What is the difference between a supervisor, manager, director, executive, boss, and leader? I use the word "leader" for somebody who is analogous to an explorer; a person who has the courage to face unknown problems and make decisions for the group. A leader can be visualized as the person or persons at the front of a group of people who are on an exploration through an uncharted forest. None of the people have any idea of where they are going, what they will encounter, or what they will do in the future.

I will consider all of the other words as synonyms for "supervisor". I will use the word "supervisor" to describe the people who organize teams of people into accomplishing a task that has already been done by other teams. For example, the people who organize teams into building houses, designing airplanes, and harvesting a cherry crop are supervisors because they are organizing people into accomplishing a task that other people have done before.

What is the difference between a supervisor and a leader in regards to their job? I would summarize the difference by saying that a leader is a person who is facing the unknown, whereas a supervisor is managing a group of people who are doing something that has already been done by other people.

A leader is taking a group of people through an uncharted forest, whereas a supervisor is taking them through a forest that has already been explored, and in which other people have already built footpaths, restaurants, and bathrooms.

With these definitions, the qualities a person needs to be a good leader are not exactly the same as those needed to be a good supervisor. Since a leader is exploring uncharted territory, he must have the emotional ability and desire to face the unknown all by himself. Although supervisors regularly encounter unexpected problems, none of them are doing anything new. They are not exploring anything. They are doing something that has been done many times in the past. They don't need the courage to face the unknown. They can be the type of people who want to follow traditions, and who are frightened of experimenting with their life.

It is also important to note that when a leader becomes confused or has a problem, he cannot look to any person or book for guidance. There are no "experts" or documents to help him because nobody has done what he is doing. He must have the initiative and desire to do his own research and figure out for himself what he must do in those confusing situations. He cannot sit down and cry, and he cannot give up. He must have an ability to face difficult problems, research the issues, analyze data, and make decisions. His team will be looking to him for guidance; he cannot look to other people for guidance.

By comparison, a supervisor will regularly encounter unexpected problems, but they will be problems that previous supervisors have encountered many times before, so he can look through the past to figure out what to do. There will be documents, videos, and guidelines for him to figure out what to do. He can also get assistance from other supervisors. He is simply following in the footsteps of people before him.

Supervisors need a certain amount of talent, but they don't need the ability to explore. They need to be able to provide training, constructive criticism, and instructions to their team members, but they don't have to provide them with guidance into the unknown.

Another quality a leader needs is the ability to realize that he is imperfect and will sometimes make mistakes. He must watch himself constantly for mistakes, and he must do something to correct them. A leader cannot ignore the mistakes he makes, or blame his mistakes on other people. A leader should expect to make mistakes, and try to fix his mistakes.

By comparison, supervisors can be so arrogant and irresponsible that they never take responsibility for their mistakes. They can also blame their mistakes on the members of their team. For example, when the supervisor of a construction crew makes a mistake, such as telling one of the carpenters to do something that he should not have done, he can tell the carpenter that since these jobs have been done in the past, he should have realized that his order was incorrect, and that he should have corrected for it. He can reprimand the carpenter with such idiotic remarks as,

"Am I your mother? Do I have to tell you everything you have to do? Can't you figure out anything for yourself? We pay you a high salary because you are supposed to be able to think for yourself, not be a baby that needs detailed instructions."

An interesting difference between supervisors and leaders is that it is possible for a supervisor to be incompetent, or not even bother showing up for work. The reason is because the team is doing something that has been done in the past, and so they don't actually need somebody to tell them what to do. A group of people building a house, for example, will do the job without a supervisor telling them how to do it, if all of them have a lot of experience with the job.

A supervisor can make the team more efficient, and he can keep morale high and reduce problems, but when a group of people is doing something that has already been done in the past, it is possible for their supervisor to be incompetent. This can allow an incompetent supervisor to hold onto his position for years. Other people may never notice that he is incompetent, and that his team is functioning properly simply because the team members are so talented and experienced that they don't need a supervisor. The supervisor is likely to take credit for the team's work, but he may actually be a burden on them rather than a benefit.

By comparison, a leader is taking his team on a path that they have never been on before, so if he is incompetent, the team will suffer tremendously, unless there happens to be somebody else in the team who can provide the missing leadership.

With those definitions, there are an enormous number of people who have the talent to become excellent supervisors, but not many of them would make good leaders because they don't have the courage to face the unknown, or they are too arrogant to look critically at themselves and fix their mistakes, or they don't have the intellectual ability to analyze their options and provide their team with sensible guidance, or they just don't care enough about their team and focus too much on satisfying their personal emotional cravings for status, pampering, wealth, or sex.

Of course, in the real world, there are no clear dividing lines between anything. There are some people in supervisory jobs who are not exactly doing something that has been done in the past, and so they are partially in the role of exploring the unknown. But disregard this complexity and consider supervisors as organizing teams to accomplish a task that has already been accomplished before, whereas a leader is exploring the unknown and providing guidance to the people behind him. With those definitions, a lot of the people who are in leadership positions today are excellent supervisors, but they are terrible leaders.

We currently do not make any distinction between the qualities a person needs for a supervisory job and a leadership job. Instead, most people seem to visualize leadership positions as if they are rungs on a ladder. Most people assume that a person can start his career with a simple supervisory job, and as he gains experience he can climb up the supervisory ladder until he becomes the top leader for the organization.

A ladder is an invalid analogy for jobs. If a person does well in a particular job, that does not guarantee that he has the ability to perform well at other jobs, or to provide leadership.

We are currently not showing any concern for whether a person in a leadership position has an explorer's attitude and talent. The end result is that we have people in top leadership positions who are so frightened of the unknown that they would be afraid to try Mochi ice cream. Our nations are dominated by people who want to keep everything as it is; not people who want to explore our options and lead us into experiments with our society. We are dominated by people who want to follow their ancestors.

Japan and China seem to be the most extreme in regards to having leaders who are frightened of the unknown. Their leaders put such intense pressure on their societies to follow traditions that they are still planting rice in the same primitive manner as their ancestors did 4000 years ago, and they are still using their prehistoric written language. Their leaders will follow traditions even when it is obvious to most people that they are hurting the nation by refusing to modernize.

Our nations are not dominated by people with leadership abilities. Some of our leaders are excellent supervisors, but they are not capable of providing us with guidance into our future. They never provide us with any intelligent analyses of life's issues, and they never make any suggestions on what to experiment with to improve their lives. They don't want to experiment. They don't want to make changes. They want life to remain as it was thousands of years ago.

I would describe the people who dominate leadership positions of government, businesses, and other organizations as being very similar in personality to a medieval King. This is especially true of those who refer to themselves as "conservatives". For example, they want to be wealthy and pampered, rather than our equal.

They also fight incessantly with other organizations. If they are a government official, they fight with other nations, and if they are in business, they fight with other businesses over resources, technology, and employees. They don't encourage people around the world to unite or share the planet.

Our business executives waste a lot of time trying to conquer other businesses and grow larger, rather than improve their business, and governments spend a lot of time grabbing at resources and raising taxes rather than fixing the problems in their nation.

Furthermore, just like a medieval King - who behaves like a monkey at the top of the social hierarchy - they want blind obedience from us. They do not encourage critical analysis of their policies or our culture. They want to suppress and silence their critics. They react to criticism with anger, not discussions. They treat critics as enemies, not as friends.

They are not interested in earning their position, either. They will climb to the top of the hierarchy just like a monkey; ie, through fighting, deception, intimidation, nepotism, and whatever else they can think of. They don't want their children to earn their position, either. They promote monarchies and inheritances.

Our leaders are not taking us on a path into a better future. Instead, they are struggling to create a primitive, medieval environment in which they are wealthy and pampered Kings and Queens, and we are their servants and soldiers.

In order to provide ourselves with better leaders, we need to look for people who show more advanced, human qualities. We should not put people into leadership positions if their primary goal in life is to become a King, or who want to spend their time fighting. We need to look for people who have a true interest in improving society, and who promote cooperation rather than fighting.

Perhaps the most important quality that a person in a leadership position needs is that he must be able to make decisions that are the best for the group, rather than what is best for himself. This requires that he be able to exert control over his emotional cravings.

Unfortunately, very few people in leadership positions today show any concern for their group. Almost all of them are better described as selfish, arrogant monkeys who are primarily concerned with satisfying their abnormally intense cravings for material wealth, status, sex, and land.

Some of the people in leadership positions of businesses, governments, and other organizations have accumulated such phenomenal amounts of material items and land that we could describe those people as "insane". If they were doing something useful with their wealth, their organization would benefit, but they are just hoarding it for themselves, like a neurotic animal. However, we don't describe them as crazy, and nobody advocates removing these lunatics from leadership positions and stopping them from exploiting us. Instead, many other people are envious of their wealth and wish they were absurdly wealthy, also.

There are thousands of people in leadership positions of government, business, and other organizations, but they are not leaders for this modern world. They never provide any intelligent analyses of the problems we face, and they never provide us with any intelligent advice or guidance. They also never propose any experiments to improve our lives. They are primitive savages, not human explorers. The next few sections of this document will provide some examples of how the people in leadership positions do not have the ability or desire to provide us with leadership.

The organization womenon20s.org is taking the role of a leader. They have done what a leader is supposed to do; namely, suggest a possible improvement to society. Their suggestion is to put a woman's face on the $20 bill. However, a leader has to provide intelligent supporting evidence for their proposals, but I don't see any at their website.

Furthermore, I would say that their suggestion is so idiotic that they should be classified as incompetent leaders. This organization should not be considered as having leadership abilities.

To understand why I consider their suggestion to be worthless, consider why images of men dominate our money.

Male animals have a craving to mark their territory.

To begin with, note that male animals have a craving to mark their territory in some manner, such as spraying or wiping a strong scent on the items within their territory.

This same behavior can be seen in humans, but we mark our territory in a more complex manner. For example, teenage gangs use paint to mark their territory with gang logos. What is the difference between a teenage boy painting a gang logo on a building in his territory, and a dog peeing on a tree in his territory?

It is also important to note that a male animal in a leadership position wants the other animals to notice and respect him. He doesn't hide from the other animals or try to blend in the crowd. He wants to attract their attention. He wants the other male and female animals to know that he exists, and that he is their leader. When he walks around, he looks at the other animals and expects them to display submission. He might also make noises, beat his chest, or strut proudly in front of the other animals. He wants to advertise his presence and his social status.

Comparing the behavior of human men to male animals shows us that the behavior is virtually identical, except that human behavior is more complex. Men in leadership positions want everybody to know that they exist, and that they are the leader. They want to be respected and admired, but how can they do this?

Male humans are still very similar in behavior to male animals.

Different men choose different methods to show us their status. Some men flaunt expensive clothing, wristwatches, or automobiles. Recently Justin Bieber was photographed spraying graffiti on a wall in Brazil. Furthermore, he did it in front of photographers, as if he wanted everybody to see him doing it.

I doubt if Bieber had thought about the issue and came up with some intelligent reason for doing it. I suspect that he was trying to satisfy his crude, animal cravings to impress and intimidate us. I suspect that he considers himself to be a very important person, and he wanted to advertise his status to us.

Some of the men in top government positions advertise their status by putting large statues of themselves in public areas, and some want us to display their photo in our homes or public buildings. Some men flaunt their status by giving their wife expensive jewelry and clothing.

Many of the expensive items that men in leadership positions are purchasing are items that they don't actually need, want, or care for. Rather, they are purchasing them because of their status value. This is most obvious when we look at history and notice how status items have changed through time. For example, when aluminum was first discovered, it was more expensive than gold and silver, and so Napoleon (supposedly, but our history is full of lies and propaganda) had some aluminum utensils made for his dining room.

Today the people who think they are important are showing off diamonds rather than aluminum, but if future generations figure out how to make diamonds inexpensively, diamonds will become as worthless as aluminum.

Since everybody uses money, people who consider themselves to be high in the social hierarchy are attracted to the idea of putting their image and name on money. In America, there are so many people who consider themselves to be important that if we were to allow them to put their images on money, there would be endless arguments over whose image to put on the money. Since the government officials are in control of money, they have decided to restrict money to the images of dead government officials.

Even though no government official can put his image on money, simply having dead government officials on money will make all government officials feel better than if money was displaying artwork or ordinary people. Also, it allows all of the government officials to fantasize that when they die, they will be considered to be so important that their image will appear on money.

If you have trouble understanding this concept, imagine the effect on your emotions if we were designing money with images only of machinists, or only of chefs, or only of computer programmers who use C rather than C++. In that case, everybody who identifies with that particular group would feel special, even though their image was not on the money.

If money had images of people in your particular profession or hobby, you would feel special, even though your image was not on the money.

If farmers were in control of money, they would be likely to put farmers on the money, or scenes of wheat fields, cattle ranches, or cowboys. Scientists would be likely put scientists on the money, or pictures of pollen grains, math formulas, or chemical apparatus. Athletes would be likely to put athletes on money, or scenes of sports events.

If the Euro was showing images of people from only one of the European nations, then the people in that particular nation would feel special, and the people in other nations would feel insulted.

The reason a person will feel special simply by putting somebody similar to himself on money is because humans and other social animals form groups, and we regard our group as special, and we regard other groups as inferior and potentially dangerous. Therefore, we can make a person feel special simply by implying that the group that he belongs to is better than the other groups. We could describe this as "titillating his tribal emotions".

Because this behavior is natural to us, we don't notice ourselves doing it, but we do it every day. For example, if you go jogging, notice that other joggers will occasionally acknowledge your existence, such as by waving to you or saying hello, but none of the bicyclists, automobile drivers, or motorcyclists will wave or say hello to you. If you then ride a motorcycle, you will find some of the other people on motorcycles waving and saying hello to you, but none of the joggers will say hello. If you then go for a walk, you will find that some of the people who are also walking will say hello to you, but none of the joggers or motorcyclists will pay any attention to you. If you then ride a bicycle, you will find that some bicyclists are acknowledging you, but other people ignore you.

Humans and other social animals do not want to be alone in life, but how do we determine who is part of our group and who is not? Some animals determine this by sniffing one another, but humans make this determination primarily according to visual appearance and behavior. We assume that a person who looks and behaves similar to us is part of our group, and everybody else is a potential danger.

In this modern era, we should discourage this crude behavior. We need to think of ourselves as "people" who are sharing this planet with other "people". It is detrimental in this modern world for people to form groups that look down on one another.

Getting back to the issue of putting women's images on money, the women who are whining about this are making the idiotic accusation that men are putting pictures of dead, male government officials on money because we are sexist creatures, and that we are abusing the women and denying something important to them. In reality, the reason men are doing this is for the same reason that teenage gang members spray their logo on the sides of buildings, which is the same reason that a dog pees on the trees in his territory. Specifically, the government officials want to promote themselves; they want to feel special. They want other people to admire and respect them. They want to impress us.

Our government officials did not choose to put dead men on money in order to abuse women or promote men. They wanted to promote government officials, and since all of America's most influential officials were men, all of the images on our money are of men. If some women had been influential in the American government, then our money would have images of both men and women. In Europe and other nations where there are monarchies, there are pictures of both Kings and Queens on their money.

I would summarize this issue by saying that men are putting pictures of government officials on money for the same reason that dogs pee on trees. I would say that this is a crude characteristic of male animals, and that it is becoming increasingly inappropriate for humans to behave in this manner.

If the women who are promoting the suggestion that we put women's images on money were truly capable of providing us with leadership, then instead of whining that men are sexist creatures who are tormenting women, and instead of whining that we should put women on money, they would tell the men to stop acting like stupid monkeys and put something more sensible on money.

The Euro paper money has architectural images instead of government officials, Kings, or Queens. We currently have an architectural image on the back side of the $20 bill, and we could do the same on the front side. Or we could put images of some of America's interesting landscapes on the front and/or back, such as the Carmel beach as in the image below.

Or, the women could suggest putting artwork on money, or something educational or historical.

The girls who are members of teenage gangs are not going to improve their lives simply by behaving in the same same crude manner as the boys. Likewise, an adult woman is not going to improve her life simply by joining the men in crude, animal behavior.

The only way we are going to improve life for men and women is if we can acknowledge that there are mental and physical differences between men and women, and if we can study those differences. As we gain knowledge about humans and the differences between men and women, we will be able to do a better job of modifying society to better fit our characteristics.

We will also improve life when both men and women get better control of their emotions. This will allow both men and women to reduce their crude behavior, and increase their intelligent behavior.

Although I criticize our "natural" characteristics as "crude", it is important to realize that our natural behavior is very sensible for animals. There are sensible reasons for male animals to mark their territory, fight for leadership, and struggle to impress one another. It was also sensible for our prehistoric ancestors to behave like animals. It is only in modern society that this behavior is absurd, destructive, and wasteful.

It is important to note that one of the reasons men behave in idiotic manners is because they are trying to impress the women. Male animals must compete with one another to attract the females, but no female animal has the intelligence to think about the issue or analyze the males. Instead, the females want to be titillated with gifts, and they want a male with high social status, and they want to be entertained. Females also want to be pursued by aggressive males.

The idiotic method that male and female animals form relationships is acceptable for stupid animals, but it is becoming increasingly absurd for humans to continue finding a spouse in this crude manner. Human women are putting pressure on the men to aggressively pursue women, and to essentially dance around in front of them like a bird of paradise, and to titillate them with gifts, entertainment, and their social status.

This single man is trying to impress the women with his talents.

Different societies have developed slightly different courtship procedures, and the most absurd that I am aware of are those of the Wodaabe tribe in Africa. Those men must dress in silly outfits, put on cosmetics and jewelry to make themselves look like a clown, and make funny faces for the women. (I mentioned the Wodaabe here.)

The women in that tribe are giving special preference to the men who are the most like a clown, and that in turn is certainly one of the reasons that the men in that tribe are not developing intelligence or skills. They are remaining primitive while other groups of people around them are progressing.

If women would push themselves into controlling their crude, monkey-like cravings and start showing an interest in men who contribute to society, and who are responsible, honest, and considerate, then men would be under pressure to behave like a human rather than a monkey or a clown. That would also allow the best behaved men to have the most success in attracting women. This would improve the human race through time.

It doesn't make sense for women to whine that men are sexist. Men are not sexist. Men are the exact opposite. We were designed to devote our lives to taking care of and pampering our wife. However, it is important to note that we were designed to pamper an intelligent, talented, and impressive princess, not a mentally incompetent nitwit who believes in magic and astrology, and who wants 10,000 pairs of shoes. Prehistoric men were impressed with their wives, but many men today are shocked and disappointed to discover that a woman he is attracted to is actually a nitwit. We want to serve a talented princess, not take care of an idiot who is a burden on us.

The situation is similar for women. They expect men to spend the day working to bring them food and gifts while the women spend the day with other women and children. Women have no desire to take care of adult men. A woman is disappointed and irritated if she discovers that her husband cannot get a job and has to spend the day at home, or that he has so many mental disorders that she must take the role of a mother and treat him like a child. Women do not want to reprimand their husbands for drinking excessively, or to remind them to take out the trash.

Women are irritated when they must become their husband's mother. We can determine this simply by noticing the change in the tone of their voice. Women become angry or frustrated when they must tell their husband what to do.

By comparison, when a child is irresponsible, women have a more pleasant, more relaxed tone of voice, and they are much more patient and helpful. This is an indication that they were designed to take care of children, but not adult men.

Men and women are also suffering tremendously today because most people, both men and women, have a serious problem controlling their emotional cravings for material items, alcohol, sex, gambling, food, toys, babies, pets, jewelry, and drugs. This is resulting in numerous fights between husbands and wives. These fights, however, are not due to sexism. It is due to the inability of people to deal with this modern world.

This concept also applies to the relationship between mothers and their children. Mothers have an incredibly strong attraction to their children, and children have a strong attraction to their mothers, but in this modern world, mothers and their children are frequently irritating and disappointing one another, and sometimes fighting and killing each other. It would be idiotic for the children to whine that women are inherently abusive to children, and that children need to become "liberated".

The problems between mothers and their children are due to modern society. For example, as I mentioned in a previous document, many parents today are providing their children with a lot of toys, but these clutter the house and put a financial burden on the family, which can irritate the parents. Prehistoric parents were also never bothered by children messing up the house because they didn't have houses.

Furthermore, and even more important, prehistoric parents had healthier, better behaved children because nature killed more than half of the children. Prehistoric parents didn't have to raise retards, sickly children, or Siamese twins. Prehistoric fathers were also free to kill their badly behaved children.

If the people in influential positions truly had the ability, desire, and talent to provide modern society with leadership, then they would regularly analyze issues and provide us with intelligent advice and guidance, as well as suggestions for experiments to improve life for men and women. For example, they would provide us with intelligent analyses of the issue of putting women's images on $20 bills, and they would provide mothers with intelligent advice about raising children, and they would provide businesses with intelligent suggestions on how to deal with pregnant women and women with children.

There are thousands of men and women in every nation who are in influential positions in the government, universities, businesses, and other organizations, but not one of them has anything intelligent to say about any women's issue.

There are universities that have courses in "women's issues", and the professors of those courses claim to be experts on the issue, but have any of those professors ever said anything intelligent about women's issues?

There are some women running for President of America for 2016, but none of them have anything intelligent to say about putting women's images on $20 bills, or any other issue. Since those female candidates are incapable of providing women with leadership, it would be idiotic to vote for them.

Why are all of the "experts" on women's issues, and all of the other people in leadership positions, so silent about women's issues? Why don't they provide us with any intelligent advice and guidance? Why don't they have any intelligent suggestions on how to improve life for us? Why were these people promoted to leadership positions when they don't show any ability to provide leadership?

When I was a teenager, I came to the conclusion that the lack of intelligent opinions from Hollywood, business leaders, government officials, and journalists was simply because the majority of the human population was stupid.

Today I have come to the conclusion that the idiotic behavior of our leaders is mainly because The Chosen People are exerting a tremendous influence over who gets into an influential position. They suppress millions of people around the world that they don't like, and they murder some of us.

The Chosen People do not want people with an explorer's personality in a leadership position. They either want other Jews in positions of importance, or somebody that they can control, such as a blackmailed puppet, or an emotionally weak, submissive sheep who follows orders and is afraid to do anything on his own.

How do The Chosen People find people that they can blackmail and then promote into positions of leadership? My guess is that thousands of Jews scattered around the world are involved with the sex industries, illegal drug industries, and lots of criminal activities, and this is giving them contact with a lot of homosexuals, pedophiles, drug users, criminals, and sexually disturbed people that they blackmail and then promote as government officials, business leaders, charity officials, church officials, and journalists.

They also seem to deceive and intimidate people into doing embarrassing or illegal initiation ceremonies in order to join the special, "elite people" who are helping to make a better world.

The end result is that the world is under the domination of The Chosen People and their blackmailed puppets.

The secrecy that we provide people makes it difficult to see exactly who is actively involved in the feminist organizations, but I see a lot of Jews, including male Jews. For example, Wolf Blitzer is listed as one of the "key people" in HeForShe, a group created by "United Nations Women". Emma Watson, the Harry Potter actress, is one of the other three key people, and I suspect she was chosen merely to lure people into the feminist movement.

The high number of Jews in the feminist organizations, and their lack of intelligent remarks about life and women's issues, makes me suspect that the Jews are merely trying to instigate fights between men and women, not provide leadership for the women.

Incidentally, womenon20s.org and HeForShe are two more of the thousands of nonprofit organizations that beg for money. What are they doing that requires us to provide them with financial support? Websites are inexpensive, so they don't need our support for that, and many of the members of the organizations are extremely wealthy, so why do they beg us for money?

How is it possible for a small group of Jews to exert such a terrible influence over the world? How is it possible for them to fill our newspapers, television news, and school books with lies about 9/11, the world wars, Anne Frank's diary, and other historical issues?

It is because the majority of people will not get involved with society or its problems. They want to titillate their emotions, not deal with complex problems. The majority of adults are not willing to join together to stop teenage gangs in their own neighborhoods, so why would they be willing to do something that is much more complicated and difficult, such as stopping the adult crime networks?

Why are adults refusing to deal with problems in society, such as crime networks and incompetent government officials? Why do they want to spend all of their time titillating themselves with food and material items? Why will a man risk his life to defend his family from a wolf, but do nothing to stop crime networks from destroying his society?

It is because animals and humans never developed an ability or desire to deal with the problems of the modern world. Animals and humans developed a desire to protect themselves and their families, but only from the threats and problems that existed during prehistoric times.

Animals and humans have emotions that react to a threatening wolf or human, and those emotions will cause us to become defensive and courageous. However, our emotions do not have a strong reaction to the intangible crimes of modern society. For example, we don't have much of a reaction when we hear that credit card companies are taking a percentage of our transactions rather than a sensible fee, or when we see evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust, or when we hear about corruption in the government, or when we hear about pedophiles in Hollywood. Since most people do something only if their emotions are triggered, the end result is that most people ignore the crimes that don't have much of an effect on their emotions.

If the executive of a credit card company were to grab a man's wallet, the man would likely fight back. However, when the executive takes a percentage of the man's transactions, the man's emotions are not triggered. He does not become defensive or angry. He allows the executive to take the money.

If we were to walk into our daughter's bedroom and find Roman Polanski drugging and raping her, we would likely become emotionally enraged, but when we read a brief newspaper report about him doing it to some young girl we don't know, our emotions will not be triggered nearly as much, if at all.

A lot of people have seen evidence that Israel staged the 9/11 attack and demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, but that crime is so intangible and complex that it doesn't stimulate our emotions very much.

The problems of the modern world are not triggering our emotions, and as a result, most people ignore them. Most people will only do something if their emotions are stimulated. They don't want to think about issues or do something simply because it makes intellectual sense. If an activity does not provide them with emotional titillation, they avoid it.

If you understand this concept, then you can use it to take advantage of people. For example, the government wants a portion of our income, but if they were to let employees get paid, and then demand the employees send them some of that money, the employees would be upset. However, by taking the money from the employees before they get their paycheck, the emotions of the employees will not be triggered nearly as strongly as if they were first given the money and then had to give some of it to the government.

We react to the type of problems that existed in prehistoric times. For example, we have powerful cravings to take care of babies, and so if we hear that a baby is being harmed, our emotions want us to rush over and protect the baby. If a person doesn't think about what he is doing and merely follows his emotions, he will try to stop even the women who are trying to abort a retarded baby.

People in this modern world must do much more thinking than our primitive ancestors. If a person were to completely avoid thinking and react only to emotional stimulation, he would closely resemble an animal. Furthermore, he would be easy to deceive and manipulate by crime networks, salesmen, businesses, and government officials.

This modern world needs humans who think, not monkeys who react. Unfortunately, the majority of people are still so much like savages that they put up a tremendous resistance to thinking, learning, and dealing with intangible, complex problems.

Rather than provide women with intelligent guidance, the criminals and puppets in leadership positions are encouraging "women's liberation", and they are encouraging women to whine that men are inherently abusive to women. In reality, neither men nor women are naturally abusive to the other. We both have strong cravings for one another. However, men and women are different.

During prehistoric times, the differences between men and women made the family unit work extremely well. The men would spend the day hunting, and the women spent the day taking care of children. In the evening, the men and women enjoyed one another.

Technology has dramatically changed our lives, but we still have the same primitive emotions as our prehistoric ancestors. This creates a serious mismatch between our social environment and our emotional cravings. Our emotions want us to behave like a selfish, arrogant savage who does whatever he pleases, but we must start behaving like a team member who exerts control over his emotions and makes intelligent decisions.

Men and women today are frequently irritating one another simply because we were designed for a very different lifestyle. Both men and women need to understand the crude emotions of their particular sex, and those of the opposite sex, and both men and women need to push themselves into controlling their crude emotions and learning to deal with this new environment.

If we had real leadership, our leaders would react to the whining women by analyzing society and suggesting experiments to help determine how we can improve life for both men and women. They would not make the situation worse by pandering to the women, giving them pity, or encouraging them to liberate themselves from the sexist men.

Unions regularly stage protests to demand higher salaries for employees. If any of the people who dominate our businesses, governments, media, universities, or unions had true leadership abilities, they would give us some advice on this issue. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that these protests, as they are being carried out today, are not only senseless, but they are what we would expect from stupid animals. First of all, let me explain why they are senseless.

The universe follows a very simple rule. Namely, we cannot create something from nothing. This concept leads us to the conclusion that if we want something from this universe, we must take it away from something else. We cannot create what we want.

The universe can be considered as a pie. We can divide the pie into as many slices as we please, but there will always be a fixed number of slices no matter how we cut it up. If we divide the pie up so that every person gets a slice, and there is no leftover pie in reserve, then if somebody later demands a larger slice, he must take some pie away from other people. He cannot increase his allotment without taking something away from somebody else.

Now consider how this concept applies to salaries of employees. A business has a certain amount of money coming in each year, and that can be considered as a financial pie that is divided up among the members of the business. Once a business has divided up its financial pie into salaries for the employees, none of the employees can demand a bigger slice without taking money away from somebody else.

There is nothing wrong with employees demanding higher salaries, but if the unions had intelligent leadership, they would realize that the company cannot create money from nothing, and so it is impossible to increase the salaries of the employees without taking some money from somebody else.

If the unions had true leadership, they would analyze the situation and propose a plan that shows where the company can get more money for those employees. The unions and employees have lots of sensible and realistic options to increase their salaries, such as:

• Reducing the salaries of the executives.
• Eliminating company Christmas parties and other nonessential expenses.
• Making the business more efficient so that less money is spent on raw materials, electricity, and heat.
• Using robots to replace some of the employees so that the salaries of those employees can be divided up among the people who are still working.
• Spending less money on advertising.

The easiest method of raising the salaries of employees would be for the unions to demand that the salaries of the executives be reduced, but they never make that suggestion. Why not? Why do the union leaders behave as if the employees can get a larger piece of the financial pie without taking money away from somebody else? Don't they understand this simple concept that the pie has a fixed size, and they cannot get more of the pie without taking it away from somebody?

Unfortunately, none of the people in leadership positions in unions, businesses, universities, or government offices seem to understand or care about this issue, and what ends up happening is that the unions fight with the business executives like dogs fighting over a bone. The executives usually give up after several months, and they agree to increase the salaries of their employees. Their solution to finding the extra money is usually to raise prices and/or lower the quality of their products. This results in what we describe as "inflation". The consumers either pay more for the same product, or they pay the same amount but get less.

When inflation occurs, employees of other companies then complain that the price of products is increasing, and therefore, they need a cost-of-living increase in order to keep up with the rising prices. This creates an endless cycle in which employees are constantly demanding cost-of-living increases, and none of them realize that the inflation is mainly the result of their demands for cost-of-living increases.

The most sensible way for employees to get a boost in salary is to reduce the salaries of the executives. When the employees do this, they re-divide the financial pie more evenly rather than take money from consumers and cause inflation. If the unions were demanding this solution, there would be no adverse effect on consumers, inflation, or the economy.

Actually, reducing the salaries of executives might improve the economy to a slight extent because it would reduce the number of wealthy executives who are wasting society's resources on gigantic mansions, yachts, diamond jewelry, and other worthless, status products.

Unfortunately, humans do not have a natural desire to divide anything in a fair manner. We behave just like animals. Animals do not divide resources with one another or share anything. Animals will often drink from the same pond, which makes it appear as if they are sharing, but that is because the pond is so large that they don't have to fight for control. If the pond is small, they will fight each other for the water.

When a group of carnivores encounters a dead animal, they fight for it, they don't share it. Likewise, when employees want more money, their natural reaction is to fight for it. They don't want to think about the issue or try to share the money. An animal's natural tendency is to grab whatever he pleases, or beg for it.

Because nobody thinks about the issue of how to divide a financial pie in a sensible manner, it is possible for business executives to take advantage of the situation and make themselves wealthier by taking money from the employees. Specifically, the executives of one company would give their employees a raise, and they would increase their prices to cover the wage increases. This would cause a small amount of inflation.

The employees of some other company would eventually complain that they need a cost-of-living increase, and the executives of that business would react by giving them a cost-of-living increase, but they would make it slightly less than the inflation. Their employees would be grateful that they got an increase in their salary. However, this would cause a bit more inflation, and soon the employees of other companies would demand a cost-of-living increase.

This situation would occur over and over, year after year. However, if all of the cost-of-living increases were slightly below the inflation level, none of the employees would actually be completely compensated for the inflation. Instead, they would be getting slightly poorer every year, and the business executives would be getting richer.

With technology increasing every year, the employees would never notice that they are becoming poorer because every year there would be more products, and more complicated products. From the point of view of the employees, they are getting access to more technology, and lower-priced material items. They would assume that they are becoming wealthier every year.

In one sense, the employees would be correct that they are becoming wealthier every year, but if they were to compare the salaries of the employees to those of the management, they would discover that the managers had been getting even wealthier every year.

Because technology is improving every year, everybody would get wealthier every year, but the managers would be increasing their wealth by a much larger factor each year. However, none of the employees would complain because they would be grateful that they were getting regular cost-of-living increases. Very few of the employees or union officials would have the intelligence necessary to realize that they are actually being cheated by the managers; that the employees would have been wealthier if they had never gone on strike.

By going on strike, and by getting salary increases slightly below the inflation level, the employees are allowing the business owners to take some of their money. Unfortunately, not many people can understand this concept.

Perhaps the most expensive yacht in the world

Employees have been fighting for wage increases for decades, and they have been getting increases slightly below the inflation rate, and this has resulted in the management becoming absurdly wealthy.

Although the extreme wealth of the people in management positions may simply be due to the selfishness and greed of the human race, it is interesting to consider the possibility that many business executives are quietly conspiring among one another to grant cost-of-living increases to their employees, but keep the increases slightly below the inflationary level so that the executives can get richer every year, and the employees become poorer every year.

The problem of employees and managers fighting over money is another example of how people in this modern world need to be higher-quality than those of prehistoric times. It made sense for our prehistoric ancestors to fight over water, food, spouses, and land because in their era, the process of fighting for resources determined who was going to live and successfully reproduce. This helped the human race evolve into what it is today.

Today, however, the fighting over resources is doing nothing to help the human race evolve. It is merely causing chaos, suffering, and waste. Employees are not helping themselves when they demand more money, unless they develop a sensible plan for where that money is going to come from. To demand more money without any concern for where it comes from is to behave like hyenas that are fighting over a dead antelope. The unions and employees are not helping themselves or society with this selfish, crude behavior.

A modern society needs people who can refrain from animal behavior. We need people who can control their desire to grab at material wealth and land, and who can share this world with other people. The human race must become better than monkeys.

Year after year, decade after decade, the unions organize strikes and demand higher wages for the employees, but nobody ever points out how senseless this fight for money is. None of the people in leadership positions point out to the unions or employees that this behavior is causing inflation, as well as a lot of stress and aggravation for society. None of the people in leadership positions tell the unions that they cannot get money from nothing, and that before they organize a strike, they should develop a sensible plan to provide the employees with more money.

Many universities offer courses in economics, and there are people getting a PhD in economics, so why don't some of those "economic experts" say something intelligent about this issue? Why are the thousands of economic experts silent during every strike? Why don't they provide the employees or unions with some intelligent advice?

The people who dominate unions are considered to be "leaders", but they are not providing leadership. Rather, they are merely organizing strikes. They are not capable of analyzing the problems of modern society or suggesting solutions.

Likewise, the thousands of people with economic educations have nothing intelligent to say about inflation, strikes, unions, or other economic issues. They frequently give one another awards for economics, but they don't actually know anything more about economics or inflation than the ordinary people. They cannot provide us with intelligent economic guidance, and they have no suggestions on how to improve our economy.

Our economics courses are not preparing students for economic leadership in a modern society. Rather, they are merely teaching students how to do advertising, how to raise money, and how to market a product. The students who graduate from economics courses are not experts in economics. They might be experts in advertising, manipulating consumers, and raising money, but they are not "leaders".

I have repeatedly pointed out that assembly-line workers, waitresses, and most other people are given job performance reviews on a regular basis, but we allow people in leadership positions to have tremendous secrecy to do whatever they please, and we allow them to take phenomenal salaries.

We must push ourselves into passing judgment on who among us - including our leaders! - is contributing to society, who should find another job, and who needs to be evicted.

Janet Napolitano was Homeland Security Director for years, but what exactly did she do as Homeland Security Director to justify her enormous salary? She is now president of the University of California school system, but what has she been doing the past few years to justify keeping her in that position and allowing her to take another very large salary?

Has Napolitano improved the education of the University system? Are the students who are graduating today better prepared for society than the students who graduated before she became president? Or has she made the University system more efficient so that they can lower tuition fees and reduce the amount of tax money that they need?

Ideally, the people who are selected to be voters would regularly analyze the people in leadership positions and pass judgment on which of them are improving society, and which of them need to be replaced.

By acting like stupid monkeys who give blind obedience to our leaders, we are allowing incompetent and dishonest people to hold onto leadership positions, and we allow them to take absurd quantities of material items from us.

I frequently recommend that we eliminate the secrecy so that we can get a more accurate understanding of who we are living with, what they are doing with their lives, and what their effect on society is. I cannot think of any sensible reason to allow people to hide the truth about themselves, including their medical and school history. The people who are ashamed of themselves should be told to deal with their shame quietly rather than demand the right to deceive us. Nobody should have a right to lie to us about themselves. We should have a right to know the truth about the people we live with.

In June 2015, two mysterious organizations - The Information Technology Industry Council and the Software and Information Industry Association - sent President Obama a letter to complain that his policies would interfere with "consumer privacy".

Although most of the people involved with promoting this letter are remaining secretive and hidden, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, gave interviews to explain the letter. One of his remarks:

"None of us should accept that the government or a company or anybody should have access to all of our private information. This is a basic human right. We all have a right to privacy."

He says that nobody should have access to our "private" information, but which information about us is "private" and which is "public"? He says we should have a right to privacy, but what exactly does that mean? Does that mean a person should be able to keep his financial information, marital history, and sexual diseases a secret from a potential spouse? Does that mean a person should be allowed to keep his criminal history, medical history, and job history a secret from his potential friends and employers? What exactly is Tim Cook complaining about?

Tim Cook wants to protect our "rights", but I say that we have the right to know the truth about people, and that nobody has the right to hide information about themselves or deceive us about themselves.

We need leaders who can discuss these issues in an intelligent manner, not make vague, confusing remarks. However, as with other people who demand privacy and secrecy, Tim Cook does not go into details about what he is complaining about.

Don't dismiss this incident as insignificant. Instead, take a look at the situation from the point of view of an alien who is looking down on the earth. An alien would notice that Tim Cook has been alive for many decades, but throughout most of his life he was silent and hidden from the public. In June 2015, he and other leaders decided to come out of hiding and make some public complaints, but of all the thousands of issues that they could have complained about, they chose only "consumer privacy." Why did they pick that particular issue?

Why didn't they complain about the unions that organize strikes that result in inflation? Why didn't they complain about the lies in our history books about the 9/11 attack or the Apollo moon landing? Why didn't they complain about the excessive salaries of executives, or demand that credit card companies be forced to charge a reasonable fee for their work rather than take a percentage of transactions?

There are thousands of issues for them to have talked about, but they chose "consumer privacy". Why is that the only issue that they want to complain about? Why is privacy the only issue they want to influence?

Can Tim Cook name a citizen who is suffering, or will suffer, as a result of a reduction in consumer privacy? Which of us does he believe he is protecting? Who among us will suffer as a result of the Obama administration's reduction of our privacy? And exactly how will we suffer?

If you had the opportunity to give a lecture or interview to the world, would you complain about the Obama administration reducing consumer privacy? Or would you use your opportunity to discuss a more significant issue?

In previous documents, I advised people to assume that everybody who is getting publicity by the Jewish media should be considered as members of the Jewish crime network, or as blackmailed, intimidated, or bribed puppets of the network.

The Chosen People seem to be constantly watching the population and looking for people who rise above the rest and become influential. They watch the athletes, singers, scientists, businessmen, government officials, military leaders, and artists. Whenever they see somebody attracting attention, they try to become his friend, and they try to manipulate, exploit, and control him.

If the Jews cannot control a person, they try to prevent him from becoming influential, such as by sabotaging his career, killing him, or ruining his marriage and friendships. When they find somebody that they can control, they will help him to get into a position of influence.

The effect that this network of Jews has on society is that many respectable people are being suppressed or murdered, and many of the people who are rising to top leadership positions in business, government, charities, and schools are the criminals, pedophiles, and homosexuals that the Jews have control over.

A television show, "19 Kids And Counting", was recently in the news when one of the primary people in the show, Josh Duggar, admitted that he molested girls. He was also one of the executive directors of the charity called the Family Research Council Action.

If you have followed my advice, then you would not have been surprised to discover that he has been involved with embarrassing or illegal behavior. My suggestion is to assume that everybody who gets regular publicity on television should be considered as a member of the crime network, or under their control. Also, assume that pedophiles, homosexuals, and criminals are often hiding in and exploiting the charities, especially the charities that claim to be helping children.

In 2014, Tim Cook, of Apple, admitted that he was homosexual. Rather than dismiss this as meaningless, you ought to ask yourself, why did he hide this information for decades, and then decides in 2014 to publicly announce it? Was he tired of hiding the truth about himself? Did he feel that in 2014 most people were finally able to accept a homosexual as a CEO?

Before you try to answer those questions, consider that Tim Cook recently complained about the Obama administration reducing consumer privacy. Now that he has admitted his homosexuality, he doesn't have to worry about being exposed as a homosexual, so why does he show such a concern for privacy? Is it because he is still hiding something about himself? Is he afraid that if the Obama administration continues with their plans that we will eventually discover something that is even more embarrassing, disgusting, or illegal about him?

For example, did Tim Cook take trips to Morocco or Thailand to have sex with young boys? Was Tim Cook involved with homosexual orgies or beastiality? Or is he hiding something even worse, such as murders, rapes, or other crimes?

It is important to note that Tim Cook, and the other mysterious people who oppose the Obama administration, are claiming that they want to protect "consumers", but can you find any evidence that any of them truly care about you or me, or our privacy?

I suspect that if we could remove the secrecy and look closely at the lives of those people, we would find that they have spent most of their lives thinking only of themselves, not you or me. Most business executives give me the impression that they have a personality that is more like a neurotic savage than a modern human. They seem to be abnormally aggressive, selfish creatures who have abnormally intense cravings for status, and who are trying to grab all of the material items and land for themselves. They don't consider us to be their friends. They want us to be submissive servants who pamper and admire them.

Throughout history we can find business executives resisting attempts to make the workplace safer for employees, or to show a concern about the dangers of the chemicals and waste products that they produce, and to show an interest in the environment that they live in.

Instead of treating us as friends or equals, they try to manipulate us with deceptive advertisements and sexual titillation. One of the more obvious examples is the pharmaceutical industry. Before the government began supervising pharmaceutical companies, some of them were deliberately producing products that they knew were worthless or addicting, but they didn't care.

If it were not for the government watching over businesses, we would have an enormous number of worthless, deceptive, and dangerous drugs and other products. However, it is important to keep in mind that even though the government is supervising the pharmaceutical and other businesses, those businessmen still have the same personality. The government did not cure them of their abnormally aggressive behavior or their neurotic cravings for wealth or status. The government supervision is simply reducing the amount of abuse that they can get away with.

Recently I noticed that some businesses are producing an adapter that connects a FireWire device to a USB port. However, at Amazon, one of the retail businesses that allow us to post comments, people are complaining that it does not work. There are also some websites that claim these adapters cannot convert FireWire data to USB data.

If these adapters do not work, then why are businesses producing them? Or do they work under certain circumstances, but the businesses don't bother to explain what those special circumstances are? Is the government going to have to start regulating this industry, also?

Incidentally, it is worthless to let people post comments in secrecy. Ideally, Amazon would show the full name and identity of the people who are posting comments. We should know who those people are because they are trying to influence us, and they should not be allowed to do this secretly. For example, many of the food products from China have idiotic comments that criticize them simply because they are from China. I have the impression that many of these people are Jews who are trying to create paranoia of Chinese products in order to hurt China financially.

Tim Cook and the other executives are trying to convince us that they are crusaders for consumers, and if they had displayed a concern for consumers on a regular basis throughout their lives, then I might believe that they truly do have an interest in making our lives better. However, my impression of their lives is that they only care about satisfying their abnormally neurotic cravings for absurd levels of wealth, pampering, and status. Only a fool would believe that they truly care about consumers and our privacy.

Instead of considering these executives to be wonderful leaders who are providing us with sensible advice, we ought to wonder why they are so worried about losing their privacy. The most sensible reason is because they are hiding something much worse than homosexuality, such as their involvement with the Jewish crime network.

This would explain why those executives have been silent for decades, and when they decided to publicly complain about something, they complained only about the Obama administration reducing our privacy. They are not behaving like free men who are getting involved with society in order to provide us with some intelligent advice. Rather, they are behaving like the members of a crime network who are frightened of being exposed.

In one of his lectures about privacy, Tim Cook made the remark, "history has shown us that sacrificing a right to privacy can have dire consequences." Where exactly in our history books can we find evidence that a society sacrificed a right to privacy, and the people suffered dire consequences as a result?

I suppose if pressed for an explanation, Tim Cook would make some vague remark about Nazis, but don't be fooled by Nazi analogies. It is meaningless to point out that the Nazis had a policy that is similar to one of the Obama administration policies. The difference between one society and another is not like the difference between black and white. Instead, all of our societies are similar to one another.

The Nazis had lots of policies that other societies also follow. We could reverse that remark by saying that a lot of our policies are similar to those of the Nazis, as well as similar to those of the Communists.

We must set higher standards for our leaders. We must demand that they provide serious explanations for their theories, and we must not let them intimidate us with Nazi analogies. Unfortunately, we are currently allowing government and political business leaders to remain silent and hidden, and if they choose to make remarks, they can contradict themselves and one another, and make statements that are obviously false. There are no repercussions for people in leadership positions who make idiotic or false statements, or who say nothing at all.

In some television shows that describe crimes, the narrator makes a remark about how the police have acquired a DNA sample of the criminal, but they cannot figure out who the DNA belongs to because it is illegal for the police to ask people for DNA samples. The police have a database of the DNA for convicted criminals, but they cannot tell the rest of us to provide a DNA sample.

In these crime shows, the police are often shown to use tricks in order to get a DNA sample, such as offering a person some water in a disposable paper cup. The police then hope that the person drinks from the cup, and that he tosses the empty cup into the trash rather than taking it with him, and they hope that the cup has some of the person's lip cells along the rim.

Unfortunately, many criminals are aware that the police are trying to get their DNA, and so they don't fall for these tricks. In one of the Forensic Files television shows, the police had to follow a suspect around for a long time before he eventually tossed a cigarette butt along the street, and the police finally had something with his DNA on it.

At what point will somebody in a leadership position say something intelligent about this issue, such as announcing that we should start considering DNA as just another identification method, and that it is not violating our rights for the police to develop a DNA database of the human population?

If collecting a DNA sample required that we undergo a dangerous surgical operation, then I would not want the police to have the authority to demand a DNA sample. However, since all we have to do is rub a cotton swab against the inside of our mouth, I would say that everybody should be required to give a DNA sample.

Furthermore, since we only have to give one DNA sample during our lifetimes, I would not describe it as a problem. In fact, it could be done at birth, and then nobody would ever have to be asked for their DNA. Even if technology improves to the point at which it would be useful for everybody to give a second DNA sample so that it can be more thoroughly analyzed by the new technology, that would not be a problem, either.

Americans have the freedom to keep their DNA a secret, but this is not a freedom that improves our lives or our society. Only the criminals benefit from this type of freedom.

However, nobody in a leadership position has made the suggestion that we start considering DNA as an identification method. Why are all of the leaders of Police Departments silent about this issue? Why are all of the government officials silent?

Eventually the human race will know so much about DNA that future generations will be able to identify genetic defects in a person's DNA, and then there will undoubtedly be people who want to keep their DNA a secret from potential spouses. Should people have the freedom to deceive potential spouses about the genetic disorders they are carrying? My suggestion is that we give people the freedom to know the truth about the people they live with, marry, and become friends with.

Many universities have courses about legal issues and police procedures, but none of the professors of those courses ever provide us with any intelligent suggestions. Why are all of the people in leadership positions silent about this issue? Why are none of them suggesting that we make changes to our attitudes towards DNA?

I would say the reason is because none of the people in leadership positions today are truly suited to leadership for a modern society. They may be above-average in intelligence, but they are "typical" in regards to their fear of the unknown. They don't want to experiment with new ideas.They want to follow traditions. Like a fish, they will follow the same idiotic procedures over and over without ever asking where they are going or where they have been.

Millions of people have the ability to push themselves into doing physical activities, but very few men, and even fewer women, have the emotional ability to control their fear of the unknown well enough to lead a society into experiments with its culture.

The majority of people are like frightened sheep who huddle together and mimic one another. The only way we will make improvements to society is to identify the few individuals who have the emotional ability to face the unknown, and the intellectual ability to come up with some intelligent suggestions for us to experiment with.

Furthermore, the people in leadership positions do not even show an interest in society. Their primary concern is gathering material items, rising higher in the social hierarchy, and titillating themselves with babies, sex, food, alcohol, and pets.

If we continue to allow our society to be dominated by people who are frightened of the unknown, or whose primary interest in life is acquiring a gigantic pile of material items, nothing is going to improve with our world. Our cities will never get any intelligent planning, and there will never be any experiments to improve our transportation systems, holiday celebrations, schools, or economic system, and nations will continue to fight with each other over idiotic issues.

As we develop more technology, the issues related to privacy and secrecy become more complex. For example, during the past few decades, we have had to deal with the issue of whether the police should have access to electronic data on our computers, and more recently whether they should have access to electronic data on our cell phones.

There are now medical monitoring devices that hold data, and in the future there will be robots wandering around our homes and city to do household chores, deliver packages, watch young children, and perform simple medical operations.

In 2014, America's Supreme Court said that the police may not search cell phones of people who have been arrested. If we continue to follow this philosophy, the police of the future will not be able to get information from robots without court orders.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have any privacy. They knew a tremendous number of details about one another that we would describe as private, intimate, and personal, such as who would snore at night, who would get up in the middle of the night to pee, and who moved around or made noises while they slept. Today, by comparison, we don't know how somebody sleeps until we have known them for quite a while.

We now have electronic devices that have information about us. Rather than follow the policies of prehistoric people, which was to allow everybody to see the details of everybody else's life, every society has been allowing people to have a lot of secrecy. If the police want to look through our electronic data or our homes, they need permission from us or from a court.

I can understand why people do not want police tearing their home apart for information, but how do we suffer from letting them look through our electronic data? The people who promote secrecy expect us to believe that innocent people are benefiting by preventing the police from having access to our personal electronic data, but exactly how do we benefit? All of the evidence that I have seen shows that innocent people benefit by allowing police to have access to electronic data because it helps the police to solve the crimes.

Since humans and animals have a natural fear of being observed, we have a natural resistance to somebody who is trying to look closely at us. It might help you to control your fear if you realize that the police are not going to want to search a person's electronic data unless they have a serious reason for doing so. Searching through electronic data is unpleasant and monotonous. The police would not do this for entertainment.

An example of how electronic data can help the police is that a woman who recently claimed that she was raped was wearing a medical monitoring device, and she foolishly let the police look at its data, and it proved that she was lying; she was never raped.

As of today, there are lots of people who do not yet realize that those electronic devices might have data that shows that they are lying about a rape, or that they were involved with a crime, but soon everybody will know this, and then the people committing crimes will refuse to give police access to the devices, or they will destroy the devices.

The same will be true of the future robots. Some people will destroy the robots to prevent the police from getting access to their data.

Why don't any of the people in leadership positions of government, business, or other organizations, provide us with some intelligent analyses of the issue of the police having access to electronic data? There are lots of "think tanks" in America, but where is the evidence that any of the people involved with those organizations ever produce intelligent thoughts?

Most of the people in leadership positions are either silent, or they promote secrecy. Furthermore, those who promote secrecy are not providing us with any detailed explanations for why we should prohibit the police from having access to electronic data. Instead, they make vague remarks about our "rights".

Scientists are expected to provide enough supporting evidence for their theories to allow other scientists to analyze their theories. By comparison, we don't demand that the leaders of government, business, charities, or other organizations provide supporting evidence for their theories. They are allowed to make vague remarks, and we also allow them to hide in their corporate offices and remain silent.

We must demand that the people in leadership positions behave more like scientists. If one of our leaders promotes secrecy, then they should be required to provide an explanation for exactly how society benefits from the secrecy. We should not allow our leaders to justify their opinions with the type of vague remarks that America's Supreme Court uses, such as telling us about our "rights", the "Fourth Amendment", or an "intrusion on privacy".

What is a "right"? The Supreme Court claims that we have a right to privacy, but I would say that innocent people have a right to have crimes solved and a right to have their innocence proven, and that gives innocent people the right to allow the police to inspect the data of suspected criminals.

There have already been cases in which the police and courts convicted the wrong person, and I would say that the police have a responsibility to gather as much information about a crime as possible in order to reduce the chances that an innocent person is convicted. When women lie about rape, for example, whoever is convicted will be innocent since the rape never occurred.

Why should a woman who is making a rape accusation have the right to keep information about the crime a secret? A society should be concerned with solving crimes, not that a person might be embarrassed by a thorough investigation of the crime.

The Supreme Court also bases some of their theories on the fourth amendment, but the fourth amendment is a vague remark that can be interpreted in any manner we please. (I discussed the second, fourth, and fifth amendment here.)

The people who promote secrecy have only a few vague remarks to justify secrecy. We must demand that they provide details about how we benefit from secrecy. Exactly how will you and I suffer if the police have easy access to our electronic data? Exactly how will society benefit if we restrict their access to electronic data?

We must demand that people in leadership positions support their opinions in the same manner that we expect scientists to support their theories. Unfortunately, we are not putting pressure on anybody, not even the scientists, to provide sensible explanations for their theories. For example, the scientists who are promoting carbon taxes are not providing an adequate explanation for their theory. They cannot even provide us with evidence that we need to worry about the earth's climate. For all we know, most of the world's population would prefer a warmer climate.

Furthermore, the scientists don't know how much carbon dioxide the earth picks up from outer space and, for all we know, the reason the carbon dioxide and temperature levels are rising in our atmosphere is because we have destroyed a lot of vegetation with concrete, asphalt, and pollution.

I already mentioned that we will not improve our lives simply by getting more freedom. Almost everybody already has more freedom than they can handle.

Now consider the concept that we are not going to improve our lives simply by giving people more secrecy. People today already have more secrecy than our primitive ancestors, but what good is that secrecy doing for you or I? How would you or I suffer if we had less secrecy?

Is your life better in some manner because you have more secrecy than your ancestors did centuries earlier? Are you having better relationships because of your secrecy? Is it easier for you to find a job, or find an employee, because of the secrecy? Is it easier for you to find friends because of the secrecy?

The answer to these questions is no; the secrecy is not helping us. It is interfering with our ability to form relationships and find employees. It is causing a lot of suspicion, frustration, and confusion. Giving people even more secrecy will make the situation worse.

Furthermore, secrecy interferes with the ability of the police to solve crimes, and it interferes with the scientists who are trying to understand medical issues and other aspects of human life.

If there was absolutely no secrecy, we would have a much better ability to solve crimes, and we would have a much better understanding of human health and other issues. Scientists would not have to find a few volunteers to do medical tests, for example. Instead, they could analyze the entire human population.

For example, there was recently a report that people who drink orange juice may be more susceptible to skin cancer. If there was no secrecy in the world, data from the entire world could be analyzed, and that would give us an even better understanding of whether there is a correlation between citrus juice and skin cancer.

We should encourage people to stop whining that they need more freedom and secrecy and encourage them to become more demanding of the people in leadership positions. It is more important for us to have good leadership than to have secrecy or freedom.

A leader who never provides us with analyses of our problems might be good at supervising people, but he is not a leader for society, and we should not let him influence our future. A leader who makes vague, confusing remarks should also be considered as unfit for leadership. A scientist who cannot adequately explain his theory should lose his title of "scientist".

All of us routinely encounter unexpected problems in our life, and the most sensible reaction for us is to analyze the problems and try to figure out if there is a way to reduce them in the future.

Unfortunately, America's police and legal system does not encourage us to analyze our problems. Instead, both citizens and organizations are allowed to blame our problems on somebody else, and file lawsuits to demand large amounts of money.

Furthermore, our nation has nothing analogous to a "quality control department" to ensure that people are telling the truth about their lawsuits, or to determine whether the lawsuits are beneficial to society. The lack of concern about lawsuits is allowing people and businesses to set up problems, or lie about problems, and then profit from them. An example are the disabled people, such as Alfredo Garcia and Thomas Mundy, who travel around to visit the bathrooms of retail stores, and threaten to sue those that don't have proper wheelchair access.

The people who are filing lawsuits are not trying to improve society. They, and their lawyers, are simply trying to profit from a problem.

Recently a man who was having a medical procedure "inadvertently" recorded the audio of the entire procedure. After discovering that he had been insulted by the medical personnel while he was unconscious, he filed a lawsuit to demand an enormous amount of money.

There is no concern in America for whether that man set the situation up by irritating the medical personnel prior to the operation, and then deliberately recorded their conversations in the hope that they were so upset with him that they would make insulting remarks about him.

Actually, I suspect that he is trying to remain secretive and hidden from the public because he worries that if we take a close look at him, we will come to the conclusion that he has an undesirable, irritating personality, and that we would pity the medical personnel who had to deal with him, and that we would come to the conclusion that he probably set the situation up.

When are leaders of law enforcement going to complain that lawsuits are not improving society? When are they going to point out that we solve problems by analyzing and experimenting, not by suing one another?

Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to choose who they wanted to live with, work with, and sleep next to. Today, however, there are so many psychotic and undesirable people living among us, including our own children, that there is a lot of pressure for us to tolerate even the worst behaved children and adults. We are told that trying to avoid undesirable people is "discrimination". If an adult man becomes irritated by a child who sprays him with a water gun, he - not the child - is likely to be criticized. We are expected to tolerate even the most obnoxious children.

We do not have the freedom to restrict our neighborhoods to the people that we want to live with, and businesses do not have the freedom to hire and fire people according to their personalities or behavior. Doctors do not have the freedom to turn away patients that they do not like, and teachers do not have the freedom to evict students that they find irritating or troublesome. We do not even have the freedom to stop people from stalking us.

A person has to commit a crime before we can have him removed from our lives. We are forced to tolerate people who we consider to be extremely irritating.

Who benefits from this policy? This policy causes fights between neighbors; creates an undesirable work environment in which the employees don't like one another; and irritates doctors, dentists, and teachers.

I would recommend that we allow people to decide for themselves who they want to be friends with, marry, and work with. A restaurant should be able to evict and prohibit the people they consider to be irritating or disruptive, and doctors and dentists should be able to turn away people that they are irritated by.

Feeling sorry for the badly behaved and psychotic children and adults is not helping them become better people, and it doesn't help us, either. Rather, it causes frustration and fights. We need to start experimenting with other policies, such as letting restaurants, music concerts, swimming pools, doctors, teachers, and other people decide for themselves who they want to deal with.

For example, a public swimming pool does not have to accept everybody. We could let different pools serve different types of people. Some pools could be restricted to young children, who are likely to pee in the pool, and other pools could be restricted to adults who have a higher standard of behavior. We could do the same for parks, gardens, museums, music concerts, social clubs, recreational activities, and restaurants.

A teacher could be allowed to evict the children that he cannot deal with or who he considers to be disruptive to the class. Every restaurant manager could set standards of behavior for his restaurant. A museum could have certain hours for young children, certain other hours for adults who have high standards of behavior, and certain other hours for the adults who are less well behaved.

The concept of allowing people to separate into groups according to behavior, or to discriminate against one another according to behavior, may seem cruel or bizarre, but we are doing this right now, and we will continue to do it, regardless of whether we acknowledge the practice or not.

Each of us is associating with people that we want to associate with, and we try to ignore or push aside all of the other people. We are always struggling to avoid people we find irritating, so why pretend otherwise? This is our natural behavior, and nobody suffers as a result of it.

We all want to associate with people who are similar to ourselves. Children enjoy being with children who are similar to themselves, and people who like to drink alcohol like to be with other people who drink alcohol, and people who like to play practical jokes enjoy being with other people who play practical jokes. Forcing everybody to mix together as if we are identical twins is resulting in fights and irritations.

Furthermore, it is important to note that we are discriminating against one another and separating into groups, but according to income rather than behavior. For example, when we build neighborhoods or apartment buildings, we design them for a particular income level. We do not mix the people of different income levels together. This could be described as a form of discrimination, but we do not describe it as "discrimination" because we want to do it, and so we want to make it appear acceptable.

When we design restaurants, country clubs, and social clubs, they are designed for particular income levels, and we don't allow different income levels to mix. There is no restaurant that caters to both wealthy people and poor people in the same dining room. We do not mix the people of different incomes. We discriminate against one another according to income.

However, discriminating against people according to income is idiotic. The people of a particular income do not necessarily have anything in common with each other. This is resulting in people in a neighborhood who do not necessarily want to be friends with one another. Likewise, everybody who eats in a particular restaurant might have a similar income, but they do not necessarily want to mingle with each other or be friends with one another.

People are discriminating against one another right now, and there is no way we are going to stop it from happening. We have a powerful desire to associate with people who are similar to ourselves. My suggestion of allowing people to discriminate according to behavior is simply a suggestion that we make the discrimination more sensible.

For example, if we were living in a city in which the housing was free, then there would be no price difference in the homes. All of the homes would be virtually identical in regards to size and amenities. The people would not separate into different neighborhoods according to their income levels. They would instead segregate according to who they want to live with. People would choose a home according to where their friends were living, and I think that would provide everybody with a much more pleasant life compared to separating into neighborhoods according to the price of the home.

The same concept applies to restaurants. In the city that I propose, there are no kitchens in the homes, and everybody gets their food from restaurants, and the food is free. This means that people will be going to restaurants many times every day of their lives. Since the food is free, they cannot choose restaurants according to the price, so how will they choose a restaurant?

In the world today, people are separating into restaurants primarily according to the price of the meals, but in the city I suggest, the restaurants would be designed to serve different people and different purposes.

Each restaurant would have to decide which group of people they want to serve, and what type of environment they want to create. For example, some restaurants would choose to serve the adults who want karaoke, and other restaurants would be designed to serve mothers with young children, and others would be designed for adults who want a very quiet environment, and others would be for the younger adults who are interested in dancing and meeting other young adults.

In that type of city, you would not choose a restaurant according to its prices. Instead, you would select restaurants according to the group of people they were designed to serve, as well as the type of meals that they were offering.

The same would be true if you wanted to go to a swimming pool. Since all recreational activities would be free, you would not pick out a pool according to its entrance or membership fees. You would instead select a pool according to who it was designed to serve, such as adults who want a quiet environment, or mothers with young children, or young adults who want to meet other young adults, or people who are swimming for exercise.

Since this type of city would provide a social environment that none of us have ever experienced, it would be confusing and awkward for us in the beginning. However, don't be frightened by the unknown. We will eventually adapt to it, and I think we will come to the conclusion that it creates a more natural, more comfortable life compared to separating according to income.

This type of social environment will allow us to be with people that we have something in common with. We will be able to live with the people we enjoy, eat with them at restaurants, meet them at social clubs, sit with them at music concerts, and join them in recreational activities.

Some people will undoubtedly complain that my proposal will cause the people with undesirable personalities to have trouble finding a place to live, or a restaurant to accept them, or a doctor who wants to treat them. This is entirely possible! However, this problem is happening right now in the world; it is not unique to the city I propose.

In the world today, we separate according to income, but not everybody has an income. Some people have too many mental or physical problems to hold a job, or they waste their money on gambling or drugs. The people who have trouble making money suffer tremendously. Nobody wants them in their neighborhoods, restaurants, or music concerts. Doctors and dentists don't want them, either, and no business wants to hire them. We push them away from us, as if they are trash.

No matter what type of society we create, a certain percentage of the population is going to be misfits. However, who among us becomes a misfit depends upon the culture of the city.

In America, anybody who can make a lot of money will be an admired member of society, and he will be able to move into the wealthy neighborhoods, eat at the expensive restaurants, and join the wealthy country clubs. Since there is no concern in America for how he behaves, or how he made his money, it is possible that he made his money through crime, or by marrying wealthy people, or by winning lotteries, or by deceiving elderly people into buying worthless products or insurance policies.

The lack of concern for how a person makes money results in the neighborhoods, restaurants, and schools for the wealthy people to be a mixture of criminals, parasites, freaks, and honest people. In America, a psychotic, dishonest, diabolical person is not a misfit. Instead, the people who cannot make much money are misfits.

In the city I propose, there will be misfits, also, but they will be different people. The city I propose judges people according to their contributions to society and their behavior. The misfits become those who behave in an undesirable manner, or who do not contribute something of value to society. The misfits become the thieves, liars, lunatics, rapists, weirdos, child molesters, and parasites, even if they are capable of holding a job, operating a business, or doing incredible math calculations.

No matter what type of society we create, there will be some people who are well adapted to it, and others who have trouble fitting in properly. There will always be misfits. Instead of trying to create a perfect society that does not have misfits, we need to make decisions about who we want society to please, and who we don't care about. Furthermore, we can reduce the problem of misfits by prohibiting them from reproducing.

As I write this section, July 2015, the southwestern area of the United States is suffering from a shortage of water. Many cities have already raised water prices in an attempt to reduce the consumption of water, and many businesses and individuals have stopped watering their lawns and allowed the grass to die.

The people in leadership positions are pointing out that there has not been as much rain and snow in the southwestern part of the United States during the past few years as there has been in previous decades. As a result, the lakes have less water, and there is less groundwater.

If we don't think much about the issue, we will assume our leaders are correct that the shortage of water is due to the reduction in rain and snow. However, a more thorough analysis of the situation shows that the water shortage is due entirely to the terrible leadership of our government officials, business leaders, professors, school officials, and other influential people.

Animals never prepare for the future, or plan for droughts, floods, earthquakes, or other potential problems. They don't worry about the past, or think about the future. They live from one moment to the next, without any concern for where they have been or where they are going.

When animals are thirsty, they look for water, and they don't care whether they are living in a desert or a tropical rain forest. The animals that live in dry areas don't save water for the future, and the animals that live in wet areas don't prepare for floods.

Humans have enough intelligence to realize that we should prepare for the future by providing ourselves with adequate supplies of food and water, but we are so much like animals that we resist thinking. We also prefer to do the minimum amount of work possible.

The end result of our animal characteristics is that when we design cities, we avoid the hard work of analyzing decades of weather data and tend to look only a few years into the past. We also avoid the hard work of designing cities to deal with unusual weather conditions and instead design them for what is typical for the past few years.

In the cities where there is a lot of rain, the end result is that the people are unprepared for the rainstorms that occur every 20 years or so. Those rainstorms often cause flooding, and the people react by making stupid remarks, such as, "It hasn't rained this much in 20 years. I hope this is the last time it rains this much!"

In the Southwest, where droughts are more common than flooding, the people are shocked every 20 years or so when one of the routine droughts occurs, and they make such idiotic remarks as, "We have not had a drought like this for 20 years. I hope this is the last time we have a drought!"

In the city I live in, for example, there was not much rain during the 1980s. People began to let their lawns die; they flushed their toilets less often; and some people drained their swimming pools. The city government officials spent millions of tax dollars building a desalination plant for us. However, by the time the desalination plant was completed, the rains had began increasing, and there was no need for the desalinated water. The city government officials reacted to the increased rainfall by letting the desalination plant become idle, and it slowly deteriorated.

A couple decades have passed, and we are once again experiencing one of our routine droughts. People are once again letting their lawns die and flushing their toilets less often. Some city officials are proposing that we spend millions more tax dollars to get the desalination plant working again.

However, by the time it becomes working, the rain might have begun increasing, in which case our city officials will undoubtedly let the plant become idle once again, and the cycle will repeat. How many times will this wasteful cycle occur before people realize that these type of problems are due to the stupid decisions of people in leadership positions?

The most sensible reaction to a water shortage is to blame our leaders. Our business leaders, government officials, professors, and other people in leadership positions are aware that we are living in a dry area that suffers from routine shortages of water. However, none of our leaders show any concern for this issue. The businesses are only concerned with building houses, swimming pools, and golf courses, and the universities are trying to expand their student population, and our city government officials are only concerned with finding ways to justify salary increases and bonuses.

As I write this article, a lot of condominiums are in the process of being constructed about a mile from my home. Some of the condominiums are being built by private businesses, and some are being built by the University of California at Santa Barbara. Neither the business executives nor the University officials show any concern for the fact that we are living in a dry area. All they show a concern for is making money.

Incidentally, the University is putting condominiums in a nice area of the city, but the businesses are building condominiums directly next to railroad tracks, and those tracks are next to a four-lane highway, and on the other side of the condominiums are extremely high-voltage power lines that sizzle and crackle when the air is moist, and there is another four-lane road running along those power lines. Those condominiums are in a very noisy area, but the businesses that are building the condominiums don't care about the quality of human life. They are interested only in money.

Although the University is putting the condominiums in a more desirable area, they show no concern about the quality of human life, or any concern for our society. For example, their students are paying ever-increasing fees for an education that is worthless to most of them. The professors and school administration officials don't care that their education is worthless or expensive. They also don't care that there is not enough water for them to expand the University. Their only concern is bringing more money into the University and boosting their salaries.

If the people in leadership positions were truly capable of providing us with leadership, they would analyze issues and provide us with intelligent guidance. They would design the cities in dry areas to deal with even the most extreme droughts, and in areas where there was lots of rain, they would design the city to handle the extreme rainstorms. They would design schools from the point of view of how to prepare children for society and give them some useful skills. Their goal would be to make a better society, not simply to make themselves wealthy.

The people we currently have in leadership positions are showing no interest in society or the quality of our lives. Every city is allowing their population to grow even when they know that the roads cannot handle any increase in traffic, and that the water lines and sewage lines are already at full capacity. In Southern California, our leaders don't even care about illegal immigrants coming into the nation. They don't care that the roads cannot handle the traffic, or that the illegal immigrants don't always learn English or know how to read and write.

When the water lines of a city cannot handle the growth, the city officials allow the streets to be torn up so that new water lines can be installed. When the roads cannot handle the traffic, they find ways to widen them, or they build elevated roads, or they tear down buildings and make more roads.

The result of this attitude is that every city is in a constant state of modification in an attempt to cope with the uncontrolled population growth.

Rather than provide us with sensible guidance, whenever there is a water shortage our leaders tell us to get low flow toilets, let our lawns die, and don't flush the toilet so often. Is that a solution to a water shortage? I don't think so.

This concept applies to more than just water. Consider the problem of traffic congestion. The traffic congestion in Los Angeles is often blamed on the lack of roads, or the rising population. Most people assume that the solution is to build more roads, but that's not going to solve anything. The city has been building more roads for decades, but it hasn't done anything yet to reduce the traffic congestion. Only a fool would continue to believe that building roads is going to solve this problem.

Some people have suggested that we reduce traffic congestion by encouraging carpooling, or by encouraging businesses to stagger their work hours so that people do not try to get to work or go home at the same time. However, those are not solutions. As soon as the population rises, the roads will become jammed once again. Those techniques provide only a brief and temporary reduction in traffic congestion. Only an idiot would consider them to be "solutions".

The most sensible explanation for the traffic congestion is that the city has terrible leadership. Our leaders are not doing a good job of city planning.

To be fair to our government officials, the American officials were never supposed to provide leadership. They are submissive servants who do what they are told by their particular supporters. Unfortunately, the voters never tell their officials to do city planning. Actually, most voters never get involved with their government, and the few that contact their government officials do so only to whine about abortion, gay marriage, or evolution.

The voters never put pressure on their government officials to do a better job of city planning, or to experiment with new policies on crime, or to make changes to the universities to reduce their costs and increase the value of a college education.

Although our government officials are not supposed to provide us with leadership, there is no law that prevents them from providing us with guidance and suggestions, and there is no law to stop the professors, University officials, business executives, church officials, or other people from providing leadership.

The point I am trying to make is that none of the people in influential positions are providing us with leadership. Instead, they follow the same idiotic procedures over and over. They follow the same crime policies year after year, and they follow the same policies for water, rain, traffic, and education. They don't care that their crime policies are failing to stop crime, and that their policies on water are doing nothing to stop flooding or water shortages.

We are not going to improve our situation by keeping these incompetent people in leadership positions, and we will not improve anything by following the failed policies of previous generations.

We need to start identifying the people who show true leadership qualities, and we must replace the leaders who are not providing us with guidance. We also need to start experimenting with new policies for crime, city planning, schools, and the economy. Nothing is going to change if we continue to follow our ancestors.

The people in top leadership positions need to be thinkers and explorers. They need to have the courage to face the unknown, and experiment with their future. They cannot be easily frightened, and they cannot be "conservatives" who want to mimic their ancestors. They need to be like scientists who analyze and discuss issues, but they need to be more than that. They also need to be adventurers and explorers.

Furthermore, our top leaders need to be people who show a concern for society. They must be able to put aside their particular emotional cravings and think about what is best for all of us as a group.

A large number of people are capable of supervising teams of construction workers and gardeners, but very few people have the emotional and intellectual ability to provide proper leadership to a modern society. Only a minority of the population is capable of providing us with good leadership. Because of this shortage, it is imperative that we reduce the number of leadership positions to the bare minimum.

Unfortunately, most people have the exact opposite attitude. Most people believe that they will improve society by increasing the number of government positions. For example, years ago I was living in the County of Santa Barbara, outside the city limits, but a few years ago the people in this area decided to create a city, Goleta, with its own city government. By creating this new city government, we have increased the total number of government officials in America, but how has life improved for us? I don't see any improvements.

The "conservatives" are frequently whining about the size of government, but they don't actually do anything to make it smaller. They didn't do anything to stop the city of Goleta from being created, for example.

America has an incredible number of government officials. We have city government officials, county officials, state officials, and federal officials. America promotes the philosophy that government officials are submissive servants, and according to that philosophy, anybody can be a government official. Nobody needs any particular talents or skills in order to be a submissive servant.

If we changed our attitude from considering government officials as submissive servants to demanding that our leaders provide us with guidance, then only a small percentage of the population would qualify for a leadership position.

This requires that we design a government that is very small. Because the government will be small, and because they will have a tremendous burden placed on them, they are going to regularly need assistance from people who have specific technical skills or knowledge. This is one of the reasons I advocate allowing citizens to work with the government on a part-time and temporary basis. We need more of the citizens to get involved once in a while and help the government make decisions about products, city planning, recreational activities, and schools.

The free enterprise system is based on the theory that people will do whatever is in their best interest, and in the process, the economy will function in a sensible manner. This philosophy made sense centuries ago when life was simple. Most of the people were farmers, and most of the products available for sale were simplistic items that people needed, such as food, tools, and clothing. In that simple society, most people would do what was in their best interest. They would spend their money on essential items, such as food and clothing.

Today, however, we have thousands of products to choose from, and many of them are worthless, and some are dangerous. When presented with all of these products, many people waste significance amounts of money on items they don't need, or which hurt them, such as excessive amounts of food, candy, drugs, lottery tickets, astrology predictions, toys, jewelry, and pets.

Our emotions were not designed for this modern world, and as a result, we are not doing what is best for us. We are doing what pleases us, and this is rarely the same as what we need.

A lot of people believe that they are doing what is in their best interest because they spend time thinking about what to purchase and what to do, but if those people could live a second life, they would not live it the same way. They would want to make changes, and the reason is because they did not live their first life in their best interest. They made a lot of stupid decisions.

We have emotions that give us cravings, but those cravings are not requesting what is best for us. Those cravings were designed for a prehistoric era. Our strong craving for sugar, for example, may have been designed to create a craving for fruit, but in this modern era, it is pushing us to eat excessive amounts of sugar.

We also have strong cravings for material items, but that was meant to push us into acquiring a small amount of clothing, tools, and other sensible products, not a gigantic horde of luxury items, mansions, and yachts.

What is best for us in this modern world? Unfortunately, we cannot answer that question because it doesn't have an answer. There is no best. There are only choices. If we could live life over and over, we would make changes each time because there is no perfect life.

I have heard some people claim that if they could live life again, they would live it exactly the same, and it is possible that some people would do that because there are many people who are so afraid of changes that they will follow the same routine over and over. However, those people are animals who are frightened of the unknown and merely follow traditions. They never learn anything new, explore anything unknown, or think about anything different.

A person who can think a bit more than a monkey will realize that he doesn't know what is best for himself, and if he could live a second life, he would experiment with changes. And if he could live a third life, he would make more changes. He would come to the conclusion that no matter how many lives he lives, he never finds the perfect life. He only finds choices.

The significance of this is that many people believe that they know what they want from life. All around the world we regularly find people, including children, demanding freedom of some type, or some particular product, lifestyle, hairstyle, job, recreational activity, or tattoo. They insist that they know what they want, and many of them claim to have put a lot of effort into researching the issue.

A woman who changed her name to Melynda Moon has a video in which she explains that her decision to have cosmetic surgery to make her ears pointed was the result of years of analyzing and thinking about the issue.

She makes it appear as if she is like a scientist who put a lot of time and effort into studying the issue, and that she came to the conclusion that she will benefit by giving herself pointed, elf-like ears.

However, I don't think that she knows what is best for herself. She admits that she is suffering from depression, and I suspect that her mental disorders caused her to have a lonely, miserable life.

She says that she grew up with video games, and that her pointed ears come from the Legend of Zelda game. I think that when she played such games, she spent a lot of time imagining herself in that fantasy world. I think that she found such daydreams to be more pleasant than the real world, and that she eventually felt so comfortable in her fantasy, and had developed such a close relationship with the characters in her fantasy, that she wanted to look like her "friends".

The Legend of Zelda allows people to imagine themselves as heroes who are loved and respected, and who don't have to deal with the complex issues of modern society.

To rephrase this, she thinks that she knows what is best for herself, but I think she is ignoring the possibility that her mental illness is causing her to withdraw from reality and become obsessed with a fantasy world.

She is not looking critically at herself, or considering the possibility that her mental problems are influencing her decisions, and influencing them in an idiotic manner.

If it were possible to cure her of her mental disorder, I think she would lose her interest in becoming an elf and discover that she enjoys the real world and real people.

There are so many people in the world who are attracted to fantasies of some type, such as Legend of Zelda, Star Trek, and Lord of the Rings, that many businesses have developed to provide them with products, such as costumes to wear, and artistic objects and jewelry to decorate their home and body with. There are also businesses that arrange conventions and other events so that these people can get together. (If you haven't seen any photos of this, just search the images, like this.)

Some people criticize Melynda Moon for being out of touch with reality, but if we were to analyze the human population in a serious manner, I think we would find that we cannot divide the population up into those who have withdrawn into a fantasy world, and those who have not. Instead, we would find a continuous spectrum from one extreme to another, and we would find that the majority of people have partially withdrawn into a fantasy world.

For example, some people imagine themselves as a member of the extinct Confederate society, and businesses have developed to create products for them, such as Confederate flags. What is the difference between a person who purchases a Confederate flag and a person who purchases a Legend of Zelda costume?

Some of the people who are promoting the Confederacy may have picked up the practice from their parents and are the type of people who follow traditions rather than think for themselves, but I suspect that a thorough understanding of the human mind would show us that most or all of those people are similar to Melynda Moon in that they have withdrawn from reality and are trying to live in a pre-Civil War fantasy because they find that fantasy to be more pleasant than the real world.

Interestingly, as I write this, there is a fuss in America about the Confederate flag. Although I suspect The Chosen People are instigating the fuss in an attempt to create racial fights, they would not be able to create a fuss if it were not for the fact that a lot of Americans are struggling to mimic a society that has been extinct for more than a century.

It is acceptable for museums and groups of citizens to reenact scenes from the past for recreation, entertainment, and teaching history, and there is nothing wrong with following a custom from the past, but I have the impression that many of the people who are promoting the Confederacy are trying to escape from the real world and withdraw into a fantasy.

In Britain, there are people struggling to keep the Gaelic and Cornish languages in use. There are sensible reasons to maintain an extinct language, such as to allow us to translate documents for historical purposes, but most of the citizens who want to maintain an extinct language seem to be trying to withdraw into a fantasy.

To make the situation even more ridiculous, few of the people who promote Gaelic and Cornish, if any, can trace their ancestry far back enough to know for certain if they are related to the people who spoke those languages. People in Europe have been migrating and interbreeding so much during the past few thousand years that we cannot seriously say who is related to the original Celts, Romans, Greeks, or Germans.

There are also a lot of people who like to imagine themselves as cowboys, but not the real cowboys. Rather, they are attracted to the cowboy fantasies created by Hollywood movies and fiction books. What is the difference between the people who imagine themselves as cowboys and those who imagine themselves as characters from Star Trek?

Finally, consider that the majority of the human population is religious. Prior to this century, we could explain the strong attraction to religion as due to the ignorance of the people, but how do we explain the appeal of religion in the world today?

Since religious people dominate every society, they are considered to be "normal", and so there is no desire in any society to analyze or discuss the issue of why so many people are attracted to religion. However, it is important for us to understand why some people want to behave in certain manner, while other people - who were raised in the same environment - want to behave in a significantly different manner.

Why don't all humans who grow up in the same environment behave in a similar manner? What is the difference between those of us who choose religion and those who do not? How can children raised in the same family develop significant differences in their attitudes towards religion, jewelry, politics, and abortion?

Most social animals have a strong emotional craving to be submissive to an older male leader, but why do some of us try to satisfy that craving by creating an imaginary, elderly, male god and becoming submissive to him? Why don't we instead focus on providing our society with competent human leadership? Why do so many people prefer to ignore our human government and follow imaginary leaders?

Furthermore, why do some people go even further and imagine that they can talk to their god? And why do some people go further yet and believe that their god is talking to them? If you met a person who was convinced that he could talk to the people in his Star Trek fantasy, you would consider him to be insane. Why not consider the people who think they can talk to a god as insane?

What is the difference between a person who has posters and jewelry of Star Trek items, and a person who has posters and jewelry of a dead Jesus Christ nailed to a cross?

Why do we consider people who follow a religious fantasy to be "normal" while criticizing people who prefer Star Trek or Legend of Zelda fantasies? The reason is because the majority of people are attracted to religious fantasies, not Star Trek, and our emotions cause us to follow the crowd, not a minority. Our emotions assume that if most people are doing something, then that something must be correct.

If we were to create a new city and keep the religious people to a minority, then religion in that particular city would be considered as a symptom of a problem rather than as evidence of normal behavior. Or if a city were to keep out people who enjoy alcohol and allow people who enjoy heroin and LSD, then alcohol would be considered a dangerous drug in that city, and LSD and heroin would be considered acceptable recreational products.

Considering how children who are raised in the same environment end up as adults with different attitudes and behavior, it ought to be obvious that the environment is not determining the behavior or opinions of an adult. Adults end up with different desires, behavior, and opinions because of the genetic differences in our body and mind.

If we could thoroughly understand the human mind, we would come to the conclusion that there is something genetically different about the minds of the people who are attracted to religious fantasies.

For example, some people might be attracted to religion because they lack the necessary intelligence to understand that science is doing a better job than religion of explaining the universe. Other people might become religious because they have trouble coping with the complex problems of the modern world, and they turn to an imaginary god for comfort, similar to how a child runs to an adult for protection when he is frightened. Some people might be religious because they have such a problem with the concept of death that they prefer to imagine themselves going a wonderful heaven after their body dies.

Regardless of the precise reason a person today is attracted to religion, we could summarize it by saying that the religious people are intellectually and/or emotionally unable to cope with the complexities of modern society.

It would also be helpful to understand why humans have such a strong desire to create fantasies. Why didn't evolution create a human mind that prefers reality? Why do humans have such a strong tendency to create religious fantasies, Star Trek fantasies, and Confederacy fantasies? Why do we prefer to daydream about a better life rather than create a better life? Why don't we want to get together with one another and conduct experiments to make our lives better?

I think the reason people have such a strong tendency to fantasize about a better life rather than actually do something to make our lives better is because we are just intelligent animals whose primary interest in life is satisfying its emotional cravings, and the easiest way for us to satisfy our cravings is to masturbate. For example, if you are lonely, the easiest way for you to satisfy your cravings for friends is to stimulate yourself with some imaginary friends.

Likewise, if you are frustrated with modern society, the easiest way to bring some pleasure into your life is to ignore the unpleasant aspects of the modern world and withdraw into a fantasy in which you are a member of the Confederacy, or an ancient Gaelic tribe, or the Legend of Zelda fantasy. You can then imagine whatever type of world you want. Nobody will demand that your fantasy actually follow historical facts, or make sense. You are free to fantasize whatever is most emotionally pleasing, no matter how absurd it might be.

When you are frustrated with the government and want to satisfy your emotional craving to follow a male leader, the easiest way to satisfy your craving is to create one or more imaginary gods. You can then ignore the incompetent and dishonest people in the government and comfort yourself by imagining that you are following an incredibly intelligent and powerful older man, and that he loves you and is taking care of you.

Animals have no interest in reality, studying the world, working, or making their lives better. They don't care about the quality of their lives, or the beauty of the world. They are just biological machines that struggle to titillate their emotional cravings for food, status, and babies. However, animals don't have much of an ability to titillate themselves. When they are hungry, they actually look for food; they don't just lay down and daydream about food. When an animal wants to be with other animals, they actually seek out other animals; they don't just sit down on the ground and create some imaginary friends.

We humans want to satisfy our emotional cravings, just like animals, but we have a tremendous ability to titillate ourselves. We also have the ability to use dogs as substitutes for friends and as substitutes for children, and soon we may have sex robots to serve as a substitute for wives. Unfortunately, this ability can be detrimental if we don't have the intelligence and the control over ourselves to make wise decisions about when it is sensible to do this.

For example, it is acceptable for a person to titillate himself sexually when his sexual cravings reach a strong level and he has no other way of relieving those feelings. In that case he will satisfy his emotions without bothering anybody else, and without interfering with his own life.

By comparison, when people are lonely, they hurt themselves and society by remaining alone in their house and titillating themselves with imaginary friends or dogs. And people hurt themselves and their society when they react to incompetent governments by ignoring the government and following an imaginary god.

When we notice a person is spending a lot of time daydreaming, we should assume that he is suffering from some type of problem, and that he is using the fantasy as a way of pleasing himself. Perhaps he is lonely, or perhaps he is frustrated with life, or perhaps he is suffering from internal pains. Something is wrong with his life, and he should look critically at himself and try to figure out if there is something he can do to improve his situation.

Improving our lives requires us to do some work. We must exert some effort, and we must experiment with our future. Nothing will improve if all we do is sit at home and daydream about being a hero, talking with Jesus, or being a member of a primitive Gaelic tribe.

People today need to find the initiative and desire to do something to make our lives better rather than merely daydream about a better life. We need the desire to work with other people, discuss issues with them, and experiment with possible improvements.

Furthermore, we must be able to control our emotions well enough to do what is best for society rather than simply what will titillate our particular cravings.

You should occasionally remind yourself of the phrase, "no pain no gain". You are not going to improve your life by jerking yourself off with fantasies. In order to improve your life, you have to stop the daydreaming and start doing some real work. You need to put some effort into analyzing your situation and experimenting with potential improvements. The people who prefer daydreaming are not going to help the human race improve.

If we were to put the people who daydream in their own society, including all of the religious people, and the rest of us in our own society, we would see a noticeable difference between us. Nothing would improve in the society of dreamers. Whenever they experienced a problem, they would react by dressing up as Druids, Star Trek characters, and Princess Zelda, or they would pray to some god or talk to their imaginary friends.

You might wonder how the human race could possibly have survived for millions of years if I am correct that most people have a tendency to react to problems by withdrawing from reality and daydreaming of a better life. The reason is because our prehistoric ancestors did not spend much of their time daydreaming. And the reason is because they never had to face any complex problems. As with animals, all they had to do was find food, water, and shelter. They never needed the ability to cope with complex issues.

When our primitive ancestors were hungry, they actually looked for food. They did not daydream about food. However, this modern world is so much more complex than what our emotions were designed for that most people are overwhelmed with the problems. They want to run inside their house, shut the door, turn on their television or video game, and withdraw into a fantasy world. They don't want to deal with government corruption, wars, crime networks, traffic congestion, overpopulation, or toxic chemicals.

Because humans are naturally arrogant, we tend to assume that we are making wise decisions about our life. Melynda Moon, for example, assumes that she made a wise decision about having her ears pointed, and every religious person assumes that he has made a wise decision about which religion is the correct religion.

However, a person is a fool to assume that he knows what is best for himself. All of us should assume that none of us knows enough about life to truly be able to figure out what is best for us.

If you cannot control your arrogance, you will not do a good job of analyzing yourself seriously, and that will interfere with your ability to take care of yourself and improve your life. You can't improve something if you cannot look critically at it.

There is no evidence that our distant ancestors were sloppy, filthy, or stupid. It is our arrogance that wants to believe they were.

An example of how our arrogance can interfere with our ability to understand the world is our view of primitive humans. Our arrogance wants us to believe that our primitive ancestors were dirty, filthy, stupid creatures with horribly messy hair, and that we are far superior to them. We also like to believe that they were incapable of speech, and all they could do is make grunting noises.

However, every animal grooms itself, so why wouldn't primitive humans also groom themselves? Why would humans be more filthy and dirty than other animals?

And how could they possibly be as stupid and speechless as we claim they were? How could they possibly have developed such a large brain if they didn't have speech capabilities? They evolved that large brain for a reason, not simply to fill up some empty space in their skull. What were they doing with all that brain material?

Our primitive ancestors didn't have much muscles, teeth, or bones, and they didn't have any good methods of hiding from predators, so how could such physically weak, vulnerable creatures dominate the planet if they were as stupid as we claim they were?

A possible reason that some people are confused about what our primitive ancestors were like is that they are looking at the primitive tribes of today. Those tribes are primitive because they are the losers of the human race. Furthermore, many of them have picked up trash from our societies, and are using the trash as clothing, tools, and jewelry. Their use of our trash creates the impression that they are idiots living in extreme poverty.

Furthermore, by having contact with modern societies, they acquire tools and food that they would not otherwise have, and that causes their population to rise to levels that they cannot manage.

Tribes that have had very little contact with modern societies, by comparison, are not decorating themselves with our trash, and their populations are not out of control, so they are still living in clean, beautiful areas rather than overcrowded, filthy slums. Some photos make them look so nice that the photos seem staged, such as the one below of children of the Dessana tribe, who have musical instruments, clean hair, and clean clothing.

If we could travel back in time and meet our ancestors at different points in time, I think we would be shocked to discover that they were much more intelligent than we expected them to be, and that they were grooming themselves. We would also discover that they had musical instruments and were singing songs thousands of years before we knew they could even speak.

Rather than regard them as crude, we would come to the conclusion that most of the people in the world today are actually very similar to our ancestors of 50,000 years ago, and our ancestors 400,000 years ago were not much dumber than us.

Our emotions try to influence our thoughts, so if we don't have good control over our arrogance, we will twist all theories in order to make ourselves look good. We have a strong emotional craving to be at the top of the social hierarchy, and this craving can cause us to distort our views of other people, other nations, and primitive people. It is not natural for us to regard other people as our equals. If we follow our emotions, we will be arrogant Kings and Queens, and we will consider other people as inferior peasants.

Our arrogance also distorts our design of political and economic systems. For example, there are an unlimited number of possible government systems, but we prefer a particular type of democracy in which the government officials are servants who do what we tell them to do.

Why are we so attracted to a democracy? It is because we are arrogant and selfish, and we have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy. We want other people, including government officials, to be submissive to us.

When we design an economic system, we also have a tendency to make it satisfy our emotions, rather than design it to make the most intellectual sense. This is why we prefer an economic system in which businesses serve the customers rather than provide guidance to customers, and we prefer the government to stay out of the economy. We don't want businesses or government officials to tell us what they think is best for us.

In order to create a better economic and government system, we must control our emotions and design a society according to what would make the most sense intellectually, even if it is not what our emotions want. We should not try to please our emotions. We should try to figure out what will provide us with the best life.

We should design our economic system and government system to discourage our crude qualities and encourage our good qualities. An example I've mentioned already is that by providing people with the same home and material wealth, we discourage the idiotic competition to acquire large piles of material items.

Unfortunately, America's current government and economic system is encouraging bad attitudes and bad behavior. For example, our free enterprise system is detrimental because it rewards people for making money without any concern for the consequences. This allows people to make money by fighting, deception, and abusing laws. Businesses can also make money by exploiting the ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity of customers and employees.

Our system of selecting leaders is causing voters to divide into two primary political groups that fight with one another and look down on one another. The voters are not encouraged to think of themselves as "employers" who "hire" people for leadership positions. Instead, our tribal emotions are titillated by encouraging the voters to join political groups that fight to elect their "party members". This is encouraging the voters to behave like packs of wild animals that are fighting over territory.

Our government and economic system also encourages arrogance by promoting the philosophy that everybody is so intelligent and educated that every adult is a wise voter, and that every adult knows the best policy for crime, abortion, Iran, and euthanasia, and that every adult is so smart that he will make wise decisions about which material items to purchase.

I think we would create a better behaved, less arrogant population if we promoted a realistic attitude; namely, the attitude that the majority of people are ordinary, and that half the population is below average. We should also promote the attitude that everybody is imperfect, and everybody should analyze themselves to discover their strengths and weaknesses, and each of us should get a job that we can do properly rather than pick a job that we want to do.

An organization, regardless of whether it is a business, nation, sports group, or military unit, will be able to react to problems faster and better if it has a small group of intelligent leaders as opposed to allowing the majority of people to dominate the organization through a group of submissive representatives. The American government frequently ends up doing nothing because the people cannot agree on what to do. There are numerous examples of how America has extreme difficulty reacting to problems. An example I've mentioned in previous documents is that America is incapable of switching to the metric system.

For a new example, consider the reaction of people and businesses to the evidence that asbestos is a dangerous substance. About 2000 years ago, Pliny the Younger wrote that the slaves who worked with asbestos were becoming ill. He supposedly also wrote that some of the miners were trying to protect themselves from the asbestos dust by using a thin membrane from the bladder of a goat or lamb as an air filter. However, that information had no effect on society for thousands of years.

In 1897, an Austrian doctor came to the conclusion that one of his patients was suffering health problems as a result of breathing asbestos dust. During the following decades, other doctors began suspecting asbestos was causing problems in some of their patients.

Nobody paid any attention to the doctors, especially not the businesses that were profiting from asbestos. Rather than show a concern about the safety of asbestos, industries were finding more uses for it, and they were producing more of it. It was soon being used in automobile brake liners, insulation for electrical wiring, spray-on fire retardant coatings, roofing materials, and thermal insulation for homes.

During this time, doctors and scientists found more evidence of the dangers of asbestos, but most people continue to ignore that evidence. It was not until the 1970s that there were enough people who cared about the health issues to make changes to society.

In the 1970s the US government banned a few uses of asbestos, such as the spraying of asbestos fireproofing in homes. In 1989 the EPA tried to phase out more asbestos products, but businesses resisted. Actually, the businesses fought back. In 1991, the asbestos industry sued the EPA and claimed that the EPA did not have enough evidence of a health risk for asbestos. The federal court ruled that the asbestos industry is correct, and as a result, American businesses are still producing asbestos products. Only a few nations have a government that is capable of completely banning asbestos products.

Asbestos may be safe in certain types of products, but business executives have no concern for which products they may be safely used in, and which are causing health problems. They don't want to deal with these complex issues. They want to make money.

We cannot depend upon a business in a free enterprise system to give us an honest analysis of the safety of any product. They are too biased; there is too much emphasis in this type of economic system on profit.

Asbestos is just one of many potentially dangerous items that we are producing. There are lots of other chemicals that may be interfering with human development. Some of these chemicals may be resulting in the physical and mental disorders that we see in children today, including homosexuality. However, in a democracy, there is very little interest in studying these issues and replacing the dangerous items. The public doesn't care much about this issue, and the businesses have no financial incentive to deal with it. The public is more concerned with abortion, guns, Jesus, and gay marriage.

As long as America has a democracy and a free enterprise system, we will never get a good understanding of which of our chemicals are dangerous, and we will never be able to switch to the metric system, and we will never be able to do any city planning, and will never be able to prepare for floods or droughts.

A democracy is an idiotic method of providing leadership to a modern nation. We cannot deal with the complex issues in this modern world with a group of submissive representatives, especially when they are infiltrated by crime networks. We need real leaders who can analyze issues and provide us with guidance.

For another example of how sluggish and stupid a democracy is, consider the attempts by the electric power companies to replace the old-fashioned electric meters with "smart" meters. The smart meters are better for society because they eliminate a lot of undesirable jobs, and they provide people with more security and privacy because they eliminate the strangers who wander through our neighborhoods and into our yards to read our meters.

Some people resisted those smart meters, but why? They have no sensible explanation. Many people are simply fearful of changes. They are like stupid, frightened animals who will follow the footsteps of their ancestors even if those footsteps are heading over a cliff.

With animals, such as wildebeest, it makes sense for them to follow one another over a cliff and through a river, even though some of them will die in the process, because it is necessary for them to get to new food supplies, but humans are behaving this way even when it makes no sense.

Since we have a democracy, neither the power companies nor the government could force people to switch to the smart meters. Instead, the power companies had to get on their hands and knees and offer people the option of whether they wanted to switch or not.

For another example of how sluggish a democracy is, consider the attempts to eliminate plastic bags at retail stores. There is so much resistance to the elimination of plastic bags that the people making the suggestions are proposing that we phase in the elimination over a period of many years.

If we did not have a democracy, we could make this change in one day. The government officials would tell the plastic bag manufacturers to cease production immediately. The people who have trouble dealing with changes would certainly react with fear and whining, but if the government was not a democracy, the government officials would either comfort them, or tell them to stop whining and deal with the changes. The government would also help the businesses and employees find new work, if necessary. The government would not leave the people unemployed, as our democracy and free enterprise would do.

Unfortunately, in a democracy, the government cannot tell the businesses to cease production of anything, and they cannot tell the citizens to stop being frightened of changes. A democratic government must get on his hands and knees, praise the public for their intelligence, and do whatever the people ask.

If we did not have a democracy, we could also eliminate cash in one day. The government would be able to announce that starting tomorrow, everybody will be restricted to using electronic money, and that they can take their cash to the banks when they are in the mood and have it converted into electronic money. The elimination of cash would have a tremendous effect on the reduction of crime, and it would also make our lives simpler.

In prehistoric times, the more advanced people in a tribe could wander away from the crude savages and start their own tribe. Those more advanced people would dominate, and through time, this behavior caused humans to evolve from monkeys.

In the world today, however, this process is no longer happening. Those of us who have the more advanced human qualities cannot wander away from the savages. We are forced to live with them, and since they outnumber us, they dominate society. One solution to this problem is to create some new cities, and let the cities restrict their immigration.

Many Americans boast that our democracy provides us with more freedom than the people in other nations, but it doesn't make sense to claim that one government provides more freedom than another. Freedom is not an entity that we can measure.

It makes more sense to say that different types of government systems provide different types of freedoms; that each government has advantages and disadvantages; benefits and burdens. There is no best system. There are only choices to make.

For example, in some of my documents I suggested a society in which the government owns all of the land and buildings, and they make all of the decisions for us about which material items to produce. The homes in the city would have different visual appearances, but they would be all virtually equal in regards to size and amenities, and nobody would be allowed to own their home, so nobody would be able to make changes to the structure of it, or renovate their home, or paint either the inside or outside of their home in the colors that they prefer.

That type of society would also produce fewer types of material items, and there would be fewer models of each type.

In America, by comparison, people have the freedom to build their own home, renovate their home whenever they please, own their own plot of land, make their own meals, and select their own products. Americans also have the freedom to start businesses and produce as many different types of material items and models as they please.

It might appear as if America provides people with more freedom, but a more accurate way to describe the differences between these governments is that they provide different types of freedoms, and they have different advantages and disadvantages. In the city I propose, for example, people don't have much freedom in regards to their home, but they are free of mortgages, rents, landlords, and the buying and selling of homes. They are free to move from one home to another whenever they please, and they are free of home maintenance responsibilities.

In a city that does not have a peasant class, the people have to share the chores that nobody wants to do, and so a further advantage to restricting peoples freedom is that the city doesn't need to produce paints, paint-cleaning chemicals, lumber, acetone, drywall, electrical wiring, and other items for consumers to renovate their home. Those products would only be produced only for the businesses, schools, and social clubs.

By reducing the number of consumer products, fewer people are needed for the production and recycling of consumer items, and by eliminating consumer's access to chemicals, the city avoids the problem of people dumping chemicals and paints down the drain, which makes it more practical use processed sewage as fertilizer for parks and forests.

The city will not provide the people with as many types of material items as America provides, but they will have free access to those items, and that gives them the freedom to try any of the products they want without having to purchase them, and they can give an item back to the city if they decide they don't like it. They are free of maintaining the items, also. If they want to ride a bicycle, they are free to pick up a bicycle anywhere in the city, ride around on it, and give it back to the city without any concern for its maintenance or storage.

What type of freedoms do you prefer? You might think that you are so smart and educated that you can figure out what you prefer, but you would be foolish to assume so. There are thousands of potential government systems and freedoms. How could you possibly know which set of freedoms you would be most happy with when you don't even know what all of your options are? You would not have a good understanding of what you prefer until you've had a chance to live in different societies.

Even if you could live 100 different lives in 100 different societies, there would still be thousands of other possible government systems and freedoms that you have not yet tried. You should not assume that you know what you want from life.

Some women are certain that they want a particular type of diamond ring, and some men insist that they must have a particular type of automobile, and many children insist that they must have a particular toy. These people believe they know what they want, but in reality they only know what they want at that moment in time.

If you could live your life over and over, each time in a different type of society or era, you would discover that there is no perfect life. There are only options and choices; advantages and disadvantages. There is no "solution" to life. You would discover that you can enjoy life in many different types of societies, and in many different types of homes, and in many different types of clothing styles. You would discover that you don't need any particular material item in order to enjoy life. You would discover that the people who believe they must have a particular item are ignorant fools who don't understand life very well.

The best option for the human race is to control our arrogance, let each city be an independent society, and allow each city to experiment with their culture. We can then observe one another and learn from one another.

We also need to refrain from behaving like an arrogant King who tries to control other people. We need to allow other people and societies to live the way they want, eat the foods they prefer, and dress in the clothing styles they like. We must stop believing that we know what is best for other people. We must push ourselves into cooperating with other people, and learning from one another.

If you could live different lives in different societies, you would eventually realize that you don't need a particular type of automobile, furniture, or cell phone in order to enjoy life. You don't need any particular jewelry item or sports activity, either. There is no particular freedom that you need in order to enjoy life, either.

Earlier I mentioned that the universe follows a simple rule; namely, you cannot get anything for free. This concept applies to freedoms. Freedoms are not "free". Every freedom has a burden. The more freedoms we provide people, the more burdens we put on them.

For example, when you are free to choose your own home, you are burdened with the work of purchasing homes, dealing with their maintenance, and dealing with the selling of the home. By comparison, when you are denied the freedom to own your own home, your life becomes noticeably simpler. You can select any home in the city that is available, and you can move to any other home whenever you please. You never have to worry about rent, mortgages, or maintenance.

For another example, when people have the freedom to choose their own cell phone, they must spend time looking at all of the choices and making decisions, and they must make these decisions on a regular basis because new models come out every year or so. By comparison, when government officials make decisions about cell phones for us, we never have to worry about analyzing phones or new technology. We lose the freedom to choose our own phone, but we gain the freedom to spend more of our lives on more pleasant activities.

Many people wish that they could live longer, but we could achieve the same effect simply by reducing some of the work that we must do right now. How much time do you spend right now paying bills, analyzing products, and dealing with home maintenance? If you were living in a society in which there was no money, and if the material items and homes were free, all of that time and stress would be eliminated from your life. It would have the effect of giving you more life for other activities.

Most people have their own kitchens, and they make their own meals. When people eat at restaurants, most restaurants have large menus. This system of providing meals provides us with a tremendous amount of freedom to choose our own meals. However, this system puts a big burden on us. Specifically, when we make our own meals at home, we have to spend a lot of time and effort shopping, preparing food, and cleaning up the mess. And when we go to restaurants, we have to spend time looking through menus, giving orders, and waiting for the orders to arrive.

In the city that I propose, the homes will not have kitchens, so people will be eating at restaurants several times a day. How many people will enjoy the freedom to look through menus several times a day, 365 days a year, decade after decade? I think that type of freedom will eventually be regarded as a nuisance.

I think the reason people enjoy large menus right now is because they don't eat at restaurants very often, and so they find it entertaining to look through all of their options.

People who are finicky eaters will undoubtedly want menus, but I think the "normal" people would prefer that many or most of the restaurants in the city operate in the same manner as a spouse or friend. When our spouse or friend makes a meal, we don't get a menu. We eat whatever they serve us.

By having some of the restaurants operate in the same manner, we would be relieved of the burden of looking through menus and giving orders to waiters. We would select a restaurant according to the type of meals that they served, whether we liked the chef's cooking in the past, and the environment that the restaurant offers. We would walk in, sit down, and eat whatever was being offered. We might have one or two options, but there would be no menu. We would not have to waste any time looking through menus, ordering food, or waiting for our meal.

This system of providing meals would make the job of restaurant employees more desirable because restaurants would not be the incredibly hectic environments that they are now. The restaurants would not have to worry about taking orders or mixing up orders. The chefs would not have to make hundreds of different meals at the same time, or worry about some of the meals getting cold while the others were still being cooked. The environment of the restaurant would be more relaxed. Providing meals at these restaurants would be so simple that robots could eventually do some of the work.

Furthermore, this system of providing meals makes it easy for the city officials to plan the production and distribution of food. None of the restaurants would need to stock small quantities of hundreds of different food items. Instead, each would get delivery of large amounts of just a few food items for the meals for that particular day.

This system would allow the restaurants to plan their menus months in advance, and that would allow the farmers to plan for the production of food and the distribution of food. There will be less food waste with this system because the restaurants will not have to stock hundreds of different food items, some of which spoils because nobody ordered it. This system will significantly reduce the labor and resources involved in the production of food and the making of meals.

You can get an understanding of how efficient this can be by looking at an aircraft carrier. They serve thousands of meals several times a day, but they don't have many people in the kitchen. The reason is because they don't provide menus. Menus provide us with freedom, but they are a tremendous burden on society.

Likewise, having kitchens in our homes provides us with certain freedoms, but it has disadvantages. For example, if we want to have dinner with friends or relatives, we are limited by the size of our kitchen and dining room. By comparison, when we have restaurants scattered around the city, and the food is free, we can have dinner with as many friends or relatives as we please.

Another disadvantage to having your own kitchen and dining room is that if you have friends over to your house for meals, they will always eat in the same dining room, and in the same environment. By comparison, when we have hundreds of restaurants scattered around the city to choose from, we can eat with them at different restaurants and experience different types of foods, dining rooms, and environments.

You have already experienced a society that gives you the freedom to have kitchens and make your own meals. Would you like to try something different?

We can also give people more life to live simply by becoming more intolerant of crime. The more honest a group of people are, the less of their time they must waste on crime prevention. Imagine living in a society in which the people are so honest that nobody needs locks on homes, bicycles, or other possessions, and nobody needs to use passwords.

Some of the people who promote tolerance for crime might respond that we are spending only a few seconds each morning dealing with locks and keys, and only a few more seconds during the day dealing with passwords, and only a few more seconds on other crime related issues, and that those few seconds are an insignificant burden on us.

However, saving a few seconds throughout the day not only adds up to a lot of time during your life, it also makes your life simpler and less stressful. You can move more smoothly and effortlessly from your home to your job to your leisure activities when you never have to worry about keys, passwords, or security devices.

A lot of problems in life could be described as "insignificant", but eliminating an insignificant problem is not necessarily insignificant. For example, a flea could be described as an insignificant problem to a human. A flea that is living on you will bite you only once in a while. We could say that a flea is an insignificant irritation, but how many people would allow a flea to live on him simply because it is only occasionally annoying?

The same concept applies to people who have bad behavior, but which is legal, such as people who put bubblegum underneath the tables of restaurants, or who pee in swimming pools, or who leave a mess in a public bathroom. Those people might be a small irritation, but by prohibiting them from eating in our restaurants, swimming in our pools, and using our public bathrooms, we will have a more pleasant life.

Incidentally, this article claims that the reason swimming pools are causing people to develop red eyes is because of the pee in the pool, not the chlorine or other chemicals. Is this true? I don't know, but the issue of peeing in swimming pools is just one of the many issues that never existed until modern times, and these issues are becoming increasingly significant as technology becomes more advanced, and the human population becomes more dense.

A lot of the behavior that was acceptable during prehistoric times is causing irritations or trouble for us today, even though some of it is legal. For some more examples:

• Taking items from national parks, such as pieces of the petrified trees at the Petrified Forest.
• Picking flowers in public parks and gardens.
• Spitting or tossing objects off of elevated walkways and rooftops.
• Children who shoot plastic pellets from toy guns, thereby scattering bits of plastic around the city.
• Taking shortcuts through grass and gardens rather than walking on the designated footpaths, thereby carving ugly paths through the grass and gardens.
• People having barbecues or fires near you.

Our primitive ancestors didn't have to be concerned about how their actions would affect other people or the world. They picked whatever flowers they pleased; they spit whenever and wherever they wanted to spit; and they walked wherever they wanted to walk.

In this modern world, however, our lack of concern for how we affect other people is becoming increasingly unacceptable. For example, so many people have tossed objects off of elevated walkways that many of the walkways now have fences on them to reduce such behavior. We are also adding fences to the elevated walkways to stop teenagers from climbing over the edge to spray graffiti, and we are also putting fences on them to prevent people from committing suicide. Our society has to waste some of its time and resources on the fences, and the fences make the city look ugly, and they ruin the view for the people who have walkways in beautiful areas.

If we were living in a city in which the people were much better behaved, then we could build beautiful, elevated walkways everywhere in the city, and none of them would need fences, and none of them would have graffiti on them. We would be able to take walks along elevated walkways simply to enjoy the view of the trees, birds, flowers, and ponds. The people who were walking, having a picnic, or riding bicycles underneath the walkways would never have to worry about being spit on, or having objects dropped on them.

In a city where everybody is well behaved, nobody would have to worry about people using swimming pools as toilets, and we would never find bubblegum underneath tables. Imagine living with people who are so responsible that they don't leave a mess in the public bathrooms, and if they have a picnic, they clean up their mess when they are finished.

Every society's reaction to badly behaved people is to design society to fit the worst behaved people. For example, when people throw objects off of elevated walkways, we cover them with fences and security devices. When people pee in swimming pools, most people react by increasing the amount of chlorine in the pool. Some adults react by trying to frighten their children with the lie that the pool has a chemical that will change color if they pee.

Incidentally, the attitude that we can stop people from peeing in pools by frightening them with lies is as idiotic as the attitude that we can prevent people from using drugs by frightening them with lies about how dangerous the drugs are. As I pointed out in a previous document, when a child realizes that his parents and the authorities are lying to him, it can cause him to look at his parents and the authorities as liars, or as ignorant fools who don't know what they are talking about. This can cause the child to lose respect for his parents and the authorities, and disregard their advice in the future.

We don't improve human behavior by frightening people with lies. There is only one way to improve human behavior, and that is by controlling reproduction.

Unfortunately, people are still reacting to bad behavior by trying to control or fix the badly behaved people. For example, there were so many people putting objects into the geysers at Yellowstone National Park that the park reacted by preventing people from getting near the geysers. That doesn't solve the problem of badly behaved people, however; it only reduces the likelihood that they will be able to destroy those particular geysers.

Incidentally, I heard Michael Reagan, the adopted son of former President Ronald Reagan, admit on one of his radio shows that when he was working at Yellowstone Park, he was one of the people putting objects into the geysers. This brings up another important issue for this modern world. Specifically, it is not just the children and the public that cause trouble. It is also the people we regard as "officials", such as park rangers, policemen, government officials, school teachers, scientists, church officials, and paramedics.

Our natural tendency is to regard people in leadership positions as being better than us, but they are just "people", and many of them are badly behaved, and some of them are more badly behaved than the "ordinary" people. We must push ourselves into becoming much more critical of our leaders.

The point I am trying to make with my remarks about bad behavior and crime is that these irritations might seem to be insignificant, but if each of us had the opportunity to experience life in a city that was restricted to people who were honest and considerate, I think we would discover that life is noticeably more pleasant simply because we never have to deal with keys, locks, passwords, identification, kidnappings, rapes, or burglaries, and we never have to be afraid of other people or watch them when they get near our possessions or children.

Furthermore, the city would be visually more attractive because it would not need fences or barbed wire, and the city would not need bright security lights at night, and the buildings would not need to protect the glass windows at night with protective metal gratings.

I think that if we could experience life in such a city, everybody would come to the conclusion that crime and bad behavior is indeed a serious irritation, and that life is noticeably more pleasant when we are living among a higher quality group of people.

Let's now look at some more details of the issue of government systems and freedom by once again looking at a simple organization, namely, a family.

First consider an extreme type of family in which the parents make virtually all of the decisions for the child. In this type of family, the parents decide where the children will live in the house, what type of furniture their rooms will have, what type of clothing they will wear, what type of foods they will eat, when they will eat, how much each child can eat, whether they will be allowed to have a pet dog, and when each child will go to sleep.

These parents also tell their children what chores they will do around the house, and if a child cannot perform a chore properly, his parents remove him from that chore and give him some other chore, even if he doesn't want to change.

Those type of parents could be described as dictators, or as insensitive parents who don't care about what the children "want". Those parents could also be described as oppressing their children, or denying them freedom, or treating them as an inferior species.

At the other extreme are the parents who believe in the type of democracy that America has. These parents are submissive representatives of the children. The children make the decisions of what to do with the family, and the parents serve the children.

Those children have the freedom to tell their parents what type of food, clothing, toys, and bicycles to purchase for them, and they can decide for themselves when they will sleep, which TV shows to watch, and where in the house they will sleep. They can decide for themselves if they want a pet dog. If any of the children want to do chores, they will decide for themselves which chores to do.

Many people would say that the children who have submissive parents have more freedom, but that is not true. The children in both families have freedoms, but they have different types of freedom. The children whose parents make the decisions for them do not have the freedom to choose their own clothing, meals, or chores, but they have the freedom of never having to deal with making decisions about those issues.

By comparison, the children who have the freedom to tell their parents what to do have the burden of figuring out what to tell their parents. They have to tell their parents which foods to purchase, what type of meals to make, and what type of chores to do around the house.

We could summarize the difference between these two families by saying that the more freedoms the children have, the more burdens the children have because they become responsible for making decisions and dealing with problems.

The same is true of the parents. The more of the decisions they make for their children, the more work they must do, and they become responsible for the decisions they make.

In the typical family, children do not have much freedom, but they are not suffering as a result. Rather, they have a wonderful, stress-free life. They can play with other children without being concerned about food, housing, taxes, or jobs. Their parents do all of the work and make all of the decisions.

These concepts apply to all organizations, regardless of their size. For example, most businesses do not give their employees much freedom to choose their office, office furniture, working conditions, or tools. Those decisions are made by the management, and that puts a burden on the management, and the management becomes responsible for bad decisions.

Would the lives of the employees improve if they were given the freedom to choose their own offices, furniture, working conditions, and tools? That freedom would put a burden on them to do research and make decisions about all of those items, and they would become responsible for bad decisions, but what would they gain in return? How would they benefit?

Giving employees that type of freedom would be useful only if the managers were so incompetent that the employees could do a better job of making decisions. However, if the management was incompetent, the solution would be to get better management, not give the employees more freedom.

Organizations that provide meals to their members, such as schools, large businesses, and ships in the Navy, have leaders that make decisions about what type of meals to provide the people, how to design the dining room, and what hours the meals will be available. Would life for the members of those organizations improve if they were given the freedom to make more of the decisions about meals? I don't think so. I think it would just add a burden to their life but not provide any benefits.

The point I want to bring to your attention is that if we can provide ourselves with competent leadership, we can unload some of our freedoms onto our government and let the government officials handle the decisions and responsibility.

Every freedom has a burden, so we should have a freedom only if we truly benefit from it, and we should let the government handle the others so that we can be free of those burdens and responsibilities.

America provides its citizens with tremendous freedom to choose whatever life they want, eat whatever meals they please, and start any business they desire, but these freedoms are putting a tremendous burden on us. We are burdened with the problems of figuring out where we are going to live, and we have to deal with home maintenance, or rents and landlords, and we have to figure out how to find a job, and we have to deal with the purchasing of food, the making of meals, and the selection of material items.

Many Americans would undoubtedly respond to my remark that we are "burdened" by our freedoms by boasting that they don't feel burdened. However, most people do feel the burden, and they don't like it, and we can determine this simply by observing their behavior and their fantasies.

For example, university professors and school teachers are so frightened of finding jobs that they are demanding tenure. They have the freedom to find any job they please, and they have the freedom to start their own businesses, and the government will not even stop them from taking a job that they are incompetent at, but they don't want that freedom. They want tenure. They want to lock themselves into a job.

For another example, a lot of Americans would like to move to a new home or a new city, and they have the freedom to move anywhere they please, and as often as they please, but many of them are afraid to move because of the cost involved, and the complexity of buying and selling homes, and the difficulty of finding a new job.

Teenagers are in an even worse predicament. Many of them are worried about where they are going to live, how they are going to find a job, and what type of furniture and possessions and automobiles to purchase. They have the freedom to do whatever they want, but those freedoms are frightening them and causing them a lot of stress. Many of them end up staying at home with their parents for many years, or they remain in school simply to avoid having to deal with the process of joining society.

It doesn't do any good to give people a freedom that they are afraid to use. We should have freedoms that we actually use and benefit from, and the freedoms that we don't truly want should be given to the government to deal with.

The city I propose doesn't provide people with the freedom to build their own homes, own their own land, or even have their own kitchens and dining rooms, and that might seem to restrict their freedoms, but it simply denies them some freedoms while providing them with others.

The people in that city would be relieved of a tremendous number of management decisions and responsibilities. None of them have to worry about homes, mortgages, home repairs, or landlords. They would never have to worry about shopping for food, preparing meals, or making decisions about kitchen items. They would be able to use any camera, bicycle, or kayak without worrying about purchasing it or maintaining it. Since the government controls the economy, the government would also be responsible for preparing children for society and helping everybody find jobs. The people would be free of unemployment concerns.

The people in that type of city become like children who are being taken care of by their parents. Or, you could think of it as employees of a business, or sailors on an aircraft carrier, who are being provided with meals, homes, equipment, clothing, tools, and whatever else they need.

Don't look at governments as being right or wrong, or good or bad. There are some governments that will feel more natural to our emotions, but there is no perfect government. There are lots of governments that we will be happy with.

Likewise, there are certain freedoms that will feel more natural to us, and certain freedoms that we don't care much for, but don't look at the issue of freedom as if it were an entity that you need, and that you need a large quantity of it. You can enjoy life with a variety of different types of freedoms.

For example, we would probably feel more comfortable if the government gave adults the freedom to choose when they will go to sleep at night, so I would not suggest the government dictate our sleeping hours. However, do you really need the freedom to own a plot of land? By giving up that freedom, we give the responsibility of land management to the government.

In such a city, there would be no private property. All of the land in the city, including the land around factories and businesses, would belong to the public. Each of us would be free to use the land whenever we wanted to for bicycle rides, kayaking, snorkeling, picnics, and recreation, and the government would handle the maintenance for us.

Giving up some of our freedoms will make our life much simpler. For example, by abandoning the free enterprise system and giving up our freedom to start our own businesses, the government has to take the burden of managing the economy, and everybody becomes an employee of the government. This makes the government responsible for finding jobs for us, and managing all of the businesses. The people who operate bicycle repair shops, restaurants, and factories are just employees of the city who don't have any responsibility for dealing with buildings, electricity, retirement benefits for the employees, or taxes.

That type of government puts a tremendous burden on the government officials. They would have to make decisions for the citizens in regards to which type of cell phones, computer chips, bulldozers, and clothing to produce. They would also have to make decisions about the size and design of the homes for the people, and the buildings for the factories and warehouses. They would also have to make a lot of decisions about holiday celebrations, language, and working hours and conditions. They would even have to make decisions about what type of cubicles to provide for employees, or whether they should design offices that don't have cubicles.

This government would also be responsible for educating children and preparing them for both society and jobs. The government would not allow any adults to do nothing. Everybody would be required to contribute to society. Furthermore, the government would not allow people to do whatever job they please. People would be allowed to do a job only if they could perform properly at it, and if they could not perform properly at it, they would be removed and given some other job.

As you imagine a government supervising all of the businesses, and making decisions for us about food, you should realize that this system would be practical only if we are capable of providing ourselves with government officials who behave like responsible parents. This type of city would be miserable if we allowed nitwits, savages, and criminals to dominate the government.

However, don't let the difficulty of finding government officials frighten you. As I have mentioned in other files, don't look for excuses to do nothing. Don't look for reasons to be frightened. Instead, look for solutions to whatever problems you can foresee.

Also, keep in mind that I am not proposing anything we have not already done. The military and most businesses are already operating on this type of government system. We can apply this system of government to an entire city, if we can find the courage to experiment with our lives.

The type of government I propose requires a much higher quality group of government officials, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to achieve it. It simply requires that we restrict voters to the people who can do a much better job of analyzing candidates for government office, and it requires restricting voters to those who are so responsible that they will regularly review the performance of government officials and continuously replace the worst behaving official. The military and many businesses are finding people with these capabilities, and that is proof that it is possible.

When a society provides the people with the freedom to start businesses and choose their own material items, they end up with a large number of different styles of cell phones, computers, automobiles, microwave ovens, and other products. By comparison, when the government is in control of the entire society, the officials will make decisions about how many products and models to make, and they will produce a much smaller number of items. While this may seem to restrict our freedoms, it has a tremendous benefit.

The more types of material items and models that we make, the more factories we need, and the larger the city must be in order to hold all of the factories and warehouses. The people doing maintenance and recycling must have larger buildings to deal with a larger number of spare parts, and their job becomes more difficult because they have to deal with so many different types of items. The engineers who design products will have to produce more prototypes, and that means they cannot be doing something more useful.

By comparison, in a city in which material items are restricted by the government, there will be fewer factories, fewer assembly-line workers, less garbage production, less recycling, and the city will be more compact because it will not need for such large warehouses and retail outlets. There will be fewer buildings and warehouses to maintain, and this will reduce the burden on the citizens of building and maintaining their city. The engineers will not waste their time creating insignificant variations of items. They will be able to spend more time developing completely new products.

Don't underestimate the value of reducing the number of items we produce. The gigantic warehouses and markets in America, such as the Amazon warehouse in the photo below, would be significantly smaller if our government eliminated the virtually identical items that are in production today.

By reducing the number of items, we would be able to travel around the city faster because less of the city would be wasted on warehouses, factories, recycling centers, and repair centers. We would spend less time traveling to work and recreational areas.

The more factories and warehouses we can eliminate, the more compact the city becomes. By designing a city as clusters of apartments, offices, factories, and by eliminating automobiles and putting an automated train system underground to connect the clusters together, we create a city that is visually similar to that in the drawing below, although the artist made the buildings to narrow to be practical.

That type of city would be much quieter and cleaner than those of today, and everybody would be surrounded by parks and recreational areas, even when they were at work.

What qualities do we look for in a person when we are selecting a leader? I've already mentioned some, such as people who show a concern for society, and in this section I want to point out that I think we need people who are truly happy with themselves and life. They should not be people who are searching for happiness.

Many of the immigrants to America were unhappy with life in Europe, or wherever they came from. Their attitude was that they would be able to find happiness in America.

I don't believe that happiness can be pursued or discovered. I think happiness comes from the design of your brain and body.

It is certainly true that a person can torment himself with bad nutrition, drugs, lack of sleep, and idiotic goals, and that he can improve the quality of his life by making more intelligent decisions. However, when people make those type of improvements to their life, they are not "finding" happiness. They are simply learning how to deal with this complex, modern world. They are learning how to deal with the incredible choices of foods, drugs, toys, and material items.

I would describe happiness as something that we must be born with. If your brain and body are functioning properly, you will feel comfortable with your body, and your mind will be relaxed, and you will enjoy life. Your mind and body will seem invisible to you. You won't notice either of them because everything will be pain-free and effortless.

However, if there is something defective with your body, you will suffer from pains, aches, digestive disorders, allergies, or other irritations. You will be aware of your body; it will not feel comfortable to you. If you have joint problems, you will be aware of your joints every time you move those joints.

Your defective body might also interfere with the way your brain functions since your brain depends upon your body to provide it with nutrients.

If your brain is defective you may suffer even worse problems, such as headaches, hallucinations, mood changes, or bizarre cravings. You might even find it difficult to sit still and concentrate on a task, thereby making it impossible for you to hold a job, or graduate from school.

The people who are suffering from mental or physical disorders have a difficult time relaxing and enjoying life because they are being tortured by their defects. I would describe these people as inherently unhappy, and there is nothing we can do to help them because their misery is coming from inside them, and their misery is the result of their defective brain and/or body.

Some of the unhappy people react to their misery by looking for ways to distract themselves from it, such as by engaging in physically strenuous or dangerous sports, getting drunk, withdrawing into a fantasy world of Star Trek or Jesus, or playing a video game with such intensity that they forget about their problems. Some people react by fantasizing that they will find relief when they become a billionaire, and others believe that they'll find happiness when they become famous.

People who are unhappy might be able to supervise teams of people and operate a business, but they are dangerous to put into leadership positions because they are likely to focus on their problems rather than on society.

The reason I have come to this conclusion is by noticing the behavior of people, including myself. For example, if there was ever a time in your life when you were suffering from some type of pain or sickness, you may have noticed that it was more difficult for your mind to focus on tasks. Your mind was more focused on the pain, and finding relief.

Or, there may have been times when you were tired, or when your muscles were sore from a lot of physical activity, or you were extremely hungry or thirsty, and you found it difficult to concentrate on a task because of the discomfort.

Unless you are one of the extremely rare people whose health is nearly perfect, if you were to analyze yourself seriously from one day to the next, you would come to the conclusion that you are most productive when you are happy and healthy, and you are the most irritable and unproductive when you are suffering from something, such as pains, tiredness, hunger, or disease.

With a healthy person, those periods of time in which we are not performing properly are temporary, but when a person is suffering from a genetic disorder, those periods of time are continuous.

If you have ever been sick or extremely tired, imagine if that physical condition had persisted for decades. Certainly you can understand that it would have had a bad effect on your social life, your ability to hold a job, and even your ability to take care of yourself at home.

An analysis of criminals also shows this correlation between their misery and their behavior. The most extreme cases are the easiest to understand. For example, consider the case of Erika and Benjamin Sifrit.

Although there is not a lot of detail on Benjamin Sifrit's life, I think he was showing signs of mental problems even as a child. For example, he did not do very good in high school, but he was not an idiot, so why was he having trouble? I think it was because his mental problems were interfering with his ability to sit still in class and behave properly.

After high school he enlisted in the Navy. Although he performed very well during the SEAL training course, he was eventually evicted from the Navy because, as one Navy prosecutor said, he had developed an "utter disregard for authority".

Why did he have a problem with authority? There is no detail on that issue, but I suspect he was like many of the children that we describe as having ADHD. Video of those children shows that they have trouble sitting still, following orders, and maintaining their concentration on a task. They seem to be constantly looking for something to distract themselves from their misery, and to stimulate their pleasure centers.

The people with mental problems are frequently irritating the normal people, especially when they have to work in a team, such as at a business or in the military. Since most people foolishly believe that they can fix badly behaved people with punishments and rewards, the mentally defective people are frequently insulted and tormented by people who think that they are helping them. These punishments don't fix the mental problems, however. Rather, they are likely to cause the mentally disturbed person to cry, become angry, become rebellious, or become suicidal.

I suppose Benjamin reacted with anger when he was scolded for bad behavior, and that eventually the Navy became fed up with him and evicted him. Unfortunately, this is not a solution to the problem of mentally disturbed people. When businesses and military units evict the badly behaved people from their organization, they are merely tossing the trash into somebody else's yard.

No society yet is dealing with the problem of misfits. How are these misfits going to make a living when the schools, military, and businesses do not want them? We are fools to ignore this problem and let these misfits wander our streets and live among us. They don't have a lot of options for making a living. Many of the misfits end up in crime networks.

Benjamin encountered a woman who was also suffering from mental disorders, Erika Grace, and the two of them got married and started a retail business. However, they were never happy. They soon began burglarizing other businesses, but not because they needed the money. Rather, they were looking for excitement.

Who would consider burglary to be a form of "excitement"? It would only be people who are unhappy and suffering internally, and who are hoping that crimes will provide them with relief. When people are committing a crime, their mind and body is in a very different state. They are focused on avoiding detection, and that can cause them to forget about their pains. During the crime, they may feel happy simply because they are distracted from their internal problems.

Furthermore, if they are successful with the crime, they can make themselves feel better by titillating themselves with compliments, such as how clever they are to get away with the crime.

The momentary relief that the crime provides, and the titillation that they give themselves when they compliment themselves, can fool them into thinking that the crime is making their life more exciting.

After burglarizing businesses for a while, both Benjamin and Ericka began growing accustomed to burglary, and as a result, they began receiving less excitement from the crimes. This is to be expected from any activity that we do repeatedly. The first time a person commits a crime, or any new and dangerous activity, he will be under tremendous stress and fear, but if he is successful, eventually the activity will become routine.

Both Benjamin and Erika reacted to the diminishing excitement by assuming that they must commit even worse crimes in order to bring back the excitement. They came to the conclusion that they must select some couple at random and murder them. They assumed that by murdering somebody, they will achieve a tremendous amount of excitement. So they invited a couple of strangers they met at a bar to come to their home, and then they murdered both of them.

Not long after they murdered those people, they got caught burglarizing another business, but if they had not been caught, they might have continued murdering people at random, and they might have moved on to even worse crimes, such as torturing people to death.

Some people describe people such as Benjamin as "living on the edge", or as a "thrill seekers". We regard these people as ordinary people who simply want more excitement than normal people, but we should regard these people as defective and dangerous.

Why would a person want more excitement than a "normal" person? Why would somebody choose to be a "thrillseeker"? We should consider the possibility that these people are suffering from some internal problem, and that they are doing something dangerous or extremely strenuous in order to distract themselves from their misery and bring themselves some momentary pleasure.

How could a human mind, which has a quite a bit of intelligence, come to the idiotic conclusion that crimes would be exciting? It is due to human arrogance. We do not want to look critically at ourselves. When we are miserable, we do not want to consider the possibility that there is something defective about our mind or body. We want to imagine ourselves as perfect; we want to be at the top of the hierarchy. We want to impress other people. Therefore, when we are miserable, our natural attitude is to find some way to blame our misery on somebody else, or on some mysterious force.

If humans were not so arrogant, then each of us would be willing to analyze ourselves seriously, and we would notice that we have physical and mental defects. Schools would be able to teach children that nobody is perfect, and that everybody should try to figure out what their abilities and limitations are.

Unfortunately, our arrogance makes it difficult for us to consider the possibility that we have mental disorders, and as a result, the police records are full of cases in which unhappy people came to the idiotic conclusion that they will find excitement by getting revenge on society, or by committing crimes, rapes, or murders.

It is interesting to note that Ericka was taking both Paxil and Xanax. Did either of those drugs reduce her mental disorders? If so, that makes me wonder how psychotic she would have been if she had not been taking those drugs. Or were those drugs ineffective for her? Or were they making her situation worse?

It's also interesting to consider that if Benjamin and Erika had been slightly less psychotic, they would not have gotten involved with crimes, and they would still be living among us. Instead of choosing to commit crimes to feel better about themselves, they might have instead put a lot of effort into developing their business. They might have become billionaires or government officials.

Most people have a life that consists of a mixture of working, socializing, relaxing, and recreation. We all want to be rich and famous, but we are not willing to spend 12 hours a day trying to make money, or trying to become famous.

However, scattered among us are some individuals who cannot live an ordinary life. Some of them have trouble holding a job, and some cannot be happy living in an ordinary house, and some are not happy with an ordinary income.

Some of them have such intense cravings that they spend 12 or more hours a day struggling for money, status, or awards. Some of these people are willing to commit crimes in order to achieve their goals. Why are these people devoting so much of their life to money or status? And why are they willing to commit crimes?

In America, we assume wealthy people are better than poor people, so we admire a person who spends his entire life making money, whereas we consider a person to be a lunatic if he spends all of his life playing video games. However, I suggest we consider the possibility that people who spend all of their lives pursuing money or fame are just as crazy as the people who spend their entire lives playing video games.

Furthermore, I do not think it is wise to put such people into positions of leadership. They behave like a neurotic squirrel that cannot stop collecting nuts. How could these people provide guidance to society when they cannot even provide sensible guidance to themselves?

Would you want to give the control of the world to someone who spends almost every hour of the day playing video games, or gambling, or drinking? No, you would not. So why would you want people in leadership positions who have equally neurotic obsessions with material wealth or fame?

My casual review of Bill Lear's life gives me the impression that he was suffering from some type of mental disorder, but being more intelligent than Benjamin and Erika, he did not come to the idiotic conclusion that crimes would bring him excitement. He instead came to the conclusion that wealth and fame would make him happy. So he pursued wealth and fame, and he succeeded when he developed the Learjet, but was he ever truly happy with his life? I don't think so.

I think Bill Lear's life shows the symptoms of an unhappy person who was struggling to find relief from his misery. For example, he was difficult for people to deal with and form stable relationships with. I also think that it was his craving for happiness that caused him to develop a private jet. He was attracted to the idea of developing luxuries that only the extremely wealthy people could afford. He did not have much of an interest in developing products for scientists, engineers, carpenters, technicians, or the ordinary people.

Bill Lear had an obsession to be special. He wanted to be among the Kings and Queens. So he developed a product that the human race does not actually need, just as we do not need yachts, gigantic mansions, or the other luxury items that the billionaires are flaunting. We are just wasting our labor and resources on these status products.

Since mental problems are inheritable, I'm not surprised that his son, John Lear, has been promoting propaganda about 9/11, the Apollo moon landing, UFOs, and other issues since at least the late 1990s. I suspect that he inherited some of his father's mental disorders, and that he ended up as one of the puppets of the Jewish crime network as a result.

Now consider how this issue applies to people such as Tim Cook, of Apple. Is he happy with his life? Did he become a top executive simply because he was unusually talented? Or does he have a neurotic obsession with money or status? Did he reach his position in an honest manner? Or was he willing to commit crimes to achieve his goals? Is he just another miserable person who struggled to become a top executive because he came to the idiotic conclusion that he will find relief through wealth and fame? Is he happy with his homosexuality? Or is he frustrated and angry that he is abnormal? Does he envy the heterosexuals? Is he angry at life or society?

It is conceivable that a person is homosexual and truly satisfied with his condition, but I get the feeling that most homosexuals do not enjoy being homosexual. One reason I say this is because many of them flaunt their homosexuality rather than ignore it.

A normal person ignores his mental and physical characteristics. Most people do not notice or appreciate anything about their mind or body. Most people do not notice or appreciate that they have 3-D, color vision, for example, until they go blind. Most people don't appreciate their legs until they are paralyzed.

Normal people do not have parades in which they flaunt their heterosexuality, their color vision, or their legs. Normal people do not want a "color vision pride day", or "two legs pride day", or a "heterosexual pride day." So why do homosexuals want to flaunt their homosexuality in gay parades and "gay pride" days? Why don't they keep their homosexuality to themselves? When I meet people, I don't tell them that I'm heterosexual, or that I have two legs and a bellybutton.

I think the reason that some homosexuals promote their homosexuality is because they don't enjoy their condition, and they are struggling to convince themselves that they are actually quite happy with their condition.

Can homosexuals provide us with leadership? It is possible that there are some homosexuals who are happy with themselves and are capable of providing us with leadership, but I think we should be very cautious about putting them into positions of importance. There are too many of them that show signs of anger, frustration, resentment, and envy. There are also too many of them that seem to be excessively focused on sexual issues rather than on society.

We should look for leaders who are relaxed and happy, not people who are struggling to prove something to themselves, or who have an insane craving for wealth, fame, or sex.

Some of the people who rise to importance in the world are simply talented, or in the right situation at the right time, but most of the people who are in positions of importance had to struggle for many decades to achieve those positions. My impression is that most of them have abnormal, neurotic cravings for wealth, fame, revenge, sex, or feelings of importance.

I don't think many of them are capable of providing us with sensible leadership. I never hear them say anything intelligent, or show any concern for society. They seem to focus entirely on satisfying their psychotic cravings for wealth, fame, revenge, and sex.

It is not easy to analyze people and pass judgment on whether they are fit for leadership. It is not even easy to determine if a married man is heterosexual. Voters have a complex and difficult task, but if they do a good job, the benefits are tremendous.

Don't let a difficult task frighten you. Instead, keep in mind that nothing in life is free. Don't expect life to give us any handouts. If we want something, we must work for it, and we should enjoy the work instead of whine about it.

If we don't get together to make a better world, then what are we going to do with the remainder of our lives? Sit at home and watch television? Continue to allow crime networks to dominate and exploit us? Is that really a sensible alternative?

So, let's begin the journey into our future. Let's start exploring our options!

As long as there are other people on the trip to work with us, it will be fun, and we will enjoy the results.