Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society

Part 3: 
Making culture more sensible

13 May 2012

updated 24 Nov 2016 here


C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
Our natural tendency is to be unappreciative
Death and funerals
Your mind determines whether you enjoy life
Weddings and marriage
Free enterprise encourages bad attitudes
Education
Would you make a good government official?
Beauty products
How high should standards of behavior be?
 


 
Our natural tendency is to be unappreciative
 
Animals have no ability to appreciate anything, and humans usually don't appreciate something until it is taken away from them. We become accustomed to whatever we grow up with, and our natural tendency is to desire more than what we have. This desire for more inspires us to develop new technology and to improve our lives, but it has the disadvantage of causing us to be unappreciative of what we already have.

We must frequently remind ourselves to appreciate what we have. If we mindlessly follow our emotions, we will not appreciate other people until they are dead, and we will not appreciate the flowers, rivers, or clouds until we are in the process of dying. We will not appreciate our legs or ankles until we come crippled, and we will not appreciate our eyes until we can no longer see the incredible variety of shapes and colors of the world. Blindness can make us realize that sunshine filtering through the leaves of trees makes an ever-changing display of beautiful patterns.

The universe is gorgeous, and life is incredible, but how many people enjoy it? Our emotions fool us into thinking that whatever we have is not good enough; that we must have more. Our emotions fool us into thinking that we need more money, land, fame, shoes, sex, vacations, travel opportunities, or trophies.

The 80 year life span of a human is a microscopic blip in the history of the universe. We all wish that we could live a longer life, but the quantity of life is meaningless. We need to be concerned about the quality of life. Most people will not benefit from having more of the miserable life that they already have. Rather, we need to change the world so that more of us can enjoy our brief moment of existence.

People all throughout history have had the opportunity to enjoy life, but how many of them have taken that opportunity? Many people become so convinced that they need more of something that they waste their life stealing, cheating, lying, or struggling to get whatever it is they believe they must have. These people assume that they are becoming increasingly happy as they acquire more of whatever they crave, but I think that most people are wasting their life on a struggle for things of no real importance.

If everybody in the world was in better mental and physical health, and in better control of their emotions, even the "poor" neighborhoods would be wonderful places to live and visit. With better quality people, we could walk anywhere without fear of crime, and we would never be bothered by graffiti, trash on the streets, or married couples fighting with each other.

Most people believe that they need lots of money or they must travel somewhere far away in order to enjoy life, but I have always been amazed at how many incredible aspects of the universe are within walking distance of your own home, regardless of where you live. The flowers below, for example, are just one type of flower that grows wild in my yard. They are considered to be "weeds".

These are amazing plants because they grow in dry dirt, and they continue to appear despite my attempts to eliminate them. I assume that they are getting water from the dew at night. If we could get regular flowers or food crops to be as tough as these, farming and gardening would be effortless.

I don't think many of the people notice the beauty of the tiny wildflowers around them because they are so small. My close-up photos don't have much depth of focus because I don't have whatever incredible lenses the professional photographers have, but even so, these photos should show you that these tiny flowers are just as beautiful as the large flowers. These have beautiful orange petals, bright yellow pollen, and tiny purple hairs.
 

Left: A close-up of the white fuzz on the ovary is below, right.

Right: The flower buds are so tiny that my fingerprints look large.

Left: The filaments have purple hairs. The round, light yellow ball is the stigma.

Right: The white fuzz is translucent hairs with purple tips.

The castor bean plant, which also grows wild around here, is even more spectacular. It has incredible colors and patterns, and the flowering portion is amazing. And there is a weed that grows in the cracks of asphalt and concrete that is almost indestructible. I have never noticed it producing flowers, but it is impressive anyway. I have also been amazed at some of the bizarre creatures that I find living in my house and yard. I have some photos and videos of them, and I will hopefully edit them into a video.

The point I'm trying to make is that everybody could be appreciating and enjoying life all the time. We could even be getting together once in a while simply to explore our own homes and neighborhoods to help one another understand and notice the incredible animals and plants around us.

When we follow our emotions rather than our intellect, we struggle to titillate ourselves, as the animals do, and we have no control over our future. We should change our philosophy so that we can take control of our culture and design a society according to what would be best for human life. We should analyze our culture and experiment with changes to it.

Death and funerals
 
Funerals are becoming increasingly idiotic
If we could go back in time far enough, we would find that there was a point in human history when our ancestors were not having any type of funeral. They would let dead bodies remain wherever they were when the person died, and if they were extremely hungry, they might have eaten some of the dead bodies.

Eventually humans became so intelligent that when they looked at a dead body, they were reminded of their pleasant memories of that person. The human mind thinks by comparing items to find similarities and differences. When we look at a dead body, our mind scans through its memory to figure out what we are looking at, and this can bring forth lots of pleasant memories of the person. Our emotions want to be reminded of the pleasant memories, not the unpleasant image of a dead, rotting body with a horrible stench. As a result, our emotions will cause us to want to get the body out of sight, such as by burying it, burning it, or tossing it into a river.

The human mind has a feature, or a defect, depending on how you want to look at it, that allows us to ignore whatever we don't like and believe whatever we want to believe. This feature allows us to ignore a person's death and recall the images of him when he was alive. We can also convince ourselves that he is having another life in heaven.

This feature allows us to ignore unpleasant memories, which can be beneficial, but this feature can be dangerous, also. For example, millions of people are ignoring the evidence that Israel destroyed the World Trade Center towers with explosives because they want to continue believing that Arabs are responsible for the 9/11 attack.

This feature is also dangerous when we are driving a car. For example, when making a potentially dangerous left turn, we will look to see if there are any cars coming towards us, and if not, then we pull out into the street and enter a potentially dangerous zone. If the intersection is busy and if we are frightened at the possibility that we might get hit by a car, then this emotion can be activated and cause us to do the exact opposite of what we should do. In busy intersections, we should continue looking around as we make the turn, but this emotion will want us to look only forward and not to the side so that we don't see any cars coming towards us. This emotion assumes that if we don't see any cars coming at us, then there are no cars coming at us. By ignoring the potential dangers, there are no dangers.

I suspect that when a society first provides themselves with automobiles, the people who have the least control over this particular emotion are among the most likely to die in traffic accidents. If so, then as time passes, the people who survive automobiles are those who are less influenced by this emotion.

It would be interesting to compare the personalities of people. For example, are successful military pilots and race car drivers less likely or more likely to ignore the evidence that Israel is responsible for 9/11? Are they successful in their dangerous profession because they are more aware of reality, or because they are better able to ignore the potential dangers? Are there certain professions or categories of people who are better able to listen to the evidence that we have been lied to about 9/11, the Apollo Moon landing, and the Holocaust?

A drawing of the funeral of King Richard II from Froissart's Chronicles written during the 1300s.
Getting back to the issue of funerals, eventually some of our ancestors came up with the concept that there was life after death, and this resulted in some elaborate funerals for ancient Egyptian and Chinese leaders. By the 1300s, paintings show that funerals in Europe had evolved into a sad event in which people dressed in black and were encouraged to cry.

During the past century, businesses have been exploiting people's emotions and encouraging funerals to become increasingly expensive affairs. Free enterprise encourages us to look for new ways to make money rather than to look for improvements to society, and as a result, a lot of companies are finding new methods to profit from death. For example, some companies are developing solar powered video displays for graves. Who benefits from that? The dead people don't, and I don't think any of the living people do, either.

When cameras and facial recognition software become more reliable and affordable, I suppose some company will offer us a gravestone that has a camera, a computer, and facial recognition software so that it can determine when people are near the grave, identify the person, and then play a video message according to whether the person is classified as a relative, friend, or coworker of the dead person.

Businesses and religions have convinced people to do more than merely bury their dead relatives. People have been convinced to preserve their dead relatives with chemicals, put them into fancy caskets that are lined with expensive materials, and pay for an expensive funeral. Some people are also purchasing tombstones or mausoleums. The funerals of today are almost as expensive as weddings, and they attract as many people. How much more ridiculous will they be in the future? At what point in time will the human race stop acting like a fish and start wondering where are we going with funerals?


Cemeteries are impractical

Our primitive ancestors had no idea how big the earth was, or how many people were living on it. They assumed that they were among the very few people in the world, so from their point of view, it was possible to bury a dead body and leave it in its grave forever. Today it should be obvious that the concept of a cemetery is unrealistic. It is impossible to put every person in a grave and allow them to stay there forever because there is not enough room on the Earth to provide a grave for all of the trillions of people who will die in the future. There are already cemeteries that are so full of dead bodies that one of the existing bodies must be dug up and disposed of before a new body can be buried.

Some people today want to be cremated, and they want their ashes to be spread over the ocean. This is also ridiculous. More than 150,000 people die every day, and each adult creates 4 to 6 pounds of ashes. Some of the deaths are of children, so let's assume dead people create an average of 3 pounds of ash. If everybody wanted to do this type of cremation ceremony, that means 450,000 pounds of ashes would be dumped into the ocean every day. How does that make any more sense than city governments flying over the ocean and dumping the ashes from their incinerators? This type of behavior is sensible only when it occurs on a small scale.

Some people want their ashes to be saved in jars, but how many trillions of jars do we have to save before we come to the conclusion that this concept is also ridiculous? More than 50 million people die every year, so that would require that we create 50 million jars of ashes every year. Where do we save these jars of ashes? And for how many centuries do we save them? Does each family save the jars of their relatives and pass them onto their children? If so, imagine a person in the future inheriting thousands of jars of ashes from his ancestors. Some people are also incinerating their pet animals and saving their ashes in jars.

When robots become more advanced, will people have funerals for their sex robots? That might seem idiotic, but if we don't change the course that the human race is on, the lonely people of the future may become as attached to their sex robots as people today are attached to their dogs.

Actually, it is possible that people will become more attached to their sex robot. Imagine the robot in the photo with a more advanced body. Would you be able to resist forming an emotional attachment to her? Most men would probably have trouble referring to "her" as an "it".


Enjoy people while they are alive, not at their funeral

Who benefits from our increasingly complex and expensive funerals? How do our funerals improve the life of the people who are still alive? How does society benefit?

I think our funeral customs are encouraging destructive behavior by encouraging the attitude that it is possible to appreciate people after they die. Our culture is encouraging people to spend their lives on frantic struggles for money, fame, and other pleasures, and when somebody dies, we are told that we can respect and honor the person by having a funeral for them.

We should not encourage people to sulk or pout when somebody dies. It would be better to encourage people to be appreciative of people while they are alive. If you don't enjoy a person while he is alive, then that is your mistake. We should not encourage the attitude that we can undo our crude behavior simply by having a funeral, dressing in black, stimulating our emotions of sadness, and making remarks about how we wish we had spent more time with the person.

The attitude of people at funerals reminds me of the Christian attitude that we can behave in any disgusting manner that we please as long as we ask God for forgiveness before we die. We should not allow Christians to promote such a destructive attitude. It would be better if religions told people that they cannot undo their bad behavior, and that the best they can do is refrain from more bad behavior and hope that God is not too disgusted with them. Likewise, we should not encourage the attitude that we can ignore or abuse people while they are alive, and then undo our bad behavior by dressing in black clothing and crying at their funeral.


Why should we be responsible for our dead relatives?

I don't understand why people care what happens to their body after they die. All of our bodies are going to slowly decompose, and in the process, they are going to become stinky and disgusting. I don't care if somebody decides to throw me into a pit along with a pile of garbage, or whether they decide to preserve my body, slice it into pieces, and place the pieces in a museum display. I don't even care if people decide to use pieces of my body as dog food. I want to enjoy my life while I am alive, and I don't care what happens to my body after I die.

I don't care what happens to my mother's body, either, or my father's body. I don't even enjoy the visual image of somebody taking the clothing off of my dead mother's body, washing her, embalming her, and then getting her dressed, brushing her hair, and putting her into a casket. And at some funeral homes, they also have sex with some of the dead bodies. I think the practice of embalming people and putting their dead bodies in a public display is crude and worthless.

My preference is to stop wasting time, resources, and engineering talent on products and services for dead bodies. I would let society be responsible for dealing with dead bodies rather than expecting the relatives of a dead person to deal with his dead body. Why should any of us have to be burdened with the issue of disposing of dead bodies? And why should we have to spend a lot of our money to dispose of a dead body?

I prefer to let society decide what to do with our dead bodies. For example, some dead bodies might be useful for medical purposes, and some might be useful for museum displays, and the worthless bodies could be ground up and tossed into a recycling bin with other organic material. The metallic objects within the body, such as gold teeth and artificial hips, could be recycled.


We should have different types of funerals

I think funerals should be designed so that they are beneficial to society rather than encouraging irrational behavior, and I think we should have different types of funerals depending upon the reason the person died. For example, we could have four different types of funerals according to these four different causes of death:
1) Old-age, 2) Accidents, 3) Heroic actions, and 4) Stupidity.


1) Old-age

Funerals for people who have died from old-age should be pleasant, not sad. Nobody benefits by dressing in black and crying over the death of an old person. Those people lived a long life, so there is no reason for the people at the funeral to stimulate themselves into crying or feeling miserable. The funeral should be a celebration that the person had a long life, and the people at the funeral should be hoping that everybody else also gets the opportunity to die from old age. It should be a happy time; a party; a celebration of a long life
2) Accidents
When young people die accidentally as a result of work-related accidents, airplane crashes, hurricanes, or tornadoes, their funerals will be sad compared to funerals for people who die of old age. However, this doesn't justify encouraging the people to stimulate themselves into tears. The funeral should not degrade into a crude affair in which people are jerking themselves off emotionally.

For example, when a person drowns because his city flooded during a heavy rain, there is no sense in encouraging the idiotic behavior that we see today, which is to cry at the funeral and make stupid remarks, such as "Gosh, it hasn't rained this much in 30 years. I hope this is the last time we have a heavy rain."

There is no attempt to understand why our cities are flooding year after year, and no attempt to design cities with better drainage systems. Nobody learns anything from the accidental deaths. Instead, they stimulate themselves in tears for a while, and then resume their idiotic lives in their idiotic cities that were never designed properly for rain, snow, or wind. Years later, when the floods occur again, they repeat the cycle of crying about the deaths and doing nothing to prevent future deaths.

Funerals for accident victims could be useful if the funeral was used as an opportunity to understand how the person died. The funeral should be a sensible affair in which people are reminded of the dangers of life and the importance of following safety procedures. The funerals could be especially useful to help children understand the dangers of mechanical devices, knives, avalanches, lightning, tornadoes, wild animals, and waterfalls. Funerals could also encourage people to think of ways to reduce future accidents, such as improving safety procedures, or developing less dangerous equipment, or improving the design of railroads.

3) Heroic actions
It's sad when somebody dies as a result of his heroic actions, but we should control ourselves to prevent the funeral from degrading into a miserable event in which people are stimulating themselves into tears. The funeral should be a celebration of the person who was willing to take a risk for society. These type of funerals could also be an opportunity to meet and appreciate some of the other people who risk their lives for society, but who are still alive. We should not wait for them to die before we notice them.
4) Stupidity
Some people die as a result of their stupidity, carelessness, recklessness, or irresponsibility. For example, some people get drunk and fall off of a cliff, and some climb over the railing near a waterfall and are killed when they are swept down the river. One of the most incredible acts of stupidity that I am aware of are the people who climbed over the double fence at an electrical substation and got electrocuted.

We are supposed to feel sad when these people die, but why should we? Society should consider their death to be their own fault. We should not feel sad. In fact, we could turn it into a beneficial opportunity. Their death provides us with an opportunity to be reminded of how making the wrong decision can be the last decision we make. I wouldn't waste society's resources on a funeral for these people, but if we were to have a funeral for them, it should be a party in which we celebrate the fact that all of us have higher quality minds. We could even make his funeral into a comedy show by making jokes about his stupidity.

Some people might respond that we shouldn't laugh at somebody's death, but why not? Who benefits by feeling sad when a person who is unable to fit into modern society inadvertently kills himself as a result of his stupidity? Our attitude ought to be, "Good riddance!"


It's okay to criticize dead people

There are some people who reprimand us if we make jokes or insulting remarks about somebody who is dead. They scold us with remark similar to, "You shouldn't criticize the dead!", but what is wrong with criticizing or insulting dead people? All of us are criticized and insulted throughout our lives while we are alive, so what difference does it make if people continue to criticize and insult us after we die?

You might consider it amusing to imagine a society that passed a law that forbid the criticizing of dead people. Since we criticize people while they are alive, this society would have to make announcements, such as through cell phones, every time a person died so that everybody knew that they had to immediately stop criticizing the person. Imagine yourself sitting with a group of friends at lunch, and somebody is in the process of making a critical remark about John Doe when everybody's cell phone goes off to inform them that John Doe has just died, and that everybody must cease critical remarks about him or face a $500 fine or three months in jail.

Actually, I suggest we reverse our attitude and be nicer to people while they are alive, and after they die, we should feel free to make whatever idiotic jokes and remarks that we please. This attitude will make everybody's life more pleasant.

I think that the people who are most sensitive to being criticized after death are the people who are suffering from low self-esteem. They want to think of themselves as special people. They are horrified at the thought that when they die, people will make critical remarks about them. However, they cannot force us to like them. Therefore, there is no point in their trying to suppress critical remarks of dead people. They are fools to think that they can prevent people from disliking them.


We insult everybody, including ourselves

You might respond that the best policy is to refrain from making idiotic, worthless, critical remarks of both living and dead people, but I don't think we can stop ourselves from making critical remarks. We make critical remarks all the time, and even of ourselves. Can you look in a mirror without thinking something critical about the way you look? Can you look at your body without being critical of its appearance? And when you do something stupid or make a mistake, don't you make critical remarks about your stupidity or carelessness? Don't you sometimes call yourself an idiot, or worse?

It is possible that you have already insulted yourself more than anybody else ever has, and some of your insults may be more awful than what anybody else has said about you. Furthermore, you may have sweared at yourself more than anybody else has ever sweared at you.

If we were to produce a list of every insult and critical remark that you thought about yourself, and post that list on the Internet under somebody else's name, it would appear as if the author was a lunatic who had an intense and senseless hatred of you.

Of course, there are certainly differences in how often each of us criticizes ourselves. Some people may be so much like an animal that they criticize themselves only once a year, and other people may insult and swear at themselves on a daily basis.

The human race needs to become capable of understanding and dealing with its characteristics. We have to deal with our tendency to pass judgment on everything, including ourselves, and our tendency to insult everybody, including ourselves. I think the best policy is to try suppressing the worthless criticism of other people until they are dead.


Who owns your dead body?

The attitude today is that each of us, including criminals, has the right to determine what happens to our dead body. Medical schools, scientists, and museums have to ask us for permission to use our body for medical purposes, scientific research, museum displays, or educational purposes.

People today are gears in a machine. None of us are living on our own. We owe our lives to other people who provide us with food, electricity, and other resources and services. Society gives us life, and I think that society should deal with our death. Let society decide what to do with our dead body.

Our funeral procedures are crude, idiotic, and wasteful. Furthermore, without a peasant class, who is going to make the caskets, do the embalming, carve the headstones, and dig the graves? Our funeral procedures are consuming a lot of resources and labor. Without a peasant class, we either develop machines to do the work, or we have to share the work. I personally have no interest in sharing with the embalming or the making of headstones. And I don't even want to make machines to do this type of work.

I think our funerals are idiotic. I prefer that funerals be pleasant celebrations, and that the dead body be given to society. If society cannot find a use for it, then it can be disposed of just like the dead bodies of animals. I wouldn't care if people chopped up my body and used it as shark bait. Do whatever you want with my dead body. Actually, I consider the image of being used as shark bait to be more pleasant than the image of my dead body decomposing from worms, bacteria, and maggots.


Would you cry at a funeral for fingernail clippings?

We constantly cut our hair and trim our fingernails, but nobody in good mental health would have a funeral for those parts of their body. We also lost a lot of teeth during our childhood, but did anybody have a funeral for any of their teeth? Some people have lost arms, hands, or legs from accidents or attacks by animals. If one of those people invited you to a funeral for their body part, would you attend? What if a woman invited you to a funeral for her placenta?

Every society believes that their funeral practices are sensible, and that everybody else's practices are idiotic, but all funeral customs are idiotic. No society has ever put any intelligent thought into any of their customs. Everybody's funeral practices developed haphazardly, and all of them are senseless. There are some people who give their fetus a type of funeral, for example, and some people eat the placenta. For all we know, thousands of years ago there were some primitive tribes of humans who would eat their dead relatives, and they may have considered it as a sign of respect for the dead. Some Serbian gangsters killed a rival and ate him for lunch in a stew.

We should stop acting like fish and start asking ourselves, "Where are we going with funerals? How do we benefit from our funeral customs?"

We discard fingernail clippings with no concern, and I think we should start disposing of dead bodies in the same manner. We should suppress the religious propaganda that a dead body must be handled in a certain manner so that our soul will rise to heaven. We should stop allowing businesses and religions to exploit death. We should encourage people to deal with death in a sensible, pleasant manner. 

Your mind determines whether you enjoy life
 
Life is however you interpret it
Your mind interprets the world by processing the information that comes from your eyes, ears, and other senses, and the information that has been stored in your memory. Your view of the world depends mostly upon the design of your brain, and to a lesser extent, the information that you have stored in your memory. There is no right or wrong way to interpret anything, including death. If a person wants to interpret a death as a sad event, then the death will be sad. If a person wants to remain calm, relaxed, and pleasant after his friend dies, then he will be.

If you want to believe that you are suffering from poverty, then you will indeed be suffering from it. If you want to believe that you are not famous enough to enjoy life, then you will feel inadequate and dream of becoming more famous.

Your life depends upon your decisions. We should not encourage people to promote the concept that their irrational behavior is the result of a death, a miscarriage, their childhood, the devil, or poverty. Everybody's behavior is a result of their mind's decisions. We are in control of ourselves. We are responsible for our behavior.

When a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, her mind might interpret it as a terrible event, and she may spend the rest of her life reminding herself of it in order to stimulate feelings of sadness. Or, she may regard it as just another unpleasant aspect of life to be dealt with, and instead of stimulating herself with the memories of the death, she may concentrate on more pleasant memories and activities.

This concept also applies to the issue of "bullying". I wrote in one of my documents that I don't remember being bullied, but after I spent more time thinking about my childhood, I can now see that there were many events during my life - mainly between the ages of 12 and 14 - that other children had insulted or irritated me. However, I did not interpret those events as being "bullied". If a teacher had asked me if I was being “bullied”, I would have replied that I was never bullied, but that I was occasionally "irritated by some of the dumb boys".

Now that I look back over my childhood, I can see that my reaction to annoyances was to deal with them quietly. I can also see that my life would have ended up much differently if I had reacted to the irritations by crying, or by whining to the teacher. The other children would probably have reacted by laughing at me, and by increasing their irritating behavior.

Some children react to unpleasant events by crying or becoming angry, and when they become adults, they use those childhood memories of abuse to stimulate themselves. They cry to the rest of us that they were bullied as a child. They want us to feel sorry for them. But why should we? No matter what type of childhood these "victims" claims to have suffered from, there were lots of people having a very similar childhood as them, but without whining about it. The adults who complain that they are victims are choosing to be victims. They are choosing to recall those unpleasant childhood events over and over in order to stimulate you and me into giving them pity. However, we should not encourage their pouting. We are not helping them by encouraging this idiotic behavior, and we are not helping ourselves.


This concept also applies to insults

In February 2012, a Ben & Jerry's ice cream shop in Boston created a special frozen yogurt to honor the basketball player Jeremy Lin. It was flavored with vanilla, honey, and pieces of fortune cookies. Immediately after producing this special yogurt, lots of news reporters announced to the world that by adding pieces of fortune cookies, they had insulted the Chinese people. I doubt if any Chinese people complained, but the Ben & Jerry's company apologized and quickly replaced the pieces of fortune cookies with pieces of waffles.

If any Chinese person feels insulted by a frozen yogurt that has pieces of fortune cookies, that is his decision. We should not encourage this type of behavior by agreeing with him that he has been insulted, and that he needs an apology in order to feel good about himself.

Life is however you want to interpret it. Consider some of the many possible ways that people around the world could react to that frozen yogurt:

• The Chinese people could complain that they feel insulted that Ben & Jerry's used yogurt rather than ice cream. • They could complain that they feel insulted because honey was one of the ingredients rather than sugar. •  The short Chinese men could complain that they feel insulted because a tall Chinese man was honored. • The Japanese could complain that they have athletes that are just as talented as Jeremy Lin, but they never got any frozen yogurt or ice cream to honor any of their athletes. • Women could complain that Ben & Jerry's is sexist because they are honoring men. •  The Chinese could complain that replacing the fortune cookies with waffles is insulting because waffles are made with wheat instead of rice.

Incidentally, the dessert that we refer to as a "Chinese fortune cookie" was supposedly created by some Japanese Americans, so instead of being insulted that Ben & Jerry's put pieces of fortune cookie in the frozen yogurt, the Chinese could have chosen to feel sorry for the Americans for being so ignorant as to believe that fortune cookies were Chinese. Therefore, instead of demanding an apology from Ben & Jerry's, the Chinese could have offered to educate the American people on the history of food products.

Likewise, french fries were supposedly created in Belgium, and so they could be referred to as "Belgian fries". The people in France could feel insulted that Americans are referring to certain potato products as "french fries", or they could ridicule the Americans for not knowing the difference between Belgium and France, or they could offer to educate the American people.

On 11 March 2003, two US congressmen declared that "French fries" should be referred to as "freedom fries", and that "French toast" should be referred to as "freedom toast". The French people could have reacted by feeling insulted, or they could have been sad that American government officials react to world events in such a childish manner. The American people could have reacted to those Congressmen by waving their flags and boasting that American government officials have the courage to stand up to the French people, or they could be ashamed that our nation's leaders behave in such an obnoxious manner.

To summarize this, you have lots of choices in life. If you find yourself crying over an insult, it is because you decided to feel insulted, and you also decided to cry about it. Likewise, if you are proud of your government officials for referring to "french fries" as "freedom fries", it is because you chose to be proud of them rather than ashamed of them.

Your life is whatever you make it. If you waste your life crying, hating, cheating, lying, or pouting, it is your fault. You make the decisions of how to spend your precious and very brief life. If you get involved with people you are incompatible with, or who abuse you, especially if you do this over and over, it is because you are routinely making the same idiotic decisions over and over.

Most of your problems are your fault. Very few of the problems you are suffering from are due to nature, other people, or bad luck. Most of your life is under your control. Therefore, if you were truly the super intelligent, super educated, super genius that you think you are, then you would be dealing with your problems better than the rest of us are dealing with our problems. Anybody who was truly the super genius that he thinks he is would be like an adult in a world of children; or like a man with eyesight in a world of blind people.


Don't give squeaky wheels any grease!

There are some people who try to make life better for us, and there are other people who look for opportunities to complain that they have been insulted, mistreated, unappreciated, bullied, or abused. Instead of working on useful projects that help society, they "work on us" in order to extract pity or some type of handout.
Our natural tendency is to provide assistance, comfort, and pity to the people who whine, but humans are not mechanical devices. Squeaky wheels need grease, but "squeaky humans" should be regarded as unfit for this modern world. They are equivalent to dirt in a transmission. They are like that comic strip character Pigpen. Everywhere they go they spread misery. Don't think that you are capable of curing these people of their problems. All you can do is provide them with information. If they can't use the information to improve themselves, there is nothing you can do for them.
Weddings and marriage
 
Marriage is "social technology"
Marriage is a concept; it is social technology; it is some intangible information inside our minds. As I pointed out in my previous social technology articles, developing better policies for marriage, crime, schools, and other social issues requires the same amount of talent, intelligence, and hard work that is required to develop better trains, computers, telephones, and other physical technology. Most people believe that they can develop better policies for social issues with only a few moments of thought, and that they can explain their policies in only a few sentences, but that is as silly as believing that you can develop a new telephone with just a few moments of thought.

Most people realize that they don't have the talent, intelligence, or desire to do the necessary research and analysis to provide improvements to our computers or jet engines. As a result, they remain silent about these particular issues and let the scientists and engineers do the research and development of those items. However, most people believe that they are capable of developing better policies for marriage, schools, crime, abortion, and other social issues, and as a result, they frequently get into arguments over which of them has the most brilliant opinions.

Most people have nothing valuable to contribute to any of our social issues. Most people don't even have any original thoughts. As I described in a previous file, when we are children, we pick up our culture from other people. We are just a collage of other people. Only a few of us develop original opinions during our life, but those original thoughts are the result of analyzing some of the information that we picked up during our lives, so it's not truly original. Rather, it is a modification of other people's thoughts. Therefore, we could say that none of us actually has any truly original thoughts. All of us are simply modifying the information that we picked up from other people.

We do not expect an engineer to develop a new computer by himself in just a few minutes. Instead, we put together teams of engineers and provide them with a lot of time and resources. Also, we realize that it is impossible to "figure out" which engineer has the best products simply by listening to brief descriptions of their products. Instead, we have to test their products; we have to experiment with them.

We have to apply this same attitude towards the development of social technology. We cannot expect one person to develop social technology all by himself, and we cannot "figure out" whose ideas are better simply by listening to a brief description. Developing better policies towards marriage, crime, and other social issues will require a lot of effort, and we must be willing to experiment to determine which policies are the most appropriate.


Should we allow homosexuals to marry?

It is May 2012, and America is in the process of selecting a president. During the preceding months the Republicans held several debates to help voters determine which candidate they wanted as president. At one of the debates, the candidates were asked about gay marriage, and they were given about a minute to explain their opinions, but it's ridiculous to expect people to explain their policies in such a short period of time. The candidates were put through a lot of debates, but the format for every debate was the same, so the end result was that the candidates made the same simplistic and idiotic remarks over and over.

A debate in which each candidate has only a minute to answer a question is useful only for "socializing"; ie, getting to know the personality of the candidate. Social issues are too complex for this type of debate. Imagine if the military were to review proposals for a new jet by putting some engineers in a debate and giving them a minute to explain why their design is the best.

Most people consider the issue of gay marriage to be such a simplistic issue that everybody is capable of analyzing it in just a few moments of thought, but it is a very complex issue. What is "gay"? And what is "marriage"? Nobody can develop a sensible policy for "gay marriage" until they first can explain what they mean by the word "gay", and what they mean by the word "marriage". Most people think they know what a marriage is, but they don't really know anything about the issue of marriage.


What is a "marriage"?

Before we can discuss the issue of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, we have to figure out what a marriage is, and what a marriage is not.

Our dictionaries have slightly different definitions for the word. If we consider a marriage to be a legal agreement between a man and a woman, then there were no marriages before our ancestors developed the concept of a legal system. Some people consider a marriage to be a religious ceremony, but with that definition, there were no marriages before our ancestors developed the concept of organized religion.

Was it possible for our prehistoric ancestors to get married when there were no priests, churches, laws, or government officials? If a marriage is a legal document, then none of our primitive ancestors were capable of getting married. However, if we could go back in time about 30,000 years, we might find that our primitive ancestors were routinely having what they would describe as a "wedding". Their language was different than ours, but they may have had words for marriage, wedding, divorce, husband, and wife, which would be proof that they were under the impression that they were capable of getting married.

As I described in another document, our words mean whatever we want them to mean. We can define the word "marriage" in any manner that we please. If we define "marriage" to refer to a particular type of legal document, then none of our primitive ancestors were capable of getting married. We have to decide what we want a marriage to be. Is it a legal document? What role does religion have in marriage?

I would define the word "marriage" so that our primitive ancestors were capable of getting married. This means that the definition would be based on the relationship between a husband and wife, and the legal contract is simply a modern addition to a marriage rather than the primary aspect of a marriage.

When we try to become more descriptive about what a marriage is and is not, we start realizing how complex this issue is. For example, most people would say that a marriage is not simply a "relationship" between a man and woman because it's more than just a "friendship" or an "acquaintance".

If biologists were to figure out the particular area of the brain that causes men and women to make a commitment to share their lives together, then we could define marriage in a more precise manner, such as by describing it as the relationship that develops as a result of that particular emotion. That type of precise definition would allow biologists to determine if a couple were truly married. For example, if it becomes possible to measure what our brains are doing, then biologists would be able to determine if a man and a woman were married as a result of this emotional bond, or if they were married for some other reason, such as money or loneliness.

The more detail we put into the definition, the more we realize how complex the issue becomes. For example, what about the marriages in some of the primitive nations in which young girls are forced into marriage? Those women do not have any emotional attraction to their husband, and those husbands may not have any emotional attraction to their wives. The husbands may be sexually attracted to their wives, but do those relationships qualify as "marriages"? Or should those relationships be described as sex slavery or kidnapping?

We like to think of a marriage as the emotional bonds that a man and woman have for one another, but I think a lot of the marriages that are occurring in the world today are for other purposes, such as political benefit, money, manipulation, and loneliness. For example, I don't think the royal families in Europe are forming "marriages". I think they are forming political relationships, and some of them seem to be "publicity stunts".

I have no interest in learning about the personal lives of the people in the monarchies of the world, and so I never investigated the relationship between Prince Charles or Princess Diana, but my impression of that marriage was that a group of people were involved in selecting her to be the wife of Prince Charles. If my suspicions are correct, then that marriage was not truly a "marriage". Rather, it was a business arrangement, or a publicity stunt, or a political deal. Not surprisingly, my impression of their marriage was that it was miserable from the very beginning, and I'm not surprised that she died mysteriously. I suspect she was murdered. I wouldn't be surprised if a group of people helped select Kate Middleton to be the wife of Prince Andrew. In such a case, that marriage would be fraudulent, also.


You are not a hero when you help the freaks

If there are people getting involved with the decisions of who the royal family members will marry, they would undoubtedly think of themselves as wonderful people who are helping Britain, but it would better to describe them as "con artists" who are arranging fraudulent marriages in an attempt to manipulate the public and perpetuate a parasitic and worthless monarchy.

This concept also applies to the people who participated in the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Apollo Moon landing fraud. They thought of themselves as heroes, but it would be more accurate to describe them as suckers who were tricked into participating in destructive activities.

“Trust me, you are a hero! Keep the bag on your head, keep your mouth shut, and be secretive.”
=
We must be careful when we get involved with secretive activities. The people who help the Royal families get married ought to ask themselves, "If our work is beneficial and admirable, why do we have to be so secretive about it? Why are we ashamed of what we do? Why do we have to hide? Why can't we be proud of our achievements?"

There are valid reasons for people in law enforcement and the military to be secretive, but everybody who does something secretly ought to ensure that they are truly working for a beneficial cause rather than foolishly following the idiotic ideas of incompetent leaders, or, even worse, being tricked by criminals into helping them with their crimes.

The two photos below supposedly show Princess Diana "shortly" before her car accident. If "shortly" refers to "seconds", then the photos are proof that there were people directly in front of her car and shining a bright light in the driver's face. Who took these photos? Did they also take photos of the crash in order to "document the event", as did the "Dancing Israelis"?

Princess Diana is in the back seat with her lover, Dodi al-Fayed.
Your first reaction might be to feel sorry for Princess Diana, but she chose to get married to Prince Charles. Princess Diana was not an "ordinary" woman from an ordinary family. Her family is very wealthy, and for all we know, they are involved with crime. Or perhaps her family is wealthy because they are just another group of unhappy people who waste their lives pursuing money and fame. I don't even have the impression that she wanted to get married to Prince Charles, or that she was attracted to him. Why did she marry him? Were other people pushing her into it?

I suspect that all of the people who become friends with or spouses of the Royal families of the world are mentally ill to some degree, and that is why they are willing to abandon a "normal" life and get involved in a fraudulent relationship with people who have never earned anything in their life. Don't feel sorry for Princess Diana or Kate Middleton, and don't feel sorry for the wife of Bill Gates or the spouses of any of the other billionaires of the world. We don't help society by feeling sorry for people who form dishonest relationships for money, fame, or political favors.

Put your effort into helping people who are valuable members of society, not the weirdos who want to be pampered Kings and Queens, or the freaks who are destructive, dishonest, parasitic, or diabolical. Be like a gardener who takes care of the flowers, not the weeds. You are not a hero when you provide assistance to criminals, retards, or parasites. Rather, you are an accessory to crime. Furthermore, the bodyguards of Royal families, billionaires, rich children, and other worthless people and criminals ought to find something more productive to do with their lives. Why risk your life for somebody of no value or who is destructive?

It is understandable and natural for a woman to look for a husband who is capable of supporting a family, but some women are not merely looking for a man who can take care of a family. Rather, some of them are looking for incredible levels of wealth, political benefits, or fame. Women who form relationships with men simply for money or political benefits should be described as "con artists" or "psychos" rather than as "girlfriends", "lovers", or "wives".

Some of the women who pursue men for money are honest about what they want, and that honesty puts them into a different category. For example, a lot of us suspect that Anna Nicole Smith married an elderly, wealthy man simply for his money, and that his interest in her was only because she was young and pretty. However, if both she and her husband realized that they were being used by their spouse, and if neither of them cared, then each of them was getting what they wanted. In such a case, their relationship could be considered a form of high-class prostitution rather than an abusive, fraudulent marriage. They would be similar to the people who describe themselves as "Sugar Daddies" or "Sugar Babies" at seekingarrangement.com.

I have a brief description of Anna Smith here.
By comparison, some of the men who were pursuing Anna Nicole Smith seemed to be more accurately described as "con artists" who were trying to deceive her into thinking that they loved her when in reality all they wanted to do was murder her and take her money. I think that her "clown video" is evidence of their diabolical intentions.

It seems to me that a lot of people are getting married to a person that they don't really care for simply because they want children, sex, financial support, emotional support, or because they are lonely. I would not describe such people as forming a "marriage".


Should we allow abusive marriages?

From my own personal observations of people, I would say that some of the marriages that are occurring right now between men and women are not really "marriages". Rather, they are abusive, parasitic, deceptive, and sometimes disgusting relationships. If we are going to pass judgment on whether homosexuals should get married to one another, why not also pass judgment on whether heterosexuals should be allowed to get married for political purposes, money, and some of the other idiotic reasons that people are getting married?

The people in the entertainment business seem to have an especially difficult time forming stable marriages, and virtually everybody who is rich or famous seems to attract a lot of parasites and criminals. Why did Tiger Woods marry that Swedish woman? I don't know either of them, but I had the impression that there was something deceptive about that marriage. The women who pursue famous or wealthy men seem to be interested in money or fame, not the man. How many of the rich and famous people are "married", and how many of them are better described as "victims"? Was Tiger Woods the "husband" of that Swedish woman? Or was he her "victim"? A relationship that seems even stranger to me is Rielle Hunter and John Edwards. Do you think she was truly interested in him?

Monica Lewinsky did not get married to Bill Clinton, but I think she formed a dishonest, diabolical relationship. I think she was pursuing him for blackmail, so I would classify her as a "criminal", not as Bill Clinton's "girlfriend". Peggy Borger is still contacting me (her last phone call was on 9 March 2012), and I suspect that Peggy and Monica are just two of many women who are trying to form both sexual relationships and marriages with men simply to blackmail us, manipulate us, or use us as a source of information. Why don't we pass judgment on which women are truly looking for a husband and which are criminals who ought to be removed from society? Which is really worse for society? A) Two homosexuals who get married to one another because they are attracted to one another, or B) a heterosexual woman who deceives a man into a relationship in order to blackmail or manipulate him?

When heterosexuals tell homosexuals that they cannot get married, the homosexuals could reply, "When you show us that you are capable of forming stable, honest marriages, we will listen to your advice on marriage." Why should homosexuals care about our advice on marriage when we cannot form sensible or stable marriages of our own?

It is also interesting to consider that there are millions of lonely heterosexuals who are struggling to find a spouse at coffee shops, Internet dating services, exercise businesses, and bars. And consider how many heterosexuals have given up looking for a spouse and have formed relationships with dogs, television characters, or sex toys. If the heterosexuals truly understood marriage and relationships, then why are so many heterosexuals lonely or in a miserable marriage?

Heterosexuals often complain about the promiscuity of homosexuals, but a lot of the heterosexuals women today are having so many sexual partners that just a few decades ago they would have been described as sluts and whores. Why would homosexuals want to listen to our advice about relationships when so many of us are having trouble with relationships?


Why are so many people afraid of marriage?

There are so many miserable marriages today, and there is so much fighting over money when the couples get divorced, that the young people are developing a bad image of marriage, thereby causing them to delay marriage. Some of them are so afraid of marriage that they are having children together without getting married.

The concept of "marriage" has been developing a bad image over the past few decades. Many people believe that it is better to live together as single people rather than get married. For example, the recently elected president of France, François Hollande, was living with a woman for decades, and he had four children with her, but they never got married. Why did they think it was better to live together rather than get married? A few years ago the two of them separated, and now he is living with another woman. He is showing no interest in getting married to her, either.

Some homosexuals are demanding the right to get married, but some of the heterosexuals who have this right are refusing to use it. If we were to give homosexuals the right to get married, how many of them would also refuse to use that right? How many of them are also afraid of marriage?

Why are so many people afraid of marriage? Why is marriage developing a bad image? I think it is because there are so many miserable marriages, and because a lot of the divorced couples have vicious fights over money and children. However, that doesn't explain the cause of the problem. Why are there so many miserable marriages? And why are there so many vicious fights between divorced couples?

I can think of several reasons as to why marriages are becoming miserable. One is because our societies, especially America, are no longer homogenous. America is a collection of people of different races and religions. Another problem is that nature is no longer removing the criminals and other defective people, and so the human race is degrading genetically.

The misfits of society are promoting secrecy, and this makes it impossible for us to know who we are getting married to. The freaks want to hide everything about themselves and their history, and they want to create a phony image of who they are. They do not promote honesty or openness.

For example, somebody sent me an e-mail message that Peggy Borger had a lobotomy when she was in the mental hospital as a teenager. Did she really have a lobotomy? It is impossible to determine this because the freaks of society are insisting that medical information be secretive. Do you think it is sensible for people to keep that type of medical issue a secret from their potential friends, spouse, or employer? Who benefits by allowing people to keep such secrets?

Another reason I think marriages are becoming increasingly unpleasant is because businesses, feminists, religions, and crime networks are giving children a distorted view of life. Boys and girls are picking up unrealistic expectations of marriage, and a distorted view of the opposite sex.

Furthermore, our society allows people to profit from miserable relationships. For example, marriage counselors make money by offering to help the couples who are having troubles, and lawyers can profit when couples get divorced. There is no incentive in a free enterprise system to help people form stable, pleasant marriages. The marriage counselors and lawyers have an incentive to encourage fights, and to extend the fights for as long as possible. There are even sex therapists who profit from people who are ignorant or confused about sex.

The horrible marriages and divorces that are occurring around the world today are not the result of the devil, poverty, or ignorance. It is the result of lawyers who prey on misery; it is the result of people who deceive their potential spouse about who they really are; and it is due to people picking up an unrealistic view of men, women, and marriage.

The solution to this problem is not to be afraid of marriage.  The solution to these terrible marriages and divorces is to 1) control reproduction so that the human race improves in quality, and 2) make changes to society so that we have a better chance of forming stable marriages.

We need to reverse our attitude towards secrecy and start demanding honesty. We should not allow people to hide their history, or anything else about themselves. We should stop allowing people to lie to us about what they really are.

We are no longer living in small, homogenous tribes in which everybody intimately knows everybody else. We are living in a world of strangers. We should have the right to know how people have been spending their lives, and who they have been associating with, and what sort of drug or medical problems they have. We should not allow people who are ashamed of themselves to hide their true qualities. It is their problem that they are ashamed of themselves; they do not have a right to deceive us.

Don't react to the miserable marriages with fear of marriage. We do not improve our relationships with fear, anger, pouting, sarcasm, hatred, or hysteria. We need to analyze relationships and try to figure out what the cause of the problem is. We need to start experimenting with changes to society.


Imagine marriage in a "City of Castles"

I think that one of the ways to improve marriages is to eliminate the financial and political benefits to marriage. It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine life in one of my most extreme City of Castles in which all of the basic necessities for life are provided for free, such as housing, food, electricity, schooling, health care, retirement benefits, and transportation. Imagine that everybody in the city has virtually the same level of material wealth, regardless of their job, and regardless of who their parents are. No nepotism is tolerated, and no inheritances are allowed. Everybody has to earn their position. There is no financial or political benefit to being somebody's spouse or child.

The city would own all of the homes, businesses, schools, transportation systems, and other items. Since everybody is provided with a home for free, married couples don't have to worry about housing. One of them can move into the home of the other, or they can both leave their homes and move into a new home that is larger. When people in this city get divorced, they simply go their separate ways. There would be no alimony, and they would not have to divide up homes, land, businesses, or material items. The only complication to marriage would be if the couple had children. Weddings would also be different in this type of society because there would be no reason to give wedding gifts.

In this society, there is no wealthy class, so people like Tiger Woods and Anna Nicole Smith would be ordinary people who are living ordinary lives. They would not be pursued by criminals or parasites. Women would not need men for financial support since society would provide everybody with housing, food, and other necessities.

Why would a man and a woman want to get married in this type of society? Whether they were living together as two single people, or whether they were married, their lives would remain exactly the same. There would be no advantage to getting married. Marriage in this type of society would be purely for the emotional commitment.


Why do heterosexuals want to get married?

I think the best way to answer that question is to consider whether our primitive ancestors had weddings or marriages. Without a legal system, there was no such thing as alimony or child support, and there was no laws to prevent one spouse from killing the other, or to prevent a man from killing his stepchildren. Why would primitive people want to get married? There were no political benefits to getting married, and no financial benefits. Why not just live together? What would be the difference between getting married and living together?

If you were transported back in time 30,000 years, and if you found a person that you wanted to live with, what would be the difference between the two of you living together as single people, and the two of you getting married? You could have a wedding, and you could call yourself married, but nothing would actually change in your life. People didn't have last names in that era, so your children would not have inherited your last name.

Furthermore, without a legal system, either of you could terminate the marriage whenever you pleased simply by stating that you were no longer married, and you could get married to somebody else whenever you wanted to. Also, there were no laws to prevent a stepparent from killing your children. Marriage would have absolutely no benefit to you or your children.

In modern society, marriage is a legal document that forces people to stay together. From our point of view, a marriage in prehistoric times was not truly a marriage because there was no legal system. Today a marriage is a relationship with society. By comparison, a marriage in prehistoric times was purely an emotional commitment between a man and a woman.

If we remove the financial and political benefits to marriage, then the only people who would be interested in marriage would be those who were truly attracted to one another and interested in the emotional commitment. I think this would cause both men and women to become more finicky about who they got married to. I think this would be an improvement for both the people who get married, and for the rest of society. We all benefit when everybody is happy with themselves, their spouses, and their neighbors. All of us suffer when the people around us are forming miserable or abusive friendships and marriages.


Do homosexuals want "marriage"? Or financial benefits?

I have not done any study of gay men, but based on the gay men on television and on the Internet who are pushing for gay marriage, my impression is that their primary interest in marriage is the health care benefits that a spouse is provided in our society. There are also some tax benefits to getting married. If we were living in a society in which there were no financial benefits for marriage, how many of those gay men would want to get married? If two people get married simply for financial benefits, then I would describe their relationship as a "financial relationship" rather than a "marriage", regardless of whether they are homosexuals or heterosexuals.

On 9 March 2012, President Obama announced his support of gay marriage, and one of the reasons he mentioned is that it would provide gay couples with hospital visitation rights. In America today, hospitals sometimes restrict access to close family members of the patients, thereby denying gay couples access to one another. However, we don't need to support gay marriage in order to provide them with hospital visitation rights.

Furthermore, the restrictions on visiting patients in hospitals is another example of what I frequently complain about. Specifically, most people react to problems like stupid, frightened animals. Hospitals are reacting to the problem of criminals, obnoxious people, and psychotic people by trying to control their access to patients. A better policy would be to stop living in fear of freaks and remove them from society. We should raise standards for people. If a person is not capable of being responsible in regards to visiting people in a hospital, then evict him from society on the grounds that he cannot fit into our modern world. We have to stop feeling sorry for the freaks, idiots, psychos, and parasites.


Should society encourage marriages?

Our society encourages marriages by providing married couples with financial benefits, and we also encourage marriages indirectly by tolerating nepotism and inheritances. We also encourage marriages indirectly by supporting alimony and child support. Those policies are like the safety net underneath people performing a trapeze act. Without that safety net, some people would be more finicky about who they got married to.

How does society benefit by encouraging marriages? Imagine an extreme example. Imagine that society encouraged people to become your friend by offering them a reduction in our taxes if you signed an agreement to be their friend. Who would benefit from that? That would make your life worse, not better.

I don't see any reason for society to encourage marriages. There should be no financial or other benefits to marriage. People should form marriages only when they truly want to share their lives together. Society should help men and women meet one another, but we should not give people incentives to get married. Nobody benefits by manipulating people into marriage. Your life will be more pleasant and relaxing if the people who are attracted to you as a friend or a spouse are truly attracted to you, rather than attracted to some financial or political benefit.


Adoption should not be secretive or shameful

The issue of marriage is complicated by the fact that men and women must produce babies, and it will become further complicated when we start restricting reproduction. Although we may not be capable of restricting reproduction during our lifetime, it's going to happen at some point in the future. The societies that don't do it are going to disintegrate. Therefore, future societies are going to have to deal with the issue of who gives birth to children and who raises children. Should the only people who raise children be those who have been authorized to reproduce?

I think the best policy would be for the people who are authorized to reproduce to have more children than they want, and they can give some of their children to couples who are either infertile or prohibited from reproducing. However, in this type of society, adoption would not be a disgraceful activity that is kept secret. In the world today, most of the children who are put up for adoption are the result of mentally ill parents who either cannot take care of their children, or who do not want to take care of their children. The adoption process is secretive because so many of the parents are ashamed of themselves. However, once we begin restricting reproduction, adoption becomes a respectable activity. The people who are authorized to reproduce would be able to meet the couples who wanted to adopt one of their children, and those children would know who the biological parents are. There would be no secrets, and no shame.

There are some homosexual couples who want to adopt and raise children, and lesbian women are capable of getting themselves pregnant and having babies, but I don't think we should allow homosexual couples to adopt children or have their own children. I think that humans evolved to be raised by a man and a woman. I don't think it is best for children to be raised by two homosexual fathers, or two lesbian mothers.


Children are not toys!

Children should not be treated as toys for adults to entertain themselves with. They should be regarded as the next generation of humans. Adults who regard children as entertainment should not even be allowed to reproduce. We need adults who "raise" children, not adults who "play with" children.

Some homosexuals point out that they can provide a more pleasant home life than many of the heterosexual couples, but that doesn't justify allowing homosexuals to raise children. Rather, it justifies restricting reproduction to the heterosexual couples who are truly worthy of raising children.

In the world today, there are millions of heterosexual couples who are psychotic, violent, alcoholic, anti-social, or abusive, and many of them are raising children in a disgusting manner. There are lots of homosexual couples who can provide a much more pleasant life for children. However, we are fools to look at the disgusting heterosexuals in the world today and formulate policies based on those freaks. We have to ask ourselves what we want the human race to become. Do we want disgusting heterosexuals to raise children? Of course not!

A more sensible policy is to restrict reproduction and adoption to the heterosexual couples who can form pleasant, stable marriages, and who are capable of raising children in a sensible manner. The heterosexuals who cannot provide a proper environment for children should not be allowed to reproduce or adopt children. With these type of policies, all of the children would be raised in pleasant, heterosexual families, so there would be no advantage to allowing homosexuals to adopt children.


We should not deceive one another into marriage

A joke about the difference between men and women states that a woman marries a man and expects to change him, whereas a man marries a woman expecting her to remain the same. This joke is based on reality. A man selects a woman to be a pleasure in his life, and so he looks for a woman who he considers to be emotionally pleasing. Men are in the dominant role; they are equivalent to a person in a market who is looking for an item to purchase. The men assume that the item they purchase will be exactly what it was advertised to be.

By comparison, a woman is in a passive role, like a flower that is hoping for a butterfly. Their method of finding a man is to create an illusion of themselves that the men find attractive. They are like a child in an orphanage who is hoping that somebody will adopt him. Unfortunately, animals do not think very well, and this has resulted in females that evolved a natural tendency to deceive the males. After the women get married, they relax and become what they truly are.

The relationship between male and female animals is extremely crude. Nature doesn't care whether animals enjoy life, sex, or one another. Animals and plants simply exist, and the males and females get together simply to reproduce and raise babies.

Humans developed from animals that had crude relationships with one another. This was acceptable in prehistoric times because the men were busy every day searching for food and taking care of themselves and their family, and the women were busy taking care of their children. The people were busy surviving, and so compatibility was not much of an issue. Furthermore, the men and women in prehistoric times didn't have to deal with any of the complex issues of the modern world.

Today it would be better if humans evolved into a more advanced species. Relationships between men and women would be much better if men started selecting women who were more honest. Nobody benefits when women deceive men into marriage, except for the women who would not otherwise have been able to attract a man. The women who cannot find a man with honesty should not have a man, and they should not reproduce.

In other files I mentioned that when we ignore crime, we allow criminals to thrive and reproduce. The same is true when we tolerate deception in relationships. Allowing people to deceive us into marriage is allowing people with terrible qualities to create more children with terrible characteristics.

Women often lie about their age and weight, and men often lie about their height. Who benefits from this type of deception? Some people might respond that these type of lies are trivial, but lies are not trivial. It is an indication of the type of personality that humans have. We are not naturally honest with one another. Our natural tendency is to be selfish, just like an animal. Our natural tendency is to deceive one another. This was acceptable when we were living like animals, but it is becoming increasingly unacceptable.

When we tolerate women or men who deceive us, we allow the human race to degrade into freaks who dislike themselves, and who routinely deceive and abuse one another. We need to change the path that the human race is on. We need to raise standards of behavior and restrict reproduction. Imagine living in a future society in which the human race is happy and healthy, and the women are honest about themselves, and the men can be trusted. Which type of world would you want to be born into?

Deception is not acceptable in this modern world. We need people who can be honest about themselves, their abilities, and their history. We need to know who we are getting married to, who we are hiring for a job, who we are putting into a leadership position, and who we are becoming friends with. We should not tolerate deception. The only people who benefit from deception are the people who are disgusting.

This problem also occurs with people looking for roommates. For example, a man may want a roommate who does not smoke, or who does not have pets, but many of the people who offer to be his roommate will lie about their smoking, pets, and other activities. They are reacting to the difficulty of finding a roommate with fear. They are reacting like a stupid animal who is afraid for his life and is willing to do anything to save himself. They are not thinking about the situation and realizing that the best solution is to be honest with potential roommates and find somebody that they are truly compatible with.

People are also reacting with fear when looking for a job. They routinely lie or exaggerate their experience, skills, and education. They are, once again, behaving like stupid, frightened animals rather than humans who think about the situation. The proper way to deal with the difficulty of finding jobs is to propose changes to society for us to experiment with. We should experiment with our economic system in order to find a way to make it easier for us to find jobs. We don't solve problems with panic, fear, or lies.

The human race must develop better mental qualities. We need to become more honest and think more often. The timid, fearful, and selfish behavior of an animal is useful only for animals. In modern society, people must be gears in a transmission. The better we mesh together, the better our lives will be, and the more productive we will be. We must be honest with each other. We need to find friends who truly like us, not friends that we have deceived into liking us. We need to find a spouse that we are compatible with, not a spouse that we have deceived into marrying us. And we need to find jobs that let us work with people we get along with, and that give us tasks that are useful to society.


“But my intentions are good!”

The women who use cosmetic surgery or beauty products, or who lie about their age, do not think of themselves as "deceiving" men. It is so natural for women to do this that they don't regard their behavior as deceptive or harmful. Instead, they consider their behavior to be "grooming" themselves and making themselves look attractive. Likewise, most of the people who lie or exaggerate on their resume to get a job do not think of themselves as bad people who are deceptive or dishonest. Rather, they see themselves as wonderful people who are simply trying to find a job. They do not consider themselves to be hurting anybody.

If animals could talk to us, we would discover that spiders consider themselves to be wonderful creatures, not vicious animals that torture insects and humans. Animals are extremely arrogant and selfish. They don't consider their actions to be hurting anybody.

It doesn't matter if your intentions are good, or if you think of yourself as a wonderful person. We have to judge people by their effect on society. You are hurting yourself and other people when you lie to them.


Don't react to problems with fear or anger!

On the day after Thanksgiving, many American retail stores offer significant price discounts on products. Humans have the intelligence necessary to realize that these retail stores do not have as many products as there are people who want them. Therefore, the only people who will get one of these discounted products are those who are among the first to enter the store.

There are different ways people could react to this problem. For example, they could discuss the issue with one another and come to some sensible agreement to share the discounted items, such as allowing one group of people to have access to the items during one Thanksgiving, and another group to have access during the next Thanksgiving. Or they could come to the conclusion that retail stores should not treat people in this manner, and that we should change our economic system so that people are treated better, and until a better economic system is developed and implemented, none of them will purchase any of the products, thereby showing the retail stores that this type of behavior is unacceptable.

 
Instead of discussing the issue seriously and reacting in a sensible manner, some people react with panic or fear that they will not get the product they want. Their solution is to wait at the store many hours or days in advance, and then when the doors open, they push other people away, trample over people who fall down, and grab products out of other people's hands. They behave like frightened rabbits that are running from a wolf.
This crude, panicky behavior can also be seen in the way people react to the difficulty of finding a spouse, roommate, or job. Many people become worried that if they don't find a spouse soon, they will never get married. Instead of reacting in a sensible manner, they react by deceiving other people into marrying them. Many people also become frightened that they will not be able to find a job that they like, and so they deceive their potential employer about their history and their abilities.
 
We should be relaxed and finicky when looking for a spouse or a job, not frightened and panicky.
This crude behavior can also be seen among the billionaires, politicians, and Hollywood celebrities. They believe that they must become more wealthy, or more famous, or have control over more land. Rather than deal with these issues in a sensible manner, they frantically cheat, kill, blackmail and whatever else they can think of in order to acquire whatever they believe they must have.

The human race has to become less like an animal and more intelligent, sensible, considerate, and cooperative. It makes no difference to our happiness whether we have a particular product, or whether we become famous, or whether we have a gigantic yacht. The people who believe that they need these things, and especially the people who cheat, murder, and abuse us in order to achieve their fantasies, are crude savages who are detrimental to society.


What is a "gay" person?

Earlier I mentioned that before we can create sensible policies about gay marriage, we have to figure out what we mean by "gay". What exactly is a "homosexual"? Although most of the population can easily be described as heterosexual, and a small minority can easily be described as homosexual, it seems to me that a lot of people don't fit either category.

It is not easy to understand sexual issues with humans because of the incredible secrecy, shame, and embarrassment involved with sex and human bodies. Despite the secrecy, I have the impression that there is a continuous spectrum from homosexual to heterosexual. There does not seem to be a clear dividing line between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

As I pointed out in one of my other files, there is only one blueprint for a human, and it produces a creature with both male and female qualities. Every one of us has genes for both male and female organs. We become a male or a female by suppressing certain genes. This is a ridiculous method of producing men and women. A better method would be to have completely separate genetic blueprints for men and women. By having only one blueprint, it is very easy for mistakes to be made in which people get a mixture of male and female traits. Of course, from the point of view of nature, this idiotic situation is an advantage because it produces a lot of variety. Nature is not an intelligent entity, and as a result, it does not care whether men and women enjoy themselves or life.

Some homosexual men give me the impression that they have a stronger attraction to women than men, but they gave up on women and are turning to men out of loneliness and sexual frustration. Allowing these men to form homosexual marriages would be as ridiculous as allowing people to marry their pet dogs. There are a lot of people forming very close relationships with dogs, but I don't think it's because they have an attraction to dogs. They are not "dogosexual".

The attraction to dogs has been growing in America during the past few decades, and I think it's because Americans are becoming increasingly lonely, and there is also an increase in mental illness. I think most Americans with pet dogs are using the dogs as a substitute for a human. If we allowed people to marry their dogs, we would be encouraging more of this pathetic behavior, not understanding or reducing it. We would further encourage and legitimize such relationships by allowing the interspecies couples to adopt children.

This photo shows a $5,000 wedding between two dogs.

There are so many Americans treating their dogs like humans that companies such as Doggie Clothesline offer a wide variety of formal outfits for dogs.

What will be next? Will we allow humans to marry their dog? Will Lady Gaga demand that the military accept "interspecies soldiers" as she does for gay soldiers? Will we have organizations fighting for "interspecies rights"? Will universities offer "Interspecies Studies"?


 
It would be idiotic to encourage lonely people to marry their dog, and likewise, encouraging the lonely heterosexual men to marry another man is also idiotic. If we allow gay marriage, we should put pressure on the men to get married only if they are truly homosexual.

It is possible that promoting gay marriage will make the situation worse by creating the impression that homosexuals are just a different type of people who have a different type of marriage. Unfortunately, homosexuals are not just a different flavor of yogurt; rather, they are people who suffering from a very serious defect. No heterosexual wishes he was homosexual, and no homosexual, if he had the choice, would choose to be homosexual. Homosexuality is a very serious problem, and many of the homosexuals seem to be unhappy with themselves and their life.

Since all societies allow incredible secrecy, we can only guess at what life is like for homosexuals. My impression is that most of them are angry, unhappy, and frustrated. My impression is that only a small percentage of them are truly able to deal with their homosexuality and enjoy life. Encouraging these unhappy people to get married will not necessarily improve their lies. Homosexuals are not suffering because they cannot get married. They are suffering because of their homosexuality. How would marriage improve their lives?


How stable would homosexual marriages be?

I suspect that homosexual marriages would be even more unstable than heterosexual marriages. For one reason, men and women were designed to form intimate relationships, and so women are naturally submissive. All teams, even a team of two people, need a leader. How will two men form a stable marriage when both of them have a craving to be dominant? Men were designed to form friendships with other men, not intimate, sexual relationships. Men are competitive with one another, not submissive to one another. Therefore, I think the only homosexual couples that have a good chance of forming a stable marriage are those in which one of the men has a feminine personality.

Another reason that I think homosexual marriages will be unstable is because homosexuals are unhappy with themselves and their homosexuality. All of us have defects that we don't like, such as hairy moles, baldness, crooked teeth, or digestive problems, but homosexuality is not a trivial defect that can be easily ignored. It is a very unpleasant problem. It is not as bad as Down's Syndrome or being a Siamese twin, but it is much worse than having crooked teeth, baldness, or bad eyesight. All of the homosexuals are suffering because they are social outcasts, and because they cannot truly satisfy their sexual cravings.

All types of relationships have a better success rate when the people involved are happy with themselves. This is true regardless of whether the people are forming friendships, or whether they are employees in a business, or whether they are married. When the people are happy with themselves, their relationships will be much more stable, productive, and pleasant.

By comparison, when unhappy people form relationships, their relationships will not be as stable or as pleasant because unhappy people waste some of their time feeling sorry for themselves, or hating some person or some intangible concept, or wishing that life was different. They will not enjoy life or other people to the same extent that a happier person would. Their bad attitude will hurt their relationships.

People who are unhappy with themselves are likely to pursue happiness rather than enjoy life or marriage. Their attempts to find relief from their misery will cause them to waste a lot of time pursuing whatever they believe will make them feel better, such as money, sex, drugs, fame, risky stunts, or a different marriage. They will be like the billionaires and the Hollywood celebrities who are never satisfied no matter how much money or fame they have.

Homosexuality is a serious problem, and we should be trying to understand it and reduce it, not encouraging homosexuals to get married or raise families. In the world today, the homosexual men can gain financial and political benefits from a marriage, but that type of marriage should not be described as a "marriage". Rather, it should be described as a business partnership, or a financial arrangement, or a political deal.

If we were to create a society in which there are no financial or political benefits to marriage, then why would two homosexual men want to get married? If they wanted to live together, they could do so without a marriage. How would getting married improve their lives? Their lives would be the same in every respect regardless of whether they were married. Nothing would change in their lives. There would be no advantage to getting married.


I would let homosexuals get married

Although I don't think marriage will improve the life of homosexuals, I would let them get married. The reason is because when society denies something to a group of people, such as denying gay marriage, then we give that group of people the opportunity to imagine that they are suffering from discrimination and abuse. If what they want is harmless to society, as in the case of gay marriage, then it is better to give them what they want. Nobody will be harmed if homosexuals get married, and therefore, everybody benefits because it puts an end to their whining about discrimination.

My prediction is that their marriages would be more unstable than heterosexual marriages, and that most of them would lose their interest in marriage after they had the opportunity to get married. I think that once they experimented with marriage, most of them would come to the conclusion that nothing improves in their life when they get married, so why bother? When they remain single, then they have no commitments to anybody, and I think most of them would prefer that freedom. I suspect that only the more feminine men would be interested in marriage.


Would homosexuals be happier without a craving for sex?

Many homosexuals believe that marriage will improve their life, or that having more sex will make them happier, but I think that they would actually have a much happier life if we could develop a chemical that they could take to eliminate their sexual cravings. For one reason, I think they would become happier without that craving, and for another reason, without a sexual craving, they wouldn't annoy the heterosexuals, thereby allowing them to fit in better with the rest of us. They would become similar to heterosexuals who choose to remain single.

I suppose that most homosexuals would consider such a drug to be as sad as castration or a lobotomy, but I think if they had the courage to experiment with such a drug, they would discover that life is better without a craving for sex.

Strangely enough, this concept also applies to the heterosexuals who never find a partner that is truly satisfying to them. Having a craving that you cannot properly satisfy is unpleasant. It's better not to have the craving at all. If there were a safe drug that we could take to eliminate our sexual cravings, I think most men would discover that life is nicer when we take the drug until we find a wife, and then we would stop taking the drug. It is no fun to have this craving all the time and having to occasionally masturbate. The stories of sailors in the Navy rushing to the prostitutes after being at sea for months is more evidence of how miserable this is. It would be nice if there was a safe way to switch the craving on and off. Incidentally, from what I have heard and from what I see with my own body, if men do not masturbate once in a while, then we have "wet dreams", which I personally find to be annoying.

This concept also applies to the craving for babies that women have. If there was a chemical that women could use to eliminate that craving, I think it would make life more comfortable for the women who do not have babies. I think it would dramatically reduce the number of women who use pet dogs as a substitute for children. It might be especially useful for women in their old age who are treating their adult children as babies.

I am not suggesting that we use any of today's chemicals to control our emotional cravings. I don't think we have the technology to create these type of chemicals. I am simply pointing out that these cravings, when unsatisfied, are irritating.

The best solution is to restrict reproduction and let the human race evolve into a species that is truly suited to this modern world. We need to become more capable of forming honest friendships and marriages. We can also improve our situation by altering society to deal with our emotional desires. For example, we can help the childless women by providing more opportunities for them to be in contact with children, such as providing part-time jobs for them at schools and social activities for children. As I mentioned in Part 2 of this series, we should also provide social activities for men and women to meet and get to know one another so that we can increase the chances of people forming stable marriages. We will also improve the success rate for friendships and marriages by making our societies more homogenous.


Free enterprise puts excessive emphasis on weddings

Weddings have a strong emotional effect on us. A free enterprise system encourages people to look for ways to make money, and as a result, a lot of people look for ways to exploit those emotions. The end result is that there are lots of businesses providing all sorts of very expensive products and services for weddings. They are also exploiting the concept of honeymoons by providing lots of expensive vacations.

Weddings have become extremely profitable business opportunities. Businesses are fooling people, especially women, into believing that their wedding will become better when they spend more money. Businesses also prey on the women by providing them with magazines that are full of beautiful photographs of brides and weddings. Since people, especially men, are also competitive, we have a natural tendency to compete with one another in weddings, and businesses exploit our competitive nature by encouraging us to do more than have an "ordinary" wedding and an ordinary honeymoon.

During prehistoric times, material goods were in short supply, and so wedding gifts were extremely valuable to the newly married couple. In the modern world, gifts are not critical, but businesses have no incentive to encourage people to be sensible. Furthermore, the bride and groom have no incentive to encourage sensible gifts, either. Rather, our selfish nature encourages us to ask for lots of expensive gifts.

Through the years, the selfish nature of the bride and groom, and the craving for money by businesses, has resulted in the bride and groom creating a list of gifts that they want, and registering these gifts with businesses.

It is considered “normal” today for a bride and groom to provide us with a list of expensive items that they want us to purchase as gifts, but I would describe this as “disgusting exploitation”. Imagine this happening on a much larger scale. For example, imagine children creating a "birthday gift list", and a "Christmas gift list", and imagine your friends creating gift lists for their anniversaries, and imagine athletes creating gift lists for when they win a sports event. Imagine your co-workers creating a list of gifts for their promotions.

Imagine a computer at the entrance of every retail store that had lists of all of these gifts for you to purchase for all of your children, relatives, co-workers, friends, and neighbors. How extreme does this custom have to become before we start asking ourselves, where are we going? Who benefits from this?

In a free enterprise system, a marriage is nothing more than a profit-making opportunity to the businesses. Furthermore, the extreme emphasis that businesses put on weddings is causing a lot of young girls to fantasize about being a bride. Young girls are attracted to this fantasy because women love being the center of attention. I have the feeling that a lot of young girls consider a wedding to be the most important event in their lives. Free enterprise is giving people a ridiculous view of weddings and marriage.


Society should provide free weddings

A more sensible philosophy is that a wedding is just a ceremony, like a birthday party. Weddings should be fun; not stressful or expensive competitions. When people are older and look back at their wedding, they should recall pleasant memories rather than the type of remarks that I often hear from married couples, which is usually about how they got so carried away that they didn't enjoy their wedding. Many married couple seem to have a lot of regrets about their wedding, and if they could go back in time and get married again, they would do it differently. We should not regret our wedding. We should not wish we could do it differently.

If we lived in a society in which the basic necessities were free and in which the government officials were providing social activities, then the government could provide weddings for free. There would be special buildings available for weddings, and the food would be provided for free. Since everybody in the city was provided with the basic necessities for free, nobody would have to purchase gifts for the bride or groom. The wedding would be a relaxing, romantic, and pleasant social affair.

When society provides the weddings, we can take control of weddings. This allows us to make them more sensible, and we can reduce the stress on the people involved. Certain buildings can be designated for weddings, and each couple would arrange for a day and time without concern for the cost of the building, food, decorations, or invitations. The invitations can be electronic and transmitted by e-mail or over cell phones. Businesses have convinced people that they need to spend a lot of money on fancy paper invitations that contain envelopes within envelopes, and various layers of tissue paper, but the wedding doesn't improve simply by adding more paper and envelopes to the invitation. Businesses are exploiting people; they are abusing people.

People don't like to change their culture, so there would be resistance to using electronic invitations to a wedding, but a wedding will be just as enjoyable when the guests receive an electronic invitation. In fact, the electronic invitations can be even more interesting because they can contain video, audio, and even interactive software. The couple getting married could create a video invitation, and with appropriate software, the guests can respond to it with their voice, or with a keyboard. Electronic invitations will reduce the resources required for weddings, and it will reduce the garbage produced. Although that doesn't save much, it's just one of many techniques to reduce the resources involved with weddings.

Society could also provide clothing for the bride, groom, and all of the guests at the wedding. Nobody would rent or purchase their outfits; rather, they would borrow them from society. This is another change to our culture that some people will resist. A lot of brides want to purchase a wedding dress and keep it forever, but who benefits by keeping a wedding dress? I think it is much more sensible to save wonderful memories of life rather than to save material items. When you grow old, the pleasant memories of your life will mean more to you than some material items that are stored in a closet. Human relationships will also mean more than material items. It is better that you concentrate on your friendships and your marriage rather than your collection of material items. You should enjoy the people, not the material items.

When you go for a ride on a bicycle, it is the activity that you enjoy, not the bicycle. You are not going to improve your life by holding onto that bicycle until you are dead. Likewise, if you go for a walk with your friend, it will be the activity that you enjoy, not your shoes. You're not going to improve your life by holding onto those shoes for the rest of your life. Let go of the material items and start focusing on the intangible activities and human relationships.


We should not support multiple weddings

When the city is providing weddings for free, then the people who repeatedly get married and divorced would be a burden on society. I think it would be best for the city to provide weddings only when the bride and groom are having their first marriage. We could also provide weddings for people whose spouse has died. When divorced people get remarried, they can do so without a wedding. If they want to celebrate their marriage, they would do so on their own with their friends. Society should not feel obligated to provide them with a wedding. In fact, it would be better to discourage divorces. Children should be taught that relationships are a very important part of life, and that they should be honest with their potential spouse so that the two of them can make a wise decision about getting married.

There are a lot of divorces in the world today, but I don't think there would be so many if we were living in a more homogenous society. We are living among retards, criminals, dishonest and parasitic freaks, religious fanatics, and people who don't speak the same language. This is a miserable environment for finding friends and a spouse. The freaks do not like themselves, and we don't like them, and they react by deceiving us about what they are. They promote the philosophy that we should keep secrets from one another. They want to be allowed to hide their job history, criminal history, cosmetic surgery, and medical history. They also want to be able to keep their previous marriages and divorces a secret. Some people are even trying to change the laws that prohibit us from lying about our military history.

If we change our philosophy from tolerating and forgiving the freaks to evicting them from society, and if we also change our philosophy from deceiving one another with phony images and secrecy to being honest with one another, then I think a lot more people will form more successful marriages. In the world today, it is difficult to form a successful marriage because we cannot truly get to know very many people.

There are no consequences in modern society for people who deceive us into friendships, marriages, or business arrangement. This is ridiculous. When a person deceives you into a marriage, that person is taking something from you that is more valuable than money. That person is taking away some of your life. You will never get that back. A person who deceives you into a fraudulent relationship is committing a more destructive crime than a person who steals your money.

The freaks are ashamed of what they are, and so they deceive us about their true qualities, but we should not tolerate their abuse or feel sorry for them. It's not our fault that they are disgusting people. We only live for a short period of time. We should not allow defective people to waste our lives.


I would provide weddings for homosexuals, also

I would provide homosexuals with weddings, as long as both of them were getting married for their first time. However, I would observe their marriages, and if their marriages were less stable than heterosexual marriages, then I would reduce the support for their weddings on the grounds that society is wasting its resources on them. If their marriages were extremely unstable, then I wouldn't even provide them with weddings. This policy gives the homosexuals the opportunity to prove to us that they are, or are not, worthy of weddings and marriages.


Most heterosexual relationships are pathetic

Most relationships between men and women never evolve into a marriage, and most of the marriages are, in my opinion, so unpleasant that they are ruining the image of marriage. Will homosexual couples have a better success rate with marriage? Or will their marriages be even more disgusting?

Most of the population are primitive savages who cannot cope with this modern world. Some of these people are so pathetic that they cannot even get through their wedding without fights, and sometimes there are arrests at the wedding! Do a search on the Internet for "arrested wedding", and notice that these arrests are happening around the world, and on a regular basis. You can dress a dog in human clothing, but it is still a dog. If we are going to deny marriage to homosexuals, why not deny marriages to heterosexuals who are not much more advanced than a "talking monkey"?


We should not do something simply because our ancestors did it

Bristol Palin disapproved of Obama's reasoning for gay marriage with such remarks as, "that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage." She is promoting a common attitude. Specifically, the concept that we should follow prehistoric culture simply because people have been following it for thousands of years. However, women like her are hypocrites when they promote feminism, which is a modern concept. The feminists want us to follow prehistoric culture, except for the prehistoric culture that they do not like.

Bristol Palin promotes the "traditional" marriage, but she doesn't practice what she preaches. For example, she had a child with a man, but they never got married, and the two of them went their separate ways shortly after the child was born. Why were the two of them in a relationship? Was she only interested in his attention and gifts, and he only interested in sex, like a couple of 14-year-old children? If she had been born thousands of years ago, she might have been described as a "slut", and her child would very likely have died as a result of not having a father. Likewise, the father of the child would have been considered an irresponsible jerk. Today women like her can successfully raise their children by themselves, thereby helping to breed the human race into a creature that is becoming increasingly incapable of forming stable marriages.


We should not be desperate for a spouse!

Many people become worried that if they are too finicky when looking for a spouse, then they will never get married. As a result, many people get married to somebody that they don't really think is the best choice for them. They react to the fear of not getting married by taking “the lesser of the evils.” They behave this way when voting for government officials, also.

If we created a more homogenous society and provided lots of activities for men and women to meet and get to know one another, then we would be able to relax, take our time, and meet lots of people.

Free enterprise encourages bad attitudes
 
Free enterprise does not encourage social activities
In the world today, there are not very many social activities because everything has to operate on a profit. Most of the activities in our city are eating, getting drunk, or watching some professional entertainers. We will have a lot more options when we eliminate the need for profit in social activities, and when society provides recreational centers for us to use for free.

For example, people could get together at a recreational center and let some members of the audience provide the singing, dancing, or other entertainment. When your friends or coworkers are providing the entertainment, they are not going to be as good as the professionals, but they can add some variety to life. Amateur entertainment can be pleasant once in a while because of the emotional bond between you and them. When you know the people providing the entertainment, they don't have to be as good as the professional entertainers.

By comparison, when you are watching professional entertainers, there is no emotional attachment between you and them, and so they are nothing but a "sterile" visual image. They might as well be robots. This is especially true of musicians. In fact, I predict that a lot of the professional musicians will be replaced with robots.

This concept also applies to the professional entertainers. In other words, from the point of view of the professional entertainers, an audience of strangers is not very satisfying because there is no emotional bond between them and their audience. Performing in front of strangers is almost as unpleasant as performing in front of cameras. This is one of the reasons that the professional entertainers want applause; they need some sign that the audience is alive and human, and that the audience appreciates them. When a professional entertainer looks out at an audience of strangers, all he sees are "sterile" faces staring back at him. He doesn't see "friends". He doesn't feel any emotional attachment to the audience.

The pursuit of profit is causing us to ignore the importance of our emotional bonds. Free enterprise does not encourage us to form friendships or get together to entertain one another. Instead, free enterprise encourages us to pay money to watch professionals.


Free enterprise encourages us to be advertising devices

Free enterprise treats humans as profit-making opportunities, and it inadvertently encourages us to waste our time on stupid activities, and it gives us destructive attitudes. An example of the bad influence that free enterprise has over us is the Google doodle page which encourages people to create drawings for their main search page.

They offer significant financial rewards to the people whose drawings are selected. The end result is that a lot of people around the world are contributing drawings to this contest. However, who benefits from this? The drawings are interesting, but consider that if these people were putting their effort into contributing to some artistic project for their city, they would help everybody by making the city more pleasant.

Google is encouraging people to waste their time on an activity that is worthless. Furthermore, Google encourages people to purchase T-shirts, coffee mugs, postage stamps, skateboards, and expensive canvas posters of the artwork. These people are being fooled into advertising Google, and at their own expense! And Google is only one of many companies that manipulates people in this manner!


Imagine what free enterprise would do with prostitution

Perhaps a good way of understanding the detrimental effect that free enterprise has on us is to imagine what life would be like if we accepted prostitution as just another business. Free enterprise would not encourage men to form a stable relationships. Rather, businesses would exploit the loneliness and sexual frustration, and through the decades they would evolve into increasingly attractive prostitution services.

You might respond that prostitution is already legal in Nevada and in some parts of Europe, and that we can look at those areas to see the effects of legalized prostitution. However, no society truly accepts prostitution. Nevada and Europe only tolerate certain types of prostitution, and only in certain areas. Because prostitution is not truly accepted, they are not attracting "normal" businessmen or investors. Instead, they are dominated by criminals, psychos, and freaks.

If prostitution were truly accepted as just another business, then "normal" businessmen would get involved with prostitution, and some of the larger companies would be listed on the stock market. The prostitution businesses would be scattered around the city just like food markets and movie theaters, and they would be advertising themselves on television. They would be competing with customers, and the stockholders would be putting pressure on the business executives to increase sales. In the process, they would slowly evolve and become increasingly better at attracting and manipulating the men. They might even produce their own television shows.

If prostitution were an accepted practice, then their advertisements would become increasing more effective at making their services appear to be fun.


Through the years, the prostitution businesses would become better at figuring out how to attract men. I don't know what they would evolve into, but the point I want to make is that the businesses would never have any incentive to help men and women form stable, satisfying marriages. The stockholders would never put pressure on the business executives to reduce sales. Rather, the businesses would become increasingly adept at exploiting the loneliness, sexual frustration, and marital problems. They would make the prostitution services seem like fun, which would encourage more of it rather than less of it.


Free enterprise focuses on misery

The easiest group of people to exploit are the miserable people, not the happy people. When people are miserable, they are much more likely to spend their money on products and services of questionable value compared to when they are happy. For example, when a person has cancer, he is more likely to spend his money on a medical treatment that he would have considered as foolish if he had not had cancer.
Likewise, a person who is suffering from low self-esteem is much more likely to spend money on products and services that offer him the opportunity to feel special. There are incredible number of worthless but very expensive products for wealthy people, including food that has gold foil on it, such as this bagel. Although some of these expensive items are justified as fundraising or publicity stunts, many wealthy people actually believe they are special for being able to afford the outrageously expensive products. By comparison, a person who feels good about himself would regard such products as a waste of money.

We all spend money, but the more miserable a person is, the less rational he is about his spending because he is desperately searching for relief from his misery. They will often purchase a product on faith or hope. To restate that, rather than making an intellectual decision based on what the product will do for them, they make an emotional decision based on what they hope the product will do.

They will also purchase products that distract them from their misery, even though the product may be idiotic. People who are lonely, for example, will spend enormous amounts of money on dating services, prostitution, dogs, massages, drugs, masturbation devices, and other products and services that either distract them from their misery, or offer them the hope that they will find a spouse, or provide them some type of substitute for spouse.

By comparison, people who are having a wonderful life don't need to spend money on anything in particular. When they look over the available products, they wonder what they will do with each product rather than hope that a product will make them happy. They don't have any particular cravings.

People who promote the free enterprise system might respond that if people were truly lonely, then businesses would come to the rescue by offering services to help them find spouses or friends, but America is proof that this does not happen. America is full of businesses that offer to help the lonely people meet one another, but none of those businesses are truly helping. Rather, all of them are exploiting the loneliness. Every year there are more lonely people despite the increase in businesses that offer to help people meet one another. When these businesses are judged according to their ability to make a profit, they are successful, but if we were to judge them on their ability to help people form stable relationships, they would be considered failures.


We should entertain one another more often

The free enterprise system is ruining human life because it causes businesses to exploit miserable people rather than look for solutions to our problems. Free enterprise does not encourage us to form stable relationships, entertain one another, have social activities, or do anything for free. People have become so intimidated by the professional entertainers that when an "ordinary" person sings, other people immediately make sarcastic remarks about how their ears are hurting. We are encouraged to ridicule one another and purchase professional entertainment rather than enjoy one another for free.

I think we should design society so that there are a lot of different social activities, including amateur entertainment. When you are in the mood to watch your neighbors, coworkers, or friends provide some singing, dancing, juggling, cooking, ice skating, or whatever, you would go to those particular social events, and when you're in the mood for professional entertainment, then you would go to those activities. There is no benefit to anybody in ridiculing the amateurs.

Some people may not like amateur entertainment, but I think most people would consider it to be fun once in a while for the same reason that it is more fun to have dinner with a friend than to have dinner with a "professional eater" who is a stranger. A "professional eater" might do a much better job of eating dinner, but would you want to pay a stranger to have dinner with you? Or how about paying a professional bike rider who is a stranger to take a bicycle ride with you? Or how about paying a robot to take a walk in the park with you?

When we entertain one another, our performances will not be very good, but when we know the people, that emotional bond between the audience and the entertainers will compensate - somewhat - for their amateur abilities. Actually, I think that if people were to change their attitudes and stop ridiculing one another, they would discover that it can sometime be amusing to watch our coworkers or friends struggle to entertain us. And it can also be entertaining to watch them improve over the years. They may never become very good, but it can be interesting to watch people improve, just as it's interesting to watch a child or a tree grow. We may not want our friends or coworkers to entertain us every evening with their mediocre performances, but once in a while it could add some variety to life. Why not create a society that offers a wide variety of activities?

There are some people with phenomenal talent, and I enjoy watching them perform, even though they are strangers to me. I am not suggesting that we stop the practice of letting strangers entertain us. Rather, the point I am trying to make is that we should not make professional entertainment our exclusive form of entertainment. We should bring back the old-fashioned custom of getting together with people we know and letting some of them provide the entertainment.

I think that every city should be encouraging its people to get together once in a while to provide themselves with entertainment. Some of the popular television shows have amateur performers, such as Britain's Got Talent, American Idol, and Dancing With The Stars. There are also a variety of cooking shows, sports shows, and other types of entertainment shows. Why sit in front of a television and watch strangers? Why not get together at a restaurant or recreational center and watch some of the people in your own city?

Every city could be encouraging it's residents to devise a wide variety of social events and entertainment programs. Instead of watching strangers on a television in your home, you could go to one of these events and watch your relatives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. You might even enjoy participating in some of those events.

We should start devising new activities to experiment with in order to make life more interesting for all of us. Who knows what sort of activities we will come up with when we start putting some effort into it. 

Education
 
Only young children need teachers
Young children cannot read or write, and they are not capable of thinking very well. They need a lot of adult supervision. They benefit from schools in which they are in a classroom with other children and a teacher is always present to supervise them. However, when children know how to read and write and use computers, they don't need the constant supervision of a teacher.

Our current school system requires a lot of labor. Without a peasant class, who will do the manual labor at the schools? Who will do the janitorial work? Who will provide meals and clean up the mess afterwards? Some people believe that classrooms should be smaller, but the smaller the size of the classrooms, the more teachers we need.

I think schools need to be redesigned for this modern era. One change that I would make is to have the children participate in keeping their school clean and maintained. Parents expect their children to help with the cleaning at home, and I think it would be best to get the children accustomed to the idea of cleaning up after themselves at school, and contributing to the maintenance of the school. This also provides adults with the opportunity to notice which of the children are resisting this responsibility.

I think we also need to redesign the manner in which children are taught. The current method of educating students is for a teacher to stand in front of a group of students and talk to them. The problem with this technique is that the teacher has to repeat the same lessons over and over, year after year. This can be extremely boring for the teacher. This technique seems to be well suited to young children, but once children learn how to read and write, it would be better to make a video recording of the lectures and put them into an "educational database". The students would then be able to watch the lectures on their computer by themselves, and they would be able to go forward or backwards through the videos. Furthermore, the videos can be "interactive" so that the students can click on words or items in the video to get more information about a particular issue.

By switching from human teachers to computers, the students would need teachers only to answer questions and to provide them with advice, constructive criticism, and suggestions. The teachers would be "educational advisors" or "educational guidance counselors" who help the students decide which of the thousands of videos to look at, and in which order. The teachers would also put the students through a variety of tests to help them figure out what they are good at, what they like and dislike, and what their limitations are. The teachers would also provide the students with projects to work on, and they would help them figure out how to find the information they need to do the project.


We should switch to electronic education

When schools first developed, perhaps 6000 years ago in ancient Summeria, there was very little history, almost no science, and only simple arithmetic. It was possible for a school to provide their students with all of the information that was known to the human race. Today there is so much knowledge that a student can learn only a fraction of what is available. This creates a serious dilemma. Specifically, which tiny fraction of the information should each student learn?

With knowledge accumulating every day, it is becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect students to make decisions on what to focus on. Students need help in figuring out what they like and dislike, which subjects they are good at, and - most important of all - what type of jobs will be available to them when they are finished with school.

When a school is designed with teachers who talk to a group of students, every child in the classroom has to learn the same lesson at the same pace as the other students. If, in the middle of a course, a student decides that he is no good at it, or that he doesn't like it, he cannot switch to another course because the other courses are already in progress.

By comparison, when the education is electronic, each student learns whatever he pleases at his own pace. The students are independent of one another, so if a student decides that he doesn't like a particular field, or that he is no good at it, then he can switch to another subject immediately. He doesn't have to wait until the beginning of the next school year in order to change subjects. Each student can also browse through other subjects whenever they want to see what else is available. The students do not have to commit to taking a formal course in order to find out if they are interested in the issue.

An electronic education allows every student to be independent and wander off on his own. It is similar in concept to browsing the Internet. Students with exceptional talent or learning abilities would be able to learn at a rapid pace rather than being held back by the rest of the class. Students who needed more time to learn a particular issue would be able to take the extra time without being ridiculed by other students.

Videos and simulators would allow students to learn how to use certain types of equipment, or do certain types of laboratory procedures. We already have flight simulators to teach people how to fly airplanes, and we could have simulators to help students learn how to perform a DNA analysis, operate a CNC milling machine, or remove an appendix with a CNC surgical or dental device. We could also use robots to demonstrate the use of certain types of equipment and procedures.

In the world today, a phenomenal amount of computer programming and engineering talent is being wasted on video games, Hollywood special effects, electronic gambling, and other forms of silly entertainment, but if we were to alter society and shift some of our technical talent into more productive activities, we could develop software, CNC machines, and robots to make our schools more productive, our cities more beautiful, our factories more pleasant to work in, and our medical procedures more precise, safe, and rapid.


We should create an "Educational Database"

Most people put up a significant resistance to learning while they are in school, and they rarely learn anything once they get out of school. Our schools aggravate the problem by giving a bad image to education. For example, human history is fascinating, but I don't have any interest in the history classes that our schools offer. Our history courses require we sit in a classroom with other students for a specific period of time, and memorize a certain amount of historical information. What is the point of that type of education? Who benefits from that? Furthermore, our history classes are full of Jewish lies about 9/11, the world wars, and possibly thousands of other events.

There is a sensible reason for putting technicians, engineers, scientists, doctors, and other people through tests to make sure that they are memorizing information correctly, but unless a person is getting a job as a historian, it makes no difference if he forgets historical information. Certain educational fields should be treated differently by the schools. History, art, music, and certain other fields should be available to everybody at every age, and the only people who need to be tested are the people who want to get a job that depends upon their understanding of those fields.

By putting all of our knowledge into an educational database, all of us would be able to learn whatever we please, at whatever pace we want to, as simply for the sake of curiosity. We would not have to take any formal courses, or commit to anything. We could learn about something simply for pleasure.

For example, imagine yourself taking a stroll through a park and encountering a flower that you are curious about. Imagine using your cell phone to take a photo of the flower and sending the photo to the electronic database to find a match. You would then be able to access whatever level of technical information you wanted, and you have access to documents, videos, and images. This type of database would make education simple and effortless, and it would be available 24 hours a day, and anywhere you have a connection to the Internet.

At the moment, we do not have software that can identify plants or animals from photos or videos, but if we had not been wasting a lot of software talent on idiotic projects, such as electronic gambling, we might have it by now. The company that makes the Angry Birds game made $100 million in 2011. Imagine if that amount of money and technical talent had been put into more useful projects, and then consider that Angry Birds is just one of many silly projects.

You might respond that we can already access educational material on the Internet, and that the software for the Internet is becoming increasingly more advanced. However, the Internet is not an educational database. It is an unorganized collection of information, propaganda, pornography, deception, scams, and the ramblings of children and lunatics. It is an electronic garbage dump. An enormous amount of time is wasted sifting through its electronic trash. By comparison, an educational database would be under the supervision of the school system, so it would be entirely educational and very well ordered and indexed. It would be useful simply to satisfy your curiosity about issues, or you could use it to learn specific skills. It would be of tremendous value for the people who enjoyed learning on their own.


Our video documentaries need revision

A lot of the videos on the Internet and on television are considered to be "educational", but I think all of those television programs need to be revised and improved. For example, there are dozens of videos in the Nova series, and although I've only seen a few of them, I think that we should redo the narration for all of them to make them more serious and informative. In some cases the dialogue has idiotic remarks that are intended to entertain the audience rather than educate them, and in some cases the dialogue is an attempt to manipulate us, such as when they promote the concept that our production of carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

As I mentioned in other files, for all we know, we are having more effect on the weather as a result of our replacement of plants with roads, parking lots, and buildings. The people who are promoting the concept that our government can improve the climate by controlling carbon dioxide production are either naive, or they are criminals who are trying to manipulate us. We are fools for allowing this type of "educational" television program.

I recently saw a portion of a Nova program called "Secrets Of The Sun". I was too irritated by the dialogue to watch more than a few minutes at the beginning, and a few minutes at the end. The show started in a somewhat serious manner, but it soon focused on the potential danger of solar flares. That particular television show was not an educational program about the sun. Rather, it was some type of propaganda. I suspect that the Jews promote the fear of solar flares because they fantasize about cutting off our electricity and blaming it on solar flares. If you think I'm exaggerating, watch a preview of Secrets Of The Sun here, or the entire program at their website here.

There are lots of videos on the Internet that are trying to be educational, such as the videos that show how corn chips are made, or how automobile tire rims are produced, or how carbon nanotubes are manufactured, but their narration is of limited value, and sometimes nonexistent. Some of these videos have music rather than narration. These videos are not very educational. For example, here is a video that claims to show how M&Ms are manufactured, but what do you learn from that type of video? That video needs to be provided with some useful narration.

Imagine living in a society that provided itself with truly educational videos and documents, and imagine that all of this material is placed in a database that was free to access. Imagine that people were encouraged to contribute to the educational material by making suggestions on how to improve the material, thereby causing it to become increasingly better over time. (This requires eliminating copyrights and royalties and treating educational material as a free public resource, which I'll describe in Part 4 of this series.)

Furthermore, imagine that this computer network is connected to the television and phone networks, and that all of these networks are under the supervision of the government and treated as a public resource, rather than as a bunch of separate, independent networks under the control of independent businesses. This would allow you to use your computer to arrange for a video to be displayed on a television monitor at a particular day and time.

For an example of how this would work, if you were interested in learning about the sun, you could use your computer to look through the available videos and documents, and select the technical level that you were interested in. You could watch the videos on either your computer, or you could send them to a television at a certain day and time.

This type of educational database would be useful for both satisfying your curiosity about the universe, and for learning useful skills. For example, an adult might want to access some information or videos about CNC sewing machine simply to satisfy his curiosity on how they operate, and another person might want to access information on how to use them because they were interested in making some clothing. A teenager might be interested in accessing some of the technical information about these machines because he is considering a career in engineering or computer programming.

In a "City of Castles", there would be lots of free recreational centers that have high quality video monitors and audio systems. You could wander into one of them and take a look at what the other people are watching, but this society encourages people to socialize, so the emphasis would be on people forming social clubs and arranging for events and videos. You would be able to look through the scheduled events that the different clubs were promoting. One club might be offering videos and educational lectures about carbon nanotubes, for example, and another might be showing videos of the land, animals, and fish that live on the little islands off the coast of Alaska. Another club might show videos on how matches are made today, how they were made in the past, and what they might be like in the future.

If you were not interested in any of the scheduled events, then you could reserve a social center for you and your friends, and select your own videos. There would be plenty of social centers, so it would be unlikely that all of them would be occupied.


Do you use the Internet for research?

Millions of people have already proven the value of an electronic educational database because we have a crude form of it today; namely, the Internet. If you have ever used the Internet to learn about something on your own, as opposed to using the Internet because you had to do so for your school or job, then you have proven that when people are provided access to electronic information, they will voluntarily take the initiative to search through that information and learn about something.

Some people use the Internet to access information about Hollywood celebrities, sports events, or food recipes. Some people access information about products they are considering to purchase. Some people have done research into the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or the Apollo Moon landing.

The Internet is proof that the concept of electronic education is valid. It also shows that there are subtle differences between us in regards to how we use electronic information. Most of the population is using the Internet for their own entertainment and personal benefit, such as learning about Hollywood celebrities or analyzing products that they are going to purchase. Only a small percentage the population is using the Internet to learn something that doesn't directly benefit them, such as how we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, or what life was like for people in ancient Rome, or how rainbows are created.

Furthermore, the Internet shows us that a lot of people refuse to learn about the world. For example, some of us have told other people to look at the information about the 9/11 attack or the Holocaust, but most people will only glance at that information briefly, and then find excuses to avoid it. They resist learning about society's problems. They want to entertain themselves. This behavior can also be seen in schools. Most of the students in schools are not interested in learning. They go to school only because they have to go to school, not because they want to.

The Internet is not an electronic educational database but, despite that, some of us have the desire and initiative to use it to educate ourselves about issues that don't directly affect us. We use the Internet to learn about the world because we want to learn about it. Nobody makes us do it. The majority of people, however, have not used the Internet to learn much of anything about the world. We have to accept the fact that the majority of people do not have much of an interest in society. Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for them and try to help them to learn, but why do some people need help but not others? We have to face the fact that some people are more like primitive savages than modern humans.

Imagine dividing the world up into two groups; namely, 1) the people like you and me who have been using the Internet to learn about 9/11 and other issues, and 2) the people who do not use the Internet to learn about the world. Then imagine putting these two groups of people into separate and independent societies.

I think we would discover that those of us in the first group would create a society in which everybody is learning on their own, and we have a much greater interest in our society and the world. We would also be interested in observing that second group of people. However, that second group would have almost no interest in learning about the world, and they probably wouldn't even use the Internet to see how you and I were living. That second group would behave exactly like our neighbors and relatives are behaving right now; specifically, spending their lives titillating their emotions with pet dogs, television, video games, gambling, drugs, and toys. Crime networks would have an easier time taking advantage of those people because there wouldn't be people like you and me to help them realize that they are being lied to and abused. By comparison, corruption and crime would have a much more difficult time in our society because we would have a much greater interest in learning about what is happening around us, and getting involved with society.

If you think I am exaggerating, take a look at the people around you right now. How many of them notice or care about what is going on in other nations? How many of them care that their schools are teaching propaganda about 9/11 or the world wars? How many of them notice or care about the corruption in the banking system, financial markets, or government? Most Americans are European, but some of them do not even know if Europe is a nation, a region, or a flavor of ice cream. If you think I am exaggerating about that, there is this very amusing video of a woman on a game show who wasn't sure what Europe and France are. If you didn't have any experience with the "ordinary" people, you might assume that she was doing a comedy skit. These people are nice, and many of them are honest, but being nice and honest is not good enough today.


Every day is a learning experience

Every day you are exposed to some aspect of this universe, and you interact with it. Every day you interact with sunshine,  flowers, insects, people, clothing, food, and weather patterns. All of these "ordinary" events in your daily life are opportunities to learn about yourself and the world around you. However, whether you learn anything from these ordinary events depends upon your mind. At one extreme are the animals; they don't learn much of anything from their experiences. For example, when animals eat, they merely fill their stomach with food. They do not learn anything about food.

At the other extreme are the people who are very curious and experimentative. When they eat food, they notice the different flavors, colors, textures, and smells of the food. They might also notice that different foods feel different in their stomach, are digested differently, and pass through the digestive system in a different manner. Some of them might occasionally experiment with their meals, thereby giving them more opportunities to learn about food.

For another example, animals don't notice, care about, or learn anything about the plants around them. At the other extreme are the people who notice that some plants need more water or sunshine, and some plants are more prone to mildew, and some plants grow at a much faster rate. Some people also experiment with the plants.

The point I want to make is that every day we have the opportunity to learn a bit more about our bodies, our mind, people, sunshine, plants, insects, food, and everything else in this universe. The "ordinary" events in daily life provide us with opportunities to learn, but there are differences in our ability to learn from these events. Some people go through life without learning much of anything about it.

For a personal example, I grew up in America, where a lot of the automobiles are in bad mechanical shape, and some of them are damaged from accidents or rust. The first time I visited Europe in the 1980's I landed at the Frankfurt, Germany airport, and was picked up by some other Americans who had arrived earlier, and we then drove down the autobahn. I was out of the airport for only a few minutes when I noticed all of the cars seemed like they were new, and I made a remark that was something to the effect of, "Why are all the cars so new?" The other Americans in the car, who had been to Europe more than once, considered my question to be silly, and they responded that there was no difference between their cars and our cars.

Eventually I found out that Germany has laws that require all of the automobile owners to have their cars in good working condition, and they must also fix all visual damage. I was told that if a rusty spot is larger than a few centimeters in diameter, it has to be fixed.

I had noticed the effect of those laws after only a few minutes of traveling down the autobahn and casually looking out the window, but some Americans had been to Germany many times and they still had not noticed that there was a difference between our automobiles. I was even more shocked that I could point out to these people that the German cars are in better condition than the American cars, and they still could not see it.

Of course, there have been lots of things that were obvious to other people that I didn't notice. Nobody notices everything. Actually, even the most observant people notice only a tiny fraction of the details of this universe.

Every day is an opportunity to learn something. When you ride on a train, you have the opportunity to learn about trains, and you have the opportunity to learn about whatever is both inside and outside of the train. When you take a walk, you have an opportunity to learn about shoes, clouds, sidewalks, and whatever else is in your area. For example, people who take walks at different times of the day might notice that snails and worms are more common at certain times of day, or during certain weather conditions.

Most of the information that we learn from our daily lives has no significance to us, but our ability to notice details in the world around us has a profound effect on our view of ourselves, our society, and the universe. The people who are not very good at noticing the details of the world around them will be more like animals. These unobservant people will not notice many differences between themselves and other people, or between their nation and another nation.

People who are not very observant will not have a good understanding of the world. For example, they will not see any significant difference between a factory in Japan and a factory in America, whereas someone like me will notice that the Japanese factories have much more advanced equipment, more robots, fewer employees, and fewer managers. The unobservant people will likely come to the conclusion that America's failure to compete with Japan is because the Japanese are an evil race that is cheating America, whereas people like me will come to the conclusion that the American businessmen are incompetent, selfish jerks who are wasting their time with fights over money and status rather than in modernizing their factories, and that the union leaders in America are so corrupt and stupid that they are inadvertently hurting themselves and their workers by resisting modernization.

For another example, during the 1970s I made a remark to some people that if America continues the policy of using Mexicans as a cheap source of labor, then Mexicans will eventually dominate America and Spanish will become the national language. I was not the only person to notice this, but most people couldn't see it. Their response was that the population of Mexicans would stay virtually the same through time.

The Americans in the 1970's could see the Mexicans working on the farms, but they could not see that their population was slowly increasing. A person has to be more observant in order to notice whether a population is increasing or decreasing. In the case of the Mexicans, I noticed that some of the farm workers were occasionally getting other jobs or starting businesses, thereby creating vacancies on the farms, which were filled by bringing in more Mexicans. I also noticed that most of the Mexicans were having families.

Most of the human population is only slightly more observant than animals. They have a very simplistic view of life as a result. These people should not be influencing society.


"The teacher was a great inspiration to me!"

Some people might object to electronic education because they recall teachers who were incredible inspirations to them, but it's not correct to give the credit to the teacher. Every teacher is in contact with thousands of students. A few of those students will regard the teacher as an inspiration, and some of the students will consider the teacher to be terrible, and most of the students will not remember much about the teacher. If a student considers a teacher to be an inspiration, it is because the student reacted to the teacher in a positive manner.

This concept applies to everything, not just teachers. Every day we encounter plants, animals, weather, and people. However, the manner in which we react to these things depends upon our mind. For example, some people react to a rainstorm with complaints about the weather, and other people react by observing the rain and noticing the shape of the rain droplets, or by noticing that the cities were not designed to protect people from rain.

Every day is full of experiences, and we can react to those experiences with anger, pouting, apathy, or contemplation. We can learn from our experiences, or we can have temper tantrums. When we encounter a person, we can learn from him, hate him, be envious of him, steal something from him, lie to him, or ignore him. Each of us is free to interact with the rain, people, flowers, and sunshine in any manner that we please. We can also react to our own body in whatever manner we please. For example, a person with diabetes might react by hating the world, and another might react by observing his body and providing medical researchers with valuable information about this particular problem.

Some of us learn about ourselves and the world as we go through life, whereas other people learn virtually nothing because they merely exist from one day to the next like an animal. If you learn something from a teacher, it is because you have that particular quality. Don't give the credit to the teacher. A teacher cannot make you learn anything. A teacher can only help you to do whatever it is that you are capable of.

If you learn something from the teachers or other people that you encounter, or if you learn something about the weather, or if you learn something about the food you eat, it is because you have the mental ability to learn from your experiences. It's not because you encountered a special teacher, or because you ate a special type of food. All of us have virtually the same experiences every day. There are subtle differences in the plants and animals in our particular area, and there are subtle differences in our weather, and the people in our area are slightly different, but we all experience virtually the same things. However, there are significant differences in our ability to learn from our experiences. To rephrase that, our minds are more different than our experiences in life.


Teachers can only help us to help ourselves

A teacher cannot give us qualities that we were not born with. Consider some extreme examples. For example, teachers can help students learn how to run faster, but they cannot help students learn to fly like Superman or do witchcraft, as in the Harry Potter movies.

The opposite is also true; specifically, teachers cannot remove a quality that we were born with. For example, a teacher may be so incompetent that he cannot help us to learn anything, but no matter how terrible a teacher is, he cannot take away any of our talents or intellectual abilities, and he cannot reduce our memory, and he cannot make us less coordinated. A bad teacher can give us false information about 9/11 and the Holocaust, and a pedophile can irritate us and cause us to develop a bad attitude, but no teacher can turn us into an idiot.

It may seem that I am stating the obvious, but we are not putting this philosophy into practice. When students do terrible in school, parents have a tendency to blame the teachers. Parents do not want to face the possibility that their children were born stupid, or are more irresponsible than normal students, or have less of an interest in learning, or have significant mental disorders.

The teachers who are not very good are simply those who don't help us learn very much. They will not ruin our life. Likewise, the good teachers cannot make us into something that we are not. They simply help us to learn at a more rapid pace.

The people who train dogs vary in their ability, but no matter how good one of those teachers is, he cannot teach a dog to read and write a human language. The best dog trainer can teach a dog only as much as that particular dog is capable of learning. Every animal and human has limitations.

The parents of children who do not do well in school need to face the possibility that their children have mental qualities that are below average. Society has to face the fact that half of the children will always be below average. Our current philosophy is to feel sorry for the students who have trouble in school, and to provide them with special assistance, but pity doesn't help them. Feeling sorry for a dog that is not learning how to read and write is not going to help the dog. Feeling sorry for a human who is not learning how to perform the magic spells in a Harry Potter book is not going to help that human learn to do magic spells. A school system has to develop more sensible policies regarding the below-average students. For example, we could teach them a skill and give them a job. We could also prohibit them from reproducing.


Schools give special preference to the losers

The American school system, and I suppose schools around the world, have a tendency to give special help to the worst students. Some schools provide counselors for those students, and some offer special classes for them, and some allow the students to come in early so that they can have some extra time with the teachers before the classes start.

The coach of a football team doesn't give special treatment to the worst performing athletes of the team. Rather, he concentrates on helping the more talented members, and he tells the worst performing people to find something else to do with their life.

The schools are doing the opposite of what they should do. School should concentrate on educating the better students. The dumb students should be treated differently, such as giving them a job and getting them out of school. We shouldn't waste time and resources on futile attempts to transform the dumb students into scientists.


Electronic education makes analysis easier

Electronic education makes it easy to gather data for an analysis of which materials are most effective at teaching. Computers can keep track of which education materials each student is looking at, and for how long, and even the order in which they look at the materials. The software will not know when the students are actually reading the material, and when they are taking a nap, but the students could help by signaling the database when they are walking away from the computer. The students could also help by identifying the materials that they think are helping them the most.

When the students are in a conventional classroom, they all read the same book at the same rate, so there is no way to compare the effect of the educational materials. However, when they are free to learn on their own, every student will browse through slightly different material. Some of the students will learn at a more rapid pace, and some of them will learn information that is more useful. The teachers would be able to do experiments to determine which materials are more effective.

For example, when a student learns some information very quickly, the teachers could tell some of the other students to try looking at the same material and in the same order. This would allow the teacher to determine if the material was doing a better job of explaining the concepts, or if that particular student was simply better at learning. Over a span of many decades, the teachers would be able to create increasingly more effective educational materials.

I suspect that the "educational" television shows, such as Sesame Street, are entertaining to some children, but the children are not learning much of anything of value. When we put all education materials in a database for all children to access, then we can get a better idea of which of these programs are teaching children something of value, and which are merely entertaining them.


We should analyze students for their skills

Students need to be tested periodically so that teachers can determine that they are learning something of value, but the schools today are not checking to see whether the students are learning something useful. The entrance exams for college when I was in high school were concerned only that we could perform math, had a large vocabulary, and had memorized lots of historical facts and figures.

When schools first developed many thousands of years ago, the students only needed to learn arithmetic, reading and writing, and a few other bits of information. It made sense for those schools to test their students in math and language. Today, however, students need to learn specific skills, and so schools should test them on their ability to do something of value and function properly in society. It is especially ridiculous to expect students to have large vocabularies. Large vocabularies are of value only to intimidate or entertain. We don't need them for communication. In fact, large vocabularies are detrimental to communication. When we want to express intelligent thoughts, we should be clear and precise.

For example, when the people on television are giving weather forecasts, they should stop referring to the temperature as "mercury", as in, "the mercury hit 108° today". How many thermometers are using mercury today? Even if thermometers were still using mercury, the mercury doesn't "hit" anything. They should tell us what the "temperature is", not what the "mercury hits". This may seem like a trivial complaint, but it is just one of thousands of examples of people in the media using language in an idiotic manner to entertain or titillate the audience.

For another example, the news reporters frequently tell us about the stock market "crashing" or "soaring", even though it changed by a tiny percentage. Remember to ask yourself, "Who benefits?" Who benefits when journalists tell us that the stock market "crashed" when it changed by only a tiny percentage? The journalists are trying to attract your attention and titillate your emotions. You do not benefit from that type of manipulation.

Using words in inappropriate manners may seem insignificant, but over long periods of time it can cause words to develop multiple, confusing meanings. For example, referring to a 2% change in a stock market price as "crashing" or "soaring" creates a situation that is similar to the the story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Specifically, after many years, the words "crashing" and "soaring" will be regarded as a trivial change in something. Some other words will then have to be used to express what we considered "crashing" and "soaring" to be today. I think it would be better if schools taught children to use language in a clear and precise manner, and if schools stopped emphasizing large vocabularies.

To add to the problem, we are allowing businesses to use common words as product names. Microsoft, for example, is using windows, excel, word, and other common words as names for their software. This is idiotic. They should pick words that are not in common use, or create a new word. We need to change our economic system so that we don't have to be concerned about the names of products. And how about that telephone operating system that's referred to as an "ice cream sandwich"? How ridiculous does this situation have to be before we wonder where we are going? What would you think if BMW called their new car the "BMW Turkey Dinner With Cranberry Gravy". Of course, that car would have a special slot in the dashboard for the "Ice Cream Sandwich" phone.

There is also no reason to test students on their ability to memorize historical facts and figures. Unless a person wants to become a historian, it makes no difference if students forget historical facts. It would be better to test the student's ability to locate information in the database. For example, instead of testing a student's ability to recall the year and location at which the iron plow began replacing the wooden plow, the students would be tested on their ability to find that information in the database. Every year it becomes less important and less practical for students to memorize information and more important for them to be able to rapidly locate information. They need to memorize the techniques to find information, not memorize the information.

Students should also be tested on their ability to function in jobs and society, and that means that the tests have to be different for different students according to the type of jobs they are considering. Students who will never need to use advanced math do not need to be tested in math, for example. Schools should test a student's ability to do whatever jobs they think they might do. If a student is planning to get involved with farming, then he should be tested on his ability to use the equipment that the farmers are using, and his ability to do the type of analyses that farmers must do. 


What makes one teacher better than another?

I think the reason some teachers are better than others is because some people are better able to analyze students and determine their particular abilities, desires, limitations, and confusion. The more accurately a teacher can understand his students, the the better he will be at figuring out what to say to each student. This is true regardless of whether the teacher is teaching math, dance, gymnastics, skydiving, boxing, sailing, cooking, or engineering. Imagine two extreme examples. One extreme would be a robot.
 
The robot teacher in the photo is being tested in a Japanese school.

Robots are capable of demonstrating the use of equipment, providing tests for the students, and giving lectures.

However, a robot cannot analyze any of the students. Therefore, a robot will teach every student in exactly the same manner, regardless of the student's age, abilities, and state of confusion.

At the other extreme would be a teacher who has the qualities of the mythical Christian god who knows what each of us is thinking. A god-like teacher would understand each student so well that he would know exactly where each student is confused, what each student already knows, and what all of their abilities are. He would be able to provide every student with a slightly different lecture that is perfectly tailored to fit their particular abilities and level of education.

Some people give me the impression that they think a good teacher is a person who the students enjoy. Those people promote the philosophy that a person will become a better teacher by learning how to make is classes more fun. However, I don't think teachers should be entertainers or clowns. I think a person will become a more effective teacher when he becomes better able to analyze his students.

People who are good at understanding students would be especially effective as teachers if we switch to electronic education. The reason is because the students would be independent, and so a teacher with an exceptional ability to understand students would be able to analyze each of the students and provide each of them with unique guidance, tests, and projects.

By comparison, when a teacher has to teach an entire class at the same time, then he must teach all of the students the same material at the same rate. Schools realize that this is a terrible method of teaching students, and so they compensate by creating classes in which the students are very similar in abilities and desires. The more similar the students are, the more effective this type of classroom is, but students are never going to be truly identical. Therefore, it would be better to switch to electronic education and allow each student to be completely independent. This allows the teacher to analyze each of them individually and provide each of them with unique guidance and testing.


We should not pity the students who need teachers

If we switch from human teachers to electronic education, a lot of the students would waste a lot of their time because they would learn about issues that entertain them but have no value in getting a job, or they would play games rather than learn. Parents would react by feeling sorry for their children and demanding that we bring back the human teachers.

A better solution is to consider what we want the human race to become. I don't think it's a good idea to continue the policy of human teachers who stand in front of a classroom of students and repeat the same lessons year after year. I think it would be much better for the human race to evolve into a creature that is better adapted to this modern world. Children should be provided with an electronic education, and the teachers should only guide the children as they learn on their own.

The students who don't have the initiative to learn something useful should be described as unfit for this modern world. Feeling sorry for them will not help them, or the human race. The teachers should not go out of their way to help them, either. The teachers should regard them as savages in a human world. The teachers should be guidance counselors who help the students learn. This would make the job of the teacher less boring, and it would eventually result in the human race evolving into people who enjoy learning on their own.


Imagine providing all students with drugs

It might help you to understand these concepts if you imagine what would happen if we designed a school system that provided every student with a free package of drugs every day. Imagine yourself as a high school student, and imagine that every morning you find a package on your desk that contains some cocaine, beer, LSD, heroin, and whiskey. Imagine that your teacher tells you that you can use these drugs if you please, but whether you do or you don't, there will be a fresh package of new drugs the next day, and the day after that, and so on. What would you have done if you had been provided with a free package of drugs every day of high school?

If schools were to provide all students with a package of drugs every day, some students would experiment with a few of them, and some students would become addicted to some of them, and some students might die from overdoses. Who would be hurt by this policy? Only the students who had trouble controlling their drug use. Giving students free access to drugs is probably the fastest and simplest ways of determining which of them has the ability to control their drug use. It is similar to the concept of putting rocks into an acid bath to determine which of them are diamonds.

This same concept applies to electronic teaching. If we provide students with electronic educational materials, the students who have the ability to use that technology would become educated, and the others would remain uneducated. Rather than feeling sorry for the students who cannot learn this way, we should simply regard them as not being worthy of reproduction.


Educational materials should be useful, not "fun"

In a free enterprise economy, most educational books, videos, and supplies are produced by businesses rather than the government. Since businesses must make a profit from their work, they design the educational materials to be appealing to teachers, parents, and students. They want their educational materials to be exciting and "fun".

In a better society, educational materials would be designed from the point of view of their ability to quickly and efficiently pass valuable information into the mind of the student, and to help the student use that information in a useful manner. The people designing the material would not care whether the student likes the material or considers it to be "fun". Educational materials would be judged according to their ability to educate, not on their ability to appeal to people.

In one of my previous documents, I pointed out that humans are very sensitive to the way information is presented, and that if we figure out how to provide information in a proper manner, people will be interested in learning it. However, we have to distinguish between presenting information in a useful manner, and titillating obnoxious or mentally ill people. An example is the manner in which we present food for dinner or parties.

We do not want our food to be dumped into a bag and put over our face, as we feed horses. We want our food to be arranged in a visually pleasant manner. However, is the cake (to the right) presented in a pleasant manner?
Update 24 November 2016: originally I had a photo of a cake that was in the shape of a black woman, but I have since been informed that that particular cake was not intended to be amusing or artistic. It was supposed to be an attempt to show people how idiotic and painful it is to  perform female genital mutilation. So I replaced that image with the cake above, which is supposed to be artistic. Some people are describing it as "spirit cooking". You can find hundreds of images at this page  (scroll down the page to find them).

I would not describe this as presenting food in a pleasant manner. I would describe this as "toilet humor to titillate lunatics".

I think that a lot of the artists are mentally ill, and that some of their material is disgusting or detrimental. We should not be afraid to pass judgment on their artwork. For another example, the displays of preserved human and animal bodies are an excellent way to let us see the muscles, bones, blood vessels, and other parts of our body. It is also an excellent way for us to compare the bodies and brains between different people; between animals and humans; between men and women; and between people of different ages. For example, compare the head and neck in the photo below to the head in Part 2 (here).

The Body Worlds exhibits are excellent educational displays.
These displays are valuable educational tools, but what do we gain by putting them into ridiculous positions, such as idiotic sexual positions or playing poker?
If ww are going to put them in sexual displays, why not something realistic? Or am I too naive to realize that those two are demonstrating a very popular sexual position?
I think a lot of the people who end up as artists are people who are suffering from some type of defect that prevents them from fitting in with the rest of us and enjoying life. We are not helping the artists when we let them do whatever they please, and we are not helping society, either. We have to pass judgment on what is and is not "art".

The sexual displays might titillate lots of people, but if we are going to put dead bodies into sexual displays, why not pick something more useful from an educational point of view, such as a display of a government official at a party who is raping a young boy? Or how about a policeman or a doctor at a children's hospital, raping a child under anesthesia? A video monitor would be provided with that type of a display to explain that it is based on actual rapes.

Or how about a display of Josef Fritzl while he rapes his daughter? Or a display of one of the events in the life of Jaycee Dugard and Philip Garrido, such as a display of an adult man raping a kidnapped teenage girl who is pregnant with his first child. The video monitor could point out that up until the 22nd century, the majority of people were so much like stupid animals that they didn't care that kidnapped victims and sex slaves were scattered around the planet, or even living in their neighborhoods.

I may seem to be making a sarcastic joke, but decades ago it occurred to me that it would be useful for future generations if there was a special museum that had displays of actual rapes, obese people, Siamese twins, and other retards and freaks. This museum would help people understand the importance of maintaining the genetic quality of the human race. This museum would be required study for people who wanted a leadership position, and it would be required for anybody who proposed reducing the restrictions on reproduction. I think these displays would have a much greater emotional effect on people compared to reading words in a document.


School courses should be practical, not fun

Just as museums and other educational material should be designed to be useful, so should school courses. We should not be concerned with pleasing the students. For example, consider robotics. With robotics becoming increasingly important, a lot of high schools and colleges are now offering classes in robotics. There are also lots of contests in which the schools put their robots into competition with one another.

I don't know what those robotics courses are like, but after watching some of the videos on the Internet about their robot competitions, I suspect that the robotics courses are similar to all other American school courses. Specifically, they are designed primarily to entertain the students and their parents. They are not designed to be job training programs.

The students are certainly learning something of value when they design robots to throw basketballs, but I think we could redesign these courses to provide a much better education. I suspect that the courses are designed primarily for entertainment, not job training. Many of these courses also seem to be designed to help businesses make money, such as the competition in the photo that is supported by NASA and which allows corporations to advertise their names on the basketball robots. How is that any better than encouraging the children to wear company logos on their clothing?

The high school that I went to, Dos Pueblos High School, now has a robotics program, and one of the teachers said in an interview that he has been trying to get more girls to join. Schools should encourage all boys and girls to try different activities so that they can discover their talents and desires, but I don't think our schools are trying to help the students understand themselves. Rather, I think they are trying to lure girls into the engineering and science classes in order to appease feminists. The schools boast that they are training girls to be scientists and engineers, but in reality, we are wasting our time and money. Most of the girls do not have the desire or talent to do those jobs. The schools are also giving false hopes and expectations to these girls. The schools could be described as abusive because they are causing a lot of girls to waste their youth in the pursuit of a career that they either will not like, or will not be successful at.

From my own casual observations of girls, many of those who took science or engineering courses in college failed to complete the course, and of the ones who succeeded and got a job as a scientist or engineer, many of them ended up getting fired or demoted because they didn't have the necessary talent. And of the girls who were successful as a scientist or engineer, many of them got depressed by the time they were about 30 years old because they wanted to have a family. Many of them quit their job to have babies.


Businesses should work with schools to give students real tasks

In a free enterprise system, the businesses are not allowed to give jobs to students because it would be considered as either exploiting children, or as an unfair competitive advantage. Furthermore, businesses do not want to give tasks to students because they do not want anybody to have access to their technology or upcoming products. They want to keep everything a secret because most businesses are involved with plagiarism, sabotage, and other diabolical attempts to destroy one another. They do not compete in a fair manner.

However, in the economy that I'm describing for the City of Castles, the businesses and scientists would be encouraged to set aside some simple tasks for students. For example, instead of students designing robots that throw basketballs, engineers would provide students with some real tasks that need to be done, but which are simple enough for students, such as designing the fixture to hold a pressure sensor that goes into the finger of a robot, or designing the software to control that sensor.

Some people might respond that giving the students a simple task of a large project would be very boring, but it is not boring. It is realistic. If a student gets a job as an engineer, he is going to be a member of a team, and he will have to work on a small part of a robot, a railroad engine, or a telephone network. I think it is better to give the students real work experience rather than titillate them with silly entertainment, such as fooling them into thinking that chemical engineers spend their time making explosions, and that engineers spend their time playing basketball games with robots.

For another example of what students could do, there are some products that are simple enough that businesses could set them aside for students. For example, the knife sharpeners that are available for home use are terrible. I have not yet seen a knife sharpener that truly works well. Recently I got so fed up that I removed the abrasive wheel from a knife sharpener, cut off the blades on a blender component, and then attached the abrasive wheel to the blender component with epoxy. Then I used epoxy, a rag, and a plastic bottle to make a threaded shell that screws into the blender base to hold the abrasive wheel.

The blender base. I removed the blades and attached an abrasive wheel with epoxy. I used a rag and epoxy to form a threaded shell that screws into the blender base.
This allows the grinding wheel to spin at a high speed, which allows it to sharpen knives very quickly and without any effort. Unfortunately, my particular design is not ideal for a product that people would actually use. The threaded shell that I made from a red and white rag should completely enclose the grinding wheel, and it should have a slot in it so that the knife glides along the grinding wheel at the proper angle.
This knife sharpener is technically simple enough for students to work on, and it would provide them with useful work experience. They would have to learn about the difference between centrifugal and centripetal force; how to design molds for 3-D plastic parts; how to design abrasive wheels that can sharpen steel knives without shattering or clogging; and how to design components that are simple to manufacture and assemble.

The teacher would provide guidance to the students, and with the businesses working with the schools, the teachers could get assistance from the engineers by arranging for a time for the engineers to connect to the classroom via a video link. The different schools could compete to see who could develop a knife sharpener that uses the least resources, works the best, and is easiest to produce and assemble. The schools could also arrange for trips to factories and research labs to help the students get a better understanding of what the engineers and scientists actually do.

When businesses work with the schools and provide the students with realistic projects, then the students graduate with real job experience rather than what we have today, which is students who need a lot of on-the-job training in order to become useful.


Schools should not be pressured to fill classrooms

Our school system is designed to teach a group of students at one time, and therefore, every school course must attract a certain number of students in order to justify its existence. There is no shortage of students applying for courses in music, art, or sports, but not many students, and especially not many girls, are interested in engineering or science courses. The schools react to the lack of interest by making the classes appear more fun. Professors who are struggling to get tenure are tempted to lower their standards of performance in order to keep the mediocre students in their course.

I think that students should be pushed into trying different activities so that they can understand their talents and limitations, but tricking students into thinking that engineering is just a form of entertainment is wasting their time and wasting our resources. It is even more destructive for a school to lower the standards for students and allow them to graduate from a technical course when they don't truly have the ability or desire to perform that type of job. This results in engineers, scientists, and technicians who are mediocre or incompetent, which in turn means that they will not be able to compete with the nations that have higher standards for students.

It is also destructive and cruel to fool girls into pursuing careers that are so technically advanced that they require many years of education, training, and practice. By the time the girls become productive in those type of careers, they are nearly 30 years old, and they start becoming unhappy because they want to have children. Many of them quit their jobs to have children, which means that all of the training and education has been a waste.

If you believe that making classes more "fun" is the proper method of teaching students, imagine an extreme example. Imagine if schools purchased sex robots for their robotics courses, and imagine them setting up competitions between the schools in which students competed in having sex with their robots in various positions. Or how about a school luring children into the cooking classes by concentrating on the making of candy? Or how about a chemistry class that focused on making LSD and other drugs?

We are not helping students or society by tricking students into taking science classes. I suggest the following three techniques to improve this particular problem of students who have no interest in science or engineering.

1) Switch to electronic education. This allows each student to learn whatever he pleases, and at his own pace. A student can learn about robotics even if he is the only student in the school who is interested in that issue. Furthermore, an electronic education can be part time, and it can be done anywhere there is a computer. This makes it easy for adults to take courses simply for curiosity, or to learn a new skill in order to try a new job. Electronic education is also more practical for mothers with babies.

2) Restrict reproduction. The human race must evolve into a more intelligent creature, and we must also develop more advanced emotional qualities. It is no longer possible for a man to make a living by chasing after pigs with sharp sticks, and women must be able to do more than groom themselves and have babies. The future generations need to be more intelligent, have a greater interest in learning, have more of an initiative to do things on their own, and be capable of working in a team for the benefit of society.

3) Modify society so that we can treat men and women differently. We need to design society to deal with the fact that women must have babies, and we need to treat men and women differently because we have different personalities. For example, our current philosophy is to encourage girls to go to school, get a career, and have babies later in life. As I will describe in more detail in Part 4 of this series, I think it would be better if the women had their babies at a younger age.


Educational courses need performance reviews

When I was in elementary school, the teacher taught us how to do division by giving us simple problems that always divided evenly. This gave me the impression that division was simple. When we later started doing division that had remainders, I felt as if we had been cheated. I felt that we had been tricked into thinking that arithmetic was very simple, and now that we are older we are discovering the cruel reality that it is actually quite difficult. I was thinking that they should have given us a realistic view of division from the very beginning. They could have given us some numbers which divide evenly, and some numbers which do not, and told us to ignore the remainders until we get into a more advanced math class in the future.

I don't actually know the best way to teach arithmetic to children. I am assuming that it would be best to let children experience remainders when they learn division, but perhaps the best method is to give them simple divisions that don't produce remainders. The only way to determine the best method is to experiment with different methods and observe the results. By teaching arithmetic in different manners to different children, we can compare the children after they finished their courses to see which of them has the best education. We would not be concerned about whether the students "liked" the course. Rather, we would look at how well a course educated the students. The courses would be judged according to their ability to educate, not according to their ability to please the students.

When education is electronic, it becomes very easy to experiment with different teaching techniques. For example, one teacher might create a series of videos to explain a particular aspect of geometry or optics, and another teacher might put together a slightly different series of videos on the same topics. The different, competing courses would be put into the educational database. Students interested in those subjects would be told to try one of them. This would give us the opportunity to compare which of the courses was doing the best job of educating the students. The school officials would test the students to figure out what sort of an education they were getting, and the teachers would be able to use that type of feedback to improve their courses. Since the courses are electronic rather than as paper books, the teachers can instantly make changes to the material, at any time of the day or night, and they could make what would be considered an insignificant and expensive change for a paper book, such as changing a few words or images.

The teachers would be in competition with each other, but they would not be like businesses in a free enterprise system that fight to attract students and profit. Rather, they would be trying to impress the school officials who are doing the performance reviews. They would be competing to continually improve the educational value of their courses. They wouldn't be concerned about pleasing parents or students, or attracting donations.

These type of experiments would allow the teachers to develop courses for different age groups, and they might discover that the courses need to be slightly different for boys and girls. They could also create educational courses for adults who are simply curious about a subject but not interested in getting a job in that field. For example, there could be some adult educational material about robotics that provide adults with an understanding of the issue, but without getting into the technical details that a student would need in order to get a job in the field. These adult educational materials would be similar to the science documentaries that we see on television. Over time, this type of electronic educational database would evolve into a wide variety of courses for different age groups and purposes.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of our schools are experimenting to make their courses more productive, and I don't think they are doing any type of performance review of their courses. Our universities are the best example of this problem. They show no concern for whether their education is helping their students to get a job and function in society. The universities seem much more concerned with improving their advertisements so that they can attract more students and more donations. I suspect that the universities would resist doing a performance review because I think that the university officials are fully aware of the fact that they are not providing much of an education, and they would not want to conduct a study to prove it.


We don't need to protect children from reality

Most parents refuse to face the possibility that the majority of children are "ordinary", and that half the children are "below average". Most parents, especially mothers, insist that their children are "above average". As a result of this attitude, when one of their "above average" children has trouble in school, the parents want the school courses to become easier. They want their brilliant children to get a diploma. Most parents do not want the schools to tell them that their child is doing poorly in school.

I have heard parents complaining about their child being bullied by other students, or insulted by the teachers, but do parents ever complain that their child just graduated from college without any useful skills? Or that he is so unprepared for society that he still doesn't understand credit card interest rates or how to purchase a house?

Some of the parents who advocate the philosophy that schools should give good grades to all students will point out that there have been many children of previous generations who were criticized by their teachers for being stupid, but those children ended up as adults with impressive talents. Those particular children are used as examples to support the philosophy that teachers should never criticize students or give them bad grades because the teachers may simply be unaware that the student actually has talent.

However, I would say that these children are actually proof of what I'm saying; specifically, that it does not hurt children to be told the truth. If a child is doing poorly in school, it does not hurt him for the teacher to scold him and give him bad grades. If he is truly talented, his talent will show eventually. A teacher is not going to transform an intelligent student into an idiot simply by telling him that he is an idiot.

It is possible for a teacher to interfere with a child's education, such as by giving him a bad attitude, or by teaching him worthless material, but a teacher cannot rewire a child's brain. The stupid children will be stupid no matter what the teachers do, and a talented student will remain talented regardless of how often the teachers and other students criticize him.

Americans have a very strong "feel sorry for me" attitude, so they have a tendency to feel sorry for the children who have trouble in school. They want to blame the child's problems on the teacher or the other students. They don't want to face the possibility that the child was born with a primitive or low-quality brain.

The parents who have defective children tend to react by protecting and pampering them, but we do not help children by feeling sorry for them. Children need to be protected from razor blades, bleach, and other dangerous items, but we do not have to protect children from learning the truth about themselves. Quite the contrary! I think schools should encourage children to try lots of different activities in order to understand themselves. We are not going to hurt children by letting them discover that they are only ordinary in some abilities, and below ordinary in others.

Instead of protecting children from criticism, it would be more useful to tell the children that if they believe they have been underestimated, then they should prove to the teachers and other students that they made a mistake. Children should be taught to earn whatever they want rather than beg for pity or handouts.

We are also not going to hurt children by letting them know the truth that most of them are only ordinary in their visual appearance, and half of them are below average, and some of them are ugly. Most parents, especially mothers, routinely lie to their children about how nice-looking they are, but we are not helping children by lying to them. The children who cannot handle the truth about themselves should be described as freaks who are unfit for this modern world.

Children are not harmed by "bullying", either. We have to remove the psychotic and violent students who torment both students and teachers, but we do not have to protect children from the "normal" bullying that is a necessary part of childhood for all animals and humans.

I doubt if our prehistoric ancestors tried to protect their children from nudity, sex, or work. I suspect that fathers encouraged their sons to learn how to make tools, hunt animals, and make fire. I don't think the teenagers were pampered, and I doubt if fathers gave their children unrealistic and entertaining tasks to practice on. I think parents expected both their sons and daughters to help with the work that needed to be done. I also doubt if parents in prehistoric times considered their 20-year-old children to be "children".


We should not mix retarded and normal children

Some parents insist that their retarded children be allowed in classrooms of normal students, and that both the teachers and the students tolerate their horrible behavior. A recent example is the father who put an audio recorder on his retarded child. This gave him a recording of a teacher losing her temper with his retarded child, and he posted it on the Internet as evidence that his child was being abused by the teachers.

I would say that these parents are abusing the teachers and the other students by demanding that their retarded children be placed in classes of normal children. They think that they have a right to force their retarded children on us, but I would respond that the parents of normal children have a right to put their children in a classroom that is free of the destructive influence of retarded, violent, and psychotic children.

It is impossible to please everybody. No matter what decisions we make, there will always be people complaining. Americans like to feel sorry for the underdog, and so Americans have a tendency to give special preference to the retarded, dishonest, psychotic, anti-social people, and we have a tendency to make the healthy people suffer. We should reverse that situation. We should design society for the healthy, respectable people, and tell the rest of the people to deal with it.

We don't owe anything to retarded people or their parents. The retarded people should be thankful that they are alive. During prehistoric times, they would have died or been killed at a young age. They should be grateful that there are non-retarded people to provide them with abundant supplies of food, advanced medical technology, clothing, houses, electricity, and other items.

Schools should be allowed to deny entry to students that they believe are destructive or inappropriate. Schools should also be allowed to separate students into different classes according to their abilities, ages, sex, or whatever else they feel is appropriate. They should even be able to separate homosexuals from heterosexuals if they decide that it is better for the students. There is no rule in this universe that says teachers or students must tolerate retarded children. I would go even further and allow teachers to remove students that they don't like, and allow students to switch classrooms if they don't like the teacher.

Furthermore, we don't have to tolerate parents who complain about the words we use to describe their defective child. Some parents, for example, complain that the word "retarded" is inappropriate, but what difference does it make if we refer to them as retarded, autistic, schizophrenic, or bipolar? When scientists are analyzing their retarded children, they can be descriptive about the child's mental disorders, but the rest of us shouldn't be concerned. The parents who complain about these words are not upset that we are using the incorrect word. Rather, they are trying to push us into using a word that they feel makes their child seem more normal. To restate that, they are not concerned that we are using the wrong word; rather, they are trying to make themselves feel better about their retarded child.

The word "retard" evokes unpleasant images in our mind, whereas some of the modern words, such as "bipolar", don't evoke any images at all. Therefore, people with retarded children prefer using words such as bipolar. However, eventually the word bipolar will develop unpleasant images, and so parents will switch to some newer word which doesn't have any unpleasant images associated with it. We are not improving society when we allow retarded parents to switch the words we use to describe their retarded children.

Actually, we are causing more harm to society when we encourage people to whine about words. As I described in other files, such as here, every language is a chaotic jumble of words that developed inadvertently and haphazardly, and all languages should be improved upon, but we are not improving our language when we allow people to make idiotic complaints. For example, there are some people whining that they are "Asian" rather than "Oriental", and some people whine that they are "Latino" or "Hispanic" rather than "Mexican" or "Brazilian". These people are not suggesting intelligent improvements to our language. When we pander to these people, we are encouraging idiotic whining.


We should make products that are more compatible

Incidentally, my knife sharpener brings up another issue. I could have designed it with its own electric motor, but I chose to make it as an attachment to a blender that I already have. In a free enterprise system, there is no incentive for businesses to design their products to be compatible with the products of other businesses, or to use parts that are already in production. For example, there are lots of different kitchen devices that have electric motors, such as blenders, meat grinders, and mixers, but in a free enterprise system, there is no incentive for the engineers to use an electric motor that is already in production. As a result, there are thousands of trivial variations of electric motors.

There is also no incentive for businesses to design products with interchangeable accessories. For example, the businesses that make blenders could use the same style of base as their competitors, but instead there are a variety of incompatible bases between different brands and models. As a result, when you need a replacement part, or when you want a different accessory, you have to find one that fits your particular base.

From the point of view of society, it would be better if we produced a smaller variety of electric motors so that we could increase the production of those motors, and to make it easier for the technicians to maintain and repair the items. It would also be better from the point of view of society if the components were more compatible with one another so that we could easily exchange parts.

The situation with automobiles is even worse. We are producing thousands of variations of v-belts, air filters, oil filters, mufflers, shock absorbers, and tires. There are also lots of variations of computer components. We don't need so many variations.

In a free enterprise system, the engineers are not concerned about making society more efficient or simplifying life for the people. However, when government officials are reviewing prototypes, the businesses have to please the government officials. If we can provide ourselves with intelligent, responsible government officials, then the pressure on the engineers would be to reduce the resources that society needs, and make life simpler for the users of the products, the people who have to build the products, and the technicians who have to maintain and repair the products.

The Bosch company produces an electric motor that has such attachments as a meat grinder, food processor, mixer, and grain grinder. The engineers at Bosch can do this with their own products, but they cannot coordinate their activities with the engineers of other companies to make all of their products more compatible.

When engineers are under pressure to make products that benefit society, then it becomes practical for them to specify new products that use some components that are already in production, even if it is a component made by an engineer who is competing with them. They would also be allowed to make products that are compatible with their competitor's products.

Over a period of many decades, this would result in a society that looks different than a free enterprise society. They would produce fewer products overall, and the products would be more compatible, easier to maintain, and easier to build.


Teachers for teenagers should be older adults

I don't think it's a good idea to let people become teachers immediately after they get out of school. For one reason, teenagers are very flirtatious, and if the teacher is single and not much older than the students, we increase the chances that relationships will form between the teachers and the students.

A more important reason is that a person who has just graduated from school doesn't have a good idea of the real world. The teachers for very young children don't need much education or work experience, but I think we should restrict the teaching of older students to people who are older than perhaps 50 years of age, and who have already had jobs. Those older adults will have a much better understanding of the skills and information that will be most useful for the students. They will also have a better idea of how the jobs that exist today will change slightly because of advances in technology, and that can help them prepare the students for the upcoming jobs.

When we switch to an electronic education, the job of a teacher becomes less physically demanding because they no longer have to stand and talk for hours in front of a class of students. The teachers provide guidance to the students as they learn on their own. It is physically easier to provide guidance, and older people are better at providing guidance, so when we switch to electronic education, it is more appropriate to restrict teaching to the older adults.


We must experiment with schools!

How do we know who has the best proposals for schools? What is the best way to teach robotics, history, or math? Should boys and girls be separated into different classrooms? If so, at what age should we begin separating them? Are there certain classes where they should be mixed together? If so, which classes?

Unfortunately, there is no way for us to figure out what the best school system would be. We have to be willing to experiment. We have to look at the proposals, and then select some of them for experimentation. Then we watch the results.

The people who are afraid to experiment should be regarded as stupid animals who are inhibiting progress. We will not hurt ourselves by experimenting with our culture... unless, of course, our society consists of criminals, pedophiles, and irresponsible, selfish freaks. If, instead, we raise standards for both citizens and leaders and create a society of responsible people, then we simply watch the results of our experiments, and if a particular policy doesn't seem to be beneficial, we terminate that experiment and try something else. There is no reason to be afraid. We are not going to hurt ourselves!

Would you make a good government official?
 
Why do boys dominate engineering and science?
One of the women who promote feminism is Maria Klawe, the president of Harvey Mudd College. In a recent interview with PBS, Maria Klawe was asked why there are not many women in the technical fields. Since she is the president of the college, she has a great opportunity to observe college students. One of her remarks:
But we get very few young women going into computer science and physics and areas of engineering. And we even know the reason why it's the case. It's because, number one, they think it's not interesting, and, number two, they think they wouldn't be good at it. And, number three, they have the image of the people in those fields that they don't think is attractive.
pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june12/womenscience_04-26.html

When she was asked for a solution to this problem, two of her remarks were:

If I could wave my magic wand and just change the world right this second, I would change the way that the media -- the way that the media portrays careers in science and engineering, because we tend to think of those people as dorks and dweebs and geeks and nerds, et cetera.
<...> 
You get them into an intro computer science course that is absolutely fascinating and fun and creative. And you have them have so much fun, that they just can't believe that this is really computer science.

And that's actually what we have done at Harvey Mudd College, because we have all kinds of students who arrive saying, I hate computers. But they have to take a computer science course in the first semester. 

The ExxonMobil Corporation doesn't have an explanation for why boys do better in science, but they have annual “Introduce a Girl to Engineering” events at some of their locations. They also have programs to help adult women. For example, at this page they write:

At ExxonMobil, we understand that creating economic opportunities for women is one of the wisest investments we can make. That’s why in 2005, we launched our Women’s Economic Opportunity Initiative — a global effort that helps women fulfill their economic potential and drive economic and social change in their communities.

Exxon is also helping women in foreign nations by becoming a partner with a variety of organizations around the world, but Exxon does not focus entirely on women. They are also concerned that America is becoming technically incompetent because American children are not learning useful technical skills. As they describe it here:

The Center on Education and the Workforce reports that by 2018 eight million U.S. jobs will be available in fields relating to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).  Yet, the report continues, the next generation of American employees will be largely unprepared for these jobs.

and here:

A growing issue for the U.S. is that students in America aren’t competitive in math and science compared to other many other countries. This threatens the development of new ideas, new products,...


Analyzing proposals is not easy

Do you think Maria Klawe's response explains why boys dominate engineering and science? Do you think Exxon is helping women or American students learn useful skills? Do you think Bristol Palin's opinions on marriage are worthy of broadcasting to the world?

In this series of articles I describe a society in which government officials have a tremendous responsibility. For example, some government officials would review prototypes and determine which of them to put into production; another group of officials would review research proposals from scientists and figure out which ones should get funding; and another group of officials would review suggestions to improve society, such as improving our school system, transportation system, or social activities.

It might seem easy to review prototypes or suggestions on how to improve our school system, but it is difficult because people are very similar to one another. When we graph any of our abilities, we end up with a bell curve. It is easy to distinguish between the people who are the worst at a particular task and the people who are the best at it, but it's not easy to distinguish between the people who are among the best because there are only trivial differences between them.

Consider the Olympic athletic events to understand this. Some sports events have definite winners and losers, such as foot races, while other events require we make a judgment, such as gymnastics. It is difficult to make these judgments because the difference between one Olympic athlete and another is trivial.

Now consider how this applies to government officials who must review prototypes of new products. The prototypes that come from the mentally ill people will be idiotic, so it would be easy for us to discard those prototypes. However, all of the prototypes that come from the best engineers will be impressive. The difference between them will be trivial. Determining which of them to put into production will not be a simple decision. It's going to require a lot of thinking, and sometimes discussions between other government officials and engineers.

The same is true of people who are making proposals to help our school system, economy, social activities, or legal system. Imagine being a government official who has to pass judgment on suggestions to improve our school system. Some of those proposals will be so obviously idiotic that they will be easy to dismiss, but there will be others that are going to require quite a bit of thought and discussions. Some proposals will not be obviously good or bad. Rather, some proposals will have some ideas that you like, and some that you don't like. Rather than dismiss or accept that particular proposal, you might discuss the issue with the author and ask him to send a revised version.

These concepts also apply to people who must select other people for leadership or other influential positions in society. We need officials who will be able to select people for those positions, and who have the initiative to occasionally review the job performance of the people they selected, and who will continually replace the worst performing people so that other people have the opportunity to show their talents.

It's not difficult to find people who can pass judgment on who to hire for a job, or which proposal to approve of. Thousands of people around the world do these tasks on a regular basis for businesses, military units, cruise ships, and condominium associations. However, we occasionally catch some of these people making decisions that are selfish, such as by hiring their children, or by giving contracts to crime networks or relatives. We need to find people that we can trust to make these decisions according to what is best for society. Are you one of those people?

Maria Klawe was selected to be the president of a college; she was selected to be on the Board of Directors of Microsoft; and PBS selected her to promote her opinions on why boys dominate science and engineering. If you were a government official, would you have the ability and desire to analyze her performance and pass judgment on whether she deserves to be in such influential positions? Would you be able to explain your opinions with intelligent reasoning?

There may be millions of people around the world who have the intellectual ability to do these type of jobs, but we need to find people who have the emotional qualities that will allow them to do these jobs for the benefit of society rather than for their own selfish interests. Are there enough of these higher quality humans? How many of the people that you personally know would you recommend for one of these government positions? How many of the people that you know would you trust to put aside their selfish desires and pass judgment on which proposals for products, school curriculum, social activities, research proposals, and transportation systems are best for society?

Exxon is trying to solve a problem that many people have been complaining about for decades. Specifically, there are lots of jobs available to develop and build better robots, trains, and devices that analyze DNA, and there are millions of Americans out of work, but most of the unemployed people cannot do the jobs that are available. Most of the American population wants to be actors, lawyers, authors of children's books, advertisers, insurance salesmen, or lottery winners. How do we solve this particular problem of unemployed people who are unable to do the available jobs? Do you think that Exxon is eliminating this problem, doing nothing about it, or making it worse?

In order to make a better society, we need government officials who have the ability to analyze our problems, read proposals on possible improvements, and pass judgment on which of the proposals deserves further consideration or implementation. After a policy is implemented, we need the government officials to analyze the situation to determine if the policy is improving the situation, or whether it is a failure and should be terminated or altered.


To solve a problem, first identify its cause

Exxon is only one of many companies, organizations, and individuals who are trying to encourage more American children to get involved with engineering, but before we can solve this problem we must figure out why the Americans are doing poorly in science and engineering. A problem cannot be solved until we figure out the cause of the problem.

Unfortunately, the world is dominated by people who have no interest in understanding the cause of our problems. The majority of voters do not care about the cause of a problem, either. Actually, I don't think the majority of people even understand the concept that we need to first determine the cause of a problem before we can solve it.

The typical method to solve problems is to create government agencies and spend money. For example, we try to reduce crime by increasing the budget of the police departments or by purchasing more security cameras. Americans try to improve the school system by giving more money to schools, and by creating government agencies and private organizations that have the word "education" somewhere in their title or mission statement. However, our social problems are not due to a lack of money, or a shortage of government agencies, and therefore, money will not solve the problems, and neither will creating more government agencies.

If we had higher quality government officials, then when asked how they would improve the school system or reduce crime, they would not simply promise to create a new agency or increase the budget of some existing agency. Instead, they would explain their analysis of the problem and what they believe the cause of the problem to be, and then they would explain how they think they can reduce or eliminate that cause.

We have been increasing the budgets for schools for decades, and colleges have been increasing their tuitions, and we have been making science classes increasingly entertaining, but these "solutions" have been "failures" for decades. I say that the reason is because the problem is not caused by a lack of money, or because science is boring. I think it is because the American population is breeding themselves into retards, idiots, criminals, and parasites. We are degrading genetically. This problem cannot be solved with money. This problem can be solved only by restricting reproduction and immigration. I think we also need to alter our school system to put more emphasis on preparing children for society and less emphasis on entertaining them and making them memorize facts and figures.


We have enough information to put an end to feminism!

Maria Klawe promotes the feminist philosophy that girls do not do well in engineering or science because of the environment. Exxon promotes the philosophy that women are doing poorly because they need special assistance. When feminists achieve influential positions in society, they try to improve the world by raising girls in the same manner that we raise boys, by creating "affirmative action" programs, and by making science and engineering classes more fun for girls.

However, even though the feminists advocate treating women the same as men, they expect us to provide them with affirmative action programs. These affirmative action programs do not treat women as equals. Rather, they treat women as inferior creatures that needs handouts.

Thousands, maybe millions, of parents during the past few decades have experimented with the feminist philosophy by raising their daughters in the same manner that they raise their sons, and by encouraging their daughters to get involved with science or engineering, but the results have been failures. The girls of today are still behaving exactly like the girls of previous centuries. These decades of experiments have proven that the feminist philosophy is unrealistic.

The environment has a tremendous effect over our opinions, clothing styles, and view of the world, but our personalities are the result of the structure of our brain, and the environment has no control over that structure. Young girls have a strong attraction to dolls simply because their brains have been designed with a strong desire to be a mother. Their attraction to babies has nothing to do with dressing young girls in pink dresses. Likewise, boys are much more interested in exploring the world around them, and they are much better in mechanical and scientific areas simply because of the structure of their brain.

Life is too complicated for us to "figure it out". We must make guesses and then experiment. If we had never experimented with raising girls in a different manner, we would still be wondering what effect the environment has on girls. However, during the past few decades, there have been thousands of experiments on raising children. Parents around the world have been raising children in a variety of different manners, and their results prove that girls and boys are going to behave in a different manner regardless of how they are raised. Young girls have a strong attraction to babies regardless of how their parents raise them, and regardless of their nation, religion, and neighborhood. Boys, as a group, will be better in engineering and mechanical devices regardless of how they are raised.

If we had never experimented with raising girls in a different manner, then the feminists could justify proposing that we change the manner in which boys and girls are raised, but we have already conducted enough experiments to conclusively say that human behavior is the result of genetics, not the environment. The environment affects our view of life, our language, our hairstyles, and the type of foods we eat, but the environment cannot change our personalities or emotions. It doesn't matter how we raise a girl. Girls, as a group, will always be more submissive than boys; they will always have a stronger attraction to babies and human relationships; and they will always be less interested in mechanical devices, exploring the world, and science.

The feminists will often find a very unusual woman who behaves very similar to a man, and they will use her as evidence that men and women are "equals", but we cannot formulate policies for the human race based on the unusual women. There are some very feminine men, also, and there are also Siamese twins, and there is even a baby that has somehow survived for two years even though it doesn't have a brain. When feminists use unusual women to support feminism, they are inadvertently providing more evidence that women cannot think as well as men. How many male scientists have published theories in which they treat an exceptional item as if it were typical?

Do we even want women to behave like men? Who would benefit if men and women were identical in all respects? Would you want women to be as arrogant as men? Would you want women to be as promiscuous as men? Many men, especially teenage boys, might assume that promiscuous women would be exciting, but in reality, it would be a nightmare, and that is the reason nature did not design women to be promiscuous. There are checks and balances between us.

Any species of animal would disintegrate into freaks if the females were as promiscuous as the males. If teenage girls had the same sexual cravings as teenage boys, the girls would be as promiscuous as homosexual men, who have no checks or balances to control their sexual cravings. There would be endless sex, pregnancies, and venereal diseases. Girls would have sex so often and with so many men that they would never have any idea who the father of their children were. And imagine if there was just as many prostitutes for women as there are for men, and just as much pornography. Some women wouldn't be certain if they were getting pregnant from their prostitutes, or from the men that they were having sex with for free.

We have to face the fact that men and women are different, and we have to design society for our differences. The feminists are ruining life for all of us. For example, the feminists expect men to have an interest in babies, but the human race would have gone extinct long ago if men had the same attraction to babies that women have. Who would have found food in prehistoric times if both the mother and father wanted to spend their time taking care of and playing with their baby?

It should be obvious why women evolved with a strong attraction to the way babies look, sound, and smell, whereas men are repelled by babies. The men who survived the competitive struggle for life were those who evolved a desire to go out into the world and support their family. Men prefer to spend their time with other men and the clouds, forests, grass, dirt, and rivers. Women should not expect men to be with them when they give birth, and men should not expect women to have the same interests in life that we have.

If we could measure the emotional reaction that we have to photos, we might find that women are titillated by images of babies to the same extent that men are by pornography.

Women are attracted to babies and children, and they are not much interested in the trees or the creeks. They don't want to explore the world, or study the behavior of wolves, or understand the lifecycle of a tomato plant.

Men have a natural attraction to the outdoors, even the rain and mud. Men love storms, trees, frogs, rainbows, lightning, and everything else about the world around us. Women, by comparison, would rather stay indoors and be with people. Men have to point out to most women that the clouds are beautiful decorations in the sky. Most women don't notice or enjoy the clouds, except during sunsets. Most of them don't seem to enjoy lightning, either.

Women have a lot of curiosity about other people's relationships, but they don't have much curiosity about the world, or even their own bodies. How many women have even looked at their own bodies closely? When I mentioned to one woman that women can bend their ankles farther than men, she argued with me that there is no difference between us. It doesn't take much intelligence to notice that women are more flexible than men. Women have the intelligence to figure this out, but they do not have the desire to analyze human bodies and compare them to one another. They are not interested in exploring, analyzing, or researching. They have the personality of a mother, not a scientist, explorer, or leader.

I think that women, as a group, can also bend their fingers back farther than men, but try telling that to them! They don't notice anything in this gigantic universe except babies, children, and other people's relationships. They have almost no interest in exploring the world, or even exploring their own bodies. I was even surprised to discover that most women have never even noticed how pretty their irises are.

Furthermore, a lot of women don't even want their husband to look closely at them. They don't enjoy being inspected or analyzed. When I was younger, I wondered how scientists acquired so much information about a woman's body. Where did the scientists find women who were willing to hold still for their analyses? Or were they using criminals or dead women?

The reason men have a natural tendency to explore the world is because the men who survived the competitive struggle were those who were most successful at finding food, defending their family from both animals and humans, and who were capable of making tools. The men who didn't like the mud, rain, or winter storms would not have survived very well. The successful men were those who watched the clouds and observed the weather patterns, and who observed the behavior of animals. They would use that knowledge to figure out how to hunt animals, build homes, and grow food. They also observed the characteristics of wood, mud, and rock, and they used that knowledge to transform those materials into tools, clothing, and pottery.

By comparison, the women who survived the competitive struggle were those who had an intense craving for children, and who would keep their house clean. Women have an "irrational" fear of spiders, snakes, and mice for a sensible reason; specifically, the women who didn't fear such creatures didn't survive as well.

Our lives will not improve if men and women become identical to each other. We benefit by being compatible, by taking different roles in life, and by having checks and balances on one another. It would be nice if men were less arrogant, and if women had more curiosity about the world and more intelligence, but we don't have to be identical.

This is similar to the issue of whether all of the different races of humans should interbreed into one race. I don't think life will improve for us if we breed ourselves into one race. If the different races are cooperative and compatible with one another, then the variety can make life more interesting. Each race should be concerned about improving itself, not whining about the other races. The world is not suffering because there are a variety of different human races. Rather, it is suffering because every race is dominated by destructive, parasitic, selfish, and irresponsible people. Every race should clean itself of freaks rather than whine about other races.

It is time to tell the feminists to shut up. We have enough evidence to claim that men and women have different emotions, talents, and limitations. We need to move to the next step, which is understanding our differences and experimenting with changes in society to deal with these differences. For example, in the previous file of this series, I mentioned that I think teenage boys and girls should be separated in different classrooms at school. Unfortunately, we cannot figure out what the best policies should be. At what age should they be separated? Should they be separated in all classes, or only in some classes? Or would it be better to put them into different schools, and allow them together for only certain activities? Nobody is capable of answering these questions. We must be willing to experiment.


We must experiment with jobs, also

As technology becomes more advanced, it becomes increasingly ridiculous to expect children to know what job to train for. We need to make it easier for people to try different jobs. We should change our attitudes towards hiring and firing people so that there is no shame in being fired. Quitting a job, or being fired, should be considered part of the adventure of finding a job that you enjoy and are productive at. The government should help us find jobs, and we should be able to quit a job or fire a person for reasons that would be considered absurd today, such as that we don't like person's personality.
We don't have to live like frightened animals!
This policy puts human life ahead of jobs. In the world today, most people are subservient to their job, and they are frightened at the thought of getting fired. Some people, especially in Japan, are afraid to quit a job. If we change this attitude, and if we design an economic system in which the government helps us to find jobs, then we can be finicky about jobs. Instead of taking whatever job is available and clinging onto that job like the dog in the photo is clinging to a truck during a flood, we would experiment with different jobs to determine which job we perform better at, and which team of people we enjoy being with.

Incidentally, the other dog in that photo is hoping that it will be able to reach up to the bumper of the truck. It is experiencing a similar state of terror as a person who is out of work and hoping to find a job. We don't have to live like those stupid animals. Instead of hoping for a job, we can take control of our society so that we are creating jobs that are useful to society, the schools are training children for the jobs, and the government is helping us to find jobs.

I think that we should offer different working conditions for women, but we cannot figure out what type of working conditions are best for women. We cannot even figure out what is best for men! For example, as I mentioned in one of my other files, I suspect that it would be better if we allowed men to have several part-time jobs instead of pushing every man into having only one, full-time job but, for all I know, that policy will not work well. Or maybe it will only be appropriate for only a small percentage of men who have certain types of jobs.

We must experiment with jobs and working conditions. We also have to experiment with policies for women who have babies. Should women take a few months off from their job in order to be with their baby? Or should they take a few years off? Or would they be happier if they took a few months off, and then were allowed to work at their jobs on a part-time basis?

Beauty products
 
Just because you like something doesn't mean it's acceptable
We like sugar, but that doesn't justify eating it all day, or letting children have unlimited access to it. This concept applies to all human emotions. For example, men are titillated by pornography, but that doesn't justify providing boys or adult men with unlimited access to pornography every day. Imagine two different societies, one in which there is no pornography, and the other in which pornography is freely available to all adults and children. Which society will have the happiest people? Whose relationships will be the most stable? To an observer, the society with access to pornography will seem to be the better society because the men will seem to have much more fun. The boys and adult men will masturbate more often, and they will also have a lot more sex, and they might even have more sex with inanimate objects and animals. However, simply because they're having more sex doesn't mean they're having a better life.

If the issue of pornography doesn't help you understand this concept, consider the issue of awards. Imagine two different societies. One society never gives any types of awards to anybody. The other society has thousands of award ceremonies every day. Every day this society has a wide variety of beauty contests, singing contests, swimming contests, videogame contests, chess contests, and thousands of other contests. There are so many contests that everybody is capable of winning a trophy at least once a week throughout their entire lives.

Imagine everybody in this society entering contests every day and winning an average of one trophy every week. From the point of view of an observer, these people would be much happier than the people who lived in the society that didn't have any awards. These people would be proudly collecting awards every week of their life, but would their lives really be happier than the people in the other society?

If you don't like the trophy example, then imagine one society in which the food is "natural", and the other in which the food is full of artificial flavors and sugar in order to stimulate their sense of taste and smell to a greater extent. Would life be better in the society where the food tastes better?

We simply have to make decisions on what we want the human race to evolve into. Do we want to become a creature that needs pornography in order to enjoy life? Do we want to evolve into a creature that cannot eat food unless it is full of artificial flavors and sugar?

Or, for a more extreme example, imagine one society in which electrodes are implanted into people's brains so that they can stimulate their pleasure centers. Would those people be happier than the people who lived in a society that didn't believe in putting electrodes in their brains?


Do you like the taste of natural food?

Whether natural food tastes good to you depends upon your ability to taste and smell, and the design of your brain. We could classify people who don't like natural foods as defective, and as "unworthy of reproduction", and eventually this will create humans who love the natural foods. Likewise, we could say that men who need pornography in order to enjoy life are inappropriate for reproduction. Eventually this will create men who don't need pornography. We could say that the women who have intense cravings to be the center of attention are unworthy of reproduction. Eventually this will create women who don't have such cravings.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using sweetening agents to counteract the bitterness of certain foods, but this modern world requires that we make a decision on when we are going "too far". We have to decide what we want the human race to become. For example, cotton candy and lollipops are just flavored sugar. Those items are not "food". They are equivalent to "pornography" because they are simply tools to titillate our emotions. They may not be harmful in small quantities, but do we want people to evolve into a creature that needs them on a regular basis? If we restrict reproduction to the people who can enjoy the natural foods, then eventually the human race will not need the artificial stimulants.

The same is true of pornography. It would be better to breed the human race into a creature that is naturally nice-looking, nice-smelling, has a better personality, and is capable of enjoying sex without all of the artificial devices, such as pornography, choking chains, whips, and drugs.


Should women use beauty products?

This concept also applies to the issue of beauty products. We could tell women to be natural, and we could breed humans into a creature in which both the men and women are naturally good looking, have nice personalities, and enjoy each other in their natural state, or we could follow the path we are on right now in which ugly, stinky, and defective people are masking their disorders with surgery, cosmetics, lies, and other tricks, and who are masking their emotional disorders with alcohol or other drugs, or who are so sexually unattractive that they require pornography or drugs in order to get themselves sexually aroused.

Japanese artists have created a style of sexually attractive women, and businesses have responded by making a variety of special contact lenses to allow girls to look more like those cartoon characters, as in the photo below.

The Japanese girl below is wearing special contact lenses.
Incidentally, have you noticed that the drawings of attractive women never look like Jews or Neanderthals?
The contact lenses and other tricks can make some Japanese girls as adorable as cartoons, but how do we benefit from this? Do those girls have a better life? Does it help them to meet men who are more appropriate for them? Does it improve their marriages? Who benefits besides the companies that profit from it?


Real women seem drab

One problem with allowing television, movies, and magazines to show artificially beautiful images of women is that it makes the real women seem drab by comparison. It can also make women feel inadequate. There are now businesses, such as this, offering to provide women with edited photos of themselves, or edited photos of their daughters, to make them appear much more beautiful (such as the photo to the right). I don't see any evidence that these businesses are improving life for any of us.

The people who are running these businesses may truly believe that what they are doing is useful, but I would describe them as exploiting the women who feel inadequate, or who are suffering from low self-esteem. The exploitation may be inadvertent, but inadvertent exploitation is just as bad as deliberate exploitation. The sexual photos of the young girls might even be encouraging child pornography and pedophilia.

People who inadvertently hurt society are dangerous. We should stop allowing stupid and retarded people to get away with abuse and crimes on the grounds that they are stupid or retarded. Susan Burns (in the photo) was recently arrested for once again destroying a painting at a museum. She is convinced that the painting is dangerous, and that she is a CIA agent, and that there is a radio inside of her head. She may truly believe that what she is doing is sensible, but that doesn't make her behavior acceptable. How many more times are we going to allow her to cause trouble? Who benefits by feeling sorry for her?

Likewise, the people who provide astrology predictions, religious sermons, and other idiotic products and services may truly believe that what they are doing is helpful, but that doesn't make their behavior acceptable. We have to pass judgment on people based on their effect on society. We have to ask ourselves such questions as, Is this person improving life for anybody? Or is he a burden on society? Or is he a destructive influence on children or adults? Is this person a flower in our world? Or is he a weed?

From a man's point of view, it is exciting to have a woman who uses cosmetics and contact lenses to become sexually attractive, but does the man's life actually improve as a result? When she wakes up in the morning, or when she gets out of the shower, he is going to see what she really looks like, so what good does the phony image do in the long term?

The Botox injections, hair coloring, makeup, lip injections, false eyelashes, contact lenses, and other cosmetics can make women look beautiful. But when they get wet from swimming or a shower, their makeup washes away and we see what they really are. Do you truly benefit from this deception?
After hours of grooming
As the makeup washes away
It would be better to breed humans into naturally attractive people.

 
Furthermore, women waste up to a few hours every morning in order to create the illusion that they are attractive. If they would remain in their natural state, they would have more time every morning for more useful activities. Who benefits when women waste several hours every morning on beauty products?

We all want to live a longer life, but each of us would be able to get more life if we reduced the amount of life that we wasted. Some women would have have an extra couple hours of life each day if they stopped wasting their time on beauty products. Imagine two societies, one in which the women are natural, and the other in which they all waste several hours a day on beauty products. The society with the beauty products would also have to waste time producing those products. The people without the beauty products would have more time for more useful activities.


Children do not need "beauty products"

Women have a strong emotional craving to make themselves look pretty. Their emotions give them the false impression that their natural condition is not good enough; that they must do something to make themselves look better. In prehistoric times, this craving caused them to keep themselves and their clothing clean and attractive, but today businesses exploit their emotions by encouraging them to purchase enormous amounts of beauty products and services.
By constantly exposing children to artificially beautiful women, we are causing women to suffer from low self-esteem, and we encourage the women to compete with artificially beautiful women. However, it is impossible for a woman to compete with artificial beauty. A real woman will never look as nice as an edited photograph, and they will never be as flawless as a fabricated woman, such as the woman in the photograph to the right, which is actually an artist's creation. It must be especially depressing for the Jews and the Neanderthal women to be constantly exposed to images of pretty women who look nothing like their own species.

Businesses have convinced most women that they must use some of their products in order to look pretty, and the end result is that most women waste a lot of time and resources in an attempt to look pretty. The women with straight hair are curling it; and the women with curly hair are straightening it; and no matter what color their hair is, they are changing it. Women have even been convinced that they must do something to their eyelashes in order to look pretty, such as curling them or applying black paste to them.

Businesses could be described as abusive and disgusting, especially when they convince young girls that they must use these products. If you are unfamiliar with what some young girls are doing today, here are two videos you might find interesting:

This girl is naturally pretty, but she has been convinced that she has to do these beauty treatments each morning.
I am impressed by this young girl's initiative to make educational videos, but she should encourage girls to be natural.
Men should prepare young girls for society, not exploit them. Unfortunately, our free enterprise system is favoring the men who are the best at making money, not the men who are the best at providing guidance. As a result, our society is dominated by men who exploit us.

Businesses have fooled people, especially women, into believing that their life will become better with jewelry and beauty products, but those items cannot improve a person's life. We need to alter society so that the people in leadership positions are more intelligent and provide guidance rather than take advantage of us.


Without peasants, who will make beauty products?

If we were to eliminate the peasant class, and if we decide to produce beauty products, then we have to decide who among us will work in the factories to produce the tattoo dies, eyelash curlers, body piercings, and other items. Do you want to spend any of your time creating cosmetics for children? Do you want to spend any of your life working on an assembly line to produce eyelash curlers? What type of beauty products are you willing to help produce?

When you have to share in the production, cleanup, and recycling of products, you will quickly come to the conclusion that many of them are unnecessary, and some are detrimental. By comparison, when illegal aliens or Chinese laborers are producing these products for us, we may not notice that many of them are unnecessary or idiotic.

Even if we had robots, I don't think we should produce many beauty products. My personal preference is for men and women to be "natural". I don't think the beauty products improve life for either men or women, and I think it is especially wasteful to produce them for children. Actually, I suspect that they have a detrimental effect on our lives.

I think life would be better in a society without the beauty products. The people would have more time for other activities because they wouldn't have to waste time and resources producing beauty products, applying lipstick, hair creams, fingernail polish, toenail polish, and other cosmetics, or cleaning the lipstick from drinking glasses. Furthermore, I think that women's attitudes towards life and relationships would be better without the beauty products because they would form relationships while in their "natural state" rather than believing that they must create an artificial image of themself in order to attract a husband. Beauty products make women feel inadequate and encourage them to deceive men.

When designing a new economic system, especially one without a peasant class, we should analyze the advantages and disadvantages of all products and services. For example, should we produce electricity? The production of electricity requires a lot of time and resources. However, the benefits are phenomenal, so I would say that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. By comparison, how do we benefit by producing false eyelashes?


What do you want the human race to become?

Almost all our products could be classified as "worthless". For example, we don't need clothing with colors or decorations. Everybody could wear purely functional shoes and clothing, similar to what Chairman Mao was forcing the Chinese to wear. Likewise, there is no reason for us to produce decorative meals, or even grow a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. We could save a lot of time and resources by providing ourselves with a food product that is easier to produce, such as a nutritious paste made from algae. We don't need to live in decorative homes, either. We could provide ourselves with plain, purely functional buildings, just like we do for chickens, cows, and other animals.

Once the human race decides to take control of its culture, we have to make a lot of decisions about which products and services we want to offer ourselves, and we have to keep in mind that our decisions are going to affect the future of human evolution. When we change society, we change who among us will be successful, who will be a misfit, and who will be a criminal.

When we encourage women to deceive men by coloring their hair, having cosmetic surgery, and other tricks, then we are assisting those deceptive women in the competitive struggle for men. I think it would be much better to let the human race evolve into a creature in which everybody is naturally good-looking and healthy. In the world today, the majority of people are embarrassed, ashamed, or unhappy with themselves, and many people are bitter, envious, angry, and resentful. It would be better to create a world in which everybody is happy with themselves and others. We should not encourage deception.

When we encourage attractive clothing and decorative meals, and when we encourage the production of a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and meats, then we will cause the human race to evolve into a creature that likes this particular lifestyle. However, I don't see any harm in people who enjoy that particular life.

We have to decide what we want humans to evolve into. If we promote decorative homes, then we will cause the human race to evolve into a creature that likes decorative homes. Promoting beauty products will encourage the human race to evolve into a creature that doesn't like itself, and spends hours every day trying to change its appearance. Promoting pornography, prostitution, strip clubs, and the use of dogs as a substitute for a friend will cause the human race to evolve into an anti-social freak who cannot form stable friendships or marriages, and who cannot be sexually satisfied without artificial stimulation.


Who benefits from beauty products?

We can easily justify producing hair brushes, combs, and deodorants, but we don't need to put enormous amounts of engineering talent, resources, and labor into these products. We need only a few simplistic beauty products. For example, deodorants can be made with baking soda, and jewelry can be made with glass and plastic rather than diamonds and rubies.

If jewelry, cosmetics, body piercings, hair dyes, and other types of beauty products were beneficial to us, then we should be able to find lots of evidence of their value because beauty products have been increasing in popularity over the past century. If they have a benefit to human life, then we would be able to see some improvments in human life during the past century as a result of the beauty products. But what has improved? Have the beauty products improved our marriages? Have they helped women to have more satisfying relationships with their children or with other women? Who is benefiting from these products?

I don't think these beauty products are improving life for men or women, and especially not for young girls, and especially not for young girls that are naturally pretty, such as the girl in the photo to the right. Watch her video. Do those beauty products make her prettier? I don't think so. I think beauty products make women look stupid. Her fingernail polish doesn't improve her image, either.
Update: she no longer provides access to her videos, but you can search for others like this.

I think these products are increasing in popularity simply because humans follow one another without ever wondering where they have been and where they are going. Women follow one another more than men do, and women don't think as well or as often, and so they have a greater chance of wandering off onto a ridiculous path and never wondering where they are going.
 


Some women have become carried away with trying to be as beautiful as the artificial women. For example, the 15-year-old Caucasian girl in the photo to the right is so fascinated by the Japanese cartoon characters that she not only tries to look like one, but she even speaks like a Japanese cartoon!

The beauty products can make the girls look prettier in photos and videos, but that is because the resolution is so low. As soon as you get close to one of those girls, you realize that their beauty is a result of makeup, contact lenses, false eyelashes, certain camera angles, special lighting, and other tricks.


 
The low resolution of television makes it possible for women to become much prettier with beauty products and special lighting. Since the television programs have to compete with one another, they are all under pressure to make their women look as attractive as possible. They are competing to create the most artificially beautiful women. Who benefits from this type of competition?

In Part 2 of this series I pointed out that we should add restrictions to courtship. I think we should also have restrictions on when women can dress and behave in sexually provocative manners. This type of behavior should be restricted to the activities designed for such behavior. Women should not be doing this on ordinary television shows, at school, or while working at their jobs. I think it would be better if women were more natural during most of the activities and restricted their sexual behavior to their home and to the social activities where it is appropriate, such as during courtship or weddings.


Without beauty products, all women become equal

It would be difficult for a woman today to avoid beauty products because she would be looked upon as a misfit. Other women would criticize her, and the men would wonder why she is different from the other women. The men might assume that she is a lesbian, or anti-social, or rebellious.

However, if we did not produce hair dyes, cosmetics, lipstick, hair curlers, and other beauty products, or if we did not allow beauty products for daily use, then none of the women would have beauty products, and this would make all of them equal. The women would continue to compete with one another for the attention of the men, but they would have to compete in their "natural state" rather than struggling to make themselves artificially prettier with beauty products.

Most women have dark hair, and so businesses exploit that situation by promoting the nonsense that "Blondes have more fun". This is causing an enormous number of women with dark hair to lighten their hair color. These women assume that they are becoming prettier by lightening their hair, but I think it makes them look stupid. For one reason, their eyebrows and body hair are still dark, which creates a mismatch, and for another reason, as soon as their hair starts to grow, the dark roots are very obvious, and I find that to be unattractive. I especially dislike the visual effect created by bleaching black hair. I don't think the resulting hair looks "blonde". Rather, I think it has a very unnatural, unappealing color, and the black roots make it especially ugly. If most women had blonde hair, then the businesses would sell hair dyes with the slogan, "Brunettes have more fun!"

When I was a child, the women believed that they needed red fingernail polish, but today they have been fooled into thinking that they need all sorts of different colors, and lots of different patterns. I don't think they are becoming prettier with fingernail polish. Rather, I think their fingers are prettier in their natural state. Our fingernails have different shades of pink and white, and I think that is prettier than fingernail polish.

Most women assume that they benefit from beauty products, but where is the evidence that any woman is having a better life or a better marriage because of cosmetics? I don't think cosmetics are even helping the ugly women. I don't think anybody is truly benefiting by allowing women to change the color of their hair, or to straighten their curly hair, or to curl their straight hair. I don't even think that women benefit when they color their gray hair. Gray hair makes a person look older, but if there were no hair dyes, then everybody's hair would turn gray with age, so everybody would be equal. Some people would become gray earlier, but so what?

There is an enormous number of American women who are upset that they have gray hair because they are still single and struggling to find a spouse, but the solution to this problem is not to try to look younger. The solution is to create a more homogenous, more sensible society, that provides men and women with lots of activities to meet and get to know one another. We need to improve society and our relationships, not deceive one another.

I think the paranoia of gray hair, wrinkles, and other symptoms of old age is evidence that life today is lonely and miserable for most people. Most people are terrified at the thought of growing old. I think the reason is because they never really enjoyed their life. When they see themselves showing signs of old-age, they are reminded that their life has been a lonely, miserable waste. Many people react to old-age by trying to counteract it with Botox injections, cosmetic surgery, hair dyes, or other beauty products, but this is not the solution to the problem. The solution is to modify society so that more people have a happier life.

The people who are lonely or suffering from low self-esteem will not fix their problems by altering their physical appearance. They will not improve their life with lipstick, body piercings, or false eyelashes. It is true that cosmetic surgery and beauty products can make a person more visually attractive, especially at a distance or on television, and it is possible for a people to deceive a person into becoming their friend or spouse, but deceptive relationships will not be very satisfying. It would be better to find somebody who likes us for what we really are. A woman is not forming a stable relationship if her husband is attracted to the illusion that she has created for herself. A woman should find a man who is truly attracted to her in her natural state.

With flowers and animals, the visual appearance is all that matters, but with human men, the visual appearance of a female is only useful in attracting our attention. There may be some emotionally disturbed men who will marry a woman simply because she is attractive, but most of us want to talk to the woman and get to know her. When we talk to a woman, we interact with her mind. If we don't like her mind, we will avoid her, even if she is beautiful. Her visual image can attract our attention, but it is her mind that causes a relationship to form.

Women are fooling themselves to think that they can find a better spouse with beauty products. They will have better success finding a compatible spouse when they meet lots of men and interact with them. It is that interaction - not beauty products - that will help us find satisfying friends and spouses.


Men are no longer providing leadership to women

Businesses are exploiting women's craving to look pretty, and most men are either silent about this abuse, or they are working for a business that exploits the women. I wonder if the reason most men are silent is because they are afraid of losing their wives. In prehistoric times, women were submissive simply because they realized that they needed a man to take care of them and their children, but in modern society, women don't need men, and so the situation has reversed itself. Men are becoming submissive to the women.

Men need to stand up to the women and provide them with guidance, but how many men can do that? Most of the men can't even take care of themselves. I mentioned in a previous file that the corrupt police officers are not going to be respected, and the same concept applies to men. Women are not going to look to men for guidance when the men are having trouble dealing with life. The men have to earn their position as leaders for women; they cannot demand that women obey them.


Judge something by its effect on life, not whether you like it 

Our natural tendency is to judge everything by how it affects our emotions. For example, men are attracted to pornography, children are attracted to candy, and women are attracted to beauty products. We assume that the items that we are attracted to are good for us, but we can't judge something by whether our emotions are attracted or repelled by it. We have to look at how it affects our life.

Everybody realizes that providing children with large amounts of candy is going to hurt them. Candy can only be justified when access to it is so restricted that it becomes an "unusual treat". Candy has no value other than providing us with some variety in life.

The same concepts apply to pornography. Men have been looking at pornography for decades, so we have lots of experimental data to look through. Have the men who have looked at pornography benefited from it? Have the men who did not have much access to pornography suffer as a result of their deprivation? How has pornography improved life for women? I haven't seen any evidence that it is helping anybody. Some men might respond that pornography helped them learn about sex, but that doesn't justify pornography. That justifies improving our school system and providing children with a better sex education.

Women have a strong craving to look pretty, and so they have a strong attraction to all types of beauty products. They assume that because they are attracted to beauty products, then the beauty products must be good for them. However, we have to look at the effect these beauty products have on life. During the past century, women have been increasing their use of beauty products so, if beauty products are beneficial, we should see a continuous improvement in human life over the past century that is directly attributable to the beauty products. However, where is the evidence that the women using beauty products have a better life than the women who use fewer or none at all?


Beauty products should be for fun, not deception

I think beauty product should be in the same category as candy. Specifically, they can be entertaining once in a while, but they should not be a part of daily life. For example, women could use cosmetics, jewelry, and costumes during holidays, weddings, festivals, and certain types of social affairs because in those particular situations the women would be using those products for fun and variety, not as a daily attempt to deceive people about their true qualities.

I don't think men or women should be using beauty products while they are at their job, or while they are at home. I think they're wasting their time with these products, and wasting society's resources. The businesses are fooling women into thinking that their most important quality is their visual image. Contrary to popular belief, whether a woman is attractive or not depends mainly upon her personality, and her visual appearance is secondary. Beauty products will not improve her personality, her intelligence, or her talents.

Men and women select a spouse for slighty different reasons. Women want a man to take care of them and their family, but men don't need a woman for financial or emotional support. A man wants a wife to be a pleasure in his life. As a result, women may be able to attract a man's attention with beauty products, but as soon as we talk to a woman, we interact with her mind, and if we don't enjoy her personality or her intellect, it won't make any difference how pretty she is. All of us men meet pretty women on a regular basis that we do not want to marry.

There are lots of visually attractive women who are turning men away with their angry, nasty personality, or their idiotic remarks about feminism, astrology, religion, women's intuition, or politics. A sex robot is more appealing than a woman with a low quality mind because the robot doesn't irritate us with idiotic remarks or demands.

The feminists often make accusations that men do not like intelligent women, but those women are simply angry and frustrated that they don't have a stable marriage. Rather than face the possibility that they are undesirable, they prefer to believe that they are the intelligent women, and that men prefer stupid women.


What would happen if we had no privacy at all?

In a previous section of this article I provided this link to a young girl who shows us what she does each morning to prepare for school. That video actually shows only a small portion of what she does each morning. The video does not show her waking up and getting out of bed, getting dressed, or using the toilet. Imagine what would happen if everybody was living in a world in which security cameras were everywhere, including bathrooms and bedrooms, and if all of the video was streaming on the Internet for everybody to watch. In such a case, we would not have to watch edited videos of what young girls do in the morning. Instead, we would be able to watch the streaming video that shows what they truly do. What do you think the effect would be to have this video available to the public?

Initially there would be a tremendous fascination, and people would spend a lot of time watching the videos. There would be a significant increase in masturbation among men, and especially teenage boys. However, as the months passed, most people would grow accustomed to the video images and start to lose interest. Most people would soon realize that everybody is doing virtually the same activities every morning, afternoon, evening, and night. They would start to realize that there are only subtle differences between us, and they would grow tired of watching the same things over and over and over. How many times do you think you can watch Queen Elizabeth sitting on the toilet? How many times do you think you can watch Barbara Streisand having sex on her hands and knees like an animal, or however she and her husband do it?

Watching other people would be interesting for a while, but if you were living in the City of Castles in which you had friends and activities, you would eventually realize that it is more fun to spend your evenings with them rather than to sit in front of a monitor and watch other people.

Most people assume that if our privacy was eliminated, our society would break down, but removing privacy simply puts us back in time to the type of life that our distant ancestors had. Animals do not have privacy, and our distant ancestors did not have privacy, either. When the girls a million years ago woke up in the morning, they did not have pajamas, bedrooms, bathrooms, or showers. Like an animal, they woke up naked, and everything they did during the day would have been in front of other people. Everybody knew what everybody's body looked like, and how everybody behaved. Everybody knew how many times people were picking their nose, masturbating, and peeing. Do you think the people thousands of years ago spent their time watching one another?

Animals do not care about privacy. They will do everything in front of other animals without shame or embarrassment. They are only cautious when they are pooping, but not because they are embarrassed of it. Rather, it is because they are vulnerable to attack while pooping. Animals have no embarrassment of poop, pee, or vaginas. In fact, many of them enjoy smelling each other's crotch, and some of them enjoy rolling around in, or eating, poop.

As monkeys evolved into humans, they eventually reached a state of development at which they began growing tired of looking at one another's filthy crotch and smelling their poop. They started to develop what we refer to as "manners", or rules of etiquette. They began the custom of wearing a piece of animal skin to cover their crotch, and they began putting pressure on one another to poop and pee outside of the area that they were living in. A few thousand years ago, when people began settling into permanent homes, they began restricting certain activities to bathrooms or bedrooms. The reason is because people grew tired of seeing other people pooping, peeing, having sex, picking their nose, masturbating, and giving birth.

I think it is important for you to look at history and see how humans developed, and why we have the culture we have. Don't go through life as a fish, never wondering where you were or where you are going. There is nothing evil about nudity, breast-feeding, masturbation, picking your nose, or any of our bodily functions. However, we don't enjoy watching them. People assume that we have privacy because we need privacy, but we have privacy because we want privacy. We don't need it.

If we were to remove privacy, there would be an initial excitement, but it would quickly fade away, and people would soon start demanding privacy. We don't want to watch other people doing certain activities. The paranoia that people are going to watch you is ridiculous. We don't want to watch you in the bathroom! We don't want to watch you pick your nose, either, and we do not want to smell your poop.

The human race is entering a technically advanced era that requires everybody on the planet be able to cooperate and work together. Our lives are changing, and we must be capable of discussing the issues we face, such as euthanasia, nudity, privacy, sex, masturbation, abortion, alcoholism, and religion. We need to analyze our history so that we can get a better understanding of how our culture developed, and we need to be able to experiment with changes to our culture. The proper way to deal with nudity, euthanasia, and other issues is to talk about them, not react with fear or hysteria.

Unfortunately, none of the people in leadership positions in any society have the ability to discuss these issues in public, and no schools are capable of teaching children about these issues. Some schools have what they refer to as "sex education", but I don't think they are providing a useful education about sexual issues. I never hear intelligent discussions about sexual issues, euthanasia, abortion, or religion among any school officials, government officials, or business leaders.


Evict the mentally ill, don't be afraid of them

I should point out that it's possible that if we were to completely eliminate privacy by installing security videos in our bathrooms and bedrooms that stream video to the Internet, that some people would never get tired of watching those videos. The reason I say this is because during the past 10 years I have been pestered incessantly by freaks, mostly Jews, and I wonder if some of them are so much like an animal that they would never grow tired of watching the videos of us in our bathrooms and bedrooms.

Peggy Borger, for example, is still calling me, mailing idiotic, nonsensical greeting cards and letters, and sending me e-mail messages, and so are some of the other freaks. It is possible that some of these freaks would spend their entire lives watching us in the bathrooms. However, the proper reaction to these sub-human creatures is not to be afraid that they are watching us. Rather, we should set standards for behavior and evict the people who don't fit into our society. Don't react to problems with fear or hysteria. React by looking for sensible solutions.

Did you look at those e-mail messages that I received from some freak who refers to himself as Lyndon LaRouche? Notice that like so many of the other freaks who contact me, he makes a remark about my "bung hole". These criminals seem to have a fascination with anal sex and butts. If you think that I might be overly sensitive to the issue, take a look at the e-mail messages that you have sent and received. How many of your messages have lewd or idiotic (as opposed to serious) remarks about butts or anal sex? How can these creatures even be referred to as "humans"? Do you behave like the type of people who are pestering me?

While I'm on the issue of butts, I will update my remarks about the "liquid farts". I have been paying more attention to this and now I wonder if there are two types of liquid. The rare type is when a lot of liquid comes out, and that might be digestive fluids. That liquid has a chemical or metallic type of smell. However, that does not happen very often. The more common occurrence is the one that feels as if a liquid has come out, but you cannot find any liquid... unless you check within a second or two of doing it. My conclusion now is that there is actually a small amount of liquid, but it is so small that it evaporates quickly. Also, it feels slightly oily, and it has a nice smell. This makes me wonder if it comes from some type of scent gland, or if it is a lubricant with a scent.

Although we all want privacy, it would be useful if scientists had access to all information about humans. By observing our behavior, including our bathroom behavior, we would eventually get a better idea of what is causing allergies, digestive problems, sleep disorders, and who knows what else we might discover. We have to study humans the same way we study animals and plants. We have to stop being embarrassed and ashamed of ourselves and find out what we are, and how we are affected by foods, weather conditions, pollen, dust, and other environmental factors.


Who suffers when women are "natural"?

The women of previous centuries did not shave their legs or armpits. How do the women today benefit by shaving their legs and armpits? Were our ancestors suffering because women's bodies were in their "natural" state? Would any of us suffer if the women today were also natural? Do women today have better friendships or better marriages, as a result of shaving their body hair?

I think that women are wasting their time and society's resources by shaving their body hair. Furthermore, the hair under our arms prevents our skin from rubbing against itself, and so women would be more comfortable if they had hair under their arm.

A lot of men might assume that life would become dull and dreary if women had hairy legs and armpits, but men have survived for thousands of years with women in their natural state, and I don't think they suffered. I don't see how stubble under their armpit is better than hair. Besides, women don't have much hair on their body, and their hair is thin and soft.

I suspect that the female trolls are the primary group of people throughout history who have been interested in shaving their body hair, as well as using perfumes, jewelry, and other beauty products to improve their appearance. I think the reason is because they are ugly, stinky, and have unattractive personalities, and so they have been increasing their chances of attracting a man by trying to become more sexually stimulating. They also seem to be more promiscuous, but I don't think it is because they enjoy sex more than human women. Rather, I think it is because they are so unattractive that have to offer sex in order to attract a man.

I think we should force women to be more natural. The men would eventually get accustomed to the natural look, and this would also allow us to determine which women are naturally more beautiful. We could then restrict reproduction to the people who are naturally the most attractive. When we allow ugly people to breed, we are torturing the future generations.

In the world today, it seems that the majority of people do not like the way they look or smell. Most people waste a lot of their time in attempts to be more attractive. During 2011, chin implants became the fastest growing cosmetic surgical procedure. Every year there is more cosmetic surgery for both men and women, and it is also increasing for teenagers. If we continue on this path, the human race will evolve into a creature that is so ugly, stinky, and disgusting that everybody will be having cosmetic surgery all throughout their lives, and beauty products will be among the biggest of businesses.

We are hurting the human race when we allow ugly people to breed. We assume that we are being nice to the ugly people, but in reality we are bringing more people into this world who hate themselves and want to put themselves through painful surgical procedures and hide themselves with cosmetics.

It would be much better for the human race if we were naturally attractive. Imagine if you were born in a future society in which virtually everybody is naturally healthy, attractive, nice smelling, intelligent, and talented. You would be grateful that your ancestors were restricting reproduction, and you would look at the 21st century with horror. Our era would seem to be full of miserable, fat, ugly, and deformed people who dislike themselves.


Women are inadvertently stimulating us

The natural tendency of both men and women is to cover their crotch, and to avoid bending over in front of other people. During prehistoric times, this policy made sense, but today our emotions are inappropriate. An example is when we go to a beach or a lake. Most people assume that nudity at the beach would be sexually stimulating, but women are actually more sexually stimulating in certain types of clothing than they are naked. A naked woman is attractive only when she is reclining, or laying on her back. That is when her breasts look attractive, and we cannot see her big, flabby butt. When women are bending over, their breasts hang like cow utters, and when they are standing, their big butt is very unattractive.

If we could measure the sexual stimulation of different images of women, I think we would find that the image of a reclining woman is the most sexually stimulating. Women in bikinis laying on their back is more stimulating to men than bacon sizzling in a frying pan is to a hungry person. It is actually a good thing that so many women are fat and ugly because it would be difficult for teenage boys to deal with a beach full of beautiful young girls.

The bacon seems dull next to these women.
Women assume that being naked at a beach would be more sexually stimulating than wearing bathing suits, but in reality, they would be much less attractive if they were naked at the beaches, and they would especially dampen a man's sexual cravings by showing him their big, flabby butt, and by bending over in front of him to dangle their breasts like cow utters.

Unlike animals, humans do not have sex from the rear, and so male humans are not attracted to the rear end of a female. We are attracted to a female who is laying on her back. I think the reason high-heeled shoes are stimulating to men is because it puts the woman's feet into the position of a woman who is reclining on her back. For the same reason, we are attracted to round breasts that look soft, not breasts that dangle like cow utters.

Men have been selecting the women who do not bend over in front of people, and who do not have breasts that dangle. Men have been picking out the women that we find sexually attractive. The end result is that women evolved with the emotional desires to do what men find sexually attractive. This creates the ridiculous situation that we find at beaches. Specifically, the women foolishly follow their emotions, which is to cover their crotch and breasts, and they assume that they have these cravings because nudity is bad or sexually stimulating. However, in reality, what they are doing is making themselves even more sexually stimulating. When women do what their emotions want them to do, they are doing what men find appealing. In order to reduce the sexual stimulation at the beaches, they have to stop following their stupid emotions and start doing what they don't want to do, which is to be naked.

Earlier I mentioned that the freaks who pester me seem to have an abnormal attraction to anal sex and butts, so it is possible that they would become sexually excited by a woman's naked butt, and they may even be excited by breasts that dangle like cow utters. However, this does not justify wearing bathing suits at the beach. Rather, this is more evidence that we need to create a more homogenous society. We should not mix the anal-loving trolls with us humans.


We dislike nudity to be polite, not because nudity is dangerous

Women's emotions were intended for a prehistoric life, not this modern world. For example, their craving to hide their crotch developed simply as "etiquette" or "manners". In prehistoric times, this craving could not get out of control because clothing was very crude, and there was no privacy. Today, however, we have the technology to allow people to get carried away with their paranoia of nudity. We have so much clothing that we can keep people completely covered in clothing from the time they are born to the time they die. And we have lots of privacy today because of all of the buildings, bathrooms, and bedrooms.

We are creating problems for ourselves by raising children in an environment in which they don't know what human bodies look like, and have no understanding of what sex is. Many children do not even know if their body is "normal" because they don't know what other children look like. We are also creating unnecessary sexual curiosity in boys by not letting them see what women look like, and not letting them know what sex is.

By preventing boys from seeing naked girls, and by preventing them from knowing about sex, we encourage an abnormal curiosity about women's bodies and sex. The teenage boys do not benefit from this! I don't know what life is like today for children, but when I grew up, the American society was much more prudish, and so most of us boys had no idea what girls looked like. Many of us had to look in the underwear section of the Sears and Roebuck catalog to see what girls looked like.

The people who follow their emotions like a stupid animal will come to the conclusion that nudity is dangerous for both children and adults, and that awareness about sex will harm children, but our emotional inhibitions about nudity and sex are intended for a prehistoric life. We cannot follow our emotions today. People must think more often.

Our prehistoric ancestors didn't have much clothing, and there were no bathrooms or walls to hide people from one another. As a result, nudity was common, even though the people tried to keep their crotch hidden. The children grew up around nudity, and they also grew up around adults having sex. Today we have lots of clothing, bathrooms, and private bedrooms. Our inhibitions about nudity are too extreme for this modern world. People are getting carried away with their craving to cover their bodies and hide themselves when they have sex. The end result is that children are growing up without a good understanding of what human bodies look like, or what sex is. Nudity does not hurt children, and neither does sex.

In prehistoric times, a woman's craving to look pretty was sensible because it caused the women to keep their hair, body, and clothing clean, but today the women are using modern technology to go to ridiculous extremes with cosmetics, shaving of hair, cosmetic surgery, and Botox injections.

How extreme do the women have to be before the men come to the conclusion that the women have gone too far? If you are a man, do you approve of women who have surgery on their toes so that they can fit into high-heeled shoes? At what point are the men going to come to the conclusion that the men need to control their sexual cravings, and that the women need to stop trying to transform themselves into sex toys?

I think it would be much better if women were more natural. Men were designed for women who have hair under their arms, for example. If we were to force women to leave the hair under their arm, would simply be creating the environment that we were designed for. When women shave their hair, they are doing something that is unnatural. Do we really benefit from that? I don't think men benefit, and I don't think the women benefit, either.

You might respond that it is unnatural for men to shave their beards, but we are not shaving our beards in order to titillate a woman's sexual emotions. A beard used to be functional, especially in cold climates. Today beards are unnecessary.


Expose children to nudity and sex before they care about it

Our primitive ancestors grew up around nudity and sex, so boys and girls learned about human bodies and sex before they had any sexual cravings of their own. By the time they were ready to have sex, they knew what it was. By comparison, the teenage boys today are growing up ignorant about some sexual issues, and in some cases, they are picking up idiotic attitudes from advertisements, television, and pornography. I think modern society is creating awkwardness and confusion about sex.

I can see the confusion in my own life. For example, there were a few months during elementary school when a few boys thought it was funny to pinch our nipples. That gave me an unpleasant view of touching nipples, and as a result, it never occurred to me that women might enjoy having their nipples squeezed. I would have been afraid to put pressure on a woman's nipples because of the memories of how it hurts boys. If I had not heard a woman tell me that she enjoys it, I never would have known.

It's interesting to consider that boys could figure this issue out on their own. The reason is that women must nurse babies, and therefore, we could conclude that women must have nipples that are tough enough to withstand the biting of a baby, and furthermore, women must receive some type of pleasure from nursing or they never would tolerate it. Unfortunately, we cannot expect teenage boys to figure out the evolution of a human female.

It is not sensible to expect children to figure out sex. The issue of nipples is only one of many aspects of men and women that is not obvious. Schools should provide us with information about the world, and prepare us for society, including preparing us for marriage and sex.

I suspect that it would be better if children learned about human bodies, childbirth, and sex while they were too young to care about such issues. And I think they should be exposed to nudity so that they have a good understanding of what human bodies look like. When the boys become teenagers, they should have such an excellent understanding of what different girls look like that they won't waste their time trying to figure out what is under their clothing. And when they become married, they will have enough information about women's bodies and sex to enjoy sex rather than suffer awkwardness and confusion.


What is the purpose of a bathing suit?

It makes sense to tell people to cover their crotch with clothing when they are sitting on furniture because that part of our body is messy, but when people are at an area that doesn't have any furniture, such as a lake, park, or ocean, what is the purpose of a bathing suit? Is it simply to cover the crotch so that we don't have to look at it? Is it simply to improve our visual appearance? If so, why do we allow men to go barefoot? Perhaps it's just me, but I think a man's feet are ugly, and people's feet get uglier with age. And women who have been wearing pointed or high-heeled shoes for decades have disgusting feet, also.

If we are going to make people wear bathing suits on the grounds that we don't like the visual appearance of a crotch, why not also make people wear "bathing socks" to hide their ugly feet? Furthermore, a lot of people have ugly faces. Actually, I think some people have a face that is uglier than their body. For example, I think Borat's butt (in the photo) is better looking than his face. Why not tell the ugly people to wear "bathing hoods"? Consider how much nicer looking people like Borat and Henry Kissinger would be at a beach if they were wearing a bathing suit, bathing socks, and a bathing hood.


A bathing suit will not hide your ugliness

I wonder if the primary reason so many adults resist nudity is because they are ashamed or embarrassed of their body. This is actually an important issue for society to deal with. Many people are fat, ugly, or deformed, and they believe that they look better in a bathing suit. However, if you are ugly, a bathing suit is not going to fool anybody into thinking that you are nice-looking. A bathing suit can cover your crotch, which nobody wants to look at, but you are still just as ugly.

The same concept applies to clothing. It is not your body that determines whether you are attractive or repulsive. Your face and personality are the most significant. People like Henry Kissinger are ugly even in attractive clothing because their ugly face is exposed, and their awful personality remains just as disgusting.

Nudity actually has an advantage at the beach because it allows us to see who has a better body, and that can help us decide who should reproduce. Eventually the human race will become naturally nice-looking.

We should not design society according to the miserable, unhappy people who are ashamed of themselves. The world we live in today could be described as sad and psychotic. The world today is dominated by people who are ashamed of their body, medical history, job performance, school records, and everything else about their life. They essentially want to edit their lives, remove the unpleasant aspects, and give us a distorted view of what they really are. They don't want us to know the truth about them. They don't like themselves, and they want to hide their true qualities from us. They want to deceive us. This is a miserable situation.

The human race is on the wrong path. We should not be encouraging deception, shame, or embarrassment. We should be creating a group of people who love life, are proud of themselves, and enjoy other people.

I don't think society should waste its money on bathing suits for young children. Who benefits by providing them with bathing suits? When they are very young, they don't care about nudity. I think it would be better to make them go naked so that they get a thorough understanding of what human bodies look like.

It might even be best to force adults to be naked at beaches and swimming pools. We would have to experiment to find out which policy is better. Our ancestors were naked when they were swimming, and when they played sports, and they survived. Is nudity really harmful? We ought to experiment to see if life becomes a bit more pleasant when we allow nudity while swimming.


Who will provide the sex education material?

There is no concern yet for who is writing our school textbooks, who becomes the president of the college, or whether the teachers are being honest about 9/11, the world wars, or the Apollo Moon landing. We are allowing criminals, psychos, and freaks to get into our school system and use it to make money and manipulate children.

If the freaks who pester me were creating sex education material, there would probably be a lot of emphasis on anal sex, homosexuality, and sex with animals. We need to be more finicky about who is influencing our educational materials. Have you seen this article about how Hollywood seems to have a fascination with sacrificial murder and doomsday plots? We need to be more concerned about the quality of people in the media.


How do we determine the best policy for sex and nudity?

As with school systems, we cannot figure out what the best policy would be. We must be willing to experiment. If we were to build different, semi-independent cities, as I have described in other files, then one city could try an experiment in which they don't provide the women with any type of beauty products, and another city might want to experiment with encouraging nudity at lakes and beaches.

We can't assume that we know what is best. Furthermore, we cannot judge a policy according to whether we "like" the policy. We have to look at its effect on life. For example, we may not "like" the idea of women with hairy legs and hairy armpits, but we might find that this policy is more comfortable overall for both men and women. We have to stop trying to satisfy our emotions and start looking at what makes our life better overall, and what is best for the human race. Just because we like something doesn't mean we should do it.

We cannot simply eat whatever foods that titillate us the most; we have to use our intelligence to influence our diet. We cannot spend each day in whatever activity we please, either. We sometimes have to clean up after ourselves and do some productive work. We have to control ourselves. The people who want to live like animals and follow their emotions are out of place today. The human race must evolve into a creature that thinks more often and is capable of controlling its emotions.

How high should standards of behavior be?
 
When are we going to stop monarchies and nepotism?
As I mentioned in the section about marriage, after Obama announced his support of gay marriage, some news sites gave worldwide publicity to Bristol Palin's comments on the issue. 
There are billions of people in the world, and many of them have something intelligent to say about gay marriage, but the news reporters promote the same people over and over, such as Bristol Palin, Lady Gaga, and Jesse Jackson. Bristol Palin is treated as an authority on marriage simply because her mother was in a position of authority as governor of Alaska. This could be described as a modern variation of a monarchy.

Imagine this happening for other professions. For example, imagine if Sarah Palin was a surgeon at a hospital, and imagine the hospital occasionally asking Bristol Palin to do surgery even though she never had any training as a surgeon. Or imagine if Sarah Palin was an airline pilot or an airline mechanic, and the airlines were asking Bristol Palin to fly airplanes or do maintenance even though she had no idea what she was doing.

To make the situation more ridiculous, and more like the medieval monarchies, Bristol Palin's mother never showed any leadership qualities. For example, she took a trip on an airplane while she was nine months pregnant and leaking amniotic fluid (I mentioned that here). Sarah Palin also quit her job as governor of Alaska for no apparent reason. This is like the medieval monarchies in which incompetent Kings and Queens would pass their position of leadership to their incompetent children, and nobody cared that all of these people were incompetent.

Therefore, to make the previous hospital analogy more realistic, imagine that Sarah Palin was an incompetent surgeon at a hospital, and that she quit in the middle of an operation for no apparent reason, and the hospital asks Bristol to do surgery despite the fact that her mother was incompetent and Bristol has no idea what she is doing.

The new president of France, Françoise Holland, is not married, so in his case his lover will be treated as a world leader simply for being his lover. If they break up and he gets another lover, then the people in France will treat his new lover as a world leader. If they also break up and he gets yet another lover, then the people in France will treat that new lover as a world leader. Does this make sense to you?

When are we going to start demanding that everybody earn their position? When are we going to stop treating people in leadership positions as if they are medieval Kings and Queens? The spouse, children, friends, and relatives of people in leadership positions should have to earn whatever they want. They should not automatically be treated as leaders.


We must pass judgment on who is too mentally defective for leadership

If we could measure the quality of the human mind, we would find that mental disorders are not randomly distributed in job categories and activities. For example, I suspect that the people involved with crime have much more serious mental disorders than the rest of us. I also suspect that there are more mental disorders among the people who are extremely wealthy, and the people who are in influential positions of society.

The mentally defective people cannot live a "normal" life or form "normal" relationships. Some of them are anti-social; some are suffering from internal mental or physical pains; and some have brains that don't think properly. Their mental disorders give them a distorted view of life. Some of them are struggling to find relief from their misery, such as by seeking wealth, fame, or feelings of importance. Some of them try to escape from reality with drugs or alcohol. Some of them have trouble working, or they want more money than they can make legally, so they resort to crime.

The people with certain types of defective minds are not interested in working with us to improve society, or in helping any of us learn about life or develop our talents. They want to find relief from their misery. They have trouble working with us in "ordinary" jobs, and so they are more likely to be successful either working alone, or in the role of a boss, or working at a job where their bizarre behavior is a benefit. For example, a person with strange behavior might be successful as an entertainer, and a person who cannot be serious might be very successful as a writer for comedy shows. People with abusive, manipulative personalities might be very successful as independent salesmen.

It is important for society to observe its citizens and try to prevent people with mental disorders from ending up in positions of influence. We can't allow people to influence society simply because they want to. Everybody should be judged according to their effect on society.

A lot of the mentally ill people seem to be pleasant, but putting them in leadership positions is harming society. For example, Cara Santa Maria is referred to as a professor and a neurobiologist, and she frequently appears in videos that are promoted by the Huffington Post. She admits that she as a problem with depression, and she believes that she is now in control of her problem, but a person with that type of mental disorder cannot truly fix their problem. She might be controlling her problem very well, but she still has the problem.

She is more intelligent than the typical person, and so she frequently appears in videos about scientific issues. However, she never tells us the truth about the Apollo Moon landing, 9/11, or the Holocaust. It's possible that she is simply afraid to be honest, but I suspect  that the reason she was selected to appear in news reports is because she is willing to lie for the criminal Jews. She also associates with criminal Jews, and even dated Bill Maher (photo). She has a ring through her lip and tattoos, and on her website she is asking for people to donate money to help the starving children in Somalia.

We are fools to allow people with mental disorders, or who associate with criminals, to dominate our media, schools, governments, and businesses. And we are fools to allow these criminals to make us feel guilty about hungry children and pressure us into donating money to mysterious, secretive charities that fail over and over to reduce the problem of hunger.


Why are tattoos increasing in popularity?

People had been using body piercings and tattoos for thousands of years, but when I was a child, body piercings were extremely rare in America, and tattoos were only seen occasionally, usually on men who had been in the military. The tattoos in that era were relatively small and simple. During the following decades, body piercings and tattoos have been increasing in popularity among both men and women, and the tattoos have been getting larger, and people are getting more tattoos on their body. Why is this activity increasing in popularity? Who is benefiting from this? Are the people with tattoos and piercings having better lives? What are they gaining from this?
The human mind thinks by comparisons. Our understanding of the concept of "tattoo" is our collection of memories that we associate with the word, "tattoo". Because each of us grew up around different people, we develop a different collection of memories for "tattoo", and this can give us a different view of what a tattoo is. In my case, I saw only a few tattoos as a child, and they were mainly on the upper arms of men who had been in the military. As a result, when I was a child, my mind would decode the word "tattoo" with images like that in the photo. That type of association gave tattoos an image of masculinity, muscles, courage, and toughness.

The lack of documentation on human life may make it impossible to figure out why tattoos and body piercings are increasing in popularity, but I suppose it is partly because the men in the military had given tattoos an image of courage and masculinity. This may have resulted in people who were not in the military to crave a tattoo so that they could imagine themselves as tough and courageous. The mentally ill people, by comparison, may have been attracted to body piercings and tattoos simply because it was an unusual activity, which gave them the opportunity to imagine themselves as "special".

The children who are growing up today are going to develop a slightly different view of tattoos because they are going to accumulate lots of images of tattoos on women and men who were never in the military, and they will also see lots of tattoos that are political statements rather than art. They will also see tattoos on people's faces and all sorts of strange areas of the body.


Who benefits from piercings?

Why are body piercings increasing in popularity? Who benefits from body piercings? Is it improving life for the people who wear them? Is it improving their relationships? Why is Cara Santa Maria attracted to piercings and tattoos?

I don't think the military had anything to do with the increasing popularity of piercings. If we had a database of everybody's life, we would find that body piercings are not randomly distributed among the population. I think we would discover that they are most popular among people with certain types of mental disorders.

Only a small percent of the population wants piercings. This provides the mentally ill people with the opportunity to use piercings as a way to make themselves feel special. They can convince themselves that they have the creativity, courage, and independence to do something that most people are afraid to do.

If the majority of people were to develop an interest in piercings, then I suspect that the people who already have piercings would lose their interest in piercings. I suspect that they would remove their piercings and boast that they don't want piercings any longer because piercings are idiotic products that destroy the natural beauty of the human body. I think they would praise themselves for having the independence, creativity and courage to do what makes the most sense rather than follow the crowd. I think that they are simply looking for an activity that is unusual, and they don't care what it is.

No society yet has any concern for who is becoming a news reporter, school official, police chief, or television producer, but we must start observing who among us is trying to get into these jobs. We have to control the quality of these people. These people have a tremendous influence over children and society. We have to pass judgment on whether their mental problems are so severe that they cannot provide proper leadership. We have to pass judgment on their motives. Are they really trying to help society? Are they people who work with us? Are they people who try to help us develop our talents? Or are they lunatics who are searching for happiness? Are they savages who are trying to eliminate competitors? 

We have to take a serious look at the mental health of the people who are influencing society, and we have to judge them by their overall effect on society. Most of them are not educating us about world events or history, and they are not helping any of us to understand ourselves or become better people. They are not encouraging or inspiring their competitors to do a better job, either. They have other motives, such as becoming the center of attention, or making lots of money. In some cases, they want to promote propaganda and cover up their crimes. They are not thinking about what is best for society. They are not providing us with variety, either. Instead, they give publicity to the same people and ideas over and over, and they try to eliminate all of their competitors. They are dominating and suppressing us, not helping us.

We have to raise standards for people in influential positions to prevent people who are detrimental from harming society. We should not allow people into leadership positions simply because they want the job, or simply because they have the ability to do the job. We need to select people who will work with us and make life better for everybody, not selfish people who want to be the center of attention and push away their competitors.

Furthermore, we are allowing these freaks to have dictatorial control over their jobs and their competitors. For example, a small number of Jews, such as Barbara Walters, have been dominating television for decades by eliminating their non-Jewish competitors and offering training and promotions only to Jews.


Why should we tolerate abusive e-mail?

All of us receive e-mail messages from criminals who are trying to vandalize our computers or trick us into giving them our bank account or credit card information. Some of us also receive e-mail from mentally ill people who pester us. Why do we tolerate this abuse? If we remove those freaks from society, we will make our lives nicer, and we will reduce the number of freaks who are reproducing.

Imagine a more extreme example. Imagine that instead of these freaks sending us angry, idiotic, or deceptive e-mail messages, they were coming to our front door and making these idiotic remarks to us in person and trying to infect us with viruses. Would you tolerate the constant interruptions and abusive behavior at your home?

You would not tolerate these freaks if they were doing this to us at our homes, so why should we tolerate their abuse when it is through e-mail? We should stop tolerating criminals and abusive people and start removing them from society.

Examples of messages that I receive
Some of you may only receive "ordinary spam" messages, and so you may not understand what I am referring to when I say we should not tolerate "abusive" or "deceptive" e-mail. Most of my messages are the same spam messages that you get, but I also get messages from Jews who are angry or trying to manipulate me. I put a few different messages here for you to look at.

 

The less tolerant of crime, the more efficient society will be

A city with a very low crime rate would be significantly more efficient, and it would be much more pleasant for everybody. It would eliminate a lot of unpleasant and boring jobs, such as watching security camera videos and investigating crimes.

We cannot completely eliminate crime because criminals are constantly being born, and some people may end up as criminals as a result of damage to their brain from injuries, disease, or tumors. However, by removing badly behaved people as soon as they cause trouble, we can reduce crime to a very low rate, and this would bring dramatic improvements to society.

A city with a very low crime rate would be much more efficient. Security cameras would be needed, but the video would go to an archive rather than to monitors that people have to sit in front of and watch. The security video would be useful only occasionally when somebody misbehaves, or when somebody needs to refresh their memory about some event in the past, or when a scientist wants to do some type of analysis.

So, how do we reduce crime? Our current method of reducing crime is to put people through jails, Bible studies, and psychiatry, but this has a 100% failure rate. There are some criminals who appear to have improved as a result of these treatments, but they are still the same people. They may have learned to control their bad behavior, but they still have the same, low-quality mind.

It might help you to understand this concept if you think of how it applies to dogs. We are capable of training dogs and dressing them in human clothing, but no matter how much training they go through, they are still dogs. We cannot live with them as if they were humans. Likewise, some criminals may respond to training programs and learn to control themselves, but they are still the same people. They are not the same as those of us who don't need those training programs.

Some people may end up as criminals as a result of improper blood chemistry due to a faulty liver or because of a brain tumor, and at some point we will have the medical technology to help those people, but even if medical technology fixes their problem, they are not the same as those of us who don't need such help. They are still defective people.

The ideal situation is for the human race to evolve into a creature that is naturally happy, healthy, responsible, considerate, and honest. The only way to do that is to restrict reproduction to the people who are naturally better people.

The man in the photo, Yaron Segal, was a physicist at MIT. Like a lot of Askenazi Jews, he has a short, slanted forehead, big nose, wierd shaped mouth, thin upper lip, and different shaped eyelids and ears. His mental qualities also seem to be a bit different. Aside from being excellent in math, he was recently arrested for trying to have sex with a mother and her two young daughters.

It's sad to think that there may be some races of people who are inherently destructive, parasitic, or psychotic, but we have to face that possibility and investigate the people who are causing trouble for us. Feeling sorry for them will not help them, and it will not help us. We also have to look at our own relatives and face the possibility that some of our brothers, sisters, cousins, and children have defective or primitive mental characteristics.

Are there enough people who are willing to set high standards for citizens and evict those who cannot be helped with medical technology? Are there enough people who can face the possibility that some of their own children may be defective or primitive? How many people are willing to evict their own badly behaved children, brothers, sisters, mothers, or fathers? One of the reasons every society is having trouble dealing with crime is because most people do not want to treat their own relatives in the same manner that they treat everybody else. They give their relatives special privileges. In order to create a better society with less crime, we need to find people who are capable of treating their own family members in the same manner that they treat people of other nations.


Don't tolerate the wasting of food or other resources

Most of the human population has a problem controlling their consumption of food. When people are offered unlimited amounts of free food, a lot of the food is wasted by people who eat excessive amounts, and some food is wasted by people who don't eat all of the food that they cook for themselves or take at a smorgasbord.
Before we create a new society, we should seriously consider the problem of people who cannot control their appetite. Without a peasant class, some of us are going to have to help in the production of food, the cooking of meals, or the distribution of food. Do you want to spend any of your life helping to produce food for people who waste some of it?

We have different paths to choose from. We could choose to stay on the path we are on right now, which is to watch over wasteful adults and reprimand them when they waste food or eat too much food, or we could raise standards for people and evict those who do not fit in.

Eliminating the peasant class requires that we make sacrifices, and one of the sacrifices that I am willing to make is evicting the people who waste food, electricity, water, and other resources. This is a "sacrifice" because many of our relatives, friends, co-workers, and family members would have to be evicted. I am willing to evict my own relatives; how about you? I am willing to judge people by their behavior, not by how closely related they are to me. Are you willing to follow that philosophy, also?

I don't expect perfection from anybody, but we have to draw the line between when people are "normal", and when they are "wasteful". We have to set standards of behavior.

It's not easy to evict people, especially if there is no society that is willing to take them. In that case, we have to send them to the City of Misfits. I am willing to do this, however, even if the person is related to me. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, all humans are related to one another.

I don't want to waste any of my life taking care of adults who are destructive or parasitic. I don't want to waste my life as their mother, and I don't want to reprimand adults. I don't want to produce food, electricity, or material items for adults to waste, either. Let those troublesome people live in their own city.


How high should standards of behavior be?

The higher we set our standards of behavior for citizens and leaders, the more options we have. If you want a better society, you must be willing to set higher standards. We cannot create a more advanced society with a random collection of the people in the world today. We must restrict immigration to the higher quality people, and we must be able to evict the people who don't fit in. If we create a new city with a random sample of the human population, it will be just another city. It won't be any better.

Therefore, the question you should contemplate is: how high are you willing to set standards of behavior? Are you willing to evict people for murder? What about vandalism? How about a man who grabs at women on crowded trains? What about people who are simply irritating to us as a result of their abnormal levels of envy, hatred, pouting, and bitterness?

You have only one life; how do you want to spend it? Feeling sorry for misfits? Or telling them to go to their own city so that you can live in a more advanced society among people you trust, respect, and enjoy? Think about it!


People should be honest about their skills

In our free enterprise system, finding a job is so difficult that people are encouraged to exaggerate their talents on their resume. People consider this exaggeration to be a harmless "promotion" of themselves, but in reality it is "deception".

It would be better if our society encouraged children to try lots of different activities and develop a realistic view of their desires, talents, and limitations. We should also keep a public database of everybody's performance so that we don't have to depend upon people to tell us about themselves. We shouldn't have to be concerned about people lying or exaggerating their abilities or their history. A recent example are the people complaining that Scott Thompson, the CEO of Yahoo, lied on his resume about his education. Who benefits by having resumes? Who would suffer if we maintained a database about ourselves?

People such as John DeLorean and Elon Musk have tried to start automobile companies, and Musk has also started a company to develop rockets. A lot of people have the impression that if they had a lot of money, they would be able to start any business they pleased. However, this is true only for certain businesses. For example, if you were very wealthy and wanted to open a fast food restaurant franchise, you could do so very easily. Thousands of people would apply for the few dozen jobs that you offered, and many people would line up at the front door in the morning and wait for the opportunity to be interviewed. You would discover that most of those thousands of people would be capable of doing the job properly. As a result, it would be easy for you to select people for the jobs. And it would be easy for you to find replacements in case some of them quit or had to be fired.

Unfortunately, this concept does not work with businesses that are developing new technology. If you wanted to start a business that developed a new electric automobile, or a rocket, as Elon Musk did, you would discover that there is no line of engineers waiting outside the front door to be interviewed. There are only a few engineers with the experience and talent to do such jobs, and they already have jobs. They are not waiting for you to offer them a job.

If there was a database with everybody's school and job performance, we would find that there are an enormous number of people who are capable of unskilled labor, selling insurance, and creating advertisements. We would also find that there are thousands of people with college diplomas in engineering and science, but of them, only a fraction actually show real talent in their field. Most of them are mediocre, and some are unsatisfactory.

A database would show us that only a small percentage of the population is capable of making electric automobiles, rockets, robots, and telephones. Every year jobs become more technically complex, and this requires that the human population become increasingly intelligent, educated, and talented, but a database would show us that during the past few decades, the number of people with technical skills has been decreasing. Our population is becoming increasingly stupid, mentally ill, and unskilled.


Humans must evolve into technically skilled creatures

It was easy during prehistoric times for men to take care of themselves. All they had to do was chase after animals with sharp sticks; build a simple shelter to sleep in; and feed their children. Even the dumb men were capable of this, and even men with mental disorders and anti-social personalities could survive and successfully raise children.

During the past few centuries, the men have had to learn skills and work in teams. The jobs available today require people with more advanced qualities than those of our primitive ancestors, and the jobs of the future are going to require the men to be capable of even more intense teamwork, and they must have even more intelligence and learning abilities. Creating robots, for example, requires a large team of people. The men must be able to coordinate their activities, and they must have useful skills.

Most people are capable of working at a McDonald's restaurant and selling insurance policies, but only a small percentage are capable of learning technical skills and working in teams to produce the complex products of modern society. A lot of people blame America's declining technical progress on liberals, conservatives, or the Japanese, but American businesses are having trouble competing in technical areas simply because the American people are not capable of working in teams on these technically advanced projects.


We also must be able to supervise one another

Working in teams requires supervision and law-enforcement, but how many people are capable of handling those jobs? What percentage of our population can be trusted as a policeman, lawyer, judge, District Attorney, Sheriff, government official, school superintendent, or military leader?

And of the people that we can trust in those jobs, what percentage of them actually has the ability to improve society? Being honest is not good enough today. We need people who can handle the increasingly difficult jobs that are available. An honest person who doesn't have the ability to do a good job as district attorney or policeman could inadvertently assist criminals or torment honest people. Likewise, a government official might be honest, but that doesn't mean he will be a benefit to society. He might inadvertently allow crime networks to infiltrate the government, for example.

In order to create a better society, we need to create some type of law enforcement agency that operates like a team of gardeners. These people must be capable of observing the people in society and passing judgment on who among us is causing trouble, and they must be able to deal with those troublesome people. A four-year-old child will benefit by being reprimanded or slapped, but that technique doesn't work for adults. We need a law enforcement agency that can evict the troublesome adults, even if it is their own family members. Do we have enough of these people?


We must provide ourselves with critical analyses

We are not helping America when we blame our problems on foreign nations or on mysterious forces. Every organization's primary enemy is its own people. Most of our problems are self-inflicted. We need to take a serious and critical look at our nation and try to figure out how we are ruining it. My conclusion is that Americans are hurting their nation in a variety of ways. For example, we are trying to use uneducated and stupid people from other nations as an inexpensive source of labor. We also offer sanctuary to wealthy criminals, such as George Soros. We also allow the idiots, criminals, and mentally ill people to reproduce and vote.
America is also hurting itself by encouraging people to exaggerate on their resume. To aggravate this problem, we make it impossible to verify information on a resume because we allow people to sue businesses for making critical remarks about them. Businesses are afraid to be honest. Schools are contributing to this problem by giving college diplomas to virtually anybody, and by keeping school records a secret. Some of the students who are graduating as engineers and scientists don't really have the ability to compete in the world today. They might have been successful 100 years ago, but they do not have what it takes for the world today. Every year the technical fields become more complex, and so it should become increasingly difficult for the students to graduate from the engineering and science courses, but there are more of them graduating each year, not fewer.

Schools are also encouraging the students to be arrogant jerks by giving them the impression that their diploma is an incredible achievement that they should be proud of. In reality, a diploma only signifies that a student has graduated. The schools emphasize the diploma because they want to please the students. By giving the students a diploma at the end of their studies, they fool the students into thinking that all of the time and money that they wasted on the school was actually beneficial, and that they have been transformed into a very important, highly educated college graduate.

Developing technically advanced products requires people with technical skills, but how do we figure out who among us has the necessary skills? We have to change our economic system and our school system to allow us to keep a database of everybody's school and job performance. People should not be allowed to deceive us about their education, skills, or job performance, and they should not be able to hide information about their lives. We must work in teams today, and we have a right to know who we are working with. We should not be intimidated into believing that a person has a right to lie to us about who they really are.

Who benefits from deception? Honest people do not benefit by lying about their school or job performance. The only people who benefit from deception are the people who are ashamed of themselves. From the point of view of society, it would be better to create a publicly accessible database that has everybody's school and job performance. A person who is truly talented has nothing to hide; actually, talented people benefit from the honesty.

When a person claims to have a particular skill, and it turns out that he doesn't have that skill, or he is not very good at it, then we should add an entry to his database to point out that he does not have a realistic opinion of his skills. We may not know whether he is simply naive about his abilities, or if he is arrogant, or if he is deliberately deceiving us. However, even though we don't necessarily know why he is giving an unrealistic view of himself, we should have that entry in his database so that other people realize that they have to be careful trusting his description of himself.


Women should be treated as female humans, not goddesses

I suspect that a lot of women are going to put up a lot of resistance to my attitude that some of their children are defective and need to be removed from society, aborted, or executed after birth.

Thousands of years ago women were naturally submissive because even the stupid women realized that they needed a man to take care of them and their children. During the past century, life has become so easy that both women and children are capable of supporting themselves. They don't need a man today. This is allowing women to take a more dominant role in society. From my casual observations of married couples in America, I would describe most men as pandering to their wives. They behave like government officials.

We need to find men who are capable of standing up to the women and providing them with guidance. How many men can do that? It seems to me that men have a tendency to give female criminals better treatment than male criminals, especially if the females are attractive. And consider women who use their body to blackmail men. Monica Lewinsky, for example, was treated as a hero, not as a criminal.

This brings up a very important issue. Most people don't seem to understand that people in leadership positions have an effect on all of our lives, and the future of the world. Therefore, allowing a woman - or a man! - to blackmail somebody in a leadership position is much more destructive to society than allowing a man to rape a woman. When a man rapes a woman, only that one woman suffers. However, when a woman blackmails a man in a leadership position, she can have a tremendous influence over everybody in the world, and the future. Women who blackmail men are more dangerous than men who rape women. However, in our society, the women who do this are often treated as heroes, and they may become famous and wealthy.

One of the reasons our world is so full of wars, loneliness, pedophilia, corruption, and crime is because many of the men in leadership positions of our government, schools, and other organizations have been blackmailed. In some cases they have been blackmailed by their homosexual lovers, but many of them have been blackmailed by women. We have to stop allowing women to behave in this manner. Men have to stop giving special treatment to female criminals.

The men we put in leadership positions for law enforcement and courts should be capable of controlling their sexual cravings and their attraction towards children so that they can treat both women and children in a more sensible manner.

Women have a natural tendency to offer themselves to the dominant males, so it's difficult to figure out when a woman is pursuing an influential man because she truly is attracted to him, and when she is attracted to his money, status, or blackmail potential. One way to improve this situation is to alter society so that neither men nor women can profit from relationships. In my City of Castles, for example, everybody is provided with the basic necessities for free. Therefore, when a couple gets divorced, they don't have to divide up any material items or money. In this type of society, everybody has to earn what they want. Everybody has to contribute to society. Children cannot inherit anything substantial from their parents, and a spouse cannot take anything from the other spouse. There is no advantage in such a society to get married to anybody in particular, or to be the child of anybody in particular.

If a woman in the City of Castles were to get divorced from a man who was in a leadership position, she would simply move into a different home and continue with her life, just as if she got divorced from a factory worker. If the couple had children, the divorce would have to deal with the children, but the woman would gain nothing from the divorce, and the man would give up nothing.

In this type of society, a woman would have no financial incentive to get married. I think this would improve the chances that people form more stable, more satisfying relationships. It would also prevent spouses from getting control of businesses, or achieving political influence, simply because they married somebody in an influential position.


Only the losers benefit from feminism

Who benefits from feminism? The low-quality men benefit from feminism in several ways:

• Feminism encourages women to look for husbands who are their "equal" rather than to look for men who are intelligent, responsible, and capable of taking care of his family.

• Feminism encourages the "Do Whatever Feels Good" philosophy. The women are told that they should stop being a slave to a man and start doing whatever makes them happy. They are encouraged to follow their emotions. By encouraging women to do whatever pleases their emotions, the lower quality men have a better chance of getting women because they can titillate the women with gifts, silly talk, and by giving them lots of attention.

• Feminism encourages women to make their own decisions about marriage and men rather than ask their father or brother for advice. By encouraging women to select men on their own, the low-quality men can avoid being rejected by the woman's parents or brothers.

• Feminism encourages women to have sex before marriage. This gives the lower quality men a greater chance of having sex.

• Feminism encourages women to delay their marriage and children until they are older. This results in a lot more lonely, unhappy women, which gives the lower quality men a better chance of getting married to or having sex with one of those lonely women.

• Feminism encourages divorces. By encouraging divorces, they create more lonely women, which allows the lower quality men to have more chances for marriage and sex.

Men should stand up to feminists and encourage sensible behavior from women. Women should be taught to look for a man who is intelligent, honest, responsible, and contributing something of value to society. Women should be taught to watch out for men who try to stimulate their emotions through gifts, following them around like a puppy dog, or talking to them like a girl.

 

 

Important message:

Help counteract the propaganda!
Free videos at my site: www.HugeQuestions.com