|Managers are a burden
Animals don't have "managers". All of the animals are
"workers", regardless of whether they are in a pack of wolves, a
colony of ants, or a herd of buffalo. A queen ant works constantly;
she is not a pampered parasite like the queens of human societies. The
animals that are in a leadership role are workers also. Animals do not
have full-time leaders. Our primitive ancestors were also "workers". There
were no managers or leaders until people settled into cities.
Modern organizations are too complex for everybody to be a worker. Unfortunately,
managers are a burden to the workers. They consume food, electricity, and
other resources, but they do nothing to directly produce resources. They
are parasites, so it is in the best interest of every organization
to keep them to a minimum.
Governments, businesses, schools, and other organizations are frequently
their management. In some cases the increase in management is necessary,
but in many cases it is simply because a lot of people prefer management
jobs because they don't want to be one of the workers.
We need to create a society in which management is reduced to a minimum,
but how? One technique is reduce the income disparity between managers
and workers. If all of our basic necessities are free, and if we all have
virtually the same homes, food, and clothing, then there will be no significant
financial incentive to become a manager.
Another technique is to make more of the government positions available
on a temporary basis. The reason it is possible for the government
to offer temporary positions is because the government officials are usually
dealing with problems, rather than doing continuous work.
For example, the people on an assembly line are doing work that is continuous.
They could operate on a temporary basis, but that requires replacing
them without disrupting that continuous process. It requires swapping
them with somebody else who already knows exactly what to do in that job.
By comparison, the government tends to deal with
as analyzing a new medical drug to determine if it is safe to release to
the public. The government officials will do their analysis, and when they
are finished, their job is no longer needed. They do not need to be
replaced. When another drug needs to be analyzed, it could be the same
group of people, or a different group.
The government needs full-time employees to do the work that is continuous,
such as maintaining the city water supply, but many of the leadership
positions in government can be put into the "temporary" category. When
the government has to deal with a problem, it could bring in people as
government officials, and after they are finished dealing with the problem,
their government jobs vanish, and the people resume their primary jobs.
For example, the department that provides drinking water needs only
a few full-time employees to maintain the system. When problems occur,
such as when an earthquake destroys some equipment,
or when new technology offers improvements to the system,
then the government could bring
in people on a temporary basis to deal with the problem.
In a free enterprise system, it is impractical for a government to bring
in part-time, temporary people every time it needs some help because the
people with the skills to do the job are not sitting at home in front of
the television and waiting for the government to call them. However, when
the government is in control of the entire economy, then the government
can maintain a database of jobs, and people can check the list once in
a while, or they can put themselves on an e-mail list to be notified when
certain types of jobs become available. The people who have full-time jobs
can easily volunteer to help with the government on a temporary basis.
They can either cut back on their other job, assist with the government
in the evening, or, if the government has a lot of work to do, temporarily
quit their primary job. When they are finished with the government work,
they resume their primary job.
Is it realistic to let people
participate in government?
My idea of letting people have temporary jobs as government
officials might seem ridiculous, but as I have pointed out many times,
I'm not asking for people to do anything that they are not already doing.
I am simply modifying what we are already doing. For example, the American
jury system is an example of people taking some time off from their jobs
to participate in decisions for society. They are essentially becoming
part-time, temporary government officials of our legal system. When they
finish their job, they return to their primary job.
Some people might respond that our jury system is not working very well,
but don't react to the problems of our jury system with fear or by looking
for excuses to do nothing. Instead, analyze the jury system and try to
figure out how to improve it.
I think that one of the problems with our jury system is the attitude
that everybody is required to participate, and if they refuse, they
will be punished in some manner. This is a variation of the attitude that
we can force people to behave in an honest manner by threatening them with
punishments. This idiotic attitude has a 100% failure rate.
It would make more sense to restrict participation in the government
to people who volunteer. We should not even put pressure on people to participate
by demanding that they provide us with a reason for not participating.
Furthermore, if any of the volunteers show signs of irresponsibility,
faulty thinking, or other undesirable behavior, they should be prevented
from participating in the future. All influential positions should be restricted
to people who show evidence that they are worthy of the job. By comparison,
the American jury system doesn't care whether jurors are illiterate, stupid,
irresponsible, or fluent in our language.
You might respond that if our jury system depended upon volunteers,
there would be an extreme shortage of jurors. Yes, this is why the
courts threaten us with punishments for not participating. Not many people
want to volunteer. However, don't react to this problem with fear. Instead,
contemplate why people want to avoid
I suppose some people avoid jury duty simply because they have very
little concern for society and would rather spend their time feeding themselves,
playing games, and watching television. However, there are several reasons
as to why I do not want to participate
on jury. One reason is that I think the jury system is stupid.
I don't merely have a few disagreements with it. Rather, I think the entire
concept is idiotic for several reasons:
1) Lawyers censor information for the jurors
Our court system is based on the theory that the best way to resolve
a dispute is to have two teams of lawyers review all of the available information,
censor the information that is irrelevant or misleading, and then provide
the jurors only with the information that is relevant. In theory, this
sounds wonderful. Nobody wants irrelevant or misleading information in
Unfortunately, the process of determining which information is relevant
is itself a dispute that needs to be resolved. Therefore, we could have
a separate "pre-trial" to determine which information is relevant. Or,
we could have one trial in which all of the information is presented, and
the jury has to figure out which information is relevant.
2) Jurors are not allowed to take notes
Our court system is based on the theory that jurors make the best decisions
when they are prevented from taking notes. With modern technology, it would
be easy to record the trial with video cameras, and each juror could be
provided with a handheld monitor with headphones so that he can watch the
recording any time he pleases to refresh his memory.
Our prehistoric ancestors had no idea how to conduct scientific research.
As I described in an earlier section of this file, our natural method of
thinking is to take whatever information we have available, fill in the
missing details, and make a decision very quickly. Our ancestors used that
idiotic method to cure diseases, turn iron into gold, and cause the clouds
to produce rain. They failed time after time after time.
During the past few centuries, people have discovered that they must
force themselves to take careful notes so that they can review information,
and that they must verify information, often repeatedly, and that they
must force themselves to avoid filling in details and get into the habit
of doing additional research when they are confused or suspect that some
information is missing. During the past few centuries, they have developed
some procedures to do proper thinking.
However, the American court system is not following the procedures that
our ancestors have developed through many centuries of suffering. Actually,
our court system is following procedures that are the opposite of
scientific procedures. For example, the jurors will supposedly produce
idiotic conclusions if they refresh their memory, try to verify information,
or ask for additional information.
3) There are no standards for jurors
Our court systems do not care if the jurors are fluent with the English
language, and I don't think they even care if they are literate, retarded,
senile, or stupid. How is a person who is not familiar with the English
language going to be a good juror when he has trouble understanding English?
Furthermore, even if everybody is fluent in English, somebody in a trial
may use a word or phrase that one of the jurors is unfamiliar with or unsure
of. If the jurors were provided with recordings of the trial, then
a person could ask for help in understanding the words, but the jurors
are not allowed to see a recording of the trial!
Imagine if scientists, engineers, carpenters, and farmers had to use
this jury system for solving problems. For example, imagine if an IBM executive
is trying to decide which features to add to a new product. The IBM management
tells the employees that they have an obligation to take turns serving
on the "engineering jury", and they will be punished if they refuse.
A group of 12 employees is selected at random. Some of them do not want
to be on the engineering jury, some are stupid, some have trouble with
English, and some are ignorant about engineering issues. Then IBM hires
two teams of lawyers to look at all of the information and censor whatever
they regard as irrelevant. Those two teams then present their information
to the 12 people on the jury, all of whom must sit silently listening to
the information without taking notes or asking questions. Would you approve
of IBM using that technique to solve problems?
Furthermore, our courts are corrupt,
and this alone causes many of us to avoid jury duty. For example, the jurors
in the trial of Christopher
Bollyn were obviously pressured into concluding that he was guilty.
Do not assume that his trial was the one and only time in America that
jurors were pressured into making a decision. We can be certain that it
happens on a regular basis. Every time
it happens, it causes some jurors, and whoever those jurors talk to, to
develop a bad attitude towards jury duty, the legal system, law enforcement,
and/or their fellow citizens. Every incident of corruption can be visualized
as a drop of blood falling on the map of the United States in that particular
location. Every case of corruption lowers the morale of a few people. It
slowly destroys a nation.
Most people don't seem to realize that morale is very important for
an organization. When we allow corruption, we allow morale to deteriorate.
The assassination of President Kennedy, for example, caused many Americans
to develop a bad attitude towards the nation. Even if a person didn't approve
of President Kennedy, he would have been disappointed to realize that he
was living in a nation in which mysterious groups of people were murdering
their president, as if America was some type of crime network. That assassination
the morale of America, and it can be visualized as droplets of blood
appearing on a map of the United States in various locations.
The Oklahoma City bombing caused more droplets of blood to appear on
the map of America, especially around Oklahoma City. The people who believe
that they can improve the world through deception, murder, and blackmail
are fools. Those techniques will ruin a nation, not improve it.
Some people are like flowers that
inspire us and make us feel better, but others are like fleas
that annoy us or ruin our morale. Jerry Sandusky did both; he inspired
some people, but he also caused droplets of blood to appear on the map
of America, mostly around Pennsylvania.
I don't know what the court system of other nations is like, but I would
describe the American court system as disgusting. It was never intended
to reduce or understand crime. It was created by a group
of criminals, religious fanatics, alcoholics, and losers who wanted to
make it very difficult for a person to get into trouble. They were also
ashamed of themselves, so they tried to prevent the courts from bringing
up their previous crimes, alcoholism, and other problems. They wanted to
hide their life history because they didn't want people judging them according
to their value to society. Rather, they wanted to be judged only on whether
they technically committed a very specific type of crime. Furthermore,
the reason they don't want the jurors to take notes is because they want
the jury to make emotional decisions rather than intellectual
decisions. They want to be able to manipulate the jury.
Our legal system was designed to give people every possible opportunity
to get away with bad behavior. For example, if a policeman forgets to inform
a criminal of his rights, the criminal can get away with his crime. This
issue is interesting for two reasons. First of all, our schools should
prepare children for society by giving them basic information about the
legal system so that the police do not have to tell us. Second, notice
that a criminal only has to show evidence that the police didn't remind
him of his rights. He does not have to show any evidence that he forgot
or never knew what his rights were.
Our legal system reminds me of the child's game, "Simon Says". If a
policeman forgets to remind a criminal of his rights, the criminal can
run away laughing, "Ha, Ha! You didn't say 'Simon
says', so I go free!"
The American legal system is doing nothing to help us understand or
reduce crime. Furthermore, I would say that our legal system has been taken
over by a Jewish crime network, and those Jews are using it to protect
their members and attack people they don't like.
are also temporary government officials
The point of these previous paragraphs is that the jury system
is an example of people who are becoming what are essentially part-time,
government officials. Furthermore, this is not the only example of
people taking this role. Voting could
also be considered a part-time, temporary government position. During every
election, the voters are essentially becoming government officials in the
Personnel Department. If the voters also vote on legislation,
then they essentially become officials in other departments as well. When
they are finished voting, their job ends.
Even though the American jury and voting systems are idiotic and corrupt,
there is nothing wrong with the concept of people becoming part-time, temporary
government officials. However, in order for this participation to be beneficial,
we need to set standards for the participants. We also need to design
the jobs to be sensible. For example, I think it is idiotic to expect
jurors to make intelligent decisions when they cannot ask questions or
record information for later review. Likewise, it is idiotic to expect
voters to make decisions on candidates when they have to get information
from advertisements and political speeches.
Incidentally, the concept of recording information should
apply to the police and journalists, also. Video cameras
and audio recorders are now very small and inexpensive, so the police and
journalists should be using them to record information. We are no longer
living in the Middle Ages. We are fools to expect journalists and police
to record information by scribbling it on pieces of paper.
I think the main reasons that they use paper is because people are paranoid
about being recorded, but we should not design society for paranoid freaks.
It is more important for people to be accurate than it is to pacify
Our societies today require people to warn us if they are recording
our phone conversations or filming us with video, but it would actually
make more sense to be warned when somebody is not
recording us. The reason is that when you are talking to somebody, their
mind is recording what you say, and if you are in close contact with the
person, he will also be recording visual information about you, and it
is possible that he will also record odors that are coming from you. Since
his mind is faulty compared to a video recorder, he should warn us that
he is not recording us accurately. He should tell us something such as,
“I am not using any audio or video recording
device to record our encounter, and therefore, I want to warn you that
I will forget some portions of our conversation and distort other portions,
and I will also incorrectly remember what you look and smell like. Are
you willing to accept the inaccuracies of my memory?”
As I mentioned in a previous document, I think the paranoia
of being recorded is because humans behave like frightened animals who
are always worried that some predator is watching them.
It is actually in everybody's best interest to have security cameras
and recording everything. It would be the best way of eliminating
crime and verifying what is actually going on in the world. This is another
example of why we need to understand and control our emotions.
Some jobs should have a high
Our emotions cause us to give blind obedience to people in
leadership positions, but in this modern world, this characteristic is
allowing incredible abuse. For example, Barbara Walters has been a journalist
for decades even though there are millions of other people who can
speak more clearly and produce more honest, informative, and intelligent
news reports and interviews.
We have to change our philosophy towards people in leadership positions.
They should be treated as employees, and they should be given job
performance reviews. Furthermore, we should continuously replace the worst
performing leaders so that there is a constant
flow of new people into these jobs.
There are some jobs that do not need a high turnover rate, such as carpenters
or airline pilots, but there are some jobs where it would be beneficial.
For example, I think the television news readers should have a very
high turnover rate so that we don't become emotionally attached to any
of them. They should not be our friends; they should be providing
When we put the government in control of the economy, then we can easily
design the jobs in television to be part-time and temporary so that we
have a large flow of people through television. A person could become
a television newscaster one evening each month, for example, and they might
do it only for a few months. By having a high turnover rate, more people
have an opportunity to give it a try, and we don't have the problem of
people using the job to glorify themselves or manipulate us.
It would especially useful to have a high turnover rate in the entertainment
area because there is no right or wrong in regards to entertainment. In
America, the entertainment businesses are dominated by a small network
of criminal Jews, and as a result, there is not much variety in entertainment.
By having a high turnover rate in this area, a lot of people have an opportunity
to create television shows, city festivals, music events, recreational
events, and other social events, and this will provide us with much more
We should differentiate between
In a previous section, I mentioned that I think it would be
psychologically best if we considered doctors, engineers, and other people
as "leaders". This makes the category of "leader" very broad, but we can
compensate for that by having subcategories for "leader", such as these
three: 1) Supervisors, 2) Guidance counselors, 3) Optional leaders
The supervisors have to manage specific teams of people for
the purpose of accomplishing some task. These people are in frequent
contact with their team members. They watch over construction crews, military
units, assembly lines, and farms. In addition to needing certain experience
and intellectual abilities, they also need an ability to supervise people.
They have to be able to analyze a person to determine if he is doing his
tasks properly; they have to resolve disputes between people; and they
have to be able to ensure that new recruits are trained properly.
Some supervisors also have to deal with "real-time" events in which
their team is working on a tasks that cannot be delayed, such as construction
crews, and sometimes they have no control over the hours they work, such
as when dealing with hurricanes. Some of these jobs are both physically
and mentally demanding. At the other extreme are the supervisors whose
team is working on tasks that are not time-dependent, such as a team of
architects that is designing a building.
2) Guidance counselors
The "guidance counselor" type of leaders analyze issues and make plans
for the future of the organization. These people do not have much, if any,
direct authority over other people. They tend to work alone, and they get
together with other people only for discussions and research. If they are
working for a business, they may develop the plans to build a factory to
produce a new product, but they are not likely to supervise the construction
of the factory, or the operation of the factory. If they are working for
a government agency or a scientific research laboratory, they might develop
a project to study, but they may not participate in supervision of the
project. Some of the people in this category will design software projects,
and they may contribute some work to the project, but they will not necessarily
supervise the team of programmers who create the software.
The leaders in the guidance counselor category are not necessarily useful
as a supervisor. The supervisors have to be able to deal with people, whereas
the guidance counselors do not need such a talent. Furthermore, the supervisors
are often involved with real-time activities, and that requires people
who can work when they are needed rather than when they want to.
Most of the people in the guidance counselor category are doing work
that is not real-time, so they can work in any location at any time of
the day or night. The exception are those who have to make plans to deal
with real-time disasters, such as fires at a factory, or hurricanes, in
which case they may have to work during particular hours and at particular
Since the people in these positions do not supervise people, they do
not need to have any talent in dealing with people. Furthermore, since
the work they do is intellectual rather than physical, they don't need
to be in good physical shape, which allows old and disabled people to do
these type of jobs. People with strange sleeping habits or lifestyles can
also function properly in these jobs. Perhaps the best examples are the
people who develop software projects in the San Francisco area. Some of
those people are almost as bizarre and anti-social as the people who refer
to themselves as "artists".
3) Optional leaders
This category would be for all of the doctors, engineers, computer
programmers, and other people who I consider as "leaders". Some of them
work independently, and others work in a team, but none of them directly
supervise other people or make plans for the future. I refer to them as
as "optional" leaders because leadership is not part of their job. They
become leaders only if they choose to
participate in society. However, their participation is indirect
because they do not have any authority. They participate by making suggestions
to other people at meetings, or by discussing issues with their friends,
or by posting documents on the Internet.
You might think that this category is silly, but people in this category
have been making significant changes to the world for thousands of years.
A lot of the people who brought changes to the world did so because they
took it upon themselves to make suggestions to their boss, or do some research
in their leisure time. They did something that had some effect on other
people, but what they did was optional, not part of their job.
A person does not need authority in order to change the world.
By referring to people in this category as "optional leaders", I think
it will help people realize that everybody can play a role in setting
the future course for the human race. You don't have to be rich, good-looking,
or born into any particular family. You don't have to be strong, tall,
or able to juggle 10 balls at one time. All you have to do is contemplate
some issue and impress people with your analysis.
If more of the doctors, engineers, and other people would take an active
role in society, they would have an effect, even though they do
not have any authority. Look through history and notice how many of the
people who helped change the future of the human race were originally just
"ordinary" people, not the children of Kings and Queens. Galileo, for example,
was just an "ordinary" medical student when he became fascinated with such
issues as pendulums. He eventually became influential, but it was because
of his analyses, not because of nepotism, inheritances, crime, or
winning a lottery.
Virtually everybody is in the same position as Galileo, Newton, and
others. Everybody is able to analyze whatever issue they find interesting,
and impress us with their brilliant analyses. Everybody can get involved
with changing the course of the human race. Everybody has the option of
A concept that may seem bizarre is that even the people who don't have
the intellectual ability to contribute intelligent analyses can help improve
the future of the human race simply by inspiring other people, or helping
to eliminate crime, or helping people to meet friends or a spouse. Since
we are a team, doing anything to help the members of the team will be beneficial.
For example, morale can be significantly improved - or ruined! - by a small
number of people, even "ordinary" people.
Simply keeping one person cheerful can have an beneficial effect on a team because
he will then influence other people, and so on. Everybody should look for
ways to help their team rather than make excuses for why they can't do anything.
This concept would be more obvious if we had two teams of people who are
identical in all respects except that the members of one team were inspiring
one another, and the members of the other team felt helpless and had no
concern for their morale.
It is also important to notice that the Jews are encouraging us to feel
helpless, worthless, insignificant, and hopeless, and they want us to live
in fear of war, economic chaos, and crime. They encourage the religious
people to let God deal with problems. They don't want us working as a team;
they don't want us to be cheerful or inspire one another.
If they can convince us all to live in fear and lose hope, then they
will have a much easier time conquering us. They want to convince us that
an ordinary person is helpless, but an ordinary person can do a lot of
good simply by resisting the Jewish propaganda and encouraging people to
stop feeling hopeless and fearful. If we could measure a person's effect
on society, we would find that some people who seem "ordinary" are actually
doing a lot to help society.
A better government requires
a better election system
The job description for every elected official in the American
government could be summarized as, "Submissive servant
who represents a group of voters." To fill that type of a job, the
voters only need to consider whether a person is capable of representing
him in the government. A voter doesn't need to worry about a candidate's
experience, leadership abilities, technical skills, or even drug problems.
An alcoholic pedophile is capable of representing a group of alcoholic
pedophiles, so therefore, he is qualified to be a representative in the
If we design a government that has leaders, and if we give the
leaders some authority to do something, then every job would have
a much more detailed description. Selecting a candidate for one of those
government jobs would require that we analyze his abilities to determine if
he has the necessary qualities for that particular job.
When selecting government officials, it would be helpful to consider
whether a particular government job is a supervisory type of position,
or a guidance counselor type of position. If a job is primarily
a supervisory job, then the voters should look for a candidate who has
shown an ability to supervise teams of people, whereas if a job is primarily
a guidance counselor type of position, then the voters should focus on
his ability to analyze issues and make intelligent proposals, and his ability
to supervise is of little or no concern.
When we design a government with leaders, we need to also develop a
different method of selecting candidates for leadership positions. The
American voters are looking for a servant to represent them, and so the
election process can be extremely simplistic. The young girls in a beauty
contest go through more intense
competitions and judging than the political candidates.
Voters are making simple decisions on candidates according to their
personality, visual image, and ability to give speeches. When Paul Ryan
was selected to be Romney's vice presidential candidate for 2012, some
people wanted to learn more about him. However, according to Google, the
second most popular search term was "Paul
The vice president of America doesn't actually do anything or have any
authority, so there is no reason for the voters to analyze his talents
or achievements. The voters don't select the vice president anyway, so
there is no reason for them to analyze any of his qualities. Therefore,
they may as well judge him by what his body looks like. However, it should
be obvious that this is a ridiculous way of selecting leaders for a society.
Of course, now that I'm aware of how the Jews in the news agencies,
Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube are promoting certain issues and suppressing
others in order to manipulate us, I wonder if the Jews are deliberately
searching "Paul Ryan shirtless" in order to make it popular for some reason.
In case you think I am making idiotic accusations about the Jews, during
the past few years I have heard Alex Jones several times on his
radio show encouraging people to search for certain phrases in order to
boost their popularity. Don't assume that Alex Jones is the only person
trying to manipulate us with this particular trick. Phrases such as "stuffing
the ballot" have been in our language for a very long time because
a lot of people have been using variations of this trick, probably for
thousands of years.
Getting back to the issue of electing officials, when we create a government
with leaders who have authority, then we need to be aware of what their
job is, and what sort of mental qualities, experience, technical skills,
or whatever, the job requires. We then have to analyze the candidates to
determine which of them has the necessary qualities and history. Voters
should go through the same type of process that businesses go through
when they hire carpenters, engineers, plumbers, or chemists. Specifically,
the voters should analyze the candidates' abilities and past performance.
The very top leaders should
be "guidance counselor" types
One reason that I think it is helpful to classify leaders as
"guidance counselors" or "supervisors" is because I think it would be best
if the very top positions are the guidance counselor type of positions.
This prevents the top leaders, who have the most authority, from having
direct control over us. They would be analyzing issues and making proposals,
but they would not have any direct control over anybody.
If you wonder how it is possible for a top government leader to have
a lot of authority without having any direct control over us, the answer
is that their authority is only over other government officials, not over
the people. Giving the top officials authority over other government officials
might seem to give them dictatorial control, but we can see this situation
working properly all the time in businesses, militaries, and other organizations.
The top executives of IBM, for example, have a lot of authority, but they
are in the guidance counselor category. They create plans for the company,
but they do not directly control the assembly-line workers, secretaries,
or maintenance personnel.
If any of the top executives of a corporation were to give orders directly
to any of the assembly-line workers or janitors, he would be regarded as
out of control, unless he could offer some sensible justification for it.
Furthermore, and even more importantly, if any of the top executives of a
corporation were to behave like dictators of communist nations, there would
be fierce resistance and anger. For example, imagine a top executive of
IBM demanding that employees refer to him as "Dear Leader", or that they
build giant statues of him. Or imagine a top executive ordering their security
personnel to kill an employee who criticized him.
The founders of America, and a lot of people today, are fearful of giving
government officials a lot of authority because they worry about the government
leaders getting out of control. However, men have formed a lot of organizations
during the past few thousand years, and many of these men had a lot of
authority. Of those men with authority, only a few behaved in the atrocious
manner we see among communist dictators and Kings. Giving authority to
a leader is not necessarily going to cause trouble. It's not the authority
that causes the problem. It is the person's mind.
Government officials tend to be incredibly abusive, incompetent, and
dishonest, but the job did not make
them abusive. I think the reason government officials are so disgusting
is because of the type of people who tend to dominate the government. In
democracies, we are dominated by blackmailed puppets and Jewish criminals,
whereas communist nations seem dominated by violent, selfish, aggressive
men. Government officials are abusive because of their mental qualities,
not because they have authority. I don't think government officials are a
random sample of the human population.
The most important aspect of any organization are its people, and especially
its leaders. The structure of their hierarchy and how they allocate authority
is less important than the quality of the people. Jerry Sandusky did not
have any authority to molest children, but he did so anyway. If he had
been elected president of the United States, he would have continued to
be a pedophile, and if he had been hired as a Ford executive, he would
also have continued to be a pedophile. Pedophilia comes from a man's mind,
not from his job.
Whether an organization has abusive management depends upon the people
in management, not the structure of their hierarchy or their authority.
It is true that some hierarchies encourage abuse, and therefore, we want
to design a government that discourages abuse and encourages productive
behavior, but our primary concern should be the people in the hierarchy.
It is ridiculous to be fearful of giving authority to government officials.
It makes more sense to raise our standards for people in all types of influential
positions, regardless of whether they are government officials, football
coaches, or businessmen.
Submissive government officials
can be dangerous
Everybody understands that we must keep the violent, selfish,
and abusive people out of top leadership positions, but I don't think many
people realize that submissive people
and "sycophants" are also extremely dangerous in a management position
because they have a tendency to follow orders even if they and other
people consider the orders to be absurd. They allow government officials
to get away with incredibly abusive behavior.
This problem is most obvious in the communist nations. A dictator will
get rid of people with independence and fill his hierarchy with incredibly
submissive, emotionally insecure sycophants. This provides the dictator
with a government that will obey any order, regardless of how idiotic,
destructive, or senseless it is. These sycophants are especially dangerous
when they get into the military and police because they allow the dictator
to kill or arrest anybody that they don't like.
Communist governments have the worst problem with these sycophants,
but democratic governments have them also. All governments have a tendency
to become a refuge for the submissive, incompetent, and emotionally insecure
people because businesses and other organizations do not want them.
These submissive people have a tendency to do whatever they are told because
they are afraid of losing their job. They don't have the confidence in
themselves to get another job.
There are submissive people in business, the military, and other organizations,
but the government seems to have the highest percentage of them. A business
would not function very well if it's middle management was full of these
people. In order for a business to survive competition, it needs to be
a team. Submissive people are not team members. Rather, they
are "slaves" of whoever they are submissive to. A government can survive
with lots of submissive managers because governments don't have to produce
anything or compete with anybody. They can survive simply by demanding
Crime networks also tend to be dominated by a dictator who puts submissive
people in the lower-level positions. The reason crime networks can survive
with this idiotic hierarchy is because they don't have to produce anything,
either. All they have to do is steal, cheat, blackmail, and bribe. They
are like governments that take what they want rather than earn it. The
criminals would probably respond that they are working as a team, but their
teamwork is equivalent to the teamwork that the government does when it
collects taxes. It doesn't require much talent or teamwork to take something
The type of people who get into middle management of a business are
more independent, better able to think for themselves, and have more confidence
in themselves to find another job. They do not cling to their job like
a child clinging to his mother's leg. They would resist insane orders,
such as an order to kill somebody simply because he criticized the top
People assume that communist dictators get away with their crimes because
they have "authority" or that magic substance we refer to as "power", but
authority is not what allows them to kill people or build statues to themselves.
The dictator is not doing the killings, and the dictator is not building
the statues. Rather, a dictator has tremendous control over the nation
because he has an enormous network of submissive, emotionally insecure
government officials, policemen, and military officials who are willing
to do whatever he asks of them.
If the lower-level leaders of a communist nation refused to follow the
insane orders, then the dictator would have no authority. However, when
a government is dominated by emotionally insecure, submissive losers
who are afraid to think for themselves, a government official with independence
would be afraid to oppose the top leader because he would be the only
person resisting, and he would be fired, arrested, or killed.
It is dangerous to allow submissive people to fill in the leadership
positions in any organization. The solution to this problem is to
raise the standards for people in leadership positions, regardless of whether
it is a government, business, sports team, or school. People in leadership
positions should be team members who provide leadership;
they should not be submissive, emotionally insecure servants who
When I was a child, there was a dreary Russian leader, Andrei
Gromyko, who rarely showed signs of emotion, and Khrushchev boasted that
if he asked him to pull his pants down and sit
on a block of ice, he would do so without question.
Khrushchev was making a joke, but we can be certain that it was based
on his personal experiences with Gromyko. Unfortunately, I don't think
Gromyko is the only government official that we could make that joke about.
Actually, I suspect that Jews have been making similar jokes about many
of our congressmen, school officials, police chiefs, and military leaders.
According to the Jews at CAMERA, Ariel Sharon did not
tell Israeli government officials, "we,
the Jewish people, control America". I suppose it is possible that
the CAMERA Jews are actually telling the truth in this case, but even if
Ariel Sharon has never made a remark like that, I am sure that lots
of Jews - until recently! - regularly made jokes about how they can make
us do whatever they want.
Don't let top leaders replace
Another reason the top leader of a communist government or
crime network can get away with a lot of abuse is because they are allowed
to replace a lot of the lower-level leaders. This allows them to bring
in their own group of submissive friends, giving him tremendous influence
over the hierarchy. This would be equivalent to hiring a new executive
for IBM, and allowing him to replace a lot of the executives with his friends,
as well as change some of the security personnel, and without any explanation.
When Larry Silverstein got control of the World Trade Center towers,
he replaced a lot of the security and maintenance personnel, and that gave
him so much control over the towers that he could allow his Israeli friends
to install explosives in the buildings. We are fools to allow somebody
in a leadership position to make dramatic changes to an organization without
providing evidence that his changes are going to be beneficial to us.
There is a widespread fear of government leaders with authority, but
we do not have to fear authority. Larry Silverstein is a good example.
He did not have any authority to blow up buildings while people were inside.
He could do this because he did what dictators in communist nations do;
specifically, he replaced people he didn't like with his own dishonest
friends. We don't protect ourselves from this type of abuse by being frightened
of leadership or authority. We need to set standards of behavior for our
All organizations have rules of conduct. For example, the military will
evict people for adultery. At the other extreme are the people in Hollywood
who seem to have a lot of casual sex, orgies, homosexual sex, and pedophilia.
Corey Feldman, as I mentioned earlier, claims that pedophilia is the "number
1" problem in Hollywood. Has anybody ever claimed that pedophilia is the
primary problem in the military or at IBM?
The military also has high standards for grooming. They demand that
their people wear clean clothes and follow certain grooming standards.
By comparison, the people in Hollywood don't seem to care about clean clothing,
grooming, or even sensible shoes. Why would the leaders of the military
have so much more concern about these issues than the leaders of Hollywood?
We could create a lot of comedy routines in which we swap the leaders
of the military with the leaders in Hollywood. What would the Army be like
if General Steven Spielberg was in control? Or how about General Charlie
Sheen in control of the Air Force? Or how about Lady Gaga being in control
of the Marine Corps? You might enjoy listening to some of Gaga's songs,
or watching Charlie Sheen in a movie, but that doesn't justify letting
those people influence the future of the human race.
I think Katy Perry's song California
Gurls is disclosing information about how people are promoted in Hollywood.
If the Hollywood leaders had control of the military, and if Katy Perry
was in the Navy, then she could create the military version, "Navy Gurl".
There is a lot of evidence that children, such as Johnny
Gosch, are bought and sold around the world on a regular basis by wealthy
government officials, lawyers, judges, doctors, and business executives.
Some of them might be in the military, also, but imagine if the entire
military was dominated by those people. We would find Johnny Gosch and
other children being held in secret chambers in aircraft carriers, submarines,
and military bases.
They reason I am mentioning these issues is to point out to you that
the people of an organization are the most important aspect of it.
When you find a business, charity, think tank, church, Hollywood studio,
television network, or government agency that is corrupt, blame the people,
not the structure of their organization.
Government leaders should
behave like scientists
Although the people of
an organization are the most important aspect of the organization, the
of the organization has a significant effect on it. We must design an organization
that is appropriate for human emotions. Humans did not evolve to be dictators
or Kings, so we do not have the qualities necessary for dictatorships or
monarchies. Our emotions evolved for an endless, competitive struggle.
We should take advantage of this quality when designing a government. Specifically,
we should design a government that puts people into competition with each
Once again, I would like to point out that I'm not suggesting anything
new. Scientists are already using this feature to keep one another
under control. A scientist is not supposed to pull his pants down and sit
on a block of ice whenever another scientist tells him to do so. Instead,
scientists are encouraged to consider other scientists as mistaken until
proven accurate. If scientists had the personality of some Hollywood
celebrities, they would be whining about being "bullied". They would whine
that other scientists are encouraging suspicion of them, and that other
scientists are assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.
If Michelle Trachtenberg were to publish a scientific theory, and if
150 scientists analyzed her work and tried to duplicate her experiments,
she might whine that 150 scientists bullied her by treating her as an idiot
who cannot be trusted. However, when scientists behave in this manner,
they are simply doing "quality control." They are verifying the
accuracy of somebody's information or theory.
Although scientists are distrustful of one another's work, they are
not making sarcastic remarks or throwing tomatoes at one another. Rather,
they put a lot of effort into a careful analysis of each other's work,
and they present their conclusions in a serious manner. This makes their
criticism constructive rather than irritating.
It is also important to note that after a scientist does a critical
review of another scientist's work, he passes his criticism to scientists
around the world. They do their work out in the open, not in secrecy. Centuries
ago the scientists decided to spread information to one another though
printed documents. This has evolved into scientific magazines.
Now that the Internet exists, we could simplify the situation by arranging
for a section of the Internet to be set aside for people who are classified
as a "scientist". Everybody would be able to read the information in that
section, but only a scientist would be able to post documents into it.
This would give all scientists instant access to everybody's analyses.
This would be less expensive than using printed publications, and it would
eliminate a serious problem that I think is happening today. Specifically,
I think a network of criminal Jews have gotten control of most or all scientific
publications, and they are plagiarizing, censoring, and inhibiting some
scientists. Furthermore, the Jews are profiting financially from this publishing
Scientists don't need a group of Jews to take the role of their mother
and tell them whether it is acceptable for them to publish their work.
If the scientists are as intelligent as they claim to be, then they can
make their own decisions about whether their work is ready for publication.
To rephrase that, if a scientist is so stupid that he needs a Jew to tell
him when he is ready to publish his work, then he should not qualify as
To summarize the previous paragraphs, the two points I want to bring
to your attention are:
1) Scientists are expected to provide critical reviews of one
another's work rather than give blind obedience to one another.
2) Scientists distribute their work to the world rather than
work in secrecy.
We could apply this same philosophy to government officials and
expect the officials to behave like scientists:
1) Government officials should be expected to provide critical
reviews of one another's work rather than mindlessly approve of their orders.
2) Government officials should distribute their work to the
world rather than work in secrecy.
When a government official creates a proposal or theory, any other official
who was interested in that subject should be free to analyze it and provide
constructive criticism about it. Government officials should be encouraged
to analyze proposals, and they also need some method of spreading their
criticism around for people to see. Rather than use paper magazines, the
government officials could have a special section of the Internet to post
their documents. This would allow everybody to see which proposals are
currently being debated, what type of constructive criticism there is for
those proposals, and whether there are any alternative proposals.
Most people in society would ignore the documents that the government
officials are posting, just as most people ignore scientific documents.
However, by making government officials put their documents on the Internet,
we have a record of what each of them is doing. This provides us with the
ability to do quality control of government officials. We can analyze them
to see which of them are providing us with the most intelligent proposals,
which of them are doing nothing at all, and which of them are showing signs
of faulty thinking or inadequate research. Everybody makes mistakes, but
by keeping all these documents on the Internet, we can more easily decide
which government officials are creating too many mistakes to qualify as
a government official.
The governments officials in the world today would refuse to put their
documents on the Internet because they want to operate in secrecy, but
only a few government officials can justify secrecy. We don't need to provide
secrecy to the government officials who are supervising food production,
medical drugs, housing, electricity, and most other government functions.
The reason government officials want secrecy can be seen with the issue
of Stevia and hemp. If the government
officials in the FDA had to post their analysis of why Stevia should be
illegal as a sugar substitute, and why it should be illegal for farmers
to produce hemp for fiber, paper, or food, we would be able to easily see
that they have no intelligent arguments. The FDA can get away with
this abuse because of secrecy. The FDA officials are making policies by
conspiring with businessmen and crime networks. They are not developing
policies by analyzing issues. They cannot post their analyses on the Internet
because they don't have any analyses. They are criminals who are cheating
Business executives want secrecy mainly because they worry about their
competitors stealing their ideas, but most government officials want secrecy
because they are incompetent, dishonest, or psychotic. Government officials
don't want us to know what they are doing because they realize that we
would be disgusted if we knew what they were actually doing.
If we were to remove the secrecy in our government agencies, it would
make it difficult for crime networks to blackmail, manipulate, and bribe
the officials. Without secrecy, we would be able to look at the documents
that the government officials create, and that would allow us to pass judgment
on which of them are doing useful work, which of them are idiots, and which
are doing nothing. They don't want us to know what they are doing, but
we don't have any obligation to give government officials any secrecy.
We don't have to feel sorry for them. We can tell them to operate in the
open like a scientist, or they will be replaced.
For example, consider NASA. They just spent $3 billion on another Mars
rover, but the primary purpose is to determine whether life exists on Mars.
Who decided that it would be better to send the probe to look for life
rather than a probe to analyze the planet? Who created this proposal?
Who approved the funding for it? How many other proposals did NASA consider?
Why did they turn the others down?
We have no idea what the officials at NASA do, or the FDA, or the Department
of Education. Our government officials are taking an enormous amount of
money from us, and they are spending it in secrecy. We are fools
to continue promoting the philosophy that we are going to protect ourselves
from abusive governments by encouraging the citizens to vote, or by creating
a government of submissive representatives who have no authority. America
is proof that these techniques are failures.
We need to try something else, such as removing the secrecy in government.
Many Americans boast that we have a democracy that puts people in control
of the government, but who among us has any influence over the NASA, the
FBI, the FDA, or any other government agency? We don't even know what these
agencies are doing.
If NASA officials had been required to post the proposals that they
were creating and considering, and if the other government officials had
been encouraged to post their critical analyses of those proposals, then
we would be able to figure out who in NASA is pushing for the explorations
for life, and who agrees or disagrees with those proposals. We would also
be able to see which proposals were rejected, and by whom, and why. This
type of information would allow us to pass judgment on which of our government
officials are helping us, and which of them are lunatics, criminals, and
Before I continue, some people may respond that the system I propose
has lots of flaws. Yes, it is flawed,
but I will remind you that we cannot achieve perfection. We are simply
trying to create a better society than what we have now. The only
way to improve what we have is to start experimenting with changes, and
then alter it as we learn from it. No system is perfect.
The system that scientists use is not perfect, either. Global warming
is an example. The Earth's climate is constantly changing, but some scientists
are being pressured into promoting the theory that the government can control
the weather with carbon taxes. Scientists set up a system to allow them
to verify what other scientists say, but this system is
There are no scientists exposing the flaws of the carbon tax theory, the
lies of 9/11, the lies of the Holocaust, or the lies of the Apollo moon
The primary reason that scientists are failing to do what they are supposed
to do is because a network of criminal Jews has gotten control of
the scientific publications, schools, government agencies, police departments,
and the flow of research money.
There may be a lot of scientists who want to expose and stop the Jews,
but what can they do by themselves? They are surrounded by hundreds of
millions of sheeple who don't care, and worst of all, they are surrounded
by corrupt policemen, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges, corrupt military
officials, and corrupt government officials.
Crime and corruption cannot be eliminated with laws or government systems.
A society that consists of sheeple, retards, psychos, and crime networks
will always suffer from crime, chaos, confusion, inefficiency, and corruption.
We can design a better society, but we cannot make people behave properly.
We can easily start experimenting with better government systems, but
this won't do us any good unless a certain percentage of the population
is willing to participate in society and - most important of all
- willing to eliminate crime networks
rather than ignore them or try to rehabilitate them. Even if we were to develop
the theoretically perfect government system, it will fail when criminals
are murdering, blackmailing, bribing, and intimidating the population.
Getting back to the issue of checks and balances with scientists and
government officials, if a scientist can identify mistakes in the work
of another scientist, then he gets credit for being intelligent.
He is not reprimanded for criticizing another scientist, even if
that other scientist is older and has a good reputation.
By comparison, government officials are not encouraged to analyze
one another's policies or to try to find improvements. Instead, government
officials are forced to follow orders. If an official doesn't approve of
his orders, he may make sarcastic or angry remarks, but that type of criticism
is not constructive.
Disagreements between government officials will be beneficial only
if the people put some effort into developing their opinions
and posting them for other people to analyze. Our society should encourage
government officials to analyze one another's policies, and if they disagree
with a policy, they should put some effort into posting an intelligent
analysis for everybody to see. If an official can find mistakes in somebody's
policy, then he should get credit for having excellent analytical
abilities. He should be regarded as a valuable government official, not
as a troublemaker.
We judge scientists according to what they have actually accomplished,
not on what they promise to do. If a scientist never produced any intelligent
analyses, we would assume that he doesn't have the ability to be a scientist,
at least not for the particular area that he has chosen to specialize in.
We should apply that same attitude to top government officials. We should
create a government in which there are "leaders", not "representatives".
A leader doesn't follow orders. Rather, he should provide us with intelligent
and suggestions. Therefore, we should require our government officials
to post their analyses for us to analyze.
There are a lot of issues facing society, so there is no shortage of
topics for government officials to write about. There are issues about
transportation, electricity, nuclear power, food, greenhouses, genetically
modified crops, and medical issues. There are also lots of social issues,
such as loneliness, divorce, crime, euthanasia, abortion, and bullying.
There are so many issues that nobody can claim that they don't know what
to write about.
The people who have nothing intelligent to say might be useful as supervisors
or managers, but they are not the "guidance counselor" type of leaders.
Earlier I suggested that the top leadership positions be the "guidance
counselor" type of leaders. These are people who can analyze issues and
provide us with guidance. If a person doesn't show an ability to provide
us with intelligent analyses and proposals, then he shouldn't qualify for
the top positions of society.
In America today, a child who fantasizes about being a top government
official will fantasize about "campaigning"; ie, traveling around the country
to shake people's hands, kiss their babies, and make exciting speeches.
We should instead teach children that if they want to become a top government
official, they will have to behave like scientists. They will have to show
us that they can analyze issues and develop intelligent policies.
The children who want to be leaders should be fantasizing about analyzing
issues, researching information, and developing intelligent proposals that
Our schools already have courses to help children become scientists
by giving them an education in a particular scientific field, and giving
them practice in research and analysis. We can do the same for government
officials. The children who are interested in becoming government officials
could be taught about culture, and they could be given practice in researching
and analyzing culture. A student who wants to become a government official
should practice doing research on sports, abortion, transportation, clothing,
Our schools have courses that they refer to as "social sciences", but
as I described in my "Dumbing Down"
articles, they are not the same as the physical sciences. We need to change
our school system so that social sciences become a real science. They need
to become the study of human culture. Government officials should be "real"
social scientists. The schools should give students training in doing research
of human culture, and in analyzing it. The students also need to practice
with writing their analyses.
Our schools are doing an adequate job of training people in the physical
sciences. Therefore, if a student passes his physical science courses,
the businesses will consider him eligible for an entry-level job as a scientist.
If we improve the courses in social science, then the same concept would
apply. Specifically, the students who pass the social science courses would
be eligible for entry-level government jobs.
Of course, we have to keep in mind that when schools are passing judgment
on students, we have the potential of a crime network getting into the
school system in order to promote certain people and suppress others. The
social sciences are already dominated by criminal Jews, and they are distorting
history classes and promoting Jewish propaganda. After a student graduates
from certain courses, especially law and journalism, the Jews prevent him
from getting jobs in those fields.
The reason I bring this up is to remind you that it is not enough for
us to simply improve our school courses. We must also eliminate all crime
networks. We have to stop being tolerant of crime. No system will function
properly when people are cheating it.
Our school system is passing judgment on which students are intelligent
and which are stupid. There is nothing wrong with passing judgment on students,
but it is idiotic to allow this process to happen in secrecy. It would
be better if all of the work that a student did went into a database that
was accessible to the public. Most of the information would never be accessed,
but by having it available, we can analyze any particular student or teacher
if the need arises. Without that information, we cannot do anything if
a student complains about his grades, or if a teacher is accused of incompetence.
Everybody will benefit by eliminating the secrecy.
A school cannot guarantee that a child who passes his science, medical,
or engineering classes will be a productive scientist, doctor, or engineer.
Likewise, schools cannot guarantee that a person who passes a government
leadership course will actually be useful in a leadership position. The
only way to truly determine if a student has talent is to experiment
with him by giving him a job opportunity. We can then observe the results.
Our society should have the attitude that everybody should be given
to test themselves.
Some people might respond that we already have opportunities,
but I don't think so. Getting a job in our world today is extremely difficult,
especially if the job is dominated by Jews, such as journalism. Do you
think you could get a job as a news
journalist or a television talkshow host? We need to make it easier for
people, especially when they are young, to try different jobs. We need
to make it so easy to get jobs that nobody is clinging to a job like a
frightened animal. Some people follow the philosophy that we should become
devoted to one particular business or career, but I think most people prefer
keeping the same job forever because they don't like changes. They are
like a train on a track. Businesses also prefer people to keep a job forever.
However, there is no intellectual reason to justify this policy.
Some influential positions
should be restricted to older adults
We should distinguish between jobs that are practical for people
with little or no experience, and jobs that should be restricted to older
adults with a lot of experience. For example, some people become teachers
immediately upon graduating from school, but I think this is a bad policy.
Their lack of experience would be acceptable if they were teaching very
young children, but I think that the teachers for older children should
be adults who have actual work experience in the field that they are teaching.
It would also be better if there was a larger difference in age between
the teachers and the students in order to reduce romantic relationships.
As I mentioned earlier, we should design society to be tolerant of part-time
jobs. This philosophy, combined with switching to electronic education,
would make it very easy for people to become a teacher on a part-time basis,
even as seldom as one afternoon each month. Retired people could also work
as a teacher on a part-time basis. This would provide students with teachers
who are working in the field that they are studying, or who recently retired
from it. These teachers would have a much better understanding of what
the students need to learn in order to function properly in their jobs.
These teachers would also be able to provide the students with more realistic
projects to practice with.
It may seem absurd for a school to have a lot of part-time teachers,
but once again I'd like to point out that I'm not suggesting anything we
are not already doing. Most of us were already taught by teachers who were
essentially working part-time. For example, consider a high school student
who has six different classes. He will have a different teacher for each
class. Each teacher is teaching for about an hour. If that teacher taught
that one class, then he would be needed at the school for only one hour
a day. However, because our economy does not support such part-time jobs,
the teachers remain in the school and teach another class for an hour,
and then after that they teach another class for an hour.
A full-time teacher who has six different classes could be described
as having six different part-time teaching jobs for six different groups
of students. All I am suggesting is that we modify our economy so that
it becomes practical for a person to work part-time at a school for as
few as one group of students, and then go part-time to some other job.
When we switch to electronic education, the teachers do not have to
spend their time giving lectures to students. Instead, the students get
their lectures by watching videos and reading documents. The teachers are
needed only occasionally to give advice to the students, answer their questions,
help them determine which videos or documents to look at, and give them
tests and assignments. Therefore, it is possible for students to have a
lot of part-time teachers. This allows the students to have access to people
who are working in the fields that they are teaching.
In addition to restricting teachers to the older adults, I think we
should restrict most of the management positions to older, experienced
list of the youngest mayors of America shows that most are between
the ages of 18 and 24. This
page of the youngest congressmen shows that they are only about 10
years older. I don't think it is a good policy to let students graduate
from school and then get into important management positions of government,
business, or schools.
In America, a government official is a submissive servant, and since
even a teenager can be a servant, it is acceptable for teenagers to become
mayors, city counselors, or Congressmen. However, we should design a government
in which the officials have authority over everything, in which
case the government officials will have tremendous responsibility.
We should restrict the important leadership jobs to older adults who have
experience in leadership and who have proven themselves to be above-average
in producing intelligent analyses. We should restrict these positions to
those who qualify as "cultural scientists", as I mentioned near the beginning
of this article.
Government should be small
The Articles of Confederation created a government that was
so useless that it had to be replaced after only a few years, and its replacement,
the Constitution, created a government that was only slightly more useful.
Both governments were designed with the frightened-rabbit
philosophy that government was such a dangerous entity that
no official should have much authority.
The authors of the Constitution were so afraid of government that they
gave the citizens the right to own weapons. This right was not intended
to allow citizens to protect themselves from burglars or rapists; rather,
it was intended to allow citizens to fight their
own military. In 1780, the primary military weapon was a crude,
flintlock rifle, and so it was possible for citizens of that era to fight
a military force. However, it is idiotic today to expect citizens to defend
themselves against modern military weapons, and it is also idiotic to expect
citizens to protect themselves from individual criminals.
We should not be afraid
of government, and we should not encourage
citizens to purchase guns in order to protect themselves from either their
government or from other citizens. We should take control of government
and make it do whatever we want. We should also take control of the economy,
our social activities, and even our language. We should set the
path for our future rather than live in fear of what the future will be.
We need to become
active members of society, not passive, frightened
animals. We should watch over our government and make sure that the top
leaders are behaving properly. This requires that we design a government
that is possible to watch over. Our current government is virtually
to watch over for three primary reasons. First of all, the officials are
allowed to operate in secrecy. Second, our government is gigantic.
There are tens of thousands of officials in the state, city, and federal
governments. If our government was in control of all of society,
then it would be even larger because it would be in control of the
schools, businesses, media, and farms. This would require that we watch over
Third, none of the American government officials have any authority
to do anything on their own. Instead, they vote with other officials. As
a result, there is nobody to blame when something goes wrong. For example,
the American school system is extremely expensive, but who is to blame?
Our history books are full of lies about 9/11, the Apollo Moon landing,
and the Holocaust, but who is to blame for that? If we want to produce
better textbooks, which official do we replace? If we want to try lowering
the cost of education, which official do we replace?
It is impossible for Americans to watch over our educational system
because no government officials have any authority to do anything about
it. There is no way we can control the cost of education, the curriculum,
or anything else.
To make the situation more ridiculous, our government and school system
is allowed to operate in secrecy, so we don't know who is working in the
system, or what they are doing. Near my house is the University of California
at Santa Barbara, but none of the professors or faculty that I have talked
to know how many people work at the University. There is a list of faculty
members, but not a total list of people working at the University. How
can anybody control the cost of education when nobody has any idea of
how many people are working at a University, and what their jobs are?
The American government has a Department
of Education with 4,400 employees and an annual budget of $68 billion,
but none of the officials in that department have any authority over the
high tuition costs of colleges, or the lies in the textbooks, or the curriculum
in the schools. There are thousands of other officials in schools and colleges,
but none of them have any significant authority over the school system,
either. By not letting anybody have any authority, we cannot blame any
official for our educational problems, and we cannot replace any of the
officials in an attempt to improve the system.
A lot of work can be accomplished with 4,400 people and $68 billion
year. Most businesses have fewer employees and a smaller budget, and
those businesses are producing a lot of products and/or scientific research.
Our government is taking enormous amounts of money, and using enormous
numbers of people, but providing nothing. Some government employees
may be "working hard", but they are not doing anything
These government agencies could be eliminated completely with no
adverse effect on the nation.
By comparison, when we create a smaller government with fewer officials,
and when we give each of the officials tremendous authority, then we can
analyze their performance, and replace those who are not doing a very good
For example, imagine living in a city in which there are only three
officials in control of the schools, and each official is responsible for
one third of the city. This would provide us with three school districts.
We would be able to compare those three districts to see how they are doing
in regards to their use of resources, morale of the students, and productivity
of the students after they graduate and get jobs. The official who controls
the district that is doing the worst job of educating students could be
replaced so that somebody else would have the opportunity to try the position.
With only three school officials, each of whom has tremendous
authority over his district, it becomes easy to compare them to one another,
watch over them, and regularly replace the worst performing leader so that
we have a constant turnover.
An organization should have
Every organization is consuming resources and doing something
in return, and we should occasionally analyze organizations to make sure
that their consumption of resources is worth whatever benefit they provide.
This is true regardless of whether the organization is a government agency,
business, think tank, church, charity, social club, orchestra, sports team,
or Boy Scout troop. If a government agency doesn't do something useful
for society, what is the sense of supporting it?
If we were to do an analysis of all organizations, we would find that
are consuming a lot of labor and resources, but they are providing an enormous
amount of products and/or scientific research in return.
At the other extreme, it is debatable
if churches, most government agencies, think tanks, and charities are providing
any benefit at all.
We don't realize how worthless some organizations are because
they are allowed to operate in secret. What did the charities do with the
money that was donated to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti during
2010? What is the Mormon church providing in return for all of the money
they raise? What do the think tanks do with their money?
No organization should have the right to operate in secrecy, and no
organization should have a right to exist. An organization should be able
to justify its existence. If the government
takes control of all of society, then we can open up every organization
and see exactly what they are doing, and what benefit they provide in return.
The only people who benefit from secrecy are the people who abuse us.
However, there are a lot of ways an organization can disguise their
consumption of resources. For example, a charity can disguise their waste
of money by claiming that is going to necessary overhead tasks when in
reality they are just paying themselves and their friends to do virtually
nothing. In order to properly analyze an organization, we need the help of
the people who have experience with how organizations operate, and who
know some of the tricks that people can use to hide crimes and abuse. These
type of jobs could also be offered on a part-time and/or temporary basis.
What should a Department
of Education do for us?
Every organization should be able to provide a description
of the labor and resources that they consume, and a description of whatever
they produce in return. Imagine if we could see the description for the
Department of Education. What would we find?
We would discover that during the past 15 years they have consumed more
than $1 trillion and more than 100,000,000 man-hours of labor, and we would
find that we have gotten
virtually nothing in turn from that incredible
amount of labor and money. They would have no evidence that they have improved
the education or the efficiency of the schools. They could not show any
evidence that the students today are better prepared for credit cards,
home mortgages, voting, or other aspects of society. They cannot even boast
about reducing the lies in the school history books.
The goals of a Department of Education should be:
1) Improve the curriculum so that students are better prepared for
jobs, and better prepared for society.
2) Increase the efficiency of schools so that they require fewer personnel
and other resources.
3) Increase the rate at which children learn information so that they
don't have to spend so much of their life in school.
How would a Department Of Education accomplish such goals? The government
officials should analyze students after
they graduate to determine how well-prepared they are for society, and
how much additional, on-the-job training they need before they become productive.
By observing the students for a few years after graduation, the
government officials would be able to provide suggestions to the schools
on how to improve their education.
The government officials would also compare the schools to one
another in regards to their operating characteristics in order to pass
judgment on which of them is more efficient in using food, electricity,
personnel, water, and other resources. This would allow the government
officials to provide suggestions on how to further increase the efficiency
A school would not necessarily be penalized for using a lot of resources.
For example, if the machining program of one school was consuming a lot
more resources than the other schools, it might be because they are giving
their students more practice as a machinist rather than because they are
wasting the resources. The way to judge the school would be to analyze
the students after they graduate. If the students from that particular
school became more productive machinists at a faster rate, and if they
required less on-the-job training, then we could conclude that their higher
consumption of resources is justified. If their students were no better
than the others, then we could conclude that they are wasting resources.
The top leaders in the Department of Education should be the guidance-counselor
type of leaders. They should not be submissive servants who represent
voters, and they are not the supervisor-type of leaders because they are
not supervising teams of people. Most of their time would be spent analyzing
schools and students and developing proposals for the lower-level,
supervisor-type managers to experiment with in an attempt to improve
the schools and keep the curriculum relevant to the changing technology.
Creating this type of government is easy. All we have to do is change
our attitudes towards government.
We should reduce the quantity
of leaders to the bare minimum
The more people we have in leadership roles, the more difficult
it is for us to maintain society. The reason is because the more leaders
we have, the more people we have to find
for leadership positions, and the more people we have to watch
Another important concept is that increasing the number of leaders also
increases the incompetence of government. The reason is because
most people are "ordinary" in regards to their leadership abilities, and
half the population is "below average". The smaller a government is, the
more finicky we can be in regards to leaders, thereby improving the chances
that we get some of the people who are at the top of the bell curve in
Most people resist this concept because they don't want to face the
fact that most people are "ordinary". Some Americans boast that we allow
to be president, and they often mention Ronald Reagan as evidence. They
are essentially boasting, "America is the best nation
in the world because even ordinary people, such as Ronald Reagan, can be elected
Imagine a more extreme example, such as a person who boasted that the
hospital in his city is the greatest hospital because everybody
can be hired as a surgeon, even Ronald Reagan. If people were more intelligent,
they would boast that their organization has such high standards for leadership
that most people cannot qualify. The American people should
be boasting, "America is the greatest nation in the
world because people like me don't even qualify for middle management!"
It is important for modern society to find ways to reduce the number
of leaders to the bare minimum. We
should be willing to make sacrifices in order to reduce the number
of leaders. For example, one of the reasons I suggest that we provide the
basic necessities for free is to reduce the number of people that we need
in leadership roles for monitoring and dealing with financial transactions,
money, and the distribution of resources. By providing items for free,
we not only reduce the labor involved in regulating those resources,
but we also reduce the number of people in leadership positions.
Another sacrifice that I would make is to end the regulations for prescription
drugs. This shifts the responsibility for using drugs from government officials
and doctors to the individuals who use the drugs. This allows us
to eliminate all of the people involved with regulating drugs, which saves
a lot of labor and eliminates a lot of leadership positions. This policy
requires that people become more responsible for their drug use, but I think
it is a worthwhile sacrifice. This policy might eliminate only a tiny fraction
of leadership positions, but every reduction adds up.
We can also save some government positions by evicting people
who don't fit in rather than keeping them in jail and putting them through
Men have intense cravings to be important, and so men are constantly
putting pressure on society to create more leadership positions. They have
a tendency to promote new government agencies, not fewer
of them, and they promote breaking cities into smaller pieces, rather
than combining city governments. They want more government
positions, not fewer of them. In business, the men behave the same
way. They look for ways to increase the divisions and the management
positions, not reduce the management positions.
We have to be aware of this characteristic, and we have to counteract
it. We are in a never-ending battle with our emotions. We have to occasionally
review all leadership positions to determine whether they are truly necessary.
We also have to face the fact that many men want a leadership position
because many leadership positions allow them to do virtually nothing.
I have seen some men who, after becoming a leader, become nearly invisible
to the employees because they waste most of their time goofing around.
They are not interested in working. They want to be in a leadership position
to feel important, make more money, and avoid work, not because
they actually want to be a leader.
We have to design society so that we can easily review leadership positions,
and easily eliminate them. In a free enterprise system, people resist having
their job eliminated, but by putting the government in control of the economy
and having the government find us jobs, then we can encourage people to
look for ways to eliminate their job, and other people's
jobs. The people who can figure out how to eliminate jobs would be proving
themselves as valuable analysts, and their achievements would qualify them
for leadership positions. They would be especially useful for analyzing
government agencies and reducing them in size.
Conservatives do not
The people who refer to themselves as "conservatives" are constantly
boasting that they want to reduce the size of government, but all political
groups continuously enlarge the government. For example, some conservatives
promote a reduction in Social Security and Medicare, but that does not
reduce the size of the government. It simply reduces the amount
of money that the government is spending.
Even if we completely eliminated welfare and Social Security,
the Department of Education, NASA, the FDA, and all of the other government
agencies would continue to waste an enormous amount of money every
year. We would reduce our taxes by a bit, but the government would remain
virtually the same size.
There is only one way to reduce the size of government, and that
is to fire government officials. However, we never find political
candidates providing a list of people that they are going to fire. In order
to reduce the American government significantly, we would have to fire
of people in federal, state, and city governments.
The same concept applies to education. In order to reduce the
cost of education, we have to fire an enormous number of people in the
school system. However, no political candidates are willing to fire government
officials, and government employees are not going to vote for a candidate
who promises to eliminate their jobs. Political candidates do the exact
They propose to spend more money on the school system, thereby allowing
even more people to get jobs in the school system.
The only solution to this problem is to design a different government
that makes it easy to fire government officials, and which encourages people
to look for ways to eliminate government jobs.
Leaders need competition
and a high turnover
In some previous paragraphs I described a city in which there
are three school officials, each responsible for one third of the
city. By having three school officials, each equal to one another in authority
and doing virtually the same jobs, it becomes easy to compare them
to one another.
I don't think it is a good idea to let any of the top leaders have a
dictatorial position. Every person in a top leadership position should
have competition. We need at least two people to do virtually the
same job so that we can compare them to one another. We can then pass judgment
on which of them is doing the worst job, and we can replace that
person in order to give somebody else the opportunity to test their abilities.
I think having three leaders is the best because if they have to
vote on issues, there will never be a tie.
Competition allows us to determine who is doing a better job, and by
constantly replacing the worst performing leader, we give other people
the opportunity to try the job, which reduces the number of people who
complain that they are being ignored, and it also exposes us to new ideas,
which prevents stagnation, and it also allows us to find the best people
for the job.
Some government agencies deal with issues that can easily be restricted
to a certain region of a city. Examples are the agencies that supervise
school systems, parks, farms, building maintenance, product maintenance,
medical care, and dentistry. This allows us to divide an agency into virtually
identical pieces, and assign each piece a different region of the city.
For example, the government agency that is responsible for the construction
and maintenance of buildings, parks, and other material items would be
divided into thirds, and each would be responsible for one third of the
city. This would allow us to compare these agencies to see who is doing
a better job of maintaining the buildings, bicycles, recreational equipment,
social clubs, and other items in their region.
No government has yet encouraged competition between government officials,
or a high turnover rate of government officials. The lack of competition,
and the inability to replace the worst performing leaders, is allowing
and corrupt officials to remain in top leadership positions for
their entire lives. Many government officials around the world,
including Supreme Court justices, are so elderly that they cannot think
properly, but nobody has the authority to replace them.
Since our leaders don't have any competition, most people are not even
aware of how incompetent they are. If that statement seems silly, imagine
if the English people were to select two more women to be Queens
of England. This would provide England with three Queens. Furthermore,
imagine that they replaced the most disliked Queen every year or
two. Chances are very good that Queen Elizabeth would be replaced first,
and after a decade, England would have three Queens that were intelligent,
talented, attractive, and impressive.
Since England has only one queen, and since she is allowed
to operate in secrecy, and since she appears only
briefly in controlled situations, many people don't notice
that she is a worthless, Neanderthal-type of creature. Years ago I pointed
out that when Michelle Obama gets together with other world leaders, she
stands out and attracts attention. We don't realize how dreary, ugly, and
bizarre Angela Merkel, Queen Elizabeth, and other world leaders are until
we see them next to somebody who is more desirable.
When Queen Elizabeth is next to Michelle Obama, it is easier to realize
that she is just a dumb, pudgy, troll with a bland personality. The British
citizens who are protecting the monarchy by killing such people as Princess
Diana, are fools.
Perhaps I am overly sensitive to the issue of Queen Elizabeth because
I do not pay for any television channels, so I get only what is broadcast
for free in my particular area, which is ABC and PBS. During the summer
of 2012, both ABC and PBS have been broadcasting shows that glorify
the British monarchy. Americans boast about getting away from the British
monarchy, so why are American "television Jews" promoting the British monarchy?
I suppose the monarchs of Europe are becoming frightened that they will
lose their monarchies, but if the Jews are trying to make us more tolerant
of monarchies, they are failing with me. Their programs have some interesting
historical information, but their promotion of the monarchies is causing
me to become increasingly disgusted with the monarchies and
the people who support them.
Getting back to the issue of providing government agencies with competition,
there are some agencies that cannot be assigned regions of the city because
they deal with concepts that apply to everybody in the entire city, such
as the agencies that deal with crime, and some government agencies affect
people in all cities, such as the agencies that set standards for
USB ports. How do we put those leaders into competition?
One method is to provide the agency with three directors who
are virtually identical in authority, thereby requiring that they frequently
vote on what to do. This would be a nuisance to them, but it allows
to compare their analyses of issues, which allows us to pass judgment on
their intellectual and leadership abilities so that we could routinely
select one of them for replacement. This of course, requires that they
operate in the open rather than secretly so that we have a record of which
proposals they accept, which they reject, and any analyses they provide
on their own. We would be able to compare them to see which of them we
think is doing a better job, and replace whichever one we liked the least.
If the idea of three government officials doing the same job seems bizarre,
consider that some people do a variation of this right now with medical
issues. Specifically, they sometimes ask two, three, or more doctors for
their opinion before they make a decision on what to do.
In the case of the government, we would not ask them for their opinion.
Rather, they would analyze issues and vote on what to do, and we would
occasionally review their decisions and pass judgments on which of them
we want to replace.
We must analyze
issues rather than react
One of the abilities that people in modern society need is
the ability to analyze issues and people. For example, we need to
analyze people to determine whether they are functioning properly at their
jobs; whether they are destructive or beneficial to society; whether they
are effective as leaders; and whether they are compatible as our friend
or spouse. We also need to be able to analyze proposals for scientific
research, and to analyze prototypes of products to determine which
should be put into production. We also need to analyze standards
for material items, weights, measures, and language. We also need to analyze
issues such as crime, abortion, euthanasia, and city planning.
These are mental talents that were not necessary during prehistoric
times. Not surprisingly, this ability is not well developed in the
human mind. Scientists have to be taught how to do research and
analysis, and they need practice. It's not natural for us.
Schools should be preparing all children, not just those who want to become
scientists, for this modern world by giving them practice on analyzing
people and issues.
Most people simply react emotionally to issues and people. They
don't spend time researching issues, or thinking about them. They have
no intelligent arguments for their opinions. They simply have emotional
feelings. As life becomes increasingly complex, this crude method of thinking
becomes increasingly unacceptable.
Everybody is reviewed except
the top leaders
Reviewing the job performance of employees
is a routine activity all around the world. Businesses and other organizations
analyze the job performance of their factory workers, clerks, and janitors.
Organizations also routinely review the people in lower-level management
positions, and they replace those who are not performing properly.
When an employee wants to be promoted to a management position, the other
managers will review his job performance to determine whether he shows
the qualities necessary to become a leader.
However, the people at the very top
positions of government, business, the military, schools, churches, and
other organizations are never given a job performance review. This
is allowing incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest people to maintain top
To be more accurate, the free enterprise system puts consumers and stockholders
in the role of watching over top business leaders. Therefore, the consumers
and stockholders are supposed to analyze the business leaders. Unfortunately,
consumers are not interested in analyzing businesses, and the stockholders
are only interested in analyzing a person's profit-making ability. Likewise,
a democracy expects the voters to review the top government officials,
but the voters are not doing that, either. So, to be precise, we have provisions
to review our top leaders, but the majority of people are refusing to do
their job properly. The reason is because they don't want to analyze
business or government leaders.
We have to face the fact that most people are not much interested in
maintaining society. We must restrict voters to the small percentage of
the population who are truly interested in analyzing candidates and the
job performance of people who are elected. Voting should not be considered
as entertainment, or as a duty, or as a "right". It should be considered
as a responsibility, and it should be restricted to people who are truly
willing to put effort into the job.
We must force
ourselves to be critical of our top leaders
Businesses, churches, and other organizations do not encourage
or tolerate critical reviews of the top management. For example, not even
the high ranking Catholic church officials are allowed to criticize the
Pope. This allows the top leaders to get away with a lot of abusive behavior.
Human emotions make this problem even worse because we are naturally obedient
to the men in top leadership positions. In order to overcome this problem,
we have to design society to force us to perform critical reviews
of our top leaders.
Leaders should not pander to idiots
People in leadership positions should not be able to suppress competitors
or critics. We should design society to be the exact opposite. Specifically,
we should reward people who have the ability to analyze leaders
and identify incompetence, dishonesty, or criminal behavior. Insults
are of no value, but people who can provide constructive criticism
are equivalent to quality control inspectors.
Our natural tendency is to behave like stupid ants that defend their
queen. We consider criticism of our leaders as an attack by a dangerous
enemy. We are grateful to people who expose pedophilia if the pedophile
a factory worker or a homeless vagrant, but if the pedophile is a church
official or a coach of a football team, our natural tendency is to defend
the pedophile and attack the person who is making the accusations.
We have to stop reacting like stupid animals and start thinking more
often. We don't want to encourage insults, but we should regard constructive
criticism of top leaders as valuable analyses that we can use to
improve our leadership, and we should consider constructive criticism
of ourselves to be valuable information that we can use to improve
We should be proud of the people who can find flaws in society or in
some organization, or who can identify incompetent or dishonest leaders.
They are helping to make a better society. They are valuable members. We
should thank them for their work, not become angry with them or ignore
We have to force ourselves to change our attitudes towards people in
leadership positions. Instead of worshiping and defending them, we should
regard them as "employees" who are doing a job, and we should force them
to meet higher standards of behavior than the rest of us.
If a person is truly worthy of leadership, he can defend himself. He
doesn't need you to take care of him. You should not think of yourself
as a worker ant who is defending his queen. Let your leaders earn
their position, defend themselves against criticism, and prove their value.
Furthermore, a real leader does not need you to write speeches for
him, and he does not need you to control meetings or interviews.
A real leader can take care of himself. He is not a baby that needs your
There are unfortunate incidents happening everywhere in the
world. Every day a lot of people are killed, permanently mutilated, and
seriously injured from traffic accidents, lightning, pet dogs, tornadoes,
earthquakes, and falling off of ladders.
According to this
site, of the 4.5 million dog bites in America in 2008, more than 300,000
people needed emergency care, and 9,500 went to a hospital. The average
length of stay at the hospital was 3.3 days, and the average cost was $18,000,
and about 0.5% died in the hospital. I would describe pet dogs as a serious
source of injuries and an appalling waste of medical care, but how
many people care? How many people care about traffic accidents, which are
even more destructive and expensive?
Most people ignore perhaps 99.999% of the deaths and injuries. Most
people show a concern for only a few of the unusual deaths,
such as a shooting at a theater, and certain tornadoes.
When the people become titillated by an unusual disaster, they expect
their leaders to visit them and make comforting remarks. For example, James
Holmes was accused of shooting 71 people at a movie theater in Colorado
that was showing a Batman movie. He went to a high school in California,
and that school district made this remark to pacify the public:
"On behalf of the Poway Unified School District,
Superintendent Collins joins the rest of the nation in offering our deepest
condolences to the victims and their families."
How does offering condolences help
the victims? What are "condolences"? Our leaders encourage idiotic
behavior and pouting when they try to comfort the sheeple. This
behavior is also a waste of everybody's
time. The proper reaction to problems is to analyze the situation
and look for ways to improve society so that we either reduce future
problems, or we react better to them.
Our leaders should either ignore the sheeple who want pity,
or reprimand them with sarcastic jokes, such as telling them to purchase
condolences and "moments of silence" at Amazon.
The majority of people have no desire to analyze problems or discuss
methods to reduce problems. They don't react to flooded cities by looking
for ways to improve drainage.
More amazing yet, they don't expect their leaders to analyze
or reduce problems, either. When there is a disaster, such as a flooded
city, the majority of people don't demand that their leaders analyze the
situation and reduce the flooding in the future. Instead, they expect their
leaders to visit them and offer them
pity. They behave like
a child who cries for mommy to comfort him.
The typical voter prefers a candidate who can give emotionally exciting
speeches without notes or teleprompters, but voters should be looking for
good leadership abilities. Good speaking abilities are useful for actors,
people who are trying to motivate people, and mediators,
but we don't need that ability in our top leaders.
Recently Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice presidential candidate, gave
a short speech to some football players, and some journalist referred to
it as "most
awkward pregame speech ever." Even if his speech was awkward, what
difference does it make? Most people, if put into a locker room with football
players and told to make a brief speech, would say something stupid or
Our leaders should not have to be good at memorizing speeches or looking
at the camera while they talk. They should be judged according to the
of their speech, not the manner in which they deliver it.
Don't let leaders fake incompetence
As I mentioned years ago here,
the Jews "accidentally" create a lot of toilet humor. A recent example
is the image in a newspaper article that said "Suit
Yourself". What are the chances that the person who created that graphic
image didn't realize how people would interpret it? And what are the chances
that nobody at the newspaper noticed such an obvious "mistake"? The Huffington
Post wrote "Was it intentional? We don't think so."
I think that their attempt to convince us that it was an accident is more
evidence that it was deliberate.
The people in the media are in influential positions; they are leaders.
They are especially influential to children. They should meet higher standards
than ordinary people. We should pass judgment on when journalists, and other
influential people, are truly making a mistake, and when they are deliberately
trying to cause trouble or manipulate us. There are too many people
in the media who are making obvious mistakes, and too many of them
are Jewish, for us to dismiss them all as accidental.
At the Democratic convention in September 2012, some images of Navy
ships were put on a giant screen during a tribute to the American veterans,
but it was accidentally
the Russian Navy.
For one final example, on 17 July 2012 the "Today" television show interviewed
Michael Vick, a black football quarterback, who was put in jail for
his involvement with dogfights. During the interview the television producers
played a video of a different black quarterback. What a coincidence
that the Jews, who put a lot of time and effort into sending Vick to jail
for dogfights, couldn't distinguish him from other black men.
We are fools to ignore and tolerate this type of abuse. We are allowing
criminals to get control of our media, and we are allowing them to
manipulate history books, news events, and scientific research. We also
allow businessmen to get away with abusive behavior by allowing them to
claim that they were foolish, stupid, ignorant, or careless.