item. When women look at babies and children, their emotions are occasionally triggered, causing them to want to play with the child. When men see attractive women, their emotions will occasionally be triggered, causing them to want to touch, impress, or have sex with the women. When we are hungry, our emotions will be triggered by almost any food that we see or smell.

It is ridiculous to promote the philosophy that we will increase our level of happiness by satisfying more of our desires, or that we will reduce the quality of our life if we suppress or ignore our desires.

We expect parents to make intelligent decisions about when to satisfy their children's desires. Why not apply the same philosophy to adults? In such a case, a society would set standards of behavior for both adults and children, and we would put restrictions on the people who cannot meet those standards.

For some examples, the adults and children who cannot control their appetite, or who waste food, could be restricted to certain restaurants and markets where they are under more supervision. The adults who cannot handle alcohol could have restrictions on their access to alcohol, and we could also restrict which neighborhoods they can live in, which jobs they are allowed to have, or which social activities they could join. The adults who have trouble controlling their temper, their groping of women, and their lewd comments could have restrictions on which social activities they could participate in and which neighborhoods they could live in. We could also restrict them to riding the trains when the cars are nearly empty.

If a society were to impose restrictions on the adults who cannot control themselves properly, a lot of adults would whine that they are being tortured, denied happiness, oppressed by a police state, and treated as a second-class citizen. They would try to make us feel guilty. They would create the impression that they are heroes who are fighting for "freedom".

All of us regularly exert some self-control and deny ourselves what we want. However, we differ in our ability and desire to control ourselves. Every society today has a tendency to feel sorry for the people with low levels of self-control, but is that really the best policy for the human race? I don't think so.

I think we should experiment with imposing restrictions on adults. I don't think restrictions are cruel. Rather, I would say the restrictions are a way for society to help the people who cannot cope with modern life. When those people whine that they are being tortured or treated as a second-class citizen, we should respond, "No, we are simply helping you to do what you should be able to do by yourself but, for unknown reasons, you cannot."

Society should not feel obligated to allow the people with problems to get away with abusive behavior. The people who cannot behave properly, regardless of the reason, are a burden on society and an irritation to other people. We will create a more pleasant society if we help them to do what they should be doing on their own. The people who waste food or who eat excessive amounts, for example, are putting a burden on the people who produce food and clean up the mess, and we should not feel obligated to let them behave in that manner.

Unfortunately, it will be emotionally traumatic for us to impose restrictions on people. It requires that we force ourselves to put some effort into thinking about what sort of standards we should set for the adults, and what sort of restrictions we should impose on the people who cannot meet the standards. How many people can push themselves into doing that type of intellectual work?

After we have thought about the issue, we have to discuss our options and compromise on which of them to experiment with. That will cause more emotional trauma. In order to discuss our options and compromise on policies, we must be able to exert some control over our arrogance and temper, and in order to experiment with options, we must be able to exert some control over our fear of the unknown. We must be able to tolerate some emotional pain.

Whining does not correlate to suffering

If a society were to impose restrictions on reproduction, some people will react with temper tantrums, whining, pouting, suicidal thoughts, hatred, and envy. The other members of society, especially those in leadership positions and law enforcement, must be capable of ignoring the emotional hysteria and demanding that a person either provide intelligent opinions on the issue or keep his mouth shut. This is not going to be easy because we don't want to ignore people when they whine, have temper tantrums, or pout. Our emotions give us a craving to rush over to them, find out what is wrong, and pamper them.

When a person whines about something, he will appear to be suffering. This can trigger our emotional cravings to help people in danger. If we had any involvement with whatever it is that he is whining about, then we may feel partly guilty for his suffering.

Our emotions assume that when a person is crying for help, they are truly in danger. However, in this modern world, people are regularly whining about issues that are of no importance. Rather than follow our emotional cravings to help a whining person, we need to analyze why he is whining, and we must then pass judgment on whether we should care about his whining.

A person's level of whining has no correlation to his level of suffering. An example are the people who are so obese that they cannot get out of their chair to feed themselves, and so they depend upon somebody else to bring them food. If they were denied a meal, or given a very small meal, they would whine about being hungry, and they would create the impression that they are suffering. The people who bring them food react to their demands by trying to please them, but in reality they are inadvertently helping them become even more obese. The obese people who cannot move out of their chair and depend upon other people to bring them food are a good example of how we can sometimes provide more help to a person when we ignore his whining rather than satisfy his cravings.

We are foolish to feel sorry for a person simply because he is showing signs of suffering. We have to analyze the situation and pass judgment on whether he is truly suffering. Even if a person is suffering, that doesn't mean we should be concerned about it. In many cases we should tell the person to shut up and deal with it.

If schools were to provide detailed information about sex, childbirth, and digestion, many parents would whine about it. Our emotions will be triggered by their whining, and we will want to comfort them, but we should control our emotional feelings and analyze the issue of whether any of those parents or children are really suffering. If an analysis shows that the children are benefiting, and that nobody is suffering, then we must tell those parents to shut up.

Some people cry or have tantrums when they lose a contest or a sports event, and some throw objects or yell, and some become envious of or angry at the winner. Their crying and tantrums will trigger our emotional craving to comfort people in trouble, especially if they are children, but if they cannot deal with failure, that is their problem, not ours. Feeling sorry for them will not help us or them.

No matter what we do with our lives, each of us will suffer more failures and disappointments than successes, so everybody needs to learn how to deal with failure. The people who cannot deal with failure should be regarded as savages or retards who cannot cope with the complexity of modern life.

The opposite is also true. Specifically, when we are successful in something, such as a contest, sports event, scientific experiment, or household chore, our life will not become better. We will remain the same person with the same characteristics and the same life. If a person could not enjoy his life before winning a contest or a sports event, then he will not enjoy his life afterwards.

Most people believe that every time they win a contest or receive a trophy or award, they increase their overall level of happiness, but that is not true. When you win a contest or receive an award, you do not move up one step on a stairway to Nirvana. You simply enjoy some momentary emotional titillation. After the titillation disappears, you return to your ordinary life.

The same concept applies to material wealth. Most people believe that every time they collect another material item, they climb a bit farther up a stairway to heaven. In reality, each material item provides us with some momentary titillation, and then we return to our ordinary life at the bottom of the staircase. No matter how big our house is and no matter how many yachts we own, we never move up on that stairway to heaven. We remain here on the earth with everybody else.

I think one of the reasons that so many people believe that winning awards, making money, and becoming "successful" will bring them happiness is because they have set unrealistic goals for themselves, and they are suffering as a result. It is easy for us to set unrealistic goals for ourselves because we are so arrogant. We like to think that we are super talented, super geniuses who can do whatever we want. Our emotions can fool us into thinking that we could become one of the best athletes, scientists, carpenters, musicians, or scuba divers, but only a small minority can be the best. Most people must accept the fact that they are "ordinary".

A person who cannot control his arrogance may waste his entire life trying to do something that he doesn't have the ability to do, and the result will be that he suffers from one disappointment and failure after the next. His life will be miserable, and this can cause him to develop the attitude that he will become happy if he can become successful. Some people might become so frustrated that they resort to cheating, begging for pity, or sabotaging their competitors in order to become successful.

The proper reaction to endless failures is to stop what you are doing and analyze your life. Every child should be taught to experiment with activities in order to get a better understanding of his abilities and limitations. Everybody should be taught to look for jobs and activities that they are capable of doing properly. When a person is failing incessantly, he should realize that his endless failures are evidence that he has set a goal that he doesn't have the ability to achieve, at least not in a manner that he's trying to achieve them. Rather than torment himself with more failures, and rather than cheat, he needs to either change his method of achieving his goals, or change his goals. Unfortunately, this may require that he control his arrogance so that he can look critically at himself and face the possibility that he simply does not have the abilities that he thinks he has.

Our arrogance makes it difficult for us to face the possibility that we are not nearly as talented as we think we are. In this modern world, it is important for people to be able to control their emotions and adjust their work and leisure activities according to what they are capable of doing properly.

Most people follow the philosophy that the more often they satisfy their emotional cravings, the more wonderful their life will be, but this philosophy is destructive. Our emotions are inappropriate in this modern world. We have to make intelligent decisions about our goals, when to eat, how much to eat, and whether we actually need a particular material item. Our emotions will encourage us to put extreme emphasis on winning sports events, becoming famous, collecting awards, and getting control of more land. People who follow their emotions will waste their time chasing after goals that serve no useful purpose.

Now consider how these concepts apply to a society that imposes restrictions on reproduction. Those restrictions will cause some people to cry or have tantrums, and they will claim that we are preventing them from enjoying their lives, but will we really prevent a person from enjoying life if we prohibit him from reproducing? No. Nobody needs to reproduce in order to enjoy life. Many people are infertile, and some of them enjoy life anyway. Some fertile people have chosen not to have children, and they enjoy life without reproducing.

We are not torturing people when we restrict reproduction. We have emotional cravings for children, but we don't have to satisfy that craving. Furthermore, we can satisfy that craving without having our own biological children. For example, we can adopt children from parents who have been authorized to reproduce.

Furthermore, we can design society to make it easy for us to have part-time and temporary involvement with children's activities at schools, museums, recreational areas, and social affairs. By providing adults with the opportunity to participate in children's activities, we can enjoy children when we are in the mood to interact with children, and we can avoid children when we prefer to be alone or with other adults. We could say that the people who use that method to satisfy their cravings for children will be happier than parents because parents have to deal with children even when they are not in the mood.

Our societies today do not provide us with opportunities to have contact with children, but we don't have to continue living in cities in which pedophilia is rampant, children are taught to be afraid of strangers, and most people spend their leisure time inside their homes. We could create cities in which crime is at extremely low levels, and everybody is encouraged to get out of their home during their leisure time. The city could provide us with a lot of activities that provide us with plenty of contact with both children and adults.

Our emotions give us a craving for children, and the people who don't enjoy thinking, or who cannot think very well, will come to the conclusion that they must have their own biological children in order to enjoy life. In reality, children are a lot of responsibility and work. The people who raise children are imposing a significant burden on themselves. By comparison, the people who do not raise children will have a lot more free time to do as they please. They can visit children when they are in the mood to interact with children, and they can spend the rest of their time on whatever else they please.

Nobody will suffer a miserable life simply because society has imposed restrictions on reproduction. The only people who will be miserable with that policy are those who stimulate themselves into a frenzy by reminding themselves over and over that they are miserable. In other words, the only people who will be miserable because of restrictions are those that stimulate themselves into being miserable. Their misery will be self-inflicted. It is not our fault that they are miserable, so we have no reason to feel guilty.

Who will whine the most about reproduction?

If we impose restrictions on reproduction, some people will whine about the restrictions more than other people. Who will do the most whining?

If we had a database of everybody and their personal life, we would be able to determine who is doing the most whining, and about which issues. Who whines the most about abortion? Who whines the most about euthanasia? Who whines the most about Iran developing nuclear weapons?

I suspect that the people who are in the best control of their emotions and among the more intelligent will be the most likely to understand and accept restrictions on reproduction, but the people who are in less control of their emotions, or more selfish, or less intelligent, will have the most trouble understanding and accepting the restrictions.

Our emotions respond to people who whine, and so our natural tendency will be to feel sorry for the people who whine. Our emotions will cause us to feel guilty for hurting them. However, I suspect that the people who do the most whining about the restrictions are the people who are in most need of the restrictions.

To understand that concept, consider alcohol. Who is in most need of restrictions on alcohol? The adults who have good control of their emotions, and who are in good mental health, don't need any restrictions on alcohol. They can control their alcohol consumption without any laws or police. The only people who might benefit from restrictions are the people who have trouble controlling their alcohol consumption.

I suspect that everybody in good mental health, and who can push themselves into thinking about the issue, will be able to understand the need for restrictions on reproduction, and they will be willing to accept those restrictions. So who will oppose the restrictions? I think it will be the people who have the lower quality minds, and they are the people who need to be prohibited from reproducing. Every generation of humans should be in better mental health, have better control of their emotional cravings, have a greater interest in participating in society, be better able to learn a useful skill, and better able to deal with the issues of the modern world. The people who whine about satisfying their every emotional craving are like animals.

Therefore, instead of feeling sorry for the people who whine, we should control our emotions, tell ourselves, "No pain, no gain", and respond to the whiny people with remarks similar to:
"Those of you who do the most whining are among the lowest quality of people, and each generation should have fewer of you. So, you are not permitted to reproduce. Accept it, and keep your mouth shut."

Actions improve the world, not wishes

As I described here, everything in the universe interferes with the existence of everything else, and this causes everything to degrade over time. We must perform maintenance to keep something exactly as it is, and we must do additional work to improve something. This concept is obvious with our muscles and our physical items, but we have not applied this philosophy to our culture.

The common attitude around the world is that after we create a nation, business, research lab, sports group, or other organization, our job is complete, and we can relax. In reality, everything in the universe changes a bit every day, and that requires that we regularly perform maintenance on our organizations merely to keep them functioning properly. If we want to improve an organization, we must exert even more effort, and on a periodic basis. We must regularly analyze the organization, discuss our research, and experiment with possible improvements.

A lot of people are capable of making changes to a business in order to cope with changes in technology, consumer preferences, and population changes, but many people resist analyzing societies because they consider such analyses to be unpatriotic or traitorous, and many people resist experimenting with changes because they cannot control their fear of the unknown.

Animals and humans are frightened by the unfamiliar. Most people are so traumatized by the unknown that they cannot become explorers. America may have a greater percentage of people who are capable of becoming explorers, but they are a minority of America, not the majority.

"But where do we draw the line?"
The people who cannot control their fear of the unknown, and the people who believe that critical analyses are traitorous and insulting, are putting tremendous pressure on society to remain exactly as it is and mindlessly follow our ancestors. They are horrified at the thought of experimenting with their life and society. They resist experiments by frightening themselves with possible scenarios of failure, as with the remark, "Where do we draw the line?" Most people do not look for ways to improve society; they look for excuses to do nothing.

Human societies will not improve from wishing or praying. We must do something to bring improvements to our lives. Specifically, we must put a lot of effort into thinking, research, critical analyses, and discussions, and that requires being able to handle the emotional discomfort that results from such activities. We must also exert enough control over our fear of the unknown to allow ourselves to conduct experiments with our economic system, school system, government system, social affairs, courtship procedures, and other cultural activities. Those experiments will occasionally give us results we weren't expecting, thereby causing some emotional discomfort and awkwardness, so we need the ability to tolerate the emotional trauma rather than whine about it.

Can you do more than the minimum necessary?

Animals do only what is necessary. When an animal is well fed, comfortable, and not bothered by other animals, it has a tendency to do nothing.

Humans also prefer to do the minimum necessary. Children regularly engage in physical activities, but they don't enjoy exerting themselves. Most of them keep their level of physical exertion to a comfortable level. Most children will not push themselves to the point at which they are experiencing physical discomfort.

When children are in school, most will learn only what the teacher makes them learn. They don't want to learn more than they have to. All children are willing to learn and think, but they don't enjoy it enough to exert much effort. As soon as they experience a bit of boredom or emotional discomfort, they tend to switch to a more pleasant activity, such as drawing pictures, daydreaming, or sleeping.

When children are out of school, they no longer have other students to encourage physical activities, and they no longer have teachers to push them into learning or thinking. Adults can do whatever they please, and the end result is that the majority of adults rarely push themselves physically to the point of exhaustion or fatigue, and they do even less intellectually. Most adults never learn much of anything on their own, except for sports scores or the lyrics to a song. Many adults also resist learning how to use new software or machinery at their job.

If you watched that video of Amanda Beere, then you noticed that the British are still referring to people's weight in terms of "stones", not kilograms. In 1818, the British Parliament discussed whether they should switch to the metric system, but the resistance was so high that they did not formally make the switch until 1965, and many of them are still refusing to use the metric system for measuring human weight. And, of course, America is still refusing to switch to the metric system.

The Americans and British are not resisting the metric system because of their fear of the unknown. Rather, they are resisting it because they don't want to do any work or learn anything new. They want to do the bare minimum necessary. They will learn the metric system only if they are under pressure to do so.

Furthermore, it is important to note that putting pressure on Americans to learn the metric system will not flip a switch in their brain and cause them to switch from opposing the metric system to enthusiastically learning about it. Rather, they will learn the metric system only because they have no other option, and some of them will whine about how they are suffering unnecessarily. This is another example of when we need to analyze a person's whiny remarks and pass judgment on whether a person really is suffering, or whether that person needs to be told to shut up and deal with the issue.

This issue also brings up an important concept; namely, we can make a person do something, but we cannot make him want to do it. For example, you can hire a person to do a job, but if he doesn't have any interest in being a team member or contributing to the organization, he will only do what is necessary. He will not be nearly as good of an employee as a person who has an interest in joining the organization. He will be more similar to a circus seal who does tricks for fish rather than a team member.

This concept applies to more than just jobs. For example, consider crime. We can prevent a lot of people from committing crimes by putting security cameras and policemen everywhere in the city, but a more pleasant solution would be to restrict immigration to the people who are honest because they want to be honest. It is better to find people who are naturally the way we want them to be rather than trying to force them to become something they don't want to be.

It should be noted that if you were to ask a person if he does the bare minimum, almost everybody would boast that they regularly push themselves beyond the bare minimum. A common expression is that people give "110%" of their effort. We are arrogant, and we have no desire to look critically at ourselves or seriously analyze how we compare to other people. Our natural tendency is to climb onto a pedestal and boast about our wonderful qualities. As a result, almost everybody will boast that they give 110% of their effort. Almost everybody boasts that they are highly educated, and that they think seriously about issues. It is unusual to encounter a person who gives an honest description of himself, such as:

“No, I don't like to exert myself or suffer any type of discomfort. I try do the bare minimum necessary in my personal life and at my job. I wish I was rich so that I did not have to work. I want servants to pamper me while I entertain myself.”
If the majority of people could truly give 110% of the their effort and push themselves both mentally and physically, as they boast about, then there would be a noticeable reduction in people who have problems with alcohol, food, fame, gambling, and drugs. There would also be a noticeable decrease in temper tantrums, fist fights, pouting, envy, and revenge. There would also be no resistance to switching to the metric system.

Half the population is below average

Making excuses for the people who have trouble controlling their emotions, and feeling sorry for them, is not going to help them or us. We have to face the fact that people are different. Some people have better control over their emotions, and a better ability to think about issues and behave in a more intelligent manner.

Some people give up on a physical activity as soon as they experience a bit of discomfort, while other people ignore the discomfort and continue on. Some people start to eat the moment they experience a trivial level of hunger, while other people can ignore much higher levels of hunger. Some people become upset over a remark that another person would disregard as meaningless.

The photo below shows a small portion of the incredible amount of trash that was left on the grass after a music concert in Britain had ended. Very few of the people in the audience, if any, bothered to clean up after themselves. They could not exert even the small amount of effort necessary to carry their trash with them as they walked away.

Animals have no interest in cleaning up after themselves, and they have no concern about their destruction of the environment. Humans are nothing more than intelligent monkeys, and some people are more like animals than others. We must stop making excuses for, and tolerating, the people with crude, destructive, or parasitic behavior.

Some people believe that they can stop littering by imposing fines, but we cannot make a monkey become a human. A better situation is to restrict reproduction to the people who behave better voluntarily, and eventually people will be neat, responsible, and honest because they want to be that way.

Everybody is unique, and the majority of people have "ordinary" abilities, and half the population is below average. We can't make the ordinary people become better-than-average no matter how much we feel sorry for them, and no matter how many training courses we give them. Half of the students will always be below average, regardless of how we design the school system and the curriculum. Half of the adults will be dumber than average no matter what we do. Half of the adults will be below average in controlling their temper, their alcohol consumption, and their arrogance.

If a person has "average" abilities to handle physical discomfort, then he will never be able to excel in athletics or other physical activities that require tolerating extreme levels of physical discomfort. His body may be as genetically impressive as an Olympic athlete, but if his mind doesn't have the ability to handle physical discomfort, he will never be able to use his body to its full extent.

Likewise, if a person has only an average ability to handle the emotional discomfort of intellectual activities, then he will never excel in intellectual activities that require him to tolerate extreme levels of emotional discomfort. His brain may have the circuitry for incredible intelligence, but if he doesn't have the emotional ability to tolerate the discomfort that results from learning, thinking, critical analyses, exploring the unknown, and experimentation, then he will never be able to use the full extent of his intelligence.

Do you really know what "happiness" is?

Many people in our modern world, especially in wealthy countries, have developed the attitude that happiness comes from titillating ourselves with material items, pampering by servants, inheritances, praise, and devices that "save labor". As a result of this philosophy, the majority of people struggle to avoid physical exertion and criticism. They want to experience pleasure, not discomfort.

When I was in high school, we were advised to go to college so that we could avoid "hard work". A common attitude around the world is that carpenters, bricklayers, and other people cannot possibly be happy because they must do "hard work". Supposedly, the people with a college education can avoid "hard work", and therefore, enjoy life to a much greater extent.

This theory about happiness seems to be completely sensible. This theory could be summarized as: To enjoy life, avoid whatever is unpleasant, and do whatever is pleasurable. To a human mind, this theory "makes sense". It seems logical to our mind that in order to maximize our enjoyment of life, we must increase the pleasure we experience and reduce the discomfort we suffer from. How can a person enjoy life if he is suffering? In order to enjoy life, we must experience pleasure! We must do whatever feels good and avoid whatever irritates us.

The fact that this theory makes sense to a human mind is more evidence that our mind is not capable of understanding the world. As I wrote years ago here, most of our brilliant ideas are inaccurate. The human mind is completely out of touch with reality. We must look for supporting evidence for everything we believe. Our mind is just a modified monkey brain, and it was designed only to control lungs, muscles, and eyeballs, and only for the purpose of acquiring food and reproducing. Our brain was not designed to understand or design refrigerators, social affairs, rockets, computers, economic systems, or holiday celebrations.

We must be suspicious of what our mind is telling us. The complexity of modern society requires us to teach children that they cannot believe the brilliant thoughts that appear in their mind, and they should not follow their emotional feelings, either. Children need to be taught to look for supporting evidence for their thoughts. They should also be taught to push themselves into analyzing situations and tolerating the resulting emotional pain.

If you follow the philosophy that happiness comes from pleasing yourself and avoiding discomfort, then you will severely restrict the physical and mental activities that you can participate in. That philosophy will cause you to spend your life stimulating your emotions with food, fame, material wealth, sex, status, awards, children, drugs, alcohol, viagra, and video games, and you will try to avoid every activity or situation that you find boring or unpleasant, such as physical exertion, cleaning up after yourself, learning a skill, thinking, gardening, bicycling, and critically reviewing yourself. Also, if all you want to do is please yourself, you will not be able to participate in the improvement of society.

You should experiment with life

Many people believe that they know what they want from life, but unless you experiment with life, you are not going to know. Furthermore, we cannot try a new food or activity just one or two times. Our resistance to change will bias us against everything new, and so we must force ourselves to try something many times, preferably over several weeks or months, before we can decide whether we like it.

For a personal example, as I mentioned in an audio file here, the first time I put a chunk of beef into a meat grinder to make burgers, I disliked the taste because it reminded me of a steak that had been chewed up and spit out. Fortunately, I made myself eat them because I didn't want to throw them away, and after eating perhaps a dozen, I discovered that I prefer burgers that I grind myself.

Try to understand and control your emotions or else you will never truly figure out what you enjoy in life. Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that you are so special that you don't have a fear of the unknown, or a resistance to change. We all have the same emotions, and there is no way we can stop our emotions from putting pressure on us.

What you enjoy in life depends partly on your attitude; your philosophy towards life. If you were to experiment with different philosophies towards happiness, you might discover that you enjoy some of the activities that you assumed were horrible. Unless you are willing to experiment with life, how will you know what you will be happiest with?

A lot of people consider themselves to be experimenting with life when they try something different, such as mountain climbing, traveling to a foreign nation, or engaging in an extreme sport, but that is experimenting with the physical activities. Try experimenting with the intangible concepts in your mind. Experiment with your philosophy towards life, government, holidays, courtship, and happiness. If you and other people are capable of participating in those type of experiments, then a group of us could do it on the level of a city and experiment with our social affairs, recreational activities, economic system, and school system.

Athletes need to tolerate "unhappiness"

In order for a person to become a professional athlete, he must regularly suffer from physical discomfort, pain, exhaustion, accidents, and critical reviews. As I mentioned earlier in this document, this creates a paradox that athletes must be able to deal with. Specifically, can an athlete enjoy his life when so much of his life is spent in a state of misery? Would an athlete have a more pleasant life if he gave up athletics and switched to an activity that brought more pleasure and less discomfort, such as playing video games?

Athletes have the same crude, monkey-like brain that you and I have. As a result, their mind will tell them that the most sensible philosophy is to enjoy life, not suffer from pain, failure, and criticism. Their emotions will put pressure on them to quit athletics and find a more pleasurable activity.

When athletes are interviewed about their life, they often make remarks that show that they struggle with the same dilemma that the rest of us are confused by; specifically, they occasionally wonder whether the pain they suffer from is ruining their life, and whether they should quit athletics.

Many athletes help themselves and one another deal with this dilemma by promoting the philosophy, "No pain, no gain". They essentially tell themselves and one another, "Yes, we are suffering on a regular basis, but our suffering brings benefits, so learn to ignore the pain!"

It is important to note that athletes cannot tell themselves "No pain, no gain" only once in their life. Their mind never adapts to that philosophy. The human mind cannot alter its circuitry. Every time the athletes experience a lot of pain, their emotions will put pressure on them to stop the suffering. As a result, athletes must repeatedly remind themselves to ignore the pain and continue.

When our primitive ancestors experienced pain, it was because of a potential problem, and it was important for them to follow their feelings and avoid whatever was causing the pain. In this modern world, however, we can experience pain from beneficial activities, such as when we exercise, and we can experience emotional pain from beneficial activities, such as when we receive constructive criticism.

The emotions that cause us physical and emotional pain are not appropriate for this modern world. We must find the self-control necessary to analyze every unpleasant situation so that we can make an intelligent decision about whether the situation is truly dangerous to us, or whether we should ignore the unpleasant feelings.

Imagine treating leaders as we treat athletes

We have different demands for different professions. At one extreme are the athletes. We expect athletes to regularly push themselves to levels of discomfort that most of us would never tolerate.

At the other extreme are the leaders of government agencies, charities, churches, think tanks, media companies, and businesses. Instead of expecting them to push themselves to extreme levels of physical or emotional discomfort, we pamper them. We try to prevent them from suffering even insignificant levels of discomfort. In America, the congressmen are not even required to show up for work. They are allowed to support legislation that they didn't even bother to read. We have even less concern about the leaders of our charities, churches, think tanks, television companies, schools, courts, police departments, and businesses.

When we encounter an influential person, we essentially put our tail between our legs and provide them with displays of submission so that they can feel important, and we are very careful about how we look at them, talk to them, and behave around them. We are not being respectful or polite. Rather, we are being submissive, like a stupid animal. We struggle to make our leaders feel good. We don't expect them to suffer even the most insignificant level of discomfort. We treat them in a manner that is similar to how we treat newborn babies, or the way termites treat their queen.

When a typical employee or athlete is caught with a drug or alcohol problem, he may be fired, but when people in leadership positions are discovered to have even more serious drug or alcohol problems, such as Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto, Canada, thousands of people must put a tremendous amount of effort into getting him fired. Many people want athletes and employees to have drug tests, but most people would never want to force their leaders to take drug tests.

The organizations that have ignorant, crude, or stupid members, such as communist organizations and crime networks, have even lower standards for their leaders. For example, recently a North Korean leader was secretly executed, supposedly by letting a pack of hungry dogs eat him, but very few of the North Korean people, if any, care. If a factory worker was secretly murdered by other factory workers in such a manner, most people would demand an investigation, but when leaders kill each other, nobody cares. Leaders can do whatever they please.

I'm not trying to imply that the murdered North Korean government official was a wonderful man. Actually, if we knew the truth about the North Korean government, many of us might fantasize about feeding all of their leaders to animals. The nation can barely feed itself, but instead of dealing with their problems and improving life in their nation, they promote the hatred of other nations, they make idiotic threats of war, and they have parades of military weapons. They behave like a gang of violent and psychotic teenagers, not a group of intelligent, responsible leaders.

We expect athletes to play fair and put a tremendous amount of effort into their activities, but we don't expect people in influential positions to be honest or put any effort into their jobs. To make the situation more absurd, athletes are not even necessary for society. Athletes provide entertainment, not vital services.

Why do we have very high standards for people of no importance to us while allowing the people who are extremely critical to modern society to be dishonest, incompetent, lazy, violent, selfish, envious, and suffering from drug and alcohol problems? Because we are intelligent monkeys, not a creation of a god, but how many people can control their arrogance enough to see the animal qualities within themselves? How many people can even see the similarity between their body and a chimpanzee body?

Imagine living in a nation in which the people in influential positions are treated the same way we treat professional athletes. Imagine a nation in which the leaders are expected to put as much effort into managing the nation as athletes put into their athletic events. Imagine all of our leaders routinely suffering from some emotional discomfort as they push themselves into doing research and writing documents that clearly explain their opinions and policies.

We don't have much tolerance for athletes who cheat or lie to us. For example, after Lance Armstrong was found to be cheating, he was banned from bicycle racing. Imagine treating people in leadership positions in the same manner. For example, imagine a scientist making the claim that the government can reverse global warming with carbon taxes, and after we review his supporting evidence, we come to the conclusion that he is either lying or incompetent. Imagine him forever being banned as a scientist.

Another way of looking at this issue is to reverse the imaginary scenario. In other words, imagine if we pampered athletes in the same manner that we pamper people in leadership positions. For example, imagine treating the bicyclists in the Tour de France competition in the same manner that the North Korean people pamper their government officials. In such a case, we would not care whether any of the bicyclists are talented, or even put any effort into the bicycle race. In addition, we would not care how they behaved during the race. For example, imagine that one of the bicyclists doesn't show up for the third day of the race, and rumors circulate that he was murdered by the other bicyclists during the night. Days later one of the bicyclists admits to feeding him to a pack of dogs, but none of the other athletes or spectators care enough to ask for details on why he was murdered. They just let the race continue.

Or imagine if athletes could behave in the same manner as the leaders of communist Russia a few decades ago. In such a case, the football players could be as unathletic, untalented, crude, and abusive as Leonid Brezhnev. Imagine that they arrange for a football game in a large stadium, but they are so neurotic and disgusting that some of the spectators want to leave after only a few minutes, and then a few minutes later more spectators want to leave, and so on. Imagine the athletes respond to the lack of enthusiasm by building a concrete wall around the stadium and posting armed guards to kill any spectator who tries to leave before the game is over.

If we follow our crude emotions, we will give blind obedience to our leaders, and that allows disgusting people to abuse us. This is what every nation has right now. There is no government that encourages critical reviews of government officials, or of their nation's culture. No government official is encouraging its citizens to develop their leadership abilities and compete for leadership positions. No government is interested in removing any of its unnecessary employees. Every nation has such low standards for government officials that every nation's government is full of people whose primary concern is keeping their jobs and justifying increases in their salary.

Our governments are so idiotic and abusive that we could make slapstick comedy routines from some of their actions. For example, Americans are allowed to purchase hemp rope and paper from Canada and other nations, but if any American farmer tries to grow hemp to produce his own rope or paper, he will be arrested, and neither the police nor the government will provide a sensible explanation for why he can purchase hemp rope but cannot produce it. We could make a slapstick comedy skit in which the government makes it illegal for Americans to grow trees for lumber. Instead, we must purchase lumber from Canada. The Keystone cops would run around the nation to arrest the Americans who dared to grow trees for lumber.

Our government officials are allowed to behave in idiotic, selfish, and abusive manners, and they are allowed to collect high salaries, but how many people care? Not many Americans, if any, know why we are forbidden from growing hemp, or who created the law, and most Americans don't care that they don't know. They are more concerned that Lance Armstrong is cheating, or that a waitress mistreated them.

The American government plans to give $3.1 billion in aid to Israel during 2014. How many Americans care that we give billions of dollars to Israel every year rather than use that money to fund projects for ourselves? The majority of people have no desire to analyze their government or deal with corruption or incompetence. The majority of people want the entertainment of voting, but none of the responsibilities.

Can you refrain from acting like a monkey?

We would create a more sensible society if we treat the people in influential positions as "employees" who are doing a job, and if we require them to meet high standards. So why does every society allow its leaders to be incompetent and abusive? Because we are monkeys. A monkey has an emotional craving to behave submissively towards whoever happens to be in the dominant position, but monkeys have no desire to analyze the performance of their leaders or demand that they meet high standards.

In order for humans to create a more advanced society, we must exert control over our crude emotions. We must be able to force ourselves to stop behaving submissively towards people in leadership position, and force ourselves to put some effort into analyzing the performance of our leaders and passing judgment on whether they should be replaced. We need to recognize the difference between treating a leader with respect, and giving him blind obedience like a stupid monkey.

Providing ourselves with better leadership requires that we suffer some emotional discomfort. We must be able to push ourselves into doing something that is unnatural to us. The people who want voting to be entertaining, and who whine about the emotional discomfort of research and analysis, should not be allowed to influence our leadership. Voting should be restricted to people who are willing and able to suffer the emotional discomfort of analyzing job candidates and participating in critical reviews of our leaders.

Our natural desire is to titillate our emotions, not deal with the problems of modern society. We don't want to think, do research, analyze our leaders, have serious discussions, or pass judgment on which leader should be replaced.

Furthermore, we have no interest in controlling our bias, suppressing our arrogance, analyzing ourselves critically, or treating other people fairly. Our natural desire is to behave like an arrogant monkey who demands special treatment for himself, his children, and his friends. We must exert some control over our arrogance and selfishness in order to reduce our bias and treat people more fairly.

Creating a better world requires finding people who can control their crude emotions and make intelligent decisions. When you try to control your emotions, you experience emotional discomfort. If you cannot handle that discomfort, you will give up and follow your emotions instead of your intellect.

We must give and receive critical reviews

Athletes regularly listen to critical reviews from coaches, and sometimes they analyze videos of their performances or training sessions. They are continually trying to improve themselves. By comparison, no society shows any interest in doing critical reviews of their economy, holiday celebrations, parenting procedures, school system, or anything else. No society is analyzing itself, or trying to improve itself. No government official encourages people to analyze the performance of government officials, or suggest methods to improve the efficiency of the government.

When athletes are talented, they have no fear of competitors. In fact, they welcome and enjoy competition because the competition allows them to display their talent. Conversely, if an athlete is not very talented, he will be frightened of competition. He will want to suppress or eliminate the competitors who are better than him.

The same concept applies to people in leadership positions. Anybody who truly is talented as a leader will not be afraid of competitors. He will have no desire to suppress talented people or surround himself with idiots. However, this is not what we see anywhere in the world. Every government official is trying to avoid critical analyses, and they try to suppress or eliminate competitors. They are frightened of competitors, not proud of their talent or achievements.

A person in a leadership position who makes any attempt to suppress competitors or avoid critical reviews should be considered as exhibiting an undesirable quality, and he ought to be replaced. A person who deserves a leadership position will realize that his talent will show only when people do critical reviews of his performance. Those reviews will show what he has accomplished as a leader, and how he is more talented than the other people. Unfortunately, most people are not following this philosophy. They are allowing people in leadership positions to be secretive, avoid critical reviews, and suppress competitors.

Our leaders should conduct and analyze experiments

Scientists have been making a lot of progress during the past few centuries by conducting experiments, analyzing the results, and then conducting more experiments. They learn something new with every experiment. However, we are not following this philosophy with social issues. When government officials create laws, they assume they are solving problems. They don't think of themselves as "social scientists" who are "conducting experiments" with society. As a result, they don't get involved with an endless cycle of analyzing their laws, experimenting with changes to improve them, and then analyzing them again, and so on.

Prohibition is an example of our inappropriate attitudes about how to improve culture. For thousands of years, people have noticed that alcohol is causing trouble. In 1920, the American government decided that they can eliminate the problems caused by alcohol by forbidding the production and sale of alcohol. Prohibition should have been described as an "experiment", but instead it was considered it to be a "solution".

During the following years, the problems related to alcohol persisted, and crime networks benefited from the situation. Many people came to the conclusion that prohibition was causing more harm than good. By 1933 the government became exasperated and gave up. There was no attempt to analyze the situation and experiment with changes.

The government should have conducted the prohibition experiment in the same manner that scientists conduct experiments with mice or tomato plants. Specifically, the government should have continuously analyzed the situation to determine what effect the prohibition laws were having. For example, who stopped drinking alcohol as a result of the laws? Who only reduced his consumption? Did anybody drink even more alcohol? Of the people who stopped drinking alcohol, did they replace the alcohol with some other type of drink, such as tea or water? Or did some of them replace alcohol with another bad habit, such as excessive eating or gambling?

A thorough analysis of prohibition would have provided the government with a lot of useful information about human behavior, and with that information they could then experiment with changes to the prohibition laws.

Prohibition was supposed to help the people who consumed excessive amounts of alcohol, but I suspect that an analysis of who stopped drinking and who continued to drink would show that most of the people who stopped drinking were consuming only small amounts of alcohol, and many of the people who drank excessively continued to drink excessively.

Therefore, prohibition stopped alcohol consumption among the people that the law was not intended to help, whereas the people who were supposed to benefit from the law continued to drink excessively. We could describe this situation as a policy that hurts the better behaved people in an attempt to control the worst behaved people.

Our attempts to improve the behavior of the crude and badly behaved people is not only failing, it adds an unnecessary burden on the better behaved people. Another example is the law that requires businesses to add poison to the ethyl alcohol that is intended for industrial use. This law is a burden on businesses by requiring them to waste labor and resources on poisons, and it also adds poisons to our products and environment. Who benefits from this law? It's not stopping people from drinking alcohol.

During prohibition, a few people had such a strong craving for alcohol that they were willing to risk their life by drinking the poisoned industrial alcohol. They died as a result. Rather than regard those particular people as unfit for this modern world, the government reacted by feeling sorry for them. The government's solution to the problem was to demand that businesses increase the level of the poisons in an attempt to frighten people from drinking the industrial alcohol. Did the increase in poison reduce the consumption of poisonous alcohol? The government never bothered to analyze the situation, but it doesn't appear to have had much of an effect.

Why were some people willing to drink poisonous alcohol? Were they stupid, ignorant, or mentally ill? Or were some of them "normal" people? The government never bothered to analyze the people who died, so we may never know.

If we had a database of everybody's personal life, we would be able to see who is drinking alcohol, how much they drink at a time, when they drink, who is pushing alcohol on their friends or spouse, and who is drinking the poisonous alcohol. We would also be able to see which families have the most problems with alcohol. This information would help us understand why some people are having trouble with alcohol.

If the government had analyzed prohibition, they would have learned a lot of useful information about human behavior. Even the officials with mediocre intelligence should have been able to conclude that laws and punishments cannot stop alcohol consumption. The government officials would have noticed that certain individuals have a problem controlling their alcohol consumption, and some of those people have such a craving for alcohol that they will risk getting in trouble with the police, and a few will risk the possibility of becoming poisoned.

A proper analysis of prohibition would have shown that laws cannot alter human emotions or behavior. Each person made a decision about whether the he wanted to obey the prohibition laws. The government should have noticed that this concept applies to other laws, also, such as those prohibiting burglary, rape, and shoplifting. Laws against burglary and rape are not stopping either crime. Although it is true that there would be more burglaries and rapes if there were no laws to prevent them, some of us would refrain from burglary and rape even if there were no laws. Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any laws, policemen, or jails, but some of those people refrained from stealing items from one another.

Unfortunately, in order for government officials to conduct analyses of their laws, they must be able to push themselves into exerting a lot of intellectual effort, but neither humans nor animals have any craving to do that. We have a craving to titillate ourselves with food, material items, pampering by servants, babies, sex, and gambling, but we don't have any craving to analyze our social problems, or discuss them, or experiment with possible improvements. We want to have "fun", but our emotions do not consider it to be fun to conduct research into human behavior, or experiment with methods of reducing crime, or remove the incompetent and corrupt government officials.

We are never going to give ourselves a better government when we allow the ordinary people to vote for the candidates that they "like". We cannot give ourselves the government officials that we "like". We need to find officials who can behave in the manner we expect a scientist to behave. We need government officials who can exert a lot of intellectual effort and push themselves into doing research, analyses, and experiments. We need government officials who can tolerate the emotional pain of criticism, the unknown, and failure.

In the late 1890s, some men began experimenting with gliders, and many of those experiments were failures. Otto Lilienthal died in one of his experiments. Imagine if the Wright brothers and other men had reacted to the death and failures by becoming fearful rather than by trying to learn from other people's mistakes. And imagine if the men who were experimenting with trains, the printing press, and electric lightbulbs were to give up after experiencing a failure.

It seems normal for government officials to cancel failed policies, but successful engineers and scientists don't give up when one of their experiments fails. Rather, they analyze their failure. They try to figure out what went wrong, and how they can improve their situation. Then they conduct another experiment. They suffer more failures than successes, but they don't cry about it or give up. Instead, they try to learn from their failures, and eventually they have learned enough to create something of value.

Athletes don't give up when they fail at something, either. They analyze their performance and their exercise programs, and they look for constructive criticism. The successful athletes react to failure by trying to improve their performance. They don't cry, have temper tantrums, or try to get revenge on the athletes who are better.

The machinists, carpenters, mechanics, and doctors who become successful in their job do not cry and give up when they fail at something. Rather, they try to learn from their mistakes and improve their performance.

Our attitude towards social issues is the opposite of what we have towards athletic and scientific issues. We don't try to learn from our mistakes with social issues. We don't even tolerate critical reviews of our culture or our government. Rather, we regard critical analysis of our culture as traitorous and unpatriotic. We attack people who criticize our culture.

We usually ignore failed policies

When prohibition failed to stop alcohol problems, people reacted by giving up and canceling the policy. However, it is unusual for us to cancel a failed policy. Our typical reaction to a failure is to ignore the failure. For example, our laws against marijuana are just as much of a failure as the prohibition laws, but we have not canceled them. Instead, we react to the failure by ignoring it.

We don't make any attempt to understand why our policies on marijuana are failing, and we resist experimenting with improvements to those policies. We simply ignore the fact that these policies are failures, and we follow them year after year, decade after decade. Every year a few policemen die in the process of trying to stop people from using and selling marijuana, and every year we put thousands of people in jail for marijuana use or sale, but nobody cares about the wasted time, resources, or lives. The majority of people, including government officials, have no desire to conduct critical reviews of our culture, and no desire to experiment with ways to improve society.

Another example of how we ignore failed policies is the Scroll Lock key on our keyboards. That key has turned out to be useless, but we continue to waste resources by producing it. The Num Lock key could also be eliminated, but we continue to produce that one, also.

Of course, to be fair to the keyboard manufacturers, one of the reasons that they continue to produce the Scroll Lock and Num Lock keys is because our free enterprise system is leaderless. No business is allowed to coordinate product development, so nobody has the authority to tell the businesses to stop producing these worthless keys. Without leadership, most businesses will continue doing whatever brings in profit, even if it makes no sense. It is risky for a business to make decisions according to what is "sensible". They have to make decisions according to what consumers will purchase.

Incidentally, the Num Lock key is worse than "worthless". The Num Lock key occasionally causes some of us to waste our time and suffer from unnecessary irritations. I have personally wasted time as a result of accidentally pressing that key without realizing it, and I have had a couple of phone calls from people using my software to complain that it wasn't working properly any longer, and after quite a few minutes, I asked them if their Num Lock key was on, and as soon as they put it back on, my software began working properly again.

Humans can put a lot of effort into physical activities, but we avoid putting effort into mental activities. If we truly enjoyed thinking and analyzing, then we would be regularly looking for ways to improve our lives, and we would have eliminated the Num Lock and Scroll Lock keys many years ago.

Unfortunately, humans are not much more advanced than the animals. We don't have much of an interest in contemplating our past or future, and we are emotionally upset with critical analyses, and anything that is unfamiliar to us. Our emotions encourage us to behave exactly like the stupid animals who follow one another regardless of how idiotic it may be. We also want to do the bare minimum necessary.

Our laws against marijuana, steroids, cocaine, and other drugs have a 100% failure rate, but we ignore the failures. Imagine if Wilbur and Orville Wright had refused to learn from their mistakes. In such a case, the Wright brothers would conduct just one experiment, and after that experiment failed, they would ignore the failure and conduct the exact same experiment a second time. And after that failed, they would conduct the same experiment a third time.

Imagine the Wright brothers conducting the same experiment over and over, decade after decade. And while we are at it, let's imagine that when they retire, they give their business to their children, and their children continue to conduct the same experiment over and over. How is that behavior any different from what we are doing right now with our laws against burglary, marijuana, or rape? Every generation passes their worthless policies to their children, and nobody cares that the policies are failures.

Or perhaps you might enjoy imagining what an airplane would be like if it was designed by engineers who didn't care about fixing failures. Imagine engineers designing components for the airplane but not caring whether the components work. When they discover that a component is a failure, they just ignore the failure and produce the worthless item anyway.

For example, imagine that the engineers install a lever next to each window so that passengers can raise and lower a sunshade, but the lever doesn't work, and the end result is that nobody can raise or lower the sunshades. Imagine the airline engineers reacting to the failure by producing the worthless levers in the hope that maybe they will eventually start working.

A lot of what humans do in a serious manner could be used as slapstick comedy. For example, imagine yourself sitting in an airplane in which the sunshades do not work, and the stewardess tells you to continue pushing the lever up and down because maybe eventually it will work, and imagine that every armrest has a Scroll Lock button that does nothing, and that nobody cares that the armrests have that useless button.

The human body and mind was designed only to search for food, fight for territory, and reproduce, not to deal with the complexity of our modern world. Our ancestors needed thousands of years to figure out that their mind has the ability to understand the plants, water, trees, and rocks, and that they could use those materials to create houses, tractors, and computers. Unfortunately, humans have yet to figure out that our mind is also capable of understanding the intangible "culture" inside of itself, and that we can bring dramatic improvements to our lives by modifying our social activities, language, government system, economic system, holiday celebrations, and clothing styles.

We have an inappropriate attitude towards cultural issues. We resist critical analyses of our culture, and we resist experimenting with culture. When a few people find the emotional strength to experiment with a policy, as in the case of prohibition, we do not expect to fail. We expect success. When a policy fails, we react with horror, disappointment, and shock. We don't want to analyze the failure and try to figure out how we can improve the situation. We don't want to conduct further experiments in an attempt to do a better job the next time.

We have no desire to learn from our mistakes with social policies, or even admit that we are making mistakes. Everybody behaves as if their culture is perfect. Everybody is resisting critical analyses of their culture.

Likewise, parents are resisting critical analyses of the way they raise children. Some of the most extreme parents have the attitude that their children must learn a specific religion, follow a specific lifestyle, eat specific foods, practice certain musical instruments or sports, and get particular jobs.

It made sense for parents to be dominating and arrogant in prehistoric times. Every prehistoric man did exactly the same job; namely, look for food. Every prehistoric woman also did the same job; namely, raise children. It made sense for prehistoric parents to tell their sons that they are going to learn how to make spears and hunt for pigs, and it made sense for them to tell their daughters that they are going to learn how to raise children. Prehistoric parents had no sensible reason to encourage their children to figure out what they wanted to do with their life. It also made sense for prehistoric parents to tell their children what to eat and what to avoid because there were many poisonous foods, and nobody understood the issue.

In this modern world, parents cannot follow their emotional feelings. Parents have to control their arrogance, and stop treating children as pets. Unfortunately, if a person believes that happiness comes from pleasing himself, then he will not want to control his emotions. He will want to do as he pleases. Becoming a better parent in this modern world requires people who can exert some control over their emotional cravings and force themselves to do what is intellectually sensible. How many parents have that much self-control? How many parents can push themselves into putting some thought into the issue of raising children?

Children today are being raised in the very complex world. We don't know the best way to raise children. We must ignore our emotions towards children and start thinking about the issue. We are also going to have to conduct experiments with schools, social activities, recreational activities, and the design of the city in order to figure out how to help children make friends, get appropriate exercise and nutrition, learn useful skills, be prepared for marriage, and become prepared to join society as an adult. Don't let your arrogance fool you into thinking that you can figure out how to raise children in this modern world. It's going to require a lot of intellectual effort and experimentation.

We should expect failures, not be shocked by them

Successful athletes follow the philosophy that they must put a lot of effort into their activities in order to achieve something of value, and that they must suffer failures and disappointments along the way. An athlete might enter a contest with the fantasy that he is going to win, but he knows that he cannot win every contest. When he loses, he may be disappointed, but he doesn't cry about it or give up. Instead, he will try to learn from his mistakes, practice some more, and do a better job in the next contest.

Likewise, when an engineer or scientist conducts an experiment, he may fantasize about being successful on the first experiment, but he knows many of his experiments are going to be failures. He tries to learn from his mistakes.

The only way we are going to improve society is if we develop a similar attitude towards culture. We must realize that we don't know how to create the best government, the best economic system, or the best school system. We must be willing to experiment, and we must expect a lot of failures. We cannot be shocked or disillusioned when failures occur. We cannot cry or give up. We must learn from our mistakes and try again.

We must prepare ourselves for cultural experiments

It is easy for us to experiment with airplanes and computers because the experiments have no direct effect over our lives or our emotions. However, experimenting with culture is difficult because it requires experimenting with the intangible information inside each of our minds. This will have a significant effect on all of our lives, and it can directly stimulate some of our emotions.

If you believe that it is important to follow traditions, then you will resist experiments with culture. Or, if you believe that happiness comes from pleasing yourself and avoiding unpleasant situations, then you will resist experiments because you won't be willing to suffer discomfort, awkwardness, or failures.

In order for us to experiment with improvements to society, we must prepare ourselves by changing our attitudes towards happiness. We must be able to convince ourselves that it is acceptable for us to suffer from awkwardness, uncomfortable situations, and occasional failures. We cannot expect the experiments to be pleasurable. The experiments will require us to exert ourselves intellectually, and exert some control over our emotions. We have to learn to enjoy this process rather than be afraid of it.

For an example, consider what it would be like to experiment with courtship procedures. Relationships between men and women are terrible. We should experiment with courtship procedures that are more appropriate for this modern world, but how are we going to experiment with courtship procedures if everybody wants to avoid awkwardness, failure, or unfamiliar situations? If you are afraid of getting wet, you are never going to learn to swim.

As I mentioned in a previous document, experimenting with courtship procedures will not be "fun" because alternative courtship procedures will feel "unnatural". Experimenting with courtship procedures is going to cause a lot of awkwardness, embarrassment, and uncomfortable situations. Unless we can exert some self-control and tolerate the unpleasant emotional feelings, we are going to ruin the experiments, or find excuses to avoid them.

Furthermore, none of us has the ability to figure out what a better courtship procedure would be, so we are going to have to use trial and error. The first few experiments will be the most crude, and this is going to cause the people who participate in the first experiments to suffer the most awkwardness and embarrassment. They will be equivalent to the first people to experiment with airplanes and electricity.

If the participants of a social experiment cannot handle the unpleasant and awkward feelings, and if they insist on doing what they enjoy and avoiding what they dislike, then the experiment will turn into an entertainment session. Nothing of value will be accomplished.

Developing a better courtship procedure is going to require people who can force themselves to experiment with unnatural, awkward procedures. They must be willing to suffer some emotional discomfort, and they must also be able to analyze the experiments to determine which techniques seem to be helping the men and women find a compatible spouse, and which ones seem to be worthless or detrimental. They must be able to critically review the experiments. If they don't like doing critical reviews, they will learn nothing of value, and if they react to criticism with tantrums or pouting, they will interfere with the experiment.

Athletes don't focus on their physical discomfort. Instead, they focus on accomplishing their goal. When we conduct cultural experiments, we need the same attitude. We need to focus on improving society, not on our emotional discomfort. When we experiment with our economic system, we have to remind ourselves, "Stop worrying about the potential dangers of the unknown and focus on finding improvements to the economic system." When we experiment with courtship procedures, the men and women involved have to occasionally remind themselves, "Stop worrying about becoming embarrassed and focus on finding a compatible spouse, and on improving these procedures so that future generations don't suffer as much as we are."

This athlete is truly exerting a lot of effort. Imagine if people would exert such effort when dealing with social problems.

Imagine living with people who could push themselves this hard to control their arrogance, temper, fear of the unknown, sexual inhibitions, and fear of a public database.

Imagine living with people who can push themselves into experimenting with methods to reduce crime, eliminate money, develop more pleasant social affairs, and improve our courtship procedures.

My recent problems
What happened to
On Friday, 8 November 2013, Yahoo shut my website down and sent me an email message to call them. The Yahoo employee I spoke with was a friendly young man. He looked into my account and told me that my "Axis Of Perverts" article was in violation of the Yahoo "Terms Of Service" agreement.

He told me that in order to get my website back online, I had to edit the document to remove whatever was violating the agreement. I responded that I was not aware of anything inappropriate in the document. I asked him if their computer was scanning websites and had noticed that my document had a lot of words that were related to sexual issues. He said he did not think a computer was complaining about my document. I asked him to tell me exactly what is wrong with my document. He then looked at my document, and he said he couldn't see anything that was in violation of their terms of service agreement. He then told me to remain on the phone while he contacts a "technician" to get details on what is wrong with my document.

After a few minutes or so, he returned and told me that their computers were not complaining about my document. Rather, somebody outside of the Yahoo organization had sent a complaint to Yahoo that my document was in violation of their terms of service agreement.

He told me that I had to fix my document, and so I asked him once again to tell me what in the document is inappropriate and what needs to be fixed. He no longer seemed as friendly and talkative as before. My impression was that he had been reprimanded in some manner, or he was told to do something that he didn't want to do.

He told me that he didn't see anything wrong with my document, and the technician that he talked to didn't see anything wrong with it, but he told me that I had to make the document fit their terms of service agreement. I asked him how I can fix an article when I don't see anything wrong with it, and he doesn't see anything wrong with it, and the other technician doesn't see anything wrong with it. How can a document be fixed if nobody can see a problem with it?

He would not provide any sensible responses to my questions. He just quietly responded that I had to fix my document. He was behaving like a beaten dog. My impression was the technician told him to give these answers to me and keep his mouth shut.

I came to the conclusion that the Jews were trying to cause trouble for me, and that it was a waste of my time to argue with the mysterious people at Yahoo, so I told him to cancel my service with Yahoo.

The situation between me and Yahoo is something I would expect on a slapstick comedy show, such as the Three Stooges or the Keystone cops. Imagine a policeman knocking on your the front door of your house. You open the door and the policeman politely tells you that he has been sent to arrest you. You ask him why, and he says it is because you are violating a law. You ask him which law you are violating, and he says he doesn't know, and he tells you to wait at your front door while he finds out. He walks back to his police car, and calls his supervisor on his radio. After a few minutes, he comes back to your house and tells you that he doesn't know what law you have violated, and his supervisor doesn't know, but somebody has complained to the police that you have violated a law, and therefore, you are going to be arrested.

You are then taken to a court, and the judge tells you that unless you can prove your innocence, you will be sent to jail for violating a law. You ask the judge, "Which law have I violated?", and the judge responds, "I don't know, but we have a complaint that you have violated a law. Unless you can prove your innocence, you will be sent to jail."

You tell the judge, "But if you don't know which law I have violated, and I don't know of any law that I have violated, how can I prove that I did not violate a law?" The judge mindlessly responds, "I don't know, but it is your responsibility to prove your innocence."

Some people might dismiss my problems with Yahoo as amusing or insignificant, but I doubt that I am the only person who has experienced problems similar to this. I suspect that I am just one of thousands - or millions! - of people over many centuries who have been harassed by Jews. The Jews get away with this abusive behavior because most of the human population are selfish, apathetic sheep who either hide from crime, or who simply don't care about it.

Those of us who stand up to the Jews, or who compete with them in sports, business, or science, are routinely attacked and abused. I can understand why some people in previous eras would eventually become disillusioned with the human race and either give up the fight, or join the Jews.

The majority of people are not innocent or sweet. They are deserters during a time of war. They are selfish, apathetic sheep who allow crime networks to suppress, murder, intimidate, torture, and kidnap.

Did the IRS really lose two copies of my 2011 tax return?

In September 2013, I received a letter from the IRS that they did not have a copy of my 2011 tax return, but they had received checks from me for estimated tax payments that year. They told me to send them a copy of my 2011 tax form. So, I printed a second copy and mailed it to them.

In December 2013, I received another letter from the IRS claiming that they did not have a copy of my 2011 tax return. Did they lose the second copy, also?

This time I called them on the telephone to get more details on what exactly the problem was. I asked the IRS employee if I had misinterpreted their previous letter and sent them the wrong tax return. I asked him exactly which documents are they missing, and he told me that they were missing the 2011 tax return. I told him that I already sent a second copy, and I asked him how I could ensure that the third copy reaches the appropriate person. I asked him if I could email a PDF file of the tax return, but he told me that they do not accept electronic documents. I was told to mail a paper copy, and so I asked if I should address the envelope to a particular person, and he said I didn't need to put any person's name on it.

Consider the possibility that some Jew in the IRS is deliberately discarding my tax return in the trash. When they receive the third copy of my tax return, some Jew could put it in the trash again, and then the IRS would send me another letter to complain that they still don't have my tax return. It should be obvious that Jews working in the IRS can easily harass people that they regard as enemies or competitors simply by discarding documents. I would not be surprised if some Jews have gone even further by doing something to cause people to pay fees, such as discarding their checks and pretending that they never received their payments.

How can we protect ourselves from a crime network that is operating from within our own society? There is nothing an individual citizen can do to fight a crime network, especially not when the network is living among us and infiltrating our businesses and government agencies. One person cannot fight an organization. Crime networks would not be a problem if the majority of people in society would come to the rescue of victims of crime networks, but the majority of people are selfish, apathetic sheep who hide from danger. Their disgusting behavior allows crime networks, even teenage gangs, to operate freely in front of everybody, and intimidate, murder, and harass individuals who stand up to them.

Why did my Internet connection fail?

In 2004, I ordered a DSL connection from Verizon, and it worked perfectly for many years. During the past year or so, however, it has been occasionally failing for many hours, usually on Sunday evening.

Eventually I decided to call Verizon just in case there was a problem with my phone line. The reason I thought that it could be the phone lines is because sometime around 2006 the telephone wires in my neighborhood had corroded, and I lost my phone connection entirely. The telephone wires are buried under the sidewalk, and Verizon had to dig up the sidewalk to fix the wires.

I called Verizon and asked them why I was having trouble with my connection, but the Verizon employee could not find anything wrong with the phone lines, so he told me that my DSL modem must be bad, so he sent me a new modem. After a week or so I was experiencing the same problem, usually on a Sunday evening. I called Verizon again, and I was told that there is nothing wrong with the phone lines in my neighborhood, so perhaps my new modem was also defective. I could communicate to the DSL modem through my browser, and the modem was claiming to be connected to the Internet, but the technician decided to sent another DSL modem anyway because he couldn't imagine what else could be wrong.

When I turned on the computer Thursday, 19 December 2013, I could not connect to the Internet but, just like before, I could communicate to the DSL modem through my browser, and the modem claimed that it was connected to the Internet, but there was no connection. I waited a few hours, and there was still no connection, so I called Verizon.

The recorded message told me that Verizon is working on the phone lines in my area, and then I was connected to a Verizon employee. He said he did not see anything wrong with my phone line, but he said there was some note about Verizon doing work in my area. I asked him what "area" they were working on, but he didn't know the specific area. He just said it was in my "area".

Later that evening I asked my next-door neighbor, who also has Verizon DSL, if his connection had been working that day, and he told me that it worked fine during the afternoon. If the connection was out for everybody in my "area", then why was his working?

On Friday, 27 December 2013, my Internet was out all day, and once again the modem was working fine and showed that it was connected to the Internet. However, I did not bother complaining to Verizon since I assumed it would be a waste of time. By the late evening, I had access to the Internet. My connection has been working so far without any problems, as of 18 January 2014.

I wonder if the reason my Internet connection usually fails on a Sunday evening is because there are very few employees working at Verizon on Sunday evening, and this allows the Jews to get away with abusive behavior, such as interfering with people's Internet connections. Maybe my Internet connection went out on 19 and 27 December because the other employees were having a Christmas party or vacation, and nobody was watching what the Jews were doing.

I wouldn't be surprised if some Jews at the ISPs and telephone networks are going even further by altering some of the data on people's websites, or adding child pornography to some people's sites, or erasing some data. Or am I becoming paranoid of Jews?

Before you accuse me of becoming paranoid, there was a time when I looked in the root directory of my Yahoo website and I found some kind of pornography video, although it was not child pornography. Where did it come from? I did not put it there. I did not bother to complain to yahoo, however, since I assumed that some Jew put it there. I just deleted the file. There was no link to it on my website, so it was invisible to the people who visited my site, but the Jews could have sent the link to other people and said, "Look at what Eric Hufschmid has on his website!"

The Jews could instigate fights this way by secretly posting pictures, documents, or videos on a person's website and then sending a link to it to his friend or supervisor, or to the police.

My mother has been manipulated by Jews

A lot of people may think that my accusation that a Jew at Verizon is interfering with my Internet connection is a sign of paranoia and anti-Semitism, but I will now give you an example of how the Jews are much more diabolical than most people can imagine.

My parents got divorced when I was a child, and in 2002, my mother married a man who seemed quite pleasant, responsible, and honest. His name is Peter Klein. He had a very interesting life, although I cannot remember all of the details exactly, so the following description may have some inaccuracies.

Peter was born 22 Dec 1934 in Berlin, Germany. His father was a Jewish artist who had a small retail art business, but his mother was not Jewish. In 1938, the Crystal night incident occurred. Peter's father had his business taken away from him, and he became unemployed. Peter's life was also adversely affected by the Nazis. I can't remember the details, but he either had to go to a different school, or he couldn't go to school at all.

Peter's father had some relatives living in Germany, and all of them decided to move out of Germany after the Crystal Night incident. Peter never again heard from any of his Jewish relatives. He has no idea where they traveled to.

Although Peter's family was suffering as a result of the Nazis, they decided to put up with the abuse and hope that the situation would eventually improve. It did improve somewhat; Peter's father got a job with the Nazi government in their art department.

Peter's family lived in Berlin the entire time the war was raging. Nobody in Peter's family was put into a concentration camp or gas chamber. Why did the Nazis give Peter's father a job rather than put him into a gas chamber? Peter and his sister were half Jewish, so if the Nazis were killing everybody who was even 1/8 Jewish, why didn't they put Peter and his sister in a gas chamber?

Everybody in Berlin, not just the Nazi soldiers or the Jews, were suffering during the war, especially during the last year. They suffered from severe shortages of food and other supplies, and from the frequent bombings. When the war was finally over, Peter's family, and everybody else in Berlin, had to struggle to get their lives back in order.

Peter made an interesting remark about how the discrimination towards Jews became worse after the war than it was during the war. Why would that be? The Nazis were supposed to be the most anti-Semitic creatures of all time, and so Peter's family should have experienced the most extreme levels of anti-Semitism while the Nazis were in control, not after the war was over.

It is possible that Peter merely assumed that the anti-Semitism was worse after the war because he had become an older teenager by then and was simply more aware of other people's attitudes compared to when he was a young child. Another possibility is that there truly was an increase in anger towards Jews as a result of some of the German people figuring out that the Jews had tricked the world into hating and attacking the German people.

A few years after the war was over, Peter's parents decided to move out of Germany. Unfortunately, his father was an artist, and artists have always had a difficult time finding jobs. To make the situation worse, most of Europe was recovering from the war, so life was difficult in other nations, also.

I cannot remember which nation his family first moved to, but they stayed at that nation for only a year or so, and then they moved to another nation. By the early 1950s, they decided to move to Israel. When Peter told us about his life in Israel, he made a very interesting and significant remark. He said that the discrimination he experienced in Israel was worse than he had ever experienced in Germany. He said that the other Israelis did not accept him as a Jew because his mother was German, not Jewish.

After about a year or so, his family decided to leave Israel. I think they moved to Austria, and then later to Sweden. In 1954 they decided to move to America. Peter was about 20 years old. He soon learned English, went to college to learn electrical engineering and physics, became an electrical engineer, got married to a Jewish woman, and had a couple of daughters. He got a job working at the Delco division of General Motors in the state of Wisconsin.

In the 1970s, General Motors offered many of their Delco employees an opportunity to move from Wisconsin to Goleta, California, where I live. Peter accepted the offer. Peter's wife eventually died, and he met my mother, and in 2002 they decided to get married.

My mother invited her family and relatives to her house for Easter 2002, as she does every year, and I told everybody that the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives. They were shocked by my remarks, and some expressed disbelief. Like typical sheeple, they considered my theories to be idiotic, and they assumed that the "authorities" were correct that the buildings fell down because of the intense fires and the airplane crashes. Peter behaved just like my relatives. I didn't see him as being any different from the rest of us.

During 2006, Christopher Bollyn, his wife, and two children traveled to California, and they stopped in Goleta to visit me. They stayed at my house for a couple of weeks. One evening we went to my mother's house for dinner with my mother and Peter.

Christopher, his wife, and me provided my mother and Peter with some details about how the Jews were involved with 9/11, the World Wars, Crystal Night, and the Holocaust. I expected Peter to appreciate the information that we were providing. For example, when we explained to him that Crystal Night was a trick by the Jews to chase the Jews out of Germany and force them to move to Palestine, I was expecting Peter to think to himself, "Well, that certainly explains why all of my Jewish relatives disappeared soon after Crystal Night."

I also expected Peter to appreciate the information that we provided about how the Jews are lying about the Holocaust and the gas chambers. I expected Peter to think himself, "Well, that explains why my father was given a job by the Nazis rather than sent to a gas chamber, and why the Nazis never killed me, either."

However, instead of showing appreciation, Peter looked sad. It sometimes seemed as if he was holding back tears. My assumption was that he had believed the propaganda that Jews are the world's most loving, generous, honest, and innocent people, and that the Jews have been abused for thousands of years by anti-Semites. We were providing him with information that was shattering his fantasy and showing him evidence that the Jews are actually the most horrible, diabolical, dishonest, disgusting creatures that nature has ever produced. He was having trouble dealing with that information. Since he was half German and half Jewish, he could have considered himself to be a "German" rather than a "Jew", but apparently he thinks of himself as a "Jew".

I assumed that during the following months he would relax, and that he would eventually look into the issues on his own, and then he would discover the same evidence that we had found. However, I never bothered to ask him if he had looked into the issues. I left him alone.

Many years later, on June 2012, my mother had bought tickets for a play. She invited me, my brother, and his wife to join her and Peter to have dinner together on Thursday evening, and then go to the play together. However, on Monday, 11 June 1012 I received this brief email message from her (my mother's email messages tend to be brief because she is not very good at typing. She tried voice recognition software, but she has trouble using software, also):

Eric, Peter's sister called him today about something on your web site about her.. I typed you in and only read a small part and I was very upset by  what I read. Do not come over on Thursday . I am too upset to see you right now.  Mom
At that time, I didn't know anything about Peter's sister, and I had never met her. I searched through my documents to figure out what my mother was complaining about, and I discovered that I had never written about her. Rather, I had posted some email messages from Christopher Bollyn, and in one of them he had mentioned her name.

I had posted those idiotic messages from Bollyn in order to help people realize that his family has been kidnapped. I did not post those email messages in order to embarrass Peter's sister.

According to my mother, Peter's sister did a search on the Internet for her name because she is the author of a book, and she was wondering how people were reacting to her book. She discovered that my website was showing her name as "Evelyn Dorit Klein". She complained that the name "Dorit" was from a previous marriage, and that she did not want the public to know about her previous marriage. She complained that I was spreading personal information about her that she was trying to keep a secret.

Peter apparently got my mother worked up into a such a frenzy that my mother didn't bother to ask me for an explanation of why I mentioned her name on my website. Peter had convinced her that I was guilty, and there was no reason to discuss the issue with me. She didn't even bother to take a close look at the document that Peter's sister was complaining about.

My mother is getting old, she is 81 years old as of Jan 2014, and a few years ago I noticed that she was showing signs of a reduced intellectual ability. She is not the same woman that she was 20 years ago. With every passing year, the Jews have an increasingly easier time manipulating her opinions. She has never read my website, and I don't think she would understand any of it anyway. I had to spend a lot of time teaching her how to send email messages, and she still has trouble with attachments to email messages.

In her email message she wrote "I typed you in...", which implies that she was conducting a search on my name or some phrase, but Peter must have been standing next to her and telling her what to do.

As a result of her becoming upset over my website, I did not visit with them that Thursday night. Actually, I decided not to visit them again until the information about the Jewish involvement in 9/11 becomes public knowledge, at which point they would stop treating me as if I were a crazy Nazi. I am tired of spending Thanksgiving, Christmas, and other holidays with a group of people who behave like sheep and who insult me.

Months after that incident, my mother became upset with my website again. This time she complained that I was spreading personal information about her and her friends, and that I must remove the information immediately.

It took me a while to figure out what it was she was complaining about. It was that same document that mentioned Peter's sister. Somebody had pointed out to her that there was a remark on my website about her playing bridge. That remark was in another email message from Christopher Bollyn. This incident is more evidence that my mother doesn't know how to browse the Internet, and has no idea how to browse my website. Somebody, such as Peter, or some other Jew, showed her a few selected words and phrases from my website, and then worked her into a frenzy.

Furthermore, my mother is unaware that the Internet has a lot of information about her and other people. For example, when my mother plays in a bridge tournament, the organizers of the tournament often post information about the game and players. City governments and police departments are also posting marital records, mugshots, and other information about us.

Peter's sister complained that she is trying to keep her previous marriage a secret, but marital documents are public knowledge. Furthermore, why should anybody be allowed to keep their previous marriages a secret? Who benefits when we allow people to keep such secrets?

Anyway, getting back to my mother, somebody convinced her that I was spreading personal information about her and her friends, but who convinced her of this? Who had worked her into a frenzy? Was it Peter Klein? Were any of her other friends involved?

I think it was a few months later when she once again became angry with me and yelled at me to remove my website. She made the idiotic accusation that my website was going to send Peter to a gas chamber. She was furious that her own son was going to have her husband executed.

My mother would never create such a crazy accusation on her own. My mother has never even looked at my website, so why would she want me to delete it? Somebody was working her into a frenzy. Somehow she was convinced that people would read my website, and then rush over to her house with pitchforks and torches, arrest Peter, and toss him into a gas chamber. Who convinced her of this? Was it Peter? Or were other Jews doing this to her?

I don't remember if it was the same conversation, but she also made a bitter remark that she and Peter had my Nazi friends (the Bollyn family) over to their house for dinner. I suppose she was implying that she and Peter were kind to my Nazi friends, and that I ought to repay the favor by getting rid of my website. Who had convinced her that the Bollyn family are Nazis?

If you have looked through my website, then you know I think that the Jews are keeping Jimmy Walter in a drugged state, partly to keep him under control, and partly to get access to his money. I also suspect that the Jews were doing that with Howard Hughes. Jimmy Walter and the Bollyn family have been hiding from the public for years. What kind of creatures would treat people in this manner? Is this your idea of "human behavior"? Our jails treat prisoners in a better manner.

The idea that crime networks would keep people like Jimmy Walter and Howard Hughes under control with drugs might seem bizarre, but many of the "ordinary" people are doing something almost as diabolical. For example, people frequently push one another into becoming intoxicated simply to use them for their own selfish benefits, such as for sex, marriage, pregnancy, jobs, government contracts, sales of products, or roles in Hollywood movies. Some people secretly give people "date rape" drugs, and some criminals have been caught giving people drugs that make them unconscious. Salesmen frequently lie and deceive in order to make sales. People who create advertisements would be much more deceptive if laws were not restricting their ability to lie to us. Pharmaceutical companies would continue to put addictive drugs into their products, as well as continue to sell drugs that have no value, if laws had not been passed to stop that abuse. And have you heard about the drug called scopolamine?

A significant percentage of the human population is regularly looking for opportunities to take advantage of other people, and the situation would be much worse if we didn't have so many laws and policemen to reduce the abuse. The horrendous behavior of humans all throughout history should be plenty of evidence that we are modified monkeys, not a creation of a loving God.

With so many people looking for opportunities to abuse, cheat, rape, and steal, I don't think I'm paranoid when I wonder if Peter or other Jews are encouraging my mother to become intoxicated, and then working her up into a frenzy. I would not be surprised if some Israelis are regularly providing Jews around the world with mind altering drugs so that they can more effectively manipulate us. After watching my mother fly into bizarre frenzies, I would not want to accept food or drinks from Peter, or any other Jew. Am I becoming paranoid? Or am I simply being cautious based on historical events?

In addition to my mother becoming upset with my website, there was a time, perhaps between 2004 and 2006, when one of my cousins had become worked up into a frenzy over "anti-Semitic" remarks on my website. My sister was visiting my cousins at the time, and she also became upset. Neither my cousin nor sister had anything intelligent to say about my website. I had the impression that somebody had shown them a few words or phrases from my website, and had convinced them that I was guilty of "anti-Semitism", and that there was no reason to ask me to explain myself.

Before that incident, I had given my sister and her husband a copy of my book and video about 9/11, but she and her husband stopped watching the video halfway through and considered my analysis to be idiotic. I'm not surprised that they got divorced a few years later.

If a married couple cannot listen to the evidence that we were lied to about 9/11, will they be able to listen to one another or deal with the problems that married couples encounter? Both my sister and her husband are like the ordinary sheeple who have a strong tendency to hide from reality and believe whatever they find more appealing. Neither of them is interested in listening to what anybody else has to say. They both have a college education, made above-average incomes, and are very arrogant. They think they know everything. They read the newspaper and watch the television news, so they are informed about world events. They prefer to give lectures rather than participate in discussions.

How can arrogant people deal with their marital problems? Arrogant people do not listen to other people. They consider other people to be less educated or less intelligent, and they expect other people to admire and obey them. Arrogant people cannot look critically at themselves and face the possibility that they are imperfect and don't know nearly as much as they believe they do. They react to criticism by whining about abuse, bullying, or being unappreciated, or they react with anger. An arrogant person needs to find a submissive spouse.

Prehistoric people needed tremendous arrogance and self-confidence in order to face the world without fear, crying, or pouting. They didn't need to deal with marital problems because they didn't have any complex problems to discuss or resolve. In this modern world, married couples must be capable of listening to their partner, looking critically at themselves, and treating their partner as a human rather than what their emotions want, which is for men to treat women as sex toys, and for women to consider men as providers of entertainment, sperm, and financial support.

Another problem that my sister and most of the sheeple have is that they are very trusting of, and submissive towards, people in positions of authority. They believe the television news reports about 9/11, not what somebody of no importance has to say. In this modern world, people must exert enough self-control to refrain from behaving submissively towards people in leadership positions. We must force ourselves to consider our leaders as "employees" who are doing a job, and we must force ourselves to seriously analyze their job performance and honesty.

Another characteristic of humans that is causing trouble in this modern world is that we are naturally very trusting of other people. Humans evolved for a simple life in a small, homogenous group. We were not designed to live among retards, mentally ill people, crime networks, or freaks of any kind. Our natural tendency is to help and trust one another. In this modern world, especially when we don't control immigration or reproduction, we must be suspicious of one another because we are living among people who will abuse us.

There are millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions, who will abuse us if we give them the opportunity. We cannot trust our government officials, FBI agents, charities, churches, salesmen, or neighbors. There are crime networks all around the world that are preying on us on a full-time basis. Some people appreciate honest, trusting people, but many businesses, Jews, and crime networks consider such people to be gullible fools to take advantage of.

We aggravate this problem by allowing people to keep secrets and lie to us. People can lie about their criminal history, job history, and education. There are no consequences for lying. For example, a person who gets caught lying in order to get a job may eventually get fired, but he is allowed to continue living among us, and he is allowed to continue lying. We are doing nothing to stop deception, crime, or corruption.

The only way we are going to improve this miserable situation is to exert some control over our emotions and force ourselves to confront the people who abuse us, even if they are in leadership positions. We have to stop feeling sorry for abusive people, stop hiding from them, and - in the case of our relatives - stop making excuses for them.

I suppose some Jew will work my mother up into another hysterical frenzy by showing her a few phrases from this document, but I don't care. And I don't care if my cousin or sister becomes upset with this document, either. I'm not going to stop exposing corruption and disgusting behavior simply because some of my relatives are mindless sheep who become upset over issues that they know nothing about.

I don't expect people to agree with my opinions, but I'm not going to make any attempt to appease people who claim that I'm abusive to them, or that I am exposing their personal information. My website is not intended to hurt anybody. Instead, I am struggling to help people understand that we are suffering from extreme levels of corruption and chaos. I also want to expose the techniques that criminals have been using to stop those of us who expose them. My website is also trying to encourage people to stop acting like frightened rabbits and take an active role in discussing and experimenting with possible solutions. If somebody wants to have a temper tantrum over my website, that is his problem. I am not going to appease him.

How many of my neighbors are being manipulated?
My relatives are not the only people who are manipulated by Jews. Once in a while one of my neighbors behaves in a suspicious manner. For just one example, a year or so ago, a young boy, who was perhaps 10 years old, rode his bicycle up to my house and rang my doorbell. I did not recognize this boy, so I decided to ignore him, but as he walked away from my house he had such a strange expression that I decided to see what he wanted. He apparently did not know me. He told me that he was looking for some other boy and wondered if I knew where he was.

The boy seemed very nervous, and he didn't seem interested in providing me with any details on who he was or who he was looking for, and he was not interested in asking any of my neighbors. When I asked him what the boy looks like, he didn't seem to know. There are some Mexicans and Iranians living on my street, so I asked him if the boy spoke Spanish, but he didn't seem to know that, either.

It is possible that the boy was just stupid or retarded, and that he was truly looking for some boy he didn't know very well, but I had the impression that some adult had told him to ride over to my house and ask me that question. Why would anybody tell a young boy to do that? Were the Jews trying to determine if I would answer the door for a stranger, in which case they might be able to arrange for their assassins to come knocking on my door? Or were they trying to figure out if I was home at that particular time?

That boy was only one of my strange neighbors. Some of my Jewish neighbors followed me as I drove my car, but why? Were they trying to intimidate me? Or were they trying to keep track of where I was going and what I do? One Jew, who was wearing a skull cap, parked his car next to mine at the shopping center, and we both got out of our cars at about the same time, and then we looked at each other. He smiled at me, but why? Was he proud of himself for being able to follow me so well that we parked next to each other and got out of our cars at the same time? Or was he trying to intimidate me?

The incidents that I have been experiencing with Jews, neighbors, relatives, and other people brings up four important issues that everybody should be aware of.

1) We can't trust anybody, not even Jewish victims.
Peter Klein suffered a miserable childhood as a result of the Jews. If the Jews had never instigated the World Wars, then Peter would have grown up in a noticeably more pleasant, more advanced Germany, and he would have had a very pleasant life. The Jews ruined his life, not the German people. When Peter's family moved to Israel, they were discriminated against by Israelis. The Nazi government gave his father a job, but the Israelis wouldn't even consider him to be a Jew. The Jews brought much more suffering to him than the "anti-Semites".

As far as I know, all of my relatives, including me, have always treated Peter Klein with decency, respect, and kindness. We have never lied to him, cheated him, stolen from him, abused him, or deceived him. In return for the kindness that we showed him, he has chosen to help the most disgusting, nauseating, horrible criminal group that the earth has ever suffered from.

Other Americans also showed kindness and generosity to Peter Klein and his family. For example, the American schools gave him an education, and General Motors gave him a job. He was never abused by Americans.

In return for the kindness that we showed Peter Klein, he has spent many years trying to make my mother angry with me and put pressure me to remove my website, but why would he worry about my website? He was not involved with 9/11. Why would he want to stop me from exposing the truth about 9/11? Why would he want to help criminal Jews cover up their crimes? Why wouldn't he prefer to help the honest Jews? Or doesn't Peter know any honest Jews? Are his Jewish friends involved with crimes?

I was shocked that Peter would choose to defend those disgusting criminals rather than people like me and my mother. I never once expected that behavior from him. In fact, in 2012, when my mother first became upset at me about spreading information about Peter's sister, I didn't think Peter was involved. I assumed that it was the result of Jews who knew Peter's sister, and that they had worked her into a frenzy. It took me a while to realize that Peter is involved in turning my mother against me, and that he is involved because he wants to be involved. He considers himself to be a Jew, not an American, not a German, and not a human.

However, I don't think Peter made these decisions on his own. I suspect that some of his Jewish friends are actively involved in helping Israel, and that they convinced him that he should help other Jews cover up the truth about 9/11. Perhaps they said something similar to:

“Listen, Peter. The truth is that we Jews ruin every society that foolishly lets us in. We are descendants of several different races of ugly savages from central Asia. We cannot compete with the humans, so we are trying to take over the world through deception, murder, blackmail, and war. Unfortunately, the Internet is exposing the truth about us, and anger is building.

However, if you help us get rid of Eric Hufschmid's website, we will be able to continue our crimes. Become our hero, Peter!”

Peter's support of criminal Jews would explain the strange behavior of some other supposedly honest Jews, such as Norman Finkelstein, who wrote the book The Holocaust Industry. He is willing to point out that some Jews are profiting from the Holocaust, but he is not willing to expose some of the more atrocious and disgusting lies about the Holocaust, the World Wars, the Nazi party, and the Communist Party. He is also silent about other Jewish crimes, such as their involvement in the 9/11 attack.

Both of Finkelstein's parents were sent to Nazi prison camps, but is he disgusted with the behavior of the Jews who arranged for the World Wars? Or does he have a similar attitude as Peter Klein? It is possible that Finkelstein is afraid to be honest, but now that I have seen Peter Klein turn my mother against me, we ought to assume that Finkelstein is also deliberately choosing to work with the same Jews who arranged for the world wars and who put his parents into prison camps.

2) The Jewish crime network is gigantic

The second point that I want to make in regards to Peter Klein is that the anger my mother showed towards my website should be considered as evidence that the Jewish crime network is much larger than it appears. Many Jews push the propaganda that a few bankers, along with the Rockefeller and Bush families, are responsible for the World Wars, the 9/11 attack, the Nazi party, the Communist Party, and virtually every other problem the human race has suffered from during the past few centuries, and that these wealthy, old men are also in control of the world's media, every nation's government, and every military. However, it does not require much intelligence to realize that a small group of old men could not possibly have so much control over so many people in so many nations. For just a few examples:

• The bankers did not bribe Peter Klein into turning my mother against me. Rather, Klein and his Jewish friends made the decision to do that.

• George Bush could not manufacture, transport, and install explosives in the World Trade Center towers, not even with the assistance of a few bankers. Only Israel would have enough people willing to participate in such a diabolical act.

• The Rothschild family did not kidnap the Bollyn family. That type of kidnapping requires a large network of vicious people with experience in kidnapping, and a network that is spread over many nations, and which has enough influence over police departments, the media, and government officials to operate in front of us without getting arrested.

• Yahoo did not shut my website down because Nelson Rockefeller ordered them to do so. Some Jews within and outside of Yahoo made that decision.

The Jews have been successful with many obvious and destructive crimes because they have a gigantic network. Peter Klein shows that they can recruit new members without much effort. Some of their members may only be willing to spread propaganda, but some of their members are willing to kill, kidnap, intimidate, beat, poison, rape, blackmail, bribe, and torture those of us who stand up to them. Peggy Borger shows that they are also willing to marry us.

After the 9/11 attack occurred, thousands of professors, news reporters, government officials, and other people scattered around the world, spread propaganda about the crime in order to confuse us about what really happened and to divert attention away from Israel and Jews. A lot of people also died mysteriously during and after the attack. Although some of the people who were spreading propaganda and participating in the murders may have been working for "The Bankers", there was too much going on for a few bankers to supervise.

The Jews are successful with obvious and destructive crimes because their network is gigantic. The reason that none of us can complain to the police departments, government officials, news reporters, FBI, or other "authorities" is because they have a lot of members scattered throughout our society.

Everybody who wants to stop this crime network should consider the possibility that some of their neighbors, friends, coworkers, and relatives are working for this network. Even if none of your relatives or friends are directly working for the network, some of them may be manipulated by people who are working for it, just as my mother and cousin have been.

However, don't let this information frighten you. Don't be afraid of this crime network! Instead, learn their tricks so that you don't become one of their victims, and help other people learn about them. Most important of all, encourage people to find the self-control necessary to deal with crime networks and experiment with ways of improving the world.

3) Crime networks can make their victims appear crazy

Some of what has happened in my life may have been a coincidence. For example, perhaps the trouble I had with my Internet connection was due to corrosion of the phone lines in my neighborhood rather than because a Jew at Verizon is interfering with my connection. Some of the people who walk by my house may be honest neighbors who are truly taking a walk, rather than Jews or their cohorts who are patrolling my neighborhood. Some of the people who seem to be following me may actually be honest people who are coincidentally traveling to the same location or in a similar direction.

When somebody is under constant attack by one or more criminals, he is almost certain to become increasingly suspicious of events and people. Criminals can take advantage of this by deliberately doing idiotic things to make the person appear to be losing his mind, thereby making it even more difficult for him to convince other people that he is a victim of criminals. For example, imagine if some Jews started doing something to me that made no sense at all, such as breaking into my house and then cleaning my bathroom, or putting new tile on my kitchen floor, or rearranging my furniture. If I told my mother, relatives, or neighbors that some Jews just broke into my house and cleaned my bathroom, they would be certain that I was losing my mind.

As soon as my relatives began talking about how I was going crazy, the Jews would be able to kill me and make it appear as a suicide. My relatives would react to the suicide with such remarks as, "I'm not surprised that he killed himself. He was hallucinating that Jews at the IRS tossed his tax return in the trash, and that Jews in his neighborhood were following him around."

Criminals can further create the impression that a person is crazy by slipping small levels of mind altering drugs into his food or drinks, such as LSD. This will cause a person to behave strangely, but without it being obvious that he was drugged.

It's important for everybody to understand that we are being attacked by a parasitic, predatory group of criminals who use deception to get away with their crimes. People must stop being so trusting and start facing the fact that we have some diabolical creatures living among us.

In 1980, the US military decided to try rescuing some hostages that the Iranian government was holding. Not long after they sent the helicopters to take their positions, they canceled the operation. One of the helicopters then crashed into an aircraft, killing and injuring many of the US military personnel. A few months later the military tried again, but the operation failed because of equipment problems.

The US military has had a lot of idiotic accidents over the past few decades, but how many of them really were "accidents"? The 9/11 attack should provide everybody with enough evidence that we should consider every terrorist attack and bizarre incident as an operation that is conducted by or manipulated by Jews, and that the Jews are also manipulating news reports about those events, and that the Jews are also sabotaging our responses to those events. Don't dismiss a person as "crazy" simply because he is accusing Jews of behaving in a disgusting or bizarre manner.

Also, keep in mind that Jews can confuse the issue by arranging for some of their members to behave in a crazy manner. For example, the Jews can have one of their members or blackmailed puppets claim that the government put an RFID chip inside his brain and is controlling his thoughts. They can have another of their friends claim that he saw Bigfoot wandering around in the forest. Another of their friends could claim that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with miniature hydrogen bombs. By having a lot of their friends make idiotic remarks, they create the impression that the world is full of crazy people. Then, when one of their victims makes an honest accusation, other people are more likely to assume that he is just another of those crazy people who thinks he saw Bigfoot.

Don't let the Jews outsmart you! Try to differentiate between one of their victims, and one of their agents who is trying to confuse you.

To make the issue more confusing, you should consider that some of the crazy people are actually telling us the truth. For example, some Jews may have dressed up as aliens from another planet, grabbed some dumb person, took him to a simulated alien spaceship, and gave him some type of anal probe. When that person gives an honest description of his abduction by aliens, everybody will assume he is crazy. The Jews will have succeeded in helping give conspiracy theories a bad image, and fooling people into laughing at "wild accusations".

This trick works more effectively with children, especially if the children are given some mild drug to alter their thinking. For example, by sexually abusing children in a manner that is truly bizarre, when the children tell the truth about what happened to them, their parents and the police will assume that the children are mixing nightmares with reality, or suffering from some mental illness. For example, if a child molester dresses like Santa Claus, the children will tell their parents that they were raped by Santa Claus. Don't let criminals outsmart you!

Nothing happens without a reason. When a person makes an accusation, there is a reason for it, and you should try to understand what that reason is. Try to understand events. Don't dismiss those that are confusing to you.

4) We are breeding con artists

As I mentioned earlier, after I received the email message from my mother on 11 June 2012, I decided to stop visiting my relatives. My mother does not hold a grudge, and she doesn't stay angry very long, so she quickly became upset that I wasn't visiting any longer.

Before I continue, this brings me to another important point. Since my mother doesn't become angry easily or remain angry for very long, the unbelievable amount of anger that I've seen from her during the past few years is a sign that Peter Klein, and possibly other Jews, have been putting a lot of time and effort into making her angry, and keeping her angry.

If there was a law against abusing people, and if Peter and his friends were arrested for their abuse of me and my mother, I suspect that all of them would claim that all they did was make a few trivial remarks about my website, and that my mother became furious on her own. I would not be surprised if Peter claims that he tried to calm my mother down! Or, maybe Peter will claim that he was deceived by some "bad Jews", and that he is actually a wonderful Jew.

There was one phone call in which my mother was trying to convince me to visit for some occasion, such as Thanksgiving, but I refused. I think it was a few minutes later that Peter called me and asked if there was anything that he had done to upset me. I was shocked that he would confront me and pretend that he was innocent. I didn't want to waste my time arguing with him, so I told him that I was not upset with him.

When animals fight for dominance, the loser displays submission in order to stop the fight. Since humans have greater intelligence than monkeys, we have figured out how to use displays of submission in order to deceive one another into thinking that we are innocent of a crime, and when we realize that our guilt is obvious, we use these displays to manipulate other people into forgiving our abusive behavior.

We are emotionally stimulated by people who display submissive or childlike behavior, but we have to suppress this idiotic emotional feeling. The people who misbehave need to be restricted from reproduction, and in some cases, evicted from society. If we forgive them and allow them to breed, we allow the human race to degrade into abusive creatures who get away with their abuse by putting on displays of submission.

Unfortunately, it is not easy for us to resist the people who manipulate us with submissive displays. It requires exerting control over our emotions, and that will create some emotional discomfort. If you don't have the ability to deal with that discomfort, you are likely to give into the emotional feelings and let people get away with their abusive behavior.

Is there something I've done to upset you?  If so, I'm so sorry. We Jews are kind, gentle, loving creatures who wouldn't hurt anybody.

Please forgive me. 
I love you!
In order for a modern organization to deal with abusive members, regardless of whether the organization is a business, sports group, or nation, we need to have people in leadership positions and in a security force who are capable of withstanding the emotional trauma that results from accusing people of crimes. We need a security force that can resist the whining, apologies, childlike facial expressions, and submissive body displays. Do you think you have the ability to control your emotions well enough to make intelligent decisions about criminals?

Animals never lie

From the point of view of an animal, he is the owner of the world and everything in it. Animals never steal, kill, lie, cheat, rape, deceive, or murder. Everything an animal does is with good intentions. When a dog takes a piece of meat off your dinner table, the dog does not consider himself to be "stealing" from a human. The dog is simply taking what belongs to him.

Many humans assume that dogs can sense right from wrong because dogs often refrain from stealing food from the table while we are watching them, but they are not sensing right from wrong. They are merely sensing that we do not want them taking the meat. It is the same type of behavior that we see with wild animals. For example, when a lion is eating an antelope, the hyenas will stand back, but not because they sense right from wrong. Rather, they don't want to be attacked by the lion. If any of the hyenas see an opportunity to grab some meat, they will. Each hyena considers the dead antelope to be his personal possession.

Likewise, when a dog sees a piece of meat on our dinner table, the dog considers the meat to be his possession. The dog does not consider that meat as belonging to a human. A dog does not understand personal property, but dogs do understand the concept that other animals are potential rivals. A dog will be cautious about taking a piece of meat from another dog or a human, but not because they consider themselves to be a thief. Rather, they are cautious because of the potential of getting into a fight.

The more similar a human mind is to an animal mind, the more arrogant that human will be; the more strongly he will consider the world as belonging to him; and the less likely he will be to consider himself as stealing, lying, or cheating. When such a person takes something from somebody else, he will consider himself to be taking what belongs to him. Some of these people may be able to pass lie detector tests because they may not have any guilt for what they do. When they steal something from their employer, they are simply taking what they deserve. When they rape somebody, they are simply getting what they deserve.

The more like an animal a human is, the more important he will consider himself to be. He will be less likely to admit to making mistakes, less tolerant of criticism, and less concerned about other people's lives. He will be more focused on pleasing himself, and more likely to complain that other people are not appreciating him, treating him properly, or showing him the respect he deserves.

Anthony Weiner resigned from Congress a while ago because some of his embarrassing behavior became public. Recently he decided to run for reelection. I think that most humans, if in his situation, would be too embarrassed to become a political candidate again, but Anthony Weiner does not show any embarrassment or shame. When he was recently confronted by a man in a grocery store, for example, he defended himself. One of Wiener's arguments was something that we commonly hear from people, which is essentially, "He who is without sin should cast the first stone."

Wiener's arrogance reminds me of animals. Wiener does whatever he pleases, and when confronted about his actions, he reacts with anger, just like a dog would react if you tried to take a piece of meat away from it.

Weiner also reminds me of the people who pester me. For example, as I pointed out in other documents, Daryl Smith continues to lie even after he has been exposed as a liar. He shows no shame, guilt, or embarrassment. Peggy also continues to tell me that she loves me and wants to marry me.

Imagine if dogs had enough intelligence to have conversations with us. In such a case, if you were to catch a dog stealing meat from your dinner table, what do you think the dog would say to you? I suspect that the dog would make arrogant excuses for its behavior, such as, "I was hungry! What do you expect me to do? Starve to death?"

If, the next day, you caught the same dog stealing meat once again from the dinner table, the dog would not show any guilt or shame the second time, either. Instead, it would respond with more arrogant remarks, such as, "So, you think you are perfect? He who is without sin should cast the first stone." Or it might respond, "I do a lot for you, and I don't ask for much in return except for a small amount of food. Is that too much to ask?" Or maybe, "It seems to me that if a human appreciates his pet, he will want to please his pet with proper meals." Or perhaps, "It's not polite to eat in front of other animals without sharing. I'm willing to share my food with you."

An intelligent dog might also justify stealing meat by claiming that it had no idea that the meat belonged only to you, and that it's your fault for not posting a sign in front of the meat that clearly identified it as your private property. Humans frequently use this excuse, so why wouldn't dogs?

Every society regularly allows humans to use that excuse for stealing items. We react to the theft by installing fences around material items, posting "private property" signs, building massive safes for high-value items, and posting security guards at the entrances of buildings and areas. A better policy would be to restrict reproduction to the people who are less like an animal.

If dogs could talk to us, then they might justify their sniffing of our crotches with the type of idiotic remarks that we hear from human rapists and pedophiles, such as, "It's your fault, not mine. You encouraged me by acting sexy." Or they might react by behaving in a submissive manner, promising never to do it again, and telling us that they love Jesus.

An animal's goal in life is to please itself and reproduce, not worry about society or the lives of other creatures. Animals have no inhibitions about begging for food or stealing food. Animals want to satisfy their emotional cravings, but they don't care how they achieve their goals.

The humans who are more similar to animals will have less of a concern about how they achieve their goals. Those crude people have a competitive advantage in a society that doesn't set standards for behavior. It is easier for them to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, and deceive. Since they are more likely to regard competitors as enemies or rivals rather than as friends, they are more likely to sabotage, manipulate, and suppress their competitors rather than compete fairly.
They are less embarrassed or ashamed of abusive behavior, lies, and begging for handouts, donations, and pity. They are more likely to join crime networks, and more likely to abuse their own friends and family members.

Can you determine when a person is parasitic?

The issue of how animals will beg for food is more important than it may seem. Humans also beg for items, but because of our greater intelligence, many people don't recognize it as "begging". For example, during the 1980s, the Japanese automobiles were starting to become popular in America, and many American automobile executives reacted by encouraging Americans to purchase American automobiles simply because they were made in America. This is just a variation of an animal that is begging for food.

The American executives did not want to deal with their problems or face their competitors in a fair manner. They wanted the financial rewards of free enterprise, but not the responsibilities. They were behaving like a beggar who is asking for coins, except that they were using the concept of "patriotism" to disguise their begging as a noble activity. Most people could not see that the auto executives were behaving exactly like the homeless beggars:

“Please purchase our automobiles! If you continue to purchase Japanese automobiles, we will be forced to put effort into improving our automobiles so that they can compete with those from Japan. We don't want to put effort into making better automobiles.

“We did not become executives because we enjoy honest, fair competition. We simply want lots of money and big mansions. We also want to feel important.

“Please help us avoid competition from Japan by feeling sorry for us!”

Many people can understand that a person who is begging for money is trying to get something without earning it, but they have trouble realizing that many of the people in top leadership positions, and who are extremely wealthy, are also begging for handouts.

For another example, the wealthy people who complain about "death taxes" are actually trying to give handouts to their children. They don't want their children to earn their position in life, as they expect the rest of us to do. Unfortunately, not many people seem to have the intellectual ability to realize that the concept of "inheritances" is just a variation of "welfare", "begging", "handouts", "getting something for nothing", and "getting a free ride".

Take a look at some of the comments for this or this or this video in which George Hemminger is begging his audience for money. Many people consider his begging for money to be disgusting, but he is begging only for a typical, working class income. By comparison, Queen Elizabeth, the people who operate charities, the executives of think tanks, and church officials are expecting us to provide them with an income that is significantly larger than the working-class income. And many business executives are extremely wealthy but beg us to purchase their products, or demand that the government provide their businesses with tariffs, tax advantages, or some other competitive advantage.

As human societies become more complex, people need to become more intelligent so that they can understand and deal with the increasingly complex issues we face. Many people can understand that a person who is begging for money on the streets is looking for a handout, but they have trouble understanding that Queen Elizabeth, church officials, and think tank executives are also looking for handouts.

Ideally, a society would identify and oppose parasitic behavior. However, that requires putting some intellectual effort into analyzing people in leadership positions and passing judgment on whether any of them are parasitic, and then finding the emotional strength to deal with those parasitic people. That is difficult for us because we don't want to analyze social problems, and we have a natural desire to be submissive towards leaders, even if they are parasitic, dishonest, and revolting.

The people who beg for money in the street are low in the social hierarchy, so it is easy for us to send them to a homeless shelter or turn our backs on them and let them slowly die, but in order for us to tell the church officials, charity executives, monarchs, and other people that they are no longer getting handouts, we must exert enough control over our emotions to prevent ourselves from putting our tail between our legs and behaving in a submissive manner.

We will experience a bit of emotional discomfort when we try to tell people in leadership positions to earn their living and contribute to society. It will require that we prepare ourselves for the confrontation, such as by telling ourselves that it is best for everybody, and by reminding ourselves, "No pain, no gain".

Do you think you can find the necessary amount of self-control? Are you capable of walking up to Queen Elizabeth, a business executive, or a charity official and telling them, "We are no longer giving you any handouts of any kind. You now have only two options. You either become a team member and contribute to society, or we will sterilize you, and possibly evict or execute you."

Improving the world requires finding people with enough intelligence to understand the problems we face, and who can exert enough self-control to handle the emotional discomfort of doing something about the problem.

Improving society requires an effort
Don't expect simple solutions 
Most people have simplistic solutions to the world's problems. For example, they believe that we can improve the world simply by eliminating some laws, or passing a few new laws, or by reducing taxes, or by imposing carbon taxes. Communist leaders believe they will improve their nation through even more idiotic techniques, such as getting control of more land or resources, or stealing technology from other nations. Unfortunately, life is not that simple. A nation, business, and other organization is just an intangible concept inside people's minds. We cannot improve an organization by reducing taxes or stealing technology. There are only two ways to improve an organization:
1) Improve the concepts that create the organization, ie, develop better "culture" or "human software". This requires that people exert enough self-control to suppress their fear of the unknown, stop following their ancestors, and start experimenting with better economic systems, more useful social affairs, and a more productive school system.

2) Improve the minds of the members, ie, develop better "hardware", such as by preventing chemicals that cause brain damage from damaging a fetus, restricting reproduction to the better quality people, and evicting people who do not fit in.

Both of those methods are difficult. Both require a lot of effort from us, and both are going to result in emotional discomfort. Therefore, the only way we are going to improve society is if people can change their attitudes and look at culture in a manner similar to how athletes look at physical activities. An athlete is willing to put a lot of effort into his activity and tolerate a lot of emotional discomfort. Likewise, we must put a lot of effort into improving society, and we must be capable of tolerating a lot of emotional discomfort. Improving society will not be "fun"; it will be "work". The work will be enjoyable only if you develop an attitude similar to an athlete who ignores the emotional discomfort, and enjoys the people, the benefits, and whatever else he can find to enjoy.

We cannot please everybody, so who do we please?

There is no way to design a society to give everybody what they want. America promotes the concept of a "democracy" in which we try to satisfy the majority of people, but that philosophy doesn't work well because the majority of people are too apathetic, selfish, and mentally lazy to take an active role in society. The majority of people don't like to think, discuss issues, research issues, analyze anything, or experiment with the unknown.

It is idiotic to give the majority of people what they want because the majority of people have no idea what they want. They mimic other people, just like stupid animals, and they occasionally pick up ideas from advertisements, entertainers, and salesmen. They behave like a herd of sheep that wanders about aimlessly with no idea of where they have been or where they are going. To make this problem worse, they are easily manipulated by religious fanatics, crime networks, salesmen, and whoever happens to be an authority.

The majority of people have such a resistance to thinking that most of them have never noticed that they have no idea what they want from life. They don't seem to realize that they are mimicking one another. Most of them seem convinced that they have contemplated life and have figured out the correct religion, clothing styles, holiday celebrations, and sports activities.

Instead of pandering to the majority of people, we should design social activities, recreational activities, museums, schools, businesses, and other aspects of our culture according to what we think will be best for the human race. We should provide guidance to the majority of people, not try to please them, and we should especially not try to please the badly behaved, stupid, or psychotic people.

For example, many Americans believe that Halloween should include "pranks", such as throwing eggs on people's houses, pushing outhouses on their side, and throwing toilet paper in trees. My personal opinion is that those pranks are "vandalism". I don't think they are amusing. Every society has to make decisions on who they want to please, and who they want to suppress. This applies to more than just Halloween. We have to make decisions on who we want to please in regards to public artwork, the layout of the city, the transportation system of the city, the recreational areas, the parks, and the schools.

Military units, businesses, and other large organizations have to deal with the same issue. They often provide "cultural services", such as cafeterias, artwork in their hallways, recreational areas, childcare services, parties, dinners, and gardens. What type of artwork do they put into their hallway and reception area? What type of food should they offer in their cafeteria? Should they arrange for a Christmas party, and if so, what type of party? If they have a Halloween party, do they want to encourage pranks, and if so, what type of pranks?

In order to improve our culture, we need to analyze the advantages and disadvantages to all aspects of our culture. There is a benefit and burden to everything, and we should continuously look for ways to reduce the burden and increase the benefit.

The same concept applies to material items. Each item has a burden, such as requiring raw materials, requiring people to work on an assembly line, and creating waste products. We should design all products so that they provide a benefit that outweighs their burden.

In a previous file I criticized the American holiday of Halloween. The burden of this holiday is that a lot of people must produce candy, costumes, and other Halloween paraphernalia. The burden is increased by the people who promote pranks. The burden is further increased by the high level of crime in America, which causes some parents to discard the candy that their children collect, and replace it with candy that they purchased themselves. Does the benefit of this holiday outweigh the burden? What is the benefit?

Unfortunately, the benefit and burden of a cultural activity depends upon your particular view of life. To some people, the pranks are a benefit of Halloween. There is no right or wrong way to design culture. We simply have to agree with one another on what we want for the future of the human race, but discussions about this issue are going to result in lots of disagreements. If the people are not capable of compromising on issues that have no right or wrong, then they are not going to be able to experiment with changes to their culture. They will instead just argue with one another.

If a group of people are capable of discussing these complex issues and compromising on policies, then they will be able to start conducting experiments with their culture, and through the years their social affairs, holiday celebrations, museums, recreational facilities, and courtship activities would become increasingly beneficial and less burdensome.

However, it should be noted that some members of society will disagree with the changes to their culture, and so from their point of view, society will get increasingly worse every year, not increasingly better. Those people must be classified as "misfits", and they should be prohibited from reproducing. This brings up an issue that I've mentioned in other documents, and it's very important to understand. Specifically, we are affecting the future evolution of the human race even if we do not restrict reproduction. By choosing certain types of foods, economic systems, social affairs, and schools, we determine who among us is well adapted, and who is not, and that in turn can affect who is successful in reproduction.

In the world today, some of the people who are most successful with reproduction are the idiots, religious fanatics, and people who cannot form stable relationships. We alter the evolution of the human race even if we do not restrict reproduction. It would make much more sense for us to take control of this process by passing judgment on who should reproduce rather than letting it happen in a chaotic, unsupervised manner.

We must watch for excessive behavior

The majority of people follow the philosophy that when they find something they enjoy, they should do it again, and again, and again. The end result is that many people do something to excess, such as collecting material items, winning awards, eating food, and drinking alcohol.

I've mentioned one example in previous documents; namely, women's cosmetics. Young, single women have a strong craving to make themselves look attractive and put themselves on display. During prehistoric times, this resulted in the young girls putting some effort into cleaning themselves and wearing nice clothing, but today women are getting carried away with hair products, jewelry, makeup, and clothing.

Women are submissive because they evolved to be taken care of by men, but most men today are so overwhelmed with the complexity of modern life that they cannot properly care for themselves or their daughters or wives. Instead of providing guidance to the women, men are exploiting them by encouraging them to purchase cosmetics, surgery, diamonds, skin creams, hair removers, and tattoos.

I think the women are using cosmetics to an excessive amount. I think life for both men and women will become noticeably more pleasant if we reduce the emphasis on cosmetics, such as restricting cosmetics to certain social activities. We could go even further and not allow women to have cosmetics in their homes. We could restrict cosmetics to a few selected buildings that are scattered around the city. They would be similar to the cosmetics sections of retail stores. Those cosmetics centers would be closed most of the time, and they would open for certain social affairs. When those centers were open, the women would have free access to all the different types of makeup, jewelry, and decorative clothing.

It might seem cruel to restrict a woman's access to cosmetics, but we are not cruel to deny somebody the opportunity to satisfy their cravings. We have to look to the advantages and disadvantages to these issues. There are a lot of advantages to restricting cosmetics. For example, it will reduce the overall consumption of cosmetics, which reduces the number of people that we need to produce cosmetics and deal with the trash that cosmetics create. If we create a society that does not have a peasant class to do such work, it is imperative that we eliminate as much unnecessary work as possible.

Another advantage to restricting cosmetics is that we reduce the burden that women have imposed upon themselves. Most American women have cluttered their bathroom with cosmetic items, and they waste some of their time every day fooling around with jewelry and cosmetics. By restricting jewelry and cosmetics to the cosmetic centers, and prohibiting women from taking cosmetics to their home, their homes will be noticeably less cluttered, especially the bathrooms. The women will waste less of their time on cosmetic-related activities, thereby giving them more time for something more enjoyable.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any cosmetics, and I cannot see any reason to believe that women have improved their lives or their relationships with cosmetics. I think cosmetics have become extreme today because women are getting carried away with their attempts to look pretty, and businesses are getting carried away with their cravings for money.

Since women are submissive, as cosmetics increase in popularity, the women feel more pressure to join the crowd and use cosmetics, also. There are now so many women using cosmetics that most women believe that they need them in their daily life. Our prehistoric ancestors were comfortable in their natural state, but many women today feel uncomfortable to be in public without cosmetics.

I think that life would actually become more relaxed and pleasant for both men and women if we prohibited women from taking cosmetics to their home, and if we restricted their access to cosmetics to only certain social affairs. We should consider cosmetics and jewelry to be occasional entertainment, not a daily necessity.

We should also consider whether we want to produce permanent hair dyes. There seem to be two primary uses for hair dyes. One is that people with gray hair want to look younger, and the other is that young people want to change their natural hair color. Should we provide dyes for either of those purposes?

Hair dyes require a chemical industry, and we don't know exactly how those chemicals affect our health or the environment. Even if the dyes are completely safe, what benefit do they provide us? Are they improving anybody's life? Do they provide a benefit that is greater than the burden they impose?

As I mentioned in a previous file, I think the reason so many older people want to dye their gray hair is because they never truly enjoyed their life. Gray hair makes them sad because it reminds them that they are getting old before they enjoyed life. We don't fix this problem by encouraging them to pretend they are young. We will reduce this problem when we start experimenting with improvements to society to make it easier for us to find friends, activities, and a compatible spouse. I think that when more people have a truly satisfying childhood and adulthood, they will have an easier time growing old.

Many young people dye their hair simply to change the color, but why do they want to change the color? I think it is because they are unhappy with their life, and they have come to the false assumption that the grass will be greener on the other side of the fence. However, if a person cannot enjoy life with his natural hair color, he is not going to enjoy life with a different hair color. We are not improving anybody's life by allowing them to change their hair color. The only way we can help unhappy people is to tell them to take a critical look at themselves, and start experimenting with changes in their attitude and life.

The businesses that produce hair dyes are encouraging people to believe that they look better with dyed hair, and that people will like them better, but I don't think an 80-year-old person with dyed hair looks better than a 80-year-old with natural gray hair. I think that older people with dyed hair end up with a mismatch between their skin and their hair.

Likewise, businesses encourage young people to believe that they will become better looking and more popular if they change their hair color, but I think they look worse, especially if they have dark hair and are trying to make it blonde. Those people end up with what I would describe as a sickly, yellow color. Also, I don't like the dark roots, or the mismatch between their blonde hair and their dark eyebrows. I think they look worse than if they were natural.

Women are not improving their lives by changing their hair color or putting black coloring around their eyes.
The majority of people never think about life. They just mimic other people, especially the people they admire, such as entertainers. If the entertainers were better behaved than the ordinary person, then it would be desirable to encourage ordinary people to mimic the entertainers, but most entertainers behave in bizarre, self-destructive, neurotic, and idiotic manners. We do not benefit when people imitate the entertainers.

Many women have become convinced that they must put black pigments around their eyes, as in the photo of Madonna. Taylor Monsen is even more extreme. While a subtle amount of black makeup can have an interesting effect on women with dark hair and dark eyebrows, such as the Japanese or Africans, I think it looks awful on women with light skin and blonde hair. Too much of it can make it look like they are partly dead, or suffering from heroin addiction.

The ordinary people are easily influenced by entertainers, businesses, crime networks, and religious fanatics. The people in leadership positions of governments, businesses, science, schools, and sports should provide people with guidance, not exploit them or pander to them.

What is the benefit to contests and awards?

Another example of how we get carried away with attempts to titillate our emotions are "contests", such as athletic contests, spelling contests, beauty contests, and food eating contests. Men have cravings to be the dominant male, and women have cravings to be the center of attention, and so both men and women have a strong attraction to contests. However, we should not engage in an activity simply because our emotions are titillated by it. We should ask ourselves whether the benefits are worth the burden.

Ideally, the leaders of society would know how many contests they are holding every year, what level of resources and labor each contest requires, and what the benefit for each contest is. However, in the world today, I don't think anybody has any idea how many contests we are holding every year, or what burden they impose on society.

There are possibly millions of contests every year in the world. There are also lots of awards given for scientific achievement, art, and engineering, such as the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards.

Every contest is a burden on society, and most require the contestants to put time and effort into the contest. What do we gain in return for all of this work? I don't think we gain anything of value. I think all societies have become carried away with trying to titillate their cravings for status and attention.

I think that we would have a more pleasant life overall if we reduced the emphasis on winning contests and collecting awards. I think we should design social activities to provide us with greater benefit than some momentary titillation. Recreational activities, for example, should be designed to provide us with exercise and socializing. I don't think we benefit by designing them to be competitive battles for trophies. Social events should be designed to help us meet people, try new activities, or learn something new, rather than to get an award.

Men are getting carried away with steroids

The intense emotional craving to be at the top of the hierarchy is causing many men to get carried away with seeking awards, trophies, impressive job titles, gigantic mansions, and other status items. Women inadvertently encourage this behavior because they prefer men who are at the top of the hierarchy.

Sports would have been fun, casual events thousands of years ago, but our craving to be important and gather material items has caused sports to slowly evolve into extremely competitive events in which the winners receive large amounts of money and fame.

The extreme emphasis we put on winning sports events is encouraging a lot of professional athletes to use drugs in order to boost their performance. This is encouraging amateur athletes, including teenagers, to use drugs to boost their athletic performance.

The bodybuilders inadvertently increase the popularity of drugs by using them to give themselves a body that resembles a comic book superhero. (I am using the word "bodybuilder" to describe people who develop muscles merely for the visual effect, not because they use their muscles in athletic events or their job.)

Bostin Loyd holds a world record for Honesty in Bodybuilding
Athletes will be disqualified from their events if they get caught using these drugs, so I am not surprised that all athletes deny using drugs, but there is a bodybuilder, Bostin Loyd, who admits to using drugs. He has made some videos to give an honest description of his drug program (such as this and this) and how he injects oil into his muscle (such as this). He also admits to the problems he suffered from, such as lactating breasts, and how he once caused some type of nerve damage and swelling from an injection of oil into his arm.

Although Bostin Loyd is only 21 years old, both of his parents were bodybuilders, and he has been involved with bodybuilding for years, so his description of bodybuilding may be quite accurate. If he is typical of the bodybuilders, then the laws against steroids and other drugs are as ineffective as the prohibition laws. He claims that it is impossible to win a bodybuilding contest without drugs. He uses the T3 thyroid hormone, insulin, human growth hormone, steroids, and some other hormones, in addition to injections of oil into his muscles.

Lying about steroids may increase their use

The bodybuilders are giving themselves artificial bodies, and they make ordinary men look inadequate. However, since most athletes and bodybuilders deny using drugs, they create the illusion that we can look and perform like them simply by getting some exercise. Some naive men may join gyms in order to become more like an athlete or bodybuilder, and then discover that they need drugs in order to achieve their goals. Since they already started the process of developing their muscles, some of them may decide that taking a few drugs will be worth the risk and expense.

Sports organizations, magazines, and television programs add to the problem by giving us a deceptive view of athletes and bodybuilders. They promote the excitement of sports and of winning prizes, but they don't show the unpleasant aspects, such as the drug use, the medical problems, and the long-term effects. In a free enterprise system, businesses are concerned only with profit, and there is more profit in entertaining people with excitement than there is in offering them serious analyses of reality.

I think we will create a better society if we force ourselves to be more honest with one another. Television should provide us with honest documentaries about what athletes and bodybuilders have to go through in order to create their impressive bodies, and they should show us what happens to the athletes and bodybuilders when they are over 50 years of age.

Most people believe that honesty will ruin their life, and as a result, the majority of people constantly lie to one another, lie to themselves, and create phony images to impress other people. Where is the evidence that lies are helping us? I think that if we were to experience life in a society in which honesty was common, we would never want to return to the dishonest, deceptive society that we live in right now.

Most people also believe that we can control human behavior through threats, jail, rewards, and punishments. When are we going to accept the fact that we cannot control human behavior through these techniques? The laws against alcohol during the 1920s did not stop alcohol use. Rather, prohibition provided profit opportunities for crime networks, and it also resulted in contaminated, low-quality, and diluted alcoholic drinks. The same problem is occurring with the drugs that athletes and bodybuilders use, and with other illegal drugs.

When we try to control human behavior, we encourage people to lie about their activities and we provide job opportunities for criminals. We must start experimenting with other methods of dealing with our social problems. For example, as I will discuss in more detail later in this document, we may be able to reduce drug use among athletes and bodybuilders by reducing the emphasis on winning events. By providing phenomenal amounts of money and fame to only the winners, and by ignoring everybody else, we encourage people to push themselves to absurd limits to win. This does not cause drug use or cheating, but it encourages it.

Is our extreme emphasis on winning a sports event really making the sports better in some way? I don't think so. I think we should analyze our purpose for playing and watching sports, and experiment with different attitudes towards sports and recreation.

I also suspect that some problems will diminish simply by providing ourselves with more pleasant cities, a more sensible economic system, and more social activities. A lot of people in the world today are lonely and unhappy, and when we are miserable, we look for ways to feel better, such as through drugs, shopping, food, winning awards, sex, and pets.

If we can improve our society so that we have an easier time finding jobs and friends, and be less irritated by crime and corruption, and provide ourselves with lots of activities to participate in, then I think a lot of people will discover that they don't want to spend so much of their leisure time sitting in front of a television, getting drunk, winning awards, or playing with their dog. They will prefer to go out into the city and do something more enjoyable.

Steroids are like vitamins, not like cocaine

Our government treats steroids as if they are dangerous drugs, but they should not be put into the same category as cocaine or heroin. Steroids and other hormones are vital chemicals that our body needs. They are no more dangerous than oxygen, water, vitamins, minerals, glucose, and salt.

Animals and humans are biological robots that operate on chemicals. We need a lot of chemicals, but every one of them must be maintained within a certain range. If we do not get enough oxygen, salt, or water, we will die, but excessive amounts will kill us, also.

When an athlete suffers medical problems as a result of excessive amounts of steroids or other hormones, many people become frightened and assume that the hormone is dangerous. By comparison, when a college student guzzles an alcoholic beverage and dies as a result, nobody becomes frightened that they will die if they have an alcoholic drink.

Later in this document I have a section about "fear mongering". Many people believe that they can control human behavior with frightening stories, but this technique is ineffective. It is better to be honest about steroids and other hormones. It is better to admit that these are not dangerous chemicals. They are vital chemicals that all of us need.

If a person is naturally low on a particular hormone, then he may benefit by taking supplements of that hormone. Those people should not be described as "drug users" because they are not taking the drugs for cosmetic purposes, recreation, or to impress other people. They are simply trying to maintain their health.

The issue of hormone supplements is more complex than the issue of water and oxygen. If a person is low on water, he can fix the problem simply by drinking some water, but this technique doesn't necessarily work with hormones because our body manufactures, regulates, and reacts to hormones. When we take a hormone supplement, our body will react by reducing its own production.

To further complicate the issue of hormones, sometimes a person who needs a hormone supplement can reduce or eliminate that need by changing his diet or lifestyle. For example, some people become diabetic when they become obese, in which case they need insulin, but after some of those obese people had gastric bypass surgery or forced themselves to control their diet and get exercise, they reduced or eliminated their need for insulin.

There are three aspects to hormones that make the issue rather complex:
1) Each of us differs in our ability to produce hormones.
2) Each of us differs in our ability to regulate the production and distribution of hormones.
3) Each of us differs in our ability to use hormones.

Consider how these concepts apply to the water faucet in your kitchen. If you open your water faucet, but only a few droplets trickle out, the problem could be at one or more of these three areas:
1) The production of water, such as reservoirs or wells.
2) The pipes and valves that distribute and regulate the water to our kitchen.
3) The faucet in our kitchen sink.

If only a trickle of water comes out of your kitchen faucet, you are not necessarily going to solve the problem by telling the city to put more water into the reservoir, or to increase the water pressure in the distribution pipes.

Now consider how this applies to hormones. If a person is low on a hormone because his body cannot produce enough of it, then it is equivalent to a city that doesn't have much water in the reservoir, and therefore, giving that person hormone supplements may help him. However, if his body is capable of producing adequate levels of hormones, but if his body is defective and deliberately maintaining a low level, then when he takes hormone supplements, his body will react by assuming it has produced too much, and it will reduce its own production. The person then needs additional hormones to compensate for the reduction of natural hormones. This process will continue until his body gets to the point at which it stops reducing its own production. That type of person will need extreme levels of hormone supplements because he will be fighting with his body.

Some of the athletes who took steroids discovered that their testes began to atrophy. This is an indication that their body responded to the supplements by shutting down its own production. This should make us wonder if his testes were the only organs that reacted to the high steroid levels. Did his heart, liver, or pituitary gland react?

To further complicate the issue of steroids, some people may produce adequate amounts of a hormone, and their body may maintain a "normal" level of that hormone, but their body may not be using the hormone properly. Giving hormone supplements to those people could be dangerous because it would be equivalent to a city increasing the pressure in the water pipes in order to force more water out of a defective faucet that cannot open properly.

If a person's body cannot produce adequate amounts of a particular hormone, then supplements may help them become "normal". However, the men who are taking hormones to build abnormally large muscles are not trying to maintain their health. Rather, they are trying to become like comic book superheroes. They are using hormones to do the equivalent of cosmetic surgery.

Everybody should maintain good health, but the men who use steroids, drugs, and intense exercise programs in order to look like Superman have become carried away with their fantasy of looking like a comic book superhero.

We should encourage people to accept what the human body is in its natural state.

Animals and humans have certain physical characteristics. We are genetically designed to be a certain height, have a certain shape, and have certain-sized muscles. A normal, healthy human body does not resemble Superman. There is no way we can look like the superheroes except through artificial methods, such as absurdly intense exercise programs, hormones, and drugs. The men with naturally high levels of hormones, such as those with acromegaly, may be able to look like superheroes with certain intense exercise programs, but those people are evidence that abnormally high levels of these hormones have unpleasant side effects.

Who can justify big muscles?

Our prehistoric ancestors needed large muscles, and so do people who work in physically demanding jobs, but as technology advances, fewer people use their muscles at their job. The sedentary workers should exercise on a regular basis in order to maintain their health, but they have no reason to build gigantic muscles.

If there was a public database that had information about everybody's life, we would be able to examine the jobs and leisure activities of the men who are involved with developing large muscles. This would allow us to determine how many of those men are actually using their muscles.

My impression is that most men are building gigantic muscles merely for the visual appearance. Some of them compete in bodybuilding contests, some are actors or models, and some are merely trying to impress other people. Since they never use their muscles for anything of value, they are "bodybuilders" rather than "athletes".

A man who builds up his muscles for his job is doing society a favor by enabling himself to do a better job, at a faster rate, and with fewer injuries. However, bodybuilders are a burden on society because, as with obese people, they consume excessive amounts of food and produce excessive amounts of waste products, but they give society nothing of value in return. To make the situation worse, bodybuilders inadvertently cause other men to become bodybuilders because they make the normal men look inferior.

There is no right or wrong to these issues. Bodybuilders are not a significant burden on society, so if people enjoy bodybuilding, then it is worth the burden. As I mentioned in a previous document, virtually everything we do could be described as "wasteful" or a "burden". We don't need attractive clothing, for example. We simply have to decide what we want for the future of the human race. This requires that we are capable of discussing these issues and compromising on policies.

There is not enough time, labor, or resources to do everything that we would like to do. We have to decide which activities are most important to us. How much bodybuilding should we encourage? When is a man going "too far" with his bodybuilding? How many expensive drugs and hormones should we provide to the bodybuilders? When is a woman going too far with her cosmetics or breast implants? How much of society's resources should we put into decorative clothing? How much of our resources should we put into bicycle paths? How decorative should we make our foot paths and bicycle paths? Should we add decorative LED lighting along our paths to make it easier and more enjoyable to walk or ride bicycles at night? Should we create artificial canals for our city, and if so, how decorative should they be? Should we put lights in the water of the canal? Should the canals have concrete walls, or should we make them out of decorative rocks?

To complicate the issue of how society should use its labor and resources, we should not conduct a poll of the population. The reason is because most people have no idea what they really want. Everybody knows what they are doing right now, and everybody has fantasies of what they want for their future, but they don't have a good understanding of themselves, or their options for the future, or how their desires can change by making other changes to society.

If we conducted a poll of the population today, we would find that many people claim to enjoy bodybuilding, pet dogs, video games, watching football on television, or collecting stamps, but they are basing this on what they know right now, not what their options are. If they were to experience life in a futuristic city that offered a wide variety of free activities to both observe and participate in, and a city in which it was easy to travel by foot, bicycle, or train, and a city in which it is easier for people to make friends, I think a lot of people would discover that they want to change some of their leisure activities.

Lots of men are involved with bodybuilding, and lots of women are involved with cosmetics, and lots of people spend hours every day with their pet dog, their video games, or their television. How many of these people really enjoy their leisure activities? How many people are involved with an activity simply because they don't know of anything better to do with their leisure time, or because they feel pressured to participate by their friends, spouse, or family members?

If we were living in a more friendly, homogenous city with significantly less crime, and if there were lots of free activities for us, and if people were encouraged to experiment with new activities, I think a lot of people would develop different leisure activities.

We should learn to enjoy being natural

Our society does not encourage children to learn about themselves, discover their abilities and limitations, and accept what they are. Children, especially girls, are taught that their natural condition is unpleasant, and that they need hair dyes, fingernail polish, tattoos, jewelry, piercings, hair creams, and other artificial items in order to become attractive.

Our free enterprise system does not encourage us to be natural because businesses want to sell products, and that requires convincing us that our natural condition is inadequate, and that their product will make us better. Why don't we ignore those businesses? Why are we so easily convinced that their product will improve our lives? Why don't we encourage people to be "natural" and enjoy the human body that they were born with?

The reason is because it is not natural for animals or humans to be happy with what they are. The competitive battle for life encourages animals and humans to show that they are better than other animals.

Women developed a craving to look pretty and groom themselves. They do not feel comfortable in their natural state. They want to be prettier than natural. The men developed a craving to show that they belong at the top of the social hierarchy and are capable of providing a family with food and protection from danger.

Neither men nor women feel comfortable looking for a spouse in our "natural" state. Rather, we want to do something to make ourselves more impressive. Our emotions give us the impression that our natural state is unattractive, and this causes the women to groom themselves, and it causes the men to show off their material wealth and strength.

Our prehistoric ancestors had such a low level of technology that their emotional cravings could never get out of control. The craving that prehistoric women had to look pretty caused them to keep themselves clean, pull the knots out of their hair, and produce attractive clothing. Today, however, our technology allows us to produce an incredible amount of cosmetic products, and this is causing women to get carried away with their desire to look pretty, and businessmen exploit the situation with lots of worthless products.

Prehistoric humans would groom themselves each day, but the women today are not "grooming" themselves. Rather, they are spending an excessive amount of time and resources on a futile attempt to become better than human. They are wasting hours every week on lipstick, hair dyes, eyeliners, piercings, nail polish, shampoos, jewelry, and other cosmetics.

Likewise, the men today are not merely grooming themselves. Many of them are wasting a lot of time, and risking their health, with steroids, oil injections, muscle implants, intensive exercise programs, piercings, hair creams, and other cosmetics.

A prehistoric man would rarely get a female by waiting for a female to come to him. The men who were most successful in reproducing were those who had a craving to pursue the females and impress them with their status, material wealth, and courage. As a result of this competitive pressure, men did not develop a craving to be honest about themselves, or to discuss issues with women, or to consider a woman's compatibility. Rather, they developed a craving to pursue and impress the women. Likewise, the women didn't develop any interest in being honest with men, or discussing issues with men, or analyzing a man's compatibility. They developed a desire to put themselves on display, passively watch the men pursue them, and wait for one of the men to titillate them.

We could rephrase these concepts by saying that we evolved emotions that encourage us to create phony images of ourselves and deceive a potential spouse into thinking that we are better than we really are. Our emotions do not want us to be "natural" or honest. Our emotions encourage us to create the impression that we are special; that we are better than other people.

When we follow our emotional cravings rather than make intelligent decisions, the women will spend excessive amounts of time trying to be the prettiest woman, and the men will spend excessive amounts of time trying to create the impression that they are the greatest man.

It was impossible for our prehistoric ancestors to get carried away with their emotional cravings, but it is very easy for modern humans to hurt themselves. For example, our body needs food, but after we have eaten what it needs, the excess will hurt our health. Many people are also hurting themselves with their attempts to look attractive, such as by abusing Botox or other injections in their lips or muscles.

Some of our modern grooming procedures are not dangerous, but they are worthless. For one example, many women have been convinced by cosmetic companies that they need to trim or alter their cuticles. For another example, women are shampooing the natural oils out of their hair and off of their skin, but unless the woman is suffering from defective oil glands, those oils are beneficial, and they give the women a nice scent, to men at least. After removing their natural oils, they have to replace them with artificial creams and fragrances.

In prehistoric times, emotional cravings could never get out of control because the men and women had to spend most of their time trying to survive and raise children. Furthermore, prehistoric people didn't have access to steroids, hair dyes, or Botox.

Technology provides us with phenomenal options, but most people don't put any significant thought into their options. Instead, they try to titillate their emotions, just like a stupid animal. The end result is that a lot of people are putting a lot of time, effort, and resources into modifying their physical appearance in an attempt to look better. This encourages other people to do the same so that they don't look inferior. If people were truly improving their lives or relationships with these activities, then they would be beneficial, but I don't see any evidence that these products are helping anybody.

Every year people go to a greater extreme in an attempt to make themselves become more visually attractive. At the beginning of the 20th century, only a minority of women in America were piercing their ears and using cosmetics, but today there are lots of men with pierced ears, and some men are wearing cosmetics, also. Cosmetic surgery is also becoming increasingly popular.

People today are going to extremes with breast implants, bodybuilding, Botox, and cosmetics.

The people in the future will have more advanced drugs, surgical techniques, and cosmetics. How much more extreme will they be?

Will most of the men in the future take drugs and look like Superman? Will most women have breast implants, lip injections, and artificial eyelashes? Will most people undergo several cosmetic surgeries to improve their nose, eyebrows, ears, and chin?

Tattoos are also becoming popular, and as more people become accustomed to putting designs in their skin, I would not be surprised if some cosmetic business develops a "skin dye" that allows us to change the color of our skin. The "fashion magazines" would respond by providing exciting articles about how the latest trend is to dye your skin purple, or multicolored, or glow-in-the-dark pink.

Maintaining good health is beneficial, but we cannot improve our lives or our relationships by transforming ourselves into non-human creatures. Many people are getting carried away with their emotional cravings to become more attractive. A person who doesn't enjoy himself in his natural state is not going to enjoy himself in an artificial condition. He will continue to be the same person with the same miserable life.

Instead of encouraging people to believe that the latest trend is muscle implants or lip piercings, we should tell people that the latest trend is to exert control over your emotional cravings, force yourself to think seriously about how you are going to benefit from your activities, and consider your options for the future.

How can we reduce steroid abuse?

It ought to be obvious that we cannot control steroids, or any other drug, with rewards or punishments, and that we ought to experiment with some other policy. If we can find enough people who are willing to create new cities and experiment with social technology, I would suggest that one of the cities experiment with sports that don't have any winners or losers. People would participate in sports simply for exercise, entertainment, or socializing.

When families and friends get together for parties or holidays, they frequently engage in sports that don't have winners or losers, such as the "Marco Polo" game that people play in a swimming pool. Sometimes friends play competitive sports, and they sometimes consider one of the players to be a winner, but they play the sports for fun, exercise, and to socialize, not to win a prize. The winner doesn't get anything for winning.

Why is there so much emphasis on winning sports events and providing the winner with an enormous prize? I think it is because men have intense cravings to be dominant and to collect material items, and for many centuries men have been inadvertently putting pressure on sports to offer increasingly larger prizes of money and fame. To rephrase that, the men who cannot control their emotional cravings are inadvertently pushing sports into becoming absurd competitive battles for gigantic financial rewards. Or we could describe it as: men are getting carried away in their attempt to satisfy their craving for dominance.

If a city did not provide any type of financial rewards for winning a sports event, nobody would be able to make a living through sports. There would be no professional athletes in such a city, unless the city government decided to support some. In such a case, those athletes would be hired by the city for a specific purpose, such as to put on entertaining shows, or to arrange sports and recreational events for schools, city festivals, or leisure activities. The athletes would be government employees. However, unlike athletes today, their job would not be to win sports events. Instead, their job would be to entertain people, or help children with physical activities or health, or arrange for recreational events for the city, or something else that is more useful to society than merely winning a trophy.

Since those type of athletes would be "government employees", they would have an attitude towards their job that is similar to other employees. Specifically, they would not be interested in risking their health or life. They would be more cautious about drugs, concussions, and risky stunts. As a result, they would seem to have less motivation and more of a concern about their health compared to the professional athletes of today, but so what? Do our lives really improve when athletes have such an intense craving to win a contest that they push themselves to such extremes that they hurt their health and give each other concussions? I don't think so.

In a city in which the professional athletes are government employees, and there is no prize for winning a sports event, most sports events would probably become so boring that nobody wants to watch them. For example, would we enjoy watching some government employees play football or rugby? How about watching some government employees throw javelins or run 100 meters? I don't think so.

The only government employees who would be interesting to watch would be those who are involved with truly entertaining sports, such as certain types of gymnastics, dancing, and ice-skating. When a school or military drill team performs for an audience, they don't have any winners or losers, or any competitive battle, but they are interesting to watch. We would quickly get bored watching the same drill team or dancers, but in a city that encourages people to experiment with new activities, the people are certain to develop a wide variety of new sports that we cannot imagine.

In addition to hiring athletes to entertain us, I think a city would want to hire some athletes to arrange for sports and recreational events for the city residents. The purpose for these athletes would be to encourage the people to get out of their house and participate in recreational events rather than watch other people. The athletes would design different events for people of different ages and abilities, and the purpose for the events would be to provide the people with exercise, socializing, and entertainment rather than for trophies or prizes. These athletes might also be useful for arranging recreational events for people during their lunch hour in order to encourage office workers to get some exercise while they are working.

Until we start experimenting, we will never know for sure what we would enjoy the most. The first people to experiment with gliders had no idea that their crude devices would develop into the airplanes that we have today, and the first city to experiment with sports will not have any idea of what sports will become after centuries of experiments.

We are fools to be frightened of experimenting with social technology. We should start the experiments now, before we die of old age. All we need to do in order to experiment with sports and other social technology is find the ability to push ourselves into tolerating the emotional discomfort that results from discussing these issues, and then we must push ourselves into tolerating the emotional discomfort of experimenting with sports. Is that really so difficult? I suppose it is for some people, but until you give it a try, you will never know if you have the ability to do it.

The CrossFit athletic events are a bit more advanced

In addition to removing the winners and losers from sports, we could also alter sports to reduce injuries from physical contact and risky stunts. Many people who enjoy football, hockey, and rugby would probably respond that safe sports would be boring, but the CrossFit athletic events are increasing in popularity despite the fact that they don't have any physical contact or risky stunts.

The CrossFit events are a random collection of physical tasks, such as running, swimming, pushing a sled on the grass, carrying a heavy ball, flipping a heavy object over and over, climbing a rope, and riding a bicycle. In addition to being safe, it provides the contestants with tremendous exercise. Different events put different muscles to use. A person who participates in lots of events will exercise virtually every muscle in his body. By comparison, most sports events give exercise only to a few muscles. For example, the American baseball players give tremendous exercise to their jaw muscles by chewing on tobacco and bubblegum for several hours.

The CrossFit events are much more appropriate for exercise, and the lack of physical contact and risky stunts eliminates the injuries and concussions that are common in contact sports. The CrossFit events have winners and losers because the athlete who finishes an event first is considered to be the winner of the event, but we could modify the sport so that nobody gets any prize for being first to complete an event. That would eliminate the concept that some people are winners and most people are losers. People would participate merely to exercise, socialize, and entertain themselves.

Of course, without winners or losers, the events would have to be modified to make them less intense. They are currently designed for people with absurd levels of physical strength and stamina, and who will push themselves to absurd extremes. However, we could easily design a variety of events for people of different ages and physical abilities. In such a case, a person would join the events that were designed for people of his particular abilities.

Why would a person want to participate in a sports event in which there are no winners? That would be like asking, why would anybody want to play Marco Polo with their family? Why would anybody want to take a bicycle ride with his friend? Why would anybody want to take a walk through a garden with his spouse? The answer is that you would join these recreational events to socialize and get some exercise. Furthermore, by designing some amusing events, the exercise can be entertaining in addition to useful.

By eliminating the winners and losers from the CrossFit events, and by altering the events to make them more suitable to ordinary people, we will create sports events that are safe, entertaining, and useful for exercise.

We could go one step further by making some of the events useful for society. For example, instead of having people push a sled across a grass field, they could each push a roller over the grass at a city park to aerate the soil. Instead of carrying a heavy ball a certain distance, they could carry some rocks that are going to be used to build a footpath or a plaza. Instead of lifting weights, they could dig holes for planting flowers or bushes.

In our cities of today, we dislike and fear the people we live with, and so we don't have any interest in doing anything useful for our city. Besides, most people don't want to spend much of their leisure time in their city. They spend most of their leisure time in their house, or at the house of a friend.

However, if we were living in a more advanced city that was designed for human life rather than business activity, as I've described in other documents, there would be lots of free social and recreational activities, and we would prefer to spend a lot of our leisure time outside of our home. If we also did a better job of controlling immigration and providing ourselves with proper leadership, then we would enjoy the people we lived with and consider them to be our friends. We would consider the city to be our home. In that type of city, we would be much more willing to participate in a sport that allows us to do something useful for our city while we get some exercise.

When we design exercise events that do something useful for society, then in addition to providing us with exercise, recreation, and socializing, we benefit from the satisfaction of doing something useful. For example, imagine that the photo below shows a path in the park between some of the castles of your city. If you participated in a "sport" in which you walked or rode along that path to assist with the grinding of tree branches into mulch or the maintenance of the path, then in addition to getting some exercise and meeting some of your neighbors, you would get more pleasure from walking or riding along that path than if other people were maintaining it.

Most people believe that they will get the most pleasure from life if they can become rich and spend their time sitting on a throne while being pampered by servants, but your emotions are fooling you. You will get more satisfaction from life if you participate in activities, even if it is only a small participation. If you assist with the planting of some flowers in the city, then whenever you walked past those flowers, they would mean more to you than if somebody else planted them.

I should remind you that although it might seem easy to experiment with new sports, since all animals and humans have an emotional resistance to making changes to our lives, it will require us to put some effort into pushing ourselves into giving the new sport a fair chance. Our emotions will cause every new activity to feel uncomfortable and idiotic, and this is especially true with recreational events because all recreational events truly are idiotic.

There is no way to design a sport or recreational event that is "intelligent". However, it is possible to design an event that provides us with some useful exercise, socializing, or entertainment, and we can also design an event to do something useful for society. It is also possible to design sports and recreational events that reduce injuries, and reduce the burden on society, such as reducing land and resource requirements.

Can you experiment with courtship activities?

Experimenting with courtship activities, or any other aspect of our culture, requires that we be willing and able to deal with failure. Everybody involved must understand that experimentation always results in more mistakes than successes, and that there are always lots of unexpected problems. The people should expect problems and try to learn from them rather than be shocked about them or whine about them.

It might seem easy to experiment with culture, but the reason I am putting so much emphasis on it in this document, and often repeating myself, is because I don't think many people are ready right now to experiment with culture. To understand why I make that accusation, consider the success of CrossFit gyms.

In 2005, there were 13 CrossFit gyms in the world, but today there are supposedly more than 7200. These gyms have become very popular, but why? Why are tens of thousands of people around the world paying a fee to become a member of these gyms? What do the customers expect to receive in return for their membership? Why are so many people willing to pay a fee to suffer extreme levels of physical discomfort?

It should be noted that if a police department forced their prisoners to do the type of physical exercises that the CrossFit gym members are undergoing, lawyers would be outraged at the "torture" that the police are subjecting the prisoners to. And then imagine that the police were forcing the prisoners to pay for the training.

Why are the customers of CrossFit gyms paying a fee to push themselves to tremendous levels of physical exhaustion, pain, and fatigue? Why are they are paying to torture their bodies over and over, day after day? Why do none of them whine about the pain or the exhaustion? Most of the people who join those gyms are not trying to become professional athletes, so why are they pushing themselves to such extremes?

The CrossFit gyms are not attracting "ordinary" people. If a random sample of the human population was forced to join a CrossFit gym, most of those people would whine about the abuse and demand that they be allowed to quit. The CrossFit gyms are attracting people who want to develop their muscles and physical skills, and who realize that they must put a lot of effort into exercising. Gyms, military units, mountain climbing organizations, and other types of adventure groups advertise themselves in a manner similar to,
"Are you physically tough? Join our group and you will be under pressure to push yourself beyond what you thought was possible."

Although the CrossFit gyms attract a small percentage of the population, there is another small percentage attracted to mountain climbing, and another small percentage attracted to kayaking, and another small percentage attracted to some other physically strenuous activity. Altogether, there are probably hundreds of millions of people around the world who are regularly pushing themselves into strenuous physical activities.

The reason millions of humans can push themselves into doing physical activities is because we are animals. An animal spends most of its life on physical activities, not intellectual activities. Animals evolved the ability and desire to use their muscles, but they never developed any craving to think, discuss issues, analyze themselves critically, analyze their leaders, or experiment with cultural issues, so they never developed an ability to push themselves into doing such intellectual activities.

As monkeys evolved into humans, we developed an ability and desire to think, but we are still primarily physical. It is more comfortable for us to push our muscles than to push our mind. It is easier for us to tolerate physical discomfort than it is to tolerate the mental discomfort that comes from research, analyses, and criticism.

By comparison, not many people are interested in pushing themselves in intellectual activities. There are no business that are intellectual equivalent of a CrossFit gym. There are no businesses advertising themselves in a manner such as,
"Do you think you have good control of your emotions? Can you deal with your fear of the unknown? Can you look critically at yourself and handle critical reviews of yourself? Can you control your nervousness when you talk to groups of people? If you are single, can you be honest with a potential spouse? Could you calmly answer a child's question about sex? Join our mental gym and you will learn to push your mind and emotions beyond what you thought was possible."

There are lots of businesses and television programs offering to help single men and women meet one another, but their method is to put the single men and women into contact with each other, and then it is up to each of the men and women to decide if they like one another. This method is not helping them to find a spouse. This is simply helping single people to meet other single people. These businesses are offering to please people, not push people into controlling their emotions and forcing themselves to think in a more intelligent manner.

If a person was single because he was having trouble meeting other single people, then those businesses might help him find a spouse. However, not many single people are suffering from a lack of contact with other single people. Rather, they are suffering because the natural method that men and women use to find a spouse is becoming increasingly inappropriate in this modern world, especially in nations such as America where the people are significantly different from one another.

The reason we have so much trouble finding a spouse is because our natural tendency is to create a phony image of ourself and try to impress and deceive the other person. A woman's natural emotional craving is to be passive, make herself look pretty, put herself on display, and then wait for men to pursue her. A man's natural tendency is to impress the women with their social status, strength, and gifts.

The end result of this crude, animal behavior is that when single people meet each other, neither of them learns much about the other person. They have to get together over and over, month after month, and sometimes for years, before they can figure out whether they want to marry the person. Unfortunately, humans don't live long enough for us to spend years trying to get to know just one person. We must speed up this idiotic process, and dramatically.

Our primitive ancestors could use this idiotic method of finding a spouse because they grew up in intimate contact with one another. They knew everything about one another. They knew how other people slept at night, what they were like when they woke up in the morning, and how often they picked their nose. There was no secrecy in primitive societies.

Also, our primitive ancestors had such a simple life that they didn't have to worry about compatibility in regards to smoking cigarettes, leisure activities, music, pets, or religion.

In order to speed up the process of finding a spouse, we have to devise some type of "artificial" courtship activity, which I referred to as a "singles pageant" in a previous document. In order for the singles pageants to be successful in helping us find a spouse, we must be able to suppress our emotions so well that we can follow unnatural procedures rather than do what we want, which is to impress and deceive one another.

We must design the singles pageants to put pressure on us to be honest about ourselves so that other people can determine whether we are compatible with them, and whether they feel comfortable with us. We have to stop considering the process of courtship as a competitive battle. There are plenty of men and women, so we don't have to rush into a marriage or fight one another for a spouse. We should relax, and get to know a lot of people before we make a decision.

It will be emotionally uncomfortable for us to be honest with potential spouses because honesty is unnatural for us. We have a strong craving to impress people, not be honest with them. Therefore, the only people who will be able to truly benefit from these singles pageants are those who can push themselves to extreme levels of emotional discomfort. They will be equivalent to the people who join CrossFit gyms, except that they will be pushing themselves to be honest rather than pushing their muscles.

It is difficult for us to be honest with a potential spouse because our emotions give us the impression that if we are honest, people will be disgusted with us and we will never find a spouse. This fear would become true if we were the only honest person, but if everybody is forced to be honest, then we all become equal.

It might help you to understand this concept if you understand why cheating is detrimental to schools, sports, science, and other activities. Consider an athletic contest. If we permit athletes to cheat, such as by taking drugs, or by sabotaging competitors, then the athlete who cheats will win, and the honest athletes will eventually respond by cheating also. Eventually all of the athletes will be cheating. The athletic contest will deteriorate into a contest of who is the best at cheating.

When single men and women create phony images of themselves and hide their history, then the courtship procedure is a battle between who is the most deceptive. If an honest person were to participate in a courtship activity with dishonest people, that honest person would allow people to see his imperfections, and that would make him appear to be inferior to the people who are creating phony images of themselves. However, if everybody is forced to be honest, then everybody will be seen as an imperfect human. This will make it easier for people to give up on the fantasy of finding a perfect spouse and instead look through the imperfect humans to find one who has compatible characteristics and imperfections. Since everybody will be seen as imperfect, nobody will be frightened that his imperfections will ruin his chances of finding a spouse.

Because of our natural craving to deceive one another, we cannot create a better courtship activity simply by putting single men and women together and allowing them to behave in whatever manner they please. We must have one or more supervisors to put pressure on the men and women to be more honest.

The supervisors also must put pressure on the people to expose the qualities about themselves that allow other people to determine whether they are compatible, such as how they spend their leisure time, and how they like to have dinner. Since many people, especially young people, have not tried very many different leisure activities, the supervisor should arrange for the people to experiment with a variety of activities so that everybody can discover what they enjoy, what other people enjoy, and who they feel comfortable with.

The participants of the singles pageants would be in a role similar to that of students in the classroom, or recruits in an Army boot camp. They would not behave in whatever manner they pleased. They would not be able to lie about their height, age, job history, marital history, medical records, or anything else. The supervisor would gather information about them and put pressure on them to be honest about themselves.

The first time you try to give a lecture to an audience, you will be nervous, and likewise, you will feel awkward and nervous the first time you participate in an advanced courtship procedure. However, if you push yourself into learning how to deal with the emotional pain, then you will have an easier time with the high level of honesty in the next courtship activity. And during the third activity, you will be even more comfortable. Eventually you will be able to relax enough to truly get to know other people, and allow them to get to know you. That will allow all of the participants to rapidly get to know dozens or hundreds of other people, and that will greatly increase the chances that people find a spouse that they are truly compatible with. For those people, the gain will be worth the pain.

How often do you have the "sour grapes" attitude?

I may seem to be putting too much emphasis on forcing people to be honest, or on exerting some effort to control your emotions, but it is because of decades of observations of how people cannot be honest with either themselves or other people, even in situations where there is no benefit to lying. For example, if you were to ask a group of young women who are wandering around a shopping mall, or along a public street that attracts a lot of single people, if they are putting themselves on display in the hope of finding a husband, they will almost certainly insist that they are out in public only because they want to have fun with their friends.

Some women are too stupid or ignorant to understand their emotions, but of the women who are capable of sensing that they are trying to find a husband, most of them cannot admit it to themselves or other people. They pretend that they are simply trying to "have fun". Some of the women will lie even further by insisting that they don't want a husband yet.

Women were not designed to be honest about looking for husbands. They were designed to be passive creatures who wait for men to pursue and titillate them. Women have to exert control over themselves simply to admit that they are looking for a husband.

Our natural method of finding a spouse is so idiotic for this modern world that it causes a lot of frustration, and most people react to the frustration in an inappropriate manner, such as anger, sarcasm, or pouting. For example, I have encountered single men and women who make insulting remarks about marriage and the opposite sex. They are frustrated that they haven't found a spouse, but rather than admit that they are lonely and frustrated, they try to convince themselves and other people that they are single because the opposite sex is an unpleasant creature, or because marriage is undesirable.

One of Aesop's Fables, The Fox and the Grapes, describes this particular and undesirable attitude. The people who behave like this are lying to themselves and other people, but there is no benefit to their lies. Their lies do not help them find a spouse. So why would a person choose to lie when there is no benefit? Why would a single person pretend that he doesn't want a spouse? Why do people develop the sour grapes attitude? I suspect that there are two main reasons as to why humans frequently develop the sour grapes attitude:

1) We are extremely arrogant, and we have no desire to look critically ourselves. We want to imagine ourselves as being better than other people. We develop the sour grapes attitude when we are in situations that cause us to become frustrated, confused, or frightened. Rather than admit that we cannot deal with the situation, or that we are failing, which is an admission that we are imperfect, we pretend that we are actually in complete control and achieving exactly what we want. Rather than admit that we are lonely and frustrated, we pretend that we don't want to be married yet.

2) To stop ourselves from crying. Most people don't have much control over their emotional cravings, so when they cannot have something they want, they have a tendency to have a tantrum, pout, cry, or become angry. For those particular people, they can reduce or eliminate their pouting by convincing themselves that they don't want the item.

If any person truly had good control over his emotions, then he wouldn't need the sour grapes attitude. He would be able to honestly admit that he has failed to achieve his goal, and he has no idea how to achieve it. He would be able to talk about the issue calmly.

Not many people have that much control over their emotions, and as a result, they frequently have temper tantrums, pout, or use techniques, such as the sour grapes attitude, to prevent themselves from crying and pouting.

Occasionally we admit that we cannot deal with a particular situation, especially when it is obvious, such as when we lose our temper or become violent, but when we make such admissions, we often follow it with a remark about how everybody would have problems in the same situation. Our arrogance makes it difficult for us to face the possibility that we are ordinary, or below average. We have an intense craving to be better than everybody else.

Sometimes people will admit that they are ordinary, or even below average, or that they have failed at something, but usually when people do this they do so in a sarcastic tone of voice, or while pouting, or in a joking manner. It is emotionally traumatic for us to admit that we are imperfect. It requires a lot of self-control to calmly admit that we are ordinary, or that we have failed at something.

If a person had good control of his emotions, then he would be able to calmly admit to himself and others, "Yes, I am single, and I would like to get married, but I haven't found a compatible spouse, and I don't know how to fix this problem. I am quite frustrated." Unfortunately, most people cannot control their emotions that well. When most people cannot get something they want, they react by pouting, hating, or becoming envious of whoever has the item. They cannot remain calm and be honest.

How can men and women form stable relationships when neither of them can be honest with themselves or their potential spouses? How can we create a society in which people are treated equally when everybody is struggling to be the dominant monkey of the hierarchy? How can we create a society in which material items are free of charge when people have such trouble controlling their craving for items that they stockpile enormous amounts of items and fight one another for even more? How can we reduce crime when so many people are unable to control their cravings to steal, rape, grope, cheat, bribe, blackmail, sabotage, and murder?

The answer to these questions is that we are not going to improve our society if we continue behaving like animals. We must exert control over our emotions and think more often.

Animals don't form "relationships". They simply use one another for their own selfish benefits. The reason it appears as if animals have relationships is because they have evolved compatible emotional cravings. As each animal selfishly tries to satisfy its emotional cravings, they form what appears to be a relationship. However, neither of them is capable of, or interested in, thinking about the relationship, contributing to the relationship, or considering what their partner wants or needs. When male animals have sex, for example, they are doing so for themselves, and they have no concern for what the female is feeling. Male and female animals don't have a "relationship"; rather, they have the type of bond that we find between sodium and chlorine.

Animals don't have relationships with their children, either. It appears as if animals have a relationship with their children because they feed and protect their children, and they play with their children, but they are merely trying to satisfy their emotional cravings.

Occasionally an animal will be born with emotional cravings that cause it to be slightly less effective as a parent. Those particular animals will be less successful at raising children, thereby removing those particular genes from their gene pool. The animals that survive the competitive battle for life are those who inadvertently take care of their children as they try to satisfy themselves. This creates the illusion that animals care about their children.

To be better than a monkey, control yourself

In order for humans to form relationships that are more sensible than those of the monkeys, we must exert some control over our crude emotional cravings. When a man and woman form a marriage, neither of them should expect to satisfy their every desire. Each spouse must consider giving something to the other in return for getting something.

A lot of people describe marriage as a "partnership", but my impression of most people is that they are actually entering into marriages with the expectation of satisfying their particular emotional cravings. They assume that their partner has compatible emotional cravings. They are not wondering what the other person wants or needs; they are focusing on their own personal emotional cravings and assuming their partner will be satisfied in the process.

If a man and woman were truly interested in forming a partnership, then one of the issues both of them would wonder about is: what is different between men and women? How can a man form a high-quality relationship with a woman unless he has some idea of what a woman wants and needs? Do women have the same dietary needs as men? What is the difference sexually between men and women? Do we sleep the same? Do men enjoy forests and parks more than women? Or do both of us enjoy nature to the same extent and in the same manner?

How many married couples can even discuss sexual issues seriously? Unless they can discuss the issue, they are likely to behave like monkeys who merely have sex to titillate themselves with no regards to their partner. My impression is that the majority of humans do not have the self-control necessary to discuss sexual issues. Men have a tendency to make jokes about sexual issues, and women have a tendency to remain silent. This is not advanced human behavior. This is monkey behavior. Some of those people may be able to get better control of themselves if they practice, but how many are willing to practice?

Many people refuse to exert themselves in physical exercise, and since we are more resistant to mental exercises, we can be certain that even more people will refuse to exert themselves in emotional exercises. Therefore, a lot of people are not going to improve their ability to control themselves.

It is wonderful that men can push themselves into performing athletic stunts, but this modern world is in need of men who can push themselves into forming stable marriages and friendships, and having serious discussions about sex with their partner.

How many married people feel comfortable talking to their spouse about sex? Most people seem to get married without bothering to determine whether they can discuss sexual issues with their partner, or issues about money, children, food, leisure activities, or holiday celebrations. Ideally, single people would discuss such issues before they got married in order to determine if they feel comfortable with one another when discussing these issues, and to determine whether they are compatible in regards to these issues.

I don't see very many people looking for a compatible spouse in a sensible manner. I see people behaving like monkeys. They are getting married to titillate themselves, and they don't have much concern about their partner, or their compatibility with their partner. Some extreme examples are the women who secretly get pregnant in order to force a marriage. Those women are behaving as selfishly as a monkey. Actually, we could describe such women as "child abusers" because they are giving birth to a child simply to entertain themselves, and they have no regard to whether they can provide that child with a proper family environment. Those women could also be described as "abusing men".

No society makes any attempt to educate young people about marriage. Schools will not teach children about marriage, their body, sex, or childbirth. Children are expected to find a spouse in complete ignorance, as if we are still a tribe of monkeys.

Animals and prehistoric humans don't have to worry about compatibility with their partner, but in this modern world, especially if we create new cities with lots of activities, we need to find a spouse that we have some compatibility with. This is going to require exerting control over our emotions. We must force ourselves to seriously analyze potential spouses for compatibility.

Since it is unnatural for humans to analyze a potential spouse for compatibility, we need to design courtship activities that will force us to do this unnatural act. We must figure out how to put people under pressure to force them to show a potential spouse what they would be like to live with, how they like to spend their leisure time, how they like to have dinner, and what they would be like to spend the night and morning with.

The courtship activities must force people to focus on compatibility rather than on impressing or entertaining one another. Also, the women must be pressured to take an active role in looking for a compatible spouse rather than passively wait for a man to pursue them.

If we create some advanced courtship activities, but the single men and women who participate do not have much control over their emotions, then they will behave like a bunch of monkeys. The women will waste their time looking pretty and waiting for a man to titillate them, and the men will waste their time trying to impress the women. They will not learn anything about their compatibility.

The same concept applies to the relationship that parents have with their children. In this modern world, parents must exert control over their emotional cravings and think about what would be best for the children. If parents don't have enough self-control, then they will treat their children in whatever manner they find titillating, such as playing with them as if they were toys; encouraging the children to behave and speak in silly manners in order to amuse the adults; or forcing the children to learn a particular musical instrument or sport in order to please the parents.

Monkeys cannot form advanced relationships because they don't have enough of an ability to think or control their emotional cravings. A zoo could build a wonderful exhibit for monkeys, complete with a school system, transportation system, and greenhouses, but the monkeys would not be able to use any of it. Although monkeys have the physical ability to use a transportation system, and although they are capable of sitting in school chairs and government offices, they do not have the intellectual or emotional abilities to use those systems.

What percentage of the human population would be able to handle a city in which food and material items are free? A significant percentage of the population has trouble controlling their consumption of food when they have to purchase it. What would happen when people have access to free food?

An even larger percentage of the population has trouble controlling their craving for material items. What will happen when they are in a city in which they have access to free material items?

The world has a lot of social problems, but they are not due to the devil, poverty, stupidity, or even ignorance. It is true that education can help people to behave in a more advanced manner, but only if the person has the mental ability to use that knowledge. No amount of education will allow a monkey to behave in a more advanced manner.

The people who are instigating wars, covering up the Jewish involvement in 9/11, operating pedophile networks, and causing other troubles, are not stupid, uneducated, or suffering from poverty. Many of them are above average in intelligence, education, and income.

Don't make excuses for people who are troublesome. Don't assume that you can fix their problems with education, punishments, or money. They are behaving in a destructive manner because of their mental and physical characteristics, and we don't know enough about the human mind and body to understand why they choose to behave in a destructive manner, or how to fix them.

If we create a new city, life in that new city will be exactly the same as it is in Chicago, Paris, and Moscow unless we restrict immigration to the people who are better behaved than the ordinary person. It is important to note that "better behavior" is not the same as "more intelligent". Although intelligence can give a person an advantage in controlling his emotions and allowing him to behave in a more sensible manner, a person needs more than intelligence to behave like a human. Increasing the intelligence of a monkey will not create a human. It will create an intelligent monkey. Conversely, decreasing the intelligence of a human will not create a monkey; it will create a stupid human.

The men who have trouble treating women as "humans" rather than as sex toys are not necessarily stupid, and the women who treat men as sources of money and sperm are not necessarily stupid, either. Virtually everybody who is involved with cheating us in the banking, credit card, and financial markets are above average intelligence. The people in the media who are lying to us about the Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attack are above average intelligence. The scientists who are trying to deceive us into believing that our government can control global warming with carbon taxes are also intelligent.

We cannot judge a person by his intelligence, whether he has a college diploma, how much money he earns, or his job title. We must look at how a person behaves, and how he affects society. We have to look at their emotional qualities, and their ability to control themselves. All of us have crude emotional cravings, but we differ in our ability to control ourselves and behave in a sensible manner. We also differ in our ability to tolerate the emotional pain of dealing with the unknown, tolerating criticism, and accepting the fact that we can't always get what we want. In order to create a better society, we need to restrict immigration to the people who are less like an animal and who show the more advanced, human qualities.

Some people are not capable of advanced relationships

A male monkey sees a female monkey as nothing more than an object to have sex with, and he wants sex with every female he is attracted to. A male monkey has no concern for what the female experiences during sex acts. The more similar to a monkey that a man is, in regards to his attitudes towards sex and women, the more likely he will be to treat the women as sex toys, and the stronger his craving will be to have sex with every female he is attracted to, and the less concern he will have about whether the women are enjoying the sex act.

A female animal considers a male animal to be nothing more than a supply of sperm and a provider of food. The more similar a woman is to an animal, in regards to her attitudes towards men, the stronger her craving will be to treat men in the same crude manner.

If we could measure a person's similarity to monkeys in regards to their attitudes towards the opposite sex, we would find that half the population is "average" in regards to their similarity to monkeys. The people who are below average will have a greater resemblance to animals, and they will form a more crude relationship compared to the people who are above-average.

It doesn't do us any good to develop a better school system, government system, social affairs, holiday celebrations, city festivals, or economic system unless the city consists of people who have the ability to properly use those systems. A truly impressive train system will not be of much value if all of the men are regularly groping women and children, or if the people regularly vandalize the trains.

All around the world are people who are stealing items, forcing children to have sex with them, forming crime networks, lying in their news reports, trying to instigate racial fights and wars, and cheating us in businesses. Those people are behaving in a destructive manner because of their crude mental qualities, not because of ignorance, poverty, stupidity, or the devil. Furthermore, we cannot transform them into respectable people simply by creating more laws, or putting more of them into jail. We must face the unpleasant fact that some of our fellow humans simply do not have the mental qualities necessary to deal with this modern world.

We must exert some control over our emotions and accept the fact that half the human population is below average, and the people who are average are not very impressive, either. A lot of people are incapable of forming stable friendships and marriages, and a lot of people are unable to cope with food, alcohol, gambling, and material wealth. We have to stop feeling sorry for the people who can't deal with life, and we must stop them from ruining other people's lives.

A new environment will disrupt relationships

If we were to create a City of Castles, as I've described in other files, the residents would experience a dramatically different life. Their job environment would be noticeably different, and there would be even more dramatic changes to their leisure time because of the free food and material items, and all of the free social and recreational activities.

I suspect that everybody will start experimenting with social and leisure activities, and many people will also want to spend some of their leisure time getting involved with society in some manner, including taking a part-time job in the government so that they can participate in the management of society. Through the years I think that a lot of people will make new friends, and many of the married couples, possibly most of them, will notice that they prefer to spend their leisure time with somebody else.

It is easy for us to make new friends, but we have a strong resistance to divorce. In a City of Castles, however, divorce is very easy because nobody owns any of the material items or homes, so married couples don't have to divide up material items or pay alimony. Children are also supported by society, so nobody has to pay child support. The only issue that makes divorce complicated is if the couple has young children, in which case they have to decide which of them is going to take care of the children.

When we make a dramatic change to our social environment, many people will want to change their leisure activities, hobbies, friends, spouse, or jobs. Therefore, the people who move to a City of Castles will need the attitude of an explorer who is traveling to another planet to start a new life for himself. These people need the ability to walk away from what they are familiar with, turn their back on their friends and relatives, and be prepared to experiment with a new life.

I think that many of the married couples who move into a City of Castles will eventually start to drift apart from one another. If both of them want a divorce, then there will be no problem, but if only one of them does, then we have the potential of fighting, crying, or worse.

The married couples who choose to move to a dramatically different social environment should be prepared to deal with the possibility that one or both of them will eventually want a divorce. If they cannot face that issue calmly and rationally, they will be a disruption to other people.

Some people react to divorces with temper tantrums, violence, pouting, and attempts to get revenge on their spouse or their spouse's new partner. Their friends and relatives tend to react by feeling sorry for them, and lawyers exploit the situation by charging high fees to help them get divorced, and many lawyers seem to encourage the fight to continue as long as possible. We also allow people to file restraining orders on one another.

A more appropriate reaction to people who cannot get divorced in a sensible manner is to regard them as savages who don't have the emotional or intellectual ability necessary to deal with the complexities of modern life. If a person needs a restraining order, he should be regarded as unfit for society. A restraining order is an intangible "leash". A human who needs to be kept on a leash should be regarded as a savage, not a human. We should not let angry or violent savages degrade the morale of the city, and we should not allow lawyers, businesses, government officials, or anybody else to profit from divorce, crime, or natural disasters.

Exactly what would a singles pageant be?

Exactly how should the singles pageants be designed? Should the groups be small, such as 6 to 12 people? Or should they be even smaller, such as just one man and one woman? What type of questions should the supervisor force the people to answer? What type of activities would be most useful in helping the people get to know one another and determine their compatibility?

It is important to understand that neither I, nor anybody else, can figure out how to create a singles pageant that helps us find a spouse better than what we are doing right now. All we can do is devise a variety of different pageants to start the process. The first pageants would be "experiments", not "solutions". I would expect them to be somewhat of a failure, and possibly quite awkward and uncomfortable, but if we analyze the results, we will figure out how to improve them.

Through the years, we would start noticing which activities and questions are most useful for helping people to get to know one another, and what type of environment is best for these pageants.

You might wonder, why would anybody want to go to the very first pageants when I have so little confidence in their success? Wouldn't it be better to wait until the pageants improve? The same concept applies to material items and computer software. The first people to use a new product are most likely to discover that the product needs improvement. By comparison, the people who wait a few years are likely to get an improved product.

If everybody waits for somebody else to be the first to use new products, software, or courtship procedures, then society will be stagnant. Obviously, a certain number of people must be willing to be the first to use something new. Those people need the attitude of an explorer. They must be able to deal with emotional discomfort and unexpected problems.

Animals and humans have a strong emotional craving to remain with the crowd and avoid anything unusual, unpleasant, or dangerous. Most people are so afraid of wandering away from the crowd and so afraid of failure, embarrassment, and awkwardness that they will not participate in experiments. Most people prefer to wait for other people to take the risks.

If everybody in a society is so frightened of the unknown and so afraid of failures that they wait for somebody else to do the risky activities, then nothing will ever be accomplished. Progress depends upon having a certain number of people who are willing to wander away from the crowd, explore the unknown, and deal with the unexpected problems.

Loneliness is becoming an increasingly serious problem in this modern world, and not only for the single people. From my own personal observations, many married couples are not very happy with their spouse. Many people get married because they are afraid of remaining single, not because they found somebody they are truly compatible with.

Relationships between men and women are terrible, but we are not going to improve the situation when everybody is afraid to experiment with new techniques for men and women to meet one another. We need to find a certain number of men and women who have enough control over their emotions to be willing to experiment with different courtship methods. This requires finding men and women who are willing to force themselves into situations that are emotional uncomfortable. Do you have that ability?

Men who can do physical work can inspire other men to do physical work, which is wonderful, but this modern world needs men who can inspire other men to control their emotions and think more often. We need men who can form marriages that inspire us to get married rather than make us glad that we are single. We also need men who can inspire us to remain calm and participate in experiments to improve our economic system and school system.

Many of the men who join gyms will tell one another, "No pain, no gain", but how many will respond with that expression in regards to developing better courtship activities, or developing a better economic system?

Before I continue, let me point out that it is possible to get people to participate in experimental singles pageants or a new economic system if we offer them some reward, such as money, fame, sex, or whatever else they want. The greater the reward we offer, the more people we will attract. Unfortunately, when people join an activity simply for the reward, they are not going to become true "participants". They will be analogous to dogs on a race track that are chasing a plastic rabbit. Instead of becoming "team members", they will merely do what is necessary to get their reward.

As I pointed out in many other documents, we cannot make a person become something he is not. We cannot transform a monkey into a human simply by offering him a reward or threatening him with punishments. If a person is behaving like an animal because he is ignorant or has picked up bad attitudes, then we can help him by providing him with an education. However, if a person is behaving like an animal because he doesn't have the mental circuitry necessary to behave like a human, there is nothing we can do to help him.

A business, military, police department, and sports organization can attract more people by offering more money or more retirement benefits, but when a person is doing a job simply for the money, he is just a circus animal who is performing a trick. In order to improve society, we need people who will do their jobs and participate in experiments because they are truly interested in helping to improve society.

Monkeys, seals, and other animals do not care how they acquire food, sex, water, or territory. This allows us to train an animal to do anything, even if it is idiotic, destructive, or dangerous to the animal. If animals were a bit more intelligent, we would be able to train them to become assassins, create deceptive advertisements, sell defective products, and become dishonest political candidates.

A human who will do a job simply for money is no more advanced than a monkey who can do a trick for a banana. We cannot create a more advanced society with people who don't care what they are doing with their lives, or who don't care about the quality of the lives of other people. We need people who have a true desire to contribute to society, not people who only want the benefits of society. We need people who want to form teams, not people who are envious of talented people and who try to eliminate competitors and dominate us. We need people who truly want to improve life for their teammates, not people who are concerned only with their particular emotional cravings.

There are some businesses that are offering to help single men and women find a spouse, but if their primary goal is profit, then they are simply treating the single men and women as business opportunities. In order to develop better courtship activities, we need to find supervisors who are truly interested in helping men and women find a compatible spouse. They cannot be doing the job merely for money, trophies, or threats of jail. We need to find people who are truly interested in improving life for us.

Furthermore, the people developing these courtship activities must also be capable of critically analyzing their previous experiments and looking for improvements. If they are unable to look critically at their previous work, or if they are too frightened to experiment with possible improvements, then they are not going to be able to improve the procedures. They will merely repeat the same procedures over and over.

To put these concepts in different words, the businesses that are currently offering to help single men and women are focusing on profit, not helping single men and women. They want the fun of helping single people (namely, the money), but not the responsibility (namely, studying the issue, conducting experiments, doing critical analyses, and then conducting more experiments).

These concepts apply to other social issues, also. For example, many or most government employees want the fun of being in the government (namely, money and status), but they don't want the responsibility (namely, studying society, conducting social experiments, doing critical analyses, and then conducting more experiments).

The government officials who create laws enjoy the fun of creating laws, but they don't want the responsibility of analyzing the effect of their laws and trying to figure out how to improve them. They are like children who want to play while somebody else handles the responsibilities. They don't want to push themselves into performing critical analyses of themselves and their policies. They want to avoid emotional discomfort and awkwardness.

Our leaders should be among the best in regards to dealing with emotional pain, and they should be among the best in pushing themselves into doing research and analyses. They should be able to inspire us to become better.

Imagine living in a society in which the government officials truly had an interest in improving society, and could push themselves like athletes into doing research, analyses, and experiments. Those type of leaders would not follow the same policies decade after decade. They would look for improvements, even if the policies appeared to be working fine.

How are we going to reduce crime when we continue to follow the same useless policies year after year? Many people can sense that our current crime policies are doing nothing to stop crime or corruption, but not many government officials have the desire or intellectual ability to analyze any of these laws or policies, and they don't have the desire or intellectual ability to experiment with new policies.

The only way we can reduce crime is to start experimenting with policies. There is no "solution" to crime. All we can hope for is to reduce crime. Furthermore, it is very important for everybody to understand that no matter which policy we experiment with, there are going to be a lot of people who suffer a lot of emotional discomfort as a result. The only way we will reduce crime is to insist that everybody stop whining, stop looking for excuses to do nothing, and deal with the pain.

The only way we are going to improve our economic system is to start experimenting with changes to the economic system. This requires that we tell everybody to stop their whining, deal with the emotional pain, and look for ways to improve the experiments.

Likewise, the only way we are going to improve schools, social affairs, holiday celebrations, museums, and sports is to tell people to stop their whining and start experimenting and analyzing.

How many Orientals can look critically at chopsticks?

A lot of Orientals consider themselves to be tough because they can do martial arts or eat sea urchin sushi, but how many of those physically tough Orientals have the emotional strength to look critically at their culture? How many are capable of experimenting with different economic systems, school systems, or holiday celebrations?

For a simple example, consider the issue of chopsticks. If we could travel thousands of years back in time, and observe all of the people on the planet, we might come to the conclusion that the Orientals were the most advanced of all people because they were using chopsticks while other people were using their fingers.

Although the Chinese began the development of eating utensils sooner than other people, progress soon ceased and they began mindlessly following their ancestors. Meanwhile, other societies began to advance, and eventually developed forks, spoons, and knives.

Are the Orientals going to use chopsticks for the next 10,000 years? Or will they consider the possibility that forks, spoons, and knives are superior alternatives? Or will they try to develop some eating utensils that are even better than chopsticks, forks, and spoons?

I have used chopsticks many times throughout my life, and my analysis of chopsticks is that they are awkward and inferior to forks, spoons, and knives. The primary problem with chopsticks is that they can grasp only a small percentage of the foods we eat. They are awkward for most everything we eat, especially soups, pies, cranberry relish, casseroles, quiches, peas, and 90% of the other modern foods.

When eating noodles with chopsticks, people tend to suck the noodles into their mouth, which makes disgusting slurping noises.

There is not much difference in the noise and visual appearance of eating noodles with chopsticks, and vomiting noodles.

When eating rice with chopsticks, people tend to put the bowl near their face and shove the rice in.

With large pieces of meat, they have to chew off small pieces.

Having dinner with people who use chopsticks is like eating with dogs that are putting their face in a bowl and slurping up the food.

I think the slurping noises are revolting, and it is visually unpleasant, also.

I would describe chopsticks as a crude, prehistoric eating utensil. I don't think any of the Orientals have conducted serious analyses of eating utensils and have come to the conclusion that chopsticks are superior to forks, spoons, and knives.

I think they are continuing to use chopsticks for the same reason that Americans are continuing to use the Imperial system of measurements, and the same reason that so many nations are continuing to support the concept of Kings and Queens. Specifically, the majority of people don't want to think, make changes in their life, look critically at themselves, exert themselves physically or mentally, or explore the unfamiliar.
This man is recovering from a CrossFit athletic event.

How many Orientals can put this level of effort into analyzing their eating utensils, language, or other aspects of their culture?

How many Orientals can tolerate the emotional discomfort of a critical review as well as this man is tolerating physical discomfort?

How many Orientals will react to my critical analysis of chopsticks by thinking about the issue, and how many will whine that I am racist or insulting?

Many Orientals boast about their ability to do martial arts, climb mountains, or practice some ancient tradition, but in this modern world, nobody benefits from Orientals who engage in such activities. By comparison, the entire world would benefit if more Orientals could get better control of their emotions and put some serious effort into analyzing their culture, looking critically at their governments, discussing where they want to go in their future, and experimenting with improvements to their nations.

Human societies are no longer small, isolated tribes of primitive savages. Human societies are now interacting with one another. As a result, everybody in every nation would benefit tremendously if the Chinese and North Koreans would develop a better government for themselves. We should not encourage the Chinese to climb mountains or practice ancient traditions. We should encourage them to improve their nation and impress us with their cities, economic system, schools, eating utensils, artwork, furniture, and social affairs.

In a previous document, I mentioned that the Chinese have built entire cities that are virtually empty, but I did not speculate on the purpose of those cities. One possibility is that the Jews had tricked the Chinese into building those cities because the Jews were planning to get control of the Chinese government. The Jews would become the Kings and Queens of China, and the Chinese people would be their slaves. This would also explain why the Chinese built empty cities in Africa, also; specifically, the Jews were hoping to get control of Africa, and they wanted some new cities for their African headquarters.

The Chinese impressed the world with their cargo port in the ocean near Shanghai, and if they were to put the same level of effort into controlling their emotions, looking critically at their society, and improving their government, schools, social affairs, and economic system, they would impress us with their culture. However, they are not impressing the world when they build empty cities, or when they steal technology from other nations, or when they build gigantic gambling cities, or when their citizens sell their kidneys or their children in order to afford food.

Every nation is responsible for its image, and its internal problems. We should not encourage nations to blame their troubles on other nations, or on mysterious concepts, such as poverty. We should not even respond to North Korea's whining because that encourages them to whine, and it wastes our time. Everybody should be encouraged to look critically at their society and try to find ways to improve life for the entire human race. Instead of behaving like monkeys that fight over land and resources, we should compete with one another to create the most impressive cities, the most effective school system, and the best eating utensils.

Is this healthy for human legs?
The practice of sitting on the floor while eating, which is common in Japan, made sense in primitive times because it was difficult for primitive people to make chairs and tables, but is sitting on the floor really the most comfortable and healthy position for humans? I don't think so.

Are the Japanese going to continue living in overcrowded conditions for the next million years? Are they going to continue sitting on the floor as they eat? Will they continue to use the same primitive language for the next million years? If they were to start a colony on another planet, would they design the cities on that planet so that everybody lives in tiny, cramped homes, eats rice on the floor with chopsticks, and uses a crude, prehistoric language?

Instead of praising a man for climbing a mountain or having big muscles, praise the men who have the ability to look critically at themselves and their culture, and who have so much control over their fear of the unknown that they can participate in experiments to improve society.

This woman is recovering from a CrossFit athletic event. She pushed herself to the point at which she is exhausted, and is probably suffering from a level of pain that most people would whine about.

A lot of people can tolerate physical discomfort as well as this woman, but how many can tolerate the emotional discomfort that results from a critical analysis of their culture?

Imagine living with a group of people who can push themselves to such high levels of emotional pain that they can discuss social issues and experiment with improvements to society, and without tantrums, clenching their teeth, or whining.

Your life will not improve if more people decide to push themselves into climbing mountains, but all of us will benefit significantly when more people push themselves into controlling their fear of the unknown, their arrogance, their temper, their hunger, their sexual cravings, and their cravings for status. We also benefit from people who can push themselves into giving and receiving constructive criticism and serious analyses. We benefit when people push themselves into controlling their selfishness to such an extent that they can make decisions that are best for society. Tolerating emotional pain is more important than tolerating physical pain.

Why did Japan change dramatically after World War II?

After World War II was over, Japan became a much more significant political and economic influence over the world. Their nation began modernizing at an incredibly rapid pace. Why did they modernize so quickly after World War II?

There are different ways of interpreting Japanese history, but I suspect the primary reason for Japan's transformation was because America helped many of the Japanese people get over their attitude of mindlessly following their ancestors.

Prior to World War II, Japan had the type of stagnant society that was common in all other nations. Human societies have a tendency to become stagnant for two primary reasons:

1) Humans are selfish. When people get into leadership positions, their primary concern is maintaining their position and satisfying themselves, not providing leadership. They encourage the majority of people to be submissive and passive rather than encourage them to think new thoughts, explore the unknown, and look critically at society. They promote obedience to authority. They encourage people to believe that criticizing society or the government is traitorous.

They tend to regard talented people as potential threats rather than as valuable members of society. They want to suppress, blackmail, and murder their competitors rather than encourage them to become leaders. They want to pass on their wealth, land, businesses, and positions of authority to their children and spouses. By suppressing talented people, and by promoting their own family members, society becomes dominated by incompetent leadership.

2) The majority of people are naturally submissive to their leaders. Our tendency is to pamper our leaders rather than give them performance reviews and replace those that are not providing proper leadership. As a result of this crude behavior, once a society develops incompetent leadership, the majority of people mindlessly obey their incompetent leadership rather than throw them out of office.

In Japan, prior to World War II, the attitude of giving obedience to leaders was so strong that employees were expected to keep one job throughout their life, as if they were a slave of the business owner.

American culture is more tolerant of exploration, independence, and the concept of giving everybody a chance to become educated and test their abilities in jobs and businesses, regardless of the family they were born into. Americans also have a slightly greater resentment of people who inherited their position, and a greater respect for people who earned their position.

I think that the main reason Japan began modernizing so quickly after World War II was because the Americans had, perhaps inadvertently, encouraged many of the Japanese to become somewhat more independent, look more critically at their leaders, and stop thinking of themselves as slaves of a business owner.

Our natural tendency is to create a medieval monarchy

It is important to note that during the two centuries that America has existed, people in leadership positions have been struggling to eliminate their competition, and make it easier for them to pass their material items, businesses, and land to their children. Many business owners have also been bringing in people from other nations to use as cheap labor. If our business and government leaders could have their way, America would eventually degrade into a medieval kingdom in which our government and business leaders are wealthy and pampered, and the rest of us are their submissive peasants.

Human emotions were designed to create the simplistic type of society that we see with monkeys. In order to provide ourselves with better leadership, we must exert control over our crude emotions and force ourselves to restrict leadership to the people who truly have leadership abilities. Furthermore, we must regularly give performance reviews to our leaders to ensure that they are keeping their emotions under control and providing us with proper leadership.

We have expressions, such as "power corrupts", to describe the abusive and selfish behavior of people in leadership positions. Those expressions imply that wonderful humans become corrupt when given positions of leadership. These concepts are false, however. The human brain doesn't change its internal structure when a person acquires a leadership position.

The reason people have a tendency to become more selfish and arrogant when they are wealthy or acquire a leadership position is because they become more free to do as they please. When a person has a job that is low on the social hierarchy, such as a waitress, plumber, or gardener, he will be under close scrutiny by his boss, and other people will also reprimand him if he becomes unusually abusive or selfish. The people who are low on the hierarchy are kept under control by other people.

When a person is promoted to a leadership position, everybody will instantly become submissive to him. He will not be under close scrutiny by anybody. He will have much more freedom than other people to do as he pleases. As the days pass, he will slowly adapt to his freedom by becoming more relaxed and doing as he pleases. Since humans are naturally selfish and arrogant, this is going to result in his behavior becoming increasingly abusive. This creates the illusion that a wonderful human, who had good control of himself, became selfish, abusive, and corrupt as a result of the mysterious substance we refer to as "power".

Our crude emotional characteristics did not cause trouble for our prehistoric ancestors because they lived such a simple life that it made no difference if their leader was letting his arrogance and selfishness get out of control. The leader of a primitive tribe didn't have much of an effect on the members of the tribe, and he had no effect on people in other areas of the world.

In a modern society, however, one person in a position of importance can significantly affect the lives of millions of people, and the future generations, and so we must be concerned about what our leaders are doing. If we behave like stupid monkeys who give blind obedience to our leaders, then we allow our leaders to do whatever they please, and that is likely to result in our leaders slowly growing accustomed to becoming as selfish and arrogant as they desire, which in turn is likely to result in significant problems for the entire world.

If we follow our emotions like a stupid monkey, we will create the type of stagnant, abusive monarchies that we saw during the Middle Ages. It is imperative that people today be able to exert some control over their emotions and do what makes sense rather than what we want to do.

We currently admire people who can push themselves into doing physical activities, but we need to admire the people who can push themselves into controlling their emotions, making intelligent decisions, and behaving more like a human than a monkey.

Leaders should be explorers

In every nation, the majority of people prefer to follow their ancestors. When these people are allowed to vote, they tend to select candidates who advocate following traditions. Most voters would be terrified of a candidate who proposed conducting experiments with society.

Our primitive ancestors didn't need to conduct experiments with society because they didn't do much, but modern societies are very complex, and suffering from a lot of problems. We should not follow traditions. We need to analyze our problems and start experimenting with possible improvements.

Voters should not look for candidates who have similar opinions, or who praise voters, or who kiss the babies of voters. A political candidate who agrees with us and makes us feel good is a "salesman", not a "leader". Voters should look for candidates that we can learn from and be inspired by. Voters should look for candidates who have a history of finding improvements to society, and who have demonstrated the ability to push themselves into doing research and analysis. Voters should look for candidates who have better control of their emotions than the ordinary people.

An organization cannot improve itself when its leaders and members are struggling to maintain everything exactly as it is. Improvements require experimentation. This requires that the leaders be able to disregard tradition, control their fear of the unknown, and push themselves into conducting experiments and analyzing the results.

Most people are “ordinary”, and half the population is below average. We are not going to get good leadership when we allow people with average abilities to select our leaders. Voting should be restricted to the people who are above-average in analyzing the leadership ability of political candidates.

Candidates who promise to follow traditions and keep everything as it is are not "leaders". Those type of people should be described as "maintenance men". To understand this concept, consider the difference between a bicycle mechanic and a bicycle engineer. The mechanic fixes problems with the bicycle and keeps the bicycle in good working condition, whereas the engineer experiments with new designs, materials, and bearings in an attempt to improve the bicycles.

A person who can fix problems with society is a valuable person, but he should be described as a "social mechanic" or a "social maintenance man", not as a "leader". For example, if a school system, farm, factory, or social club is experiencing chaos as a result of people retiring from their job, or as a result of changes with technology, or because of a hurricane, then we could ask a social maintenance man to get the organization functioning again.

However, if we are looking for a person to improve the school curriculum, or figure out how a factory can reduce its output of toxic chemicals, or make a decision about whether we should move certain crops from outdoor fields into hydroponic farms, then we don't want a social mechanic. We need a leader for those tasks. A leader will be capable of researching the issue, conducting experiments, and analyzing those experiments. Leaders will explore methods to improve society rather than maintaining society as it is. Leaders could be described as “social explorers” or as “cultural explorers”.

If we continue to allow the ordinary people to dominate our economic system, government system, social affairs, and other culture, then our future will be a continuation of the present. By comparison, if we put talented leaders in control of society, then our future becomes an exploration into the unknown. Although this will cause some emotional trauma, we will benefit tremendously. We will slowly find ways to improve society. Although the exploration will create emotional pain, once you experience the improved society, you would not want to go back in time to a more primitive era.

When restricted to chopsticks (the white objects on the table), we must eat soup by putting the bowl in front of our face. This is messy with thick soups and large pieces of vegetables or meat.

The Japanese are not eating soup like this because they have experimented with different utensils and have determined that this is truly the most desirable method. Rather, they are simply too frightened of wandering away from the crowd to experiment with other utensils.

If the Japanese would put cultural explorers in control of their society, then the Japanese people would be encouraged to explore life and experiment with possible improvements.

Humans and animals do the bare minimum necessary. When a person's life is comfortable, he will resist even small changes. In order for a person to be willing to change his life, he needs some type of incentive, or pressure. The bigger the change, the more significant the pressure must be. For example, changing a language is a tremendous change, so no nation would change their language unless they were put under extreme pressure.

I think Japan would benefit significantly if they replace their primitive language with something more modern, such as English. Even though English is imperfect, it would significantly reduce the educational burden on their children, and it would allow us to freely communicate with them. However, no nation is going to change their language unless put under an incredible amount of pressure.

A nation will be even more resistant to making a change if nobody else has ever made it before because that will trigger their fear of the unknown. For example, many nations have switched to the metric system, so Americans aren't afraid that they will suffer as a result of the switch. Rather, they resist switching simply because they don't want to make the effort. For America to switch to the metric system, all we have to do is make an effort to learn something new. We will not be exploring the unknown or facing potential failure.

By comparison, no society has switched to the type of economic system in which food, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities are free, so a proposal to make such a change will cause people to be frightened of the unknown. Switching to a new economic system is not simply learning how to do what other people have already done. It is exploring the unknown and facing potential failures. Only people with tremendous self-control will be able to make a dramatic change that nobody has made before. Our fear of the unknown is so strong that we would rather remain on a path that is miserable than wander into uncharted territory.

How will any nation make any significant change to its economic system, government system, language, social activities, or holiday celebrations? No society has made changes like that before, so the first nation to do so will be exploring the unknown, and this is going to cause tremendous emotional trauma.

Men are willing to push themselves to extreme physical limits in gyms, when climbing mountains, and other physical activities, but very few of them show any ability or desire to tolerate the emotional discomfort that results from experimenting with a new government system, or from a critical analysis of their culture.

If you have tried to explain to people that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that the Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 with explosives, you must have noticed that the majority of people react to the information with silence or fear. They behave like a rabbit that just noticed that a wolf is staring at it.

If a person cannot handle the emotional discomfort of discussing the Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attack, how could he possibly handle the discomfort of experimenting with a new government system or a new economic system?

We want the pleasure of voting, not the responsibility

The issue of voting is another example of why we must control our emotions and learn to confront people who are interfering with social progress. Most people want to vote because they enjoy the titillation of voting; namely, the feeling that they are important people who are in control of their government. However, most voters refuse to accept the responsibility of voting. They don't want to do any serious research or analysis of the candidates, and they especially don't want to take the blame for their corrupt and incompetent government. Almost every voter makes excuses as to how their disgusting government is the fault of somebody else, such as the other voters, the mysterious and elusive "special-interests", or the people who do not vote.
I am a super voter who makes brilliant decisions. The government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent because of the other voters and the Special Interests, not because of me!
Businesses expect each employee in the Personnel Department to be responsible for his actions. If a Personnel Department was routinely hiring people who turned out to be incompetent or dishonest, some or all of the employees would be fired or given some other position. The Personnel Department would not be allowed to blame other people for their mistakes.

Compare the difference in attitude we have towards athletes and voters. Athletes are expected to put so much effort into training and performing that they suffer physical exhaustion, and sometimes physical pain. By comparison, voters are not expected to put any effort into analyzing the candidates or the government officials. We want voters to enjoy themselves, not suffer the discomfort of research and analysis.

Imagine living in a society in which the voters are required to exert a lot of mental effort. Imagine that the only people who are allowed to vote are those who can push themselves as hard as athletes. For example, imagine voters spending at least one evening each month at meetings where they participate in the research and analysis of government officials, and they discuss which official should be replaced, and who would be a likely replacement. Imagine that every voter is required to participate in the research, the analyses, and the discussions. No voter is permitted to sit quietly in the back of the room and listen to other people.

Imagine a group of voters who are capable of dealing with emotional discomfort so well that they can do the analyses without whining, and that they can control their cravings for praise so well that they don't have to waste any time giving one another compliments. In such a case, their meetings would never have worthless remarks such as, "We thank you for your opinion..." or "I defend your right to state your opinions, but I must politely disagree..."

Imagine a group of voters who can ignore their emotional cravings for praise and status; tolerate the discomfort of research and analysis; and push themselves into concentrating on their task; namely, providing themselves with proper leadership. Imagine all of the voters putting pressure on themselves and one another to find intelligent reasons for their opinions. Imagine that they don't whine about pushing themselves, and they don't make grunting noises. They just deal with it quietly.

Finally, imagine that voters are held accountable for their performance, just like athletes. We do not allow athletes to compete in secrecy, inherit their position, or have the equivalent of "tenure". Athletes must perform in front of other people, and in order to join future events, they must regularly perform at a high level. The athletes who do not perform at a high level are replaced.

Imagine a society in which voters are not allowed any secrecy, either, and each of them is held accountable for what he does. Imagine every voter being required to post their analyses of government officials and candidates. This will allow us to determine which of the voters is doing a better job of selecting candidates and identifying incompetent leaders, and the worst performing voters would be replaced so that somebody else can have a chance to test his skills.

It is foolish to consider voting as a form of entertainment. It is even more idiotic to practice the policy of "compulsory voting", which is in effect in 22 countries as of August 2013. We must restrict voting to people who are going to take the job seriously, and who have the emotional ability to force themselves to participate in research, analyses, and discussions even when they don't want to, and even when they find the analysis to be emotionally uncomfortable.

Almost everybody can accept the fact that we differ in athletic abilities, and that most people have "ordinary" athletic abilities. However, it is difficult for us to accept the fact that we differ in our ability to vote, and that most people have "ordinary" voting abilities, and that half the population has below-average voting abilities. We prefer to believe that we are super geniuses who deserve to influence the future of the world. Our arrogance and our cravings for dominance causes us to put pressure on society to allow everybody to vote. However, since most people don't want to put any effort into voting, they don't want voters to have any requirements to study or analyze anything, or participate in meetings, or be held accountable for their voting.

During the past few thousand years, a lot of people have pointed out that the majority of people are incompetent at selecting leaders, but rather than raise standards for voters, every nation has continuously lowered their standards and allowed more people to vote. During the 20th century, for example, nations began allowing women to vote, and lowering the voting age to 18.

There is nothing wrong with experimenting with raising and lowering the voting age, or allowing women to vote, but after running an experiment for a certain number of decades, we should analyze the results and try to learn from the experiment. We now have a lot of data to look through because women and people under the age of 21 have been voting for decades.

Unfortunately, nobody is bothering to analyze the data and pass judgment on whether society benefits by letting women and/or younger people vote. Our government officials are allowed to create a law without having to analyze the effect of the law and determine whether it is beneficial or detrimental, or whether it can be improved upon. We are treating our government officials as if they are children who are playing with toys, and who don't have to be responsible for cleaning up their mess or fixing the broken toys.

A better government system would require the government officials to be responsible for their actions. The officials who create or approve of a law should be held accountable for that law, and they and other government officials should be required to routinely analyze the effect the law is having on society and pass judgment on whether the law should be deleted or modified.

From my own casual observations of people, I would say that we are hurting society by allowing women and younger people to vote. Both groups of people are significantly more submissive than older men, and the young adults are significantly more ignorant about life. This causes both groups to be more easily influenced by advertisements, their emotional cravings, and other people, which in turn means they are less influenced by their own intelligent analyses of the candidates.

To make the situation worse, women, as a group, are not as intelligent as men, so they don't do as good of a job of analyzing government officials. Their emotions exert a greater influence over their opinions.

There are some people who believe that the world would become more peaceful if women dominated society. They base this theory on the fact that men are more physically violent. However, history doesn't provide any evidence that women make better leaders. Thousands of women have been in leadership positions in business, government agencies, charities, and other organizations. Every mother could be described as a leader for her children. There are lots of women for us to observe, and although it is obvious that women are less physically violent, there is no evidence that women make better leaders. Men and women are simply different.

For example, men want to feel important, whereas women prefer to be the center of attention. Men are likely to build statues of themselves and force people to engage in displays of submission, whereas women are more likely to arrange for events in which they can become the center of attention. Men are more likely to gather large amounts of vehicles, furniture, and land, and women are more likely to collect large amounts of shoes, clothing, and jewelry.

We are not going to provide ourselves with better leadership simply by putting women in top positions. Providing ourselves with better leadership is going to require some voters who are capable of putting some serious effort into analyzing the leadership abilities of other people. They are going to have to force themselves to do a lot of intellectual work.

I think the reason governments around the world are giving more people the right to vote is to appease the citizens, not because they have intelligent reasons to believe that this policy will improve government. Allowing a government to do something simply to appease the citizens is as idiotic as allowing a Hollywood movie director to give an acting role to a young girl that he raped in order to bribe her into dropping her accusation of rape.

We should not allow government officials to do something simply to appease us. Instead, they should be required to provide intelligent reasons for their policies, and they should be required to occasionally review their policies to determine whether they are truly beneficial to us.

The government should also continuously experiment with improvements to their policies, even policies that are beneficial. An engineer doesn't quit the development of refrigerators after he gets one to work properly. Instead, he continuously looks for ways to make it better. We should have the same attitude towards social technology. We should always be looking for ways to improve our voting system, school system, social affairs, and transportation system, even if it is working.

An engineer cannot create the "perfect" refrigerator, but he can continuously make improvements to the existing refrigerators. Likewise, we cannot create the "perfect" voting system, but we can continuously improve upon the system.

Disgusting governments cannot set high standards

We must restrict voting to the people who are capable of handling the emotional discomfort of research and analysis, and the emotional trauma of analyzing their leaders. However, no nation can impose high standards on the voters until they first impose high standards on people in leadership positions. If any of the world's current governments were to raise standards for voters, many of the voters would complain about the hypocrisy of the high standards. The people would make such remarks as,
"Why do we have to meet high standards when our courts are corrupt; government officials are incompetent, alcoholic, and dishonest; and scientists are lying about carbon taxes and the Apollo moon landing?"
Is this your idea of an American police chief?
For example, I don't think that ex-police chief, Mark Kessler of Pennsylvania, would be able to demand that the people in his area meet high standards. In addition to displaying behavior that most people would describe as childish, obnoxious, or embarrassing, his website promoted people who deceive us about 9/11 and other Jewish crimes. Some of his recommended links are:
Kessler is currently revising his website and many pages are almost blank, but the Internet archive has his original links here

When a police chief is behaving in a manner that most of us consider to be obnoxious or dishonest, the citizens will be angry if he demands that the citizens meet high standards. Unless a nation can provide itself with respectable leadership, there is no way those leaders are going to be successful at raising standards for the citizens.

In order to raise standards for voters, we must first find enough people who can exert the self-control necessary to force the people in leadership positions to meet high standards. Only after we demonstrate the ability to put together a respectable government can we tell the citizens that most of them are too intellectually lazy and/or incompetent to vote.

We need to review scientists, also

A modern society needs some members who are willing and able to review the performance of scientists and pass judgment on which of them are truly contributing to society and fulfilling their duties of a scientist, and which of them are incompetent or dishonest.

We should not be submissive towards our scientists. Scientists must earn our trust, and continuously. A scientist is just a person who went to school for a certain amount of time. Scientists must be treated just like other employees; specifically, we must occasionally give each of them a job performance review. Don't be impressed by somebody's intelligence or memory. It is entirely possible for a person to have above average intelligence while having the emotional qualities of a child, a criminal, or a monkey. An intelligent person can also suffer from various forms of mental illness.

Unfortunately, it's not easy for us to review scientists because the work they do is too complex for most of us to understand. Furthermore, scientists specialize in narrow areas, and so only the scientists who work in that area will be able to review their work.

In order to properly review scientists, we need a government agency in which the officials are equal in intelligence and scientific knowledge to the scientists. That requires that the government officials be scientists who are involved in the research.

My solution to this dilemma, as I pointed out in a previous document, is to change our attitudes towards jobs in order to allow more people to work on a part-time and temporary basis. This allows scientists, engineers, carpenters, mechanics, and other people to get involved in the government on a part-time and temporary basis. This will allow scientists to get involved with the government and review one another.

Although this policy might seem to be allowing the scientists to review themselves, if a large percentage of the scientists can force themselves to stop acting like apathetic sheep and participate in the process, there will be so many participants that it will be difficult for a group of selfish or dishonest scientists to give themselves special treatment.

Furthermore, we can reduce the problems with corruption and incompetence if we don't allow people to abuse us more than once. When we determine that a person is abusing us, he should be banned forever from a leadership position, or evicted from society. When we feel sorry for abusive people, we end up with the situation we have today in which some of them repeatedly abuse us.

How do we pass judgment on scientists?

It is difficult to pass judgment on people who do intellectual work, but we can and must force ourselves to do it. Businesses are doing it with their own scientists, and society can do it also. We must remind ourselves, "No pain, no gain. Don't whine about the difficulty. Push through it!"

In regards to the issue of global warming, there is nothing wrong with a scientist wondering what effect humans are having on the weather, the fish, the birds, and other aspects of the planet. Actually, anybody with mediocre intelligence ought to wonder what effect humans are having on the world. How does our destruction of forests affect the climate? How does our production of dust affect our health and the climate? What effect do humans have on the population of rats, fleas, and pigeons? Are we altering the weather by replacing grass and forests with asphalt and concrete?

There is nothing wrong with a scientist speculating that our production of carbon dioxide is affecting the weather, but some of them are not speculating. They are treating this speculation as a proven fact. This requires that they provide a lot of supporting evidence.

We benefit from people who ask questions and speculate, but some scientists are claiming that our production of carbon dioxide is definitely causing global warming, and that global warming is definitely going to be horrible, and that we can definitely solve the problem through carbon taxes. These claims require the scientists to provide a lot of supporting evidence, but although they have evidence that higher levels of carbon dioxide will increase the temperature of the planet, they don't have any evidence that carbon taxes will reverse the situation, and they have no evidence that global warming is going to be horrible. For all we know, most of us would prefer a warmer planet.

Let's assume that some scientists come up with conclusive proof that humans are causing global warming through carbon dioxide production, and that carbon taxes can indeed reverse the situation. That proof by itself does not justify imposing carbon taxes. Before we implement a solution to a problem, we should look at the alternative solutions. The scientists who are promoting global warming should show us that their solution, namely, carbon taxes, is better than the alternative solutions. So, what are the alternative solutions? The scientists are not providing any.

Scientists should provide us with a more intelligent analysis of our problems that an ordinary person could provide, and they should be able to devise more possible alternative solutions, and they should be able to see more advantages and disadvantages to each of the alternative solutions. However, the opposite is happening with carbon taxes. The scientists are not providing any alternative to carbon taxes. They could not possibly be as stupid as they appear. The only sensible conclusion is that they are trying to manipulate us, perhaps because they hope to profit from the carbon taxes, and/or hope to manipulate nations and businesses with the taxes.

If our production of carbon dioxide truly needs to be reduced, then we have a lot of alternative solutions besides carbon taxes. For example, we could design cities so that we don't need automobiles, as I described in my City of Castles. The transportation system would be electric, and even if we use fossil fuels for the production of electricity, we would produce less carbon dioxide because that type of transportation system is much more efficient than private automobiles. Furthermore, electric power plants don't need highly refined gasoline, and that allows us to eliminate a lot of our refineries, which waste energy and resources.

Furthermore, that type of city allows the surface of the city to be full of grass, plants, and trees rather than concrete and asphalt. Those plants will use the sun's energy to break down carbon dioxide, whereas concrete and asphalt convert the sun's energy into heat. That style of city would also make it more practical and more pleasurable for people to use bicycles as a transportation device.

Incidentally, increasing the vegetation and reducing the concrete and asphalt could also help reduce the problem of flooding during heavy rains.

No society yet is regulating the scientists, and this is allowing them to lie about the Apollo moon landing, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, carbon taxes, and who knows how many other issues.

Would allowing scientists to get part-time jobs in the government solve this problem by giving scientists the authority to regulate one another? No, it would not "solve" the problem, but remember that we cannot achieve perfection. All we can hope for is an improvement over what we have now, and we can certainly improve upon our current chaotic, miserable situation.

If we created a government that had a Quality Control Department that consisted of part-time and temporary scientists, and if a lot of scientists were willing to participate in the process, they would certainly do a better job of regulating scientists than what we have today, which is no regulation. Furthermore, through the years they would learn how to do an increasingly better job of judging scientists. They might even notice patterns in the scientists that they have to fire.

Which scientists are lying to us about global warming? Which scientists are lying to us about the Holocaust? Which scientists are incompetent and should be classified as technicians or engineers? If we were to study all of the scientists, we might find patterns. The scientists who lie to us are not likely to be a random sample of the human population. There is likely to be something different about them compared to the more honest scientists. We might also notice patterns in the government officials and businessmen that we have to fire for incompetence or dishonesty.

In 2007, the global warming fanatics were frightening us with predictions that there would be no ice in the Arctic by 2013, but in September 2013, news articles were saying there was actually more ice in 2013 than in previous years. The government officials, scientists, news reporters, and other people who promote global warming and carbon taxes show no shame or embarrassment for what they are doing. They explain the additional ice as simply a characteristic of global warming. No matter what happens to the weather, they use it as proof that their theory is correct. They are behaving like dogs who repeatedly grab meat from our dinner table, and don't care how many times we tell them to stop it. Why are some people behaving this way but not others? What is different about those dishonest people?

Should we impose nitrogen taxes?

Most of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere is supposedly the result of the decay of radioactive carbon. If that theory is true, then the further back in time we look, the less nitrogen we will find in the atmosphere. The production of nitrogen would also rise and fall as levels of carbon dioxide rose and fell, and nitrogen production would also change if the amounts of particles that hit the Earth's atmosphere were to change.

How do we know if the level of particles that hit the atmosphere today are at the exact same level as they were millions of years ago? We do not even know if the levels of dust and rocks in space are uniform. For all we know, our solar system sometimes encounters areas of space that have higher levels of dust, rocks, and gases.

Incidentally, when plants first began to evolve, the nitrogen in the atmosphere would have been very low, and that could explain why plants never developed the ability to take nitrogen from the atmosphere.

The level of nitrogen in the atmosphere is slowly increasing. Should we worry that this change will ruin life for us? Should we take action now even though we don't have a good understanding of what is going on? Should we allow the government to impose nitrogen taxes

Are the Big Bang scientists worth the burden they impose?

There is nothing wrong with speculating on how the universe became established, but the "Big Bang" physicists are not speculating. They are telling us the answer. They are as arrogant as animals and religious fanatics. They are not proposing a "Big Bang tax" so they may seem to be harmless, but they are consuming a lot of resources. Ideally, we would have a government agency that had the technical talent to pass judgment on whether these physicists are doing something useful for the resources they consume, or whether they should be told to find something else to do with their time. I suspect that a lot of physicists are just wasting their time and our resources, and they should be forced to use their math abilities for more useful projects.

If these people were to promote these theories in their leisure time, then it would be acceptable, but they want enormous amounts of money for full-time research, particle accelerators, and other devices. A society should pass judgment on whether the burden that these people impose on society is worth the benefit they provide us. The burden is phenomenal, but what is the benefit? Are they really helping us to understand the universe? If so, then why does nothing of value come from their research?

When scientists increase our understanding of rocks, we can do a better job of manipulating rocks into more useful products. As they learn more about plants, they allow us to do a better job with breeding, farming, gardening, and forestry. If physicists were providing us with a better understanding of the universe, then something of value should come from their knowledge, but how many physicists are providing us with something of value? We ought to consider the possibility that many physicists are wasting their time and our resources on their particle accelerators, their string theories, and their search for quarks.

If the universe truly started as an explosion from a single location in space, and if that explosion followed the same pattern as a chemical or nuclear explosion, then the universe would be an ever-expanding sphere. As the outer shell expands, it should leave particles in the center that are virtually stationary. Where is the center of that explosion? Whatever is at the center should be stationary. If the Earth is at the center of that explosion, then the earth is at the center of the universe.

In 1823, Heinrich Olbers presented evidence that the sky ought to be about as bright at night as it is during the day. He pointed out that even though the stars are far away, there are so many of them, and they are putting out so much energy, that the earth should be flooded with their heat and light. Since the night is dark and cold, where is all of that energy going? Some of the energy is absorbed by the bits of matter between the stars, but that would cause those bits of matter to warm up, and they should emit infrared radiation. That is not happening, either.

Are some physicists simply too arrogant to face the fact that they have no idea what is going on? Or, do some physicists realize that they have no idea what they are talking about, but they don't care? At the beginning of the 20th century, many businessmen were deliberately selling worthless and addictive pharmaceutical products simply because they wanted money, and we ought to consider the possibility that some physicists are also deliberately lying to us just to justify their high salaries and avoid a real job. Is there a difference between a physicist who is searching for a God particle and a pharmaceutical company offering to cure cancer with a morphine tonic?

Modern societies must pass judgment on who deserves the title of "scientist", and which of them deserves funding. We currently allow anybody who graduates from certain school courses to refer to himself as a scientist, but we need to restrict that title to the people who have demonstrated that they have leadership abilities. Scientists are in an influential position, and they expect funding for work that almost nobody can understand. Therefore, they should meet high standards just like everybody else in a leadership position. We should be able to trust scientists and look to them for guidance.

It is easy for us to criticize or fire a waitress or a gardener for doing a substandard job because those people are low on the social hierarchy. Animals do not have any problem attacking, abusing, stealing from, or raping an animal that is below them in the social hierarchy. Actually, a person can titillate his emotional cravings for status by criticizing a waitress or denying her a tip. When we criticize a waitress, we can imagine ourselves as the dominant animal who is reprimanding a lower-level animal. However, waitresses do not have a significant influence over the world, so we don't need to spend much time reviewing their job performance.

By comparison, it is extremely important for modern societies to regularly review the performances of people in leadership positions, and we must insist that they meet high standards. Unfortunately, it is emotionally difficult for us to force our leaders to meet high standards because we have an emotional craving to behave submissively towards our leaders. Therefore, improving our leadership is going to require finding people who can exert enough self-control to participate in such tasks.

Do you think you have the self-control necessary to tell Dr. Jim Hansen, PhD, a former NASA scientist, that we are no longer allowing him to refer to himself as a "scientist" as a result of his deception regarding global warming? Would you be able to tell a physicist that we are tired of funding his research of multidimensional quarks, and that he must start doing something more productive if he wants to remain in our society?

It will not be easy for us to stand up to those people, but think of yourself as an athlete, and remind yourself, "No pain, no gain."

Can you look critically at your cuisine?

The Japanese have developed some visually attractive foods, and some amusing bento lunches. However, I do not want to eat much of their food because most of it is dominated by rice, tofu, and seafood.

Every living creature is "food" to some other creature. However, no creature eats everything. Every creature has evolved an attraction to the visual image and taste of only a small percentage of the creatures. Furthermore, every creature has evolved the ability to consume only a small percentage of those creatures.

Some birds enjoy eating live spiders, some vultures eat bones, and flamingos enjoy eating algae. Alligators evolved a stomach that is capable of digesting entire animals, including bones, hooves, and the partly digested food inside stomachs and intestines.

Humans evolved to enjoy the appearance and flavor of only certain foods, and our mouth evolved the ability to chew only certain foods, and our digestive system evolved the ability to digest only certain foods.

Which foods are natural to human diets? If we could go back in time 20,000 years, what would we find our prehistoric ancestors eating?

I think the way to determine which foods are natural for humans is to consider which foods we have the ability to chew and digest, and which we are naturally attracted to in regards to flavor and visual appearance. We can chew and possibly digest spiders, but we consider them to be visually unappealing, and we don't like the way they feel in our mouth, so we can assume that spiders are an unnatural food for humans.

Although we would not want to put a pig into our mouth, virtually every human loves the flavor of pig meat, and we can chew and digest pig meat without any problem. We don't have to tenderize the meat from pigs, lamb, or birds. We also enjoy the flavor and consistency of apples, apricots, and peaches. We don't have to cover fruit with sauces or spices.

Sauces and spices should be an option, not a necessity to mask the flavor of the food. If a food is so unpleasant that we must use spices and sauces in order to eat it, then it should be considered as unnatural for humans. This does not mean the food is unhealthy, however. Rather, it means that we do not have a natural attraction to it, and therefore, we ought to wonder why we bother producing and eating it.

Much of what the Japanese eat is unnatural for humans. That unnatural food might be healthy, but we do not have an attraction to it. For example, rice, especially the processed white rice, doesn't have an appealing flavor, and we don't enjoy the way it feels in our mouth. We have an attraction to foods that we can chew, such as apples and meat, or foods that are soft, such as bananas. We never evolved an attraction to food that is in the form of small pellets, such as boiled grains, or foods that are sticky, such as peanut butter, or foods that are slimy, such as okra.

The Japanese also eat a lot of seafood. Although some races of humans may have depended upon seafood for so many thousands of years that they are beginning to evolve a true attraction to seafood, most humans do not have much of interest in seafood. We consider most seafood to have a stinky aroma, and most of it has such an unpleasant flavor that we cannot enjoy it unless we mask the flavor with sauces or spices.

Seafood, peanut butter, okra, and rice may be healthy for us, but it is not natural for us. If the only way you can eat sea urchins is to put wasabi on it, then you don't really like the flavor of sea urchins. If you have to cover your rice with salty soy sauce or some other flavoring agent, then you don't enjoy the flavor of the rice. You may enjoy the taste and aroma of peanut butter, but if you must reduce the stickiness with bread, chocolate, or celery, then you don't enjoy the consistency of peanut butter.

If humans enjoyed the flavor of oysters, then we would chew them, and we would enjoy the flavor that oozes out. However, most people either swallow them without chewing, or they bite into the oyster once or twice and then quickly swallow it. This should be considered a sign that we don't like oysters. This should make us wonder, "Why are we wasting labor and resources on a food product that we don't enjoy? And why do we make ourselves eat it?"

If you were starving, and your only food was spiders, cockroaches, and caterpillars, you would eat them in the same manner that people eat oysters and other seafood. You would want to cover the bugs in sauces, wasabi, horseradish, pepper, lemon juice, or other spices, and then swallow them with as little chewing as possible. Or you might eat the bugs as you eat peanut butter, such as put the bugs between slices of bread and cover them with jelly or honey.

Our meals should be a source of pleasure for us. Meals give us an opportunity to enjoy life, and to socialize. We should not force ourselves to eat food that we dislike simply to refuel our bodies. A society should analyze its eating utensils, cooking procedures, foods, and the manner in which people are getting together for meals. We should design society so that we enjoy our meals and one another, and we should ensure that our meals are healthy.

We should analyze the advantages and disadvantages to everything we do. Everything has a burden and a benefit. We must put labor and resources into producing oysters, but what is the benefit? Is the burden of producing oysters worth the benefit? I don't think so. I think that those resources should be put into a food item that we have a greater attraction to. There are certain types of seafood that people actually enjoy without sauces and spices, such as scallops and salmon, so why not produce them instead? Or why not put more resources into greenhouses so that we can produce the foods without pesticides and insects?

How many of the Orientals can deal with the emotional discomfort of critically analyzing their cusine? How many Orientals can face the possibility that they have foolishly allowed their population to grow to such an extreme level that they depleted their supply of human food many centuries ago, and have since then been subsisting on bird food and shark food?

Rice, tofu, and seafood should be a small part of our diet. Those type of items should be eaten for variety, not as primary component of our diet. I think that our lives will become more pleasant when we eat food that we truly enjoy. We should enjoy the aroma, flavor, and texture of the food. We don't have to live like primitive savages who must eat whatever we can find. With our technology, we can provide ourselves with foods that we enjoy, and which are healthy.

Imagine if the Japanese cuisine was redesigned for pork, chicken, lamb, apples, peaches, and other human foods. In that case, their food would not only be visually attractive, but it would have an attractive aroma, a pleasant texture, and a desirable flavor. Imagine their bento lunches with that type of food.

Most people eat the foods that their parents fed to them as children, but rather than follow traditions, everybody should push themselves into critically reviewing their cuisine and asking themselves seriously, "Are we eating this particular food because we truly enjoy it? Or are we eating it because our ancestors were very hungry and couldn't find anything else?"

Wheat is an example of a food that was not intended for humans. We do not enjoy eating raw wheat kernels, or even a bowl of boiled wheat kernels. However, when we grind wheat into flour, we can make many desirable food products, such as breads and coatings for fried chicken.

Incidentally, one of the reasons we prefer white flour over whole-wheat flour is because we don't enjoy the taste of wheat. However, recently a variety of wheat has been developed that has a milder flavor compared to the hard red winter wheat. It is referred to as hard white winter wheat. I switched to that variety perhaps in 2012.

Do humans truly enjoy eating boiled rice? I don't think so. I don't think we enjoy the texture or the flavor. I think virtually everybody would prefer rice that has been processed, such as grinding it into a flour and using it to wrap eggrolls, or grinding it into a substitute for milk and ice cream.

Incidentally, chemists and biologists thousands of years from now might have so much knowledge that they will be able to create artificial foods, either with chemical factories, or by breeding bacteria to produce the artificial foods. This will allow people in the future to create a wide variety of artificial foods that are better tasting, more nutritious, and digest easily into neat, odorless pellets. It is possible that farming and ranching will eventually be replaced by the production of artificial foods. The people may not even bother to grow fruit trees because their artificial apricots and artificial apples may be much better tasting and easier to digest.

Consider a person's motives, not just his actions

Sometimes business executives do something that seems to show a concern for the quality of life of their employees, such as when a businessman provides health insurance, but we must look at the reason that they are doing this. In some cases, it is to dampen a potential rebellion, or prevent their employees from going to a competitor, not because they actually have a concern about the quality of other people's lives.

If Josef Fritzl's daughter began crying as he started to rape her, and if he gave her a lollipop to calm her down because he was annoyed by the noise, would he be showing a concern for the quality of her life? Of course not. He would be giving her the lollipop for his own selfish benefit.

We cannot admire a leader simply because he does something that pleases us. We have to ask ourselves, "Is he really concerned about society? Or is he merely manipulating us to satisfy his own selfish desires?"

Modern society is becoming increasingly complex, and that requires that we do an increasingly better job of analyzing people. We must remove secrecy so that we can see a person's complete life. This will allow us to analyze everybody's effect on society. However, to do a proper job, we have to go one step beyond that and pass judgment on why a person is behaving in a certain manner. We have to pass judgment on whether people are treating us nicely because they truly want to be team members, or because they are trying to take advantage of us.

An example of this concept are the deceptive salesmen, Jews, and con artists who give us gifts or compliments, or who do us favors. They appear to be our friends, but in reality, they are trying to abuse us. I am frequently contacted by Jews who pretend to like me, but they don't really like me.

Sometimes a man will appear to be in love with a woman when in reality all he wants is sex. Sometimes a woman will pretend to be interested in a man when all she really wants him for is entertainment and gifts while she continues looking for a man she wants to marry. In this modern world, we have to pass judgment on a person's true intentions.

This concept is especially important for people in leadership positions. If a government official does something beneficial simply to prevent a rebellion, he is not showing an interest in us or in society. Rather, he is showing an interest in maintaining his position. Likewise, if a business executive does something to improve the lives or safety of his employees merely to prevent rebellion, then he is selfishly trying to maintain his position rather than showing a concern for the lives of other people.

A more extreme example of this concept is a business executive who implements a safety procedure simply because the government or police are threatening him with arrest if he doesn't treat his employees better. People who behave like that should not be considered worthy of leadership positions. We should not have to tell our leaders to treat people with respect and decency, and we should especially not have to threaten them with arrest. If a man needs to be threatened to behave properly, he should not qualify for a leadership position.

There are some businesses that encourage their employees to eat healthier meals and get exercise, and that can create the impression that those executives are concerned about the lives of their employees, but I suspect that most of those executives are only concerned about increasing their profit by reducing the number of sick employees, reducing insurance premiums, and increasing the amount of work from each employee. They are treating their employees as donkeys, not as friends or team members.

In the world today, especially America, we live and work among people we fear, despise, and dislike, and so many business owners have no respect for their employees or customers. However, if we were to create a new city and control immigration to make the city more homogenous, then it becomes important for us to be intolerant of selfish and abusive businessmen. We must be able to make a distinction between people who are true participants in society, and people who are selfish, arrogant animals who care only about titillating their emotions.

If we are not careful about who we put into leadership positions, then we can end up with leaders who consider us as potential threats, and who do beneficial things for us only to prevent rebellions.

We also need to analyze the ordinary citizens and pass judgment on their value. Some of the citizens who are dishonest, abusive, or parasitic should have restrictions put on them, such as restricting them from certain jobs or social activities, and the more destructive citizens should be evicted from society.

Unfortunately, analyzing ordinary citizens and dealing with the troublesome citizens is also going to be emotionally traumatic, especially if those citizens are our friends or relatives. We need to push ourselves into tolerating the emotional discomfort of maintaining the quality of the people.

Ideally, we would prevent the crude people from reproducing so that each generation of humans develops more advanced emotional and intellectual qualities. If we allow the crude people to reproduce, we will allow the human race to degrade into selfish, abusive freaks.

Lots of men have the ability to put certain restrictions on people, such as preventing them from flying airplanes, but how many men can control themselves well enough to allow society to prevent certain people from reproducing? How many men can control their emotions well enough to allow a person to be evicted from society?

The problems of modern society are not due to poverty, a shortage of energy, or ignorance. Our problems are due to the behavior of specific people who steal from us, lie to us, instigate wars, and behave like monkeys. In order to improve the world, we must push ourselves into dealing with those particular people.

How many men can deal with the emotional discomfort that results from confronting the destructive leaders of society? How many men could walk up to Queen Elizabeth and tell her, "We don't want you in a position of influence any longer. We are eliminating the monarchy, and you will become an ordinary person who works for a living just like everybody else."

When a person meets Queen Elizabeth, regardless of who that person is and which nation he comes from, his emotions will be titillated. We cannot prevent our emotions from being triggered. When you are hungry and smell food, certain emotions will be triggered regardless of what you do about it. When you are thirsty, you will experience certain emotions regardless of what you do to stop it. Your sexual emotions will be triggered by certain events regardless of what you do about it.

You can visualize your emotions as crude dinosaurs inside your brain. You cannot prevent your emotions from struggling to control your behavior, but you should have an ability to prevent your emotions from influencing your decisions. For example, when you meet Queen Elizabeth, certain emotions will be triggered that will give you a craving to behave like a submissive child. You cannot prevent that emotional feeling, but you may have the ability to resist that feeling and behave in a more intellectually sensible manner.
Could you support higher standards for people?
In December 2013, I went with my mother to Costco. One of the items that she wanted was a large piece of sirloin meat for a Christmas party. She didn't find any in the display case, so she told one of the butchers that she bought one last year, and was wondering if they still carry such meat.

The butcher responded that they still offer the meat, but they do not put it in the meat counter because they don't want the customers to see it. A customer must ask one of the butchers for that type of meat. The butcher explained that the reason for their new policy is because many people purchased the sirloin meat, cooked and/or cut it up inappropriately, and then brought it back to the store to complain that they want their money back. Apparently, the majority of Americans know how to prepare prime rib, pork roast, and chicken, but they don't know how to prepare big pieces of sirloin steak.

Since Costco will refund a customer's purchase even if the customer damaged or ruined the product as a result of their own stupidity, ignorance, carelessness, or drunkenness, the Costco management eventually decided that they were refunding so many of these pieces of meat that it would make more financial sense to keep this particular cut of meat hidden from the ordinary people.

Costco's reasoning is that many of their customers are ignorant, selfish, abusive, irresponsible jerks who cannot handle the freedom of having access to large pieces of sirloin steak, and that by hiding the meat from the public and requiring customers to specifically ask a butcher for the meat, they increase the chances that the only customers who purchase that type of meat will be those who know how to properly prepare it.

There is a Lassen's Natural Foods market in my city. They provide spices and herbs in bulk, and years ago the customers could serve themselves. A few years ago they stopped that option, and they told me it was because people were frequently stealing the expensive items, such as saffron. In response to the crime, the management decided to take away everybody's access to all of the spices and herbs, even those that are inexpensive.

Every society is adjusting its rules to fit the worst behaved people. The only way that we can make a more advanced society is to change this attitude. We must raise standards for the members of society, and set the rules according to the people who are considered "well behaved". The people who are irresponsible, psychotic, stupid, abusive, or selfish need to be restricted from certain activities and areas of the city, and in some cases, they need to be evicted.

In the most extreme variation of the City of Castles, everybody has free access to restaurants, museums, social affairs, homes, transportation, recreational equipment, furniture, and clothing. The people who cannot handle such an extreme level of freedom should be restricted to living in certain neighborhoods and spending their leisure time in areas of the city that have been set aside for them so that they don't bother the rest of us. The people who are destructive, rather than merely irritating, should be evicted.

Unfortunately, humans do not have any emotional desire to set or enforce high standards of behavior. Humans are selfish, and we want special privileges for ourselves, our children, and our friends. We do not want equality or fairness. We want pampering, special treatment, praise, and admiration.

In order for a society to set high standards for its citizens, the people must be able to suppress their arrogance and bias, and force themselves to treat everybody more fairly. This is going to require the people to exert a lot of self-control and deal with the emotional trauma of treating other people as fairly as they treat themselves and their children.

If the majority of people cannot control their emotions, they will end up behaving like selfish, arrogant monkeys who push for special privileges for themselves and their family. The end result will be the type of society we have right now. The only way to satisfy a group of selfish, arrogant monkeys is to have low standards of behavior, and be very tolerant of crime and irresponsible behavior.

How many people can control their emotions so well that they can allow their children to be treated just like everybody else's children? How many people can control their emotions so well that they will follow the same rules that they impose on other people?

The only purpose of an animal is to reproduce. Animals evolved with a tremendous bias in favor of themselves and their offspring, and they have no concern about the quality of their offspring, or whether some other animal has higher-quality offspring. They have no desire to look critically at themselves, look favorably at other animals, or take responsibility for their behavior.

In order for us to create a better society, we must control our crude emotions so well that we can judge everybody according to their behavior, not according to whom they are related to, or whom they are married to. For example, Ethan Couch was driving while intoxicated and killed four people. Most people would get into quite a bit of trouble for such irresponsible behavior, but he was given special pampering because his family is wealthy. They said that he was suffering from "Affluenza", which was described as a condition in which "his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences." Apparently, his parents also suffer from Affluenza because his parents have displayed undesirable behavior many times without getting into trouble.

Humans are so arrogant and selfish, and we have such an intense bias for ourselves and our children, that it will be difficult for us to enforce high standards. However, I think that if we had the opportunity to experience life in a city with high standards, we would not want to return to the low standards of today's cities.

Why are humans so hypocritical?

A lot of people boast about supporting "tough law enforcement", but when they, their friends, or their relatives are caught misbehaving, they are almost certain to demand special treatment and pity. Why are people so hypocritical?

We can understand our hypocrisy by considering the attitude of an animal. An animal considers the world to be his own personal property, and every other animal is considered a potential rival or threat. When a wolf, dog, or other predator captures some prey, other animals, even those of other species, will fight over that prey. Each of them has the attitude that the prey belongs to them. They do not understand or care about the concept of theft, personal property, or earning what they want. They will grab at whatever they are attracted to.

As monkeys developed into humans, we developed the concepts of personal property and earning what you want. Unfortunately, we still have the same crude emotions as the animals. For some examples, we have a craving to grab at whatever attracts our attention rather than share the planet with everybody; we are so arrogant that we resist looking critically at ourselves and our family; and we regard other people as potential threats and rivals so we have a difficult time treating other people in a fair manner.

Many people condemn welfare and boast that they believe in "working hard" and earning whatever they want, but if a person truly followed such a philosophy, he would be opposed to inheritances, tariffs, donations, and other types of handouts. However, the people who complain the most often about welfare and handouts are the people who refer to themselves as "conservatives", and they are the most supportive of inheritances, investments, tariffs, monarchies, donations, nepotism, royalties, and other techniques that allow people to make money without earning it.

The people who start businesses often condemn welfare and boast about their initiative to take care of themselves and earn what they want, but many of them pressure the government into passing laws to restrict their competitors, such as by requiring business to obtain licenses that are expensive or time-consuming to acquire, or by setting up zoning regulations that make it difficult for a competitor to become established in the same area. Those business owners are hypocrites, but they don't see themselves as being hypocritical. Why not?

Humans have a difficult time noticing our hypocrisy because animals never evolved the ability or desire to look critically at themselves or to look favorably at other animals. As monkeys evolved into humans, they became more intelligent, but they remained the same arrogant animals who had no desire or ability to look critically at themselves.

Humans today have the intellectual ability to give ourselves a critical review, but we don't have the emotional desire to be critical of ourselves. It should be noted that most people claim to be critical of themselves, but we are not as critical of ourselves as we are of other people. Everybody is biased and arrogant, and the end result is that we can give other people a much more useful critical review than we can give to ourselves. As a result, all of us benefit when other people give us critical reviews. Unfortunately, we do not enjoy critical reviews, and so we do not encourage other people to give them to us. Actually, we hope that we never get any critical reviews, and some people react to critical reviews with anger or pouting.

Creating a better society requires people who can do a better job of controlling their emotions. We do not need "perfect" control over ourselves. Rather, all we have to do is exert enough control over our crude emotions to allow society to improve. The better we can do at controlling our crude emotions, the more options we have for our future. For example, with tremendous self-control, we have the option of providing everybody with food, a home, and basic material items for free.

Could you support the concept of free food?

In a previous document I suggested that society provide food to everybody for free. It might seem simple to create a completely new, experimental city, and provide everybody in that city with free food, but this policy requires the people compromise on a lot of different issues. For example, which foods should we produce, and in what quantities? Should we produce any types of candy, alcoholic beverages, sodas, teas, or donuts, and if so, how should we distribute and regulate those items? How do we distribute food that is seasonal, in short supply, or scarce? How do we deal with people who suffer from food allergies? What should we do with people who overeat, waste food, or cannot control their consumption of certain foods or drinks?

Providing ourselves with free food requires discussing a lot of issues and making a lot of decisions. This in turn requires the people to exert enough control over their emotions that they can push themselves into doing some research and analysis, and participating in discussions. It also requires exerting enough control over our arrogance and our emotional cravings that we can seriously consider what would be best for society rather than what our particular emotional cravings prefer.

If we are capable of discussing food-related issues and compromising on policies, we will have overcome only one hurdle in creating a better society. The next hurdle is to understand that the decisions that we compromised on are imperfect. Those decisions should be considered as "experiments", not solutions. Therefore, we must observe and analyze the results of our policies, and look for ways to improve the policies. We will never find a solution to food-related issues, just as there is no "solution" to computers, robots, or refrigerators. We should always be looking for ways to improve our material items, and we must have the attitude that we should always look for improvements to our food policies, economic system, school system, and other social technology.

If you think it will be easy for a society to provide itself with free food, consider how many families are having trouble providing free food to their family. Some families have members that abuse the free food, such as by overeating, wasting food, or fighting over the scarce items. In some families the children will whine that they don't like the food that the parents are offering, and some children refuse to eat the food, or have violent tantrums. In some families, the father and/or mother waste a significant amount of their food money on alcohol.

A society is just a big family. If we were to select thousands of families at random throughout America, and put them into a completely new, empty city, and tell them to provide themselves with free food, they would continue to behave exactly as they are right now. There would be fights over the scarce food items, tantrums over which food items are available, etc.

The reason it is so difficult for us to make intelligent decisions about food issues is because food directly stimulates our emotions. If we cannot suffer the emotional discomfort of ignoring our emotions, and if we cannot tolerate the emotional discomfort of forcing ourselves to think about what is best for society, and if we cannot tolerate the emotional discomfort of seriously considering what somebody else is saying, then we will promote the policies that please our particular emotional cravings. Since emotional cravings cannot be supported with intelligent reasoning, we will not have anything intelligent to say. Instead of having an intelligent debate, we will instead behave like arrogant, selfish monkeys who are screaming and fighting for a bunch of bananas. We will push our particular cravings without any supporting evidence, and without listening to what other people have to say.

The only way a group of people will be able to provide themselves with free food is if they are capable of controlling their emotions better than a group of monkeys, and better than the "ordinary" people are doing right now.

The issue of providing free food is complicated by the issue of food allergies. When society provides free food, then society becomes responsible for dealing with the issue of food allergies.

In America, some schools are training some employees on how to inject a child with an antidote when he suffers from an allergic reaction to peanuts. Should this policy be applied to all schools, social activities, and restaurants? Should the employees of every restaurant and school be required to identify food allergies, and know how to inject people with antidotes? Or should that policy be applied only to the organizations that deal with children who are too young to take care of themselves? Should the adults be told to carry their own antidotes and be more careful about what they eat?

Or would it be better to separate the people with serious food allergies from the rest of the population? Should we provide them with special neighborhoods, schools, and restaurants so that they don't have to worry about the issue? Or would it be better to give the people with food allergies the option of living in their own neighborhood, and if they prefer to live among the "normal" people, then they must take complete responsibility for their food allergies? With that option, if a person with a peanut allergy chooses to live among normal people, then it is his responsibility to carry his own antidote, and it his responsibility to avoid peanuts. He would not be able to whine that some restaurants are serving peanuts. It would be his responsibility to avoid those restaurants.

The issue of food is further complicated by the possibility that children, men, women, and different races have slightly different nutritional needs or digestive abilities, and that we change as we grow older. It might be best for us to have slightly different diets for babies, children, adults, and elderly people, and slightly different diets for men and women, and for different races.

We ought to investigate these issues, but that requires people be able to control their emotions well enough to face the possibility that men and women are different, that we deteriorate from age, and that there are differences between the races. It also requires accepting the fact that there are different races of Africans, Chinese, Caucasians, and Indians, and that some people are such a mixture of races that they don't belong to any particular race.

How many people in the world today can discuss these issues without having temper tantrums, whining about racism or sexism, or pouting? If a group of people cannot control their emotions, they will not be able to develop intelligent opinions on food issues, or any other cultural issue, and they will not be able to improve their culture.

Why are there so many "fearmongers"?

Thousands of people are regularly promoting frightening scenarios, such as that Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb and attack America with it; that President Obama is turning America into a police state; that some virus will soon mutate and kill 90% of the population; that the economy will soon collapse; and that global warming will melt the polar ice caps and coastal cities will be flooded.

Prior to the year 2000, a lot of people were trying to frighten us with the "Y2K" scenario, and prior to 21 December 2012, they were trying to frighten us into believing that the Mayan calendar was predicting the end of the world.

Mutant viruses could kill all of us! The NSA is listening to your phone calls! We will all die if a big asteroid hits the Earth! Iran will soon have a nuclear bomb and attack us with it! You idiots, don't relax! Be afraid. Be very afraid!
There seem to be more people trying to frighten us than there are trying to inspire us. Most of the people who have an active role in frightening us are also lying about the Israeli involvement in 9/11, and other Jewish crimes, so they are undoubtedly part of the same network, but some people who are promoting this fear may be innocent people who have been deceived by the propaganda.
One of the "doomsday preppers", Cloise Orand was so certain that the world would end on 21 Dec 2012 that he built an amazing bunker under his house. The photo shows two crossbows and two bunk beds.
There are two main reasons why the Jews would promote these frightening scenarios. One reason is to frighten us into doing something that we normally would never do, such as become so afraid of Iran that we are willing to attack them without any provocation.

The second reason is to prepare us for an event that they are trying to instigate. By preparing us for the event, we will not wonder why the event happened or investigate the event; we will simply accept it. For example, I think they were planning to create chaos as the clocks turned to January 1, 2000, such as sabotaging nuclear power plants, airplanes, trains, and factories, but there were too many people preventing them from succeeding.

Why do the Jews use frightening scenarios to manipulate us rather than use pleasant scenarios? The reason is because humans and animals are much more easily manipulated by fear. Animals react to stimuli, so when an animal is having a pleasant life, it doesn't have any incentive to do anything. When we make an animal comfortable, it is likely to relax. However, when an animal is frightened, its body and mind becomes prepared to do a lot of physical work, such as by running away or fighting.

Likewise, when a human is comfortable, he doesn't want to do much of anything except relax and enjoy life. It would be difficult to convince Americans to attack Iran by stimulating our pleasant emotions. However, when people are frightened, they are willing to do something, and since most people resist thinking, crime networks can manipulate the frightened people by giving them suggestions on what to do.

In order to resist the fearmongers, you must be able to exert some control over your emotions so that you don't become afraid so easily, and to push yourself into making intelligent decisions about what to do when you are afraid.

It is wonderful if you can push yourself into climbing a mountain or lifting a heavy weight, but it is more important that you are able to push yourself into controlling your emotions and forcing yourself to think more often.

The theory that Iran would attack America without provocation is so idiotic that nobody should believe it, and the Jews should have given up on that scenario many years ago. However, the Jews are continuing to promote it because there are still a lot of people who believe it.

Every once in a while a North Korean government official will make an arrogant statement about how they will attack South Korea or America. Our emotions react to angry statements with fear, but if you can control your emotions and think about the issue, you will notice that animals and humans go out of their way to avoid violence, as I described in this document.

Animals try to create the impression that they are larger, stronger, and more courageous than they really are. Bluffing is a significant part of every animal's life. This is especially true of humans who are suffering from low self-esteem, or who are trying to feel important. It is also a common tactic of government officials who are trying to distract their citizens from their incompetence by directing anger towards another nation.

If a dog or a wolf wants to attack you, it will not stand in front of you, bark at you, and give you time to react. When an animal decides to attack another animal, it does so as quickly and as secretly as possible. Likewise, when humans want to attack, they do so quietly and secretly. They don't hold a press conference and announce their intentions to the world.

It should be obvious that the North Korean government is bluffing. Instead of being frightened by North Korea, we should ignore them. Reacting to them is encouraging them to continue these obnoxious displays. Besides, it is idiotic for a gigantic nation to be frightened of a small, primitive nation that is having trouble feeding itself. Even if North Korea does decide to attack us, they would cause less damage than a hurricane. America has tornadoes that are more dangerous than North Korea.

Fear mongering is not stopping drug use

The Jews are not the only people who use fear mongering. Many or most societies use fear mongering to prevent children from abusing drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. Instead of providing children with intelligent information about drugs, adults try to frighten children with deceptive stories of how they will destroy their lives if they dare to experiment with drugs.

This technique works to a certain extent, but there are two problems with it. The most serious is that some children will eventually experiment with drugs, and then they will discover that the adults were lying about drugs, and that will cause those children to become less trusting of the adults. This can reduce morale and their respect for authority.

The second problem with fear mongering is that it requires society to maintain a level of fear. You can visualize fear mongering as a government that inserts electrodes into everybody's brains, and constantly stimulates their emotions of fear. I think we will create a more pleasant social environment if society encourages people to become educated and make intelligent decisions.

Drug abuse is a problem everywhere in the world, despite the fact that every nation is trying different styles of fear mongering to stop it. Fear mongering is an ineffective and unpleasant way of dealing with drug abuse, and so is punishing drug users and drug dealers.

Admitting that our drug policies are a failure is going to cause some emotional discomfort, and we will create even more emotional discomfort if we begin discussions about alternative policies to experiment with, and there will be even more discomfort as soon as we choose one of the policies to experiment with. If we can't find enough people to tolerate the discomfort, then we are not going to be able to experiment with different drug policies.

I think we should provide children with honest information about drugs. This would require classifying every recreational drug as a "drug", including alcohol and viagra. We should also classify caffeine and nicotine as "drugs". I also suggest that we change our attitude towards why people use drugs. Instead of blaming the drug dealers, we should accept the fact that some people have an attraction to certain drugs. Rather than try to stop them from using drugs, we could experiment with regulating their use of drugs.

There are already some cities that impose a few restrictions on when and/or where alcohol and cigarettes can be sold. We could experiment with a variety of restrictions to limit certain drugs to certain areas of the city, or to certain times of the day or evening, or to certain days. We could also allow each city to have different drug laws, and to evict the people who don't want to follow their particular rules.

There is no "solution" to the drug issue. We are going to have to control our emotions, discuss the issue, and start experimenting. No matter what drug policies we decide to implement, a lot of people are going to occasionally suffer some emotional discomfort. If the people don't have the ability to deal with that discomfort, then we are not going to be able to experiment with different drug policies.

Leaders must have a true interest in society
Why are sports injuries being ignored?
Many decades ago some people noticed that the sport of boxing was causing serious damage to the brains of boxers, and this caused some people to wonder if other athletes were also suffering brain damage. During the 1990s, some people were suspecting football players were suffering from brain damage. In 2002 I mentioned (in Chapter 13) how brain injuries to children could explain some of the bizarre serial killers. A few years ago the brains of some dead football players were analyzed, and that provided conclusive proof that football can indeed cause permanent and very serious brain damage. Some hockey players have also shown signs of serious brain injuries.

However, the people in leadership positions of sports are insisting that there is no need for anybody to be concerned about brain injuries in sports. They also have no concern about the long-term effect that sports have on knees, backbones, and tendons.

Why are the people who dominate sports ignoring the obvious evidence of the dangers of sports? Those people cannot possibly be as stupid or ignorant as they appear. A more likely explanation is that they are fully aware of the dangers, and possibly know more about the dangers than any of us, but they are deliberately ignoring those dangers because they are worried that the information will reduce the profit that they are making from sports.

Our society will never improve when our leaders have so little concern about the quality of our lives that they will allow us to become brain damaged simply because they worry that providing us with a proper education about the dangers of sports will reduce their level of material wealth. The hiding of this information brings up several important issues.

1) Our leaders must care about society
The leaders of sports organizations are hiding the dangers of sports because they worry that the information will cause sports to become less popular, thereby reducing their status and/or material wealth. However, there is no intelligent reasoning for them to believe such a theory. The information about brain damage is most likely to result in changes in the way athletes train for sports; changes in the rules of the sports; and changes in the equipment that the athletes use. The information is not likely to reduce the interest in sports, or the profit of sports.

Boxers have been aware of brain damage for decades, but it did not stop the sport of boxing. Some hockey players also suffer from brain damage, but people continue to play and watch hockey anyway. Many people realize that cigarettes are slightly hazardous for our health, but that doesn't stop people from smoking. Skydiving is also dangerous, but some people do it anyway. Casual unprotected sex is dangerous, but people are doing it, and spreading venereal diseases.

The truth will ruin football!
The leaders of our football organizations are so afraid of losing their high level of material wealth, and have so little interest in the quality of life of other people, and so little desire to think, that they worry about something that is senseless. I would say that their behavior is so disgusting and so crude that it should forever disqualify them from a leadership position.

As I pointed out several times already, we are very critical of people low in the hierarchy, such as waitresses and assembly-line workers, but we allow our leaders to get away with incredibly abusive behavior. Lance Armstrong, for example, was banned from bicycle racing because of his drug use, but I would say that the leaders of the football organizations are behaving in a much more detrimental manner.

We don't want athletes to cheat because that puts pressure on the others to cheat, but Lance Armstrong did not cause much harm to the human race because of his cheating. By comparison, the leaders of our sports organizations are allowing possibly thousands of people to suffer brain damage, and who knows how many other injuries are occurring because of their suppression of information about the dangers of sports. The leaders of our sports organizations are causing more harm to more people than Lance Armstrong, but instead of dealing with those disgusting leaders, most people are more angry with Lance Armstrong.

Life for us has not improved much as a result of banning of Lance Armstrong from bicycle racing. By comparison, if we were to ban the leaders of the sports organizations from leadership positions, and if we could find people who can provide more sensible leadership, then thousands or millions of people would see a benefit.

Imagine a more extreme situation. Imagine if alcohol was a recently discovered drug, and nobody had yet realized that it interferes with a person's thinking ability. Imagine that a scientist announces that it appears as if alcohol is interfering with a person's ability to drive an automobile. Imagine the automobile companies reacting with horror and suppressing this information out of fear that the information will reduce the sales of automobiles. Imagine the automobile executives announcing to the world that it is safe to drive while intoxicated, and that the scientists who say otherwise are idiots. Would you agree that those automobile executives need to be replaced?

Now compare the behavior of the leaders of the football organizations to the behavior of Jim Cowan, a Medical Physical Therapist who works with the US Navy SEALs. He created a few videos, such as this, in an attempt to inform potential recruits of the type of injuries he treats, and how to reduce the injuries. He does not worry that information about injuries is going to frighten recruits from joining the SEALs, and he does not worry that reducing injuries could cause him to become unnecessary, thereby losing his job. He does not look at the injuries as a profit opportunity, or as "job security".

Imagine living in a city in which the government officials, doctors, dentists, bicycle mechanics, plumbers, and other people had Cowan's attitude of reducing injuries and improving the quality of everybody's life. In that type of the city, the people who dominate sports organizations would provide us with a variety of videos to help us understand the dangers of each sport, and how to reduce injuries.

And imagine if the managers of bicycle repair shops had the same attitude of improving everybody's lives rather than focus on their own selfish interests. Instead of looking at broken bicycles as profit opportunities, they would look for ways to help reduce problems with bicycles. They would provide the bicycle engineers with information on the type of repairs they make so that the engineers can make the bicycles more reliable. They would not worry that the improved bicycles will need less maintenance, and that they may put themselves out of work. Of course, this assumes that the engineers also have a concern for society, appreciate the feedback, and use it to improve the next generation of bicycles.

Imagine that the manager of a bicycle shop also has a concern that the people who ride the bicycles are enjoying the bicycles, and so he keeps track of some of their complaints about bicycles, and he passes the information on to the engineers.

Imagine living in a city in which the plumbers, technicians, carpenters, gardeners, farmers, and other people are truly interested in looking for ways to improve life for everybody. Instead of looking at people and problems as profit opportunities, they would be looking for ways to reduce maintenance, make products more enjoyable, make the city more attractive, and eliminate unnecessary features, such as Scroll Lock keys.

How do we create a city in which the plumbers, mechanics, city officials, chefs, and other people are truly interested in doing a useful job, contributing to society, and improving life for everybody? Do we pass laws that require everybody to have a concern for society?

Creating that type of city doesn't require that we develop any new technology, discover any new sources of oil, or get control of some uninhabited islands. Our ancestors could have created that type of city many centuries ago, even with their low level of technology. Creating that type of city only requires that we analyze people and identify those who can behave better than animals, and restrict immigration to those higher-quality people. It requires analyzing the leadership abilities of people, and replacing the leaders who do not provide proper leadership. It requires dealing with the people who are destructive and parasitic.

Animals have a desire to compete with one another, have sex with one another, and fight with one another, but they do not have any desire to analyze one another or deal with destructive members, especially not those in leadership positions.

Everybody wants the benefits of modern society, but nobody should have a right to those benefits. Instead, everybody should have a responsibility to contribute to the benefits. The people who cannot contribute, or who are destructive, need to be removed or suppressed. However, dealing with those destructive people is going to be emotionally traumatic. We need to create a security force that has the ability to tolerate the emotional discomfort of confronting troublesome people, including those in leadership positions.

How can we determine who among us is a contributing member and who is not? That is not an easy task. In order to do it properly, we must remove the secrecy that people are permitted today. We need access to information about everybody's life so that we can pass judgment on what their effect on society is.

To complicate this issue, we have to do more than simply analyze what a person has done during his life. We also have to look at his motives for doing it. Earlier in this document I mentioned the business executives who do something to improve life for their employees only to reduce rebellion or prevent their employees from going to a competitor. Those type of executives are not providing us with good quality leadership. Those executives are selfish animals who are doing whatever is necessary to maintain their position. They are not thinking of what is best for society.

Do you know when your leaders are abusing you?
Our government arrested Ty Warner, the billionaire who created the Beanie Babies toys, for cheating on his taxes. Warner asked for pity because he had "emerged from an unhappy family and youth devoid of educational advantages." If he had been a pampered and wealthy child, I suppose he would have claimed to be suffering from "Affluenza", as did Ethan Couch.

On January 14, instead of removing him from society, Judge Charles Kocoras said that “Society will be best served by allowing him to continue his good works”. The judge also said that Warner has already suffered from "public humiliation" and "private torment."

What "good works" did he do for us? One of them was his donation of $20,000 to a woman he encountered who was suffering from kidney failure, and another was his donation of 20 million dollars to the Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.

If you have looked at the evidence that Princess Diana was murdered (I have only a bit here), then you ought to wonder, who created a memorial fund for her, and what are they doing with the money? There are thousands of charities in the world, so why would an American billionaire donate $20 million to that particular charity? I would not be surprised if his donation was to provide money to the Jews who are trying to cover up Diana's murder.

His donation of $20,000 to the woman who needed a kidney may not have been to be "nice". First of all, his secret Swiss bank account supposedly had as much as 106 million dollars, and if your bank account had that much money in it, you would not consider $20,000 to be a sacrifice. For all we know, he donated that money because he was hoping it would bring him some favorable publicity with either the public or some of his friends, or to help him get sex with some woman. If he had donated $20,000 to thousands of different people who needed kidneys, then it might be a sign that he was truly interested in helping people and couldn't think of anything better to do, but his donation is equivalent to you or me tossing a penny to a homeless child.

Most people are easily fooled by a person who apologizes, behaves in a submissive manner, and does something that appears to show kindness. We must do a more thorough analysis of people in leadership positions. We have to pass judgment on their motives, and exactly who benefits from their actions. Judge Kocoras said that society is best served by allowing Ty Warner to continue his good works, but exactly how did society benefit from his donation to the Diana charity or from his other "good" works? Exactly who in society benefited? How have you benefited from him?

You might wonder why I am so critical of Ty Warner. The reason is because I was disgusted with him during the 1990s when he was promoting the Beanie Babies. The company was producing the toys primarily for young girls, and the company was convincing the girls that the toys would have a high resale value. This was encouraging the girls to purchase and save the toys as if they were rare collectors' items. The company also seemed to be deliberately producing fewer toys than the girls wanted to purchase, thereby creating artificial shortages, which created the impression that the toys were valuable.

I would not describe Ty Warner as a clever businessman, or an entrepreneur, or a valuable member of society. I would describe him as a con artist who was abusing and deceiving young girls. I don't believe people like him should be in positions of influence. I would not even want people like him in my society. He does not look at people as members of society. He sees us as profit opportunities. He has the attitude of an animal.

We are never going to provide ourselves with better leadership for business, schools, charities, or government when the people cannot distinguish between a criminal who is abusing them, and a leader who is providing them with guidance. Even worse are the people who don't care that they are being abused. They continue to purchase newspapers and magazines even though they know that they are being lied to, and they continue to vote for political candidates that they know are incompetent or dishonest.

Is the Pope providing the members of the Catholic Church with leadership? I don't think so. Are the leaders of the American football organizations providing leadership? I don't think so. Are the Royal families of Europe or Japan providing the people with leadership? I don't think so. However, the majority of people continue to provide these worthless leaders with enormous amounts of material wealth and pampering.

In order to create a truly better society, we need people who can analyze one another to such an extent that they can make good decisions on a person's motives. We need to distinguish between people who are truly interested in working with us to improve society, and people who are focused on their own selfish cravings and who regard us as opportunities or rivals. The leaders of our sports organizations are examples of leaders who are more concerned with maintaining their position of leadership than they are with improving society.

Can you pass judgment on whether the leaders of sports organizations are telling the truth?
Some of the leaders of sports organizations claim that they have been aware of the potential of brain injuries for many years, but they haven't done anything yet because they are waiting for the scientists to reach a conclusion. In modern society, we must pass judgment on when our leaders are truly trying to solve a problem, when they are deceiving us, and when they are incompetent.

We should not wait for a leader to violate a law before we consider removing him from his position of authority. People in leadership positions should be treated just like assembly-line workers, gardeners, waitresses, and plumbers. We must be willing to replace a leader simply because we don't trust him, or because we don't believe that he is providing adequate leadership.

In order to remove the President of America, the other government officials have to go through an impeachment procedure, which requires that they provide a lot of evidence that the president has done something terrible. It is virtually impossible to fire a Supreme Court judge, and many other people in our government are almost impossible to get rid of.

It would be better to follow the philosophy that leaders should be analyzed on a periodic basis, and the worst-performing leaders should be regularly replaced so that somebody else has a chance to show us their talents.

We should also stop allowing readers to use ignorance as an excuse for bad behavior. We must pass judgment on whether a leader truly is as ignorant as he claims, or whether he is deceiving us. If we decide that he truly is ignorant, then we must pass judgment on whether his ignorance is justified, or whether he should be considered too incompetent for his position.

Everybody overlooks issues once in a while, and everybody is ignorant of lots of issues, but when an issue has been publicly discussed for decades, such as the potential brain injuries of sports, we are foolish to allow our leaders to claim ignorance of the issue. If millions of ordinary people are aware of an issue, then our leaders should be aware of it, also.

For a more obvious example, there are millions of people around the world who suspect that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attack, and that they demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, but we allow business executives, government officials, news reporters, church officials, and policemen to ignore the issue and claim that they don't know anything about it.

Our leaders should be more aware of problems than an ordinary person. Our leaders should be providing us with guidance; we should not have to tell them what issues they need to learn about, or what they should be doing at their job. They should be providing us with intelligent analyses of the world; we should not be telling them what is going on.

Many citizens around the world regularly criticize their government officials for being stupid, corrupt, ignorant, lazy, and dishonest. This is a destructive activity and attitude. It is equivalent to a person who cooks meals for himself, and after every meal, he complains that some of the food was burnt, some had a horrible flavor, some of it was too salty, and some was undercooked. Imagine him cooking meals day after day, year after year, and complaining every time.

If you don't like the meals you cook, then you should spend some time analyzing the issue and trying to improve your cooking skills, or you should give up and let somebody else do the cooking. Likewise, if voters don't like their government officials, they should either put some effort into finding ways to do a better job, or they should give up and let somebody else handle the responsibility of voting. It is destructive and senseless for voters to whine about their government officials.

When faced with corrupt or incompetent leadership, the members of the organization should analyze the problem and try to find solutions. The members should ask one another, "Why do we have such incompetent leadership? How can we improve our leadership?"

Unfortunately, voters do not react to incompetent government officials by looking critically at themselves and trying to do a better job the next time. Humans, especially men, want to boast about ourselves, not look critically at ourselves, and so we ignore the possibility that our incompetent government is partly our own fault. We enjoy criticizing other people, blaming them for our problems, and creating the impression that we are more knowledgeable, talented, stronger, and coordinated.

Passing judgment on which student deserves to be a pilot should be considered as "work" and a "responsibility", not as a "right" of the ordinary people. Selecting political candidates should also be considered as "work" and a "responsibility", rather than as a "right".

Selecting government officials is more complicated than analyzing students who are learning to fly airplanes. It is fairly easy to put students through flight tests to determine their skills as a pilot, but determining leadership abilities is a much more complicated procedure. It is more foolish to let citizens select government officials than it is to let them select pilots.

The world is not going to improve as long as we continue to do exactly what we are doing right now. We must experiment with changes to our society and our attitudes. Improvements don't happen on their own. We must do something. We must be capable of tolerating the emotional discomfort of wandering into the unknown and experimenting with different policies. Do you have that level of self-control?

2) We must improve life for women so that feminism disappears

Frontline created this documentary about the brain injuries in football. One of the people who analyzed the brains of dead football players was a woman, and she was invited to explain her research to the NFL leadership. They ignored her information, and she made a remark in the documentary that implied that she was ignored because she was a woman. Her accusation is ridiculous. Before she began analyzing the brains of football players, a man had analyzed one of their brains, and he was also ignored. Actually, he was harassed in addition to being ignored. Eventually he changed jobs and moved to another state.

That particular man was born and raised in Africa, and later moved to America, so he could have blamed the harassment on the fact that he was African, but he didn't make such an accusation. He apparently was aware that the NFL was ignoring everybody who brought up the issue of brain damage, regardless of their race, nationality, or sex.

As I've mentioned in other documents, I think the reason feminism has become popular with women is because so many women are unhappy and frustrated, and the feminist movement provides them with an explanation of their misery; namely, "sexism". I think feminism is a symptom of a miserable society. If we were living in pleasant cities, and if everybody had friends and activities, I don't think many women would be interested in whining about men or sexism.

The men should respond to the frustrated women by analyzing life and experimenting with ways to improve life for both men and women, but most men ignore our social problems, and many men pander to women, and businesses exploit women as profit opportunities. None of the people in leadership positions are doing anything to improve society. Most of our leaders, regardless of whether they are male or female, seem to be primarily concerned about their personal material wealth and status, and eliminating their competitors.

If we could replace our worthless leaders with people who are truly interested in experimenting with improvements to society, then life would slowly improve for us, and I think that feminism would slowly vanish as a result.

Men dominate society today, and we are going to dominate in the future. Therefore, we need to find men who are truly concerned about improving the quality of life of the women and children. However, I don't think many of the men in leadership positions are even concerned about improving life for men. Some of them don't even show any interest in their own life.

Many of the men who dominate society remind me of monkeys because they seem to waste their life struggling to acquire gigantic piles of material items, fighting to be at the top of the social hierarchy, and struggling to eliminate their competitors. They are not concerned about the quality of anybody's life, or their effect on society. They are simply trying to titillate their emotional cravings, just like a stupid animal.

In order to improve life for women and children, we need to find men who have enough concern for the lives of other people that they will participate in research projects, discussions, and experiments that do not directly benefit their own particular emotions. We need to find men for leadership positions who truly have an interest in discussing and dealing with such issues as:
How do we alter the economy to make jobs more suitable for women, for mothers with young children, and for teenagers? How do we alter society so that children can play with other children without bothering adults or making a mess of the home? How do we make it easier for teenagers to get to know the opposite sex and form friendships with their own sex?

We are a team of people who share a planet, and the team consists of men, women, and children. If a man has no interest in improving the lives of the female and young teammates, don't expect him to be interested in the male teammates, or the environment.

Sexism is an insult, not a quality of a man's mind
Our leaders should encourage intelligent analyses, and they should discourage idiotic behavior, such as the people who whine about sexism. The concept of "sexism" is idiotic. It promotes the theory that men have an inherent tendency to abuse women. We actually have the opposite tendency; namely, to pamper and worship women.

Just as women have a strong attraction to children, and will sacrifice their lives for their children, men have such a strong attraction to women that we will struggle to please and pamper them. Men compete with one another to attract the attention of women, and we try to please women with gifts, money, pampering, and compliments. In prehistoric times, this behavior was acceptable, but in our era, it can create spoiled brats.

Although there are some men who are abusive to women, not many women can truly claim to be suffering as a result of abusive men. Almost every problem that people are suffering from today is due to the complexity of modern life, and their inability to cope with it. In order to improve lives for men and women, we must start experimenting with society. Women will not improve their lives by hating men. Women will improve their lives when they start participating in experiments to improve government, jobs, courtship procedures, social activities, and recreational activities.

The feminist philosophy is making life for women even worse than it would otherwise be because it is giving women an unrealistic view of life. Feminism is fooling women into thinking that men and women are unisex creatures, and that women are suffering from sexism.

Our problems are not due to men or women. Our problems are due to the fact that both men and women are intelligent monkeys, and our emotions are becoming increasingly inappropriate as our societies become more advanced. Both men and women need to exert self-control over their crude emotions. We must stop doing whatever titillates us and spend more time pushing ourselves into thinking about what is the most sensible for us.

Imagine living in a city in which the leaders are pushing themselves into analyzing and discussing the problems that we face, and pushing themselves into experimenting with solutions. That type of leadership would encourage the citizens to look for improvements to society, participate in discussions about our problems, and help one another deal with the emotional discomfort of experimenting with improvements.

Compare that to nations of today in which people are encouraged to solve problems by having demonstrations in the street, whining about racism or sexism, praying to Jesus, donating money to charities, increasing the budget for schools, and fighting with other nations over land and ocean boundaries.

It's going to be emotionally difficult for us to create a better society because it requires that we force ourselves to do a lot of emotionally unpleasant activities, such as think, research, look critically at ourselves, and look critically at other people. The majority of people may not be able to participate, but there are certainly enough people with the self-control necessary to create some truly advanced cities. Why not give it a try? There is nothing to lose.

Can you figure out if our leaders are abusing you?

In the 1920s, General Motors and Standard Oil wanted to produce tetraethyl lead as an additive to gasoline to reduce engine knocking, but the compound was poisonous, and at least 17 workers at the tetraethyl lead factory died from lead poisoning in 1924.

People had known for many centuries that lead is a poisonous metal, but many business executives and scientists insisted that the public was safe because tetraethyl lead was dispersed into the environment at such a low level that nobody would be adversely affected.

Did any of those businessmen or scientists truly believe what they were saying? Or were they deliberately ignoring the potential danger because they were more concerned with making money from the product?

A more complicated example is the use of radium in the early 20th century, such as the businesses that put radium into toothpaste and these other products. How many of those businessmen actually believed that radium was a useful additive to their product? And how many businessmen simply didn't care whether radium had any value, or whether it was dangerous?

Although everybody makes mistakes, and we are all ignorant about the universe, we must pass judgment on when people in influential positions are too ignorant, too selfish, or too much like an animal to be in such a position. We must stop worshiping our leaders and start replacing those who do the worst job of providing leadership.

Nothing is going to improve if people continue to be submissive to their leaders. In order to improve society, we need people who can push themselves into analyzing their leaders, and then push themselves into replacing the worst of the leaders.

Who deserves special privileges?

Imagine that your friend invites you to his house for dinner. Your friend tells you that since he is more knowledgeable and experienced with cooking, he will be the supervisor and you will cook the meal under his guidance. He begins by giving you a list of ingredients to pick up from the market. After you have taken a trip to the market and purchased all of the ingredients, he tells you how to prepare the ingredients. He then tells you how to cook the meal, and how to set the table. After you are finished, he sits at the table and tells you how to serve the meal. After the two of you have finished eating dinner, he tells you how to clean up the mess. When you are finished cleaning the mess, he tells you how to give him a foot massage, and then he tells you to clean the living room. After you have finished cleaning, he tells you to stay overnight at his house so that you can make breakfast the next morning. He tells you that since it's going to be a cold night, you should sleep with the dog in the garage because the dog will keep you warm.

What is the difference between a friend who treats you in that manner, and the manner in which we are being treated by people in leadership positions in business, government, charities, schools, think tanks, and other organizations? For example, consider the Boeing Company. The engineers do the difficult work of designing airplanes and experimenting with technology, and the people who put the airplane together do the difficult work of building the airplane. However, the people in management believe that they are so special that they deserve to be treated like Kings and Queens. For example, Boeing's Chief Executive was given $27 million for 2012.

Are the executives who make millions of dollars every year actually earning their money? Or are they equivalent to a person who tells you to massage his feet and then go sleep in the garage with his dog? This report claims that one executive at Apple was given $377 million in "compensation" during 2011. Did he truly earn that money?

Businesses, nations, sports groups, and other organizations are teams of people. How do we determine who in a team deserves better treatment, more money, larger homes, or better clothing? Or should everybody be treated equally?

In a free enterprise system, nobody has the authority to determine who among us will get special treatment. Instead, people compete for money in whatever manner they please, and whoever makes the most money gets the best treatment, regardless of who they are, what they have done, or whether their work is beneficial. We also allow people to make money through inheritances, gambling, state lotteries, and divorce.

The people who become wealthy in a free enterprise system are not necessarily the people who are contributing the most to society. Many of them are doing work that is annoying, parasitic, or criminal. Examples are people who become wealthy from investments, religion, telemarketing, credit cards, banking, charities, insurance, and advertising.

The communists promoted the theory of treating everybody as equals, but it is impossible for a nation to successfully implement such a policy because no nation has people who are even close to being equal to one another. There is an incredible variation of people in every nation. At one extreme are the people who cannot or will not contribute to society, and at the other extreme are the people who are responsible, honest, talented, and willing to contribute to the team.

If an organization consisted of people who are very similar to one another, then it would be possible for them to share everything equally. Unfortunately, the human race is such a genetic mess that we cannot treat everybody equally. We cannot even trust one another.

However, if we create some completely new cities and restrict immigration so that each city is more homogenous, and if we make sacrifices to eliminate the peasant class, then each city will be able to treat its people in a more equal manner. They may not want total equality, but it would be a dramatic improvement over what we see today.

In one of my other documents, I recommended a society in which food and basic necessities are free, and everybody has exactly the same level of housing and standard of living. Instead of rewarding the unusually talented people with larger houses, money, or servants, we would give them some special privileges, such as nicer buildings for restaurants, recreational facilities, and social clubs.

Of course, since humans are selfish and arrogant, the people in leadership positions will look for opportunities to increase their privileges. As I have mentioned many times, an organization is only as good as its members. If the city is dominated by apathetic sheep, or, if they behave like submissive monkeys who give blind obedience to their leaders, then eventually their leaders will have increased their privileges to the point at which they are being treated like Kings and Queens.

In order for the new cities to be better than the existing cities, a certain percentage of the population must take an active role in watching over their leaders and passing judgment on when they are providing good leadership, and when they are behaving like selfish monkeys. Since it is unnatural for us to ensure our leaders are behaving properly, it requires people who can push themselves into tolerating the emotional discomfort of reviewing our leaders, and standing up to abusive leaders.

If we switch to the type of economic system that I've described in other documents, then we give ourselves total control over all of the jobs, businesses, products, and services. That allows us to determine exactly what each person receives as compensation for his work, and we can determine who should get special privileges, and what those special privileges should be.

In a free enterprise system, the people involved with sales often receive the highest salary because the most difficult aspect of a free enterprise system is making money. A free enterprise system is too chaotic for a business to plan for their future, and so every business is forced to guess at what consumers will want. Businesses also have to guess at what government regulations will become, and what other businesses might do.

There are thousands of people who can do engineering, millions who can do skilled labor, and billions who can do unskilled labor, but there are not many people who can make good guesses about how to make profit in a free enterprise system. I never would have guessed that the "pet rock" would be profitable, and now there is a USB version.

The people who are best at guessing at which products and services will become profitable are among the most valuable people in a free enterprise system. People involved with making sales are also very valuable. However, if we take control of our economy, we don't need people with that type of talent.

By changing the economy, a different group of people will become more valuable. Specifically, people who are capable of planning the future course of the human race by determining which products and services are best for society. That is not as simple as it sounds. It requires analyzing the burden and benefit to every product and service. It requires people who can analyze issues, do research, and have serious discussions.

In a free enterprise system, business executives are concerned only with the profitability and sales of an item. They don't care about the effect a product has on society, or whether it has any value to consumers. By comparison, when the government is in control of society, we need leaders who ignore profitability and consumer desires and focus on how a product will affect society.

In a free enterprise system, businesses will produce any item that they can make a profit from, but when the government is in control, the business executives have to discuss such issues as,
"How exactly is this item going to improve life for us? If we have two identical cities, but one has this product and the other does not, what will be the difference between life in those two cities? What burden does the item impose on society in regards to resources, labor, and recycling? What are its benefits? What effect will it have on people's leisure activities, morale, or attitude? Will this product replace some other product that we are already producing, and if so, will we be able to use those existing production facilities to make this new product? Or will we need a new factory? Is there a way of modifying the item so that we can produce it on the existing equipment?"

In this type of economic system, we have amazing options available for us because we have complete control over our products and services. For example, our leaders would be able to discuss whether it would be better to provide each person and business with personal computers, or whether we should switch to central computers that we connect to with terminals, and which are completely compatible with phones, GPS units, and other devices.

Our leaders would also have to determine what restrictions each product should have. We currently have restrictions on explosives, guns, alcohol, automobiles, and airplanes, but I think some of our restrictions are idiotic, such as requiring us to get a doctor's prescription for medical drugs while allowing us to have easy access to unlimited quantities of food, aspirin, alcohol, sugar, candy, guns, tasers, tattoos, body piercings, motorcycles, and trampolines.

We restrict medical drugs on the grounds that some people have abused the drugs, but there are lots of people who have regretted their tattoos or their marriage, so why not make tattoos and marriage by prescription only? Why do we try to protect people from their idiotic use of drugs but not from their idiotic use of tattoos or marriage?

Our leaders need to analyze the benefits and burden to each restriction, and they need to provide an explanation for all of their restrictions so that we can pass judgment on whether they are making intelligent decisions.

When a person drives an automobile in a reckless manner, we don't put restrictions on automobiles. Rather, we put restrictions on that particular person. When a person uses a knife to kill somebody, we don't force everybody to get a doctor's prescription for a knife. Rather, we deal with the person who cannot handle the freedom to have a knife. We don't make everybody suffer just because a few people are misbehaving.

I suggest a city experiment with this policy for drugs, and as many other products as practical. In that city, there would be no restrictions on medical drugs, alcohol, LSD, and other drugs. Nobody would get in trouble for having those items, transporting them, or using them. However, when a person abuses one of those drugs, we impose restrictions on that particular person, or we evict him from society.

Since most of the people in the city would have no interest in drugs except when they have a medical problem, you might wonder why I would suggest allowing everybody to have access to the drugs. There are three reasons for this:
1) I think it is psychologically better to provide people with as much freedom as possible, even if they have no desire for the freedom.
2) It reduces the burden on law enforcement and businesses. Pharmacies don't have to waste their time dealing with prescriptions, and the police don't have to waste their time looking for or arresting people with drugs. Scientists would be able to transport drugs that they are using in experiments without worrying about getting arrested, and without having to waste their time getting prescriptions or permissions. The city gardeners would be able to incorporate hemp, coca plants, and heroin poppies in botanical displays without worrying about getting arrested.
3) Our laws to control drug use are failures. The laws don't stop people from abusing drugs, or even getting access to illegal drugs, so what is the point of having them?

Americans currently have the freedom to purchase, transport, and use unlimited amounts of chocolate, cocoa, coffee, isopropyl alcohol, sodium hydroxide, and lots of other potentially dangerous drugs and chemicals. Would we improve our nation by requiring people to get a doctor's prescription for those items? Would we improve our nation by telling the police to start monitoring those items and arresting people who use or transport them without proper permission?

I suggest we reevaluate our attitudes towards freedom and laws. I also suggest eliminating the "peasant class", and that requires that we make sacrifices in order to eliminate as many unskilled jobs as possible. We should not impose any burden on ourselves unless the benefit is truly worth it. Our restrictions on drugs imposes a significant burden on us, but what is the benefit? Since our laws do not stop people from abusing drugs, or even getting access to drugs, I don't see any benefit.

I suggest experimenting with a society that provides us with more freedom, and the people who abuse the freedom are put under restrictions, or evicted. The only people who should have restrictions on their access to food, drugs, museums, recreational activities, and transportation systems are the people who cannot behave properly.

In a free enterprise system, the people who are best at dealing with profitability and sales will rise to the top leadership positions in business, but when we take control of the economy, we are likely to find a different group of people rising to the top leadership positions. Instead of aggressive, selfish apes who fight for money, and who are nearly invisible because they never have anything intelligent to say, we will have leaders who regularly impress us with their intelligent analyses of what would be best for society.

Free enterprise encourages fighting

It is much easier to make a variation of a successful product than it is to develop a completely new product. As a result, many businesses routinely analyze the market to determine which products are profitable, and then they make their own variation of one of the successful products. To avoid patent and copyright infringements, they make a few trivial changes. Some of them give their product a very similar name and logo in an attempt to fool people into thinking it is the original product. Then they put their variation on the market, and fight the other businesses for the same group of customers. They behave like apes that are fighting over a bunch of bananas.

Society doesn't benefit when 50 different businesses are producing 50 insignificant variations of the same product. We don't need 50 meaningless variations of laundry detergent.

The only situation that justifies allowing different businesses to produce the same product is when they are in different areas of the world and are supplying the product for their local area. This concept is especially useful for items that we don't want to transport long distances. For example, it makes sense for businesses in different regions to produce gravel, eggs, and fresh fruit for their region. Unfortunately, most of the people who dominate the free enterprise system are not satisfied to provide products for their region. They want to dominate the world, and since it is impractical to transport certain products, they set up farms or manufacturing plants in other regions. They end up fighting with the local businesses over the same group of customers.

Government officials behave in the same crude manner. Specifically, they fight other cities, states, and nations for tourists. I made sarcastic jokes about it here, but it is not funny. We are wasting our tax money when we allow government officials to fight over tourists.

It is also easier for a business to purchase another business than it is to start a new product. As a result, many businesses are frequently trying to purchase one another, sometimes through diabolical techniques. From the point of view of an individual businessman, this can be profitable, but from the point of view of society, it is often a waste of time, labor, and resources.

There are some types of businesses that cannot operate very efficiently when they are small, and so society benefits when they join together, but the business executives who are trying to purchase other businesses are not interested in increasing the efficiency of society. They are only trying to increase their profit. They also want to purchase other businesses so that they can feel more important. They want to be the dominant monkey in the hierarchy. They are doing what is best for themselves, not what is best for society.

Some business executives purchase more businesses than they can manage, and then have to sell them later. They are behaving like a stupid squirrel who is struggling to put every acorn into its cheeks, and the result is that one acorn falls out as it puts another one in.

If the people dominating the free enterprise system were more human and less like a monkey, then instead of fighting with each other, they would produce slightly different products for different customers. For example, there is no reason for Boeing and Airbus to produce virtually the same style of airplane, and there is no reason for bicycle companies to produce virtually the same style of bicycles. The market for bicycles and airplanes is so large that lots of businesses can survive by producing different models for different markets.

Unfortunately, the type of people who become dominant in the free enterprise system are not satisfied to merely make a living or do something beneficial. They are like abnormally aggressive and dominating apes, or communist dictators, who want more land, more money, and more status. They are never satisfied. They are like an obese person who cannot stop eating. They want to be the king of the world. They cannot enjoy life as long as a competitor is making money.

Furthermore, they don't regard their competitors as "friends". As with animals, they regard their competitors as "enemies", and they want to destroy them. They don't want to inspire their competitors, help their competitors, or consider their competitors to be teammates.

Our emotions encourage us to form tribes of monkeys that fight with one another. We can see this monkey-like behavior with people of different cities, and students of different schools. Some of the people in Chicago believe that they are better than the people in New York, and that their city is better, also. Some of the people at Harvard university believe they are better people than the students at Oxford University, and that their school is better, also.

All of us have a tendency to engage in this monkey-like behavior, but some of us have better control over our emotions. We must pass judgment on who among us has better self-control, and put those people in positions of influence. We need leaders who regard us as teammates, not as potential threats.

We are hurting society when we allow business leaders to sabotage, suppress, and hurt their competitors. To add to our problems, many businesses steal technology from one another, just like animals grabbing food from one another. This in turn causes the businesses to increase their security procedures, which is a wasteful burden on the business, and an irritation to the employees.

If we get rid of our free enterprise system and take control of the economy, then we can stop businesses from fighting over customers, stealing technology, and trying to hurt one another. We can ensure that the businesses are producing slightly different products, and after every product cycle, they share their technology. We can ensure that regional businesses produce products only for their region. We will also have control over who becomes a leader in the economy, and this allows us to restrict leadership to people who are capable of competing in a fair manner, and who inspire their own employees and their competitors.

By taking control of our economy, we don't have to guess at our future. We can determine exactly what our future will be. We can decide whether we want to produce pet rocks, and if so, whether we should develop a Bluetooth version or a network version.

To understand the value of this type of economic system, consider how dramatically it would change the jobs of the managers at Boeing and Airbus. In our current free enterprise system, there is no way the executives of those companies can figure out what type of airplane they should create. They have to make a guess. If creating an airplane was a easy as creating a new style of donut, then both Boeing and Airbus could provide dozens of varieties of airplanes and let airline companies pick the ones they prefer. Unfortunately, creating a modern airplane is an extremely time-consuming and expensive task, so Boeing and Airbus must be very cautious about developing a new model. If they make a mistake and develop an airplane that is unpopular, they will suffer a significant financial burden.

If we take control of the economy, we eliminate the problem of trying to predict the irrational behavior of consumers and the irrational behavior of other businesses. We can design airplanes according to what we think would be best for society. To prevent fighting, Boeing would be given the task of designing certain models of airplanes, and Airbus would design the others. They would not be fighting for the same customers, and they would not be trying to cheat, steal from, or sabotage one another. They would be competing with each other to a certain extent, but they would also be sharing their technology once in a while and inspiring one another.

The business executives in a free enterprise system spend a lot of time making guesses about the future. When we take control of our economy, they will spend their time analyzing our options and making suggestions on what our future should be.

It is better to improve industrial products

As of January 2014, several different automobile companies are developing self-driving and self-parking automobiles. If they are successful, each of them will keep their technology a secret, and we will end up with several meaningless variations of the same product, and each of their products will be incompatible with the others.

If we take control of our economy, then we can decide if we want to develop self-driving automobiles, and if so, how many teams of people we want working on the project, and how large those teams will be. We can also ensure that the teams occasionally share their technology with one another, and that their products are compatible with one another.

I would recommend that we reduce the emphasis on self-driving automobiles and put more emphasis on self-driving and automated equipment for farming, earth moving, mining, factories, scientific laboratories, hospitals, and construction. It is more important for us to improve our industries and laboratories than it is to improve our consumer products, but in a free enterprise system, consumer products get first priority.

The idea that we will gain greater benefit by improving our industrial products rather than our consumer products may seem irrational. Your first thought might be that the consumer products will remain in an almost stagnant state while the industries are improving. Initially, during the first few years, it is true that the consumer products will remain stagnant. However, after a while, there will be noticeable improvements in consumer products.

Perhaps the best way to understand this concept is to imagine if America and China decide to send a group of people to another solar system, but America decides to start the project now, January 2014, and China decides to wait until 2080. If America were to start this project today, it would require a phenomenal amount of resources. We would have to spend a few years launching rockets into orbit in order to create an interplanetary rocket with enough food and fuel to get to another solar system. Assume that we get that rocket constructed by the year 2030, and then it starts on its way to the next solar system. By the year 2060, that rocket might have passed the orbit of Pluto, and after another few million years, it will reach the next solar system.

Now imagine that China put the same amount of resources into improving their factories, research labs, and other industrial equipment. By the year 2030, the American rocket is starting on his journey, but the Chinese are still working on their factories. By the year 2060, the American rocket has passed the orbit of Pluto, but the Chinese are still improving their factories. In the year 2080 the Chinese finally start designing and building a rocket, but at this point in time, their factories are so advanced that they can build the rocket in only a few years, and it is a much faster rocket. Although it starts the trip many decades later, it eventually passes the American rocket, and it reaches the other solar system thousands of years sooner.

If we follow our emotions, we will put all of our effort into video games, pets, gambling, and other entertainment. If we control our emotions and think about what is best for society in the long run, then we will put most of our effort into factories, research labs, recycling centers, and other industrial products.

When we bring more automation to our factories, mines, recycling centers, restaurants, water treatment plants, farms, and warehouses, we reduce the amount of labor that we need for society to function, and we reduce the number of unpleasant jobs that we have to do. When we develop better medical equipment, we reduce the labor and resources necessary to provide medical care, and we can also speed up the process of providing medical care. When we improve our industrial robots, we reduce the labor and resources involved with producing and maintaining our products, and we give ourselves more flexibility in creating new products and services.

If two cities are identical in all respects, except that one of them is putting most of their effort into consumer products, and the other is putting most of their effort into industrial products, then after many decades, the one with the more advanced industrial equipment will be noticeably more advanced overall. They will be able to produce higher-quality consumer products with less labor, and they will be able to provide themselves with better and faster medical care, and they will be able to do everything else better and faster, such as gardening, farming, and maintaining bicycles.

A free enterprise system encourages profit with no regard for how it is made, but if we take control of our economy, then we can ignore what consumers want and think about what is best for society. From the point of view of society, self-driving automobiles are a waste of engineering talent and resources. The reason is because our cities are so chaotic that it would require a tremendous amount of engineering effort to design the sensors and software necessary to handle such incredibly chaotic traffic conditions.

If we truly want self-driving automobiles, then we should design a city specifically for such vehicles. We should lay out the city and the roads so that it is more practical for a computer to drive an automobile. We should also consider putting at least some of the roads underground to reduce the problem of the automobiles colliding with pedestrians, bicyclists, children, animals, and fallen tree branches. Putting the roads underground would also reduce the noise and the dust, thereby making the city more pleasant.

However, if we are going to design a city for self-driving automobiles, and if we are willing to put some or all of the roads underground, then we ought to consider creating a completely automated, underground train system. That would be much easier because we already have the technology to do that. We don't have to put a phenomenal amount of resources into developing some incredibly complex software and sensors.

It is impossible in a free enterprise system for a society to create completely new cities because there is no way to coordinate all of the businesses, government agencies, schools, and people. Until we find the courage to experiment with a new government and economic system, businesses have no option except to add features to existing automobiles.

Do we really have "freedom"?

Our cities are going to remain in their chaotic, ugly, miserable state until we find the ability to push ourselves into experimenting with new social technology. A lot of people claim to want "freedom", but what is freedom? How many people today can truly say they have freedom?

None of us have the freedom to live in a city that is low on crime, or the freedom to remove business leaders who are selfishly grabbing phenomenal resources for their own personal titillation, or the freedom to remove corrupt governments, or the freedom to eliminate crime networks. We also don't have the freedom to design a new city, or experiment with a new transportation system, or remove the Jewish propaganda from our school curriculum. We don't have the freedom for assisted suicide, either, and parents don't have the freedom to be relieved of the burden of retarded children.

What is freedom? Should a city, neighborhood, or apartment building have the freedom to evict people they don't enjoy living with? Or should each person have the freedom to live wherever they please, even if the neighbors don't like them? Should single people have the freedom to lie about their history, keep secrets, and deceive one another? Or should single people have the freedom to know the truth about one another? Should businesses have the freedom to do telemarketing, door-to-door sales, and begging for donations? Or should citizens have the freedom to choose whether they want businesses contacting them for those purposes? Should people have the freedom to lie about their job history and education when they are looking for jobs? Or should employers have the freedom to know the truth about a person's history?

We need to start discussing what is best for society. Some people might point out that when we make decisions that are best for society, we will sometimes make mistakes and end up creating a product or policy that we regret. Yes, indeed, there will occasionally be mistakes. Businesses are making mistakes right now, and so are our governments, sports groups, and other organizations, and all of us will continue to make mistakes.

We cannot be afraid of making mistakes. Instead, we must learn from our mistakes. Don't allow potential mistakes to cause you to become incapacitated with fear! Look for solutions to problems; don't look for excuses to do nothing.

For example, let's assume that we decide to put a particular model of airplane or cell phone into production, and after a while we realize that we should have designed it differently. Are you going to die as a result of that mistake? Are you going to suffer? No. Your life will not be ruined. If the product is truly awful, then we can discontinue producing it, but otherwise we can continue to use it, and when it wears out, we can replace it with an improved version.

Furthermore, by not allowing the government officials to operate in secrecy, and by not behaving submissively towards leaders, we will know which official approves or disapproves of a particular product, and that allows us to pass judgment on which official is doing a good job with product development decisions, and which of them needs to be replaced.

We need better industrial equipment

As I mentioned, we benefit much more by putting more emphasis on improving our industrial equipment. This is especially true in a society in which we want to eliminate the peasant class. We need to automate as much of our equipment as possible.

In addition to saving labor, automated equipment can operate at any time of day or night, and in bad weather. This gives us the opportunity to conduct some operations without bothering people. For some examples:
• If all cargo containers were entered into a database to identify the ship they need to be placed on, and the location on that ship, and if we develop a gigantic version of a "pick and place" robotic arm that has video cameras or other sensors to identify the containers and deal with slight variations in the location of the containers, then the robots would be able to load and unload cargo ships by themselves.

• If we automate some of our lawn mowing and gardening equipment, then computers could do a lot of the gardening tasks during the middle of the night.

• If we develop automated farming equipment, then computers can do the tilling, planting, weeding, and/or harvesting, and at any time of the day or night.

• If we automate the mining equipment that goes underground, then robots can do the underground mining, even under conditions of extreme heat and poisonous gases.

• If we develop a computer-controlled sweeping and mopping machine, then computers could clean the floors of buildings while people are sleeping, and they could also clean the outdoor walkways and plazas.

• If we were to design public bathrooms specifically for automated cleaning equipment, then the public bathrooms could be cleaned by machines.

• If we could develop a fully automated train system that is quiet, reliable, and rapid, then none of us have to be bothered with the driving of automobiles or trains. We will also eliminate parking lots and gas stations. And if the transportation system is free, we don't waste any time or resources on tasks or equipment associated with paying for the train ride.

We have tremendous options available to us if we get rid of our free enterprise system and take control of our economy, but this type of society would be horrible if it becomes dominated by crime networks, retards, psychos, apathetic sheep, unskilled idiots, irresponsible savages, or people who are terrified of the unknown.

We must find people who have a concern for society, and who can push themselves into experimenting with improvements. We need people who can tolerate emotional discomfort as well as athletes can tolerate physical discomfort. We need people who want to be team members rather than Kings and Queens. We need people who can think of other people as friends rather than as enemies.

Our long-term goal should be to eliminate special privileges

Returning to the issue I brought up earlier, who among us deserve special treatment? I suspect that if we create a new city, it will be fairly easy for people to agree on which jobs should have some special privileges. It would be similar to what we see right now in which the managers, scientists, doctors, dentists, engineers, and other skilled people have special privileges. The issue that will be more difficult to resolve is what the special privileges should be.

I suspect that a society will have a better social environment and morale when we don't let the differences become so large that it creates resentment or bitterness. The differences should be subtle. For example, we could let the privileged people have slightly more expensive buildings for their restaurants, social clubs, and recreational areas. They could also have higher priority to the scarce resources.

I mentioned earlier that we must watch over the people in leadership positions to prevent them from increasing their privileges. Rather than allow our leaders to increase their privileges, society should set a goal for itself to slowly reduce the privileges through the generations, and eventually eliminate them. The way to accomplish this goal is to control reproduction so that every generation has fewer idiots, retards, and miserable people. The children of each generation should be more equal to one another, and less like an animal. Ideally, a society would consist of people who are so equal in talent, honesty, intelligence, and responsibility that nobody feels that they deserve special privileges.

If the people who are involved with controlling reproduction can do their job properly, then there would be a reduction of idiots and savages in every generation. After thousands of years, it is conceivable that almost everybody is happy, healthy, good-looking, honest, responsible, and talented. The people would be so equal to one another that they would not feel any need to give special privileges to anybody. Nobody in that society would be famous because they would all be so similar to one another. Nobody would feel inadequate, ugly, uncoordinated, or stupid. Everybody would feel as if they were living among friends rather than among peasants and idiots.

Why does a man want to be leader?

The human world is becoming increasingly complex, both technically and socially. All jobs in the future are going to require a greater level of intelligence, skills, and responsibility. Farmers of the future will not drive tractors. Instead, they will monitor sensors and video cameras and supervise computer-controlled machinery and greenhouses.

The bicycle repair shops of the future will also require employees who have greater skills and knowledge than those of today. The bicycles will have more advanced materials, bearings, and tires, and the mechanics will use robots to do some of the difficult and boring repairs.

The plumbers, carpenters, and construction workers of the future will not spend much time with wrenches or screwdrivers. They will spend more of their time controlling robots and monitoring video cameras and sensors. For example, robots will eventually be developed to install tiles onto floors, so instead of construction workers mixing cement and getting on their hands and knees to lay tile, they will have to learn how to operate the robotic equipment that handles those tasks. Some people will control robots that are in another city, in the ocean, underground, and on the moon.

The complexity of the jobs in the future will require schools to do a better job of training students, and it will require leaders who are better able to coordinate all of the complicated projects and jobs. The leader of a prehistoric tribe didn't do much of anything, but leaders are becoming increasingly important to modern society. Eventually human organizations must make a transformation between what we could describe as a "tribes of talking monkeys", to a "teams of humans".

Most of our organizations today have a strong resemblance to tribes of monkeys. Consider how a tribe of monkeys behaves in order to understand this concept. A tribe of monkeys is dominated by a male who has achieved his position through intimidation, violence, physical fights, snarls, glares, biting, fighting, and kicking. He fought to become the dominant monkey because he wanted to satisfy his emotional cravings for dominance, not because he wanted to take on the responsibilities of leadership.

When the male animals fight for dominance, they are simply trying to titillate their emotional craving for dominance. Their decision to fight for dominance is an emotional decision, not an intellectual decision. They have no concern for the quality of their lives, or the quality of life for the other animals. They are not interested in their society, or their future, or dealing with the problems that their society faces. They are not interested in the responsibility of leadership. They are simply trying to satisfy their emotional craving for dominance.

The other monkeys respond to the dominant monkey with submission, but not because they believe that he is a better leader than the other monkeys. Their decision to behave submissively is also an emotional decision, not an intellectual decision. The monkeys never contemplate the issue of which male belongs in the dominant position. They have no regard for whether the dominant male is providing proper leadership. They are submissive to the dominant monkey because they follow their emotional cravings, not because they analyze the situation and follow what they consider to be the most intelligent policy.

The dominant males have sexual access to the females because the females are emotionally titillated by whichever male is in the dominant position. The females never think about which male deserves to reproduce. The females have no concern for how the male achieved his position of dominance, or whether he is providing proper leadership. The females are making emotional decisions, not intellectual decisions.

All human societies are currently showing a very strong resemblance to tribes of monkeys. For example, men everywhere are struggling to become the top of the hierarchy in their business, sports organization, nation, charity, or think tank, but not because they want the responsibility of a leadership position. Rather, the men compete for leadership simply because they are struggling to satisfy their cravings for dominance. They are behaving exactly like male monkeys. None of the men are thinking of what is best for themselves or their organization. They are not analyzing their leadership abilities and coming to the conclusion that they would provide better leadership than the current leader. Rather, they are fighting for dominance because they have emotional cravings for dominance. They assume they are the best leader because they are arrogant, not because they analyzed the situation in an intelligent manner.

In order for human societies to become better than a group of monkeys, we must exert some control over our emotions and select leaders in a more sensible manner. We should not allow men to become leaders simply to satisfy their emotional craving for dominance. We have to analyze a person's life and pass judgment on whether he wants to be a leader to titillate himself and impress women, or because he is truly interested in dealing with the responsibility and work of leadership. And we must regularly review the performance of our leaders to ensure that each of them is continuing to provide us with good leadership.

Unfortunately, no society yet is showing any concern about who becomes a leader, or why he wants to be a leader. We don't even make an attempt to stop people from acquiring leadership positions through intimidation, inheritances, marriage, or nepotism. It is also fairly easy for people to acquire leadership positions through bribery, blackmail, and murder because we don't have much of an interest in stopping crime.

Because of our lack of concern for who becomes a leader, and our lack of concern about stopping crime, human societies have leadership that isn't much better than what we would find in a tribe of monkeys. This problem is the worst in the organizations that have members who are below average in intelligence or above average in mental disorders, such as crime networks, communist organizations, and churches. Organizations of idiots and psychotic people have noticeably worse leadership than organizations of higher-quality people.

The leader of tribe of monkeys has no desire to recognize the talents of the other monkeys, especially not of his competitors. His emotional craving is to frighten, intimidate, and suppress competitors, not help them develop their talents and become better monkeys. A male monkey would never voluntarily step aside for another monkey who shows signs of better leadership qualities.

As of today, the leaders of human societies are behaving in a similar manner as the monkeys. The men at the top of the hierarchy do not encourage other people to develop their talents and become leaders. Rather, they try to suppress their competitors. The communist leaders go even further and fill government positions with submissive idiots in order to prevent talented people from competing with them.

Imagine living in a society in which the men in top leadership positions of government, business, science, and other organizations were encouraging other men to develop their talents and compete with them. That type of behavior is unnatural for us, but if we can create a city in which the men have enough control over their emotions to do what makes the most intellectual sense, then those men will realize that everybody will benefit when we encourage everybody to develop their talents and compete fairly.

Many people are capable of applying that concept to skilled workers. For example, when we discover a problem with the electrical wiring in our house, we might initially look into the problem to see if we can fix it by ourselves, but if it looks complicated, most people realize that there are other people who can fix the problem faster and better, and so they voluntarily allow another person to do the job for them.

Unfortunately, not many people apply that concept to leadership positions. Most people prefer to believe that they are the greatest leader the human race has ever created. Most people insist that they know the best policy for crime, Iran's nuclear reactors, abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, alcohol, economic issues, women's issues, and every other social issue. Most people insist that they are super geniuses who would solve all of the world's problems if they could become dictator.

Men want to be leaders because we have a craving to be a leader, not because we want the responsibilities of leadership, or because we have put some serious thought into the issue and actually have reasons to believe that we will provide better leadership than the current leaders. We could describe this as: "Men want to be a leader simply to jerk themselves off."

We cannot let men become leaders simply because they want to be leaders. We need to pass judgment on who actually has the talent to be a leader, and we need to pass judgment on whether they want to be leader because they actually have an interest in helping society, or whether they are simply trying to titillate themselves.

If we discover that a man is trying to suppress or intimidate his competitors, we should consider him to be more like an animal than a human, and he should be disqualified from a leadership position. We should not tolerate leaders who eliminate competitors. Our leaders should inspire us to become better, not suppress those of us who are talented. They should encourage fair competition, not look for ways to cheat.

We have a responsibility to maintain our team
Why should we care about Phil Robertson's opinions?
In December 2013, a magazine published this article about the Duck Dynasty television show, and they included comments from a member of the show, Phil Robertson. As is true of the majority of people, none of Robertson's opinions are unique. There are millions of Americans who have virtually the same opinions. Therefore, his comments should not have attracted any attention. However, hundreds of journalists were furious with Robertson's disapproval of homosexuality. They responded by publishing accusations that Robertson was anti-gay and hateful.

There were so many journalists complaining about Robertson that we ought to consider the possibility that this was a coordinated attack. It seems similar to the bizarre attacks on Angelina Jolie, which I've mentioned in other documents. Furthermore, it should be noted that some of the journalists were publishing remarks that would normally be considered as "obnoxious". For example, the New York Daily News published a "news article" with some of Charlie Sheen's remarks, such as:
"The only thing you should ever be in charge of building is a hole in the ground the exact size of your head," he wrote. "Perhaps your beard would fit as well if you plucked out the army of scabies and bull weevils sequestered deep in its sarcophagus of dander and weasel pelts."

Is that your idea of "news"? I would not even authorize Sheen's remarks for the entertainment section of a newspaper. Furthermore, I would say that the people who publish such idiotic insults should be forever banned from journalism on the grounds that they do not have the intellectual or emotional characteristics necessary to provide us with sensible news articles.

Robertson and his family believe that the attack on him was a deliberate attempt to control him. I suspect that also, and if this theory is correct, and if the journalists succeed in intimidating Robertson, then the journalists will be able to tell other people, "If you want publicity, then you either obey us, or we will destroy you, as we did with Phil Robertson! And our friend Charlie Sheen will attack you, also."

On 21 December 2013, the mysterious website posted this article that claims that President Obama ordered the attack on Phil Robertson. Why would that website blame Obama? The pattern that I see with that website is that it blames all mysterious events on Obama, the CIA, the US military, and other groups, but never Israel or Jews. That site seems to be doing "damage control" for the Jews. It shifts attention away from Jews and onto other people.

Phil Robertson and his family may be correct that the attack is an attempt to intimidate him into submission, and thereby intimidate everybody else who dares to stand up to the Jews, but I suspect that the Jews are also using the attack in order to promote homosexuality.

As I mentioned in previous documents, it seems to me as if the American media is dominated by Jews who promote homosexuals, toilet humor, criminals, pirates, pouting, ugly duckling-type of stories, and psychotic sexual attitudes. However, I don't know whether they are promoting these unpleasant attitudes because they want to destroy our society, or because they truly enjoy this material, or both.

For another example of the attitudes of the Jewish media, every Christmas the ABC network shows a cartoon of the Dr. Seuss story, How the Grinch stole Christmas. After that cartoon is over, ABC shows a Hollywood version of the story. However, Hollywood modified the story to become a variation of the "Ugly Duckling" plot. In the Hollywood version, the Grinch started life as an ugly, hairy child who was a social misfit, and who was bullied by the normal children. One day he had a temper tantrum and ran away to live in a cave in a mountain to waste the rest of his life pouting and hating. Many years later, a young girl convinces the adults that the Grinch is actually a wonderful man, and she invites him to their Christmas party, and then he becomes the center of attention.

Many Jews seem to enjoy plots in which they can feel sorry for an ugly, goofy child who is ridiculed, but who eventually grows up to be somebody special. I would not be surprised if Jews are more likely than the rest of us to fantasize about being Superman or some type of superhero. The Jews seem to be suffering from low self-esteem, and want desperately to imagine that they are wonderful people who deserve admiration and respect, and who deserve beautiful, well behaved, human women rather than crude, ugly, female Jews.

Update: 5 Feb 2014: after reading the above paragraph, somebody sent me some articles that were written by Jews about how the Jews created the comic book industry, (this and this) and the Jewishness of Superman (this and this).

The people who dominate Hollywood have unpleasant attitudes, and they encourage pouting, envy, hatred, and other destructive emotions. Our media should be under the control of people who are happy and healthy, not a network of freaks who hate themselves and idolize criminals and pirates.

Furthermore, we should know who is in control of our media. We should not allow the media to be under the control of secretive people. We should know who is in control of television, school books, Internet, telephone network, and libraries. We should also regularly analyze everybody in a leadership position and pass judgment on whether we consider their actions to be appropriate for an influential position.

Do you have any idea who is making decisions about which programs to put on television? A lot of Americans boast that we have a "democracy", but our television shows and schoolbooks are controlled by a secretive group of criminals, and those criminals are routinely lying to us about news events and history. Is that a democracy? No, that is a group of ignorant and foolish sheep who have allowed crime networks to take control of their media. That is a nation with such worthless law enforcement and so little government supervision that crime networks can get control of the media without any opposition.

We should know who is in control of our media, and we should pass judgment on whether we think they have appropriate attitudes and are providing us with proper leadership. We should maintain the morale of society, and encourage beneficial attitudes. I would not be surprised if the Jew in this video has an attitude that is typical of the people who dominate our media. (He confronts a Christian fanatic, and he promotes the typical Jewish attitude that "goyim" are tormenting and killing Jews and homosexuals.)

When the members of an organization are apathetic and irresponsible, they allow the organization to be dominated by criminals. We must take an active role in maintaining our society. We should occasionally analyze what journalists are doing and pass judgment on whether they are giving us an accurate and useful view of world events and history. We should also continuously replace the worst-performing journalists so that other people have a chance at the job. We are fools to let Barbara Walters and other Jews keep their jobs for as long as they please.

Unfortunately, humans have no emotional craving to determine what effect a journalist has on society, and we don't receive any emotional pleasure from replacing the worst performing journalists. In order to provide ourselves with a more useful media, we must be able to tolerate the emotional discomfort that is going to result from analyzing the television shows, school books, news articles, and other documents, and passing judgment on whether the people responsible for these items are helping society or hurting it. We must also tolerate the emotional discomfort of telling a journalist that he must find another job because we don't approve of his performance. We must follow the philosophy of an athlete and tell each other, "No pain, no gain. Ignore the discomfort of analyzing journalists! Quit whining!"

Why do Jews want homosexuals to join the military?

Ever since I was a teenager, I had the impression that the media was dominated by people who disliked the military and police. I expected the media to encourage both heterosexuals and homosexuals to avoid the military, and I also expected them to recommend cutting the military budget. I never expected the media to encourage anybody to join the military. This makes me wonder, why is the media pushing the military into accepting homosexuals? Why isn't the media advising homosexuals to avoid the military?

A couple years ago Lady Gaga received a lot of publicity - and some assistance from government officials! - for her campaign to push the military into accepting homosexuals. I expected her to disapprove of the military, the NSA, the police agencies, and other authorities, and I expected her to advise people to avoid the military. Why would Lady Gaga want to encourage homosexuals to become sailors or soldiers?

I suspect that the reason Lady Gaga and the Jews are trying to get more homosexuals in the military is because many of the homosexuals are working for the Jewish crime network, and the Jews are trying to infiltrate and manipulate the military.

I think the Jews are becoming extremely worried that people in the military are learning about what the Jews have been doing during the past few centuries, and that the military is soon going to be so aware of the Jews, and so angry at them, that they start to investigate and deal with the problem. I think that a lot of Jews are struggling to put as many of their own members into the military as possible so that they can manipulate the investigations.

This brings up the issue of why the Jews would try to infiltrate the military with homosexuals rather than heterosexuals. If your job was to infiltrate an enemy military force, would you recruit homosexuals or heterosexuals? There are many times more heterosexuals, which would give you more people to choose from, and there is no resistance from any military to recruiting heterosexuals, so it would be significantly easier for you to infiltrate a military with heterosexuals. So, why would Jews choose the significantly more difficult option of infiltrating our military with a group of people that the military is resisting?

It is possible that the people who push the military into accepting homosexuals are doing so simply to give more job opportunities to homosexuals, but I suspect that the reason Jews are pushing homosexuals on the military, rather than heterosexuals, is because it's easier for them to find dishonest homosexuals, and it's much easier for them to blackmail homosexuals. This could also explain why so many homosexuals are in the media.

Ideally, we would remove the secrecy that we provide people and study the human race at the same level of detail that we study animals and plants. This would help us determine whether homosexuals differ from heterosexuals in criminal tendencies, diet, mental disorders, leisure activities, intellectual qualities, physical qualities, musical abilities, or math abilities.

We also need to understand how homosexuals differ from one another. Even though all women are similar to one another, each woman is unique. And even though all heterosexual men are similar to one another, they are not identical. It is safe to assume that homosexuals are not identical, either. Unfortunately, the secrecy that we provide people is making it impossible for us to figure out how one homosexual differs from another.

Religious people promote the idiotic attitude that homosexuals are the result of the devil, and some people in the media and the social sciences are promoting the equally idiotic concept that homosexuality is an option that we all have available to us. A more sensible view of homosexuality is that it is some type of "defect", similar to obesity, blindness, allergies, and cleft lip.

Rather than harass, torment, or fear homosexuals, we should treat them the same way that we treat other people with defects. We should try to understand what causes these defects, figure out how to help people and society deal with these defects, and look for ways to reduce the defects.

Do homosexuals occur more commonly among parents who are malnourished, exposed to certain chemicals, or who engage in certain activities that damage sperm or eggs, such as saunas? Are homosexuals evenly distributed among all races? Or are they more common with interracial couples?

If people could suppress their paranoia of being observed, then we could put everybody's life history into a publicly accessible database. This would allow scientists to analyze the people with allergies, homosexuality, cleft lip, etc., and that could help them notice patterns in the chemicals, activities, lifestyle, and radiation that their parents were exposed to.

Of course, to truly understand homosexuality, the homosexuals must feel comfortable enough to describe their homosexual tendencies. We are never going to understand homosexuality when the majority of them are hiding or lying about their characteristics. We need to know exactly what is different about them, and how they differ from one another.

However, there may be a sinister reason as to why so many homosexuals are secretive about themselves. Specifically, many of them may be better classified as "mentally ill", not as homosexual or lesbian.

To understand this concept, first consider how it applies to heterosexuals. Most of the people in the world are heterosexual, but there are a lot of people you would never describe as "heterosexual". Rather, you would describe them as retarded, dishonest, psychotic, mentally ill, paranoid, or antisocial. When a man rapes a woman, you don't describe him as a "heterosexual". You describe him as a rapist or criminal. When a man is regularly suffering from hallucinations, you are more likely to describe him as "mentally ill" rather than "heterosexual".

If we could study all of the homosexuals, we might find that some homosexual men are nothing more than men who are a bit more feminine, and that they are no threat or danger to society. Those homosexuals might be the result of an excess of female hormones, and/or a shortage of male hormones.

However, we may find that some homosexuals are the result of very serious brain damage, and that they would be better classified as retarded, mentally ill, or psychotic, not as "homosexual". Why focus attention to their sexual characteristics rather than their mental problems?

I also suspect that some of the homosexuals do not actually have a true attraction to their own sex. I suspect that some of them are simply unable to form a relationship with a woman, and they are taking whatever they can get, regardless of whether it is another man, an animal, a child, a robot, or a watermelon. Those particular homosexuals are not homosexuals. They are better described as heterosexuals who are lonely, desperate, and/or mentally ill.

If a man were to have sex with a plastic, inflatable woman, you would not describe him as having an attraction to plastic women. If sex robots were available, some men would have sex with them, but not because they have an attraction to robots. Likewise, just because a man has sex with another man, that does not prove that he is "homosexual".

We should define "homosexual" to be a person who has a stronger sexual attraction to his own sex than the opposite sex. Although we cannot measure such a quality, I suspect that if we could do so, we would discover that many of the people who are calling themselves "homosexual" would no longer classify as homosexuals because they actually have a stronger attraction to the opposite sex. They are heterosexuals, but with some type of problem that is causing them to use men as a substitute for women.

To complicate the issue of homosexuality, we should consider that a person who becomes homosexual as a result of a defect in his sexual brain circuitry may be suffering from more than just defective sexual emotions. What are the chances that a fetus can be defective in such a manner that the sexual area of his brain becomes homosexual but every other section is perfect? If we could study homosexuals, we might find that as a group, they have a higher percentage of mental disorders.

Why do some homosexuals, such as ex-Senator Barney Frank, have trouble pronouncing words? Some homosexuals speak in a manner that has been described as a "homosexual lisp". Are the homosexuals with speech disorders related to the savages from central Asia who have different speech capabilities? Or do some homosexuals have speech disorders because whatever caused their brain to become homosexual also damaged the area that controls speech or pronunciation?

Women, as a group, are better at pronouncing words than men, and they spend more time talking than men. Women also have better finger coordination, are more graceful, are more submissive, and have a strong craving to take care of and play with babies and children. Therefore, if homosexual men were simply the result of baby boys becoming more feminine as a result of improper hormone levels, then homosexual men should show feminine qualities, such as pronouncing words better than heterosexual men, and preferring to be a mother rather than a father.

Although some homosexual men do indeed seem to be feminine men, the homosexual men who have the homosexual lisp are not resembling either men or women. Their speech problems are more similar to people with mental retardation. Instead of describing them as homosexuals, it might be more accurate to describe them as "mental retards with sexual disorders".

People who are visually defective have a greater chance of being internally defective. We should consider that homosexuals, who are sexually defective, are suffering from other mental defects, also.
In another document I mentioned that the reason animals are so concerned about physical appearances is because if an animal is defective on the outside, there is a greater chance that it is also defective on the inside. The animals that had less concern about visual appearances were more willing to reproduce with ugly and deformed animals, and that resulted in their producing a greater number of defective children. By comparison, the animals who had more of an interest in finding a mate that was symmetrical and nice-looking had higher-quality children, and so the animals that ended up dominating the planet were those who were attracted to nice-looking mates.

If we could divide the human population up into two groups; namely, the ugly half and the better-looking half, we would find that the ugly half has a significantly larger number of internal defects in both their body and their mind.

This concept also applies to the way we speak. If we were to divide men into two groups; namely, those with the best speaking abilities, and those with the worst speaking abilities, we would find that the men with the worst speaking abilities have more physical and mental problems than the men with the better abilities.

We have a responsibility to understand homosexuals

How should a society deal with homosexuals? Most people seem to consider homosexuals to be a different and mysterious type of human, and they ignore or quietly tolerate homosexuals. A small percentage of the population accept them as equal members of society, and some religious fanatics want to help them become heterosexual.

When engineers discover defective products coming off of their assembly-line, they don't ignore, tolerate, or ridicule the defective items. Instead, they try to understand why those particular products are defective, and they try to fix the problem. We should follow the same philosophy with people. We should study homosexuals for the purpose of understanding what causes this problem, and how we can reduce it.

Unfortunately, instead of studying homosexuality, most people either ignore or accept homosexuals, and they claim it is because they are kind, loving people who don't want to torment homosexuals. In reality, most people are doing nothing about homosexuality because they don't want to deal with the problem.

In order for us to deal with the problem, we must behave like an engineer. We must push ourselves into tolerating the emotional discomfort that results from studying the issue of homosexuality, and then we must push ourselves into discussing the results of our analyses, and then we must push ourselves into experimenting with policies to deal with homosexuals.

It will be emotionally difficult for us to study homosexuality because it requires that we eliminate secrecy so that we can study both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Animals and people are extremely fearful of being observed, and so this requires a group of people who can suppress their paranoia of being observed.

A lot of people boast that they can push themselves into lifting heavy weights, but if a person can only perform physical activities, he is no more useful than a robot.

We need people who can tolerate the emotional discomfort of analyzing our social problems, confronting people who are irresponsible and destructive, and suppressing their fear of the unknown so well that they can participate in experiments to improve society.

How many people can tolerate the emotional discomfort of studying homosexuals? How many people can push themselves into participating in a study of the entire human race?

A lot of people are going to put up resistance to the study of humans. They will claim that we have no right to pry into their personal lives. The only way we will get a better understanding of the human race is if we find a group of people who can tolerate emotional discomfort so well that they will be able to confront the people who claim that they have a right to secrecy. Do you think you have the ability to tell those people something such as:

"No, you do not have a right to secrecy. You want the benefits of modern society, and that requires you to become a team member. All of us have a responsibility to participate in this team. All of us have a responsibility to ensure that every child we bring into this team is healthy, has a job, has friends, and enjoys his life. In order to provide a pleasant life for everybody, we must understand the human mind and body, and that requires eliminating secrecy and studying humans."

Unhappy people are a danger to society

No society yet has any interest in the quality of life for their people. No society cares about mental illness, loneliness, or unhappy people. No society makes any attempt to help men and women form stable friendships or marriages, and no society cares that there are miserable, angry, dishonest, and psychotic people living and working among us.

Our cities are not big families. We do not live among friends, or people we respect. Our cities are just gathering places where people exist from one day to the next. We don't enjoy the people we live with. Rather, we try to walk around the homeless people, hide from the criminals, and avoid the businesses and people who pester us for money, friendship, or sex.

We don't care that we are living among unhappy people, but unhappy people are dangerous. The reason is because animals and humans react to stimuli, and when a person is unhappy, he will seek relief for his misery. If an unhappy person chooses do to something sensible to relieve his misery, such as working with doctors to study his body and mind, and then experiment with diets, hormones, or drugs, then he may find some relief. However, no society is encouraging unhappy people to look for sensible ways of reducing their misery.

Instead, every society is promoting the idiotic philosophy that unhappiness is coming from outside of our body and mind, and that we can find happiness by titillating ourselves with money, fame, status, sex, revenge, awards, children, toys, drugs, gambling, and other activities. This philosophy is fooling millions of unhappy people into struggling to relieve their misery through money, revenge, fame, or other emotional stimulation.

Communist nations, and millions of other people, promote the even more destructive philosophy that some people are suffering from poverty, ignorance, and a lack of opportunities, and that the reason they are suffering is because government officials, aristocrats, wealthy people, and imperialist nations are abusing them and preventing them from enjoying life. This creates anger towards the mysterious group of "elite" people, and anger towards other nations.

Since it is impossible to find happiness, the people who are searching for it will always remain in a frustrated emotional condition. After a certain number of years, some of them might foolishly assume that they have not been struggling hard enough, and so they might put more of their effort into finding happiness, thereby increasing their frustration, and possibly bothering other people. Or they might come to the conclusion that they cannot find happiness in an honest manner and must be willing to cheat.

The pursuit of happiness can result in people who torment themselves and cause problems for society. For some examples, they may get married to somebody simply because they want access to that persons's money or fame; they may take jobs they don't like or cannot do properly because they assume that the job will provide them with money or status they crave; they may have children simply because they assume children will bring them happiness; they may get involved with pedophilia because they assume that sex with children will help them to feel young, or that it will be more enjoyable than having sex with adults.

The unhappy people who believe that they are suffering as a result of "aristocrats" can cause tremendous trouble for society by resisting authority, fighting with the police, and encouraging rebellion against an imaginary enemy. These unhappy people are worse than the apathetic sheep because they are destructive to society.

Another reason unhappy people are dangerous to society is because they can be manipulated by crime networks who offer them money, drugs, prostitutes, and gambling opportunities. Crime networks can also offer to help them get elected to a government position, thereby putting miserable people in government. The criminals in Hollywood can offer them roles in Hollywood movies, jobs in television, and other opportunities to become famous, thereby putting miserable people in the media.

Unhappy people are analogous to dirt in a transmission. It doesn't matter whether the unhappy people are homosexual or heterosexual. They are not team members who contribute to society. They are broken gears that are on a futile and endless quest for relief, and they cause trouble for us in the process.

A lot of heterosexuals are unhappy or suffering from mental illness, and we should assume that there are lots of unhappy and mentally ill homosexuals, also.

Are the homosexuals who go to bathhouses truly enjoying themselves? Or are they hoping that having more sex will bring more happiness to their miserable lives? Are the homosexuals who participate in gay rights parades truly enjoying life? Or do they join the parades because they hope that the parades will bring them some pleasure?

Heterosexuals don't feel any need to have a "heterosexual parade". Why do homosexuals feel a need to flaunt their homosexuality? Is it because they don't feel comfortable as homosexuals and are trying to make themselves feel better?

If we could thoroughly study homosexuals, we might find that only some of them are the result of hormone imbalances that cause a man to become more feminine. We might find that many homosexuals are the result of serious brain damage, and that those particular homosexuals are also suffering from a significantly higher level of mental illness compared to the rest of the population. We might find that mental illness is more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Miserable people are more easily manipulated by crime networks, less concerned about other people's lives, less concerned about society, and more willing to do whatever titillates them regardless of the consequences. If homosexuals are more likely to be mentally ill and miserable than heterosexuals, then that could explain why the Jewish crime network seems to have a lot of homosexual members.

Ideally, a city would be like a large family. Ideally, everybody in the city would have a concern for the quality of other people's lives. All of the adults in the city should want to help the children learn skills, remain in good health, and find friends, and we should also want to help every adult find activities that they enjoy, jobs that they get satisfaction from, and relationships that they are satisfied with. Parents, schools, and government officials should be upset and concerned when a child turns out to be homosexual, obese, retarded, or neurotic. We should try to understand and reduce the people with problems, not hate or ignore them.

A monkey has no concern about the quality of his life, or the lives of other monkeys. Monkeys don't care if they give birth to homosexual monkeys, mentally ill monkeys, or stupid monkeys. Monkeys don't even care about themselves. If monkeys were told that they were suffering brain damage from some particular activity, they would not care, and they would not warn the other monkeys of the danger. Monkeys are concerned only with titillating their emotions.

We cannot make a monkey behave like a human. Creating a society that is truly more advanced than the monkeys requires identifying the people who truly have a concern for other people; who truly want their city to be like a big family; who are willing to push themselves into controlling their emotions and behaving in a more intelligent manner; and who can force themselves to experiment with improvements to our problems.

If we could put together a city with people who show these more advanced qualities, then the people would be interested in working together to analyze their problems and do something to improve their lives. This brings up the question of exactly what do we do to improve society?

Unfortunately, there are no pleasant solutions to our social problems. Actually, social problems don't have "solutions". All we can do is experiment with different policies and try to bring improvements to our lives. However, no matter which policy we decide to experiment with, it's going to create emotional turmoil, and it's going to require that we be able to tolerate the emotional discomfort and force ourselves to make intelligent decisions.

Another unfortunate aspect of improving society is that it requires we get a better understanding of the human mind. We cannot improve our economic system, social affairs, courtship procedures, or government system unless we have a better understanding of ourselves. We must design our social technology according to what a human really is, and according to what we want the human race to become in the future. We will not create a better society if we design it according to a Marxist or religious fantasy of what a human is. We need to know what humans truly are. And then we have to decide what we want the human race to become. This requires removing secrecy and allowing scientists to study humans.

The people who promote the concept of secrecy might respond that we have no right to study homosexuals or obese people, or pass judgment on their mental condition, but I would say people in modern society have a responsibility to study one another. We are living together as a team, and we have a responsibility to ensure that all of our team members are in good mental health, happy, and contributing to society. We are foolish to live among people we know nothing about, or who are miserable, angry, envious, dishonest, parasitic, psychotic, or violent.

We don't owe anybody the right to keep his mental or physical problems a secret from us. Our attitude should be that all humans are mentally and physically defective, and that we have a responsibility to understand our defects, deal with them in a sensible manner, and help other people identify and deal with their problems. We should not allow people to hide their defects or deceive us about their qualities.

We should not be afraid to be honest

Some of the people who describe themselves as "artists" are capable of holding a job or operating a business, but some artists are failures at both jobs and businesses. They complain that the reason they are failures is because we don't appreciate their talent. They expect us to enjoy their artwork, and to help them make a living from art. However, a society cannot allow people to do whatever they please. We have to set standards for everything, including art, and we have to pass judgment on whether people are contributing to society.
Is this "beautiful art" or "toilet humor"?
Botticelli's version
The paintings of Jesus, to the right, were made a long time ago. Some people may consider both to be beautiful art, but I think only Botticelli's version is art. I would describe the other as unpleasant "toilet humor". If a city was dominated by people like me, we would eliminate that type of artwork from the public buildings.

Many artists would complain that people such as myself are dictatorial Nazis who want to censor artwork, but there is nothing wrong with setting standards for artwork. We are not "Nazis".

Social issues don't have a right or wrong. Every organization simply has to make decisions on their artwork, social environment, and other cultural issues, and the members of the organization either have to accept those decisions, or move to some other organization.

It is interesting to consider that the artist who made that picture of Jesus had no intention of making Jesus's stomach look like a penis and testicles. The artist may simply have been unable to draw as well as Michelangelo. In such a case, if that artist were alive today, he would complain about my remark that his picture is "toilet humor". This brings up another issue that modern societies have to deal with. We do not have to care why a person is doing what he is doing, or how much effort he put into this work. All we should care about is the final result.

Of course, it's also possible that some medieval artists were irritated that they were under pressure to make religious paintings rather than something more interesting, and they may have expressed their resentment with subliminal messages, as we see in some artwork today.

There are a lot of people who work very hard on a particular task, and they have very good intentions, also, and they expect other people to appreciate their work. Some people put many decades into a particular job, and they expect their boss to appreciate their dedication. However, we are under no obligation to appreciate anything a person does.

It does not matter how hard somebody works, or how many years they put into a task, or how wonderful their intentions are. All we should be concerned with is their effect on society. Are they a contributing team member? Are they helping to keep the morale high? Are they doing something that benefits us? If the answer to those questions is no, then it doesn't matter how many years they spent working on their task or what their intentions were.

We should not feel sorry for an artist who spends five years creating a painting that we don't like. We don't have to appreciate his hard work. We should be honest with him. We should tell him to quit pretending that he is a talented artist, and find a job that allows him to do something that we appreciate.

You might not have any trouble telling an artist to find another job, but what about the people who struggle to be carpenters, scientists, engineers, chefs, pilots, doctors, or plumbers? Many of them will put a lot of effort into their school work, and when given a job, many of them will put tremendous time and effort into their tasks, but if they cannot do their tasks properly, we should not feel sorry for them.

All of us are very hesitant about being honest with other people because we have encountered so many people who have trouble with criticism, failures, and disappointments. They react to honesty with temper tantrums, pouting, or anger. The end result is that we tend to hide the truth or lie to other people in order to make them feel better. For example, schools in America are under pressure to give good grades to all students rather than tell them the truth that most students are average or below average, and many parents tell their children that they are good-looking and talented even when they are obviously ugly and uncoordinated.

We are hurting society when we encourage lies and deception, and when we feel sorry for people who cannot cope with the truth. We should not hide the truth simply because some people have trouble with it. A teacher should be able to calmly tell a student that he is below-average in some particular task. A manager should be able to calmly tell an employee that he is doing so poorly that he is fired, or that he needs to get some additional training. We should also be able to calmly tell a person that we don't like his artwork, or that he doesn't play a musical instrument good enough to be in a public concert. A person who can't handle somebody's critical opinion should be regarded as a monkey, a savage, or a retard.

Our free enterprise system adds to the problem by making it so difficult for people to find jobs that people put a tremendous resistance to being told that they are performing badly. We need to change our economic system so that it is easier for people to find jobs. If we lived in a city in which housing, food, and other basic necessities are free, and the government helps people to find jobs, then employees will have a noticeably easier time coping with being fired and with critical remarks from their employer.

That type of city will also make it easier for us to fire government officials and other people in management positions. We can make it even easier to fire managers if everybody has the same level of housing because then we don't have to deal with the emotional trauma of managers who can no longer afford their gigantic mansions.

I think that promoting honesty would create a much more productive environment for children to grow up in. Children would become accustomed to the brutal truth and to reality, rather than be terrified by it. Children would become accustomed to schools in which most of the students were getting C's because most students are "average". They would become adults who are not shocked, horrified, or frightened to hear that half the population is below average. The high level of honesty would also help people become more accustomed to honesty in their friendships and marriages.

In the world today, it would be difficult for schools to give C's to the majority of students, and D's to the students who are below average, because every society is promoting the idiotic philosophy that our intellectual qualities, memory, math abilities, music abilities, artistic abilities, and physical abilities are environmental rather than genetic. When a student does average or below average in school, we have a tendency to insult them for not having willpower, or not exerting themselves.

A more appropriate philosophy is to make the students experiment with different physical and mental activities, and teach the students to accept the fact that the majority of students will be average in physical and mental qualities, and that half of them will be below average. Schools should teach children to accept what they are and make the most of their good qualities.

A student who does poorly in school should be treated the same way as a person with freckles, allergies, or birthmarks. A dumb student should not be blamed for the qualities that he inherited. It is not his fault that he is dumb. If we start controlling reproduction, we could complain to the people who are making decisions about who should reproduce.

It might seem bizarre, but a student who does unusually good in school should also be treated the same as we treat a person with freckles or allergies. Schools should not praise the students who are above-average. A child who inherits excellent intellectual, musical, artistic, or athletic abilities is similar to a child who inherits money. We should not give praise to a child simply because his parents gave him some type of a gift.

With that attitude, even the dumb students are valuable because even they can develop their skills and contribute to society. However, the dumb students will realize that they cannot become scientists or government leaders. They will have to find some other job. The schools should help those dumb students discover what they can do rather than insult them for being stupid or lacking in willpower. Likewise, instead of praising the students who do unusually good in school, the schools should help them develop their talents.

In the world today, it is difficult for dumb people to accept the fact that they are dumb because they are routinely insulted, just as we routinely insult the obese people. By accepting the fact that we are genetically different, we can become more honest with one another.

Telling a person that he is performing at an unsatisfactory level should be considered as "constructive criticism", not as "cruelty". In a modern society, everybody needs to be able to push themselves into handling the emotional discomfort of constructive criticism. The people who cannot handle the emotional pain should be regarded as savages who are unfit for this modern world. We should not feel sorry for them.

Feeling sorry for a person who whines about constructive criticism is as idiotic as feeling sorry for an athlete who tries to lift a heavy weight, fails to do so, and then whines about how many years he spent practicing for the event, and how his intentions were good, and that we should appreciate his hard work and dedication. If we were to feel sorry for those athletes, then we would encourage other athletes to whine when they fail.

Feeling sorry for people encourages pouting and begging for handouts. Nobody should tell us how hard they worked, or how good their intentions were, or how much they studied.

I might seem to be contradicting myself because I sometimes advocate accepting people for what they are, while other times criticizing people who behave like animals. Why don't I suggest that we accept the people who behave like animals?

The dilemma that we face is that all of us want the benefits of a modern society, and that requires that we create a team that works together. It is acceptable for some members of the team to be stupid, have freckles, be crippled, and be inept at arithmetic. However, the team breaks down when some members are stealing from us, raping us, lying to us, wasting resources, vandalizing objects, or reducing morale with their whining, fighting, and hysteria.

We should not judge a person according to his ability to do math, memorize facts and figures, or play music. We need to judge people according to their effect on society. The people who are destructive need to be suppressed, restricted, or removed, even if they are intelligent or have impressive artistic talent. To complicate the issue, we have to consider what we want the next generation of humans to be, and that requires passing judgment on who should reproduce.

Our societies today encourage dishonesty, deception, boasting, and false images. Most people believe that they are above average, especially in regards to social issues. Most people believe they have the correct opinions about abortion, religion, euthanasia, crime, and virtually every other social issue, and they believe that the entire world should follow their guidance. Most people consider themselves to be a super genius, and a world leader. Most people also believe that they are so intelligent that they can do a good job of voting.

No society would allow ordinary people to determine who qualifies to be an airline pilot, doctor, or dentist, but we promote the concept that ordinary people are capable of selecting government officials.

Incompetent pilots are fired, and incompetent doctors can get into a lot of trouble, but voters can behave in any atrocious manner that they choose without ever getting fired or reprimanded. Voters don't even have to pay attention to the elections.

If we were raising children in a more honest society, then the majority of people would realize that they are "ordinary", and that none of them have any unique opinions. They would realize that their view of life is a collage of opinions that they picked up from other people as they grew up. They would realize that they have nothing intelligent to contribute in a discussion about social or technical issues, and that they should keep their mouth shut and let the more intelligent people deal with the complex problems. When told that they do not have the intellectual or emotional qualities necessary to be a good voter, they would respond, "Yes, I have known that since I was in high school."

We need to pass judgment on who among us qualifies to be a voter. We must also be capable of firing the voters who don't perform adequately. We must control our emotions so that we don't feel sorry for them if they whine about how hard they worked, or how good their intentions were.

It is even more important for us to pass judgment on who qualifies to be a government official. America promotes the attitude that everybody is qualified to be a government official, but we should promote the attitude that leadership positions are for the better behaved, more intelligent, and more honest people. Our government officials make policies for public artwork, abortion, school systems, economic issues, and other social issues. We need to pass judgment on who has the emotional and intellectual ability to provide us with guidance on these complex issues.

After a person becomes a government official, we need to control our emotional cravings enough to pass judgment on whether we like the job he is doing, and if not, we must be able to tell him that he is fired. We should not consider ourselves cruel for firing government officials. In fact, we should regularly fire the worst performing leaders so that we are constantly bringing in new people and preventing stagnation.

Do you care if your life is beneficial?

Animals have no concern for how they acquire food, water, or shelter. They don't care if they are given food by humans, whether they steal it from some other animal, or whether they find it on their own. Animals want to satisfy their emotional cravings, but they have no concern for how they satisfy those cravings.

If humans behaved exactly like animals, then we would have no concern for how we satisfied our cravings for food, status, sex, babies, and material items. We would be unable to form large societies. We would be tribes of monkeys.

Fortunately, as monkeys evolved into humans, our ancestors developed some concern for what they did with their life, and how they treated other people. Unfortunately, each of us differs in our similarity to animals.

The people who are most similar to animals will have the least concern for how they satisfy their cravings. An extreme example are the women who satisfy their craving for babies by cutting open pregnant women and taking their fetus, or who kidnap babies from hospitals. And there are lots of people who regularly try to satisfy their cravings for material items by engaging in criminal activities.

When we look for jobs or business opportunities, the people who are more like animals will have less concern for whether their job has any value to society and more concerned about how their job will satisfy their particular emotional cravings. They are more willing to do jobs that are worthless, destructive, or dangerous.

It should be noted that the people who behave like animals are not necessarily "stupid". We have a tendency to describe people as "stupid" when they behave in a crude manner, but many of them are actually above average intelligence. Our intellectual and emotional qualities are independent genetic traits. A person can be very intelligent while having the emotional qualities of an animal.

The opposite is also true. A person may be of ordinary intelligence, or below average intelligence, while having above average emotional qualities. It is possible for a stupid person to be more honest, more responsible, and better behaved than an intelligent person.

Every animal will beg for food and steal food. There are no exceptions. However, there is much more variety with humans. At one extreme are the people who never ask for handouts or steal items, and at the other extreme are the people who regularly look for ways to get what they want without earning it, such as through handouts, donations, theft, gambling, inheritances, investments, or gifts.

This documentary about a tutor for the Hongbo College in China shows him traveling around China to convince poor people to enroll in his college. However, there was no college; the school "officials" were lying in order to take money from ignorant people. The tutor said that he felt guilty for abusing people, and he eventually quit the job, but why was he willing to spend so much time in a job in which he was abusing other people? Why would some people refuse such a job?

Some people are selling manta ray gills, rhinoceros horns, shark fins, and other products that they claim will improve a person's health, cure cancer, or have aphrodisiac effects. Jewelry companies claim that diamonds are a woman's best friend. Some of these people may truly believe their advertising claims, but there are a lot of people who don't care whether their products have any value. They are simply looking for an opportunity to make money.

You may assume that you are not affected by these crimes because you are too educated to waste your money on powdered rhinoceros horns, but all of us are indirectly affected because when we allow these crimes, we allow parasitic and deceptive people to thrive and reproduce, thereby increasing the quantity of crude people in every generation.

In addition to wondering why some people are willing to cheat, we should also wonder why some people refuse to get involved with society and help to expose and stop the crimes. A person who ignores crime is not much more advanced than a person who participates in it.

We do not know enough about the human mind to figure out why some people steal, why some people become obese, why some people struggle to become millionaires, why some people have trouble controlling their alcohol consumption, and why some people make excuses for why they cannot help to improve the world. We don't know why people are different, and we cannot fix the people who are destructive, parasitic, psychotic, or apathetic. As of today, all we can do is observe people, pass judgment on whether they are functional members of society, put restrictions on those who cannot behave properly, and remove the troublemakers.

Imagine a city of advanced humans

If we could create a new city, and restrict the immigrants to a more homogenous group of people who have above-average control of their emotions and above-average concern for society, the city would be noticeably more pleasant. For a few examples, the people would have so much control over their craving for material items that they could refrain from fighting for the biggest pile of items and tolerate a much greater level of equality. They would have so much control over their craving for status that they could refrain from struggling to be a pampered King or Queen and be satisfied as an ordinary member of society. They would be so responsible with material items that they could share the expensive and rarely used items, such as swimming pools, recreational equipment, scuba equipment, and cameras, rather than provide everybody with their own items.

People with that level of control would have a tremendous number of options in regards to the design of their economy, city, and social affairs. The people would think of themselves as members of a big family. They would consider other people to be friends, not rivals or opportunities. Instead of focusing on their own emotional cravings, they would have a greater interest in improving life for everybody.

Business activity would be significantly different in the city because nobody would be interested in fighting, cheating, or suppressing competition. Their advertisements would not resemble those of today because the people would have no desire to deceive each other. They would instead provide serious product descriptions that would resemble what you would say to a friend who asked you for your opinion on a product.

The people in this city would enjoy other people rather than look for ways to suppress or exploit them. It would be impossible for businesses in this city to steal technology from other businesses because nobody would be willing to participate in such activities. Everybody would want to do something useful for society, but society does not benefit from crime. In other documents I pointed out that businesses should share their technology with one another after a product cycle has completed, but that is "sharing", not "stealing".

If you can think of the human race as a family, and the earth as our home, then it should be obvious that when businesses steal from one another, it is equivalent to family members who steal from one another. A family does not benefit when its members are stealing from one another, raping one another, sabotaging one another, or fighting over material items. Likewise, the human race does not benefit when organizations or individuals cheat. The people who cheat are wasting their time, reducing morale, and encouraging more crime.

A more advanced group of people would also look at the earth differently. Animals consider themselves to be the owner of the universe, and they constantly fight with other animals for control of the land, water, and food. If we restrict a city to the more advanced people, then the people will not be interested in fighting one another for land or material items. They will instead see the earth as a beautiful place to share with their friends. They will see themselves as a member of society, not as a King or Queen.

We can create better cities right now!
Although the majority of people may not be interested in, or even capable of, experimenting with improved cities and social technology, they are not going to stop us from experimenting with new cities, so all we need to do is find enough people who are interested, and then start doing it. Let's not wait until we are on the verge of dying from old-age!

The majority of people will not help us, but they will not stop us, either. They might grumble about world events, but they will not do anything. Our only opposition are the crime networks who want to maintain control of the governments, media, and other organizations. All we have to do is deal with those disgusting people. Can you push yourself into contributing to their defeat?

The more control you can exert over your emotions, the more options we have. The image below shows the Troika apartment complex in Malaysia, which has parks and bicycle paths around it.

We can create a beautiful city in which every home, factory, and office building is surrounded by parks, foot paths, and bicycle paths. We can create cities that encourage us to get out of our home during our leisure time, get together with other people, and get some exercise. We already have the technology to do this; all we need to do is exert some control over our emotions.


Important message:

Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: