The next file in this series will offer specific suggestions for a better government, but I wonder if many people even consider it possible to create a better society. For example, the people in Egypt and Libya are starting over with a new government, but they are not yet showing any signs of trying to developing improvements to the existing governments, and nobody in other nations is encouraging them to try something new. They are mimicking the existing governments rather than exploring a new path in life.

This fear of the unknown can also be seen with transportation systems. For example, General Motors is developing pedestrian detection technology, and Ford has developed an amazing simulator to study why we get distracted as we drive.

Governments and businesses are putting a lot of effort into improving existing automobiles rather than explore the possibility of developing a new type of city that uses a different style of transportation. If we could develop a more advanced city with computer-controlled, underground transportation systems, then pedestrians would never be hit by automobiles, and drivers would never be distracted. This would also allow the surface of the city to be available for bicycle paths, parks, and recreation rather than parking lots and roads.

What is stopping the human race from developing attractive, organized cities? What is stopping us from creating a better economic system and a better school system? What is stopping us from eliminating crime and corruption?

This document will show you that there is already proof, not merely evidence, that the human mind has the ability to create a better society. However, we are being held back by "people" and the free enterprise system. We need to understand the human mind so that we can do a better job of controlling our emotions and selecting people for leadership. We also have to stop clinging to the free enterprise system like a frightened child. We don't have to follow the same path as our ancestors. First, consider the issue of automobiles.

Is modern life possible without human controlled vehicles?

We could classify transportation devices into two primary categories:
1) Human controlled.
2) Restricted vehicles, such as on tracks or under computer control.

The "human controlled" vehicles are those that we have control over in regards to its operation and destination. Automobiles, bicycles, horses, donkeys, and motorcycles are an example. The "restricted" vehicles are those that we have little or no influence over. Examples are subways, trains, commercial airplanes, escalators, conveyor belts, elevators, and pneumatic tubes.

During the past century, thousands of engineers and scientists around the world have put a lot of time and effort into the research and development of human controlled vehicles, and lots of businesses, universities, and governments are still actively involved in their development. For example, MIT is working with the HIRIKO project to develop folding electric cars, and they are also developing electric bicycles and folding motorcycles.

Will more advanced human controlled vehicles really improve life for us?

Human controlled vehicles have several serious disadvantages compared to restricted vehicles. One is that they are much more dangerous, and another is that they are a "mental burden" on us because they require that we concentrate on controlling them. By comparison, the restricted vehicles have significantly fewer accidents, and our mind and body are free to engage in other activities as we are being transported by them, such as reading, talking, eating, or napping. Some large vehicles have bathrooms, beds, and showers.

My preference is for restricted vehicle, such as trains, pneumatic tubes, elevators, and conveyor belts. However, it would be idiotic to try to put those type of transportation systems into the existing cities. It would be more sensible for us to allocate a large plot of land for a new city, force all of the people to move out of the area, demolish the existing buildings, and then design and build a completely new city with a new transportation system. Unfortunately, no business in a free enterprise system can fund such a complex project, and no business has the authority to remove people from their land. Only a government is capable of financing and organizing such a project.

Success requires an attempt

Thousands of engineers and scientists have devoted their lives to improving automobiles, refrigerators, and clocks, so it is not surprising that these devices have become very impressive. By comparison, no significant effort has been put into the research of better cities. Not surprisingly, we do not have even one sketch of such a city. We only have a few wild, unrealistic, artistic fantasies.

We cannot possibly be successful at something if we don't make at least one attempt. So, why is there no interest in trying to develop a better city? I wonder if one reason is that most people are so disillusioned with their governments and businesses that they don't have confidence that we can be successful with complex projects. NASA, for example, is still promoting the Apollo Moon landing scam, such as their recent announcement of finding flags on the moon. School teachers, businesses, and news reporters are also promoting this scam, and all of these dishonest people reinforce the attitude that we cannot trust or depend upon government officials, business executives, teachers, journalists, engineers, scientists, or anybody else.

The Big Dig tunnel project in Boston suffered from widespread cheating, apathy, and irresponsibility with the workers, business executives, and government officials. That is another example of why people have no confidence that we can be successful with large, complex projects.

The critical resource is people, not money

Don't react to disgusting officials, businesses, or scientists by becoming disillusioned with government or the human race. Yes, there are lots of destructive, parasitic, dishonest, and psychotic people, but among the horde of freaks there are millions of humans who have the ability to behave in a respectable manner and contribute to the design, construction, and operation of better cities. The reason I say this with confidence is because the human race has already designed and built what are essentially small cities that do not use free enterprise or democracies, such as our military bases and aircraft carriers.

Creating a new city will require a lot of resources, but our critical resource is not oil, steel, land, or glass. The critical resource are humans who can be trusted to cooperate on these large projects for the benefit of society.

In case you are leery of the possibility that we can design new cities with a new type of government and economic system, I created this document to prepare you for the design of a new government. The next section will show you some of the construction projects in Singapore and China to point out that they are not much different than the "castles" in my "City of Castles". Following that are some sections to show you that the problem with this world are people, and we can deal with that problem if we change our attitudes.

Humans are not born with any emotional feelings towards apartments or homes. Instead, we develop emotional feelings towards apartments and homes as we encounter them. We could describe this process as "humans reacting to their environment".

Most people have unpleasant reactions to apartment buildings. We do not like the ugly quality of the building and its hallways; the noise and smells that come from the neighbors; and the difficulty of parking cars and bicycles. Furthermore, we are often afraid of or disgusted by some of the residents of the building.

Most of us develop a distaste of apartments. Since our natural reaction is to avoid what we don't like rather than study it and look for solutions, our natural tendency is to avoid apartments. Animals depend upon their emotions, so it makes sense for them to avoid whatever they dislike, but this behavior is inappropriate for modern humans. When we encounter something that we don't like, we should not run away from it. Instead, we should study the issue to ensure that our distaste of the item is sensible. In regards to apartments, we should be asking ourselves such questions as, Why are private homes more desirable than apartments? Is it possible to make apartments as desirable, or more desirable, than private homes?

Virtually everybody's preference for private homes is due to their emotional attraction to the homes, not to intellectual reasons. Very few people have put significant effort into studying the issue of homes and apartments. There are advantages and disadvantages to both private homes and apartments. I think that we can easily design apartments that are much more desirable overall than private homes.

What do you dislike about apartments?

I think there are two primary reasons that people dislike apartments:

1) The building and its location
Most apartment buildings are lower quality than private homes in regards to artistic decorations, and they are often located in noisy, filthy, crowded sections of the city. Most apartment buildings are bland, rectangular structures, and the hallways are dreary. Some of them also have ugly elevators.

If your primary complaints about apartments are due to the physical aspects of the building, then you do not have anything significant to complain about. The human mind has the ability to design apartments that are high quality, beautiful, quiet, fireproof, and surrounded by parks, foot paths, bicycle paths, and transportation terminals.

The photos farther below show a few buildings and proposals for Singapore and China, and you should note that the human mind was not pushed to its limit when designing those buildings. In other words, we have the ability to design buildings that are more attractive than those, and we can design a city in which the buildings are arranged in a more sensible manner to provide even better transportation options and more attractive surroundings.

2) The people in apartment buildings 
From my personal observations, the most irritating aspect of apartments is not the physical structure. Rather, it is the people in the building. Many of us, especially in America, are living in an area in which we do not know, like, or trust our neighbors, and many of us do not even speak the same language as our neighbors. Some people are living in areas with so much crime that they fear their neighbors.

One of the points I emphasize in my files is that the problems of the world are coming from people. If your dislike of apartments is actually a dislike of the badly behaved people in the apartments, then you do not dislike "apartments". Rather, you dislike the "badly behaved people".

This concept applies to more than just apartments. For example, if you are disgusted with our corrupt government, it is not "government" that you are upset with; rather, it is the "corrupt officials". Likewise, there are some people who are disgusted with corrupt businessmen, but they don't blame the businessmen. Rather, they misinterpret the situation and blame the "corporations" or "power" instead.

Don't let disgusting people give you a bad image of government, corporations, or apartments. If we create a city in which immigration is controlled and badly behaved people were evicted, then the government officials and businessmen would be respectable, and you would enjoy the people in your apartment building.

Try to improve apartments, don't run away from them

Try to get in the habit of looking for solutions to problems rather than running away from them. For example, consider the problem of people in apartment buildings who burn their food and barbecue fish. The fumes and smoke make apartment life miserable. Instead of getting upset or running away from apartments, look for solutions.

One solution, as I described in other documents, is to redesign society so that food is free, as on cruise ships and submarines. By providing lots of restaurants, then the apartments do not need kitchens, and that eliminates all of the smoke and fumes. The lack of kitchens also significantly reduces the problem of cockroaches and other insects by eliminating much of their food.

You might respond that the restaurants will create enormous amounts of smoke and fumes, but that isn't necessarily true, either. The restaurants could reduce the amount of smoke and fumes they produce by reducing the heat when they cook. I just made this video to show you how to make pork stew and this video for oatmeal without producing any smoke or fumes, and without using much heat, and without creating a mess to clean. I do not suffer as a result of eating this food. Rather, I think it is better tasting, and it might be healthier, also.

An additional benefit to society is that the lower temperatures reduce energy consumption in the kitchen, and it also reduces the amount of labor and supplies that are needed for cleaning the kitchen. Also, it is more practical for society to install smoke filters at a small number of restaurants than it is to provide them for every private home.

Finally, low temperature techniques are more foolproof because they are not so critical in regards to time, which makes it easier for robots to do food preparation. For example, in regards to the pork stew, by never letting the temperature of the outer water to rise above 60°C, it would be impossible to burn or overcook the stew. It would not matter if a robot left the stew in the warm water an extra 10 minutes. By comparison, when cooking at high temperatures, a few seconds can make the difference between proper cooking and burning. Today's robot technology is not capable of cooking at high temperatures. Therefore, using low temperature techniques allows a chef to supervise a crew of robots, thereby reducing the labor needed for restaurants.

Some of the buildings and proposals in Asia

Each castle in my City of Castles is like a small, self-contained village. The four images below show real and proposed buildings that are similar to the castles that I propose. Specifically, they are large, densely populated structures that are surrounded by parks and gardens, and most of the complexes also have restaurants, recreational facilities, social areas, childcare facilities, and exercise facilities.

A condominium complex in Singapore.		A proposal for China.

A proposed hotel.		A proposed apartment complex.

To transform one of those complexes into the type of castle that I propose, all we have to do is:
1) Make each complex larger so that up to several thousand people are living in each complex.
2) Include restaurants, schools for young children, recreational facilities, and areas for social activities.
3) Make the buildings more decorative.
4) Coordinate the location of each complex so that we can efficiently connect them with underground transportation and utility lines, and to provide each complex with a buffer zone of parks, gardens, bicycle paths, and lakes.

Macau, China could have been an impressive city
 

The photo to the right shows the Hyatt hotel and casino complex in Macau, China. The Chinese are putting a lot of labor and resources into Macau, but only to attract and exploit the people who are interested in gambling, prostitution, drugs, money laundering, pedophilia, and human trafficking.
Many of the buildings are decorated with lights. However, since these buildings are the private property of businesses, the lights are not intended to be artistic. Rather, they are designed to attract the attention of gamblers, and to promote business names and logos. If, instead, Macau was designed by society and for society, then instead of designing buildings to titillate gamblers, they would be designed to be functional and beautiful. The lights would be less intense, and more artistic. Also, there would be no company names or logos on the buildings. All buildings would belong to society, not a particular business. Businesses would use the buildings, not own the buildings.
Some of the gambling casinos in Macau have artificial canals. However, as with Las Vegas, these canals are intended only to titillate gamblers, so they are not functional. If a society would design an entire city, then the canals could extend throughout the city, and they could have a variety of uses. For example, the canals could help with drainage. Prior to a rainstorm, the water level in the canals could be lowered so that they could easily absorb the excess rainwater. The canals could also be used for heating and cooling certain types of buildings, such as greenhouses and botanical gardens. Water from the canal would circulate through the buildings to control the temperature. Water from the canals could also be used to irrigate some parks and gardens so that the city doesn't have to provide them with a connection to the city water supply. Some sections of the canals could provide recreational activities, such as swimming and rowing. Some sections of the canals could be filled with fish and plants to make aquatic gardens. We could provide them with walkways that are slightly above the level of the water, or which are floating, so that people can walk out onto the water. These aquatic gardens would also be useful to people who want to go scuba diving to observe the fish and the plants.

If I seem to be a dreamer, please note that everything I propose is already implemented at different locations of the world. There are already buildings using rivers or oceans for heating or cooling, and there are already some aquatic gardens, and there are already some canals that assist with drainage of rain. No society has yet put all of these ideas together into one city, but we can easily do so. All we have to do is find enough advanced humans who can work for society rather than for their own selfish benefit.

Courtyards could be covered

The gardens, courtyards, and canals don't need to be covered in Singapore, Macau, and other tropical climates, but in cold, windy, hot, or dry climates, the parks and canals could be covered. This would also help control birds and insects.

The covering to a courtyard doesn't have to be clear or white. Some or all of it could have designs, such as the roof below.		A few curved, glass walls facing the courtyard would make the building and courtyard seem more integrated.

The courtyard in the drawing below is not covered, but if it were, it would provide mothers with year-round access to a beautiful, protected area for them to raise children, socialize, and eat. Since these courtyards would be protected from storms and wind, it would be practical to leave comfortable furniture and hanging plants in them all year round. It would even be practical to put rugs or carpets in areas where babies are likely to crawl around.

The photo to the right shows some of the buildings in Ordos, a very large city in China. This is just one of many cities that the Chinese have planned. They are also building them in foreign nations, such as this one in Africa. Unfortunately, most of these cities are vacant. The Chinese government is too secretive to explain the problem, but it appears to be partly due to the incompatibility between planned cities and the free enterprise system. China is switching to free enterprise, but this creates a dilemma with planned cities. Who pays for the city? Who organizes the movement of people and businesses into the city?

In a free enterprise system, people move into a new city only if they want to. There is nobody to control or coordinate the people. The first people to move in will be alone in an empty city. There will not be any jobs, food, electricity, or water. Also, the first people to move in are likely to pay a higher price because businesses try to cover their costs on their first customers.

It is impossible to provide ourselves with planned cities while depending upon a free enterprise system. Free enterprise is much too chaotic and uncontrollable, and it has the very serious disadvantage that the people who rise to leadership positions are aggressive savages who excel at looking for opportunities to exploit us for profit. (I suppose a lot of people will disagree with that accusation, so farther down in this document I will give you a few more examples.)

Creating a planned city is more difficult than setting up a military base because the city has to be able to produce a lot of their own electricity, water, food, and other supplies. In order to provide ourselves with planned cities, we need a group of leaders who will work for society rather than for profit. They need to excel at coordinating people and businesses, not at making money. Creating a planned city would be like setting up a military base on another planet. The military might be able to do this, but not businesses in a free enterprise system.

The majority of people are too primitive

Another reason that it is impossible to create a planned city with free enterprise is because the free enterprise system allows each person to do as they please. If people were as wonderful as they claim to be, this would not be a problem, but the majority of people are intelligent monkeys.

For example, when Hollywood announces that a new Batman movie will show next weekend, lots of people will become so excited that they will find the initiative to tell their friends, figure out which theater will show the movie, and purchase tickets. By comparison, when we are told that the government proposes to design a city, nobody has any initiative to tell their friends, or even learn about it.

The Chinese government created a lot of nice cities, but the majority of citizens do not care. The Chinese people are not searching the Internet for information on those cities. Rather, they are searching for pornography, videos of the Olympics, on-line gambling, and Lady Gaga music videos.

The majority of people have no interest in planned cities, and as a result, if you offer them a planned city, they will ignore you. They would be even more resistant to moving into a planned city if they were told that life would be slightly different to the residents of that city and, therefore, they need to read some information about how to function in the city.

The majority of people want to play, not learn, cooperate, discuss, or work. They want to titillate their emotions. They want to think only of themselves. As a result, most people will wait for other people to get a city running properly, and then they will be willing to move to that planned city. They want the benefits of the planned city, but not the responsibilities.

It should be noted that Macau and Las Vegas were originally empty cities. However, when you offer the majority of people a completely empty city that has gambling, prostitution, sex slaves, money laundering, drugs, and other forms of entertainment, millions of people around the world will become excited, and they will be willing to spend their own money to travel to the city. Lots of businesses will be willing to help get the city operating properly, and lots of people will apply for jobs in that city.

It is also interesting to note that lots of women will travel to the gambling cities to become a prostitute, even though they have no idea what is going to happen to them when they arrive. Those women are finding the courage to climb into a covered wagon and take a trip into the unknown. They can find such courage because they want to feed themselves. However, they cannot find such courage to help create a new city or new government. The reason is because most people behave just like animals. Their primary goals are feeding themselves, reproducing, and fighting for status and territory.

Don't overestimate the majority of people!

The majority of people are like a ball and chain around our legs. Another example is their reaction to pedophilia. There are numerous complaints of pedophilia all around the world on a regular basis, but the majority of people ignore or suppress the attempts to expose it. For example, the FBI recently investigated Jerry Sandusky, but I have not yet seen evidence that they have investigated the remarks by Greg Bucceroni that ought to make us wonder if Sandusky was part of a pedophile network. Their investigation of Jerry Sandusky seems to be for damage control. Specifically, they want to focus attention on a few people so that we don't realize how big the pedophile network is, and that most of the pedophiles are Jews and "leaders" of society.

How many employees in the FBI care that their agency is corrupt? How many American citizens care? How many Catholics or Mormons care about the accusations of pedophilia in their church? How many of the people who work in advertising agencies care that the work that do has no value to society?

Most people don't care about the problems of society. The people who complain about pedophilia find themselves standing alone among a horde of sheeple who don't care. Worst of all, anybody who exposes pedophilia discovers that he must fight thousands of pedophiles all by himself, some of whom are policemen, lawyers, judges, doctors, and FBI agents, and many of whom are willing to kill whoever tries to expose them.

All throughout history, the attempts to stop pedophilia, corruption, and other problems have failed for the simple reason that the people who try to stop these problems are in a tiny minority, and they are dominated by criminals and sheeple.

Modern technology is finally allowing this miserable situation to improve. The Internet, computers, cell phones, and other technology is allowing us to spread information around the world and research any issue we please despite attempts by the sheeple and criminals to stop us. Eventually we will be able to do something.

What would have happened to me 50 years ago?

The Internet has allowed people like me to communicate with the entire world, but before the Internet, people who wanted to expose corruption had to communicate in a much more crude manner, such as with pieces of paper or their voice. I can understand why people decades ago would give up in frustration, or be killed, beaten, threatened, or intimidated.

I am still being pestered by Jews, and they also contact my mother and other relatives directly and indirectly to convince them to put pressure on me to stop accusing Jews of crimes. Peggy is still calling me on the telephone; she called me twice in July 2012. This crime network is like a horde of psychotic hyenas that will not stop trying to kill us and take what we have. They refuse to cooperate or be friendly.

What would have happened to me if I had been born 50 years earlier and was trying to expose the Holocaust lies, Jerry Sandusky, the Apollo Moon landing scam, or other earlier crimes? I suspect that I would have been killed, or I would have given up in frustration, just like the other people who tried to expose those crimes.

The sheeple are not adorable or innocent. They are allowing a variety of crime networks to run rampant, including teenage gangs. They do nothing to stop crime or corruption. Actually, they support crime by spending money on their magazines, television shows, drugs, prostitutes, gambling operations, strip clubs, churches, and sex slaves. They will also defend criminals who are related to them. If it were not for the horde of sheeple, crime networks would not be able to survive.

Most people resist serious information

A lot of people are making a living by selling virtually worthless self-help information, weight-loss programs, Hollywood gossip, astrology predictions, and fiction books. Pornography websites can charge a monthly subscription fee, and online gambling sites can make a lot of money.

By comparison, serious information is extremely difficult to sell. Most of the serious information is purchased for school or jobs, not for leisure. Actually, the situation is worse than that. Most people will not look at serious information even if it is free. For example, there is some free information on the Internet that is useful, but most people ignore it.

What would happen if I charged a monthly subscription fee for my website? Would anybody pay it? Or what if I formated my files for users of e-book reading devices like Amazon's Kindle; would I be able to sell those documents for the same $5-$10 price as other Kindle documents?

To understand why people are so resistant to serious information, just look at animals. Animals do only what pleases their emotions. Their emotions give them cravings for food, status, territory, and babies, so they spend their lives eating, fighting, and reproducing. Animals do not have any emotional cravings to be concerned about the intangible concept of "society". Their emotions are focused on their own physical needs, not the needs of other creatures in their society. We refer to this as "selfishness". Also, they stop working as soon as their emotions are satisfied. We refer to this as "doing the minimum necessary".

Humans are also selfish, and we also do the minimum necessary. However, each of us is unique, so we differ in our concern for society and in our willingness to learn, think, and discuss issues. If we could measure the more advanced qualities of our minds, I think we would discover that the majority of people are below the threshold necessary for this modern world.

In order to create some truly nice, planned cities, we need to create an economic system that we have control over; we need to provide ourselves with better leadership; and we need to restrict immigration to the people who will voluntarily take an active role in helping to maintain the city. Don't be fooled by the smiles and nice behavior of the majority of people. They do not have the qualities necessary to bring improvements to this world. Some dogs are nice, also, but you would be foolish to depend upon dogs to help set the future course of the human race.

Better cities require cooperation

Designing a better city requires changing our economic system because a free enterprise system has no provisions for designing cities. No individual business even has the financial and human resources necessary to design and build an entire city. In order to build a city, a lot of businesses would have to be coordinated, but the free enterprise system does not allow any business or government agency to take that leadership role. Furthermore, the free enterprise system puts people into competition for money, but building a city requires that they work for the benefit of society.

Free enterprise create cities that are chaotic mixtures of ugly buildings, roads, industries, schools, and homes. We need to coordinate the design and placement of all of the structures and utility lines so that we provide ourselves with homes that are quiet and pleasant. The business areas of the city should be so pleasant and attractive that we not only enjoy working at our jobs, but we enjoy spending some of our leisure time in the city.

For example, the two images below are a proposal for a business area in China. Imagine if all business areas of a city had transportation and utility lines underground, and all buildings were surrounded with gardens, bicycle paths, and parks. This would leave the surface for people. This would make the business sections clean, quiet, and relaxing.

If a city provides recreational equipment for free for the people to share, then none of the office or factory workers have to bother purchasing, storing, or maintaining any equipment in the city. Instead, if a person wanted to take a bicycle ride at lunch or after work, or use some other recreational equipment, all he would have to do is borrow whatever he wants, and then give it back.

To the right is the Hotel Okura in Macau, China. Gambling is such a popular activity that businesses can afford to create a lot of decorative hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, Macau, and Monaco, but if we were to design cities that we enjoy, we would have less of a desire to travel and more of a desire to enjoy our own city. The business sections of our cities today are so noisy, filthy, stinky, and frightening that almost everybody rushes home as soon as they are finished working, but we could design a city in which the business sections are beautiful, clean, free of crime, and full of free restaurants and activities. By designing cities for human life rather than business activity, we will often want to remain in the city after work for dinner and activities.

In order to create a better city, we have to allow the government to take control of the economic system so that we can control where our resources are going. As I mentioned earlier in this file, I am not proposing anything that we are not already doing, and I am not promoting Marxism. There are already people who occasionally do the equivalent of supervising the design and construction of cities, but they do this on a smaller scale for the military rather than for society. They design and build military bases, aircraft carriers, and submarines, some of which could be described as small cities.

Some of the people who are involved in providing the military with its bases and equipment are cheating the military, but some of them are proof that there are at least some humans who have the desire and ability to work in teams for the benefit of the organization. Those particular people could certainly design an entire city. All they have to do is include some of the items that a military base doesn't need, such as farms and factories.

Most people, especially those who consider themselves to be "conservatives", believe that the free enterprise system is the ultimate economic system, and that it cannot be improved upon, but we can already see evidence that there is something better. For example, the sailors on an aircraft carrier do not operate on free enterprise.

Our military has a lot of problems, but none of their problems are due to operating without free enterprise. Their problems are due to people, not their internal structure. There are some people in the military who are criminals, and some are apathetic, and some are psychotic. The military is also regularly abused by businesses and government officials.

Furthermore, our military is not allowed to defend themselves. The military can complain verbally, but they cannot easily do anything about people who abuse them. As a result, no businessman fears the military. Instead, businesses routinely look for ways to cheat the military.

The military cannot even prevent people from lying about their military service. The Supreme Court recently said that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court says that we Americans have the freedom to lie about our military service. We have the right to deceive one another about who we are and what we have done during our past.

What would you think if the Supreme Court said that we were allowed to lie about our education? How about giving women the freedom to lie about whether they are using birth control? Should we have the freedom to lie about our venereal diseases? Should we have the freedom to lie about our medical education and experience? Are we allowed to lie about our legal education and experience? Do I have the freedom to pretend that I am an attorney with years of experience and an education at Harvard Law School? Do I have the freedom to claim that I am a Supreme Court judge?

If the military were legally allowed to defend themselves against abuse, then they would be able to arrest or kill dishonest businessmen, Supreme Court judges, Jewish criminals, congressmen, and other disgusting people, and that would allow them to operate even more efficiently. Furthermore, if the military were allowed to produce their own food, do their own scientific research, and produce their own supplies, they would be able to do so without free enterprise.

Businesses don't use free enterprise, either

In case you worry that I am some type of military fanatic, let me now point out that the concepts I just described with the military also apply to businesses. Businesses operate within a free enterprise system, but their internal structure is just like that of the military. A business does not operate on a free enterprise system for the simple reason that free enterprise is a ridiculous, inefficient system.

Whenever someone criticizes the free enterprise system or the Constitution of America, a lot of people ridicule the idea that there is something better. However, the military is only one organization that is proof that we can do better than the free enterprise system. Most businesses are proof of this concept, also.

Most businesses treat their employees in a similar manner as the military treats the sailors on a submarine. For example, most employees of a business are provided with desks, computers, telephones, paper, and whatever other supplies they need. All of the supplies are provided for free, and none of the employees have to bother figuring out which brands or models to purchase. Instead, some small group of employees are responsible for analyzing products and determining which ones to purchase for the entire organization.

Some companies also provide free training to employees who are willing to take a more difficult job. Some businesses provide their employees with cafeterias, exercise equipment, uniforms, protective clothing, facilities for mothers who have young babies, retirement options, and health benefits.

The businesses that are the most similar to the military are those that require their employees to work in isolated areas, such as the businesses that operate oil rigs or build dams. These businesses will often provide free housing to their employees. Some of the employees on oil rigs are also provided with free food and free laundry services.

Virtually every business operates like a dictatorship, or like a military unit. They do not have a democracy, or a free enterprise system. Some people claim that America is a republic rather than a democracy, but regardless of what you describe America as, businesses do not follow whatever philosophy that the American society follows. Businesses use the same structure that the military uses.

It should also be noted that the employees of a business do not have to apply for leadership jobs in the same manner that political candidates become government officials. The employees apply for a job as an individual person, not as a party member, and they do not have to go through the idiotic campaigning that political candidates have to go through. This is because the method we use to select government officials is idiotic, expensive, and extremely easy for crime networks and wealthy people to manipulate. Not even the stupidest businessman would set up a "party" system for the employees to use in order to get promotions or to transfer to different departments or jobs.

We don't need free enterprise, or political parties, or a democracy. We can take control of our society just as the military has control over a submarine. However, putting people in control of society requires that we find a much higher quality group of people than what we have dominating nations today. We need people who are willing to stand up to criminals rather than feel sorry for them. We need people who will set high standards for people in leadership positions. We need people who can work for society rather than for themselves.

We also need leaders who can control immigration. Membership in a business or a submarine is by invitation only, and the people who do not behave properly are removed. We need the leaders of society to follow the same philosophy. The Jews want the European Union to allow free migration, but who benefits from that? Only the Jews do. They get to escape their miserable homeland and their miserable species, and they get to steal, cheat, murder, rape, and manipulate us. We need leaders of society who can stand up to this type of abuse.

Imagine working for "The American Corporation"

Imagine if the Exxon company was allowed to use their immense profits to purchase every other business in America. This would leave America with only one business. Assume they change their name to The American Corporation. Now imagine that this corporation decides to treat every employee the same way that they treat the workers of an oil rig. In such a case, each of us would be provided with free housing, food, laundry services, desks, computers, and other supplies, as well as retirement benefits, medical benefits, and uniforms. The people who work on an oil rig are also provided with free transportation to and from the oil rig, so imagine all of us with free transportation to and from our jobs. How would being an employee of The American Corporation be different from being a citizen of communism or socialism?

The difference between socialism and the imaginary American Corporation is that membership in the corporation would be by invitation only, and people who did not fit in would be fired. This is a very important point that I emphasize routinely in my files. The key to creating a better organization is to control immigration and evict the people who don't fit in. An organization can only be as good as its people.

Or imagine the military controlling everything

For another example, imagine if a law was passed in America that required every man, woman, and child to be a member of the military throughout their entire life. In that case, there would be no businesses, charities, churches, courts, or universities. The military would have to operate the farms, schools, factories, research centers, and courts.

Everybody would be treated like a soldier. We would be provided with food, housing, uniforms, and other supplies. If we wanted to switch jobs, it would be equivalent to a soldier asking for a transfer.

Would the nation disintegrate? Not necessarily. It would depend upon the leadership of the military. The people, not the structure, are the most important aspect of society.

Don't be intimidated!

Those of us who complain about the free enterprise system, political parties, or democracies are often ridiculed as communists, liberals, or socialists, but don't be intimidated. The free enterprise system is an excellent system for a primitive society of self-employed farmers, but if we can put together a society of higher-quality people, then we can do better than free enterprise. We can also do better than a democracy.

Since so many people believe that free enterprise is the ultimate economic system, I will give you another example of how we would benefit by developing something better. Consider chairs and bicycle seats. The human body was not designed to sit in a chair or on a bicycle. As a result, it is extremely difficult to design bicycles and chairs that we find comfortable for long periods of time.

In a free enterprise system, each of us has to purchase whichever chair and bicycle seat we want to try. If, after using it for a while, we decide that we don't like it, then the unwanted item has to be sold, thrown away, or given away, and then we have to purchase a different model. If a person is extremely wealthy, then this process is tolerable, but for most of us, this is an unrealistic method of determining which product we are happiest with.

The free enterprise system is also annoying to the engineers because it doesn't provide them with much feedback. The engineers don't know if people are using their products, putting them in the attic, or throwing them in the trash. The engineers only know if a product is selling. If a business wants to determine how their customers are using their products, whether their products are failing prematurely, or whether their products are easy to maintain, they have to put considerable labor and resources into locating customers who are willing to participate in analyses.

A better solution is for society to set up competition between engineers to design seats and chairs, and let everybody have free access to all of them. We cannot design one bicycle seat for everybody, or one chair for everybody. We are of different physical sizes, different ages, have slightly different skeletons, and some women are pregnant. The ideal situation would be to provide a variety of different bicycles and chairs, and let people experiment with them. The photo to the right shows only 11 of the bicycle seats on the market today.

By providing bicycles and office chairs for free, you would be able to experiment with as many varieties as you desire. Some people might find that they prefer to switch between different types of bicycle seats, and some people might want to alternate between two different types of office chairs during the day. Some people might want to switch between different styles of bicycles and handlebars, also, in order to prevent soreness caused by being in the same position all the time.

When people have free access to products, society knows which items are actually being used, how often, and by which people. This information would be given to the engineers. The engineers might discover that pregnant women prefer a certain chair or bicycle seat, and that information can help them figure out how to improve that particular design even further. Since society would be responsible for maintaining products, the engineers would also have access to reliability and maintenance data for their products.

When we are required to purchase whatever we want, each of us tries only a few of the many products available, and businesses don't bother to produce as many variations as they are capable of. Providing people with free access to material items will help engineers develop better products, and it will help all of us to figure out which of the products we prefer.

In a free enterprise system, the successful engineers are those that are good at producing items that sell, but when we switch to providing items for free and observing the use and maintenance of the products, then we know which engineers are producing items that are truly beneficial and have low maintenance. The engineers would be judged according to their ability to produce useful, low maintenance products rather than their ability to produce items that titillate consumers.

Free enterprise gives preference to savages

In the previous section I complained that free enterprise is putting aggressive savages in leadership positions. Free enterprise puts businesses into competition for profit, and as a result, the people who are the most successful are those who are the best at making profit. These people are not necessarily desirable leaders. I think that many of them are abnormally aggressive, selfish, and crude.

An example is the recent remarks by the editor of Newsweek, Tina Brown. Her primary competition is Time magazine. Ideally, these two magazines would be competing to provide the most useful, easily understood news reports, but instead they are competing to exploit the sheeple. One of their techniques is to create cover images that they hope will be more titillating to the sheeple than their competitor's cover. In response to a cover by Time magazine, Newsweek created an image of a rainbow halo over Obama's head, and she told an audience, "Let the games begin!"

To the successful businessmen, free enterprise is a "game" to manipulate sheeple, not a competition to improve society. Tina Brown does not encourage her employees to provide the most accurate news reports, or to provide the news reports that will give us the best understanding of the world. She has no concern for providing us with news. She is not trying to do a better job of providing news than Time magazine. Rather, she is trying to do a better job of manipulating and exploiting the sheeple. She and other business executives are encouraging destructive, selfish, crude behavior from their employees. Furthermore, these business executives are promoting the people who have similar disgusting attitudes, thereby inadvertently suppressing the people who would be much better leaders for society.

None of the people who have risen to the top of businesses are thinking about what is best for society. These people are successful because they are excellent at manipulating the sheeple, finding ways to circumvent laws, and looking for opportunities to exploit human emotions. Many, possibly most, are also involved with crime networks. The news agencies are perhaps the best examples of this. They routinely cover up the Jewish involvement in 9/11, the Holocaust lies, and other Jewish crimes. Our business leaders are not "leaders". Rather, they are selfish savages who lie to us and take advantage of us.

We should compete for society, not for profit

The free enterprise system operates without human supervision, so it is ideal for primitive people. If we allow to the government to have control over the economy, then the government has the burden and responsibility of doing what free enterprise does automatically.

The free enterprise system is chaotic, so it would be better to take control of the economy. Unfortunately, taking control requires that we set up a government that is capable of controlling the economy. Criminals and sheeple would do a terrible job of controlling the economy. Whether a government can control the economy better than a free enterprise system depends entirely upon the people in the government.

When the government has control of the economy, everybody is competing to bring improvements to society. Medical doctors, for example, would not work for profit. Instead, they would compete with one another to keep their patients in the best health as possible. The better doctors would be those whose patients have the fewest and the least serious medical disorders. The schools would not operate on profit, either. Instead of encouraging students to remain in school for decades, the schools would be competing to produce students who are able to function in a job as soon as possible. Maintenance workers would be competing to maintain items for the least resources.

We cannot "return" to the Constitution

A lot of Americans boast that the Constitution is the greatest document ever written, and that America has problems today because we have somehow gotten away from the Constitution. They promote the philosophy that our problems would be solved if we return to the Constitution. Where is the supporting evidence for this theory? They are making it appear as if America is analogous to a train that has jumped off of its track. However, it doesn't make sense to say that we should "return" to the Constitution. If we are not following the Constitution right now, then what are we following?

The Supreme Court recently said that we have the freedom to lie about our military service. They said that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional. Therefore, we could say that the Stolen Valor Act took us off course from the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has returned us to the original Constitution. However, if giving us the freedom to lie about our military service is returning to the Constitution, then we should not return to it.

It doesn't make sense to "return" to the Constitution. The Constitution is a very crude document that is so vague that nobody can make sense of it. It's like a cloud of smoke. It has to be interpreted. If we could measure the vagueness of a document, we might find that the Constitution is more vague than the Bible.

The Constitution has some very useful features, such as preventing religious fanatics from influencing government, and preventing the government from suppressing competitors, but the Constitution is also creating phenomenal problems for us. The Constitution created a government that is so incredibly ineffective that nobody, not even the President, has the authority to remove the lies about 9/11 or the Apollo moon landing from the school textbooks.

Crime networks dominate this nation to such an extent that even though millions of people are exposing their crimes, nobody can do anything to stop them. The Supreme Court is even supporting criminals by giving us the freedom to lie about our military service. A legal system should help us understand and prevent crime, not support crime! We don't need this legal system. We need something better. We also need a better economic system, and a better method of selecting leaders. We need to analyze our nation's problems and experiment with solutions, not look for excuses to retain the Constitution and keep everything as it is. 

Many people blame the horrible behavior of our leaders on the corrupting effect of wealth and power, but as I mentioned years ago here, neither wealth nor power can change the circuitry in your brain, or change your personality. If we were to give you a lot of money, or a lot of authority in the government, or a lot of authority over a church, we would simply give you the opportunity to do more of what you want to do and less of what other people demand you to do.

To restate that concept, giving a person a lot of wealth or authority is simply giving him a better opportunity to show us his true personality. It's similar in concept to giving a person large amounts of beer, cocaine, LSD, and sex slaves. Having access to a lot of free beer will not cause you to become an alcoholic. Having access to kidnapped children will not cause you to become a pedophile or a sex slave owner. Likewise, becoming wealthy or acquiring a lot of authority does not cause you to become selfish, murderous, envious, jealous, vengeful, or psychotic. Jerry Sandusky was not a homosexual pedophile because he had access to young boys.

The disgusting behavior that we see among people in leadership positions is because they were born with low quality minds, although it is possible that a small percentage of them were born with "normal" minds but suffered from brain damage during their lives. Virtually all of the people who behave badly when they are wealthy and influential were behaving badly prior to becoming wealthy and influential, or they were wishing that they could behave badly. However, their terrible qualities may not have been noticed during their youth because they may not have had the opportunity to behave in the disgusting manner that they truly preferred.

Consider Jerry Sandusky to understand this concept. One of the arguments that Sandusky was hoping to use in his defense is that people were accusing him of committing acts of pedophilia while he was over the age of 50, and he wanted to use the argument that if he was a pedophile, then he would have been engaging in pedophilia all throughout his life. He was promoting the theory that pedophiles are born, not created by the environment, and therefore, people do not suddenly become pedophiles over the age of 50.

I agree that pedophiles are born rather than made, but we have to make a distinction between when a person is refraining from pedophilia because he doesn't have the opportunity, and when he is refraining because he truly has control of himself. Some people do not become pedophiles until they are older simply because they did not have the opportunity when they were younger.

I suspect that before Sandusky acquired his position of authority in the university, he was fantasizing about raping little boys, but he may never have done so because he was concerned about getting caught. This would have caused him to suppress his cravings, which in turn would create the illusion that he was a wonderful man who was worthy of an influential position. However, once he became influential, it became easier for him to get away with pedophilia because of our natural tendency to give blind obedience to people in leadership positions.

Another issue to keep in mind is that as people become older, they often become wealthier, and people who are involved with crimes are likely to meet more criminals. Therefore, as criminals get older, they acquire money and contacts with other criminals, and this allows them to more easily arrange for the bribery, murder, and blackmail of people who investigate them. This in turn help makes it easier for older people to get away with crimes, and that in turn can cause them to be more willing to commit crimes. District Attorney Ray Gricar, for example, may be one of the victims of Sandusky. By comparison, a young man without much money, influence, or contacts with criminals would have a difficult time arranging for the murder of a police investigator.

This concept applies to religious leaders, also. Before they acquired their position of authority, it was difficult for them to get away with pedophilia, but once they became religious leaders, they could easily impress and intimidate children.

The point I'm trying to make is that some leaders may have been honest during their youth, but not because they wanted to be honest. Rather, they refrained from crimes because of their fear of getting caught. After they became influential and wealthy they felt that they could get away with crimes, so they began to do what they really wanted to do.

Honest people are not necessarily better than criminals

When factories produce aircraft engines, computers, or telephones, the quality control inspectors test some or all of the products to make sure that they are working properly. Ideally, we would have quality control tests for humans. We need to observe both children and adults for signs of undesirable behavior.

We cannot assume that an honest person is really honest, or that a criminal is worse than an honest person. There may be some people who have committed minor crimes that are actually more honest and responsible overall than some of the people who have yet to commit a crime. For example, there are many businesses and government agencies that - for various idiotic reasons - will put unwanted items in storage, where they eventually deteriorate and go to waste. An employee who takes one of those items is "stealing", but since the items are going to eventually be wasted, is he really a "criminal"? Is he dangerous? Not necessarily. He may simply have the intellectual ability to realize that the item is going to be wasted, so he may as well salvage it and get some use from it.

Violating a law does not necessarily mean a person is bad. We need to consider why he did it. For another example, there have been some people who have driven at high speeds in crowded cities to get a pregnant woman to a hospital, and when the police give them a ticket for reckless driving, they complain that they should not be treated like a criminal. However, these people are likely to be more dangerous to society than a person who steals an unwanted item.

A person who takes an unwanted item is not hurting anybody. By comparison, somebody who is willing to drive recklessly on crowded streets to get a pregnant woman to a hospital is treating people as worthless peasants. He is willing to risk other people's lives for something that isn't life-threatening. Women can give birth without hospitals. There is no justification for risking people's lives to get a pregnant woman to a hospital. These people are behaving in an irrational, selfish manner. It is almost as ridiculous as a person driving recklessly to get to a McDonald's restaurant because his child is demanding a hamburger.

It would have made sense for a person to drive recklessly to the World Trade Center towers on the morning of 11 September 2001 in order to tell people that the Jews are about to crash airplanes into the towers and then blow them up with explosives. In that case he would risk a few lives to save thousands. That person could even justify running over pedestrians and shooting at policemen who try to stop him. However, ordinary people are not likely to find themselves in a situation that justifies risking other people's lives. Actually, the best policy is for ordinary people to control their craving to be a hero and refrain from assuming that they can justify risking people's lives. There are only a few people in the military and law enforcement that find themselves in such situations, and only occasionally.

Some people have driven recklessly after their elderly mother or father had a heart attack, and they rushed to get the person to the hospital, but I do not think we should allow anybody to risk the lives of young people in order to save an elderly person. Besides, there is no guarantee that the elderly person will survive. Even if an elderly person does survive, it will only be for a short period of time.

I saw a report a few years ago of a woman who was stopped by a policeman for reckless driving on the way to a hospital. She got a phone call that her elderly father had a heart attack and was recovering in the hospital. She became hysterical and felt that she had to get there immediately to visit with him. These type of people are even more dangerous and irrational because they will risk people's lives for virtually nothing.

Our primitive ancestors didn't have to make many decisions that affected the lives or health of other people, but in the world today, we are often making decisions that affect enormous numbers of people. When airline pilots get drunk, for example, they are not just putting the lives of their passengers at risk, they are also risking the lives of people on the ground that they may crash into. As society becomes more complex, the human race has to become more intelligent and make better decisions.

Some people are honest only because of fear

People who follow the laws appear to be honest, but some of those people have been honest only because they didn't have any good opportunities to commit the type of crimes that they would like to commit. The only way to truly determine a person's honesty is to give them lots of opportunities to commit a variety of different crimes.

You should be able to look at your own life to understand this concept. For example, consider pedophilia. My sexual emotions do not care what age a girl is. My emotions are stimulated by certain visual images and behavior. Therefore, it is possible for a young girl to titillate my sexual emotions. For example, there are photos of girls who are only 14, and sometimes younger, that are sexually appealing to me. JonBenet Ramsey is too young for my emotions, but some of her photos come close to being titillating to me, such as the one to the right.

If a young girl is dressed in a certain manner, and if the photo is taken in a certain manner, that photo can titillate my sexual cravings, even though the girl might be only 12 years old. So, why haven't I engaged in pedophilia? It is not because of a lack of opportunities. Everybody has been around lots of children, and so all of us have had many opportunities to touch or rape children. However, it is the photos of young girls that are visually stimulating to me, not the "real" children.

Photos are deceptive, especially when they have been edited. The real children are not sexually appealing to me in either appearance or behavior. One of the features of children that I do not find sexually appealing are their baby teeth. Men are designed to be stimulated by certain visual images, but baby teeth are not one of them.

Men are also titillated by certain types of behavior. The most unappealing aspect of young girls is their behavior, not their appearance. If men were truly attracted to the behavior of young girls, then adult women would attract men by imitating young girls. However, adult women do not imitate little girls. Instead, they try to behave better than children.

It is true that some women will fake stupidity once in a while in order to titillate a man's desire to be important, but those women are acting stupid for brief periods of time. Overall, they try to appear better than the children.

Women attract men by creating an image of being well mannered, intelligent, responsible, and considerate. They do not try to attract men by throwing food, giggling at farts, or playing with cardboard boxes. The reason adult women do not behave like young girls is because men are not sexually attracted to young girls. If you want to know what adult men are attracted to, watch the way adult women behave when they are trying to attract a man. They know what to do. Evolution has caused them to behave in a manner that adult men are attracted to, and it is not to talk or behave like a child.

In the photo to the right, we can see all of JonBenet Ramsey's body, and her physical proportions are not what I am attracted to. Furthermore, her posture is child-like, not adult-like. As a result, this photograph of her is not the least bit appealing to me, from a sexual point of view. She looks like a child in that photo, not a miniature adult.

The only way to make a young girl sexually attractive to an adult man is to dress her like an adult and train her to behave more adult-like and flirtatious. She also has to walk, stand, and sit as an adult woman, not as a child. If a young girl can imitate an adult woman, then she can be sexually stimulating to men because our emotions interpret her as miniature adult, not as a child.

This brings up the issue of why our society tolerates mothers who encourage their daughters to dress and behave like sexually active adults, and why we allow businesses to use young girls as sexually titillating models and actresses. Who benefits from this? Nature designed men to be attracted to adult women, and it is idiotic to encourage young girls to be sexually titillating to adult men.

What is a "pedophile"?

Why am I telling you what I like or dislike about photos of JonBenet Ramsey? The reason is because we need to understand the human mind in order to understand our problems and how to make our lives better. We need to understand why men are pedophiles. We cannot deal with the issue if we don't understand the cause of the problem. We also need to understand what causes men and women to pursue one another, and what causes us to have problems together.

For example, I would say that a man who has sexual contact with young girls has two serious defects. First of all, those men have a sexual attraction to the wrong age group, and second, they are unable to control their emotions. I would describe a "pedophile" as a man who has a sexual attraction to children. However, some pedophiles may be able to control their cravings, and so they never actually touch children. They would not be considered pedophiles by our legal system, but from the point of view of the future generations, that person is a "well behaved pedophile". A pedophile who can admit his problem and control it is a better quality person than one who lies about his pedophilia or who rapes children. He is equivalent to a person who can admit that he has a problem with alcohol, but who controls it. An alcoholic who cannot admit that he has a problem, or who cannot control it, doesn't truly fit in this modern world.

When we start restricting reproduction, we can't simply look at what a person does. We also have to look at what they actually are. Ideally, men with defective sexual desires would admit this and voluntarily restrict themselves from reproducing. They would be doing everybody in the future a favor.

Adult men are most attracted to the appearance and behavior of girls between the ages of perhaps 17 and 25. Not surprisingly, that is the age at which girls become their most flirtatious and fertile. It is very difficult for adult men to resist girls in that age group.

Some people use the word "pedophile" to describe old men who have sexual contact with women between the ages of 17 and 25, but I would not describe those men as "pedophiles". Those men have a "normal" sexual desire, so they are not sexual deviants. Instead, I would describe them as being unable to control their emotions and make rational decisions.

It may seem that I'm arguing over the definition of words, but it's important to understand why people behave the way they do. There is a significant difference between men who are attracted to young children, and old men who are attracted to 18-year-old girls. A man who is sexually attracted to children is sexually defective. However, all men, even when they are very old, are most attracted to the girls who are about 18 years old. Old men do not develop a sexual attraction to old women. Old butterflies do not develop an attraction to old flowers. Old male wolves do not develop an attraction to old female wolves.

What stops old men from pursuing 18-year-old girls? It is our intellect and our sense of decency. We can realize that such a relationship would be unfair to the woman and any resulting children. Men ought to be able to use their intellect to figure out when a relationship is going to be sensible, and when it is abusive or idiotic. Every man should have the ability to control his emotions and make sensible decisions.

This concept also applies to the issue of theft. Our emotions want us to grab at whatever attracts our attention, but our intellect is constantly overriding our cravings. Look at your life, especially when you were young and didn't have many material items, and you should be able to find lots of times when you were quietly reprimanding yourself with such remarks as, "That is not mine; leave it alone!" or, "I don't need that."

We are constantly controlling our desire to grab at things. A person who steals items doesn't have as much control over his emotions as the rest of us. Something is wrong with his mind. Perhaps he is more like an animal, or perhaps he is just too intellectually defective to think properly.

In order to determine who among us is really the most honest and beneficial, we have to give everybody the opportunity to behave in destructive manners. That would show us who has defective emotions, and who has too little control over his emotions. A lot of us have never committed crimes, but how many of us were truly controlling ourselves, and how many were simply afraid of getting caught?

Secrecy is hurting us

Defective animals do not make any attempt to hide their horrible qualities. Animals have no shame. Animals do whatever they please. The animals with abnormal emotional qualities suffer as a result. For example, if a male animal had a sexual attraction to young males, he would pursue his craving in front of other animals rather than pretend to be heterosexual and secretly engage in homosexual pedophilia when the other animals were not looking. The end result is that he would not reproduce. As a result of animals doing as they please, natural selection favors the animals with the better qualities.

This cleansing process is not working with humans because humans are capable of hiding their disgusting qualities. For example, Jerry Sandusky hid his homosexual, pedophile activities. He is just one of many humans with disgusting qualities who are living among us. If he had been exactly like an animal, he would have raped boys in front of other people, and he would have been arrested a long time ago. However, he and many other people are hiding their disgusting qualities, and this is allowing them to live among us and reproduce. This is allowing them to spread their disgusting qualities throughout the human gene pool. We have to be concerned about what people really are, not what they pretend to be.

Animals do not keep secrets. The ability of humans to sense that their behavior is horrible is allowing defective people to hide their disgusting behavior, which in turn allows them to survive and reproduce. The only solution to this problem is to eliminate secrecy. We need to know the mental qualities of the people we live among. We cannot let other people tell us what they are. We need to know their true qualities, not the image they create for us.

Humans try to control one another and fix their problems, and so there is pressure on homosexuals to get married and have children. If their homosexuality is genetic, this is going to create more of this problem.

By trying to control people, we make people embarrassed or ashamed of what they are, and so they commit a lot of their strange and criminal behavior in secret, thereby allowing them to live among us and reproduce. We have to stop trying to control people.

If we could restrict reproduction to the people who are in better control of their emotions, and who have more appropriate emotional cravings, we would eventually create a world in which people behave in a respectable manner because they want to, not because they fear the police or haven't had the opportunity to be abusive.

Focus on behavior, not laws

As I will describe in more detail in the next file of this series, one of the divisions that a modern government needs is "Population Quality Control". This is better than a "legal" division and a "law enforcement" division because it causes us to focus on the behavior of people and their effect on society rather than whether they are technically following the laws.

It doesn't matter whether people are following the laws. What matters is whether they are productive members of society, or whether they are like weeds that are interfering with other people's lives and happiness. For example, we have a law that requires automobile drivers to come a complete stop at stop signs and red lights. People in densely populated cities may follow that law all the time, but people who are driving on roads that are frequently empty are rarely following them.

One reason we are foolish to focus on laws rather than behavior is because when we focus on laws, we create a conflict between criminals and government that we could describe as a "cat and mouse game", as I described years ago here and in Part 4 here. For example, there is no law in America that prohibits Newsweek from creating idiotic covers to manipulate people, but it would be useless to create such a law because no matter how the law is written, businesses would find a way to circumvent it. We would then respond by creating another law, but businesses would once again find a way to circumvent it. Governments have already created thousands of laws during the past few centuries in an attempt to stop businesses from abusing us, but the abuse continues. We are fools to believe that we need only a few more laws to put an end to the abuse.

The idiocy of trying to control businessmen with laws might be easier to understand if you imagine a more ridiculous example. Imagine a society of idiots in which the government passes a law that prohibited men from raping women. Imagine that a man rapes a young girl and avoids getting in trouble because his lawyer points out that the law prohibits raping "women", not "young girls". And so the stupid government responds by passing a law against raping young girls. Later a man rapes a baby and his lawyer points out that the law doesn't prohibit raping "babies". The government responds by prohibiting the raping of a "baby", and when another man rapes a baby, he claims that he raped an "infant", not a "baby".

This type of cat-and-mouse game can go on forever. We cannot control businessmen with laws, jails, or fines. We should not care whether businessmen are following the laws. All we should care about is their effect on society. A businessman is a leader for the economy, and if he is not providing leadership and helping society become better, then he is not fulfilling his purpose, and he should be replaced. If he is destructive, he should be evicted from society.

By creating a quality control division rather than a legal division, the people in the agency focus on our behavior and our effect on society rather than whether we are following the laws. With this philosophy, the nation doesn't have to be concerned about creating lots of laws, and we don't have to worry about defining the laws with such precise terminology that nobody can circumvent them. Instead, the people must use their judgment on interpreting the laws. The people who are too stupid, irresponsible, dishonest, or psychotic to interpret laws properly and behave in a beneficial manner would be removed from society. This would leave the people who naturally treat one another with respect and decency.

Don't pity the misfits!

Imagine if we told automobile drivers to use their judgment on whether they should come to a stop at intersections and stop signs, and imagine if the speed limits were changed to speed "recommendations". What percentage of the population would be able to handle the freedom to interpret traffic laws?

If every driver was truly intelligent and responsible, then they would come to a stop at busy intersections, but when they were driving along isolated roads and could clearly see that there was nobody nearby, then they would not even bother to slow down. However, many people are already driving recklessly and irresponsibly, so if they had the freedom to interpret traffic laws as they please, there would be even more reckless and irresponsible driving.

Most people react to the irresponsible drivers by demanding more law enforcement and more laws. Today there are public service messages to convince us to refrain from sending text messages while driving. In the future there may be public service messages to tell people not to talk to their robot while driving.

We are fools to try correcting the bad behavior of drivers. We have to set standards of behavior. In the case of automobiles, we can restrict who has access to automobiles, and in the case of burglary, pedophilia, and other crimes, we have to evict the people who are annoying or destructive. In regards to automobiles, I also think we should look for a way to eliminate as many human controlled vehicles as possible.

It should be obvious that plants and animals evolve for their environment. For example, the plants that live in the desert have adapted to low levels of water, and almost everybody has noticed that young boys enjoy playing outdoors, even in the rain and mud, whereas young girls prefer to stay home and play with dolls. However, I don't think many people realize that this adaptation occurs to all of our emotions. Each group of people ends up liking the visual images, weather, foods, and other aspects of their particular environment.

Consider what life was like to men in prehistoric Europe. The men spent most days hunting for food. Which of the men would be most successful in that environment? It would be the men who enjoyed the sensations of that environment; specifically, the visual images of the forest and the snow, the taste of animal meat, and the climate. It was also the men who were best able to notice patterns in the way animals live and behave. It was also the men who could work together in teams, often while quiet and concentrating on their job. It was also the men who were the best at finding their way home after hunting. This favored the men who had a natural tendency to observe the weather, the position of the sun, the shadows, the trees, the rivers, and other aspects of their environment. It also required the men to make tools, and this favored the men who had a natural tendency to notice and understand the characteristics of wood, rocks, metal, and mud.

A man would have been less successful in that prehistoric era if he didn't like his particular weather conditions or being outdoors, or if he became upset if he got muddy or wet, or if he had less of an interest in observing the animals, forest, and rivers, or if he preferred to spend his time with his children or chatting with women.

By comparison, the prehistoric women tended to remain "home" with women, children, and babies. Women didn't need to be concerned much about the weather, or the position of the sun, or the shadows, or the lives of animals. They didn't need muscular arms, the ability to throw rocks, or the ability to carry large amounts of weight. They needed to be able to sit and use their hands, so they needed a padded butt and a lot of coordination in the fingers.

Since women spent their lives with other women and children, the women who were best adapted to that type of life were those who enjoyed chatting with other women as they worked, and who enjoyed the noise and interruptions of children. The women worked independently, not in teams, so they didn't need any ability or desire to be team members.

The Africans who were living around the Sahara desert would have developed an attraction to their environment; specifically, high temperatures, bright sunlight, and open spaces with sparse vegetation. I would expect them to consider the colors and patterns of sand and rock to be more relaxing than greens of a northern forest, or the white of snow. I would expect Eskimos to consider large expanses of white snow to be peaceful and relaxing.

Men are associated with the color blue, and women are associated with pink, but why is this? Monkeys and humans may associate pink with females because of the pink color of female sexual organs, but why are men associated with the color blue? Furthermore, notice that the blue is normally a light blue, not a dark blue or up reddish blue.

It's possible that light blue was one of the few pigments that our primitive ancestors could create, and therefore it became associated with men simply because of the lack of options, but I suspect that men are associated with light blue because that is the color of the sky. That color may be soothing to men because our ancestors spent most of their time "outdoors", and the most dominant color all over the planet, during all seasons of the year, is the blue of the sky. If we could see farther into the ultraviolet, the sky might seem more purple, in which case we might associate a light purple with men.

The men and women who were best adapted to life thousands of years ago were those who enjoyed the visual images, sounds, and smells of their particular environment, which was the "outdoors" for men and being "home" for women.

Women enjoy sunsets, but I rarely hear a woman comment on how beautiful the clouds are at other times of the day. I consider clouds to be decorations in the sky. Blue skies are interesting once in a while, but they are boring. I think clouds are pretty, not just during sunset or sunrise. Fog is also nice once in a while, and I enjoy storms and lightning.

Fog and storms are irritating in our modern world because we don't design cities or transportation systems for the weather. As a result, storms and fog cause flooding, traffic accidents, and interruptions with electricity. However, if we were to design a city to deal with the weather, then I think a lot of men would enjoy the storms and fog.

I would design a city so that some of the social areas are at the tops of buildings so that we could get wonderful views of lightning, hail, snow, sunrises, sunsets, clouds, and rain. I think a lot of boys and men would enjoy going up there to watch the storms, but how many girls or women would be interested?

Why are children so trusting of adults?
 

“Here little boy, have some candy!”

Have you ever wondered why parents have to teach their children to be afraid of strangers? The reason is because human emotions evolved to fit our environment, and our ancestors lived in an environment in which the children could trust the adults. The children didn't need to be afraid of being raped, or having items stolen from them, or being kidnapped.

Today children are taught to be afraid of everybody. Some girls are taught how to poke an adult man in his eyeballs and crush his testicles. Children today are also subjected to endless attempts by businessmen to manipulate them into desiring certain products. Children are also subjected to toilet humor, sarcasm, psychotic behavior, and sexually titillating advertisements and television programs.

Another interesting characteristic of children is that they fall asleep more easily around adults who are talking, whereas adults prefer a more quiet environment. Humans evolved in close contact with other people, and children would fall asleep while adults were still talking. Not surprisingly, young children do not like sleeping in silent, isolated bedrooms. They prefer falling asleep around adults who are talking. To a young child, the conversations are soothing, not irritating.

The reason children sleep so easily around noise is because children thousands of years ago who had problems falling asleep around adults didn't survive as well as those who enjoyed falling asleep in such conditions. To rephrase that, the children who enjoyed their environment were better adapted to life.

The wealthy parents who believe that they are pampering their children by providing them with large, luxurious, soundproof, isolated bedrooms, are not necessarily doing their children any favors. They may be putting their children through psychological torture.

We have to decide what we want the human race to become. If we put babies in their own bedrooms, some of them will be better adapted to that isolated situation, and they will be happier and sleep better. If we restrict reproduction to those people, then eventually all babies will be happy to sleep in their own room by themselves. If, instead, we make smaller homes and put the young children together in the same bedroom, then the children who enjoy being with one another will be the better adapted. The smaller homes would also be more economically practical.

Up until recently, nature has determined what humans like and dislike, but now we are in control. We now have to make decisions on what we want the human race to become.

Animals have freedom; humans wish for it

Animals do as they please; humans must control themselves. Animals struggle to satisfy their cravings; humans often struggle to suppress their cravings. Animals have the freedom to do whatever they want; humans must reprimand themselves and treat themselves like a slave.

Animals don't exert any significant control over themselves or one another. The reason animals can follow their emotions is because nature eliminates those that are not well adapted to their environment. During prehistoric times, nature was doing this with humans, also, and so our primitive ancestors were very well adapted to their environment. They had the freedom to do whatever they pleased.

During the past few thousand years, we have dramatically changed our environment, but our emotions have not changed accordingly. The end result is that all of us have to occasionally control our emotions. We cannot do as we please.

Since each of us is unique, each of us differs in how poorly adapted we are to this modern world. Some people have an extremely difficult time sitting in school classrooms or following orders at work. Some people cannot control their craving to grab at other people's material items, and a significant percentage of the population has trouble controlling their consumption of food and alcohol.

We are now suppressing nature, and we have to decide what we want the human race to evolve into. Consider the issue of working in an office. There are differences among us in terms of the type of office environment that we perfer to work in. If we force a particular style on everybody, then some people will be happy, and others will be miserable. If we allow different businesses to have different styles of offices, then more people will be satisfied.

I consider this style of cubicle to be dreary and unpleasant. It reminds me of the chicken farms in which cages are packed on top of one another. I think business executives promote this style of cubicle partly because of the low cost, and partly because they have the attitude of a king and consider us to be their peasants.		The television program 20/20 recently interviewed the man who created this Internet shoe business, Zappos. He and his employees praise this style of office as being "fun" and "creative", but I consider this style to be noisy and visually unpleasant. I might have liked it when I was eight years old, but not as an adult.

 
It might appear that the best policy is to allow variations in offices so that we can please as many people as possible, but that policy is not practical. The reason is because if we don't set standards for human behavior and restrict reproduction to the people who fit those standards, then people will slowly develop more variations in their mental qualities, and it will eventually get to the point at which everybody wants a different style of office, different food, different clothing, different decorations in the city, and different social activities. Everybody will develop such unique behavior that it will become impossible for people to form a stable, united society.

Furthermore, if we don't restrict reproduction, we will eventually become physically incompatible, also. We already have some midgets and dwarves that are about half the size of normal people, and there are some people who are extremely tall. There are also some extremely thin and extremely massive people, and some people are very good-looking while others are extremely ugly.

If we don't set standards on what the human body should be, then the future generations will have an incredible variety of sizes, appearances, scents, and postures. This will create a problem in regards to producing chairs, bicycles, airline seats, trains, houses, and bathrooms. The unusually short, tall, fat, and deformed people will also have an increasingly difficult time finding a job. Yes, the "micro-midgets" can repair circuit boards, but is this really the best policy for the human race?

Incidentally, some midgets complain that the word "midget" is degrading; they want us to refer to them as "little people" instead. I suppose when there are lots of even tinier midgets in the future, they will complain that we should call them "micro people" rather than "micro midgets". Why would they care which words we use? Before you try to answer that question, consider that fat people also complain that they don't like words such as "fat" or "obese". They want to be referred to as "plus sized", "plump", "large", or "robust".

As I mentioned here in regards to the parents who complain about the word "retard", people don't like these words because it reminds them of how miserable their situation is. Nobody would choose to be a midget, or fat, or a retard, and no parent would choose to have children with those problems. Both the people with those conditions and their parents are suffering, and they foolishly assume that by changing the words, their suffering will be reduced.

We are not going to help midgets by calling them "little people". We have to change our policies towards life. We are cruel, not loving, when we bring people into this world who are defective and who will never enjoy life properly. We are torturing those people. Furthermore, they often end up irritating us because they are perpetually unhappy, and some of them become bitter, angry, and envious.

The only practical policy is to set standards for the human mind and body, and restrict reproduction to the people who are closest to that ideal. This will eventually result in a world in which the people are nice-looking, healthy, similar in size and shape, and truly well adapted to their environment. They will love the offices that they work in, and they will enjoy the foods, and they will love the decorations in their city and the layout of their parks. They will be compatible with other people also, rather than whine that they need the freedom to be different. They will feel as if the world was created just for them. They will have the freedom to do whatever they please. They will experience a life that we can only dream of.

Some mental disorders may have been valuable

Mental disorders are a problem in our modern world, but some of them would have been meaningless or an advantage in prehistoric times. For example, consider the men who are never satisfied with what they have. In this modern world, they try to relieve their endless misery by struggling like maniacs to get more money, or win more sports contests, or become more famous. They think that they are happier than the rest of us, but from my point of view, they are acquiring enormous amounts of things that have no actual value to their lives.

In prehistoric times, this particular mental disorder would have been an advantage. The behavior of perpetually miserable men in prehistoric times would have been exactly as it is today; namely, struggling like maniacs in a futile attempt to end their misery, but they would have been struggling for items that were truly valuable to them, such as tools, food, and furs. They never would have been able to acquire excessive amounts of anything. Therefore, this particular mental disorder would have caused these men to be more successful in regards to surviving and reproducing than those who were more normal. This could explain why there are so many men today who put an incredible amount of time and effort into collecting absurd quantities of money, houses, land, trophies, status items, and boats.

Nature doesn't care whether we are happy. The competitive battle for life only cares that we survive and reproduce successfully. Therefore, if a particular mental disorder helps a person to survive and reproduce, then it is an advantage from the point of view of nature, even if it makes his life miserable.

The same concept applies to the women who are never happy with the amount of money that their husbands are providing. These women are an irritation in this modern world by forever whining that they need more shoes, a larger home, and more money, but in prehistoric times, these women would also have been an advantage. They would have been constantly pushing their husband to get more food, more furs, and more tools.

Our environment has changed, and as a result, the mental qualities that were tolerable or beneficial long ago are not necessarily desirable today. Another example are the people with insane cravings to have everything orderly. In today's world, they are wasting a lot of their time on idiotic activities, such as ensuring all of their shoes are properly aligned in their closet, but people had only a few possessions in prehistoric times, so a craving for orderliness would not have been a problem, and it may have been an advantage.

The people with insane cravings to clean themselves and their possessions are also a nuisance today, and they waste resources, but during prehistoric times, nobody could clean anything excessively. As a result, the cleaning fanatics may have actually had an advantage over the sloppier people. They may have had fewer illnesses, and fewer bites by fleas and spiders.

Some mental disorders may not have been an advantage, but they would have been less significant, or nearly harmless. For example, the problem that we describe as ADD may not have been an advantage, but it may not have caused much trouble, either. In the world today, these people are annoying, and often destructive, because they cannot concentrate on their jobs, relax, or work well in teams. They are always doing something to distract themselves from their misery. Children with this problem can be very destructive in a modern house, but in prehistoric times, the children were outside most of the time, and there were very few material items for them to destroy. Their restless behavior would have resulted in them running around with other children, climbing trees, and chasing frogs. They would not necessarily have been an irritation to the adults.

An adult with ADD would not necessarily have been a problem during prehistoric times, either. Since people in that era were perpetually hungry and always in need of tools, a man with ADD may have put his energy into chasing after animals and making tools. His inability to concentrate on a job or work well in teams would not have mattered much in that era because their "work" did not require much concentration or teamwork compared to the jobs of today. A man with ADD is capable of chasing after animals with a sharp stick, and he can also scrape fat off of a fur. If he got bored while he was scraping a fur, and switched to sharpening a stick, and then got bored and switched to some other task, his inability to concentrate on a task would not necessarily hurt him or anybody else. As long as he eventually completed his tasks, it would not matter that he was doing his tasks in an irrational manner.

The human race is producing an incredible number of mentally defective people, but why? Why didn't nature eliminate mental problems? Why didn't evolution favor humans with higher quality minds? I think the reason the human mind is so defective and so crude is because during prehistoric times, this is all we needed. Evolution gives us the bare minimum that we need.

Our environment has changed considerably, and the minimum necessary during prehistoric times is no longer acceptable. We have to raise standards for people and restrict reproduction to the people with the higher quality minds. People today need to be able to work together better; form more stable, more honest, and more fair relationships; and be able to deal with access to large amounts of food and material items.

Ideally, we would study human emotions

If we could study people in the same unbiased manner that we study animals, we would notice that children, teenagers, and stupid adults follow their emotions more closely than intelligent adults. Therefore, children and stupid adults can help us to understand our emotions and our similarity to animals, whereas intelligent adults can help us to understand how our intellect allows us to control our emotions and override them.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to study human emotions because most people seem embarrassed and afraid to be honest about their emotions. They would have trouble admitting that they sometimes want to grab at items, or that they find some young girls sexually appealing. I think one reason that people are afraid to be honest about their emotions is that we tend to follow the crowd, and since the crowd is very secretive about emotional feelings, we want to be secretive, also.

However, I think that some people are afraid to be honest about their emotions because they have trouble controlling themselves, and they react by trying to ignore their emotions. I see this problem with alcoholics. Specifically, some alcoholics are afraid that they will lose control of themselves and start drinking again, and so they go out of their way to avoid thinking about or being near alcohol.

I have no fear of alcohol because I know that I can control myself around it. I also have no fear of admitting that some photos of young girls are sexually attractive, probably because I have lived long enough to realize that I don't have a problem controlling myself. I also have no fear of being around material items, money, or even gold.

Imagine if everybody in the world could openly discuss their emotions. This would allow us to create a database that would help us to understand the human mind in a lot of ways. I think we would discover a lot of interesting aspects of the human mind. For example, if we were to show photos of landscapes to different people and accurately determine their emotional response, I think that we would discover that there are subtle differences in which photos we find most attractive, and why we are attracted to them. I think we would also discover that there are differences between men and women, and there are differences depending upon which area of the world your ancestors evolved in.

I, for example, spent most of my childhood in Santa Barbara, which is very dry. Although this is an interesting landscape, all throughout my childhood I was annoyed by the heat, the brown color of the dead grass, and endless sunshine. When relatives would visit us, they would frequently make remarks about the brown color, and the lack of green. When I saw pictures of forests and mountains of Europe, I was immediately attracted to them. I also prefer to be too cold rather than too hot. I don't think any of this is a coincidence. I think that the people who grew up in Europe evolved for their climate and their land, and the people who grew up in the Sahara desert evolved an attraction to the desert.

Many photos are attractive, but certain photos are emotionally satisfying to me, such as the photo to the right. It's not because of the colors. At the bottom of this file here I put a photo of a Scottish farm that has even more of that emotional appeal to me, but it doesn't have those colors. And here is a photo that is mostly green but it also gives me that same pleasant feeling.

After many years of looking at photos and the world around me, I have come to the conclusion that I find those photos relaxing because of the low angle of the sun. However, it is the evening sun, not the morning sun that I find relaxing.

I suspect that the reason that I find photos of the evening sun so relaxing is because they make me feel as if I am walking home after working all day. Men in Europe thousands of years ago would see the sun like this after hunting or farming during the day and walking back to their families. In other words, I think my mind associates that particular visual image with the happy feelings of finishing work and going back home to have dinner with family and friends.

A lot of land areas are interesting, such as these barren areas of the Scottish landscape, or fascinating, such as these photos of mineral deposits near volcanoes, but they evoke different emotions. Some of the photos of barren areas evoke sadness and loneliness. I prefer a few trees scattered around, but not palm trees. Palm trees are interesting, but I find other styles of trees more emotionally satisfying. Is any of this a coincidence? I don't think so. I suspect that there are people in Scotland who love their cold, barren landscape, and that the people who evolved in tropical areas perfer palm trees over the trees of the northern climates.

I also love fog, lightning, hail, rain, and snow -- as long as I don't have to drive an automobile during that type of weather. I think a damp, moist, foggy day is a nice treat once in a while. I also love creeks, and being able to walk out onto the water, as in the photo to the right.

A database of the photos, music, foods, and clothing that we are attracted to would also show us how our tastes change according to our moods and as we grow older. When we are disappointed, for example, we might be attracted to different types of photos or music compared to when we are happy. When we are young, we might be attracted to some things simply because they are unusual and grab our attention. As we grow older, we develop a better idea of what we actually like.

Honesty would show our animal qualities

For another example of how an analysis of our emotions could help us, I think it would help men and women form better relationships. At the moment, we have very little understanding of ourselves or the opposite sex. I think it would help people tremendously to understand our animal qualities. Imagine all men and women being honest about what they feel towards men, children, relationships, and life. We would find that all men are very similar to other men, and all women are very similar to other women, and we would also discover that we are very similar to animals.

Consider the sexual behavior of animals that engage in sexual intercourse. Although different species are slightly different, the "typical" male and female animals do not have strong attractions to one another, and they do not form close relationships. When a female becomes fertile, she must experience something similar to what humans experience, which we might describe as a sensitivity in her vagina. However, the females have a strong resistance to sex, so in order for her to submit to sex, a male has to titillate her with some type of courtship procedure. Those procedures seem idiotic to us, and each animal has a slightly different procedure, but they all have one thing in common. Specifically, by resisting the males, the female is forcing them to prove to her that he has a lot of stamina and strength, is in good health, and doesn't quit easily. The males that have to fight with one another for females are also proving this.

If a male can titillate a female, her resistance to him will be momentarily suppressed, and she will hold still for intercourse, and enjoy it to some extent, but she still retains her emotional craving to resist the male, so the male has to grab her with his arms or bite her on the back of her neck. From the point of view of the female, it is partly sex and partly rape. As soon as the sex act is complete, she reverts to her normal condition and wants to avoid sexual contact. If the male is still holding onto her, she might display aggression to scare him away.

The male and female animals have a very crude "relationship". The females have momentary sensations in their vagina that are similar to having an itch that they want relieved, and the males become sensitive in their penis and want to rub it again something warm and soft. Neither of them understand what is happening. They are just mindlessly following crude emotional cravings. Nature doesn't care if they enjoy sex or each other.

It may seem as if animals have nothing in common with humans, but the courtship procedure of humans is just an intelligent version of what we see monkeys and dogs doing. The primary difference between animals and humans is that animals go through courtship procedures only when the females are fertile, which may be only once a year, whereas female humans are fertile throughout the year, and so our courtship procedures are continuous.

To understand how much like an animal we are, consider what our courtship procedures should be in this modern era. In most nations, especially America, there are a wide variety of religions, political views, languages, and lifestyles. Therefore, part of our courtship should be similar to a job interview. We should ask one another questions and try to determine if we are compatible. We should ask potential partners about their use of alcohol and drugs, whether they like to go to Star Trek conventions, how often they play video games, whether they are some style of vegetarian, and other questions.

Ideally, we would feel comfortable asking such questions and answering such questions. The older women are somewhat tolerant of interviews because they seem to realize that they don't have many years remaining to find a husband, but younger women become irritated by questions. The younger women behave very similar to monkeys and dogs. They want the males to chase after them and titillate them with gifts, compliments, and jokes. They want to be entertained, not interviewed, and they want the entertainment to continue day after day after day.

In prehistoric times, this crude courtship procedure was practical. By preferring the men who gave them gifts, the women were forcing the men to prove that they were capable of finding food and making tools. By preferring the men who could entertain them for days on end, they were forcing the men to show that they are in good health, have a nice personality, have stamina, and don't quit easily.

This crude courtship procedure works in small, homogenous primitive societies in which everybody knows one another and in which nature is killing the defective people, but it doesn't work in modern societies because we are chaotic mixtures of people from different races and nations, and many people are mentally and physically defective. In this world, we need to be more serious when looking for a spouse.

A woman's natural tendency is to trust men and assume that if a man is giving her a gift, it is because he earned that gift, and if he is important to society, it is because he earned his position. During prehistoric times, men didn't become successful through murder, nepotism, inheritances, crime networks, bribery, lotteries, royalties, or investments. Today women have to analyze the men and pass judgment on their value.

Furthermore, compatibility is more important today because we have a lot more leisure time, and we have a much wider variety of activities to choose from, and we live longer. Men and women spend more time together today so we need to be more concerned about finding someone who is compatible with us in regards to how we spend our leisure time, how we sleep, and how we eat.

Our courtship procedures should be more serious, but young men and women behave like animals. Young men pursue women that they find physically attractive, and their primary reason for chasing after them is because their penis develops a craving to rub against something warm and soft. They don't spend much time thinking about compatibility, marriage, children, venereal disease, or relationships. They are behaving like a dog that is chasing after a female.

If we could read the minds of a teenage boy as he looks at girls, we would find that he is focusing on their physical qualities, not their mental qualities. We would find him thinking about touching the girls and having sex, not thinking what it would be like to live with the girls. We would not find him contemplating the issue of which of the girls would make a better mother, or which of them would be more compatible in regards to their sleeping habits, leisure habits, and eating habits.

If we could take the images that we create in our mind and put them onto a TV screen, we would find teenage boys are visualizing themselves grabbing a girl, touching her, and having sex. We would not find images in which he projects himself into the future and visualizes himself with his wife. He would not be trying to figure out what his future would be like as her husband, and what it would be like to raise children with her, have dinner with her, and spend leisure time with her. Instead, he would be having very simple fantasies of sex. Those visual images would closely resemble the television documentaries that show male animals grabbing females and having sex, except that the teenage boys would not be fantasizing about biting the girl on the back of her neck.

If we could read the mind of a teenage girl when she is around boys, we would find that she is not analyzing any of the men in regards to their value to society, honesty, responsibility, skills, intelligence, or ability to control their alcohol consumption. We would find that she is not looking for a husband. Instead, we would find her fantasizing that several of the men will make her giggle, give her gifts, and give her compliments. We would find her fantasizing about being the center of attention of lots of men. She fantasizes about having a lot of men struggling to please her, and she doesn't have much concern about the quality of the men. She is not analyzing the men. Rather, she is passively and submissively waiting for a man to come to her and titillate her. She is behaving like a flower that waits for bees. In this modern world, this is a ridiculous method for a woman to find a husband.

A female animal wants a male only briefly to satisfy her sexual craving, and then she chases the male away. Female animals do not have much of an attraction to males. With female humans, it is not after sex that they lose interest in the male; it is after they have a baby. A woman's primary interest in life is babies, not men, so as soon as they have a baby, their focus shifts to their baby, and their husband takes the role of a provider of food and other items.

The intense craving that women have for babies can be seen with women who don't have the ability to control themselves, such as the women who cut open pregnant women to steal their unborn babies, and the women who steal newborn babies. Yesterday, 6 August 2012, another woman was caught trying to steal a newborn baby from a hospital.

We can also see the intense cravings that women have for babies by watching the way they react to babies. For example, when a woman has a baby, she will proudly show the baby to her friends, and she will let them hold and kiss the baby. However, she will not proudly pass her husband to her friends so that they can take turns hugging and kissing him. Women have a much stronger attraction to babies than to adult men.

It's also important to note that women want babies to play with and titillate themselves with. They consider the baby as a toy; as an entertainment device. Their emotions are not concerned about what happens to the child. An example of this attitude are the women who want babies even though they have no ability to properly take care of them, such as the homeless woman in the photo. Another example are the young or stupid girls who have babies even though they don't have a husband or any way of supporting a child. Sarah Palin's daughter is an example.

To a woman's emotions, a baby is a toy to play with, not a young human. Likewise, men regard women as toys for sex. People who are unable to control their emotions, perhaps because of stupidity or mental disorders, will reproduce like animals with no regard to what happens to any of their children. This behavior is acceptable for animals and primitive humans, but humans today need a certain amount of intelligence, and we need the ability to think about issues and control our emotional cravings. Both men and women today need to regard babies as the next generation of humans. We need to be concerned about raising children who will become productive members of society. Nobody should have a right to produce children, especially when they cannot support them.

It's not easy to figure out what is going on inside the minds of other people, but it seems that some of the marriages between stupid people fail because the woman slowly loses interest in the man after she has a baby, or the man slowly loses interest in her as he gets tired of having sex with her. From the point of view of nature, it makes no difference if men and women form stable, pleasant relationships, or if their children are happy. All that matters is that we successfully reproduce.

A lot of people are very possessive of their spouse, and they boast that their possessiveness is due to a strong, loving bond between them, but I think that their possessiveness is actually a crude, animal-like selfishness. I think it is the same type of possessiveness that we have for our toothbrush. We do not want other people to use our toothbrush, but that's not because we have a loving relationship with our toothbrush. We simply do not like other people touching our posssessions, especially not if their body fluids get on it.

The spouses that are intensely jealous and possessive of one another are treating their spouse as a toothbrush or as a slave. I would describe that as a selfish, animal relationship. Some people are so crude that they become violent if their spouse tries to leave. That is not a loving relationship. That is like a kidnapper and his victim. Many men have killed their wife or their wife's lover when they discovered their wife was sexually involved with another man, but how can we justify that behavior? If a friend were to lose interest in you, should you have the right to kill him or his new friend? This behavior is incredibly selfish and animallike.

Supposedly, some women are afraid to leave their husband because they worry about being killed by him. That is the type of fear that we expect with gang members who want to quit the gang and become honest, but they are afraid to leave the gang because they worry that the gang will kill him to prevent him from giving the police information about them. These are not loving relationships. These are incredibly crude and abusive relationships.

The point of these past few paragraphs is that if we could get a better understanding of our emotions, we would discover that humans behave very similar to animals. That information would help us to understand and control some of our idiotic cravings. For example, I think that men would do a better job of finding women if they were not pursuing women while in a state of sexual frustration. It would be better if men masturbated before meeting women. If we meet women while we are sexually frustrated, women that we would normally have no interest in will seem much more appealing. It is like shopping for food while extremely hungry. A man will make better decisions about women when he doesn't have his sexual cravings trying to influence his behavior.

Understanding our emotions can also help us design more appropriate social and recreational activities. For example, I think we should reduce - or eliminate! - the emphasis on winning sports events and collecting trophies in order to stop encouraging the crude behavior of struggling to be the top monkey on the hierarchy. I think sports events should be designed for entertainment, socializing, and exercise, not to satisfy our craving for status.

We need to create social activities to help men and women meet and get to know one another, but should not design these activities to satisfy our emotions. If we create the activities that we find emotionally pleasing, then women will create the activities that allow them to be the center of attention, and men will create activities that give them the greatest opportunity of getting sex.

We have to control our emotions and use our intellect to create activities that help us to get to know one another and determine our compatibility. For example, as I mentioned in my description of "Singles Pageants," women enjoy being the center of attention, but we gain nothing from beauty pageants. We have to do more than look at the women; we need to get to know them, and the women have to get to know the men. We need to design activities that will give women the opportunity to be the center of attention while at the same time providing us with the opportunity to interact and get to know one another.

Our ancestors didn't have to worry much about compatibility since they were all closely related to one another and they didn't have much to do in their life other than look for food and shelter, and then sit around a campfire. Today we need to analyze one another to determine who we are compatible with. Unfortunately, most people are putting more effort into analyzing houses or refrigerators.

Our societies affect our evolution

Your emotions, including what you like and dislike in regards to colors, foods, textures, and sounds, are influenced by the environment that your ancestors evolved for. This concept can help you to understand yourself, and it can also help you understand that we are going to influence the future of the human race by the environment we create for ourselves.

Thousands of years ago people lived in clean, quiet, and beautiful areas. Today we live in noisy, ugly cities that are full of crime, secrecy, deception, fear, manipulation, toilet humor, and graffiti. If we maintain these disgusting conditions for thousands of years, humans will evolve to fit it because the people who are less well adapted will not be as happy or as successful in reproducing.

Male and female animals are almost identical

There are only slight differences between the physical and mental abilities and behavior of a male and female animal, such as that the females are usually smaller.

Male wolf

Male and female wolves are almost identical in appearance, behavior, and abilities, but as photos from this animal preserve show, the females are most likely to treat stuffed animals as babies. Females are designed to be mothers, not leaders.

Female carrying a "baby"

The feminists claim that the reason there are differences between adult men and women is because parents treat their sons and daughters differently, such as giving dolls to their daughters. However, when we provide dolls to animals, the females are the most likely to treat the dolls as babies. This is not because the wolves are sexists. There are physical differences between the male and female brain.

Male animals do not provide much, if any, support or protection for the females. The females have to be able to find food and to defend themselves against predators. As a result, the female animals need virtually identical abilities to hunt, fight, swim, fly, or whatever their particular species does.

The difference between the sexes is greater in humans than animals

If the monkeys that evolved into humans had merely increased in intelligence, then women today would be very similar to men in regards to their mental and physical qualities. However, there is a significant difference between the mental and physical abilities of men and women. The evolution of human caused men and women to diverge, but why?

There is no God to guide evolution. Evolution occurs through random changes, which is a ridiculous method of bringing improvements to something. If we had to improve automobiles by making random changes to the blueprints, it would take millions of years to bring about just a few minor improvements.

During the development of humans, women and men have diverged, but the changes have been through random modifications to whatever our ancestors originally were. Therefore, to understand women today, we have to understand what could have possibly been altered, and why. Developing completely new traits is extremely difficult. The easiest way to change something is to alter existing traits. Therefore, women should be just a modification of whatever female monkeys used to be rather than a new form of female with new qualities. My suspicion is that the men have been inadvertently selecting women who were more childlike in certain qualities.

Why would men be attracted to childlike women?

Humans have a few peculiar aspects compared to animals. For example, as I've mentioned in another file, humans seem to be the only creature that considers waste products to be disgusting. Animals do not have an attraction to waste products, but they are not disgusted by them, either. Cats have no problem eating their waste products, and some female animals will eat the waste products of their babies. Baby koala bears will eat the waste products of their mother in order to get the bacteria that they use to digest eucalyptus leaves.

The only explanation I can come up with is that as our ancestors developed intelligence, there must have been many times when they were so hungry that they wondered if they could eat their waste products. Animals rarely eat their waste products because they mindlessly follow their emotions, and their emotions are attracted to certain types of food, not waste products. However, when an animal develops a certain amount of intelligence, it can override its emotions.

If we could go back in time to the point at which the disgust for waste products was just starting to develop, I think we would find that our ancestors were becoming intelligent enough to think about issues and override their emotions. When they were very hungry, they occasionally decided to eat their waste products and feed them to their children. Through the following centuries, the people who survived the best were those who found the smell and taste of waste products to be unpleasant. When they were hungry, they either suffered quietly, or put more effort into finding food.

As their intelligence increased, they developed an even better ability to override their emotions, thereby requiring them to develop an increasingly stronger distaste of waste products. This cycle continued until it developed to what we see today in which our emotional repulsion to waste products is so strong that it is impossible for most of us to override our feelings and eat our waste products.

Now consider the issue of why a male human would be attracted to a childlike female rather than a fully developed, independent female. A male wolf is not attracted to a child-like female. If a male wolf was attracted to childlike females, he would have less success in reproducing because those females would be less able to properly defend themselves, hunt, and take care of their babies. What would cause our male ancestors to switch from an attraction to fully developed females to childlike females? Why wouldn't our ancestors want fully developed females who were capable of contributing to the hunting of food or the creation of tools?

I suppose there are several reasons as to why men were selecting childlike women. One of them is that as humans developed intelligence, both males and females began to wonder why they bother with their partner. Male and female animals do not have much of an attraction to one another. Many male and female animals form what we refer to as "bonds", but they are not strong attractions. Their primarily attraction is to their children. When a male bird brings food back to the nest, he brings it for the children, not for the female.

Male and female animals get together for sex, but only for brief moments. Most of the time they are independent. Our distant ancestors would have been just like the animals. The men and women would have gotten together occasionally for sex, but they never formed a close relationship with one another. Their primary attraction was to their children.

As our ancestors developed intelligence, there would have been a point at which both the men and women began to wonder why they bother remaining with their partner. Their attraction was to children, not other adults. When a woman gives birth to a baby, she wants to devote herself to her baby, not the father. Furthermore, our distant ancestors didn't know where babies came from, so each woman would have assumed that her babies were her own creations.

The adult men had a craving to take care of children, but they didn't know where babies were coming from, so they didn't realize that only a few of the babies were theirs. Why would they want to stay with any particular female or help any particular children? Why not help children at random? Why not switch from one female to another? Why remain with one particular female? What would cause a woman to stay with a particular man? What would cause a man to stay with a particular woman and take care of both her and her children? What would cause a male to form a long-term relationship with an adult female?

Male and female animals form partnerships as they raise their children, but animals are stupid. They never contemplate such issues as, "Why am I wasting my time with my partner when all I really want to do is take care of the children?" As humans became more intelligent, they would start wondering why they waste their time with their partner. What would cause a man and woman to want to remain together?

Before you try to answer that question, consider that another of the peculiar aspects of humans is that our babies are helpless for a very long period of time. Most animals can walk almost immediately after being born. If we were to go back in time far enough, we would find that our distant ancestors were also giving birth to babies who almost immediately began to walk. However, as humans developed intelligence, the women became increasingly better able to take care of the defective babies who didn't develop properly. Slowly the human gene pool degraded, and as it did, it put a burden on the women. Mothers had to spend more of their time taking care of their helpless, defective babies and less time taking care of themselves. They became increasingly dependent upon other people, but why would any man want to take care of an adult woman? The men had a sexual attraction to adult women, but no desire to take care of them.

However, adult men already had a craving to take care of children, so if an adult woman behaved in a childlike manner, then she would stimulate his emotional craving to take care of children. This type of process would feed upon itself. In other words, as the women became increasingly childlike, and as they became better able to take care of defective babies, they became increasingly helpless and dependent upon adult men for support. But as they became more childlike, they became better at stimulating a man's craving to take care of them.

Eventually the women became so much like children that the adult men were treating them as if they were large children who need constant support and protection. The young girls were never actually "growing up". They would go directly from being taken care of by their parents to being taken care of by an adult man. Furthermore, the women became so skilled at taking care of defective babies that human babies are now helpless for about a year.

We behave like children when we want to manipulate men

Earlier I pointed out that women do not attract a husband by acting like a child, but they will act like a child when they want to manipulate men. This is most noticeable when teenage girls are flirting with boys and deliberately fake stupidity or scream when they see a mouse. It is also noticeable when women commit crimes.

Nobody has to teach humans that childlike behavior is the best method of manipulating adult men. We have evolved with this characteristic. During the past few thousand generations, the badly behaved people who had a tendency to behave like submissive children received less severe punishments. This has inadvertently favored people with this characteristic, causing us to become what we are today, which is people who do not want to accept responsibility for our bad behavior but instead behave like submissive children.

From the point of view of nature, humans are well adapted to life because they are successfully reproducing, but from our point of view, we have some idiotic characteristics that ought to be changed. For example, women should become more intelligent and responsible, and men should stop treating women as "damsels in distress." Men need to regard both women and children as "humans". Men should be able to make intelligent decisions about women and children. We should not be manipulated by tears, displays of submission, or crying.

In this modern world, men need to regard children as "young humans", not as helpless creatures who need constant care and pampering. We no longer have to worry about wolves eating our children, or children dying of starvation. We now need to regard children as the next generation of people. Our emotions are fooling us into thinking that children are precious creatures that need special pampering, but we have to be able to analyze children from the point of view of which of them is worthy of being a member of the next generation.

“We are so sorry. Please forgive us. We wuv you!”

Children are already childlike, but when they misbehave, they become even more childlike in order to stimulate our emotions. Men have to learn to control themselves so that they can stop being manipulated by displays of childlike behavior. This will be especially important when we start dealing with the criminal Jews and all other crime networks, corrupt government officials, and abusive businessmen. As soon as some nation starts dealing with the criminal Jews, I'm sure a lot of those Jews will put on amazing, award-winning displays of childlike behavior in order to manipulate us into feeling sorry for them. How many people are going to be able to control themselves and make intelligent decisions about these Jews?

Michelle Martin, the wife of the pedophile, Mark Dutroux, is going to be released from jail and sent to a convent. Men must force themselves to treat women as "humans", but how many men can control themselves enough to do this? Our emotions want to treat women as helpless, stupid children who need pampering. Men have a craving to be heroes; we want to be a knight in shining armor who saves the helpless women and children. In this modern world we have to pass judgment on which of the women and children deserves our protection, and which of them should be removed from society.

Why do a man and woman remain together?

If a god had created humans, he would have given male and female humans the necessary emotional qualities for us to form a stable relationship, but evolution cannot easily create new qualities. It's easier to modify an existing quality. Male and female monkeys already had a very strong attraction to children, and children have a strong attraction to their parents. Modifying those emotions will create a monkey that has the odd qualities that we find in men and women today.

The previous section pointed out that I think males inadvertently bred the females into childlike creatures. However, this would not by itself cause the males and females to form stable relationships. The males were attracted to females for sex, but not to just one female. Rather, the males wanted all attractive females. What would cause a male to remain with one particular female?

Likewise, the males had an attraction to children, but they had no concept that some children were their offspring. So what would cause a male to remain with one particular female and with the children that he created? This issue also applies to females. Why would any female want to stay with just one male? Why not accept food and support from whichever male is offering it?

From my casual observations of monkeys on television nature programs, it seems to me that female humans are more resistant to sex than female monkeys. This increased resistance could be one of the reasons that men are more likely to remain with one particular woman. We can see this situation today. Most men have to struggle for many years just to get one woman. It's easy for us to get a woman that we don't want, but it is extremely difficult to get a woman that we do want. Only a few men can easily get more than one desirable woman. Therefore, when a man finally gets a woman that he is attracted to, he is not likely to ignore her, wander away from her, or try to find another woman.

Another reason that women may have developed a strong resistance to sex is to reduce venereal diseases. As monkeys became more intelligent, I would expect them to become more promiscuous, not less. If we could increase the intelligence of an animal without altering its emotions, we would create a horrible creature because it would be smart enough to figure out how to do whatever it wanted. An intelligent animal would be able to figure out how to masturbate, and they would also discover that they can please themselves with homosexual sex, children, and animals of other species. An intelligent animal would also "figure out" that it makes the most sense to rape women rather than hope and wait for them to become willing participants.

No animal likes being touched, except under certain circumstances, but it seems to me that young girls have more than a "normal" concern. They have an intense fear of sexual contact. Baby girls do not have any problem with nudity or sex, but when they are perhaps six years old, they start developing a very strong fear of being touched in a sexual manner. The only way that young girls would evolve such a resistance to sexual contact is if men had been trying to use them for sex for a very long time, and the girls who were best adapted to this miserable situation were those who were most likely to scream, cry, and fight.

I can give you a personal example. Many years ago I had put a bunch of leaves and twigs in a pile, and a young girl in the neighborhood saw the pile and decided to jump into it. She then stood motionless, with a look of worry on her face, apparently because the twigs were rubbing against her legs and she was frightened to move. She just stood still in the pile, not saying anything and not even moving her arms. She was about six years old. I walked over to her, and picked her up under her arms, as you normally pick up a child, and put her to the side of the pile. She continued to stand motionless for a few moments, but as I walked away, she relaxed and reprimanded me with something like, "Don't you ever touch me!" She didn't reprimand me just once, either. I was worried the neighbors would hear her and call the police.

You might respond that she was afraid of me because I was an adult, but that is not true. For another personal example, when I was perhaps 11 years old, I and other children about the same age were swimming in a small creek. One of the boys put one of the other boys or girls on his shoulder while he was out in the water. We were not strong enough to do that on land, but we could do it in the water. One of the girls thought it looked like fun, and so she asked me if she could get on my shoulders. Both of us were in the water, standing perhaps up to our chest, and so I got behind her, held my breath, bent down under water, and tried to put my head between her legs so that when I stood up, she would be sitting on my shoulders. That is how I put my brother and sister on my shoulders.

However, as soon as my head touched her legs, she panicked and closed her legs tightly on my neck. Since she was about the same size as me, I had to struggle to get my head from between her legs and out of the water so that I could breathe. I told her to stop that, and I tried a second time, but she did the same thing. The sensation of something moving between her legs caused her to panic. Perhaps she would have been able to let her father or brother do it. I think it is more evidence that women evolved an intense fear of a man touching them between their legs, and the only way they would develop such a fear is if men have been trying to have sex with young girls for thousands of years.

Giving intelligence to a monkey will allow it to figure out how to satisfy itself sexually in manners that nature never intended, such as using children, and this could explain one of the reasons that girls today have such an intense resistance to sex. However, the increased resistance to sex would have other advantages, such as causing sex to become an even stronger reward for a man, thereby helping to keep him together with one woman.

Now consider another peculiar aspect of humans; namely, humans seem to be the only animal that kisses with its tongue. I haven't watched enough television nature shows to be sure, but I am not aware of any other animals that kiss like this, especially not on a routine basis. Our mouth is rather filthy, especially in prehistoric times when there was no dental hygiene, so why would we be interested in such an activity? Animals lick, but that is not the same as kissing with a tongue.

I suspect that kissing is a modification of the craving that babies have to suckle on their mother. Babies have a strong craving to suck and swallow, and they become emotionally attached to whoever it is that they are nursing on. The craving to suckle seems to vanish in animals as they grow older, but this craving seems to persist in humans throughout adulthood, although in a subdued form.

By selecting the more childlike women, the men were inadvertently picking women who hadn't fully developed, and that can cause a lot of childhood behavior to persist in adults. The women who had this craving to suckle would have an advantage over the other women because it would cause them to become even more emotionally attached to a man. It would be another emotional craving that would help to keep men and women together in a relationship.

If kissing is a modified craving to suckle, then why not suck on a finger, a nipple, or an ear lobe? The reason is because nursing is not simply the act of sucking. It is also the act of swallowing. Therefore, in order to satisfy this emotion, we need to suck on something that is wet.

I think people are having sex too often

Judging by myself, a man's sexual cravings increase to a maximum after about three to four weeks, at which time our penis becomes extremely sensitive, and we start thinking about sex. If we don't masturbate or have sex, it will happen while we are sleeping. Although it's not a precise cycle as it is with women, why would a man's sexual craving occur on a 3 to 4 week cycle? I suspect it is intended to match the monthly cycle of women.

Consider what life would have been like thousands of years ago. The prehistoric women did not have beautiful clothing, and they did not have access to showers or bathrooms. They would have been less sexually attractive. The females would be most sexually aroused during the time of the month that they are most fertile, and then they would be likely to have sex one or more times that week. That would satisfy the man for the next three weeks.

I don't think male and female humans were designed for daily or weekly sex. I think we were intended for sex about one week each month. I think people today are having sex much too often. One reason seems to be that we are being titillated to extremes because of all the sexual material on television and advertisements, and because so many women are dressing and behaving like sex toys. Contrary to popular belief, women are more sexually attractive in clothing than when naked, especially in prehistoric times, when their crotch was filthy.

Another reason some people are having too much sex is because they are bored. This same situation occurs with food. People are eating excessively, partly because they cannot control themselves around enormous amounts of delicious food, but partly because so many people are lonely and bored. If we lived in a more pleasant society in which we enjoyed the other people and had lots of activities, I think people would spend less time sitting at home and getting bored, and that in turn would reduce some of the excessive eating and sex.

Another reason that I think some people are having too much sex is because the men who have a lot of sex are boasting about it, thereby creating the impression that they are having a better life than the men who have less sex. Those men are similar to the wealthy people who boast about their money, thereby creating the impression that wealthy people are happier than the rest of us.

If we could measure sexual satisfaction, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that nobody is totally satisfied for the simple reason that our sexual desires were never intended for our pleasure. They developed only to "trick" us into reproducing. However, we might find that some of the people who are the most satisfied are those who are masturbating, and possibly those who use inanimate objects! The reason I say this is because when you have sex with another person, you can't truly do what you want to do. When you do it yourself, you can't totally be satisfied either, but at least you can do whatever you want. We might also find that certain interracial couples are the most sexually unhappy because their particular races have some incompatible sexual cravings.

This issue also applies to sleeping in the same bed. Are couples who sleep together in the same bed happier than couples who have separate beds or separate bedrooms? Not necessarily. Some people may sleep so well together that they are happier in the same bed, but other couples might have more stable relationships if they have separate beds or separate bedrooms.

Nature never intended us to enjoy sex

Our sexual cravings are intended to serve a purpose; namely, to cause men and women to get together and reproduce. For example, why do women want men to thrust their penis deeply into them? It is because if the sperm are released in the vagina, most of them will be lost. In order to get through the cervix, the man needs to press his penis tightly up to it as he is ejaculating. The men and women who were most successful in reproducing were the women who evolved a craving for the men to push deep, and the men who evolved craving to do exactly that.

A lot of people consider their sexual desires to be personal or embarrassing, but all of them developed for a purpose. Our desires are functional, not embarrassing or personal. We evolved these particular cravings in order to make us reproduce. Even the reason women make noises during sex and the reason why men are titillated by those noises is to facilitate reproduction. If men preferred to rape women, then they would be attracted to screaming and crying, and if men had no concern for whether women were enjoying sex, then they wouldn't care if the women were silent. However, natural selection favors the males who earn the females, not rape them. Also, the most stable relationships between a man and woman will occur when both of them are satisfied to some extent.

Men evolved a desire to please the women, not rape them, but how would a man know if a woman is pleased? The woman has to give the man some type of signal, and in the case of primitive humans, the signal was certain noises. The men who did not care for those noises, or who preferred listening to women screaming or crying, were not as successful in forming stable relationships as the men who were titillated by those noises.

The only way we are going to truly enjoy life is to understand our emotions so that we can design our society to deal with them, and so that we can make plans for what we want the human race to evolve into. Ideally, we would restrict reproduction to the people who have the qualities that we want the human race to have, and that would cause the human race to slowly evolve into people who are truly well suited to their environment.

Why are we hiding childbirth?

There is a widespread fear that childbirth is dangerous, especially to children. As I have mentioned in other files, if it were legal to observe childbirth, and if there were videos of it on the Internet, most of us would watch them only a few times, and then our curiosity would be satisfied. Nobody would be harmed.

Why would our ancestors develop a paranoia of those activities? I suppose that the paranoia of childbirth came about as a result of people developing "manners". If we could travel back in time far enough, we would find women giving birth with no concern that other people were in the area. Animals don't care what other animals are doing. Animals are too busy following their emotions to find food and watch out for predators. As humans became more intelligent, they began noticing what other people are doing, and they began to develop what we call "manners".

We enjoy watching animals and humans give birth, but only to satisfy our curiosity. We don't want to watch it over and over. As women began to realize that nobody wants to watch them give birth, they began doing it in isolated areas. However, as soon as the women began giving birth in private, the children grew up in an environment in which they never saw childbirth, and since they were ignorant and less intelligent than us, they made the false assumption that childbirth is hidden because it is terrible or dangerous.

In reality, we hide childbirth for the same reason we hide surgery. Specifically, we are emotionally upset by blood, the smell of our liquids and organs, and by crying and screaming. Children need to be taught that we hide childbirth and other activities to be well mannered, not because it is evil or dangerous.

Why are we so afraid of nudity and nursing babies?

I suppose the paranoia of nudity and of nursing babies is mainly due to the men who could not control their sexual cravings. Some men may have made lewd remarks, and some may have touched or grabbed the women, and some may have masturbated in front of them. The women would have reacted by avoiding men when they were naked or nursing babies, and this would create the impression that those activities are dangerous to men.

Our ancestors have been reacting to badly behaved people by altering society to deal with the worst behaved members. In the Muslim nations the people reacted to badly behaved men by telling the women to keep themselves covered when they were in public. Rather than improve the situation, this philosophy allows the human race to degrade.

The proper reaction to men and women who cannot fit into society is to remove them, or at least prohibit them from reproducing. This will eventually create a society in which women can breast-feed their babies without fear, and in which people who are riding bicycles can stop along a river, take off their clothes, and jump in the water without worrying about being arrested for nudity.

The problems of the world come from the behavior of certain people, not from the devil, poverty, or a shortage of oil. We could divide the troublesome people into two categories:

1) Troublesome on purpose.
For example, burglary, pedophilia, rape, extortion, envy, jealousy, and blackmail is the result of people who make the decision to behave in disgusting manners. I've already explained that these people ought to be removed from society so I won't discuss this group any more in this document.

2) Troublesome by accident.
The people in this category are nice, honest, and friendly, so we don't want to arrest, kill, or evict them, so we place restrictions on them. The best example of people in this category are children who often cause trouble simply because of their stupidity or ignorance. We restrict a child's access to razor blades, jobs, marriage, chemicals, automobiles, airplanes, and many other items and activities.

We all agree that children need restrictions, but most people resist putting restrictions on adults. Most people want to believe that all adults are equal, but adults are not equal. Some adults are incapable of performing properly at certain jobs, and some have trouble handling certain responsibilities, and some of them have annoying personalities. Some adults inadvertently destroy material items because they don't know how to properly use them, and some inadvertently waste resources, such as leaving water running unnecessarily. Some adults irritate us with their lewd, obnoxious, or crude behavior.

We need to pass judgment on which adults are so incompetent, irritating, or wasteful that they need restrictions placed on them, such as prohibiting them from certain types of jobs, or from having access to certain areas of the city, or from having certain material items or chemicals.

Once again, I would like to point out that I'm not proposing anything new. We already put restrictions on adults. For example, most of us are restricted from flying airplanes and performing medical services. We also restrict who among us is allowed to drive an automobile. Virtually every business and government agency also has restrictions on who can access certain areas of their buildings, and we also have restrictions on who can access certain land areas. Airplane pilots have restrictions on where they can fly their airplanes.

Our distant ancestors had complete freedom to do as they pleased, but nobody today does. Everybody today has a lot of restrictions on their behavior. However, there is nothing wrong with putting restrictions on us. Instead of whining about restrictions, our goal should be to ensure that our restrictions are beneficial. We should occasionally review our restrictions and pass judgment on whether they need modifications or elimination. For example, consider automobiles. In America, children are restricted from driving automobiles, but very few adults are. If we are going to continue depending upon human controlled vehicles, then we ought to prohibit more adults from driving. By raising the standards for drivers, the traffic will flow smoother, and there will be fewer accidents.

An example occurs every weekday at an intersection near my house. The image below is from the Google satellite view of this intersection. This intersection was designed with two lanes that turn left (#1 which I colored in red, and #2). There was originally only one lane turning left, but the city added a second lane because most of the people who travel down that road want to turn left, which takes them to the highway.

However, even though there are two lanes, instead of dividing evenly between those two lanes, most people get into lane #2. In the Google satellite photo below, only two cars are in the lane #1, and six cars in lane #2, and two cars are going straight. The two cars that are just entering lane #2 will probably remain in that lane, resulting in eight cars in lane #2 and two cars in lane #1.

This intersection becomes extremely crowded when people are getting off work around 5 PM. However, despite the crowded conditions, lane #1 is almost always empty. The magenta circle and arrow in the image above show the location of my car when I took the two photos below. The traffic light is red in the photo below. Notice that most of lane #1 is empty. 

In the photo below, which shows a closer view of the intersection, the light has turned green, and some of the cars are passing through the intersection. The three or four cars that were in lane #1 will pass through the intersection while I am still motionless with my foot on the brake pedal. By the time I get up to the intersection, the light is likely to turn red. Some of the drivers become frustrated when the light turns red, and they cross through it anyway, thereby causing delays for the people in the other lanes who have the green light.

If the people making that left turn would divide evenly into both lanes, then almost twice as many people would be able to get through the intersection. The city spent our tax money creating two lanes, so why do most people use only one of them? They have been doing this day after day, year after year. The people never change.

None of the drivers are too stupid to understand that they should use both lanes, but most of them prefer to use lane #2 because after they make the turn through the intersection, they want to be in the right lane so that they can make a right turn onto the highway. If they are in Lane #1, then they must merge into the right lane after they get through the intersection. They don't want to merge. They would rather line up in one lane, even if it requires sitting through two or three red lights. From what I can guess, there are two reasons why people do not want to merge:

1) Some people don't have a life
Some people do not care about wasting their time. I have met more than one person who, when asked if he is bothered by the long commute home, said something to the effect that he enjoys the long drive home because it gives him something to do, and there is nothing waiting for him at home. A lot of people don't have any friends or activities, and some of them have families that they don't particularly enjoy, and so they have no desire to rush home simply to be with a dog, a TV set, or with a spouse that they don't care much for.

If we lived in a better society in which we had friends and lots of activities to choose from, I think that there would be very few people who would consider spending an hour or two a day in automobile to be a pleasurable leisure activity.

2) Many people are too selfish to be good drivers
I think the primary reason that most people remain in lane #2 is because of the difficulty of merging into the right lane. A large percent of the population is so selfish that when a person in the right lane sees that somebody in the left lane wants to merge into his lane in front of him, he will often speed up to close the gap. The person then has to abort his attempt to merge, and look for another location.

This video of two Russian drivers struggling to get into the right lane is an example of this problem. Who is at fault? Is it the driver of the SUV who should have merged behind the other car? Or is it the other driver who didn't let the SUV move in front of him? Also note that after they finish their struggle, the person in the SUV gets revenge on the other driver.

The people who block merging cars, and the people who try to force themselves in front of somebody rather than moving behind them, are saving themselves only a few microseconds of driving time, so this fighting over lanes is not an intellectual decision. Rather, these people are following their crude emotions like a stupid animal.

Those of us who use lane #1 in the photos above have sometimes had to try to merge several times before we find a car that will let us in. This frustration causes many of the drivers to avoid the merge. This results in most people lining up in lane #2, which delays everybody from getting through the intersection, including the people who think that they're saving themselves some time by blocking the merging cars! Nobody benefits; everybody suffers.

The image to the right will explain another reason why people resist merging into the right lane. This image shows the on-ramp to the highway. The red arrow shows the lane that turns onto the highway on-ramp. The two green arrows show that there are two other lanes for people driving the other direction to enter the on-ramp. The on-ramp has three lanes. Cars in all three lanes can enter that on-ramp at the same time.

After people cross the intersection (in the photos above), they merge into the right lane, and then they turn onto the on-ramp by following the red arrow.

Unfortunately, when the two lanes shown by the green arrows have the green light and are turning onto the on-ramp, many people stop at the beginning of the red arrow and wait for nearly everybody in those two lanes to finish making the turn. This causes all of the cars behind that person to also come to a stop, which makes merging into that lane even more difficult.

Why do cars stop at that red arrow? I cannot figure that out. Some people may be afraid of turning onto an on-ramp with two other lanes of cars, and some people may be too ignorant or stupid to understand that it is safe to make such a turn because each driver has its own lane.

Crude, selfish people are a nuisance

My complaints about the flow of traffic at the intersection might seem trivial, but it's just one example of how selfish, stupid, ignorant, and crude people are irritating us and wasting our lives. If the world consisted of higher quality people, there would be a noticeable improvement in everything we do. A society of high-quality people would operate more efficiently and more quietly. There would be fewer arguments, less confusion, and less waste.

Higher quality people would also be able to work together with fewer contracts and legal documents, and when they encountered disputes, they would resolve them in less time and with fewer arguments. They would need fewer lawyers and courts.

Hospitals would operate more efficiently and be noticeably quieter without the patients, parents, spouses, and family members who behave hysterically, and who pester nurses and doctors with idiotic questions, remarks, jokes, and complaints.

Getting on and off an airplane would be faster if people weren't selfishly struggling to be among the first on the airplane. Imagine living in a world in which the passengers were willing to line up in the same order that they will sit on the airplane, which would depend upon where the doors were on the airplane. Instead, the first-class passengers are allowed to go first, and then the airlines let people board the airplane in big blocks of about 10 rows at a time. The airlines also let mothers with young children and people in wheelchairs board first, even though it would be more efficient for them to get on the plane at the very end.

Why are the first-class passengers allowed to get on the airplane first? I think it is because our stupid emotions assume that the people who get on an airplane first are getting better treatment than the people who are put on the plane last. There is a valid reason for animals and primitive humans to follow this emotional craving to be first. Specifically, animals and primitive humans truly benefit by struggling to be the first to have access to the scarce food and water.

We can easily see this emotional craving with young children. When food is put in front of them, they struggle to be the first to get the food. As children grow up, we become more human and less like an animal, but we differ in our human qualities. Some adults are not much better than children when it comes to grabbing at food or trying to be the first in an airplane.

In our modern world, we have to learn to control this emotion. It doesn't matter whether we are first into a theater or first on an airplane. It would be better for all of us if we could control this craving and behave in a more rational manner.

As society becomes increasingly complicated, the majority of people will become increasingly like an animal in a human world. This in turn will cause society to become more inefficient, chaotic, and miserable. A few centuries ago, for example, virtually every adult was capable of understanding, building, repairing, and using their simple material items. Today there are so many complex material items that none of us can understand all of them, and none of us can maintain them all.

If we were to keep a database of everybody's use of material items and resources, we would find that some people are getting much more use out of their automobiles, refrigerators, bicycles, and other devices, and that some people use much less electricity, water, and other resources. If we kept a database of everybody's arguments, we would find that some people are arguing much more than others, and that their arguments are much more severe and violent.

A lot of people are inadvertently wasting resources because they do not know how to properly use their material items, or because they do not care about wasting resources. Some people even enjoy vandalizing buildings and property. Some people waste resources because they are too stupid or irresponsible to turn off water or electricity when they are not using it. Our ancestors didn't have to worry about wasting water or electricity, but we do, and the future generations will have to worry about even more issues, such as wasting robots, the city's Internet bandwith, and medical technology.

I've seen stupid people waste time traveling around the city because they don't do a good job of planning their trips efficiently. I've also seen stupid people who rush to the store to get something that they or their children want, and when they finally get back home, they don't want it any longer.

This problem is going to get worse as technology becomes more complex. Some people believe that computers will fix all of these problems, but computers only reduce the physical work that we have to do. Computers increase the mental work that we have to do, and they require more intelligent people. Farmers in the future, for example, will not drive tractors or throw handfuls of food to chickens. Instead, the future farmers will control CNC machines, robots, computer-controlled hydroponic irrigation systems, and flying drones. The human race has to become more intelligent, more responsible, better able to control its emotions, and more interested in being a contributing member of society.

Our natural quality control technique is ineffective today

The animals that survived the competitive battle for life were those that developed emotions that gave them a certain type of population quality control that we refer to as "bullying". Consider chickens to understand this. The female chickens will pull out the feathers of the chicken that is physically or mentally the most defective. When the chickens are living on a farm, this behavior seems cruel and senseless, but when they are wild, the abused chickens are less likely to reproduce and more likely to die.

It should be noted that chickens do not have to behave in this manner. Chickens could love one another equally. Each chicken has to compete for food, and those that are the most defective will have the most trouble feeding themselves. Therefore, the defective chickens will be the most likely to be caught by a predator or die of starvation or disease. In other words, the chicken population is kept under control by the competitive battle for life, so why do chickens add to the suffering by tormenting their own sisters? Why don't they help one another? Why don't they love one another? Why don't they behave like a united group that works together for the benefit of all?

The same issue applies to humans. Our primitive ancestors had to struggle for food and protection from predators, and so there was no reason for them to torment their own brothers and sisters. Humans could have developed a desire to love one another, help one another, and work together as a group for the benefit of all. However, humans are as selfish and abusive as chickens. Children do not love one another or work together as a group. Rather, they pass judgment on whether they like or dislike other children, and they torment the children that they dislike.

Adults do not torment one another the way children do, but adults push aside the people that they don't like. In prehistoric times, this behavior of tormenting people and pushing them away resulted in the misfits having less success in reproduction and survival.

Why don't animals and humans love their own brothers and sisters? Why don't we work together as a united group? Why do we torment our own close relatives?

The reason is because when two groups of animals are competing with each other for life, the best policy to follow is the philosophy that professional sports teams follow. Specifically, create the highest quality team by eliminating the lowest quality members. This will reduce the size of the group, but it will result in a higher quality group. The quality of the members is more important than their quantity. If a large group of humans in 50,000 BC was burdened by retards, idiots, violent savages, arrogant jerks, and psychos, they would have been at a disadvantage compared to a smaller group of intelligent, talented, healthy people.

Human emotions provide for a natural quality control, but it doesn't work in this modern world. For example, children torment the lower-quality children, but there is no benefit to the abuse because adults rush to the rescue of the tormented children, and they accuse the other children of being "bullies". In prehistoric times, the tormented children would have suffered significantly, but today they are so well protected that they feel safe to publicly whine about "bullies".

Children evolved with a desire to torment defective children in order to drive the defects out of society. We are now counteracting that natural quality control feature. This requires that we find some other method of dealing with defective children. We must pass judgment on which children are normal and healthy, and which are misfits, and we must deal with those misfits.

Likewise, we are counteracting the natural quality control feature in adults to push aside the people that we don't like. In prehistoric times, people could push aside somebody that they didn't want to live with, but in the modern world, we cannot push people out of our neighborhoods or apartment buildings. We must tolerate neighbors we don't like. We cannot fire a person on the grounds that we don't like him, either. We have to work with people we don't like. Apartment managers cannot discriminate against people, either.

Our natural quality control works fine for animals and primitive humans, but it is not appropriate or even functional in a modern society. We now have to do the quality control ourselves. Nature is no longer taking care of us. Besides, the natural method of quality control is unpleasant. Nobody enjoys watching children torment a defective child.

We don't want to do quality control of people, but we must force ourselves to do so. We have to analyze the behavior of both children and adults and pass judgment on which of them are desirable members of society, and which are not. We must remove those who are not.

Most people are capable of standing up to violent murderers, but most people cannot evict an adult, and especially not a child, simply because he was stupid or irritating. However, we have to deal with the people who are mildly annoying, including the children. We can't ignore this problem.

There is no competition between genetic groups of humans

Our primitive ancestors lived in small tribes, and if one tribe was more efficient at using resources, or if one tribe could work better together as a team, they would have an advantage. However, there are no small tribes today. We live in gigantic nations that are random mixtures of different races of people. There is no longer a competition between different genetic groups.

Consider the issue of boiling water. Many people don't realize that the temperature of boiling water is exactly the same whether there is one tiny bubble of steam rising up from the bottom once every second, or thousands of large bubbles every second. From my observations of people, most of them are wasting energy as they boil water. Furthermore, most people don't realize that it doesn't matter whether the water is boiling or a few degrees away from boiling. A difference of a few degrees at such a high temperature is insignificant in regards to cooking food.

When I was young, I remember seeing recipes for pasta and other boiled items recommending that water be brought to a "rolling boil". Where is the scientific proof that a "rolling boil" will cook food faster or better than "simmering"?

I think most people are using excessive amounts of heat when they cook their food, and the result is that they waste energy. The excessive heat also causes more of the food to burn, and it causes more splattering, which causes them to waste resources and time on the cleanup.

If we were to observe everybody's use of water, energy, refrigerators, and automobiles, we would find that different people are using different amounts of resources, and some people are very inefficient and wasteful. If you tell people that they are wasting resources, some of them do not care. There is no reason to be concerned about wasting resources because the wasteful people do not suffer.

If America were to divide up into tens of thousands of small tribes, there would be noticeable differences between the groups in regards to their technical abilities, use of resources, and ability to form stable relationships. There would be some tribes that were incredibly religious, and they would waste a lot of their time and resources on churches and prayer, and there would be other tribes that were educated and intelligent, and they would use resources much more effectively. There would be some tribes in which people fight so often that they have trouble forming teams, and other tribes would work well together. If all of those tribes were in a competitive struggle for life, those with the better abilities would dominate. An enormous number of tribes would vanish very quickly.

However, in the nations of today, there is no competition between people. Our nations are gigantic mixtures of people, and the incompetent, irresponsible, wasteful, dishonest, parasitic, and selfish people do not suffer as a result of their terrible characteristics. Instead, they are essentially getting a free ride on the backs of the people who are higher quality. There is nothing wrong with letting low-quality people have a free ride, but when we let them reproduce, we allow the human race to degrade. We have taken away the competition between groups of humans, so we must now do what nature used to do for us, which is to pass judgment on which of us has the qualities necessary for the future generations.

I don't consider automobiles to be entertaining

In the mid-1980s I was in Germany for a few weeks, and I had to rent a car, and I was surprised by how well behaved the drivers were. There was much less horn honking and yelling, and I was amazed at how easy it was to merge into another lane. If I or another driver made a slight mistake, the other drivers just dealt with it rather than honk their horns.

I have since learned that the reason the German drivers are so incredibly well behaved is because the German government has set very high standards for drivers. The reason the Germans can do this is because public transportation is so well developed in Germany that nobody needs an automobile. Therefore, automobiles can be considered a luxury rather than a necessity. In America, by comparison, public transportation is worthless in almost every city. Automobiles are a necessity for most Americans, not a luxury, and this requires that we lower standards so that even the most stupid, inconsiderate, senile, and psychotic people can qualify for a drivers license.

This brings me to one of the reasons that my City of Castles does not provide for private automobiles. America is often described as having a "love of automobiles". This country treats automobiles as if they are a fun, recreational device, and also a status symbol. When I was a child, I, too, considered automobiles as a recreational device, and the concept of flying automobiles appealed to me, also. However, as I grew up, my view of automobiles changed. I began to consider automobiles as a responsibility; as a burden on society; and as an extremely dangerous device.

I can understand why children are fascinated with automobiles, but why do so many adult men regard automobiles as toys? And why do so many adult men support the concept of flying automobiles? Most Americans cannot properly drive an automobile on the ground, so why would we want such incompetent, selfish, inconsiderate, and stupid people to have access to flying automobiles?

There are millions of automobile accidents every year in America, and hundreds of "road rage" incidents. Do you want millions of accidents in the air? How about a constant flow of dead birds falling down on us? Do you want people flying while they are texting idiotic messages to one another, applying their makeup, and fighting with their spouse? How about the people who put trash, furniture, groceries, and other items in their flying pickup truck, and as they fly around, some of the items fall out? Automobiles drip oil, as you can see on driveways and streets, so imagine the effect of millions of droplets of oil falling down from flying automobiles. In densely populated cities, there might be a continuous mist of oil in the air.

The idea of a convertible automobile also appealled to me when I was a child, but after riding in a convertible a few times, I came to the conclusion that they are impractical except at very low speeds. They are uncomfortable and annoying at highway speeds. Furthermore, most areas of the world have so much cold weather, hail, insects, snow, and rain that convertibles are practical for only a few days of the year.

I have seen many authors boasting about Americans having a love of automobiles, but is this something to boast about? I think the attraction to automobiles is evidence that America is dominated by adults who have the emotional development of a teenage boy. As with children, they consider an automobile to be a toy to play with, show off, and have sex in. They don't seem to fully grasp the concept that automobiles are very dangerous, and a significant burden on the owner.

The automobile is also an incredible burden on society because producing and maintaining the automobiles and roads require a phenomenal amount of labor and resources. Traffic accidents also put a burden on us.

Automobiles should be for recreation, not commuting

Although I criticize automobiles, I think that it would be best if some of the land around the City of Castles was designed for automobiles. The area surrounding a city would have train tracks or other transportation to move large amounts of people to popular areas, but for the areas that are not so popular, human controlled automobiles would be a good solution.

Automobiles would be especially useful for groups of people or families that want to go camping or sightseeing in isolated areas. The vehicles would also be useful for people who are too old to walk or ride a bicycle for such long distances, and for people who want to visit nature but don't have the time to spend walking or riding a bicycle.

Since the purpose of these vehicles is to assist people with sightseeing or camping, they would not be designed for high-speed or long trips. Therefore, most of them could be electric, light in weight, and have convertible tops. Some cars could be like the golf carts in the photos below; specifically, without doors. These would be simple vehicles to produce and maintain compared to the automobiles of today. Their slower speed would reduce accidents, also.

With this type of city, driving an automobile would become a recreational activity. The automobiles would be in the same category as bicycles, rowboats, scuba gear, volleyballs, and other recreational equipment. They would be for pleasure, not commuting. Furthermore, since nobody needs one of these automobiles, we could justify setting high standards for the drivers in order to prohibit the obnoxious, irresponsible people from having access to them.

Since people would use these vehicles only in their leisure time, nobody would need to own one of them. People would borrow one when they wanted one. By sharing them, we don't need to produce so many, which reduces the burden of producing and maintaining them. Furthermore, it shifts the burden of maintaining them to society.

Hysteria is not adorable

Television programs frequently show people, especially women and children, becoming hysterical when they are surprised, shocked, or frightened. There are also scenes in movies in which something terrible is happening, and the government officials worry about letting the public know the truth because they worry about them panicking. There are also cases of people becoming hysterical at sports events and retail stores and trampling over one another.

In prehistoric times, it made sense for women and children to scream when they saw wolves or rats. In that era, their hysterical behavior would alert the men, who would then rush over to help them. It also made sense for primitive people to panic and run from danger with no regard to whether they might trample over somebody. Trampling would have been extremely unlikely during prehistoric times because the population was low, and the people were never crowded together inside structures.

As I mentioned earlier, women have become childlike, and men are attracted to women who behave like children. In this modern world, it would be better if adult women started becoming more intelligent and independent. Both teenagers and adults should meet higher standards. We should regard panicky and hysterical behavior as crude, primitive, and disgusting. We should not regard adult women as adorable or cute when they scream at a mouse or become hysterical when somebody is injured in an automobile accident.

Men should control their emotional cravings to be a knight in shining armor who saves the damsel in distress. A man who rushes to save a hysterical woman is not saving a "woman". He is saving a primitive, childlike savage. When we give pampering to hysterical people, we are encouraging more of this idiotic behavior, and we are giving special preference to childlike adults. Give your attention to the functional members of society, not the undesirable people.

The proper way to deal with hysterical people is to push them aside so that they don't bother other people. For example, if there is an airplane or automobile accident, and if some woman is hysterical, the men should control their cravings to be her knight in shining armor and push her away from the area so that she doesn't interfere with the attempt to deal with the accident. The men should not waste their time pleading with her to be quiet or trying to comfort her. Rather, they should physically grab her, and carry or push her out of the area. Nobody should get in trouble for trying to control hysterical people.

We must stop feeling sorry for people who are poorly adapted to this modern world. We do not owe anything to the primitive people. A more sensible policy is to tell everybody that they have a responsibility to behave in a productive manner, and if a person behaves like a savage, then he will be treated as a savage. We should not regard crude behavior as adorable or cute.

Higher-quality people need less supervision

The more like a primitive savage a person is, the more supervision he needs, and the more laws he needs. If we create a society in which immigration is restricted to people who are much better adapted to the modern world, then we would not need so many laws and people in supervisory positions. We could even allow all prescription drugs to be available without prescriptions.

This same concept applies to people in leadership positions. Specifically, the higher the quality of our leaders, the less closely we have to watch over them. Unfortunately, instead of setting high standards for leaders, we are allowing criminals, blackmailed puppets, and freaks to dominate society, and even get into the police departments.

In 18 July 2012 a policeman in Houston, Texas raped a woman in the back seat of his patrol car. If this news report is truthful, he didn't make any significant attempt to avoid getting caught, apparently because his craving for sex was so strong that he couldn't think properly about what he was doing. He put the woman in the back of his police car, and when no one was looking, he raped her with no regard to the consequences, which is the behavior we would expect from an intelligent dog that grabs food off the dinner table when nobody is looking. This behavior also reminds me of Daryl Smith and some of the Chinese Olympic athletes, who lie and cheat in blatant manners with no apparent concern or embarrassment. These people seem to be missing the more advanced, human qualities, and as a result, they need constant supervision.

The same concept applies to drugs. People who are truly adapted to this modern world don't need anybody to control or restrict their access to alcohol, coffee, or other drugs. A society of better quality people wouldn't have to waste any of its resources or engineering talent on the development or production of alcohol breathalyzers. Responsible people would not be helpless babies that need a mommy to watch over them.

You are going to live only one life. Do you want to waste your life watching over crude people and trying to protect them from their abuse of drugs or alcohol? Do you want to waste your time watching over policemen and trying to stop them from raping women and children?

Imagine an extreme example. Imagine if people were allowed to marry their pet monkeys, and imagine if monkeys and humans were capable of breeding. In such a case, some of these interspecies couples would create creatures that are a mixture of a monkey and a human. These crude creatures would be very dangerous and need a lot of supervision, but would you want to waste your time watching over them? Would you want to live in a society that tolerates such incredibly crude, destructive creatures?

We don't owe crude people anything. If we create a society of higher quality people, it will make life easier for all of us because we wouldn't need so much supervision. The fewer people we need in leadership positions, the better for all of us.

We must raise standards for citizens

Does the human race have the mental qualities necessary to take control of the economy? I doubt if the majority of people have that ability, but I think there is a minority who do. The reason I say that is because there are already people in businesses and the military doing the type of jobs that the government officials would have to do.

For an example, consider bicycle maintenance. Imagine living in a city as I described in other files in which you borrow bicycles whenever you want them, and society maintains them for us. The government official who is responsible for providing us with bicycles would have to select several people to be bicycle mechanics. Each mechanic would be in a different location of the city, and each would have a certain number of bicycles to maintain. The mechanics would be in competition with each other, but not for profit. Instead, the government official would occasionally review each of the mechanics to determine how well they were performing. They would be compared to see which of them was keeping his bicycles in the best shape and with the fewest spare parts. The mechanics who consistently did the worst job of maintaining bicycles would be continuously replaced so that other people would have an opportunity to be a mechanic.

Some people might respond that it is impractical to set up a government in which the officials are maintaining bicycles, automobiles, cameras, computers, furniture, restaurants, social activities, and virtually every other product and service that society needs, but as I mentioned before, everything that I propose is already being done somewhere in the world. Large businesses and the military, for example, are already doing maintenance in the manner I just described for bicycles, but on a smaller scale. Businesses refer to these people as maintenance employees.

The people in the maintenance department are responsible for maintaining the equipment that the employees use, but they do not compete for profit. Rather, they try to keep items in good working order for the least amount of spare parts and other resources. Likewise, the military has some people in a maintenance role. These people are not working for profit, either. Instead, they try to maintain equipment as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, the management will occasionally review the performance of the people in the maintenance department, and if they are not doing a good job of maintaining items, they are replaced.

A city does not need free enterprise. We can create a city that is similar in structure to that of a business or a military. Whether this structure will work on the scale of the city depends upon the people in the city. Consider a business to understand this concept. A business will not function properly if the management and employees are incompetent, dishonest, psychotic, or retarded. The structure of a business is less important than the people of the business.

Whether a city can operate like a military or a business depends upon the people of the city. If we were to take a random sample of the population, then such a city would fail. However, if we were to carefully select higher-quality people, then we could make the city work, and much more efficiently than any city in the world today.

The people in a city are the most important aspect of it. Every city in the world today is full of crime, fighting, pedophilia, blackmail, alcoholism, homeless vagrants, kidnapping, arson, dishonest lawyers, ugly buildings, and burglary, but it's not because of the structure of the city government. It is because every city is full of badly behaved people. 

We have to pass judgment on one another's behavior

Television programs and movies often show people becoming envious or bitter when they don't get whatever it is that they want. We are supposed to believe that these envious people are just as wonderful as the rest of us, but they simply "lost their temper." The television programs also create the impression that these envious people can be transformed into wonderful people simply by giving them a lecture, or by punishing them. We are encouraged to feel sorry for people who display these awful emotions.

Envy is not adorable behavior, and it cannot be corrected. There are a lot of things in life that I have not been able to get, but I don't hate or try to hurt the people who have what I wish for. People who react in a destructive manner to failures and disappointments are displaying characteristics that should be considered disgusting, primitive, and animal-like. Don't feel sorry for these people.

The people who have tantrums make it appear as if they are suffering more than the rest of us, but that is nonsense. Everyone - without exception! - occasionally fails at something they do, and we all occasionally suffer various types of disappointments. Some people fail at sports events; some fail in their jobs; some women have trouble having babies; and some people have trouble finding a spouse.

All of us suffer failures and disappointments on a regular basis, but we differ in how we react and deal with our problems. At one extreme are the people who deal with failures extremely well, and they remain cheerful, pleasant, and honest. They do not focus on their failures or disappointments. Rather, they learn from them and move on with life. At the other extreme are the people who focus on their failures. Year after year they stimulate their feelings of anger, hatred, resentment, and bitterness. They have temper tantrums, try to sabotage or hurt other people, and vandalize material items.

We have to set standards of behavior for people. All humans behave like animals, but we differ in how similar to an animal we are. The people who are the worst in regards to envy, bitterness, hatred, sabotage, and other undesirable qualities should not be reproducing. We should not assume that we can correct their behavior with punishments or lectures, either. By restricting reproduction to the people who are naturally better behaved, the human race will eventually be free of these crude, animal qualities.